IICptMillerII

Tactics scale. Think of it like math. First you learn to count, then add/subtract, then multiply, then divide, etc. Eventually you go from 2+2=4 to [insert long equation with numbers/letters/symbols here]. The military (well, competent ones at least) teach everything following a crawl, walk, run style. That is, you start small and simple and build up from there. The point of those manuals is not to show you how to overcome every possible tactical situation you are going to find, but to give you the basic template that can be applied to any situation and built upon. So you are correct that a lot of the examples in the manuals are not ones that you will find out in the real world, with a few exceptions. But, when you apply the right tactical principles to situations which the manuals attempt to teach, you will be better off than not. Don't think you are alone here. A common anecdote from many wars is that "only newbies actually follow the manuals." That is a famous line I've heard in reference to the Vietnam War more times than I'd like to recall. Doing something "by the book" and stating that in a bad context is the same idea. When people want to learn about military tactics, most turn to manuals covering the fireteam and squad level. This is the wrong thing to do, but this is what pop culture fuels (videogames such as Brothers in Arms, while great, depicts a ludicrously oversimplified depiction of combat at the squad level) people to do. In actual warfare, squad "tactics" are irrelevant. What is more important is squad SOPs, such as "spread out enough not to all get wasted by one shell but not too far that you get lost/unsupported," and "keep track of yourself, your gear, and your team members," and "be aware of your surroundings and your own status, such as ammo and injury." In CM, all of this is taken care of for you by the TacAI. Here is a better way to think of tactics in CM; you always want to apply tactics from the highest level you command. What that means is, if you are in command of 1 platoon, then use platoon level tactics. If you are in command of 2 platoons, use company level tactics. If you are in command of multiple companies, then use battalion tactics. Another way to think of this is, if you have multiple elements (lets say 2 companies) what authority would be required for you, the player, to give company commanders orders? The answer would be a battalion commander, and so battalion level tactics is what you want to use. Tactics generally scale up, not down. If you are in an environment where you have an entire battalion at your disposal, a single platoon likely will not be able to do much on its own. This is where that scaling comes into play. If a manual depicts two platoons attacking an objective, one as the base of fire and the other as the assault, but you are commanding multiple companies, then you just upscale it all. Instead of using a platoon to fix and a platoon to flank, you swap the platoon for a company. There is a lot of nuance to that, but that is the general principle. A final note on manuals: most of them that you will find from a quick google search are going to be somewhat dated. The principles remain, but the nuance changes a lot. Basic infantry tactics are the same now as they were in WWII. However, the weapons of war have changed a lot since then, creating a whole different set of nuance to deal with. Manuals are not a bible, and by that I mean a perfect reference. Many of them are more complicated than they need to be, confusing or unintentionally misleading. For example, the manual detailing how to call for artillery is long and dense, but the actual procedure is very simple. In the case of an artillery manual, it also makes general assumptions about its reader, like the ability to already know how to read a military map and derive coordinates from one. So, sometimes manuals are missing a piece of information because it assumes the reader already knows the institutional knowledge. If you don't know what information is missing, this can complicate reading manuals even more. This is one of the many reasons why basic training exists in the first place, to create a common standard of knowledge, and why further instruction is needed to learn a given specialty within the military. Hopefully that helps some.

8x8 meters

Depends on the specific weapon, but something like a LAW or AT-4 is just as simple to aim and fire as an RPG. Same with the SMAW and Gustav as well. They use the same simple iron sight and trigger/button to fire concept as the RPG.

Part of it is conception. The RPG, like the Ak series, is just a very prolific weapon system. The US has operated a number of equivalent handheld AT weapons since the introduction of the RPG, such as the M72 LAW, the AT-4, the SMAW, and the Carl Gustav. The Gustav being the closest in concept to the RPG. Disposable launchers tend to be pretty cheap, especially the LAW and are very similar in effect to the RPG. IIRC the Army is actually expanding its use of the Carl Gustav, which can fire different warheads (like the RPG) and can fire many warheads out of a single launcher without wearing it down (also like the RPG). The javelin is a different type of handheld AT weapon, seeing as its guided. It is more related to an ATGM than an RPG. Not a bad question at all. I'm sure many others have wondered the same thing.

