Tips for playing.

[Erwin]

Have often commented that the C2 system does not work "as advertised".  Have experienced mortars surrounded by units with radios with no C2 - ie no HQ can contact them - cos the "right" HQ is not present.  Other times, it seems easy to contact the mortars even when there does not see m to be any radios nearby.  In  a multiple Battalion scenario, have seen squads having contact to other higher level HQ's, before their own HQ etc.  Have offered to send savegames, but no one was interested.  Get the impression that if one spots too many bugs, you become persona non grata.

[chuckdyke]

5 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Have often commented that the C2 system does not work "as advertised". 

The manual is very vague, in all honesty I must say the pre play analysis can take a lot of time. It varies from scenario to scenario. Take Hammersflank for example. The Regimental HQ has the only radio in its formation. The only way units can contact him is by the Company HQ mounting an SU76. But is this realistic? We have the hypothetical field telephone which enables a single guy HQ of the engineers to call of map mortars. The field telephone can pop up anywhere as the player sees fit. Reading plenty of books re Soviet Army WW2 preplanned is the only realistic way to go. I select usually one platoon to act as FO for the off map. On the map I have a very hard look for enfilade positions for direct fire. It is fine but a manual should be more detailed of how to play each game correctly. 

[RockinHarry]

7 hours ago, Erwin said:

I wouldn't argue with that.  I was thinking of the HQ Support, XO's, Co CO's.  Some battery commanders are required to be close to their mortars to enable C2.  Not sure why since other units with radios should be able to keep the mortars in C2.

Mortar Plt HQ was just an example and in fact I very rarely use them for mentioned recon purposes, unless scouting for a good mortar combat position during mobile battles. One their historic purposes as said. (I´ve couple regulations and manuals on historic use)

Of course I just can make use of what´s available in a given scenario ORBAT. HMG Plt HQ is always a good choice and then I subordinate (put into C2 range) its single HMG teams to Coy or Btl HQ´s. But much more frequently I send forward the split off part of a squad carrying the Binocs (leader section) and keep the support part for overwatch roles. And I never "sacrifice" a 2 men scout team for drawing enemy fire type of recon. Waste of resources and weakening the parent squad IMHO.

[RockinHarry]

1 hour ago, chuckdyke said:

The manual is very vague, in all honesty I must say the pre play analysis can take a lot of time. It varies from scenario to scenario. Take Hammersflank for example. The Regimental HQ has the only radio in its formation. The only way units can contact him is by the Company HQ mounting an SU76. But is this realistic? We have the hypothetical field telephone which enables a single guy HQ of the engineers to call of map mortars. The field telephone can pop up anywhere as the player sees fit. Reading plenty of books re Soviet Army WW2 preplanned is the only realistic way to go. I select usually one platoon to act as FO for the off map. On the map I have a very hard look for enfilade positions for direct fire. It is fine but a manual should be more detailed of how to play each game correctly. 

a feature that I like in GT Mius very much. (field telephones)

[chuckdyke]

1 minute ago, RockinHarry said:

a feature that I like in GT Mius very much.

Yes, it would be nice in the preplanning if you assigned a HQ to a Mortar Platoon and a Field Telephone Icon pops up. There could also be a caveat to deny any other HQs the indirect fire support. To write the code in the present engine may look easier than it is.

[Erwin]

 

1 hour ago, RockinHarry said:

I never "sacrifice" a 2 men scout team for drawing enemy fire type of recon. Waste of resources and weakening the parent squad IMHO.

I wouldn't sacrifice for no reason deliberately.  But, in the vast majority of scenarios one doesn't have time to have guys with binocs sit around for 5+ minutes to spot things.  My experience is that it's faster to send out numerous 2-man teams all over the map to quickly get a sense of enemy locations.  However, it's very very hard to keep em alive.  I always move em with numerous waypoints with 5-20 second pauses and HIDE commands.  However, usually, if they spot an enemy, they are already quite close and tend to get shot up even when hiding.  

[chuckdyke]

Imo the two men are not for finding the enemy, but to find a route where the enemy is absent. I put the guys with binoculars and radios on station. Have a platoon moving to contact. 

