Tactics Tutorials for CMSF

[jnt62006]

OK, well Erwin is calling me out here so I have to respond. A couple points:

1. I have been on active duty with the US Army for 13 years. I have played Combat Mission since it was first released. You can find me in the forums back in 1999 as ScoutPL. I am well aware of the difference between playing the game mechanics to win (what we used to term "gaminess") and playing it to maximize its utility as a simulation. It is an old tired argument. One that I personally tired of long ago.

2. My tutorial will not cover how to maximize the game mechanics, as I stated in the introduction of my first tutorial. Rather, I hope to provide some lessons on how to maximize the combat power of the units provided the player in a synchronized, effective, focused way. If the usefulness of this some how escapes you, than don't bother reading the tutorials and pay more attention to the introduction if you feel led astray.

Otherwise enjoy and apply what you can glean from the application of my limited spare time.

[Erwin]

I didn't mean to make it sound I was attacking you personally, jnt. You do good work and your postings are always interesting.

It's just that I crave a tutorial that actually deals with the realities of the CMSF limitations, so that one can actually play the game to its potential. I would warn newbies that if you try and play using only "realistic" tactics, you can get screwed up.

After 10 years of designing sims for DoD agencies and playing CM... well... I don't really count CM1 as I don't think anyone seriously claimed that CM1 was an accurate simulation... so after 2-3 years of CM2 I can't believe that I am only now finding out that the way I was trying to use snipers and recon "realistically" was a complete waste of time... ditto for arty, and vehicles with long range spotting abilities, and... and... well you get the idea.

It's not a real big deal as I LOVE playing all the CM games as they are FUN. I guess I started to get seduced by some of the threads on this forum that imply that CM2 is really an accurate simulation of RL and I feel a bit stoopid to become disillusioned and realize that (of course) it's (merely) a great game. I say "merely," but I know I couldn't have come up with anything that is so entertaining!

Why do I bother trying to warn newbies...? Hell if I know... Just a weird aspect of my personality. I promise I will try and control myself.

[gibsonm]

Well it seems to me there's room for both approaches (the "How to do it in RL" and the "How to get the best results from CM:SF")

So if "jint62006" is happy to devote his spare time to the former, perhaps "Erwin" can do the latter?

I must admit that whilst I appreciate that product needs to sit towards the "entertainment" end of the Simulation - Entertainment spectrum (personally I think its just on the Simulation side of that) so that it sells, I do find it frustrating when either things that do work in real life, don't or perhaps more galling, things that you don't do in real life are rewarded in CM:SF.

Just two cases in point:

In the game I've seen players regularly "pop smoke" from vehicles to provide concealment for their dismounting Infantry and then the Infantry advance through the smoke.

In real life if I told the crunchies travelling with us that I was going to shower them with WP smoke and then ask them to walk through it to get to the enemy, I'm sure they'd be checking which side I was on.

I have similar issues with Infantry camped beneath tank guns, that subsequently fire, and suffering no ill effects at all.

But as I say that's all part of the Simulation / Entertainment balance that BTS/BFC need to decide on.

[stikkypixie]

There was a thread here not that long ago re snipers and I had the impression that guys who had sniper experience were saying that due to the massive amount of extra training snipers get, there would be a lot more effect in a realistic simulation, than simply making their experience level higher in a game like CMSF.

Yes, but how much of that extra training is of use in a shooting scenario. Most of it is "extra" stuff like navigating, being able to identify enemy formations, working with sophisticated equipment, etc... Engineers units are a perfect example of this, in real life some tasks are only able to be performed by them. And they get tons of specialized training, but no-one expects them to fight better. If you want a unit to fight better you have to change it appropriately. And since CMSF only deals with the shooting part, that's going to be the most important factor.

The other thing is having realistic expectations, even the most experienced recon soldiers in real life will take more a than a couple of minutes to spot every enemy unit on the map, even in the best circumstances and in the game it is no difference.

[gibsonm]

A lot of the recon / recce skill set isn't used here anyway.

Often the "recon" element is about 50m in front of the main body (due to the Designer's decisions about map size, desire to have large unit density, whatever).

A "recon" scenario that has one OP set up monitoring the enemy's movements (a valid recon task) I suspect wont be too popular (or one with a sniper pair engaging targets at 1,500m or whatever).

Most players want lots of vehicles or soldiers kicking in doors assualting buildings and that's not the normal environment for either recce or snipers.

[jnt62006]

"Recon, snipers, etc..." This is another age old argument in the Combat Mission forums. The bottom line:

CM and CMSF are games that "simulate" (quotes applied for Erwins benefit ;-) ) actions on the objective. In other words the last 500m or so where forces actually meet with and engage the enemy. Reconnaissance (ground, air, satellite), effective use of snipers, large and multiple maneuver pieces, are all about setting the conditions for the actual fight and are thus automatically outside the scope of CM/CMSF.

