com-intern

Yea I always enjoyed JasonC's posts. I don't mind people being fiery as long as they are posting good content. Too often you don't get that combination but JasonC would call you an idiot and then layout in detail why you were one which is valuable in a lot of ways. In the discussion on tank gun damage I would be interested to see his input for example.


 

From my perspective I don't necessarily want to (or always) follow doctrine to the the nth degree but playing out a scenario in a way that is close enough to doctrine can definitely be enjoyable. I recently finished Glantz's Leningrad book and recall a passage describing a Soviet assault where essentially had a rolling barrage ~200 meters (maybe 300m) in front of the infantry. The logic being that yes you are going to lose men to short rounds but this allowed the men to be on top of the Germans as the barrage passed over.

I wouldn't want every scenario I play to be that sort of attack but it would be interesting to mess around with it in a scenario or two. And for my money I'd kinda  prefer the campaigns to be a bit more generic in their scenario structure. Too often I feel like they try to throw curveballs at you and while I don't mind that in one-off scenarios I find it quite annoying in the context of a campaign. Which getting back to the Soviet campaign in Red Thunder I felt that too many of the scenarios were not giving you adequate equipment to complete them in a reasonable fashion.

Generally I agree with @SimpleSimon  Excepting that I did win it on my first go. It was years ago but I recall moving my entire force up a board edge for most of the playtime and then coming in on the objectives. It wasn't fun and frankly I would have enjoyed having an artillery barrage far more as there would at least have been eye candy. Really the worst part is that Soviet assault tactics are actually quite interesting and playing them out would be an enjoyable challenge. Not least of which because most players will not have carried out an attack like that while playing CM.

I did not complete the campaign, making it to the fourth or fifth mission, but generally the whole experience reinforces my dislike for the CMx2 campaign system.

But by your own admission you're not playing for these reasons. There's nothing tactical about the way the way you play thus the whole notion of it being a war game to you is inconsistent with you just saying you want to play it for the sake of playing it. Correct me? 
Wow ya got me i'm off by 100 helmets. Never mind all the other points I tried to highlight here or you just flat out not reading my post about the SU-76's not being proper armor support. Christ sake there's more anti-tank mines and obstacles on the map than the player has SU-76s! Ain't even got to the 3 entrenched Pak 40s in mutually supporting positions yet. I'm surprised your tactical sensibility isn't picking up on the problem with all of this. 
Well that's a shame because now i'll have to just expound on my own question without your input. Think i'd rather not have it you won't read any of my post though. Otherwise whats the point of "haha you see I could deconstruct your point line by line but...I shant!" lmao whatever. Calm down before posting in the future.  
Hammer's Flank cannot be won in a single save, first time playthrough. Want to play through it to play through it? Fine. I personally don't understand why you don't just go play Sudoku and save the money. It's been had out already that it's historic credibility is zero and the designer admitted that his research was inadequate. So if the only reasoning left to justify a play through is that Crossing the River is an attack gone bad and an example of an event beyond the player's control you can surely play it on those grounds but...why bother? 
But Crossing the River actually wants you to win. It wants you to achieve its extremely over ambitious victory condition or it viciously fails you. Which means the designer expects you to solve it and there's no way you can do so without cheating. It's badly designed. That it's "playable" is completely tangential. There will never be a scenario in any of the games that can't be won absolutely flawlessly with zero player casualties as long as the player is willing to discard every possible notion of realism or simulation. But a scenario designed around forcing you to do this is a waste of your time, or mischievous, and shouldn't be in a campaign. Yeah it's playable but...who wants to play this way? 
Some people say it's winnable in a single save first time playthrough and that they've done it. Also i'm a Scottish Lord.   
 

