Simcoe
-
Posts
555 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Simcoe
-
-
1 hour ago, Kinophile said:
I'm dying for a revamp/second pass of BS. If SF can get a SF2 then surely...?
For me personally, the extensive difference in how the UA is structured, armed, lead and trained now (potentially in the near future) versus how it's depicted in BS is fascinating.
It would make for a very interesting game - if the emphasis is on UKR rather than NATO.
By comparison, UKR in BS1 often feels like an afterthought, the barely functional little brother, but now we can see that they could inflict serious losses, forcing escalation and extending duration of a true state v. state war.
The BFG approach to BS1 narrative definitely fitted the framework detailed here:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/12/27/how-russia-decides-when-to-invade/
...and if we take the SF2 approach then a revamp, re-telling of the story in light of experience, real world events and shifts in technology could be fascinating. Drone swarms, anyone? I mean...bloody hell, we're IN the future now.
Huge agree! A peer vs peer conflict without the US's overwhelming technological advantage sounds way more fun.
-
Sorry to be that guy but I can't wrap my head around Soviet meeting engagement tactics.
With the Soviet deliberate attack training you follow a clear checklist:
- Set up artillery/smoke
- Set up ATGM's/grenade launcher
- Wait for artillery to hit
- Engage tanks/ATGM's/grenade launcher to soften the defenses
- Move in with APC/IFV's and clear out defenses with infantry
With the meeting engagement this checklist is all out of order:
- Single battery of artillery (useful for sniping single units but not enough to cover a movement of AFV's
- Small group of infantry that has a single pair of binoculars and a platoon or two of tanks
- 20 minutes in you get the main body with infantry/tanks/more artillery (sometimes in full view of the enemy)
- 10 minutes later you get your ATGM's/grenade launchers (the useful long range kind)
- your artillery finally starts hitting
Would anyone be willing to give a short walkthrough of the Soviet Meeting Engagement Training? How did you use each tool in the arsenal and in what order?
-
26 minutes ago, John Kettler said:
This is the link to the above, which was dated February 8, 1979, placing it directly into the CMCW timeframe. This is what US soldiers were being officially taught back then. Subjects are the T-62, T-54 and T-72. In the footer are no fewer than three other TRADOC bulletins plus other goodies, such as the LAW employment guide.
https://archive.org/details/DTIC_ADA392790
Regards,
John KettlerThanks for sharing!
-
On 12/25/2021 at 10:57 PM, John Kettler said:
Speaking here of real combat lessons from the Yom Kippur War. YMMV based on terrain, etc. When the IDF 190th Armored Brigade counterattacked to recapture part of the Bar Lev Line captured by Egyptian troops, the tanks went in unsupported and got massacred, first by AT-3s, then RPG-7s when inside AT-3 Rmin. After swallowing that bitter pill, the IDF began to use combined arms against the ATGM threat, and the first part was immediate suppressive fire on and near the where the launch signature was seen. If manpacked, the operator is either very close to the launcher or can be as far as 15 meters away. If a BMP-1 is firing the AT-3, the operator can be up to 100 meters away. All it takes to neutralize the MCLOS weapon is to distract the operator, causing the ATGM to go out of control and crash. Many IDF tanks had lucky crews. Why? Their came back covered with missile guidance wires (some with as many as 5 sets) from AT-3s that flew right over them! The Israelis did this immediate suppression drill not just with the weapons of the tanks, but with MG fires from their halftracks, .30 cal and the great distractor, the Ma Deuce. The IDF used the main gun firing HE as part of the immediate suppression scheme, too. The IDF habitually fought with TC's head out, because, despite the resulting TCs wounded and killed, it had found that a TC up tank was twice as effective as a fully buttoned tank.Pretty sure they had defensive smoke on the tanks. US anti-ATGM tactics (which I've read directly from the Army manuals and ARMOR magazine articles by Armor officers typically) not only called for what the IDF did but added a refinement in the form of APERS-T aka Beehive. Best thought of as delayed action canister, Beehive wellplaced would open up well in front of the launch site and blanket a considerable frontage with a cloud of flechettes, not only posing a direct threat to the all-important operator and huge distraction, but throwing up a cloud of LOS-breaking dust, defeating MCLOS guidance instantly. Additionally, there was a small possibility of damaging or destroying one or more missiles ready to fire. Never saw it mentioned anywhere, but for the sake of thoroughness needed to mention it.
