Josey Wales

MINUTE 7
Looks like the situation is developping a little bit.

On my right wing, I can spot some Germans going in my direction. Looks like my men in the woods have been spotted. ☹️

Same thing on my left wing, more Germans are coming to support the one in the last screenshot of above minute 6's report.

In the center, my 60mm mortar team is almost deployed. I say almost because the turn did finish just 5 seconds before the deployment is complete. I am losing time here... 😕

On the left wing, still no opposition. Here are three screenshots with my overall positions.

MINUTE 4
On the right, the progression into the woods is going well. No opposition has been found and this is worrying me. @JoMc67 is surely waiting for me


In the center, as @IanL pointed out, I have forgotten to give my team a 30 seconds pause. I was thinking this was done by the Target Briefly. One newbie mistake, one 🙈🙊🙉 Thus, the team left the house immediately without supporting by fire the other team on the right that is under fire! 😨

By chance, the other team has reached its destination without any casualty. I think I am lucky.

For next turn, I will start to carefully progress into the woods. I am sure the Germans are setting up an ambush there.

Here is the overall situation. Still no casualties so far...

 
 

MINUTE 3
On the right wing, the squad is starting its progression into the woods, hoping to be unseen from the Germans.

On the left wing, teams are continuing their approach, one team is stopping to watch while another is doing some quick moves forward.

In the center, I am concerned that I am a little too weak. As such, I have send the rest of the squad to support the single team in the house. One team will be on the left side while the other on the right side of the objective. But, the right team gets shot at from the position I have seen them coming the previous turn...

I decide to use for the first time the new "Target Briefly" (I come from CMSF1 🙂). I am asking my team in the house to area fire during 30 seconds, with Target Briefly, and to
run out of the house to avoid return fires. Will see if that works.

Here is the overall situation at the end of the turn. Still no casualties so far...

 
 

Marvelous start.  I'll be watching how you do.. you will find that doing a complete METT-T analysis as you have shown will help you with situational awareness and give you an advantage over an opponent who does not.  Doing it against the AI is almost not fair,  against a human opponent it is a must.
As for being more careful against a human... well, I think that is wise and only natural... a human opponent is a far different experience and challenge than fighting against the AI.  They will always do something that will surprise you and that will force you to shift your plan.
You are a brave man showcasing your first PBEM game publicly.  Bravo.
Bil

MINUTE 1
And this is it: baptism by fire 😕I hope my men won't suffer of my mistakes... On the right, the squad is nearly approaching the woods without opposition.

In the center, my team is quickly going to the house to have a LOS on German's AOA2.

On the left, no opposition so far.

One could think that these men are exposed but in the two following screenshots you can see that the ridge is protecting them


Overall situation at the end of the first turn. No enemy detected so far, not a single shot. On the right, I will detach one team to take a good overwatch position and monitor the second objective and the plan of the enemy to take the first one.

Oh boy, what did I have accepted? This is my first PBEM on any game and this is of course my first PBEM on CMBN. @JoMc67 has convinced me to leave CMSF to go back in time. And, I must say this is very entertaining for me. 😃
The year is 1944. The scenario is named Meet Med Hills QB-245. This is a meeting engagement with two objectives that are closed to each other. Both sides is having a Reinforced Infantry Platoon to start with. Reinforcements (Heavy Weapons) is coming on turn 5 and one Halftrack is planned for each side on turn 10.
We agree on these 'house rules' that will make the game a little more realistic in our opinion:
No Pre-Planned Arty (or Area-Fire from Ground Units) on Turn 1 of a Meeting Engagement, or from Defender. Player will need to Call-In Arty normally (Attacker in Attack/Defense Games are exempt and can use Pre-Planned Arty). FO & HQ Units will need to Spot or have knowledge of Enemy Units or Icons on Battlefield to Call-In Arty (click on your Unit to see if it spots Enemy Units or Icons). Once that knowledge has been obtained then it can call in Arty Anywhere at Anytime on the Battlefield w/o restrictions. Players will let the Computer AI choose what Targets to shoot at (player can't choose Targets, but can still use 'Area-Fire'). Player can still use Smoke at anytime and any Location on the Map. All Units can only check LOS (and thus use 'Area-Fire') at its exact Location at beginning of turn. Players Can't click on Enemy Icons or Units during a Game (there will be some accidents from time to time). You can Area-Fire anywhere on the Map...However, the Area-Fire has to be at the closest point possible to the Enemy Unit/Icon (this includes Direct HE fire from Onboard Arty...Smoke can still be anywhere on map)... Basically, this means a Player can Area-Fire 100 meters away (if that happens to be the closest point), or 10 meters (if that happens to be the closest point). Vehicle Smoke Dischargers (not Smoke Shells) is controlled by the Computer AI, and not by the Player. We are currently at turn number 12. More to come very soon...

