ADDITIONS TO PATCH PLEASE - JAV RARITY increase and general Points cost changes

[antaress73]

http://www.goldmansachs.com/who-we-are/at-a-glance/index.html

[sburke]

That is weird. I didnt know you could pick up weapons from WIA/KIAs that are on your side but not your nationality. Doesnt that mean that if you make a scenario in CMBN where Brits and and Germans figth on the same side, the Brits could pick up MG-42s?

Don't know about that, haven't gotten that far yet.  But I do have a scenario with US paras outfitted with PFs 

 

In CMBN in case anyone is guessing - no not trying to recreate Cheneux... yet.

Edited April 24, 2015 by sburke

[Thewood1]

I think an easier answer would have been to admit you had the name wrong.

[Thewood1]

btw, one of the reasons Golden & Sachs (Goldman Sachs) and other companies shift position is because they see Russia reacting to the issues they face.  They are cutting parts of the budget to align with the cash flow.  That will make investors happy, or less unhappy.  But it means austerity in some form or another.

 

It doesn't mean Russia suddenly has an influx of money to spend.

[antaress73]

Damn spellcheck on my phone lol

Buying government bonds does help the cash flow of the seller nation

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Re: Bonds

 

It's more that Russian bonds are something you can buy right now at ultracheap prices because of how poor their economy is doing.  There's less to do with "Russia is now a good investment!" and more given that oil prices are no longer dropping rapidly, we've sort of hit the new reality of oil prices, they're not likely to change dramatically which returns a certain degree of stability and thus some of the value of Russian bonds.  Going from "worthless" to "worth pennies!" is still a pretty significant gain and from my reading anyway it's not a long term investment they're pushing, more ride the rise from $.00001 to $.001 then foist it off on people who are hoping it goes all the way to being worth $.01

 

Either way Russia is still a fair bit weaker economically than it was when this whole mess kicked off.  And further down that road, even when it was doing better, it was still unable to afford some fairly modest upgrade programs.  Another interesting historical precedent is the MI-28 which is supposed to have replaced the MI-24 by now, but in fact only represents a small portion of available rotary attack platforms.  

 

Historically Russia's rearmament programs for the last twenty years have either been vastly behind, or only replace a small number of the obsolete platforms.  Nothing has changed about Russia's technical and financial situation to indicate it is more able to conduct significant and rapid upgrades in terms of both new platforms (across multiple vehicle and weapons fleet no less!), and upgrade packages for old platforms.

 

Further virtually no military system enters service hiccup free.  And there's little evidence of testing of much of the new hardware (indeed, once it hit the parade grounds we've been seeing a deluge of stuff that previously only existed as fan art).  It stands to reason that even if the money exists, it may be years before the Armata based systems are entering service in number, and much the same goes for APS upgrades.

 

Which all gets to keeping expectations down.  If the first Armata battalion is coming online on time and to spec, then well, we've got something to talk about.  But given the historical, technical, and financial precedents there's really no rational position to hold with new Russian systems than "wait and see" and to adjust expectations accordingly vs expecting things to go from "parades and diagrams!" to "in service enough to be common" in two or so years.

[antaress73]

talking of picking up other nation's equipment,. I like this one

 

Edited April 24, 2015 by antaress73

[exsonic01]

I have a this one 
 
"Hey, I got a new toy~!"

[agusto]

I would not change my M4 for a Dragunov sniper rifle. The M4 with all the tactical upgrades and stuff  is way cooler, and looking cool is all that matters on the modern battlefield. Remember the Marines in CMSF? They would even wear their pitch black sunglasses in the middle of night!

[sburke]

Re: Bonds

 

It's more that Russian bonds are something you can buy right now at ultracheap prices because of how poor their economy is doing.  There's less to do with "Russia is now a good investment!" and more given that oil prices are no longer dropping rapidly, we've sort of hit the new reality of oil prices, they're not likely to change dramatically which returns a certain degree of stability and thus some of the value of Russian bonds.  Going from "worthless" to "worth pennies!" is still a pretty significant gain and from my reading anyway it's not a long term investment they're pushing, more ride the rise from $.00001 to $.001 then foist it off on people who are hoping it goes all the way to being worth $.01

 

Either way Russia is still a fair bit weaker economically than it was when this whole mess kicked off.  And further down that road, even when it was doing better, it was still unable to afford some fairly modest upgrade programs.  Another interesting historical precedent is the MI-28 which is supposed to have replaced the MI-24 by now, but in fact only represents a small portion of available rotary attack platforms.  

 

Historically Russia's rearmament programs for the last twenty years have either been vastly behind, or only replace a small number of the obsolete platforms.  Nothing has changed about Russia's technical and financial situation to indicate it is more able to conduct significant and rapid upgrades in terms of both new platforms (across multiple vehicle and weapons fleet no less!), and upgrade packages for old platforms.

