Dazed. Confused.

[billbindc]

Gentlemen, just picked up CMCW and I am, to put it gently, entirely at sea on how to conduct my pixel truppen. Where can I get a good, pithy rundown on the dark arts of tactical warfare in the era of  When Ivan Meets GI Joe.  

[MikeyD]

Fist stop is Usually Hapless's Youtube channel. It has videos covering all the basics from splitting squads to calling in artillery. 

https://www.youtube.com/@usuallyhapless9481

 

[ratdeath]

Excellent guide for the Soviet Army.

https://youtu.be/Yey6jil-sUM?feature=shared

[Ultradave]

Also I posted a copy of a little FIST Chief handbook we used to carry around. While a lot of it is artillery specific, there's a very good overview in the first parts of Soviet TOE, tactics in the attack, and then some info about US tactics in response. It may be of some help as it's real world information on what to expect and how to respond.

This is the link, which you might have missed because it's rolled over to the second page of the forum now:

 

[Bil Hardenberger]

15 hours ago, billbindc said:

Gentlemen, just picked up CMCW and I am, to put it gently, entirely at sea on how to conduct my pixel truppen. Where can I get a good, pithy rundown on the dark arts of tactical warfare in the era of  When Ivan Meets GI Joe.  

Bill, take a look at my blog, gives a good basic run down on using real world tactics in CM. 

https://battledrill.blogspot.com/?m=0

Look for the Tactical Toolbox on the left side of the screen   

Edit: changed the link to the web version

Edited January 13 by Bil Hardenberger

[billbindc]

45 minutes ago, Bil Hardenberger said:

Bill, take a look at my blog, gives a good basic run down on using real world tactics in CM. 

https://battledrill.blogspot.com/?m=1

Look for the Tactical Toolbox on the left side of the screen   

Excellent. Thank you. 

[The_Capt]

19 hours ago, billbindc said:

Gentlemen, just picked up CMCW and I am, to put it gently, entirely at sea on how to conduct my pixel truppen. Where can I get a good, pithy rundown on the dark arts of tactical warfare in the era of  When Ivan Meets GI Joe.  

Do not try the Soviet Campaign first time out.

[billbindc]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Do not try the Soviet Campaign first time out.

Not a fan of the Sov zerg rush vibe anyway so it will be a while. 

[billbindc]

Just finished Brauersdorf after doing a little research and realizing I was up against 20+ armored vehicles. Won a major victory as the US, killed all but one Sov armored vehicle and was just about to go on the offensive to take that one out and sweep the dregs of Sov infantry off the field when it called the game on me. The ways in which Dragons, LAWs and TOW change the field was quite a revelation. 

[The_Capt]

44 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Not a fan of the Sov zerg rush vibe anyway so it will be a while. 

I would not suggest you try the “Zerg rush” as Soviets or you will be in for short brutal games.  Give NTC a spin, then US (82).  If you want easy do Valley of Ashes as US.  If you want impossible, do Valley of Ashes as Soviet.

 

[billbindc]

6 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I would not suggest you try the “Zerg rush” as Soviets or you will be in for short brutal games.  Give NTC a spin, then US (82).  If you want easy do Valley of Ashes as US.  If you want impossible, do Valley of Ashes as Soviet.

 

Excuse me...I meant the "scientific Soviet approach to using mass in conflict with the capitalist West". 

[The_Capt]

10 hours ago, billbindc said:

Excuse me...I meant the "scientific Soviet approach to using mass in conflict with the capitalist West". 

Where do you think my whole “mass is dead” schtick started?  Right here with CMCW.  I think the concept was in serious trouble back in ‘82.  I am not sure the Soviets would have actually fought the way we expected them to regardless - (he says after Bakhmut).

But when you get to Alsfeld take a screen shot.

[billbindc]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Where do you think my whole “mass is dead” schtick started?  Right here with CMCW.  I think the concept was in serious trouble back in ‘82.  I am not sure the Soviets would have actually fought the way we expected them to regardless - (he says after Bakhmut).

