Does Soviet tactics work in Combat Mission?

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, dbsapp said:

Canada is not that bad

Heh, no we have other issues, not the least of which we are a nation everyone wants a piece of, too few people on too many resources.  In our case we have employed a parasitic strategy where we link up with a friendly empire and essentially become a vassal state, UK first, now US.  It is smart, if unpalatable for many (so we lie to ourselves), as it trades our national resources for security at a pretty decent exchange rate.  Internally we have got as much baggage as anyone else.

Look, every nation on earth is like every family on earth...we all got issues.  Dragging this back to the game, national strategy directly influences military doctrine and employment.  In the USSR it was one of "big scary dog, which will attack if 1) we are really afraid or 2) see a chance to get away with it."  Either way, in CMCW we went with Soviet offensive doctrine because it simply made sense in context of the game. 

Now if you want to do a campaign or series of scenarios based on a fictional break up of the Soviet Union leading to civil war or forcing a Western intervention a la Coyle's The Ten Thousand, hey go for it.  The strategic context is plausible at least and you would get NATO offensive action in the region.  We considered it but we were already "what if-ing" and didn't want to stray too far from history and the actual forces that were postured to fight on the most likely battlefields of the day.

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

in CMCW we went with Soviet offensive doctrine because it simply made sense in context of the game. 

This makes sense not the historical accuracy. 

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, chuckdyke said:

This makes sense not the historical accuracy. 

Well any game can only be historically accurate at the start of a scenario.  Once the player makes the first move the scenario is no longer accurately going to recreate what really happened, that would be reenactment and documentaries do a better job of that .  This is why the WW2 vs Cold War “what if” does not make any real sense as all games are “what if” once someone starts playing them regardless of time frame.

So in CMCW we used period units with highly accurate organizational research and the in game modelling.  We also looked at the terrain as closely as we could for where the most likely battles would occur.  So on the first turn we are as accurate as we could get on maps drawn from the actual terrain it would have happened on (e.g.  for Eiterfeld on the Soviet Campaign we used an actual write up for a war game distributed back in the 80s as a battle was likely to happen there).  This is really not that much different from the older titles except they often have real battlefields to pull from where we had to do best guess.  Once the metal starts flying and players start playing the games are effectively the same overall abstractions of reality.

But each to their own.

[chuckdyke]

The hypothesis is based on the Stalinist view of the capitalist western alliance. Here is an interesting article and can be downloaded as a PDF.

Soviet Perspective On The Cold War And American Foreign Policy - VoegelinView

[DerKommissar]

 Soviet tactics do work in scenarios designed for them. Cold War has the only training campaign that I failed -- specifically the Counter-Attack mission. I try my best to minimize casualties, and get 1:10+ ratios. However, they just race across the entire map and win via touch objectives. I'd call this cheating, if it wasn't doctrine.

5 hours ago, dbsapp said:

Canada is not that bad

I'm guessing they didn't tell you about the taxes... or the housing crisis. Yeeesh!

[chuckdyke]

Here an interesting video from the tank-museum Bovington he explains that even the Chieftain tank was inferior to the T64 and explains the gunnery systems of the Challenger series.

 

 

[Vergeltungswaffe]

17 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

You all can apply for a job here.

Central Intelligence Agency - CIA   AKA Christians In Action.

Not funny at all.

[Simcoe]

9 hours ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:

Not funny at all.

I chuckled.

[Combatintman]

On 1/3/2022 at 4:02 PM, Erwin said:

Excuse me...?  All I mentioned is that is that Soviet tactics required larger Battalion and larger forces.  What is "toxic" about that?  

 

Except that wasn't 'all' you 'mentioned'  You also said you were waiting for a bug update which presumably means a patch.  The game has been patched so your comment, if 'bug update' = patch is false which is harmful to the title's reputation and; therefore, toxic.

[Centurian52]

11 minutes ago, Combatintman said:

Except that wasn't 'all' you 'mentioned'  You also said you were waiting for a bug update which presumably means a patch.  The game has been patched so your comment, if 'bug update' = patch is false which is harmful to the title's reputation and; therefore, toxic.

