What is the hardest Combat Mission...Mission?

[aleader]

Really? I found it utterly devastated the defenders. But then I used 2 whole modules of 105s.

One of the things that I found you have to appreciate is that the first turns are in near-darkness, and so there's nothing in visual range of the bridge to pin your engineers while they happily clear away the wire (and any sympathetic mines). Of course, if you rush down there too fast, you get splashed by the pre-planned barrage...

That mortar barrage was inbound before the pin, even with a TRP, so they were already destroyed. Only question was whether the pin stopped them blowing anything up. Again, though, if you get on the bridge in the pre-light turns, you'll not suffer because the AI won't shoot unless it can see something with one of its elements, and turns 2-5 (or at least "long enough for the engineers to do their work") are too dark for any AI units to see onto the bridge. If you shilly-shally about until it's light, you're screwed unless you use smoke.

That just takes practice with using engineers. Keeping the suicidal bunnies from getting themselves shot up is its own art form.

The AI just drops its mortars when it sees something within range of the TRP. It doesn't think "Oh, here come some more dogfaces, I'll have some shells waiting for them." Those are the shells it fired at the last targets. It is possible to dash through in the gaps.

Have you played this since the 2.01 patch?

- I've used both of the 105's at the same time (in 2 of the plays) and when the barrage lifted, there were still 3 - 4 MG's firing both times.

- As for the engineers, I quickly move them onto the bridge the 1st turn after the pre-planned barrage, and they are usually able to blast once before being pinned by fire. In any event, if this were your first playthrough, you wouldn't know this and would be unlikely to rush your engineers up there without knowing the enemy positions. Very gamey if you have to play it through 2 or 3 times to 'solve' it IMO.

- So you're saying there is a 'quirk' (god knows I don't want to say the word 'bug' here ;-) with engineers killing themselves in a hail of bullets after they've expended 1 demo charge? Tried this on the Panzer Marsch campaign and they do the same absurd thing, running right into an ambush on the other side of the hedgerow every time. How is this to be prevented? I never tried, but can I give them a waypoint after the 'blast' order? There seems to be no way to clear the other side of the bridge as by that time they are within range of 9 or 10 foxholes worth of fire.

Giving up on this one for now, although I would like to see the next battle...

[aleader]

@aleader:

SPOILER: School of Hard Knocks

...

..

.

I've played through this battle both before and after the v2.0 improvements and I think it's actually easier after the 2.0 improvements. Remember, the increases to machine gun suppression work both ways: they make machine gun fire from the defenders more dangerous, but they also make it easier to suppress the defenders with machine gun fire.

Send scout teams forward to draw fire, making maximum use of available cover. Make sure to have teams with binos in good observation positions to spot whatever shoots at your scout teams. You should be able to get at least "?" spots to enemy infantry positions.

If you analyze the terrain closely, you'll find that there are actually positions you can put your tanks in which allow them to area fire on the enemy infantry positions, without engaging the enemy AT guns. Add to your tank MGs the suppressive fire from your M1919 and M1917 HMGs and you can basically overwhelm the defense with suppressive MG fire, freeing your rifle infantry up to move quickly across the bridge and past the danger area of the TRPs before the mortar shells actually start to fall. Note that the river itself actually provides defilade that you can use to hide your infantry from the enemy, and the Computer AI will not target artillery at an enemy it can't actually see -- it's not smart enough to "know" that an enemy it saw running into a small defile is probably still there.

Generally, don't waste your limited tank HE shells on "?" targets -- maybe a few shells here and there if a certain unit is particularly difficult to suppress, but in general save the HE for spotted targets and especially high-value targets like AT guns and bunkers. MG fire will keep the enemy infantry heads-down just fine.

It's also not that hard to get the enemy AT guns to reveal themselves by shooting at your infantry, and/or taking poor percentage shots at your tanks (hull down, long range). Once they do this, you have plenty of artillery with which to take them out.

You don't really need to worry about getting your tanks across the bridge; they can lend fire support to the infantry just fine without crossing. But if you want to get them across, it is possible to destroy the mines by targeting the barbed wire with demo charges from your engineers.

Fundamentally, this is a pretty straightforward FIRE and maneuver battle. I Put "FIRE" in all caps for a reason. Figure out which of your units are "ammo deep", and keep them shooting -- if one of your MGs isn't shooting, it's not contributing. You have time. You have bullets. Use 'em.

