Capt. Toleran

Really interesting, thank you!  
Ha, agreed!
 

I found this document to be pretty interesting and informative on this topic:
https://info.publicintelligence.net/AWG-RussianNewWarfareHandbook.pdf
Apologies in advance if this was already posted here or elsewhere, I think it addresses the specific ask for this topic thread. 
Now if only there were more missions and campaigns to play...

I found this document to be pretty interesting and informative on this topic:
https://info.publicintelligence.net/AWG-RussianNewWarfareHandbook.pdf
Apologies in advance if this was already posted here or elsewhere, I think it addresses the specific ask for this topic thread. 
Now if only there were more missions and campaigns to play...

Three days after announcement, the post count of this forum surpassed the CM:touch one.
Three days after release, the post count of this forum surpassed the CMA one.
Now, on to the next! 
Extrapolating, we should get the next module just before reaching the 17k mark...  hoping that they won't post that much in the CMSF2 forum! 😄

They're not invisible... but it's certainly tricky to use barely professional red forces in the conditions & terrain that most H&E scenarios are set in.
In CMA, for instance, many people advised keeping a couple of men inside the BTR's (or BMP's) to help out with spotting duties... and that was without all the foilage interfering with spotting.
Contact markers collected (undoubtedly at a price) by your infantry needs to be shared with your AFV's.
Your infantry are much more expendable than the afv's & can at least distract them.
@Aquila-SmartWargames recently beat this campaign (playing both real time & turn based) & only really seemed to struggle when he was outnumbered by the Jeeps in one particuarly harsh scenario... at all other times he dealt with them very effectively.
Still there's no doubt about it, MNC can be a difficult mistress... it might be easier to try out some of the other scenarios & campaigns.

In Soviet Russia, binoculars watch you!

Sure would like to see a youtube of someone winning this.  Rage quit 4 times in about 40 minutes.  The first two games, I lost my jeep mg gunner in the first 2 turns, despite being in heavy cover.
 
Also, I think this scenario needs a map with the general area of the outpost mapped.  First time, I didn't understand that the outpost was right there and the "rush vehicles forwards" advice seems to end up with a jeep that is quickly routing in panic.  Unit position ended up with either my units in too much cover, with no sight of the enemy, or not enough, and getting picked off.  Snipers were surprisingly passive, and many observation areas proved selectively useless for covering advancing troops,  I quickly started running out of time and losing too many troops to attrition -- to rescue one guy, this sure wasn't worth the sacrifice.
 
But I seem to be the only one with this experience.  Once again, would love to see this in action so that I can know what I am doing wrong.

Stratfor article "Gaming a Russian offensive":
https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/gaming-russian-offensive
 

This has already been debated on several occasions. The proponents of SOF in CMBS (myself included) are not expecting to see some SWAT-like ninjas who free hostages and clear buildings "Kill-house style". We are proposing higher trained and better concealed sniper, recon, and assault teams whose standards of training and morale  go beyond what is simulated (for regular infantry units) in CM; and who use suppressed and silenced weapons making them so much more difficult to spot and to track down. I personally feel that those types of units can fit into CMBS quite organically...

Probably the file is undergoing update by the uploader. Or it is just broken indeed.
But I agree on the repository rant in general.

Getting to this discussion late -- I think sometimes people forget that Battlefront is a business, and at the end of the day, they need to sell games to make more of them.
 
Let's think about the audience for the game -- while we have plenty of international players (welcome!), there is still a significant amount, I would assume the majority, that are American.  This means you do Marines, because the Marines are almost a religion unto themselves here, revered (rightfully so) as some of the best of our best.  If you want to sell games to Americans, you make it about Americans.  Battlefront themselves said that one of the big problems with CMBB was that the effort vs. ROI tradeoff was very poor vs. CMBO because there were no Americans in that part of the war.  It was a great game for a specific niche of hobbyists, and Russians didn't bite on the game (or maybe they couldn't really sell it there anyways vs. pirating), so it was kind of a waste.
 
All of these other countries I have seen listed -- France, Britain, Poland, etc. -- they will have to be "in addition to Marines."  Nothing against those countries, but until the UK and France, Germany, etc. start buying the game wholesale (if you want to help Battlefront, spread the word!), they are going to focus on things that make Americans buy games, and there are a lot more of us who care more about US Marines vs. any other country's force that is supposed to be on the "allied" side.  This is just economic reality, but I am eager to hear any counter-arguments that might contradict this, including if there were any major demographic changes in the Battlefront audience since CMBO.  If so, I stand corrected.