While the US in CMCW has no MG armed halftracks in CMCW, it does have the M113, usually in Ma Deuce only configuration (have no info on whether we still had the 3-MG (Ma Deuce covering forward and 2 x M60 typically firing L&R but also covering rear) ACAVs from Vietnam War in service. Nor do I know what fighting options are available for infantry in the troop transport part of the M113. If in range, these must be part of your immediate suppression scheme. In late game timeframe scenarios, you may or may not have the super weapon Bradley, with its excellent sensors and infantry-eating Bushmaster, which is also fond of light armor.
Effective use of terrain is crucial, as is overwatch, best done in hull defilade. In truth (no idea whether the modeling supports it), you could go for positioning your M60s (if so equipped) such that only the .50 caliber MG turret is exposed. Make short dashes from cover to cover. Use smoke to help shield your move and get away from where you were when you saw the missile launch. Don't recall the specifics, but the Anti-SAGGER maneuvering drill involved abrupt jinking, whipping up dust and such to throw off the SAGGER operator, and the SAGGER was pretty slow. Things got worse in a hurry when Gen 2 SACLOS systems were deployed. It was much harder to disrupt missile tracking, evade the missile; the ATGMs were much faster, and the Rmin shorter than the SAGGER, thus expanding the threat envelope considerably.
The last part of the counters to the ATGM lies in FS, especially, in a breaking situation, via organic fires from own mortars. The drill is Immediate Suppression and whatever pattern gives the greatest area coverage. You want fire on the launch area and surrounds now! If it lands in the target area, great, same if short. All it really has to be is on and around the launch site or between your tank/s and the launch site of the ATGM. Am not sure whether the Dedicated Battery scheme was in use in CMCW timeframe, but if you have it, this is the fastest non-mortar tube artillery you can get. Registration Points are a huge help in getting fires now!
Caveats
Have described what the real tactics were in this period. How doable they are in CWCW is unknown to me. Something I didn't mention is that major obstacles to ATGM use included brush and water features. In addition to causing LOS issues, brush broke guidance wires. Water obstacles shorted the guidance wires, causing the missile to crash. When it provided the maps for the tactical board wargame Firefight to SPI, the Army cheated in order to showcase its high tech weaponry by simply removing brush and water obstacles alike from maps based directly on a chunk of Fort Leavenworth's vast military exercise areas. This made TOW a much deadlier threat than it really was. Also removed were telephone wires (not sure about poles; don't recall any depicted), a huge problem for helo launched TOW and presumably all other wire guided ATGMs. Remember, AT-2 platforms (HIND D helos) do NOT have guidance wires, so are immune to all issues I have listed where the Army cheated. What BFC did ref these real world issues I don't know, just as I don't know the situation regarding anti-SAGGER driving, APERS-T availability and treatment, and other ancillary issues. Our non-Mod testing community could be extremely helpful in understanding these issues, minimizing what's lovingly referred to as Recon by Death, although in the case of the armor, it would be Armored Assault by Death.
The best advice I can give, unless and until we get word from the testers, BFC or both, is to emblazon in your brain this: "What can be seen can be hit: what can be hit can be killed. As much as possible, don't be seen. If you must be seen, minimize duration of exposure by moving short distances dashing from cover to cover. Have as much mutual support as possible.Use overwatch and traveling overwatch. Employ on tank smoke. Use Immediate Suppression fires first from organic mortars and also with Dedicated Battery, should it be available. Buy Registration Points. Immediate Suppression FS should be HE, not Smoke. This is because artillery smoke isn't near instantaneous, like tank smoke is. There's nothing quite like soft fluttering sounds (mortars), rapidly approaching shriek (field artillery) or both, followed by thunderous explosions, the landscape fountaining skyward, and clouds of jagged metal splinters dangerous hundred of meters away and fatal closer in to make ATGM operators far more concerned with surviving than staying on target. If you've got proximity fuzed ammo, it's marvelous for immediate suppression because it carpets a far greater area with splinters than a surface impact does. Most Soviet and Warsaw Pact ATGMs are highly exposed, with either no protection or minuscule (glass fiber tube) when ready to fire. If you've got fires raining down (and if in-game modeling permits), then you may be able to dud, set afire or outright explode exposed ATGMs in the impact zone. Even 81 mm mortar fire can be deadly to light armor. Mr. Tom (?) found that 82 mm HE landing a few meters away from a BTR-70 could punch right through the side armor. A typical burst would put something like ten fragments clear through the side, creating interesting possibilities for ATGMs inside said light armor!