EDIT to add: Since I see several comments regarding the use of smoke, FYI, I didn't use smoke at all in this mission. The problem with smoke it that it also works both ways -- it blocks enemy LOF on your maneuver element, but if you're not careful it also blocks the LOF of your overwatch. And smoke is temporary; if you're not careful it dissipates while you're still maneuvering and you get caught in the open. I found it easier to just shoot the crap out the enemy and then maneuver. But I'm sure there are ways smoke could be used very effectively in this battle, if you're careful about where and when you place the smoke screen, and maximize the maneuver window it gives you. It's just not my style.

After reading through this post again, this is likely the best way to beat it. I think my mistakes may be:

- waiting too long to send the rifle squads across (granted this issue is compounded by the seemingly relentless mortar barrages all over the place, and the reinforcements showing up a long ways apart)

- relying too much on timing the smoke with the advance - as you said, smoke seemed to hurt me as much as it helped

- not keeping enough fire on ALL targets when the infantry are advancing.

- taking the tanks over the bridge...may be no point, other than to improve accuracy. Even though the engineers blasted one set of AT mines along with the wire, there was still one left when I crossed over as it immobilized my lead tank. You need to clear both sides too as there are mines on the other side as well.

May try it again once I let some time pass ;-)

[womble]

Have you played this since the 2.01 patch?

- I've used both of the 105's at the same time (in 2 of the plays) and when the barrage lifted, there were still 3 - 4 MG's firing both times.

The 2.01 patch didn't gimp arty any. I can't answer for why your arty isn't effective.

- As for the engineers, I quickly move them onto the bridge the 1st turn after the pre-planned barrage...

The pre-planned barrage only lasts the first minute or so IIRC. Do you have them waiting "as close as possible"?

...and they are usually able to blast once before being pinned by fire...

Maybe something else has changed, but if you're getting shot at, it's not just the MG change that's screwing you.

In any event, if this were your first playthrough, you wouldn't know this and would be unlikely to rush your engineers up there without knowing the enemy positions. Very gamey if you have to play it through 2 or 3 times to 'solve' it IMO.

Oh, absolutely. Don't get me wrong: this is not a scenario I rate. It has a number of "gamey" issues IMO, which have been brought up many times over the years. One of the problems is related to the fact that the campaigns are not designed as learning aids, so if you've never played a dawn scenario before, you don't know you can't be seen from far off, because it's not visually obvious. That sort of restart, I chalk up to experience.

- So you're saying there is a 'quirk' (god knows I don't want to say the word 'bug' here ;-) with engineers killing themselves in a hail of bullets after they've expended 1 demo charge? Tried this on the Panzer Marsch campaign and they do the same absurd thing, running right into an ambush on the other side of the hedgerow every time. How is this to be prevented? I never tried, but can I give them a waypoint after the 'blast' order? There seems to be no way to clear the other side of the bridge as by that time they are within range of 9 or 10 foxholes worth of fire.

No. It's not a quirk. The methods of controlling your engineers have been widely discussed on this forum. 1: plot the Blast up to rather than through your target; 2: plot a Pause before Blasting so that the Blast occurs in the final (split) seconds of the turn so you can cancel any movement through. It's just the way the game works. Yes you can give them a waypoint after the Blast order. Most often combined with method 1 above to give them a Fast lateral order out of the breach hole into cover. That you've never tried highlights a weakness in the presentation of the game as a whole which Bil Hardenburger is trying to address with his "tactical problems" series, namely that there's no education except that which you provide yourself. You a) don't have to get across the bridge - you can dive down into the defilade of the river bed really have left it too late if all the foxholes can see far enough to target you (or, as I've said, something else has changed about visibility).

Giving up on this one for now, although I would like to see the next battle...

Another spoiler: IIRC, and if it's not changed again, getting the bridge VPs and hitting ceasefire without having any units badly chopped up is enough to win the scenario. And if it isn't, you can go through University of Hard Knocks (the same assault later in the day with more prep) to see the same following scenarios, I believe.

[aleader]

Admittedly, I haven't played CMBN much. I recall a time when I had 12 PBEM games going at once in CMBO/CMBB (to my wife's disgust:-) and was so disappointed by some of the bugs/missing features when CMBN came out, that I held off until the CMBN/Commonwealth bundle to buy it. That first campaign was so frustrating (bugs/gameplay) that I've basically shelved it until the game was patched to 2.01 (Panzer Corps was a lot more time-friendly too), so I haven't been very deep into it yet.

