Sgt Joch

I playtested this one, great scenario. I agree with George, better to keep the time shorter so the UKR player has more pressure.

I really like the Russians. of course they were always my favorite in CMBB or CMRT, but now they have up to date equipment.

you thought Russian armour would be a pushover? This is not CMSF.

"rare" is a relative term. What you see in CMRT is the official TOE. However, German divisions were rarely at full strength and certainly not after a few weeks fighting. In sept. 43, out of 226 PanzerGrenadier battalions, only 26 were equipped with halftracks, the other 200 were using trucks. In the official 44 Panzer division TOE, only 1 infantry battalion was using Halftracks, the other 3 were riding on trucks. However, certainly if a Panzer Division was going into combat, you would expect all available halftracks to be concentrated at the tip of the spear. You can get a general idea by looking at global production numbers. During the war, the Germans produced a total of around 15,000 of the 251 model halftracks, including all variants, roughly the same as the total of PzIV and PzVs produced and 130,000 Opel trucks. By contrast, the U.S. alone produced 900,000 4WD trucks. Out of that, 200,000 Studebaker trucks were earmarked for lend-lease, most going to Russia.

alt + w

in terms of levels, I am sure everyone realizes that it does not affect the overall difficulty level of the scenario or of the enemy troops, only more marginal aspects like spotting or artillery response time. The manual has all the details on the differences. I prefer WEGO since I like to rewind and see individual unit actions and IRON since I find it makes it easier to see the C2 situation of my troops. That said, I am playing a PBEM game at WARRIOR and the differences are really minor.

In theory, yes. but we have no info how well it works or how widespread it is. Many doubt the Russians will have it up and running on a widespread basis anytime soon. In game however, we are giving the Russians the benefit of the doubt.

they have an interlinked netcentric system known as "Constellation", similar to "Blue Force tracker" 1, much better than radio. It is not known if the Constellation system will be up and running by 2017, but we assume yes in game. that is the icon that looks like a monitor. Only U.S. forces had it in CMSF, but many Russian units also have it in CMBS.

yes, lend lease equipment will come in another module. However, during the Bagration period, the principal vehicle used by Soviet mechanised forces were Lend Lease 4WD trucks which are in the game, i.e. the "Studie".

whoa, the game as only just come out and players are already arguing about relative point value? good sign! maybe, you should play the game over the weekend and enjoy it? we can argue about points on monday.

Glad you guys enjoyed it, I designed the scenario. I wanted to make a scenario with Canadian paratroopers, but it was hard to find a historical scenario that was interesting or worked in CM. It does have a historical basis since the bridge at Varaville was a D-Day objective for the Paras and the objective was to block any German reinforcements that could interfere with the landings, so it makes an interesting "what if" scenario. The map is based on RAF aerial recon photos taken on june 12, 1944 and I also "walked around" virtually using Google Earth to get a feel for the terrain, so it is very accurate.

we love JK, he is a fixture around here. He is also known to have interesting theories and he has his own website... http://www.johnkettler.com/ufo-war-now-covers-entire-pacific-exploding-story/ the only site where you can get up to date news on the ongoing UFO wars.

The problem as always is money. Ukraine has a lot of problems even without the war, inefficient economy and government, massive corruption. Yes, they have made some small steps, but Greece looks like Switzerland when compared to Ukraine . on top of that you have the war and the billions it will cost to rebuild East Ukraine. Giving them money without asking for reforms is just throwing good money down the drain and where will that money come from? German taxpayers have no interest in bailing out Greece, even less in bailing out Ukraine when they know a good chunk will wind up in the pockets of corrupt politicians. EU has no interest in bailing out Ukraine alone. The US seems to view this as essentially a European problem. Now if the U.S. was to say, we will give Ukraine $25-50 billion no questions asked, they might be able to get an equivalent commitment from the EU, but what are the chances of that? We also have to remember that Russia has been, in essence, subsidizing Ukraine for 20 years with cheap natural gas and favorable trade terms. Once that is gone, someone will have to make up the difference. No matter how you look at it, the only way this has a happy ending is if BOTH the EU and Russia help Ukraine and that will obviously only happen if both sides get something out of the deal. p.s. - I'm sure Steve will pop in soon mumbling something about "appeasement".