Naturally, if you're executing a hasty or prepared attack you need to do the best possible map analysis to identify where to move, how, etc., and prepare your support fires accordingly. Here, you have enough time for mortar and artillery delivered smoke to be useful, because you tie it to your maneuver scheme. Thus, your blocking smoke goes down first, followed by whatever the smoke cloud blooming time delay is, and then you come across open ground only when you need to. Pay attention to wind direction and wind speed.
Here's the US Army training film on defeating Soviet ATGMs. Not as thorough as I'd like but nevertheless useful. Would be a LOT more useful if the res wasn't horrific!
Regards,
John KettlerGreat write up! Really cool info. Any good books on the Yom Kippur war? It's really the closest thing we will ever get to Modern peer fighting during the Cold War.
I agree with your analysis. I've found that if you're going to cover ground that is likely to have ATGM'S it must be done with a covering force of tanks in hull down positions and tons of smoke/artillery. With this in mind, I've moved to large set piece attacks rather than slow fire and movement. If you can only move your tanks under cover of artillery then you might as well move all of them.
-
3 hours ago, danfrodo said:
Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukah and Happy New Year and anything else going on for y'all!
I have been delayed in my progress in RollBahnD campaign due to the evil real world, but finally have finished second mission. What an excellent infantry fight. And the visuals look just like pictures from the era, rolling terrain, woods, fields, fences.
Here, paratroopers advancing into the unknown in the dull, overcast afternoon light, wondering what awaits them in the village/ridge beyond.
I take the buildings in the village area, get some eyes on the ridge. I spot enemy assets and begin hitting with mortars and MG fire. As the battle develops, I have a three pronged attack forming using ~safe areas of approach. Left via dead ground below ridge, right through the woods, and the least safe route up the center, which will wait until the wings engage. Enemy MGs appear to be knocked out and so once in position I use mortars for smoke left & right then attack. One tough bunker falling at a time, via small arms suppression then panzershreks. Right and left flanks, respectively shown below.
Now the middle moves up and engages while the flank attackers knock out bunkers one by one....
But the toughest Ami of the war just won't flee or surrender -- he won't even stop firing when there's hundreds of bullets hitting all around him!
Alas, he is finally wounded and the panzershrecks move in to finish off the bunker. Total german victory, low casualties. I did have one cheat point in the spirit of full disclosure. An enemy MG that I was flanking was shooting through a bunker that I expected would provide cover/concealment for my movement -- I thought this was un-physical so went back to previous save and didn't assume that.
All in all, great fun. Currently reading The Devil's Adjutant, about Peiper's advance, and this really felt right. On to battle #3, the PanzerSpitze mine incident well known from this and other books on the subject. I don't know where the mines are and maybe I can somehow miss them? I am expecting not so, but we'll see.
Great right up!
-
10 minutes ago, George MC said:
Worth minding the 'Soviets' in the NTC cam[paign are all set to 'veteran' or 'crack'+ so hot on spotting. Regulars or below will be less so.
Given you've been through the NTC crucible you might be pleasantly surprised with 'normal' Soviet units
Very much looking forward to that. Those guys can hit a moving M-150 1,000 meters away. *shudders*
-
18 minutes ago, Halmbarte said:
Right, you do what you need to to accomplish the mission.
But given somewhat open terrain, I'll lead with tanks 1st then infantry. The tanks might be able to take a hit and still be mission capable but the BMP or BTRs will not. A burning APC with a dead squad inside isn't helping accomplish the mission. A burning APC with 9 pairs of eyeballs outside to see where that TOW or ATGM came from is still being useful.
H
Very true it's a bit more nuanced than my earlier statement. Let's say you are trying to take a hill with the US in the flank. You want to put your infantry on that hill but a BMP can provide over watch for your tanks as they move across open ground and they can maneuver(with support fires to cover them) onto that hill like a tank. Just saying you don't need to baby them as much as an M113.