Edited February 18, 2023 by chuckdyke

[RockinHarry]

19 minutes ago, Erwin said:

 

I wouldn't sacrifice for no reason deliberately.  But, in the vast majority of scenarios one doesn't have time to have guys with binocs sit around for 5+ minutes to spot things.  My experience is that it's faster to send out numerous 2-man teams all over the map to quickly get a sense of enemy locations.  However, it's very very hard to keep em alive.  I always move em with numerous waypoints with 5-20 second pauses and HIDE commands.  However, usually, if they spot an enemy, they are already quite close and tend to get shot up even when hiding.  

well, for me it´s more the net effect of getting intel where I planned for the main effort. So no need for me to need knowing everything of the enemies dispositions. A few well supported eyes (binocs) at key locations (oftentimes one got to fight for them beforehand) does the trick and helps on preservation of own forces. But that all goes now more toward general attack and defense plans for which there´s no panaceas of course.

For mission design I usually apply similar techniques when it comes to AIP scripting. Much of what we do can in fact beeing applied to AIP scripted plans as well which is fairly cool actually. But that just as a side note (deserving a different thread).

[chuckdyke]

Scouts won't spot infantry; they don't even spot their own units. My tip is to play on Iron for improved situational awareness. The two men point teams will spot AFVs which is usually the smoking gun. 

[RockinHarry]

2 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Imo the two men are not for finding the enemy, but to find a route where the enemy is absent. I put the guys with binoculars and radios on station. Have a platoon moving to contact. 

I find part of what we´re all doing at the start of battles, is actually part of pre-battle recon and intel. In my own missions I almost always give some pre battle intel to both player and AIP. Maybe 10 to 30%, depending on what I´d imagined the RL battle would´ve been. While it would be desirable to have just certain units apply to that "PBI", one can also use Reinforcements (past T5 at the earliest) for same effect. Just have particular single units placed on the map at start of the game and set PBI to 100% generally. All reinforcements coming in at/after T5 wont apply to PBI and must be spotted normally. Much more realistic than adding a long recon phase to the mission, particularly when mission designer gives too little time for mission completion. But I like GeorgeMC´s way as well, or generally mission times beeing longer ones. Recon is fun, but can also be tiring. 

[chuckdyke]

Tired is not that bad it means you can't run fast

Fatigued means you can't run fast or hunt.

Exhausted means you can move or go slow. I found no evidence that it affects marksmanship.

Your FO for example can crawl to his position as long as it takes. I gave up after five turns in an exhausted state. Yes losing the ability to hunt and run is not ideal for a combat unit.

[chuckdyke]

Tiring is a warning next turn your scouts can't use the hunt command.

[chuckdyke]

17 minutes ago, RockinHarry said:

I almost always give some pre battle intel to both player and AIP.

It is good if the scenario is an assault. Imo an assault is the conclusion of an attack to be conducted when the required intel is there. Half an hour scenarios would be ok. Getting intel I found a worthwhile experience, having tentative contacts all over the place can be distracting. Especially if they are inaccurate too. Anyway thank you guys for all the input.

[RockinHarry]

27 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Tired is not that bad it means you can't run fast

Fatigued means you can't run fast or hunt.

Exhausted means you can move or go slow. I found no evidence that it affects marksmanship.

Your FO for example can crawl to his position as long as it takes. I gave up after five turns in an exhausted state. Yes losing the ability to hunt and run is not ideal for a combat unit.

Sorry, I bits of was unclear re "tiring". I meant a tiring game play experience when you wait for some real action to start in a game.

"tiring" infantry units sometimes ain´t bad for AIP play. BFC geared the AIP for "quick", cover avoiding moves. (cover terrain slows down usually). So it´s sometimes not "bad" enforcing AIP units to move into and through cover terrain for some time. AIP units then can "move" (beeing enforced to) towards next objective area if it gives benefits (mission testing reveals if this could be desireable). I also give player units some lesser degrees of "fitness" occasionally. Both for more "realism" (players likely hate that) and if I want denying some units fast move capabilities for special purposes.

Edited February 18, 2023 by RockinHarry

[chuckdyke]

3 minutes ago, RockinHarry said:

lesser degrees of "fitness"

That should depend on weather conditions, or previous battles in a campaign. It forces the player to become efficient with waypoint stacking and splitting. Which is a good thing. You can move for most of a turn with some hunting breaks. 

[PEB14]

2 hours ago, Erwin said:

 I always move em with numerous waypoints with 5-20 second pauses and HIDE commands.

