Centurian52

I started playing Combat Mission in 2009, a couple years after Shock Force dropped. Prior to that the most realistic game I had ever played was Rome Total War, and the most realistic modern war game I had played was World in Conflict. So to go from that straight to CMSF absolutely blew my mind at the time. I've been an avid consumer of every new Combat Mission game that has dropped since then (and I've even gone back to the first gen games and am currently playing through CMAK).
But I've always had a nostalgic place in my heart for World in Conflict (which only intensified when I discovered Operation Flashpoint), and for over a decade now I have been craving a game that could bring the incredible realism of Combat Mission to the fascinating Cold War setting of World in Conflict. So when I first saw the announcement video for CMCW back in February I just about exploded with excitement (I was actually screaming with glee). CMCW is the most satisfying scratch to the longest itch that I've ever had. It is literally a dream come true for me.

Well we like to think we have been "part of the team" for quite some time now (Bil and I were beta testers for quite awhile and they are definitely a key part of the whole outfit).  That said, this time was definitely a different level of commitment but we are really glad that Steve et al took a chance on us.
Right now we are focused on continuing to support CMCW as we roll from BFC early access to wide release under Slitherine.  After that we will see.  Nothing is written in stone just yet, but I can say we do have plans...and then a plan after that...and maybe one more after that.

Very nice.  If this is from Neuhof, you are doing very well.  That scenario is designed to be a bit of a wake up call (i.e. what an angry MRB looks like when it is let off the leash)...glad you are enjoying it.

Enjoying it?  it was crazy good fun.  I cease-fired w about 20 minutes left, there was no more significant movement happening by red team.  I only got a tactical victory despite putting quite a hurt on them.  They got the two phase lines but not even close to the road junctions.  I knocked out 11 tanks and 33 APCs and caused ~65% casualties.  That MRB aint gonna bother anyone else in this war.  Only succeeded because I set up flank ambushes and didn't try to have long distance shoot out -- I learned that lesson a while back (those damn saggers and 125mm guns). 
I am starting to feel the attrition -- my infantry were shorthanded and short of dragons.

Hey Guys,
  Thank you very much for the very positive feedback.  Gotta say that beyond Bil and I dreaming away about the "bads ol days" we were really hoping to deliver something that might bring some entertainment and happiness in what have been some pretty crappy times.  
   CMCW is the game that fit the niche we didn't know we were missing (well some definitely did), it is in that sweet spot between WW2 and the modern titles that not only blends but has a unique identity all its own.  I know not everyone will take to it but there are more than enough time-titles in the BFC library for everyone, we are just really glad we could maybe get one more out there.

This is how misunderstandings escalate into full blown fights. It starts with an innocent criticism or disagreement:
which then gets interpreted as hostile:
and then actual insults start getting thrown:
There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with each other. Healthy human discourse requires disagreement and argument. But you can't let it antagonize you or make you defensive. If you feel attacked by a certain statement stop and reread it a few times until you can find a non-hostile way of interpreting it. If there is no non-hostile way of interpreting a statement then just ignore it. It probably wasn't relevant to the topic of the argument anyway. Above all, never insult or attack the character of your opponent. Personal attacks and hostility are the fastest way to derail what could have potentially been a perfectly rational argument and cause it to devolve into a fight.

From my limited observation, the bosses at Battlefront appear to be very happy campers about CMCW's reception and will be doubly-pleased when its anticipated sale on Steam comes about. There's still the plan to get everything in their catalog up for sale on Steam. I don't really know what left. CMFB isn't up on steam yet, is it?
Another aspect of infantry in cold war is NBC. WWII-style tank riders would be exposed to nerve gas, radiation, and nuclear blast effects. The Soviet offensive concept is buttoned-up forces rolling through a devastated landscape.

Something else to note re: ZSU-23-4 vs M163 is that the former had a Radar fire control system while the latter only had a Radar ranger. Thus, the Shilka can leverage its FCS to put shells where the computer expects the aircraft to be when they arrive vs the M163 where the gunner has to eyeball it.  I think this disparity, more than any other, makes the Shilka far more effective at the AAA role.

