IICptMillerII

As a matter of fact, I have yet to play with the system in a multiplayer setting. I've been playing it single player to get a feel for the system, and because its a lot of fun. Here's a screenshot of my scenario: This is a scenario I created myself. Its a modified scenario that comes with PzC Sicily in which the US 3rd ID is attacking north towards the town of Canicatti. I added extra elements of a (fictional) German division using the PzC OOB editor and they are currently in the process of counter attacking the Americans with the intent of driving them back into the sea. The Americans are tasked with parrying the German counter attack and then counter attacking themselves with the goal of taking Canicatti. I've played 5 or so battles now and I have to say its a lot of fun. This is probably exactly what you're looking for. The battles have a lot of context to them and the forces involved in the battles are determined by the operational situation, not arbitrary picking and choosing by players before a quick battle. For example I had a battle where a US rifle company was being attacked by a German rifle company and tanks. The US had to fight a fighting withdrawal and hightail it as they had no effective anti-tank weapons. Most of them made it out, but the last two squads were pinned down by the tanks and captured. In another battle, the opposite happened. There were two German companies (with no anti-tank assets) defending a small village on a road junction. The Americans attacked with a full tank platoon and a rifle company. The German defenders were surrounded and after suffering a lot of direct fire from the US tanks as well as a few heavy 105mm bombardments, they surrendered. Be warned, if you do get into it, its one hell of a time sink. Its also a helluva lot of fun!

I agree with Bulletpoint. @kohlenklau is the resident expert at the operational system that I think works best. It essentially uses the John Tiller Panzer Campaigns (PzC) games to simulate the operational level. It comes with detailed strategic maps, full order of battles for the forces involved, and both a scenario and OOB editor. The PzC games cover every major operation of WWII in an insane amount of detail. For example, the Normandy game has an accurate OOB for both the Axis and Allied armies down to the company. Pretty impressive if you ask me. I was interested in trying the system out myself and sent Kohl a PM about it. He was very willing to help me out, so I'm sure if you send him a message he will get back to you and help you out. Having learned the system, I think its great. The only real hassle is choosing/making the tactical battlefield maps to fight out an engagement in CM, but you can generally use QB maps for that. It would also be worth reading through a few of the running operations here on the forums. Bulletpoint linked to one of the threads above. There is at least one for all the WWII titles, and they all start with "CMPzC Campaign" so a forum search should get you quick results. Just remember that it is not a completely perfect system, so you'll likely have to make a few rules for yourself as you learn it. For example, Kohl likes to use a 10x10 100 rule, where he limits the map sizes (in PzC) to 10x10 hexes and only allows a maximum of 100 units (again in PzC that represent companies, armor, artillery, etc) on the battlefield total. I would recommend either trying the system out by yourself first or having a friendly operation with a friend. That way you can learn the system as you go without being in a competition setting first.

I believe if you give the infantry a target command (not a target enemy infantry command) they will employ every weapon system they have. So if you target a building they will shoot AT-4's at it. For this reason I tend to use the Target Light command as much as possible, especially in the WWII games. I don't want my infantry wasting all their bazooka shots suppressing targets, especially seeing how inaccurate the darn things are against armor. As far as the Bradley is concerned, I believe it is still a known bug that the Brads don't use their TOW missiles nearly enough, especially against armored targets. I've seen my Bradleys plink away at enemy tanks (fully spotted and identified as a tank) with their autocannons for upwards of three turns before finally using the TOW. Even then they don't always use the TOW. Although my personal theory as to why this happens is because the range is so short. Generally this type of thing happens within a kilometer. I also haven't done any testing of my own though, so others can give you a better idea of whats going on with the Bradleys.

This is really cool information John! I'll have to check the book out as well. It sounds like this could be the basis for a very cool scenario taking place sometime before the Battle of the Bulge. I'm sure most would understand if the FO had to be either a tank rider or mounted in a half track instead of the historically accurate FO tank. Thanks for the great info and book recommendation!

Read "On Killing" by (ret.) Lt Col David Grossman (also a retired Army psychiatrist) and a lot of the shooting (and missing) mechanics will make total sense.