Shooting at a house for a whole day is literally historically accurate. Why do you think the US had to roll in 155mm self propelled guns to blast buildings at point blank range occupied by the enemy? Or the Soviets who had to create giant armored beheamoths to assist them with leveling buildings in urban warfare, fighting against Germans with no fall back orders who would refuse to give up the city block? Because you cannot shoot an enemy off of a position, especially in urban warfare. This is as true today as it was in 1944. I have no idea where the idea came from that all you have to do is fire a handful of rounds at an enemy position and they will just run away, but it is just flat out not true. No artificial intelligence is self aware enough to be able to realistically displace itself constantly, seeking new and better cover with all of the considerations that come into play. So the argument that the previous behavior was correct but just not properly implimented is a non starter. BFC is too small a company to develop an AI that would literally change the face of artificial intelligence. A human opponent remains the only true way to get the most accurate experience, but then again that assumes the person you play against knows what the hell they are doing. Many do not. Green troops with low motivation should absolutely stay in place. No one, regardless of training, is dumb enough to decide "hey, there are thousands of rounds flying around right above my head. Better run out into the open in the middle of it all cause that is the safer move!" It is completely nonsensical. Further, poorly trained troops are much less likely to be well trained enough to realize that they need to shoot, move and communicate in a firefight, let alone have enough training to actually pull it off. Realistically, the behavior makes no sense. From a technical standpoint, it is not possible.

I definitely see that argument. I would slightly modify it to say that it’s not necessarily the large maps and objectives that are the problem, it’s that the player isn’t given the proper assets to tackle the scenario. I think some scenario designers do this to increase the challenge of scenarios, especially in SF2 where the two sides are so inherently unequal. It still bothers me though, when I’m given a battalion objective and told to take it with a company team and some paltry fire support.

For the record, as far as I know, there were no changes made to the "cover save" of buildings or general cover in the latest patches. What is being seen could be the result of other changes made, such as infantry being much less likely to be shot out of their positions, but I do not think it is due to cover being "buffed" for infantry in any way.

In short, it is working as intended now. The TacAI used to be very prone to fleeing, even out of good cover. The player could essentially shoot the enemy off their position, which is not realistic at all. Your two bullet points are correct. The only way to dislodge a determined enemy from a building is to either manually clear the building (costly, time consuming, dangerous, hard, etc...) or to level the building and kill the survivors. Urban warfare is extremely tough, extremely deadly, and there is no easy way of doing it. Its also realistic for the enemy to be so survivable in urban environments despite your veteran marines with scoped rifles. Hitting anything in an urban environment is extremely difficult, despite the closer ranges. More cover and concealment, harder to spot man sized targets despite generally being closer, better and more plentiful cover... the list goes on. Again, the short of it is that urban warfare is really hard, for anyone. Doesn't matter how well you are trained or how sexy your equipment is, urban warfare is a great equalizer.

If the AI suffers a certain percentage of casualties to its overall force, it will surrender. Not sure what the specific percentage is (I think it’s 60% casualties but I’m not sure on that) but you likely hit it before you had a chance to take out the enemy armor.

This is a great document by Grau, but it is important to note that it is about modern Russian doctrine, not Soviet. There are significant differences between the two. Modern Russian doctrine is quite different than Soviet doctrine.

There is also an issue of the TO&E. WWII saw a lot of TOE changes across all the participating armies, especially the Germans and Americans. Having one title cover a large part of the war with one TOE that changes a lot based on dates is, to put it simply, a monster to work on. It is one of the reasons the CMFI R2V module took so long to get out the door. Working with a single TOE that spans from 1943-1945 with multiple nations and multiple iterations of the TOE through the years per nation... it created a real headache. In short, cutting down on TOE bloat. In a similar vein, another reason CMFB is its own title is to cut down on data bloat. CMBN already had a ton of data in it, such as artwork for France and the Netherlands and the various nations that were added, to include their artwork, TOE and all the rest. I think CMBN is still the single largest download of all the CM titles. IIRC Steve mentioned that if they made CMBN any larger there would be some stability issues, which is another reason why CMFB is its own title. Plus, do remember that there is a planned module in the works to bring CMFB to the end of the war. This will include yet more artwork and TOE changes (adding Commonwealth forces, German late war formations such as ad hoc kampfgruppes and volkssturm). When that is said and done, CMFB will have plenty of content to warrant being its own title.

I wrote this mostly for the modern titles but I still think the movement commands and basic principles apply:

For what it's worth this is already in the game. If you use the 'Quick' movement order, troops will stop and fire their rifles/MGs/AT at targets that appear, especially if the target is close and a direct threat. Plus, you can always add in some pause waypoints to have a squad stop for a handful of seconds and return fire as well.

