MikeyD

CM players on this site (lets recall this is a gaming site) are entirely aware that a King Tiger, IS-2, Abrams or T90 (depending on the title) is not immune to damage or destruction on the battlefield. Nobody here is so naive.

CM players on this site (lets recall this is a gaming site) are entirely aware that a King Tiger, IS-2, Abrams or T90 (depending on the title) is not immune to damage or destruction on the battlefield. Nobody here is so naive.

CM players on this site (lets recall this is a gaming site) are entirely aware that a King Tiger, IS-2, Abrams or T90 (depending on the title) is not immune to damage or destruction on the battlefield. Nobody here is so naive.

This is going to be very random, but last night I was watching a Korean pop music video that just released. It ends with someone driving to a secluded spot. Through the car windshield you can see a distant mountain ridgeline. Suddenly it dawned on me that's the same mountain that's in CMFI mainland Italy! Of all the random places in all the world that they could have filmed, they picked a mountain pass through the Apennines opposite our CMFI mountain! That really tickled me.
If you want to see the MV the title's at the bottom of the Youtube screenshot.
 

Your typical CM player prefers large maps where they can freely maneuver out of sight of the enemy and employ 'clever' tactics to win (usually within an hour). Give him a constrained map with little opportunity to maneuver, plus obstacles, and the battles become much more grim. Move forward, kill more of them than they do of you, move forward a little more, repeat. Rather like Ukraine currently. Tom Clancy's novel 'Red Storm Rising'  concluded (if memory serves) with a column of Abrams  flying down an undefended forest trail to spectacularly flank the Russians. Yeh, nice work if you can get it. The enemy is not usually so obliging, though.

Your typical CM player prefers large maps where they can freely maneuver out of sight of the enemy and employ 'clever' tactics to win (usually within an hour). Give him a constrained map with little opportunity to maneuver, plus obstacles, and the battles become much more grim. Move forward, kill more of them than they do of you, move forward a little more, repeat. Rather like Ukraine currently. Tom Clancy's novel 'Red Storm Rising'  concluded (if memory serves) with a column of Abrams  flying down an undefended forest trail to spectacularly flank the Russians. Yeh, nice work if you can get it. The enemy is not usually so obliging, though.

Your typical CM player prefers large maps where they can freely maneuver out of sight of the enemy and employ 'clever' tactics to win (usually within an hour). Give him a constrained map with little opportunity to maneuver, plus obstacles, and the battles become much more grim. Move forward, kill more of them than they do of you, move forward a little more, repeat. Rather like Ukraine currently. Tom Clancy's novel 'Red Storm Rising'  concluded (if memory serves) with a column of Abrams  flying down an undefended forest trail to spectacularly flank the Russians. Yeh, nice work if you can get it. The enemy is not usually so obliging, though.

This is going to be very random, but last night I was watching a Korean pop music video that just released. It ends with someone driving to a secluded spot. Through the car windshield you can see a distant mountain ridgeline. Suddenly it dawned on me that's the same mountain that's in CMFI mainland Italy! Of all the random places in all the world that they could have filmed, they picked a mountain pass through the Apennines opposite our CMFI mountain! That really tickled me.
If you want to see the MV the title's at the bottom of the Youtube screenshot.
 

I recall, when doing research for CM Cold War, I stumbled on a US Pentagon estimate that they expected to lose some 30% of their ground attack aircraft within the first two weeks of a 'hot' war. What would follow those losses I assume would have likely resembled current aircraft use over Ukraine today. Look back to reports on this thread of the staggering losses of Russian aircraft and crews over Ukraine the first third of the war. Each lost SU-27 cost approx $30 million USD. Overflying enemy airspace is an expensive proposition. And that was before Patriot showed up. I'm reminded of horrific US helicopter losses over Vietnam in the 1960s. After your 5,000th helicopter got shot down you might want to rethink your 'combined arms' theories.

