Hapless

sure, whatever you can share. Why not? 🙂
 

The advantage the German AFVs have over budget Shermans is significant, but it's an advantage that mainly exists at longer ranges, which are more typical of tank engagements.
If you're unhappy with the balance of your QBs, perhaps you should choose more appropriate maps for your tank battles.

Tank platoons in MRRs - 4 tanks. In TRs - 3 tanks:

Now why they did this is a good question that someone explained to me a long time ago but I cannot recall.  so for now:
"However, there was a distinction made between Tank Companies/Tank Battalions in the Motorized Rifle Regiments and those in Tank Regiments. Companies in the Tank Regiments fielded platoons of 3 tanks for a total of 10 tanks per company. Each company was typically supported by a platoon of Motorized Rifles from the Regiment-level. They were also the battalions to field the newer T-80/T-72/T-64 tanks (featuring 3-man crews), although the older T-62/T-55/T-54 were collectively more common. This was especially true for low-readiness units and units in military districts that didn't border NATO. Meanwhile, companies in Motorized Rifle Regiments fielded platoons of 4 tanks each for a total of 13 tanks per company, and also more commonly fielded the older T-62/T-55/T-54 tanks (featuring 4-man crews due to the lack of an autoloader). They differed from the Tank Regiments, in that these Tank Companies would be attached to Motorized Rifle Battalions rather than the other way around in support of the infantry.
 
This is likely part of the reason why these Tank Companies had 4 tanks, as 4 tanks can be more readily split into 2 even sections of 2 tanks each when deployed with infantry. Meanwhile, 3-tank platoons (and odd-numbered platoons in general) were more suitable for tank combat and mutual support, as well as allowing for the mobilization of more battalions by reducing the total number of tanks required."
https://www.battleorder.org/ussr-tanks-1980s
From memory it had to do with supported vs supporting roles and old doctrine on tank types.
 

Ah, ok I think I recall it now (a zipperhead is welcome to come in and correct)
TB platoons were designed to fight within the company so internal fire and movement would be coordinated between platoons, by design.  In short in the TRs and TBs these tanks were never designed to fight apart (i.e. Supported).
In the MRRs, the TB there would be broken up to support Infantry Bns and as such had to fight more distributed.  So the logic of the 4 tank platoon was to give the platoon and integral ability to do fire and movement on its own, which it would be expecting as there would be a company spread out across an entire MRB (i.e. Supporting).

I can't edit the first post anymore but 
ANY SIZE!
ANY DURATION!
ALL DISCUSSION OF the 208x208 10 minute was just to try and shrink the size of the monster to first timers.
"I think the enemy of scenario completion is a person's natural urge to make it more grand and bigger, better and bouncier"
                                                                                                                                                          kohlenklau, 11/05/2021
 
 

Alright, 50 days until X-mas. The gauntlet is down for you guys, especially you "cherries", to make a scenario, your first scenario...?, before Christmas. Let us swamp the community with some scenarios. Use or modify an existing map if you need to (and give polite credit in your briefing or designers notes to prevent accusations of being a dreaded parasite!). Make your own simple map! No Rembrandts are required! Dial it down to 208 x 208, the teeniest tiniest map you can make. Playable from only one side is AOK. Just make sure to say that guidance in the main cover description. Use just a tiny force. Put the AI on defence and the AI plan is very rudy..rudo..ruddimuntary..it is EASIER! Use just a small timeframe of 10 minutes!  I (and a butt ton of others) am here to lend a hand to answer questions or go and have Turkey in a few weeks and read the famous JonS scenario guide pdf in your main install folder. All these different titles can use some new juices.
 
 

This seems like a fun rabbit hole.
is not compatible with
Pick one or the other, you can't have both. I, for one, would love to have more historically accurate battles where the Germans had no tanks at all, could only have green/conscript troops while I had a gratuitous amount of artillery along with swarms of angry Typhoons and P-47s.