Well, in game SPAAGs could be perhaps overperforming but, in real life, the M163 should be wimpier than the ZSU-23-4. I remember back in the '80s that the consensus was that US Army lagged behind the Soviet Army in the mobile air defense department, and the eventual demise of the ill-fated M247 Sergeant York added insult to injury.
It will be interesting to see the Flakpanzer Gepard in action when the Bundeswehr/NVA module will be released! 😁

Warren gave a great breakdown. I would add that one of the most common complaints I see everywhere about CM games set in a modern setting is that the maps are too small. "Knife fighting in a phone booth" is a phrase that is usually thrown around quite regularly. I sympathize with that assessment to a degree.
I think that Cold War goes a long way of showing that with the proper sized maps, you can get real maneuver in a modern setting. Of course, the double edged sword here is that some people prefer those phone booth knife fights. I think that Warren is correct that Cold War currently is mostly the larger fights and does not have many smaller fights, and that going forward it will be important to try to include more of those smaller fights. But I think it was the right call going with the larger battles for the first game. After all, this was to be a massive mechanized fight, and I think it was important that Cold War capture that feeling and sense of scale out of the gate. 
All that said, I do think that Combat Mission has an issue with what I call administrative burden, or overhead. The player has to give so many orders to so many individual units, that it can get really tiresome keeping up with everything. Just getting a single company to road march can take hundreds of clicks and pause commands, etc. 
Reducing the admin burden on the player I think would go a long way to facilitating the playability of the larger battles. But that is completely in the hands of Steve and Charles, and is well beyond the scope of a game or module. 

Now some of you pay attention...this is good criticism.
So yes, if someone asked me "what would you do different", I would have to say that the balance of scenario sized for this title is it.  We have only a minority portion of Tiny and Small battle in CMCW and we wrestled over that somewhat.  So why did we go this way (and there was a deliberate consideration):
- CMCW is mechanized warfare.  One could argue it is set at the apogee of peer mechanized warfare.  So this does not mean infantry do not have a role, far from it; however, the infantry-only or infantry dominant fights are less realistic.  They definitely would have happened but they happen in context of a much larger mechanized battle.  The main problem here is weapon ranges and real estate.  As weapon systems evolved the frontages and area of effect for formations increases dramatically.  So the risk here for small force battles is big nearly empty maps or tiny fights at point blank range.  Not impossible (see Hunter or Prey for an outstanding small fight) but harder to consistently produce as realistic.
- Casual vs Hardcore.  This one is much tougher...who is the audience?  Here we really had to stick with the CM brand, which is more hardcore in its niche.  The brand is based on hyper-realistic, to the point of being a simulation vice game, at the tactical level.  The target gamer is someone who wants that as part of their hobby.  So we leaned into that with realistic scenarios and campaigns, many of them pulled straight from period doctrine, which in this context as mentioned previously is fast moving mechanized based warfare.  This pretty much need the Coy Tm as a minimum in order to showcase accurately and the Coy Tm in 1982 needed a 2x2 km battle field as a minimum, in reality it could probable handle a 4 x 4km battlefield (terrain considerations).
That said, I would really have liked to see good smaller scenarios and we will definitely take that into consideration for any DLC moving forward.

Apparently realistic.
It does help to have someone in the commander's seat for the BMP 3. I'm not sure about the BMP 2
It might not open a top hatch without someone in the commander's seat.
 

Friendly reminder that if you want to see a module at all, get your friends to buy Cold War. The better it sells, the more likely the chance of a module!

you expect me to remember something from April?  I can barely remember yesterday... what day is it?  Is the Canadian module out yet?

"Using drones" as in using the code to simulate a scout helicopter viewing a particular area. AFAIK scout helicopters were abundant around this time period. 
The TOEs for V corps and VXIII corps call for lots of kiowas. 

Nationale Volksarmee (or something like that). The East German Army.

what's NVA mean when attached to Bundeswehr?
and yes, Germans, Brits, Canadians, Dutch, French, and everyone else please. 

A Germany module seems the most important to me. The West Germans would have been the most numerous NATO force on the ground at the start of the war and would have carried the majority of the early fighting. So we desperately need to have them represented. Next most urgent after that is British forces. I've just got to take that Chieftain out for a spin.

A Germany module seems the most important to me. The West Germans would have been the most numerous NATO force on the ground at the start of the war and would have carried the majority of the early fighting. So we desperately need to have them represented. Next most urgent after that is British forces. I've just got to take that Chieftain out for a spin.

Bring in the French and we have 1812 Redux!

