Howler

Working on my dense urban map for CMRT (to be released after the CMRT module comes out), I've found that artillery feels underpowered on that kind of map. Building type matters a lot. Independent building types offer far less protection and durability than modular building types - even if they are similar in size. A large, tall multi-section modular building can hold up to a pretty massive amount of artillery. I've seen regular (with reg motivation) platoons hiding on the bottom floors of that kind of building take very light casualties from standard medium and heavy howitzers until the building section they are in actually collapses (then they get wiped). With say, 122mm howitzers, that usually takes 20-30 minutes of point arty at lower fire rates (which overall bring the building down more efficiently because they hit more often due to higher accuracy).
So, it really depends on the map type, design and tactical situation as to whether arty is overpowered or not. On my urban map, medium mortars feel like pop guns vs the buildings and a full battery of point 81mm probably won't cause any noticeable damage to even a small modular building (still useful for other things, though). Players are going to get to use arty types and amounts they normally don't have access to because the map provides enough protection to facilitate it. But, like I said at the beginning, I've been suprised at the durability of the modular building constructions vs artillery.  I feel like they hold up too well (and the independents are a bit too weak).
On infantry, setting aside the unrealistic level of aggressiveness the player demands from his pixeltroopen, which is a BIG factor, I'd say that the current casualty rates are by design choice to facilitate enjoyable scenario lengths for most players. The more realistic the combat becomes, the slower it becomes. And that, while pushing up the enjoyment level for a smaller section of the player base, will push it down for a much larger section of the player base. My guess is that quite a few folks who think they would love slower, more realistic play, would find themselves playing less often for some reason. I think this is one of those cases where BF, in their experience, knows what most customers really want, even if the customers don't (rough edges, like rout paths, still need to be improved 😀).
Having said all that, I'm one of those nuts that likes to push the realism side, so with my map project, you're going to get 4-hour battles. The concept may flop (and that's okay), but it should be a good testing bed for the community and hopefully will be good fodder for design discussion and ideas.
Looking forward to the patch and CMRT module!

I don't believe you. Prove just one exist and I'll be green as jade!

I have to admit I'm seeing no effect whatsoever for low tree detail... the tree's always shake in the wind, no matter the setting or model quality. Even so, I too have it set on 'low'.... just in case.
I found that 'Best' 3d model quality only got you about an extra 100m on your bubble (on FAST Vsync) to ~420m@1080p. Although it did 'repair' most of the visual bubble on Half adaptive back to ~370m). It did this at the cost of a vast increase (sometimes an eight fold increase) in your "draw calls" & a consequent decrease to your fps rates.
As DeutschRitter, and now myself, advise the 'balanced' 3d Model quality is by far the most cost efficient setting. Although 'Improved' is also pretty cheap & (especially on half adaptive) increases your bubble size almost as significantly as 'Best'.
Keep the Texture quality on 'Best' though... I think every Modern graphics card can easily cope with that.
 
PS
Just in case anyone is unaware, you can change your 3d Model Quality setting in game with Shift+[ & Shift+].

I don't believe you. Prove just one exist and I'll be green as jade!

Welcome to our forums, Sir!
Where we try to never allow a thread to remain on topic past the 2 page...

Welcome to our forums, Sir!
Where we try to never allow a thread to remain on topic past the 2 page...

How were you using the drones, point, area, or linear? Using point means that you basically have a good idea that something is there, and you're just verifying it, and has the best chance of spotting it. Linear will give you almost as good a chance of spotting along the path, but only out to about 50m to either side. Area is the least accurate method because your chances of spotting something are directly related to the size of the area you are scanning. I've used drones a lot as blue ( I don't remember using them as Red though ), in both AI battles, and PBEM. I've been able to detect vehicles and personnel in all of the modes. If you're not detecting anything or anyone, you're looking in the wrong place of with too large a area.

Thank no regulation/deregulation. There's on oversight and no incentive for the financial industries to better protect citizens. We'll just bail them out again when the time comes...
Straying off-topic. Apologies.

So I picked up Black Sea about 3 months ago.... this game is truly amazing. The amount of micromanaging you can do is staggering ,  
the choices and strategy  you can make  is endless ……. do I take more ammo  ...or do I keep em lite so they are faster … do I call in air support or use artillery , do I throw down a
smoke screen or just try to run thru an ambush …. do I go to the high ground of try to infiltrate thru the forest ….do I leave my flanks exposed and go for the throat ...or play it safe ….. the campaigns, quick battles,  an building my own battles are great and endless ...
I find myself constantly thinking about the game... how "next time" I will do things differently and try a new approach …  or bring  a different troop package into battle .
I am sure there are people out there that don't like the game or are sick of it by now  or want to change this and that , and I don't disagree that  I wish I could
change some things or improve others  , but for someone new to it.... I am like a little kid on Christmas all over again ….

