IICptMillerII

The reason behind Korea was that (at least in the beginning of the war) US doctrine was so thoroughly against ever fighting a land war again (the solution to every problem was literally "nuke em") that no one thought CAS would be needed ever again. They also thought that infantry and armor would never be needed again on a large scale, and that the world had entered into a new era of warfare where nuclear weapons would take care of everything. To their credit, the Marines retained both their CAS abilities and land fighting abilities as a whole going into the Korean War. However when it became clear to everyone else that land wars were still very much relevant, they caught up pretty quickly. It's also important to note that most of the fundamentals of CAS comes from the methods developed by the XIX Tactical Air Command, which was attached to Third Army during the Normandy Breakout. The methods developed there would go on to form the fundamentals of US Air Land Battle, which in turn forms the fundamentals of modern CAS.

This is a pretty deep rabbit hole that is very complex, but the short of it is the Marines do not get along with the other service branches very well when it comes to joint operations. Ever since Guadalcanal the Marines have placed a huge emphasis on being able to bring all their combat assets with them onto the beach, to include their own organic air support. This is largely why the F-35 program was originally started back in the early 90's, fyi. The Marines also tend to suffer more friendly fire incidents when working with the Air Force than other branches do. In both the Gulf War and the 2003 Invasion of Iraq there were numerous incidents where the Marines were strafed by Air Force aircraft due to bad communications and other factors. Regardless of who's to blame in all of the various incidents, the fact is that the Marines take it quite personally. All of this contributes to their over-emphasis on using their own organic assets over joint operations with other branches, both in the air and on the ground. The reality is, Marine CAS is not exceptionally better or worse than CAS provided by other sources. For every Marine friendly fire incident due to the supposed incompetence of the Air Force, there is an example of an Army unit being bailed out by danger close CAS from the Air Force. In SF as long as you have a decent spotter, preferably a JTAC, you can coordinate accurate strikes with aircraft from both the Air Force and Marines, regardless of who you are playing as on the ground. In fact, you can even use multinational air support if you have all the modules, like having Marines on the ground supported by British aircraft. What matters most is the skill of the spotter and his specialty, as well as that of the air crew, much more than what branch they come from.

Mostly modern, but it is also my current understanding that Soviet snipers in CM are more scouts/designated marksmen than they are proper "General killers." However my knowledge of Soviet snipers in WWII and their tactics is measly at best.

This is exactly how I employ them. To add to this, I use them as a deep base of fire unit as well. In a light infantry formation, I'll place them behind my primary base of fire element (the machine guns and such) to provide overwatch and precision fires against particularly pesky enemy assets. This allows the machine guns to engage broad area targets and provide continuous suppression. The snipers can identify and possibly suppress/eliminate targets that the machine guns would have a hard time with/be wasted against. Quick edit to add that I am primarily speaking of US snipers in modern times. Other nations such as Russia use snipers in a slightly different role. My understanding is that they are more platoon scouts with designated marksman rifles than they are the cliche Vasily Zaytsev type.

Do you mean House to House? I'm unaware of Bellavia writing a book called Fallouja [sic] Everyone else already covered it. The AC-130 is a potent asset, but is also extremely cautiously employed. Ever since the 1991 shootdown, they are strictly prohibited from operating during the day, including 30 minutes before dawn. Further, if there are any known anti-air assets in the airspace, the AC-130 generally isn't allowed to operate. It's a highly restricted asset. All that said, it would be nice to see it in game. Maybe part of a future vehicle/battle pack for SF2 down the line?

Thanks Bil! I've also recently discovered that the later T-72 variants are quite potent as well, if crewed properly. Could be interesting for future projects.

The way I understand it, when a soldier is in a trench or a foxhole, or behind some form of cover, they get a cover save. So while their body may look physically exposed, the game simulates them as being more protected. The result is that troops in fortifications are much less likely to be wounded/kills by small arms or indirect fire that doesn't score direct hits. That's my understanding of it at least.

