Centurian52

On a whim I decided to load up CMBN, CMCW, and CMBS and pose my pixeltruppen to showcase the three eras of Combat Mission so far.
WW2

The Cold War

And modern

On a whim I decided to load up CMBN, CMCW, and CMBS and pose my pixeltruppen to showcase the three eras of Combat Mission so far.
WW2

The Cold War

And modern

On a whim I decided to load up CMBN, CMCW, and CMBS and pose my pixeltruppen to showcase the three eras of Combat Mission so far.
WW2

The Cold War

And modern

You can kill a T-64 with any US anti-tank weapon. In fact it almost doesn't matter what '70s AT munition you hit it with, only where you hit it. The key is to hit where there is no composite armor. If you hit the composite armor, it won't get through. If you hit anywhere that doesn't have composite armor then it will get through. The composite armor in the T-64/72/80 series tanks is in the upper front plate, and the turret front. There is no composite armor in the lower front plate, on the top of the turret, or in the sides or rear of the tank. There is a gap in the composite armor in the upper-front plate for the driver's hatch and optics. There is a gap in the turret's frontal composite armor for the gun mantlet.
So that means that the large weak points are the lower front plate, the sides, and the rear. The small weak points are the driver's hatch, gun mantlet, and it is sometimes possible to get a shot over the turret's frontal composite armor (such as when the T-64 is facing down a slope, or you are firing from an elevated position). Hit any of the weak points and your shot will get through, no matter whether it's a Dragon, a TOW, a LAW, or a 105mm HEAT, APDS, or APFSDS round. Hit the composite armor in the upper front plate or the front of the turret and it won't get through*.
If you were one of your ATGM operators or tank gunners then all of that would be useful information. If you go over and play GHPC and you find yourself confronted with a T-72 to your front you'll know to aim for the lower-front plate (best frontal weak-point to aim for since it's the biggest, but is also the most likely to be concealed by low rises in the terrain), the driver's hatch, the gun mantlet (a good point to aim for, since if you miss you might hit the gun), or the top of the turret (if the tank is on a slope that exposes the top of the turret). But, since your pixeltruppen do all the aiming, as a Combat Mission player your take away should be that the front of a T-64 is maybe ~10%-20% weak point, while the sides and rear are 100% weak-point. A hit to the sides or rear with any of the 1970s AT munitions available in CMCW will always get through (at least I haven't seen them fail to get through yet). So you'll want to set up flank engagements as much as possible (something you should be trying to do anyway against any tanks in any period), and keep your expectations low in frontal engagements.
*Usually, unless you have some of the later APFSDS rounds and a bit of luck. And you're shooting at a T-72, which uses cheaper materials in its composite than the T-64B. There's an argument that the T-64A should have the same armor values as the T-72A, so should also be vulnerable to the later APFSDS rounds, meaning there's a possible bug in which the T-64A's armor may be overperforming.

According to the GI History Handbook youtube channel the Able, Baker, Charlie designations for the teams were adopted near the end of the war. So it's possible that a freshly trained replacement showed up in an infantry unit in the final days of the war talking about Able, Baker, and Charlie teams, and the old hands would have had no idea what he was talking about.
Back to the BAR. I believe Combat Mission assumes that the BARs in the company weapons pool were distributed evenly. So you should notice six of the nine rifle squads in an average rifle company have a second BAR. In reality the distribution might have been more uneven from time to time. For an extreme case I heard about one squad which had a low opinion of the BAR, so had zero BARs. But another squad in the same platoon thought it was a fantastic weapon, so had six BARs. That 12 man squad operated as six 2 man teams with a BAR and a Garand each.

This video series is designed for those who are completely new to creating scenario AI Plans for the Battlefront Combat Mission game series.

As a reminder, in this series, I’m creating an AI Plan in Red Thunder for a German attack using half-tracks, mounted infantry, and attached tanks.
While I’m using Combat Mission Red Thunder, the tools and approaches for creating AI Plans are the same across all games in the Combat Mission series, as they share the same game engine.