Based on this excellent blog: http://battledrill.blogspot.com/2015/11/mett-t-analysis.html from @Bil Hardenberger, I will try to conduct my first METT-T analysis.
MISSION
This mission is simple, my main goal is to hold the two objectives in my zone. This is a meeting engagement so I will have to reach Obj1 at the beginning of the scenario and destroy the enemy to reach Obj2 that will be surely occupied at the end of turn 1.
ENEMY
Intel is indicating that German is starting with a Reinforced Infantry Platoon followed by some Heavy Weapons coming at turn 5 and one Halftrack at turn 10.
TERRAIN
The two objectives are located at a bottom of a V formed by two hills on the left and the right side. There are quite good lines of sight across the map. Controlling the flanks should give me some overwatched positions on the two objectives.

TROOPS
I have a Reinforced Infantry Platoon but many composed of "green" soldiers. I am expecting the same reinforcement that the Germans.
TIME
I have only 20 minutes to reach both objectives plus 5 minutes extra possible.

I'm no great shakes and I've not as yet done anything other than played against the computer in combat mission. But I tend to go with whatever distances and positions I can get away with so long as those keep the C3 chain intact to some degree. For what that constitutes I refer you to the thread on C2 and information sharing that @MOS:96B2P posted, also the thread that @Josey Wales posted about unit morale and etc.
 

The danger of having a split squad is that each individual team will Rattle, Shake and Panic quicker when taking casualties than a combined squad. This is due to the percentages. 1 man KIA in a 4 man team is a 25% casualty rate, whereas 1 man KIA in a 12 man squad is...well you do the maths!
There is a case to be made for keeping a squad intact for certain specific tasks. Although this increases the risk of higher casualties from explosives, it can be useful when you want that extra bit of punch and resilience.
I will use a combined squad against a weakened position that I want gone but have no other means of getting it done other than to send in the grunts, and am confident that the position has been isolated.
Additionally splitting teams in a green or conscript squad is the best way to ensure everyone runs away at the first sign of trouble. Also if you split a squad that is Nervous (when not under suppression), you will have 1 or 2 of the teams become Rattled when split.
To add my 2 cents into the 'Fire and Manoeuvre' debate, I think that the concept would be clearer if the drill were renamed 'Fire, Fire, Fire, Fire & Manoeuvre'. The reason that this drill fails in game is typically because equal weight is given to each component. That is to say that a typical way of interpreting 'Fire and Manoeuvre' is to have 1st squad firing and 2nd squad manoeuvring (or 1 team firing and 1 team manoeuvring)
If the 80/20 rule is used, then Fire and Manoeuvre becomes much more successful.
Therefore;   'Fire, Fire, Fire, Fire & Manoeuvre'
 
 
 
 

The danger of having a split squad is that each individual team will Rattle, Shake and Panic quicker when taking casualties than a combined squad. This is due to the percentages. 1 man KIA in a 4 man team is a 25% casualty rate, whereas 1 man KIA in a 12 man squad is...well you do the maths!
There is a case to be made for keeping a squad intact for certain specific tasks. Although this increases the risk of higher casualties from explosives, it can be useful when you want that extra bit of punch and resilience.
I will use a combined squad against a weakened position that I want gone but have no other means of getting it done other than to send in the grunts, and am confident that the position has been isolated.
Additionally splitting teams in a green or conscript squad is the best way to ensure everyone runs away at the first sign of trouble. Also if you split a squad that is Nervous (when not under suppression), you will have 1 or 2 of the teams become Rattled when split.
To add my 2 cents into the 'Fire and Manoeuvre' debate, I think that the concept would be clearer if the drill were renamed 'Fire, Fire, Fire, Fire & Manoeuvre'. The reason that this drill fails in game is typically because equal weight is given to each component. That is to say that a typical way of interpreting 'Fire and Manoeuvre' is to have 1st squad firing and 2nd squad manoeuvring (or 1 team firing and 1 team manoeuvring)
If the 80/20 rule is used, then Fire and Manoeuvre becomes much more successful.
Therefore;   'Fire, Fire, Fire, Fire & Manoeuvre'
 
 
 
 

Fire & Movement and the Squad Attack Drill do not have to be 50% to the support element and 50% to the maneuver element.. I typically (and in my example above show this) have two teams back (for squads that can break into three teams) and one single team as the maneuver element.  But it can be any weight you want, and can even scale (as you described), for example you could have one full platoon providing support by fire while one squad maneuvers... etc.  What is the most important is to have enough fire being laid on the target to suppress it so the maneuver element can close and assault.

