This is why I stopped playing...

[Vark]

Erm, guilty as charged, just cannot help thinking eastwards when talking about the Red Army. The Germans are good Germans this time and are fighting with their brothers in arms, the BAOR, to tame the expansionist Commies (me), in 1990 The Belgians have a pop every now and then but to little effect.

As for fantasy, yes there is a strong element of the fantastical, as it portrays a decent Russian Army in 1990! I dread to think what the real 1990's Russian army would be like to play, probably look at their equipment and find they were gradually selling it for booze, porn and drugs! TOE is a bit squiffy, but real Russian tactics work well on an operational scale and as I said it is relaxing brain-tamer stuff. Could not handle CM2 and play with any element of fun at the moment. I'll have to wait for my wife to be a world-famous historical novelist, so I can live a life of leisure and tackle some hardcore strategy gaming.

[Michael Emrys]

As for fantasy, yes there is a strong element of the fantastical, as it portrays a decent Russian Army in 1990! I dread to think what the real 1990's Russian army would be like to play, probably look at their equipment and find they were gradually selling it for booze, porn and drugs!

Quite possibly. However, I suspect that if you backtracked a couple of decades you might find the situation quite a bit different. The US army was still to a degree demoralized and in bad shape after Viet Nam, and the NATO forces in general did not enjoy as much of a technological edge that they would later. The Soviets were reasonably well equipped, trained, and disciplined before their foray into Afghanistan and they still enjoyed a pretty good grip on their WARPAC allies. Not saying they would have necessarily carried all before them, but they could have put NATO into a very tight corner. I think we're all better off that they didn't try to put it all to a test.

Michael

[Vark]

Absolutely, and I pity a hypothetical M-60A3 crew versus a T-64 in a late seventies environment. Late 70's early 80's is the time frame for a challenge for both forces, I was reading something that said that 87 was the first time NATO would have had a good chance of conventionally defeating the Soviets.

[John Kettler]

Vark,

Recall that in the initial version of Hackett's THIRD WORLD WAR:August 1985, NATO lost. The Queen twisted Hackett's arm, and the result was the familiar book in which NATO won. Barely.

By 1985, the Soviet arsenal was nothing short of terrifying. While we preened over a few Copperhead rounds, the Soviets had laser guided practically everything, to include Katyusha rockets. They could pierce us with ease, while we couldn't defeat an export T-72 frontally, never mind one with ERA.

The M1, a whole handful then, was frontally vulnerable to HEAT from a PT-76, and the Russians had SFWs delivered from rockets and artillery. They had broadband obscurants, while we had red phosphorus. Their HEAT projectiles were found to penetrate 40% further when dynamically fired, rather than statically detonated. GFSG had T-80s in the tank sheds, too, the Ouragan (?) MRL, a previously unknown regimental baby Katyusha, Army level assault guns and much more. Their explosives were better, they held the POMCUS sites at risk with tactical ballistic missiles, and they ruled in the chem/bio arena. Am extraordinarily glad the balloon didn't go up then!

My brother was in the 2/11 ACR covering the interGerman border. Units such as his were expected to sustain 50% casualties. And I worked for Hughes, which made the TOW missile, whose analyses were flawed by always engaging from very scarce long range keyholes. Vanilla TOW couldn't get through a T-72 with ERA, so out came ITOW, with a standoff probe to enhance penetration, then TOW II, 6" body throughout, double trumpet DU liner and standoff probe. My brother was told if he ever saw one, it was war. Dragon was useless, while Hellfire was considered still useful.

Maverick was stellar and could kill anything. The tanks and munitions that slaughtered the Republican Guard were the best we had in our inventory in Europe, and these replaced the vanilla M1s with their practically useless 105mm L7A1 guns and highly vulnerable armor. That obsolete HEAT round, you see, was developed to kill the cancelled T95, whose armor was steel,glass and steel. You get the picture. That's why we crash deployed M1A1HAs with DU armor and ammo for the Hail Mary in 1990.

Training would, have course, been a major factor, but numbers and better tech smart! The good news? The Fulda Gap wasn't as roomy on the East German side as we thought, making the covering force battle a bit less horrendous.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

Recall that in the initial version of Hackett's THIRD WORLD WAR:August 1985, NATO lost.

Red Army by Ralph Peters is also interesting in this context. He may overrate the Sovs a teensy bit, but his scenario is at least plausible.

Michael

[Vark]

What I find fascinating is the back and forth between the, giants with feet of clay and the well-oiled Red machine analysis one finds.

[altipueri]

Based on my experiences living in Rheindahlen (HQ British Army of the Rhine) 1970-73:

a) If the Russians attacked any time there was snow on the ground it would be all over for BAOR in about 48 hours.

If the Russians attacked any Wednesday afternoon or Saturday it would be all over in about 24 hours - absolutely impossible to get authorisation for anything because everybody is playing games at the sports ground.