I recall, when doing research for CM Cold War, I stumbled on a US Pentagon estimate that they expected to lose some 30% of their ground attack aircraft within the first two weeks of a 'hot' war. What would follow those losses I assume would have likely resembled current aircraft use over Ukraine today. Look back to reports on this thread of the staggering losses of Russian aircraft and crews over Ukraine the first third of the war. Each lost SU-27 cost approx $30 million USD. Overflying enemy airspace is an expensive proposition. And that was before Patriot showed up. I'm reminded of horrific US helicopter losses over Vietnam in the 1960s. After your 5,000th helicopter got shot down you might want to rethink your 'combined arms' theories.

I recall, when doing research for CM Cold War, I stumbled on a US Pentagon estimate that they expected to lose some 30% of their ground attack aircraft within the first two weeks of a 'hot' war. What would follow those losses I assume would have likely resembled current aircraft use over Ukraine today. Look back to reports on this thread of the staggering losses of Russian aircraft and crews over Ukraine the first third of the war. Each lost SU-27 cost approx $30 million USD. Overflying enemy airspace is an expensive proposition. And that was before Patriot showed up. I'm reminded of horrific US helicopter losses over Vietnam in the 1960s. After your 5,000th helicopter got shot down you might want to rethink your 'combined arms' theories.

I recall, when doing research for CM Cold War, I stumbled on a US Pentagon estimate that they expected to lose some 30% of their ground attack aircraft within the first two weeks of a 'hot' war. What would follow those losses I assume would have likely resembled current aircraft use over Ukraine today. Look back to reports on this thread of the staggering losses of Russian aircraft and crews over Ukraine the first third of the war. Each lost SU-27 cost approx $30 million USD. Overflying enemy airspace is an expensive proposition. And that was before Patriot showed up. I'm reminded of horrific US helicopter losses over Vietnam in the 1960s. After your 5,000th helicopter got shot down you might want to rethink your 'combined arms' theories.

I recall, when doing research for CM Cold War, I stumbled on a US Pentagon estimate that they expected to lose some 30% of their ground attack aircraft within the first two weeks of a 'hot' war. What would follow those losses I assume would have likely resembled current aircraft use over Ukraine today. Look back to reports on this thread of the staggering losses of Russian aircraft and crews over Ukraine the first third of the war. Each lost SU-27 cost approx $30 million USD. Overflying enemy airspace is an expensive proposition. And that was before Patriot showed up. I'm reminded of horrific US helicopter losses over Vietnam in the 1960s. After your 5,000th helicopter got shot down you might want to rethink your 'combined arms' theories.

I recall, when doing research for CM Cold War, I stumbled on a US Pentagon estimate that they expected to lose some 30% of their ground attack aircraft within the first two weeks of a 'hot' war. What would follow those losses I assume would have likely resembled current aircraft use over Ukraine today. Look back to reports on this thread of the staggering losses of Russian aircraft and crews over Ukraine the first third of the war. Each lost SU-27 cost approx $30 million USD. Overflying enemy airspace is an expensive proposition. And that was before Patriot showed up. I'm reminded of horrific US helicopter losses over Vietnam in the 1960s. After your 5,000th helicopter got shot down you might want to rethink your 'combined arms' theories.

I recall, when doing research for CM Cold War, I stumbled on a US Pentagon estimate that they expected to lose some 30% of their ground attack aircraft within the first two weeks of a 'hot' war. What would follow those losses I assume would have likely resembled current aircraft use over Ukraine today. Look back to reports on this thread of the staggering losses of Russian aircraft and crews over Ukraine the first third of the war. Each lost SU-27 cost approx $30 million USD. Overflying enemy airspace is an expensive proposition. And that was before Patriot showed up. I'm reminded of horrific US helicopter losses over Vietnam in the 1960s. After your 5,000th helicopter got shot down you might want to rethink your 'combined arms' theories.