But when you get to Alsfeld take a screen shot.

This!

I'm four scenarios in in three days and I'm seeing precisely what you've been describing for the last two years. I was fairly sloppy in Brauersdorf and I lost *two* TOW launchers. One of them had 7 kills. If every third split squad had a Javelin, the Russians wouldn't have made it past the pre-registered arty. It's also revelatory to my understanding of where things stood in Europe in the very early 80's. I had thought the danger zone lasted into 85 or so. Clearly not.  

What are your thoughts on now the Sov's might have fought differently?

[Limbo365]

38 minutes ago, billbindc said:

I had thought the danger zone lasted into 85 or so. Clearly not.  

I think a big reason for them going as far as 82 is once Abrams and Bradley come online in significant numbers that was pretty much the end of the danger zone.

It's really interesting playing through the campaigns and seeing the different between 79 and 82, what a difference 3 years makes

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, billbindc said:

What are your thoughts on now the Sov's might have fought differently?

They had far too many fingers out there to simply run directly into our KZs (as most of our own ex's played out).  They were built for echeloned mass but were heavily invested in Recon and echelons that look more like daggers than sledgehammers (FSE, Vanguard etc).  This combined with even a half decent recon-fires complex points to a force that at higher levels was far more ready to embrace chaos and react than we ever gave them enough credit for.  As I have watched CMCW player evolve on the Soviet side over the last 3 years, one can see that manoeuvre approach being adopted at the tactical level as well.  I think we were betting a lot on Soviet indoctrination, but that might have also been a cognitive trap of our own making.   

[billbindc]

26 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

They had far too many fingers out there to simply run directly into our KZs (as most of our own ex's played out).  They were built for echeloned mass but were heavily invested in Recon and echelons that look more like daggers than sledgehammers (FSE, Vanguard etc).  This combined with even a half decent recon-fires complex points to a force that at higher levels was far more ready to embrace chaos and react than we ever gave them enough credit for.  As I have watched CMCW player evolve on the Soviet side over the last 3 years, one can see that manoeuvre approach being adopted at the tactical level as well.  I think we were betting a lot on Soviet indoctrination, but that might have also been a cognitive trap of our own making.   

Fair to say that at least in recon troops and fires they Sovs were far more professional than the Russian army of 2021?

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, billbindc said:

Fair to say that at least in recon troops and fires they Sovs were far more professional than the Russian army of 2021?

Definitely more robust and better resourced than what we saw in '22.  One could argue the Soviets invented modern operational manoeuvre - or at least upscaled it well past anything the Germans had.  There were failures and warts but Soviet manoeuvre at the end of WW2 was nothing to poo-poo.  

There is a beauty in the blunt brutality of the Soviet system.  What we will never know is if it would have translated into a modern era.  But as you note, the signs were already on the wall.  ATGMs as "manageable by smoke, mobility and c-fires" was never really tested beyond the Arab-Israeli wars.  The effect of precision on the battlefield in CMCW is obvious, but in real life we never really tested it.

[Halmbarte]

9 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Definitely more robust and better resourced than what we saw in '22.  One could argue the Soviets invented modern operational manoeuvre - or at least upscaled it well past anything the Germans had.  There were failures and warts but Soviet manoeuvre at the end of WW2 was nothing to poo-poo.  

There is a beauty in the blunt brutality of the Soviet system.  What we will never know is if it would have translated into a modern era.  But as you note, the signs were already on the wall.  ATGMs as "manageable by smoke, mobility and c-fires" was never really tested beyond the Arab-Israeli wars.  The effect of precision on the battlefield in CMCW is obvious, but in real life we never really tested it.

The Soviet Army had very good teachers in WWII. It was a pass/fail course, and by about the 3rd year of the war the survivors had learned how to do dynamic operational warfare at least as well as the early war Germans and they were resourced to a level that the Germans couldn't dream of. 

