Howler

I thought I´d share this strange little moment from the first battle of the Operation Encore campaign.

At first I thought that this unlucky german just fumbled his grenade - but after seeing it in slow, I think that he may have been shot before he could throw it. But if so - doesnt it explode way too soon? I also specutlated that a shot might have hit the grenade itself - but the game doesnt model stuff like that, does it?
 
 

like this

easy, take the horizon of CMA

CMSF 2 has amphibious vehicles.


 
And un-conventional units


 

 
To include spies

 
VBIEDs

 
Pick-up trucks and taxis that can actually be used (not just flavor objects).

 
IEDs - Small, medium, large, huge.  Controlled by radio, cell or wire.  That can be used to bring down bridges in some designer made scenarios. 

 
With lots of cool mods and scenarios

 
@37mm is currently working on a Southeast Asia mod / campaign:  http://community.battlefront.com/topic/135081-heaven-earth-project-discussion-thread/

 

 
Or maybe you would like to command the raid that killed Osama, Created by @Combatintman. 
 
Just off the top of my head ............... 

Thanks to everyone for resurrecting this topic, as well as to @Elvis for being present and hopefully bumping it closer to the top of the internal Please Fix or Do Sumfink List.  I know the R2V module took on a developmental life of it's own over the last months!
CMBN is my favorite title and I too have held off starting any new games due to the counter logical infantry/bocage behavior.

like also to remind of the pillbox issues when mortars and artillery can easily penetrate and kill any occupants within single game turn. This holds up some my scenario creations from getting further since 2-3 years now.

thanks @Battlefront.com for the update!   Steve, could I ask please if there would be any chance of fixing the CMBN hedgerow tac ia behaviour in the near future? 

One element that has genuinely changed for the worse is the loss of ChrisND, and his twitch streams. Those were superb content, both in terms of engaging with the player base and highlighting upcoming releases. I can't make a claim that that kind of presentation is cost effective, but it's certainly missed.

1. Resist the urge to split your forces. Attack the smallest possible force with the largest possible force. It doesn't matter what title you are playing, WW2 or modern, fire superiority wins. Every time.
2. Holding an objective, or preventing the enemy from scoring any points from an objective, requires only 1 man. If the battle has 4 different occupy objectives, keep your main force moving from one objective to the next and leave a driver, destroyed vehicle crew or an XO team behind to secure the points.
3. Don't underestimate the usefulness of a long duration light or harass artillery mission. Arty keeps heads down, which prevents them from seeing you move. They are also great for area denial. Nothing worse than thinking an arty mission is over, so you start moving your men up and then a round lands in the middle of your platoon. Most light or harass missions will give 15+ minutes of firing time. You can cancel the mission as your men get close to the objective and use any remaining rounds to pummel any strong points.

I just do it. I enjoy the micromanagement, I guess. 

Just to be on the safe side, check spam folder which might contain email with download link. Otherwise file a ticket with help desk who will help you out.

This one that Fiskerby mentioned can be particularly useful.  Use XO teams to act as liaisons to other friendly units that are not in the same chain of command.  The XOs will then provide horizontal C2 to the other unit (if the XO teams have radios).  

I posted DoD guidelines on actual Mk19 accuracy. Clearly CMSF2/CMBS Mk19 is waaaaaay off mark when compared to real life.

Hi Bil,
Thanks a lot for the link!
I have recently bought CMBN and CMBS after a 15 years hiatus in the Battlefront games and discovered this week your website. I'm in the process of reading it all and I had not yet reached the section your link points to so I'm the one sorry for bothering you with that.
 
By the way I take advantage of this opportunity to tell you (I'm not the first I know) that your website is truly fascinating. Awesome content, I learn so much! 👍
So again thank you!
 
Nital
 

You need to login to your Store account (https://www.battlefront.com , 'login' button in upper right) and look at your orders ('My Account' in the menu at the topif it doesn't default to the list and then 'My Orders' in the list). Clicking on any of the text that is linked ('Order Id', 'Order Type' or 'Click to view' next to the order total) should bring you to the order details screen that will have a link to the download. Again, you'll want to look at an order that has the 4.0 Upgrade or the base game (if that was a fairly recent purchase) to get the 'full installer'.