I feel like that standard for calling someone "toxic" needs to a bit higher than them saying something that is "harmful to the title's reputation". I don't think anything should be immune from criticism. Although I am curious as to what bugs he's referring to. There are ongoing arguments about which stuff is modeled correctly, but those aren't the same thing as actual bugs (and I'm of the opinion that those things are already modeled about right). There were a handful of actual bugs early on, but those have been ironed out (the floating track on the bmp comes to mind). Perhaps he meant "big update"? 'i' and 'u' are right next to each other on the keyboard so it would be an easy typo to make, and "waiting for the big update" makes more sense than "waiting for the bug update". Or perhaps he's referring to the promised performance improvements with Engine 5 (although that isn't specific to CMCW)? In any case, it's best to ask for clarification before being too harsh on someone.

[Pelican Pal]

The bar for what folks consider toxic is practically nonexistent. I wouldn't even call his comment "harmful to the title's reputation".  Find me someone who is perusing the forum and deciding their opinion of CM on Erwin's comment in a 5 page thread?

There are things that damage the game's reputation and I can guarantee you that none of them involve Erwin.

[DerKommissar]

A toxic person is someone who constantly demands chemical warfare be modeled, in-game. Maybe biological too. Actually full-on NBC, 'cause there were cases of polonium poisoning, as well. Ie. Marie Currie or Dr Thrax.

Alternatively, it can also refer to USMC personnel that have not been issued with newer non-toxic MREs and/or writing utensils.

[chuckdyke]

We play a game which is modelled on the conventions of war. WW2 we don't do carpet bombing or model carpet bombing. Biological and chemical warfare goes against the 1925 Geneva protocol. It shouldn't be modelled we can't shoot POW's either in the game. We play a tactical game and should keep it as such.

 

[Simcoe]

We seem to have gone a bit off topic....

Let's get back on track!

Has anyone been surprised by how the Soviets play?

Has anyone found that certain tactics work that would not be allowed in the manual?

How do they fair in PBEM's?

[BeondTheGrave]

2 hours ago, Simcoe said:

We seem to have gone a bit off topic....

Let's get back on track!

Has anyone been surprised by how the Soviets play?

Has anyone found that certain tactics work that would not be allowed in the manual?

How do they fair in PBEM's?

I've been surprised by how good Soviet infantry and IFVs are. I mean obviously the BMP is pretty good, but even the BTR is basically the same as an M113 except better in every way lol. 

But even the infantry squads, theyre not as dominant in the long range engagements as a US team with 2 M60s and a Dragon, but in a shorter range fire fight their infantry is QUITE potent. I actually think that infantry vs. infantry the Soviets have a lot of advantages and it makes an interesting tactical pairing. One which is often overshadowed by the real stars of the CMCW show, the tank battles. 

A BMP squad with its IFV making a dismounted attack doesnt have as many toys as a heavy US platoon with an M113, but the Soviet squad has its own strengths and can deal a lot of damage. Plus the attached BMP brings a LOT to the table both in the anti-infantry and anti-tank role. 

[Simcoe]

1 hour ago, BeondTheGrave said:

I've been surprised by how good Soviet infantry and IFVs are. I mean obviously the BMP is pretty good, but even the BTR is basically the same as an M113 except better in every way lol. 

But even the infantry squads, theyre not as dominant in the long range engagements as a US team with 2 M60s and a Dragon, but in a shorter range fire fight their infantry is QUITE potent. I actually think that infantry vs. infantry the Soviets have a lot of advantages and it makes an interesting tactical pairing. One which is often overshadowed by the real stars of the CMCW show, the tank battles. 

A BMP squad with its IFV making a dismounted attack doesnt have as many toys as a heavy US platoon with an M113, but the Soviet squad has its own strengths and can deal a lot of damage. Plus the attached BMP brings a LOT to the table both in the anti-infantry and anti-tank role. 

That's funny, I was playing the Meeting Engagement Training and I was thinking the same thing. BTR's seem to spot pretty well and not having the gunner exposed is massive. I like moving them up slow behind the infantry while they pour on the fire. 

It seems like the difference between a tall/lanky boxer vs a smaller/stockier wrestler. If the US can keep you at arms length they will destroy you but once the Soviets get in your line it's over. Your M113's are sitting there doing nothing while the BTR's and BMP's are destroying your infantry.