Understandings of the "Way of the Red Army" are clouded by decades of Cold War recalcitrance by the Russian Archives in sharing information and experience from the war and lack of English accounts in the west except those written by the Germans. German accounts have plenty of problems though racism being among them.
Two up and one back or its inverse of one up and two back is a US Army concept. That's how Regimental or Battalion Officers thought out attacks in the US Army. A typical attack by a Rifle Division troop or Guards Rifles would be straight on. All three Companies in line with each other pushing through the same narrow slice of map, ignoring the rest of the map and in doing so making the defense of those sections irrelevant. This is why Hammer's Flank is badly designed because the 2nd objective-line is an occupy line and it's a huge slice of the map you have to totally clean the Germans out of the objective area. In fact all 3 objective lines should be touch objectives, completed on reach. Red Army commanders don't care about the parts of the German defense not in their way.
Through this description it's also easy to misunderstand what actually happened in an attack. Nobody in the Red Army was honestly expected to just suicide rush an enemy defense, Penal Battalions maybe but they were convicts. It's a simple fire-and-advance maneuver mostly unlike western notions of fix-and-flank. You put the German defenders into a bind by forcing them to either open fire too soon or too late. This requires you to have more firepower than the Germans, not everywhere but definitely the slice of map you plan on advancing your force through. If the Germans try to shoot your men down as assault teams advance, they should face the wrath of God for doing so. You're doing well if your men can get within grenade range of the Germans without having suffered many casualties or much wear for it. 
The trouble with Hammer's Flank is that the base support you need to conduct the attack doesn't materialize. The defense has more firepower than you everywhere and they're too dense to simply penetrate at any point via maneuver. If the attack had been intended merely as a feint than the objectives should be changed entirely. 

The German defense headcount in Crossing the River is just under 300ish men to your 600. This is an immediate and open violation of the well understood precept of base 3:1 odds against a identical defender in the post Flanders world of modern war. 
Attack check either on the grounds of game of history should fail here, but ok let's be unreasonable and just say that we're going to force the attack because Stalin or because incompetence or because miscommunication etc.
The defenders are dug in, extensively. Most of their command staff and a good number of their troops are in bunkers with over-head cover immune to mortars and difficult for the SU-76s to see or hit beyond around 300 meters or so. The forests are extensively and comprehensively rigged with mines, bombs, barbed wire all of which is under the over watch of local German infantry who have snipers and machine guns able to cross-fire over these defenses. All told these features really abstract the defender to a 1:1 match against your force thanks to the enormous preparation of his untouched defense. 
Attack check should fail here. But let's keep being unreasonable and push ahead because we're really going for that Hero of the Soviet Union medal and are totally unscrupulous and ruthless in our desire to look nice in post-war photos in our Moscow flat.
The defenders have twice as much artillery support as you do by weight of fire alone, it's pre-sighted onto TRPs all of which totally cover the valid terrain movement tiles. You literally cannot move a Company, in open sprint, through these tiles ignoring counter fire from the defenders in time to avoid having them caught in a bombardment. Moving them through the forest causes them to leave behind the SU-76s, sacrificing the only tool of your heavy firepower other than than the 6 82mm mortars which are literally useless against the Germans in bunkers throughout the map. 
Attack check should again fail here. You're not scared of being assassinated by your men though because you're the player and you're an omniscient god playing a video game so who cares what SimpleSimon and countless others on the forum have advised about play  of this scenario doing nothing to obscure how openly ridiculous it is on grounds of game design. You want to play through it.
Many sections of the map are arbitrary non-movement areas. The game literally does not allow you to move men through them because screw it, forcing you to confront the defender-plan via a painstakingly slow surgical deconstruction that we can succeed at without save-scumming 100% of the time (just 93% of the time) thanks to other ways the game allows us to cheat via player super-awareness and omniscience and the TARGET HEAVY/LIGHT commands which take effect instantaneously and precisely.
By this point we're not playing for any kind of historic credibility here it's just solving the scenario for the sake of solving the scenario, completely gaming it, completely cheesing it right?  This is the point where if your perspective on the game is just different from mine that's totally valid you can play this way if you want.  But I just want to ask....
Why are you playing Combat Mission? 

Essentially yea. The game doesn't need any actual AI but if you give designer more options then you could have much more competent scenario AI.

Triggers based on % casualties for an AI group, AI group SOPs and so on. Essentially ways for the scenario designer to say IF THIS THEN THAT for their plans. It'd make the AI more resilient and make scenario design far easier. As right now good design requires a ton of play through to get a feel for "most likely outcomes" and sort of prediction of what players will do. For example, I made an AI attack scenario a few years ago and essentially watched and recorded the results of a ton of slight variations of an attack. Like most of the AI creation time was just trying to figure out how well the attack went and then trying to see into the players mind. If I could have just said "DO this attack until X then do Y" it would have made a more competent opponent and not taking so many hours.