 

Further virtually no military system enters service hiccup free.  And there's little evidence of testing of much of the new hardware (indeed, once it hit the parade grounds we've been seeing a deluge of stuff that previously only existed as fan art).  It stands to reason that even if the money exists, it may be years before the Armata based systems are entering service in number, and much the same goes for APS upgrades.

 

Which all gets to keeping expectations down.  If the first Armata battalion is coming online on time and to spec, then well, we've got something to talk about.  But given the historical, technical, and financial precedents there's really no rational position to hold with new Russian systems than "wait and see" and to adjust expectations accordingly vs expecting things to go from "parades and diagrams!" to "in service enough to be common" in two or so years.

Yeah simple math will tell you the dilemma Russia faces. With a GDP around the size of Italy's they have to first start with their biggest stick - the nuclear weapons arsenal which is enormously expensive. Whatever is left after that is what goes to the rest of the military. So the reality is they have less financial cability than Italy for fielding conventional forces without savaging their own economy. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to begin to understand the implications. The economy was already going to have issues supporting the scale of what Putin wanted to do. Cut the value of their primary export in half and something has to give.

[Stagler]

I view it as I signed up to play a somewhat realistic version of how a 2017 war between the NATO and Russia might play out. I did not sign up to play a version of reality in which Russian military ambitions and designs became unfettered by reality and we're dealing with technical capabilities and equipment that in the real world never survived the Russian economy, or turned out to be crippled by massive technical issues and cost overruns leading to the whole mess being canceled after the first 30 were cranked out.

This door swings both ways.

Are Russian military ambitions running unfettered? Will a whole mess be cancelled after the first 30 be cranked out? Bit of a generalisation here no?

Edited April 24, 2015 by Stagler

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Sure does swing both ways. But we're not pretending there should be M1A3s and upgunned Bradleys zipping around.  Everything that's in now is either well on the way to being in service, or is available but not purchased.  Armata etc, etc is still in the early functional prototype stage.  If there's a later counter-factual module just for giggles it'd be a good fit, but if we're talking about realistic likely outcomes, a 2017 Armataforce is not one of them.

 

 

 

Are Russian military ambitions running unfettered?

They're not actually.  They're still bound by the cold painful reality that Russia is not a rich country, and it's certainly not getting richer.  The game by and large should continue to reflect the Russia as it is, rather than the Russian military steamroller that Russian nationalists/paranoid cold war leftovers believe it is on the verge of becoming.

 

 

 

Will a whole mess be cancelled after the first 30 be cranked out? Bit of a generalisation here no?

 

Considering how most Russian large scale weapons designs have gone since 1991?  I'd say it's a fair assessment of capability.  

[John Kettler]

All,

There is a very simple solution to impose balance in QBs. It potentially screws up FOW, though. Each player picks a force, but may or may not actually get to use it! That determination may be implemented in any number of ways (die roll, stocks, disinterested third party, etc.). Now, I ask you, if you think you're going to be facing the very same gamey uber force you just bought, how likely are you to buy it in the first place? This method automatically drives force selection toward some sort of reasonable choices, there being very few who wish to be obliterated by their own brilliant force selections! I came up with this idea way back in CMx1, and it made the cherry pickers cringe.

womble,

During the Cold War, the US Army fielded the 1000 meter range Dragon ATGM with the expectation that any soldier with rudimentary training could pick it up and use it. Until field trials conclusively determined the hit rates were abysmal despite what the computers and engineers said would happen. It was also noticed that in a given unit, there were a few guys who could really make the Dragon bring the pain. The upshot? The Army abandoned universal use in favor of carefully identified and trained Dragon gunners who could make the best use of the expensive weapon's combat potential. Because Javelin demands so much less of its users, this may no longer be true, or at least not as true as before. Would love to hear about this from the DIN (Doing It Now) and BTDT types here.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited April 24, 2015 by John Kettler

[antaress73]

javelin is like, wait for power up.. point... take a picture of the target and lock, and press the trigger no ? The observation capabilities seems to be a little more complicated though

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Re: Javelin Operator

 

It's what's known as an "ASI" or additional skill identifier. It's a short class anyone can take usually offered at the various training installations (although mobile trainer teams are pretty common). In practice slots are usually reserved to ensure jav equipped units are at or above MTOE.  It's not a hard weapon to operate however and plenty of "Javelin Operators" downrange have the twenty minute version of the class before using it effectively.  

[Battlefront.com]

This door swings both ways.

Are Russian military ambitions running unfettered? Will a whole mess be cancelled after the first 30 be cranked out? Bit of a generalisation here no?

This has been covered before. You were part of that discussion, so I had assumed you were paying attention. Apparently not.

Armata is not a proven produced vehicle yet. 30 made is more than Black Eagle, so it's got more indicating it's going to go into production than that or any of the other cancelled programs. However, until that happens it MUST be considered a "fantasy" vehicle. Just like the various upgrades and version indexes that theoretically could have been in the field years ago but aren't for reasons of cost/benefit, production glitches, or simply they don't work as advertised.