The danger of having a split squad is that each individual team will Rattle, Shake and Panic quicker when taking casualties than a combined squad. This is due to the percentages. 1 man KIA in a 4 man team is a 25% casualty rate, whereas 1 man KIA in a 12 man squad is...well you do the maths!
There is a case to be made for keeping a squad intact for certain specific tasks. Although this increases the risk of higher casualties from explosives, it can be useful when you want that extra bit of punch and resilience.
I will use a combined squad against a weakened position that I want gone but have no other means of getting it done other than to send in the grunts, and am confident that the position has been isolated.
Additionally splitting teams in a green or conscript squad is the best way to ensure everyone runs away at the first sign of trouble. Also if you split a squad that is Nervous (when not under suppression), you will have 1 or 2 of the teams become Rattled when split.
To add my 2 cents into the 'Fire and Manoeuvre' debate, I think that the concept would be clearer if the drill were renamed 'Fire, Fire, Fire, Fire & Manoeuvre'. The reason that this drill fails in game is typically because equal weight is given to each component. That is to say that a typical way of interpreting 'Fire and Manoeuvre' is to have 1st squad firing and 2nd squad manoeuvring (or 1 team firing and 1 team manoeuvring)
If the 80/20 rule is used, then Fire and Manoeuvre becomes much more successful.
Therefore;   'Fire, Fire, Fire, Fire & Manoeuvre'
 
 
 
 

The only time I do not split my squads is when they are moving in a secure area and are not likely to run into any enemy units.  In order to use real world tactics (which I highly recommend) you MUST split your squads.
Read my Battle Drill blog for explanations, specifically:  Movement Techniques, the React to Contact, Squad Attack and the Fire and Movement Battle Drills, plus the Platoon Leader section, specifically Scouting techniques. 
I hope this is helpful and not redundant... I haven't read this entire thread.
 
In my CMRT BETA AAR I laid out a Squad Attack Drill using a Soviet infantry squad.. the key to using a squad split is to ensure that the teams can be mutually supporting.  The excerpt from the AAR follows; this example shows mutually supporting fire, and leap frog movement as the Team's roles change through the attack: 
Squad Attack Drill
3rd Squad/1st Plt./4th Company that was formerly scouting for 5th company was given the task of taking out the HMG team that has been sitting on the approaches to Blau for several turns now...
The LMG Team and the Rifle Team made up my base of fire while the SMG Team was my maneuver element...
Elvis tried to extricate the HMG team but they ran right in front of the SMG team which cut down at least three of them (bottom image). Next I close and finish any survivors.

Squad Attack Drill - the finish
The survivors of the enemy HMG team that I was attacking last turn surrendered as the squad's rifle team closed on the position... the SMG Team was back in support for this move and the LMG Team moved forward as well.

All the time. Aside from creating special use teams like scouts or AT guys, just using the Split Squad command allows me to spread my troops out, making them less lucrative targets for artillery or mortars. That also allows me to use a favorite tactic if I am having to cross open ground. That is to used bounding overwatch. One team will start off using Quick and dash about 24 meters before stopping to pause for 10 seconds. The second team, after waiting 10 seconds, starts off to do the same thing. The third team, after waiting 20 seconds, starts their first leg. Keep repeating this until the turn has expired or all troops have reached their final destination. The advantages of moving this way are twofold. The spotting cycle in CM is usually around 7 seconds. So if your guys are lying down in tall grass for 10, the enemy units that might have noticed them running will forget about them and switch their attention elsewhere, which can make their fire less effective. The second advantage is that while one of your teams is up and running, the other two are able to spot and return fire on any enemy units that may have opened up on the runners. Even if they don't create any casualties, that tends to suppress the enemy and make his fire less effective.
Michael

Just goes to show you how gamey all those "realistic" RTS titles really are, don't it? Real world tactics invoke real world outcomes in CM, more so than any other game at this level that I can think of. No health bars, no armor hit points, no base rushing, just good old fashion tactics. A lot of your problems will be unlearning exploits and "tactics" that you picked up while playing pretenders. The CM1 guys had a similar problem when they transitioned from the old titles to the new engine because of the change in fidelity and abstractions. But whatever you do, don't get frustrated, once you get it you'll be rewarded with years of fun.
 
Mord.

Oh, and I wasn't a lumberjack LOL. I was a ground man on a tree crew. Same basic industry, different skill sets and machinery.
But I did skip and jump...
Mord.

I have an old buddy who, when he was 19 many year ago, spent an entire dinner party lecturing the editor of Consumer Reports magazine about EXACTLY what was wrong with his magazine and how to fix it. I'm SURE the guy greatly appreciated the input of a pimply faced teenager with black horn rim glasses who had never held down a full time job in his life.

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!
 
