Centurian52

75 years. And quite a bit has changed. It used to be a much broader Arab-Israeli conflict. Relations with neighboring Arab countries have normalized to some degree over the decades. Now it's mostly just an Israel-Palestine conflict (though Syria still resents the loss of the Golan heights, and I understand that Iran has probably been supporting Hamas).

I don't think I've ever heard of any video game company successfully charging anyone for user-created content of any sort. Every game has mods, and I've never had to pay a dime for a mod. They would need to find some way of claiming that any and all content made for the game by anyone was official content, and I can't imagine how anyone could ever make that claim. Who owns user-created scenarios, maps, and mods? I don't know, but not the company which didn't allocate any of its own staff or funding to create those scenarios, maps, and mods.

Well, I've got a long watchlist for you. But, if you have the time, the following videos should provide a pretty good introductory course to tactics (if you become as much of a tactics nerd as me I can also recommend a few field manuals). Most videos out there cover infantry tactics, though the concept of fire and maneuver will apply equally to tank and artillery tactics as well. I haven't found much on how to use tanks and infantry together. But the personal style I developed over years of playing Combat Mission is to lead with the infantry and use the tanks as an instant-response, flat-trajectory, fire-support element. Doctrinal manuals I've found stress the importance of maintaining some distance between tanks (50 meters between tanks by German and Soviet doctrine, and 75 yards (~70 meters) by American doctrine). This reduces the chance of two tanks being destroyed by the same air dropped bomb, reduces their vulnerability to artillery (particularly cluster munitions, if you ever get around to playing CMCW), and gives them some room to maneuver. In practice, the need to mass my tanks' firepower often means I can't maintain the full doctrinal spacings, but I try to spread them out as much as practicable. Though it is harder for them, tanks should try to limit their exposure as much as possible just like the infantry. This means using hull-down (only the turret exposed) and shoot and scoot (pop out of cover, fire a shot or two, reverse back into cover) tactics wherever it is practical to do so. As others have pointed out, you want to avoid head to head tank engagements, as those come with a 50/50 chance of your tank losing. Head to head engagements with friendly anti-tank guns (or ATGMs for the modern titles) against enemy tanks are better (anti-tank guns/ATGMs are smaller targets, so almost always have an advantage in a 1 on 1 fight with a tank (tanks are better in that they are mobile and can effectively engage both tanks and infantry, but if you are just trying to kill oncoming tanks from a static position then anti-tank guns/ATGMs are better)). Flank attacks or ambushes against enemy tanks are best. If a head-on engagement between your tanks and the enemy's tanks is unavoidable, bring more tanks than the enemy. If you have two tanks facing one enemy tank then you have an 87.5% chance of winning (75% chance of one of your tanks hitting the enemy tank first (each one has a 50% chance of spotting the enemy before the enemy spots them (1-(0.5^2)), 12.5% chance of one of your tanks getting hit first and your remaining tank then hitting the enemy tank, and a 12.5% chance of the enemy tank taking out both of your tanks (if the first tank is knocked out you are back to one on one and 50/50 odds)), opposed to only a 50% chance of winning a one on one engagement. I think this video does a good job of explaining the general principle of fire and maneuver, which is at the core of so many tactics: To summarize the basic principles: 1. Fire alone cannot eliminate the enemy. 2. Maneuvers are needed to eliminate the enemy. 3. Maneuvers cannot be made under effective enemy fire. 4. Enemy fire can be made ineffective by your own fire. 5. Fire cannot eliminate the enemy, but it makes maneuvers possible that can. I particularly love the quote "Fire without maneuver is a waste of ammunition. Maneuver without fire is a waste of lives.". Keeping in mind that fire and maneuver is a very broad concept. The video correctly points out that tactics since at least the Napoleonic era have boiled down to some form of fire and maneuver. But the specific implementations of fire and maneuver have changed drastically as technology has changed. Something I've repeatedly found is that it is very rare for generic principles of warfare to change, but the minor details can change considerably with every new technology. For something a little more specific to WW2 I recommend G.I. History Handbook's videos covering American squad and platoon organization and tactics: https://www.youtube.com/@G.I.HistoryHandbook/videos His videos are cumulative, so it's best to watch them in order from oldest to newest. Though you may be able to skip his videos on squad and platoon organization since you can see the organizations for yourself when you load up a Combat Mission scenario containing American forces (keeping in mind that paratroopers are organized differently from regular infantry). You can probably mimic American platoon tactics with either British or German forces just fine, but squad tactics will require some more adjustment. The Americans rely on the massed semi-automatic rifle fire of the entire squad. So any part of the squad can pretty seamlessly transition between being a fire element and a maneuver