-
1 hour ago, Phantom Captain said:
Haha! But this is exactly what happens when you use them as the Soviets would. I am learning to stop thinking in CM "casualty terms" and just grit my teeth and realize I am GOING to lose men. Horribly. It's pretty excruciating watching a whole squad (the screams!) brew up in a BMP and just shrugging my shoulders and continuing on.
In a world of man portable ATGM's there are zero ways to guarantee you won't take losses. You can monitor a tree line for hours but once that vehicle comes into view it's over.
When losing a BMP. It's important to think about how useful the infantry are without the BMP. I've moved toward using the BMP as a tank first and APC second. Losing the infantry inside isn't super important.
-
1 hour ago, MikeyD said:
Before working on the Cold War title I worked on the CMRT Fire and Rubble module. So I got to first play with the late war Russian offensive doctrine of "We've got 4x more of everything and we're coming straight at you!" Or, as Stalin said, quantity has a quality all its own. The Seelow Heights bloodbath is often discussed but that had been preceded by the Vistula-Oder offensive where the Germans had been virtually steamrollered and Poland taken in a matter of weeks. Its interesting that the US zone of operations is in a part of West Germany least likely to be the focus of the main Soviet assault. The Fulda operation would probably be just to tie down the Americans while the main show takes place to the north.
Both are interesting points but I'm not sure what connects them. On your first point, I think playing the Russian campaigns for F&R > CW > BS is a great walk through of Russian doctrine. You can point a straight line from SMG wielding tank riders to BTR's to the current age.
On your second point. Would the German AO be the one to get the brunt of Soviet forces then? Or the British?
-
1 hour ago, Lethaface said:
Good points, although I do like the .50 on the M113 for infantry support. And in my experience spotting is a bit better for US tanks (even without Thermals), but unbuttoned there's probably not much difference between the non-thermal units.
Another thing is the c2 network, I think the US forces can send info through the chain faster, which also helps them on the point of flexibility.For the M113 I found the gunner was killed too easily.
In the NTC at least I found the Russians getting quicker spots but I'm about to start the US campaign and that opinion may change.
Wholeheartedly agree on your last point. Look at the sheer number of radios in a US company combat team. Compare that too the Soviets who have a only a few radios in an entire battalion!(For infantry at least) I like how it emphasizes their difference in mechanized infantry tqctics.
The US wants to dismount and get the land under observation. Soviets don't want their infantey to dismount unless absolutely necessary. And they want their APC's to do the heavy lifting.
-
42 minutes ago, Lethaface said:
Although I also think that certain applications of artillery against AFVs (especially in CMBS) seems underwhelming at times, imo Soviet tactics / doctrine does 'work' or have application in CM.
But imo Soviet doctrine / tactics aren't to brainlessly rush into the enemy objective command & conquer style. Imo would the war actually have played out according to CMCWs backstory, I don't think many Soviet commanders will try to push a MRR blindly into a route where the whole recon / forward security element (or both) have become smoldering wrecks.
In my experience in CMCW the USA forces shine when used as one would use a scalpel or similar precision tools, which can be neatly used to cut away the strongest enemy assets while bounding forward under overwatch. Scout, smoke, shoot & scoot, suppress, flank, etc.. (aka recon pull). Engage enemy at distance with TOWs etc, cut off their head than move in for the kill.
The Soviet forces work better with the 'sledgehammer' approach. Choose a place for a main effort (imo ideally after your recon/forward security got a feel for the composition of enemy defenses), bombard the crap out of any potential strongpoints / defenses threatening your main effort. Setup strong firesupport positions (ATGMs, AGL, etc), isolate the main effort / objective by smoking off other parts of the battle field. Than fully commit to the push, move boldly from fire position to fire position and keep shooting anything vaguely suspicious. Continue shooting for good measure. (aka more like a command push).
The sledgehammer approach does usually produce casualties faster. But that's a different issue than the question of whether it 'works' in CM imo. It certainly works better for USSR forces than trying to play them like they are US forces (at least for me).
Of course all battles are different but some things are universal, which don't care about doctrines. Don't rush all your tanks into the open if there's a bunch of potent ATGMs / enemy tanks in good positions waiting for your to do exactly that. Whether your playing USSR, USA, modern or WW2; it will remain true.Maybe you can get away with it if it if your rolling with a bunch of M1A2SEP against AT-3 Malyutka's or T-55s. But than you're not getting results because of good tactics anyway.
