Base chance for MG to jam is reduced somewhat overall, but is then increased at the following temperatures:
Extreme Cold: +100%
Freezing: +25%
Warm: +50%
Hot: +200%
I haven't played the game in any depth yet, just the demos so far. I have looked over the mechanics and numbers though and these are my impressions.
PROS:
1. new infantry movement - very badly needed. No longer will we suffer moronic troops following waypoints to their obvious death before arriving.
2. improved to hit, to kill and penetration tables - desperately needed. Hopefully common place cmbo impossibilities have been removed. How often have you seen a buttoned up enemy tank moving fast across open country, gun and viewport bouncing around, instantly spot your tank, that fired and missed, even though it's 800 mtrs away and camo'd in a thin screen of trees and hull down. Meanwhile it spots, rotates turret, acquires and places a one shot kill and all within 10 seconds.
3. covered arcs - very needed. Finally the ability to hide and ambush at the desired range and not having to reveal hidden guns that previously automatically gave away their positions when an enemy half squad showed itself 600 mtrs off.
4. improved artillery - I haven't looked at this yet but any improvement is a good thing.
CONS:
By the fire power factors (fp after this), here are my first impressions.
1. feeble German rifle units - in CMBO the heer and Brit rifle were quite feeble and few of my opponents ever picked them, instead choosing the strongest inf they could buy. In CMBB in 1941 the average Russian rifle squad is 172 to 185 fp while the standard German rifle is 124 fp. A sizable difference there and at first glance I'll give a big edge to the Russians.
While on the subject of fp differential, the Russians have abundant cheap SMG units ranging from 7 to 11 man squads at a huge 350 fp to a terrifying 550 fp! There isn't a German unit in the game, particularly in 1941, that can stand up to this. Of course I haven't played this out yet but my money is on the Russian SMGs.
2. a greatly pared down MG34 - the MG42 light and heavy is 50 and 155 fp while the MG34 is 36 to 120. Does anyone know the historical truth of these guns? Was the MG42 that much better?
My understanding is these are basically the same weapons with the '42 tweaked and improved. They both had cyclic ROFs of 1200 rounds per minute though, so I wouldn't give the '42 that big of an edge. This has the effect of making the German rifle even weaker than in CMBO.
3. no nationality traits and generic qualities in terms of morale, training, discipline and leadership to all units of all nations.
QUESTIONS:
1. was the MG42 that much better than the MG34?
2. at 40 mtrs the MP40 is equal in fp to the MG34. Considering about 450 RPM for the MP40 and 1200 RPM for the MG34 would this be accurate?
3. the Russian SMGs (PPD and PPsh) are rated at 46 fp and 50 fp making them even more effective than the Thompson. Is this accurate? Are the Russian SMGs that superior to the MP40 at 36 fp? I always thought the thompson was equal to or better than any SMG of that era.
4. there's nothing in 1941 that can touch a KVI or II frontally except the 88mm AA gun and obviously those won't be racing around the battlefield. How did the panzer units deal with this historically? I'm guessing they relied on out manuevering the KV's to get flank and rear shots with their 50mm L\42's?
Overall the fp numbers seem to give the Russians a big edge. Imagine several Fusilier COs facing off vs several Brit rifle COs. There's a big advantage to the Fusilier in fp - 324 to 161 or 163 fp. This edge is potentially greater in CMBB, particularly if SMG heavy battles are played. Here we're looking at 324 vs 550 = 226 fp, or worse: 550 to 350 vs 124 = 426 / 226 fp differential!!
If completely unrestricted QBs are played I can see the Russians using vast numbers of dirt cheap SMG units. Apparently unit restrictions may be necessary.
In 1941 the Germans blew away the Russians, capturing vast numbers and gaining much ground. This was done with superior tactics of blitzkreig on a large scale, pincer operations, destroying rear communications and causing great panic, etc, etc.
In a tactical level sim like CMBB this success is very difficult to portray, particularly without nationality traits. The on-paper numbers are quite misleading and given the current values one would think the Germans would have had their asses kicked in 1941 rather than the opposite. These numbers will probably give quite different results in QBs than what really occurred.
Just my first impressions, likes and dislikes; feel free to rebut.
On "Hide" or pinned behind Wall - 0% exposed
Trench, even in the open - 9%
Heavy Building - 10%
Foxhole in Wood or Pines - 14%
Wood or Pines - 15%
Light Building - 20%
Foxhole in Sc. Trees - 23%
Rubble, any type - 25%
Sc. Trees, Rough, Wall not on "Hide" - 30%
Foxhole in Open, Brush, Wheat, etc - 44%
Brush, Rocky, Cemetary - 50%
Wheat, Hedge, Wood Fence - 60%
Steppe, Marsh - 65%
Pavement - 70%
Open, Soft Ground, Wire in Sc. Trees - 75%
Wire in Open, Bridge, Ford - 100%
That doesn't quite rank them, because some give concealment and others give cover, which are different. The exposure number reflects both, but HE pays attention only to cover, trees allow airbursts to mortars and indirect artillery, buildings can be damaged or destroyed particularly by direct fire HE, etc. So, for example, foxholes in brush or wheat have about the same overall exposure number as troops in wheat without foxholes, but they are much better protected against artillery.
Also, you will see figures that differ slightly from these numbers, particularly downward, due to LOS degradation. Firing into or out of trees, or across appreciable distances of brush or wheat, deeper into rubble or rough, the LOS line is not as "clean" and the %exposed of the target will fall somewhat. The higher the original exposure number, the bigger this potential effect. So you can see some guys in brush get a 41%, when the shooter is well back into woods himself.
The truly effective forms of cover are trenches, intact heavy buildings, and foxholes reasonably deep inside woods or tall pines. The building is a bit more vunerable to direct fire HE, and the woods foxholes are more vunerable to airburst artillery. No, Virginia, trenches aren't just connected foxholes, they are way way better, and no, rubbled heavy buildings aren't still heavy building level cover, they are much worse.
But each of these is very good cover for infantry fighting. Enough so that small numbers of defenders in such positions can duke it out with superior numbers of enemies in inferior terrain and expect to prevail. Men in intact heavy buildings are receiving only half the "incoming" men in light ones or in rubble receive. Men in a trench, even in the open, will receive only a third of the fire that men approaching even through scattered trees will get from replies.
Woods and Pines are excellent cover against small arms even without foxholes, but considerably more vunerable to indirect arty or mortar fire than the low % exposure number indicates. Intact light buildings are better cover than being at the -edge- of rubble. But farther back inside rubble, they are similar. Not as good as heavy buildings by a long shot, but good cover in the overall scheme of things. And unlike the woods-pines case, more of it is "cover" rather than "concealment". A foxhole in scattered trees is about as good in pure infantry fighting terms, but more vunerable to artillery and much worse than a foxhole in full woods or pines. Each of the above can cut incoming small arms by a factor of 3 compared to open ground, which makes them effective defensive positions.
