Hapless

Soviet doctrine may or may not work in CM, just like it may or may not work in real life... but like we go over in the video: I didn't actually use any, so the series doesn't say anything about it.
Hapless lost most of his tanks early because he did daft things with them. I did a whole video just about Turn 10, where I suffered the most casualties, and turns out while I was unlucky in the play-through the problem, the whole (avoidable!) situation was the bigger problem. There was also a crack M60 staring at a T62 at near point blank range for 40 seconds that never spotted it, so clearly M60s are blind too.

This is a 2-hour conversation between @Hapless, his opponent @Rice, and @domfluff, who is the admin of the unofficial (but extremely active) Combat Mission discord server.
They go into detail about their thought processes going into the game, how they responded to what happened during the match, and how Soviet doctrine can be used successfully in CMCW.
Figured it's worthy of its own thread because of how fascinating it is, and I hope we see more like this in the future.
This is a link to the unofficial discord server if you want to interact with more people in the community: https://discord.gg/SXkQ6rUuJN

No it doesn't...what do they teach you kids in school these days?  Pointing out obvious biased and subjectivity does not automatically make one bias and subjective...what kind of logic is that?
You keep coming back to the nukes, which is a totally separate discussion but let's have it.  You own numbers demonstrate that the USSR was not content with a defensive set of options.  Nuclear deterrence is not a question of one-for-one.  All one needs to do is demonstrate that you have enough second strike capability to destroy an opponent and you have successful deterrence.  The USSR had 600 nuclear weapons in 1960 and almost 10k in 1985..why?  Well the West had exactly one card to play.  Based on conventional capability (remember all those Soviet tanks, guns and divisions) the West was very concerned that it was going to lose and had to have second/survivable strike capability to keep nuclear deterrence in play.  The Soviet Union which already had the conventional superiority was chasing strategically offensive options not defensive ones.  Of course the whole thing got farcical towards the end as both sides had enough to wipe each other out several times over.
So no, not "defensive only" by a long shot.  We had an aggressive empire which had actively tried to expand on the periphery for years, that already had conventional superiority in Europe chasing nuclear parity, if not superiority.  How does any of this smack of "defensive in nature"?  I argue the "brainwashing" is occurring at your end because I am willing to fully admit the West and US were doing the same thing globally.  The West was very offensive strategically, plenty of evidence to prove that one particularly in other dimensions of power; diplomacy, economic, information and definitely culture.  In the Europe, however, they were militarily defensive only because that was all they could afford to be.
In short from the western perspective the only thing keeping the Soviets at bay was the nuclear equation, which is a very precarious position to be in.  What is demonstrating your obvious bias (and agenda) is the fact that I will argue both sides, while you stick to Soviet "lambs and doves" armed with more tanks than god almighty as the victims here based solely on the fact that the USSR could not get its act together with respect to nuclear weapons...and it sure tried. 

I actually don't think it's that bad, yes the god's eye view is where the skybox fails, yes the gap is not nice, but in terms of what can be done with it and how it appears in game it's not so far from what the eye sees if not concentrating on the horizon and viewed from near ground level ...

From CMBN with modded skybox etc.
Of course if one stares at the horizon it's nothing like reality, but that's because the game can't focus like an eye plus there's very little point to staring at the horizon, unless daydreaming ...

208x208 is distressingly small and 10 minutes is very short. Might actually make it more difficult.

Air Bursting High Explosive.

Ok … so let’s start with what ChuckDyke said:
“Here is something for house fighting and the difficulty of maintaining command and control during MOUT operations.”
He posted a video about the Battle for Binh Ba in South Vietnam 
Let’s see what I said in response:
“Binh Ba was hardly Hue, Fallujah, Berlin or Stalingrad though was it?  This was a skirmish over a non-descript village which didn't even fill a grid square in Vietnam involving no more than 500 combatants on both sides and 100 casualties. The Australian Army lacks the size and experience to do offensive operations against a well-prepared enemy in anything larger than a village so MOUT is certainly not the appropriate descriptor here.”
For those not familiar with Binh Ba, this is a contemporary map.  The grid squares are 1km so the total mapped area is 4km². 

