Hapless

I was messing around with a similar idea back in February and thought I was onto something no one else had considered- of course, the oustide world didn't know about CMCW at that point...

Broad concept here, with mutliple friendly units that are immobilised when not under control and wrecks to show destroyed enemy units:

I also did a short CMFI campaign messing around with Commando raids in Norway which had a similar choice system- this altered the order you played the two subsequent missions in changing the time, conditions, weather, off-map support and enemy preparedness. I'd link it, but there is literally no attachment space here 😕.

So, entirely doable concept!

Not much I think I can add on top of the last few posts.
We know that CM aims for centre mass and we know that's both realistic and infinitely easier to code than using a thousand variables to calculate exactly where the gunner should aim.
We know that for some German tanks, presenting a hull-down target means the centre of mass is shifted from the effective armour of the hull front plate up to the less effective armour of the turret mantlet and the vulnerable muzzle/gun barrel.
I think the question has gotten to be: how does the player manage that? In one corner we have "expect to get hit, get into the open so centre mass is the better protected hull front"; and in the other corner we have "don't risk getting hit at all, play pop-up from a hull-down position".
There's an argument for both, but I know which point of view I would rather my opponent held.
Two things I'd add would be:
Testing is good, but unless it includes ingame behaviour then it's of limited use (and if you fight from a static exposed position with the pause command overriding the (reasonably sensible) TacAI then I'd love to play you). Ideally what we would need are examples from actual games under ingame conditions when players are trying to win. And finally: no one complains about this happening to Shermans. There are elements of this discussion that feel a lot like "Invincible Panzer Syndrome" vs reality. Heavy armour doesn't exclude any tank from basic tactical principles- it's insurance against the worst case possibility.

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

Now this is good feedback and I am very glad you enjoyed it.  
I kinda agree with you on "unfair" and trust me we (myself and testers) went around on this one more than a few times.  In the end, we kinda went with realism, which frankly is unfair to the Soviets at this level.  But you have to remember the Soviets really did not care about tactical fairness, they were really all about momentum (and with good reason).  All of their doctrine and organization reflects the fact that tactical level units were cheap in comparison to operational success.  
So we were in a bit of a dilemma with this whole campaign: unfair but realistic, fair but unrealistic.  This is why there are two Soviet campaigns.  In the Standard one we added things like an extra T80 platoon and more RRR along with second chances (i.e. branching), while in "March or Die" it is brutally realistic, with extra brutal sauce on top.  
In Mission 1, we added arty and a FO to that CRP which is not entirely doctrinal either.  Here, based on feedback and the context of it being a break out attack, it made sense and favored the player.  In reality maybe 15 mins is the sweet spot but the bolt is fired.  If I were to do it again, I would probably leave out the CRP and just start with an FSE crashing into Mansbach (kinda how Mission 2 unfolds) but as the first engagement, that didn't really make sense either.
Love it or hate it, the Soviet campaign is supposed to be brutal, some of you really like that.  If there is bragging rights in CWCW, it has to be a screenshot of Alsfeld.

After a full year and a half I've finally finished CMBN's original Road to Montebourg campaign. Only took me a decade to get round to it after buying CMBN!

Here's the full playlist, there should be a link in the top right of the embed you can use to swap between missions:

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

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

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

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

Hapless has put up a new Combat Mission video, this one, surprisingly, playing CM Professional! Hail Pertunia!
 

That sounds like a really good way to get in a lot of trouble

That sounds like a really good way to get in a lot of trouble

IIRC, the terrorist attacks in the plot are carried out by a group operating out of Syria and the war begins because the Syrian regime refuses to hand them over to NATO. So, NATO doesn't have a problem with the Syrian people, the conflict revolves around NATO enforcing regime change in Syria and the Syrian regime resisting. For a real world example it's a bit like the Invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11: NATO vs Al Qaeda + the Taliban.

Dirty bombs are somewhat overhyped too: chances are they're going to kill more people with the conventional explosives than the radioactive payload. So enough to provoke a military response... not enough for the West to glass over the country where the perpetrators happen to be hiding.