Some of this confusion is my fault. I should have made it more clear in the first post of this thread and the video description that this was a fan effort that is endorsed by BFC. It is not an official trailer, and I don't work for or represent BFC. My bad on that. I'll edit the video description to reflect that to hopefully head off any future confusion that may be caused.

Essentially. I thought a video showing tanks, explosions, gun fights, and the new updated features would be a bit more fun than a few more screenshots on the website. I'm not even a beta tester. I'm just a guy who likes CM and has the hardware, software and patience to put together video's of gameplay. I am certainly not a professional, and I have no grand illusions of becoming a professional YouTuber or anything like that. It's just a fun hobby for me that I figured could benefit the community while we all wait for the game to be released. It's impossible to please everyone, but I'm happy with the vast majority of the feedback I've received, and I think most people have enjoyed getting to see a bit more SF2 before it releases. At the very least I hope it's better than nothing.

Very much agree. The Syrians also have better fire discipline as well, as (quickly) shown in the video. Good thing the Syrians can shoot back now! Thanks! Thanks I think?

The hellfire is a laser guided missile capable of striking its targets using a top down attack profile. In Afghanistan it was heavily used as an anti personnel weapon, targetting cave entrances, emplaced positions, machine gun nests, etc. Check out the wiki page for a lot more information on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114_Hellfire

They look fantastic to me! The detail specific to the Gurkha's is a very nice touch. The British guys with the berets remind me of the old game series "Commando's" which I assure you is a good thing. Very nostalgic. Looking forward to seeing more!

@c3k is right. The only reason this video was possible was due to the very kind efforts and approval of both BFC and forum members. 1) The T-72's seen are the T-72M1, and the T-62's are the T-62MV. 2) Those are hellfire missiles from an Apache. I tried to set it up so you hear the call for the attack from the JTAC in the BFIST Bradley. The Apache used it's hellfires and unguided rockets against the infantry in the trenches as well. 3) As @sburke pointed out, they are engineers That is correct. I created those in the scenario editor using elevation. They are not a fortification type. That said, they are pretty easy to make and effective as well. See point 2 above. Hellfires are top-down attack munitions and are very accurate and lethal, negating most of the cover of a trench. Behind the line of T-72's. Unfortunately both were knocked out before they had a chance to fire at anything! See point 2 above.

Hi everyone, Here is a cinematic video featuring Shock Force 2! This is meant to be a showcase, similar in concept to a gameplay trailer. Keep in mind this is footage taken from a beta build of the game, and things are subject to change and all that. Hope you all enjoy!

I can only imagine all the little pieces that come together to create these. I've started to save all photoshop templates along with the finished BMP files to keep track of everything, and to have as a reference if I need to go back to it to tweak something, or for a future creation. I've also taken to making quick notes in a word document on how to do certain things in photoshop. I'm very much an amateur and basically figure things out as I go. It's never fun to forget a newfound technique only to need it a few days later!

These are exceptional! I especially like the British portrait in the upper left. Looking forward to seeing US units!

Obligatory +1 for Fulda Gap

Parroting some of what @Mord said; in CM you do not only play as the Company Commander, but every leader at every level. A command delay would make sense if you only played as the Company Commander, or the highest leadership position on the battlefield. But that isn't the case. Is it realistic that the scout team magically knows exactly what their battalion CO wants them to do? Not unless they have a direct line to him, which they wouldn't. However it is equally unrealistic for the scout team to be completely immobile and dumb just because the Bn CO isn't telling them what to do every second. "Hey Pvt Snuffy, I know we've been getting shot at by that tank for a few minutes now, but we can't leave until we get an order to displace from the Bn CO." Doesn't work. In order for a command delay system to work in CM, the TacAI would have to control much more than it currently does. You would have to be able to tell the TacAI of a platoon for example, to attack a barn, and then the TacAI would have to be able to handle everything by itself. The movement of squads and teams, scouting and assaulting the barn, etc. If that system were in place, then you could introduce a command delay. If the platoon was in the middle of attacking the barn, it would take a bit for it to extract itself from the attack due to C3 delays. As it stands, I prefer the CM system. Yes, it involves much more micromanagement, but it is also more realistic in the end. If you really want a command delay, there are a few special rulesets that some here on the forums have created that restrict what the player is able to do per turn. I would advise trying those systems out first before asking/hoping for BFC to add a new mechanic to the game engine. P.S, my name is spelled with two upper case "I's" for those of you who have trouble tagging me.

