Tactical Lifehack

[Marwek77 aka Red Reporter]

23 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

You could make it work easily enough, just open the QB map that you want to play in the scenario editor, drop in your force from the core file (import feature) and then add the force you want to fight against.  Set up your force how you want them and just drop your opponents into their setup zone. Then save the file in your scenarios folder (I'd recommend renaming it too, to avoid accidents).  When you start the new scenario the AI should set up your opponents randomly and take over from there.

PS - Congratulations you (& a map designer) just made a scenario. 

PPS - I create a Core Units Files sub-folder in all my CM Game Files folders.

Thanx for detailde info. But i play H2H QB and its not possible to have something like favourite groups there. 

[MOS:96B2P]

23 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

in the scenario editor, drop in your force from the core file (import feature)

PPS - I create a Core Units Files sub-folder in all my CM Game Files folders.

This sounds interesting and is something I think I will try when I have time.  If I understand this you could import your core force into any scenario (of course rename it) and play the mission.  As long as the force you were importing was roughly the same size/capability as the force you were replacing this might work and be fun.  Especially if you wanted to swap US forces for commonwealth (CMBN, CMFI), or Army for Marines (CMSF)and see the different TOE handle the same mission.............    

[Sgt.Squarehead]

You might need to assign AI groups manually in the newer games which handle multiple AI groups (AFAIK CM:SF & CM:A do everything with AI Slot 1 so don't expect too much), TBH I've not tried it.

20 minutes ago, Marwek77 aka Red Reporter said:

Thanx for detailde info. But i play H2H QB and its not possible to have something like favourite groups there. 

I think there is a way to do it.....Create a blank scenario with your units, e-mail it to your opponent and get him to add his units in the editor and re-save it as QB Units Core or whatever.  Then import this file into the QB map you want to play as a core file (as described above).

Edited November 3, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Oleksandr]

Alrighty gentlemen today we will talk about how you can put to good use NATO Mech Platoon HQ team. 

As you can see mixed forces of the United States and canada holding some area in front of a river. Starting from this point you should point out that none of those elements are standing directly on a water line and there are no units in that building. 

In this little set up building is being used as a major cover. 

Both (HQ and observers) teams are located on corners while Bradley is being almost fully covered by the building. 

The goal here is to use infantry to spot where enemy will show himself first. Put your IFV in a position when it would be able to work on those targets by simply turning on the same spot. Some might say that it will not work if enemy will attack from both sides. Yet, your enemy will never advance in small numbers - russians are dangerous only in concentrated assault. So while controling certain sector dont be worry about controlling all the battlefield. + this set up means that you have your other 3 squads doing same thing near by so your fire sectors should intercross each other. 

Why this is usefull? because your infantry elements are not being trapped within those walls, you can easily and quicly hide them behind that building, your IFV is only partly exposed, you have technical advantage - Breadleys are way more advanced in terms of spotting the enemy than any russian vehicle including tanks so you will always open fire first (lol I always pick "regular" skill level for NATO and "crack" for russians and I always win. So for example with 1 NATO mechanized company I can go against 1 tank company of T-72B3 + squad of BMP3 and win due to positioning). 

So when should you use it? Well when you outnumbered, when you dont have heavy armor, when you have to hold some areas, and when you want to minimize your casualties. 

+ if arty is working exactly on your position - building will take a lot of damage for you and your units will have bigger chance to survive. Furthermore, you can always rotate your infantry inside of that building, + if your IFV will be destroyed (i dont know why would it be destroyed tho - its crew can take cover in that buidling as well before you will extract them). 

[Oleksandr]

Now obviusly everything im showing here has few ways it can progress. Let us see a house what can provide few poitions for our IFV. 

Canadian Forces supported by American Armor at your service again. 

As you can see now we do use one house as a hideout for our observers. 

They were located there because they should keep an eye on same direction our IFV looks at when we will actually move that IFV. Furthermore that observer team is relatively safe there and will not die if IFV explodes (it would not die on a previus set up eather but still I like mentioning it lol). 

Here you go a second position for our IFV: 

Blue square shows what area Breadly is currently looking at. 

So the logic is simple - your enemy shows up - you destroy few vehichles and then reposition to a second position where you will be covered by the buidlings and the tree line - yet, if enemy pushing forward you still can see him and destroy him when he will go down lower. 

[Oleksandr]

This how this works: 

You are engaging enemy and wait untill 1st rocket being shot. Then you relocate. 

Then you wait and if your enemy is not pushing forward you going back to that comfy position. 