Note that it does not fill that area.
Moving on then to the Australian Army’s own doctrinal publications as an example:
According to Land Warfare Publication-G 3-9-6, Operations in Urban Environments,
The urban environment is classified into the following zones:
a. the city core,
b. the core periphery,
c. commercial ribbons,
d. residential sprawl,
e. industrial areas,
f. outlying high-rise areas, and
g. shanty towns
This is just one reason I stated that Binh Ba was not an urban environment as it only has one of those characteristics.  The same publication cites the battles for Fallujah, Grozny, Hue and Stalingrad in its examples of urban combat.  That publication makes one reference to Binh Ba as the preface to Chapter 7 – Building Clearance as follows (my bold):
The battle was triggered shortly after 8.00am when a Centurion tank travelling through the village was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade. Initial intelligence suggested there were two Viet Cong platoons in the village. From the strength of the fire met by the company sent to deal with them, however, it was apparent that the enemy presence was much greater. There followed several hours of devastatingly fierce fighting. Twice tanks swept through the village, returning enemy fire by blowing open the walls of the houses. Then each house was cleared room by room by the infantry. By nightfall the village was still not secure and fighting continued in the area the following day. When the battle was finally over the enemy toll was 91 – at a cost of just one Australian life and eight wounded.
The battle of Binh Ba posed the perennial problem of the war in Vietnam – how to separate the enemy from innocent civilians. The occupation of towns and villages by the Viet Cong was a deliberate tactic designed either to ambush the relieving troops or to cause the Australians to use an excess of force.
Now ChuckDyke initially said (my bold):  “Here is something for house fighting and the difficulty of maintaining command and control during MOUT operations.”  My response said:  “MOUT is certainly not the appropriate descriptor here.”
Taking my argument that the Australian Army lacks the capability to do offensive operations against a well-prepared enemy in anything larger than a village let’s go back to LWP-G 3-9-6, Operations in Urban Environments.  Its Combined Arms Scenarios section (Chapter 8 refers) shows a Company Team attack in the context of a Battlegroup.  The example imagery map for that scenario has the Battlegroup boundary covering three streets and 22 buildings.  Hold that thought …
The Australian Army is basically capable of deploying a division of three combat brigades.  This would be war of national survival stuff as its more recent deployments where the usual premise of ‘to deploy one, you need three’ comes into effect has been to deploy nothing bigger than a brigade.  Australian Army brigades sit in the three to four battalion range.  Being generous let’s say four battalions which gives you four battlegroups.  Keeping one in reserve, because it is good practice to have one then according to the example in the Australian Army’s official doctrine on urban operations, a brigade can conduct an offensive operation comprising nine streets with 66 buildings.  If we go for the war of national survival then, assuming one brigade is the divisional commander’s reserve, then that is 18 streets and 132 buildings.
Here is a map of Hue where some of the calculations above have been applied to illustrate the point:

The image below is the zoomed area that I have marked as a green rectangle in the overall city map.

