The_Capt

Are any of them named Roger?

Little secret, no one has it figured out. I think I have gained more perspective on pre WW1 and even between the world wars based on where we are today; they were in the dark too.

Heh, hey I am an Engineer - combat type with specialties in assault and armored...so infantry who can do math at a grade 9 level and read without their lips moving too much. And even all that was some time ago, my current specialties lie in other military arenas even less applicable here. Now that said, I think the question is "how does maneuver actually work in RL"? Bottled-freakin-chaos from my experience. Once you get that much steel moving in one direction you had better have your drills down pat because forces with that much weight can only retain about 3 ideas in their collective heads while being shot at - not a lot of time or bandwidth for a creative commons once you are in motion so sort it out beforehand.

Also circumference of the penetrator. APDS are basically big bullets, APFSDS are big darts. Same gun volume, very different effect

Density of the round (tungsten vs DU) and not all propellant or HE is created equal.

I am pretty sure it goes the other way more often. Someone does not put the hours in and we get a slag piece because of "graphics, UI and pricing" without properly evaluating the systems strengths and successes.

Hmm, well you have some points to be sure, some fair, some unfair and some, well everyone is entitled to opinion and choices. I am not going to weigh in everything, we already know we want to fix quite a few things in the next engine (e.g. graphics) and I totally agree that 1v1 (and maybe one day 2v2 or 3v3) is in need of an overhaul. As to "all games being the same", well they do all share the same engine so in that way, yes they are but then again so are a lot of franchises. New features get added over time which add some new flavors but the base engine is pretty consistent, which is a good thing if you are fan and maybe not so much if you are not. As to "skins. maps, equipment", here you (and others) are way off. Each game has hundreds of hours of research on organizations and equipment/weapons and then we test them and re-address issues after release. CMSF2 and CMCW are an excellent example of this, if you imported all the forces from CMSF 2 to CMCW, the game would crash as the TO&Es and equipment are very different; US force structures are completely different (H series vs J series), the basic squad of infantry has different firepower (e.g. Dragon vs Javelin) and even the mighty M1 Abrams is the 105mm gun version in CMCW. All this effects sighting, C2 etc. Soviets are armed with different equipment from the era and - the big one - CMCW is not hybrid warfare while it is in CMSF 2. Your point on maps might have traction between CMFS 2 and CMCW for the NTC maps but we built over 300 sq kms of German specific maps...from the actual ground that is there (as best we could) and they have very little in common with CMSF 2. And then there is the hours of content in the scenarios and campaigns which are all custom for the game they are made. But hey I get it. I bought MS Flight Simulator and find the 4 versions of Cessna's all pretty much the same but I am definitely not a hardcore flight sim guy. My guess is that for people that the game seems the same and bland, well you might have bought the wrong game (I would suggest you give it a chance). CM is for the (fanatic) hardcore wargamer, for whom the differences between CMSF 2 and CMCW are immense, to the point that they are not even the same species. CM is not really designed for mass appeal (swear to god we should do the zombie thing) but instead has employed a niche strategy that relies on a small but really loyal base. It is franchise that is never going to compete with "Call of Honor 8: Arms of Brothers" but it has survived (and thrived) for over 20 years with the same model...so there is that. So to partially answer the title of your post: "we did"

And haven't progress much beyond this in the field. I have been told that 3d hologram battle boards are on the way but until then "the coffee cup is the objective.."

Differences: Soviet Standard Campaign - corrected errors in briefing texts March or Die - while trying to tweak the campaign, based on customer feedback, we re-compiled it incorrectly leading it to be unplayable. These errors we picked up after the patch. For March or Die, it was the patch version that was broken (the original version at release back in Apr worked fine, if needed some tweaking). So we are linking both fixed campaigns. The good news is that these updated versions made it into the Matrix and Steam patches, so only BFC customers were affected.

And I am posting a link to how it is really done.

I think you are totally safe if you are playing the Standard Soviet campaign. In this we really only tweaked the briefings, fixed some errors in the briefings. No forces were changes and should not impact play. Soviet "March or Die" was totally FUBAR so you would have definitely noticed a problem had you been playing the previous version. We fixed it, so it should play "normally" (as in brutally hard and designed to make people cry) but it now works as intended.