Below that level, you leave the cover good enough for defenders, and arrive at decent cover for attackers or otherwise moving troops. Obviously the woods, pines, and buildings are fine, and the place to fire-fight from, particularly if you have to take on men in trenches, heavy buildings, or wooded foxholes. But scattered trees and rough are quite good cover compared to all the worse forms of terrain, as points to make for during an approach. There is no comparison with the brush-wheat sort. The decent types will absorb half of the infantry fire troops in open ground will receive, and men in them do not get "cover panic" and change course.
Being behind a wall would be in the same category, but for the fact that the tac AI doesn't really know it has the benefit of the wall. When up and firing, men behind a wall have 30% cover, akin to the edge of scattered trees or rough. Their own LOS is completely clear. And anyone behind a wall benefits from the complete 0% exposure when they go heads-down, which they can when they pin.
Behind a wall is a very good position for panzerschrecks, because it combines perfect cover hidding, decent when up, no LOS obstactles to cut your own accuracy, and no backblast effect from being in a building. It does help if there is any moderate form of concealment or cover behind the wall, not because it combines with the wall's 30% (it won't), but because it will avoid "cover panic". Scattered trees are best, a foxhole, brush, or wheat is better than nothing.
Brush, rocky, and cemetary are better than nothing and can avoid "cove panic". But the reduction in fire compared to open ground is small, less than a factor of two. A foxhole in the open or in concealment-only terrain is similar. Of these, the foxhole is best as "cover" and the brush is worst as all "concealment" - you'd rather be mortared in foxholes than in bushes.
Think of most of these as "approach march cover" or as "open steppe, poor-man's cover". It can sometimes be worth it to use e.g. foxholes in brush in very open terrain, to avoid the predictability of placements on the limited areas of trees. Trenches are far, far superior if available, however. In large bodies, wheat is similar to brush if you stay a ways back into it, though at the edge it is considerably worse.
Below even those types, in the category of "better than nothing", come hedges and woods fences. They have the same "cover panic" issues as the wall, without any of its strength. You might be surprised that wood fences give any benefit, but they do. Think upright planks rather than three boards sideways and mostly open. Basically, a wood fence is a form of hedge, for cover purposes.
Steppe and marsh are forms of open ground, but with a bit better concealment than "open". Soft ground is the same as "open" in cover terms. Pavement, perhaps surprisingly, is no longer the "hazardous" 100% exposed terrain form it was in CMBO, but is a marginally better form of "open" than "open" is - presumably because there are things here and there to hide behind in cities, even on the streets.
Finally, there are the remaining forms of "hazardous movement" - crossing a bridge or ford, or crawling through wire. These bring 100% exposure, or 1/3rd more incoming fire than open ground. Wire placed in other forms of cover gives something akin to open ground, not full "hazardous" but not well covered either.
As you might have guessed, then, you want to be in a trench while the enemy is hung up on your wire (11 times cover differential). Or in a heavy building while the enemy is in the street outside (7 times. Or, in a pinch, in a wooded or pine foxhole while the enemy is crossing an open field (5 times).
It is worth thinking in terms of achievable local odds ratios and their relation to typical cover ratios, to see what you can expect to accomplish - in infantry vs. infantry fighting, mind - if you just have more guys to bring to the party.
Typically you can get 2:1 local infantry odds if you have the men. More than that is quite difficult, both because of global odds, and because you need to avoid bunching up too much and cover often limits the men you can get close enough to shoot at one enemy position without overcrowding.
Odds are a two-fer, because they generate twice the firepower along with twice the depth for suppression and casualties. So in principle, a 2:1 odds ratio might equalize a 4:1 cover differential. In practice, it doesn't, because the guy in the better cover is typically stationary and shooting, and some of the attackers are not firing because they are moving, while others are pinned. But 2-3:1 cover differentials, odds might handle.
That means to tackle men in trenches or heavy buildings or wooded foxholes, you need rubble or better in addition to odds - scattered trees will not cut it. Against the "second tier" of defender cover - woods or pines without foxholes, light buildings, foxholes in scattered trees, rubble - scattered trees, rough, or better will serve, while brush to wheat is marginal. This often applies in meeting engagements, when the "defender" is whoever reached the good cover first.
Men just in foxholes (or brush etc), you can defeat with odds even over open ground, provided "cover panic" doesn't completely disorganize your force, you can avoid hazardous movement or crossing wire until after gaining local fire ascendency, etc.
Trenches are quite powerful, incidentally. They do not have the direct HE weaknesses of even heavy buildings - which can draw rubbling fire even before defenders are spotted, if the attacker has enough HE ammo aboard tanks etc - or the indirect HE weakness of wooded foxholes - which are vunerable to heavy artillery airbursts, though adequate against light mortar fire. Trenches can also be placed just about anywhere (except rough etc). Concealment terrain is useful to prevent immediate ID of the trench, though a reverse slope serves that purpose just as well. Don't think they are a waste of points because you get foxholes free.
I hope this is the sort of tactical terrain guide you were looking for.
P.S. - as for craters, they seem to act like foxholes in open ground. As such, they are "approach march cover" in the scheme of things discussed above.
stoat: You will often see half squads used as scouts ahead of the rest of the platoon. They'll also be the first to assault across a road when the enemy is suspected to be near, so that the whole squad isn't lost in one turn. Half squads do panic faster than whole squads, and though HQs with morale bonuses can help, that only goes so far.
It is actually considered gamey to use half squads while defending as it will give you double the number of foxholes as combined squads would. These extra foxholes make for easy fallback positions that can make a defence line harder to break.
I personally don't use half squads all that often, but there are situations that cause me to break my units apart. I would suggest trying various combinations of whole and half squads until you find what works for you and your tactics.
Mortars are the precision munitions" of WWII. Mortars are best used against point targets. They have the advantage of being able to fire on the enemy without return fire hitting them, and they are relatively accurate and lethal enough to knock out enemy support weapons.
The 81mm mortar is about as heavy as a weapon can get and still be regularly man packable (broken down), thus able to reach any terrain. It has enough range to hit MGs without reply, and the mobility to move after firing to avoid counterbattery (which was rudimentary at finding them in that era). The casualty radius of an 81mm mortar round is not much below that of a 105mm round. However, it is much less effective against men with cover, because it is getting that effect from smaller fragments.
The effect of the shell is quite high, when a target is caught moving. Infantry mortared in the open will be stuck there like cement as long as your ammo holds. You watch them, when more than two get up you drop another several rounds on them. The German combination was MG42s if you leave cover and 81mm mortars if you stay in it but try to move around at all. The typical result is simply paralysis - the targeted formation will not move. Net result is, a targeted platoon is lucky if half of it can continue the mission half an hour later. If they are under immediate attack, maybe they can fire back with 2/3 to 3/4 strength in five minutes.
In fact, entrenching in trees actually seems to be a disadvantage because of potential treebursts, right?!? same with foxholes.
So why use the cover of terrain at all on defense? concealment? you still get concealment in a trench (not very mobile, but you can hide).