The first thing I recommend is to play the game WEGO. I've found that I can't run larger scenarios (in any CM game) in real time as it slows down far too much. However when I play the same scenario using WEGO, I find that I have no performance loss of any kind. The scenario I first discovered this in was part of a modded campaign for CMRT covering the German attacks near Ponyri at Kursk. As you can imagine the battles had a ton of forces on large maps, and my computer just couldn't handle it in real time. WEGO solved that issue for me. Note: the larger the scenario, the longer the loading time when ending a turn, but it usually isn't more than 20-30 seconds. I've also found that my settings (shown in the picture below) give me a very consistent frame rate. I can't give you exact numbers, but I can tell you that it always runs smoothly and reliably for me. Give em a shot, or maybe tweak them a bit to find your own sweet spot. I found that setting the 3D model and texture quality to the right setting had the most impact on performance for me, and what they are set to here seems to be my sweet spot. Note: My desktop display size is 1920x1080 and I have an NVIDIA card. I found that tweaking the settings under advanced didn't seem to make much of a difference for me, but I left the shaders on and the trees at low quality. Hope this helps you out!

Chris stated in the previous stream video (from the 17th) that it is a known bug and they are working on fixing it, and that it should be properly addressed before the release.

I'm not sure if you are aware of this mod, but I recently found it on CMMoDs III and it looks like it could help you out a lot. Its a Tunisia conversion pack for CMFI> Heres the link: http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=1477 I figured you might be able to get into contact with the mod author and use some of his assets. Plus, there is apparently a master map in there covering a big chunk of Tunisian battlefields. Hope this helps!

Seems like you have already figured out your initial issue, but you also said that you would like to know more about buddy aid so: Soldiers will not perform buddy aid to fallen comrades if there are active enemy (they see the enemy/are being shot at) within 100m of their location. However I'll add that I have seen soldiers not in contact take a while to start buddy aid and I've also seen soldiers in contact with enemy infantry within 100m but they buddy aided anyways. So there seems to be a bit of a gray area. I do know that a soldiers experience and motivation play a big role in how/when he will perform buddy aid and how quickly it takes him to complete. Also note that at the higher difficulties of the game, buddy aid takes longer. Hope this helps!

No harm done! Ah ok thanks for the info! I'll be interested to see how it ends up developing, and seeing if it ends up being similar to the Land Warrior system or not.

A lot of mods are forward and backwards compatible, so it'll be worth trying Juju's UI in CMFB when it's released. It might not be 100% compatible but it may be mostly compatible, which would mean it would only take a bit of tweaking to get fully up and running.

Erm... no. I was simply pointing out that if you wanted to see what I was talking about (the Russian forces being over/under represented) in a lot more detail then you could bring up some of the older threads talking about it in great detail. I was lazily avoiding typing out a long post as its already been covered. Not your point about Ratnik specifically, but in general.

First the Winter Mod and now this? Phil, you really are the Santa Claus of the CM community! I just wanted to drop by and say that everything looks fantastic and I can't wait to see how it all turns out!

Fair enough. I completely understand the interest, especially due to the familial connection. The SS grew larger and larger towards the end of the war and got a lot of the cool toys developed by the Germans in abundance (relatively) so I can understand the interest. I would be lying if I said I was not interested myself. I also harbor no love for communists, so there is something I'm sure we can agree on. As I and others here have said, people are more than willing to discuss tips and techniques of playing the game, and if there is a perceived bug than the devs are more than willing to address the issue, as Steve has done with this. I'm not sure what the refund policy is with Battlefront, if there is a limited time refund window or something like that, but I would urge you to reconsider and maybe stick around for a while and see if you can't learn the ropes a bit. The community is more than willing to assist, as long as the discussions remain constructive.

Thanks for the clarification. What is the status of Ratnik II?

The only people who 'feared' the SS were the women, children, old men, Jews, other dissenters or those deemed unfit or sub human, and POWs who were murdered by them. You were the one who brought up the SS in the first place, might I remind you: And you're right, I was not in Russia, or France, or the many other places unfortunate enough to have to deal with the SS. That does not take away from the many atrocities committed by the SS, or the fact that the SS were generally less apt at combat than their peers in the Heer, with a few notable exceptions.

