ScoutPL

I cant imagine they will get too deep. No one gets more variation in their uniform than an insurgent force and I think CMSF did a good job of capturing that without having to spend endless hours painting pixels. As always, if you want more variation wait for the mods or start educating yourself on how to create your own. I think the real interesting part of how BFC attacks the Russian force will be in the TO&E. I think the long list of uniform choices you put forward is very indicative of the changes their Army has gone through over the last few decades. Severe budget cuts, aging equipment, degradation in training budgets, force reduction, all of that over the years has made some serious impacts. Of course, Putin's sensitivity to public relations and his international image will have kept the more elite (showcase) forces in shiny new boots, but my bet is the average Motorized Rifle Regiment is operating at 50% due to personnel, equipment, and maintenance shortages.

OK, so obviously I used the wrong terminology for this thread. While this has been a useful education (if a little frustrating), I should have just said, "Hey, I'd really like to see an option to withdraw forces from a QB!"

You are correct ASL Vet, we agree on what the manual says, hard to argue with the written word. I responded to you and Womble (including the quotes from the manual) because I was trying to make clear Unit Destroy objectives have nothing to do with QBs. And yes, you are also correct that what I am advocating is adding exit locations to ALL QB maps. Womble: "Casualty" conditions are "threshold" conditions: if you achieve whatever level of casualties (above or below, depending on whether it's enemy or friendly casualties we're talking about), you get the whole blob of VP. The force component of a QB's VPs is a progressive number "... The more damage you cause to those units, the more points you earn." It's a "Destroy" condition that applies to the whole enemy force, hence the inappropriate use of "Force wide" even though that is implied to be a specific class of victory condition which would include Casualties, Condition, Ammo and any bonus XPs." Thanks for the clarification because the manual is vague, since the wording makes it possible to make multiple assumptions about what actually happens. And if I am understanding your text correctly (which is something I seem to be having trouble with this entire thread) than in the current mechanics, just having an exit zone means you have to exit your entire force or your opponent gets the points, even if you are the "winner" and control all the terrain objectives. So exiting isn't optional its mandatory.

From the manual (v. 2.11): Exit: Exit Zones allow all friendly units to leave the map. There are no points awarded for leaving a map. However, units that are part of an enemy Destroy/ Destroy All Unit Objective (see next section) and do NOT leave the map are credited to the enemy as if they were destroyed. Unit based objectives: There can be any number of unit-based objectives in a scenario. The objective can be tied to one single unit (such as a tank or an HQ unit) or to entire formations (such as a platoon or even a company), or to a mix of various units. (These are set by the scenario designer.) Force wide objectives: These are the victory parameters for a scenario. The scenario designer assigns victory points to each objective individually. Options include: - Casualties (friendly and enemy): if the player keeps his own casualties under this percentage (relative to the entire force in the scenario) or pushes the enemy above another percentage, he is awarded the respective victory points. - Condition (friendly and enemy): if the player keeps his percentage of wounded, incapacitated and routed soldiers below this percentage, or pushes the above another percentage, he is awarded the respective victory points. And finally: Quick Battles - Victory conditions for Quick Battles are much more limited than for Campaigns and Battles. Only two types of victory conditions are available: 1 - Terrain objective zones. These are always considered as OCCUPY zones. (Exit Zones are ignored, currently.) 2 - A set number of points are rewarded for causing enemy unit casualties. The more casualties caused, the more points are awarded. (This is a "Force wide objective.") I dont believe forces withdrawn from the map would count as casualties (as the rules stand) or that they should count in favor of the withdrawing player. I simply believe it would offer a more realistic option to the defeated player.

Well no I can't, because, at least as I understand the manual, QBs don't recognize exit objective locations on maps used in them. Also, I think that the issue with unit vp only applies to units with specific victory points allocated to them by the scenario designer (which also don't apply to QBs). As an example of what I would like to see: If the parameters for a map are set at say 100 points for destroying 70% of the defending force (which does carry from a map into a QB), but the defender manages to withdraw 35% of his forces than the attacker wouldn't get the 100 points. That to me sounds like a worthy effort for a defender. If you can't hold on to your positions, than try to live to fight another day. I am asking if it would be possible for there to be a QB withdrawal option in future versions of the game.

