Soft launch... CMBS Battle Pack 1

[Erwin]

5 hours ago, HUSKER2142 said:

**********  SPOILERS - Mission #4 New Russian Campaign ************

 

Erwin

Use any other officer, platoon leader and above. But better commander of the reconnaissance platoon, if such remained. I myself came across a large number of ATGMs.

BTW:  Do you get any replacement drones?  I lost the one we got in Mission #1 or #2, and haven't received another.   

[MOS:96B2P]

12 hours ago, Erwin said:

Not sure of Russian rank.  I see two bars so maybe "Junior Sarge".  He is a Leader and it says "Denied" on all arty.  He does not have a laser designator or binoculars, only night vision.

Denied typically means the unit does not have authority (high enough rank) to call for the asset.  The officer of a Russian FO team is referred to as Forward Observer or Air Controller in the status block (green print on lower left).  The rank of a Russian F/O and Air Controller is Senior Lieutenant.  I'm guessing the Senior Lt. and radio operator were KIA in your last mission.  The remaining soldier became the leader of a one man team with no call authority due to not enough rank.  A leader must also have it's nationalities required rank for support calling authority.   

This is kind of interesting.  A Fire support team in the US TOE can be a Sgt. E5.  Also a US infantry Sgt. E5 can call for artillery (but not air or UAV) support. In the modern Russian Army (at least in the game) it takes a commissioned officer to call for artillery.  I think a Lt. and above.       

[Battlefront.com]

Typically, and definitely traditionally, the Russian/Soviet model is "one level up" from the Western/NATO system.  Generally speaking NATO NCOs are like Russian junior officers, NATO junior officers are more like Russian mid level officers.  There's a number of reasons for this, with training costs being one of them.  NATO NCOs are expensive to train relative to their Russian counterparts.

Steve

 

[Rinaldi]

58 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Typically, and definitely traditionally, the Russian/Soviet model is "one level up" from the Western/NATO system.  Generally speaking NATO NCOs are like Russian junior officers, NATO junior officers are more like Russian mid level officers.  There's a number of reasons for this, with training costs being one of them.  NATO NCOs are expensive to train relative to their Russian counterparts.

Steve

 

Yes, and this situation will persist so long as the Russians have national service; training a professionally-rounded NCO usually leaves you with very little time to actually put their skills to use, and you cannot bank on them volunteering at the end of their compulsary tenure. You can, however, expect a career-mentality with officers. You have a lot of O-1s and O-2s doing what E-6s and E-7s might be doing elsewhere.

The Russian army is 'top heavy' in where officers do a lot of what NCOs may traditionally do in other militaries- and that's not necessarily a bad thing when circumstances are considered.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Rinaldi

[HUSKER2142]

In the game there is no artillery reconnaissance divisions. But to me, as I wrote earlier, an officer was assigned to the unit for calling artillery fire and correcting it. At the same time, I could do this myself, but longer.

Extract from the instruction "INSTRUCTION FOR THE ADJUSTMENTS OF ARTILLERIC FIRE". - "ИНСТРУКЦИЯ КОРРЕКТИРОВЩИКАМ АРТИЛЛЕРИЙСКОГО ОГНЯ"

"An artillery spotter is appointed from among officers, sergeants of artillery reconnaissance units (for example, the division's intelligence chief, commander of a platoon of command, platoon (squad) of artillery intelligence), as well as officers of combined arms units."

[HUSKER2142]

1 hour ago, Rinaldi said:

Yes, and this situation will persist so long as the Russians have national service; training a professionally-rounded NCO usually leaves you with very little time to actually put their skills to use, and you cannot bank on them volunteering at the end of their compulsary tenure. You can, however, expect a career-mentality with officers. You have a lot of O-1s and O-2s doing what E-6s and E-7s might be doing elsewhere.

The Russian army is 'top heavy' in where officers do a lot of what NCOs may traditionally do in other militaries- and that's not necessarily a bad thing when circumstances are considered.

