Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Rinaldi

  1. Glad you know :^), just pointing out that it's all the more reason not to see it in.
  2. 1st of 4th is a dedicated OPFOR unit so it using dated equipment is by no means a good measure of what is front line equipment, @sburke
  3. Another thread sent off the rails and burning at the bottom of the valley by our favourite bots. It's good to have consistency in life, it's an anchor.
  4. Might not have to wait that long. I imagine the hinted-at Marine module will mirror SF2's in adding additional formations for the other armies. I'd place money on seeing Air Assault regiments for the Russians and Ukrainians in that.
  5. Really disappointed to read that, I really liked Red Storm Rising, though yes of course like most WWIII alternatives it is always 'best case' for one side or the other. A similar criticism can be shared with Red Army, which I equally loved. The only real 'breaks' from reality as the authors knew at the time in both books is (a) the total denuclearization/dechemicallization of the battlefield and (b) the aggressive stance the Soviet Navy took. Each his own of course. From a purely literal perspective, Red Army is just a better book, with actual character development and depth. Anyways, as for the actual hypothetical @kinophile I'm going to be revealing my power levels here, but I always figured the following: Tensions remain high because the UKR has enclaves in the separatist regions, so it would be plausible that all belligerents have forces 'near ready' on the border with one another. When the balloon goes up following the 'Ambush' incident, things deteriorate rapidly as a result. By early July the first ABCT units are arriving - based on @George MC's standalone scenarios and the TF 3-69 campaign, the timeline goes in two ways: The Russian spearheads are either cut off and defeated in detail along E-95 (Attacking N-S) and P-32 (Attacking E-W), which are roughly perpendicular to one another and form an obvious pocket; or The Russians manage to maintain their momentum on the South-North axes and defeat and destroy the NATO counter-offensives. August scenario diverges in a similar manner: If NATO win in July, they 'race to the river' to defeat remaining Russian forces across the Dnieper and push into the southeast, if Russia win they mop up south of Kiev and start banging on the bargaining table. I think the 'keep it simple' scenario was done deliberately, best not to overthink it beyond the above in my view. It also suggests why the game plays out the way it does, its bang-bang from the word 'go' without all the strategic preponderance everyone else is worrying about. It's a true flashpoint conflict in every sense of the word. Compelling stuff, really, hats off to Battlefront for it.
  6. Yikes. Imagining asking him that when you can ask him the much more burning question: Who killed Vince Foster?
  7. This, obviously. Though if I was actually able to have a single modicum of influence on what they release next: battlepacks for Black Sea. The team has a well-thought out strategic and operational chain of events for the game that are itching to be fleshed out. In fact, I think focusing on smaller, shorter releases would benefit every title after the next spate of modules. As much as everyone is looking forward to the end-war modules and the hinted-at formation expansions in Black Sea, I'd like to see the singleplayer experience built up some more with the type of small, 3-6 mission campaigns we've seen recently.
  8. Love it, can't wait to replay it in the new engine. Congrats George.
  9. Jesus....mate, I can give it a go in French and Italian if that'll help some.
  10. Others have already commented generally on the differences, or the typical roles. You'll see the recurring theme: XOs, Platoon Sergeants (or Platoon Warrant Officers depending on the nation) tend to have overlap in roles regarding cas evac, combat service support and first echelon supply (e.g.: scooting around with a jeep full of ammo). If you want to get lost in the sauce and split hairs over branches, different countries whatever, then that's your prerogative but I think it's an exercise in futility. The bottom line of all these points is that there's more similarities than differences in how Western countries operate their armies. Now to confuse you: If you're looking for clarification, let me make something perfectly clear, none of this is perfectly clear. Seriously, 'SOPs' are all well and good but the best commander will think on his feet. SOPs are only there for the most general of general situations. Ultimately: the goal of an XO, a 2IC, PSG, PWO or whatever meaningless acronym to say "Number 2" you wish to use, is to help ease the burden of command on his Number 1. This can, and often is, done through the aforementioned means of policing up the rear of a unit or helping evac losses, etc. Now as @Combatintman has already mentioned some limitations in the game (especially regarding platoon NCOs), as well as the fact that CM's mission-oriented scale means you rarely have to deal with Combat Service Support I'll use another example of how a 2IC/XO/Yadda yadda can help ease command. What CM does get right is the information aspect of battles. A commander, as you said, needs to be up front and aware of the situation to effectively command. The flipside of this is he is only seeing a small slice of the pie. Use your Number 2 to help paint a complete picture rapidly. Lets say this: If the Company leader is with say, Platoons 2 and 3, which is making the main effort, keep the XO with Platoon 1 and its attachments. You accomplish several of your desired goals at once: You are putting your XO to use and not putting your entire command network in the same place to die at once. It also means the XO can keep the Commander 'in the loop' about happenings elsewhere on the tactical battlefield, and exert some authority. You're looking for clear answers where there are none, is the gist of what I'm saying. Exert a bit of common sense and do not let an asset as useful as a second in command go to waste sitting on its thumbs. Again you're asking for clear answers where there are none. For the sake of brevity I'll just tell you to look at @Howler's posts again because all I'd do is repeat what he had to say. There is no cut-out answer you can simply paste on to a situation. Identify the problem you need to solve and plan accordingly. If I am absolutely forced to give you a few spitball examples, I might make the best/best lead platoon the main effort in a situation where C2 is likely to be dodgy, such as in built-up terrain. I may be less picky if I'm attacking in open terrain and the virtual CO can exert his influence with greater ease. I'm not even going to address the minutiae of 'which weapon goes into which hands' because it is, to me, trite. Such decisions like that rarely make a meaningful impact past the smallest of unit scenarios, a coherent plan is much more important than which nineteen year old has the HAT. Otherwise, if you are still starving for a general rule you want that is most applicable, refer to @Combatintman 's post: Put your best foot forward for the toughest issues.
  11. Makes me feel better about my performance then. Way back when I was a greenhorn at the game I made an AAR of a H2H against it and got a sloppy, sloppy victory as the Americans. The scenario was a bit janky but played out very well, I thought. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U042G71tyEo
  12. Yes all officers are useless and the Specialist can run the Army, if only someone gave him the chance 🙄
  13. Y I K E S. I'm not exactly sure you know what that acronym means. XOs are usually tasked with dealing with casualty clearance and policing up straggling units. Also, how is an Executive Officer going to exert command or aid his CO if he is 'safe in the rear.' "Hey Joe, can you take x platoon (+) and help ease burden of command?" "Tosh sah, I'll be sitting here waiting in the wings in case you buy the farm." For someone who wants to use real standard operating procedures, you show a remarkable aversion to them.
  14. Rule 1: Never keep recon assets in reserve.
  15. Lovely to see Daryya tank raid being updated @George MC - it's one of my favourite scenarios. Any plans on updating Forging Steel....if so, need play testers?
  16. I have read the thread @Erwin, and scouting is scouting. The bulk of it is dismount work unless the situation is utterly fluid. Having been a recce man myself back in Canada, I say this with some authority. I have a humble request: stop spouting nonsense.
  17. Scouting before you move is something you think doesn't occur in real life? No they're not.
  18. Some whiny SOBs on these forums with huge, unjustified, victim complexes.
  19. I'm familiar with the mission. It's a tabletop-flat terrain for the Syrians to attack over. You have to remember that skilled operators of an ATGMs are constantly making micro-adjustments to the missile's flight line. Couple that with them firing from roofs or raised berms and its completely plausible they're hitting turret-tops rather than glacis. Its not a bug or the game giving MILAN systems more capability than they would normally have.
  • Create New...