Of course, from a gameplay perspective, this leaves room to restrict Blufor and give Redfor a chance by, for example, imposing tight casualty limits or necessitating the preservation of civilian infrastructure.

Thank you all for alot of positive feedback, it seems needy of me but sometimes you need a pick me up, engaging with new communities has always been difficult for me anyway.
It's been a while since I looked back here but now I have taken the time tor ead everyones response fully. There are some very good points about community interaction in general.
Also I'm very pleased to have recieved a number of messages asking me for games which is going to be awesome so I will be replying to those.

Somewhat relevant and another point for the arty vs tanks argument (4:45 if the timestamp doesn't work):
TLDR: an airburst round went through all the way through the barrel and through the front glacis plate and into a track adjustment mechanism... which would not necessarily disable the main gun in the sense that you couldn't fire it, but it would not be a good idea.
 

Somewhat relevant and another point for the arty vs tanks argument (4:45 if the timestamp doesn't work):
TLDR: an airburst round went through all the way through the barrel and through the front glacis plate and into a track adjustment mechanism... which would not necessarily disable the main gun in the sense that you couldn't fire it, but it would not be a good idea.
 

Somewhat relevant and another point for the arty vs tanks argument (4:45 if the timestamp doesn't work):
TLDR: an airburst round went through all the way through the barrel and through the front glacis plate and into a track adjustment mechanism... which would not necessarily disable the main gun in the sense that you couldn't fire it, but it would not be a good idea.
 

Somewhat relevant and another point for the arty vs tanks argument (4:45 if the timestamp doesn't work):
TLDR: an airburst round went through all the way through the barrel and through the front glacis plate and into a track adjustment mechanism... which would not necessarily disable the main gun in the sense that you couldn't fire it, but it would not be a good idea.
 

FYI
 

I saw something very rare so I made a short video of it. A bullet ricocheted twice and then still ended up hitting someone. A bullet fired from a Thompson ricocheted off a building, then ricocheted again off the back of a Panther turret 65 meters away, then flew high up in the air and then plunged down right into the backside of a tank radio operator hiding in the bottom of a ditch another 30 meters away. It gave him a light wound. What are the chances of that?
I included the view from the US soldier with the Thompson as well. If only he knew he ended up accidentally hitting someone completely out of view and way off to the left of what he was aiming at. Seems he was probably killed shortly after firing though.
 
Posted in the general forum since this kind of thing is not unique to CMBN. Being able to track individual bullets and see where they go is one of the interesting things about CM. Anyone else see rare stuff like this? Could be any CM game. It's always amusing seeing things like a stray bullet falling out of the sky and landing at someone's feet from a completely unrelated firefight on the other side of the map 1000 meters away or whatever.

This topic should not die. Here is post I had on the playtesting forum on June 6th. I have been too busy with work to resume tests and make a Mantis report, yet. In my estimation the T-64A/B is better protected and more capable in CMCW than in any board wargame, computer game or simulation I have played, developed or play tested in 30+ years of wargaming. This includes modern armored warfare board games like Assault, MBT (original), MBT 2 (GMT), Lock n' Load, Mech War (SPI) and others. PC games ranging from Tanks, Steel Panthers, Flashpoint Germany & Campaigns, HPS Simulations and Armored Brigade. The only Sim I have used is Steelbeasts.
POST from June 6th------- 
I set up a test range that is approximately 2000m long and flat. It is June 1st, 1982, at 0000 hours and the conditions are hazy, cool and dry. I placed 1x M60A3TTS behind a berm hull down with armored arcs set to 1500m. At the opposite end of the map approached 4x T-64A’s (4x tank platoon). The scenario is set for two player hot seat and the Soviet tanks are given a move order to move toward the M60A3TTS’s. All crews are regular, normal and fit. I played the scenario enough times to get 100 shots of M774 APFSDS rounds at an engagement range of 1500m and less and 30 shots of the M256A2 HEAT round an engagement range of 1500m and less. At only no time during the engagements was a T-64A able to engage a M60A3TTS, this is due to the conditions and the thermal sight of the M60A3TTS. BUT I suspect the T-64A may be underperforming in IR optics.
Here is a summary of my findings:
The distribution of M774 hits which were all from the frontal arc on the T-64A and are as follows:
1.       The turret (top turret, front turret, weapon mount and weapon) was hit a combined 5.0% of the time. I believe this is too low
2.       The lower front hull (Lower, right, left) was hit a combined 17.2% of the time
3.       The upper front hull (front, right, left) was hit 77.8% of the time. I believe this is too high
4.       There were no track hits
The M774 hit 99 out of a 100 shots for 99% accuracy. Perhaps too high.
Overall,  the M774  penetrated the whole of the T-64A, 18.2% of the time. The only areas to be penetrated on the T-64A was the upper right hull and lower front hull.
1.       The upper front hull  was struck 1 time and was penetrated for 100% of the time
2.       The lower front hull was struck 17 times and penetrated 17 times for 100% penetration
 