So in simple terms, according to the Australian Army's own doctrine, a brigade can conduct an attack on a small corner of a city.
My point about the capabilities of the Australian Army is based on having served in it and knowing what it can and cannot do which I think the argument presented above demonstrates.  It is no more an insult than saying the Australian Army cannot deploy a parachute battalion.  Why?  It doesn’t have one.  Facing up to reality and knowing your strengths and weaknesses is an important discussion to have.  Nations/militaries that overestimate their own capabilities and don’t challenge them generally end up coming second in wars.  I recall that the British Army claimed (and bored everyone to death) that they were the masters of limited war/COIN because of Borneo, Malaya, Northern Ireland and the killer tactic of wearing berets/soft hats only to end up having to eat humble pie in Basra.  There are few people in British military circles and veterans who served there who disagree with the assertion that Basra was an utterly miserable performance on the part of the British Army.  One of my friends was killed there by the way so I have little interest in denigrating the sacrifice of those whose lives were changed there.
On then to impugning the courage and sacrifice of veterans … Recalling that ChuckDyke said that my comments would not be welcome in an RSL (Returned Services League – a veteran’s association) I pointed out that I have been a member of it for 10 years.  Later ChuckDyke changes his position on the RSL and decides that it is not such a good thing after all because of the way it treated Vietnam Veterans.  A claim I don’t dispute, it is well documented, and it was not the organization’s finest hour.  Anyway – I think we can agree that his position on the RSL is inconsistent.  Whatever the argument, my membership subs help Australian veterans and while serving in the Australian Army I collected in Brisbane and Sydney for Legacy ... a veteran’s charity.
For my part, I have been and continue to be a member of the RSL.  I am also a member of the Royal British Legion … you’ve guessed it … another veteran’s association.  This month I have given the equivalent of three full working days (in addition to my day job and my hobby ‘job’ for Battlefront) collecting for the Poppy Appeal plus assisting with the organization of, and attending, a cross laying ceremony at the town church as well of course as attending Remembrance Day itself and participated in the RBL committee meeting at which this most important appeal and other issues affecting veterans were discussed.
One of those issues was our disgust that the County level RBL have decided that organizing the ANZAC service at the Commonwealth War Graves Cemetery on Cannock Chase is ‘too difficult.’  My branch is now taking it on and I am one of the lead members in this initiative.  The majority of the Commonwealth dead there are New Zealanders.  A country whose army I have never served in but the people commemorated there are fellow ANZACs.  Most of them died of Spanish Flu which the more ungenerous might say wasn’t a war death.  However, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission rightly designates them as war deaths and, incidentally, many of them had fought some hard actions on the Western Front before being brought back to the UK.  Hardly the behaviour of someone with no respect for the fallen.
Nowhere in the phrase "this was a skirmish over a non-descript village which didn't even fill a grid square in Vietnam involving no more than 500 combatants on both sides and 100 casualties," do I denigrate veterans.  Non-descript village is a fact is the number of casualties and participants on both sides. 
Anyway, I think I’ve made my point.

I'm still new to CM but already own CMSF2, CMBN and CMFB and having a great time playing all of them.
I have really enjoyed the various Youtube channels and these were a real inspiration for me to purchase the games.  Amazing what the YT algorithm will offer up and I particularly want to give a huge shout out to the work done by Josey Wales and Usually Hapless.  Fantastic content.  I can't begin to imagine the time that goes in to making that content but I just want to say thanks.  Too bad Josey Wales seems not to have posted any videos for over a year now.  Anyway, I'm just about to add CMFI to my collection purely on the basis of his AAR videos.

So, something like this terrible paint mashup:

For x10 Magnification (I have no idea if that's correct for the M60A3 TTS), Laser Rangefinder and TI for Thermal Imager.

I'm not sure how much room there is in that segment in the modern titles when it's full of acronym soup (ERA, APS, LWS, etc) and it could get complicated fast when you take into account, for example, differences in magnification resolution or thermal imaging quality (ie. an M60's optic at 12x mag is likely to be less clear than an M1A2 SEP2's optic at 12x mag; and there are various generations (and resolutions) or thermal imagers). Maybe a traffic light system would work (red for poor, yellow for mediocre, green for good).

But I think it would be a super helpful addition, especially for new players.

So, something like this terrible paint mashup:

For x10 Magnification (I have no idea if that's correct for the M60A3 TTS), Laser Rangefinder and TI for Thermal Imager.

I'm not sure how much room there is in that segment in the modern titles when it's full of acronym soup (ERA, APS, LWS, etc) and it could get complicated fast when you take into account, for example, differences in magnification resolution or thermal imaging quality (ie. an M60's optic at 12x mag is likely to be less clear than an M1A2 SEP2's optic at 12x mag; and there are various generations (and resolutions) or thermal imagers). Maybe a traffic light system would work (red for poor, yellow for mediocre, green for good).

But I think it would be a super helpful addition, especially for new players.

A good thought, but would be unusable for colour-blind people - at least without allowing things like this to be user-configurable or providing tooltips with additional information.

I played a game with a guy who was fully colour blind and he had to rely on tooltips and user-configurable positioning of items to figure out what certain things did as the main UI differentiator on their effects was colour-based

So, something like this terrible paint mashup:

For x10 Magnification (I have no idea if that's correct for the M60A3 TTS), Laser Rangefinder and TI for Thermal Imager.