No, its more of a screen sharing tool than a way to play hotseat virtually. Though there may be some functionality to the app that allows for hotseat that preserves fog of war. I don't know how to do that though. To me this is more of a program that allows me to play a singleplayer campaign with a friend, dividing up the forces between the two (or more I think) of us, plotting our orders and then watching things play out. Saves the hassle of having to send save files of orders back and forth. Streamlines the Co-Op process quite a bit, and it can make communication easier because you can literally point out terrain features and the like to the person you're playing with. I don't see this as being a replacement to the normal head to head/hotseat modes of versus play, but an added way to play CM cooperatively with a friend(s).

Yup! The host can toggle the controls on and off, and can specifically toggle the mouse and keyboard controls individually. There is apparently an overlay and hotkeys, but I haven't used the program long enough to learn the peripheral functions.

Last night, I discovered a new piece of software called Parsec. For those of you familiar with Steam's 'Remote Play' feature, Parsec will be familiar to you. For those of you who do not know, Parsec allows a host to stream their computer to a friend (or friends) in real time, full resolution, and the person being shared with also has full access to controls. As in, you can stream your computer to a friend, and they can use their keyboard and mouse on your computer. All in real time. The best part is, not only is this software free, but it works with Combat Mission. I've tested it out today, and it works almost seamlessly. I say almost, because the person I was sharing with did notice some artifacting occurring while the camera is panned around. But otherwise, the experience was seamless. In practice this means that, as long as your computer can handle hosting (they list system specs on their website, and it is not overly demanding) you can stream Combat Mission to a friend and play it Co-Op together. From what I can tell, Parsec is relatively new and is being actively developed and improved. Consider it to be imperfect, but if anything this just means that one can expect it to get better as time goes on. Here is a link to the website where you can create an account and download the app: https://parsecgaming.com/ Happy Co-Oping!

More great work! Just an FYI, if you use imgur to upload images and then copy the image address from imgur and paste it into the reply box, it will automatically embed the image into your post, without taking up any of the attachment space.

Yes. You can also use a target arc this way.

Whoops! Yes I did mean unbuttoned. Edited my post to correct that.

Could have swore I saw someone post the link to this, but I just checked and didn't see it. So, here it is, the link to Josey's excellent breakdown. https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/threads/the-relationship-between-soft-factors-morale-fatigue.26498/ My understanding, which in part comes from Josey's findings, indicate that a well led unit generally reacts better to things like suppression. They will still suffer permanent morale damage (say, most of the squad is wiped out and their platoon is shredded) but they retain more combat effectiveness after being suppressed or suffering from another significant emotional event. From Josey's write-up:

I completely agree with this. Very well put, and informs some of my trepidation with Steam in general. I'm also excited to see what new things Microprose brings. There are a few titles they are publishing that I am already excited for. I'm hoping that more comes from them in the near future.

Its important to remember that while on newer vehicles like an M1A2, even though the commander has an independent thermal imaging sight which gives him great spotting ability, he still has better overall situational awareness while unbuttoned. Things such as seeing/hearing threats to the sides and rear of the tank, and seeing/hearing where other friendly units are. Plus, while unbuttoned the commander can share C2 information with infantry (such as spotting information) whereas while buttoned he cannot. Also, it is still SOP in the real world for tank commanders to remain unbuttoned until either in direct combat, or forced to by something like enemy artillery falling nearby. Again, this is mostly so the TC can maintain his situational awareness, communicate with the other tanks in his element, and better direct the driver.

These look fantastic! Great work!

Some have pointed out that while the Steam install comes with a folder labeled "Mods" if you actually put mods into that folder they will not load. Apparently only the z folder method works on Steam. Just a heads up. Welcome aboard.

Good stuff! I always like seeing more vids about CM on YouTube. Bonus points if the person playing actually knows what they're doing! I haven't had a chance to watch much of the video yet so no comment on the tactics and such. I do tend to prefer cinematic videos when it comes to CM. Seeing 12 minutes of plotting orders followed by 2 minutes of the action never really did it for me, but I'm sure there are a lot of new players out there who will appreciate seeing the UI in action and some of the nuance it is capable of. Josey Wales and Hapless are both examples of CM videos I enjoy a lot. I would make more of them myself too but I just haven't had the time. Its certainly more labor intensive in editing than just recording and posting gameplay. Like I said I can't comment on the tactics and stuff yet, but I can do a follow up post at some point. P.S Your name causes my physical pain. Damn E4 mafia, I can't seem to escape them! I bet you recorded this gameplay while at a """dental""" appointment