I think this hits the nail on the head. I don't think it's a matter of whether Soviet doctrine works 100% like the simulations but playing to the TO&E and letting the strategy flow from there.
US
- Tons of binoculars, forward observers at the platoon level.
- Less artillery, more air power
- Tanks (to me) have worse spotting at least until thermal imaging and have terrible hull down positions
- more organic infantry AT access
- APC's are useless besides transporting troops
The US wants to keep you at a distance, observed while you bombard them with air support. They want to use small, flexible, independent units to make their own space and take ground.
Soviet
- barely any binoculars, you get maybe one or two forward observers
- More artillery, less air
- Tanks have decent spotting, high speed, low silhouette
- Less organic AT access
- APC's can help support infantry
Soviets need their entire battalion to function to make one set piece attack after gaining as much intel as possible
Maybe certain aspects of Soviet doctrine doesn't work but it looks pretty close to me just with TOE.
-
On 12/26/2021 at 1:37 PM, fireship4 said:
As an aside, I found that you can assign UAVs to the highest HQ and subordinate units (including FOs) should be able to call artillery within observed areas while HQ gets up to the minute recon.
Does that just mean having the highest HQ be the one to call in the drone?
-
1 hour ago, domfluff said:
The list of bullet points really feels like you've understood the point of the thing, congratulations man. I do think that Cold War really shows off what CM can do, and it works well within the limitations of the game - the map sizes of the campaign missions are correct for the period, there are ATGMs with limited ranges, etc.
Thanks!
Agreed. I think Combat Mission excels in simulating tank/infantry cooperation with an emphasis on armor and that's Cold War in a nutshell.
-
2 hours ago, Bil Hardenberger said:
Thank you for the comments... @George MC helped me ham fist my way through this campaign... his AI programming was masterful and he had to jump through hoops to make it do what I wanted it to.
The final scenario was the graduation from NTC.. basically if you have made it that far you might have been feeling a little cocky, and it shows what a proper Soviet Battalion attack looks like, it should have been a shock. The action this was based on though, was a weakened Company Team against the entire NTC Regiment... so we took it easy on you.
@Simcoe What did you think of the Decision Points? I have seen little feedback on those and am wondering how they appear to the casual player.
Thanks again for the comments. Bil
Thank you for creating/helping create this campaign I greatly appreciate it.
The AI was extremely scary, especially on that last mission. I wasn't expecting them to cut off my extraction point!
For the decision points: I think they accomplished what you were setting out to do. Each decision feels impactful and the AI acts accordingly. Both situations feel pretty balanced as well. I hope to see more decision points in campaigns going forward. Thank you for asking.
-
Wow! That last mission had me at the edge of my seat the entire time. The Russians had cut off my escape route, my vulcan was out of ammo and a hind had free reign on my troops. The BMP's smartly disembarked their infantry and waited for me on a reverse slope. I charged my infantry, M113's, M60's over the hill with heavy casualties and rushed my remaining troops through to extraction while missiles and cannon fire rained overhead.
The Russians were merciful and didn't bring artillery which would have easily decimated the small patch of hills I used for a defence but they swarmed the entire map. They flanked me at every turn and set themselves up on hills overlooking my position hoping to catch an unsuspecting vehicle with an ATGM.
There was this glorious point where I said out loud "AM I ABOUT TO BE OVERRUN!?" My wife was very confused. I cheered every time my brave tankers got a hit and yelled in anger whenever my M150's missed their target.
Thank you for everyone's hard work. I felt it the entire time.
A few observations:
- To me, this campaign should be called "Hull Down in the Desert". I never used the hull down command before this campaign. Boy did I get my ass kicked until I finally did. Before, I was getting hammered by ATGM's and tank fire but after I wised up those babies were sailing over my head all day long.
- The mortar teams feel very anemic. They are quite inaccurate and the smoke they produce is pitiful. On the other hand they have a large amount of ammo and call in times are very quick. They were able to take out a few BMP's and distracted tanks in a pinch
- I was slightly disappointed with the first two missions (probably due to ignorance). They both start out really fun. I took "Hasty Attack" in the first mission and loved the early artillery barrage and watching the BMP's racing toward my position but after a while they just sat there and it was up to me to finish them off while they sat there. The second mission had the enemy slowly retreating with hull down positions but once the full battalion showed up they just sat there while I slowly carved them up.
