Best way to learn the game

[Irwin66666]

Hi guys. Long time player of Combat Mission (Started years ago with CMBO). 
 

I’m usually a CMSF player these days and starting to get back into the WW2 titles. 
 

I’ve come to realise I’m extremely bad at playing the games. I feel I’m not thinking through actions and not formulating a good battle plan. 
 

What’s the best way to improve my game play. I’ve watched a lot of AARs and instructional videos on YouTube but I feel I’m not improving. 
 

I think I’ve probably been a bit spoilt with CMSF and the modern tech (I usually play US / British forces v Syrian or Uncon. switching to WW2 will be a tougher game and more casualties are to be expected.

would playing again a human opponent be the way to learn (someone who could give feedback and ideas - learning type game)

 

thanks in advance for any thoughts. 
 

 

Andy

[Probus]

1 hour ago, Irwin66666 said:

would playing again a human opponent be the way to learn (someone who could give feedback and ideas - learning type game)

 

That's what I did.  Go to the various opponent finder threads like this one:

https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/forums/combat-mission-opponent-finder.451/

[Artkin]

My first step would be to change the hotkeys file to something comfortable

[Thewood1]

Probably one of the best youtube channels that covers units, tactics, specific battles, etc.  Might be the best game intro channel of any wargame.

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

 

[Centurian52]

I'd say it's worth playing both against a human opponent and against the AI. The human opponent is more reactive and challenging. But you can get in more turns a day against the AI. I think the only way to learn the game is precisely the same way you learn anything else. You put lots of time into it.

Of course one additional thing you can do is to supplement your gameplay by studying tactics. I made a post that I thought offered some decent tactical advice a while back: 

 

If you're really crazy you can even go directly to the doctrine manuals. For WW2 doctrine I usually go to the Nafziger collection:

https://nafzigercollection.com/product/american-tank-company-tactics-fm-17-32/

https://nafzigercollection.com/product/us-armored-infantry-battalion-fm-17-42/

https://nafzigercollection.com/product/british-and-commonwealth-armored-tactics-in-wwii/

https://nafzigercollection.com/product/british-and-commonwealth-motorized-infantry-tactics-in-wwii/

https://nafzigercollection.com/product/employment-of-tanks-with-infantry-fm-17-36/

https://nafzigercollection.com/product/german-panzer-tactics-in-world-war-ii-combat-tactics-of-german-armored-units-from-section-to-regiment/

https://nafzigercollection.com/product/soviet-armored-tactics-in-world-war-ii-the-tactics-of-the-armored-units-of-the-red-army-from-individual-vehicles-to-battalions-according-to-the-combat-regulations-of-february-1944/

https://nafzigercollection.com/product/soviet-infantry-tactics-in-world-war-ii/

I'd recommend FM 100-2-1 for Cold War/modern Soviet/Russian doctrine. And FM 71-1 or FM 71-2 for Cold War/modern US doctrine.

[thilio]

2 hours ago, Irwin66666 said:

I’ve come to realise I’m extremely bad at playing the games. I feel I’m not thinking through actions and not formulating a good battle plan.

Hello,

Maybe you already saw Armchair General videos, if not it can help.

Personnaly, I play in a realistic and immersive manner and try to learn from my errors. I feel like it helps me progress.

[Karp_K]

This is something I've often come across myself when switching between modernity in the series, and I think for once I can actually build off of what the other folks are saying. I primarily play CMSF2, but I enjoy switching it up and playing CMFI and CMRT from time to time. Naturally, we all know that there's a pretty big gap in technology here; we have a lot less fancy stuff to use and play with in the WWII titles such as IR/NVGs, ATGMs, differences in artillery technology at the time and, of course, the somewhat more equal ratio of presence that semiautomatic small-arms weaponry had to automatic small-arms weaponry.

As a result, it's only natural to lose considerably more men in any scenario than it would be in the modern titles (that is unless you're playing as the Syrians or Uncons in CMSF2, at which point... good luck). Whilst good play can definitely result in far fewer casualties, there's only so much saving that can be done unless you carefully plot and map each and every point, consider every avenue of attack both for and against you, and so on. This leads me to my next paragraph:

There are chess players, and then there are blitz chess players. Two different kinds of creatures unless we're talking about someone like Magnus Carlsen. You can have all the knowledge in Combat Mission as possible akin to good old Charles himself, but you can still get ripped to bits and pieces if you spend exactly one minute planning and plotting out your entire forces' moves as opposed to a theoretical opponent who spends an hour planning and plotting. Long story short, you're going to get better results the more you consider your forces positions and capabilities as opposed to your opponent's forces, move and position them accordingly in order to both learn more about said opponent's forces and gain a more favorable overall position in the theatre, and lastly actually execute any attacks with as much of your forces as you are willing to dedicate to the attack.