H

[Butschi]

On 1/13/2024 at 4:01 AM, billbindc said:

Gentlemen, just picked up CMCW and I am, to put it gently, entirely at sea on how to conduct my pixel truppen. Where can I get a good, pithy rundown on the dark arts of tactical warfare in the era of  When Ivan Meets GI Joe.  

I just made 2nd place in the CMCW tournament which means I'm an expert - in getting incredibly lucky.

So here's my 2 ct.

First of all, forget about the training scenario, at least for now. You have to learn the right lessons from it which do not include "line up all your troops and go!".

As always the key is to refuse to play to your opponents advantages while at the same time making full use of yours. The US have a distinct advantage in range, spotting and I think FCS. The first is mostly due to TOWs the second to thermals, etc. So, if you do it like on the training scenario you have a good chance of getting picked off from range without even seeing what hit you. So what the training scenario should teach you is you have to get to the point where you can apply it. You really need to take time to look at the map in detail and find out the best routes. Use cover as much as possible to get within effective range of your tanks. Then the lining up part is what mitigates inferior spotting abilities. It doesn't really have to be a line, just a setup that has more eyes looking in the right direction than the enemy.

To that end, I really learned the importance of smoke, both from artillery and vehicles. The (real) experts may correct me but artillery (apart from DPICM) seems to be best used for smoke or throwing a lot of dirt into the air - and fighting TOW carriers and dragon wielding infantry. While TOW carriers can look through smoke, they can't shoot through it. M60 TTS and higher are a nightmare, because they can switch on easy mode: Use smoke so you can't see them but they can still see and kill you. But remember, the Russian vehicles have sensor blocking smoke (the black stuff) that blinds both sides. Use smoke to block  long range fire but also to divide your opponent's forces. So block one side so that you can deal with the other side.

Remember also, at medium ranges T64s and upwards are often at an advantage in armor and firepower. They can shrug of quite a few hits while slicing through US tanks like a hot knife through butter. At close range things look different but there you often have superior numbers.

And then, there is another lesson to be learned from the training scenario. Don't play the US step-by-step hide and seek sniping game. Because of spotting, the US are better at that. Use mobility, close the gap and always, always make decisive moves. The Soviets don't piss away their troops but they accept losses (of course stacking all things above so as to minimize them). But you go there and say, "ok, he has 3 tanks, I have six, I will lose 2, that is the price for taking that ridge."

One last thing: Sorry for stating the obvious, single player and multiplayer are quite different. Actually, I struggle more with the former than the latter. Single player often has you pitted against crack troops in ambush positions who instantly see and kill you. That is way more about being catious. Multiplayer IMHO is all about (daringly) using mobility to surprise your opponent and get inside his decision cycle.

[Butschi]

Also, while it's tempting, especially if you have been on the receiving end in the campaign, try not to use BMPs as ersatz-tanks. Remember, OPFOR in the campaign has high quality troops and is therefore better at spotting - which makes those ATGMs really deadly. But with regular troops (especially against crack units) this is way more dangerous. Of course, sometimes you use them as tanks because that's what you have but keep in mind that they are actually quite fragile.

BMPs are great at supporting tanks and of course rock against US apcs. They are also important in supporting your infantry as squad sizes are smaller than their US counterparts and they have only short range AT weapons.

Edited January 15 by Butschi

[Ultradave]

41 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Also, while it's tempting, especially if you have been on the receiving end in the campaign, try not to use BMPs as ersatz-tanks.

And if you are the US in '79, just drill into your head that M113s are trucks, nothing more. Don't let that .50cal fool you, unless the Russians don't have any tanks at all, and even then, it's RPG Hell out there. Keep them out of the line of fire. Use them to transport your men to where they need to be. They will die frequently if you try to pretend they are IFVs. 