This is already in game. The morale system is very robust and does an excellent job of simulating combat psychology. In fact, the morale and experience system in CM is one of the primary systems (among many) that I think make CM so exceptional. More to your point, there are plenty of times where the TacAI "takes over" due to circumstances. Sometimes it's for the better, sometimes it's not. A scout team taking heavy machinegun fire displacing on its own is an example of the former. A conscript squad breaking cover and running after a few shots fly overhead, just to be gunned down in the open is an example of the latter. I have seen both happen plenty of times in all CM titles.

This is a pretty dense topic, and I'm not Ft Benning but I'll do my best to answer some of these questions. Very first thing to remember: tactics are designed to be easily understood by a 19 year old who is hungry, cold, wet, sleep deprived, sore, smelly, and terrified beyond his wits. If he can do it in those conditions, so can you. This is 100% true. Fire superiority is the single most important element of a tactical engagement. The reason fire superiority is the most important is because it allows you to maneuver. Maneuver allows you to kill. The side that does not maneuver is the side that dies. Essentially yes. Fire superiority negates this. That, and ensuring that a vulnerable/exposed unit is always covered by a protected unit. The classic leap-frog, or as it is properly known the bounding overwatch is a textbook example of this. Combat is not a race to the bottom. You should not be thinking in terms of "breaking down" but in terms of "building up." Always use the "one up" rule, which is this: if you have a team discover an enemy unit and begins engaging, you want to immediately attempt to reinforce that team with a squad. A squad is reinforced by multiple squads. A platoon is reinforced by a company, a company a battalion, and up and up. Casualties are inevitable, but you will suffer the most at the beginning of a firefight, or after you lose fire superiority. The more fire superiority you have, the less casualties you will take. Think of it as a two way inverse ratio. The short answer is, don't lose fire superiority. Regaining it is extraordinarily difficult and will likely result in many casualties. If you find yourself in a situation you know you cannot win, then fall back. The enemy is trying to kill you, don't oblige him. It is. A good understanding of terrain and how it affects the battlefield is critical. You mentioned the Armchair General videos. In them, Paulding talks about OCOKA. This is the acronym used for how to go about doing a terrain analysis. I would encourage you to go back to the video where he discusses this in detail and pay close attention. Remember the mantra: terrain dictates. This is very difficult. Under ideal circumstances, you disengage from combat when the enemy is either killed or driven off. If you have to break contact while under fire, you want to employ the leap-frog tactic in reverse. Try to keep terrain and other obstacles between you and the enemy you are trying to disengage from. If there is no concealment or terrain to utilize, create it with fire superiority. If the enemy can't lift their head up to shoot at your men while they fall back, then you'll be less likely to take casualties as your men move through exposed positions. Not during a battle, no. Do not conserve firepower. "Ammunition is cheap, lives are expensive." "When in doubt, shoot it out." There are specific types of ammunition you should reserve for specific targets in specific situations. For example, you should try to use bazooka's against vehicles before you use them against a building. But on the whole, small arms ammunition should always be expended liberally. The analogy I like to use is water in a desert. You never conserve water in a desert, even if you only have a mouthful or two. It is better to drink what water you have with you, than to die with some left in your canteen. The same applies to ammo. It is better to expend what little ammo you may have and survive the encounter, than to die with rounds left unspent. To round this out I'll leave you with this: a while back I made a quick 1 page word document titled "Combat for Dummies." Here is a part of that: Two Main Principles of Tactical Combat 1. ALL tactical warfare is about the ability to maneuver your force against the enemy, while preventing him from maneuvering against you 2. Fire superiority allows your force to maneuver (without taking excessive casualties while doing so) while preventing the enemy force from being able to maneuver against you Everything else is varying levels of nuance that informs those two main points. For example, in order to maneuver against the enemy, you have to know where the enemy is. Thus, recon. Tactical Principles Broken Down Further: The Four F’s: 1. Find (Maneuver to contact) 2. Fix (Gain fire superiority) 3. Flank (Maneuver against the enemy) 4. Finish (Eliminate threat by bypassing or killing enemy) There is a lot of nuance to this that is purposely left out, along with mention of terrain and how it affects all of this, but if you start here and fill in the gaps as you go you're off to a good start. By the way, those two main principles of tactical combat are just as valid in Caesars legions in 50BC as they are in AD2018. The tools have changed but the principles remain the same.