- ATGM's are terrifying. I shelled the AT-4/7 on the hill in the "Hasty Attack" mission for 20 minutes before moving a M-150 out in the open and sure enough....
- I don't know if I can go back to the WW2 titles after this. The modern titles can be very frustrating but they are so fast paced that you can iterate over and over until you get it right. I replayed the first five minutes of the first mission in this campaign for a week trying to figure out the best way to attack it. The first five minutes of a WW2 title is just infantry slowly walking into the combat zone. Still need to finish the Rollbahn D campaign though...
- I love how balanced both sides are while being so fundamentally different. For example: each unit in a US infantry platoon has at least one pair of binoculars and an observer team. Compare that to the standard Soviet infantry platoon that has one pair of binoculars! The US feels like a tall lanky boxer squaring off against a smaller, more muscular MMA fighter. The US wants to keep you at bay and hit you with long range fire and indirect support. This requires flexibility and constant information on the enemy. The Soviets embody the old saying "everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth". The third mission put into perspective how devastating they can be once they are inside your defensive line.
- It's really interesting seeing first hand why the BMP was so revolutionary. In a US company combat team, I was constantly wishing my M113's could do...something...anything. Meanwhile, the BMP's were hitting my tanks with ATGM's, peppering my infantry with cannon fire, dropping off troops AND supporting them. I can't wait to get my hands on them in the Soviet campaign.
If you've reached the end, thank you for listening to me ramble.
-
8 hours ago, Phantom Captain said:
I am playing the 1st mission of Ride of the 120th and I believe I am very much learning something about the Cold War and Soviet Doctrine. Truly, it seems to me the best defense for what you say is to keep all your units moving. Seriously, stopping equals death. The training scenarios do a good job of really trying to stress this but it is key. Speed and mobility really are everything. I just threw my whole force straight at the first objective, presented so many targets and just KEEP MOVING. ATGMS will fire, miss and give their positions away to be destroyed. Ride or Die!!
Good point. One thing I'm looking forward to with the Soviets is using formations that have redundancy built in compared to the US. Feels like if I lose a single vehicle with them it's a significant loss of firepower
-
3 hours ago, Codreanu said:
First I would try and identify where they're most likely to be and hammer it with indirect fire if you can, barring that use covered routes, and barring that try to bait them into firing at you and then reversing. Having infantry close by to improve your chances of getting a spot on them when they fire would help too. I know in real life if you get launched on you're supposed to fire a snap shot towards where you think the launch came from, go evasive, and pop smoke but there's only so much of that you can do when you have to wait a whole minute for a turn to play out.
Thank you for the advice. It sounds like there isn't much of a silver bullet for ATGM's. I might try baiting an M113 while having plenty of infantry spotting for the launch.
-
How do you approach scenarios like the first mission of Ride of the 120th or the Hasty Attack option in the NTC in regards to ATGM's?
You know there are multiple ATGM's that will never be spotted before their first shot because they are vehicles in hull down positions or a couple guys on a mountain top. Also, there are too many angles to get shot from to sufficiently suppress with indirect.
Do you sacrifice a less useful vehicle in hopes of spotting the target?
Do you restrict your route? (There are some mission where there are no covered routes to an objective)
Could you bait out a missile by moving into the open, pause and reverse?
-
11 minutes ago, Codreanu said:
Bypassing them can work but sometimes maps are filled with these things or they might be in a key position that you really just have to attack and they stop you from being able to use the target command on them until you get right up on them. The only real ways I can think of when it comes to attacking them is trying to rush a tank up real close and blast it, attacking the hedge and hoping it destroys the hedge or overshoots hit the building, or trying to maneuver towards any hole or open side. Infantry assaults seem like death because there's no way to pour suppressing fire on the guys inside until you are at the hedge anyway.
Using tanks is viable. Do you know how to do a shoot and scoot?
Indirect fire is preferable.
Close in attacks like these are always about giving the opponent an unfavorable choice. For example: two fire teams need to assault a foxhole. If you throw one fire team at the foxhole the enemy will probably shoot down their attackers but if you move the second fire team to their flank and attack at the same time, the defender can shoot one team down but the other has a clear shot at their backs.