Then after battle you observe what damage you managed to cause by the use of 1 IFV. Setup: my forces are regular - russians are crack. 

1st rocket position 1 - T-72B3. then cannon - 2 BMP 3 then reposition then going back then - T-72B3. Not bad for a 23 mm and few rockets lol (or maybe last tank was done by a cannon I dont actually remember). The moral of this story - use buildings and terrain to support your angles and always open fire first (positioning). 

[Oleksandr]

Link to download the mod (Canadian Light Infantry) lol: http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=5338

[Oleksandr]

Short Advice: while playing as NATO forces do not use strykers those are $H&t. We really need a dragoon version of it in this game. I was shocked how terrible it is... when I frist time used it and saw that you only got MG or MK on it I was like... wow thats worse than btr-82A... and only mtlb can be worse than russian btr... I was like Jesus man... BTR-4 remains the most powerful apc in the game. I want dragoon though... 

[Erwin]

Am a veteran playing CM since 1999 and I find your suggestions a useful reminder of good tactics.  Thanks...

Yes, Strykers seem to be the equivalent of WW2 halftracks.  Use em for transport and as a mobile ammo dump.  Maybe useful only for long range (1000m+) fire support assuming no enemy AFV's or AT assets.

Edited November 9, 2017 by Erwin

[BTR]

I do not agree. Strykers with .50 make a excellent anti light armor platforms such as MTLBs and BTR-82s. Despite the latter having proper IFV weaponry (6MB and A variants) they have worse (and much worse in case of 6MB) optical packages and usually go belly up when engaged by HMG fire. Stryker tactical offensive worth might be overall lower than general 30mm armed AFVs, but they are certainly not a thing to ignore.  

[Chudacabra]

2 hours ago, BTR said:

I do not agree. Strykers with .50 make a excellent anti light armor platforms such as MTLBs and BTR-82s. Despite the latter having proper IFV weaponry (6MB and A variants) they have worse (and much worse in case of 6MB) optical packages and usually go belly up when engaged by HMG fire. Stryker tactical offensive worth might be overall lower than general 30mm armed AFVs, but they are certainly not a thing to ignore.  

Agreed. You have to be careful with them, but both the .50 cal and 40mm versions pack a good punch. I also think that the American armoured trucks with a .50 cal are the best value QB units in the game. 

[Erwin]

My post:  "Maybe useful only for long range (1000m+) fire support assuming no enemy AFV's or AT assets."

So, you recommend using Strykers for short range (under 300m) support and/or vs armor at any range?

[BTR]

Well your post sort of suggests not to use strykers at all because in CMBS you a- rarely get 1000m LoF b- or hit anything with an HMG at that distance, c- will almost always have guaranteed AFV presence and d - will have AT assets strapped to every infantry at the very least. 

What I recommend is to give them a look if you are thinking of facing light armor and its infantry as they are more than capable against those threats. I don't know their exact use apart from going infantry first and figuring out the situation later. Also as an ex-motorized I would like to tell you to watch out where you are planning your routes but I have no particular evidence of hampered wheeled mobility against tracked AFVs in-game so there is that...

Edited November 9, 2017 by BTR

[akd]

Strykers on the Mechanized Battlefield

[Oleksandr]

Ok this post isnt about specification of one or another vehicle but I will say this - stryker sucks in all possible ways. Even as a platform it is a peace of crap. United States wasted money of its taxpayers to create 3 vehicles instead of 1. On a modern battlefield APC and IFV should have following things mounted on them: automatic cannon 30+ mm Automatic GL, 1 or two MG's 7.62mm and a set of AT rockets. Additionally to that there can be up 100mm gun added (which should serve as a rocket launcher as well). Now more towards size - modern APC should have low profile so it will be easy to dig in and it will be harder to spot. Stryker is a technology from the past - tall, poorly armed and as result is uneffective. Yes you can use everything with a skill - and yes I know how to use them (basically i know everything lol) but thats not the point. The only Stryker which has a right to call its self "not bad" because there are no such thing as a "good" stryker is DRAGOON version of it. And this is it  

But even this version of it is only temporary solution. Stryker should be gone in a past and a new platform should be developed. More over the problem now is that even 30 mm is not enough. It should be 37-40 mm now and it should be way more compact. Obviusly if we are talking about heavy break through apc's then yes size can be big. But my prediction is this - if American Forces will go into serious war while having strykers as their main apc - they will recive drammatic casualties. And within western social system casualties are taken into consideration. For example in Somalia it was enough to lose 19 soldiers in one battle and withdrawal happened. So America please do your homework - era of hunting on silly dudes in hijabs is over. There are big and very evil boys waiting to challange you in all possible areas in the world - and we better be prepared. Dragoons are nice because they have that special ammo in them yet, its not enough. So back to this game - my advice remains the same - while playing NATO forces in quick battles - avoid playing with stryker units because they are usless (even though game saying that mk can penetrate armor lol). 

