Some help required.

[lofty12]

Im currently playing the courage and fortitude campaign (BN) and am having real issues with the first mission.

The first query I have is about spotting. what ive been doing is creating scout units and moving them with the slow command down the road on the right and the hedgerows on the extreme left.

ive been failing dismally though. as the units moves down the road they take fire from units further down the road. when I zoom in I can even see the bullet flashes but for some reason my units fail to the see the enemy units.

I even moved a tank in support and started area fire at the bullet flashes but after 3 or 4 turns the fire hasn't stopped. are these bullet flashes an accurate representation of where the fire is coming from?

if so, then why hasn't my tank fire suppressed them and why cant any of my units see the enemy units which are supposedly 15 to 20 feet away.

its a similar story on the left. my 2 man scout team which was moving slowly along the hedgerow was wiped out with a single arty/mortar shell.

I was abut shocked with how accurate it was or was that just bad luck?

[para]

I suggest that you should place pauses within each movement of your scout teams. Well that is what i do and my men seem to be able to spot better.

Also you would be better having a look at Bil Hardenbergers site for tips. You could start by having a read of the this topic

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=111422

and here

http://battledrill.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/combat-mission-tactical-problems-cmtp.html

this one is on recon

http://battledrill.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/reconnaissance.html

ps it may also have something to do with the level you are playing at vet/elite etc on how much info you are getting.

If this is rubbish advice, i am sure someone else will come along and put us both right

[c3k]

SLOW means crawl. That tires them out...a lot. Better to HUNT or QUICK or FAST with pauses between segments. (HUNT will freeze your men when they take incoming. So that is not one I use unless my men are moving in heavy cover/concealment like heavy forest. In the open it'll be a recipe for death! A dish served often when I command... )

Ken

[mjkerner]

Lofty, in addition to what Para said, yes, the tracers are an accurate indication of where the firing is coming from...at least the direction from which it is coming. The actual location, without getting a definite spot, could be in Action Spots nearby where your tank is area firing. If the enemy is in bocage, HE is not likely to do a lot of damage, or even keep their heads down, because shells fired at hedgerows tend to hit the berm. Try using Target Light as this will cause the tank to fire it's machine guns, which will penetrate the hedge and will have a better chance to at least make the enemy cower. Also, if you know the general area where the fire is coming from, try area fire at one AS, then give a short movement order, target an adjacent AS at that Waypoint with a 15 second Pause, then repeat as needed. also helps to let your scouts sit still for a turn or so (if they aren't getting chewed up , that is) to help their spotting abilities.

[para]

Also use a cover arc, so that your scout teams do not fire at everything..i use a circular arc. Use several scout teams all moving at different times..not all together!

[lofty12]

I just had another attempt at it. the accuracy of the german arty is staggering. the 1st round took out my recon unit, the 2nd was a miss then the 3rd took out my whole squad who were around 30 feet behind.

I didn't see any spotting rounds. can I assume this was direct mortar fire?

[womble]

Wait til you get to the second one...

In general, units don't spot too well while they're moving. Slow is probably the most situationally aware movement mode, except perhaps Hunt, but Hunt can sometimes suck for "metres per minute", if the unit does spot anything, because they just stop. Quick retains some situational awareness, and when they're moving Fast, they're concentrating on getting from A to B, and very little else. So, that's why people are suggesting you put pauses in your movement orders, between "bounds" of movement. The 10s of seconds spent sitting still allow your Scouts to have a look around. They also get a chance to catch their breath.

You'll find that Slow tires them out very quickly, as they're crawling on their bellies, which is hardly an efficient movement mode. Hunt is nearly as tiring, and if you give them Fast orders, they'll be winded in no time. Quick is the movement mode of choice. If they spend half their time moving and half stopped they can go a good old distance before they get to "Tired" (which is when they stop being able to go Fast).

I haven't mentioned Move, because for Scout teams it's mostly useless. It's significantly quicker to Quick them til they're Tired, then rest til "Ready" than it is to Move them the same distance. And they'll be there sooner. Move also has rubbish situational awareness, so they'd only have a chance of spotting things when they're stopped, which you're using Move to avoid doing (troops never tire using Move, so it's a low-effort way of getting them long distances in defilade and have them arrive in good condition).