---

If you look at my second example in my long post you can kind of see what I'm talking about. Essentially a trigger for % casualties suffered by AI group opens up a lot of options we don't current;y have. It isn't extremely different but each additional trigger allows for increasingly complex scenario AI design.

Fundamentally the issue is that the strategic AI does not exist. Only tactical AI and that AI is only reactive never proactive. What we all call the strategic AI is simply the designer creating from scratch a per scenario AI that is going to follow a rote path. The real limiter on scenario design is that the designer is pretty limited on their ability to build scenario specific AI. Cool things can be done with it but its still limited.
Its not abstract thinking - you just consider it abstract thinking because @RepsolCBR described it using human language. You can achieve RepsolCBR's "abstract thinking" via logic gates. The scenario designer is doing this right now its just that the options are limited. Below for example is a series of options that can be done in-game currently. #5 could be construed by some people as abstract thinking but its really just a trigger.

1. The AI is to move at a cautious speed
2. AI is to attack starting from POINT Alfa to Point Bravo with GROUP 1
3. The AI may call artillery on LOCATION November
4. After arriving the AI will delay 20 minutes
5. The AI will attack from Point Bravo to Point Delta if enemy troops detected at LOCATION NOVEMBER


Now if you had more detailed and granular options with the inclusion of SOPs and some free flow from the AI you could get more natural reactions.

1. The AI is to move at a cautious speed
2. AI is to attack starting from POINT Alfa to Point Bravo with GROUP 1
3A: If GROUP 1 sustains 50% casualties reroute GROUP 1 and GROUP 2 TO POINT CHARLIE.
3B: Once POINT CHARLIE is reached proceed to POINT BRAVO
3. The AI may call artillery on LOCATION November
4. After arriving the GROUP 1 will delay 20 minutes
4A: If GROUP 1 casulties > 40% cancel all orders proceed to DEFENSE POSITION
5. GROUP 1 will attack from Point Bravo to Point NOVEMBER if enemy troops detected at LOCATION NOVEMBER

All of the above could again be done within the bounds of the scenario designer system in the game currently. Just a bunch of triggers.


And again if you gave the AI some free hand you might not even need to do all of this.

1. The AI is to move at a cautious speed
2. AI is to attack starting from POINT Alfa to Point Bravo with GROUP 1
AI LOGIC: If GROUP 1 engaged by infantry ClOSER than 200 meters TARGET BRIEFLY 50% of buildings within 200 Meters along route of march. 100% of buildings that contain contact marker
Now you have the AI automatically reacting to a group threat. A single unit in the group has detected an infantry threat at close range and now the entire group is going to react via searching fire. If the AI suspects that a unit is there (a contact marker) it will definitely fire at the position.

AI LOGIC: If GROUP 1 Casualties > 50% reroute remainder 400 meters Left/Right to area of greater cover and attempt to move to AI POINT CHARLIE and then to POINT BRAVO

And the AI will no longer continue a suicidal attack down a single avenue of approach but attempt another route. All it does it say "where is more cover" and then add its own intermediate waypoint between ALFA and BRAVO


-----

All of these examples have something in them that you might consider "abstract thinking" but none of it actually is. Its all just a series of decision points that the AI arrives at. The difference between CM and many other games is that there are no decision points for the AI at all. Any decision is inputed by the scenario designer. You don't necessarily need the AI to make its own decisions and the CM system is fine. But as we;ve seen over the years the more power you give the designer the smarter the AI can appear.

I've done both some Arma scenario design and Combat Mission and the Arma system has no real strategic AI either and is handled by player triggers. The system is far more complex and as a result you can get far more complex results from it if you put in the time.

Edit: I will say I've done some game AI design and none of its simple. But you do not need an AI capable of abstract thinking. You just need to spend enough time working with it so that the maths behind each decision makes sense most of the time. Abstract thinking really only comes into play when you want a universal AI but no one here is talking about that. This is all just bespoke AI that exists solely to play Combat Mission - you can do that and do it quite well with the technology on hand. The issue is that building it is going to eat up time. Which is, I assume, why we have the scenario designer doing AI programming. Which again is fine, but the more options you give the designer the better the resulting AI can be. Any of the recommendations people have made could be done with a designer system there are just insufficient options for it currently.