I'm wondering if the issue with the arty effectiveness isn't that I keep resuming from a saved game? I'm thinking maybe the game somehow 'saves' the general pattern of the bombardment for the battle, although I would think it should be a new 'roll of the dice' each time I plot it, not? It also doesn't seem like the AI is ever using any spotting rounds (not at the TRP's obviously). Am I imagining that?

Don't know why I never tried before, but I did test plotting another waypoint for the engineers and see that it works. I recall reading somewhere that the proper way to blast was to plot right through the target (maybe in the manual?). I also recall trying to plot the blast 'up to' the target and having issues with the engineers blasting beside themselves or off-target. I will try what you suggest though, thanks.

Other than these snags, I'm really enjoying the game now and am looking forward to getting 'PBEM-ready', which I find is really the strength of the CM games. Next order of business is figuring out the usefulness of the 'XO' and 'HQ support' teams...

[womble]

It also doesn't seem like the AI is ever using any spotting rounds (not at the TRP's obviously). Am I imagining that?

If the game is behaving as it should, then any indirect strike that's not preplanned, or at a TRP will have some spotting rounds. If the asset is on-map you won't hear the wail-shriek of the incoming rounds, but there have to be "bracketing" rounds, even if it's a direct lay shoot. I tend to rewatch the turn once from a high, broad overview with trees off, just looking for unexplained smoke puffs.

I also recall trying to plot the blast 'up to' the target and having issues with the engineers blasting beside themselves or off-target. I will try what you suggest though, thanks.

Getting them to blow up what you want can be tricky in congested spaces, if you don't plot the Blast movement leg through the target. Having the "Blast-to" leg approach what you want to blow up as near perpendicular as possible helps. If that's not working, see what soft factors your engineers have, set a test up with a squad of the same quality and see how long it takes them to set off the Big Badaboom. Back in your C&F game, plot a pause of 1 minute less the time it takes to Blast, and you can plot the Blast move through the barrier, intending to cancel it in the next order phase. Though if your wire-clearance sets of an AT mine, your pioneers will probably be pinned and give up any thought of rushing forward...

If you're getting hosed down on the bridge, drop some smoke from your mortars to give the engineers time to work.

Next order of business is figuring out the usefulness of the 'XO' and 'HQ support' teams...

XO teams are mostly useless, because they're only useful if you unwisely place your HQs in harms way... like I do... Until they get to step into dead men's shoes and replace your dead leaders, they can either be used as battlefield medics or another rifle team.

HQ teams are pretty important. Keeping your elements in C2 (even with a bad leader) makes a large difference in how well they respond under fire. Platoon HQs have the biggest effect. We're told that having a full chain of C2 gives greater benefits, but those effects are less obvious. I'm more convinced of the benefit of having your higher echelons be less of the REMF and more of the FESE (First Echelon Snake Eater). For example, I'm having the Bttn HQ in my current game round up a bunch of AT teams from different companies to go hunting tanks in the Bocage so they can stay in at least one level of C2.

[Sergei]

It also doesn't seem like the AI is ever using any spotting rounds (not at the TRP's obviously). Am I imagining that?

Definitely imagining, which is understandable. What often looks like harassing fire is actually spotting fire. Meanwhile it's easy to miss spotting rounds when lots of things are going kaboom all over the place, so you may end up under a barrage seemingly out of nowhere.

Now, it's also possible to call down emergency fire missions, which skip spotting, but as a result can be widely off the target. I don't know if AI ever uses this mission type, but it's the same for player controlled FOs.

[aleader]

XO teams are mostly useless, because they're only useful if you unwisely place your HQs in harms way... like I do... Until they get to step into dead men's shoes and replace your dead leaders, they can either be used as battlefield medics or another rifle team.

HQ teams are pretty important. Keeping your elements in C2 (even with a bad leader) makes a large difference in how well they respond under fire. Platoon HQs have the biggest effect. We're told that having a full chain of C2 gives greater benefits, but those effects are less obvious. I'm more convinced of the benefit of having your higher echelons be less of the REMF and more of the FESE (First Echelon Snake Eater). For example, I'm having the Bttn HQ in my current game round up a bunch of AT teams from different companies to go hunting tanks in the Bocage so they can stay in at least one level of C2.

Thanks, I always figured XO teams could be used to replace dead HQ's, but I haven't watched it that closely. I usually forget they're there because I'm never quite sure of their importance. I know HQ's are important, but what about the 'HQ support' team?