I've said this before. The US military produced 50 Sgt York AAA vehicles. That is almost double what Armata is at right now. And what happened to Sgt York? The closest they got to seeing service was being used for target practice at Redstone Arsenal.

Until Armata is proven to exist as a fielded system, it will not be in Combat Mission. It really is that simple, so I don't know why it is still being talked about.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Again, the impossibru wasn't that something would show up to the parade, it was how real/operational the thing would be, and how fast it would enter service.

Yes. Stagler not only forgot about the standard for inclusion, but he forgot what was actually said about the parade. To paraphrase people like you and me, the reaction was:

"Parade, shamade. Big whooooopty do!"

In other words, being in the parade or not means absolutely nothing in terms important to game inclusion decision making. It could have been in last year's parade for all I care.

Steve

[Apocal]

Because Javelin demands so much less of its users, this may no longer be true, or at least not as true as before. Would love to hear about this from the DIN (Doing It Now) and BTDT types here.

 

The Marines still have Javelin operators as a separate MOS, but the Army has this little simulator thing that they use to get guys spun on Javelin. It really doesn't require much skill; the hardest thing is remembering to make sure the seeker is cooled and that you can only get a lock in NFOV.

 

Actually, I suppose the hardest thing is actually hauling that big mother around...

 

[Kieme(ITA)]

I understand your point Steve, but calling the armata a "fantasy" vehicle is a bit too extreme in my opinion.

 

A "fantasy vehicle" is for me the E100, which was made in form of an unfinished hull (that could be even incapable of moving during a first test)... while the Armata, the Boomerang, the Kruganets ec. are real vehicles, at least they can move with their own engines, they can be piloted, there are more than one of each, maybe we can call them a prototype (or "first run" of prototypes), but not really fantasy (which is a term that brings to the mind high elves, orcs and crap like that).

 

I also agree that showing up in a parade does not proof anything, but at least it's there, there are some things that maybe are made of plywood or not working, but it's not too wrong to assume they are made for the reason to work. Maybe in a few months we'll see more videos of these vehicles in action, aiming, firing, moving, being trapped in the mud, tilted over a roadside etc. that would increase the positive sensation they are real, just in case. If that's not going to happen, and the stuff remains a parade showup finishing their days in the backyard of Kubinka, then I am all against their introduction in CM too.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Re: Fantasy

 

I think it's just a matter of definitions, but the point is likely for 2017, fully operational Armatas, Boomerang etc in combat ready units is pretty fantasy.  It's more real than an E-100 but just as real as the MBT-70, SGT York, and many other similar programs ever were.  In the future it might become not-fantasy, but operational and in service by 2017 is by most accounts quite fantasy.  

[Thewood1]

IIRC, the Russians actually stated that the Armatas in the parade are unfinished and will be going back to the production line for final production.  That says to me that a lot of the system stuff still hasn't been completed.

[Kieme(ITA)]

Those horizontal tubes might be just empty indeed, not to mention the radar boxes, full of vodka for now.

[agusto]

 

(which is a term that brings to the mind high elves, orcs and crap like that).

 

Nothing wrong with Lord of the Rings though.

 

Re: Fantasy

 

I think it's just a matter of definitions, but the point is likely for 2017, fully operational Armatas, Boomerang etc in combat ready units is pretty fantasy.  It's more real than an E-100 but just as real as the MBT-70, SGT York, and many other similar programs ever were.  In the future it might become not-fantasy, but operational and in service by 2017 is by most accounts quite fantasy.  

 

Is two years really such a short time from prototype to introduction? In peace maybe, but WW2 for example saw vehicles go from the drawing board to the front line in much less than that. It is just a question of how big the demand for the new tank is. But lets just wait for 2017 and see whether or not the Armata has been introduced by then. Maybe write to Putin that he should hurry up the Armata development so it wont enter service too late for the last CMBS module .

[Thewood1]

It was already stated and linked somewhere in this thread that Russia was cutting back on Armata orders based on financial issues.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

Is two years really such a short time from prototype to introduction?

 

Yes.  Oh f'ing god yes.  Especially on a totally new AFV.  If this was a T-90AM2 or something I wouldn't be so doubtful, but the Armata is a whole host of systems that have never been used together, or in the real world.  Then you toss in an unconventional design, then you add on a not so great Russian economy, then you add on all the usual operational hiccups that go with fielding even fairly modest new equipment (even the M1A2 SEP V2 suffered a lower than desired maintenance readiness rate simply because the number of spare parts for the new systems hadn't caught up to the demand quite yet during the initial fielding), it just all makes the "HERE ARE SOME FOR PARADE!" a dubious milestone.  Once we see mechanic training get started, or crews get pulled from the rest of the Russian tank fleet to learn how to operate the Armata so they can become Armata instructors, then we can start thinking in terms of being 1-2 years out from having an operational unit.

 

But two years from vehicles that might or might not be operational prototypes?  Little bit loco.