I'm for the professional army, but alas, this will not happen for a long time.
For complex soldier and sergeant positions, a soldier of a contractor is always appointed, and not a conscript's soldier. The situation could be changed if the conscription service returned 2 years, but it is better 3 years. How to encourage could be a smaller percentage of taxes after military service and the possibility of entering the civil service.

[Erwin]

More to the point re the game, wasn't there a patch a long time ago that ensured that in campaigns an FO is "recovered/replaced" by the next mission so it can call for support.  Otherwise it may be impossible to carry on a campaign if air or arty is critical to winning.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I am starting to like these battle packs despite some initial doubts. Maybe the CMBS packs could go for a theme. For instance the next one might examine he Russian attempt to take Kiev and the early phases of the NATO counteroffensive. I would like to see more night tank battles - both sides have good night vision capability and would be using it. An assault on Kiev would result in some of he most intense combat of the war and both sides would be going for broke at his point. 

Perhaps the pack could be organised into the Russian and NATO victory timelines with some attention granted to a Russian exploitation of success in the Battle of Kiev 

[Artkin]

1 hour ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

I am starting to like these battle packs despite some initial doubts. Maybe the CMBS packs could go for a theme. For instance the next one might examine he Russian attempt to take Kiev and the early phases of the NATO counteroffensive. I would like to see more night tank battles - both sides have good night vision capability and would be using it. An assault on Kiev would result in some of he most intense combat of the war and both sides would be going for broke at his point. 

Perhaps the pack could be organised into the Russian and NATO victory timelines with some attention granted to a Russian exploitation of success in the Battle of Kiev 

This a very good idea Steve. I hope you will take this into consideration. Maybe a winter themed battlepack, I would love to have that snow option usable. And with global warming and all, who's to say it can't snow in August? 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

52 minutes ago, Artkin said:

This a very good idea Steve. I hope you will take this into consideration. Maybe a winter themed battlepack, I would love to have that snow option usable. And with global warming and all, who's to say it can't snow in August? 

In fact extending the timeline to allow a winter variant (say September 2017 - March 2018 would be welcome :-) Either he war lasts for a few months or the same scenario as we have now occurs but. instead of war starting in June the conflict imitates in November and pauses when the Mud Season starts. As with the current scenario allows negotiations. If we had a continuation of the original scenario one might assume the war continues following a breakdown of the talks with the situation continuing o develop from he positions at the end of August with the war continuing  during the winter - one or both sides initiate winter offensives in the hope of achieving a decisive victory

[Erwin]

"...more night tank battles - both sides have good night vision capability and would be using it."

Since most modern armies prefer to fight at night, this is understandable.  But, the CM2 game, in order to SEE anything, one has to increase the gain/brightness so much that it just looks bright but awful. 

So, realism be damned imo.  It's nice to see the pretty full-color daytime graphics.  It's almost worth making a separate game in which the only color is green night vision and save on all that money required to get color and texture correct.  (Actually IIRC there is a mod that does that.  CMSF??  Maybe folks should use that to get the night effect.)

[HUSKER2142]

1 hour ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

n fact extending the timeline to allow a winter variant (say September 2017 - March 2018 would be welcome :-) Either he war lasts for a few months or the same scenario as we have now occurs but. instead of war starting in June the conflict imitates in November and pauses when the Mud Season starts. As with the current scenario allows negotiations. If we had a continuation of the original scenario one might assume the war continues following a breakdown of the talks with the situation continuing o develop from he positions at the end of August with the war continuing  during the winter - one or both sides initiate winter offensives in the hope of achieving a decisive victory

As an option, a short-term conflict in the Baltic. During the battles in Ukraine, Russia secretly transferred mobile installations of the INF to Kaliningrad, which became known by the end of hostilities. After refusal to withdraw missiles from the region and destroy them under UN supervision. The NATO alliance is launching a ground operation to search for and destroy mobile installations. In response, Russia begins an invasion of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, which would pierce the land corridor to Kaliningrad.

Yes, the idea is insane, but it's just a game.