I'm not sure how much room there is in that segment in the modern titles when it's full of acronym soup (ERA, APS, LWS, etc) and it could get complicated fast when you take into account, for example, differences in magnification resolution or thermal imaging quality (ie. an M60's optic at 12x mag is likely to be less clear than an M1A2 SEP2's optic at 12x mag; and there are various generations (and resolutions) or thermal imagers). Maybe a traffic light system would work (red for poor, yellow for mediocre, green for good).

But I think it would be a super helpful addition, especially for new players.

So, something like this terrible paint mashup:

For x10 Magnification (I have no idea if that's correct for the M60A3 TTS), Laser Rangefinder and TI for Thermal Imager.

I'm not sure how much room there is in that segment in the modern titles when it's full of acronym soup (ERA, APS, LWS, etc) and it could get complicated fast when you take into account, for example, differences in magnification resolution or thermal imaging quality (ie. an M60's optic at 12x mag is likely to be less clear than an M1A2 SEP2's optic at 12x mag; and there are various generations (and resolutions) or thermal imagers). Maybe a traffic light system would work (red for poor, yellow for mediocre, green for good).

But I think it would be a super helpful addition, especially for new players.

Since in the modern titles - CW, SF2 and BS - spotting to extremely important and technology driven, information on the spotting ability of the unit - especially vehicles - would be exceptionally useful.
The place for it would be on the Defenses Report panel under the armour rating where the info on smoke etc currently goes.
With a bit of remodelling the icons, I would think an indicator of the times zoom available (eg 3x or 10x) to the unit, IR, or Thermal optics would be great to know. It would allow players to get more into the technical details of the equipment and game, and get the game under control a little more.
Note I'm using names of the GUI panels from the CM manual so BFC can understand what I'm suggesting.
 

Yes, and again it creates a situation where competitive German players are picking Panthers. The issue isn't so much that this creates a balance problem but that it denudes QBs of variety because players aren't going to waste points on Stugs and whatnot.

Essentially I'm seeing this whole thread not as a balance request, but as a diversity request. And sure people can make the argument that you just house rule it but most players are going to be playing using the standard rules. This will only become more common once Slithirine finally released their built-in QB system.

IMO a lot of the niggling over why a vehicle is priced a certain way is missing the forest for the trees. I've played less WW2 QB than modern but a common problem when I played was that a competitive German list is chock full of Panthers and to a lesser extent Tigers. So as the German player you play nearly every match with Panthers and as an allied player you are dealing with Panthers in every match. Generally going outside of this window represents the German player intentionally sabotaging themselves.

So the question isn't really about the Sherman compared to the Stug or what have you. But the Stug compared to the Panther. The Panther is the best value-for-points in the list and making adjustments so that its not so core to the German armor would, imo, allow for some more variety in QBs that are also competitive.
 
 

Please no. BF have a habit of predicting locations of conflicts before they happen when they make a modern title and Taiwan is a little close to home.  

I used my Matrix account details.
This being the account I apparently made 6 years ago and completely forgotten about.

I used my Matrix account details.
This being the account I apparently made 6 years ago and completely forgotten about.