[domfluff]

5 hours ago, BeondTheGrave said:

obviously the BMP is pretty good

If your only experience with them was the other modern games - especially Shock Force - I suspect that wouldn't be your conclusion. Seeing Soviet stuff in the correct context, finally, is really interesting.

The same will apply to BAOR - most of the British package in CMSF (and to this day) are doctrines and equipment designed for the context of the Cold War, and they make a lot less sense outside of that.

Where Syrian forces often need to throw out the rulebook to be competitive, CMCW does a really good job of showing how and why the Soviet army did what it did on the battalion level, and how Soviet tactics work extremely well in CM, when correctly understood and applied.

[BeondTheGrave]

10 hours ago, Simcoe said:

That's funny, I was playing the Meeting Engagement Training and I was thinking the same thing. BTR's seem to spot pretty well and not having the gunner exposed is massive. I like moving them up slow behind the infantry while they pour on the fire. 

It seems like the difference between a tall/lanky boxer vs a smaller/stockier wrestler. If the US can keep you at arms length they will destroy you but once the Soviets get in your line it's over. Your M113's are sitting there doing nothing while the BTR's and BMP's are destroying your infantry.

In my own Limbach scenario there is ample opportunity for close range fighting, and for IFV on IFV battles. Mostly BTRs against M113s. In testing I found that defensively the M2 was more than able to take out a BTR, while the BTR with its 14.5mm made short work of the M113. I would speculate, though I dont know, that the BTR might do better against a loaded up M113 while the M2 may not inflict as much passenger damage (assuming its hitting the driver first, I had a both BTRs and 113s get side on shot and it scrambles whatever is inside) but thats a small thing. What really matters is that turret. Your also right about spotting, just from my own anecdotal evidence. 

In a lot of ways the Soviet disadvantages seem to fall away at around about ~1000m, depending of course on what youre using. A T-62 @ under 1000m can hit an M60 pretty reliably and first hit kill it damn near every time. The AT-7 opens up at that range, which means virtually every BMP and many BTR platoons can bring AT fire in on you. Under 1000m the Soviets weight comes to bear. Outside of ~1000m the American advantages outweigh Soviet. 

With that in mind it seems like picking terrain is key for the Soviet player, just as it is for the American. The Soviet player ought to reconsider picking long range duels and instead should look to move up under cover as close to the enemy as possible. Taking it back to the theme of the post, IMO Soviet commander would try to move quickly by road operationally. But when his CRP hits resistance, the commander will start to consider alternate routes of advance to either A) bypass the strongpoint or B ) allow him to push up under concealment as close as he can, and hopefully also onto the flank of the defensive position. I think thats also what I dislike, from an intellectual side, about the Sov Campaign M1. From a gameplay perspective I dont agree with spawning units into a killzone, but from a realistic sense I dont see why the Soviets ought to try and force that specific point when on the left and right of it is better cover. Either they can deploy under concealment on the same hill as the CRP, or 'offmap' at a more reasonable distance from suspected enemy locations where they can begin to maneuver, or pursue a wider tactical maneuver which would let them get closer on one of the flanks, by way of an offmap road or path. These solutions would better conform not just to Soviet grand tactical thinking, but to the strengths of the Soviet soldier and equipment as well. 

[Simcoe]

10 minutes ago, BeondTheGrave said:

In my own Limbach scenario there is ample opportunity for close range fighting, and for IFV on IFV battles. Mostly BTRs against M113s. In testing I found that defensively the M2 was more than able to take out a BTR, while the BTR with its 14.5mm made short work of the M113. I would speculate, though I dont know, that the BTR might do better against a loaded up M113 while the M2 may not inflict as much passenger damage (assuming its hitting the driver first, I had a both BTRs and 113s get side on shot and it scrambles whatever is inside) but thats a small thing. What really matters is that turret. Your also right about spotting, just from my own anecdotal evidence. 

In a lot of ways the Soviet disadvantages seem to fall away at around about ~1000m, depending of course on what youre using. A T-62 @ under 1000m can hit an M60 pretty reliably and first hit kill it damn near every time. The AT-7 opens up at that range, which means virtually every BMP and many BTR platoons can bring AT fire in on you. Under 1000m the Soviets weight comes to bear. Outside of ~1000m the American advantages outweigh Soviet. 