My pleasure. Worth noting there is a wide range of hot keys that can toggle stuff on or off. The combos are in the manual but worth being aware off. As I have discovered myself when I inadvertently toggled off smoke myself a while back. Easy done. 

Yes, satchel charges are sometimes thrown against tanks and infantry.
No, German grenade bundles are not specifically modelled. But they are implied, since infantry can close assault tanks. Justs regular hand grenades are seen thrown, but they are assumed to represent grenade bundles, molotov cocktails, etc.

This is one of the weaknesses of the CM series in general.

Ways around it:

- Get the camera down to eye level, use the Zoom keys (Z/X) to judge what they can actually see
- Use the Target tool from any suspect action spots
- Take your time, and use safe movement techniques to guard against the unexpected - whether that's something happening you didn't intend, or to cover any mistakes.

Good news Combat Mission games now have the all in one installer.  I upgraded to a new PC a while back so had to download everything to the new PC.  Very easy and straight forward.  It could be difficult back in the day but not anymore.  And I'm in no way a computer tech type person.    

Yes. Once the platoon hq remounts their ride. I use this tactic a lot. @MOS:96B2P did a superb thread based on testing re how info is shared in CM. 
 
 

Wow. I read his commentary as being very on point with some sarcasm tossed in. Apparently, others thought it was some sort of personal attack??? Maybe I come from a less sensitive generation.
Whatever your FEELINGS are, @General Jack Ripper has made some SOLID points, AND has advised how to get around the game engine limitations...AND shown both techniques in action.
Now, onto the OP's question: I really don't think you'll see this get changed anytime soon. (<- IMO)

In general, that distance is important. 2km is a long way, especially on a CM battlefield. In the WW2 titles, the german halftracks have an MG behind a gun shield, which is far more effective when placed ~1000m away from their target - the distance limits return fire and increases the effective angle that the shield protects.

In CM terms then, IFVs tend to be effective as support assets, hull down, and as part of a fire plan.

In general I find myself dismounting much later with Russian-type assets then I do with Western ones. Part of that is the lack of man-portable radios in CMSF - the squads rely on the BMP for that, and if they're dismounted then they're cut off. Aside from seeking hull down positions, the main safety net which BMPs have are their exceptional firepower - this is (again) muddled in CMSF, since the Syrians mostly use older kit, but easier to see by comparing the BMP-3 to the Bradley - the former will explode violently if you glare at it, but it can pour out fire and suppress anything that's vaguely likely to have infantry inside.

Dismounting is always a die roll - you can never be 100% sure there's no small arms targeting your dismount location, since your visibility will always be worse when mounted up. This applies double for BMPs, since their vision is terrible, but it's also the reason why you need to lean on their radios far more.

Smoke is handy to cover dismounts if there is no suitable cover. Popping the smoke, then rushing to set up MGs such that if there is to be an immediate firefight, you'll have the best chance of winning it.

Western smoke is defensive, and Russian-type smoke is offensive - it will fire significantly forward of the ifv's position. Again, this is to cover the infantry advance onto the target, which means that I often find myself engaging with the BMPs whilst mounted (from behind cover, and at range), then dismount to actually fight to the objective. That way I feel like I'm maximising both my BMP firepower and offensive smoke charges, to give my comparatively weak infantry the best shot at it.

Another example of a doctrinal attack, this with a Bradley platoon:


 
Scale here is to dismount about 2km from the objective, outside of the range of RPGs and the like, but within range of the 25mm. The dismounts are dismounted early, and make use of their ability to use close terrain to move up on the target, whilst the Bradleys and artillery provide smoke and supporting fires.
You'll note in both of the above examples that particular care is taken to protect the vehicles. They both offer significant and useful firepower, but need to be used extremely carefully to get anything useful out of them.

This is actually a core tactical question, and one which does not have a best answer.