 

Im looking at this and Im thinking... tons of dollars were spent... and what we have? Single weapon per vehicle? (and yes I live in America Im Ukrainian descent). 

APC are relatively cheap... no things with IFV are way more complicated... having 23 mm gun on Breadly platform... em... thats a shame as well, but there are rockets on it so its sort off compensating that. 

Conclusion: this is my subjective opinion gentlemen. I do respect those warriors what served and managed to fight in strykers. Some of you maybe love them. No hate gentlemen no hate. I just think that the most powerful military in the world deserves to have better equipment for its dollar. I mean Im paying taxes and I want my soldiers run on better and more effective vehicles.

From my side I will tell you this - I will make a post on how in my opinion strykers can be used on a battlefield. And again thank you for your feedback gentlemen. I like to see even those folks who disagree with me. But I do think that NATO forces are far behind when it comes to fighting modules for their APC's and IFV's. Maybe we spent too much time fighting unequipped terrorists. Because yea stryker is better than toyota with DSHK on it I agree on that. And yes Breadly is better than BMP-2 yea thats all true... but... enemy is evolving and we should evolve. So is this game - it should have more modern content in it. I want to see more American hardware in here.

 

[Oleksandr]

8 hours ago, Erwin said:

Am a veteran playing CM since 1999 and I find your suggestions a useful reminder of good tactics.  Thanks...

Yes, Strykers seem to be the equivalent of WW2 halftracks.  Use em for transport and as a mobile ammo dump.  Maybe useful only for long range (1000m+) fire support assuming no enemy AFV's or AT assets.

Thank you for your feedback brother. I'm a veteran myself and I will say this about us and our skills, "be aware of old man doing the job where people usually die young." I hope that will help us both to feel more bada$$ lol

[HerrTom]

I think you're trying to force the Stryker into a role it was never really designed for. See this thread:

 

[Oleksandr]

4 minutes ago, HerrTom said:

I think you're trying to force the Stryker into a role it was never really designed for. See this thread:

 

I think that there should be no roles like they were before. Meaning that we dont have a luxury of having 1 vehicle for 1 reason. All APC should be multitasking. They should go far beyond old views. Anotherwords im not trying to force stryker to do what it wast suppose to do. My point is way bigger - there should be no vehicles which are not able to multitask. So its not like strykers are bad for what theyve been made off. no - its different - its - stop producing them, review and redo the doctrine, adopt new features and new tasks and build an APC which will be able to multitask. Honestly in modern world the difference between IFV and APC needs to be shorten. So we dont have a right to put our troops in vehicles which were made for very sort of speak tight task list. Anotherwords you trying to protect strykers - I got that point. I know what they've been made for. Now collect them - modernize them for new tasks and if the price of modernization is too high - take those details from them what still can be used - everything else throw or sell away. That my point. The era of 1 gun - 1 vehichle is over. The era of we have light apc is over. The era of 1 vehicle - 1 task is over. Thats it. We spending a lot and we reciving very little. We need to have multipurpose vehichles in each segment - APC, IFV, MBT and so on. Now a days APC should have 3 types of different weapon systems at least. IT is about time for our military to grow up. Plus we need to stop wasting our money on trash - we do it a lot. But again with this regard I will start a new topic called "NEW ARMS of THE UNITED STATES" or something like that - I hope you guys will participate there. Furthermore I will get back to discussing tactical things here.  And my advice remains the same - try to avoid using strykers within this game - they are useless. 

[Oleksandr]

Using different routes to while relocating. Using roads while relocating your forces worth risk. Why? Because it gives you speed of relocation. While relocating a company always be sure that each platoon will take its own unique path towards final destination. Paralel movement is quite effective for that purpose. Furthermore, it is nice because while moving your forces like this you are gathering information about that area you pushing through. By moving this way you also minimizing effect of your enemy's arty fire. You are also preventing traffic jams from mine warfare - meaning that if you move your forces in one big column and the first vehicle stops for whatever reason - an entire company will stuck and that is crucial while fighting with IFV's against enemy who has tanks. Last but not least look at this screen shot. you see that the commander ifv closer to you moves along with other ifv's on the other side of the field. Now... if you are getting engaged - you will be able to use that feild as a place where your forces will be able to form offencive or deffencive order. Anotherwords in case of someting you will be able to use that space between platoon to shape a front line in matter of 1 to 2 minutes. Note - if your first vehicle was destroyed - it can be used as a cover for a vehicle what goes behind it (check my previous post about using house as a cover). I will write about shaping a column a little later. Good luck! 