 

One addition, if I may.  Use smoke!  Popping smoke or shooting smoke tank / artillery / mortar rounds between your positions and enemy locations can momentarily screen your movements for safer withdrawal.  However, smoke takes a few moments to establish itself and you will need to prevent enemy advances towards the forces screened.

The Relationship between Soft Factors, Morale & Fatigue 
 
Preface
Hi all, I'm pretty new to the BFC forums but I've been milling about over at the FGM for a little over a year. I recently created the below post and it received a lot of positive feedback to the point that it has now become one of the sitcky threads over there.
I have been prompted to post the thread here and after a conversation I had in another thread on this forum, I thought that by placing it here, then non-FGM members can have a read through without me having to copy and paste snippets from the original post at the FGM.

Introduction

Whether selecting unit attributes in a quick battle or whether in game wondering if you should use your +1 Leadership squad or +2 Motivation squad to assault a farmhouse. it can be difficult to make an informed decision due to the fact that there is not a lot of information in the manual which explains how the attributes of Experience, Leadership, Motivation and Fitness (hereby collectively known as the 'Soft Factors') affect certain game concepts such as Morale, Suppression, Firepower and Fatigue.

The forums can be slightly misleading as some posts describe exactly how something works whilst others are more how people feel something is working and it can be difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.

The information below is based on a painstaking process using the editor to separate out the impact of different factors by isolating them and testing them under different conditions. By isolating and testing these factors, the mechanics behind the concepts of Morale, Suppression, Accuracy, C2 and Fatigue start to reveal themselves and after several red herrings, dead ends and lots of repetition the information below has been teased out from the game.
2 videos accompany this post to explain some of the findings, however all of the findings can be backed up by video evidence.

The editor used was the one for Fortress Italy v2.00 Engine 4.0.

SPOILER ALERT - if you prefer the murkiness of not knowing how the Soft Factors affect gameplay then please stop reading.

Having said that the following information does not quantify the game concepts affected by the soft factors but instead generalises as what is likely to happen within a certain concept under certain conditions to units with high and low values for the soft factors.


Morale

Before being able to explain the characteristics of the 'Soft Factors', it is imperative to understand how Morale works in the game.

Morale reflects the psychological state of a unit and determines its ability to respond to orders and fight.

Morale states from highest to lowest are;
 
Ok > Cautious > Nervous > Rattled > (Shaken) > (Panic) > Broken
States shown in brackets () are temporary states.

The states Ok through to Nervous are simple gradations and a Nervous unit will not behave differently from an Ok one.

Rattled troops which become Pinned (or highly suppressed) will dash for safety, even if they are stationary when they become Pinned (or highly suppressed).

Shaken troops will cower in their current position in the hope that the pressure will ease. They will not respond to orders or fire their weapons.

Note: Shaken troops observed running for cover have been Pinned (or highly suppressed) in the Rattled state prior to becoming Shaken.

Panicked troops will try and run away from the perceived threat to save their own hides. They will not respond to orders or fire their weapons.

Shaken and Panicked states are temporary and will eventually revert back to one of the other persistent states depending on the situation and the Experience, Leadership and Motivation of the unit.

Broken troops will respond to orders but are 'Brittle' and will quickly become Shaken or Panicked if fired upon. Broken troops will remain Brittle for the remainder of the battle irrespective of their Experience, Leadership, Motivation and Fitness.

Morale is affected by 2 conditions of the battlefield and each of these conditions impact on Morale in different ways.
 
1. Combat Stress

Combat Stress has a persistent impact on Morale and is caused by casualty build up.

Casualties sustained reduce the Morale of the unit for the remainder of the game and is therefore known as a persistent effect.

Morale affected in this way cannot be regained (except under one specific condition - see Leadership). The impact of Combat Stress depends on the number of casualties sustained over time and the Experience, Leadership and Motivation of the unit.

Not only does taking casualties effect the Morale of the unit directly impacted, other units organisationally closely connected are also affected in the same way but to a lesser extent. The persistent Morale effect of casualty build up only effects other units via organisational connection regardless of geographical proximity.

Example 1 - 1st and 2nd Sqd of 1st Plt are separated by 500m. As 1st squad sustains casualties and suffers a persistent Morale impact, 2nd Sqd will also suffer a persistent Morale impact even though it is 500m away and has no LOS to 1st Sqd.

Example 2 - 1st Sqd of 1st Plt is within 10m of 3rdSqd of 2nd Plt. 3rd Sqd of 2nd Plt receives incoming fire and half of the unit is wiped out and the Sqd is instantly Shaken. 1st Sqd of 1st Plt receives no impact to their persistent Morale state due to the fact that they are in a different Platoon. 2nd Plt would have to take far more casualties before any of 1st Plt become affected.

The way that Combat Stress is distributed to other units is vertical between different platoons and companies although it is horizontal between units of the same platoon.


