wyskass Posted June 14 Share Posted June 14 (edited) I've been playing CM for a few years now, with long breaks between sessions, and am finding this among the most difficult "games" I've played. it's the most frustrating and challenging game I've played. I'm a long time, cyclically returning war game enthusiast from Arma, to CMANO to HOI4 for enjoying the full range of scale. I seek the most realism, challenge and immersion. Of course the more realistic the model the more it requires proper tactics and strategy. Realism doesn't always equal fun and while I have read some Army and Marines publications to some degree, there are hundreds of pages of tactics that a military education teaches. I feel lacking in proper employment of Cav, Armor, and maneuver tactics. Which brings me.. Who of you reads and applied published theory and tactics here? I've been incorporating patience with scouting -> indirect preemptive fire -> maneuver forward -> directe fire -> assault, but even with awareness of general principles I get frustrated. Not actually losing, but feeling my casualties are a result of bad choices. How many of you are successful in Combat Mission by your own sense without any military tactical education (pro or personal)? is there a common sense I'm missing in become successful? How many of you have read Army or Marine published manuals about Armor, Infantry, Mortars employment? is it transferable to here? Is trial and error something you enjoy or do? with reverting to last saves after mistakes? Edited June 14 by wyskass 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckdyke Posted June 14 Share Posted June 14 It is one of those games in which you need to think of everything. Squad does buddy aid and recovers from rattled back to OK. Is it because of the buddy aid? They treated three casualties and experience is green. The devil is in the detail in the bottom right corner they have a +2 for morale. Reason I almost play exclusively the turn based WeGo system. Each turn is a tiny game, I found give every turn the same attention as you do during set up. Go back to the Campaign Tutorials often you learn always something new. The units act automatically test at which range they engage and how many rounds are required for each KIA. Some very experienced players got some very useful You Tube channels. Also there are good decent videos by the US military which I follow. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PEB14 Posted June 14 Share Posted June 14 2 hours ago, wyskass said: I've been playing CM for a few years now, with long breaks between sessions, and am finding this among the most difficult "games" I've played. it's the most frustrating and challenging game I've played. I'm a long time, cyclically returning war game enthusiast from Arma, to CMANO to HOI4 for enjoying the full range of scale. I seek the most realism, challenge and immersion. Of course the more realistic the model the more it requires proper tactics and strategy. Realism doesn't always equal fun and while I have read some Army and Marines publications to some degree, there are hundreds of pages of tactics that a military education teaches. I feel lacking in proper employment of Cav, Armor, and maneuver tactics. Which brings me.. Who of you reads and applied published theory and tactics here? I've been incorporating patience with scouting -> indirect preemptive fire -> maneuver forward -> directe fire -> assault, but even with awareness of general principles I get frustrated. Not actually losing, but feeling my casualties are a result of bad choices. How many of you are successful in Combat Mission by your own sense without any military tactical education (pro or personal)? is there a common sense I'm missing in become successful? How many of you have read Army or Marine published manuals about Armor, Infantry, Mortars employment? is it transferable to here? Is trial and error something you enjoy or do? with reverting to last saves after mistakes? Interesting post! I'm only playing the game for 18 month and haven't read tactical manuals; but I clearly have watched various tutorials regarding realistic and proper tactics, and I feel that the better way to learn is to PLAY, again and again, experimenting all the way along the guiding lines offered by basic tactical advices. By the way, I consider it's also worthy to play against the AI to experiment proper attack methods (a lot less regarding defense as the AI is too weak to lead good attacks). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karp_K Posted June 14 Share Posted June 14 I'll preface this by saying I've played more CMSF2 than any other title although I do love Fortress Italy and Red Thunder. I haven't made any effort to hunt down and find any field manuals or operational documents on US forces circa 2007 and my primary sources of learning when just starting out was watching Usually Hapless' tutorials on CM. Using his videos combined with throwing myself at a wall (and an obscene amount of syrian ATGMs) is what kickstarted me. My biggest issue early on wasn't necessarily applying the principles of infantry/armored warfare or recon, but converting them to CM's nuances and quirks. There are some good sources of information out there in written format that really help mix the game with manual-styled teachings, one of them being Bill's Battledrills blogspot which I'll attach below. My typical source of learning nowadays since I tend to stick with fighting AI is if I mess up, identify what I did wrong, note it, then revert back to an old save. Sometimes I only have to do this once or twice in a quick mission. Other times it's bashing my head against a wall until I realize maybe I should call it quits for the night and come back with a fresher, less irritated mind the next day. I've definitely improved over time, and am still improving. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holoween Posted June 14 Share Posted June 14 12 hours ago, wyskass said: is there a common sense I'm missing in become successful? AAR For each battle make a small aar for yourself. Manuals are just written down experience so they let you get to a decent experience level yourself but simply playing the game can geberate that experience aswell. If you had a fight where you lost more than you think you should go and evaluate it. Where were your troops, where were the enemy troops, what decisions did you make, what could have been done differently. Then try those different things and reevaluate. this might take a few battles but youll quickly find patterns of what works best. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vacillator Posted June 14 Share Posted June 14 2 hours ago, Karp_K said: Bill's Battledrills blogspot which I'll attach below. Here ya go: https://battledrill.blogspot.com/ 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karp_K Posted June 14 Share Posted June 14 27 minutes ago, Vacillator said: Here ya go: https://battledrill.blogspot.com/ Thank you! By the time I finished the post I already forgot about adding the link. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted June 14 Share Posted June 14 It is definitely good to know some basics of RL military tactics and the capabilities of the weapon systems and units. However, CM is still a game and the more experienced one becomes the more one has to play vs the game system and slavishly following RL military doctrine may not be useful. Eg: Experience teaches one how the tactical AI is likely to react to one's moves and how the Tac AI moves the AI controlled units. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted June 14 Share Posted June 14 14 hours ago, wyskass said: I feel lacking in proper employment of Cav, Armor, and maneuver tactics. Which brings me.. Who of you reads and applied published theory and tactics here? I read and watch a lot of stuff but mostly not official manuals - they are kinda dry. Here are some examples: https://community.battlefront.com/topic/123473-learning-the-ropes-of-ifv-combat/#comment-1683304 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmW_vcwM_qxukdDjpfUEerpICUzTrTKek https://community.battlefront.com/topic/125332-tactical-lifehack/page/5/?tab=comments#comment-1723380 https://community.battlefront.com/topic/124703-hull-down-partial-hull-down-advantages/ https://community.battlefront.com/topic/125448-v40-hull-down-question/ https://community.battlefront.com/topic/127033-cmsf-2-beta-aar-2-–-syrian-probe-quick-battle/page/3/?tab=comments#comment-1752229 https://community.battlefront.com/topic/133353-cm-sniper-tactics/?tab=comments#comment-1765346 The battle drill blog someone already linked to is great. 14 hours ago, wyskass said: I've been incorporating patience with scouting -> indirect preemptive fire -> maneuver forward -> directe fire -> assault, but even with awareness of general principles I get frustrated. Not actually losing, but feeling my casualties are a result of bad choices. I hear ya. One of the issues could be that many of the CM scenarios are "balanced". In real life that is not a goal any one seeks. The look for and try to take advantage of their enemy's weakness with their own strength. Don't feel to bad if you are taking casualties - remember the other guys trying to inflict them. That balance is the game part of all this. 14 hours ago, wyskass said: How many of you are successful in Combat Mission by your own sense without any military tactical education (pro or personal)? Kind of depends on what you mean. I would say I do not have official tactical education at all (basic training in the 80s to then drive trucks does not count at all). I do have a family history of service and my Dad (infantry battalion 2IC in the 60s and 70s) did watch over my shoulder a bunch of times. Still not any kind of actual training. 