Leaderboard

I know I post pointless things like this too often, but I just can't get over the incredible wealth of fun I get out of the Combat Mission games. I've been playing Commonwealth and minor Allies in CMFI so long - with huge enjoyment - that now I've started a few QBs with US forces they seem brand new. Meanwhile, I carved off a few slices of the gorgeous CMFR master maps, quickly threw together some QB maps and started playing them - late '44, early '45 - which are a terrific challenge and hugely enjoyable. The AI does such a good job with a good map that you can put together your own fun QB map on your own chosen terrain with relative ease, without any idea of how the battle will unfold. And I'm still scratching the surface of CMCW, which offers a whole new unfamiliar world of units, vehicles and capabilities which are engrossing and offer a whole new historical learning curve. Plus of course I still dip into the other titles (I've still to properly explore CMBS and CMFB - and after all these years with different versions, I still love the extended versions of CMSF and CMBN). Through all kinds of ups and downs in life, Combat Mission has been my 'happy place' for nearly 20 years!! 20 years FFS!! That's beyond unique for a computer game. Sorry - I'm a bit drunk, but I just had to say wax rhapsodic...

Combat Mission: Shock Force 2 AAR Attack in Brandenburg By: beeron Introduction I decided to create this AAR after being inspired by my wargaming heroes, Bil Hardenberger, Jeffrey Paulding, IICptMillerII, Domfluff and several more on the CM discord and forums. You will see their influence in this AAR. For this battle, I chose GeorgeMC's excellent scenario "Tactical Vignette 98-3 Attack in Brandenburg SF2". The battle is an intense one, with the remnants of a company team fighting for it's life against a competent near peer threat, while a QRF rushes to save them and finish the mission. I have modified many aspects of my game visually, including BLUFOR and OPFOR skins. Feel free to ask if you'd like them. Mission TF 1-8 INF is to push through the town of "Brandenburg" in order to secure the bridge that crosses the "Ohio" River. Bravo Team was ambushed while rushing to set up a SBF position, and must be rescued before they are annihilated. Brigade has ordered me to take over their mission to secure the bridge and rescue their survivors. Objectives Neutralize Sahrani Liberation Army resistance in the town of "Brandenburg" Occupy Objective White Rescue surviving elements of 1st platoon, Bravo Team Reach Route MOE, the MSR Desired End State Resistance in the town suppressed Bridge across the Ohio River secured Surviving elements of Bravo Team rescued and casualties MEDEVACED Tactical Map Enemy Forces S-2 had limited intelligence on the enemy, they suspected veteran SLA mechanized airborne units reinforced by Crack Special Forces elements. Unfortunately, they were right. Bravo-6 radioed they were ambushed by a company sized element of SLA mechanized airborne, reinforced by a few BMP 3s. To add insult to injury, my Delta Team has spotted several SLA Special Forces AT-14 teams by the Mosque, a serious threat to the well being of any human being in an armored vehicle. These forces are no joke, an overconfident commander could easily take heavy casualties before reaching the town. The AT-14 does a good job at killing any American armor put in the wrong hands. The are the biggest threat to my company right now, located on the southern part of "Brandenburg" by the mosque. These AT-14s occupy the high ground, which gives them the ability to overlook any avenue of approach my company team can take. They must be neutralized before I can execute my maneuver plan. (SLA SF Operator) (SLA Airborne Trooper) (SLA Airborne BMP-3) (A Knocked Out Special Forces AT-14 Team) Terrain & Weather The weather is good, if hotter then hell. There is a gentle breeze from the west to cool off the troops just a tad. This town hasn't seen rain in about 2 weeks, leaving the sky clear and the ground very dry. Off road driving should not be too complicated. The terrain surrounding Brandenburg is hilly, with both the north side and south sides of the town containing high ground. I expect plenty of ATGM teams from both sides. The town of Brandenburg itself is pretty small, with tiny communities on the outskirts. Civilians have evacuated the area, and only a few remain leaving the ROE extremely flexible. However, before my company team can reach Brandenburg, they either must cross two streams, or take the MSR that Bravo was ambushed on. I decide I don't want to suffer a similar fate to Bravo and opt to cross the streams. Troops I am in command of D/1-8 INF attached to 3rd BCT, 4th ID. Delta team consists of two tank platoons of a mix of M1A1HCs and M1A2SEPs and a platoon of mechanized infantry riding in M2A3 Bradleys. None of my vehicles are equipped with ERA or any extra protection against shaped charges. Supporting fires consist of a platoon of 120mm mortars, with the addition of a 120mm mortar carrier riding into battle with my company. (A Squad Leader from my mechanized platoon engaged with the enemy) Initial Scheme of Maneuver The time is 11:10 and I have 1 hour and 20 minutes to achieve my mission. Delta will move to the high ground at Hill 37.9 and then into the town to rescue the remnants of Bravo and destroy the enemy. Delta's preparatory fires will be with a section of 107mm mortars firing airburst on the AT-14s down south. Bravo has called for danger close mortar fire across the street onto enemy positions, practically on top of themselves out of desperation. They are fighting for their lives and must be rescued as soon as possible.

The Battle Begins for Delta It is go time! The first minute of the battle begins. My forces are deployed in the manner shown above. My company team is holding, waiting for the AT-14s to be suppressed before they advance past the muddy stream bed. Meanwhile, Bravo Team fights for their life in a bloody firefight. Only 14 Men are not casualties. Meanwhile, 3rd platoon of Bravo Team is pulling security outside of Brandenburg. Unfortunately, 3rd platoon has no Bradley Fighting Vehicles (BFV). I will likely keep them in a reserve, the last thing I need is to divert forces to rescue another cutoff platoon. (Bravo Team's fight for their life) Immediately, the kill zone inside Brandenburg erupts into a symphony of automatic rifle fire and grenades. Within 15 seconds the first enemy casualty is caused when a burst of 5.56 from a SAW zips through an SLA Sniper. Suddenly, a BMP-3 appears in the street in front of the survivors of 3rd and 1st squad. This is a serious threat, fortunately the BMP's gunner misses before the commander orders them to reverse. Bravo only has a single AT-4 between their 14 men. This means Bravo will likely be engaging the BMPs with HEDP rounds from their 203s, or die trying. Shortly after, Bravo-6's fire mission splashes down on the SLA side of the street. The 107mm mortar rounds are landing within 70 meters from friendly forces, almost right on top of them. Thankfully, the buildings mostly protect my men from shrapnel. Hundreds of rounds have already been fired in the first minute alone. (Rounds impacting while both sides engage fire) Unfortunately, Bravo's first casualty inside the buildings is sustained when a SAW gunner (carrying the only AT4) is seriously wounded by AK74 fire. Bravo has now lost their only real anti tank asset. Meanwhile, my company has spotted one AT-14 team on the southern hill, obviously the first of many. Shortly after, my preparatory fire begins landing on their head. Unfortunately, he is not mulched into ground beef, but at least the gunner is suppressed for now. My company will hold until I can identify more AT-14 positions on the hill. Suppressing one AT-14 does not guarantee the safety of my men, and those AT-14s are more then capable of destroying my tanks while crossing the muddy stream. (107mm airburst shells impacting around an AT-14 position) With that, the first minute of action has been concluded. Stick around, there will be plenty of killing. In the meantime, here are some pictures taken by a couple of reporters attached to the battalion. (SFC Bobbitt's M1A2 SEP, PSG of 2nd Platoon, Delta Team) (SSG Raney's men fight for their lives outside of the Brandenburg kill zone) (Bravo's 4th BFV burns in the kill zone)