The US in '79 is quite a different experience to the US in '82, which is one of the big premises behind CMCWs setting - point out the big change in those few years. Even in '79 though, when you have thermal sights, you will do well. I agree about the T-64s. Against M60s they are brutal.

I also agree about the effective use of artillery and smoke, but hey, I'm an ex US artillery officer, so I just might be a bit biased

Dave

[Butschi]

17 minutes ago, Ultradave said:

And if you are the US in '79, just drill into your head that M113s are trucks, nothing more. Don't let that .50cal fool you, unless the Russians don't have any tanks at all, and even then, it's RPG Hell out there. Keep them out of the line of fire. Use them to transport your men to where they need to be. They will die frequently if you try to pretend they are IFVs. 

The US in '79 is quite a different experience to the US in '82, which is one of the big premises behind CMCWs setting - point out the big change in those few years. Even in '79 though, when you have thermal sights, you will do well. I agree about the T-64s. Against M60s they are brutal.

I also agree about the effective use of artillery and smoke, but hey, I'm an ex US artillery officer, so I just might be a bit biased

Dave

Ah, thanks for adding a some of the US perspective. My post was from the Soviet perspective and I just realized that the OP asked about general advice.

I agree about the M113s. They are roughly on par with BTRs. Sometimes you have to make do with them and that .50cal can shred a BMP if you manage to surprise one from the flanks. Just nothing to rely upon.

[The_Capt]

I can recall in the first Alpha playing a quick scenario and immediately noticing that CMCW felt more like WW2 + CMBS, not aligned directly with one or the other.  It was "neer peer" in just about every sense as each side had strengths that offset the others weaknesses, and vice versa.  This relationship shifted over time as one moved from '79-'82.

[Shady_Side]

21 hours ago, The_Capt said:

As I have watched CMCW player evolve on the Soviet side over the last 3 years, one can see that manoeuvre approach being adopted at the tactical level as well.  I think we were betting a lot on Soviet indoctrination, but that might have also been a cognitive trap of our own making.   

No doubt that you have at least 2 tones more experience with this game than I do. For me once I embraced truly using the Soviets has a blunt instrument ala the training scenarios. I never lost or really even felt challenged in a quick battle in 79or80. Gimme a Tank Battalion Task Force with mix of T64's (T-62s if I wanted to cut my opponent a lil break) BMP infantry, AA hopefully the more expensive SAM vehicle the name escapes me at the moment, a couple of 6-gun 122s arty support along with battalion organic 120 mortars. I would always have to do some trimming to this which I tailored to the map and opponent. I would line my T64's roughly the way Napoleon would his infantry. Let them bang it out with whatever was on the other side that wanted to play. Once arty or lack of targets would make me move I would move up 2or300meters fill in for whatever tanks I had lost. Sometimes with an odd BMP1P (their ATGM's are pretty good) Rinse and repeat one or two more times and game over usually without even having to go through the infantry mopping up phase....

[The_Capt]

5 minutes ago, Shady_Side said:

No doubt that you have at least 2 tones more experience with this game than I do. For me once I embraced truly using the Soviets has a blunt instrument ala the training scenarios. I never lost or really even felt challenged in a quick battle in 79or80. Gimme a Tank Battalion Task Force with mix of T64's (T-62s if I wanted to cut my opponent a lil break) BMP infantry, AA hopefully the more expensive SAM vehicle the name escapes me at the moment, a couple of 6-gun 122s arty support along with battalion organic 120 mortars. I would always have to do some trimming to this which I tailored to the map and opponent. I would line my T64's roughly the way Napoleon would his infantry. Let them bang it out with whatever was on the other side that wanted to play. Once arty or lack of targets would make me move I would move up 2or300meters fill in for whatever tanks I had lost. Sometimes with an odd BMP1P (their ATGM's are pretty good) Rinse and repeat one or two more times and game over usually without even having to go through the infantry mopping up phase....

Have you noticed the changes when you roll to '82 and M1s and M60A3s show up?  Did you have to shift tactics?