First-off, roads are pretty bad places to move infantry. They're almost always watched by the enemy, and provide no cover or concealment to protect you. Second, if you're using Slow, your troops' viewpoint is very low down as they crawl along, and their field of vision will be very narrow, so they won't make very good scouts.

If you can see the bullet flashes, your troops can "nearly" see the shooters. It's when you take casualties without any indication of where the fire is coming from that you're in real trouble... CM does have a pretty complex/sophisticated spotting model. While LOS is, we are assured, 100% reciprocal, actual spotting is anything but. If the enemy are behind bocage, they have excellent concealment and your troops will have difficulty spotting them at any appreciable range, especially if they're quickly made to cower because the incoming fire is effective, since the targets aren't in any sort of cover or concealment because they're on the road.

It's accurate, but sometimes can be deceptive, and getting a precise AS location for the origin is not guaranteed by any means. And as has been said, bocage provides pretty good cover. I can't recall whether there are any Sherman 76s in your force mix, but that gun doesn't have a good HE round, so check you're using a 75. Sometimes a Stuart's 37mm can make up in volume of fire what it lacks in terminal boom, but if you're an AS off, you won't be making much of an impression with little guns on big bocage.

If the enemy truly are in the next AS, your troops should be able to see them. Except that they started off crawling, so might not have, and are shoving their faces in the dirt as soon as they come under close range fire with no way of returning it... I rather suspect that they're not being fired at from the adjacent AS, but that the tracer has deceived you.

I wouldn't assume anything. "Bang" and no spotting round usually either means a TRP or it's not lofted arty. TRPs are another reason not to use Slow; you want to get across any potential TRP diameter before rounds called on you as you enter it can arrive, 2 or 3 minutes later. If you were seeing single "splashes", it probably wasn't an arty bombardment. Even direct lay mortars require "ranging in". Ah. One possibility is if you're playing v1.x BN: prior to v2.0, mortars that have ranged in on one direct lay target remain ranged in for all subsequent targets, so if there's already been one mortar shoot, the second will arrive without any warning. Still, it's worth considering other possibilities; I can say no more without spoilering.

[Michael Emrys]

I fully support what womble wrote, but want to comment on this:

...then the 3rd took out my whole squad who were around 30 feet behind.

Thirty feet (about 1 AS) is much too close. Unless you are in extremely close, dense terrain, keeping the main body of your troops well back from your scouts is a better idea. You want them close enough to be able to spot anybody who might take a shot at your scouts, but no closer than that. Put your main body in good cover with long fields of LOS and have them sitting there and spotting while your scouts move ahead to flush out any would-be ambushers. Once you have dealt with anything your scouts turn up, then move the rest of your squad up to the next covered position and repeat the process. At this point you may need to create a fresh scout team, cest la guerre. Rinse and repeat.

Michael

[YankeeDog]

I don't mean this to sound condescending at all but Courage and Fortitude is not a beginner campaign by any measure. Some of your questions lead me to suspect you will get more enjoyment out of the game if you play some other scenarios and campaigns first, and then come back C&F once you're more familiar with the game system and tactics.

Have you played through the "Task force Raff" and the "Road to Montebourg" campaigns yet? I'd definitely play through both of these to completion before tackling C&F. Plenty of good single-battle scenarios that come with the game as well.

Again, not trying to diminish your intellectual capacity at all, but everyone has to learn to walk before they can run, and learning CMBN game basics while playing Courage and Fortitude is kind of like trying to learn to walk in the midst of a footrace against an Olympic sprinter.

Also, what game "Skill Level" are you playing on (i.e., Basic Training, Veteran, Warrior, Elite, Iron)? In some ways, higher difficulty-level battles like many of the C&F fights are actually easier played at higher Skill Levels -- Warrior and above -- because the C2, spotting, and artillery call time restrictions apply equally to both the player and the computer opponent. This is why I recommend using the Basic Training and Veteran playing levels just for game familiarization, and moving up to Warrior level as soon as you're comfortable with the basics.