This. If you want to have a constructive argument, lets talk about this, shall we? What in the hell were tanks doing so close to an enemy tank with no infantry support? I think that this right here is the actual issue. Oh wait... aaaand there it is. This isn't about a perceived faulty game mechanic or bug. Its not about learning the game or tactics or their implementation. Its the classic flawed and historically incorrect argument that the Germans/SS gear/men/weapons/tanks/etc were "better" than everyone else. "How did my Ubermensch SS not see the filthy untermensch Ami's?!?!?! Clearly CM does not take into account the fact that the Germans were far superior in every aspect, physiologically, intellectually, everything!" If you bought CM hoping to indulge in your "superior WWII German everything" fetish than you came to the wrong place. I'm sure you have read every first, second and third hand account of German tankers in WWII, and to keep it "unbiased" you read Belton Cooper's "Death Traps" to round out the Allied experience.

Sounds like someone is upset that his Ubermensch aren't uber enough... It's worth asking the question, seeing as you are so critical of the spotting system and this tank crew in particular; have you ever been a crewman of a Panther tank taking point blank, accurate fire from an enemy tank? If so, please let us know how your situation was different than the one being simulated in this battle! Otherwise, I think I'll side with the painstakingly researched simulation which, might I add works for hundreds of other players. Is it perfect? No. Nothing is, deal with it. If you have a question as to how to improve your play and get better, then by all means ask away on the forums. There is a lot of information here and a community more than willing to help. If this issue has completely ruined the game for you, then contact the developers through personal communication (PMs and emails) and attempt a refund. There is no need for throwing a tantrum (and yes it is a tantrum, seeing as you have stated that you want a refund and nothing to do with CM anymore, there is nothing constructive about this thread) on a public forum.

This looks a lot like the infamous "Land Warrior" system the US Army was looking into (and quickly dropped due to it being ridiculous) around 5 or so years ago. Anyone remember this? The Land Warrior system boasted literally the same stuff as this video boasted. Helmet mounted cameras and personal GPS's and everyone has a tablet and blah blah blah. Point is it wasn't close to being practical and never went anywhere. I'm guessing that this is the Russian equivalent, and that they have just gone one further by already assuming the system works and how "revolutionary" it will be. So no, to answer your thread question, the Russian army is not under equipped. There are an abundance of forum topics that dig into this very question, and it has been answered quite thoroughly that if anything the Russians in CMBS are OVERrepresented. If you want to know more, the forum has a search function.

As others have stated, while it is true that the Apache has the ability to fire from defilade and engage enemy air defenses, it does not seem to be simulated in CMBS. As Abdolmartin pointed out in his first post, when there are enemy air defense assets on the battlefield and he uses his helo's, he tends to lose at least one to enemy fire. I think it would be worth looking into the Apache Guardian however. It is supposed to be able to interface and data link with UAV's, meaning that you could use UAV's to ID enemy AA vehicles and then have the Guardian safely engage them. This functionality is talked about in the CMBS manual, but I'm not sure if it is simulated in game. If it is simulated, then I would think this would be your solution. If not, then my previous post stands, that you should not call in Apaches until you have cleared the battlefield of enemy AA threats. As to the point about Javelin equipped infantry, I am in agreement. Combined arms is crucial, even more so now that the battlefield is so hyper lethal. It is important to remember that infantry do not have nearly as good spotting ability as the M1A2 SEP. I took your comment about infantry to imply that you were attempting to use your infantry as your primary anti tank asset, but it seems my understanding of what you originally meant was flawed.

The simple answer is you don't. If it is known that the enemy has air defense assets such as Tunguska's Apaches would never be called in close enough to be engaged by the air defense asset. This is done for the same reason why you would not charge a platoon of Bradley's at a treeline that you know is occupied by enemy tanks. Its just not smart and is asking for trouble. Now if the enemy air defenses are unknown or not expected, then its a different beast. If this is the case, upon discovering the enemy air defense assets, you should immediately wave off (cease fire the fire mission) the Apaches until the air defense asset has been neutralized. I know its not the answer you want, but the truth is that there is no magical way to use air assets against enemy air defense assets without getting your aircraft engaged. In my battle I didn't have to worry about any enemy air defense. Also a quick note, you mentioned that its hard to get your Javelins into position to cause damage. Remember, your own tanks should always be your primary tool against enemy tanks.