Perhaps another data point some might find interesting is frontal arc survival chances for the T-64/72/80s. Those three models and their variants were converging on the same numbers, so I'm calling them equal for simplicity.
This is of course not in hull-down and is not a reflection of Dragon's lethality - but rather the odds of hitting the lower front hull sweet spot at 980 meters.
This is also only counting hits which connected with the target, not shots fired - so does not account for Dragon's (lack of) reliability.

TL;DR - about a 50% chance that a single Dragon hitting a T-64 or better from the front will knock it out. It compounds from there with multiple hits - >90% of K/O if four hits are allowed to connect.
Seems the lesson for anyone playing OPFOR is to keep your T-64/72/80s hull down or roll the dice with shoot-and-scoot. With Dragon teams being plentiful and carrying 3 ATGMs each, the odds are still very much against any Soviet MBTs caught in the open.
Oh yeah, and send the T-55/62s to the scrapyard. 😁

Did a bit of repetition - recorded the outcome of 550+ Dragon hits on various Soviet tanks at various aspects.
I'll keep it to the point:
If a Dragon manages to score a penetration, it is a guaranteed K/O - 292 penetrating hits recorded, all of which resulted in a (often catastrophic) K/O. The real weakness of the Dragon is reliability. I didn't keep track of how many nosedived and hit the dirt short of target, but it was a lot; and that's considering the Dragon teams were not being fired upon. T-55s and T-62s have no protection against the Dragon - first hit to connect is a guaranteed penetration at all aspects and hit locations. I stopped recording 55s/62s results after the first 48 frontal hits resulted in 100% K/O rate. All other Soviet MBTs seem almost impervious to the Dragon in the upper frontal arc (front turret, weapon mount, upper front hull). Of 280 hits that landed in upper front, only 2 managed to penetrate (0.07% rate).  At the same time, all other arcs offer no protection - of the 290 hits recorded to sides (even at rather shallow 30* angles and including turret sides) and most importantly lower front hull - all scored a penetrating hit, a 100% K/O rate. So a true case of YMMV:
On one hand, a T-64/72/80 in a perfect hull-down position might appear "invincible". During one contrivance, I had to stop after 30 (thirty) consecutive hits failed to K/O a single T-72; however, make no mistake, there was not a single relevant subsystem left functional on that tank. Where as on the other hand, something as simple as a 30-degree traversal of the turret relative to the ATGM team pretty well guarantees a K/O on the first shot to reach the target. I think no matter which side of the Dragon ATGM you find yourself in, such dramatically polarized results can most certainly lead to frustration.
p.s. In case anyone is curious what my last two hours looked like, here's a 12 min segment - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2midc46M9CA
(You can also get a sense of how many missiles fail to reach target ... or even clear the launcher, as a few unlucky teams caught their own shrapnel)
 

Wow, that's science!

HQs can act as spotters for mortars, as long as the mortars are in command range of the HQ and the HQ has LOS to the target area. Any HQ will do.

You can use pre-planned arty missions by targetting areas during the 1st minute of a battle. You can use the pause command to delay this preplanned barrage. Once set, you cannot change a preplanned barrage later in the game.

You can place target reference points (if available in the scenario or bought in a QB) which act as pre-registered target points. Offboard artillery aimed at those TRPs gets a (much) reduced delay, onboard heavy weapons get a to hit bonus.

EDIT: Jason was, as usual, quicker AND more elaborate.

One of the oldest frequently asked questions.

Mortars can fire indirect with a spotting HQ. The spotter is the HQ unit with a red command line to the mortar - it must be in command. The HQ must have LOS to the target and not be hiding or panicked (panic turns command lines black, so that is redundant). Then select the mortar, and target the desired enemy or location. The target line will "stick" and should read "area fire".

The mortar will then fire on that physical location at its max rate of fire, until the order is cancelled. They will not adjust the aim point as a target moves, as they are firing at the location not the unit.

Mortar carrier vehicles get command lines to HQs, which are used only for this purpose. So you can spot for e.g. an 81mm SPW.

Non-mortar on map weapons (howitzers etc) cannot use indirect fire. They can of course area fire at any location they can see, and do not need a spotted enemy for that. But they do need LOS.

As for registrations for artillery, the game has a fortification type called "TRP" which stands for "target reference point". They typically cost 10 points and are available to defenders in QBs. In scenarios, either side may be given any number of them. These are placed anywhere on the map - they look like red bullseye in a crosshair.

