Cuddles the Warmonger

My guess is that BF believes that the kind of combat the PTO offers would only appeal to a small part of the player base--like having CMFI with only fanatic Italians for the Axis side. After a few battles, the asymmetric, bug-hunt thing would really wear thin.
 
So, it sounds good on paper for WWII fans (and I'd probably buy it), but it would likely be a loser for the amount of time and resources invested.

A curious thing that I'm sure that I and many of the other people here were probably curious about, is, to word it without enraging to much ire, is there anything we can expect after black sea and the main DLC's are released? Personally, I would love to see a DLC adding Chinese and Indian forces, so as to add the possibility of a "titanomachy" of sorts, but admittedly I've been watching too many Asiatic war films. But still.... China v. Russia v. America with all three cycling in the 1v.1 slot, that would be incredible 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

no, but I am sure Vinnart would love to recreate it...  

That was my "Deaths Head" map for CMBN.

I think someone actually did that already though it was a skull not Kilroy.

Points are apportioned out according to the 'relative' abilities and/or rarity of the unit. US units carry ANPEQ 16A laser pointers, M320A1 grenade launchers, AMPAS-13G, HWTS, MWTS and AN-PVS-30 night sights, the best body armor, etc etc etc. Ukrainians are fighting in Ukraine so would be more numerous. So they're cheaper. 

so here is the deal - and I am not quoting to not single anyone out, this is just a general perspective
 
1. BF has told pre orders that they are getting early access and they should not announce it as it simply causes a flood on the servers (this goes back a long way before their current service)
 
2. The forum goes nuts with F5 monkeys refreshing as if having the game today versus tomorrow is somehow going to fundamentally change our lives
 
3. BF has a cloud service that takes time for the installer to be distributed to the cloud servic e to make the cloud actually function as intended.
 
4. The pre orders that get the email immediately announce they are downloading
 
5 the non pre orders start complaining about how their lives are being ruined and they should have the game now!!!
 
6. Chris announces fine, they are opening it up
 
7.  Everyone starts downloading and as was probably predictable it causes issues.
 
8 It is BFs fault for announcing late
 
9. It is BF's fault for announcing early
 
 
C'mon guys, lighten up and chill a little bit.  The game is released, you'll be playing it soon enough and yeah you are damn funny to listen to.

I understand your inconvenience. That is why software developers dont like making statements about release dates. Now we pressed one out of them (approximately mid january, Chris said) but they couldnt stick to their schedule. It is a bad situation, i know that, i work in IT support and my customers always ask me for an exact ETA for their stuff getting done and i hate giving them an exact date. Sometimes bad things happen and you cant deliver without it beeing your fault but people still blame you for it.

My insomnia is totally paying off tonight!
 
Re: Themobaric weapons
 
The point of the thread was looking into the baseline standard non-special weapons squads.  In that regard the US Army by exception and USMC as a rule both employ thermobaric weapons as augmentation type weapons (fired mostly from SMAWs), but again it's a specialist weapon/round that is usually reserved for special occasions.
 
Re: Javelinovich
 
I get that the Russian Army is undergoing some major changes, and it will look pretty different in a while.  That said when we're getting to the point of "this is something we're working on that doesn't have names or specifics yet" it's getting sort of out there.  Like US Railgun and laser program out there.  I don't doubt Russian technical abilities, but even looking at the US military on several occasions we've been poised on dramatic changes that either simply evaoprated (FCS) or evolved into a totally different system (like Land Warrior's transition into other C3 systems).  Until Russia has these new weapons systems in quantity I'm not exactly holding my breath.  
 
Re: Javelin issue
 
For infantry units it's generally one CLU (the Command Launch Unit) per squad, and two per Cavalry platoon last time I looked.  Missile allocation is theater dependent but 2-3 per squad is not an unreasonable assumption, with more obviously for mechanized and Stryker units given they don't actually have to pack the system.
 