In any event, best of luck!

YD

[lofty12]

Im playing on warrior. Yep im gonna give this campaign a bodyswerve and try another one as it is brutal.

Really makes you appreciate what a nightmare it must have been fighting in this terrain.

[para]

Im playing on warrior. Yep im gonna give this campaign a bodyswerve and try another one as it is brutal.

Really makes you appreciate what a nightmare it must have been fighting in this terrain.

and what a tough game this is

[YankeeDog]

Yep; it requires you to have a certain tolerance for losses, which is certainly realistic.

Definitely come back to it; it's a good campaign but it's definitely the hardest campaign included with the base CMBN game. You'll enjoy it more once you've "earned your wings" playing the other campaigns and some of the scenarios as well.

[Pak40]

lofty12,

Ditto to what a lot of people have already said. In regards to your tank not returning fire, it's because that armored vehicles in general have very poor spotting when compared to infantry units. You'll probably notice that your infantry units that are near the tank will spot enemies quicker. Once this is done you can order you tank to area fire or quick fire on the suspected spot. The tank AI will only fire at a unit it can positively spot. In other words, select the tank and any units that it sees will be visible.

[lofty12]

Yep; it requires you to have a certain tolerance for losses, which is certainly realistic.

QUOTE]

It does simulate that very well. I almost feel guilty sending another recon team ahead to find out whats in the next hedgerow. I cant imagine how it must have felt for those real life recon teams who would be sent ahead knowing that that one or two of their buddies almost certainly would not be returning form the mission.

[Erwin]

That's an interesting question... I always thought recon got special training and were more like elite troops. So, would be more likely to suffer fewer casualties in RL.

Anyone know these stats??

[JoMac]

Unfortunately, Casualties in CM:BN/FI are far higher then they were in RL...One Hour of causualties in CM equals about a whole days fighting for the same unit.

Joe

[YankeeDog]

Unfortunately, Casualties in CM:BN/FI are far higher then they were in RL...One Hour of causualties in CM equals about a whole days fighting for the same unit.

Joe

True, but not the whole picture. The fact that it's a game and we don't actually have to write letters home to the mothers of the pixeltruppen we command plays a big part. There are other "big picture" simulation issues that are very difficult to represent in a computer game without turning it into something that would probably be very tedious and boring to play.

But it's also important to keep in mind that CM scenarios usually represent the "hot" part of "exciting" engagements and are therefore inherently exceptional. In these types of engagement, Companies did sometimes take 50%+ casualties in less than an hour. Quite often, actually.

To draw a sports analogy, CMBN is to WWII ground combat in general what play within the 10 yards of the goal line is to general American Football play and tactics. So you have to be careful comparing what you see in the game to broader, "big picture" statistics.

[JoMac]

Yeah, I figured as much, and i'm sure the game engine does have it's limitations.

I'm still playing with the Demos ( 1.10 ) before deciding on a purchase. I already know that the Casualties are potentially even higher ( later patches ) due to increase in Small Arms lethality, and that may bother me some.

Well, if I just tell myself that say 1 in 4 are casualties ( or 1 min equals 5 ) then the rest I can chulk-up as Moral Loss for a Unit. If the game as a whole is flowing realistically enough in representing battles ( aside from casualties ), then I may be fine with it.

[HistoryLover]

That's an interesting question... I always thought recon got special training and were more like elite troops. So, would be more likely to suffer fewer casualties in RL.

Anyone know these stats??

From the description of the action above I'd say this is already unrealistical gamey behaviour. In reality the suspected enemy position ofcourse would not be checked by walking straight torwards it. Would you do that? Would you order a comrade to do that? Nobody does that - only a player does.

If the enemy is suspected at a certain position, then either he would be supressed or approached on a covered route - that would be the realistic way. But what is a lost recon team, two lost comrades, against losing five minutes, right?