All fair points. It was a battle that had a definite tipping point. I think that because of all the factors you listed is what makes it such a great learning experience. Also, hindsight is 20/20. Do you think this would be a worthy battle to do a debrief/analysis on? I think that would be very interesting, and if nothing more it would give us something to occupy ourselves with before the release.

I don't want counter battery simulated in Combat Mission for the same reason that @ChrisND doesn't want it in the game. It is essentially overly frustrating and unfair to lose control over an asset randomly and that you have no control over. He explains it better than I can in this video: http://www.twitch.tv/chrisnd/v/25980864 Skip to 51 minutes where he begins to describe why counter battery simulation is not a good idea. Additionally as others have pointed out, counter battery does not fit into the scope of Combat Mission. CM is a tactical level simulator. At the tactical level you either have an asset or you don't. Asking for counter battery to be simulated is like having all the ingredients to bake a cake, but at any time during the baking of the cake you could randomly lose an ingredient, and the reason for the loss would be due to something like, "well, its possible you weren't able to go to the store to get flour today, so the flour is gone." If that was the case, you wouldn't be baking a cake. The point is, going into a battle you either have 2 batteries of artillery or you have 3. Why you have 2 or 3 can be explained in the briefing ("we had 3 but lost one to counter battery so now we only have 2") but should not be a variable once the battle starts.

This was one hell of a battle, and an excellently written DAR. I think this is a prime example of doing everything right but still ending up with a bad result. Everything you did had solid reasoning behind it, it just didn't turn out the way that was hoped for. I personally appreciated your aggressiveness. I think you made the right call when you determined that the enemy force was mostly dismounted infantry and decided to go on the offensive. Why sit around and wait to get hammered? Its never a good idea to be the nail. There are many ways this could have gone differently but here we are with the result we have. I think that at the very least you have provided us with a great battle to learn from as well as one helluva ride. As always the writing was top notch and the pacing in general of this DAR was very suspenseful. You're a winner as a writer! Lastly, I wouldn't worry about that damned Jagdtiger. Its likely to break down immediately after this battle, then proceed to sit around and wait for repairs for a few weeks, only to be strafed and destroyed by P-47s after the weather clears up. The only real tragedy there is the darn flyboys taking all the credit... Thanks again for a hard fought battle and a great DAR!

Thanks for the input! @Kieme(ITA) Yes the order was LIGHT type, AREA TARGET. I was trying to get the Apache to spray the area in 30mm. I think what might have been happening was that the Apache wasn't identifying viable targets to engage with just guns, so when I gave it a LIGHT, AREA TARGET mission, it waved off. I set up a quick test on the test range map used in the training campaign that ships with CMBS. I simply placed some forward observers in an obervation tower with a bunch of OpFor out in the open and had the FOs call in LIGHT, AREA TARGET missions on the clearly spotted enemies, and lo and behold the Apache used mostly guns, with some AGMs as well. So my conclusion is that in the battle I was fighting my Apache couldn't see a viable target for a LIGHT type mission and waved off. @MikeyD Thanks for the info! I'm going to give those Mi-24P Hind F's a try then. The battle I was doing was a joint US/UKR operation so it would actually make perfect sense to use the Hinds instead of the Apaches. I was wondering if anyone has some input into the general use of gunships in the support role. Krause has a lot of good CM vids on youtube, but this one in particular has him using some German gunships to great effect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09DbLqVsrnc The video is rather long, but in essence it is a German air assault mission (at night) on a defended air field. Krause uses his gunship support to cover and support his men extremely well. I was wondering if anyone has any pointers on how to achieve a similar effect like this? I've tried replicating the commands he used but as you can tell by this thread my results were not optimal. Could it be a difference in equipment/doctrine?