Sgt Joch

Anything is of course possible, but the water supply issues in Crimea is IMHO way down the list of priorities for Moscow. The Donbas War has been out of the headlines for 5 years now and the Kremlin wants to keep it that way. The highest priority for Moscow in Europe seems to be finishing the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project which will allow Russia to bypass Ukraine and supply Western Europe with natural gas directly without having to worry about Ukrainian “transit fees” or potential gas slow down or shut down. The U.S., in a rare display of bi-partisan unity, have been putting in place potentially crippling sanctions to try to stop it, but Merkel, German politicians and many EU governments want the pipeline finished so they can get cheap Russian gas. The Kremlin will not do anything, like another war, that could put the project in jeopardy.

Missed this thread, but had read the article. As Haiduk pointed out, there may be factual discrepancies on what actually happened, which is not surprising since the war is still unresolved. What was most interesting to me, in relation to modern conflicts and CMBS scenarios, was the extent to which both sides made extensive use of Electronic Warfare, Drones, PsyOps and Artillery.

Gamesquad was the HQ for the resistance, those who did not like the move to CMx2 or did not like CM:modern or did not like the CM concept to begin with. I recall there were a lot of threads speculating that CMx2 was not catching on or that Steve was exaggerating its success and that it was just a matter of time until BFC went belly up. Old timers no doubt remember that CM:SF was initially met with a lot of hostility. It was not CMx1, it was not WW2 and it was simulating a Middle-East War at a time when the Iraq War was really hot and polarizing opinions around the world. It's interesting to me that the release of CMSF2 has been pretty much a non-event in that regard. 10 years on, wargamers are more willing to accept CMSF2 for what it is: a fine simulation of modern tactical combat.

The revised campaign was made mostly to address an issue which no longer exists. When CMBN originally came out in 2011, the suppression model was weak. One workaround was to lower the experience level, so PT remade the campaign using mostly "green" US troops instead of "regulars". Since then however, BFC substantially reworked and improved the suppression model so the workaround is no longer required. The campaign still works, I played the revised version 2-3 years ago, but the combination of "green" troops and the revised suppression model means your troops are more brittle and required careful handling. The version that ships with the game has mostly "regular" U.S. troops and is easier than the revised version.

As far as I can tell yes. In 2008, the Excalibur used was the 1st gen. la-1 model with a 5 meter CEP. By 2017, the U.S. Army would be using the lb model with a 2 meter CEP.

Here is an example of the Excalibur round in action. My XO called it in, it fell next to the T-54. Yes, technically a miss, but according to public sources, the CEP of the round is 5 meters and when first used in combat in 2007 in Iraq, 92% fell within 4 meters (wiki), so in game accuracy is well within the RL data. The big advantage of the Excalibur is not being a tank killer, but being able to call in artillery quite close to your own troops, something you could not do with regular artillery.

If you have a AMD card (RX Vega 56 here), you can use the AMD driver software, Hotkey is: ctrl+shift+I. big advantage for me is that it is on all the time so you can take shots in game at any time.

re: precision rounds, they do work, I use them frequently, but it's not a magic bullet like a Javelin. It also matters who is calling in the strike, a FO in a FIST vehicle targeting using a Drone has a much higher chance of getting it directly on the target than a regular HQ unit.

I have several games on Steam which I have modded. The process is the same, i.e. navigate within the Steam folder to the game folder and you should then be able to add the mods. No reason why there would be a problem with CM.

depending on your settings, you will see a blue box with a big "Don't Run" on it appear when you try to instal. There should also be a smaller clickable text with "more info", clicking on that will make the "Run Anyway" button appear. you also need to check the setting in "Windows Defender" for "App and browser control". Make sure that the setting for installing unrecognized apps (i.e. "check apps and files") is set to "off" or "warn". If set to "block", Win 10 will not give you the option to run it anyway.

By late 44, FJ units were basically the same as all German infantry units. Most had been destroyed over the summer and rebuilt with surplus Lutfwaffe ground personnel, surplus Kriegsmarine sailor and whatever teenage or older conscripts the replacement army could cobble together. Usually only the combat leaders were veterans. The 5th FJ division which fought in the Seventh Army sector was rated as equivalent to a "Reserve" infantry unit before the offensive. However, they did fight competently during the initial offensive and then during the defensive phase against Patton's Third Army South of Bastogne.

reminds me of... https://youtu.be/TVb-Yb_NUy8

it depends. Over the years, I have gone back and forth, from: 1. dismounting as soon as possible and walking my troops, but that takes a lot of time and may increase infantry casualties; to 2. dismounting as late as possible, sometimes on the very edge of the objective, but that can lead to disaster. I now use a more balanced approach, unloading some 500-1,000 meters away, keeping the AFVs close to provide fire support, keeping other troops mounted farther back ready to swoop in as required.

ok I posted the missing "Mech Airbone Battalion" in QB as a bug report. However I don't know how long a fix will take. R2V is the priority right now.

I think it has already been listed as a bug, but I will check.

it is listed in "Heavy Infantry/ FO section" in the editor.

yes, the Mech Airborne Battalion which has the BMP-3 seems to have been left out of QBs, it is in the editor though.

As I recall, there have been posts about this over the years. Units do not automatically start firing when they spot an enemy, it depends on range, LOS, type of unit, how much ammo they have, etc. Don't forget that when a unit starts firing, it becomes a lot easier to spot by the enemy. I have been playing a lot of CMBN and CMSF2 lately and have not noticed anything wrong, just isolated instances of reluctance to fire.

btw, how useful have the Javelins been in practice? When Obama was Pres, there was a lot of hand wringing about whether they should be supplied to Ukraine, but the sale by the Trump admin went largely unreported and there has been little reporting on their use.

Let's not forget that since CMSF came out in mid-2007, BFC has released 7 base games, 6 modules (7 after R2V), 3 game upgrades, 2 battle packs, 1 vehicle pack as well as numerous free patches. That works out to something new roughly every 7-8 months. I don't think anyone can accuse them of slacking off

I seem to dimly recall from posts pre-2007 that the basic engine is RT only. WEGO just pauses the RT engine every 60 seconds and adds the replay feature. personnaly I never play RT, WEGO only for me.

for modern, yes, that is about right. NATO forces are well trained, so should normally be regular/veteran, unless you want to simulate national guard or reserve units. for Russian/Ukranian, well that opens up a can of worms…:) note you can also play around with leadership factors to fine tune experience level, for example a regular unit with a -1 modifier will act more like a green unit, while a regular with a +1 will act more like a veteran unit.

well yes, what actually happened and it has been fairly well documented over the years is the U.S. supplied the Iraqi army/various rebel groups with expensive equipment. This being the Middle East, they abandoned the equipment upon contact with ISIS forces and/or defected to ISIS who "acquired" said equipment. This is hardly a new phenomenom. In the early 60s, the Vietcong was also equipped with various brand new U.S. weapons they had picked up from fleeing South Vietnamese forces...

Generally, friendly AI units can fire through other friendly AI units with no damage. There was a post by Steve about this eons ago. In RL, there are complex rules about weapon deconfliction, but as I recall it would be too complex to code. Just to give one example, just the blast from the M1 Abrams main gun can injure personnel within 50-100 meters. Having said that, yes there are many instances, if you use area fire, indirect fire, if a shell/missile falls short or hits an obstacle where friendly units can be hit. Weapon deconfliction is an important concern, especially in CM modern where you can pile on a lot of firepower very quickly.

If you want to see what a Battalion attack looks like, if you have RT, you could try the 1st mission of the Russian or German Campaign, both are battalion size.