Firehead

I've done a couple battalion level games(Batt HQ,3 rifle companies, 1 weapon company) against AI. While they can be tedious, it can be a ton of fun sometimes. I like to play on big maps too, so that helps aid you in maneuvering without getting too bunched up. Biggest thing I have found that you need to do is form a battle strategy. Who is going where, who is supporting by fire for who, and timing it to act in concert. If you rush that, you'll take un-needed casualties. I managed to pull out a pretty crushing defeat taking only 30ish casualties whilst destroying 300 men. Very rewarding. I manage mine in stages. It starts with deployment. What companies will be in reserve, who will be available for immediate react to contact, what units will be scouting, etc. I create mini-objectives within the game to give myself coordination and help create that battle plan I talked about. An example would be a farm field with a few structures surrounded by fencing. This will be the firebase for weapons company indirect to support the rifle companies. What do we need to do? Scout it, eliminate enemy forces, then occupy and defend. A good terrain analysis will help you figure out where to get the men you need in position to take your self-defined objectives and aid in deploying your men to accomplish this. Next, I'll issue my initial movement commands. I'll issue specific movement commands to my scouting elements, and "mass" orders to each platoon within the company. Again, I use my deployment to give me the spacing and formations I want them to maneuver in. I will never issue movement commands to elements larger than platoon size. Finally, when we arrive from our point of departure for company maneuver, we will start managing squads to execute the battle drills. I won't give you the specifics as to how you should be fighting the battle itself, since obviously that gets extremely details. I will say you can keep it fairly simple, the AI in my opinion, is sufficient to take care of itself. You'll have to sort that out for yourself. With all that being said my final point is to fight your battles by "objective" at a time. No matter what elements have been dedicated to executing your plan, focus on one part of the plan. Other elements that aren't actively participating in that fight should be in a defensive posture. If they aren't moving, or fighting, they should be defending their terrain. Repeat these steps until you have won, or ground your force down to an ineffective mass of bodies. Your mileage may very. Take your time, fighting these size battles can take some serious time (I remember one taking me 9 hours, with a couple breaks in between).

I was in heavy weapons company for a while. Maybe I can provide insight, but chances are you've already tried it(or did, as I read above). You're supposed to use them the same way you use all the other infantry. Establish a base of fire, and bound forward or flank. Difference is, they have bigger guns than the light infantry(obviously), are more durable, and are much more mobile. They are very situational. In real life, you can dismount your weapons making them a lot less vulnerable to AT weapons. AFAIK, you can't do that in CMBS(except in QB setup), so they aren't as effective in game compared to reality. Where you will probably find the most use(and not particularly useful against AI to be honest) is to quickly plug gaps in defensive lines, where you need additional firepower. Don't have enough AT weapons? Roll up some trucks with TOWs. Mass infantry advancing on you? Bring up the .50s and the Mk19s. Personally, I will occasionally use them as bait, to draw out fire in areas where I suspect/know there is a lack of AT or heavy weapons. I find that they also provide a small resupply for the crunchies.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it isn't legit. I guess I'm too used to paying higher prices for US manufactured equipment, and the prices throw me off a bit.

I'm curious about how much of it is legit, and not a Chinese copy. I guess it is cool if you are a collector, but I'm not sure that is something I'd want to fight in. I am interested in the headset, it looks pretty comfy once you cut out half the netting.

I would ask yourself how much entertainment per hour is worth to you. I have, if I had to guess, at a minimum of 200 hours of game time so far. Hell, I played 7 hours straight the other day accidentally(An entire battalion makes for really long turns). As that stands, it is about .50 cents an hour. It only gets "cheaper" over time. I've had countless amounts of fun playing with my friends, or even farting around with quick battles. I've spent a lot more money for a lot less entertainment. With all that being said: The game can sometimes be frustrating, as can any game. In my opinion, Multiplayer is a little lacking (Co-op anyone?) but it is satisfactory to me. Graphics? Not the greatest, but I don't care. They are good enough for someone like me who isn't impressed by flashy graphics alone. Those are my biggest complaints, if I had to call them that. I fully support developers that make games I like and will continue to buy titles from Battlefront that interest me.You've played the demo, you know you like it, buy it. It is worth every penny.