I can see it's been a while since I gave my fellow tree-huggers an update so ... I'll start with the bocage, or rather sunken lanes. I've been doing some experiments with other ways of creating sunken lanes. Previously I had just put two rows of tall bocage on adjacent, parallel rows of tiles. This provided a not too bad version of the sunken lanes we see in Normandy, but I felt it could be improved upon, or at least made differently. So starting with the same two rows of tall bocage what I tried was to ditchlock the bocage in ditches of 1-2m depth running their length, any more and the ground becomes very distorted whilst surroundings become harder to manage. The ground texture is, at the moment, just plain old dirt, but other textures might well be useful, forest light can look effective, but does introduce quite a bit of vegetation so the path becomes less distinct. A custom tagged ground texture might be the way to go on these. The result, with lots of heavy bocage, is a tunnel-like experience that I would imagine provides almost total concealment, and which induces a real sense of claustrophobia. They are just about wide enough for smaller vehicles though corners are likely to stop movement. Probably best treated as footpaths. Here's a little sample map with trees off ... At left a zigzag path running uphill south to north, forking at the top, the other down the middle running along a field edge. As you can see they are somewhat narrower than the regular dirt road, at left and right. At ground level ... ... the track through the middle, just about wide enough for a 250, probably navigable, but a bumpy ride ... ... hunting through the dappled shade further up the path ... ... it's dark in there, even on a sunny day! Now back to trees ... As it stands I have now done enough exercises and experiments in Blender to successfully export tree models, new or modified, with proper wrapped bark texture on the trunks and nicely swaying leaves for windier conditions. I've learnt some more of the limitations of the game engine. I've figured out an approach to making LODs that works in both the same way as the originals but also, I hope, enhances the look of them somewhat. I can pretty much make any tree that I desire to see in the game, and have it appear in pretty much all seasons, though winter is still to be worked on just because how snow looks on trees can vary tremendously depending on the amount of precipitation, so coming up with a single solution for all snowy conditions is unlikely to give the best results. This will also apply to bushes. This all assumes that BF DON'T change the way trees work in all the existing WW2 games since I discovered SF2 has a quite different approach that I think will be more difficult to mod in such a pleasing manner. So, introducing the Scot's Pine (Pinus sylvestris) or my take on it. It's the tall ones centre left. (These are in BN) I have made these deliberately taller than the stock pine trees. They stand head and shoulders above other trees and are more like the type that might be seen in a mature plantation rather than the more twisted forms that are also commonly seen. Pines are generally used in game to represent plantations or vast forests so it seemed appropriate. Going forward I will probably increase the height of some of the other trees a bit as they're on the small side IMHO. Any tree can of course be made to represent whatever tree we want by reworking the model and a little tagging or renaming. We can even have a set of say just pines and conifers to represent a heavy coniferous forest seen in more northerly or mountainous regions. A small plantation. Scot's Pines are found throughout much of mainland Europe so are a good species to represent. The models are a bit more complex and natural than the game originals but they seem to work without problem in game. Running the game at balanced or improved which are the recommended setting means that LODs are used more often. What I discovered is that the LODs are actually used a lot more than I originally suspected. So long as a tree isn't moving then it's probably a LOD, usually LOD level 1 but more often LOD 2 or LOD 3 are used. What this means is that the lower detailed models are used even when quite close to them. LOD 1 will be in view at ranges of less 50m commonly, and in some cases when it's almost right next to the viewpoint, LODs 2 and 3 are commonly seen from about 100m out to 400m, whilst LOD 4 (the star-shaped trees viewed from high above) are seen at anything from 100m to a few km depending on quality settings and how many trees are featured on the map. Incidentally LOD 3 is the model used for bare tree trunks when trees are toggled off. What I've tried to do is make the detail levels of the first three LOD levels a bit closer to the detail level of the normal model, reducing it as the LODs become more distant. I have also tried to make LOD 4 look a bit more like a tree in the distance but also, importantly for very large dense forests, allowed it to work when viewed from a bit closer. I can't control when LODs kick in, but I can make the models a bit more detailed to compensate for this. Morning on the edge of the Zon Forest near to the town of Best (MG Outstanding Gallantry). The distant trees are LOD 4. At the edge of the forest - a lot of trees! The foreground is Normal and LOD 1 but the scene quickly starts to use LOD 4 models because of the sheer number of trees rendered. Of note, the LOD 4 models don't cast or receive shadows. The other side of the forest in sunlight, the trees in the middle are LOD 4, notice how the light doesn't affect their trunks, can't alter this ... ... but, IMHO, they do blend quite well, especially considering they are used relatively close up, as on the right here. Another benefit of the extra details, hopefully, is that the jerkiness and flickering associated with trees won't be so noticeable when transitions between LODs are a little smoother, but this is yet to be demonstrated with multiple new models. Things like the lack of shadows on LOD level 4 are stuff that I can't influence. Increasing ones quality settings in-game pushes the point at which LODs are introduced further form the camera, but at a serious cost in render speed and frame rate. The shadows under the trees move back a bit but they are still missing in the distance. A mistake in my opinion since the shadows at that distance bind the trees to the ground and create a sense of distance and depth, they're what makes it look three dimensional, makes it pop! Look at a landscape with distant woods and you'll notice that the underside of trees and the ground below, even on dull days, is much darker, whereas in game it's light and indistinct. I know that there are compromises with how the game has to work and what is rendered, limited by consideration for hardware, but I do believe this one is an error in judgement ... IMHO. If I could fix one thing it might be this ... The Rhone Valley as appears in game on a bright day but not full sun (with my mods) Artist's (huhhum) impression with shadows under distant trees. Perhaps a consideration for the next engine ... As always your feedback is greatly appreciated. And remember to plant a tree