In Parts 1 and 2, I covered AI Plan fundamentals and the AI Plan setup phase. If you haven’t seen these parts and are new to creating AI Plans in Combat Mission, I recommend watching them before continuing with this section.

If you’re already familiar with the basic AI Plan fundamentals, how to allocate units to AI Groups, and the setup phase, feel free to dive straight into Part 3.
In Part 3, I’ll demonstrate how to plot a series of orders for our AI Groups. 
Hope its of use!
 
 

Weren't they already sending weapons to our adversaries before the war? Before domestic demand got dialed up to 11 foreign exports were the main source of income for the Russian defense industry. Also, I have doubts about their ability to bring their export market back up to prewar levels even after the war is over.

Weren't they already sending weapons to our adversaries before the war? Before domestic demand got dialed up to 11 foreign exports were the main source of income for the Russian defense industry. Also, I have doubts about their ability to bring their export market back up to prewar levels even after the war is over.

Weren't they already sending weapons to our adversaries before the war? Before domestic demand got dialed up to 11 foreign exports were the main source of income for the Russian defense industry. Also, I have doubts about their ability to bring their export market back up to prewar levels even after the war is over.

I don't think the contingencies are very obvious in situations like this. The German and Russian empires had no obvious paths in their death throes and even the final convulsions didn't look so very final until quite suddenly they were. We can and should expect everything and nothing. We don't have enough information to know.

Eye of the beholder I guess. Graphics are nice to have, but I never really considered them to be very important. The CM1 games definitely aren't as good as the CM2 games. But they're still pretty good. I'm the kind of person who believes that games never really age out. I still go back and play Red Alert 2 from time to time for the nostalgia, and it's still just as good today as it was in 2000 because...well, it's still the same game it was in 2000. Likewise I feel that CMAK and CMBB are still exactly as good as they were when they first came out*, because they are still exactly the same games that they were when they came out. Because the newer games are getting better doesn't mean that the older games are getting worse.
The beauty of the modern digital age is that nothing really disappears the way they used to. Way back in the bad old days once a movie stopped playing in theaters, or a game stopped selling physical copies in stores, it was gone. But that's not how the world works anymore**. Now, if there's an old movie or game that you're nostalgic for, you can just find it on the internet. As long as a copy survived into the digital age somewhere, odds are you'll be able to find it. And if it was ever any good to begin with, it'll still be good today.
*Full disclosure though. I wasn't playing them when they first came out. I started playing Combat Mission in 2009 when I discovered CMSF. I had already been playing CM2 for several years by the time I discovered CM1. I never got CMBO because I already had CMBN by the time I discovered that it existed. But I still consider CMAK and CMBB to be must-haves because they scratch wargaming itches that CM2 still hasn't gotten around to scratching. And until a newer Combat Mission engine does get around to covering North Africa and the Eastern Front as far back as 1941, CMAK and CMBB will remain indispensable parts of my gaming library. Again, CM1 definitely isn't as good as CM2. But it's still the second best wargame engine in the world after CM2.
**Which is why I've often had to balk at older folks who tell me "oh you wouldn't know that movie, it's before your time", revealing that they clearly don't get how the world works in the digital age since I regularly watch movies that are before their time. Casablanca (1942) is still one of my favorite movies. And Battleground (1949) is still the best Battle of the Bulge movie that I'm aware of.

They begin spotting at the end of the delay. And since spotting takes a variable amount of time, each battery will fire for effect at different times. The difference in when they open fire will be less though, since differences in call-in times are no longer a factor (provided that the call-in time was less than the delay). But when each battery opens fire could still be a turn or two apart. I would prefer if they fired spotting rounds ASAP, and then fired for effect at the end of the delay. That would make truly synchronized artillery fire possible. But that might give more warning to opponents in H2H battles that a barrage was incoming, so I suppose I can understand the reasoning for why it isn't done that way.
The fire will be synchronized if you call in the artillery during the setup phase. But there will still be some variation in when the first rounds actually land, which could be tens of seconds in some cases, since there is still some variation from one battery to the next in how long the rounds are in flight.