In addition, we don't know how Battlefront calculates QB points: there could be plenty of other factors at play which push the values in one direction or the other.

I appreciate the intent- but I would think it is best achieved via house rules rather than inflicting one opinion on everyone else. Playing with 0 rarity (ie. neither player can bring *any* unit with a rarity cost) is a good one, really mixes things up.

Have been avoiding this thread, but some points of order:


1) Points values are derived from a formula (allegedly), and we do not know what this formula is.

2) Rarity points are an abstract, descriptive label, which applies a multiplication of those points.

Under Loose rarity:

"Standard" and "Common" are 0,
"Uncommon" and "Limited" are x 1
"Rare" are x 2

Under Standard rarity:

"Standard" is 0
"Common" is x 1
"Uncommon" is x 3
"Limited" is x 5
"Rare" is x 8

Under Strict rarity:

"Standard" is 0
"Common" is x 1
"Uncommon" is x 3
"Limited" is x 7
"Rare" is x 16

(There is a "hypothetical" rarity as well, but that's unusual enough not to bother with here).

So a tank costing 302 points, which is labelled as "Uncommon" will cost 302/906, if playing on Strict.

3) Points-buy is a terrible system which is always wrong, in any use-case ever. It's also usually the least-worst option available.

The typical problem is that it has no knowledge of context. Saying "these things are equivalent if hull down" is completely backwards, since that's not how the CM points system works at all - it's devoid of this kind of context, and relies on the model (as far as we know). Likewise "these things are functionally equivalent and should be the same price" isn't any more true.
 
Now, to engage with the point of the thread (aside from chuckling mildly about a thread about Quick Battles in Normandy being put in the General section of the site):

4) There are some good fundamental points made in this thread, but I do think the way in which they have been made is pretty poor, and really detracts from any case you'd like to make.

I do agree that the Stug III seems overpriced, and I have a suspicion about why this is.

We don't know the formula for deriving these prices, and I suspect it's actually very complex. I suspect it might, for example, take each and every armour facing, and applies a weighting to them (so a thick rear armour would be worth less than a thick frontal armour). We know that in CMx1, turrets came at a high premium, so I suspect the turret tax was lowered for CMBN.

The combination of those two speculations might explain the Stug III pricing. The Stug III has relatively thick frontal armour, and (due to the lack of turret), fewer armour plates to average out. That will mean that the frontal armour might well take up a disproportionate amount of pricing here. Further, the lack of a crippling turret tax would further separate the values of this compared to a Panzer IV or Sherman.

Now, whilst I agree that the Stug III seems overpriced (and many of the linked discussions about this contain some pretty poor arguments for this), I'm not sure I agree with the Panzer IV comments to the same extent. Further, even if this was "fixed", this would mostly have the effect of pushing the issues somewhere else - points-buy is always, always wrong, it's just a question of where and how much.

Quick Battles in general seem to have a lower priority for BF. The AI system isn't designed for them, the auto-selection weighting system is nonsensical, and given how CMRT, CMBS and CMCW all share the same pool of QB maps for the most part, it doesn't seem to be something that particularly matters.

There are some alternatives, but most of them would require some major design work to implement in a meaningful way, and I suspect that's not really worth the (considerable) effort, rather than this, presumably mostly-automated process.

As an example, a formation-based approach could work - pitting reasonable/plausible formations against each other (a Soviet FSE vs a screening US Cavalry platoon would be a simple example). The Quick Battle TO&E situation is baffling in the first place - I don't really know why certain things are removed (like the higher level artillery that would typically be in place). Equally why there isn't a "custom" TO&E option for points. AI auto-selection would best be improved by zeroing out a lot of the weightings, or providing set templates to work from, to at least give the impression of some logic.

Still, all of that is heavy design work, and is neither quick nor cheap. For something (multiplayer in general and quick battle in particular) which is apparently a low priority for Battlefront, it certainly doesn't surprise me that there are some vehicles in some of the titles which cost a bit more than they should.
 

