/
Combat Mission

Nathan Wailes - Blog - GitHub - LinkedIn - Patreon - Reddit - Stack Overflow - Twitter - YouTube

Combat Mission

Child pages

Table of contents

Related pages

Related websites

  • Wikipedia - Combat Mission

  • Battlefront ← The maker of the game

    • Forums ← These are the 'official' forums.

      • Prominent members

        • Berlichtingen (Berli)

          • Mentioned by JasonC as being a better player.

          • Died in 2017 from leukemia.

        • Fionn

          • Mentioned by JasonC as being a better player.

          • An Irish doctor, was banned from the forums for being too inflammatory. (Source)

          • How he played:

            • His style of play was very aggressive and manoeuverist (one of his AARs, the Sunken Road, is typical). Not sure it still applies in CMBB and CMAK age-- very much the waltzing CMBO style. (Source)

            • From his AARs......He is a big proponent of using heavy armor and lots of light/medium artillery in QBs. He uses very little infantry and likes expensive, elite troops. He also talks a lot about the value of risk-taking, moving fast and surprise. I think he likes "Russian doctrine" although he and Jason C fought about what this really meant. I also get the sense that he liked a mobile, counterattacking defense and mobile weapons in general. (Source)

        • JasonC ← This guy seems very knowledgeable.

          • JasonC interesting posts.txt ← This is a great collection of (most of?) JasonC's greatest posts in which he goes in-depth on some topic. The posts here seem to be almost entirely military history posts (especially WW2 and the Napoleonic warfare era), so there are probably a lot of in-depth CM-specific posts by JasonC that are worth searching the forum for. This document was created by LongLeftFlank, a long-time member of the CM community, and I got it after I saw a post in which he referenced the document, and I sent him a PM asking for a copy.

          • I like small scenarios, company or less. I like Berli's scenarios - quirky little fights with interesting situations, small amounts of quality infantry, and some sort of twist (weird item, conditions, terrain, etc). I enjoyed the byte sized battle series or whatever it was called. Monster sized games feel like work, in contrast. (Source) [NW: The "byte sized battle series" he refers to seems to actually be called "Byte Battles".]

          • How good was he in matches?

            • JasonC: I'm not remotely the best CM player. Plenty of experts are by all reports much better at the game than I am - Walpurgis, Wreck, Fionn. In the couple times I've played him Berli beat me easily. Any number of solid players who have probably clocked much more time in human games are probably better, too. (Source)

            • Panzer76: I know he has played a few top dogs and lost. Take it for what you want. (Source)

        • walpurgis nacht (walpurgis)

          • Mentioned by JasonC as being a better player.

        • Wreck

          • Mentioned by JasonC as being a better player.

  • Boardgamegeek - Combat Mission (Series)

  • Lists of CM-related websites

  • Scenarios

    • CMx1-specifc

      • The Scenario Depot / DragonLair.net

        • The admin's host apparently deleted all his stuff at some point at the end of 2004.

      • The Scenario Depot II

        • This website seems to have been created almost immediately after the original Scenario Depot had its host delete its files.

      • AlternateWars.com - The Combat Mission (x1) series - This is basically a back-up of all of the CMx1 scenarios the guy could find: "It's quite possibly likely that when combined with other scenario packs on this site, you will be able to recover over 85% of all CMx1 scenarios posted."

  • Mods

  • Utilities

    • PBEM Helper

      • Found out about this from The Scenario Depot II's signup process.

  • Clans

  • Real military manuals

Overview for non-players

  • I think Combat Mission is best thought of as mid-20th-century chess. It's a two-player tactical / battle-level game, like chess is, rather than a high-level strategy game like Risk or Diplomacy. A major innovation over chess is that chess is necessarily abstracted from true combat, whereas Combat Mission is able to get much closer to accurately simulating real combat.

  • Combat Mission is a spiritual descendant of the paper-and-pencil game Advanced Squad Leader (ASL), which is apparently the most-famous realistic paper-and-pencil WW2 combat game.

  • The innovations of Combat Mission when it came out that I'm aware of include:

    • it allowed any necessary calculations to be done by computer rather than by hand (as in ASL)

    • it allowed for a much-more detailed level of calculation / simulation than in ASL, since the calculations were being done by computer.

    • the WEGO system (simultaneous play), where both players choose their moves and then watch what happens, which eliminates any first-or-second-mover advantage.