As much as I have been trying to stay out of this, I think this brings up a interesting background info point on "How to Research for a PC game". I am not going to weigh in on the specific argument, except to say I don't think we are going to see modeling of the current ammunition characteristics change dramatically - if for the reason alone that it basically feels about right. We may see minor tweaks but right now we are not advocating for major mechanical changes to weapon systems (we would like to see some shifts in ammo types but that is another issue). So as to these CIA documents. Well first off, as impressive as the CIA is as an intelligence agency (and here movies and media have probably done more to promote the myth than anything), it is in the end a government agency. Being government means that any information you glean immediately must take into account the broader context, and all of it with healthy grains of salt. So John's first link I have actually seen before and it basically lays out the "threat" as they understood it in 1984. It is a "memorandum" and as such is probably one of the better sources one could draw upon. It really lays out the Soviet "tank position" and is not bad. My only concern is that I am left wondering if it is a "say nothing new...because" report that sticks to the party line that the current administration wanted to hear...remember it was 1984 and the US was trying to attrit its way out of the Cold War, which turned out to be a good strategy. The second link I take with a lot more critical eyes. First off, it is a "thought piece" which the agency clearly puts at arms lengths ("the opinions of the authors"), so this is a trick that gets played all the time. When one is trying to make a big argument, get some reputable senior folks to write an "opinion piece". If it works, great. If it creates blowback we just say "well it was their opinion". Further, any "thought piece" sponsored by the agency that basically promotes "a modest improvements in intelligence..." (pg 2) set off that little yellow light. Was this real or was it a promotion piece to try and get more CIA funding. Then when one starts to dig a bit and open the aperture, I get more odd smells. This piece was written in the Carter administration and that was not a great time to be in the CIA (we allude to this in the CMCW backstory), or National Defence for that matter. Finally, the Director of the CIA at the time was ADM Turner ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stansfield_Turner) who not only was a big fan of technical intel (and put HUMINT in the back seat) but was Navy through and through. This thought piece is very technical - play to the boss - but also very Army who were competing heavily to get their AirLand Battle concept off the ground and fighting for tenuous funding, all after Vietnam. In this context that paper really should be taken cautiously. It does lay out what was a dangerous situation. We know the US had fallen behind both technologically but also in over all mass, all the while with no offset strategy beyond nukes...not good. But is it possible that an Army General is over-polishing the threat to simultaneously promote agency and Army funding...absolutely. In the end, when researching one has to remember that we can only see snippets of a much larger game being played at the time...and that matters. Probably some of the best historical references that I found (and used) weren't locked away in TOP SECRET CIA drawers (and trust me, government overclassifies everything) they are in minutes from appropriation meetings: https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Department_of_Defense_Appropriations_for/llZ5mbGatSYC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=US+defence+spending+TOW+missile&pg=PA534&printsec=frontcover These are not dark assessments, made in the shadows...this is the money trail of what actually happened. The "truth" is far more mundane in reality and is largely guarded by accountants.

https://imgur.com/a/Sv3OEjk Currently playing around with different AAR formats, pleased with imgur so far since it allows a lot of flexibility with file sizes and videos.

There it is...I suppose you want to see my manager next. No, we are not tweaking based on your feedback (beyond the Tac Air Controller, which I did most of the legwork on as your responses were extremely vague) and you should not walk away thinking that. We are tweaking based on MKs feedback because it is good. It shows screen shots of an end-mission screen and layout which does not look right. It let me narrow down a feature that was left out by mistake. Of course I made a mistake and am acknowledging them, that is why I am posting here for all to read and not offline. As to this whole "hurt puppy" routine, take it somewhere else. You have been loud, entitled and rude pretty much since you dumped on this forum. Hell, you came back for a big "I told you so" moment, and now you fall to the ground a "wounded paying customer". You gave BFC legal currency, they gave you a game and we will continue to support that game, including fixing tweaks and errors. None of it bought being simply rude to the people who are trying to build the best game with what they have for a community they have been a part of for over 20 years.

I'm glad we clamped down on that rampant positivity so harshly. Wouldn't want to think one could enjoy playing Combat Mission.

I am running this at "a Few Good Men" site and if you are not a member, there is no cost to join if you are interested. Below is a general discription of the format (and yes it requires you to mail turns through dropbox to play) This Combat Mission Cold War tournament consist of 5 rounds; one battle for each round, each battle lasting 30 minutes or less. Players are required to do approx 5 turns a week at a minimum. Format: Players will be given a selected force. The mission will be to do the best they can with the situation they have been given and the scoring will be given out to the top 50 percent from each side of the battle. In other words, the side given to the player could be very challenging, but perform better than 50 percent of the players playing that side of the battle and they have won and will be given a point value as to how they have done. Winners will get a score of somewhere between 80 to 100 points per match depending on how they have performed to each other. so best player will receive 100 points, lowest winner will receive 80 points, and everyone else is somewhere in between. Scoring in scenarios will be one's score minus the opponents score (as to how they will be selected for the top 50%). Each player will be in charge of a different Nations forces throughout the 5 battles, so skill with all forces will be a factor. as well as both offensive and defensive skills. Battles are designed generally to be short and intense ( I have been keeping all battles at 30 minutes or less.). A dropbox folder is to be maintained with a invite to the Tournament master (Slysniper), This will provide me access to the game files if for any reason we need to replace a player or verify slow play issues. Please name the dropbox files in a method that I can tell who is vs who (exam: Jtimo vs grunt match1). Game files shall stay in the dropbox folder and not be deleted until the Gamemaster (@SlySniper) has copied and removed them. No surrender at any time is allowed. if you want to end a game early, then use cease fire with both players agreeing to those terms, if one player wants to play on instead, allow him to do so until he is satisfied. It is in your own best interest to put up the best fight you can no matter what. (No one wants to be that guy that has the best score posted against him) If for any reason a player needs to drop out of game play, just contact me and let me know of your intentions and I will make sure any non-completed game will be finished for the remaining opponent. This format has been received very well and this is going to be the third Tornament under this format.

From the CMFR Cutting Room Floor. Any time there was a BFC switch over to another project, I'd try out something weird with the included tools. You may have seen a version of this in CMCW, which was an adaptation of this original concept. The idea is to have a visual to track the campaign over, with choices depicted "on map" for the campaign portion. This is simply a map that is zoomed way out to cover an operational area. Houses are towns, large buildings are urban areas, factories are industrial areas, and so on. The scale has been exploded to represent a potential campaign level view. The player would have a small unit representing their force on-map. I suppose you could have more than one unit, t depict multiple combat groups, but that is untested. Enemy forces would probably be tied to the scenario, but there may be some area for creativity there. The campaign script has two potential decisions per branch. That could be a choice between any number of scenarios - a choice between attacking one of two towns, etc. Something like this could used as a makeshift operational map. This concept could then be used (in whole or portion) to create branching battles on an "operational map" made from a standard map...but scaled up. I like the idea of using the entire map for this one, as it would keep a sense of progression (or not). Like CMMC, but without any extra engine stuff, and everything is tracked via the campaign script. It gives a graphic progression to the text-based campaign we currently have. My idea was to have a few new flavor objects for the towns and smaller trees, but it can be done with what we have (and maybe a 2D mod or two). I suppose there should be some standard for what the 3D stuff means (2 small barns= town, 4 large buildings= city, etc). It's getting the practical stuff on-map, then making sure it doesn't look like a dog's breakfast in 3D. The "operational map" where the high-level branching choices are is below - this map being for the area covered by Operation Spring Awakening. It was too much of a slog for a campaign, but the operational map remains. If you have CMFR, you will see some maps destined for this idea. In practical terms - The choice to the player would be "take the road to Deg, or take the road to Enying", then the player will move their campaign operational map Schwimmwagen/Jeep, etc. to that "town" on the map (or any choice trigger terrain), which will be linked to that battle as the next battle in the campaign in the campaign script. I the map attached, the Germans start at the west (just because of the current map rotation - really north), heading east (south, geographically) to Simontornya or Cece. The attached example is far too large, and was intended to be split into smaller sections. Doing something of this size would be unmanageable to make a campaign script for if the battles were numerous. Each operational sub-map would be its own campaign, with 6 or so branches. That's probably 12 sub-maps, which can be easily made from Master Maps, QB maps, etc. If I get any free time to cipher it out, I'll attach a script example for the branching for the first round using this map, and maybe others may wish to test the idea out on their own ideas. I have a few of my own, but they need a fair amount of time to percolate. Images, looking west to east. Hungary, Lake Balaton region.