element. The British and German infantry squads are a bit more specialized, with one team (the one with the machinegun) being well suited to being a fire element, while the other team (the one with the majority of the riflemen) is well suited to being a maneuver element. It is impossible to mimic the squad diamond formation described by G.I. history Handbook's videos in Combat Mission, as the squad can only be broken down into a maximum of three teams. But the squad column, line, and wedge formations can all be replicated in Combat Mission. All of the platoon formations can be mimicked in Combat Mission. How much you actually want to mimic these formations is up to you, but I certainly find the general concept of having one platoon up and two back (for example, when you are moving forward and want to make contact with the smallest possible element), or two platoons up and one back (when you want the majority of your combat power forward, but also want to keep a reserve), to be fairly useful. The basic tactical principles are: Find 'em: Recon is the first stage in any action, from the squad's firefight to the Army Group's operation. You must find the enemy before you can decide how to deal with them. Fix 'em: You must pin the enemy down with fire before you can maneuver to destroy them. The first step in this is winning fire superiority (get more fire going towards the enemy than they can send back at you). Once you have fire superiority, maintain it. Never attempt to advance across areas covered by enemy fire without fire superiority. Fight 'em (or Flank 'em): Maintain fire-superiority. Work your way to a position from which you can finish them (a flank if possible). Finish 'em: Destroy the enemy. This often means storming their position with infantry. The tricky part of this stage is getting your infantry into the enemy position while the enemy is still suppressed, without your infantry getting chewed up by whatever was providing the suppressive fire. Fending all the while (sometimes this step is omitted, so some sources will refer to only four F's): Take actions to prevent the enemy from finding, fixing, flanking, or finishing you. Take concealed avenues of approach, avoid revealing your positions until you have to, and maintain flank protection (matters more against a human opponent than against the AI, but sometimes a scenario designer will throw in some surprises). Artillery tactics can be the hardest to figure out, since there is so little guidance out there (either in manuals or on youtube) on how to effectively use artillery. But I've found Free Whisky's video on the subject to be the most helpful (I still refer to it to this day): To summarize, your use of artillery will be best if you are thinking in terms of effects. Their are four kinds of effects that artillery can have. They are: 1. Suppress: The artillery becomes the fire element in a fire and maneuver scheme. In this role it is keeping the enemy's heads down while your maneuver forces (infantry and tanks) cross the open ground that would otherwise be swept by the enemy's fire. 2. Obscure: Drop smoke to prevent the enemy from seeing you. 3. Secure: Fire on a position which isn't currently occupied by the enemy in order to prevent the enemy from occupying it. The artillery is "securing" that position. 4. Reduce: Fire specifically meant to inflict casualties on, and possibly even to destroy, an identified enemy position. Terrain analysis is also an important skill to have for Combat Mission. I have found no better source for terrain analysis than Gordon Cooke's lecture on youtube: To summarize again, you are looking for: Obstacles Avenues of Approach Key Terrain Observation/Fields of Fire Cover and Concealment (cover and concealment are two different things, though the same terrain features often provide both (cover: stops bullets, concealment: stops observation)) You are looking for those same features of the terrain in pretty much any time period. But again, the minor details change from one period to the next. For example, what counts as concealment against an enemy that does not have thermal optics or drones will be different from what counts as concealment against an enemy that does have thermal optics and drones. Dust, smoke, fog, and darkness will conceal you in WW2, when the enemy has no thermals. They will not conceal you when you are facing an enemy that does have thermals (good to remember as the Soviets in CMCW, or as anyone in CMBS). A hill may block line of sight from an enemy on the ground with no drones. But an enemy with drones providing overhead observation may be able to see you on the other side of that hill. Also remember that what counts as cover depends on what weapons you are considering. A brick wall may provide you with cover against rifles and machineguns, but no cover against heavier caliber weapons. A linear terrain feature might provide cover against tank rounds coming in on a flat trajectory, but provide no cover against artillery shells coming in on a plunging trajectory. And finally I think Usually Hapless's Combat Mission Basics playlist is worth a binge. The playlist covers a mix of both game engine mechanics and tactics which are useful both to new players and to veterans: Of course even if you watch all of the videos I've listed you won't automatically become a tactical genius. Classroom instruction needs to be supplemented with practice in the field in order to be useful. Consider these videos the classroom instruction. As you play you will work out for yourself how to apply these principles in practice, and you will no doubt become a very formidable opponent.