This seems like a fun rabbit hole.
is not compatible with
Pick one or the other, you can't have both. I, for one, would love to have more historically accurate battles where the Germans had no tanks at all, could only have green/conscript troops while I had a gratuitous amount of artillery along with swarms of angry Typhoons and P-47s.

In addition, we don't know how Battlefront calculates QB points: there could be plenty of other factors at play which push the values in one direction or the other.

I appreciate the intent- but I would think it is best achieved via house rules rather than inflicting one opinion on everyone else. Playing with 0 rarity (ie. neither player can bring *any* unit with a rarity cost) is a good one, really mixes things up.

This seems like a fun rabbit hole.
is not compatible with
Pick one or the other, you can't have both. I, for one, would love to have more historically accurate battles where the Germans had no tanks at all, could only have green/conscript troops while I had a gratuitous amount of artillery along with swarms of angry Typhoons and P-47s.

In addition, we don't know how Battlefront calculates QB points: there could be plenty of other factors at play which push the values in one direction or the other.

I appreciate the intent- but I would think it is best achieved via house rules rather than inflicting one opinion on everyone else. Playing with 0 rarity (ie. neither player can bring *any* unit with a rarity cost) is a good one, really mixes things up.

This seems like a fun rabbit hole.
is not compatible with
Pick one or the other, you can't have both. I, for one, would love to have more historically accurate battles where the Germans had no tanks at all, could only have green/conscript troops while I had a gratuitous amount of artillery along with swarms of angry Typhoons and P-47s.

In addition, we don't know how Battlefront calculates QB points: there could be plenty of other factors at play which push the values in one direction or the other.

I appreciate the intent- but I would think it is best achieved via house rules rather than inflicting one opinion on everyone else. Playing with 0 rarity (ie. neither player can bring *any* unit with a rarity cost) is a good one, really mixes things up.

This seems like a fun rabbit hole.
is not compatible with
Pick one or the other, you can't have both. I, for one, would love to have more historically accurate battles where the Germans had no tanks at all, could only have green/conscript troops while I had a gratuitous amount of artillery along with swarms of angry Typhoons and P-47s.

In addition, we don't know how Battlefront calculates QB points: there could be plenty of other factors at play which push the values in one direction or the other.

I appreciate the intent- but I would think it is best achieved via house rules rather than inflicting one opinion on everyone else. Playing with 0 rarity (ie. neither player can bring *any* unit with a rarity cost) is a good one, really mixes things up.

This seems like a fundamentally flawed argument to me. Surely the question should be "does Battlefronts points formula accurately reflect how useful certain vehicles are" rather than arbitrarily making three different vehicles the same price.

Good luck figuring out if that's an enemy tank. Remember, you've got to decide RIGHT NOW and if you get it wrong you'll either DIE or KILL YOUR FRIENDS. No pressure.

The inconsistency is mainly a function of the high variance. At 2000 meters tanks can spot each other in 5 seconds or 5 minutes. The average may be realistic but when a player rolls snake eyes on the spotting dice they think something is broken, especially if they are testing on a "firing range" which is not the environment the spotting model assumes. The other issue is that because spotting checks are by far the most CPU intensive task in CM they are every 7 seconds rather than continuous.* This means fast moving units can occasionally move over open ground without being seen for several seconds or even longer if first spotting check is snake eyes.
*There are exceptions to this, I think mostly when units are firing.

The TC might be

But yeah, you have an indeterminate amount of time.

Good luck figuring out if that's an enemy tank. Remember, you've got to decide RIGHT NOW and if you get it wrong you'll either DIE or KILL YOUR FRIENDS. No pressure.

First I say hello all,
I have recently returned to CM after a long hiatus and have much enjoyed Cold War. Hats off to Battlefront for the development completion.
Hapless, I believe this will be determined by tactical situation. In CM terms friendly and enemy board side and mission type. Hence that a Soviet assault you would clearly engage the target 🎯!
 