Thank no regulation/deregulation. There's on oversight and no incentive for the financial industries to better protect citizens. We'll just bail them out again when the time comes...
Straying off-topic. Apologies.

This thread started with a question about employment of reconnaissance elements and has then morphed into discussions about XOs and who does what plus a plea for accurate information.
Here is what the US Army has to say about these topics across a number of some of the US Army organisations in CMSF:
Reconnaissance Platoon
https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/atp3_20x98.pdf
Infantry Company
https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN8519_ATP%203-21x10%20Final%20Web.pdf
Tank Platoon
https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN4803_ATP%203-20x15%20FINAL%20WEB%20INCL%20C1.pdf
Cavalry Squadron
https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ATP%203-20x96%20FINAL%20WEB.pdf
If you’re genuinely interested about who does what, along with lots of other stuff then read the above.
Otherwise there is a discussion about emulating real life in the game. Very laudable but entirely impossible because one of the oft-discussed functions is the treatment of casualties and resupply.
As an example, at platoon level, taking the two armies I’ve served in (British and Australian), it is the Platoon Sergeant who is primarily responsible for policing up casualties and sorting out ammo replens in battle as well as being prepared to step up if the Platoon Commander goes down. In CMSF British Forces, the Platoon Sergeant is grouped with the Platoon Commander making it completely impossible to employ the Platoon Sergeant realistically if you are employing the Platoon Commander realistically and vice versa,
Moving up to company level and higher, CM does not include a lot of the CSS assets that are in the real life TO&E. Again, taking the British Light Role Battalion in CMSF, the Company Sergeant Major (CSM) is nowhere to be found. He is there but is grouped either with the Company OC or the Company 2IC teams (Company 2IC Team if memory serves me right but I would have to check). As with the Platoon Sergeant at platoon level, the CSM would be the person responsible for gripping up the CSS in combat. The result is that if you want to conduct CSS functions in CM, you have to use people or assets that, in RL, would not be performing those tasks.
Discussing accurate ammunition loads is trickier but again governed by the game. The TO&E issues troops with their known (or best guess) SOP loadouts. The game also places limits on what can be carried and/or penalties in terms of movement and fatigue if you load your troops up with heaps of ammunition. This is a case of knowing what those are, deciding whether the extra load is worth the slower movement/higher fatigue and your own style of gaming. Ultimately though the game, albeit imperfectly, will generally not allow you to do something that is not possible in RL. As to how to play the game, if you want to limit your troops to 400 rounds then fine, fill your boots. I might bang on about realism in board discussions about military matters because
I feel it is important and I have considerable experience and first hand knowledge to add. There is a lot of ignorance or a lot of misconceptions being bandied about which need to be countered. It is something that underpins the design philosophy of these games. When I play the game, I never touch Iron mode and only play Elite mode when I am testing scenarios. That is because my impression from forum discussions is that most people play on this setting and in scenario design you have to ensure that the experience is going to be optimised for the majority of players. When I play for fun, I usually play Basic Training mode because I just enjoy playing that way.
I’m unconvinced about the practice of keeping the best units back until achieving a breakthrough. The breakthrough is the hard task so it makes sense to use your best troops to achieve it. Let’s say this is a battalion attack and you decide to use B Company commanded by Major Nice-But-Dim rather than A Company commanded by Major Average or C Company commanded by Major Achiever to kick off the breakthrough. Major Nice-But-Dim’s company steps off and doesn’t achieve the mission because they’re a bit sh1t, this means that you have to commit A Company (if they’re not doing anything else averagely) or Major Achiever’s C Company to get the job done. In this instance you stand a greater chance of failing at the first hurdle and having to commit two or three companies when one could have done the job. If you commit Major Achiever’s C Company in the first place, you stand more chance of getting the tricky bit done leaving the other companies to exploit, which is a whole bunch easier than breaking into the position (US readers should delete Major and insert Captain in the above example by the way). In my six years’ experience as an Observer/Controller at a Brigade and Battlegroup trainer in the UK, the best unit/sub-unit always got the main effort task (not necessarily the most difficult by the way).
Returning to Passage at Wilcox, the scenario and two solutions are at PP 52-56 here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByottM1hQ47jUV9wZ1ZXeVVvTWs/view

It would only result in different issues to contend with. Such as, with AMD, needing to have shaders ON to see hit decals and of not having access to the depth buffer which limits the use of ReShade (if that's a concern to you).
As @rocketmanstates - tweaking customs settings and/or Nvidia inspector might be the way to go instead.