2023 has been a good year for Steam releases. But I'm starting to think that all those Battle Packs and Modules are more for 2024. Of course there are still two and a half months left in the year, so I'm ready to be proven wrong!

It is a very small company, likely operating under very different conditions from the company you were a product manager in. For one, there is almost certainly far less manpower available to Battlefront than there was at your company. This may be the only way to form enough teams to have so many parallel projects going at once.

I was not aware of that. I'll remind myself of that from now on whenever I start getting impatient for a Battle Pack. I'm working my way through WW2 chronologically (CMx1 included, so I'm still in North Africa (Barbarossa hasn't even started yet)). So it's going to be a while until I get to 1944 anyway, so there's no rush on the Normandy Battle Pack. I was poking for info on the CMFI Battle Pack because I haven't even heard where or when it's going to be set.

So I still don't see anything on that CMFI battle pack (did a ctrl-f for 'cmfi' through all 25 pages of this thread, and no battle pack thread is pinned over on the CMFI forum). Is that still a planned thing? Any nuggets of info?

What sound mod are you using?

I see no reason it can't be

Excellent points. I pretty much agree with everything you said. But after trying to consider things from the author's point of view I believe I can offer the following points in their defense. 1. I think "Fire & Movement" is a concept that can be fairly easily nested. You might think in terms of company fire and movement, platoon fire and movement, or squad fire and movement, depending on which level is your focus at the moment. It's probably not much of a stretch to think of a large scale (brigade/division) attack made with air and artillery support as fire and movement on a grand scale, with the smaller subunits (battalions, companies, etc.) conducting their own smaller scale fire and movement at the same time. Since the focus of these experiments was firmly on the squad, it makes sense that the author was speaking in terms of squad fire and movement, even as there was also fire and movement happening on the next level up. 3&4. Assaulting an enemy that hadn't been located yet struck me as odd too. But my interpretation is that they were playing to teach more than they were playing to win. And the disasters that befell squads which launched their assaults before finding the enemy probably do a good job of teaching what happens when you don't find the enemy first. The importance of finding the enemy first was one of the tactical insights they listed in part 5. 5. The lack of activity by the support element may have been about keeping experimental variables down. It seems like the main purpose of these experiments was to gain insights into squad level assault tactics, and they may not have wanted too many confounding variables coming down from the platoon level. Even just the limited variables they did have, combined with the need to have a half-decent sample size for each variation, already ballooned the number of assaults they had to run up to 300.

Ok, a couple corrections. It's definitely not a full 1,000 meters that my 0.50 cals start chiming in most of the time. But it is in the ballpark of those medium (sub-1,000 meter) ranges. And the infantry definitely exert an important influence with their Dragon missiles at those medium ranges (I feel like the Carl Gustav, being unguided, isn't going to be quite as effective at the outer edge of those medium ranges as the Dragon is (though having taken a couple of nasty hits from Charlie-Gs in CMA I wouldn't underestimate it)). It's only their small arms (rifles and machineguns) that have so far only become dominant at close ranges. And part of that may be my tactics (avoid firefights on equal terms, beat down enemy positions with supporting fires first (mortars/artillery, tank main guns, 0.50 cals), finish off the degraded enemy with close infantry assaults while they are still suppressed).