[Oleksandr]

Infantry Micro level positioning. 

on this screenshot you can see Canadian observers taking position behind a small hill. Such gifts of terrain should be always used and considered. Same exact thing what is covering you might expose you from a different perspective. Yet while facing russian infantry you should always look for some cover within area you operate. But how can you know if your position is good or bad? Very easily - you shood look how your unit looks from an enemy perspective. - fly with your camer towards your enemy's possible position and look how your unit looks from that perspective. It is especially effective while meeting engagement or defencive operations. 

As you can see this is the same position from that enemy view angle. Always remember that there is no such thing as a perfect cover. Yet if 2 from 4 of your soldiers are able to obserbve/shoot/coordinate your arty strikes or air strikes - this cover can be considered as good. This type of hill will collect most of GP nades, it will protect your troops from rifle fire, and even if one of your soldiers will be down by a sniper shot - 3 of his team mates will be there to medic him. 

[Oleksandr]

Now you should work with your sniper teams in a same fashion. But you have to make some adjustments. In case of observers their main task is to actually observe but with snipers things are lil different. 

as you can see these snipers are hidden pretty well. but you always need to be sure that they can be effective. 

Always check if your weapon can be effectively used from a position you've picked. 

dont forget to check similar "trench" areas what can be used by your enemy. In a blue square you can see that very same position of your sniper team as before. 

Conclusion: position what we've picked for our sniper team is perfect. 

[Oleksandr]

Now when you have observers which are going to call and adjust your arty, when you have your sniper team knocking out the most dangerous units from huge distance - you need to have a squad devided into two team what would sort of speak tie your enemy into a firefight so that your enemy will not be able to move fast. Set up with few squads +sniper team + observers can stop advance of 2-3 platoons. 

one fire team should be located fairly closer to your enemy in woods - so that you will be to hide them and then use them again. 

another group should be located fairly close to your sniper team and that group should have MG in it. 

so the logic is simple - your observers are stadning in cover and making life of those who ran fast from opposing side very uncomfortable. Your other fire team is provoking your enemy for engagement. Your sniper team is taking down the most dangerous targets. And your last element with MG is suppressing those forces what will advance - making work of a sniper team easier. 

Such set up should be used as an a key element of your infantry on infantry battle. Things like this should be planned to place in the middle of the battle plan. 

view from the top. 

Note always keep some distance between your elements so that GL or RPG would not harm multiple elements. 

[IICptMillerII]

13 hours ago, Oleksandr said:

Im looking at this and Im thinking... tons of dollars were spent... and what we have? Single weapon per vehicle? (and yes I live in America Im Ukrainian descent). 

APC are relatively cheap... no things with IFV are way more complicated... having 23 mm gun on Breadly platform... em... thats a shame as well, but there are rockets on it so its sort off compensating that. 

Conclusion: this is my subjective opinion gentlemen. I do respect those warriors what served and managed to fight in strykers. Some of you maybe love them. No hate gentlemen no hate. I just think that the most powerful military in the world deserves to have better equipment for its dollar. I mean Im paying taxes and I want my soldiers run on better and more effective vehicles.

This terrible meme of "muh stryker is bad becuase it can't kill aircraft carriers and space aliens at the same time, totally worthless" needs to die. Also, my car is a piece of crap because it is not capable of getting me to the moon and back. The Apollo rocket could do it, why can't my car?!?!?! Clearly I need to upgrade it by strapping great big engines to it so I can blast into space!

First of all, just because you claim to be a "veteran" does not somehow validate your wrong opinion about the stryker, or anything else for that matter. To hammer home this point, CM is by far and away the best combined arms tactical combat simulator out there. Its two primary designers, Steve and Charles, both never served in the military. 