no plan at this time, none that I have read anyway. The only solid aid that I know of is a $17 billion loan from the IMF, at least $3 Billion of which has been disbursed, although as I understand it the IMF and the Ukrainian govt. are still arguing about what reforms they have to put through before they get all the money. The EU had pledged up to $15 billions, but I dont think any or a substantial number has been paid. Their aid also hinges on political and economic reforms. The U.S. has pledged various amounts, close to $500 million at last count, as I recall, although I think only a fraction has been sent and a lot of that is in military hardware, mostly non-lethal, not hard cash. The U.S. also garanteed a $1 billion loan to Ukraine. Reading between the lines and not based on any hard facts, I get the impression the US and the EU are having a behind the scenes arguments has to who should be providing the aid. So far, everyone seems happy to leave it as a IMF problem.

Again on the sanctions, they could have been a lot worse, look at the current Iran sanctions for example, but there is a desire in the EU and US to not go overboard. Also over the past few weeks, you have had signals from both the White House and Berlin that seem to indicate they were open to a deal that would roll back sanctions and still leave Crimea in Russian hands. There was even talk of a peace summit in Kazakhstan. So there does seem to be a face saving way for Putin to come out of this and still be able to claim a "victory". The question then becomes: what does Putin hope to achieve in East Ukraine?

your reply was too long!

Stalingrad?

I think we are maybe going overboard with the Russia bashing. Last I heard, Russia still had most of its tactical nukes aimed at China, that might deter China from making a grab at Siberia. I also doubt the US would stand by and let China invade another sovereign country, I mean fair is fair.

How is that any different than what has gone on in 10,000 years of "civilized" humanity? We all know how the game is played, US, EU and Russia all have competing interests in Ukraine, but there are rules under which international diplomacy is conducted. The West supported the "Orange Revolution" in 2004 because it suited its interest. However, when Yanukovych was elected in 2010, you did not see NATO invading Western Ukraine, we just waited to see what would happen. Yanukovych turned out to be a very inept politician which is what caused his ultimate downfall. Russia could have chosen to continue playing by the rules, using Gas, money and trade to influence Ukrainian politics, instead it went for a military solution. Russia is free to do what it wants, it can choose to support rebels in East Ukraine, it can choose to annex Crimea, but the inverse is that the US/EU are free to choose how they react.

right, what Steve said. He can attest to the fact that I was willing to give Russia the benefit of the doubt for a lonnnnnnng time. Now, as I said previously, trying to argue about the current conflict is pointless. No one is going to change their point of view and we just wind up having the same arguments. I suggest we stick to the original topic, i.e.a theoretical invasion of Ukraine in 2017 and what that would involve.

Here is another video filmed by locals near Krasnodon recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP9eT1laFw4 honestly, these are real easy to find if you look for them.

again that is why these debates always go nowhere, Russians say there is no proof that Russians are in Ukraine. You post a video of a Russian troop convoy in Ukraine with Russian soldiers wearing Russian military uniforms in Russian vehicles with Russian marking and you guys say you have no proof that they are not "separatists" who just happen to act exactly like a Russian regular Army unit.

here is another video of Russian troops in Ukraine:

That's what outside critics with no access to real info say, according to the Pentagon, it is as stealthy in all aspects as the F22. Again, none of this can be verified before they are used in combat.

AP is just being politically correct, you have a video of a military column in Ukraine in formation, of troops all wearing regulation Russian uniforms, driving brand new Russian trucks, pulling Russian equipment, all painted in the same Russian military green, etc. we have a saying, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, then it is probably...wait for it...a duck.