2. Combat Shock

Combat Shock has a temporary impact on Morale and is caused by suppression.          Suppression has a temporary impact on Morale and the affect is removed once the suppression is lifted.

         The duration the unit remains suppressed for depends on the amount of incoming Firepower, the immediate casualties sustained, Experience & Leadership of the unit.

         The temporary impact on Morale of being suppressed depends on the amount of incoming Firepower, the immediate casualties sustained and the Experience, Leadership & Motivation of the unit.


Suppression Indicator

The Suppression Indicator is not merely a measure of incoming fire, more accurately it represents the units perception as to how much danger it is in based on the incoming Firepower, the immediate casualties sustained, and the Experience, Leadership & Motivation of the unit.

Inexperienced, poorly led and unmotivated units suffer the greatest Morale impact from being suppressed whilst inexperienced and poorly led units can remain suppressed for sometime after the last shot was fired in their direction.
 
Pinned

If the Suppression Indicator becomes full the unit becomes Pinned. Stationary Pinned (or highly suppressed) troops will return fire but will not respond to movement orders until the suppression has reduced.

Troops which become Pinned (or highly suppressed) whilst moving to a waypoint will attempt to dash for cover. If no cover is nearby, they will hit the deck.

Rattled troops which become Pinned (or highly suppressed) will dash for safety, even if they are stationary when they become Pinned.

Experienced and well led troops recover from being Pinned quicker than inexperienced or poorly led troops.
  C2 - Command & Control

C2, or Command and Control, reflects the effect of having a unit being able to receive orders from and deliver information to its HQ team.

Being within a C2 link does not provide resistance to the persistent impact on Morale caused by Combat Stress.

Being within a close C2 link (Close Visual/Voice) does provide resistance to the impact on Morale caused by Combat Shock - troops within C2 range of their HQ unit are less affected by the temporary impact of suppression upon Morale as they are less stressed by being shot at and the immediate impact of seeing team/squadmates killed & wounded is reduced.

More experienced units pass on information to their buddies and superiors quicker than less experienced units. This includes verbal, visual and radio communications.

The range of visual and audio C2 is fixed for all Soft Factors, Morale and Fatigue states but will vary by terrain. In open ground;
: Voice range < 50m (unless the HQ is hiding in which case voice range drops to <25m)
: Close visual range <100m

  Experience

Experience reflects the amount of training and combat experience the unit has.

Experience levels from least experience/training to most experience are;
 
Conscript > Green > Regular > Veteran > Crack > Elite
Experience has 6 characteristics which impact on the unit;
 
1. Spotting - troops with higher experience are able to spot enemy contacts sooner than less experienced troops.

2. Firepower - higher experienced troops will engage at longer ranges and have greater accuracy than less experienced troops. They therefore tend to cause more casualties to the enemy than their less experienced counterparts during a firefight.

3. Resistance to Combat Stress - more experienced troops are less affected by the psychological impact of losing team/squadmates.

This characteristic is cumulative with Leadership and Motivation. 

4. Resistance to Combat Shock - experienced troops are less affected by the temporary impact of suppression upon Morale. They are more used to being shot at and better desensitised to the immediate impact of seeing team/squadmates killed & wounded than less experienced troops.

This characteristic is cumulative with Leadership and Motivation. 

5. Suppression Recovery - experienced troops recover quicker from being suppressed (including being Pinned), they realise when the incoming fire has shifted away from them sooner than less experienced troops do.

This characteristic is cumulative with Leadership.

6. More experienced units pass on information to their buddies and superiors quicker than less experienced units. This includes verbal, visual and radio communications.

Leadership

Leadership reflects the quality of NCO's or other team leaders in the team or squad to organise and support the troops. Leaders can be of varying quality.

Leadership is shown as a simple modifier ranging from;
 
-2 > -1 > 0 > +1 > +2 Note: A Leadership modifier only applies to the unit with the Modifier (like all other modifiers). In other words it does not filter down to sub-ordinate units (see HQ Leadership Modifier Example).

Leadership has 3 characteristics which effect unit behaviour under duress;
 
1. Resistance to Combat Stress - better led troops are less affected by the psychological impact of losing team/squadmates.

This characteristic is cumulative with Experience and Motivation.

2. Resistance to Combat Shock - well led troops are less affected by the temporary impact of suppression upon Morale. The NCO's are better at encouraging the troops under fire and getting them to remember their training when faced with the immediate impact of seeing team/squadmates killed & wounded.

This characteristic is cumulative with Experience and Motivation.

3. Suppression Recovery - well led troops recover quicker from being suppressed (including being Pinned), they realise when the incoming fire has shifted away from them sooner than poorly led troops do.