Putting trenches in terrain that gives some concealment may make them a bit harder to spot, but the protection certainly comes from the trench, not bushes etc. You should appreciate just how good trench cover is compared to the other types. The reduction in "incoming" compared to being is scattered trees is a factor of 3. Trenchs are about as much better than typical forms of decent cover as those forms of cover are better than open ground (rough, deep in scattered trees, rubble e.g.). They certainly don't need any additional boosting to be extremely effective.
As for tree bursts, yes trenches are less effective when they are possible than when they aren't. Overhead is about the only place they are vunerable. Vs. infantry fire or direct HE, foxholes on the other hand are considerably more effective in woods or pines, because those forms of terrain on their own are better cover than foxholes are on their own.
Compared to being in woods or pines without a foxhole, the improvement against small arms from adding the foxhole is marginal. But foxholes provide "cover" rather than mere "concealment", which means foxholes do protect against HE, significantly more than trees or pines alone. If you think airbursts are bad when you have the foxholes, try them when you don't.
Alerted means normally that something is shooting at that unit, and is the first sign of trouble and that the TacAI might take over.
Shaken means that the unit will take cover or for example re-evaluate the order it has been given (e.g. if ordered to move, it might choose a different path with more cover, or it might simply disobey any orders and hunker down)
Pinned means that it will go for the next cover and hit the ground. This also has an impact on its ability to return fire.
Panic means that you cannot give the unit any orders, it will react on self-preservation only (and usually try to run away). Panicked units can recover once out of harms way.
Broken means that the unit has had enough and it will do whatever is necessary to get out of trouble. Broken units can also get so seriously shaken that they will panic much quicker even after they recover (which takes much longer), this is indicated by the "!" in the unit window.
Routed units get the heck out of there and remain useless for the rest of the fight most of the time. They always get seriously shaken, i.e. get the "!".
FIONN KELLY'S OFFICIAL COMBAT MISSION BEYOND OVERLORD
"BALANCED FORCE" RULES
PLEASE NOTE - This document cannot be guaranteed as either the correct or latest Official Version of Fionn Kelly’s CMBO ‘Balanced Force Rules’ and is issued for guidelines only. Please refer to Fionn Kelly's CMBO 'Balanced Force Rules' on the Rugged Defense web site for the definitive current Official Version of Fionn Kelly’s CMBO ‘Balanced Force Rules’.
Version 1 - Created May 2002, Updated with corrections June 2002
Tired of Combat Mission small scenario imbalance caused by one player choosing too many heavy tanks or yet another Pershing vs JagdPanther slugfest? Then why not try some pbem games using one of the 'Balanced Force Rules' below devised by Fionn Kelly to try and eliminate the prevalence of overmatched weapons systems and reliably create parameters within which certain types of balanced Combat Mission Beyond Overlord battles can take place.
Please Note: These 'Rules' are guidelines only and provide a solid basis for players to set up balanced battles without worrying about whether your opponent has bought a killer heavy tank or over-sized artillery. If you play by these 'Rules', you should ensure all points are agreed with your PBEM opponent before starting the battle.
Summary of Updates to Fionn Kelly's Rules:
February 2001. Change to 'Panther-76 Rule' to cater for the armour changes applied to Combat Mission with effect from version 1.12.
May 2002. Changes as follows:
1. Inclusion of an 'Infantry-Only Rule'.
2. Change in the Artillery Rules to make them mandatory by default.
3. Elimination of VT Artillery and reduction of maximum artillery size for 'Panther-76' games to 120mm.
4. Use of all Fortifications (except TRPs) and Aircraft banned.
5. All FlaK Vehicles and Towed FlaK Systems banned.
6. 'Recon Rule' to include German 75mm HTs.
7. Change to 'Short-75 Rule' to allow British Sexton.
8. Addition of an 'Unlimited' Rule.
9. Commentary and explanation regarding common multi-player pitfalls associated with force selection and implementation of the 'Balanced Force Rules'.
FIONN KELLY'S OFFICIAL COMBAT MISSION BEYOND OVERLORD
"BALANCED FORCE" RULES
FIONN'S INTRODUCTION
Initially these 'Rules' were only an ad hoc creation used to ensure my own PBEM games wouldn't become inanely and predictably dominated by whichever player bought the heaviest tank. One of my opponents suggested that I should write down these 'Armour Rules' and make them publicly available so that others who also wished to avoid armour overmatch scenarios (the stereotypical Sherman 75 vs King Tiger game being something I've actually seen happen in reality) could have a readily available, third party and unbiased set of 'Rules' to refer to when attempting to avoid an armour overmatch battle.
As time passed, the 'Rules' became extremely popular and had to be updated both because Combat Mission changed (eg. use of tungsten changed dramatically from v1.05 to v1.12 as did the armour values for certain tanks) and because I never envisioned the 'Rules' becoming as popular as they have. As such, I felt the need to tighten up certain grey areas and correct minor errors since the 'Rules' were no longer being used by a half-dozen of my friends, but were now being used by several thousand gamers every day of the week.
When I initially wrote the 'Armour Rules', they incorporated no artillery calibre limits and had no mention of special weapons systems. As time passed, extempore artillery calibre limits have been introduced, but these were only included as an afterthought as, at the time, I really didn't expect to see the 'Armour Rules' being used to set the parameters within which competitive tournaments would be fought. In addition, I have become aware of many ways to exploit the game code to create unbalanced forces whilst sticking to the letter of the 'Armour Rules'.
Therefore, after much prodding from Robert Hall, whom you all have to thank (or blame as the case may be) for these new 'Balanced Force Rules', I decided that rather than simply updating them again slightly, I would change the entire ethos behind the 'Rules' and create a new Rule-set which would address the current needs of the CM community in recognition of the fact that needs today are very different from when the original 'Armour Rules' were created.
Instead of posting a new set of 'Armour Rules' with some slight updates to non-armour sections, I have endeavoured to create a Rule-set, which, if its spirit is followed, will create a more balanced overall set of forces for CM players. In other words, I've taken a more holistic view of proceedings and have abandoned the previous method of integrating artillery into the 'Armour Rules' in favour of a method that integrates artillery into the entire Balanced Force. As you can see, the name of the 'Rules' has also changed to reflect the change in ethos. The name change isn't merely cosmetic. It is central to understanding the changes that have been made.
The new set of 'Rules' has been designed with a view to ensuring that each combat arm is balanced relative to the others. In the 'Short-75' or 'Panther-76 Rules', the tank arm is no more or less capable of destroying an infantry unit than the largest artillery calibre available. The 'Balanced Force Rules' should, if applied correctly, lead to more balanced force purchases which should lead to players having to stretch themselves and become comfortable and proficient with all combat arms instead of, as currently often happens, relying on 155mm or VT artillery to pound anything and everything in their path and only moving tanks and infantry forward when artillery has already won the battle. If these players wish to continue relying on the crutch that their artillery has become, they are perfectly free to do so if they can find players willing to play with such internally inconsistent forces, but I feel most players will prefer to play with internally consistent forces.
