civdiv

Peetchka and Speetchka are the only ones I know. I can’t remember which is which.

Yes, BF COULD do it, but SHOULD they do it? No, in my opinion. The game engine doesn’t support it, and even with modifications, won’t do it well. Go get a game like Squad if you want that stuff. Yes, it’s a FPS, but that is the way something like this needs to be done.

8:28, 9:46, 10:02 and 12:55.

@LongLeftFlank where are the links in your sig block supposed to go? They all go the same place for me, the Battlefront home page.

I think the most significant evolution in ground combat recently was the Azerbaijan-Armenian conflict. I would like something like that to get modeled to include all the drone stuff including the suicide drones. Maybe info on the effectiveness on stuff like ADA might be tough to obtain. But in both Libya and Armenia it seemed even fairly decent kit like Pantsir was close to helpless against these drones.

From the video, are they bombarding a mock up village, or is it an abandoned village or what?

Sort of related, and very interesting; AN-2s used as ‘bait’ drones

NY Times Article

Who else is going to do it, the State Department? Keep in mind the military doesn’t make foreign policy, they simply carry it out. We have to have faith in our civilian leadership, and the electorate, to make good decisions. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan were military failures, they were political and foreign policy failures.

I don’t see dirty bombs as being much different than 9/11. Sure, it would likely have a bigger economic impact but at the end of the day we have the Afghan scenario. It isn’t a war on the Syrian people, it is basic regime change, because they will not give in to our demands, and fighting an insurgency. And while we certainly killed a lot of civilians, 99.9% of the time it was not on purpose.

I agree with many of your points. I do not think an invasion of Syria would have been that hard, but the ‘peace’ that followed would have been just as hard as it was in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our military is great at killing people and lighting stuff on fire, but the various organs of the US Federal Government and the International Coalition suck at achieving peace. Then throw in meddling by Turkey, Russia and Iran, toss in the Kurds, throw in AQ and the inevitability of the rise of ISIS, which already existed, and you have a dumpster fire.

The CM engine cannot do SOF type GWOT missions. CM is designed to handle company and battalion level conventional combat, not what you appear to be asking for, which is really platoon and below level tactical combat. And the human cannot control the actions of the sub units to the degree required. And any SOF raid/strike takes days and weeks of planning, with lots of folks spending literally years worth of man hours to launch a team on a mission. While they result in tens of minutes of action packed excitement, it takes a lot of drudgery to get there. As others have said, fighting a counter insurgency like Iraq and Afghanistan in this game engine sounds about as compelling as watching paint dry. Lots of static FOBs, endless boring patrols, and every once in a while you get shot at or your vehicle suddenly explodes.

My comparison isn’t perfect as I have admitted, but can you give me a better comparison given the topic? Israeli conflicts against countries using Soviet tactics?

Sorry but it is the closest ‘apples to apples’ I could come up with. It isn’t close to perfect but given the timeframe and countries involved it is the closest I could think of.

Compare Desert Storm to the Russian Battle of Grozny. Roughly the same timeframe. How did each perform?

Yeah, CM is never going to adequately (not even close) simulate the Bin Laden raid. The raid is FPS stuff, not tactical combat. You can’t simulate alert level, etc. You get your assault squad waxed making a breach it isn’t (usually) really your fault.

What are the economics when you throw in loitering munitions like the Harpy/Harop which proved pretty effective during the recent Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict? I am not sure if I would use a multi-million dollar (what does it cost?) Harop on a bus full of conscripts but the price point on these things is only going to come down.

Not sure why but I switched VPN servers and now I am back in. So this is resolved but still might be of interest to someone.

Added Later: Ok, I found on the support site FAQ that I do need three profiles so I have answered my own question. I did a quick search and I cannot find a similar question. I have a profile for battlefront.com to access the games I have purchased. I have a seperate profile to post on the forum. Now, I want to submit a ticket in regards to the games I have purchased but when I go to submit a help ticket it asks me to log in. Neither of my other profiles work. Does submitting a help ticket require a third profile? Thanks in advance for your help!

To reset your password just try to log in here and hit 'forgot password' or whatever the option is; https://www.battlefront.com/index.php?p=home If it is more involved then just resetting your password I think this is right, look in the top right corner to submit a ticket; https://battlefront.mojohelpdesk.com/

Last night I was reading the Forums on my iPad without issue. Then at some point late last night I started getting a 403 Error 'The request could not be satisfied'. It says 'request blocked'. I can get to the Community webpage but I cant get to the forums themselves on my iPad. Now I am overseas and running through a VPN. But on my laptop (where I am typing this post from), again from overseas and behind the same VPN (VPN service, I haven't compared specific VPN servers between my iPad and laptop yet) I have no issues.

Schrullenhaft, thanks for you advice. I figured it out and it is weird but it’s fixed. For reference; MSI GS65 with NVIDIA GTX1070. For some reason CMBN was defaulting to the integrated graphics rather than the GTX1070. I went into the NVIDIA Control Panel and forced it to use the GTX1070 and all is good with the world again. The weird thing is that CMBN was the only game using the integrated graphics by default.

So I may have the same issue. When selecting a scenario or campaign the text has weird blob like artifacts that replace some letters making stuff almost unreadable. The text is then fine in the scenario briefing but then in the game the same textual artifacts return. Turning on antialiasing did not do anything nor did plugging my display number into the file mentioned in this topic.

Many of those were just combat trials so they don’t need to be included. I’d be semi interested but my first choice would be an entirely new project; early war on both fronts.

This study sounds very flawed. It sounds like they had visible targets they were trying to suppress and the simulator lowered the target if the shot(s) are close enough. So, some points; 1. It seems their ‘suppression algorithm’ is kind of made up. Where is the scientific basis to what results in suppression? In a firefight auditory exclusion and tunnel vision are common. In this state a target might not even know rounds are whipping by in close proximity. 2. If you see the target you shoot to kill it. What this study seems to show that if you miss close enough the target is suppressed. If you can see the target and you are in the effective range of your weapon system you should be killing the target (hitting it) not suppressing it. You don’t suppress visible targets, you destroy them. You suppress enemy positions or suspected positions but if you have a visible target you take well aimed rounds to kill it. This study seems to promote the idea that several ‘close’ (misses) rounds are better than one well aimed hit. That’s a bad idea. It’s like the old ‘how many times do you shoot an enemy soldier’. You shoot them until they are not visible or they have been clearly eliminated as a threat. 2. Ok, one LMG is more accurate than another, big deal. Rate and volume of fire are a factor. Say your company is attacking an unseen platoon in a tree line. You know they are there but you do not have a clear target. If you have a clear target see para 1 above. So you let loose with the mgs. To the guy in the tree line that just got sprayed by a 100 round belt, he doesn’t care about the 99 bullets that didn’t come near him. He cares about the one that kicked up dirt right next to his head. 3. Trying to simulate para 2, did they have 30 of these sensors hidden in a tree line? Sounds like they didn’t. Trying to determine suppression with one guy firing at one target is worthless. And if the target is visible you kill it. It really seems like they are talking about individual marksmanship and giving suppression credit for multiple near misses. The goal is to shoot the enemy when they present a visible target not miss and keep them pinned after they take cover. In the study these are not dynamic targets; if you ‘suppress’ them they stay in the same spot. They don’t low crawl to the flank and roll your trench up with grenades ‘Band of Brothers’ style.