Yes.

I have finished one PBEM. So now I've "only" got four ongoing. One CMFI, one CMCW, and two CMBN.

They begin spotting at the end of the delay. And since spotting takes a variable amount of time, each battery will fire for effect at different times. The difference in when they open fire will be less though, since differences in call-in times are no longer a factor (provided that the call-in time was less than the delay). But when each battery opens fire could still be a turn or two apart. I would prefer if they fired spotting rounds ASAP, and then fired for effect at the end of the delay. That would make truly synchronized artillery fire possible. But that might give more warning to opponents in H2H battles that a barrage was incoming, so I suppose I can understand the reasoning for why it isn't done that way.
The fire will be synchronized if you call in the artillery during the setup phase. But there will still be some variation in when the first rounds actually land, which could be tens of seconds in some cases, since there is still some variation from one battery to the next in how long the rounds are in flight.

In real life a time delay like that would be done with FFE only, and not an adjust fire mission, for some of the reasons you outline. The time to adjust is variable, and the scenario for use would be something like - there's an infantry company moving and we want to hit them right when they get to that bridge over there, and have estimated their movement rate. Something like that. So you would not adjust fire - you'd want to just hit them with the FFE. If it's a larger or more lucrative unit, it could be a time on target battalion mission (all 3 batteries of a battalion fire maybe 2 or 3 volleys coordinated to hit simultaneously at time X minutes from now. Works best with a feature that can be easily ID'ed on a map and accurate grid coords passed to the FDC. Bridge, road intersection, hilltop, etc.
You can't really do this in CM, even though it's pretty much a standard mission to perform. The only way is a preplanned mission on turn one, but not later in the game at a target of opportunity. The procedures from WW2 through the Cold War would not vary very much at all. The CW period in game predates most GPS and computerized fire control. It was just coming into service then. Black Sea would be different as by then there were many changes.
I would love to see finer control of artillery, but I wouldn't like to see it become an artillery centric game - perhaps some toggle on/off realism features. Some people (like me) would love the artillery aspect. Others may not care so much and prefer the abstraction.

Dave

It would be nice however to be able to specify the delay on pre-planned artillery to whatever time interval you want (e.g., game opens up a text box, and you enter 33 minutes), instead of 0, 5, 10, 15 minute delay.
Also would be nice if you pre-plan on map artillery unit to go at a time, that other on-map units can begin their pre-planned missions at a different time.  Currently they get fixed to whatever time you set your first on-map barrage delay to. 
And on my next point -->, and I am not sure I am remembering this correctly, but it may also be that if you pre-plan an on-map unit barrage, then off-map units also have to fire with the same delay.  But as I said, I am not certain I am remembering that correctly.

They begin spotting at the end of the delay. And since spotting takes a variable amount of time, each battery will fire for effect at different times. The difference in when they open fire will be less though, since differences in call-in times are no longer a factor (provided that the call-in time was less than the delay). But when each battery opens fire could still be a turn or two apart. I would prefer if they fired spotting rounds ASAP, and then fired for effect at the end of the delay. That would make truly synchronized artillery fire possible. But that might give more warning to opponents in H2H battles that a barrage was incoming, so I suppose I can understand the reasoning for why it isn't done that way.
The fire will be synchronized if you call in the artillery during the setup phase. But there will still be some variation in when the first rounds actually land, which could be tens of seconds in some cases, since there is still some variation from one battery to the next in how long the rounds are in flight.