I finally got a decent test run with hull down. A platoon of Strykers and an Abrams holding off elements of a BTR infantry battalion(quick battle, meeting engagement, random AI selection). I finally got outflanked, but the Strykers and the Abrams laid waste to them firing from a berm located near a depression. Initially, I had destroyed most of their vehicles(18 at the time) taking only a single casualty. One of the enemy vics got close enough to wound the gunner in one of the Strykers. I was finally got outflanked. 1 BTR crushed 4 Strykers firing in enfilade. It took an M136 to finish him off from supporting infantry nearby. In the end I had about 9 casualties with over 50% of their force annihilated. All that being said, most of their fires were completely ineffective, taking very few casualties. When I decided to end it I had pinned all their vehicles behind some rolling hills, with enemy infantry stuck in open fields(under 155mm bombardment). Had I brough something a little more beefy like Bradleys, or maybe MGS in lieu of the Abrams it would have gone even worse. Love this feature!

No experience with CMBN 4.0, but CMBS my infantry felt much more realistic. Moving smarter, better spacing, smarter reaction to contact. May be a placebo, but they feel faster too. A quick or fast move felt like it yielded better results when I needed them to get somewhere. Seemed to better identify firing positions better as well. I feel as before they would take fire and before I could figure out what was going on, half a squad had been smoked. Super happy with 4.0

If you have to move across an open danger area, a good idea would be to move them under a base of fire. Have some machinegun or rifle squads cover their advance. Send a small team forward to see what is going on. If they take fire you will be able to support them a little better. I personally would not actively suppress an area with fire because you don't want to consume ammunition you may need later. Only fire on suspected and known positions that you're taking fire from. Conducting recon by fire for short periods of time might work. I haven't seen AI fall into the trap too much.

Yes, I am playing with 3.11. I could post screenshots but I'm lazy. The closest shells are landing maybe, 75 meters from the edge of my deployment zone just on the other side of a ridge. I was curious to see if it would cause casualties, and as soon as an infantryman crossed the ridge into the higher ground they started taking hits. They haven't blocked all my lanes of approach, but they've hit the low grounds in two seperate areas with 120s, with another shelling a road/open field that leads into town. I can advance into the open onto some highground, but that would be suicide since a significant portion of the map can see this point. It's rather annoying, but I guess I'll wait it out.

Today I thought I'd play a battalion level game for long term entertainment. I set it up so that I had an infantry battalion with some reinforcements and the enemy had their infantry battalion. Big map, plenty of room to maneuver. Sounds fun! I got this tiny deployment zone crammed full of my men. I spaced them out as much as I could and prepared them to move out of the deployment zone. First turn, rounds start coming in around my deployment zone. It's awesome that they aren't dropping them straight onto my deployment zone. But what is the AIs obsession with dropping artillery around your deployment zone? I know that in real war you'd want to limit lanes of approach and cause as many casualties as possible, but it isn't like I have anywhere to go, or another route to take. This isn't the first time it has happened. Should I just count on spending the first 10 minutes of every game hanging out in my deployment zone? I don't want to completely strip them of any indirect fire, so that they may use it later. Anyone else experience this? Is the only solution to strip them of indirect fire? I can't go anywhere, and if I didn't have a ridge between me and the rounds coming in I'd probably be taking casualties. This is frustrating and kind of ruins my fun.

Team leader is looking for targets, gunner is shooting, and the loader is well...loading. Firing their rifles could distract them from their duties as people tend to get tunnel vision when engaing a target. The machinegun is considered to be the most casualty producing weapon a platoon can bring to bear. Firing a few extra rifle rounds would be rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

I can't speak for everything since I was just a mere infantryman, but this one time... We were sitting on a highway waiting for EOD to show up to destroy an IED. Due to having the only thermal system on the convoy(I was operating a CROWS with an M2) I was tasked at looking for the farther threats which the other gunners wouldn't be able to see(triggermen, possible snipers, or fighters attempting to move up, etc). We had only been there about two minutes, when 700 or so meters away I saw a small white spot moving around. I zoomed in even further. I was able to identify it as a human being who appeared to be watching us from a ditch. I could only see the top of his head, but I picked him out easily in the background due to my thermal capabilities. Turns out it was just a dude taking a dump in a ditch, but the bottom line is I picked him out, and relatively quickly considering the distance. and I had a lot of degrees to scan as well. My point is that if you can see me, I definitely have the ability to see you. The question at that point becomes twofold: "Do I know what I'm looking for?" In this case, people. Followed by "Am I paying enough attention to recognize it as a threat?" Imagine an infantryman just poking his head up a little to have a look at me and I happen to be looking in his direction. Sure he probably knows I'm there, but in order to do so he is compromising his ability to remain unseen. Thermals can be defeated, but chances are if you're managing to defeat them you sure aren't doing anything else.