The main takeaway of @IICptMillerII post, for me, was the importance of effective fire plans in modern titles. He also reminded us that tactics haven't changed that much. You seem to concur?

I actually disagree with this. Yes, the javelin is a very effective anti-tank weapon. However, so was the Pak 40 in WWII, or an Abrams in hull down in the modern titles. I don't think your approach to operating in a javelin environment is much different than any other anti-tank weapons environment. The same principles apply. Cover and concealment are still your best bet, regardless of what you're up against. 
People tend to think that modern warfare requires a whole new set of tactics in order to be successful. This generally isn't the case. Weapon systems in the modern age tend to be more lethal due to their first shot accuracy, and spotting ability across the board has increased as well. The same basic rules still apply however. If the enemy javelins cannot see you, then they cannot kill you. Suppressing fire is just as effective against a modern javelin as it is against a WWII anti-tank gun. Its just now the javelin is harder to spot, and once it's fired you're likely out of luck. 
Others have touched on it, but I'll repeat because I think its worth stating again. A good fires plan goes a long way to mitigating all sorts of anti-tank threats, be it javelins, AT-14s, or guys with RPGs. As an example, I know a lot of people expressed frustrations with the "Passage to Wilcox" scenario in the SF2 demo, but from the American side. There is a battery of AT-14s that can cause some real havoc if you aren't careful. However, the briefing warns you of this threat, and even tells you roughly where they are on the map. So, as part of my overall fires plan, I made sure to dedicate a section (2 tubes) of 120mm mortars to put the suspected AT-14 position under a constant rain of fire during my initial movement phase. I did that by setting the fire mission to a long mission, but a light rate of fire. That way only 4-6 or so shells were landing a minute, thus preserving the mortar ammunition, but this was still more than enough to suppress the AT-14s and even knocked at least one of them out. The rest I was able to destroy with direct fires from my tanks and Bradleys, which didn't take any fire from the AT-14s as the gunners were too busy hugging the dirt from the mortars. 
For Red Forces, be it Russian or Syrian, a detailed and accurate fires plan is extremely important. You can suppress, destroy, or at the very least deny enemy javelin teams from setting up in advantageous positions. That can buy you time to maneuver into an advantageous position for your own forces, where you can start to bring direct fires to bear on suspected and known anti-tank positions. Easier said than done of course, but it is certainly doable. 
One last note I think is worth mentioning, using infantry as recon is very useful when facing javelins. Their handheld optics might not be as good as the ones mounted in vehicles, but they are also much easier to maneuver and conceal than vehicles are, and javelins will generally not engage them unless ordered to. Worst case scenario, you lose a recon team to a javelin, but now that's one less javelin missile you have to worry about. Best case, you are able to spot enemy anti-tank teams with your infantry and neutralize them without losing your armor. Again, easier said than done, but its quite possible. 

@IanL, Agreed.
If it was easy - it would've been corrected by now. Again, the AI generates withdrawal waypoints and paths reasonably well. The problem is WEGO, troops decamping early in WEGO and said decamping occurring in dense urban settings. When it's 20m on down to the ground floor - no problem. It's more noticeable when it's 50m away from any cover down alleys/streets...
@Erwin, I'll try to play better.

Please continue to do so @IanL.
When I wish to wax nostalgic; I'll install CM1 and quickly realize that in the olden days of command delays it wasn't all that fun nor realistic after all!

Every year manufacturers are adding more model specific tools to automobile components not to mention locking down the software needed to what was once thought of as routine diagnostics. It's progress I guess...

Wow, this is news to me. I have never ever seen that. I would be suspicious that something else on your system is causing it.

This was your original query. @Combatintman,  who does this for a living in RL, gave you a series of very useful and documented answers.
You could at least have the good grace to thank him for his efforts before getting cute with corner cases (if those are your Likes, fair enough).
(Thanks, CIMan!)

That's by design. We prefer dull over traffic congestion!