I mostly don't use the 'assault' order at all. I generally prefer to micromanage the bounding of individual teams. I get better control over who moves first and where they bound to that way. And I can have greater dispersion between bounding teams that way. The trick is working out how long the pause orders need to be between bounds. I figure about 5 seconds for each action square that I want the teams to cross per bound (assuming a 'quick' movement order) on most terrain types. That's a bit of an overestimate, but the slight timing errors that will accumulate can be corrected between turns. So for my standard short bound (3 action squares, or 24 meters) I'll give 15 second pause order on each waypoint, and for my standard long bound (6 action squares, or 48 meters) I'll give a 30 second pause order on each waypoint. The team that I want to move second will get either a 15 or 30 second pause order at the start of the turn.
I'll generally only place a couple waypoints each turn (about the number I expect my teams to actually reach during the turn). That way I only need to guess one minute's worth of timing, and the timing errors that accumulate over a single turn will generally be negligible. Since my teams have usually reached all of their waypoints by the end of the turn, the timings for the next turn are starting on a clean slate. You may need to adjust timings on certain terrain types. I'll sometimes deviate from my standard 3 and 6 tile bounds if there is a particular feature I want that team to bound to that is an action square further or closer (adjusting the timing accordingly, so 10 seconds if they're only bounding two action squares this time, or 20 seconds if it's four action squares). In dense woods I'll generally do very short bounds of only two action squares (16 meters) with 15 second pauses between each bound (the terrain tiles that frequently accompany dense woods will tend to slow infantry movement). You can give target orders from each waypoint if there is a particular position that you want to keep suppressed while you're moving.

I'd include 1939 in that range. There's something about the near-peer combat in Poland that sets it apart from the peer vs peer fighting in France. I also just want to see the Polish in action with their own uniforms and equipment, before the loss of their country forced them into a Commonwealth force structure.

Huh... seems to be working now(!!), but I swear that what Centurian suggested was one of the first things I tried. So I have a Ranger Battalion from '43 Italy working with a Ranger Battalion from '44, and something similar for early and late German motorized battalions.
Perhaps there was some other kind of limitation on the formations I'd originally chosen, or I screwed something up, but at least it's confirmation that conceptually it is possible. 
Thanks gentlemen!

Probably the last bone for BP2 before release. A small thing, but the main menu screen is getting cluttered.  

You mean the damage to the early warning radar, or some other installation? I believe you have the burden of proof backwards. I think, far from needing proof that it was the Ukrainians, we would need some significant reason to doubt that it was the Ukrainians. It's a legitimate military target that they have the means to strike, and no one else is at war with Russia, so it would be very surprising if it was someone other than the Ukrainians.

You mean the damage to the early warning radar, or some other installation? I believe you have the burden of proof backwards. I think, far from needing proof that it was the Ukrainians, we would need some significant reason to doubt that it was the Ukrainians. It's a legitimate military target that they have the means to strike, and no one else is at war with Russia, so it would be very surprising if it was someone other than the Ukrainians.

It does matter tho, Russian dual purpose equipment has been used to severely strike significant targets and under take important Russian actions to influence the war in Ukraine. It's also notable to note the degrees of escalation occurring by Ukraine, Russian nuclear capable bombers, Russian warships including submarine and submarine tender capability, now Russian radar sites in both Moldavia and southern Russia. Clearly Ukraine has been operating cautiously with planned step downs and increasing attacks accordingly due to push back or lack thereof.
Again, if Russia really is terrified of NATO moving to end the Russian regime, they wouldn't be stripping forces facing NATO including their air defense guarding against Finland and the Baltics, nor stripping the units in Kalinagrad.
If Russia is terrified of escalation and needs to warn NATO to back down, as it feels cornered why is Russia still undertaking measures to indicate maximalist aims and positions and not attempting to utilize the positions offered by the West in late 2022? If they wanna downgrade the temp, launching offensives in regions quiet since 2022 is the opposite, declaring Zelensky is illegitimate is also not seeking de-escalation.
I'm fact the measures taken indicate Russia is seeking hard line long term war in Ukraine. In these conditions, striking targets in Russia, is unavoidable.