Re: XM-25
 
SCAR was never intended as a mass purchase, it was a product pitched to the SOF community, used by the SOF community, and then abandoned by the SOF community because it wasn't cool enough/hell if I know SOF gets distracted by new toys on a weekly basis.  XM-25 remains very much part of the planned future squad layout, and again, if we're talking about CMBS, it is in the game in that role.  Given that it is fully functional at the moment it is one of the more reasonable "future" systems in the game.
 
Re: Only 1/3 in Bradley
 
Yes, but again, if we're talking about a high intensity conflict, we're not putting 10th Mountain Division on a plane to go fight tanks.  So to that regard the preponderance of infantry units in a shooting war with a near-peer to peer power is going to be those 11 ABCTs, some of the SBCTs, and an IBCT or two.
 
So to that end, your original statement remains incorrect, and the majority of the conventional warfare aligned units operate M2A3 type Bradleys.
 
Re: Machine guns
 
The thing is that US infantry units don't lack the 7.62 MGs.  The SBCT/IBCT organization allocates two M240s with dedicated teams per platoon (so three "rifle" squads 9 soldiers) and one "weapons" squad, which again is two four man MMG teams.  Mechanized infantry lack the weapons squad, having only the three rifle squads, but they retain the weapons themselves (at least the weapons themselves, it might be there's a M240B/L on every Bradley, but I can account for at least two per platoon).  
 
There's no real hard fast rule to the actual squad makeup, some IBCT/SBCT units use the weapons squad as  just a fourth rifle squad and issue the M240s to augment the rifle squads, some mechanized infantry units train their third squad as a weapons/AT squad in addition to its rifle squad duties.  As the case is, in addition to the M249s though there's still 2-4 M240s per platoon.
 
Re: APS
 
If the US Army needed APS, it could have it in a few weeks.  There's off the shelf systems that are compatible with the M1/M2 series vehicles, it's just a matter of buying them.
 
Or maybe Quickkill will come out.  Who knows.  But off the shelf APS in preperation for a conventional war is not a huge leap at all considering some of the other crash upgrade programs the Army has done (see the rapid conversion of several hundred M1A1s to M1A1HA standards before the Persian Gulf war, fielding LRFs and IR jammers to Bradleys for same conflict), and the hardware already exists.
 
Re: Javelin vs Kornet
 
But the Jav does it all in a handy portable by one or two guys package with a high possibility of one hit one kill.   
 
Kornet is scary, but it's definitely a dedicated team sort of weapon, vs the Javelin which is just a standard squad level weapon system.

The GAU-8 was great against tanks when it was designed, and yes it will mess up BMPs and the like, but against modern Russian MBTs against anything less than a rear attack (not as guaranteed as you'd think), penetration is unlikely.  True it will mess up all the "soft" sensors and the like on top, but it probably won't even get a mobility kill with the gun alone.  This post links to a semi tongue-in-cheek coloring book for A-10 pilots on where to engage T-62s.  Another noteworthy quote from this article which cites Combat Aircraft magazine regarding 1980s Germany:

"According to Combat Aircraft magazine, the flying branch predicted that, if the A-10s went into action, seven percent of the jets would be lost per 100 sorties. Since each pilot was expected to fly at most four missions per day, each base would in theory generate more than 250 sorties daily. At this pace, a seven-percent loss rate per 100 flights equaled at least 10 A-10s shot down at each FOL every 24 hours — and that’s being conservative.
 
At that rate, in less than two weeks the entire A-10 force at the time — around 700 jets — would have been destroyed and the pilots killed, injured, captured or, at the least, very shook up."
Also, if it were to go into battle against a modern force, it would not load up every single pylon with every single weapon it could take because that would be suicide.  You'd get maybe 4 Mavericks and a laser guided bomb on a heavy loadout.  Any more and maneuverability is severely compromised, which is a death sentence in this theater.  A loadout like that is much more comparable to faster jets with better defensive measures.  Including, and I hate myself for saying it, the F-35

Compared to other AT air assets, there is a logical reason for the A10 to be shelved.
 
They really are not built for what is needed in a modern conflict. And if used I would say you are basically sending pilots to their death..
 
They are dead slow and must fly though or near the enemy lines to be able to fire. They just would not last long against a well equipped enemy.
 
So maybe they have a place in your Heart, they do in mine. But really they are a weapon from the past, not one for many situations of the present

I sailed around on a boat for awhile. That was fun.
I went somehwere hot for awhile. That wasn't fun.

I've created this topic for members who have served in the army to tell their experience, and also ask question for the members who have served which would help give information.
 
 I have served in the VDV 2008-2011, I've been deployed to different bases, And even seen action in Caucasus and South Osettia. I got training in Tula base, I was not deployed during the Georgian conflict but after it. In 2009 in South Ossetia I was deployed to a check point. And one day during the morning time I was on guard duty and machinegun fire ripped threw the block post and landed near me and then other firearms shot at us,  The whole squad got ready and we were in a engagement I was shot at somepoint and did not realize it until afterwards, We shot into the forest killing most of them and they made their biggest mistake the group engaging at us brought in a van to escape which my unit and I destroyed.  There were survivors which a special forces detachment found and killed im not sure if prisoners were taken. 

I've wrote this because I thought it would be a lot of information, If there is any questions about my service or what ever feel free to ask.

I will play devils advocate and be the lone dissenting voice.
 
Let me first be clear: One of the reasons I like CM is because it is standard infantry and combat. Not wanting as Special Forces game.
 
I think there's a place for SOF beyond Ranger Regiment and Spetsnaz.
 
Two reasons. First is the way US and British SOF have been used in many major battles in Afghanistan and Iraq. They get used as shock troops, recon and Fire/Air controllers troops for crucial geographical points or phases of the battle.
 
As you say, when employed like this they loose a lot of their edge and fight much like other mortals. So no need for extra breach and repelling animations etc etc.
 
However, they are MUCH more flexible in their ToE/ORBAT. So a range of squad and platoon choices would add flavour and something to the game as they do in RL. For example, a 16 man fighting patrol to add oomph to an attack on a hard point. Which brings us to 2: they would add flavour to the game.
 
Additional: Huge rarity should balance QBs.

I forgot how I solved that particular tactical problem. I do remember at one point dropping airburst HE and WP rounds in front of a protected building to suppress the defenders long enough that my Strykers' machine guns (no MK19s) could take over and allow a squad of infantry to get in the side door and finish the job up close. But I'm not sure that was the last mission, it has been years since I played it.

I think its in your best interest to stop posting for now.

Where the AI script approach is weakest is the QB. Since MarkEzra, who does the lion's share of QB map production, cannot know what force composition he's writing scripts for (even to the point of "will it be infantry-only or armour-only?"), the plans are necessarily generic. One of the classes of situations you're describing (persisting with trying to use the same chokepoint, when to do so involves nagivating a clot of burning wrecks would be addressable at the level of the AI. Choosing which hill to meander up and which to advance on with purpose, and how to approach the evolution, is down to the AI plan, with the planner needing to be assiduous about using multiple unit groups to provide overwatch and scouting. Such detail is very difficult to assign without knowledge of the force composition, so the QB AI is never going to be a maneuver challenge of the level that a scenario plan can be. Triggers are a big improvement. BFC have said they will continue to improve the AI. Branching triggers would be another step change in the ability to plan, but would, of course, have less impact in the field of QBs.

For now, though, it is a massive challenge to make the AI attack effectively. A challenge that is too much for the generic plans that can reasonably be created for QBs. If you're playing QBs, you would be well advised, IMO, to restrict yourself to situations where the AI doesn't have to maneuver too much, so no MEs and the AI defending against your Probe/Attack/Assault. If you want to defend, have the AI Assault and give it 150% troops. At least then the broken remnants might be able to take the VLs because you've run out of ammo.

The developers really really want it finished. But the game seems to be conspiring against us at this point. One tiny thing after another (like trying to find someone wielding the 9mm Marakov pistol so you can check the texture  ). Its become a test of wills at this point. Still, its coming together like a dream compared to one or two other titles I can think of. There's an old Chinese homeowners proverb: "The house is finally completed. Time to die now."  

My two cents (and probably worth as much)
 
One standard operating procedure to minimize the javelin threat is to manually pop IR blocking smoke when the first tank is hit and reposition yourself under cover of smoke .. Use overwatch positions so you have a chance to get a spot on the launcher when that happens.. And then use arty or direct fire  from your overwatch force (better) to suppress or destroy them. Also move from overhead cover to overhead cover like tree patches in bounds using fast mouvement orders to cross open terrain. Javelin will use the direct fire mode if the target has overhead cover like tree branches and is much less effective and is vulnerable to APS in that mode. The AAR has a good example of this happening because Bill's tank was in a patch of trees. Its warhead is only able to penetrate 600mm which is weak if used in direct fire mode but deadly in the top attack mode. A frontal hit on a T-90 without ERA with a javelin is innefective. The skillful use of these three SOP combined should minimize the effect (but not eliminate it) of "cheating with Javelin"   

If you are the US, fire them in salvoes once the enemy is in the open as to kill as many targets as possible before it can react by popping IR smoke or bring overwatch area fire on your positions. You can also use them to fix the enemy or prevent avenues of approach and use other assets to flank or bypass. Move them fast once they fire to make it difficult for the enemy to locate and destroy them with arty.
 
And yeah, fear the M1A2.. use air assets on them (the anti-armor ones have lot's (16) of effective ATGM, some even with top attack capabilities like the AT-9 ataka). If your opponent use them on defense in static positions, you can use precision guided arty on them but dont count too much on that. Engage them close and with local numerical superiority and from different directions. Use long-range Krysanthemas AT LONG-RANGE if the map permits it to take flank pot shots at them so you can attrit their numbers before engaging them with your main force. 
 
I give more advice to the Russian player because you in a less forgiving position compared to the US player.

One possibility they could choose would be a future Korean war involving the Chinese and possibly even the Russians siding with North Korea, Dense terrain, winter weather, urban combat. Korea has it all. Scenario is most likely o start with a North Korean invasion unless someone dreams up a really plausible reason for the West to invade the north (eg nuclear weapons, noocons in the White House)
 
Or they could return to the Middle East but this time it is a genral war involving Isreal, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Gulf States, Iran, stae sponsred groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, ISIS, the United States, NATO and possibly Russia.

We ran one of these back in the hay days of CM:BO and the median and average age was late 30's. I ran it (no polling features back then!) and we had quite a few responses. They were very, very few teenagers back then - I think one under 20. Lots of late 20's, lots of 30's, lots of 40's and then down the hill from there - no pun intended. Even with the limited responses, looks like things have changed as far as the crowd.

There is plenty of material for at least three modules existing withing the spectrum of a conflict in Ukraine as it is.

ScoutPL and Bil, at least at some point in the past five years.
And let me say that JK is right re the QJDM. If you try to use the model yourself, you'll appreciate there's several quite "magic numbers" in the model, like "Surprise" or the "Comparative Effectiveness Value". Or more technically, plenty of opportunities for overfitting. It always works best when "fitting" the past, tweaking the many knobs on it, than predicting the unseen by deriving plausible outcomes by working on first principles. A bit like the Ptolemaic model of the orbits of the solar system, compared with Newton's. The former works very well on our Solar System but is useless when trying to account for Alpha Centauri.

I do find personally that it doesn't account at all for what Robert S. Leonhard refer to as "maneuver warfare", and is very biased towards "attrition warfare". Which is understandable, as Dupuy models were basically invented in the 1960s, a time US doctrinal thinking was obsessed with firepower alone.