One tip is to assign other personal in the same group as ammo bearer 
Note: Make sure it is the guy from the same group!
like the pic below. From a infantry squad that is in the same platoon with the Javelin team, I split a two man scout team.
They grab a Javelin missile from the supply truck, then move to 1 or 2 grid (8-16m) away from the Javelin. Now they can share their ammo. Javelin team has only one missile in their inventory, but Ammo section tells you there are 2 available 

I've noticed faster load times for CMSF2 versus CMBS but put that down to number of trees/features a map contains rather than the number of mods used. Could it simply be the leaves swaying in the breeze slowing systems down which aren't as prevalent in CMSF2 maps?
Lager maps are slower. But, the delay in CMSF2 is counted in seconds whereas in CMBS/BN it's minutes...

I went in to the sandbox and set up a small test with the LAV III troop transport & the LAV III TUA anti-tank platform in both Sf1 and SF2, RE: ammo sharing with ground troops next to non-troop carrying vehicles that contain surplus ammo in its inventory that it doesn't have a need for like the LAV III TUA.
1) The LAV III & LAV III TUA is the same vehicle model in both SF1 & SF2 the TUA is a non-troop carrying variant of the LAV III, the only difference between the two models is the TUA's upper roof and gun platform is welded on top of a LAV III troop carrying chassis, the interior shows a rear area with seats for carrying troops and their surplus ammo.
2) In SF1 exterior troops next to the TUA can't utilize the surplus ammo, when they're out of ammo that's it, they're out. The surplus ammo is, totally, un-obtainable and useless to any, exterior, adjacent, troops, even, the crewmen can't load up with the ammo should they wish to load up and bail out of the vehicle and try to buddy share it with the ground troops.
3) In SF2 exterior troops next to the TUA can in fact replenish their ammo from it. However..., they won't resupply themselves unless the following requirements are met
         (1) they must be in a hex, next to, or, adjacent to, the vehicle.
         (2) They must be in an active fire-fight.
         (3) They must use up, "ALMOST", all the ammo they have on them, 40mm grenades 0, Rifle ammo must be down to 199 rounds
4) When all the requirements are met the troops will resupply themselves with 200 rifle rounds and 2 40mm grenades when they use that up they grab another 200 rds. & 2 grenades
5) When the fire-fight is over they will no longer resupply themselves with ammo and are stuck with what little ammo they have left.
It would be great if we could use the "Acquire Ammo" button when outside of non-accessible vehicles containing surplus ammo.

Ok I'll meet you half way, what is out there is less than optimal and I think the manual could probably do with a little more expansive explanation of the various terrain types.
As others have said, terrain pretty much behaves as you would expect it to in real life so if you wouldn't want to walk or drive over it in real life, it will probably present the same risks in CM. For instance I've never thought to question what 'Grass Y' is because to me it is grass that is yellow in colour.
If you imagine walking down the pavement/sidewalk and you see something brown - take a closer look at it. If its dogsh1t don't stand in it, if its anything else it is probably safe to stand on. Same as CM, if the tile is brown, decide whether it is mud or not and if it is, try and avoid it. Fords and streams are also areas which should be avoided unless absolutely necessary for the same reasons that you would avoid driving over them in real life. If you don't need to drive through hedges and fences then don't because you pick up minor damage to your vehicle, as you would in real life. Off the top of my head, pretty much everything else is good to go or, if not, poses negligible chance of bogging unless of course the underlying conditions in the scenario are wet and it is raining. 
I really wouldn't stress that much about it, if you do then the only logical outcome of this is that you will find yourself plotting unit moves from action spot to adjacent action spot so as to remove any possibility of the Tac AI making a unit cross terrain that you're not sure about and that will soon end up being very tedious indeed. Herein lies a top tip though, it is worth making the effort to plot precise moves in areas where terrain is difficult or you think that the AI will do something crazy in its pathfinding.
I hope this helps and I'm sure you'll get the hang of it with a couple more games under your belt, remember that most of us are still trying to master the challenge that CM presents after years of play because it is like chess, easy to learn the mechanics but hard to master.
What is guaranteed every time you play is that one of your best/heaviest armoured/best gunned vehicles will bog and immobilise within the first ten minutes of the game, with a full ammunition load at a point on the map where it can have absolutely no effect on the battle. This of course is Murphy's Law of Combat (Mission).

I've stopped giving Blast movement waypoints to the far side of a wall. I've instead been placing them on the same side of the wall as the troops, just slightly offset. That way they won't try to seek an alternate route around the wall to the waypoint, and they won't jump up and run blindly through the opening afterward.