I'll happily admit that I like playing things quick because I'll lose interest if I have to come back to a game over a period of several days. My usual workflow is reece -> movement to contact -> figuring out what's trying to murder my guys and how best to sling murder towards the enemies' guys -> then actually making a setup to soften up a defensive position with any available effective, practical artillery/CAS (I mean effective as having one or preferably more capabilities of suppressing and/or injuring the enemy as well as arriving in an accurate and timely manner and, in the case of CAS, making sure the enemy can't smack my planes out of the air) before a combined assault with as much of my armor and infantry as possible. If I'm feeling frisky I'll even start sending dudes as early as one or two minutes left on any artillery barrages, depending on how far they're going to have to go.

Now, I've already replied to you with a friggin' novella, so I'll try my best to wrap it up. Centurian made a great statement.

1 hour ago, Centurian52 said:

I'd say it's worth playing both against a human opponent and against the AI.

If you want a non-stock opponent who will both thrill you (sometimes bad, sometimes good) and surprise you (ditto), play against other humans. I pretty much exclusively play against AI because of my aforementioned lack of interest in elongated games. I've found that the AI is decent enough when it is holding defensive positions, but it lacks just about any and all amount of finesse when performing attacks. There is one more plus side to the AI from what I've found, however. Have you made a massive mistake, resulting in ATGMs reducing several of your vehicles into very exciting, very dead one-off fireworks dispensers? Figure out how you biffed it so bad, go back through the replay, and then make a mental note. Then, since it is a game against AI, reload a previous save and get back to figuring out a less lethal plan for your troops.

I can confidently say that if you just plain want to learn the game and its mechanics, keep the engine manual handy as well as the manuals relevant to the title you're playing with you and then just chuck yourself against the AI until you have a good idea of what works and what doesn't. The AI, while it will never be like a player, is a great tool for learning the game. Have a pesky line of sight issue and want to scream about it on the forums because you can't get that great, obvious-looking shot on some random ATGM guy sitting out in the desert sun picking his nose? Feel free to reload and reposition your dudes until you get a feel for the LoS with whatever unit you're using-- vehicle or infantry.

Anyway, typed up enough. That's my novel. Ask any questions if you have 'em.
Hope you find something decent in there that helps. Cheers!

Edited April 15 by Karp_K
typo

[Halmbarte]

For me the WWII titles are more difficult because pretty much most battle devolve to an infantry foot attack, which I find hard to coordinate. Getting the troops there on time to meet up with the artillery support ends up being really difficult. Not to mention micromanaging a battalion infantry attack can get really tedious. 
 

My favorite is CW: you have forces that are balanced and everyone is motorized. Plus even a Sov battalion of motorized infantry is easier to manage than the WWII equivalent. 

H

[Thewood1]

I have seen one way to transition from CMSF to CM WW2 is play the Syrians for a bit in CMSF.  You'll either learn great tactics or die.

[A Canadian Cat]

Check out @Bil Hardenberger's blog: 

 

 

This older thread has some good discussion too: 

 

 

Here is a play list the includes the afore metioned Armchair General videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ6dDlqye9Q&list=PLmW_vcwM_qxukdDjpfUEerpICUzTrTKek&index=1

 

[Bil Hardenberger]

On 4/16/2024 at 10:19 AM, A Canadian Cat said:

Check out @Bil Hardenberger's blog: 

I've heard that's a great blog.   

[A Canadian Cat]

22 minutes ago, Bil Hardenberger said:

I've heard that's a great blog.   

LOL you heard right

[CarlXII]

Make sure that you become familuar with your (and the enemies) equipment...It's difficult to come up with a good plan if you don't know what your various tools strenths, weakneses and limitations are...

I find it useful to test these things by playing QBs in hotseat mode against myself...This will allow me to see what effect my fire is having on the target.