Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by kinophile

  1. https://tnsr.org/2018/08/restraining-an-ally-israel-the-united-states-and-irans-nuclear-program-2011-2012/ Now, bear with me... In the CMBS narrative, at its most basic, UKR modernizes its forces with NATO/US/Western INFLUENCE. Russia perceives this as a threat, states its opposition to NATO membership by UKR, a very clear red line. UKR pushes ahead and applies for membership. I *think* it is accepted, so then Russia invades. Personally, I think Russia would have invaded upon even just UKR's application. Either way, it's a very unusual geopolitical situation, and to me only possible/plausibile if there is already an extremely antagonistic, borderline violent state of affairs between Russia and the West. It suggests some possible situations - NATO/US sees UKR as existential threat of Russia assumes defacto control. They counter RUS influence and pull UKR steadily West. OR UKR itself sees Russia as a threat, pivots hard to NATO at just the right time (eg Russia is distracted internally) and managers to maneuver US Ito allowing it to even apply. This suggests a Russia with some form of serious internal issue (eg an extended, messy succession crisis) that the UKR application to NATO actually helps clear up, providing an external, unifying issue. A question here, circling back to the article above, is how much control would UKR have over the whole NATO-fication process? How much pull could it have with the US? Could a unified, determinedly West oriented UKR actually manage to pull this off - without tearing itself apart from the inside? This would suggest the expected CMBS module could be predicated on internal uprisings within UKR and RUS held territory, on the one hand driven by RUS infiltrators and inherent local support (a la Donbass) and on the other as a guerilla/insurgent war against RUS rear forces.
  2. https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Concrete-Conflict-Megacities-Anthology/dp/1984573756/ref=as_sl_pc_tf_til?tag=smallwarsjo0e-20&linkCode=w00&linkId=99de8aded2f69770c90180da5d66a721&creativeASIN=1984573756 Has anyone read this?
  3. This is 100% the single critical game difference from CMBS to all the other titles. @Erwin I'm surprised. It sounds more like an issue of how you're using them, because every single time I deploy UAVs, in any game, I spot vehicles within 3 turns (US) or 10 turns (RUS). It's a terrible flaw on the UKR side that they don't have UAVs. I really hope they're added in the CMBS expansion..BFC et al accounted for a lot with regard to UKR forces, but obviously not for their practical can-do innovation & resilience. I usually give them 1 x US UAV team per Co, using the crappier drones. It makes a hell of a difference.
  4. Fine if you have tracks, although even then muddy ground can strike. With BTRs +muddy you're taking a 30% chance of bogging at Quick or Fast speed.
  5. kinophile


    And that's just v AI (I assume). Wait till you try H2H and get the moment of OHNOYOUDONTOH****YOUDID
  6. Ahh - do you mean "dead vehicle sees all units spotted by player's entire force, even if the dead vehicle could not actually see those units itself"?
  7. Ive found a combo of street fighting with an exterior flanking force (usually through the little village at left, then across the river and up over the slope in front) is good. But that force must NOT break out too soon. Also, Peter has some nasty AI plans in there, so keeping that flanking force as a mobile, last ditch reserve is very useful. I once had to return the entire force (1.5 pltns plus 2 atgm teams) to deal with a very bad MBT charge up the main street. Brilliant scenario, one I very consciously emulate and keep in mind when designing. Its cray-cray v. humans
  8. kinophile

    How do you counter tanks with ERA?

    UKR can be depressing. I recently fired 3 ATGM in quick succession against a T72. Just got soaked up by the ERA. Made the next few turns very exciting, which is why I play UKR in the first place. :) The lesson is that with RUS ATGM you're not guaranteed a kill, buts probable. With UKR ATGM you really better have a back-up plan and assume 50/50 failure. With US its fire n forget, brah. Press the trigger and refresh Facebook.
  9. Very well put. Also good for Last Stand type fights. I've a Urban map in my head for Human v fanatical AI. Only possible with that ballast. @Sgt.SquareheadI haven't had the pleasure of your Mosul map but I assume you're using this approach to maximise the AIs "tenacity".
  10. Got quite the aggressive keyboard diarrhea yourself, bud.
  11. Tzk tsk, needs some Proper Reading refreshers...
  12. kinophile