Fundamentally the issue is that the strategic AI does not exist. Only tactical AI and that AI is only reactive never proactive. What we all call the strategic AI is simply the designer creating from scratch a per scenario AI that is going to follow a rote path. The real limiter on scenario design is that the designer is pretty limited on their ability to build scenario specific AI. Cool things can be done with it but its still limited.
Its not abstract thinking - you just consider it abstract thinking because @RepsolCBR described it using human language. You can achieve RepsolCBR's "abstract thinking" via logic gates. The scenario designer is doing this right now its just that the options are limited. Below for example is a series of options that can be done in-game currently. #5 could be construed by some people as abstract thinking but its really just a trigger.

1. The AI is to move at a cautious speed
2. AI is to attack starting from POINT Alfa to Point Bravo with GROUP 1
3. The AI may call artillery on LOCATION November
4. After arriving the AI will delay 20 minutes
5. The AI will attack from Point Bravo to Point Delta if enemy troops detected at LOCATION NOVEMBER


Now if you had more detailed and granular options with the inclusion of SOPs and some free flow from the AI you could get more natural reactions.

1. The AI is to move at a cautious speed
2. AI is to attack starting from POINT Alfa to Point Bravo with GROUP 1
3A: If GROUP 1 sustains 50% casualties reroute GROUP 1 and GROUP 2 TO POINT CHARLIE.
3B: Once POINT CHARLIE is reached proceed to POINT BRAVO
3. The AI may call artillery on LOCATION November
4. After arriving the GROUP 1 will delay 20 minutes
4A: If GROUP 1 casulties > 40% cancel all orders proceed to DEFENSE POSITION
5. GROUP 1 will attack from Point Bravo to Point NOVEMBER if enemy troops detected at LOCATION NOVEMBER

All of the above could again be done within the bounds of the scenario designer system in the game currently. Just a bunch of triggers.


And again if you gave the AI some free hand you might not even need to do all of this.

1. The AI is to move at a cautious speed
2. AI is to attack starting from POINT Alfa to Point Bravo with GROUP 1
AI LOGIC: If GROUP 1 engaged by infantry ClOSER than 200 meters TARGET BRIEFLY 50% of buildings within 200 Meters along route of march. 100% of buildings that contain contact marker
Now you have the AI automatically reacting to a group threat. A single unit in the group has detected an infantry threat at close range and now the entire group is going to react via searching fire. If the AI suspects that a unit is there (a contact marker) it will definitely fire at the position.

AI LOGIC: If GROUP 1 Casualties > 50% reroute remainder 400 meters Left/Right to area of greater cover and attempt to move to AI POINT CHARLIE and then to POINT BRAVO

And the AI will no longer continue a suicidal attack down a single avenue of approach but attempt another route. All it does it say "where is more cover" and then add its own intermediate waypoint between ALFA and BRAVO


-----

All of these examples have something in them that you might consider "abstract thinking" but none of it actually is. Its all just a series of decision points that the AI arrives at. The difference between CM and many other games is that there are no decision points for the AI at all. Any decision is inputed by the scenario designer. You don't necessarily need the AI to make its own decisions and the CM system is fine. But as we;ve seen over the years the more power you give the designer the smarter the AI can appear.

I've done both some Arma scenario design and Combat Mission and the Arma system has no real strategic AI either and is handled by player triggers. The system is far more complex and as a result you can get far more complex results from it if you put in the time.

Edit: I will say I've done some game AI design and none of its simple. But you do not need an AI capable of abstract thinking. You just need to spend enough time working with it so that the maths behind each decision makes sense most of the time. Abstract thinking really only comes into play when you want a universal AI but no one here is talking about that. This is all just bespoke AI that exists solely to play Combat Mission - you can do that and do it quite well with the technology on hand. The issue is that building it is going to eat up time. Which is, I assume, why we have the scenario designer doing AI programming. Which again is fine, but the more options you give the designer the better the resulting AI can be. Any of the recommendations people have made could be done with a designer system there are just insufficient options for it currently.