Question: 2012 UK readyness for whatever:

Why is the car park at Cheltenham GCHQ empty on Saturdays and Sundays?

Hint: Muslims take Fridays off, don't they?

[Zels77]

Hiya Mike, I very seldom read these forums, but on the few occasions that I have posted concerns, frustrations etc, I've been amazed at the skirmish line of lawyer defenses that are thrown up to deny a valid complaint.

You clearly state that a German HQ unit, slammed by indirect fire, not only repulsed an assaulting squad, but also picked off your platoon leader in a second-storey building. And yet the reply you get from Culliton is "Are you saying that units in a treeline should be unlikely to survive five minutes of 60mm / 105mm fire, let alone direct fire from two full squads of infantry?" or "that units assaulting positions that had been heavily doused with indirect fire, were rarely repulsed?"

No Phil, what Mike said is in black and white - read it again if you didn't understand the question the first time.

[Zels77]

Hi Yankee Dog,

I'm know I'm coming into this a little bit after the fact, but I'd like to make a statement and ask a question.

First, thank you for a well considered and presented reply free of the usual "don't dare question the game" approach.

Second, let's just say you're right, and this was just an extreme case of bud luck. Let's assume that this HQ squad was just lucky, and tough, and somehow managed to survive the heavy indirect fire and suppresive fire (in the open from what I understand). But what are the chances that all this good fortune struck the German HQ at exactly the same time that he pulled off an amazing feat of marksmanship to KIA the US platoon leader in a two-storey building?

[Zels77]

You guys can defend it all you want and poke holes in my strategy, which was by the book fire and maneuver, but the bottom line is that it's poor game mechanics and a huge turn off. How so many people can say otherwise blows my mind.

Some will say "bad luck" and I can deal with that, but when it happens over and over, in multiple scenarios then its otherwise. As I said in my original post, this is why I stopped playing this game the first time.

Well said.

[Vanir Ausf B]

So... exactly what changes to the game would you like to see BFC make?

[Zels77]

So... exactly what changes to the game would you like to see BFC make?

Hi VA,

Look, I'm sure you get a lot of arbitrary posts from kids who would prefer the game if the halftracks fired lasers and the infantry could morph into zombie wolves. But we're not all like that.

CM started out as the wargame to end all wargames based on an unapologetic drive for realism. Heck, the original game listed the various armour factors and angles for each AFV!?

That's what got me - a former ASL man - hooked.

Nobody expects you guys to get it right first time round and there are variables common to all simulators that will require BF to shape what is strictly realistic to make for a more realistic simulation - like the effect of HE indirect fire v infantry having to be downscaled to allow for CM's more condensed troop movement.

However, there seems to be an unwillingness from BF to accept criticism unless it's proven in a court of law.

Ultimately, BF needs to decide whether they still want to make the ultimate wargame, or just one more realistic than the competition has produced.

It's a bit like deciding whether you want to be the fittest obese man in the world, or the fittest man in the world - there's a big difference.

The most frustrating thing for me is not that there are glitches, but that BF seem to spend more time denying there are glitches than addressing them.

[JonS]

Shall we put you down for a "Change some stuff, I don't know what, but just change it. For the realism! As I define realism!" then?

[Zels77]

Shall we put you down for a "Change some stuff, I don't know what, but just change it. For the realism! As I define realism!" then?

As per my previous posts, and a number of posts from other members, there is lots that needs to be looked at, such as:

- gunners in moving HTs (and unbuttoned AFVs) being picked off like sitting ducks

- there's too big a disparity between vehicle-to-vehicle spotting and vehicle-to-infantry spotting (how does a tank commander spot a truck parked behind bocage 500m away but fail to notice the MG team 50m away, in the same cone of vision, that is firing on him?)

- generally, buildings are a poor source of cover

- covered-arcs are unreliable with regards to spotting

- imo, the covered-arcs armor command should be reinstated

Is that enough Jon? Or is this the part where you ask me to furnish BF with forensic evidence of each gripe?

[Vanir Ausf B]

However, there seems to be an unwillingness from BF to accept criticism unless it's proven in a court of law.

That is true, at times. But on the other hand, criticisms such as this thread are completely worthless. If I am BFC reading the OP's post, what the heck am I supposed to do about it? Is what happened physically impossible? I don't think so. Is it happening too often? I play the game too and I've never thought artillery was unrealistically ineffective or weak. If anything I've felt the exact opposite. If the OP's experience was typical I would expect to see other people making similar complaints. I don't see that happening.

So yeah, if you think you've found something wrong with the game that no one else is making an issue of you probably do have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. But that can be done.

[Vanir Ausf B]

- generally, buildings are a poor source of cover

I don't think this is necessarily true any more since the last patch. At the very least cover is better than it was. The biggest remaining issue with buildings is that the level of cover varies a lot between different buildings but in most cases there is no reliable means of knowing how much cover any particular building gives.

There are also reportedly a few buildings with doors that are not in the same place the texture shows them to be.