[Erwin]

Invading those accursed Lithuanians would be a good idea.  The Latvians aren't much better - I know... my wife's Latvian.  But harmless beautiful little Estonia??   Oh, the humanity...

Edited May 2, 2017 by Erwin

[Erwin]

Completed Mission #4 in New Russian Campaign.

 

 

********** SPOILERS ***********

 

 

This one is a more classic all ahead river crossing and assault.  Fairly small map, so not much maneuver possible.  Again, send in recon units to spot the enemy positions.  Use tanks mostly to snipe enemy tanks.  Again, it seems that the Russian tanks and BMP's can usually spot first and shoot first.  Russians have plenty of arty and a couple Hinds.  However, it takes so long to call em in that only really useful vs buildings in town, and maybe linear along the river's edge where you'd expect defenders.

Because of the small map it's hard to get much more the 300-500m LOS/range.  That means that FO's and spotters are seen more easily and enemy arty gets called and it's nasty.  Again, it's hard to avoid one's FO's from taking casualties... and/or they try to flee and that makes their arty calls even longer.  Once the Ukrainian enemy found groups of inf or vehicles their arty is devastating.  There is also Ukrainian or US aviation, and they made some nice big holes - one was 40m wide!  And three BMP's were in the bottom KO'd. 

Had an issue with the paucity of Iglas AA missile units.  Had three Iglas units.  However, even with reloading from their BMP's, they fired off everything, ran out or missiles and then the enemy air hit my units and nothing I could do.  It would be shocking in RL if one had so few AA assets, or reloads(!)

Really enjoyed the first half.  The 2nd half became a mess as I pushed forward to the bridges (the other river crossings didn't seem workable).  I probably shoulda use smoke more.  But it took so long to get Russian arty to do anything.  Used vehicular smoke eventually to enable tanks and BMP's to reach the town and wipe out defenders. My Russian inf were mostly wiped out by enemy arty and air.  However, killed enuff Ukrainians and some US advisors apparently and won a TV with over 10 minutes left on the clock.  I could been a little slower and more careful and not suffered so many inf losses.  However, in these missions the enemy always has more stuff than the attacker and their losses are much larger.

Interestingly halfway through when I had to go out, I CF'd to see my progress and the campaign ended with a Minor Victory for the Russians.  However, after playing to the end, the campaign continues - am now setting up Mission #5.  This is a larger map.    I just hope that my inf losses don't make these following missions impossible. 

While the 150mm and 220mm ammo is 100% replaced, ammo for the 120mm mortars is not resupplied.  (Strange.)   Nor (it seems) is ammo in the BMP's and tanks.   Also, I find that my WIA/KIA tank crew are not replaced, neither are my FO's.  I thought that was fixed a long time ago so that AFV crews and FO's as well as HQ units are replaced between missions.  Surely that would be RL??

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

12 hours ago, HUSKER2142 said:

As an option, a short-term conflict in the Baltic. During the battles in Ukraine, Russia secretly transferred mobile installations of the INF to Kaliningrad, which became known by the end of hostilities. After refusal to withdraw missiles from the region and destroy them under UN supervision. The NATO alliance is launching a ground operation to search for and destroy mobile installations. In response, Russia begins an invasion of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, which would pierce the land corridor to Kaliningrad.

Yes, the idea is insane, but it's just a game.

Expanded war options would be interesting. Belorussia might also be invaded 

hAttp://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Will-Belarus-Be-The-Next-Ukraine-For-Russia.html

And I believe they do use the T-80...

[banned]

On 21.4.2017 at 5:49 AM, Battlefront.com said:

Seems this needs more repeating   Yeah, we'd never charge $10 for a "couple of maps" because we know nobody would pay $10 for "a couple of maps".  Which is why this Battle Pack is not a "couple of maps"   Two expertly crafted campaigns that have been play balanced and vetted by the same guys who work on the content for all our games is definitely not a "couple of maps".  If that's not interesting to someone, we're fine with that.  But mischaracterizing doesn't make the Battle Pack look bad, it makes... well, it doesn't make the criticism look very relevant.

