Centurian52

I'm always a bit concerned whenever I see any of my friends online advocating "tearing it all down". They never have any suggestions about what to replace it with. And anything you could replace it with would either be worse, or mostly the same but for a few modifications. The system as it is actually has the framework of a pretty good system. It just needs some tweaking. Rather that screaming into the void about tearing it all down, I think we'd do ourselves a lot more good by having constructive arguments over which tweaks would improve the system.
I'd avoid using terms like "evolution" and "species". There is evidence that our species has evolved measurably in the recent past (as in "within the last 10,000 years"). The most notable sign of recent evolution being the evolution of lactase persistence in European populations (clearly a post-agriculture development, probably as a reaction to dairy farming). But there is no evidence at all that our psychology has evolved since the rise of the first civilizations (about 6,000 years ago) in a way that would have any influence on which political systems would be most effective. It's our systems that are changing to better suite the brains we have. It isn't our brains changing to allow us to use better systems. We are certainly still evolving. But the timescales involved are so long compared to the timescales on which we refine our political systems that it just isn't relevant.
I actually think the jury is in. Loads of countries other than the US are democracies. It's obvious at this point that there are much better implementations of democracy than the US system (downsides of being first). But almost universally, people living in democracies (including the US) are better off than people living in autocracies. Democracies do collapse and revert to autocracies (and it feels like the US is currently skirting the danger zone on that). But autocracies also collapse and become democracies. And so far it appears that autocracies collapse at a higher rate than democracies. The overall trend so far appears to be towards greater democratization. 

I do think the Battle of Bure is worth covering if any scenario designers are up to it. The British had a relatively small part to play in the Battle of the Bulge. But some of the fighting they were involved in, such as Bure, was pretty interesting. It doesn't strictly speaking fall into the Downfall timeframe. But it does fall into the wider CMFB timeframe, and requires assets that only became available in CMFB with the addition of the Downfall module. Here's The Operations Room's video on the battle: 
 

I do think the Battle of Bure is worth covering if any scenario designers are up to it. The British had a relatively small part to play in the Battle of the Bulge. But some of the fighting they were involved in, such as Bure, was pretty interesting. It doesn't strictly speaking fall into the Downfall timeframe. But it does fall into the wider CMFB timeframe, and requires assets that only became available in CMFB with the addition of the Downfall module. Here's The Operations Room's video on the battle: 
 

"How reliable was the swingfire and striker?"
Swingfire, if I recall correctly, had a quite long minimum range. It was fired upward then had  to be gathered into the LOS. So a Swingfire missile could be halfway down a standard CM map before the gunner got proper control of the missile. Wiki says minimum distance is 150m. That would be arming distance, it could be 700m or more downrange before the gunner got the missile in the crosshairs.

The formations aren't parade-ground rigid. Intervals and alignment are flexible in order to take advantage of the terrain. But they do fight in formations, of which a literal line is one (in fact it is the default formation for engaging an enemy to your front). The best you can do to mimic squad formations in Combat Mission is to break the squad into teams and arrange those teams into a line, column, or wedge (there are never enough teams to form a diamond unfortunately). A better representation of formations is on my wishlist for future improvements to Combat Mission.

I think this thread still has the potential to go somewhere. Provided that everyone can remember to avoid further personal attacks and insults. I think there is value in having a thread dedicated to discussing what we'd like some of the scenario designers out there to tackle. Give it one more chance.

I think this thread still has the potential to go somewhere. Provided that everyone can remember to avoid further personal attacks and insults. I think there is value in having a thread dedicated to discussing what we'd like some of the scenario designers out there to tackle. Give it one more chance.