This characteristic is cumulative with Experience.  Unlike the characteristics denoted by Experience, if the Leader of a team or squad is incapacitated, the Leadership value of the unit will change to that of the next most senior member who steps up as the Leader. This value can go up as well as down, for example, a unit with a +1 Leader incapacitated and replaced by a -1 Leader will suffer a hit on Morale which may be enough to cause a persistent drop in the unit's Morale state. Similarly however, if a -2 Leader is incapacitated and replaced with a 0 Leader, the unit will receive a boost in Morale which may be enough to cause a persistent increase in the unit's Morale state.

Note: In Engine v4.0 manual page 68 it states that a Leadership bonus will help "direct fire to be more effective". However, this has not been possible to reproduce using various tests. Whereas the difference in accuracy between Crack units and Green units is repeatable and obvious, the effect of Leadership on accuracy is not apparent.

  HQ Leadership Modifier Example

Reading some posts, there is a lot of confusion over how this Modifier works with HQ units. So I will clarify it here.

The Leadership (Ldrshp) modifier for all units (from Btn Hqs through to Plt Hqs down to squads and teams) only effects the unit that the modifier is for, in the same way that a -2 Fitness modifier only effects the fitness of the unit that the modifier is for.

In fact, it helps to think of the Leadership modifier in the same was as the Fitness modifier. An unfit Plt HQ does not make all of the squads in that platoon unfit aswell.

So a squad with a -1 Ldrshp modifier is not offset by the +1 Ldrshp modifier of its Plt HQ. The squad will still suffer the penalties of having -1 Ldrshp.

So how does having a Plt HQ with a poor leader affect the performance of the Platoon?

This is best illustrated with an example;
  Lt Bike is the Plt Leader of 1st Plt. He has a Leadership modifier of -2. All 3 of the squads in 1st Plt are Regulars with average ability NCO's so no Ldrshp modifiers for the squads. For reference 1st Plt HQ is also Regular.

1st Plt are on a patrol and 1st Squad makes contact with an enemy force. After a couple of minutes, the casualties from 1st Sqd begin to mount. Not only does this have a persistent Morale affect on 1st Sqd, it also has a persistent Morale affect on the other 2 Squads and the Plt HQ because of their close organisational link.

However, because the Plt HQ has Lt Bike with his -2 Ldrshp modifier, it suffers a greater impact on Morale than 2nd or 3rd Sqd does from the build up of 1st Sqds casualties.

After another minute of combat, the persistent morale states of the Platoon are;
  Plt HQ - Rattled
1st Squad - Rattled
2nd Squad - Nervous
3rd Squad - Nervous As the combatants manoeuvre for position, the Plt HQ comes under fire. As the HQ team is already Rattled, it doesn't take much suppression to drop their Morale state temporarily into Shaken.

Now that the HQ unit is Shaken, the C2 link between the HQ and the 3 squads is cut. This makes the squads more vulnerable to the Morale effects of suppression (see C2 - Command & Control).

As 1st Squad is already under suppressive fire, its Morale state instanteously drops from Rattled to Shaken because of the loss of the C2 link (see C2 - Command & Control).

The HQ will take longer to recover from the supression than it normally would for a Regular unit because of its -2 Ldrshp modifier, meaning that as a consequence, the C2 link is broken for longer.

So we now have the following situation after 5 minutes;
  Plt HQ - Shaken
1st Squad - Shaken
2nd Squad - Nervous
3rd Squad - Nervous If we rewind the clock and give Lt Bike +2 Ldrshp modifier, then re-run under exactly the same circumstances the situation would have been after 5 minutes;
  Plt HQ - Nervous
1st Squad - Rattled
2nd Squad - Nervous
3rd Squad - Nervous This is because the Plt HQ would not have been so affected by the casualty build up of 1st Sqd so that when the HQ came under some suppressive fire, it was still in a high enough Morale state not to become Shaken by it and therefore the C2 link between the HQ and the Squads and the benefits it brings (see C2 - Command & Control) would still be intact.



Motivation

Motivation reflects the units dedication to the cause and their willingness to sacrifice themselves for their squad mates and commanders.

Motivation from best to worst ranges as;
 
Poor > Low > Normal > High > Extreme > Fanatic Motivation has 3 characteristics which effect unit behaviour under duress;
 
1. Resistance to Combat Stress - better motivated troops are less affected by the psychological impact of losing team/squadmates.

This characteristic is cumulative with Experience and Leadership.

2. Resistance to Combat Shock - highly motivated troops are less affected by the temporary impact of suppression upon Morale. They are less psychologically affected by being shot at and better desensitised to the immediate impact of seeing team/squadmates killed & wounded than their less motivated counterparts.

This characteristic is cumulative with Experience and Leadership.

