benpark

Could be they are dealing with that Izium bulge issue by shoring up their left flank. Taking the Lyman/Sviatohirsk path looks like a way to remove the Ukrainian salient there. Not sure what Ukrainian forces are in the area north that could be pocketed (if that is possible). Not much reason as far as on-map population centers to defend. That's partially a rail-line which seems like a change of pace for the Russian side, and this has been a roadway war so far. There were also reports of Ukrainian attacks on the opposite side of the Russian salient (around Izium). Lots of activity around those two Yin/Yang areas of "control". That also leaves forests in front of the Russians if they take the area in question.

I have those as well. Not many gaps in the 1945 section of my library.

There has finally been a decent amount of study of the military operations in 1945 happening. These books were indispensable (along with Stephen A. Hamilton, Norbert Számvéber and a few others) for F&R scenarios and campaigns. The amount of bookmarks in my copies make them look like an over-feathered bird.

I wonder how the Russian old warhorse, the artillery will be used here. I see a lot of images of it moving up by rail, but that's just looking through a keyhole. Without decent drones (the coke-bottle gas tank drones aren't cutting it by any stretch), dealing with the pin-point nature of how I imagine the Ukrainian forces will be initially be arrayed won't play nice with the principle of massed-fire. That branch also seems more in the civilian depopulation of Ukraine game than the military at the moment as well. The entire idea of another offensive is....offensive. Both on a human level, and a military one.

"Death of the tank" is probably premature, as this war has shown just about every way to not use them effectively. I tend to think the situation dictates, and this one is quite particular in the hands of an inept army versus a motivated, trained, and well-equipped one. In this case (especially in the infantry-deficient Russian force, as Steve highlights), the tempo and use could be decidedly different in the offensive. APC's are also incredibly vulnerable for longer range movements in this terrain. Stall these attacks across like ground with drones and man-portable AT weapons, and then tanks on the defensive (which can switch to local offensive uses) become useful tools again. The Russians don't seem to have any of the tools in their box to pull off a big, coordinated offensive with a singular purpose (the previous were fingers from different hands). If they got their air-power situation together, that would be one thing but that doesn't seem like likely happen when they are off war-crime-ing.

Such clear lines-of-sight. I've heard a few experts on the talk-box saying that this phase could favor the Russians, due to their armored force's ability to "stretch their legs" in the more open terrain (we see it isn't really, in the details from the ground level). This seems to me to presuppose the Ukrainians counter with armor themselves for a "stand up fight". There may be aspects of that, but this phase of man-portable anti-tank warfare (I'm of the opinion that the first era was begun and demonstrated in 1945) will allow the defender a clear view of the attackers for a game of hit-and-run. Coupled with the level of intelligence being provided, this seems like a death-ride. I'd be holding the tanks back for that counterattack trap phase, like cavalry in the pursuit from other eras. The Russians have failed at every level, but the ability (and motivation) to reach out and kill armor on the basis of a single soldier with an AT weapon is revolutionary. Maybe mass will win the day, but that takes organization, and hoo boy that's also not a demonstrated strong suit.

I've seen a fair amount of writing about how much of an issue the relative openness of the southern areas of Ukraine may be for a defender, but the precision aspect certainly seems to me to make massed armor advances over this terrain a potentially troubling proposition for the attacker. One man with the capacity to take out one AFV over a distance is new stuff at this scale. I do agree with The Capt. that the tank indeed still has a place in combined warfare - maybe the Ukrainians can show us how that's done again when they get enough tools for the task. The Russian implementation (like everything on display here) has been absurd. This is especially true if the attacker's timeline is set by artificial aspects and concerns...like taking ground before parades kick off.

I think they probably will. There seems to be a form of linear tracing from firing unit to target, and interruptions to that path appear to be "real" in game terms. This is based on the 3D models (rubble walls, in particular) I made and tested for FR. They will retain the underlying data characteristics of whatever the model is made to be (when swapped, as well). That means if you are doing sandbagged walls, it will still be a sandbagged wall in game terms (has the data characteristics for that model, anyway), just taller/shorter, etc. as adapted by you in the modelling process. The game should "see" that height adjustment. Like everything in this realm, test, test, test!