So, if I take a Bttn HQ or Company HQ and bring them near a gaggle of unsupported (C2) units, they will still get benefit from it? In this example, the would have no C2 to their original HQ (i.e. platoon HQ), possibly none to the Company HQ, but have C2 to the Bttn HQ, correct? This will imbibe benefit to them? I always assumed that once the platton HQ was out of C2, the entire chain is broken. Don't radios have some role here?

[Vinnart]

XO teams are mostly useless

I have found they make very good scouts. I put them right behind my lead squad at the tip of the spear. Because they are officers they spot better/faster than the squad NCO often seeing things before the squad does. Since I would rather lose the XO than the platoon HQ they are more expendable being at the front. Also, they make good forward observers besides the medic role most use it for. I definitely find much more use for the XO now than when I first started playing.

[womble]

I know HQ's are important, but what about the 'HQ support' team?

Those vary. If they've got a radio, and have support call privileges, they can serve as FO teams. IIRC, they can't serve as the radio relay for, for example, the mortars.

So, if I take a Bttn HQ or Company HQ and bring them near a gaggle of unsupported (C2) units, they will still get benefit from it?

If they're in the relevant Bttn or Coy, yes.

In this example, the would have no C2 to their original HQ (i.e. platoon HQ), possibly none to the Company HQ, but have C2 to the Bttn HQ, correct? This will imbibe benefit to them?

I don't know quite how the C2 chain indicators would show, but if a team that has no contact with its immediate HQ is within voice or sight command of an HQ higher up in their CoC, they will have the relevant "sight" or "voice" icons in the area above their suppression meter. IIRC, a superior HQ cannot provide "distant vision" C2. IME, even "distant vision" of their immediate HQ will trump the more proximate command of a superior HQ, though whether that means a nearby Bttn is less effective than a distant immediate commander, I couldn't say.

I always assumed that once the platton HQ was out of C2, the entire chain is broken. Don't radios have some role here?

Radios have a role in maintaining the chain outside of visual command ranges. Yes the chain is broken, but superior HQs can "step down the chain" in the right circumstances.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I have found they make very good scouts. I put them right behind my lead squad at the tip of the spear. Because they are officers they spot better/faster than the squad NCO often seeing things before the squad does.

Officers have better spotting than enlisted men?

[womble]

Officers have better spotting than enlisted men?

I'm dubious about that, too. Binos make a difference (but many rifle squad leaders have bins), and so does Experience (and probably Leadership, since that apparently adds a bit to every field of performance). Their targeting line appears to show that HQ officers (and any other unit with indirect fire capabilities) can see a bit further, but actually they don't, AFAICT.

[Vinnart]

Officers have better spotting than enlisted men?

From my experience officers spot faster. Often I have observed a bunch of units close together with only the officer spotting the enemy unit. When in command stage I will check the other units LOS to what the officer is spotting getting a good blue line, but not seeing the contact, then when the replay starts the other units will start to see the unit the officer already sees.

[Erwin]

I use XO and HQ Support units as medics as much as anyone cos otherwise I can't see what use they are if you are sensible with your HQ's.

But, it bothers me to use em too unrealistically. So, were these units used as recon in RL?

If BF revamps their ACQUIRE system so that units could exchange ammo, another use would be to ferry ammo from trucks to frontline troops. I think that is a RL use(??).

[womble]

If BF revamps their ACQUIRE system so that units could exchange ammo, another use would be to ferry ammo from trucks to frontline troops. I think that is a RL use(??).

I'm pretty sure BFC have said that units like the HQ Support Team include that kind of dogsbody. Less so, the XO teams, I guess.

[A Canadian Cat]

if a team that has no contact with its immediate HQ is within voice or sight command of an HQ higher up in their CoC, they will have the relevant "sight" or "voice" icons in the area above their suppression meter. IIRC

Quite correct, spot on. The first time I tried using a Co HQ to "replace" a platoon HQ I saw the C2 chain stayed red and I though "hey, this is not working" but then I noticed the voice, sight etc icons. My aha moment.

[aleader]

Quite correct, spot on. The first time I tried using a Co HQ to "replace" a platoon HQ I saw the C2 chain stayed red and I though "hey, this is not working" but then I noticed the voice, sight etc icons. My aha moment.

And they receive a benefit from this? The squads should have a green light indicating they are in contact with the Company HQ (if they were part of his company) in this case, no?

[womble]

And they receive a benefit from this?

The manual says we do.

The squads should have a green light indicating they are in contact with the Company HQ (if they were part of his company) in this case, no?

No. The CoC indicators show the integrity of the chain. This sort of substitution is stepping off the chain of command rather.