[slysniper]

,

However, there seems to be an unwillingness from BF to accept criticism unless it's proven in a court of law.

Ultimately, BF needs to decide whether they still want to make the ultimate wargame, or just one more realistic than the competition has produced.

The most frustrating thing for me is not that there are glitches, but that BF seem to spend more time denying there are glitches than addressing them.

Keep in mind, it is not BF not accepting your criticism, it is other players that understand that its poor criticism and that it will not normally be looked at unless there is facts to supports the comments as to what is incorrect

BF has made a great wargame, but keep in mind they can make a game, not the perfect sim. ( people do have to understand there is limitations.)

Show me where BF has denied the issues, again remember you are talking to other players most of the time, not BF

[womble]

- generally, buildings are a poor source of cover

Generally, this is an overstatement of the case. Some buildings are rubbish for cover, and even concealment. Others are goddamn bunkers.

- covered-arcs are unreliable with regards to spotting

What does this even mean? What are you expecting?

- imo, the covered-arcs armor command should be reinstated

I think everyone thinks that would be a good idea.

[slysniper]

as:

- gunners in moving HTs (and unbuttoned AFVs) being picked off like sitting ducks

- there's too big a disparity between vehicle-to-vehicle spotting and vehicle-to-infantry spotting (how does a tank commander spot a truck parked behind bocage 500m away but fail to notice the MG team 50m away, in the same cone of vision, that is firing on him?)

- generally, buildings are a poor source of cover

item 1: gunners in moving HTs (and unbuttoned AFVs) being picked off like sitting ducks

so far there is nothing that anyone has brought forth to back their personal opinion - so why is it incorrect other than you say so.

item 2: there's too big a disparity between vehicle-to-vehicle spotting and vehicle-to-infantry spotting (how does a tank commander spot a truck parked behind bocage 500m away but fail to notice the MG team 50m away, in the same cone of vision, that is firing on him

Ok, , not perfect, it has been shown time and again, maybe we will see improvements in the future, time will tell, still better than anything else that is out there.

item 3: generally, buildings are a poor source of cover

been addressed, is better than it was, with good technics, really not a problem for many players anymore. still would be nice to know what the building is going to do in protection - they need indication of some type.

As for covered Arcs, they are the Holy Grail of complaints,

As for the present system, plenty of threads to help you play the game with the present system. really not a issue as I see it, but yes i would like the old way back also, it would make it better.

[Baneman]

...

What does this even mean? What are you expecting?

I think what he's referring to here is the situation where an enemy - often an AFV - enters your covered arc and sees you and you don't see him - even though that's mostly the only place you're looking.

You'd think that at least 90% - 95% of the time, the person with the covered arc should see enemy entering it first.

That's probably the thing in game that irks me the most, since it makes ambushes kinda hard to pull off. To my knowledge, BFC haven't commented on this yet

( ie. whether it can't be improved, or wont, or is in the pipeline or something in between ).

[Zels77]

So yeah, if you think you've found something wrong with the game that no one else is making an issue of you probably do have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. But that can be done.

Fair enough.

[Zels77]

The biggest remaining issue with buildings is that the level of cover varies a lot between different buildings but in most cases there is no reliable means of knowing how much cover any particular building gives.

Yep agreed, that's what I'm talking about. Buildings are better, but at times they're a kill zone, imo.

[Zels77]

I think what he's referring to here is the situation where an enemy - often an AFV - enters your covered arc and sees you and you don't see him - even though that's mostly the only place you're looking.

You'd think that at least 90% - 95% of the time, the person with the covered arc should see enemy entering it first.

That's probably the thing in game that irks me the most, since it makes ambushes kinda hard to pull off. To my knowledge, BFC haven't commented on this yet

( ie. whether it can't be improved, or wont, or is in the pipeline or something in between ).

Spot on mate - seems like everyone except the unit with the perfect covered arc knows the enemy is there.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I think what he's referring to here is the situation where an enemy - often an AFV - enters your covered arc and sees you and you don't see him - even though that's mostly the only place you're looking.

You'd think that at least 90% - 95% of the time, the person with the covered arc should see enemy entering it first.

That's probably the thing in game that irks me the most, since it makes ambushes kinda hard to pull off. To my knowledge, BFC haven't commented on this yet

( ie. whether it can't be improved, or wont, or is in the pipeline or something in between ).

This isn't so much a covered arc issue as it is a hiding issue. AFAIK units with a covered arc don't spot any worse that those without one. But hiding units do spot very poorly, probably worse than they realistically should and it does make ambushes and defense in general overly difficult.

[akd]

I think what he's referring to here is the situation where an enemy - often an AFV - enters your covered arc and sees you and you don't see him - even though that's mostly the only place you're looking.

You'd think that at least 90% - 95% of the time, the person with the covered arc should see enemy entering it first.

Target arcs DO NOT tell a unit to only observe within the arc. They tell a unit to only engage targets within the arc. They affect spotting only in so much as they affect facing.