Screenshot dump from one of the Fire and Rubble scenarios. Soviets get something like 900 men and a crapload of tanks in this one. Soviets are attacking a series of hills against dug-in Germans. I chose to mass my forces in multiple huge waves and attack the Germans head-on, going straight uphill. I made especially sure to keep my tanks massed together in one big group, advancing in close coordination with the infantry. As I expected, there were a lot of Germans deployed in reverse slope positions all over the place, but I was able to completely overrun them. Most of the Germans were not able to get more than a few shots off before they got blasted by overwhelming return fire from the masses of onrushing troops. There were some intense last stands from a few German troops here and there, but it was mostly a rout. This panzerschreck team fought to the death, taking out a tank at point blank range and gunning down several Soviet troops: I got lucky several times, like when this Stug got shot right down the middle of its gun barrel: The Soviet tide rushes on. At times I was advancing so rapidly that I simply bypassed several enemy positions. Here you can see some Germans fire into the flanks of my advancing troops. They mostly had bolt-action rifles, which was pretty ineffective. Rifle fire nipping at the flanks of such a huge force felt like nothing more than mosquito bites and I just ignored them, heading straight for the objectives. Whenever my force did halt, the amount of firepower they could deliver was devastating. The 152mm shells from the ISU-152s were especially devastating. I can only imagine how horrifying it would have been to have to sit in a foxhole and face down an attack like that in reality. One of the highlights of the battle was when I had some men charge at a German AT gun, pinning down the crew with small arms and grenades for several minutes while I ran a flamethrower around the side to BBQ the survivors. The Germans totally collapsed, losing 363 men to my 108. I kinda want to try this again as the Germans just to see how I could stop such a powerful Soviet force. Seems like it would be difficult even against the AI. What I was most afraid of as the Soviets was artillery, but the German artillery was way off target and didn't do much. I would think good use of artillery would be essential for breaking up a massed attack like that.

Have been doing some more work on our beloved Bocage this week, trying to remember how far I'd gotten and how to do stuff in Blender. The good news is I have now got a good solid technique going which I can repeat for all the various sections of bocage. I can now make bocage that is very different from the original game stock and will hopefully give us a more naturalistic gaming environment ... ... this image shows the one section model that I have reworked thus far - bocage-straight-1.mdr - repeated three times on a straight run of bocage. What you can see immediately is that it has a much more ragged profile with a bit of light coming through the underside and NO beanpoles, those you can see are from other unmodified sections. Here is the Blender render of the model ... ... fully clad ... ... leaves removed from the main body. Blender tends to give a smoother render than the game engine. As you can see from the last image we have a large ash sapling to one side which gives immediate height, the supporting branches are now more bush like and there is a good layer of undergrowth at the bottom. The ash sapling and undergrowth are fixed, extra textures whilst the body of the bocage is variable. So depending on the number of boccage textures present in your Z folder, there are an almost infinite number of combinations that can appear in-game. This is just one section remember, by the time I have reworked the other fifteen section types for tall bocage alone the variations will be legion. With different extras textures for the other sections along with variations on height and depth we can finally have a representation of bocage that gets us closer to what I envisioned when I started this project last year. If anyone would like to take this for a spin let me know and I'll make a little bocage bundle to drop in your z folder.

Ok, typical grogs, all standing around arguing. Ran a short test scenario (see attached). Setup is best attempt to re-create conditions described by OP. Ran the test 10 times and got the following results: Test 1 - 2 shots until a kill 2 - 1 shot kill 3 - 3 misses and the Bradley killed the team 4 - 1 shot kill 5 - 5 misses and Bradley killed the team 6 - 1 shot kill 7 - 1 shot kill (Bradley managed to kill the team at the same time) 8 - 2 misses and Bradley killed the team 9 - 2 shot kill 10 - 3 shot kill So in 10 engagements we saw a 70% success rate (i.e. Bradley killed) with about 1.5 shots per kill. So what? RPGs not too bad at 225-ish ms at least according to these conditions. RPGTest.btt

The Sixteenth Minute KG LINKS The probing continues. The StuG is brought across into a fire support position, next turn I will start moving my infantry forward again. KG ZENTRUM They continue to reposition to get eyes on NAI3. Another mortar lands, this time on the other edge of the scrub. A light or harassing area fire is my guess. KG RECHTS We quickly get a spot on the contact, it's a Soviet sniper. He gets another shots off and wounds a man from 1st squad/B team. I forgot to tell these guys to stop, my fault. The sniper is soon spotted by other units as the 251/17 area fires and he's quickly suppressed. He's taken out by the other MG gunner in 2nd squad. They will now stop and tend to their dead comrade and hopefully recover the other MG42. That was expensive, 1 KIA and 1 WIA for 1 sniper. There are no further contacts this turn so this must have been an OP. I'll let the troops tend to the wounded then I'll get them all into the treeline as some of them are still quite exposed. SITMAP 1st Kompanie and the Tigers continue to chill (literally) back in the setup zone. Hans dropped a cigarette and burnt a hole in his trousers but mostly there's just a lot of grumbling. MMM

The mini-campaign Alarmeinheiten has been posted at the FGM Scenario Depot III. Link below. https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/cm-red-thunder/cm-red-thunder-campaigns/cmrt-mini-campaign-alarmeinheiten/ From the Scenario Depot description: It is late World War Two on the Eastern front. You command a German alarm unit (alarmeinheiten) and are tasked to counter and destroy multiple Soviet breakthroughs in order to hold the front line. Your alarm unit will maneuver in multiple battles on a 13.5 square kilometer map while protecting rear area logistics from partisans. Decide if you want to command units of mostly common German vehicles or a more exotic mix of German vehicles to include some limited, rare and unique vehicles. Make decisions on how you will employ your limited resources to hold the line. Will you call up a weakened reserve unit or maybe an SS unit specializing in anti-partisan operations? Should you rely on vehicles from the battalion repair shop? The battalion aid station contains weakened, unfit, low morale troops. Maybe these troops could form a blocking force while the alarm unit struck the flank of the latest breakthrough? There are a handful of Luftwaffe security troops at the airfield that you might use somewhere. These are all your decisions to make Commander. As you look up from the map board and radios in your command track the sound of combat comes from the east. Which of the four avenues of approach is it this time………? Good luck!

