John Kettler vs. CMBN--The Learning Curve!

[noob]

Welcome to our nightmare JK

I only have one piece of advice when playing CM, try and always use the weapons you have, in the role they were designed for.

This means splitting infantry squads using the assault team command, this divides the short ranged automatic weapons from the long ranged ones, this is because if your MG42 team has a guy with an MP40, and you are engaging medium to long range targets, the MP40 is pretty much useless, and consequently you are exposing it to fire it cannot answer effectively, this command also gives the majority of the grenades to the team with the SMG, and the rifle grenades to the team with the LMG.

This maxim applies to all nations, however the Brits are quite weak given the inferiority of the Bren compared to the MG42 and 30 cal, and the Sten compared to the MP40 and MP44, and when you add to that the lack of a decent on map mortar, they, more than any other nation, need a lot more HE support from tanks and off map artillery, or at least a 2:1 team on team numerical advantage.

[John Kettler]

noob,

Am still working on that squad splitting (got rather overwhelmed in the battle with all the infantry squads as it was), but was fascinated to watch my assaulting unit peel off from behind the wall by teams. Have no idea why the squad didn't go over the low wall and behind the building, thus having cover before moving through the objective, but it was still cool to watch. Is the assault team command the same as the assault command? If not, I need to look for it! I need to learn to run the Americans properly before I begin contemplating the Brits.

Regards,

John Kettler

[noob]

noob,

Is the assault team command the same as the assault command? If not, I need to look for it! I need to learn to run the Americans properly before I begin contemplating the Brits.

Regards,

John Kettler

The "assault team" command is a one of the ways to divide a squad, the "assault" command is a movement order, i never use it so i can't comment on it, when using the assault team, i usually get them to move "fast" to within 30m of their objective, with a target command attached to the last waypoint, that way the team will use their grenades when they come to rest.

[Mord]

Far as I know the assault command still has that draw back where the entire squad will succumb to suppression regardless of how the situation is going. If so, best thing to do is split your squad via "assault team" and use the two teams to leap frog or whatnot to the target area.

Mord.

[noob]

Far as I know the assault command still has that draw back where the entire squad will succumb to suppression regardless of how the situation is going. If so, best thing to do is split your squad via "assault team" and use the two teams to leap frog or whatnot to the target area.

Mord.

A platoon can field three SMG teams and three LMG teams, so i use the three SMG teams as close assault units, and the three LMG teams give cover fire no nearer than 250m to the target if possible, i wouldn't leap frog with SMG "and" LMG teams, the LMG teams would trail behind at all times.

Use the SMG teams to find and secure a good spot for your LMG teams, then use the quick move order to get the SMG teams close to the target, and the fast mover order to cover the last 50m, this is of course, after the target has had, or is having, a liberal dose of support fire from the LMG teams, and or smoke if possible, i wouldn't bother with the assault move order at all.

[Mord]

Yeah, I agree. With splitting of squads and such it's not needed.

Mord.

[sburke]

Yeah, I agree. With splitting of squads and such it's not needed.

Mord.

I split my teams as MGs are heavy. That gives the rest of a the force a better chance to run away and a sacrifical lamb of the slower MG team behind them to slow the enemy.

[MikeyD]

A common mistake using Assault command is making the waypoints too far apart. The point is short waypoints. A team bounds forward and goes to ground, the next team leapfrogs them as the first team does supporting fire. Placing Assault command waypoints too far apart or too deep into cover rather misses the point of the exercise.

The special thing about "Assault Team" squad splitting is they give you one team as a firebase (usually including the mg) and leaves the other two intact for accepting the 'assault' command.

[Mord]

I split my teams as MGs are heavy. That gives the rest of a the force a better chance to run away and a sacrifical lamb of the slower MG team behind them to slow the enemy.

I find the worst team leader and tie his shoe laces together...Sorta the same deal.

Mord.

[noob]

So in a nutshell John, if we see an MP40 with an MG42, a Thompson with a 30cal, or a Sten with a Bren, it's the Ostfront for you !!!

[John Kettler]

Appreciate all the help, now understand how to find the Assault Team order, and shall be most fascinated to see you come up with a DX BRICKBAT transport priority, should I screw up, to send my Americans to Russia--where the Russians wouldn't let them anywhere near the front lines. This is exactly what happened to our actual military observers there. Not sure how they'd view the Brits, but I agree it's a potent threat to go from charming Normandy where the Jabos outnumber the flies to the Ost Front, where the Il-2s outnumber the rooks!