That's one of the things I'm curious to find out. With US forces, at least for me so far, long range fights are almost entirely dominated by armored vehicles. At extreme ranges it's almost all ATGMs, artillery, and tank main guns. At under 1,000 meters the 0.50 cals on my M60s and M113s start to chime in. My infantry only start to really exert their influence at short ranges (which unfortunately means that my M60 machineguns haven't had much opportunity to shine, since once you get close enough that the riflemen start using their M16s in full auto the M60 gunner doesn't really seem to be contributing much more firepower than any of the riflemen). Either they are unexpectedly bumping into the enemy at short range in woods or towns, or they are storming foxholes, trenches, or buildings that have just been suppressed by my M60 tanks or M113s. I think my concern for the British and Canadian infantry is precisely that they appear to be configured to excel at long ranges, but my experience so far is that (in this time period at least) long ranges belong to the armored vehicles, ATGMs, and FOs. Things might be different with the British and Canadians though. There is a decided lack of 0.50 cals in the British army (their APC has a 7.62, and the Chieftain just has its main gun and the 7.62 coax*), meaning that (for the most part, as far as I know), there is no medium caliber weapon between their 7.62 rifles and machineguns and the 120mm main gun on the Chieftain. I doubt the Chieftain main gun will have such an abundance of ammo that it can do all the suppression that I currently do with a mix of tank main gun and 0.50 cal fire with my US forces. So I may need to ask my British infantry to pick up more of the slack in the long range firefight than I would ask of my US infantry. Same goes for the Canadians (Leopard doesn't have a medium caliber weapon either, and the M113 gunner in the Canadian army dismounts with the rest of the squad). I think I'm going to miss my 0.50 cals. *I've actually been surprised by just how useful having a medium caliber weapon is on the M60. I figured the coax and main gun combo was good enough, and the 0.50 cal would be completely redundant. But it turns out that having something that packs more punch than 7.62, but has more ammo than the main gun, is quite useful (the 20mm on the AMX-30 may have been a bit overkill though, and really I think a 0.50 cal is probably good enough (though learning that the AMX-30 has a 20mm has certainly reignited my interest in seeing French forces eventually)). It can often deal with infantry in buildings or in thick woods without expending any main gun ammo. The 0.50 cal on the M60 is one reason why it might remain my favorite of the 2nd gen NATO MBTs even after we get Chieftains and Leopards (at least until the AMX-30 has a chance to change my mind).

I feel like screenshots may still be a ways off (maybe something for Halloween?). But in the meantime there might still be some stuff left to speculate about. I've been coming back around to wondering how British and Canadian infantry will stack up against the Soviets (I think the Chieftain has been covered half to death, and at this point there is nothing left but to wait and see). I imagine a Canadian infantry squad having firepower roughly comparable to a US infantry squad from CMBN with two BARs (assuming that a C2 is roughly equivalent to a BAR). That is, semi-automatic rifles augmented by two automatic rifles. They should have a bit more firepower actually, since each C1 has 2.5 times the magazine capacity of an M1 Garand, so time spent loading shouldn't cut into time spent firing as much (maybe that's something like a 20-30% increase in firepower per rifle, assuming my WW2 US infantry are spending a bit under half their time loading in an intense firefight). I imagine a British infantry squad will have firepower similarly on par with a CMBN US airborne infantry squad (semi-automatic rifles with an MMG/GPMG + the same 20-30% increase in firepower per rifle for having a larger magazine). That's not an inconsiderable amount of firepower (and god knows I've lost plenty of Soviet pixeltruppen to Mujahedeen armed with bolt action rifles, and British and Canadian infantry firepower can only be significantly greater than Mujahedeen infantry firepower), but I can't help feeling that British and Canadian infantry (especially Canadian infantry*) are going to feel a bit anemic compared to US and Soviet infantry (Commonwealth forces having anemic infantry firepower may be a point of continuity with the WW2 titles come to think of it). But it's also possible that it might not matter too much. A significant difference in firepower will matter if there is a serious back and forth exchange of fire on more or less even terms. But for the most part I've noticed that most of my firefights are won or lost before the first round is fired, either through positioning, luck (both good and bad), or supporting fires. One place it might matter is in urban combat, where back and forth exchanges between infantry are more likely to erupt. I may be less confident in clearing towns and villages with British and Canadian infantry than I am with US infantry. *Sorry, but the C2 doesn't seem to be doing them any favors (based on what I've read so far, but I'm well aware that there's no such thing as an unbiased source, and other sources may have different opinions). Which is why it may be odd that I can't wait to get my hands on it (honestly I might be even more eager to try out the Canadian forces than I am to try out British forces).