Improvements / differences in the gameplay of each game of the series

  1. Background: This is useful to know what you can and cannot do in each version of the game.

  2. CMx1

    1. Summary: I'm kind of surprised at how little there seems to be that is different between CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK. The main differences between the games seem to be the units / visuals, while the gameplay/UI differences are just tweaks that would only really be important for people to know about when playing at a very-competitive level.

    2. CMBO - This is the original game. It's still possible to list its improvements over ASL, though.

    3. CMBB

      1. Battlefront - New features in CMBB

        • Note: The link above has a long list of changes. Below are the changes that I think are more important to be aware of.

        • Artillery

        • Optics

        • TacAI - Minor improvements, but nothing that would dramatically shift the outcome of most missions.

        • Close Air Support - no longer have a 10% random chance of scrubbing a mission

        • Weather and Terrain

          • Fires often start "small" and have no effect on gameplay. But they can grow (and spread) to large fires which cause all units to exit.

          • Trees are taller now, especially pine trees.

          • Units move through pine trees faster than heavy woods (due to less underbrush) and LOS is a little bit clearer through pine trees too.

          • Some terrain has visual "doodads" for "height", e.g. grass, brush, rubble. These have no implications on the game engine but are for visual depth only (i.e. the terrain modifiers do not change by presence of doodads)

          • Night when the weather is other than "clear" is considered "extra dark", and the maximum visible range is 75m or even less depending on weather.

          • When a line of sight passes through a good bit of concealing terrain, infantry units are harder to spot than previously.

          • Minefields can be reduced or eliminated by shellfire (though this will not be explicitly shown - you just have to judge roughly by how many craters you see, and hope).

          • Warm temperature reduces fatigue-recovery rate by 15%. Hot temperature by 40%.

          • 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%

        • Buildings

          • Large stone and factory buildings are harder to destroy.

          • Small-caliber guns are less likely to cause significant damage to buildings.

          • For internal LOS calculations, rubble is considered taller than before.

        • Vehicles

          • Standard grenade attacks versus tanks are reduced in effectiveness.

          • Buttoned vehicles have a blind spot for infantry (who’s not targeting the vehicle) within 15m provided the infantry is not in the front 60-degree arc centered on the turret facing.

          • Nearby artillery strikes cause vehicle morale effects.

          • Crews bail out of soft-skin vehicles much faster.

          • If vehicles reach "Broken" morale state, they may retreat off the map if that provides a nearby escape from a threat (similar to what infantry does).

          • Unbuttoned crew are more likely to be hit by small arms fire.

          • Halted vehicles rotate their hulls more slowly.

        • Orders - Hiding units with covered arcs will UNHIDE as soon as they know a spotted enemy enters their covered arc. This is a handy way to trigger an ambush. HOWEVER, note that covered arcs do not FORCE your units to fire on any and all enemies inside the arc. Your units will not waste ammo on lousy shots.

        • Fatigue - Fatigue seems to be a more serious issue in BB than in BO.

          • Recovery rate from fatigue is reduced by lower global morale. So when forces are beaten up, you’ll find that your ability to conduct mobile operations is curtailed. Defensive capability won’t be harmed much, but attacking gets progressively harder to do. This helps lead to a "natural end" for a battle.

          • Fatigue for running is increased.

        • Defense

          • The defenders on "Assault" missions now have the option to create fallback foxholes for their infantry in addition to the units' normal foxholes: Press ALT-F to enter fallback foxhole placement mode. Click the map to place the foxholes you like, and click a foxhole to remove it again if you make a mistake.

        • Misc

          1. SHIFT-Q hides play-aid graphics – great for taking screenshots!

      2. 2002.09.27 - GameSquad Forums - Combat Mission 2: likes and dislikes

        1. 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.

    4. CMAK

      1. ...it introduces new desert environments and terrain types, as well as features like multi-turreted vehicles and dust clouds from explosions and moving vehicles. (Source)

      2. A guy in the forum: Fewer improvements - adds dust, tweaks a few parameters, more new units, adds multi-gun tanks. (Source)

  3. Differences between CMx1 and CMx2

    1. CMx1 has a larger maximum map size.

      1. The great advantage that CM1 has over CM2 is the huge maps.  These huge maps allow for mobile recon using the large number of interesting recon vehicles available to all sides (esp the Brits). (Source)

    2. CMx1 has a random-map generator.

  4. CMx2

Inaccuracies / Differences between CM and reality

General

  • In CM your units don't have much (any?) programmed sense for the state of the battlefield, and so it's usually possible to give units suicidal orders that real troops would either refuse, or would not try to complete, or that would lower the general morale among all of your units to a point where you might get fragged. I don't know enough about CM to say whether there's some way to use this unrealistic feature to win in a way that would not work in the real world.