With that in mind it seems like picking terrain is key for the Soviet player, just as it is for the American. The Soviet player ought to reconsider picking long range duels and instead should look to move up under cover as close to the enemy as possible. Taking it back to the theme of the post, IMO Soviet commander would try to move quickly by road operationally. But when his CRP hits resistance, the commander will start to consider alternate routes of advance to either A) bypass the strongpoint or B ) allow him to push up under concealment as close as he can, and hopefully also onto the flank of the defensive position. I think thats also what I dislike, from an intellectual side, about the Sov Campaign M1. From a gameplay perspective I dont agree with spawning units into a killzone, but from a realistic sense I dont see why the Soviets ought to try and force that specific point when on the left and right of it is better cover. Either they can deploy under concealment on the same hill as the CRP, or 'offmap' at a more reasonable distance from suspected enemy locations where they can begin to maneuver, or pursue a wider tactical maneuver which would let them get closer on one of the flanks, by way of an offmap road or path. These solutions would better conform not just to Soviet grand tactical thinking, but to the strengths of the Soviet soldier and equipment as well. 

Agree on the 1000 meter rule. You can see it in their vehicle designs. Soviet tanks are great for taking advantage of small folds in terrain compared to the  M60. 

I haven't started the first Soviet Mission but I've tested the spawn points of each wave and it seems decently fair to me. Dismount your CRP to overlook Mansbach and out fire on anything overlooking it. That will open up the forward detachment who will take the hill overlooking the rest of the map.

[BeondTheGrave]

26 minutes ago, Simcoe said:

Agree on the 1000 meter rule. You can see it in their vehicle designs. Soviet tanks are great for taking advantage of small folds in terrain compared to the  M60. 

I haven't started the first Soviet Mission but I've tested the spawn points of each wave and it seems decently fair to me. Dismount your CRP to overlook Mansbach and out fire on anything overlooking it. That will open up the forward detachment who will take the hill overlooking the rest of the map.

The issue is when your first wave of real troops arrive. They spawn to the right of the Soviet Hill in a space that is being watched by the Americans, and is also extremely close to some M60A3s. At that range they tend not to miss, in my experience. But the CRP & FD have very little time to get into position, spot targets, and then call in mortar smoke to screen the rest of the battalion thanks to long Soviet call in times. There are probably ways to work around these issues, but only once you know they are there. This means having to gameify an otherwise excellent scenario by trying to get smoke or shells down, or missiles out, before your forward company hits the map. In a 'blind' playthrough you may find that it all happens in too short a span for you to do anything about, taking permanent casualties as a result. Unless the scenario is trying to represent a breakdown in communications that I am not aware of, it seems like the job of the CRP/FD would be to call in this obstacle and for the commander to begin to plan his response before the main force crashes into American defenses. You can certainly spot those positions in plenty of time and push the spots up the C2 net. IMO stuff like that is maybe a bit too rigid of a reading of doctrine, and is the kind of stuff that gets Soviet players into trouble. 

Edited January 6, 2022 by BeondTheGrave

[Simcoe]

1 hour ago, BeondTheGrave said:

The issue is when your first wave of real troops arrive. They spawn to the right of the Soviet Hill in a space that is being watched by the Americans, and is also extremely close to some M60A3s. At that range they tend not to miss, in my experience. But the CRP & FD have very little time to get into position, spot targets, and then call in mortar smoke to screen the rest of the battalion thanks to long Soviet call in times. There are probably ways to work around these issues, but only once you know they are there. This means having to gameify an otherwise excellent scenario by trying to get smoke or shells down, or missiles out, before your forward company hits the map. In a 'blind' playthrough you may find that it all happens in too short a span for you to do anything about, taking permanent casualties as a result. Unless the scenario is trying to represent a breakdown in communications that I am not aware of, it seems like the job of the CRP/FD would be to call in this obstacle and for the commander to begin to plan his response before the main force crashes into American defenses. You can certainly spot those positions in plenty of time and push the spots up the C2 net. IMO stuff like that is maybe a bit too rigid of a reading of doctrine, and is the kind of stuff that gets Soviet players into trouble. 

