IICptMillerII

Great action shots! I hope for @sburke's sake you don't finish all of the modules content before it even releases.

SF2 is more forgiving. It is still a modern battlefield, so weapon systems are still hyper lethal. However it's definitely not on the same level of intensity that Black Sea is. My recommendation would be to get SF2 and play through some of the campaigns or scenario's to get a good feel for modern warfare (the equipment, capabilities, lethality, etc) against an opponent that will hurt you if you fail to follow the basic fundamentals, but otherwise is relatively easy to beat. Then, once you have a feel for modern warfare, go to Black Sea where everything is turned up to 11. Of course, you could always just fling yourself into the deep end and get Black Sea first. Or just get both and go nuts.

For what its worth, in reality it is a terrible idea to try to clear a minefield with artillery. The main reason is that it tends to scatter the mines around instead of just detonating them. It also tears up the terrain, which makes navigating through it that much more difficult. Its just generally not worth it.

Good question. I think given the overall theme of the scenario, the appropriate thing to do is to give OpFor the TURMS-T for the ammo. The better spotting is just an added bonus I suppose. In a perfect world the regular T-72AV could be armed with the better ammo of the TURMS-T, but alas. During an attack, yes they would dynamically cooperate. If possible you never want to inhibit your own momentum during an attack. After the immediate fighting is over the units would reform, with weaker units taking on a more supporting role. My main mistake was not doing a good job of keeping individual platoons together. IRL they would have not gotten so jumbled together because platoon leaders would constantly be maintaining unit cohesion. Whereas in CM the player is every leader at every level, some things tend to fall between the cracks. No worries! I think I wasn't very clear of what I meant by "doing everything right given the circumstances." The beginning moves of an attack like this are generally the most dangerous for the attacker. The enemy has a local initiative in that he generally is allowed to fire first, at a time and place of his choosing. It is during this beginning part where the defender has his primary and best advantage. As the attack develops however, the advantage usually switches to the attacker as the attack itself develops. For the attacker, the best counter to the defenders initial advantage is solid tactical principles, such as overwatch. When I said that I think I did things correctly, I mean that I followed and maintained those tactical principles and doing so allowed me to weather the attack and come through much better off than had I not. An extreme example of this is the opening beach sequence in Saving Private Ryan. At first, the attackers are at a complete disadvantage and suffer heavily for it. As the attack develops and the initial defenses are overcome however, the advantage quickly switches to the attacker. As a specific example, when the ramp first drops, the Rangers are hammered by enfilading fire into the landing craft and are cut down. When the advantage has switched, fleeing German troops are slaughtered in a trench from two sides. In relation to this battle, my forces had to deploy across the open terrain to my direct front, even though I knew it would be covered by the enemy. The best way to cross covered open terrain is by using overwatch, which I did. So, given the tactical situation, I believe I did the right thing. If I was forced to do it differently, the only thing I can think of would be to hold my infantry back for much longer and just carried out the advance with the tanks. However at a certain point that violates another well known tactical principle, which is that armor should never operate completely unsupported. There were buildings and terrain features (woods primarily) that were occupied by enemy infantry that if left uncleared by my infantry, could have hit my exposed tanks in the flanks from multiple angles, attritting them in detail. Even if I had done something like this and not suffered any negative consequences, I do not think it would have drastically changed the battle. That said, there is plenty of nuance to these types of tactical situations. Generally as long as you are keeping your own casualties low while maximizing the damage you do to the enemy, I think you're doing it right. Thanks!

I think so, though I've never done it for any CM products. All digital purchases from me.

I was under the impression that it gives BFC an idea of how many hard copies of discs and manuals they will need to support the launch of a new module. That way there is no delay in keeping up with demand on release.