"Current Exit objectives aren't very good for "arbitrary" use by QBs because, as they stand, any units that don't exit, and are part of a destroy objective (so all of the units that don't exit, in a QB) are considered destroyed at game end. " I don't believe that is correct. For a QB map (even one taken from a scenario or purpose built from scratch), the only victory conditions that apply are those related to "occupy" terrain objectives and force count. And by that I mean the parameters (50% equals 100 points, etc) not the victory points attributed to a single unit. Mainly because I imagine its beyond the QB construct to select units at random and assign them victory points. All of the other victory conditions on the map are disregarded. At least that's what the manual says, I may have missed an update somewhere though, that changed the rule. If my understanding is correct, ADDING exit objectives would not have the affect you brought up.

One of the few frustrations I still run into with CM is the inability to disengage and withdraw in QBs. A lot of games devolve into a sort of seek and destroy as the victorious player attempts to track down each of his opponents remaining units in a sort of Malmedy redux. Or the defeated player is forced to run and hide until time runs out or simply surrender and forfeit all of his remaining force to the VP count. I find it very unrealistic that any commander would continue to try to hold ground after taking 50% or more in casualties (even fewer realistically). A much more palatable option would be to have the option of withdrawing your force from the map. With exit zones on their friendly side, each player would have the option of fighting a retrograde/withdrawal when things turned against them. The current Exit Objectives are setup to support this. You can exit your units but wont receive any points for doing so. However, you also deprive your opponent of the extra points he would receive by reducing you to the last man or forcing a surrender. It adds another dimension to the planning and play for each player as well. So I would strongly advocate adding exit zones to the QB maps in future versions (which currently consist of only location and unit casualty victory points). Thoughts? PS I haven't been on the forums for awhile so if someone remembers a thread where this was already discussed please forward me the link.

There are all sorts of benefits to mounting a MG on a tripod vs a bipod. A bipod is actually the least preferable way to do it. A MG becomes wildly uncontrollable after 3-4 rounds and as such are often defined as area fire weapons valued for their suppression qualities rather than accuracy. Tripods are preferred because they offer more stability to the weapon, giving you a tighter pattern. And at 400-500 meters the pattern (or beaten zone) can make a big difference in a guns effectiveness. You can set up a tripod to limit the gun's arc of fire. This is particularly useful in the defense. MGs are often set up at key points that allow them to fire along the front of their platoons defensive positions as a sort of final wall of lead. By using the tripod to limit the "swing" of the gun a gunner can get heavy on the trigger and know he isn't in danger of swinging too far and firing into his own troops. This is key when defending a position at night or in low vis conditions like fog. Tripods can be used to quickly bring guns onto the enemy by using preplanned target ranges. Experienced gunners can use a range card and with the assistance of an assistant gunner (AG) could quickly shift from one target to the next (inexperienced gun crews often consider range cards a waste of time, just like they fail to keep their ammo clean and then wonder why their gun keeps jamming when they need it). For example, a gunner may know (from his prior planning and his range card) that a certain tree is at 300m and a house is at 500m. He can quickly zero his aim with just a few twists of his elevation adjustment to the desired target based on that data, without having to send a few bursts just to get the range estimation right. Therefore, he can deliver rounds right on target with his first burst and avoid alerting the enemy. MGs at the rifle squad level (honestly, in German WW2 doctrine they should be called MG squads not rifle squads) are there to simply provide as much suppression firepower as possible. They typically engage at shorter ranges (inside 300m) and so aren't as concerned about accurate fires beyond that. The prevailing thought (particularly outside Brit and US doctrine which tried to hold onto the Rifle is king mentality as long as possible) was that everyone else in the squad existed simply to support the machinegunners. The squad leaders primary maneuver elements were the guns themselves. This became less important as "Assault Rifles" were introduced but it is the foundation of the organization you see in German WW2 squads. BFC used to publish some small texts on small unit tactics from WW2 (they still may) which go into all of this in some detail. Other great sources are On Infantry by John English and Infantry Attacks by Erwin Rommel. English goes into the history behind the development of the squad from the British, American and German perspectives and Rommel writes very informatively about the use of heavy machineguns at the rifle company level in WW1. Both fascinating reads and eye opening. I also think I might have a digital copy of a US Army Machine Gun manual or two laying around if anyone is really interested in the science. Now, as far as how those benefits for tripod vs bipod translate into game terms, someone else will have to enlighten us. I would imagine over the years someone has ran a few tests...