The distribution of M256A2 HEAT hits which were all from the frontal arc on the T-64A and are as follows:
1.       The turret (top turret, front turret, right turret, weapon mount and weapon) was hit a combined 6.6% of the time. I believe this is too low
2.       The lower front hull (lower, right, left) was hit a combined 23.3% of the time
3.       The upper front hull (front, right, left) was hit 70.0% of the time. I believe this is too high
4.       There were no track hits
The M256A2 HEAT hit 30 out of a 30 shots for 100% accuracy. Certainly, too high. Most of the rounds were fired at 400m or less but some were fired at >1000m.
Overall,  the M256A2 HEAT  penetrated the whole of the T-64A, 30.0% of the time. The only areas to be penetrated on the T-64A was the upper front hull and lower front hull.
1.       The upper front hull  was struck 2 times and was penetrated for 100% of the time
2.       The lower front hull was struck 7 times and penetrated 7 times for 100% penetration

I may Mantis this concerning the high concentration of upper front hull hits and low concentration of turret front hits.
Pete
 

The Iraqis had just fought the Iranians for almost a decade and had a very good appreciation of what their forces were capable of: ie. holding static positions and conducting limited offensive actions only if planned and rehearsed down to the tiniest detail. So that's what they did.
Hiding in cities might seem sensible in hindsight, but the Iraqis are trying to hold onto Kuwait which is mostly open desert with limited- and easily bypassed and surrounded- urban areas, so it's not going to achieve anything for them. You could maybe argue that the Iraqis would perform better tactically in the cities, but they even managed to lose the Battle of Al Khafji against the Saudis who were... not really representative of the quality of the Coalition.

The Iraqis had just fought the Iranians for almost a decade and had a very good appreciation of what their forces were capable of: ie. holding static positions and conducting limited offensive actions only if planned and rehearsed down to the tiniest detail. So that's what they did.
Hiding in cities might seem sensible in hindsight, but the Iraqis are trying to hold onto Kuwait which is mostly open desert with limited- and easily bypassed and surrounded- urban areas, so it's not going to achieve anything for them. You could maybe argue that the Iraqis would perform better tactically in the cities, but they even managed to lose the Battle of Al Khafji against the Saudis who were... not really representative of the quality of the Coalition.

That wasn't really his strategy...that was how he completely failed to achieve it.  His overall strategy was to try and split the alliances arrayed against him and somehow gain support by bringing in the Israelis into the fight (Ends).  His Way was to do it through attrition with the big assumption that Western troops would get sick of dying for oil on the other side of the world.   His Means was a last-gen military built largely on conscripts.  Applying those Means the Way he did was, as you correctly point out...pure suicide...not sure what his hope was, that we would charge over the berm a la 1916.  He did some weak fumbling on the IO lines but those were so off-note as to be laughable.
I am not sure what his "theory of winning" that would of worked looked like.  Were it me, I might have looked at hitting into Saudi Arabia early and try to catch Desert Shield off-guard but I remember there were serious repurcutions in doing this...like a regional war with the Saudis fully onside.  He could have tried asymmetric strikes like terror attacks in the West but I sense he was not set up for that.  In fact the only play book I can think of that may have worked did not involve invasion at all.  I am thinking that maybe the whole Crimea play the Russians did may be a better playbook but a lot to unpack on that one in terms of Kuwait, and a lot of time to do it.