No longer will a weapons system which can be exploited in an unrealistic manner be allowed in a battle under these 'Rules' simply because it cannot kill certain enemy armoured vehicles. No, instead, the weapons system will be banned so that such exploitation and unbalancing of the force on force match-up (as opposed to the armour on armour match-up) cannot continue to occur. In cases where a weapons system has many valid realistic uses but can also be used to exploit loopholes in the game, the weapons system will be allowed but I will mention it, discuss how it can be unrealistically exploited and suggest some "common sense" limits on its use.
What do I mean by common sense limits? Simple. When I deem it unsuitable or unnecessary to completely ban a weapons system, I will suggest what it can reasonably be used for and in what numbers. I won't proscribe either side from using them in another fashion or purchasing more than that number, but describing what reasonable use and numbers are will prevent any and all honest players from inadvertently purchasing a company of flame-throwing half-tracks to support an infantry company without realising that is unrealistic and likely to cause some players to react badly. I can't and won't legislate for players who actively seek to exploit the game in order to win at all costs. The best advice I can give regarding these players (and there are many of them), is simply to disregard any result they achieve, cross them off your play list and move on. I also hope that by putting something down on paper regarding fair use of some controversial systems, relatively new players will be able to negotiate the extremely tricky minefield of purchasing allowed units but then finding that the way they use them or the number they purchase causes offence.
So, I hope you find the 'Balanced Force Rules' useful and I confidently expect them to eliminate much confusion and controversy amongst CM PBEMers and TCPIPers. I am certain that several players will object to the banning of certain units (especially Towed FlaK) but I can see them being used unrealistically in PBEM after PBEM and believe that once tactical allowance is made for their banning and their role is fulfilled by another unit, even these players will realise that the overall Force Balance will be superior.
If you wish to comment on the 'Balanced Force Rules, please do so on the Battlefront CM forum. I will read and carefully consider any comments posted there and take them into account for future revisions. I have changed things in the 'Rules' as a result of such comments in the past. Without constructive and impersonal criticism the rules wouldn't be nearly as effective and balanced as they have become.
As regards Combat Mission Barbarossa to Berlin, I welcome constructive comments and critique on these CMBO 'Balanced Force Rules' and will utilise them when creating the CMBB equivalent to this Rule-set if I feel it is worth producing and there is a demand. I hope that you all find the first edition of the 'Balanced Force Rules' useful in creating multi-player games in which player skill and not purchase screen machinations determines who shall win the game. That is, when you distill it to its essentials, my aim.
Fionn Kelly
FIONN KELLY'S OFFICIAL COMBAT MISSION BEYOND OVERLORD
"BALANCED FORCE" RULES
IMPORTANT INITIAL NOTES
1. Force Purchases
As you read these 'Rules', some of you may note that many forces come with organic fire support that would make them illegal under the 'Rules'. Unless exceptions to the 'Rules' are granted, these forces cannot be purchased. That is unfortunate but unavoidable. If the German player wishes to purchase a Battalion that comes with 120mm FOs and the artillery limit is 81mm or 105mm, then the German player has to either just do without that unit or negotiate an exemption (gifting the Allied player a similar artillery exemption for example). If both players agree to different artillery limits then that's their business. It will unbalance their forces and result in a game which favours the player with more skill commanding artillery, but if that's what the players want, the 'Rules' will not legislate against it.
Fionn recommends that all 'Rules' are best played on computer generated or human designed maps with a neutral third party actually performing all the purchases (and thus being able to carry out any necessary force deletions), performing a Tournament Save and then sending the saved game to the first player. However, note that a Tournament Save is not an infallible method of preventing the first player from looking at the second player's forces. Refer to Force Selection Guidelines for playing CM on a Custom Map to determine the various security options available in CMBO for selecting forces on this type of a map.
2. Artillery
In order to clarify the situation with Artillery, the Artillery Rules described below now automatically apply by default. This prevents one player thinking Artillery limitations are optional and the other player that Artillery limitations are mandatory and thus avoids potential disputes. Limiting Artillery size inevitably follows from the application of the 'Balanced Force Rules'.
Levels of Artillery consistent with a Balanced Force are as follows:
1. 'Infantry-Only' - allows up to and including 81mm calibre.
2. 'Recon Rule' - allows up to and including 81mm calibre.
3. 'Short-75 Rule' - allows up to and including 105mm calibre.
Note 1: British and American 4.2" calibre artillery is not permitted under the 'Short-75 Rule' unless specifically agreed by both players in advance of selecting forces.
Note 2: There is a valid argument the artillery limit under the 'Short-75 Rule' could be increased to 120mm. However, by forcing players to rely on artillery with slower response times, a 105mm limit focuses attention on the proper coordination between infantry and armour, is less forgiving of tactical errors and does make for a different game. After careful consideration, the "Official Artillery Limit" remains at 105mm for 'Short-75' battles, but may optionally be increased to 120mm for both sides by prior mutual agreement between both players.
4. 'Panther-76 Rule' - allows up to and including 120mm calibre.
5. 'Unlimited Rule' - any and all artillery calibres allowed.
6. VT Artillery is not permitted under any circumstances since it is too devastating for its cost.
7. TRPs are always permitted.
All artillery limits are open to change by agreement between the two players prior to forces being selected.
3. Fortifications
The implementation of some fortifications and mines can be used by unscrupulous players to create unacceptable blocking conditions for one player which are impossible, or nearly impossible, for the other player to overcome. The implementation of some fortifications is also considered flawed due to the fact some fortifications cannot be detected in a realistic manner and several systems used in their clearance (flail and mine-roller vehicles) are not modelled. Because of these considerations, all Fortifications, except TRPs, are banned.
TRPs, as outlined under the Artillery section above, are always allowed even though, technically, they are listed under Fortifications in the CM purchase screen.
In conclusion, all Fortifications including pillboxes, bunkers, barbed wire, roadblocks, AP mines and AT mines, but excluding TRPs, are banned.
As always, exceptions can be made to any of the above given the explicit consent of both players prior to force selection.
4. Aircraft, FlaK Guns and FlaK Vehicles
These optional components of a battle can have a very unbalancing effect on the game and go against the spirit of the rules which are trying to define as evenly balanced a game as possible. In addition, the implementation of FlaK weaponry vis a vis building destruction and stationary troops is flawed and open to serious abuse by players.
By preventing players from purchasing Aircraft, there is no longer a justifiable requirement for access to FlaK weapons. Light anti-tank guns can reliably handle half-track rushes just as happened in real life.
There is, however, justification for retaining the big 88mm and 90mm FlaKs because they are not prone to gamey abuses in the same manner as the more rapid-firing, lower calibre AAA systems are.
In conclusion, all Aircraft and Flak weaponry are banned.
5. Purchase Settings
It is assumed that CM Force Purchase Settings are set to Unlimited for 'Balanced Force Rule' purchases. So long as no player is allowed to buy an individual weapons system that can, unreasonably, dominate the battlefield due to superior technical or tactical characteristics, the 'Rules' are satisfied. If a player chooses to purchase a particular unit en masse and attempt to dominate the battlefield that way, then good luck.