Later war U.S. squads had two BARs, not one, and the Marines rocked 3, raising fire and maneuver to levels never seen!

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

It's over--for now. Allied Major Tactical Defeat. All that could be asked of men was, but flesh was not equal to HMGs, nor tanks to the PaK 40. My left hook into the woods overlooking the road to Le Forges got shot up at precisely when my men were all but spent. I beat on those HMGs like you wouldn't believe and killed several: 60s got one, my surviving tank another, and I managed to pin the Panzerschreck waiting for me nearby. Might've pulled something out of the fire in a few turns, but the bypassed German force was enormous, and I now fully understand why fighting from one field to another was a nightmare. I think that kind of attack would've swallowed a battalion, but my bypass efforts left American bodies practically the length of the field. Well sited HMGs are murder, and these had strong positions and long fields of fire. My kingdom for some real artillery! For reasons unknown, I had a lot of problems with ignored deploy weapon commands, which really drove me mad, being chronically firepower short in the face of those terrible HMGs. If the 60s came with ammo bearers, I think I must've misplaced them, for I never saw them, and were they sorely missed! And to think, people got paid to do this insanity with live ammo!

Regards,

John Kettler

[womble]

It's over--for now.

It'd be really helpful if you could just look at and let us know the scenario name so people familiar with it can offer relevant specific comment and advice. It only takes a second or two.

For reasons unknown, I had a lot of problems with ignored deploy weapon commands...

Deploy weapon commands have to be issued with the terminal waypoint selected (bright and big). At that point they will always be obeyed... unless they're in a building, when sometimes they just crawl around and can't find a place to set up. You may also encounter problems getting your team set up to fire over/through/round an obstacle; where the MG sets up is relevant and this sort of problem can often be avoided by having the team approach a linear obstacle from a perpendicular direction, or sorted by giving them a Face command (usually I select the last waypoint, then hit Face directly through the hedge, and then give the Deploy - most of the time with a straight hedge, this gets things set up nicely).

[John Kettler]

womble,

Usually I leave it out because I can't remember it, but now I do: Roadblock.

The information on Deploy Weapon was most useful, seeing as how I had LOS through the right side of the left side hedgerow for my .30 cal MG. Team arrived almost perpendicular to said hedgerow. Never thought to try Face, then Deploy Weapon, though. Next time!

Regards,

John Kettler

[womble]

Usually I leave it out because I can't remember it...

The context it supplies is useful enough that it really is worth making a note of it, or going back and looking.

[DavidFields]

Going from CM1 to CM2, the biggest adaptations I have had to make:

1. I now direct fire my mortars more than 80% of the time. I had to be bludgeoned on these boards to be convinced that the direct fire of mortars was historical--in CM1 I thought it was bad tactics.

2. Mortars, mortars, mortars. In CM1 the small caliber mortars were a nuisance. In CM2 they are the killers--again, I am assured that is historical. In CM1, it was the MGs which were my killers.

3. I am still having difficulty getting a feel for the amount of concealment terrain gives my troops. In CM1, putting someone X yards back from a tree line gave excellent concealment--there is no such simple formula here.

4. The 1:1 representation, combined with tracking all the flying metal through its entire flight, has shown me how vulnerable a cloth clothed human was in a WW2 battlefield. Just putting metal down range, or receiving it, even inaccurately, when you have kneeling troops, seems to me to result in a lot of casualties.

[c3k]

Going from CM1 to CM2, the biggest adaptations I have had to make:

1. I now direct fire my mortars more than 80% of the time. I had to be bludgeoned on these boards to be convinced that the direct fire of mortars was historical--in CM1 I thought it was bad tactics.

2. Mortars, mortars, mortars. In CM1 the small caliber mortars were a nuisance. In CM2 they are the killers--again, I am assured that is historical. In CM1, it was the MGs which were my killers.

3. I am still having difficulty getting a feel for the amount of concealment terrain gives my troops. In CM1, putting someone X yards back from a tree line gave excellent concealment--there is no such simple formula here.

4. The 1:1 representation, combined with tracking all the flying metal through its entire flight, has shown me how vulnerable a cloth clothed human was in a WW2 battlefield. Just putting metal down range, or receiving it, even inaccurately, when you have kneeling troops, seems to me to result in a lot of casualties.