Guys for years have tried to force the game to "simulate" reconnaissance and/or sniper ops. It doesnt work. The spotting rules, the LOS rules, the limited ability of such units to effect victory conditions all make it a rather fruitless endeavor. If you want to play a recon/sniper game than pick up ARMA II and get happy running around in your Ghillie and Super Duper XM#$%^@!&*@# Sniper rifle.

[snake_eye]

OK, well Erwin is calling me out here so I have to respond. A couple points:

JNT62006 and Erwin,

Both of you got a point from the way you are looking at what a tactical tutorial should be. It is certain that without military tutorials provided in R.L and War College there would be no sound Military doctrine. It is equally certain, that without the military simulations used now days, there would be no thorough estimate and risk evaluation for a given operation.

Both go together in the way of learning and in the way to facilitate the amalgam needed to draw a perfect Ops plan.

For the gamer, I think that, there is maybe a tendency to think that to apply the R.L rules will bring him to victory or on the verge of it. That happens or may happen, but like in R.L the fog of war does really exist. However it is, more through the game parameters and possible known bugs that they are to be found. That is why, Erwin mentioned the story about the young guy beating Sims flyers flying by the rules and Military beaten by gamers.

However to make it more difficult to apprehend the difference between R.L and game, did you know that in car competition we are having the motor running the circuit before the race. That way, we are able to make adjustment about the gears, the electronic cards and so on.

In one company, the driver was also running the circuit on a Sim software to get accustomed to it and to its motor parameters. We even had a car suspension reacting to the bends of a circuit through a script being done specially for it. The driver had to run the circuit at a given and time slot to stay in the parameters. It was awful !

We were also going through the running functional analysis of a railroad engine in the factory and latter on we were downloading it from the country where the trials were going on. We were that way able to reproduce a default till we understood what made it happen.

We were also bringing the railroad engine into a unique European facility to have it undergone weather trials. The parameters found were set in the software used and they were invaluable.

That to say that Sims are very close to reality, if not similar. What did make very often the difference in some results, were the way the driver drove the car, the mechanic the railroad engine, the flyer flew the plane. We can then say, that the way the gamer runs the game makes a difference from a professional, specially if he is taking in account the gamer tutorial pointing out some issues.

So, from my point of view both tutorials are invaluable, even if on my part I prefer to stick to reality.

JNT62006, please keep feeding us with your experience to our delight

Cheers

[Javolenus]

Many thanks for a great offer - that's really appreciated. I think an MS Word doc would be OK for me, although YouTube videos are also good. What I think would be a big help, would be hints on realistic scenario design, so that you present a real tactical problem with hints on how to proceed - that kind of thing. Anyway, whatever you come up with is sure to be appreciated. Thanks again.

[Erwin]

I have been accumulating "Useful CMSF Hints" over at BoB in their OTHER GAMES forum since no one there seems to care or read about CMSF - that way my thread isn't lost to history, and isn't contaminated by comments etc. lol.)

If you are interested: http://webandofbrothers.yuku.com/topic/11168

So far, some of the biggest learning surprises (to me) are:

1) You may as well simply use snipers and recon as weak reg. inf.

2) Arty doesn't provide RL or common sense results.

3) Some sniper rifles can be resupplied and others cannot - but it's very hard to figure out which vehicles may have the correct ammo. (After only 3 years, there is now a list at the SNIPER thread.)

4) Specialized vehicles (spotting/FO's and ATGM etc.) cannot get into safe hull-down positions to spot or fire ATGM's - so they are mostly a wasted asset and should be kept out of harm's way for the most part.

5) While it is incredibly useful that one can spot and target from any waypoint, there is no guarantee that a unit can actually spot or fire at the desired target when it actually moves to that waypoint.

Still scouring the forums here for more info.

Once I realized the above, my frustration level was greatly reduced as I didn't keep persistently trying to do things the "RL" way and failing. So, for me, understanding issues like the above helps me enjoy the game (as a game to be mastered like any other) a lot more.

CMSF is probably a better simulation of RL when one deals with small units (platoon up to no larger than company level) and with no specialized units or arty. I can then see how one could use CMSF as a trainer to help illustrate basic RL principles.

Personally, I like large scenarios - battalion to regimental and above - which is what CM1 allows one to do (which is why it's still #1 imo hehe). But, as a CMSF scenario becomes larger and includes more and more specialized units and arty, the CM2 system breaks down as a sim. Nothing to be embarrassed about since contractors spend many, many millions to develop "realistic" sims and those usually require several dozen contractors on-site to run the dang thing! CMSF remains a bloody marvellous entertainment game and represents an awe-inspiring effort by the developers!