FIONN KELLY'S OFFICIAL COMBAT MISSION BEYOND OVERLORD
"BALANCED FORCE" RULES
FIONN'S COMMENTARY AND EXCEPTIONS
Negotiating Exceptions
Many players will dislike certain components of the new 'Balanced Force Rules'. This is understood and accepted whilst standing by the statement that the new 'Rules' provide for extremely balanced forces where the skill of the player, rather than purchase screen antics, determines the victor.
Since the 'Rules' were first made public, players have sought to secure exceptions from certain components of the 'Rules' in certain games. The 'Rules' were never intended to be a straightjacket forcing people to play Combat Mission in only a certain way, nor is this an attempt to prevent people having fun with imaginative forces - CM is, after all, just a computer game. The 'Rules' have been provided only to try to ensure that skill will win out. Many sections of the CM community appear to have difficulty grasping that simple truth and have, continuously, sought to ascribe other motives to the 'Rules' so this statement bears repeating. The 'Balanced Force Rules' have only been provided to try to ensure players have an unbiased, reliable, third party source to draw upon when attempting to set in place parameters for a CM battle. The CM battle should then be decided by the players' relative tactical skills and not by the players' purchase screen cunning.
It is, however, realised that the majority of players have neither the depth of Combat Mission experience nor an encyclopaedic knowledge of weapons systems and their relative strengths necessary to accurately assess the impact of Rule exceptions sought by their opponents. Even those intimately involved with the creation of the 'Rules' are still surprised by the unexpected effects of some exceptions. So while the use of explicit, mutually agreed exceptions to the 'Rules' are fully accepted, it was felt useful to provide certain comments to help players avoid some serious potential pitfalls unscrupulous players may exploit to severely skew the balance of a game.
One cannot state strongly enough that unless you absolutely know what you are doing andor trust your opponent a great deal, you should just stick with the 'Balanced Force Rules' as stated in this document. Unless you are extremely experienced, doing otherwise leaves you open to all the pre-game machinations and advantage seeking the 'Rules' are designed to prevent.
Commentary and Notes for the Unwary
1. Exceptions to any of the 'Rules' can be made if both players explicitly agree to an exception before finalising their purchases. If at any point during a game, a player finds that his opponent has breached the agreement, the game should be declared null and void. If this occurs during a tournament and the tournament organiser feels the breach was intentional (or the result of excessive neglect - eg. the player was referred to this page but simply didn't bother reading the 'Rules'), it should be considered as sufficient grounds for elimination or disqualification.
Example. If one player states that he wants Panthers to be available under the 'Short-75 Rule' and receives no answer to this request, it is assumed that the request is denied. There have been verified instances of players burying an outrageous exception deep in the middle of a paragraph and claiming that since the opponent did not specifically decline the exception, he was justified in assuming the exception was granted. The key here is that both players must read the requested exception and agree to it. The only way an unfair exception can thus be incorporated into the game parameters is through inexperience on the part of one or both players.
Please Note: A player may, on occasion, request to be allowed to purchase larger artillery calibres than are allowed under the 'Rules'. If you accede to this request you should bear in mind that the player may:
a) Take advantage of this Rule in a way you hadn't expected by purchasing say a dozen 150mm Nebelwerfer FOs instead of the one or two 150mm FOs you had expected.
b) Decide to merely ask for the exception but not take advantage of it in order to create an expectation regarding his force structure in your mind that is not borne out by reality. For example, a defending German player may seek to remove tank limitations from the 'Balanced Force Rules' in the expectation that you will assume he will use this exemption to purchase myriad King Tigers. In response to this assumption you will, undoubtedly, purchase your own heavy tanks to tackle his King Tigers. Then, when you find that the enemy player has, instead, merely bought large numbers of rocket-propelled anti-tank rounds (capable of killing your heavy tanks as easily as their lighter cousins) and purchased no tanks of any sort, you may realise that he sought the exception merely as a form of PsyOp designed to cause you to spend far more points on tanks (and fewer on infantry and artillery) than would otherwise have been prudent.
2. If both players specifically agree to an exception before finalising their purchases, then the newly created parameters shall be valid for the course of that game (and for that game only). Players are advised to keep a copy of the email where any exceptions are agreed in case their opponent decides the exception made was detrimental to his cause and tries to get the game declared void.
3. Once both players agree to an exception, the validity of the exception cannot be challenged. You may, of course, question the sportsmanship of a player who seeks utterly outrageous exceptions when facing an inexperienced player, but for the sake of tournaments it must be made clear that no player can void a result after agreeing to an exception, no matter how much it skewed the game. Perhaps the exception did doom you to lose and perhaps the other player was extremely un-sportsmanlike to ask for the exception, but the losing player could always have said "No". Again, this underlines the necessity of saying "No" to any and all requested exceptions unless you really know what you are doing.
4. Ideally, exceptions should apply to both sides. So, for example, if the German player wishes to increase his artillery limit under the 'Panther-76 Rule' to 150mm and the Allied player agrees, the Allied artillery limit is also increased to 150mm.
Note: Be wary of players attempting to trick you by using specific wording. While a 150mm artillery limit would serve the German player in this situation extremely well, the Americans would be less well off, finding that they still wouldn't have access to their equivalent, the 155mm artillery piece. Seldom has 5mm made such a difference!
5. If your opponent seeks an exception in one area of the 'Rules', you have the right to ask an exception from him. Most players seeking an exception do so in order to gain an advantage so you would, quite frankly, be extremely foolish to allow him or her that exceptionadvantage without securing one of equal advantage for yourself.
Note: In some cases the exception gifts almost equal advantage to both sides. If you agree to up the artillery calibre limit to 155mm, then you both get access to artillery in the 150 to 155mm range. This is a relatively bilateral symmetrical advantage, although, to be fair, it ends up benefiting the player with more experience handling larger artillery more than it does the weaker player, and generally, larger weapons calibres benefit the attacker more than the defender. In a case where an exception benefits both sides equally, one should simply either turn it down or accept it without tacking a second exception on to it.
On the other hand, sometimes a player will ask for an exception for a specific tank that is excluded under the current Rule-set. In such a case the advantage gained would be unilateral and you would be advised to gain a separate exception that unilaterally benefits your own side equally. For example, if your opponent sought to allow Panthers under the 'Short-75 Rule' then you might well make acceptance of that exception conditional on your opponent accepting your right to purchase any and all 17 pounder armed vehicles.
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)
So, your standard operating procedure when asked to accept an exception should be:
1. Assess exactly why your opponent wishes the exception to be made and what advantage it will give him. If you don't have the experience or knowledge to assess what advantage he'll gain, refuse the exception. Ask other CM players regarding the exception so that next time you do have the knowledge to accurately assess it.
2. Determine whether or not you are comfortable gifting him that advantage.
3. Assess whether you can obtain an equal and opposite advantage by granting that exception. If you do not, then you should make acceptance conditional upon your opponent's acceptance of an exception that benefits you as much as the first exception benefits him.