Well, it looks like there is a @BennySouthSt on the Battlefront forums, probably the same one I'm paired with for the tournament. You there?

Is there any way to contact my opponent? They may have gotten discouraged by how long it took me to send the first turn. It would be nice to get this battle started.

I get it. CMCW is probably my favorite title so far, and it's where I'm spending almost all of my time right now. But you'd be hard pressed to find a CM game that I'm not interested in (CMBO perhaps, but only because it's been superseded by CMBN). For me part of the point of CM is the ability to compare different time periods and theaters in the same realistic engine, and you don't get the far right extreme on the timeline that has been covered in CM so far without CMBS (CMAK gets you the far left extreme of the timeline so far (finding effective ways to use anti-tank rifles is a challenge, but I think the trick is to mass a bunch of them on a single target from multiple angles)). I don't think you really get the full CM experience if you only play one CM game. CMCW is definitely a good compromise starting point if you aren't sure if you want to dive into WW2 or modern warfare first, being roughly right in the middle between them. Oh yeah, the M-48A5 and M-60A1 are definitely not as good as the Soviet 3rd gen MBTs they so often have to go up against. But I still love them. Yeah, there is nothing the Soviets have that can match the M1 Abrams. The only thing keeping it from completely dominating in this time period is its rarity. I don't think there's a whole lot on either side that is a perfect 1v1 match for each other (well, M-60A1 vs T-62, but other than that...). They generally seem to be either significantly better than their counterpart on the other side or significantly worse than their counterpart on the other side. It isn't the individual weapons systems, but the sum total of the units with all of those weapons working together that seem to be a remarkably even match.

Always in favor of more CMCW scenarios. I'm actually surprised at how few CMCW scenarios have been made so far (I only count 13 on the Scenario Depot so far).

Oh yes, I started doing much better as the Soviets/Russians after watching Freewhisky's collabs with Domfluff (and fully reading FM100-2-1 for myself). Haven't played against a human in CMBS yet. But I started doing a lot better as the Russians vs US AI after studying Soviet doctrine. The key is to not use Russian forces the same way you would use US forces. Prep the way with forward echelons (recon, feint (only works against a human obviously, so I haven't put this into practice yet), pin down part of the enemy force), choose an unexpected avenue of approach for your main attack, then fully commit everything at once to the main attack when (not before) it's ready to go in. It's a firepower based army, so I make very liberal use of firepower when it's time for the main attack to go in. I'll generally have all of my artillery expending all of its ammunition on anything I think might pose a threat to my main advance. I'll aim to have my tanks and IFVs arrive on the objective while the barrage is still falling, with main guns and autocannons blasting all suspected enemy positions without waiting for spots (to get a vehicle to engage multiple targets in a turn I'll use a target briefly command with a 15 second pause, then a movement order to get them to the next target briefly command), with infantry aiming to arrive on the positions they are trying to storm seconds after the supporting vehicle's 'target briefly' command runs out. Even with all this though, you can still very much feel the superiority of the US forces. The short artillery call-in times for the Americans practically force you to be aggressive, since if you ever stop moving you will become pinned down. And frontal engagements against American tanks are a complete no-go. Basically I think it's possible for Russians to do well against the US in CMBS (haven't proven that it's possible to do well against a human US opponent yet, so maybe I need to hop into CMBS and see if I can find an opponent). Though it's certainly harder than the US against the Soviets in CMCW. Probably not possible for the Syrians to do much against the US in CMSF2 though (maybe if you do everything perfectly you could inflict a few more casualties while losing).