Fundamentally the issue is that the strategic AI does not exist. Only tactical AI and that AI is only reactive never proactive. What we all call the strategic AI is simply the designer creating from scratch a per scenario AI that is going to follow a rote path. The real limiter on scenario design is that the designer is pretty limited on their ability to build scenario specific AI. Cool things can be done with it but its still limited.
Its not abstract thinking - you just consider it abstract thinking because @RepsolCBR described it using human language. You can achieve RepsolCBR's "abstract thinking" via logic gates. The scenario designer is doing this right now its just that the options are limited. Below for example is a series of options that can be done in-game currently. #5 could be construed by some people as abstract thinking but its really just a trigger.

1. The AI is to move at a cautious speed
2. AI is to attack starting from POINT Alfa to Point Bravo with GROUP 1
3. The AI may call artillery on LOCATION November
4. After arriving the AI will delay 20 minutes
5. The AI will attack from Point Bravo to Point Delta if enemy troops detected at LOCATION NOVEMBER


Now if you had more detailed and granular options with the inclusion of SOPs and some free flow from the AI you could get more natural reactions.

1. The AI is to move at a cautious speed
2. AI is to attack starting from POINT Alfa to Point Bravo with GROUP 1
3A: If GROUP 1 sustains 50% casualties reroute GROUP 1 and GROUP 2 TO POINT CHARLIE.
3B: Once POINT CHARLIE is reached proceed to POINT BRAVO
3. The AI may call artillery on LOCATION November
4. After arriving the GROUP 1 will delay 20 minutes
4A: If GROUP 1 casulties > 40% cancel all orders proceed to DEFENSE POSITION
5. GROUP 1 will attack from Point Bravo to Point NOVEMBER if enemy troops detected at LOCATION NOVEMBER

All of the above could again be done within the bounds of the scenario designer system in the game currently. Just a bunch of triggers.


And again if you gave the AI some free hand you might not even need to do all of this.

1. The AI is to move at a cautious speed
2. AI is to attack starting from POINT Alfa to Point Bravo with GROUP 1
AI LOGIC: If GROUP 1 engaged by infantry ClOSER than 200 meters TARGET BRIEFLY 50% of buildings within 200 Meters along route of march. 100% of buildings that contain contact marker
Now you have the AI automatically reacting to a group threat. A single unit in the group has detected an infantry threat at close range and now the entire group is going to react via searching fire. If the AI suspects that a unit is there (a contact marker) it will definitely fire at the position.

AI LOGIC: If GROUP 1 Casualties > 50% reroute remainder 400 meters Left/Right to area of greater cover and attempt to move to AI POINT CHARLIE and then to POINT BRAVO

And the AI will no longer continue a suicidal attack down a single avenue of approach but attempt another route. All it does it say "where is more cover" and then add its own intermediate waypoint between ALFA and BRAVO


-----

All of these examples have something in them that you might consider "abstract thinking" but none of it actually is. Its all just a series of decision points that the AI arrives at. The difference between CM and many other games is that there are no decision points for the AI at all. Any decision is inputed by the scenario designer. You don't necessarily need the AI to make its own decisions and the CM system is fine. But as we;ve seen over the years the more power you give the designer the smarter the AI can appear.

I've done both some Arma scenario design and Combat Mission and the Arma system has no real strategic AI either and is handled by player triggers. The system is far more complex and as a result you can get far more complex results from it if you put in the time.

Edit: I will say I've done some game AI design and none of its simple. But you do not need an AI capable of abstract thinking. You just need to spend enough time working with it so that the maths behind each decision makes sense most of the time. Abstract thinking really only comes into play when you want a universal AI but no one here is talking about that. This is all just bespoke AI that exists solely to play Combat Mission - you can do that and do it quite well with the technology on hand. The issue is that building it is going to eat up time. Which is, I assume, why we have the scenario designer doing AI programming. Which again is fine, but the more options you give the designer the better the resulting AI can be. Any of the recommendations people have made could be done with a designer system there are just insufficient options for it currently.

It looks like after the initial ranging shots the gun essentially is only ever off by its own inherent accuracy. As the gun fires and the gunner corrects you should likely see some amount of drift on the point of aim. Especially at long ranges. Since you are now dealing the the gun's recoil, any vehicle recoil/settling, and possibly the gunner moving the point of aim to reacquire the target.

Now like I said this is the one I'm most unsure about, but the current results feel a little bit too robotic.

I've reread the post a few times and collected some thoughts.

