domfluff Posted May 6, 2019 Author Share Posted May 6, 2019 C2 is still shared to the spy "hq" unit, so the HQ node of the network will always end up with the spotting contacts before one of the end nodes. That probably means, terrain permitting, that the correct usage is to have a "left" and "right" spy group, with a central one whose job is to collect their info with their extreme left and right units, and pass it to the uncon HQs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted May 6, 2019 Share Posted May 6, 2019 This formation is exceptionally efficient: Costly on points though! Silliness aside, these are some valuable insights.....Spies are a powerful tool if they can actually get their information to conventional formations in reasonable time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domfluff Posted May 6, 2019 Author Share Posted May 6, 2019 (edited) Yeah, hybrid warfare is something which CMSF can do well, but Quick Battles can't. There's no need for the networks to be spy-spy of course, so hybrid C2 would look something like this: Edited May 6, 2019 by domfluff 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted May 6, 2019 Share Posted May 6, 2019 In my LNA core I've tried to co-locate regular, uncon & spy HQs at various levels of the command structure.....It will be interesting to see how it pans out in testing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 (edited) OK.....It's moaning time (sorry). How come nobody thought to add Breach Teams to ANY of the Uncon lists? Jihadists do have something of a reputation for blowing holes in things and they don't always have to self-immolate to achieve it! Even simple Combatants soon learn to mousehole their way through buildings.....Think of it as an evolutionary process. It's not like they require a massive number of new models or unique coding surely.....Was this just an oversight? Please, please @Battlefront.com, give this some thought.....It's a fairly big issue really, IMHO. Edited May 7, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domfluff Posted May 7, 2019 Author Share Posted May 7, 2019 Yup. They exist in CM:A... More of a coding problem, but the range of weapons in CM:A is pretty interesting for Uncons - they go from Lee Enfield rifles and Bren guns... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, domfluff said: Yup. They exist in CM:A... Don't they just.....In every platoon, Tribal or Mujahidin, and you can also get them in dedicated Groups! But it doesn't actually need anything from CM:A to make them for CM:SF2 as far as I can tell.....All it really needs is to swap the existing CM:SF2 Fighter/Combatant models & skins onto an existing AK armed Breach Team, then add the (allegedly) existing Uncon sneaking ability. Hopefully this could be done in a patch? PS - I've said it before and I'll say it again.....In some ways CM:A is still the best CM unconventional warfare title. Edited May 7, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOS:96B2P Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 13 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: add Breach Teams to ANY of the Uncon lists? Jihadists do have something of a reputation for blowing holes in things 9 minutes ago, domfluff said: Yup. They exist in CM:A... Interesting idea. It would be useful and I think realistic to have Uncon breach teams in CMSF2. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 (edited) I'd somehow convinced myself that I'd seen them in the Fighter lists and given it no further though until just.....I went to start assembling an OSIRIS cell for one of my experiments, looked for Fighter Breach Teams and the cupboard was bare! This is the first real disappointment I've had with CM:SF2.....Really hope the team will consider fixing it as it just makes so much sense. The absence of Uncons with demolition charges stopped me from making a bunch of stuff in CM:SF1 (My CM:A scenario 'The Heist' was derived from an earlier ISIS prison-break concept that stalled for just this reason). PS - @Battlefront.com.....I pleaded for ZPU technicals, on what I hope were similarly sensible grounds, and you provided.....Consequently I have used them, oh how I have used them: Welcome to Libya! Thus you may rest assured that Uncon Breach teams definitely would not be effort wasted.....Of that you can be 100% confident! Edited May 7, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazmaps Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 On 5/8/2019 at 3:14 AM, Sgt.Squarehead said: PS - @Battlefront.com.....I pleaded for ZPU technicals, on what I hope were similarly sensible grounds, and you provided.....Consequently I have used them, oh how I have used them: Welcome to Libya! Thus you may rest assured that Uncon Breach teams definitely would not be effort wasted.....Of that you can be 100% confident! How about take this the next step - suicide bombers - acting a bit like vbieds currently do......you could have breach teams or suicide bombers!!!!! I'm thinking it would likely be recycling similar existing code.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 53 minutes ago, Gazmaps said: How about take this the next step - suicide bombers - acting a bit like vbieds currently do......you could have breach teams or suicide bombers!!!!! I'm thinking it would likely be recycling similar existing code.... I've been working on a few test concepts that (barring outliers) give a reasonable impression of both player controlled and AI controlled suicide bombers.....These only work under fairly tightly controlled circumstances, and even then there's a small chance of things going wrong (like the time my three man suicide assault team stormed a mosque, two of them detonating their suicide belts, blowing out a couple of walls and killing everyone but themselves. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazmaps Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 1 minute ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: I've been working on a few test concepts that (barring outliers) give a reasonable impression of both player controlled and AI controlled suicide bombers.....These only work under fairly tightly controlled circumstances, and even then there's a small chance of things going wrong (like the time my three man suicide assault team stormed a mosque, two of them detonating their suicide belts, blowing out a couple of walls and killing everyone but themselves. Well thats not uncommon for suicide bombers from what Ive seen.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 1 minute ago, Gazmaps said: Well thats not uncommon for suicide bombers from what Ive seen.... After they set their belts off? There must be some tough suicide bombers in your part of the world Gaz! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazmaps Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 On 5/10/2019 at 2:01 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said: After they set their belts off? There must be some tough suicide bombers in your part of the world Gaz! More just stuffing it up!!!!! Missed the bit where they didnt blow themselves up - now that would be very uncommon 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 Yup....Once I can eliminate that possibility, I'll be happy to for players to use it. As it is, there's a very small chance of very major immersion loss. On a brighter note, the AI version is already much more reliable (as seen from the player perspective)! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domfluff Posted May 20, 2019 Author Share Posted May 20, 2019 I've been messing around with the following setup for an uncon group, which seems to be working out quite well: 1x 1 man HQ 1x 5 man LMG 1x 4 man LMG 1x 5 man RPG 1x 3 man SVD The 3 man sniper team makes for decent platoon scouts. Three men is the minimum, and you really want this to be as small as possible, to maximise stealth. In urban terrain, I've had good results with an SVD team, even on Conscript experience levels, since the ranges are so close. RPGs are game-changing weapons, and tremendously levelling - there's a good argument that the RPG-7 is one of the most important weapons of the twentieth century. They don't come in less that 5 man combatant teams, so 5 men it is. The group needs at least one. The RPG has a major issue in that it'll suppress the team when fired indoors, and with low quality troops that can be devastating - either the team immediately loses any fire superiority it's gained, or it'll actually panic and run away. Two LMG teams allows for a degree of bounding between them - they're flexible enough to get the base of fire down quickly, and don't have the RPG issue. Two of them are much more effective than one. The downside to this approach is C2 - it takes longer to spread the spotting information to four units than two, so a comparatively large group will be worse at sharing information. There's a good argument for splitting this into an "LMG Group", an "SVD Group", etc., but that's making the C2 situation worse. The above works with transport options. Taxis carry 4 and Pickups carry 9, so the above can be neatly carried by two pickups. Attaching a Technical to the above is a strong option - Technicals are mostly useful as flank security, rather than as an assault element. Ideally from keyhole positions, or performing the "isolation" role in a building assault, since they can get around a flank easier. the anti-aircraft Technical *might* be okay leading an attack, if you can do it with sufficient surprise, but I wouldn't bet on it. This kind of thing I mean: the Technical is moved so as not to exposed to the target building directly, but instead can prevent movement to or from, allowing the assaulting teams to suppress and move in: 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domfluff Posted May 20, 2019 Author Share Posted May 20, 2019 The above unit, in game: In Quick Battle terms that's fairly expensive - it costs about as much as two US Infantry squads without transport, but that's mostly the extra premium you get for hiring the Technical and Pickup groups. You can't buy individual Pickups or Technicals to add to the formation, so the correct approach would be to buy this for the entire force and then parcel them out, rather than buy the formation and pare it down - you pay the extra cost anyway, so you may as well buy more. Typical soft factors are Conscript/Green experience, with Extreme or Fanatic motivation. Leadership is variable across the board. Points without transport for the above were generated at 123, which is about same cost as a single Veteran US infantry squad with +2 Leadership, which is also common on Typical settings. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domfluff Posted May 20, 2019 Author Share Posted May 20, 2019 The difference between 4 man LMG and 5 man LMG teams are that the 5 man team gets a second RPD in the unit. That's a significant boost, so if this unit is not to be mounted it probably makes sense to opt for the full 19 men. The RPG problem has a solution in the form of Engine 4's corner peeking - there's an element of randomness to it, but the squad will prioritise peeking with the heavy weapons, and putting a suitably angled Face order will usually encourage the RPG to go to the corner you need it at. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOS:96B2P Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 12 hours ago, domfluff said: I've been messing around with the following setup for an uncon group, which seems to be working out quite well: The above works with transport options. Taxis carry 4 and Pickups carry 9, so the above can be neatly carried by two pickups. Attaching a Technical to the above is a strong option - Technicals are mostly useful as flank security, rather than as an assault element. Ideally from keyhole positions, This kind of thing I mean: the Technical is moved so as not to exposed to the target building directly, but instead can prevent movement to or from, allowing the assaulting teams to suppress and move in: +1. Interesting stuff. Thanks for taking the time to share this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domfluff Posted May 21, 2019 Author Share Posted May 21, 2019 TC 7-100.2 Opposing Force Tactics, like the rest of the TC 7-100 series, seeks to create a generic doctrine to represent several forms of OpFor, at different scales and with differing intent. https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/tc7_100x2.pdf A core idea though, is to split the force into three elements: Assault, Security and Support. Some quick examples in different contexts: Using the above Large Combatant group as the example, this could break down as: Assault:1x 5 man LMG 1x 4 man LMG Support:1x 1 man HQ 1x 5 man RPG Security:1x 3 man Sniper Technicals are probably best placed in the "Security" category, but clearly the roles are malleable in general. Since firing RPGs indoors causes the volume of outgoing fire to drop through self-suppression, and the need to have two elements to allow for bounding overwatch, I think the 2:1 ratio of rifle/LMG groups to RPGs is probably correct - three RPG teams in buildings that enter a firefight will go a long way towards defeating themselves. Additional elements added to this team, presumably through the "specialist team" tab could include: IED Triggerman Spy Spy Forward Observer Mortar team VBIED Attaching spies directly to the team is interesting, I think - adding an even stealthier element within the existing C2 structure (such as it is) is potentially pretty powerful. Doubly so if they can call in on-map mortars. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, domfluff said: Attaching spies directly to the team is interesting, I think - adding an even stealthier element within the existing C2 structure (such as it is) is potentially pretty powerful. Doubly so if they can call in on-map mortars. You can't.....Both Spies & Spy Forward Observers are available only as Formations, not as Specialist Units. The closest you can come is to co-locate HQ units. Edited May 21, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domfluff Posted May 21, 2019 Author Share Posted May 21, 2019 Ah, gotcha. I do need to dig into the various combos a little more. I'm not really sure why the "single vehicles" can only ever be taxis either - you'd think that with all of the other downsides that uncons have, at least they'd be flexible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 (edited) I'd really like to see the unarmed pickup trucks made available as Single Vehicles.....The armed technicals would be nice too, but those pickups are a big omission. But the thing I really want is Breach Teams for both Combatants & Fighters.....These are a massive omission IMHO and surely they would be very simple to add? TBH I wish BF would just import the two Uncon formations from CM:A, the Tribal Group (strong company sized unit) and Mujahidin Battalion (battalion sized unit, unsurprisingly). Edited May 21, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domfluff Posted May 22, 2019 Author Share Posted May 22, 2019 Combatent specialist team combos are interesting - you have the choice of: 1 man sniper team 2 man RPG team 1 man IED triggerman That does mean that the above Large Combatant unit could be shifted around a little to keep it to 18 men in two pickups with a technical. For example: Assault 5x LMG 5x LMG Security 1x Sniper 1x Sniper 1 x Technical w/PK 1 x Triggerman Support 2x RPG 3x HQ 2x Pickup truck Obviously a triggerman without IED to detonate isn't immediately useful, but since the point here is really to develop an example/baseline tactical doctrine, it makes some degree of sense from a flexibility standpoint. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, domfluff said: Obviously a triggerman without IED to detonate isn't immediately useful Oh, you might be surprised.....Lot's of things you can do with a single man with a rifle, they can make fine sentries for insurgent bases, lone gunmen, even policemen. If you play on iron mode (the only true & righteous choice) they (or the Formation version at least) display as HQs to the other side (gonna have to check now and see how the Specialist Team version displays), so the player or your opponent will be none the wiser. Edited May 22, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.