The things that poor barber must have seen... Now I'm not sure whether you were fighting giant evil crabs or the VC... Either way this is relevant: +1 for a 1950 Korea game from me as well.

Thanks for the vote of confidence! I actually have a bit of a personal project in mind for when SF2 releases. I allowed my grogpowersTM to get the best of me. I actually teased it a bit over at Grogheads a month or so ago. A small operational layer around a fictional scenario. I'm certainly planning on filming any of the good parts that result. I have a decent amount of free time at the moment, but that may change in the coming few months. I'm hoping my luck holds and SF2 releases before I'm robbed of all my spare time. Nice to see you on the other side! I'm glad you dropped by and said this. Grogheads is a great community and I would hate for anyone here to have developed the wrong impression. Hope you enjoy the new Ruger! I think it's safe to say that when SF2 does release, there will be a sudden outbreak of common colds, stomach and headaches, and other ailments requiring "bed rest" but not hospitalization. If anyone's boss gets wise to it all, just blame fish tacos

Sounds like a Bush War would be something to consult @c3k's old roommate about. I'm sure the stories he has to tell about fighting the giant crabs in the bush are both fascinating and terrifying.

To be clear, Grogheads has a front page with publications and a forum. The forum is not the official opinion of Grogheads. I do not recall any official publication by Grogheads publicly denouncing Combat Mission or BFC. I agree that it is disturbing that many other wargaming circles have a negative opinion of CM/BFC, and I would hope that will eventually change, and that those with a negative opinion are in the (loud) minority. However the loud grumblings of some forumgoers does not constitute the official opinion of the website. Further, I have posted some Combat Mission related threads over there before, and all have been readily accepted and appreciated. I've even made a few posts in the thread referenced on that forum, and would like to note that there are many people in that thread who express their support of CM/BFC. In reverse here, the opinions of forumgoers here at BFC do not constitute the official position of the company. BFC does not like Steam and they have their reasons. Lets (please, for the love of all that is holy) avoid another argument over Steam here in this thread. BFC does not however have any official position towards Grogheads, or towards any other wargamer publication or website that I know of. Others who have been here longer than I can fill in the gaps on that, but I am sure Grogheads or its community at large is not "blacklisted" by BFC. I don't care where you fall in all this, that's just plain funny! By the way @Mord, I completely agree with everything you've said. I can fully understand criticism, but some of the outright hatred expressed by a few individuals is completely absurd and frankly pathetic. Getting that mad about a video game tactical simulator or its company is indicative of deeper, much more troubling issues. Just to reiterate: I've posted a number of things over at Grogheads and I think that by and large the community there is great. A few nasty individuals do not speak for or represent the community as a whole. Let's not forget that we have our share of less-than-savory individuals here as well. I for one certainly do not think those few individuals represent these forums in any way whatsoever.

Obligatory +1 from me for Fulda Gap