[A Canadian Cat]

The way I think of it is that the command icons (voice, visual, distance visual etc.) for a squad will tell you if they will benefit from the guidance and encouragement of a commander (be it their Platoon HQ or their Company HQ). While the chain of command icons indicate if the intelligence flow is interrupted - having it all intact helps with spotting information being passed around.

BTW company HQs can offer command support to squads out of touch with their Platoon HQ even if the Platoon HQ is totally OK.

[Erwin]

"...having it all intact helps with spotting information being passed around."

So, you are saying that if an XO or Co HQ takes over command then the flow of spotting info is still disrupted, and that is why there is no green light?

(If not, it seems that it would be more helpful to the player to have the green light return to indicate that some form of C2 has returned.)

[Ashez]

I think School of Hard Knocks is an example of bad design. It is not just hard. It is created with an intention of kicking your butt in every way possible and it just does it - but wait, every mission designer can do it - it only depends on how much you want to put on map to eventually wear even the best players.

The problem with this scenario is that regardless of your actions you are going to suffer heavy loses you can't really prevent. Following logic and common sense, the 'cease fire' is the only command you should use in this scenario and ask for more artillery or some air support.

I know 'fairness' may not be something a player should always expect from the tactical war game, but dropping on player's troops several hundred of TRPed mortar shells in a non stop one and half an hour neverending barrage is frustrating and simply not fun for that player. Also, winning the scenario should never depend on finding and killing an artillery spotter or any other forms of 'solving' the scenario on multiple playthroughs.

I do not think there is a single player who won this scenario during his first attempt. And I am pretty sure that there are some new players who gave up on the game after trying this one.

[womble]

I think School of Hard Knocks is an example of bad design.

[snip]

The problem with this scenario is that regardless of your actions you are going to suffer heavy loses you can't really prevent.

When the scenario was designed, the second bit wasn't true. You just had to realise that the FOs, engineers, artillery and tanks were all you needed, and the rest of the force could be kept out of harm's way at the back. Still, it was doable the "conventional" way with losses that do not preclude the victorious completion of the campaign.

This might have changed now, with the tanks being less able to spot infantry, but I think that would probably just slow you down a bit.

Still, I wish there would be more recognition that the punter has expectations about campaigns provided with a base game that are driven by previous experience with other games, namely that campaigns are progressive and didactic. It should be made clear when this is not the case in CM, because driving people away from the brand by accident or omission is not good business.

[Erwin]

I think SOHK it's a very good scenario. But, for experienced players who understand the game and what to do. Maybe it should have a warning label to that effect.

I thought it an xnt training scenario for when you think you've become a good player. It can give you a shock. I won the 2nd time thru after I realized that I could not win using my usual "lazy" approach. You really have to study the terrain and have a good plan, and commit to it all the way.

[sburke]

I think SOHK it's a very good scenario. But, for experienced players who understand the game and what to do. Maybe it should have a warning label to that effect.

I thought it an xnt training scenario for when you think you've become a good player. It can give you a shock. I won the 2nd time thru after I realized that I could not win using my usual "lazy" approach. You really have to study the terrain and have a good plan, and commit to it all the way.

+1 on that. Variation in difficulty level does add more in that as you progress in your skills you still have some portions of the campaign to present a challenge and in this case the designer provided an out if you weren't ready for this one with a simple ceasefire.

As Erwin pointed out the designer has to handle a couple things. First is the varying skill level of the players, second and one we don't alk about so much is the increase in a player's capability as they learn the game. If scenarios and campaigns are only designed for a noob, they are going to be pretty useless to most of the playing community in fairly short order. It has been pointed out repeatedly, players are better off going through the scenarios first and then tackle the campaigns unless they feel they are already experienced enough to handle them.

[Apocal]

There are some campaigns and scenarios made early that are simply broken nowadays. I'm thinking specifically of CrushingLeek's Blue and Grey campaign, featuring not just one but two D-Day scenarios, complete with German crack/elite HMGs, ATGs that cover the entire beach and generally knock all the armor out within two minutes, concrete bunkers, TRPs, on-map defensive mortars, no cover for attackers who are starting in water, etc.

It probably worked a lot better before the MG changes, because as it stands, its entirely possible lose a complete Ranger or engineer company inside of ten minutes, less if you actively try to advance into the storm.

[Ashez]

I won the 2nd time thru

I'd love to see as you tackle this scenario against 2.12 HMGS. On first or second approach.