Yep. And other weapons.

Like the M27 IAR?

Getting to this discussion late -- I think sometimes people forget that Battlefront is a business, and at the end of the day, they need to sell games to make more of them.
 
Let's think about the audience for the game -- while we have plenty of international players (welcome!), there is still a significant amount, I would assume the majority, that are American.  This means you do Marines, because the Marines are almost a religion unto themselves here, revered (rightfully so) as some of the best of our best.  If you want to sell games to Americans, you make it about Americans.  Battlefront themselves said that one of the big problems with CMBB was that the effort vs. ROI tradeoff was very poor vs. CMBO because there were no Americans in that part of the war.  It was a great game for a specific niche of hobbyists, and Russians didn't bite on the game (or maybe they couldn't really sell it there anyways vs. pirating), so it was kind of a waste.
 
All of these other countries I have seen listed -- France, Britain, Poland, etc. -- they will have to be "in addition to Marines."  Nothing against those countries, but until the UK and France, Germany, etc. start buying the game wholesale (if you want to help Battlefront, spread the word!), they are going to focus on things that make Americans buy games, and there are a lot more of us who care more about US Marines vs. any other country's force that is supposed to be on the "allied" side.  This is just economic reality, but I am eager to hear any counter-arguments that might contradict this, including if there were any major demographic changes in the Battlefront audience since CMBO.  If so, I stand corrected.

It certainly has been a success in terms of showing the line in terms of tactics and what squads can do by themselves.  Great learning experience so far, after I win or fail v.1, I will be looking forward to the next iteration.

This has been my experience also...
 
The RPGs often has suprisingly little effect on the enemy...

Before I get into it I’ just want to say this is not a criticism of the game. I’ve been playing this title to the exclusion of all my other CM games since it was released and I am having a blast with the campaigns, the editor and the stock battles against the AI.
There is little doubt that this game series gets better and better with every new build released.
 
But… after playing a number of H2H QB games at the Elite setting as both the US and Russians one thing has begun to stick out very consistently, which is that Russian troops and AFV’s even with the best optics that they can have are performing at a level nothing short of appalling when compared to their US counterparts ability to spot enemy units.
In fact I would say that every game played so far as the Russian’s has gone along the lines of forward AFV’s and Infantry eliminated with little or no idea where the fire was coming from. Gradually sound contacts are established and Russian units are systemically eliminated by the scattered wall of ‘?’'s creeping toward them.
Having Drones up just illuminated how bad the Russian spotting was, showing clearly M1’s and Bradley’s, often blazing away with their cannons, sitting in action squares that unsuppressed Russian units (That included T90AM’s in a couple of instances) had clear LOS to but didn’t even have as much as a sound contact themselves.
 
Now I’ve played CM in every version since CMBO and I’m very aware that even over a number of battles we can sometimes see and convince ourselves of things that are not actually supported when tests are run so…
To make sure I wasn’t just imagining this due to circumstantial bias I went into the editor and set up a small map with a small ridgeline along its center with a scattering of trees and ran a series of very simple manoeuvre tests having Russian troops and AFV’s MOVE and HUNT up onto the ridge in a mix of open and hull down positions and into LOS of US infantry and assorted AFV’s and observed the results.
I then reversed the process and had the US vehicles and infantry do the same thing.
I then ran this test both ways under all of the different weather conditions and light conditions.
In all I run this test both ways about 50 times (the carnage was great, it didn’t take long J).
Now at this stage I would normally provide stats… but frankly there is no need to because what was observed was the following,
In every instance except 9 (that’s correct, just 9 in 100 runs) the US units spotted the Russian’s first and then almost as often simply eliminated the Russian units before the Russian’s could even establish a sound contact. Only twice did the US lose an AFV, surprisingly M1’s both times, to returning fire and never (that’s again correct, never) did the Russian’s ever fire first!
 
Even more interesting was that the US AFV’s and Infantry usually spotted the static Russian’s even faster after moving!
This makes me wonder how the spotting cycle is actually triggered; does it trigger when a unit enters a new action square and if so how often does that coincide with the base cycle for non-moving units? Either way, and I may be way off base as to how the underlying code functions here, but it just seems a little off in CMBS.
 