Doctrines differ, but the general advice with any transport (be that halftracks, bradleys or trucks) is to dismount out of sight of the enemy, and proceed on foot. The vehicles in a tactical sense are there to redeploy quickly, possibly across otherwise open ground, and to provide protection against unexpected fires (especially mortars).

That's useful as a default tactic for all transport vehicles, in all eras.

Where this gets complex is when you start sticking guns on them.

Your basic APC (say, the British FV432, or the US WW2 halftracks) are fulfilling the same role as unarmoured trucks, with a little more protection against unexpected fires. That's one extreme, and should be used as the above. The MG in this case is not intended to be used as a fighting platform - it's a defensive tool and one mostly of desperation. It can be used in support, typically from a hull down position, but it's rarely a great idea and should never be the primary plan.
The other extreme are the varying models of BMP in CMSF and CMBS. These carry a ton of firepower and weapon systems, to the extent that they severely limit the abilities of the attached squad. In these cases, the IFV is supposed to be used as part of the squad, and therefore has to be exposed. This doctrine has some significant and obvious disadvantages, but does mean that the Russian-type squads have a significant advantage in firepower over their equivalent.

Example of this. Note that the BMP and squad elements are in covered positions.



BMPs have firing slits, so the squad can fight mounted, but really shouldn't. That's useful in an NBC environment, which doesn't apply here.

In Afghanistan, new tactics were developed, of dismounting the troops and combining the vehicles into a flanking/support fire unit. That will be stronger tactic against irregular forces, which lack the amount of AT weaponry that a conventional army will have.
 
Bradleys in CMSF are a bit of an outlier - they match up well against pretty much everything in the Syrian arsenal. The troops should still not engage in a fight mounted, but you can afford to be much bolder with your transport vehicles in that game. That's pretty much unique to that setting though - they're not as scary in Black Sea.

Strykers in particular are useful for their electronics and networking. Paying attention to C2 links and using them as communication hubs can be very important, but this can be done with minimal or zero exposure of the actual vehicle.
 
So... think of it as a spectrum, with unarmoured trucks at one end, and BMPs at the other, with all other APCs and IFVs in between. If you never use the weapons of a Bradley, BMP or Warrior, then you're wasting a resource. On the other hand, the more you expose them, the more you're risking the resource. The IFV concept has this dilemma at it's core, and it's not a problem with a clear solution.

As mentioned elsewhere - although fatigue does not have a direct impact on accuracy (or similar), fatiguing your soldiers means that you won't be able to Quick or Fast move when you really need to, when mortar rounds are incoming or when you need to rush up a support weapon to a forward position. Fatigue therefore absolutely degrades your ability to fight, just indirectly.

I use Fast movement a lot. The TacAI does as well, during Assault commands - the moving element moves Fast whilst the other element is in overwatch.
 
The order prioritises movement above all - you're the least likely to stop and open fire on available targets, so you have the most control over your actions.
 
Some theoretical examples:

1) I'm developing a firefight. One squad in the platoon has made contact, and is exchanging fire with the enemy.  I decide that I need to send a fireteam to a specific piece of cover to add to the outgoing volume of fire, and I don't want them engaging from any other location. Fast move is the best way to do that, quickly and with as much certainty as possible.
2) The lead squad of a platoon comes under fire. The rest of the platoon is in good position to return fire, but the lead squad is cowering out of C2, so can't share spotting contacts, meaning that the enemy has not been spotted by the rest of the platoon. My HQ element will Fast move between platoon elements to pick up the contacts and Fast move back to share them to the other squads.

3) Incoming mortar rounds. Priority number one is being anywhere but here, so you don't want to start engaging in a firefight.
 
Fast moving tires them out, obviously, which will degrade their movement (Fast->Quick->Move->Slow). It's also a large commitment - if your order was unsafe (e.g., the fireteam element you've moved up to support is flanked by an enemy MG), then you've probably just lost that element. You should therefore use it in situations where you're confident about the move, and where you are not expecting to cover large distances or make multiple Fast moves in the future.