The Battle Continues Bravo The battle continues! Bad news, another AT-14 team is spotted on the left side of the map behind defilade by Bravo. Luckily, they won't be able to get a shot on my men unless they reposition. Bravo will keep a close eye on them and report in. The BMP-3 that was harassing Bravo's men reappears, pouring down coax fire onto SSG Raney's position. Luckily, his grenadier SPC Bannon was able to send a 40mm HEDP round onto the front of the turret. This round partially penetrated the turret, but more importantly scared the **** out of the BMP-3 crew. Bravo's 3rd platoon takes contact from a SLA sniper across the bridge leading into town. Other than that, Bravo's sector has no other significant events. Delta Back to my company. The first spotted AT-14 is knocked out by my first platoon (led by 2LT Valente, a great armor commander), specifically SGT Lerner's M1A2 SEP. The last major event of the second minute of combat is the spotting of a second AT-14 on the mosque hill by my men. Luckily, the 107mm mortars are doing a great job of keeping the crew's heads down. Unluckily, from what my men have reported, the AT-14 crew is unhurt. Good thing I have tanks Had a bit of a hiatus between turns, but I should be back to posting updates pretty regularly! In the meantime, enjoy some action shots of us boys from TF 1-8. (My company is so close to helping Bravo, but we can't rush in and get murdered by those AT-14s) (SPC Bannon taking aim with his M203) (PFC Olson laying down fire with his M249) (SLA paratrooper shooting at Bravo Company men with a Krinkov) (SGT Lerner's M1A2 SEP engaging an AT-14)

Wanted to jump in real quick... There is a lot going on in a combat formation, spotting is only one aspect and one of the many things they juggle at the same time. The way a real world formation works is they spot for activity in a sector or general area, each part of a formation having a different assigned sector, then as potential areas of interest start to pop up (in CM terms FOW icons) these formations can conduct a detailed focused search of those areas to determine what, if anything is actually there. This takes time. Just like it often does in CM. It is rarely fast, unless the enemy units are moving or firing... then units get identified very fast indeed. Works the same in CM by the way. I truly believe that CM has spotting about right.. not perfect and there are always odd situations... but its close enough to be a very good representation of small scale combat, in my opinion. As for Steel Beasts.. I have played it many times though I sold my license several few years ago. I also preferred to play it as a wargame, but I had a lot of frustrations doing so that I would prefer not to get into on this forum. Suffice it to say that SB is a wonderful game that has a lot of wow moments, but it has a much different focus than CM. They are not really comparable, other than the fact that they represent combat in 3D... the approaches are miles apart. I would be curious to know how detailed the SB spotting system actually is.. but to be honest, the fact that many say they prefer it, and that spotting is easier in SB than CM tells me that it is probably more abstract than you might think it is. In my experience if some aspect in a simulation is easy and works as expected, that simulation is probably flawed in some way. Bil - Co-designer/creator of CMCW

Yeah, right. Sure. Let’s make up more things that aren’t true.

Never saw this 1977 gem in my entire career as a Soviet Threat Analyst, a career which began in 1978. Not only does this show the ins and outs of the T-62 and how it operates with BMP-1s and AT-3 armed BRDMs, but it shows US capabilities, too, including the hulldown disparity, telltale reload indicator, low T-62 ROF and more. On the US end, everything from tanks to tacair and scatterable mines (by automatic minelayer or helicopter dispenser) are all there to see. Nor is the terrain the sere NTC, but someplace very European looking. Not only is there lots of great footage, but some remarkable model work, too. Of particular intetest to players will be the comments on open fire ranges, engagememt philoposophies, ammo selection and other game useful groggery. Offhand, I can't think of a better intro to the real world which CMCW seeks to depict. Regards, John Kettler

Hmm, well I do recognize that the openings of the Soviets is probably one of the biggest issues we have with the campaign, this statement is not entirely true in RL and definitely not true in context of the campaign. So off the bat we were aiming for realistic portrayal of how things would look and feel should the Soviets and US had dropped gloves in 1982. So to do that we took doctrine and then some contextual professional military judgement, mixed them together to try and give the closest we think we could get to this "what if" war. So doctrine: https://irp.fas.org/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf (among others) Here doctrine for a Soviet MRR on the advance/attack (which is very much what is happening here). There doctrine states that an MRR will have "5-10km" between the CRP and FSE. So a 10km gap would probably give a 20min window (assuming a 30km/hr push) for the CRP to bang around and try a more nuanced approach [aside, the CRP normally does not have any arty/FOs but I was in a generous mood]. OR half that if the distance is 5km = 10 mins. But contextual factors of LOS and speed play a key factor here. Speed is easy. We have the Soviet opening of a surprise attack against 11 ACR (probably the best US unit on this front), who have owned this ground for a generation by this point, so speed is essential. The speed-pressure, normally high in the Soviet military, would be more intense given the requirement to attempt to dislocate 11 ACR. In short no way that the MRB Bn CO is going to go slow and cautious here. Distance. Ok, so Soviets didn't like radios for a lot of reasons so they relied a lot on LOS (flags etc). So now we need to look at the terrain with a bit wider lens: So that is Manbach on the left, that lump of trees is where your CRP starts. That line is 5km back along the likely route of advance for the FSE. As you can see it is already stretching LOS, 10km is out of the question, they would totally be out of contact with the CRP. So we have situation where we are at the opening of a risky "all or nothing" attack as the Soviets come crashing over the border. A lot of pressure to move fast and furious before the 11th ACR (or god help them the the 3rd Armd) could get into their very well prepared positions. Add to this terrain that really did not support stretching out too far and we have the conditions for a "door-crasher" situation. So in that context the Soviet player does not "by rights" have the luxury of time with respect to a more deliberate recon effort, in reality the MRB "is" the Recon effort. So is it fair?...probably not. Is it realistic...absolutely. Is it fun? Well a matter of taste really and I am going to have to leave that to you all to decide.

Thank goodness for that. I hate subscription software - except for things that are actually services (like file sharing, web hosting, email stuff that actually has running costs). I have dumped companies when they moved to subscription only. Having said that there would be no where for me to go if you guys decided to do that but I would *HATE* it if you did. ;D

I think this might go beyond "strategy" and deeper into personal philosophy. Try not coming across as a rude troll, for a start. This is our house and "no" you cannot comment on anything you like...try it and see how fast this thread gets locked up and you facing a ban. I am not a "CM homer" (seriously how that poor name got dragged through the mud us beyond me and a testament to a big problem of our time. How one of the greatest writers of all time got that name hijacked by a yellow cartoon character makes me cringe)...I am a CM "owner". Bil, myself and Cpt Miller, with BFC and some outstanding beta-testers built this floor of the house and frankly I find it offensive when someone comes here to promote an outside game while denigrating ours. I would never think of, and would condemn in the strongest terms, anyone going over to the SB forums (or any other wargame forum) and exhibit this same behavior. CM is not perfect, no wargame can ever really achieve that, but it is the best in the niche it has (my opinion) and we are going to work very hard at keeping that up. Go play SB, hell after all this talk I am getting tempted to really go try it out...it looks like a good game and I wish them all the luck the angels of heaven can spare. Wargaming is a niche market so anyone playing anything is a win for all of us working in it but, for the love of all that is good and righteous, try not to be a rude jerk about it....the internet has enough of those already.