I read somewhere (in the manual?) that HIDING units are very poor spotters. Is it correct?

[chuckdyke]

28 minutes ago, PEB14 said:

I read somewhere (in the manual?) that HIDING units are very poor spotters. Is it correct?

Spotting depends on how many eyes look. Out of a team of three, two hide at any given time and one spots. Unhide all three are spotting. The other option you may consider is a listening or standing patrol. They usually pick up sound contacts of AFV's you don't need to physically contact, often enough to confirm the presence of enemy. 

[RockinHarry]

2 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

That should depend on weather conditions, or previous battles in a campaign. It forces the player to become efficient with waypoint stacking and splitting. Which is a good thing. You can move for most of a turn with some hunting breaks. 

yup, normally. Though I´d rarely seen any mission designers making use of the fitness tab. But I also play user made missions very rarely. Use of "weakened" for troops on extended frontline service, unrested, with previous forced march, or for regular troops more generally. "Unfit" mostly for conscripts or special purposes mentioned.

[chuckdyke]

1 minute ago, RockinHarry said:

Though I´d rarely seen any mission designers making use of the fitness tab.

Experienced +45C I can tell you after 30 minutes you're finished. I would make a scenario on this guideline alone. Any longer fighting from AFVs only, imagine serving in a Soviet tank. JS3s were outclassed by Israeli Shermans, the Shermans could maneuver, the JS3s were in static defense. 

[Erwin]

9 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

I almost always give some pre battle intel to both player and AIP. Maybe 10 to 30%

Good.  Seems more realistic to have some intelligence of where enemy positions are.  Otherwise it seems that we're playing recon missions with main force units. 

And yes, the scouts are for finding out routes where the enemy is absent or weak for movement (esp on a large map), but also for locating main defensive asset positions when one has to overcome them to gain an objective. 

While it's always better to not let units get tired, running scouts ahead may require them to get tired.  In most scenarios there is a time crunch so it's better to have some scouts get hit, then run out of time at the end and suffer heavier casualties cos one is rushing.

In CM2 HIDING units are literally putting their faces in the ground to hide.  So poor spotters.

 

[RockinHarry]

5 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Experienced +45C I can tell you after 30 minutes you're finished. I would make a scenario on this guideline alone. Any longer fighting from AFVs only, imagine serving in a Soviet tank. JS3s were outclassed by Israeli Shermans, the Shermans could maneuver, the JS3s were in static defense. 

good point, thanks. Though the crew will be effected only if disembarked (voluntarily or not so). I´ll try making tank crews "unfit" and then see if it changes their (TacAI) behavior considerably once forced to bail out. (in panic, broken or routed)

[MOS:96B2P]

On 2/16/2023 at 4:42 PM, chuckdyke said:

With scouts micromanagement is the key, and you need to plot from view 1. Realistic house rules make the game more enjoyable. Example Soviet Artillery WW2 the Signal System they had is not modelled in the game. This guy gave me ideas. You can use any HQ for the game but what makes it more realistic for example assign the mortars to one infantry platoon who gets the hypothetical field telephone. Having field telephones popping all over the battlefield as soon as an opportunity pops up is not realistic. I follow this guy he is a great influence of how I play the game.

 

Interesting.  Also the author of the video, Gordon Cooke, has a few videos about CM Professional.  I am now subscribed to his channel. 

[PEB14]

1 hour ago, MOS:96B2P said:

Interesting.  Also the author of the video, Gordon Cooke, has a few videos about CM Professional.  I am now subscribed to his channel. 

I cannot distinguish any visible difference between the pro and commercial version at first glance. Does anybody know what are the main differences?

[womble]

3 hours ago, PEB14 said:

I cannot distinguish any visible difference between the pro and commercial version at first glance. Does anybody know what are the main differences?

My takeaway from the descriptions of Pro that I've seen (on here) was that the biggest difference was the editor: you can edit TOE and equipment parameters. This, I'm surmising, so that the professionals can try out hypotheticals in terms of both force makeup and gear performance that are difficult to properly set up in the "amateur" version.

[chuckdyke]

3 hours ago, PEB14 said:

I cannot distinguish any visible difference between the pro and commercial version at first glance. Does anybody know what are the main differences?

You can record your game play and edit the scenario on the fly. Features I would love in the commercial version.