1. The gunner's sights are likely too accurate at range

At the longer ranges (depending on the sight) you would not be able to accurately place the gun onto the center mass of the target. Just based on the inability for the gunner to accurately use his sight picture to do so. Meaning that even if a target is spotted at an extreme range the ability to accurately fire would be impossible.

This would be similar to shooting with a rifle. Your rifle is going to be physically more accurate for a much longer range than the shooter is capable of seeing/accurately lining up the sights.

2. The gunner likely has too much knowledge of the target

The gunner continually hits the center of mass when in reality they may not know where the center of mass is or even mistakenly identify the center of mass. For example, a Tiger is situated in heavy woods and is spotted by an opposing vehicle. The shooter may see a portion of the Tiger but they may not know what portion of the vehicle they are seeing. Resulting in them firing repeatedly into a random portion of the Tiger or totally missing if they incorrectly identify the orientation of the vehicle.

3. The gun should likely become increasingly inaccurate as the gunner continues to shoot.

I may be wrong here but while the gun, if perfectly stable, should have perfect accuracy based on its qualities, the qualities of the ammunition, and the qualities of the environment this should not be the case in the field. As the vehicle or gun would move around due to the recoil forces of firing repeatedly on often uneven ground.

So from some long experience with this game its become clear to me that the accuracy of tanks and AT guns are way too accurate once they are zeroed in. The AI will aim pixel perfect on the same spot every shot, only the gun accuracy itself will deviate the hits. Here is some tests i did with and without cover infront of the tank (hull down). The lesson here seems to be that a tank with enough armor SHOULD NOT go hull down cus its a death sentence due to how AI aims and mixed with the unreal zeroed accuracy the main gun will get knocked out very quickly.

Tiger 2, behind a 2m hill (hull down) at 1000m vs 76mm guns. At 1000m i do not expect the hit area to be this tiny. The side and top turret is nearly untouched and the muzzle break is completely perforated from existance.

Tiger 2, at 1000m not hull down vs 76mm guns. Here we can see that the AI targeting has changed to the hull instead and the turret is nearly untouched (only 3 shells hit the very lowest part of the turret). In this scenario the shermans ran out of AP so i deacivated the target arc for the tiger and it knocked out all 5 of them, while in the hull down scenario the main gun was knocked out almost instantly and would render the tank useless.

Here we have a jagdpanther at 600m behind a 1m hill vs 76mm guns. Only the lower front is hull down. Again we see the insane accuracy once the tanks have been fully zeroed that gives a unreal hit area. The only deviation is the gun accuracy, not the "humans" aiming it. The mantlet for tank destroyers also seem unrealisticly weak to get penetrated at those insane angles and thus knocking out the main gun. Another thing with this one is that odd penetration on the barrel. How on earth can a shell penetrate the barrel at that angle, this should not be possible.

Jagdpanzer IV L/70 at 600m behind 1m hill vs 76mm guns. Only the lower front is hull down. Here again the insane accuracy and main gun knocked out instantly.

Jagdpanzer at 600m on flat ground vs 75mm guns. Here we see the targeting area has changed cus it has no terrain infront of it. In this scenario the main gun remains operational cus the AI cannot abuse its accuracy on the mantlet area so this tank would be better off than if it was hull down.
 
The thing im saying is not that the overall accuracy is too good, cus that works just fine. What i am saying is that once the AI gets fully zeroed, they have no deviation what so ever in their aiming. Only the gun accuracy itself shows on the hit area of the target and it gives a unrealistic scenario of hits. All rounds land within tiny areas and if you use terrain to get hull down (which should be a good tactic) you will risk loosing the main gun very quickly. I expect to see hits all over the tanks in these scenarios and not within a tiny circle at +600m, remember there is supposed to be humans actually aiming the cannons, but the AI clearly aims at a single dot on the target with no deviation once the gun is fully zeroed. The few shells you see away from the main hit area is made before the gun is fully zeroed inwhich deviation is fine.
I have only terrible experiences with StuGs for example cus the only thing that gets hit on those is the mantlet. And once the mantlet is hit (even by a stuarts 37mm) the main gun will be knocked out. In my games with stugs i get a unreal amount of main gun damages for shells hitting the gun directly or the mantlet (which should be 80mm like the rest of the front, but still get pierced for some reason)
 
EDIT:

Here is the deviation at 2000m. Notice how all rounds hit in a nice circle at center mass, the few shells that hit the sides and lower plate was before the gun was fully zeroed in and still had some aiming deviation.