Thank you for your assistance. Curse you Battlefront for making such a good game...

The majority of malfunctions from machine guns are a result of debris getting in the feed paws on the feed tray cover. This is usually a result of the belt getting mud/dirt on it. Plenty of lubricants(CLP) on the bolt and cycling mechanism can essentially negate carbon buildup from sustained fire. In addition, that carbon build up usually only affects gas operated machineguns, since the gas block gets clogged with carbon thus affecting gasflow to fully cycle the weapon. Most machineguns in the 40s were delayed blowback or blowback operated, the exceptions being the BAR, FG42, and Bren(a couple of others I think as well) It is difficult. There is also a clamp like tool that fits over the barrel allowing easier switching of barrels. Even with the asbestos mittens it is insanely hot after 100 rounds. Machinegun jams are easily fixed, it often just requires cycling of the bolt, or POPS. Pull the bolt to the rear, observe ejection of belt and cartridge, push the bolt back forward, and squeeze to resume firing. Occasionally, with disintegrating belts(MG34/42, M2) you have to open the feed tray cover and reload the machinegun. Takes only a minute to correct a malfunction. Even with a ruptured case, a trained MG team should be able to fix it using a case extractor in short order.

I managed to convince a friend to get into the CM games so we can play together. Unfortunately he didn't buy the title I already have(Black Sea) and he bought tBattle for Normandy, but just the Base and Market Garden stuff. I want the full pack, because of the extra content. If I buy the full pack, can I use the extra stuff that it comes with such as vehicles, in a battle with him? Or will it result in issues because he doesn't have it?

You could be right on the NVGs. Without seeing how its programmed its hard to say whether the infantry thermals(outside of weapon mounted) even provide a significant advantage. I've had my men torn to shreds at night by this supposed "ineffectiveness". WIth the AN/PSQ-20, you'd change batteries every 15 minutes if used thermal all the time. I would assume that TacAI switches between the two modes automatically given the right conditions. Ever used handheld laser designators? They aren't small, a little bigger than a 7.62 ammo can, and they aren't light. They also aren't cheap. We only had one, and it stayed in our truck(we didn't do much dismounted work to require it be carried). To give each soldier one would be ridiculous. To give each squad one, would be ridiculous. You'd see maybe one per platoon, and only the Fisters would carry it. US experimented with weapon mounted cameras as a part of the Land Warrior Program. We have the tech too, so why isn't it used? It is impractical most likely. I never said they couldn't manufacture it. I'm stating its effectiveness is probably not nearly what they are going to claim. Everything that is being proposed here in terms of equipment is 15 years behind the curve of what US military brass envisioned the future soldier to be equipped with. The difference is Russia is actually fielding it. Whether it will be effective is an entirely different question. And given that Russia already has financial problems, how would they be able to replace losses/failures of equipment. The tech exists, this I will not deny, but to what extent would it be used based on its effectiveness is the question, followed by how good is it really?

90% of the gear described in the video is soldier level equipment, in that it would make no difference of soldier effectiveness. Body armor, clothing, helmets, thermal/NVGs doesn't really need to be modeled as a new system in game. The only thing that could make a difference in game is their C2 systems and the laser designator. When it actually sees combat, and can be proven as effective, then maybe we could see it in game. Until then, it is propaganda. The technology that they have shown in that video, or its described capabilities is seemingly over the top. Effective and small laser designators or range finders to each individual soldier is quite a claim. Some of the technology described has been available for some time, and been in experimentation with the US Army, and probably a few other governments. If I could equate these claims to Cold War comparison, when the USSR came out with the Mig-25 Foxbat, NATO allies were scared of it. To counter, they produced the F-15. Then we got a hold of it, and it turns out the Foxbat was garbage and that out of our fear we created the best air superiority fighter to ever serve. Bottom line, I'm extremely skeptical of the practicality and capability of this new system until it meets the enemy in combat.

I can say that in real life, it is pretty common to make your own firing holes. Often in our training environments you'll see a brick missing out of a wall. A sledge-hammer does wonders against brick, drywall, or mud. If I had to guess it is a limit of the engine, to not show you holes that men could create, more than it is a bug.