I'd say it's worth playing both against a human opponent and against the AI. The human opponent is more reactive and challenging. But you can get in more turns a day against the AI. I think the only way to learn the game is precisely the same way you learn anything else. You put lots of time into it.
Of course one additional thing you can do is to supplement your gameplay by studying tactics. I made a post that I thought offered some decent tactical advice a while back: 
 
If you're really crazy you can even go directly to the doctrine manuals. For WW2 doctrine I usually go to the Nafziger collection:
https://nafzigercollection.com/product/american-tank-company-tactics-fm-17-32/
https://nafzigercollection.com/product/us-armored-infantry-battalion-fm-17-42/
https://nafzigercollection.com/product/british-and-commonwealth-armored-tactics-in-wwii/
https://nafzigercollection.com/product/british-and-commonwealth-motorized-infantry-tactics-in-wwii/
https://nafzigercollection.com/product/employment-of-tanks-with-infantry-fm-17-36/
https://nafzigercollection.com/product/german-panzer-tactics-in-world-war-ii-combat-tactics-of-german-armored-units-from-section-to-regiment/
https://nafzigercollection.com/product/soviet-armored-tactics-in-world-war-ii-the-tactics-of-the-armored-units-of-the-red-army-from-individual-vehicles-to-battalions-according-to-the-combat-regulations-of-february-1944/
https://nafzigercollection.com/product/soviet-infantry-tactics-in-world-war-ii/
I'd recommend FM 100-2-1 for Cold War/modern Soviet/Russian doctrine. And FM 71-1 or FM 71-2 for Cold War/modern US doctrine.

I'd say it's worth playing both against a human opponent and against the AI. The human opponent is more reactive and challenging. But you can get in more turns a day against the AI. I think the only way to learn the game is precisely the same way you learn anything else. You put lots of time into it.
Of course one additional thing you can do is to supplement your gameplay by studying tactics. I made a post that I thought offered some decent tactical advice a while back: 
 
If you're really crazy you can even go directly to the doctrine manuals. For WW2 doctrine I usually go to the Nafziger collection:
https://nafzigercollection.com/product/american-tank-company-tactics-fm-17-32/
https://nafzigercollection.com/product/us-armored-infantry-battalion-fm-17-42/
https://nafzigercollection.com/product/british-and-commonwealth-armored-tactics-in-wwii/
https://nafzigercollection.com/product/british-and-commonwealth-motorized-infantry-tactics-in-wwii/
https://nafzigercollection.com/product/employment-of-tanks-with-infantry-fm-17-36/
https://nafzigercollection.com/product/german-panzer-tactics-in-world-war-ii-combat-tactics-of-german-armored-units-from-section-to-regiment/
https://nafzigercollection.com/product/soviet-armored-tactics-in-world-war-ii-the-tactics-of-the-armored-units-of-the-red-army-from-individual-vehicles-to-battalions-according-to-the-combat-regulations-of-february-1944/
https://nafzigercollection.com/product/soviet-infantry-tactics-in-world-war-ii/
I'd recommend FM 100-2-1 for Cold War/modern Soviet/Russian doctrine. And FM 71-1 or FM 71-2 for Cold War/modern US doctrine.

The panzergrenadier squad has three elements, not two, and understanding how best to use that is critical.
They consist of two symmetric fireteams, and the halftrack, each with an MG42. All three elements need to work in concert for them to function well.
The advantage of mechanised infantry isn't in how "elite" or "top-notch" they are, it's in mobility. It means that they can cross open ground rapidly, attack from unusual positions, be an effective reserve for a larger proportion of the battlefield, and (crucially), minimise the time between when an artillery bombardment lifts and when the infantry assault.
The trade-offs for this are that you have smaller squad sizes, and they therefore cannot take as much attrition. The halftrack is also as vulnerable as it is powerful, and they are significantly more difficult to use effectively.
The propaganda-fuelled naked halftrack assaults aren't the way to do anything. Instead you need to focus on a good position for the halftrack, and how best to use their mobility to shape the engagement into your favour.
In CM QB terms, accepting how warped an environment that is, I've rarely found much used for massed mounted panzergrenadiers. What's often been extremely useful is having perhaps a single platoon or two, which will increase the available options significantly. Obviously there's operational tempo concerns that CM won't care about here.