For refrence this is how the target would look from the gunners perspective, 5x gunner optics zoom. The target is tiny so managing to hit within that circle every time would be nearly impossible.

This is part of a five part series on the UC. This illustrates everything from Bren handling to grenade throwing from inside the carrier. Of particular note is the material on the 2" mortar, which has a specially drilled set of mounting holes to firmly attach it to the UC. No standard 2" mortar will work. When so fitted, the UC has twelve rounds for it, and the ammo split's given. The procedure for conducting observed fire by the VC with the mortar in full defilade is shown, as is use of the mortar in DF role. The first video in the series is the get acquainted one, and it shows the dazzling agility of this vehicle. For large radius turns, the track on the turning side is actually pulled in a bit. For short, sharp turns, one track is braked. So nimble is the UC it can reverse course near instantly. Short of having an autocannon or HMG, I'd think it would be a nightmare to hit if evading.
 
Regards,

John Kettler

That is exactly what I do.

1-3 action square (so 10-30 meter?) bounds depending on terrain tied in with anywhere from 5-30s pauses. For example, if I am pushing a platoon through deep woods with low visibility bounds are one action square with 20 second pauses on average. This allows all elements of the platoon to advance with supporting elements being able to see them and the long pause time gives everyone a chance to spot an enemy.

However, a consistent problem I run into is that men using QUICK balance movement and shooting. Often choose to move over shooting. A command that emphasized shooting over movement would be a fantastic tactical addition as its not something we have access to right now. An example from a scenario I am currently testing. Soviet infantry enter a trench system with suppressed German infantry within it. The suppressing fires lift at the last moment to avoid fratricide. The first soldier into the trench system spots a German soldier but runs over him. The follow on men in the Soviet section also ignore the German soldier. The men stop their movement and then began to slowly rotate to look back at the suppressed German soldier to engage him, however, at this time the German has become sufficiently recovered to engage the Soviet infantry with his MP40. Resulting in multiple casualties before he is killed.
 

The ASSAULT Command isn't a true assault but is just bounding overwatch. This can be done far better with QUICK and PAUSES but neither are true assault commands.

What is really needed is a command the prioritizes shooting over maneuver. Which we have none of right now.

Yea I've always felt some sort of proper assault order would be beneficial. Especially because we can't edit orders with SOPs like in other games. An order where troops would move forward at a decent pace but stop consistently to fire at spotted enemies, enemy markers, and be more likely to throw grenades and so on. Essentially Quick but if you see someone or think you see someone shoot them immediately.
The actual Assault Command is pretty bad since it doesn't seem to make troops more likely to fire at targets and both the moving team and the overwatch team share morale. I've had multiple occasions where the movement element have become suppressed resulting the the overwatch element also becoming suppressed. Allowing the movement element to be destroyed. Not to mention that you can't offset the elements so if any direct fire comes in it hits both groups.

Its quite clear that people don't care about personal or even family corruption so I don't see any issues with Biden's family. I guess you could make the argument that Trump is uniquely immune to being pinned for his abuses of power but I don't think so. His popularity is largely within a core Republican base.
 
There is panic and reasonable caution and preparation. Essentially what we are experiencing is the lack of reasonable caution and preparation. Its the CM equivalent of not sending a forward element in front and then wondering why your entire column of soft-skins got trounced in an ambush. Yes if there had been absolutely no threat you wouldn't be having a problem but it is obvious that there was a threat. See the S. Korean response wherein they quickly ramped up testing and had federal leadership.

---

Generally I think Biden is a weak candidate against a standard Republican but against Donald Trump I don't see him as particularly weak. Trump is unique but that also makes him uniquely vulnerable.



IIRC during Ebola the National Stockpile had nearly 100 million masks and the balance of those were handed out and not replenished after the fact. Partially that had to do with funding and preparing for other more dramatic problems. But I would think the full power of the United States Government would be at least as aware of potential issues as early as December if not sooner. Simply buying up some additional stock as a precaution would not be financially devastating or particular difficult that early.
 