Ah, I see what you did there.... Regardless, what have we learned on this thread so far? - John Kettler is feeling better and posting good stuff. - There was a battle at Bin Ba and brave people died. - Australian nationalism is alive and well - Western militaries are not ready for a peer fight of any serious size - Do not try and take on Combatintman lightly. - CM brings the world together and will no doubt contribute directly to a world where we no longer need militaries.

And I watched the feeds safely back at HQ...it is a small world.

Painfully accurate. I say this because we spent days banging this out. https://archive.org/details/fm7880rifleplatoon/page/n17/mode/2up Section II There are minor differences in game but they have to do more with limitations of the engine and most players will not ever really see them.

Points for trying but I am not sure the target is listening. The plus side is this discussion took me on a bit of journey on the question. So closest I could find to a recent true urban warfare example was the re-taking of Mosul in 16-17. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mosul_(2016–2017) So this took 9 months and was really more of a hybrid warfare fight than a true conventional peer-on-peer fight but it fits the bill close enough. If you look at the numbers the Blue/Green force had over 114K combatants clearing a city of 180 sq kms with thousands (possibly tens of thousands) of densely packed buildings (a freaking nightmare). Red Force had approx 6-12k in forces but we are largely talking uncons so all types and weirdness there. By true urban warfare standards this one was actually pretty light. About 7k Blue force casualties and pretty much all of Daesh in a 9 month grind. Compared to Stalingrad this was a minor side action. To put that into perspective the entire US Army regular force is about 485k, with NG and reserves that number can get as high as about a million but I doubt more than half are combat forces. Toss in the Marines and you might get another 100k So what? The US military as it stands today would have been challenged in this fight. That is probably 15-25% of the entire US land field force eaten up in one city against an adversary whose capabilities fall roughly into the "tethered, highly challenged one eyed goat" territory. Nuke and Bypass indeed.

Ok see it. Easy fix in the interim is to go in the editor and flip them around. New version built and should come out with next patch.

And the mic drops... So what we have here from my point of view is free professional military advice offered to people who don't want to hear it, largely because it makes them uncomfortable. This discomfort comes largely from wanting to believe myths as opposed to reality. The reality is that no 5EYEs nation is built for sustained heavy urban operations. Even the US would be stressed in a serious fight to control a city of any metropolitan size. This is not an insult to any nation, or its war dead, it is a fiscal reality. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget [Edit, had to slip this one in as it really puts in perspective ] Defence spending as a % of GDP crashed after the Cold War, with a blip for GWOT and all these little side hustles over the last 20 years, but all western nations have largely scaled down dramatically since the late 80s. My own military, Canada, cannot even come close to fighting heavy at a Battlegroup level, let alone sustain it in an urban fight against anything remotely near peer. Why, well funding is a big one and the fact that we have largely spent the last 30 years "peacekeeping" or "hunting humans" (putting those two terms in a single sentence shows just how weird things have gotten). And you know what...that is fine. I am sure a lot of important social programs got a boost and taxes fell, whatever. The moral of the story is that you fight with the military you bought, not the one that you remember one day a year. Now let's back to the gaming world where everything is better...

Ok folks, March or Die for V1.03 (the BFC version) is actually broken in the current release. There is no problem with the patch or a bug in the build, this came straight down to human error (mine). Standard works fine but people will have to wait until we can get the fixed version posted.

@KungFuTreachery Are you using the BFC version of the game?

Thank you very much for this. We are confirming now. Looks like Standard is working and something odd happened to March or Die.

Would you mind posting a screenshot of that? Which version of the game are you playing? And from which distributor?

There is a risk of repetition for sure, kind of would only work in a campaign setting (introduce SSE and even cyber). As to the DA, there is a bit more to it than that, particularly in a near-peer environment. Which raises the point that a SOF module would work better in a conventional conflict setting against harder targets. Would have to think about stealth and spotting/sound. It could work if done right as a DLC, particularly if you escalate GWOT into strategic competition. Definitely would need new mechanics. But there are Special Recon and Special Recovery options on the table, ya it might make for an interesting set of small/tiny campaigns.

Heh, @Grey_Fox I was going to send you the updated version but then I saw that you are live streaming: Good Luck, I am watching this one...no pressure.

You really don't read any posts, do you. You are supposed to have only one TAC at the beginning of Msn 3, if you won Msn 2. That issue, of which your numerous lamentations have been duly noted, is not what we are talking about here. This is a typo in the mission brief that should not be there...but I think I know what happened. Anyway, it is not a force laydown issue, so enjoy.