OK I stand corrected, thanks. The stat I was thinking of had Britain with the second largest defense budget.

Skwabie, I am an infantryman so quickly getting out of my depth. I just know what the pilots assigned to our headquarters tell me when we are standing around the water cooler. There are capabilities and threat assessments and then there is reality. Apparently reality is that it would have to be real damn important to fly low level CAS in a high threat SAM 1 thru gazillion environment. Low level is what we would want replicated in CM SF/Black Sea (we dont care if the AF can bust an enemy air plane hanger from 25k ft in southern Russia). We need the A10s and F-16s busting tanks and suppressing troop formations 1500m to our front.

The problem with this is its way beyond the scope of NATO. The vast majority of any armor formations at NATOs disposal would be US and it would take months to get them to Europe (and we're only talking about a few divisions). The Brits have the second largest military in NATO and they might be able to squeeze together a division, at most. The bottom line is that the European nations have all cut back on their military spending rather steeply with the end result that a full modern mobilization would take over a year (think the US 1940-42) if it is possible at all. The large, full scale, national wars of the twentieth century are in the past. Its just too damn expensive in capital, people, and the environment. Smaller wars are certainly going to continue to plague us but one with major world powers as belligerents is very unlikely. I dont think CMSF/Back Sea should stray too far from whats possible/probable. After the game comes out you can create a Kursk map and fight it out with T-90s and M1A2s, if you'd like. Easy enough with the editor. Really all BFC needs is a background scenario that provides a name, some cover art, and a location. And, I believe anyway, BFC has always put itself forward as wanting to be known for accurate, realistic simulations. Honestly the more plausible (like the original CMSF), the more relevant and well accepted it will be. And I am speaking as a military professional who deals a lot with simulations. We are always looking for the next great thing to use as a training tool.

From the info put out so far its a safe bet, I believe, that a CMSF update (redux, etc) will consist of solely updating the game engine. It will include all the great stuff you can do with CMBN (and the additions from Red Thunder and Black Sea) but that's it. Frankly, I would rather see more of a focus on expanding Black Sea in the future than digging in deeper in Syria. CMSF is easily adaptable to route clearing operations in Iraq or Afghanistan if that's your thing, so I see little use in spending a lot of time adding to that. However, what is really missing is CMSF in a European type environment. I think just the setting of Black Sea will open up a new box of opportunities. Also, the time line in the Syria scenario is just fine, and I hope Black Sea follows something similar. The US/NATO can conduct regime change or stop unsanctioned aggression in a matter of months if it chooses to do so. Panama and the First Gulf War being the most recent examples. (Clear concise goals and an exit plan.) The last thing we (the US) need to do as a military or a nation is get involved in another open ended "bring democracy to the uninterested" type war. I like the idea of having mods and expandable options for those who wish to go a certain way, but I'd rather not have a background scenario that brings my PTSD out every time I think about it. But I'm notoriously self centered and opinionated.

I think there would be plenty for all types of forces to deal with. Heavy as well as light. Unfortunately, the light forces (abn/marine) would be relied on for the heaviest fighting, i.e. seizing/clearing the urban areas. Just as happened in '03 they would be tasked with attacking or defending the severely restricted terrain that the mech units would want to avoid. And as in most populated areas of the world now, there are plenty of those in Ukraine. And I would think there is plenty of opportunity for insurgent activity as well. Probably not in a full blown COIN environment (certainly not initially) but just as extra "players" on the battlefield.