  • The WEGO system is a great improvement over turn-based rules, but it still seems unrealistic / arbitrary to say that the commander can only issue commands at particular times during the engagement, rather than it being a continuous stream of orders (like with RTSes).

  • Also, being able to pause allows an unrealistic amount of control over what all of your units are doing.  You don't need to prioritize your attention; you can give full attention to everyone.

CMBO

  • In the real world...

    • fog of war is thicker (Source, '02)

    • troops are far less aggressive / reckless (Source, '02)

    • troops are far less willing to continue (Source, '02)

      • it's not uncommon to see small squads of 2-4 men that are all that's left of a platoon continuing to push forward to fight, especially at the end of the time limit when the AI seems to get desperate and just has all available units rush forward.

    • everything is much, much slower (Source, '02)

      • I 100% agree on the "time compression" shown when playing CM. The battle recounted in SUA spanned several hours and ended more because the US forces decided to try again later than either side was completely destroyed. In my scenario (not that I'm stating it's THE authority!) one or both sides are usually combat-ineffective in 35 minutes. (Source)

      • The short turn limits on many missions really seem to hurt the realism; they don't allow the attackers enough time to build a base of fire. I feel like I'm rushing the entire time on many missions.

    • forces may be far more depleted (Source, '02)

    • spotting men in cover may be "much" harder (Source, '02)

    • people / commanders may behave in "tactically unsound" ways

      • Tanks probed following barrages. The tanks led, infantry did not lead them. Tactically unsound to be sure (Source, '02)

      • I remember reading accounts from American soldiers and there was a Captain who had been in the army for a few years before the war started and took out enemy pillboxes by focusing his fire on each one at a time and having a team go up and throw satchel charges in while it was suppressed, and when he told his commander that he'd done his job in a short amount of time with no casualties, his commander was shocked, because the other companies were suffering lots of casualties. That anecdote in particular really opened my eyes to the idea that real situations aren't like Starcraft, where best-practices are well-known; instead they're often more like when a game first comes out and it's more like a free-for-all, where few really know what they're doing. In other words, the winner isn't determined by one person being a higher level of genius than his opponent, but instead by the fact that his opponent has no idea what he's doing, and the winner actually knows a little about how to win.

  • It's annoying that I can't give a mortar an order like "go to the edge of the woods and then target whatever you see around position X". Which means that I seem to need to take one turn to tell the mortar to get into a position where he can observe the enemy unit, and another turn to tell the mortar to actually target the enemy unit. I could be wrong about that, but I think that's what I've observed in CMBO.

  • Annoying thing: I had 6 men on the second floor of a house, shooting at enemy infantry. During the course of a single turn an enemy assault gun turned and started shooting at them, and rather than getting out of there, they stayed in place, and the house got destroyed and they all ended up as casualties. So there's no ability to give your units common sense orders like "If that tank starts firing at you, get out of there."

  • It seems to be unrealistically quick and easy to "communicate" between distant units.  For example: Two platoons of infantry on the left flank spotted a two-man infantry squad making a run for the house that my center was occupying; I immediately had the CO inside that house (~100m from the left flank) run to meet the threat. That kind of communication could only happen with radios.

Differences between CM and tabletop / board games

  • With CM you don't lose as much time debating the rules.

    • In one Battlefront thread a guy said he'd seen a lot of time-consuming debates over the meaning of certain rules in in-person wargames before CM came out.  Having played a lot of Risk, I find that totally believable.

  • In CM it's harder to gauge the likely effect of a particular order.

    • One of the crucial differences, I am begining to find in playing CM rather than board games, is that with board games, you can work out the odds with the information to hand (usually an attack value, a terrain modifier and a table to roll agains). With CM there is no table, so you have to really know (at least roughly) the effectiveness your weapons against the enemy (range / terrain and if applicable armour). I appreciate that CM does give you a rough 'to hit' percentage, but that's only once you're committed. So I guess experience is a great teacher in this game and reconnasance is hugely important. (Source)

Misc thoughts on the game

  • CMBO

    • There are around 200 individual battles

    • There are around 10-15 operations in addition to the battles above, each of which has ~6 battles

    • They explain how to gauge how well you did in the AAR section. Basically you look at the ratio of points you scored to the points the opponent scored.