@dbsappDBSapp, I appreciate your commitment to the game in testing things. Individuals who do test are invaluable to the community. But I have a thought about your test. As the ardent CM knights have mentioned the game  is not a shooting range design. I have a strong faith that the game does not work correctly when units are spawned “in vision” of each other. Since the game designer (Charles) would assume that one force would move into view. Real combat has no teleportation unlike CM can. So perhaps test with M60 moving rather than not moving.
 
CM knights, I will say that you are first to bring up the phrase “broken”.
 
Have a good morning.

Ok, this is not even close to "scientific" and the fact that some might actually think that is 1) a poor reflection on the modern education system and 2) frightening based on what we have been living through for the last 18 months.
Based on this "study" SB could be just as inaccurate as CMCW is claimed to be as none of this is linked back to RL data.  It is linked backed to a lot of assumptions, which are again not linked backed to any real world data.  The main assumption/bias is "it should be easy to see another tank at 2000m because I can do it in SB therefore CMCW is broken."  The OP is in effect using one simulation (SB) to try and prove that another simulation (CMCW) is not working properly without ever establishing that the first simulation (SB) is accurate in the first place (beyond a vague "Steel Beasts is a tank simulator that is used in several countries to train military personnel", but then so is CM, huh?)
How easy is it to actually see an armored vehicle at 2000m? Having spent time in AFVs and tanks..."not easy" was my experience as 2km is a very long way away.  But I never tried it on a flat open field nor in either an M60 or T72.
Just because you point the tanks at each other does not mean the modeling behavior is anywhere near the same.  First off there is TACAI in CM where SB has a human brain that not only set up the test (so knows there is a tank out there) but is specifically pointed at where it knows there is a tank.  Take SB, create a 360 field and then don't tell the human subject where the threat is, or that there is a threat at all...now time how long it takes for that human to see a threat at 2km?  Still likely be faster because it is a human brain in a totally different simulation.
The issue here is actually "simulated individual buttoned up spotting".  (Take the same test and open up the T72, you will see spotting increase dramatically because you now have TACAI scanning the horizon with binos as opposed through a sight.  Now do a whole tank platoon and you will see spotting happen even faster because the tanks are talking to each other).
So the questions being asked is "which individual tank has better buttoned up spotting: the M60A3 or T72? and "Does CMCW model this correctly?" and (apparently) "Does SB model RL behavior better?"  So if you want to be "scientific" you would first have to build a real-world framework of how these tanks have (or should) behave based on sound data, then test each tank, in each game system under identical conditions (which is nearly impossible...human brain) to try and deduce which game is modelling RL better.  
 

Sadly not.

Combat Mission: Shock Force 2 AAR
Attack in Brandenburg
By: beeron

Introduction
I decided to create this AAR after being inspired by my wargaming heroes, Bil Hardenberger, Jeffrey Paulding, IICptMillerII, Domfluff and several more on the CM discord and forums. You will see their influence in this AAR. For this battle, I chose GeorgeMC's excellent scenario "Tactical Vignette 98-3 Attack in Brandenburg SF2". The battle is an intense one, with the remnants of a company team fighting for it's life against a competent near peer threat, while a QRF rushes to save them and finish the mission. I have modified many aspects of my game visually, including BLUFOR and OPFOR skins. Feel free to ask if you'd like them. 
Mission
TF 1-8 INF is to push through the town of "Brandenburg" in order to secure the bridge that crosses the "Ohio" River. Bravo Team was ambushed while rushing to set up a SBF position, and must be rescued before they are annihilated. Brigade has ordered me to take over their mission to secure the bridge and rescue their survivors.
Objectives
Neutralize Sahrani Liberation Army resistance in the town of "Brandenburg" Occupy Objective White Rescue surviving elements of 1st platoon, Bravo Team Reach Route MOE, the MSR Desired End State
Resistance in the town suppressed Bridge across the Ohio River secured Surviving elements of Bravo Team rescued and casualties MEDEVACED Tactical Map