Well, MOUT is a complex task. My experience in an actual combat environment is limited, but I have plenty of training in how it is supposed to be. It is LETHAL. Expect heavy casualties, but that is why taking a two story building is a platoon task. Large multi-story buildings(like a small apartment complex) often requires an entire company. As far as the game goes, I've been experimenting with different ways to successfully attack a building, taking some of my real life experience of how to actually assault (I wish your men knew how to properly clear a building with Battledrill #6). Pick your attack route, assaulting head on can work depending on the layout of the map. As far as I know you can target specific floors depending on where you actually click on the building, and it seems to work. DEFINITIONS: Green - front of the building from the approach direction, unless specific by higher Blue - Left side from the approach direction, unless specific by higher Red - Right side from the approach direction, unless specific by higher Black - Back side of the building from the approach direction., unless specific by higher Color followed by number (ex: Red 1): side of the building and which floor. If this were real life, you could go further into detail specifying windows and such using Green 1-2. First floor, second opening from the left. EXECUTION This is very basic, you'll have to plan for additional variables, but this is the basis for what you should be doing. Also, I'm assuming you're playing WeGo and not real-time. This is platoon attack oriented. 1.) Pick your entry point. If you have breach-kit it doesn't matter, but if you don't, make sure there is a door on that side. If you don't, your men will go around until they find one. This could expose them to fire from other angles, potentially leaving them unsupported, thus dead. If you have the capability, put down a smoke barrage using 60's or 81's to help conceal the attacking squad. Make it wide, and using "Linear" is better. You're less concerned about concealing your mean from defenders in the building. Since you're going to fire on it, it is more to protect them from fire from other angles. Finally, if you have the additional manpower/weapon systems you might want to lay down fire on suspected enemy positions that could affect the squads successful approach and entry. 2. ) Let's assume Green has a door. Establish a base of fire on green along all floors. Squad making entry should fire on Green 1 if able/the floor is visible. Create a waypoint falling just short of the building, 15 to 20 meters should suffice, within hand grenade range. Split your squad before they make entry. One team enters, have them briefly target first floor for 15 seconds, the other team just 15 seconds. I'm not sure of the exact time but if you're breaching with explosives, brief target should be at either 30-45 seconds, you'll have to play with it. Remainder of the platoon should be engaging Green 2+. Machineguns can use full rate of fire for the rest of the floors. 3.) Once the first squad has a foothold, have them target the second floor, this will get them throwing frags and the like into the floor above them. Second squad will take second floor, third taking floor 3, etc. Repeat this until you have cleared to the top. If you run out of squads, the squad on the lowest floor should continue to the next highest. Most likely you'll take fire from other areas while all this is happening, so have a plan to react to any incoming from other buildings. It is all very complex, so you'll have to play round with what works for you exactly. Making entry on Red or Blue will probably require some fire on the adjacent buildings to protect help protect the attacking squad. Never make entry from Black, since the squad is entirely unsupported. Sustaining fire as you clear your way to the top is important. The second that the enemy gets breathing room, the defenders make it extremely lethal to your men who are entering. I hope this helps you, I'm still experimenting and so far this is generally what has worked best for me.

New player here. I found the battlefront "Combat Mission" series some time ago as a youngin', getting a demo through PC Gamer. Never really interested me. After my time in the military as an Infantryman(11B) I fell in love with this game after a "Re-discovery", if you will. Bought it for myself as a birthday present because, why not? So far I'm having a great time, though I'm finding myself a little frustrated on occasion, due to the seemingly all seeing AI. Frequently I find myself walking into their fields of fire, and almost never the other way around. Off topic, but just my personal opinion. Back on topic, why isn't there a feature where units provide "SPOT" or "SALUTE" reports? Maybe this has been brought up before, I don't know. For those who aren't aware of what that is: S = Situation P = Position O = Observation T = Task or the variation: S = Size A = Activity L = Location U = Uniforms T = Time E = Equipment My idea of what this would consist of could simply be when a friendly unit positively identifies a unit, a little window would pop up if you click on them saying what squad/unit on the map has identified them. I find myself searching through many units sometimes only to find that the guys I thought could see them don't, and the guys I thought couldn't have managed to find a small sliver to see through. It would be very similar to reviewing the battlefield at the end of the map, you can see who killed what. Another example could be that after a unit gets LOS to a unit, has positively identified it, then loses LOS you get the icon with the question mark displaying the general unit type (tank/infantry/APC/truck/etc) that you can click on. It would then display who saw what, number of personnel, weapons ID'd, time, etc. I think this would add a lot of depth in terms of commanding your units. It might allow you to make slightly better, more informed decisions based on what you know exists and where. Losing line of sight your units have zero clue about what they saw. Information is ammunition. Thoughts? Is this something you would like to see? Is this something we can submit to the Devs and have them implement? Thanks for reading.