This unrealistic behaviour of players IMO is the main reason, why losses in CM battles tend to be unnessesarily high. If players would play more realistic, then losses would go down - but the needed time goes up. A lot.

For example, when it comes to movement under fire: players often use QUICK. But IMO HUNT is the realistic command. Because in reality you do not move under fire - you avoid it. You also do not run over the open, if five rifles in that house 50 m away are aiming at you.

If the movement can't be avoided, then things turn for the worse and become bloody, BUT: players usually do not even try to! They have their slaughter command: QUICK-FAST-MOVE!

Just use HUNT for infantry under fire. Especially AFTER the enemy has been spotted (ok, hunt can be problematic on hills, but that's more of a special problem) and you have not gained fire superiority. Thanks to "hunt" then suddenly the infantry movement comes to a standstill. And that's realistic.

And using HUNT has another very positive effect: it educates the player. Since infantry does no longer advance with the hunt command if enemies are present, the player will be forced to look at the map. Find an alternative route maybe?

Remember reading in books about "heavy resistance"? It doesn't necessarily mean to storm against it, but to find a solution to overcome it. Sounds like a tactical challenge? This game is about it.

Normally players just use their infantry slaughter commands of QUICK, MOVE, or even FAST and do not even test where a weak spot, a route that isn't covered, or is not observed, could be. Players usually just march their doomed pixel soldiers where they previously had decided they want to move. And then they call it my "tactics".

I'd call it: being a tovarish Commissar!

[YankeeDog]

I'm still playing with the Demos ( 1.10 ) before deciding on a purchase. I already know that the Casualties are potentially even higher ( later patches ) due to increase in Small Arms lethality, and that may bother me some.

It's not so much small arms lethality that was increased starting with 2.0 as it is small arms suppression, especially wrt machine guns and other automatic weapons. So with the latest patches/upgrades, infantry are more likely to pin and eventually rout when receiving significant small arms fire, but not necessarily more likely to become a casualty. In my experience, this can actually result in fewer overall casualties.

Well, if I just tell myself that say 1 in 4 are casualties ( or 1 min equals 5 ) then the rest I can chulk-up as Moral Loss for a Unit. If the game as a whole is flowing realistically enough in representing battles ( aside from casualties ), then I may be fine with it.

IMHO, this is a reasonable point of view. In CM terms, a "casualty" is any soldier beat up enough (or mentally unsettled enough) that he is unable to contribute to combat for the next hour or two (arguably, next few days if you're playing a campaign). This would probably include a fair number of relatively lightly wounded and/or "shell shocked" soldiers that might not show up on long-term casualty lists.

[Michael Emrys]

Most of the time it wasn't that bad. Unless the recon team was very green, they tended to be reasonably cautious, used cover, and minimized their exposure to fire. Their main job was to discover through observation, not by getting shot, although that did happen too. So they would advance as stealthily as they could until they reached a point to observe from. Then they would go to ground and listen and watch for a few minutes. If they discovered nothing, they would wave the rest of the squad forward and after those had taken position to provide covering fire if needed, the recon team would then advance to the next position. If they did discover something, one guy might go back to tell the sergeant what he knew while the other guy continued observation.

This was how it was usually done when contact with the enemy was expected at any time. In the case of moving a squad through terrain where no enemy was known but which had not been cleared, the squad might be moving more or less continuously with the recon team out in front by anywhere from 20 to 200 meters depending on how open the terrain is and how far an LOS extends. But that is not the usual situation in CM where some contact already exists or can be expected at any time.

Michael

[Pak40]

That's an interesting question... I always thought recon got special training and were more like elite troops. So, would be more likely to suffer fewer casualties in RL.

Anyone know these stats??

Well, there were certainly special recon units within regiments but I think these are more for intelligence gathering. U.S. infantry regiments had an I & R platoon, for example. This is a totally different type of recon than what is required at tactical level and in Combat Mission's scope which is better described as scouting ahead of the main advancing group. Usually scouting was done at the platoon or company level by randomly choosing or rotating a soldier or two to just walk ahead of the rest of the unit.