Ok, this is not even close to "scientific" and the fact that some might actually think that is 1) a poor reflection on the modern education system and 2) frightening based on what we have been living through for the last 18 months. Based on this "study" SB could be just as inaccurate as CMCW is claimed to be as none of this is linked back to RL data. It is linked backed to a lot of assumptions, which are again not linked backed to any real world data. The main assumption/bias is "it should be easy to see another tank at 2000m because I can do it in SB therefore CMCW is broken." The OP is in effect using one simulation (SB) to try and prove that another simulation (CMCW) is not working properly without ever establishing that the first simulation (SB) is accurate in the first place (beyond a vague "Steel Beasts is a tank simulator that is used in several countries to train military personnel", but then so is CM, huh?) How easy is it to actually see an armored vehicle at 2000m? Having spent time in AFVs and tanks..."not easy" was my experience as 2km is a very long way away. But I never tried it on a flat open field nor in either an M60 or T72. Just because you point the tanks at each other does not mean the modeling behavior is anywhere near the same. First off there is TACAI in CM where SB has a human brain that not only set up the test (so knows there is a tank out there) but is specifically pointed at where it knows there is a tank. Take SB, create a 360 field and then don't tell the human subject where the threat is, or that there is a threat at all...now time how long it takes for that human to see a threat at 2km? Still likely be faster because it is a human brain in a totally different simulation. The issue here is actually "simulated individual buttoned up spotting". (Take the same test and open up the T72, you will see spotting increase dramatically because you now have TACAI scanning the horizon with binos as opposed through a sight. Now do a whole tank platoon and you will see spotting happen even faster because the tanks are talking to each other). So the questions being asked is "which individual tank has better buttoned up spotting: the M60A3 or T72? and "Does CMCW model this correctly?" and (apparently) "Does SB model RL behavior better?" So if you want to be "scientific" you would first have to build a real-world framework of how these tanks have (or should) behave based on sound data, then test each tank, in each game system under identical conditions (which is nearly impossible...human brain) to try and deduce which game is modelling RL better.

I am a tanker. In general id say tanks are spotted far too easily in hulldown positions and when los is broken up like shooting through trees etc. They are also far too hard to spot in the open or when moving across the field of view.

Advancing Finnish forces come upon a SU-152 on a forest trail.....Reacting swiftly, they swarm and surround it: The ISU is quickly overwhelmed in a rain of grenades: The ISU crew find no mercy from the Finns: (Second Battle, Tali-Ihantala).

Hello, I have designed a large detailed map that can be used as a QB map, or if you want create a H2H battle. The map is 3632x1296 rural-agricultural. Later I will have completed the actual Scenario for this map. Enjoy and let me know your thoughts. You can download the map here. Ghost Rider CM Missions - Dropbox If you have any issues, please pm me and I will remedy any issues. James.

So for anyone still interested. The War thunder forum (these guys are as bad as we are) has a pretty interesting thread on tank ammo performance center on the Gulf War: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/446384-m829-and-l26-shell-effectivness/ The Desert Storm report by the GAO (always watch the accountants) is pretty definitive (i.e. the Iraqis were unable to manage a single tank to tank kill, pg 4), it is tragic that your colleagues were having heart attacks over this just 5-6 years before. Dunno what to tell you John, I would love to see a picture of a Soviet 76mm penetrating the front of an early M1 too. Regardless, you can see how hard it is to really unpack true performance for some of this. There will always be outliers but they are just that. The trick is to make sure we don't take those outliers as the center of the bell curve. The other thing to watch out for is myth. I was a young troop commander in central Bosnia in 1994 during the war and there was this lunatic in the hills who would take old JNA aerial bombs and turn them basically into V1s, they made a helluva bang but he could only manage about one every 6 months. That whole thing got way out of hand with legends of German scientists and V1 stocks armed with mustard gas. The truth is often stranger but also more mundane at the same time. desertstorm.pdf

Be prepared for a doozy of a discussion:

Thanks @Erwin @JM Stuff @slippy @Aragorn2002 your support is much appreciated. I'll bundle this section up so you can try it yourselves. Always in the grand scheme. I have experimented with autumn leaves. It's not so much work to make them and is a natural progression from the summer mods. I will probably finish BN and RT summer mods along with some extras for MG before moving onto the autumn/winter sets for FB and RT. Now that I have some repeatable methodology it's all a bit more straightforward. Finally I will look at what I can do for the sprawling mod set for FI. Side benefit is that anyone who plays BS (I don't and have no inclination to) can easily port this stuff to that for themselves with very little effort. It will also partly work in SF2 and maybe CW, but, again, I won't be supporting those games. For trees I am creating new mdrs and LOD packs, reusing my previous leaf branch texture mods from Hedgerow Hell. LODs for trees need to look like the normal model otherwise there is quite a bit of flickering between LODs over distances. I spent the best part of a week figuring out how the various levels of LOD relate to distance and what is used when, also in relation to game options detail settings. For the Bocage I am making new mdrs except for what are called endcaps in the mdr object groups, whilst again reusing the leaf branch textures I made previously with some minor reworks for practical reasons. There seem to be some quite specific naming of meshes within the various bocage mdrs which I am carefully trying to stick with since I believe these parts are referenced elsewhere. But there are also instances of seemingly random naming schemata which I don't think are referenced. Bocage is unique within the game foliage, they are treated differently in terms of rendering in game, they have a randomisation element which none of the other foliage have, they are treated as walls when adding to maps and can be combined with other foliage, whereas other foliage cannot reside on the same square together. I also did some blowin' sh*t up experiments with bocage to see what happens to the variously named parts if different names are used. With trees if part names are changed then the tree does not destruct in the expected way, disappearing all at once or suddenly going leafless for instance. With bocage it's either there or gone so far as I could determine. I dropped prolonged barrages of 170mm cannon and 301mm nebelwerfer on a bunch of bocage which made one or two holes in it, the rest just stayed intact, even the added ash sapling was unaffected by direct impacts, until it disappeared along with it's associated bocage section. The game does not treat bocage in the same way as it treats trees and bushes in this respect - in my view a partial oversight. In terms of their LODs - the ones that exist in game are basically the most distant and only seem to get used when in God's-eye view, and there is only the one LOD for all types of shapes of bocage. I will probably leave these LODs alone since anything I make will not really impact play or improve the visuals of the game particularly. In summary, and to hopefully give you all something to look forward to, I am now able to magic up new trees, bushes (essentially small trees) and bocage models using Blender, and, importantly, make them work as expected in game, so I can now move on to the making rather than messing about with Blender for interminable hours trying to fathom such an illogical interface.

One of my ongoing side projects (aimed, mostly, at the new influx of Steam Players) is to host an 'All in One' for every CM game here. This is my initial effort for RT & its primary feature is a large collection of weathered vehicle mods (by @kohlenklau, @umlaut & @Aristoteles ) renamed & tagged so that they now work with F&R. It also features terrain mods by @SeinfeldRules, UI mods by @rocketman, @Marco Bergman & @Volksgrenadier, Infantry mods by @EZ, @Tashtego & @Ithikial_AU, loading screens by @umlaut, building mods by @Kieme(ITA) & @Tanks a Lot as well as the ME effects package, ME soundscape & (subdued & fixed) superpack voices by @ironsturm plus many more others. I know a lot of people had issues with their old RT mods & the new Fire & Rubble module so hopefully this modpack will be of some interest to them. Here's a taster of some of what you can expect... Here's the modpack link... https://www.mediafire.com/file/rwd0d774itq1omg/CMRT_Initial_%27All_in_One%27.7z/file

3/167th Guards Rifle Regiment moves through the town of Osintorf. Enemy small arms fire has been pretty ineffective but they must have a whole battery of mortars somewhere on the map, one platoon has been chewed up pretty well and some more scattered casualties throughout the company, with 9th Company's commander even catching a bit of shrapnel. So far the Hammer's Flank campaign feels like I'm just bashing my head against a wall until I manage to break through the German lines, casualties be damned.