Ok, first I have heard of "7 seconds" but it is clearly not true when I see an M60A3 spotting and shooting in less time than that.  So not sure where this is coming from.  As to zombie shooter realism...again really not clear on this but it highlights the counter point we hear far more often "my troops are cowards and won't get up!!"
O...K.  So I am going to go with language barrier here.  I think "it" is a test, the problem is that I am not sure "of what" exactly.  I think you are arguing that casualties are too high because the troops march to happily toward death?  
So my first question on your results is: how many casualties occurred on troops that were on the ground?  If you are seeing behaviour where that company keeps marching while all that firepower opens up at really close range then we have an issue.  Troops that die while hugging the ground in this situation are not "zombies" they are fully suppressed and being butchered because their commander has no idea what he is doing.
[aside: that is a LOT of firepower.  You basically have a reinforced platoon with artillery support.  Hammering a rifle company at 300m, which means someone did not do their job because that is ambush range.  Woods may provide cover from being spotted but they do not do much with 3 HMGs(!)  in fact wood fragments probably make the problem worse, let alone artillery.  This company barely has enough combat power to take this on as a hasty attack, particularly if they are unsupported]
Uh, ok, let's change the subject. I am not sure how exact a science you think artillery is but once a fire mission is called, short of friendly troops getting caught up in it (and history shows even then stopping the guns is difficult).  Once a fire mission goes in, the rounds are coming.  Adjustments all take time (varying, based on the period). Not sure what you are looing for, some sort of instant 1-800-arty correction?  I am sure we could work on TACAI and arty (some features I would like to see there) but I am really not sure what you are proposing.
Ok, and we are back to this.  I am going to try and translate this as "TAC AI could be better" and to this I wholeheartedly agree, all TAC AI can be better...it is why we call it artificial intelligence.  But we also do not want some sort of bizarre version of warfare either.
Gotta be honest this conversation feels like playing tic-tac-toe with a chicken...interestingly random.  I am going to go with "Hiding works but I have had some issues with Cover Arc.  TAC AI does not weigh the value of the targets before firing resulting in giving away a position for very little gain."   
Well ok, and here we are back to "realism".  Fire control in the real world is incredibly difficult.  It may surprise you but heavily armed teenagers scared/excited out of their minds tend to take initiative in whether to fire or not.  Worse this initiative effect is dynamic based on a whole lot of factors - experience, leadership, recent events, time of day and fatigue.  Regardless, duly noted but I suspect CM is far more realistic than you are comfortable with in many aspect but we can always improve.

CMFI, but Norway. Commando raid spread over 4 short, platoon-company sized fights. Another bit of a failing-forward test-bed, so rough around some edges.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/18nuw8jj8arwxe3/Raiding Party V0.2.cam?dl=0

Well, if we're doing things we have up our sleeves I have a CMSF2 scenario kicking around from when I was trying to get my head around AI plans.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vtjh74osfgj6obt/02 Where Angels Fear to Tread.btt?dl=0

Interesting question.  Well first off no RL battle is reproducible either in simulation or RL, too many variables and chaos to really try and recreate in hi resolution.  As has been well said, CM is a game with a lot of simulation elements.  CM Pro, is obviously pushing towards simulation, that is why MOD and other defence is interested.  But the needs of defence and a gamer are very different, if overlapping.  Defence want to either train, in which CM is really the "last hour" of an entire process or they want to experiment (e.g. introducing new equipment). Either way, CM (or any simulation) is one tool in a pretty long chain to make troops as ready as they can, and still then there is a steep learning curve when they "get there".
Gamers want to be entertained, and maybe learn a little something...for the most part.  Some gamers think they want to re-create and re-experience warfare but they really do not.  If we made CM more realistic we would take the UI away, or stream it down to something most would find extremely frustrating.  You could give initial orders and then very few after that, once the dogs are off the leash your control of them gets much harder at the level of CM.  The add real friction of war and you have what most would find to be a chaotic mess.  Players want to be the god of war flying over the battlefield, able to tell that 3rd jeep to go 10 feet left and then complain loudly when the jeep takes a 5 second pause or goes around the tree "wrong".
But...
We do try and get CM as close as we can.  So scenario designers use real world maps and organizations.  They build in to reflect doctrine and military after actions.  They work to put a lot of detail in the initial setup so at least the start line is pretty much where it was (or in the fictional titles where it "would be").  However, we all realize that once that first "GO" button is pushed the whole thing becomes a custom experience for the player.  If we do it well, they get all those micro-dramas that occur and spontaneous actions.  They get excited and feel like they have accomplished solving a realistic military problem and that is really positive.
Wars are about being really crappy to people, games, even wargames, are about having fun...I prefer the latter.  

Well, if we're doing things we have up our sleeves I have a CMSF2 scenario kicking around from when I was trying to get my head around AI plans.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vtjh74osfgj6obt/02 Where Angels Fear to Tread.btt?dl=0

Well, if we're doing things we have up our sleeves I have a CMSF2 scenario kicking around from when I was trying to get my head around AI plans.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vtjh74osfgj6obt/02 Where Angels Fear to Tread.btt?dl=0