[jnt62006]

You can apply real world tactics to any game. I can apply them to Company of Heroes or any other RTS game that requires fire and maneuver. Its about principles and concepts, not application. Application is defined as TTP (tactics, techniques and procedures). TTP change from era to era or theater to theater (WW2 vs Vietnam, or Iraq to Afghanistan). The principles of fire and maneuver (est base of fire, gain suppression of enemy, maneuver, assault, isolate objective with direct/indirect fires) have changed very little since the introduction of the machinegun, high angle artillery, and armor.

CMSF just requires its own set of TTP's, which is basically what Erwin is putting together and that Gunny Huntarr and others have been so kind to share in the past.

[jnt62006]

Two more posts are available on the tutorial blog. Plan is complete, ready to go to execution now.

http://cmsfwarchest.blogspot.com/

Hope to have a youtube vid of the actual battle in a few days.

[vincere]

OK, well Erwin is calling me out here so I have to respond. A couple points:

The ancients would settle this like Men with honour. It's true that scraps of thread can be found where disputes were resolved via a pbem and public AAR. Win, lose, or bloody butchery; both forumite's honour would be preserved. Some think that stories about the likes of Goodale vs ParaBellum are Myth and and fantasies to spice up Normandy refresh monkey threads. But a thing or two could be learned from the ancients...

Seriously, both approaches are compatible. Personally, I think that most of the gamey stuff aint too gamey and thankfully BF's stated aim is to reduce it gamey. But, hey if that Arty aint gonna touch the roof I wanna know about it.

That said it's so much more fun and a stimulating challenge to get into the principles and concepts of jnt62006's approach. Also that approach can be a good way to make sense of what you need to do when there's an awful lot going on.

[LongLeftFlank]

Great stuff! (subject to my usual gripe about the example map having almost no compound walls around the buildings, which gives the attacker far more maneuver/assault options than he would actually have in a real ME setting)

[zwobot]

Two more posts are available on the tutorial blog. Plan is complete, ready to go to execution now.

http://cmsfwarchest.blogspot.com/

Nice read again.

Where is your reserve?

[jnt62006]

It will become more obvious in the vid of the battle but I am essentially only fighting one platoon at a time. Which leaves two standing by to reinforce and exploit success as needed.

[snake_eye]

I have learned two up and one back.

The two up can provide mutual support and the back one can exploit if needed and or reinforce in case of trouble

I am right ?

[Phantom Captain]

jnt62006,

Totally great thanks so much for doing your tutorial! It's extremely helpful. A lot of the things you talk about I kind of do instinctually but actually hearing and seeing how it's done concisely really helps. From now on, I'm going to keep a notebook at my side and write it out and diagram the plan ahead of time instead of just haphazardly/lackadaisically doing it in my head. This is a fantastic resource. :cool:

One question about your overwatch MG positions, do you have them passively suppress, that is just in overwatch and let them shoot any target they see or do you actively suppress (recon by fire) first and then give them a cover arc to passively suppress any enemies they spot? Or do you keep them hot and firing the whole time?

I usualy use the two up, one back method too. One squad moving, one in overwatch, one in reserve.

[jnt62006]

Two up and one back is a sound tactical principle. Though it usually pertains to maneuver or defenses. In the attack you often have to be more flexible. Maintain a reserve (even if it shifts from phase to phase like in my tutorial), but you often find it necessary to commit most of your combat power at once to be successful, particularly to keep your own casualties down.

It is common practice to suppress known and SUSPECTED enemy positions. Particularly when conducting an assault or moving across exposed terrain. This is why urban operations are so expensive logistically. There is a lot of shooting that takes place that is done at buildings and other structures, not necessarily human targets. The idea being that if there is a guy in the target building, he's not going to stick his head out a window if you are pouring 7.62 into it. Watch any vid from Iraq and you will see Soldiers and Marines constantly spraying buildings down the block or across the street. In most cases all they are doing is firing on suspected enemy positions to cover another units movement. What makes a position a suspected enemy position? Well if it has LOS to the route you are trying to cover, its a suspected enemy position (within reason of course).

[Phantom Captain]

Got it, pretty much what I do but was just curious, I guess, at which point you stop actively suppressing and go to passive overwatch, in the game that is. I suppose I'm looking at it logistically from a practical ammo supply standpoint but, for the most part, I don't really know why since ammo is usually available in abundance.

I'll take it this way from your post, if troops are actively moving on an objective their overwatch mg's should be suppressing regardless. Once an objective is taken and the men are resting or overwatch or reserves are being moved up in safe areas the mg's can go to passive until another offensive movement is made. I guess actually, that's pretty much what and how I try to do it.