14 hours ago, wyskass said: is there a common sense I'm missing in become successful? Probably not. I do find that when I get impatient and stop carefully following my plan, I nearly always pay for that. The best common sense advice I can give is do not stop following what you know is the best techniques. Don't let up. Don't let your self get sloppy. 14 hours ago, wyskass said: How many of you have read Army or Marine published manuals about Armor, Infantry, Mortars employment? is it transferable to here? Yes some, and mostly yes. 14 hours ago, wyskass said: Is trial and error something you enjoy or do? with reverting to last saves after mistakes? Trial and error and experimenting for sure. I play nearly all PBEM so replaying turns is just not possible. I don't do it when I'm playing against the AI either - no one IRL gets to do that. Experiments: that's different go for it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckdyke Posted June 14 Share Posted June 14 Contact apply 'SALUTE' Size (enemy unit) Activity (ie enemy in foxhole) Location, Uniform, Time, Equipment. A screenshot or screenshots for your report. Windows +G is ideal for this Imo. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckdyke Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 Objective Rally Point, Role of a Squad whose role it is to scout ahead of a formation. The squad makes two men scout team their K-Formation. The squad finds a good position for the Company to use as a rally point as close to the objective as possible. There are some good YouTube videos about the subject. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony P. Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 I'd say I've accumulated a reasonable-ish "amateur/sim gamer's" tactics knowhow after about a decade and a half of Brothers In Arms, Arma, DCS, Combat Mission as well as a deluge of veterans' autobiographies from different conflicts and other sorts of media. Based on that, I may very well offer a completely different reply than what was expected: I do in fact think that Combat Mission is anything but demanding. On the contrary, I think it puts a very heavy emphasis on "back to basics" or "Keep It Simple, Stupid". Yes, you certainly can read up on cavalry tactics, mechanised infantry tactics, how to FAC, etc. until your eyes bleed, but I find that it's very rarely applicable in CM. Much of these things revolve around what battles you pick, when you pick them, how you approach the AO, what units and equipment you bring along, how you coordinate with other units, etc. Nothing of this applies to CM (or at least, only rarely to limited extents). The battles are already picked for you, as is the timing, the direction, the units and equipment, the coordination (or lack thereof) with other units, as well as the objectives which will be used to judge success or defeat. What I as the player has to concern myself with in CM boils down to just a few, quite simple concepts: * keep out of sight from the enemy as much as possible, whilst keeping the enemy in sight as much as possible * concentrate as much fire as possible on the enemy when he is found * maintain sound, visual, radio or digital contact between my units to the most practical extent * balance my pixeltruppen's moral, readiness, equipment and physical and psychological states with the mission at hand Pretty much everything else has already been decided for me by the mission/campaign creator. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PEB14 Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 @Anthony P. Totally agree. And it makes sense for a purely tactical simulation. What remains is proper map analysis, analysis of the relative forces and weakness of your forces and of what you know of your opponent's, and draw out of that a basic plan. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyskass Posted June 16 Author Share Posted June 16 Lots of good answers, thoughts and suggestions on the topic. Thanks for the topic links and the Battledrill blog treasure trove 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyskass Posted June 16 Author Share Posted June 16 (edited) On 6/15/2024 at 6:50 AM, Anthony P. said: * keep out of sight from the enemy as much as possible, whilst keeping the enemy in sight as much as possible * balance my pixeltruppen's moral, readiness, equipment and physical and psychological states with the mission at hand I have most trouble with the first and often feel having to do contradictory actions. I seek out high ground for getting best views and put on scouts. More eyes better for scouting but more visible. Also position my vehicles hull down behind high spots. What I find happening is either not seeing anyone, getting myself more exposed moving forward, then blown up for being too exposed. If I expose my vehicle enough to shoot at something my scouts spotted, I may get hit with the hard to spot AT shot. But if I can't expose my vehicle to hit another vehicle, then my infantry gets attacked. I'm distilling and generalizing worst cases, but that is often my primary problem to solve. Need to get exposed to see. I do usually wait a few turns to spot at those key points, but maybe even more patience with fewer exposed units and allowing more time not seeing anything before advancing. Can you clarify the second point? I understand the psych state with the suppression meter up to cowering. But I'm unclear on taking advantage or understanding the morale points and readiness you're referencing. Edited June 16 by wyskass 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meltpile Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 Troops in reality, do not just crawl, hunt and quick march, they will stop occasionally to scratch an itch, look around, enjoy the scenery! i suggest start using short pauses after "Every move- command to sense" any enemy movement! thats' all'. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALBY Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 Translating tactics to CM orders is the first hurdle in CM. You can get pretty damn good at combat mission by experience alone, learning the tricks. Layering simple military knowledge over that foundation is simple enough and takes your game up a level imho. The next level imo is to be able to adapt doctrine (and realistic oob) to CM level warfare, which is hard for a variety of reasons. We are limited in battle size, map size, we are limited in terms of the operational level… etc. It’s also very hard, let’s say as the Soviets in CMCW, to not break character and just fight like Americans and min-max your formations, especially when facing down a good PBEM oppo. It’s not easy but it’s fun to try. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WimO Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 My tuppence worth: Implementing real life tactics is very good in CM games. It is most important if playing H2H. Less so vs the AI where its main effect is to reduce friendly casualties. This is because the AI is unreactive and its "plans" are merely preplotted trajectories. To date, I have personally spent hundreds, nay, thousands of hours developing and testing AI plans for battalion level battles to make an attacking AI appear at least a little clever.. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurian52 Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 I read a fair amount of tactical doctrine, to the point that I consider it one of my hobbies alongside wargaming (basically my hobbies are 1. learning tactics, and 2. putting tactics into practice). I usually go to the Nafziger collection for WW2 tactics. https://nafzigercollection.com/product/american-tank-company-tactics-fm-17-32/ 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-squad-tactics-in-wwii/ 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/organization-equipment-tactical-doctrine-of-the-french-army-1939/ 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/ https://nafzigercollection.com/product/soviet-tactical-doctrine-in-wwii/ For the Cold War and modern era there's 'FM 100-2-1: Soviet Operations and Tactics' and 'FM 100-2-2: Specialized Warfare and Rear Area Support' for Soviet and Russian tactics. I'd say FM 100-2-1 is most relevant for CMCW and CMBS, since it covers the most common large scale Soviet mechanized operations. FM 100-2-2 is most relevant for CMA, since it has sections on Soviet airborne operations and mountain warfare. For US tactics I thought 'FM 71-1: Tank and Mechanized Infantry Company Team' and 'FM 71-2: Tank and Mechanized Infantry Battalion Task Force' were fairly helpful. FM 71-1 is probably more relevant to Combat Mission, since there are more company sized scenarios than battalion sized scenarios. https://irp.fas.org/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf https://irp.fas.org/doddir/army/fm100-2-2.pdf https://ia802201.us.archive.org/23/items/fm-71-1-tank-and-mechanized-infantry-company-team/FM71_1TANK AND MECHANIZED INFANTRY COMPANY TEAM.pdf https://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/amd-us-archive/FM71-2(77).pdf I've also read a small handful of manuals published between the Napoleonic Wars and WW1, which cannot be in any way applied to Combat Mission. I just have a general interest in the history of tactical development through the 19th and 20th centuries. One thing I've come to realize though is that everything laid out in every single one of these manuals was learned by someone through direct experience in combat. Doctrine is basically a way of formalizing and remembering lessons learned through experience. It is not the immutable "right" way of doing things as passed down by the god of war. It does not overrule your own experience, and you should feel at complete liberty to develop your own "doctrine" as you go (though taking some inspiration from various formal doctrines here and there is rarely a bad idea). You could theoretically learn everything in any of these manuals the hard way, through your own experience, without ever reading a page from any of these manuals (though I think reading some of these manuals can significantly shorten the