Enemy Forces
S-2 had limited intelligence on the enemy, they suspected veteran SLA mechanized airborne units reinforced by Crack Special Forces elements. Unfortunately, they were right. Bravo-6 radioed they were ambushed by a company sized element of SLA mechanized airborne, reinforced by a few BMP 3s. To add insult to injury, my Delta Team has spotted several SLA Special Forces AT-14 teams by the Mosque, a serious threat to the well being of any human being in an armored vehicle. These forces are no joke, an overconfident commander could easily take heavy casualties before reaching the town. The AT-14 does a good job at killing any American armor put in the wrong hands. The are the biggest threat to my company right now, located on the southern part of "Brandenburg" by the mosque. These AT-14s occupy the high ground, which gives them the ability to overlook any avenue of approach my company team can take. They must be neutralized before I can execute my maneuver plan.

(SLA SF Operator)

(SLA Airborne Trooper)

(SLA Airborne BMP-3)

(A Knocked Out Special Forces AT-14 Team)
Terrain & Weather
The weather is good, if hotter then hell. There is a gentle breeze from the west to cool off the troops just a tad. This town hasn't seen rain in about 2 weeks, leaving the sky clear and the ground very dry. Off road driving should not be too complicated. 
The terrain surrounding Brandenburg is hilly, with both the north side and south sides of the town containing high ground. I expect plenty of ATGM teams from both sides. The town of Brandenburg itself is pretty small, with tiny communities on the outskirts. Civilians have evacuated the area, and only a few remain leaving the ROE extremely flexible.  However, before my company team can reach Brandenburg, they either must cross two streams, or take the MSR that Bravo was ambushed on. I decide I don't want to suffer a similar fate to Bravo and opt to cross the streams.
Troops
I am in command of D/1-8 INF attached to 3rd BCT, 4th ID. Delta team consists of two tank platoons of a mix of M1A1HCs and M1A2SEPs and a platoon of mechanized infantry riding in M2A3 Bradleys. None of my vehicles are equipped with ERA or any extra protection against shaped charges. Supporting fires consist of a platoon of 120mm mortars, with the addition of a 120mm mortar carrier riding into battle with my company.

(A Squad Leader from my mechanized platoon engaged with the enemy)
Initial Scheme of Maneuver

The time is 11:10 and I have 1 hour and 20 minutes to achieve my mission. Delta will move to the high ground at Hill 37.9 and then into the town to rescue the remnants of Bravo and destroy the enemy. Delta's preparatory fires will be with a section of 107mm mortars firing airburst on the AT-14s down south. Bravo has called for danger close mortar fire across the street onto enemy positions, practically on top of themselves out of desperation. They are fighting for their lives and must be rescued as soon as possible. 

Sadly not.

Based on UsuallyHapless' recent video (All Glory to Pertuvia) it looks like in CMPE one will be able to carry over maps with vehicle wrecks, craters and damaged buildings from a played-through scenario over into new scenarios, i.e. the old CMx1 operations system. Is this true or am I inferring incorrectly?

I haven't added any mods or anything this time round. It is a hazy morning though, which might explain it.

+1.  If I understand, objectives that were secured by friendly forces are marked with an immobilized friendly vehicle and a burning OpFor vehicle.  Cool idea. 
I wonder if setup zone colors might be used in the same way.  When you open the operational map the Forward Edge of Battle Area (FEBA) is marked with a 3 or 4 action spot wide line of a blue setup zone color.  Then a red colored setup zone line for the OpFor front line, which in most cases will run adjacent to the blue line.  Guess there might be a no-man's land in-between.  Painting just lines instead of the entire areas, under control of the two sides, would allow a player to see the map better.  Of course when you hit the red button the setup zones will vanish but the immobilized and burning vehicles will be present.  Interesting stuff. 
PS - Hapless makes some great Combat Mission U-Tube videos.  Highly recommended.  I attempted to post a link below.  
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9egpHJiRis89uHkeyJiEug/featured