    New Manual

    @Oleksandr's thread on tactics got me thinking... I've always hated the current CM manual style. I'm heavily trained & experienced in visual design so I thought, well, why not? So I'm now redesigning and formatting the manual in a tongue-in-cheek FM-001 style, in InDesign. COVER SHEET: Obviously that's my own CM:BS logo. I was a bit lazy and don't have the correct, official one handy. Still, this gives you an idea....
  13. I doubt any AI, even in more well funded or advanced games, could stand against a human oppo for 4 hours. We're just too devious and oriented for pattern analysis. Give us lo g enough and we'll spot the AIs tendency to something then use it against it. Actually, though, I read recently about an AI bring developed using StarCraft 2 that is, apparently, quite the mother****er to play against. But starcraft is super simple in terrain, units and "weapons tech ", in comparison to CMBS. Only the most basic principles of tactics still apply. CM/CMBS though is wayyy more unforgiving and unpredictable, plus SC/SC2 doesn't really provide for The point being that it is, tome, inherently pointless to provide AI plans for 2hrs+ battles. These longer battles are really human affairs. Of course, my current building scenario/campaign (in limbo due to workload) has a battle that us essentially a 2 hour scramble to escape RUS AI forces, and its hard (to fight). For the AI I kept it super simple - company 1, attack here. Even then, but 1.5 hours I'm running out of orders and most players have the measure of the AI also.
  14. 55 mins is insane for assault on a built up area. "Maybe" ok for a race through rough/open countryside Maybe....
  15. Damn tootin'! Personally, and I know there will be dissenters, but I PERSONALLY absolutely love the AI reactions to incoming fire (esp no that its been adjusted [I think?] ) I'm playtesting a complex scenario, with many different firefights and situations. I've just watched a squad of men run towards a building, across a previously shelled yard. The enemy inside opened up, yet missed. My guys did exactly what they should - run back to their cover. They then turned and fired back. It was just so cool to see. NO WHINING, SARCASM or IRONIC comments about Oh I LOOOVE how my APCs don't spot 10m in broad daylight, etc. Just positivity, please
  16. I dunno if thats been tweaked for CMBS, but if I get a unit broken it takes a loooong time to come back to even being able to move. Also, a broken unit is almost always down to its last guys, so it becomes gamey (for me) to, e.g., take a broken unit and try to claw a VP or two. I prefer to leave the shell shocked pixels alone. This time issue (and it most certainly is one) seems to have several facets: It's driven by the Scenario Designer BFC "could" tweak it/improve it/expand it... but given their long, long, long list of TBDs I'd say it would end up on a sticky note stuck to the sole of Charles' shoe... So, it comes down to best practice by Designers in general Which means ...umm suck it up or design a Scenario ourselves It could be useful to have a more explanatory and exploratory section in the Designer's manual about Time, as a specific Scenario Design concept - scenario length, rationales, historical precedents, comparisons of RL events v. correlated in-game Scenarios. Essentially, some pointers/suggestions from BFC (via experienced SDs) as a PDF. Other than that, I think we're always going to be rolling the dice each time we open a new, user made scenario...
  17. Thus is very true. I personally rarely put the full battalion in play right from the top (in a scenario). The maps just don't fit them properly, especially given CMBS spotting ranges. MOUT battles are another deal if course. @Sgt.Squarehead I don't have CMSF, still on the fence ref #2. Your Mosul scenario/map is fascinating though. What starting force arrangements do you have (roughly)?
  18. Actually..... I'm building campaign spread over 24 hours, along a 10/15km AO, with map edge to map edge. Each scebario has ****LOADS of time because the pressure in battle is from: 1. The nature of the campaign (escaping encirclement 2. The crossing of multiple force axis, at various angles. No need for time ****ery, just the terror of know the enemy are nearby and actively hunting you with hea y forces, yet you must keep pushing into them. I consider this ana organic difficulty increase, rather than artificially forced due to not enough time to cross the map and realistically gave a force at t hr e end. I'm being very strict with myself with this, for all the good reason s noted above. Modern war already speeds everything and is WAY to lethal to charge through. The bad time constrains I feel sometimes reflect the pace of the WW2 pace, but without referencing just how dangerous CMBS is to rushers.
  19. Calm down. This forum doesn't need this kind of acidic negativity. It's the the interwebs, lad. Nothing is real, nothing matters. Give the emotional outrage a rest.
  20. I particularly dislike the time frames aspect. I'd prefer to Lose points exponentially as I go over the target, but still have that ability - to go past the alotted timespan by whatever I need (not just the 15mins generally allowed). I find far too many scenarios are rushing me, and I'm not an overly cautious player by any stretch. I enjoy cracking the tactical problem, not the artificial rush to do so.Most scenarios seem to almost be timed training exercises. By contrast I'm fighting a large scenario separately with 3 different players and I've deliberately given us 2.5 hours. It's a complex fight and adding a timed finish gate to it is irrelevant to the story. It might add more "tension" but it's a hell of a hard fight already. My personal preference, is all.
  21. I feel I've finally started to build an intuitive tactical library for CMBS. I've always played chess, on/off and while I'm. Not reactionary per se, I'm definitely limited in how far ahead AI think. I found CM was like that, each battle was a whole New OMG WTF HALP HALP FIRE EVERYTHING NEEOOWWWWW GO GO GO waitwherethe****iseveryone ARGH Nowadays there's less OMG and more Dammit My Pixeltrupoen farted and the Bradley 3km away smelled them, drop the 152s hard, boys. I find the best thing, as intuited above, is to pick a force and stick with them. So, (because I'm ever so slightly retarded) , I choose UKR - hardest to play and utterly helpless if you have a crappy plan. US/RUS forces can still get you out of a scrape but UKR forces are DOOOMMMED if you don't plan properly. So they're my training school, and a brutal one it is too. But I've built a little set if tactics for various events, with my actions triggered by that same note above - pattern recognition. Reading the enemy movements = survival. In CMBS if you're alive you're winning.
  22. kinophile


    Dunno about override. Time as Nd again I've seen AFVs targeting (set by me) a building or etc who get nailed by a very visible (ie dotted and fully id's by the AFV). It's maddening. The hostile AFB is more dangerous than the building but I've never seen the AFV break manual targeting.
  23. No, really. I'm burning "opsec" to post these, but Its a fairly dangerous AI bug to fire ATGMs into a hedge, on AF, with no sightings of hostile armor even available, and plenty of autocannon ammo, GL ammo available. And this asswipe fired off BOTH Barriers. Repeats on every play thorough. Never seen this before. Turn available on request. https://imgur.com/a/En70IYV