To correct an earlier post... The US voluntarily stopped using flamethrowers in 1978. Apparently they are not controlled by any sort of arms agreements. I think they are just impractical, at least the old tank and nozzle variety. As saferights videos demonstrate you can get much the same effect from a specifically designed rocket propelled warhead. Or since much larger and accurate warheads are man portable (Javelin) just let the HE and the overpressure do the work.

Not really. Half the country actually still thinks of themselves as Russian so I don't see the Ukrainian armed forces staying a viable force for long, especially against the Russians. The US reached Baghdad (300 miles) in 16 days. The Russians would have to cover half that distance (through territory overwhelmingly in their favor, geographically and politically) to seize Kiev (probably doable in less than a week). Belarus is an ally of theirs so its not hard to imagine they would send forces through that country to cross the Dnieper in friendly territory and invade Ukraine from the western side of the river. If that was really a concern of theirs, which I wouldn't think it would be. I don't think they would be too worried about seizing control of the country's infrastructure. They would definitely have issues with an insurgency in the western half of the country and possibly a build up of NATO forces on the western borders. One possible scenario would be a Ukraine that votes itself into NATO and then begins to fall apart as a result of the insurgency that is liable to spark (aggravated by Russia, of course). The Ukraine govt asks for assistance and NATO decides to send a task force for stability/show of force reasons. Lets call it Task Force Roadkill. The Russians are then forced to decide to become directly involved in a fight with NATO (TF Roadkill) or stick to supporting an insurgency on their own borders. My guess would be they know how fickle western governments are and would decide to just wait and feed the insurgency as much as possible. Eventually, the west would lose interest and they could begin the whole process of destabilizing the pro-NATO faction again. But, if they decided they had to force the issue then time would become of essence. They would have to strike as soon as possible to seize the country before NATO could effectively mobilize to reinforce TF Roadkill. That would be a Russian decision to engage in open warfare and the gloves come off (highly unlikely), but it gets us where we want to go in the scenario. The finer scenario design points would be what TF Roadkill looks like (probably a mix of heavy and light units) and whether or not there is a similar build up of forces in Poland and/or Romania.

Studying the map. Routes into Ukraine from Romania are greatly restricted due to mountain range. Routes into Ukraine from Poland are greatly restricted by wetlands. Quickest way to Kiev (which is right on Russia border) is actually through Moldova from Romania (which would require control of Black Sea). The more I look at this the more I think they should just call it Combat Mission: We're All F'd.

I'm actually very interested in how BFC will model the current Russian armed forces. I have not received a threat briefing on them in a while (no reason to). I wonder how closely they are sticking to their old warsaw pact doctrine and formations.

Most exercises the Army conducts these days include a build-up of forces prior to the actual execution. Real world examples are the Gulf War, the almost war in Kosovo, and the 03 invasion of Iraq. The idea of the 82nd and a couple MEUs deploying to the Ukraine and waiting for heavy forces (essentially from the continental United States) is fraught with issues. Both would require a heavy commitment of air transportation assets (even the Marines if you are talking about 2 brigade sized elements - casevac, supplies, replacements, etc), but especially the 82nd. It would require a significant effort on the USAFs part to drop (or airland) the entire Division at once. (Sorry guys Market Garden just isn't in the defense budget anymore.) All of which would require a massive (and costly) air superiority and air defense suppression fight by coalition air forces. Then, assuming you could get them all there in a mutually supporting role with adequate reduction of the enemy air threat you have the fact they would probably be overrun by massive amounts of armor within a week or so. Its much more feasible to assume a build up of forces in Romania or Poland with a subsequent invasion by heavy and light forces (understanding that a build up like that would take months, with a simultaneous build up by the Russians). Or a build up in the Ukraine itself (assuming that wouldn't automatically kick off a conflict) with an attack at some point by the Russians. Bottom line is there would be no reason to sacrifice light units in order to seize ground and wait for heavy units. And a huge sacrifice it would be! We deployed the 82nd to Saudi Arabia in 1990 to deter Saddam from invading SA. But we enjoyed a large air dominance (that continued to grow daily) that made that possible. That wouldn't be feasible against the Soviets (um, I mean Russians).