[womble]

From the description of the action above I'd say this is already unrealistical gamey behaviour. In reality the suspected enemy position ofcourse would not be checked by walking straight torwards it. Would you do that? Would you order a comrade to do that? Nobody does that - only a player does.

If the enemy is suspected at a certain position, then either he would be supressed or approached on a covered route - that would be the realistic way. But what is a lost recon team, two lost comrades, against losing five minutes, right?

This unrealistic behaviour of players IMO is the main reason, why losses in CM battles tend to be unnessesarily high. If players would play more realistic, then losses would go down - but the needed time goes up. A lot.

Valid point, this. It's often (accurately) said that casualty tolerance was a lot higher in WW2 than it is nowadays, and it seems to me that designers tend to avoid using the "friendly casualties" VC as a major component of the VPs available, perhaps for that reason. It is perhaps arguable that, rather than considering that element as a "socio-political" pressure to keep casualties at a rate acceptable to the civilian population, it should often be there to represent the local command's ability and willingness to sustain losses. Of course it should be balanced against the scenario's urgency.

For example, when it comes to movement under fire: players often use QUICK. But IMO HUNT is the realistic command. Because in reality you do not move under fire...

You're neglecting the fact that Hunt doesn't require you to be under fire to stop you moving. Realistic tactics involve suppressing the enemy so that you can move quickly in the area their guns (if they were up pointing at you) cover. Hunt is neither quick, nor does it allow you to move even if you can see the enemy are all cowering. Hunt also renders your troops winded in no time flat.

[Webs]

True, but not the whole picture. The fact that it's a game and we don't actually have to write letters home to the mothers of the pixeltruppen we command plays a big part. There are other "big picture" simulation issues that are very difficult to represent in a computer game without turning it into something that would probably be very tedious and boring to play.

But it's also important to keep in mind that CM scenarios usually represent the "hot" part of "exciting" engagements and are therefore inherently exceptional. In these types of engagement, Companies did sometimes take 50%+ casualties in less than an hour. Quite often, actually.

To draw a sports analogy, CMBN is to WWII ground combat in general what play within the 10 yards of the goal line is to general American Football play and tactics. So you have to be careful comparing what you see in the game to broader, "big picture" statistics.

I think the key issue is the time limits. When you have, say, only an hour to scout enemy positions, ford a river, and overrun some AT guns, you're going to suffer a lot more than you would if you had hours to conduct proper recon and probes.

[JonS]

it seems to me that designers tend to avoid using the "friendly casualties" VC as a major component of the VPs available, perhaps for that reason.

I don't know about others, but I generally try and avoid the parameter objectives because of their binary 'all or nothing' implementation. Regardless of where the percentage is set, the difference between gaining all the points allocated to 'Friendly Cas' (or any of the other cas parameters), and gaining none of them, is one friendly casualty.

For example;

* say you have a company of 100 men.

* Assume, also, that you have a Friendly Cas obj, worth 500 points, set to 40% cas.

The battle starts, and you start taking casualties. But as long as you keep your casualties to 39 men or less you will gain all those 500 points available to you. But if you make some minor error, and lose just one additional man, then you lose all those points and probably the battle.

Lose 39 men: gain 500 points! Wahoo!

Lose 40 men: gain 0 points. Wait, what

You're neglecting the fact that Hunt doesn't require you to be under fire to stop you moving. Realistic tactics involve suppressing the enemy so that you can move quickly in the area their guns (if they were up pointing at you) cover.

You're neglecting the fact that real soldiers generally don't like getting shot, couldn't really care less about your objectives, and are generally on the cusp of exhaustion.

People, real people, go to ground early, and stay there. Massive prep-fires and suppression then an advance towards an essentially undefended objective is indeed a desirable technique, but regardless people still generally don't like getting shot and will still go to ground at he least provocation - after all, your guys don't know whether your plan to suppress the enemy or make him run away has worked.

Long pauses between movement, people stopping when under fire, and rapidly accumulating fatigue is realistic. In that sense using Hunt exclusively would be completely realistic.

It'd suck in game terms though.