Chazz

Yeah I played this last week. Lovely mission! I didn't have much luck with Hinds either. I had to cancel one mission because the Hind was obviously shooting missiles at my BTRs....and missing. Also without spoiling much, I have to say, this mission had me use the UAZ driver in creative and slightly sadistic ways Even after his ride was kaput, he continued to be very useful for my effort. Best UAZ driver ever!

Nice videos Reiter! On your second video @ 0:03 there was a "Ricochet into: opening". What the heck was that? I have never seen a notification like this before.

For the record I don't have any issues with the way those systems are modeled in the game. It is simplified of course (this is not DCS) but I think it does a reasonable job. Perhaps Stingers and Strelas are just a tad too lethal at the moment but nothing to make me lose any sleep over.

And? No one claimed otherwise. It is still bizarre for the country with the largest military budget in the world to skimp up on AD because 'who cares if few companies get bombed occasionally, we're gonna win the war anyways' I would imagine that there is a huge difference between 10x better and zero. No one is asking for that, not even 2x better. Heck, even slightly less capable than comparable systems would be good at this point. Of course bringing economics into this is a great idea, because we all know that every single penny of those billions upon billions is going to the development of the next super duper APFSDS round and improving the non existing APS systems. Not a single dollar is being wasted and/or being spent on vanity projects, nooooo sir.

I am not sure why people are so hung up about the question of Air superiority. At the end of the day, that still wont matter much for the guy on the ground. Yes, of course the USAF is the only 'A Team' in the world (for now) and it has superiority in both quality and quantity. I still think the Air war would be viciously contested for purely logistical reasons if nothing else. But again, even if it isn't and and the US is able to establish Air superiority over most of the conflict zone, that still doesn't mean completely smooth sailing for ground troops. In 1982, the Syrians were hopelessly outmatched in the air in every conceivable way. The IAF ruled the skies with impunity. Even under those circumstances, the Syrian Air Force still managed to sneak in few attack bombers and few helicopters with devastating effects against enemy ground troops. I get the sense that people here are arguing two different things. You can argue that strategically, attacks like this wont matter much in the sense that it won't change the bigger picture and that is probably true. Heck, attacks like this might probably even be shot down on the way back for all I care. However, these kinds of attacks are still very possible even in 'air superiority' situation and when they happen the only thing the guy on the ground has to protect him is a stinger and that as we are discussing is woefully inadequate. It won't matter to the guy whose platoon has just been bombed that USAF tell him that we got your back buddy because we have 'air superiority' and this attack wont happen in your sector again. All that of course, is still under best case scenario. I find it bizarre that the US army is so lax at addressing this problem, or sometimes even admitting that there is a problem in the first place.

I tried calling it in for the first time last night in a QB. I was just not having any luck with it. I had four rounds miss a perfectly stationary Bradley on two separate fire missions. Thus ruining any chance for me to meaningfully contest the main objective....Thus rage quitting I really hope that was just a case of very bad luck or an exceptionally incompetent FO as it really shouldn't be that difficult. The Russians have been experimenting with guided munitions since Soviet times Grrr.

This might be a bit cheesy, but if playing against AI it pays dividends to scan the map for alternate or back route entry into the objective. In quick battle they are usually pretty bad in protecting their flanks/rears. So what I do is carefully box them in with most of my forces (as they are usually defending a forest or a village) and then send one or two tanks via a back route or 90 degree flank if possible. That way I was able to achieve wonders with one T72 sneaking in a shooting Abrams and Bradleys up the tail pipe. In one case I sustained zero casualties against defending US armor. Needless to say that probably wont work as well against a competent opponent. Still, scanning and exploiting the map to the max is a good skill to develop and I am still learning how to do that well.

Haha I think I played the same mission that you are talking about apd1004. In my playthrough the stinger team surprised me by scoring a kill with their first shot (Su-25SM). However, they missed subsequent shots and didn't even scare the rest of red air away. They proceeded to bomb multiple Strykers to oblivion and then some BMPs and a T-72 forded a river and finished off the rest. Just goes to show that even when lucky, Stingers are very inadequate as means of proper air defense. Certainly not one team at least.