  • Don't be surprised by heavy casualties: "companies and even battalions were often totally wiped out after an hour of intense fighting".

Tutorials / Tactics / How-To's

Basic controls

CMx1

CMx2

  • Movement:

    • WASD to move

    • Ctrl+Click to move long distances

  • Camera:

    • Arrow keys to look around

    • V to reverse the N/W/E/S direction of the camera

    • Z/X to zoom

    • C for wide-angle view

How to enjoy playing Combat Mission

  • Treat each scenario as a puzzle.

    • Don't expect to get it perfect on the first attempt.

    • Treat it as a way to gradually discover the proper tactics that will get you to a victory.

    • Take notes on what you learn in each scenario as you play through it.

  • Play a podcast / audiobook / YouTube video in the background while you play.

  • Start with the smallest scenarios and gradually work your way towards the larger ones.

Manuals

References

Videos

One-off / individual articles of written advice (eg forum / blog posts)

Collections of advice / websites

Tutorial scenarios

Unit/element-specific information

  • Terrain / cover / concealment

    • 2003.01.20 - Battlefront forums - JasonC - How exposure works

      • 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.

  • Infantry

    • Half-squads

      • 2006.07.02 - Battlefront forums - Attack or Defend with Half Squads???

        • 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.

        • HarryInk: I use 'em cos doctrine says you advance to engagement with the smallest tactical unit. So, the forward squad of my platoons is usually split as scouts. I also use 'em to inflate numbers when traversing exposed ground, especially in feints. The full squads though deliver the big bangs, so when I need steady firepower I keep 'em whole.
          (...)
          Oh, getting extra foxholes on the defence is not gamey, by a long shot. It's SOP for me. Set up a defensive position with fall back holes just out of LOS,then bring with rear half-squads up to the forward line in T1 before he draws LOS on me. That way the tea party lasts twice as long.

        • jBrereton: The only thing I find half-squads genuinely good for is mechanised reconnaissance. That's because they can fit in Universal Carriers, unlike full squads, and are safer in those that on top of tanks. That also allows, very rarely, for mechanised attacks, if one of the half-squads is quite well armed compared to the other, as I can use the APC's machine guns to pin down the defender when the half-squad attacks. Still, the only real use for them is for platoon-level reconnaissance for tanks, armoured up (although I've had good results with them being moved around in jeeps, too).

        • Lanzfeld: one thing I did learn from my tests was never try it with anything less then vets. [stoat replied: Did you try this with HQs that had different morale bonuses? That might allow you to get the same result with regulars.]

    • Scouting

    • Conscripts (CMBB)

      • "Human wave" command

        • https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/webandofbrothers/human-wave-in-cmbb-t18045.html

          • Someone quotes JasonC from another thread:
            Only Russians in command radius can initiate it. Somewhat longer command delay to initiate.
            The first portion of the path - about 200m - will be human wave. The remaining portion will convert to a "run" order. The human wave portion has similar characteristics to "advance", but isn't as tiring - middling movement rate, willing to fire, enhanced morale, and much less likely to hit the dirt or change waypoint due to light enemy fire. Especially compared to "move".
            The "run" portion is fast but highly vulnerable to enemy fire. A human wave order that is too long will therefore tend to fall apart toward the end, unless the remaining leg is short enough that the men reach cover.
            Human wave is available to conscript troops, that is its main useful point. Advance is not. Using only "move", which is highly sensitive to enemy fire, plus having low morale, it is virtually impossible to get conscripts to advance over any length of open ground against enemy fire. But it is possible with "human wave".
            Most formations are better off using staggered "advance" commands instead. But all at once moving up 200m or so on "human wave" can work. You should not try to "human wave" right onto unsuppressed enemies, it just gets lots of people killed. The destination should be cover within small arms range of the enemy. Firefight the enemy from the cover reached. You can human wave onto already suppressed defenders, though, to e.g. bull through light fire from the flanks, and the like.
            The single biggest cause of failed human wave attempts is crowding. You need to keep sufficient intervals, that fire at one unit does not suppress the whole lot of them. Sufficent means 26m apart at the time the burst hits. In practice, that means you want 30m intervals between the squads, both side to side and front to back. To keep platoons in command while spread sufficiently, use 2 lines of units, not one, with the HQ inside the second line.

  • Mortars

Follow me on Twitter