Chief thing you should consider as you put yourself in the mind of the German commander thinking up his defense arrangement is "what can I do to minimize my own casualties" rather than "what can I do to stop the Russians from winning" if that makes sense. The favorite method, as well known, was the "denuded front" or outpost defense concept which wasn't universal or always desirable. Usually it enabled the Germans to compartmentalize their losses by ensuring most of the Russian's fire support fell on nothing, then hopefully outlying pickets consisting of snipers and machine guns might trick the Russians into deploying prematurely so that the Germans can most efficiently use their own limited fire support assets to inflict a disproportionate weight of casualties on the Russians while they're busy treating a sniper in a treeline like it's your whole force. 
That's the textbook success anyway. Savvy Red Army Officers knew better than to overthink every encounter they might have. Not every pinprick was worth committing an assault against and things could go wrong quickly for the Germans if the Russians had lots of dead ground to maneuver inside of. The Russians proved ridiculously good at infiltrating huge formations, entire Battalions even, in-between German positions and then just collapsing the defense from inside out by overwhelming enough "nodes" in the German defense that the other locations became irrelevant. Once a big enough hole is torn in the line the rest of the Russian's parent formation can just advance inside the gap and the rest of the German defenders are presented with the ugly choice of attempting to hold out being whittled away by starvation and partisans and the even worse choice of trying to withdraw while being enfiladed from multiple directions.
This is a major reason why the Germans had to use "conventional" trench-line tactics on the Leningrad front. Because the forests and swamps were so dense it was impossible for disconnected outposts to protect anything let alone themselves, so the Germans had to use a continuous line of trenches stretched through miles of forest. This is just to give you an idea of what you consider when you look at your map as the German commander. There's times doctrine is right, and times it's very, very wrong. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think the AI had any advanced capability like what you are describing?

My understanding is that contact markers are only used by the AI to increase the chance to spot targets (and sometimes to fire on) but they have no sense of how they fit within the environment at all. The AI would never know if they are entering a kill zone because the AI has no ability to understand what a kill zone is. That is exclusively the domain of the player.

Try this one German Field Fortifications on the Eastern Front

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRtwa9MNom0
 
Probably a bit simplified for what you're looking for but he has the references in the video description that can help out, although I think he tries to focus on primary sources so most of the stuff is in German.
Also I don't really know how credible MHV is as a source since I'm not really equipped to claim he is or isn't, but based on his videos he seems to have a pretty decent and unbiased scientific view on things. But I hope it helps

I found my little shirt pocket sized handbook that I used to carry as a FIST Chief and as a Brigade Fire Support Officer and then Artillery Bn S-3 (Ops officer).  It's full of useful info and templates for fire support - calls for fire, how to develop ops plans for attack and defense. All the info a fire support officer at different levels needs at hand in abbreviated format. The most useful thing though for CM I found in it is a couple of pages of opposing targets and recommended fire missions - which resource and how many volleys, and different tables for attack and defense. 
This might be most useful for Black Sea due to the time period (this was from about 1979-80 I think). HOWEVER, all of my experience was in the 82d Airborne, which is a very highly trained light infantry division that arrives in style. We had towed 105s (M102s - the successor to the M101s from WW2 and Korea), 81mm and 4.2" (107mm) mortars. Same as WW2. The biggest difference we had was more forward observers pushed down to lower levels. Our fire direction procedures still used charts and "firing sticks" (specialized slide rules for calculating elevation and time for time fuses. One per charge) So it may be pretty well applicable to WW2 as well, with the obvious change that the calls for ICM and DPICM would not apply. But each one has a few choices depending on the friendly resources.
It could be used for reference by players, or by scenario designers setting AI fire missions I think.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15dTgvZmGvfxoyGjHr3smkzoaPmGJMstSWF4djW2KFEQ/edit?usp=sharing
Enjoy. Hope this is useful.
Dave

The CM games are simply not popular enough to have cracks released for them. To even pirate a game you need a certain number of seeders to actually share the game and CM would be hard pressed to actually have enough seeders to do that.

If Battlefront had unbreakable DRM they would not be in the niche wargame business.

Edit:

Essentially its security through obfuscation.

I have a a MS "ergonomic" keyboard.  I thought that was mechanical(?)
So, maybe a lap dance... or even an economically-priced hooker.  I like your thinking...