I don't see any usable windows or doors on those buildings (just images of them - unusable in game terms). More akin to giant boxes that will simply block movement. These are more like dioramas.

It may connote very sleepy, or very afraid of friendly-fire. Or, a combination of the two.

Right down to this 4x5 camera in the field (this looks older than recent events, but the source reference holds):

This has shifted more into the territory of "Stop worrying about what your enemy is going to do to you, and start thinking about what you are going to do to them".

The Soviet army in WWII had years to absorb and adapt to the lessons it was subjected to. Modern armies are in a constant state of assessing the latest threats, and forming their strategies and forces around those perceptions. The previous narrative that the Russian army had made large advances in the past decade are probably valid, but they adapted in ways that are obviously not effective in this realm. There are also underlying issues (logistics, as Steve has pointed out) that are long-standing. The under-utilization of artillery is welcome, but against the historical grain for the Russian army. I fear that it may come into greater play if this goes on longer. The absolutely heroic performance of the Ukrainian military and people are also a huge factor they have to contend with that cannot be discounted. I would wager that the Russians had no idea what they were up against here.

That looks interesting, but you effectively cannot use the buildings with these mods - as these are textures laid over structures without windows and usable doors.

True, that.

Which German (I assume) forces branch did you use as the base for this one? One of the good things about CM:FR is that there are now several to choose from that could conceivably allow inter-national forces with a bit of creativity.

That makes sense.

Not sure when BFC will get to a patch for RT, but I can adapt the campaign file to use something else for that scenario if it would help (as spotting is crucial for that one, in particular). Elvis also OK'd me putting up a fix for the Berlin campaign where some of the AI assignments got screwed up so the Soviet attack was vastly lighter than it should have been. Might be a few days, but that shouldn't be an issue as far as I'm concerned. This of course was not seen in testing, so either it popped up after we were done, or some odd confluence of things are working in tandem to cause havoc.

Thanks - this save should be good, along with some that I'll run. I'll pass this along, as it is weird indeed.

I'll submit that. It would be most helpful for Charles (BFC/Code Machine/Magician) to have a save from your own game - would you mind attaching a save where you see the oddity here?

Working titles: Space Lobsters: The M.A.R.S. Clause/Claws Space Lobsters: Red Steam Space Lobsters: Remember the Maine! Space Lobsters: Boil...and Trouble

Loading times are the shared pain we must undergo, it can be tough when they get bigger. Just don't inadvertently press a button, and crash it out. Lost part of Berlin that way...yeee-ha that hurt. I do notice that if I use my Mac, it is far faster with the 64bit processor in play.

Abso-lutely. Working from a source map will always have compromises to make with the available tools at hand, but rotating the map at start to make life bearable for roads and railways is going to help your mental health and the look of the map 1000x over.

Again - It did not have any additional, perceivable impact in our BFC testing during the original RT tests for making master maps. There are multiple maps that you probably play on since CMFI that have these full lines - nearly every one I've made has 'em. Just check the CM:FR map folder for the maps that I made (all but one in that folder, IIRC) for that latest iteration of mapping - they are fully using gradual contour lines drawn as they are on the source maps, with many more points where needed in between. They are necessary for naturalistic maps in the way I do them, and most people have the machines now to handle the small impact they have for what you get. I suspect most people like these maps, as they seem to be constantly being converted into other games. Fixating on this, rather than trees makes my head hurt. Space 'em out, people. Forests have gaps.

This is the way I do it. I always do continuous contour lines first following the source map, prior to any other work. Then refine again after roads, etc are in. We tested a lot of the elevation techniques in the base Red Thunder game, as there was a suspicion among some that it was more processor-intensive to have that many points set with such huge maps. It was not an issue that made any additional impact, and it lends a gentler grade to the contours. The spacing is indeed something to watch between the contours, but that is easy enough to watch out for.