Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Company Challenge Batch 2 Roundup is out for Patrons! (Patreon)

Published:
2025-11-21 15:57:54
Imported:
2025-11
Tags:

Videos

  • 568400614.mp4

Downloads

Content

It is just a quick one, but probably necessary to draw a line under the curernt Company Challenge batch. It's also been a while since I actually did any of these and would have probably benefitted from being done when it was fresher, given that my main takeaway is basically that the differences between companies are essentially footnotes to whether or not the formation integrates armour and artillery.

Which is obviously true, but this is really a higher level concept.

Anyway, stand by for the Winter Turn-by-Turn. Hope you like tanks!

Files

Comments

Ben Kerry

Actually I think platoon movement to contact deserve a special episode. How to organize a patrol and such. (when playing US in CMSF2 I'd often have triangular arrangement: A scout team at the front, the rest of the squad (7 men team) at the rear. After the scout team are 2 fireteams either both from squad 2 or from squad 2 and 3, at the rear is another 2 fireteams on the left and right flank and the 7 men team)

GLG

Sorry, spammy response, but what you're talking about, UH, is pretty deep into the ideas of war. At least that's what I'm reading into it. But well stated. I think your argument is sound and valid. I agree that WWII was more varied because of the RMA that was brought on by the industrial revolution. By the time of the Cold War period, war as it stood was pretty well understood. Developments that followed were of an incremental nature, enhancing aspects of warfare but not turning it on its head. I'm reading von Clausewitz 'On War' right now(OMG it took me a week or more to slide into that era's vernacular). War has no theory really, but it has a plethora of tips and observations and warnings. It's something that requires experience and practice to improve at, and even then performance is judged as a whole since even the best can fail miserably at times. War is as much about 'who' is leading as it is 'what' is being used. And 'what' is being used has a lot to do with 'who' is leading many times. We have military doctrines and regulations, but it all dances around the actual phenomena that make up War. How do you pull a rabbit out of thin air? That's kind of what warfare requires day in and day out from the tactical all the way to the strategic. And, frankly, you just learn from the doing and drilling. The rest comes between the shrapnel and the drops of rain. Which all leads me to the suggestion of keeping it random. Just pull forces with rough parity for game balancing, draw up a map on the fly, set an objective and let loose. And then, change it in obviously 'bad' ways. Put infantry on a desert map against a mechanized force. Put an armored force on a jungle map. Emphasize different parts of the combined arms formula for both sides. Provide a side huge mobility but not so much armor. Explore night fighting, inclement weather. Like you've stated, the tools are already established and part of everyone's inventory. Throw everything but the kitchen sink at those tools and see what they're capable of in all manner of situations. It could get pretty wacky and surprisingly informative to boot.

Ben Kerry

Also I'm probably gonna finish "Persian Predicament: The Definitive Story"

Ben Kerry

As a rule I think it's better to make scenarios to resemble "drills" which highlight individual functions an infantry company should be capable of

UsuallyHaplessVideos

If I did a Basics video about formations, I'd probably end it with "Now ignore this, conform to the terrain."

UsuallyHaplessVideos

Well good luck with Clausewitz! (I've tried and given up several times) I think part of the issue with doing this in CM is that it's just as likely to highlight problems with CM's model as it is to draw out any actual tactical lessons.

Ben Kerry

That's what DePuy said in 1976. The whole formation thing should be relative to the terrain.

Ben Kerry

Also any idea for a discord server?

GLG

Good point about CM. Hadn't thought about the actual vehicle in which to conduct this exploration. CM3!! As for Clausewitz, yeah it can be a serious beast and I find myself looking at the last page, 1,200 something or rather. I also did note that at the very end there's a mere 50 pages on his principles. At least I know where the rip cord is.

Ray L

A thoughtful observation that differences in infantry formation & TOE aren't telling if the fight is all about armored vehicles and artillery. Made me wonder what in the Russo-Ukrainian battlefield after 2022 is THE THING? Pretty clear that it's NOT armored vehicles and artillery. So what is? Battlefield drones? Does the edge go to the side that has the better and larger quantity of FPV and recon drones?

UsuallyHaplessVideos

I think THE THING is the combination of ISR and precision fires to incredible depths. Everyone used to talk about 'shaping' the battlefield to set conditions for success at the frontline... I think we're at a stage where the shaping fight IS the decisive fight.