I don't think this is even an expensive MG platform at this point

Hmm from a technical stand point, I presume it would only be worth adding if they bring tank riders back, as that would fall in the same realm of animations and programing I think. As a side note, next time I play I will search the naming roster of HQ units for a 'Major Makarov'. It should be a common enough name to assume it is already there. Still, badass name of the week. If it is not there already than I request...nay...demand that BFC add it

Ok guys relax, For the time being all that is needed is a clear chart or table type thing to specify which assets the infantry would typically use against infantry/Armor/Building/Area when given: a ) A Target command b ) A Target light command c ) Not given any Target command and left to fire on their own Perhaps with the caveat that this is under optimum conditions. i.e. they are not under stress, being suppressed or are otherwise in a world of hurt.

Last night, quick battle on a small map. My Russian troops were trouncing the Americans everywhere. All that remained was one small hill objective to take. The flat area of that hill (where the objective is) was probably just barely bigger in size than your typical floor area for a big multi-story type building with some light forest on top. I did not have any artillery available and I couldn't suppress it by normal means because of the elevation. I only had infantry so I figured my only option was to brute force it with large numbers and hope for the best......then as they say......the slaughter began. My troops were being picked off right as they crested. Bang! one guy down....Bang! the other falls...so on and so forth. I was so pissed off because all I could see on that hill was some surviving American crews who left their vehicles and an HQ team and all could hear was what I thought was pistol shots. So I couldn't understand why my teams were having so much trouble. Finally, mercifully for me, the Americans surrendered. Turned out there was a sniper on that hill. His two buddies were killed in the assault but the sniper himself remained undetected for the entire affair. He was shooting people point blank range as they came on the hill. He survived and I don't think he missed a single shot. That sniper had 31 Casualties to his name! He single-handedly turned what could have been a total victory into a Pyrrhic one. Mind you, I still got a major victory in the score screen but I was not happy Grrrr .

BTW, is the price going to change after release? is there a reason why I should or should not pre-order at this point? I only want a digital copy.

Hey John, if you have not done so already, why not download the Mac Demo for Red Thunder? I don't know how much difference 10.6 to 10.7 would make (I don't know anything about Macs). However, there was at least one relatively big tank battle in the demo. That is probably as good a system stress test as you could hope to have for representing CMBS scenarios.

The thing is, Russia has the most sophisticated SAM network in the world and are pretty competent at using it. Couple that with a relatively competent air force (albeit one that is still recovering from more than a decade worth of underfunding, under-training and being under-equipped) and you have a pretty daunting picture. It is not invulnerable of course but the point is that those things combined create a pretty complex problem for the attackers to overcome. Unless the attackers have some completely unheard of Ace up their sleeve (Super powerful EW suit? New generation of super Stealth? or maybe space based weapons?) they have to develop their own complex SEAD/DEAD solution to overcome the problem. Now the US are certainly the experts in this field. Still, overcoming a SAM network of that scale would require lots of time, effort, material and impeccable planning. All of that rises the chances of mistakes and worse form a strategic perspective is that to take out all the SAMs that cover Ukraine you may well have to strike deep into Russia itself, thus risk escalating the conflict. Yes, I followed the Libyan campaign. One thing I can tell you right off the bat. That impressive tomahawk strike in the beginning will serve as nothing more than a distraction/diversion in this scenario. Tomahawks are relatively outdated in the modern sense. They are pretty slow and very easy to take out by any relatively modern SAM or even aircraft. You can easily test that out yourself if you own Command Modern Air / Naval Operations. I am fine with the idea that the airspace would be contested enough where both side have chances to deliver airstrikes (especially right in the beginning of the conflict)

* Going through the British campaign in CMSF. Now I am in the mission where you have to decide if you go north to engage in heavy MOUT combat or south to secure the border. I suppose I should go north to experience the full intended effect of the campaign, but i am really not so confident after seeing the performance of my troops in MOUT earlier in the campaign. *Trying to decide which first mission of either the German or Soviet Campaign is less overwhelming in CMRT. I think I am going to go with the German. * Playing the Banner Saga, Command modern air naval operations and playing with my Cat Re: ARMA3 For SP I think ARMA 3 is great and getting better everyday. It does tug on some strings that have not been tugged for me since OFP. For MP it all depends on the group you play with (and for ARMA you absolutely have to play with a group). I had a group that played with modded Arma 2 and that was better than playing in Arma 3 for a while but I think things are getting better on that side too.

You can compare sensors all you want. The Abrams does have a slight advantage in those. However, you have to think about how that is going to work in a practical combat application. In shock force I found that the static tank almost always spots first against a moving one unless they have really terrible sensors. That means that yes, the thermal equipped t-72 was able to spot first and even shoot first at incoming Abrams. Unless something significantly changed in CMBS, I expect the T-90 to preform the same. The lesson here is that either put your tanks in good defensive positions and let the enemy come to you, or if you are attacking try to scout the enemy tanks with other assets first so that you can either move your tanks to approach from an advantageous position or at least they would have the C3 advantage that would aid them in spotting the static tank quickly enough.

I would not count them out just yet.... One of the biggest surprises for me in Shock force was just how effective SPG-9s turned out to be (not the technical mounted ones though, these were useless). They were the true unsung heroes of many a redfor AT defense. They are basically, longer ranged, more accurate RPG-7s with a decent rate of fire while being slightly less mobile. With some clever or evil placements they could ruin the day of entire bluefor vehicle columns of anything less than an MBT. Think in alleys between buildings, behind houses, or behind reverse slopes looking sideways. I suppose the MT-12 could be employed in similar roles. They are even less mobile than SPG-9s (probably considered static for all intents and purposes). However, they have an even bigger punch and according to the manual significantly more ammo than SPG-9s. They K model also can fire an ATGM. How useful would that be remains to be seen.

The only thing that is abundantly clear from the comments is that the installation procedures and updating might need some attention. While we are at it, might as well get rid of the DRM stuff as well. Otherwise, being on steam or not is not an issue at all.

I should make it clear that when I say that I think that Wargame is an RTS, that this should not be taken as form of degradation or insult to the game. As I said before I played it an enjoyed it quite a bit, I still think it is a splendid RTS rather than a wargame though. There are some reasons for that and I can only speak for myself as to why I think that way. The pacing is one thing that is quite obvious. There is also a considerable effort from the devs to balance things out, not only between factions but also between different platforms. The easiest example of this is the implementation of Naval warfare. Again, this is not a bad thing per say, it simply makes the game fun for everyone. Otherwise, someone would just have to plot a missile cruiser in the middle of the map and proceed to shoot down every single air unit in the entire map, sink other naval vessels before they even showed up on the map and wipe the floor with any ground unit that its gunners can see. Crucially in multiplayer, while good positioning and tactics gives you an advantage, an even bigger advantage is with the player who can click the fastest. Yes it is not quite the dreaded 'apm' fest of something like starcraft, but still doing more all over the map is better than having better tactics. The amount of micromanagement required for its scale is sometimes unbearable especially without the ability to pause and issue orders or something like that. Furthermore, while there is some rudimentary armor modeling like others mentioned, everything in the game essentially functions on hit point basis. Still there are many nice wargame-like elements in it though, suppression, spotting and supplies, even though they go beyond abstracted to the point of superpowers sometimes, that is still fine. Doesn't automatically makes it a wargame though. For me an introductory wargame is one that even though it is simplified and streamlined it can still teach you a lot of great concepts to apply in their more complex cousins. Games like Unity of Command or Naval War: Arctic Circle or heck even combat mission in some of its easiest modules and missions.

Excellent! Thanks for the quick response

Oh haha, I finally understood what you meant. It is certainly not an insult as the 'Old' in GoG no longer applies

Hey Chris, thanks a lot for your videos and for getting the manual up, they are all very useful and entertaining. I have one question regarding the game that was not explained in the manual. In your videos you say that there are some soldiers who would be equipped with night vision goggles and some who would be equipped with night sights for their weapons. While I completely understand the differences in Real LifeTM I am not sure how those differences would be translated in terms of gameplay for something like CMBS if at all. Should we expect spotting or engagement differences between troops equipped with night sights only and troops equipped with first gen night vision goggles only? Also one more unrelated question. In the streams I saw that when you are giving movement orders for a squad in one platoon, you still get the lines of the movement waypoints that you have given for the other squads in the same platoon. I never saw that before when I am playing Red Thunder, but since it is the same engine, I assume it could be done in RT as well, so if someone could give me the shortcut for that, I would greatly appreciate it.

Yes I agree, in fact probably all of BFC's catalog is more appropriate for GOG than Steam, if BFC decides to go that way.

Oh come on.....Wargame EE is an actual Wargame now? Don't get me wrong I played and enjoyed the first one (Wargame:EE). It is a splendid (and at the time, underrated) RTS. But no way I would call it a wargame. Just because it has some elements resmbling wargames doesnt mean it is automatically one. Similarly, I would not call (the excellent) Men of War a Wargame just because it models some level of armor penetrations just like wargames do.