3. Resistance to Panic and Breaking - highly motivated troops can be Shaken but are less likely to Panic and try to run from the fight to save themselves. They are also more likely to recover to a positive morale state after being Shaken than less motivated troops and are less likely to become Broken and Brittle.

Fanatic units will not surrender.
Fatigue

Fatigue is the physical effect of running around and using up energy.

Fatigue states best to worst are;
 
Rested > Ready > Tiring > Tired > Fatigued > Exhausted
Tired troops cannot Fast Move.

Fatigued troops cannot Fast, Assault or Hunt Move.

Exhausted troops cannot Fast, Assault, Hunt or Quick Move.

More tired troops do not move slower than less tired troops moving at the same movement command, ie Unfit troops moving at Fast Move, cover distance at the same rate as Fit troops moving at Fast Move, they just won't be able to keep up that pace for as long.

Keeping troops stationary recovers their fatigue relatively quickly. Hiding troops has no additional benefit.

Troops will recover fatigue whilst at the Move but it is at a slower rate.

Experience, Leadership and Motivation do not effect Fatigue states or recovery times.

Fatigue has no effect on Morale either from Combat Stress or Combat Shock.

Fatigue has no effect on accuracy nor the range at which targets are engaged at.


Fitness

Fitness represents a units physical resistance to Fatigue.

Fitness states from best to worst are;
 
Fit > Weakened > Unfit  
Fitness has 3 characteristics which effect unit behaviour under physical exertion;

1. Fitter troops tire less quickly from Fast Move (sprinting), Slow Move (crawling) and Quick Move (jogging).

2. Fitter troops recover from tired states sooner than less fit troops.

3. Weakened and Unfit troops recover fatigue on the Move extremely slowly.  
Closing

All of the conclusions made above have been arrived at through thorough isolation and testing procedures which can be backed up by video evidence.

There is more stuff in the CMx2 engine to dig up than what has been uncovered here but for now I'm unable to go further into this rabbit hole.

Hopefully the information presented here clears up some of the historical confusions that have been around on the various forums. It may also affect the way in which unit purchases are thought about, and hopefully it allows players to make better informed tactical decisions and enhance the way their game is played.

Josey Wales updated 24/09/17

As a ex-artillery officer, here are the principal differences between the types of platforms.
Mortars are high angle only and are incapable of direct fire.  Given an equal caliber, a mortar will have a higher rate of fire than a howitzer or a field gun.  Mortars (except for the very largest) can be broken down and man packed or carried by improvised transport (like the bed of a pickup truck).  For getting directly behind tall intervening terrain with fire, they are a preferred weapon.  Most effective against infantry, limited effectiveness against vehicles, emplacements and buildings.   Lethality inceases with caliber but portabillity/mobility decreases.
Howitzers are capable of direct fire, indirect fire and high angle fire.  They are either towed or self propelled.  Can get really big calibers.  Very effective against infantry, limited against vehicles and emplacements.  Preferred weapon of choice of you don't have airpower and want to level a position, a building or structure.  Biggest variety of ammuntion type - illumination, Smoke - Base Ejecting, Smoke - WP, Cannister (anti-infantry direct fire),HE, ICM, DPICM,  and smart munitions and variable time and time fused ammunition.
Field Guns are direct fire weapons and in a pinch, can do low angle indirect fire, limiting their range and usefulness.  A anti-tank gun is a example of a specialized field gun, for example.  Can get to big calibers like howitzers and are either towed or self propelled.  Not a lot of field guns are made anymore due to their limitations as tanks have largely taken over the roles the field guns used to provide.
In general, the larger the caliber, the bigger the lethal zone.  The larger the round, the smaller the CEP (Circular Error Probable) footprint - a fancy way of saying that if you want to hit a point target, you get the biggest caliber you can get as the round is more stable in the air and less affect by meterological and has a smaller CEP footprint.
The larger the caliber, the more destructive it is to vehicles and structures and emplacements.  Bigger is better.
Call or response times are not weapon dependent.  They are determined by the communications capability and doctrines of the C3 systems used by the army in question.  Lighter weapons like small mortars can be set up quickly and torn down quickly but once emplaced, once a call for fire goes out, it is the C3 systems, crew training and observer training that determine how fast you see a round on the ground.
Combat Mission games try to simulate artillery systems and capability.  Why does it take longer to get a 155mm round on the ground verses a 80mm mortar round base on what I stated above?   The delay is to simulate the fact that mortars are closer to the enemy than howitzer systems and to reflect time of flight realities.  For example,  most of the time, a mortar 1 km from the enemy will tend to have a round on the ground sooner than a 155mm howtizer shooting from 7 km away. And the chain of command / communication issues are simulated as well.  A US 155mm is not inherently faster than a Soviet built 152mm yet in game, the US player will get fire for effect well before the Syrian player will.  This is doctrine and C3I being simulated in game.  So the bigger delay in response time is coded into the game to 'simulate' that.
Hope that answers your questions.