POST COMBAT REVIEW To begin, I’ll start by reiterating a few points: Logistical/Misc Notes on Scenario: The map is taken from the mini-campaign “Forging Steel” by George MC. The mini-campaign was originally made for Shock Force 1. None of the terrain was modified at all. However, both sides force compositions were completely changed by myself. The goal of this scenario was to create a plausible force on force engagement. US forces were based on the modern armored brigade combat team TO&E. OpFor forces were based on the formational organization of a Soviet era tank division, though the equipment is not meant to be a 1:1 representation of Soviet forces. When I first put this scenario together, I wanted to give OpFor armored vehicles (specifically tanks) that could go one to one with US armor. I had done some testing prior to the battle that revealed that the T-72AV TURMS-T is capable of destroying M1A1HC’s frontally at combat ranges. However, I did not want the OpFor tanks equipped with the thermal sights, as those types of sights are relatively rare for the type of force depicted by OpFor in this scenario. It turns out that the T-72AV TURMS-T fires better ammo than the T-72AV. I only discovered this after the battle was well underway. Because of this, OpFor was slightly understrength in their armor from how I meant to depict them. While I certainly think OpFor would have fared somewhat better, I do not think the results of the battle would have been drastically different. A note on C2: unfortunately the way the Syrians are organized in game hinders some of their units from benefiting from a full C2 circuit. Tank units have to be purchased as individual companies to form a battalion. This means that, unless tanks from two different companies are next to each other within ear shot, they do not share information. Again, I do not think this drastically altered the results of this battle. I was attacking down a fairly obvious and open bit of terrain (the MSR) which was covered from multiple angles, all with good line of sight. It is still worth mentioning though. Perhaps Syrian tank battalions will be added in a future patch, or there is some editor magic that can be done to solve this issue? A final technical note: OpFor got target reference points (TRPs) in this battle, but I forgot to give the US side any. In an attack like this, both sides would have pre-registered fires, simulated in CM as TRPs. This was a minor omission on my part and did nothing to hinder my overall efforts in the battle. Combat Analysis What did I do wrong? The real life point of an AAR is to examine what happened and why, and how to improve for future engagements. In my case, I think the single biggest issue I had was maintaining unit cohesion, especially among my tank platoons. My mechanized infantry managed to stay together for the most part throughout the battle. This is in large part because they are married to the Bradley’s they ride into battle with, making them easier to keep from mixing with one another. Tanks are another story. By the end of the battle, all of my tank platoons were mixed up. The smallest tactical unit for infantry is the fireteam. The tank equivalent of the infantry fireteam is a section, or pair. As the battle began to stretch down the MSR, and with the enemy tank ambush, my tanks had to pair up with whatever was closest to them and run with it. Luckily, this did not end up being a major combat concern for me, though that kind of disorganization and unit confusion can be exploited by an enemy to great effect. Its definitely something I have to work on. The other mistake I made was committing the first Apache against a suspected armor concentration early in the battle. I knew the enemy would have local air defense assets and still risked sending in the Apache. As a result it was shot down, and I could not rely on my significant air power until the end of the battle. Even then, the A-10’s took fire from a remaining Igla team and luckily managed to defeat the missile. Proofing air space before committing vulnerable and expensive air assets is another thing I have to work on. If anyone else thinks I committed a tactical error feel free to mention it. The Tank Battle: This was certainly the most exciting part of the whole battle. It all could have been over for my task force right then and there. If the enemy tank ambush was just a bit better timed and hit me simultaneously from two angles at once, I could easily have suffered twice the casualties in half the time. Further, many of my Bradley’s were in the open, loaded with infantry. A few volleys into these soft assets could have knocked me out of the battle completely. That said, given the circumstances I think I did everything correctly. While I did have soft assets exposed in the open, at no point were any of those soft assets, or any assets in the open left uncovered. I had multiple pairs of tanks in overwatch, covering different angles all at the same time. Covering units in the open, and just in general is extremely important, especially in the highly lethal environments found on modern battlefields. A single unchecked volley of enemy fire can be enough to destroy an entire unit in the open before it has a chance to turn itself and engage. In the end it was this simple tactical principle that saved my task force from being decimated early in the fight. Hill 113 and Route Blue: At one point I was asked why I did not attempt to take Hill 113. I identified it as key terrain, especially early in the fight where it had dominating lines of sight over my entire task force as it deployed along the MSR. The main reason I decided not to put my forces on the hill was because I did not want to divide my combat power or distract from my main objective. While it is true that Hill 113 was key terrain, it was not an objective. Further, taking the hill would not aid me in taking my main objectives, it would only have helped my task force in the early part of the battle as they deployed. After that, it would have been a slog through urban areas and forests to get to the far side of the hill and assist with the capture of the two bridge objectives. If I had a third company team then I would have committed it to taking the Hill and holding down my flank, but with only two company teams I decided I was better off concentrating on the MSR and the bridges. I believe I made the right decision here. Closing: Despite the lopsided end result, I hope everyone enjoyed following along and found the AAR both entertaining and informational. I think it provides a decent vignette on how company teams operate on a modern battlefield against a conventional enemy. As always, if anyone has any technical or tactical feedback feel free to share. If anyone is interested, I have compiled this AAR into a single PDF document. I can post a link of it to be shared if there is any interest.

No harm done!

Great video, thanks for the link! I especially appreciated his frequent citing of sources, and the use of models to depict things. Thanks for posting this as well. I've read Mr. Doublers excellent book Closing With the Enemy but I didn't know there was a convenient handbook-sized copy specific to bocage fighting.