Steve 

Well, at least since this somewhat overdone response you´ve made the criticism look relevant.

b2t: Im am into the 4th mission of the Battlepack US campaign and also took a look at the 1st mission of the Russian Campaign.

- you´ll get good content for $10.

- Maps are unique and look very well.

- For me as a real-time player who tends to get slacky, the US campaign is quiet challenging. The Time Limit on some of these missions sucessfully pressed me into making painful sacrifices. However I welcome this as it demands to deviate from the usual stragegies I´ve been utilizing since almost a decade now.

- Some briefings won´t prepare you for what will come. US Campaign keeps me on alert for possible unexpected threats. Also enjoy that.

- I certainly welcome the introduction of the "Decision point" workaround which demands the player to make tough decisions and thus influences the progression of the campaign.

- Encountered bugs: Experienced some weird LOS troubles where vehicles (with no system damage) didn´t have a Line of Sight even on things right in front of them. In one occasion a T90 wasn´t able to aim at a two story building right in front of him, came under fire, and its LOS was suddenly fixed. Also got this blast order translates to a quick move order, fix: select the quick move wp and issue "blast" again. 4.0´s new evasive/retreat AI behaviour can become extremely annoying, but thats nothing new.

- The mission briefings are still have this very dry writing style as some of you may remember from generic OTS scenarios. Furthermore the Campaign missions appears to be just loosely connected. The name of the game for a mission briefing is to be short but for the sake of entertainment and immersion let us know about the state of the war and the political situation in the country and world. Give us insights into the commander(s) background, thoughts, and doubts. By adding some narrative you could add lot of meaning to these missions and the campaign with a comparatively low effort. Get insipiration from Dragonwynn´s campaigns or "Kampfgruppe von Schroif" for CMRT, these and some other did a really great job in providing a multifaceted war scenario just trough the power of plain text.        

Edited May 3, 2017 by MANoWAR.U51

[HUSKER2142]

9 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

Expanded war options would be interesting. Belorussia might also be invaded 

hAttp://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Will-Belarus-Be-The-Next-Ukraine-For-Russia.html

And I believe they do use the T-80...

Belarus will try its best to be in neutrality, to give the maximum to the territory if the group of Russian troops is defeated in Kaliningrad, to allow the troops to retreat. Provision of secretly conducting radio technical reconnaissance. I do not think that Belarus will enter into a conflict unless it is threatened or the war moves to the territory of the Russian Federation.

 

 

Russian Campaign -  SPOILERS 

 

As a result, the Russian campaign came out of 4 missions. In the 4th last mission it was hard, mainly because of counter attacks by tank platoons and attacks by the enemy's artillery. My T-90s were like a fire brigade, they saved those, then others.

P.S. I did not pay attention, but where did the 1st company of the battalion go?

Edited May 3, 2017 by HUSKER2142

[niall78]

Just got this last night and am half an hour into the first Russian campaign mission. Loving it so far.

Great work on these 'battle packs' BF. A must buy for me as I love campaigns. Hopefully we'll see lots more of these packs rolled out for all the titles over the next few years.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

14 hours ago, HUSKER2142 said:

Belarus will try its best to be in neutrality, to give the maximum to the territory if the group of Russian troops is defeated in Kaliningrad, to allow the troops to retreat. Provision of secretly conducting radio technical reconnaissance. I do not think that Belarus will enter into a conflict unless it is threatened or the war moves to the territory of the Russian Federation.

 

 

Russian Campaign -  SPOILERS 

 

As a result, the Russian campaign came out of 4 missions. In the 4th last mission it was hard, mainly because of counter attacks by tank platoons and attacks by the enemy's artillery. My T-90s were like a fire brigade, they saved those, then others.

P.S. I did not pay attention, but where did the 1st company of the battalion go?

Even if Belarus attempts to stay neutral does not guarantee they would not be invaded. Once a war has started with NATO Putin might weld decide to attack Belarus States. While an escalation this would still keep the war relatively limited to the territories of the former Soviet Union.