Anyway, this is becoming a very long post, when all I really want to know is,
 
1)  Is what I’m seeing just an accurate depiction of the technological differences between these nations optics and comms systems as we believe they will function in 2017?
 
Or
 
2) Is there actually an underlying issue in the way spotting is functioning for the different types of tech and does something need to be dialed up or down?

What kinds of Russian vehicles were used in those tests on that custom map?
 
BMP-3 and BMP-3M have drastic differences in optics packages, while BMP-3m has thermals, BMP-3 doesn't. Things like that are extremely important to know before saying anything concrete on this test at least. I learned that BMP thing the hard way...
 
However, over all yes, American forces have the better optics packages across the board, infantry, armor you name it.

It's very tough. I mean VERY tough. I was stunned at the number of blue icons present on the map after the rage quit. I got down to level one and the Ukrainian regulars seemed to be flipping the bird to my troops. As in Toleran's experience one of my T72 crews abandoned their perfectly intact ride after what appeared to be merely MG fire. The survivors were promptly gunned down after crawling around looking for... a place to die. I felt compelled to LIKE Toleran's posts.
 
Also, if you want this battle to appeal to MP'ers I suggest your provide setup zones for Red.
 
You're a meanie.

Thanks, I was tired and cranky last night and maybe a bit more blunt than was appropriate.  You can see from my current rating here (due to my meltdown on CMBS launch day) that I do that sometimes, much to my chagrin later
 
I also think perhaps you are right about difficulty level.  I always play Iron out of principle, but the first time I did Warrior, and maybe I am drastically overestimating my own skillset vs. the difficulty.  My stubborn pride won't let me not do Iron, and I think this is probably one of those scenarios I need to get right to learn and grow.  Thank you again for doing this, and I look forward to other scenarios from you, they for sure are not overly easy

I'm having better luck this time taking your advice, and also not trying to fight the whole map at once -- I think that was a big part of my problem, diluting my attack.  I will let you know if I do better by the end of it.

Thanks, I was tired and cranky last night and maybe a bit more blunt than was appropriate.  You can see from my current rating here (due to my meltdown on CMBS launch day) that I do that sometimes, much to my chagrin later
 
I also think perhaps you are right about difficulty level.  I always play Iron out of principle, but the first time I did Warrior, and maybe I am drastically overestimating my own skillset vs. the difficulty.  My stubborn pride won't let me not do Iron, and I think this is probably one of those scenarios I need to get right to learn and grow.  Thank you again for doing this, and I look forward to other scenarios from you, they for sure are not overly easy

Hello, Capt. Toleran
 
 
Thanks for you comments...Sorry things did not go to well for you.
 
Maybe the difficulty level is to high...I would be intrested to hear what other people think..?
 
 
I tested this scenario a couple of times...2 full playthoughs with resulting enemy surrenders and i think 4 times to try different ways to get across the river. I tried my best to NOT use my knowledge of the enemy in these playthroughs....
 
I managed to win (whitout the reserv platoon) but i indeed took quiet heavy casulties...My last full attempt resulted in 20 dead and 40 something wounded...Both tanks remained...
 
 
-----SPOILER ------
 
I agree that trying to route the enemy out of their possitions (especially those in buildings) with massive firepower is VERY difficult...Despite the fact that thoose troops are not beefed up with super great stats (moral, experience, leadership).
 
I think that one key to victory will be to not try to route the enemy out of their possitions with long/medium range fire (i tried that also and failed)...Especially on the south side of the river you should be able to suppress (not route) the enemy possitions from a distance and move other troops forward to close assult the enemy...
 
this has proven effective in my playtesting atleast...Even TARGET LIGHT (to save RPGs and such) from multiple possitions have been enough to sufficiently suppress the enemies to allow an assult.
 
 
With regards to the 'ton of blue' on the other side of the river...Yes... It might look a bit impossible when rewiewing the map in the AAR screen but many of thoose troops are triggered to make counterattacks and repossition during the battle to allow you to catch them in the open (atleast that is my intention...)
 
They should be a bit easier to deal with then stationary defenders remaining in some buildings...
 
 
----- end of SPOILER -------
 
 
I hope this scenario did not ruin your day 
 
Feedback like this is good for future work....thanks !!
 
/RepsolCBR

So motor rifle troop leaders should be issued day optics (1P63) .. Leader and assistant much like handless radios presently on the game.

The Obzor is the one being seen most often with Russian troops (lots more photos of it in use here: http://russianoptics.net/Obzor.html )