This guy makes a lot of videos using various war games as his mechanism.This one uses combat Mission.
 

AR has been on a roll with helpful Combat Mission tips videos. His latest one is one bogging, so I think a link to it belongs in this thread.
 

Of course just deleting FoW wouldn't be entirely satisfactory. Overhead concealment still works on drones. And you can shoot down drones with small-arms fire, or disable them with EW, which may temporarily blind the enemy in a section of the battlefield (they would have a new drone up before too long, but it may buy you some breathing room). Part of the point of a new modern warfare game would be to try to figure out how you could actually operate on the modern battlefield, and part of that is figuring out how to counter drones. So the drones themselves would need to be included in the game.

The game UI doesn't tell us what a vehicle's ground pressure is. Perhaps this is part of what is indicated by the "Off-Road" meter? He did say that weight made no difference (given the same "Off-Road" rating and means of movement), which struck me as odd. But it might make sense if the ground pressure is already accounted for in the "Off-Road" meter.
That was my interpretation as well. I assume when he said that the "order given" made no impact he meant whether you gave it a slow, move, quick, or fast order.

+ 1 Interesting stuff.  If I understood correctly speed had no impact on bogging.  I think this is what he meant when he said, orders had no impact?  I wish he had spent more time on the speed issue since the forum often debates speed vs bogging / immobilization.  IMO speed, in the game, does not effect bogging /immobilization but I'm not sure he went into enough detail to conclusively end that debate. 
In game bogging / immobilization probably means more than just getting stuck.  It may also mean mechanical issues, running out of fuel, etc.  Instead of the UI reading Bogged and Immobilized it might be better if it read something like Broke / Stuck and then sometimes transitioning to Out of Action instead of Immobilized.   This change in wording might be more accurate and make more sense more often. 
So when the player's tank becomes broke / stuck on grass terrain in clear weather with very dry conditions it could be assumed it threw a track or something mechanical.  If BFC ever made an animation for the track coming off this would be even better ............. 

AR has been on a roll with helpful Combat Mission tips videos. His latest one is one bogging, so I think a link to it belongs in this thread.
 

AR has been on a roll with helpful Combat Mission tips videos. His latest one is one bogging, so I think a link to it belongs in this thread.
 

AR has been on a roll with helpful Combat Mission tips videos. His latest one is one bogging, so I think a link to it belongs in this thread.
 

I just finished James Holland's book on Italy '43. A podcast on Cassino '44 might be just the thing to follow it up!
Edit: Also, I'm pretty sure Al Murray was the one narrating the audiobook. I'm guessing that's probably not a coincidence.

I did that a LOT when I moved back into WW2 after spending a while in the modern era. Definitely need to be thinking in terms of larger "danger close" distances in WW2.

Thankyou my good friend, but I can't use that excuse.  My modern era experience is currently limited to several turns in a Cold War PBEM against a Cold War veteran - good way to start eh?

I'm not, my attention has been directed elsewhere.  But I also need all the arty I can get, although I'm developing a reputation for dumping it on my own troops 🙄.  Except when it comes to on-map mortars.  I have a new-found liking for the US 60mm by way of an example.

You have a similar issue with a few other ATGMs.  The missile could be located away from the firing soldier.  Saggar comes to mind.

I don't think that's true. At least not as a hard rule. They will try to dismount as little as possible, in order to maintain the momentum of their advance. But that "as possible" there is doing a lot of heavy lifting. If the situation calls for dismounting, they will dismount.
That part is true as far as I know. I think it just comes down to the old debate that comes up on the forums of whether the improved situational awareness is worth making your TCs more vulnerable. And it seems each side of the Iron Curtain reached the opposite answer. The US said yes, it's worth exposing your TCs for the improved situational awareness. The Soviets said no, keep the TCs safe. We'll improve situational awareness by just using mass to get as many eyes looking towards the enemy as possible.

Nice little introduction to Swingfire, its development and capabilities, in this video from the Tank Museum: