HerrTom

An excellent video! Quite informative and it's great to see the principles in action.
I would quibble with this definition a little bit. A meeting engagement in Soviet military science specifically refers to an engagement where both sides are on the move (though variously defined by different authors as either or both on move or on the offensive), and by the 1980s was expected to be the most common type of engagement in a real war.  An attack from the march is a different but related concept in that a meeting engagement would likely, but not necessarily, involve an attack from the march.
Edit: Some good sources on this that I think are very good if anyone is interested:
The Offensive by A. A. Sidorenko
Soviet Airland Battle Tactics by W. Baxter - don't let the title scare you, he did it on purpose!

CMCW Module Engine 5.0

I'm waiting for CMCW module (German forces 🙏) more than anything. A new CMBS module would also be nice.

What is everyone most looking forward to in 2023?
I know it's a pipe dream but I'm really hoping the new Black Sea module comes out this year. If only to have the massive maps and battalion level operations of Cold War. The VDV would be really interesting to play in a more fluid meeting engagement. Not as excited for the Marines since they don't seem to be as different compared to the US Army.
games coming to Steam doesn't interest me that much.
A new Final Blitzkrieg module would be pretty fun. I would like a scenario where the US has to race across Germany from town to town while the Germans gather a scratch force to defend. And what if the Soviets got involved...
Finally, I don't expect it to happen but if a new Cold War module comes out this year I'll scream like a school girl. British and Bundeswehr forces would be sufficient for me. I don't see the East Germans being very different from the Soviets.
What is everyone else looking forward to?

@Battlefront.com Hey Steve, would you mind checking out the above video?  If you recall I was asking for the replay feature for the Commercial titles last year, this is the sort of content I could make much more efficiently and quickly if we had that feature in the Commercial versions!
 

Im going to attempt to make them all playable as either side vs AI as standalone scenarios, but the primary goal is still a full campaign played as Blue vs AI

They grow up so fast... we really need to get off our *** (ahem) and finish up that DLC.   

If you look in the manual I laid out the operational level for the Soviet campaign, so you can see how the whole thing would have played out.  As to DLC, we have some good stuff planned and we hope you guys will enjoy it.

I asked Domfluff to help me out in creating a video about Soviet military doctrine in the Cold War era, and how those principles can be applied in a Combat Mission scenario/QB. He played a game against me as the Soviet Army, gave me an arse kicking, and then sat down with me and explained why he did what he did. The result is the video down below!
 

I think this thread from 2017 (!! it's been a minute eh?) expands a bit on it. Particularly this post I have some plots showing the armour penetration power of a few standard artillery shells. The problem is in CM that only direct hits (i.e. shell hits tank) cause subsystem damage beyond the tracks.  The first post also has a good article grounding the investigation.
 

I think this thread from 2017 (!! it's been a minute eh?) expands a bit on it. Particularly this post I have some plots showing the armour penetration power of a few standard artillery shells. The problem is in CM that only direct hits (i.e. shell hits tank) cause subsystem damage beyond the tracks.  The first post also has a good article grounding the investigation.
 

That is obviously a good suggestion 😎...But it might not solve the 'problem' that some of the guys around here are having, including me 😊....
It's not neccesarely MORE content that we are looking for,  eventhough that is always welcomed, but rather THE RIGHT content.
What i mean by that is that the basegames and modules for the timeframes and locations that we are intrested in is simply not avaliable. Personally i would very much like to play and design scenarios set on the eastern front WW2 during 41-43.
Other guys might favour the pacific WW2, North Africa WW2, Vietnam, Korea, Various fictional conflicts current and past, Arab - Israeli wars etc, etc...
No matter how hard we try to work in the editor we simply can't make those scenarios because those units are not avaliable. Thanks to several gifted modders around here some of these conflicts can be done to some degree but not to the regular BFC, CM2 standard that we want a love....For that to be possible we need the correct tools avaliable...Units, terrain, timeframe from a dedicated basegame, module...
I realize that it is a tall ask to expect every single forum member around here to be able to play exactelly the conflict he wants but i think it is the lack of new basegames, modules that frustrates some of the forums members somewhat...If BFC could find a way to speed up the release of these assets that would be a very good thing imo 😎
I think quite a bunch of the guys around here don't neccesarely play all the scenarios and campaigns that are avaliable...I know i don't. Some may not like big battles, some might not like small battles, some might not like urban fighting, night fighting, bad wheather fighting, some may only play WW2 and other prefer the modern games...
No doubt...There are a lot of scenarios and campaigns to play...but i don't want to play 200 scenarios...whatever...I want to play scenarios and campaigns that i find to be intresting and enjoyable...
Many of those scenarios and campaigns are currently unavaliable because of the fact that the basegames and modules required to make them simply does not exist and considdering the recent release rate of new basegames, modules they probably never will be and that makes me somewhat sad...😉
I fear that the lack of new community made scenarios might atleast partly be the result of the slow progress of the CM2 game series as well as updates to the game engine...My guess would be that many of the oldtimers have simply lost intrest in this game...the updates are to few and to far between...
Appart from some of the modding threads there really in not all that much going on on this forum any more...sadly.
I have dabbled quite a bit in the editor during the years and are fully aware of what it takes to design a scenario, map or not least a campaign.
I'm greatlful for the guys doing these things and  i do considder the products that BFC do release to be of the highest quality and i have no doubt that the guys working for BFC are working hard. 😎...
I just wish there could be more of them...espesially working on new basegames, modules, game engine updates...
When it comes to these things i'm a little bit dissapointed...It takes to long ! 😊
 

Yes...i could 😎
A perfect example would be DCS world from Eagle dynamics. They are doing exactelly that and because of that have been able to expand their game world many times over. Simply by allowing 'outside' designers to help develop new maps and new flyable aircrafts. 
And as it happens...DCS world is not a fantasy space invaders game.
 

Yet in CMBS T-90s are left without front armour since the last patch 8+ months ago. If the game was easier to mod, maybe the community could pick up on some of Battlefront's slack, and that would do more for the game's "integrity" than avoiding silly mods. Maybe we could get the Porsche Kingtiger back in CMBN, 32 months after it disappeared, or correct some of the very silly point values in quickbattle.
 
Combat Mission has more to worry about than its "soul".

I'm totally on board with the answer 'no modding because we need to be able to monetise content' because I think game devs should absolutely be entitled to do that, but 'no modding because someone might have fun' is such a strange philosophy to have.  
 

Nobody else is complaining? Never has been? I must be either real special then or you must have burried all those other complainers somewhere deep.  So all the folks who said them frames are low since I started reading these forums many moons ago don't count? 🤨 20-30 frames are regarded normal for this game. I see slideshow at that count. While many people don't see a problem there, I do. Steve mentioned game update (was it last year?) will bring optimisations and I have been awaiting those.   
Oooweee, we have a comedian here. Never heard this one. Bravo. 

Artkin #11
Terrible LODs for Bmp-1 that have no consistency. Units will be dull at 50m, then bright at 100m, then dull again at 150m (Ranges are guesswork).


Note the wheels:

So if anyone wants to take a break from this entire Poland missile thing - 
https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/war-not-an-excuse-ukraine-rail-boss-keeps-trains-running-1.6155075
So this is the kind of thing that I look for with respect to metrics.  If you are in the process of invading a nation it is normally a really good idea to directly attack and degrade its ability to defend itself.  Russia has clearly demonstrated the intent and capability, what it appears to lack is expertise, or perhaps the ability to unify that expertise - but my big question since this started is "why"?  The general answer has been a lot of eye-rolling "well Russia is just dumb" but how they are "dumb" is important to my mind - what is their epistemological failure-engine being driven by?
In this war Russia has expended a LOT of high priced long range missile hardware - https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2022/october/lessons-russian-missile-performance-ukraine.  It is noted that they are likely having very high failure rates; however, this is further compounded by shortfalls in Russian ISR that allows for precise targeting even assuming all the missiles work.  
But there is more.  We have been bouncing a hypothesis around this forum on how a lot of this war is about Russian identity and its place in the world - that internal political dimension definitely plays a role, at least in Putin's calculus.  Further it is about Russian identity relative to Ukraine - this would be akin to the US invading Canada and losing (again, *ahem 1813*), the collective identity impacts would be severe.  However, we have also suspected that those "identity biased assumptions" have been driving the progress of this war - from the wildly overambitious opening moves, to the re-set of objectives and responses.  In fact it was demonstrated that poor strategic assumptions were a factor for Russia, even back in 2014.
So what?  Well the complete failure to effectively degrade Ukrainian rail is another potential peice of evidence that support that central hypothesis.  Russia has focused its limited long range fires capability on terror strikes, and now it finally appears to be focusing on civilian power infrastructure to keep the heat and lights out.  The central Russian premise appears to be that Ukrainian collective will is vulnerable and all they need to do is keep hitting it towards failure.  Somehow just one more hard push and the Ukrainian resolve will falter - this is nuts at this point in the war.  I have brought up relative rationality before and Russia clearly is suffering from it.  To the point that it is driving their military targeting enterprise.  Russia should theoretically be able to cripple the Ukrainian rail infrastructure.  Railways do not move, their supporting infrastructure is impossible to hide - one can see it from Google Earth.  If Russia had done that, the ability of Ukraine to conduct two simultaneous operational offensives separated by over 400 kms would have been severely challenged. Ukraine having a rail system able to sustain an "85% success rate" (something I know the UK would find impossible to do right now in peacetime, having just suffered their rail system) should not be possible at this point in a war this large - especially when their opponent has the ability to hit the full range of their nation. 
So, so what?  This is less about Russian targeting "sucking" - although their missile failure rates definitely point to that, this is about Russian decision making being 1) rigid well past the point of general rationality, and 2) built on flawed assumptions more about them than the reality on the ground.  For those who have been following this thread throughout the war I understand that this is not really news, but it does lead to a series of indicators and warnings we should be watching out for in case Russia actually figures out that its assumptions are completely broken.  However, I also suspect that they are well past the point of return regardless - too many losses and failures along with the continued corrosion of the RA means that even if they did figure it out now, it is likely already too late to change the trajectory of this war. 
I already have a book title in mind - "A warm, dark, smelly, but safe place - How Russia went to War with Its Head Up its Own Bum."

Just for the sake of completeness, although I don't believe in this theory, going by cui bono Ukraine also has a lot to gain from NATO getting involved, so could have staged this incident. (It would also be reckless because it could harm relations to the West immensely, so really unlikely)
While this kind of speculation is a lot of fun, just like with the Nord Stream pipelines I'll advocate for keeping calm and waiting what a thorough investigation brings to light. Jumping to conclusions that can't be proven in the end only helps Russia.
And I know some of you guys have wet dreams about a NATO intervention, so take a cold shower (if only because hit showers get so damn expensive these days...). 😉 Article 5 is not triggered automatically, it needs a unanimous vote from all members. The chance of that happening over such an incident is close to zero and it won't just be Germany that isn't marching along.

I think this forum has a good handle on technical, tactical, and strategical discussion of events in the battlespace. But these discussions of NATO, Article 5, no fly zones, world politics, nuclear weapons, and so are usually weak and come to people just making gut feelings or wishes of events.

I think it would be good to step back from edge and think with a more sedate mindset about what might happen now. Or better to keep larger focus on this groups strengths

IF the missile fragment shown is actually from the scene of the explosion (and we don’t actually have any proof they are connected other than Israeli twitter account posting them together without attribution) then most obvious explanation is errant Ukrainian S-300 missile from defense of Dobrotvirska TPP not far to other side of border.  Surprising that people are rushing to deny this as if this puts the “blame” on Ukraine.  If Russia is attacking civilian infrastructure right next to Polish border, they are responsible.

In all the breathlessness, let's not forget this little delight.
Cliffnotes: deliberate targeting of a government building, causing three deaths, which did not lead to war. Sane people know that accidents happen, and that accidents - even careless ones - aren't a great reason to dial it up to 11

Spent a bit of time day dream a BAOR expansion over the weekend - used a mix of assets from CMSF, CMA and CMBN. Sadly no idea how to take it further as a playable faction mod.

I notice the biggest performance drop when looking at the deployment zone itself, on some of the big CMCW scenarios I will get single digit FPS when I look at the deployment zone but if I turn the camera away it gets somewhat better. Quite strange. Does go back to normal after I hit play though.