I'll take your word for it that you're not pro-Russian. But you are clearly getting your information from Russian propaganda. It has been obvious since last April that Russia is going to lose this war. That comes with the caveat that victory conditions are asymmetric. Russian defeat does not automatically mean Ukrainian victory. Russia has already lost this war, and there is absolutely nothing that can change that now. Ukrainian victory has not yet been assured, though it is very likely. In fact the only way that Ukraine could lose at this point is if western support evaporates. So long as western support remains strong, Ukraine cannot lose. Yes, Ukraine is still struggling with corruption. They are not more corrupt than Russia (they aren't even as corrupt as Russia (even in 2014 Ukraine was still only the 2nd most corrupt country in Europe after Russia)). They are struggling with the same corruption that all former-Soviet/Warsaw Pact and Russia-aligned states struggle with. Notably, all former Soviet/Warsaw Pact states which realigned away from Russia have drastically reduced corruption and increased economic prosperity compared to when they were aligned with/part of the Soviet Union/Russia. We are seeing signs of the same trends in Ukraine. A single decade is far too little time to eliminate all of the corruption that comes with formerly being aligned with Russia, but they are making impressive progress. There is zero chance of this becoming WW3. Even if war broke out between Russia and NATO (which is basically impossible, considering that Russia has no available forces to attack NATO with (they are all in Ukraine), and in order for NATO to attack Russia all members would need to unanimously agree on something), Russia just isn't a world war-class threat (modern day Russia is not the Soviet Union, and it is not modern day China). It would be a big war, but not a world war (by any reasonable standard). Stopping the war would overwhelmingly benefit Russia and hurt Ukraine. It would give Russia a chance to rebuild their forces, absorb lessons, and retrain under peacetime conditions. It would undo so much of the progress that has been made towards defeating them. And remember that Russians do not keep to their agreements. Any agreement that is made with Russia will be broken by Russia. Peace now along the current borders will result in Russia invading again in a few years. They will have a better starting position, they will have produced more modern equipment, and they will not underestimate the Ukrainians next time. If we stop the war now then far more people will be killed in the inevitable next war than if we see the current war through. Seeing the current war through will make it possible to more completely defeat the Russian army, allow the Ukrainian army to reestablish itself along more defensible borders, and make it easier to accept Ukraine as a full NATO member, all of which will drastically reduce the threat of future Russian invasions. Another reason not to stop the war right now is the importance of deterring future wars started by other would-be invaders. Allowing Russia to keep any part of Ukrainian territory sends the message that land grabs work. Part of the modern rules-based order is that invading your neighbor is no longer a legitimate way of settling territorial disputes (Russia is allowed to claim that Ukraine is a historical part of Russia all they want, but they are not allowed to settle that claim with force). We must send the message that as long as the current world order lasts, land grabs will always fail.

I think the quality of the tank is beside the point. What matters is that there are a lot of battles in the current war that we cannot replicate without T-72Bs, T80BVs, T80Us, T80BVMs, T72B3Ms and so on

Ok, I think I've finally got this figured out. I made sure to include my email on the login screen. Now I'm not getting logged out after clicking ok on the password screen, and as a bonus the turn (I'm still only recieving one turn) no longer appears in the PBEM In Progress folder (which I assume means that it's been sent to my opponent). To my opponent (I believe it's BennySouthSt), sorry it took me this long

That's true. And my ability to pre-plan my fire plan is severely hampered by the fact that I can only postpone preplanned fires by 15 minutes, and the last of my reinforcements don't arrive until 20 minutes into the battle (assuming nothing has been changed from the original version of the scenario). Either I need to do something decisive at the 15 minute mark, without my full force available, or I need to figure out how to keep my FOs alive.

Fortunately the reinforcement schedule means that I can't exploit knowledge of the other side's starting positions if I want my fire plan to support my main effort.

I use my Slitherine credentials to log into the PBEM system. When I get booted back to the main menu I no longer appear to be logged in. Granted there doesn't appear to be a way to tell whether or not I'm logged in from the main menu screen, but when I go back to the PBEM in Progress folder I'm asked to log back in.

I've never used the PBEM system before and I can't seem to start the first turn. I see '[Grand Tournament] CMCW Round 1 (Turn 0)' I click Continue I see New Password (looks like I'm playing the Soviets) Per instructions I leave the field blank and click ok I see the Save Email Game box, File Name: Valley of Ashes 002 I click Ok I'm back at the main menu and logged out of my Slitherine account