4. Explicitly and mutually agree to whatever exceptions you've worked out and confirm in writing through an exchange of emails.
Conclusion
As you can see, the whole issue of exceptions to the 'Rules' is fraught with pitfalls for the unwary and opportunities for un-sportsmanlike conduct. Unless you really know what you are doing, it is strongly suggested you just stick to the 'Balanced Force Rules' as written. As Chester L Karrass, a noted negotiator and author once noted, "You don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate".
If you stick to the Official 'Balanced Force Rules' as published in this set of pages on Rugged Defense you will get what experienced players deem a "fair outcome to unbiased negotiations". If you choose to deviate from these 'Rules' then you will only get as good a deal as you, individually, can negotiate. If you are inexperienced, what you can negotiate will not be as balanced as you deserve.
Fionn Kelly
[Note from Nathan: everything above is the original text; everything below was translated by Google from a Polish translation of the original text, which I found here. I then cleaned up the translation based on the text above.]
FIONN KELLY'S OFFICIAL COMBAT MISSION BEYOND OVERLORD "BALANCED FORCE" RULES
DETAILED "BALANCED FORCE" RULES
1. Infantry-Only Rule
The infantry-only rule is for players who would like to experience a fight without any obstacles. It is also a very good set of rules for players who would like to gain experience because the player can focus on developing infantry fighting skills without being threatened by destructive artillery attacks or massive armored attacks.
The "Infantry Only" rule allows the purchase of all possible infantry units and any guns, but does not allow the purchase of any vehicles (even unarmed jeeps and trucks). Some tournament rules require the purchase of transport for each cannon, so you can agree an exception and allow the purchase of jeeps or trucks.
Summary:
INFANTRY-ONLY RULE
Infantry: Any (all types)
Vehicles and tanks: None
Artillery: max 81mm
Towed: Any except light and medium anti-aircraft guns (flak)
Mixing forces: It is not allowed to mix nationality or type of military force within nationality.
Fortifications: Only TRP
2. Recon Rule
The "recon rule" is intended for players who want to experience a fight with the participation of light scouting vehicles or who want to experience the atmosphere of light armed and armored reconnaissance forces. None of the available weapons is particularly strong, so it forces the use of vehicles and artillery to crush the enemy, whose elimination will take care of his own infantry. Maneuverability and flexibility in the face of the changing situation on the battlefield are the most important, so the player who will master them better will have a better chance of winning. The game using the principle of "reconnaissance" teaches the use of realistic tactics of the use of armored weapons. Talented armored commanders will have a greater chance of showing up in it than playing on the principles of "Short-75" or "Panther-76".
"RECON" RULE
Infantry: Any (all types).
Vehicles and tanks: All for 50mm caliber (see below).
Artillery: max. 81mm
. Towed: Any light and medium anti-aircraft guns (flak)
Mixing forces: Mixed nationality is not allowed or type of military force within nationality.
Fortifications: Only TRP
Notes:
1. A German player can purchase transporters and armored cars armed with 75mm guns. Vehicles are so armed with weapons used mainly against infantry and are sensitive to the fire of any Allied reconnaissance vehicles including those armed only with a 0.5 inch HP. In fact, German reconnaissance units were equipped with many transporters and armored vehicles armed with short-barrel 7.5 cm guns. This rule therefore allows the German player to use historically correct light reconnaissance forces while maintaining the balance of the game.
2. Mortar transporters and flamethrowers are allowed, but flamethrower tanks are not (as their armor is resistant to 50mm guns). It is recommended to determine before the game whether and how many vehicles with flamethrowers can be used in the game.
Americans - Allowed vehicles: M5A1 Stuart, M8 Greyhound, M3A1 Scout Car, M20 Armored Utility Car, T8 Reconnaissance Car, M3 HT, M3A1 HT, M4A1 Mortar Carrier HT, M21 Mortar Carrier HT, Jeep, Jeep MG, Truck
British - Allowed vehicles: Stuart V, Daimler Armored Car, Humber Scout Car, White Scout Car, Stuart Kangaroo, Ram Kangaroo, M5 HT, M5A1 HT, Universal Carrier, MMG Carrier, Wasp Flamethrower Carrier, Jeep, Truck
Germans - Allowed vehicles: H-39 Hotchkiss, Lynx (Pz IIL), PSW 2341 Armoured Car, PSW 2342 Puma Armoured Car, PSW 2343 Armoured Car, SPW 2501 HT, SPW 2507 Mortar Carrier HT, SPW 2508 Assault HT, SPW 2509 HT, SPW 2511 HT, SPW 2512 Mortar Carrier HT, SPW 2519 Assault HT, SPW 25116 Flamethrower HT, SdKfz Gun Tractor, Kübelwagen, Truck
3. SHORT-75
The "SHORT-75" principle allows players to experience the battles in which Panzer IV and Sherman 75 reign. It also allows players to experience tank fighting in which almost every hit involves the elimination of the opponent (which is rare in the case of Jumbo vs Panther) and play in an environment where towed guns are the most effective.
Summary:
"SHORT-75" RULE
Infantry: Any (all types)
Vehicles and tanks: All for caliber 75mm guns (except 7.5cm L70)
Artillery: Maximum 105 mm
Towed: Any light and medium anti-aircraft guns (flak)
Mixing forces: It is not allowed to mix nationality or type of military force within nationality
Fortifications: Only TRP
Notes:
1. Sexton is available to the British since its armor is vulnerable to 75mm guns.
2. Vehicles whose main gun does not serve as anti-tank guns and their armor can be pierced by the best available armored weapon on the vehicle are allowed (eg Churchill AVRE).
Americans - tanks allowed: M5A1 Stuart, M4, M4 Crocodile, M4 (105), M4A1, M4A2 (French), M4A3, M4A3 (105), M4A3 (75) in, M7 Priest, M7A1 Priest, M8 HMC, M24 Chaffee
Americans - forbidden tanks: M4A3 (75) w +, M4A1 (76 )in, M4A1 (76) w +, M4A3 (76) in, M4A3 (76) in Easy 8, M4A3 (76) w +, M4A3 (76) w + Easy 8, M4A3E2 Jumbo, M4A3E2 (76) Jumbo, M26 Pershing, T26E4 Super Pershing, M10 TD, M18 Hellcat, M36 Jackson, M36B1 Jackson
British - allowed tanks: Stuart V, Sherman II, Sherman III, Sherman V, Badger (Canadian), Centaur IV, Cromwell IV, Cromwell VI, Cromwell VII, Cromwell VIII, Churchill VI, Sexton, Churchill AVRE
Brits - forbidden tanks: Churchill VII, Churchill Crocodile, Churchill VIII, Comet, Wolverine, Achilles, Archer
Germany - tanks allowed: H39 Hotchkiss, Lynx (Pz IIL), Panzer IVG, Panzer IVH, Panzer IVJ, Wespe, Marder II, Hummel, Marder III Late, StuH42, StuH42 Late, StuG IIIG, StuG IIIG Late, StuG IV
Germany - Forbidden tanks: Tiger, Tiger Late, King Tiger, King Tiger, Panther P, Panther G, Panther G Late, JagdPanzer IV, JagdPanzer IV Skirt, Nashorn, Panzer IV70 (V), JagdTiger, JagdPanther, Flammpanzer, Hetzer 38t, Ostwind, Wirbelwind
4. "LONG-76" RULE
The "Long-76" rule allows almost all tanks (except those heaviest armed and armored), but limits the artillery to 120 mm.