I have been on this forum for a while now and one thing that has been crossing my mind a lot after reading more and more of John Kettlers posts is how many times he has claimed to be a Soviet Threat Analysist, yet he has never backed up the claim with any credentials. I would normally not randomly ask someone for their credentials but, there has been many times where Kettler has said something, or claimed something, then falls back on his claimed experience as evidence when presented with sources that contradict him instead of providing sources himself. This is obviously potentially very harmful to the collective integrity of Combat Mission itself, considering the amount of input this forum has. So @John Kettlerplease provide credentials as to your experience please.

Suvorov's writings are at best debatable - in fact Glantz, who is reputable scholar of WW2 is very critical of Suvorov's writings about that war. Others are, albeit less so, critical of his works on the Cold War era. As an intelligence professional I certainly do not assess Suvorov as credible. As to agents of the Carpathian Military District reporting every movement of Chieftains - a quick look at a map has to tell you that this is a dubious claim. Image below shows the distance between the HQ of the Carpathian Military District and HQ 1 (BR) Corps. That sort of data would more likely be tracked by fused IMINT and ground reporting by SOXMIS which reported to GSFG/WGF and not the Carpathian Military District. In the case of the latter, I worked for seven months at the desk in BAOR that monitored SOXMIS touring activity and I'll tell you for free that it could not and did not track 'every movement.'

I haven't added any mods or anything this time round. It is a hazy morning though, which might explain it.

Ahhh, the internet. Here's a for you, Freyberg. And the developers, betatesters, modders and scenario designers.

Dirty project ! Part 1 Only valid for roads and path ! Ok ok perhaps a little too much dirt on the street, but believe me is not really easy to aim the tracks and follow it for created the traces ! I was imagined 3 ways that a tank or others vehicles can take. Middle for speed and normal movement in colonne for exemple. Left and Right for tactic movement having in a corner a place sometime to shoot and take a little pause to take a welcome coffee or cup of tea for english gentlemen ! I try to added some engine oil stain, when some vehicles are stoped on a corner, and sometimes some bullets from a last shoot before drinking and smoking a cigarett butt...sorry not in 3d ! JM

Steel Beasts is a tank simulator that is used in several countries to train military personnel. Combat Mission Cold War and Steal Beasts have a lot of things in common, so it would be interesting to compare how two games simulate combat. In order to do that and to make as precise experiment as possible I put t72A (m1) tank that is featured in both games against M60 TTS tank that is also present in both of them. To keep experiment clean I used default "flat map" and the same weather and time conditions - clean weather, the time is June the 1st, 12:00. In CMCW I had to use additional "formation" units of observers, but I put them behind tall walls, so they didn't interfere in the process. In CMCW skill level of both of the tanks was put on "regular". Steel Beasts doesn't have skill level feature. Under created conditions t-72A looks directly at M60's side. It is oriented from South to North, M60 - from West to East. The distance between them is 2 km. The conditions are the same in Steel Beasts and Combat Mission Cold War. That how it looks like in Steel Beasts: How it looks like in CMCW: What T72 gunner sees from his position from the very start: As you can easily notice, M60 is immediately and perfectly visible from gunners sight. The same with T72's Commander's sight: The results: In Steel Beasts t72's AI spotted M60 almost immediately, which is not surprising, taking into account that it has perfect view on the target. It took t72 about 2 seconds to spot the opponent and about 18 sec to hit and destroy it. In CMCW something opposite happened. I ran several tests and t72 couldn't spot m60 once. Its optics was not enough to spot the tanks directly ahead of it at the distance of 2 km during clean daylight. In fact, every time M60 spotted t72 first and killed it. It took about 2-3 rounds and from 1,5 min to 5 min to kill t72. t72 didn't see the opponent despite m60 was firing at him. How it ends in Steel Beasts: How it ends in CMCW: The CMCW test scenario is attached. You can make your own conclusions. T72VISION TEST.btt

Lending credibility to this document, Paul Gorman is legit. He was a TRADOC guy all the way back to DePuy's tenure in the mid-70s, so hed had over five years working on solutions to this very problem. I'd argue hes was a bit more willing to.... instrumentalize his analyses for the sake of pushing an agenda (usually based on the gear he was hoping to get the Army to acquire), but overall pretty good. The analysis, though, like most US analyses, overrates the T-72 in glaring ways. Take, for example, the fact that on pg. 12 he bases part of his conclusion on the fact that the T-72 had a laser rangefinder. As weve discussed, it didn't. It used coincidence, less quick and accurate. The information you cite from page 14 is something you see pretty commonly in these documents. "Oh no! The T-72 is 63% better than the M60A3! See my numbers!" Except that much of that assessment is based on soft factors which are nearly impossible to quantify, and even if they were almost always tend to overrate strengths and ignore or downplay weaknesses (because, I'd argue, theyre sales pitches. But thats another conversation entirely). This document, I think, is really trying to get at what Gorman thinks is "faulty intelligence" regarding the capability of the T-72 and the potential detrimental effects it might have had on US R&D at the time. Hes especially concerned that if the armor and strength of the T-72 had not been revised upwards, the US may not have proceeded with the "XM1-E1" upgrade program (we would know it as the M1A1) or the I-TOW, and instead focused on the Dragon and bringing the M60s up to snuff. I would suspect, though I dont know for sure, that this has something to do with the sudden realization in the west that the T-64, -72, and -80 were indeed all separate designs of progressing quality. For many years the T-64, for example, was called the T-70 and the US was a bit unsure as to what its relationship was to the T-72. This only cleared up around the late 70s, though that hadn't filtered down via TRADOC training documents. I have an old edition of FM 100-2-3, think its from 1980, that calls the T-64 the T-70 and only hypothesizes about better armor (if memory serves). All this is to say its an interesting document, but being used out of proper context here. The US didn't know at the time what the later T-series tanks were all about, nor did they have a good grasp on equipment and capabilities. Keep in mind the last tank the US had gotten a hold of were T-62s from the YK war. I dont even think the T-72 came westward until Desert Storm. This led to an analogous to WWII "Tiger mania," T-72 mania. Desert Storm really shattered that illusion because so many officers had grown up in the 70s and 80s fretting about the T-72 just to find out that it wasn't as good as they one they had planned for. That is to say, Gorman's mostly actually wrong here. Now I think the pendulum often swings too far the other way, the T-72 was still pretty good especially in Soviet hands. And Gorman is allowed to be wrong because hes living through the fog of war, and anyway isn't quite trying to do what the title makes you think he is (classic Gorman). BUT I think that also makes this document, for our purposes, suspect.

Some news in my Corner ! Limbered gun ! Unlimbered ! Auch die Deutschen sind auf den Weg !! German are also on the way !! So far for now JM

That was the biggest amount of rambling text I've seen in a long while, topped off with a random, unrelated quote at the end.