Artillery FOs that target a location within 10m of a TRP, get various bonuses. The largest is a dramatic reduction in the delay before fire is delivered, typically to under one minute. The barrage will also always be accurate. And no LOS is necessary from the FO to the TRP.

On map mortars *that have not moved all game* may also fire at a TRP, without LOS or an HQ spotter. Same rule about 10m from the TRP marker.

Artillery FOs can choose 2 types of "sheaf" for their fire missions - standard, and "target wide". Standard represents a converged sheaf with all guns aimed at the same physical location. It gives a pattern that is long in the axis of fire - typically east-west - and quite narrow.

This is the dispersion pattern of the guns themselves, a kind of maximum tightness achievable. For typical types, most of the shells will land within 40m left or right and 100m long or short of the aim point. Half or more will land within 20m left or right and 60m long or short. The orientation cannot be changed.

Target wide gives a much wider and a more circular pattern. There is still elongation in the axis of fire. Up to 2/3rds of the rounds will still land in a pattern about as tight as previously described above. The remaining third or so will land up to 100m farther away.

2-3 target wide orders on aim points about 100m apart from side to side, will give a reasonable accurate depiction of a battalion scale fire mission. Almost everything else is much tighter than the patterns actually used, historically. Few players have the ammo for this, or want to spread it around over so wide an area even if they do. But it is possible and realistic.

Rocket FOs are an exception to all of the above. Rockets are wildly inaccurate, wide area weapons. Their normal pattern is about 400 meters wide, by about 200-250 meters long or short. Fire them at a whole enemy side of the map, in other words. There is still some definite tendency of the rockets to land near the aim point, with "near" now meaning within about 100m. The circle about 100m around the aim point of a large rocket fire mission will be well plastered. The rest of the huge pattern will get spotty coverage here or there.

FOs can be used in 2 distinct ways, independent of the choice of "sheaf" and the presence of TRPs: normal and "map" fire.

Normal fire missions are called during the game on a visible target or a TRP. They have delays from more than 5 minutes for large types to under 1 minute for TRP shots. The mission once started lasts until shut off by a change in aim point or by canceling the fire order. Rocket FOs often are single salvos (some types 2-3), most "tube" types have ammo for 3-4 minutes.

The aim point can be changed for a delay, typically 1-2 minutes added to the existing time. That can be used to "walk" a barrage. When you drag the target line around, it will be green if you are within adjust range of the previous aim point. 100m shifts cause minimal delay. Long shifts restart the clock as though a whole new fire mission is being called, and show a blue targeting line.

Normal or "reactive" fire is sensitive to LOS (lose it even briefly and the barrage will come down off target by up to 400m), and to the state of the FO (he can't pin or panic during the countdown). While you can call it out of LOS, it will miss by a long way and it should not be tried. TRPs are of course an exception.

Map fire, on the other hand presents a "fire plan" at higher HQ. It is planned once on the first turn of the game and cannot be changed thereafter. It is always accurate. It is always fired as a full module, with no change in aim point. It does not matter what happens to the FO - he can even exit and the shells will still land. Map fire must be ordered on turn 1. If no change is then made, it lands immediately as a "prep fire" bombardment. You can instead delay the mission by pressing Q, one minute of delay for each press. So you can call the fire anywhere and for any time. You just have to know exactly where and when, on turn 1.

A typical use of map fire is to buy 1-3 large caliber FOs with low unit quality (to make them cheap) and time their impact for when you expect contact, or just before it. Or to clear particular objectives you hope to reach. Since the plan cannot be changed, you have to conform your movements to the barrage instead of the other way around. It would be normal to also keep a "reactive" module, typically smaller caliber, to handle threats as they arise, etc.

Note that map fire is not allowed in meeting engagements. The sides are presumed not to know enough yet for higher staffs to have planned them already.

There is a fair amount of variety and a lot to learn how to do right, to get the most from CM artillery. There isn't a wide variety of allowed sheafs and such. You have to make up for it by using other features - e.g. aim here, fire for 1 1/2 minutes, shift the aim point 100m and fire the next minute, etc.

One other thing about TRPs - they also act as "boresights" for any on map gun with LOS to the location. Fire at a target close to a TRP gets much higher first round accuracy. This is used e.g. for ATG ambushes and the like. All TRPs work for all purposes, you don't have to designate which way they are being used or for which gun or FO.

I hope this helps.