The artillery caliber was limited to 120mm due to the fact that players extremely rarely use their heaviest tanks to fire at an infantry position, instead using them to settle armored duels. The firepower from vehicles to infantry positions is no bigger, and often much smaller than in the "SHORT-75" rule.
Summary:
PRINCIPLE "LONG 75-KA76-KA"
Infantry: Any (all types)
Vehicles and tanks: All for caliber works 90mm (see below for exceptions)
Artillery: Maximum 120 mm
Towed: Any excluding light and medium anti-aircraft guns (flak)
Mixing forces: It is not allowed to mix nationality or type of military forces within nationality.
Fortifications : Only TRP
Americans - tanks allowed: M5A1 Stuart, M4, M4 Crocodile, M4 (105), M4A1, M4A1 (76) in, M4A1 (76) w +, M4A2 (French), M4A3, M4A3 (105), M4A3 (75) in, M4A3 (75) w +, M4A3 (76 ) in, M4A3 (76) in Easy 8, M4A3 (76) w +, M4A3 (76) w + Easy 8, M7 Priest, M7A1 Priest, M8 HMC, M10 TD, M18 Hellcat, M24 Chaffee, M4A3E2 Jumbo, M4A3E2 (76) Jumbo, M36 Jackson, M36B1 Jackson
Americans - Forbidden tanks: M26 Pershing, T26E4 Super Pershing
British - tanks allowed: Stuart V, Sherman II, Sherman IIA, Sherman IIC Firefly, Sherman III, Sherman V, Sherman VC Firefly, Badger (Canadian), Centaur IV, Cromwell IV, Cromwell VI, Cromwell VII, Cromwell VIII, Challenger, Churchill VI, Churchill VII, Churchill Crocodile, Churchill VIII, Comet, Wolverine, Achilles, Archer, Sexton, Churchill AVRE,
Britons - Forbidden tanks: none
Germany - tanks allowed: H39 Hotchkiss, Lynx (Pz IIL), Panzer IVG, Panzer IVH, Panzer IVJ, Panther A, Panther G, Panther G Late, Wespe, Marder II, Hummel, JagdPanzer IV, JagdPanzer IV Skirt, Flammpanzer, Hetzer 38t, Marder III Late, StuH42, StuH42 Late, StuG IIIG, StuG IIIG Late, StuG IV, Tiger, Tiger Late, Nashorn, Panzer IV70 (V)
Germany - Forbidden tanks: King Tiger, King Tiger Porsche, JagdTiger, JagdPanther, Ostwind, Wirbelwind
5. "UNLIMITED" RULE
"UNLIMITED" allows you to buy everything except fortifications (except TRP). The reason for this limitation is that mines, roadblocks, etc. are not realistically detected and cannot be realistically removed. Their presence, therefore, violates the balance of the game. Airplanes, plotting vehicles and plotting works are allowed, but they can be excluded by mutual agreement.
Summary:
"UNLIMITED".
Infantry: Any (all types)
Vehicles and tanks: All, including gamey vehicles.
Artillery: Unbound, permitted planes
Towed: Any, including gossip.
Mixing: Mixing nationality or type of military within nationality.
Fortifications: Only TRP
I think it's very important NOT to set everything to random. This is because it's quite possible to get VERY unbalanced games with all settings random. A very significant reason for this is that the amount of cover available on maps varies greatly from north to south across the various regions. Some southern maps are so open that you must give the attacker considerably more, or the defender considerably less, points.
So before starting a QB, you 1st have to make a decision as to what type of battle you want. Do you want something more similar to the CMBO experience, or do you want the vast, open steppes? If you pick the former, you have to set some variables to makes sure you get that. If you pick the latter, you not only have to set the same variables, but a few more to make sure it's a good fight. And while you're setting variables anyway, you might as well set the date.
Here are my recommendations:
1st Screen
1. Date (Optional)
Huge effect on how the game will play due to the different units available at different times. Do you want KVs vs. PzIIs, T34s vs PzIIIs, PzIVs vs T34s, or King Tigers vs. JS2s? But sometimes it's fun to have this be a surprise.
2. Region (mandatory)
This has a great effect on the map. Any given tree setting seems to give more trees the further north you go. So if you don't want the extra hassle of tweaking points balances, set the battle in the north region.
Also, region affects what nationalities are available. Finns, for instance, are only available in Finland. So if playing certain nationalities is important to you, you need to set the region.
2nd Screen
1. Nationality (optional)
Only set if you want to play with or against a specific nationality.
2. Purchase Units (optional)
I usually like to pick my own forces. Among other reasons, how else do you learn when what units become available?
3. Fitness (mandatory)
Fitness has no effect on purchase points but has a HUGE effect on combat effectiveness. Thus, it can't be left to chance and still result in balanced games very often. Having unfit troops SUCKS, especially for the attacker, it's worse in combination with inclement weather, and it's a near death-sentence in snow. So unless you really want to tweak MANY other settings (handicap, cover, weather, game length, etc.) to balance things for the unfit side, set this to fit. Always.
4. Ammo (mandatory)
This also has no effect on cost but a huge effect on effectiveness, so always set it to full at least for the attacker. If you don't want to set which side is the attacker, you have to leave this as full for both sides.
5. Battle Type (dependent on other settings)
A lot of other settings (fitness, ammo load, and map type especially) can combine to make things impossible for the attacker. If you insist on playing with these other settings, or risking them to chance, then you have to handicap the axis or the allies. But before you know which side to give more or less points to, you have to know which side is attacking.
6. Map Size (dependent on other settings)
A bigger map spreads the defender. So if you've got some settings that suck for the attacker, or can suck depending on what comes up randomly, it's a good idea to go for a larger map to help balance things.
7. Points (mandatory)
Always set this to the base size of the battle you want to fight. Not that you have any choice smile.gif .
8. Handicap (depends on other settings)
Depending on what sort of horrible things the attack must or might face, you need to tweak the point ratio or you'll have an unwinnable battle. Which side (attacker or defender) and how much is a matter of judgment, but should consider what sort of map you're going to have, and you haven't even gotten to that screen yet. This is why you have to decide on this before you start setting up the battle.
9. Rarity (optional)
If you want quasi-historical OOBs, you'd better use rarity. Furthermore, you'd better set it to variable, which is much more interesting than normal rarity ;) .
10. Length (mandatory)
Even in a battle with a fair amount of cover and attackers unencumbered with unfit troops and limited ammo, the game system changes mean it ususally takes more than the CMBO default of 30 turns to get there. So I recommend always setting for at least 40 turns. And if you're attacking with some severe problems (unfit troops, deep snow, etc.) you'd better max this out at 60 turns. And always use the variable ending option to make things a bit uncertain for you.