They are outlawed by Geneva Conventions or some other weapons agreement. That will hold until, of course, one of the major powers decides they need to storm a line of pillboxes again... Not much use for anything else. For most strongpoints requiring direct fire these days we use AT4, TOWs, and/or Javelins.

Reading through Red Thunder AAR spurred another Iwanna. Ability to set units to prone. Hide doesn't allow spotting well enough to set an ambush and Slow only works for so long and they will start taking a knee. Option to force prone stance would be nice.

I currently work in a Division HQ (the airborne one - so I have some experience with this problem). And I can assure you, no aviator will fly with a viable MANPADS threat, unless he is threatened with his job or life AND chained to his seat as in the example you provide. Its just too damn scary. A good correlation I think is the Horse Cavalry and the machinegun. One gun could mow down an entire squadron before they could effectively close and take it out. The larger radar based systems can be taken out using their radar signature as a target. But MANPADS for the most part are heat signature weapons. You have no idea they are there until the missile is in the air and seconds from exploding right outside your canopy. CAS is by definition slow. You aren't going to outrun a missile inside a few seconds of afterburner if you are on a bombing or strafing run. The only way to stay safe would be to stay above the MANPADS ceiling and use PGM. Good for some fire missions but hardly preferable. This is why the air force hates supporting the CAS mission. Anything outside of a low threat environment (think Vietnam, GWOT, etc) is certain death, given modern capabilities. Of course all of the above applies to helicopters just even more so.

The interesting thing about MANPADs? If you go to war in a flight suit, as soon as someone mentions MANPADs (which always makes me think of some sort of male hygiene product) you automatically ground yourself. I think they all have an internal switch surgically implanted right before graduating flight school. So if you have MANPADs in your scenario, then realistically you don't have any air. At all. Yet another interesting game design issue from the modern battlefield.

Ok so in grunt speak... Black Sea is the next "BIG" product coming from Battlefront (after Red Thunder). Its a modern game using the most updated CM engine set in the Ukraine/Black Sea region. My understanding is that the intent is to simply update CMSF1 to the newest engine, not totally revamp the entire game. So it will retain the same background setting, scenario, etc. Is that not correct?

Mord, I acquiesce. And yes I can be quite the cynical smarta$%. I'm just an angry, cantankerous old grunt. Something I always swore I wouldnt turn into but you know how that goes... I am not sure how I got so sidetracked either. Someone suggested MRAPs and I simply commented that they were outside the normal purview of CMSF. Then someone decided to continue the debate... Apparently I simply have a rather strong proclivity for stating the obvious and then feeling I need to defend my position. I certainly support anyone's desire to take CM in their own direction. I participated in the first attempts to do that when we as a community tried to use CMBO to play an operational campaign back in the 90's. I suppose I am just a little too hard corps to stray too far from what the system was designed for. That and I have had enough COIN and anything that looks, smells or sounds like COIN in my life already, I have no desire to play a COIN scenario. But thats just my preference. Buzz got me started on Syria, blame him.

Syria: Its about priorities. And just as they change from one minute to the next for your wife, they can change for the national security officials just as quickly. What you quoted was a group of Senators attempting to make political hay on the fact that the govt focus on Syria has changed. As every politician is prone to do. I heard Kerry stating they could no longer reach their goals. My question is did the goals change? Have the Russians betrayed their promise or just simply failed? Or is the chemical threat off the table and the administration is now turning to address the ethnic turmoil? When Kerry was pushing for a solution in Syria the focus was on the chemical weapons. The most immediate threat was a terrorist organization getting a hold of a chem weapon that could be used against the west. That raises everyones stress level a lot higher than just genocide or ethnic in-fighting. Most of the conflicts going on in the ME right now are Shia-Sunni power struggles fed by Saudi Arabia on one side and Iran on the other. Something we definitely don't want to spend US dollars or lives on. At least I cant think of a good reason to. My recommendation is start investing in solar energy. CMSF wont run on an abacus.