If you issue a "hide" command, they will go prone. Yeah, they don't spot as well that way. It's a trade-off.

I came to CMBN from CMSF. If you haven't tried that, let me just say that Kevlar helmets, body armor, 30 round magazines, automatic grenade launchers, instant smoke, all got me used to a certain style of fighting. The casualties my men suffered when I first played CMBN was a bit disheartening, to say the least!

Ken

[DavidFields]

C3K: right, but ending all my movement orders with "hide" is tedious, and spotting is so important in CM2 that, of course, I wish there were a "hide behind trees and obstacles, but keep spotting". I still maintain that there is micro-environment obstructions in RL that would give the soldiers more to hide behind--too much for a computer simulation, but not having it results, I think, in infantry being over vulnerable--both to shrapnel and to spotting.

And with all the adaptations I have made, most of them reasonable, I am glad, John Kettler, (if I read somewhere correctly) you like linear fire missions, but I have yet to be convinced they are WW2 authentic--particularly when made something like diagonal.

[John Kettler]

Rankorian,

Regarding mortars, are you talking about firing from open sights, with the crew itself doing the observation and fire direction?

Regarding there being more cover than the game models, I believe you'll find these articles at the link of considerable interest. We now have/are developing analytical tools and technology allowing unprecedented levels of terrain analysis, cover analysis, detection of hidden forces and more.

http://www.military-advanced-education.com/mgt-home/296-gif-2011-volume-9-issue-1-february/3841-lidar-future.html

You are right, the microrelief that marks the difference between life and death for soldiers under fire, does not appear to be present, unless modeled via some equation operating behind the scenes and not perceptible to us.

I do love Target Linear, because it finally gives us the means to shoot something like proper defensive fires in front of our positions. I wish we could draw a box, since that was how such concentrations were plotted, with the guns ""walking" the impact zone forward and back like some hellish broom.

I dug this up on WW II artillery fire patterns. What it says is this: While not the norm, the angled pattern was available. Please see "Unusual Sheafs" here. Note also that the gun line in the diagrams is, itself, not a straight line, being staggered.

http://www.poeland.com/tanks/artillery/sheafs.html

c3k,

Coming from an environment in which your GIs were described as "being able to survive practically anything but a direct hit from an RPG," thanks to unprecedented levels of protective kit, I can well believe it's a shock.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JonS]

linear fire missions, but I have yet to be convinced they are WW2 authentic--particularly when made something like diagonal.

They were quite normal in 1916.

Edit: as part of a fireplan. Impromptu, on-the-fly? Yeah, not so much. But, then, IMO there shouldn't be anything other than "Point Target" available beyond the setup phase.

[womble]

C3K: right, but ending all my movement orders with "hide" is tedious, and spotting is so important in CM2 that, of course, I wish there were a "hide behind trees and obstacles, but keep spotting".

Well, your wish has been granted. Always has been. Because that's the pTruppen default behaviour. They'll hide as best they can in the Action Spot they end up in, oriented towards the direction they're facing, while maintaining situational awareness.

I still maintain that there is micro-environment obstructions in RL that would give the soldiers more to hide behind--too much for a computer simulation, but not having it results, I think, in infantry being over vulnerable--both to shrapnel and to spotting.

Again, that's already accounted for. BFC have, IIRC, mentioned a "terrain saving throw". Whether that's a literal description of the mechanic or shorthand for something a bit more complex and less abstract, I don't know, but microterrain is certainly considered, according to the game's manufacturers.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Edit: as part of a fireplan. Impromptu, on-the-fly? Yeah, not so much. But, then, IMO there shouldn't be anything other than "Point Target" available beyond the setup phase.

I suppose someone should ask the question. Why isn't Point Target the only type allowed after setup? I rarely use anything other than Line. Should I feel dirty?

[JonS]

Why isn't Point Target the only type allowed after setup?

'cos CM would kinda suck? Edit: also, CM doesn't have anywhere near the fireplanning capability that would really be necessary to justify that kind of post-star restriction. And even if the game did have a robust fireplanning tool ... who'd really want to use it for every game?

I rarely use anything other than Line. Should I feel dirty?

If so, we can we feel dirty together.

[Vanir Ausf B]

'cos CM would kinda suck?

Why would it suck?

[JonS]

People expect to have an unrealistic amount of flexibility.

(and, actually, without a really good fireplanning function, removing the existing flexibility would probably /be/ unrealistic, overall)