All Activity

The 'desire' (or belief) in the more clownish part of the electorate may have been true, but the "lack of commitment" in Europe was not.

I just want to reiterate that Matrix/Slitherine will publish Broken Arrows this year and they have been advertising it heavily since 2022. Although the game is 'fictional' it literally has all the TOE from the current war (drones, heavy airstrike jets, heavy bombers, Bradleys, T-90s and Armatas) and the maps look frightingly similar to what we've seen on the news in the past years. Broken Arrows is set in the Baltics (which makes it completely fine, I guess) and yet after a 30 minutes match with 8 players, the map looks exactly like Mariupol. Sorry, but I have a great distaste for double standards. And denying the release of the Black Sea module, yet putting so much PR effort into a game like Broken Arrow is just too much. And we didn't even speak about the seriousness of Combat Mission which could even be called educational, whereas Broken Arrows is a competive game for fun. And to multiply that: Combat Mission is a niche product, whereas Broken Arrows will be a beststeller relative to wargaming standards. (similar to CM: Red Thunder and Steel Division 2 if you will.)

Where can I see the forums for the explanation for it.

Ok thanks for sharing I haven't seen those threads about why the DLCS were shelved

Actually, I’m not so sure about that. His threats to withdraw from NATO when he was President, were. Based on an actual desire of a population of Americans that “some” members of NATO weren’t fulfilling their commitments. That was actually true, and those members began fulfilling their commitments. Why did Putin wait until Trump was out of office to attack Ukraine? I think it was because he was unsure of how Trump would respond, and thought Trump’s successor wouldn’t do anything, exactly how he handled the invasion of Crimea and the succession of the Ukraine provinces.

I think first we'd want to invade Canada & dethrone the woke socialists in Ottawa. "First we take Hull, then we take Berlin!" as the old song goes.

There's a new Kraut. He makes the case that in about the only way is the term Eastern Europe still relevant, is that it defines a bunch of people who really are not a fan of Russians (or imperialism).

I suspect that Ukraine has already balanced the military value of interrupting supply by way of the bridge vs creating the Sun Tzu “Cornered Rat” result of taking it out. One also has to consider the civilian population in Crimea that has remained loyal to Ukraine.

Oh man, haven't seen a Hi mom in a while. Good times, good times...

I expect that all of the munitions and equipment was “prepositioned weeks ago.

Other than the alternate history where you are still alive that is

I believe this is a problem of compatibility. The old version of the code doesn't run in Win 8 (or maybe 10 I forget). One of the updates fixed this issue. I recommend contacting support - they know exactly which version works with what and can help you figure out what upgrades you might already be entitled to. Battlefront Helpdesk

The administration had to publish that so it has “plausible deniability” when Ukrain does use them on targets in Russia proper. That way the administration can say “Hey, we told Ukraine the ATACMS were only for use within sovereign Ukrainian territories.”

The US Congress added an amendment to the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act requiring consent from 2/3rds of the Senators or an Act of Congress in order to leave NATO ( Congress passes bill to prevent the president from leaving NATO without approval (msn.com) A President could sort of leave by not co-operating, I suppose.

Who stole my barn? Anyway the french got there first

If you find low bocage in the CMFB manual I'd be interested. I couldn't.

US leaving Nato is MEGFTFT, not MAGA (MEGFTFT = make europe great for the first time)

I always thought all hedges in CMFB were passable, despite looking similar to the "low bocage" from CMBN. Perhaps I shall have to re-read the manual.

I am kinda skeptical on this point to be honest. I think we could definitely see a draw back and cold shouldering but NATO is the largest military markets on the planet. If the US pulls out completely then NATO STANAGs die then and there. This could see nations go elsewhere for military spending because they are no longer locked into a US driven NATO standard. Of course given the levels of rhetoric over good sense we saw last time, I could also very well be totally wrong.

Worse than that, he could also immediately withdraw from NATO. Based on past statements, I think he'd have to be convinced to remain in NATO. I'm not sure who would be trying to do the convincing though. Dave

Elvis provided an answer in the Black Sea forums, as this thread apparently was started in three different forums. I haven't had a chance to post this for a while, but Hi Mom! * * FYI forum old timers will recognize this as meme on these forums meaning this thread will soon be locked, and has no intention of insulting anyone's mother, which someone took it to mean once.

If I add 'Ukraine has long range weapons' and 'don't hit oil before the election' together, I would like to put some money on spiking oil prices on November 6th. No matter how the vote goes, this is the day the Russian oil industry will go down the drain. IMHO...

That's got absolutely nothing to do with it: the war depicted in CMBS is a fictional war (as you might've guessed from the fact that the USA is part of it). FPV drones were never intended to be part of the game, and the explanations as to why the DLC was shelved give no reason which includes drones.

Battlefront still doesn't know how to properly do the coding for the FPV-drones. As those little critters have an important impact in this conflict, Battlefront wants them to function and be used properly in the game. So you'll just have to wait some more. In the meantime you can go to Steam and find out more about the comment above which states that "There are already games out about that... war" and maybe even buy one or two of them.

From the cheap (and safe) seats, I would go for it. But, and it is a big “But”, they would need to create and sustain operational pre-conditions first. The problem with defence only, except for largely symbolic high profile strategic strikes, is that Russia gets to say when it is time to “stop”. There is analysis out there (and posted here) that points to 2026 as Russia’s out-of-gas moment. But that is a long way out and conditions could change a lot. So pinning the war on attritional hopes is a strategy but it definitely comes with risks. The same goes for internal dissent eventually toppling the Russian political power structure. It can happen but hard to build a plan off of, and we have gone on at length on the risks of another Russian Revolution. Offensive operations make headlines, signal resolve and play into “we love a winner” in the West. If the UA sit back and dig in there will be huge and cry on “well we sent them all that stuff and they are doing nothing!” The real trick is to find where the risk-v-gamble line is. We do not want a final gamble but a forward leaning risk. But how to do it? This remains the outstanding question. How to do it with what they have and can support? My money is on light, fast and distributed. Infiltration, isolation and exploitation. But the UA will have to do this in multiple areas to increase RA lateral friction. All the while hitting the backfield. Tricky, tough and absolutely no guarantees. Of course we can’t see the hi res picture. If we had that maybe the choice is far more obvious.