I see your point. I thought they gave you target question marks instead of giving you extra time to scout. I know that there are way too many angles to confidently hit all targets in range of the FD spawn zone.  Doesn't help that the tactical map screen doesn't give you the correct entry point for the forward detachment!!

No comment until I give it a try for real.

[Grey_Fox]

17 minutes ago, Simcoe said:

I see your point. I thought they gave you target question marks instead of giving you extra time to scout. I know that there are way too many angles to confidently hit all targets in range of the FD spawn zone.  Doesn't help that the tactical map screen doesn't give you the correct entry point for the forward detachment!

The tentative contacts for pre-battle Intel are random, and sometimes I believe you don't get any.

It would be better if you could have the full 20-30 minutes to do recon, but you don't so you have to gamify it and pretend you've already done everything if you want artillery support coming in on the forward US positions for when the FSE arrives.

[Pelican Pal]

If pre-battle intel operates they way old resupply did it would be a % chance for each unit rather than a % minimum. So if the scenario designer set 10% early intel it there would be a 10% chance for each unit to be detected rather than 10% of enemy units being detected.

IMO the mission would be better with a QB style "off-map" spawn area. Especially for the rest of the battalion.

 

[Simcoe]

12 hours ago, BeondTheGrave said:

The issue is when your first wave of real troops arrive. They spawn to the right of the Soviet Hill in a space that is being watched by the Americans, and is also extremely close to some M60A3s. At that range they tend not to miss, in my experience. But the CRP & FD have very little time to get into position, spot targets, and then call in mortar smoke to screen the rest of the battalion thanks to long Soviet call in times. There are probably ways to work around these issues, but only once you know they are there. This means having to gameify an otherwise excellent scenario by trying to get smoke or shells down, or missiles out, before your forward company hits the map. In a 'blind' playthrough you may find that it all happens in too short a span for you to do anything about, taking permanent casualties as a result. Unless the scenario is trying to represent a breakdown in communications that I am not aware of, it seems like the job of the CRP/FD would be to call in this obstacle and for the commander to begin to plan his response before the main force crashes into American defenses. You can certainly spot those positions in plenty of time and push the spots up the C2 net. IMO stuff like that is maybe a bit too rigid of a reading of doctrine, and is the kind of stuff that gets Soviet players into trouble. 

I just played this mission for the first time. I placed my CRP in the cliff phasing Mansbach. I had a single M60 contact up on a ridge above Mansbach. I set up a preplaced bombardment set to heavy and maximum. Once my troops got there I spotted a tow vehicle on the mountain overlooking the town. I adjusted the artillery there. I immediately adjusted the artillery (which allows 3 minutes of fire) to Mansbach itself since I spotted a couple M113's. My FSE shows up 10 minutes in and spots one more hidden M60 on a hill and immediately kills it. None of my force is damaged in the process.

Of course, I could have gotten lucky but it seemed pretty fair to me.

I just wish they would fix the tactical map. I had to cheat and run the scenario through by clicking the go button as fast as possible to see where my forces spawned. If I didn't do that I would have no idea that the FSE shows up below Mansbach.

[dbsapp]

On 1/7/2022 at 8:49 AM, Simcoe said:

I just played this mission for the first time. I placed my CRP in the cliff phasing Mansbach. I had a single M60 contact up on a ridge above Mansbach. I set up a preplaced bombardment set to heavy and maximum. Once my troops got there I spotted a tow vehicle on the mountain overlooking the town. I adjusted the artillery there. I immediately adjusted the artillery (which allows 3 minutes of fire) to Mansbach itself since I spotted a couple M113's. My FSE shows up 10 minutes in and spots one more hidden M60 on a hill and immediately kills it. None of my force is damaged in the process.

Of course, I could have gotten lucky but it seemed pretty fair to me.

I just wish they would fix the tactical map. I had to cheat and run the scenario through by clicking the go button as fast as possible to see where my forces spawned. If I didn't do that I would have no idea that the FSE shows up below Mansbach.

It's a matter of luck indeed.

I wonder how you managed to adjust artillery fire so fast. Usually it takes about 6-10 minutes+plus the time to get your spotter into position+time to spot target+and finally time to kill the target by the falling rounds. 

Considering that the first reinforcement wave shows up in 10 minutes you have to push your fortunes to the extreme.