In this situation, I would surround the compound as much as possible and use small scout teams with the hunt command to find the positions (accepting losses) then do a coordinated assault making sure that each position is attacked from at least two sides.
-
12 hours ago, theforger said:
Definitely you'll find a most diverse mix of tactical situations! I think there's something different to all 35 scenarios, so hopefully not too repetitive.
It is a walkthrough historic reenactment, an attempt to get a low level understanding for what happened when, as opposed to pure gameplay.
It can be difficult to achieve both. There are different player skill levels to consider too. There's no way you can please everyone across all scenarios at this scale.
Some later scenarios are difficult to get a draw or better, so in the initial list I included the minimum level to progress, some of which are Major/Total defeats. There are some massive engagements, which may not be to your taste, such as KG X at Malmedy, Butchers of Baugnez and Ster Way to Heaven.
All I can say is you generally have plenty of time, 2 1/2 hours for the larger scenarios, so you shouldn't be up against it time-wise, which allows full recon, prep fire, smoke, changing initial approach to plan B, hiding units in cover that you don't necessarily need etc.
In addition to the situations you mention, some interesting ones
-
This one is caveated...as its not "fun" but Minen the Gap is included because...
- the Scheid Bridge, blown up by the Germans in their September retreat, caused initial delays for the KG, alongside them trying to use the same road as a 12th Volksgrenadier Division.
- The Spitze lost Bersin's and Bahrendt's Panthers in the area, as well as a little later Sternebeck's Panzer IV.
- So historically significant events to warrant including the scenario. Plus the map may be worth reusing at some point and was fun to build.
- It would be a nice CM feature if you were allowed to use the AI to control some troops on your own side, as would a follow command. But not to be as yet.
- Captured equipment from both sides make appearances
- Exit / sneak lead core units through enemy held village
- Capture fuel dump intact
- Armoured pursuit versus rear echelon
- Recon Pumas attack versus ???
- Tactical withdrawal, including rescuing a King Tiger, the idea "borrowed" from a CMBN campaign, adds some tension to a fighting withdrawal.
- https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/cm-final-blitzkrieg/cmfb-closing-the-door/
- Meeting engagement where both sides are attempting a tactical withdrawal through each others positions
- Major McCown makes appearance(s)
- Air attack, versus exit asap
- AA and Gndr defending, love those AA units
- Watching on map 150mm IG shells travelling across the battlefield...and the results, one of the benefits of keeping the maps huge.
- Gndr and nebelwerfer (they do make an appearance!) versus ...you'll find out, hopefully!
Sounds fun!
A while back I played a scenario called Home in Fire and Rubble. You play as a group of partisans assaulting a small village of Germans. You start with a small group but a squad then a full platoon are supposed to arrive.
The time gets down to 10 minutes and the platoon still hasn’t arrived. I decide to attack any way.
the majority of the enemy gets alway but I get more than expected.
At first I was annoyed that the briefing lied but in the end it forced me to improvise and it made sense that some local partisans couldn’t make it, we’re captured or chickened out.
I think there’s a lot of fun to be had in the margins of victory and defeat.
-
This one is caveated...as its not "fun" but Minen the Gap is included because...
-
Just finished the first mission. I'm so happy this came out.
I've always wanted to try a German campaign but the missions are usually huge with lots of units and I end up trying something else.
The first mission was a nice simple introduction and I like how the 2nd mission opens things up a little more.
Is there a good variety of mission types in this campaign? Attack, defense, infantry, armored etc.
-
This may be a bit premature but just thought I'd share.
I just got the book and read through around 40 pages. It's written well and I like the way it's organized.
The maps are useful and it's given me a new perspective on the situation. I never realized how much of the defense was held by the German army for example.
It's funny though. You write a book about a possible attack from the Soviet Union and in the first chapter you basically say "Ya, the Soviets never stood a chance and they never thought about initiating an attack. Manpower was roughly equal on both sides so it would never have worked."
I mean, we both know Superman is going to defeat Lex Luthor but at least make it "seem" like he has a chance.
All jokes aside, I'm liking the book so far.
-
Can't wait to try it out.
-
This community is amazing. Thank you so much for sharing!
Does Soviet tactics work in Combat Mission?
in Combat Mission Cold War
Posted
In the campaign and most scenarios where you play the Soviets you have a full Battalion. You're right though about casualty tolerance