For me it's a dead heat. I enjoy playing both sides, with all of their inherent strengths and weaknesses. If forced to choose I'd pick Germans as favorite, mostly down to their machine guns and top-tier armor, which I find more interesting (but not necessarily better) than the Russian tanks. Their advantages in optics, command and control and the aforementioned weaponry swings the vote. Command delay is not a thing in CMx2, which would swing it even more. In 1944, the two sides are pretty well-matched from an equipment point of view, even if it's dissimilar in some ways. Germans tend to feel like a sharper, more surgical, but more brittle option than the Russians do. So in Combat Mission it comes down to scenario design, and often the real-world advantages one side may have had are less evident in what we play in this game. It's tactical of course. If Combat Mission were operational or even strategical, then things would perhaps look different. For me, the word 'balance' has a negative connotation when it comes to war gaming. There's a sense that balance is a thing to strive for in scenario design, and while I get it, I think it serves to skew perspectives. Balance in (single player) historical wargaming should not be a priority in my view. It's OK to face difficult odds, or have no chance at all. The lack-of-balance should be a feature too, and if it was more woven in to scenario design I think I might have a different perspective on the subject of Russian vs German in Red Thunder.

You definitely do.. Seriously, you cannot see how all of that "feedback" is not helpful in the least? Here let me help: In the "admission post", I came back to confirm whether you could see an SU-17 Cluster to try and clear up what was a miscommunication...no response. This after your initial feedback was (and I quote): "Guys, the Soviet campaign was a mistake. I mean MISTAKE." Then your copious screen shots were Campaign end-screens which really do not do much to assist in trying to nail down specific issues. You have not once posted anything to reinforce you -pretty broad-position. Frankly this all comes across as "CM Karen", not useful feedback. One thing I really do like about the CM community is that this type of feedback is in the minority, unlike the cesspools out in wild internet. So let me enlighten a bit. March or Die is by design meant to be really hard...no participant medal here. My best guess was 95% of CM players would not finish it (so you are in with the majority). It is why we built the Standard version so the average player could actually still enjoy the campaign. Mission 3 - March of Die is not "BROKEN AND IN NEED OF COMPLETE REDO". It needed a Tac Air controller at Setup (done, and this one does go to you, I did this because of your "help" btw) and score tweaking to offset the Blue Bonus lock we setup so someone could not just hit ceasefire and advance. Even with these tweaks MK likely would not have met the minor_victory requirement to advance based on his losses above (10 out of 13 tanks) BUT he should have come closer, maybe even a draw. If there is a lesson for you to learn here is a simple one, that hopefully will come with age: "Just because you do not agree with something, it does not mean it is automatically wrong/broken/immoral/evil". Perhaps a second good one is "Failure is a good thing, so long as you 1) learn from it, to avoid it becoming a habit and 2) try and do it with grace and class."

It seems like his blog has been mentioned a few times in the past. I have absolutely zero experience in the defense sector or handling classified documents but I feel like most people with that level of experience wouldn't feel the need to bring it up whenever possible, or at least when they make outlandish claims would have some sort of related declassified document they could share. After reading his blog I question whether Rockwell would have even let him past security at the front door.

A dream of mine to make/remake/alter/appreciate this old ASL scenario "Escape from Derna" for my CMFI Afrika Mod and now it is in the final stages of testing! I never even played ASL but this story is pretty cool. This is the briefing for the axis side: ^ You have 20-25 minutes to block the enemy's escape from Derna and destroy all vehicles that try to flee towards Tobruk! ^ It is midday, 7 April 1941. You are just south of the edge of the escarpment high above the coastal town of Derna, Libya. There is a strong haze in the hot air with the wind barely perceptible over the dry and dusty ground. You are leading a small detachment of 2 reinforced motorized infantry platoons split off from Ponath's Machinegun Battalion 8 fighting to secure the Derna aerodrome off map to the west. Some Italian troops have also accompanied you with anti-tank guns and light mortars. The radio reports in code that panzerspahwagens from AA3 are headed your way to assist you. They will arrive at the southwest corner of your sector in 5 minutes. ^ The Englanders are falling back as we advance. A pocket of these defeated soldiers has formed at Derna. Their only escape route is a meandering road up from the town and then leading southeast towards Tobruk. The luftwaffe reports several dozen vehicles assembling for a breakout. This includes tanks, infantry carriers and trucks. ^ From Derna, the paved road to Tobruk leads down to the southeast corner of your sector. That is the goal of the British vehicles. Dig in with foxholes and sandbag sangars to set up overlapping kill zones. Spot and destroy the vehicles as they try to escape. Under the honor system, once a British vehicle reaches the southeast corner, they have "escaped" and cannot return to fight and should not be fired upon. ^ The destruction of enemy vehicles and their crews will give you points. It is the only objective in this battle FOR BOTH SIDES. The vehicles might use the road or cross open country. Some parts of the wadi are impassable but some are passable. Individual infantry troops do not have any points so round them up afterwards to liberate their cans of bully beef and glorious SPAM, trademark 1937 Hormel Food Corporation, USA. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ map is 2km x 2.68km Pix to come next week. Estimated it will be available by the end of October!

Thanks Ian, the Black Sea manual says precious little about APS so i've been running tests to figure out exactly how they operated. So far I've identified that: Trophy - Maximum 4 intercepts (360 degrees) - Intercepts Javelin - Intercepts TOW-2 Zaslon - Maximum 4 intercepts (270 degrees from front) - Maximum 2 intercepts(90 degrees from rear) - Intercepts Javelin - Intercepts TOW-2 Zaslon's intercept is unique in that it does have segments Arena - Maximum 4 intercepts (360 degree) - Will not intercept Javelins - Also seems poor at engaging TOW-2 I doubt we're going to see any patches for Black Sea again, but if we do, it would be nice to increase the Arena cartridge count from 4 to at least 6. Since that would better represent its strengths (more intercepts) compared to Zaslon/Trophy while still maintaining its weakness to Javelins. As an aside I suspect Zaslon/Trophy should not be intercepting Javelins as readily as they do but there isn't a ton of info on it. So the vehicle will correctly intercept projectiles in a 360 degree circle. It just operates closer to Zaslon/Trophy than Arena. Actually its fairly close to the new Arena-M which has 8 charges (4 per side) rather than the old Arena.

Some screenshots from the newly released mini-campaign Alarmeinheiten. German infantry fighting to hold a vorposten until the Alarmeinheiten arrive. Soviet troops start to break into the vorposten. Using the optional Hardcat rules the Alarmeinheiten wait to be informed of the situation at the vorposten via C2 tentative contacts. After notification the Alarm unit moves out to counter attack.

I wish I could read the AAR without its author constantly having to swat away some silly posts

Yes it does indeed but I always make my own assessment even when playing the AI, and I usually end up doing something different to what the briefing suggests. I just don't like the idea of charging over that hill straight off as it will probably mean heavy casualties to capture it. I've not ruled it out but I'm going to investigate other options first and hopefully give him something to think about too. Thanks for letting me know they have 85mm guns by the way, nice spoiler . MMM