I recall, when doing research for CM Cold War, I stumbled on a US Pentagon estimate that they expected to lose some 30% of their ground attack aircraft within the first two weeks of a 'hot' war. What would follow those losses I assume would have likely resembled current aircraft use over Ukraine today. Look back to reports on this thread of the staggering losses of Russian aircraft and crews over Ukraine the first third of the war. Each lost SU-27 cost approx $30 million USD. Overflying enemy airspace is an expensive proposition. And that was before Patriot showed up. I'm reminded of horrific US helicopter losses over Vietnam in the 1960s. After your 5,000th helicopter got shot down you might want to rethink your 'combined arms' theories.

If you're able to knock down or suppress anyone who pops up to shoot at you you'll be able to make progress, if you can't you won't. The reason why flank attacks are preferred is you've theoretically got fewer enemy units to suppress at any one time.

A lot of CMBS's 'faults' lie not in the game engine but in what the scenario designer thinks would be a fun scenario to play. If you want a minefield scenario, or a scenario with green troops with no command links, or an artillery dominant scenario, or a scenario with static defensive lines separated by a no-man's-land go ahead and make one. But  most players are accustomed to scenarios amenable to sneaking about and surprising enemy units, to employing 'clever' tactics over an hour's play time. The usual CM gameplay stuff. The real world is not often so amenable to 'having fun'.

A lot of CMBS's 'faults' lie not in the game engine but in what the scenario designer thinks would be a fun scenario to play. If you want a minefield scenario, or a scenario with green troops with no command links, or an artillery dominant scenario, or a scenario with static defensive lines separated by a no-man's-land go ahead and make one. But  most players are accustomed to scenarios amenable to sneaking about and surprising enemy units, to employing 'clever' tactics over an hour's play time. The usual CM gameplay stuff. The real world is not often so amenable to 'having fun'.

I recall awhile back hearing US and Europe was having the small problem of pulling out equipment from storage, expecting to quickly hand it over to Ukraine, only to be shocked by its dilapidated state. Then comes the repair and refurbishment and parts replacement before they can hand it over, greatly extending delivery times. That applies to everything from Humvees to M777s and much else.

I recall awhile back hearing US and Europe was having the small problem of pulling out equipment from storage, expecting to quickly hand it over to Ukraine, only to be shocked by its dilapidated state. Then comes the repair and refurbishment and parts replacement before they can hand it over, greatly extending delivery times. That applies to everything from Humvees to M777s and much else.

6 hours ago (from my posting) BBC News gave Twitter a swift kick in the pants re the Ukraine war.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66113460

6 hours ago (from my posting) BBC News gave Twitter a swift kick in the pants re the Ukraine war.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66113460

Reuters has an article, dated 8:05 pm July 4th, that has Ukrainian officials saying they've had a 'particularly fruitful' past few days. Its light on the details but at least its not one of the recent 'doom and gloom' reports. One would imagine a fruitful day would entail drawing out Russian forces so they can then eliminate them.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-reports-particularly-fruitful-few-days-counteroffensive-2023-07-04/
 

Hi all,
Just wanted to say hello and I hope I get to play some PBEM against some of you when I get better.
I'm a huge history fan, and also a fan of Graviteam Tactics: Mius Front, but it never quite did what I wanted. Games like Gates of Hell: Ostfront, looked gorgeous but were tactically shallow experiences that in no way represented the battles I've read about in books. The closest I could get was warg ames like War in the East 2, which still were fairly abstract. 
I found out about these games a few weeks ago and...Well, with the Steam sale I've purchased CM:BS, CM:SF2 and CM:BN, plus all the respective DLCs. I've been wanting games like these for years. Can't wait to start building the hours. I've clocked up 30 hours in two weeks which, for me as a 37 year old with a job and girlfriend, is fairly extreme.
 
Cannot believe I didn't try them sooner. 
 
Nice to meet you all