Howitzer can fire at a steep/high angle ( a bit like a mortar trajectory) and thus can shoot at targets closer than a "gun".  Good for landing on targets behind walls for example.  Not sure if that effect is modeled in CM.
All calibers are good vs infantry - altho' the larger (105mm) and larger are increasingly effective vs buildings and vehicles - so may be a waste to use large caliber vs infantry (unless inf is your primary problem).
The smaller calibers are usually faster to call for and arrive - so 60mm and smaller can be kept close to your inf and used for direct fire (assuming the mortars are safe from enemy fire).
 
 
 

Perhaps the number of scenarios skews away from the depiction of the war as a whole, but certainly no specific individual scenario can be described as an inaccurate description of any particular tactical situation that is created based upon the available documentation.  Much of the source material available tends to discuss Tigers, Panthers, SS, etcetera in more detail than the other stuff.  Perhaps that wasn't always the case, but many books that were written in the fifties and sixties aren't necessarily available anymore.  I think every US division had a divisional history that was published shortly after the war, but most of those books aren't available and those that are typically aren't detailed enough to be useable as a primary source for scenario creation.  If you look over what's available on Amazon in terms of unit histories, the ones that are available in English anyway, are going to be Panzer Divisions, SS Divisions, and some American divisions.  Even divisional histories of Commonwealth units are relatively difficult to come by, at least on Amazon in America.  Battle histories in general will be done about fighting that was 'important' or 'interesting' from either an operational or strategic perspective and, yes, many if not most of those actions involved German Panzer Divisions or SS Divisions since those were the types of units that were generally present where the action was the hottest or the most important.  There are a few very good divisional histories of standard divisions where some 'common' battle types can be pulled from, but those types of books are probably on the more uncommon side of things.   
So a scenario designer who is making something 'historical' is restricted in the reference material that is available.  The designer also wants to create something that's interesting.  What makes a scenario interesting probably falls into two categories.  A scenario can be interesting if it uses interesting units or equipment or a scenario can be interesting by depicting a certain tactical situation.  Who wants to play ten scenarios that all depict the same tactical situation with the same standard units?  Maybe for players who prefer quick battles I suppose there might be some interest in that, although the player is choosing his own force under those circumstances so the force is personalized to the player who is selecting it.  A scenario needs to strive for more in order to grab the average player's attention and make for an interesting gaming experience. 

Ohh man wouldn’t that be a scenario to piss people off.  The briefing tells you a platoon of tigers is expected in 15 minutes. At the 20 minute mark you get a reinforcement notice that the tigers are bogged and all that shows up is a kubelwagen messenger.  LOL

This is getting unnecessarily heated.  I am not sure if that is a cross communication issue or not.   Liederkranz was creating (somewhat humorously) the example of a BN commander (as a CM level player) who decided he hadn't liked his order or the battle situation.  He was doing it to make the point that the battle you are presented in any CM scenario is not necessarily one you would chose.  I recently had a player ask me to Beta test a scenario that is deliberately a nightmare scenario for a player commander.  It is also a very realistic concept based on actual events.  The way I look at all CM scenarios is whatever has led up to the current situation is not something under my control.  However no matter how f**ked up it is, I now own it as the commander of my forces and I need to proceed with my objectives in mind and the resources at hand. period.  There are some scenarios that simply aren't something that interests me.  Some of those are likely damn good.  I just have my own interests and some I really like are not going to appeal to other people.
I went back and read that thread.  From what I can tell on it (and I have not played that campaign so I don't really have an opinion) 5 of those who responded that had actually played it liked it.  At least equal to those critical.  So what I get out of that thread - JasonC could be obnoxious, some people didn't like the scenario, some people did, Sgt Joch had actually done a good deal of research which no one actually contradicted.
Given that I would say there is absolutely no grounds to conclude from that thread that there is anything to actually correct. There is an opinion voiced, saying it is assuredly the only correct opinion is a completely subjective statement.  I do not take JasonC's word as gospel.  I have seen him recommend a particular ToE design for a scenario and then later trash the designer for using that exact same ToE.  When called on it he just disappeared for a bit and wouldn't own up to what he had done.  In my eyes that lowers the value of anything he posts.  I can handle differences of opinion, I can handle being proven wrong and having to reassess my view of something no matter how sure I thought I was at start.  Dishonesty I do not tolerate.
You have now repeatedly lambasted most of the scenario designers in a fairly obnoxious manner with only the broadest brush statements about what "they are getting wrong".  I am trying to be objective and welcome you as a new poster, but I have to say I am kind of leaning towards what Gundolf just posted.