3rd Screen -- the Map
Always set all the variables, to make sure the map fits in with all the settings previously chosen.
One thing especially to note: damage. This has a big effect on play at the heavy and extreme settings. The damage is concentrated around the objectives, which does 2 things. If you have a village map, most of the buildings will be rubble. This helps the defender because rubble seems to be better cover and he doesn't have to worry about you collapsing the buildings on him. OTOH, all the craters can give cover to the attacker, allowing him to advance in short spurts over what otherwise is open ground. And unlike most other forms of infantry cover, supporting vehicles can move through it.
So use the damage option wisely. It can really sway things one way or the other, but usually it seems to help the attacker more.
Just a couple things may seem "gamey" or otherwise detract from realistic play IMHO.
1. bringing towed guns (without transport) to a meeting engagement. (some may also argue that attackers should bring guns embarked to a battle)
2. using "unrestricted" division type in an effort to maximize points/firepower. An example of this is purchasing Guards/Airborne SMG/Infantry pioneer at the same time in companies or less).
3. using flamethrowers to burn buildings before enemy infantry can arrive and thus limit approaches to a defensive position. (this one is also iffy since now it seems in CMBB that infantry can_enter_burning_buildings) Not sure about it but BFC may have allowed this to prevent gamey tactics but in the end it seems unrealistic for infantry to fight from or pass through burning structures.
All this being said the following practices can be followed: Always use rarity. Always use EFOW. Always use units from a single division type. No more than 1 coy per battalion of SMG troops.
There's just one thing that I find gamey, and it's destroying buildings to gain LOS.
I hardly think this is the way it happened in real life: "Hmm, this field gun is hard to maneuver, and our troops need heavy support just a couple of blocks ahead of us. So maybe we'll just demolish the buildings in front of us to get a clear view!". (Source)
There's a lot that has already been posted about this subject. If you're interested in details, I suggest using the search button.
However, since some don't bother searching, I feel it's important to point out that there are two seperate game mechanics issues that are often lumped together is "borg spotting," but are actually totally seperate things.
The first is the aforementioned god-like player omniscence -- once any one unit spots an enemy, the player instantly knows about said enemy and can react accordingly. Obviously, IRL this would not be the case. While the unrealistic effects of this kind of Borg Spotting can be limited by game features like command delay, units dropping completely "out of command" if they stray too far from C&C, etc. it probably can never be completely eliminated unless you want to turn CM into a very boring game where player control of the action after setting the initial battle plan is very restricted.
The other big Borg Spotting issue in CM is TacAI Borg Spotting. That is, the computer TacAI for each individual unit "knows" about any enemy unit that *any* other friendly unit has spotted. For example, an overwatching MG instantly knows of an enemy infantry contact in woods 800m away the moment a closer scouting infantry team sees the enemy. Obviously, IRL it would take some time for the info about the enemy contact to make it to the MG team, and then they would have to do some searching on their own to establish hard contact.
This second Borg Spotting issue has far-reaching effects on CM tactics. For example, It makes scouting infantry ahead of tanks MUCH more effective than in IRL. In CM, most players put infantry at least 200m in front of tanks to spot threats. As soon as anything opens up on the infantry, the tanks take it under fire. IRL, tanks following hundreds of meters behind infantry might have real trouble spotting threats on their own, and there would be considerable delay while forward infantry units communicated to their armored support where they needed fire support. When you consider C&C issues, it suddenly makes more sense that IRL the infantry were often just a few meters ahead of their tanks. While not ideal in terms of providing a distance buffer, at least with proximity the infantry and tanks could communicate more easily.
The good news is, this second Borg spotting issue is probably more fixable. It's still complicated, and involves some challenging programming and conceptual problems (example: how to efficiently model radio nets?), but BFC has made it clear some kind of fix to the TacAI borg spotting problem is a major priority for CMX2. (Source)
If you press "Shift-S" in-game it will not only mute all sound in the mission, but when you quit the mission the menu will *also* be muted.
If you have your tanks too close together, one enemy smoke round will blind all of them.
The reason to shoot machine-guns at tanks is to force them to button, which greatly reduces their ability to spot enemy tanks.
It's really convenient to place your tanks in scattered trees or behind 1 square's width of forest such that they don't have LOS to a kill zone, and then just tell them to move up a few meters when you want them to be within view of the kill zone.
Useful commands to know:
Shift-C to switch the unit sizes.
Tab to jump to the selected unit.
Ctrl+Click to jump to a particular place.
Use Win+PrtSc to take a screenshot without using Greenshot. It's saved to your 'Pictures' folder.
One of the interesting differences between CM and OFP is that in CM you find yourself ordering men to do things which in OFP you'd have trouble getting human subordinates to do, like to charge a building while the enemy is only 30m away, because you can see that it's necessary to take that location to maintain a positional(?) / defensive / morale advantage against the enemy, meaning a small sacrifice now will lead to saved lives later and a better chance at achieving your objectives. But in OFP multiplayer missions, there's really no morale / defensive bonus to different terrain or buildings, and so there's no incentive to sacrifice men to take those positions. Which I think contributes to the feeling in OFP of having a shoot-out in an empty parking lot. In OFP multiplayer I've found COs to be more of coordinators, where all they do is go, "OK guys, we're going to go this way, and then this way", but the COs don't really seem to be making tactical decisions; it's just a shoot-out: "see which side can shoot the other side first". There's no suppression and no modifiers for likelihood-to-be-suppressed.
Bazookas are useful for suppressing enemy infantry in buildings.
It's *very* helpful to order a bunch of squads to all target a single enemy squad if you want that squad suppressed, even if that enemy squad in a heavy building.
.png?version=1&modificationDate=1530389134023&cacheVersion=1&api=v2&width=20 "My Thoughts on Various Topics > Combat Mission > Screenshot (3).png"){kind=small}
.png?version=2&modificationDate=1530389288680&cacheVersion=1&api=v2&width=20 "My Thoughts on Various Topics > Combat Mission > Screenshot (4).png"){kind=small}
.png?version=1&modificationDate=1530389337563&cacheVersion=1&api=v2&width=20 "My Thoughts on Various Topics > Combat Mission > Screenshot (5).png"){kind=small}
otherwise-useless crew or ammo-less spotters can be used as recon: have them keep an eye on any angles that you don't otherwise have eyes on.
the AI finally used their assault gun on turn 11 of 15 for some reason (VERY late), by which time I had assumed (from its lack of firing) that it was stuck in the mud or otherwise out of action, and so I had used up my PIATs on enemy infantry.
Mistakes:
Put my platon HQs too far forward, so they got knocked out and my morale plumetted.
Good ideas:
Moving up my Company HQ to handle the fighting in the forests, especially since two of the squads had lost their platoon HQ
). Unfortunately I think the smoke didn't last long enough and the scattered trees on the right side of the road weren't easy enough to get behind, so again, all of the reinforcements were destroyed without being able to do much damage themselves.