If you're argument against the stryker IN GAME is that because CM is a tactical simulator, you always want to bring the best possible vehicle for the immediate worst case scenario, then I agree that there are better choices than the stryker. The same argument can be made (and has been made, to the death, by many many morons on the internet) for the German panther tank of WWII. In a vacuum, on a tactical battlefield where the panther magically starts the war on that one battlefield, its a fantastic tank. However, in reality there are many other factors (one of which is getting to the battlefield) that made the panther one of the worst tanks of WWII. Yes, on a given tactical battle in CMBS a Bradley is a better choice than a stryker. The same argument can be made that you are better off taking a panther or tiger than a Pz IV in the WWII titles for the exact same reason. IN REALITY the panther and tiger were crap tanks. IN REALITY the stryker is extremely capable and in many cases better than a Bradley. The stryker is the opposite of the panther/tiger. In reality, the stryker is an amazingly capable vehicle that gives the US Army a capability it did not previously have; the ability to get to the battlefield before the war is over. (Bosnia, and the 6 months of build up prior to Desert Storm are some great modern examples)

I'm not going to sit here and write a 5000 word essay on why the stryker is good, or why the US Army will continue to heavily use it as is, or why the 30mm up-gunning is a terrible idea because frankly I don't have to. People much smarter than both of us know why the stryker is a vitally important vehicle as is.

You've made more than your fair share of ridiculous posts here on the forums, and I've abstained from getting involved. But in a thread where you claim to be preaching tactical wisdom, while at the same time not understanding basic principles of warfare that resulted in the adoption and widespread use of the stryker is where I draw the line. 

The fact of the matter is this; you can have your opinion on the stryker, but your opinion is wrong. Your word vs the US Army, yeah I'm gonna go with the Army on this one. 

[Oleksandr]

19 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

This terrible meme of "muh stryker is bad becuase it can't kill aircraft carriers and space aliens at the same time, totally worthless" needs to die. Also, my car is a piece of crap because it is not capable of getting me to the moon and back. The Apollo rocket could do it, why can't my car?!?!?! Clearly I need to upgrade it by strapping great big engines to it so I can blast into space!

First of all, just because you claim to be a "veteran" does not somehow validate your wrong opinion about the stryker, or anything else for that matter. To hammer home this point, CM is by far and away the best combined arms tactical combat simulator out there. Its two primary designers, Steve and Charles, both never served in the military. 

If you're argument against the stryker IN GAME is that because CM is a tactical simulator, you always want to bring the best possible vehicle for the immediate worst case scenario, then I agree that there are better choices than the stryker. The same argument can be made (and has been made, to the death, by many many morons on the internet) for the German panther tank of WWII. In a vacuum, on a tactical battlefield where the panther magically starts the war on that one battlefield, its a fantastic tank. However, in reality there are many other factors (one of which is getting to the battlefield) that made the panther one of the worst tanks of WWII. Yes, on a given tactical battle in CMBS a Bradley is a better choice than a stryker. The same argument can be made that you are better off taking a panther or tiger than a Pz IV in the WWII titles for the exact same reason. IN REALITY the panther and tiger were crap tanks. IN REALITY the stryker is extremely capable and in many cases better than a Bradley. The stryker is the opposite of the panther/tiger. In reality, the stryker is an amazingly capable vehicle that gives the US Army a capability it did not previously have; the ability to get to the battlefield before the war is over. (Bosnia, and the 6 months of build up prior to Desert Storm are some great modern examples)

I'm not going to sit here and write a 5000 word essay on why the stryker is good, or why the US Army will continue to heavily use it as is, or why the 30mm up-gunning is a terrible idea because frankly I don't have to. People much smarter than both of us know why the stryker is a vitally important vehicle as is.

You've made more than your fair share of ridiculous posts here on the forums, and I've abstained from getting involved. But in a thread where you claim to be preaching tactical wisdom, while at the same time not understanding basic principles of warfare that resulted in the adoption and widespread use of the stryker is where I draw the line. 

The fact of the matter is this; you can have your opinion on the stryker, but your opinion is wrong. Your word vs the US Army, yeah I'm gonna go with the Army on this one. 

Bro simple thing - you dont like something - you dont read. Last time I've looked on the map we all lived in a free country. Please do comment if you want - it will not change anything. Lol write more... please) 

[Oleksandr]

Gentlemen I would like to highlight few things - its your right to ignore my advices. If you guys think that I'm wrong in someting please feel free to say it. Furthermore, please feel free to critisize what I'm writing here. To all those spell checkers and those who are checking on my typing errors - yes my English is pretty bad and I admit that. There is absolutely no reason for you to follow those things I'm advising.  Last but not least, when I've said that I'm a Veteran I meant that I'm a veteran of this game not a real veteran of any country. I've been playing this game since "barbarossa to berlin" game. All of you can think that you know everything better than me, that my opinion is always wrong and that it isnt based on anything except of my personal and very subjective veiws. I'm ok with that, afterall I'm not a 100 dollar bill (those being loved by everyone lol).