Yes, OpFor did have TRP's. I mention this in more detail in the upcoming post combat analysis. Though I still do not know why the bridges were never shelled, or even zeroed. It's certainly possible that there were no FO's available to call for fire. I also think it is likely that my opponent never identified the bridges as being one of my primary objectives.

Yeah, Market Garden is a very solid module. I believe it was the first that introduced stock master maps. I think it is important to point out that MG set a standard that is followed and exceeded by subsequent releases. The maps for scenario's and campaigns in Black Sea are very well done, and I personally think that Final Blitzkrieg has the best detailed, historically accurate maps of any CM title. Based on this, it would appear that quality is increasing, not decreasing. Even if R2V ships with 2 campaigns and 8 scenario's (which may not be the case) I'm very confident that those campaigns and scenario's will follow the high standard and be exceptional. Plus, don't forget about the possibility of battle packs. I hope we see more battle packs for all of the games. Its a great way to add more playable content and maps to a game, even a finished one like CMBN and soon CMFI. Who knows, if there is a campaign you really want to see in CMFI, maybe the next battle pack will be made by yourself. I think it was mentioned that at least one of the campaigns would be following elements of the US 10th Mountain division in 1945, and I also remember mention of the tank offensives through the Po Valley may get a campaign as well. Not sure if that is still the case though.

FINALE Bridges 31 and 32 are secure. Artillery is falling on the remnants of enemy infantry on NAI 6. Casualties are being recovered and tended to. No more enemy forces directly threaten the MSR. Task Force Miller has accomplished its primary objective. However, based on the initial intelligence reports, there should still be a sizeable enemy presence left on the field. A handful of enemy tanks are unaccounted for, and there is likely at least a full company of infantry left out there as well. In short, the enemy still has enough combat power to contest the MSR, if he so chooses. My forces consolidate around the Bridge objectives and reorganize. No additional enemy forces are spotted. More curious is a complete lack of enemy artillery. I was expecting the bridges to be shelled once I moved onto them, but so far there has been no enemy artillery response. I’m still wary of this and keep an eye out for spotting rounds. Its time for a little shock and awe. The battlefield is quiet, and SIGINT has been reporting a possible grouping of enemy armor in an orchard, behind a large earthen embankment just forward of the bridges. The JTAC vectors in the flight of 2 A-10s to seek and destroy and targets in the orchard. A few moments later the A-10’s arrive on station. A single MANPAD is fired at them, but the missile misses. Now it’s the A-10’s turn. They quickly acquire targets and unleash a flurry of Maverick AGM’s, scoring multiple hits in just a matter of seconds. Smoke clouds soon begin to rise into the sky, indicating direct hits. This proves to be too much for the enemy, and his morale finally cracks. The enemy capitulates. Task Force Miller successfully completed its objectives. The bridges were secured, the MSR was cleared, and the enemy was destroyed and routed from the field. 2/3rds of an enemy armored battalion was destroyed, and roughly half of an infantry battalion was destroyed as well. Additionally, the enemy lost most of its AFV’s and about half of its infantry heavy weapons company. In comparison, my losses were very light, especially considering what I was up against. The task force has more than enough remaining combat power to continue combat operations, whether that means defending against an enemy counter attack or continuing the attack and exploiting the gains made here. Special thanks to my opponent for sticking with it despite the losses he took. I hope everyone has enjoyed the AAR. There will be a quick post combat write-up where I will give details on some technical aspects, and my thoughts on the battle overall. In the meantime, feel free to post any feedback you may have, whether it is tactical or technical.

IIRC it was announced a while ago that the plan is to add a module to CMFB that adds CW forces and brings the game to the end of the war in the ETO.

I'm pretty familiar with this particular RAND study. Most of the wargaming studies like this that make headlines are the alarmist/exaggerated ones. It follows the general rule of all mass media; click bait sells. Further, when it comes to anything related to the defense industry, context is key. In fact, a good chunk of what makes a good contemporary defense/weapons/military analyst is sifting out all of the fluff (so much fluff) for the actual reality. It's no easy task. As to that specific study, not to be overly cynical, but in this case I think the article title says it all. "Here's a bunch of ways the US could totally get smashed, unless we throw more money at the defense budget, then we'll totally be fine!" It just reeks of the classic sales pitch that goes something like, "Buy this much more expensive product, otherwise doom and gloom and death and destruction!" Now I don't mean to start an off topic and laborious tangent on any type of military industrial complex. I'm just pointing out that many times a study is done to reinforce a previously held assertion. The other angle is that, any training or study or test should always be a worst case scenario. The idea is that if you have trained and prepared for the worst possible case, the reality likely won't be as bad and you'll be able to perform better. Same goes for potential or imminent scenario's. The lead up to the Gulf War is a pretty well known example of this. The Iraqi's had a huge mechanized army using massed Warsaw Pact equipment, and so the Coalition trained and prepared for the worst case scenario. 10,000 casualties, a completely chemical battlefield, attrition warfare on the operational level, etc. The reality of course was much different, but that was due in large part to the Coalition only training against the worst case scenario. The obvious downside to this type of approach is that it creates a completely over-sensationalized media environment. "The Coalition is doomed, they expect to lose a division a day!" or "The entire US military is going to explode if China looks at Taiwan!" The best way to look at that RAND study, and others like it, is to view it as a highlight of specific areas that can be improved on in the context of current capabilities and those of the adversaries. It's less "the US Army has no SHORAD and will get blown up by a single flight of SU-34s" and more "here are proposed ways the Army can increase its SHORAD capabilities given its operating environments and adversaries."