Regarding Kaliningrad it may well be that Russia would invade the Baltic Sates in order to link up with the Oblast. However, if Article 5 is not in play at this point it would be pretty quickly following a Russian move of that sort. Militarily NATO might not be able to prevent the conquest of the Baltic States but, politically it could be a mistake for Putin Russia however would have to move swiftly to achieve all military objectives before NATO is fully mobilized and deployed to Eastern Europe

[HUSKER2142]

6 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

Even if Belarus attempts to stay neutral does not guarantee they would not be invaded. Once a war has started with NATO Putin might weld decide to attack Belarus States. While an escalation this would still keep the war relatively limited to the territories of the former Soviet Union.

Regarding Kaliningrad it may well be that Russia would invade the Baltic Sates in order to link up with the Oblast. However, if Article 5 is not in play at this point it would be pretty quickly following a Russian move of that sort. Militarily NATO might not be able to prevent the conquest of the Baltic States but, politically it could be a mistake for Putin Russia however would have to move swiftly to achieve all military objectives before NATO is fully mobilized and deployed to Eastern Europe

Belarus is too valuable an ally for Russia, in this country there has never been a regime that threatens Russia's security.

As I described above that the invasion of the Baltic countries by Russia, will cause the NATO invasion of Kaliningrad to search for and destroy the INF systems in Kaliningrad. To invade the Baltic states simply because of political ambitions the Kremlin is not a fool.

Edited May 4, 2017 by HUSKER2142

[Erwin]

My understanding is that Russians have a relatively small cadre of well-trained and equipped troops.  They don't possess enuff of the good stuff to be doing a "Hitler World Tour" banging on everyone's doors all at the same time.  If they overcommit in any arena, they would lose a lot of their good stuff, and have the Chinese at their backs. 

The US used to be able to fight one major war and one minor war simultaneously. That IIRC is no longer viable.  Superpowers have limits.  As a result we can be relatively unconcerned about Russia.  China is a real problem cos of their support of N. Korea, and also their massive expansion into the South China seas grabbing hundreds of thousands of square miles of ocean through which sails something like 90% of world trade.  Now, THAT is a threat that no one wants to talk about.. 

[Artkin]

If I were china I'd fight Russia for land to further my empire  

[LUCASWILLEN05]

18 hours ago, HUSKER2142 said:

Belarus is too valuable an ally for Russia, in this country there has never been a regime that threatens Russia's security.

As I described above that the invasion of the Baltic countries by Russia, will cause the NATO invasion of Kaliningrad to search for and destroy the INF systems in Kaliningrad. To invade the Baltic states simply because of political ambitions the Kremlin is not a fool.

So was Ukraine until there was a revolution.

If Belarus remains a Russian ally they might well allow passage through their territory for an invasion of the Baltic States and/or Ukraine. They might even commit their own army in support of Russia. Either way NATO would regard Belarus as a belligerent

Regarding the Baltic States, the best time for Russia to make that move is very early in a war - and there probably is not much NATO can do to stop them from being overrun

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/23/nato-cant-protect-baltics-from-russia-says-us-general/

Indeed the Baltic States could easily become a trap just as Belgium was a trap in 1940. That is not to say that Kaliningrad would not be a NATO objective later in the war, during a NATO counter offensive. It very likely would have to be taken as a pre -requisite for the liberation of he Baltic States. If Belarus were in the war on Russia's side NATO would have to occupy that territory in order to protect the right flank of forces advancing into the Baltic States (and for that matter the left flank of forces operating in Ukraine.

All of this should generate an interesting background for scenarios...

[Bartokomus]

Just popped in to say i'm loving the battle pack, well done guys.

[kraze]

Hey guys I've completed mission 4 (US Total Victory) with touching OBJ Charlie Mike (was its name I think?) and briefing said it will cause my forces to attack an EW site

But the next mission was me pushing through phase lines to attrit enemy forces. Is that OK? Maybe I misunderstood something?

(as a side note this mission's briefing image mentions 3 objectives that you need to occupy but they are from the mission 4 and are not present)