learning curve). Having said all that On 6/13/2024 at 9:49 PM, wyskass said: is there a common sense I'm missing in become successful? No. I have started to gain some confidence that I'm a good Combat Mission player. But that's after years of playing the games. Skill in Combat Mission, as with everything in life, comes from experience. Even reading doctrine is just a way of letting those who came before you pass on their experience to you. So you get good at Combat Mission by playing lots of Combat Mission. Don't let the fear of mistakes or failure deter you. The fastest way to learn is to fail fast. Get lots of failures under your belt and you'll gain an excellent understanding of what works, what doesn't work, and why. "Fail fast to learn fast" may not necessarily be good life advice, but that's because failure in the real world has consequences. But this is a simulation. There are no consequences for failure here. Of course even after playing Combat Mission for so long, and getting so many failures under my belt, I have never stopped making mistakes. You don't learn to stop making mistakes. You learn to stop beating yourself up over your mistakes, and you learn how to recover from your mistakes. And hopefully you learn to be a tad forgiving to all the commanders throughout history that historians like to routinely berate for making mistakes (because apparently most historians aren't wargamers, so don't know that it's basically impossible to go through an entire battle without making any mistakes). 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSarge Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 (edited) I've been playing tactical wargames since the '70s, and by now some useful tactics have seeped into the old bit bucket. Plenty of useful information has been posted above. It is a good idea to start any CM game with a plan (usually more because stuff happens) that contains one or more courses of action that implement the plan. So, when I start a CM game I spend a great deal of time considering METT-TC and OAKOC (you'll find both explained on Bil_H's site). Even with an outstanding plan you can still lose, it is true in life and especially true in CM - but even a bad plan is better than no plan. Here are several golden oldies posted by Armchair General years ago that are useful for an occasional review and a good starting point for newer, or at least less experienced, CM players. Armchair General presents Combat Mission Normandy Tactics Episode I Armchair General presents Combat Mission Normandy Tactics Episode II Armchair General presents Combat Mission Normandy Tactics Episode III Armchair General presents Combat Mission Normandy Tactics Episode IV Armchair General presents Combat Mission Normandy Tactics Episode V Armchair General presents Combat Mission Normandy Tactics Episode VI Oh, one more thing! The first useful tactic to learn in CM is to keep your pixeltruppen dispersed and maintain their intervals! HTH Edited June 27 by OldSarge 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALBY Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 Excellent perspective and advice from @Centurian52 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinnart Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 (edited) I think having a military background (Army or Marines) in understanding basics like overwatch ect.. certainly helps with a game like CM. Beyond that is to understand it's a game which means adapting to it rather than it adapting to your misconceptions that it's reality despite the realism. For learning what works in game I believe the best method is trial and error. If you try an attack and it goes completely south for example re-load and try it a different way. Did you go in quick first time? Perhaps try Hunt instead next time for example. Experiment enough and soon you will be past the learning phase and will play though owning the decisions you made, but for learning NOTHING is better than trial, error, and experimenting. Don't be afraid to think out of the box either despite what any manual says. Learning the game, then becoming confident in your decision making is what makes CM such an interesting game and big part of the fun. As much as you play though you will always make some mistakes just like in real life. Edited July 13 by Vinnart 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 On 6/27/2024 at 5:53 PM, Centurian52 said: I have never stopped making mistakes. You don't learn to stop making mistakes. You learn to stop beating yourself up over your mistakes, and you learn how to recover from your mistakes. For sure this 100% On 6/27/2024 at 5:53 PM, Centurian52 said: And hopefully you learn to be a tad forgiving to all the commanders throughout history that historians like to routinely berate for making mistakes (because apparently most historians aren't wargamers, so don't know that it's basically impossible to go through an entire battle without making any mistakes). Are they really all mistakes though. Obviously some of them are but so, so, many are really "in hindsight with a bunch of information that was not available that was the not the optional choice". The reality is we all have to remember there is another force commander (or player) actively trying to thwart us. So, bad **** is going to happen even when you don't make a mistake. On 6/29/2024 at 12:23 PM, Vinnart said: Beyond that is to understand it's a game which means adapting to it rather than it adapting to your misconceptions that it's reality despite the realism Indeed. It takes some humility to say "perhaps I don't know as much as I think I do". That should be all of our starting points when we hit a problem or surprise. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurian52 Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 2 minutes ago, A Canadian Cat said: Are they really all mistakes though. Obviously some of them are but so, so, many are really "in hindsight with a bunch of information that was not available that was the not the optional choice". The reality is we all have to remember there is another force commander (or player) actively trying to thwart us. So, bad **** is going to happen even when you don't make a mistake. Also this. But I didn't want to get drawn into too much of a tangent at the time. There's probably no harm in going on that tangent now though. The way I see it there are several different kinds of mistakes that can go down in history. 1. God's-eye-view mistakes: The commander may have made the right decision based on the information they had. But if they had been omniscient (or at least known what we know now) then they would have known not to make that decision. It is unreasonable to judge the quality of the commander based on these kinds of mistakes. But they're still worth identifying and examining since they can be very informative. 2. Actual mistakes: The commander really did make the wrong call based on what they knew at the time (even if from the god's-eye-view it actually turns out to have been the right call). 3. Trade-offs: The commander made a compromise rather than an outright mistake. They understood that their decision would have costs, but had a reasonable expectation that those costs would be balanced by commensurate benefits. Of course it is possible to make the wrong (or suboptimal) trade-offs. So on some occasions a trade-off could also be an actual mistake or a god's-eye-view mistake. But on other occasions a trade-off is just a trade-off. 4. Not-mistakes: It is the historian, not the commander, who has misjudged the situation. Perhaps the historian, or the historian's sources, needed a scapegoat. Perhaps the historian wasn't looking at a decision in the proper context in which it was made, or perhaps they didn't have an adequate understanding of tactics to understand the decision. Perhaps things went awry because the enemy commander did something right, and not because POV commander did something wrong. Or perhaps things went wrong just because of sheer random chance*. All too often the "mistakes" that commanders are accused of are actually trade-offs, god's-eye-view mistakes, or not-mistakes, rather than actual mistakes. Of course commanders do make actual mistakes. They are only human, so a certain error rate is to be expected. And even the best commander can have a bad day. But decades (or centuries, depending on which wars we're looking at) of sloppy history** have left us in a position where we need to re-examine each mistake with a high degree of scrutiny before we can confidently decide whether it was an actual mistake or not. *Outcomes in war are probabilistic, not deterministic. Decisions have to made based on probabilities, not certainties. And that means that it is entirely possible to do absolutely everything right, and still lose. In this case the culprit isn't any mistake, but the residual degree of randomness that cannot be eliminated no matter how hard you try. **I say sloppy history. But historians, like commanders, are also only human. So again, a certain error rate is to be expected. Even the best historians make mistakes about which mistakes they accuse commanders of making. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 Great summary, I mean tangent 2 hours ago, Centurian52 said: 1. God's-eye-view mistakes: ... But they're still worth identifying and examining since they can be very informative. For sure. No only that it helps to highlight that getting the right information into the right hands at the right time is important. We can see that it can mean the difference between success and failure. 2 hours ago, Centurian52 said: *Outcomes in war are probabilistic, not deterministic. Decisions have to made based on probabilities, not certainties. Oh yes, so important to understand this. "Why did my favourite tank not kick ***. It's clearly better and should win this duel" not how the works works my dude. 2 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.