[jnt62006]

Yes thats about it. One of the hardest lessons for me as new rifle platoon leader was that my weapons squad leader only wanted to know what his left and right limits were and how the front line trace of the assaulting squads would be marked. I wanted to give him refined targets, etc. But I quickly realized that from the SBF position the objective looks very different than it does from the guy actually on the Objective. The SL designated known and suspected enemy positions to his gunners and kept them shifting left or right to stay ahead of the assaulting squads. The whole idea behind the term "suppression" being to just keep the enemy's head down, not necessarily kill or destroy targets. Thats what the riflemen are for.

Immediately after your SBF element ceases fire it should displace to the objective and rejoin the main element. For two reasons; one, it is vulnerable out there by itself, and two, because it is usually your heaviest firepower and you will want it in your back pocket, particularly if the enemy launches some sort of counterattack.

[Phantom Captain]

Excellent, makes total sense!

[jnt62006]

Videos are up on Youtube. Long 45 min movie of attack on town divided into three smaller movies. Be sure to watch them in sequence. Sorry, no sound. Will do better next time, still learning the program. I did however, throw in some captions to try to help you keep up with the action. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/user/tjcmsf?feature=mhum#p/a/u/0/iLBBtGL6XY8

[snake_eye]

It is common practice to suppress known and SUSPECTED enemy positions. Particularly when conducting an assault or moving across exposed terrain. This is why urban operations are so expensive logistically. .

I have just seen your link for the town attack video. It may answer the following questions.

That looks a lot like a Recon by fire. Firing at what looks like a good firing and or ambush site, to make think the enemy he has been spotted. The main difference, is that in Recon by fire you don't expend too much ammo, until you get in a fire fight. In an Urban area progression, it seems that the actual doctrine is more to pour a huge suppressive volume of fire to pin down a potential enemy while moving, than to Recon by fire. At the cyclic rate of fire of an automatic rifle and or a SAW, the squad gets dangerously low on ammo if a strict fire control is not done. That was not an asset when they got in contact and had to be careful about the ammo remaining at a time they needed full fire power on a know and seen enemy

The Iraqis (specially the foreign fighters) have perfectly understood that in Fallujah, after the first encounters. They hunkered down (sometimes in fortified houses) did not fire and waited for the grunts to flush them out of the houses, opening fire only when they were in the houses. That is, when the casualties, kept till that moment to a low level, rose abruptly.

What do you suggest in such a situation? 1 up and 2 back with a shifting to permit 1 to replenished? Flush the houses from the top?.............

Cheers

[jnt62006]

Well use your imagination and try to picture what it might look like. You are clearing a row of houses on a street. Eventually you have to cross a very open space (the street) to clear the other side or advance to the next block. There are a number of buildings that offer LOS to the crossing site you have chosen. You know that there is a strong enemy presence in the area, you just dont know where. Do you think you or the men under your command are going to be willing to dash across the street and see if anyone shoots at you? Just so you can then determine where the enemy is? And how many times would you have to do that to determine each enemy location? No, I wouldn't want to do that nor would any other bullet fearing individual.

So the answer is to identify likely enemy positions and suppress them with direct or indirect fires and provide as much concealment as you can through smoke, an armored vehicle (tank), etc. As a result, urban operations are extremely time/ammo consumers. It is not uncommon to read accounts of urban fights where the combatants advance no more than a block or two in a day. Setting the above conditions can take a long time, particularly if you have to clear another building or two to establish SBF positions that can fire on the suspected enemy positions. My attack on the town in the tutorial lasted 45 minutes and I only needed to clear three sectors in order to gain a victory. I had expended about 50% of my machinegun ammo, which means if I had to clear the entire town I would have run out at some point. I didnt pay much attention to the squads ammo, they may have been worse off. But this is a game restraint, not a RL one. In RL I just pause my attack long enough to resupply and then start again. In game terms it would be up the scenario designer to consider the realities of urban combat and provide the attacker with ample ammo or reinforcements that would come in at some point with full ammo loads.

As far as attacking fortified buildings. I know of a few instances in Fallujah and other city fights in Iraq where this posed a serious problem. Some of them received a lot of attention because of the high casualties involved. I wont comment on those specifically because I wasnt there and I have no idea what really went on or what the leaders were dealing with. But it is fairly standard practice that once you determine you are dealing with a fortified building with limited entrance/exit points and an enemy who is determined to fight to the death, you take a few steps back and let them fight it out with a few 120mm tank rounds or a 500pd bomb.

What you dont want to do is get committed to a bare knuckle fight when you dont have the proper assets available to set the odds highly in your favor. I would argue that in a lot of those high casualty fights, perhaps that is what the leaders on the ground failed to keep in mind.

[Erwin]

Smoke always seems in short supply in CMSF (2 per squad?). I find I try to save it rather than use it. Would a lot more smoke grenades be more efficient in crossing street than area firing all that ammo?