Honestly at this point the scenario/campaign count really doesn't bother me. Rome to Victory was first announced back in 2015 IIRC. I just want to see this module released so we can move on to new projects. The module for CMRT is at the top of my list, but I also want to see something for CMBS and CMFB. As far as I'm concerned, the faster Rome to Victory comes out, the faster those other projects can be worked on. Don't get me wrong, I'm looking forward to Rome to Victory. Tons of new nations and formations, as well as the first WWII title to cover the end of the war. Not to mention CMFI will cover the largest time period of any CM game. I've always had a soft spot for the game as well, so if nothing more I'm looking forward to some new content for it. All of the behind the scenes TO&E work that has been done will likely benefit all of the WWII titles, and hopefully aid in the production of more modules for them.

I had this problem as well, but it was due to the modified strings.txt file included with my SLA mod. If you're running the mod, simply delete the strings.txt file in the SLA mod folder to fix the issue. When I get a chance, I will update the mod with a strings file that doesn't cause this issue.

Just a quick heads-up to those using the mod: I noticed that with v2.02 there is a conflict with the strings.txt file included with the mod that causes units/equipment in game to be named incorrectly. For example, some soldiers are erroneously listed as "Soviet Guards." I do not have the time to edit and upload a new strings.txt file at the moment, but the quick fix is to just delete the strings.txt file in the SLA mod folder. All it does is change "Syrian Army" to "Sahrani Liberation Army" on the password screen and end battle screen. Nothing else in the mod is affected.

The Army isn't struggling to recruit so much as it is growing at a slightly slower rate than was planned for. The Army is still growing though, and is on target to meet its recruiting and retention goals this year. Further, the US economy is extremely strong right now, meaning the job market is very good. This usually means that young people have many more options when it comes to getting a well paying job, which tends to result in fewer overall recruits going into the Army, or military in general. The fact that the Russian economy is in such poor condition that one of the only well paying jobs on can get in Russia is joining the army is not a good thing. Generally speaking, no its not. For similar reasons why Desert Storm was not a good "proxy performance" to Soviet forces in Germany during the late Cold War. Same goes for various export models of famous (or infamous) tanks and their performance or lack thereof in contemporary conflicts. This argument has been had too many times on this forum already. Both sides get speculative equipment. I'm fine with taking away the US speculative equipment, as long as Russia loses its as well. Also, the XM25 (the modern grenade launcher I think you are referring to) was combat tested and proven in Afghanistan and was going to be aquired by the US Army in bulk. However, 2012-2013 were not kind to the defense budget, and the acquisition was scrapped due to a lack of funds for it, not because it was some prototype that never got built. It can also be toggled off in the editor, so if you really don't want it you can swap it out for the more conventional M320's.

Lmfao oh, oh boy. You have no idea how relevant that statement is right now. Where's the "rip hair out of skull" emoji? Great pictures btw!

Just a quick update for those following along: the final reports are coming, I've just been delayed by IRL scheduling.

Possibly. I can’t commit to anything at the moment due to a very erratic schedule. I’ll certainly remember 10th Mountain next time I get a chance to do some modding though.

I noticed this as well but I thought it was just a mod conflict. Guess there is a stock texture file missing.

Saves were provided and tested. As well as new games with the patch applied by multiple beta testers. One of them said so at the top of this page of this thread:

I think its due to the TO&E changes that v4.01 introduced. Someone trying to resume a save is playing an upgraded version of the game, and the save file is trying to call on data that is no longer valid because its been changed, which probably results in the crash. Just a guess, but it makes sense in my mind.

Elvis added this to his initial post on the first page a bit after the updates dropped. Just know that this list is not exhaustive, but covers the major changes: