The_Capt

Campaign is 8 battles deep on a couple different tracks. Some of the later fights are pretty big but Valley would have prepped you pretty well.

Excellent. Have you tried the US Campaign yet?

Welcome to the Cold War, hope you have fun while re-learning (we sure did). Try Valley of Ashes from the Soviet side it is also pretty challenging.

Again, I would offer that a "binary" view is another example of amateurishness. Strong stable countries do not always attack. Country X in you example would be the US and both it posture and doctrine were both extremely defensive in nature in the main conventional theaters. Both the US and Soviets were highly aggressive on the margins, while the Soviet were at the same time built for strategic offence in Europe...and with good reasons. And not all weaker nations are offensively orientated. Switzerland is the epitome of that example, while others favour collective security mechanisms to offset there overall vulnerabilities. The Soviets, as you point out, were highly vulnerable across the board and lived in the shadow of WW2. They had no interest in a defensive war, should it come to it. Dance around the Cuban missile crisis all you want, but the Soviets were not innocently placing medium range missiles off Florida as a demonstration of strategic defence, neither was the US in Turkey, again a lot of aggressive action to go around. I think what is really being asked here is "who would attack first"? Or more clearly, "who would attack first in Germany, if it were to happen?". Well I have to go with the side who was actually setup to do it. The US/NATO was not going to attack with that disparity (you know force ratios and all that), nor was it setup for it politically, the alliance likely would have fractured without the Soviets attacking first. I seriously doubt the Soviets had any grand plan to attack but if poor intel, or simple misunderstanding were to factor in, that dog would be one let off the leash. Finally, as to the poor Soviets on their farm tractors: https://nintil.com/the-soviet-union-military-spending/ So putting aside the nuclear equation for a minute (because it a one way rabbit hole), you proposition is that the western navies off-set the land combat power in the WP? Land combat power, positioned forward with enough punch to drive to Paris? All the while the Soviet Union had enough access to energy, food and raw materials in both its homeland and near abroad, none of it really vulnerable to naval power (i.e. pre-globalization)?....? Ok, well this was fun.

Well that is an amateur interpretation to be honest. In fact all of those factors (more or less true, except maybe geographical) are really reasons why the Soviets would take a forward leaning stance as opposed to a more passive one. You are describing the exact same strategic position that Germany had before both world wars. History does tend to show that nations at strategic disadvantage tend to see the world as very dangerous and that a good offence is the best defence, largely because they know they cannot sustain a protracted war. Particularly for those in the center of the Soviet Union/WP, the Russians who lost 25-plus million in WW2. Soviet forces and posture reflect this as well. 60k tanks and 70k-odd guns in the WP, a very offensive based doctrine and a whole lot of political warfare action going on around the globe, there was that whole Cuban Missile crisis whoopsie. Now one could argue that for the Soviets this was largely strategically defensive in nature, not sure if I ever bought into the global communist conspiracy, the West was (and is) far more aggressive with respect to ideology. But I don't believe the evidence points to the Soviets passively accepting anything and there was always a risk that simple misunderstanding (or how about just plain fear?) could escalate a local action into a full on conflagration...you know, like 1914? It is not like we humans need really good excuses to fight, ever, and I doubt the situation in Europe was any different.

Sorry that should be an SU-17. Soviet Air cluster munitions should have a level of dual purpose, so they just might.

So we are still talking Mission 3 "Nuke and Bypass", you are not seeing Mig 17s with cluster munitions and a Air Controller team?....well that is a bug then. Good thing we are doing a refresh of the campaigns before wide release.

I think the best success we saw was to hug the left woodline hard, it provides cover and you can at least get an approach. You should have airpower from the start, use it. The rest is a game of trade-offs, one for one if you can because you will win that exchange. Luck helps and just remember, it is bad today but it will be worse tomorrow. If you get to Alsfeld though...wow...that is something.

Heh, well to be fair, they are nowhere near under direct fire on mission 2 at the start...indirect and air, sure. You do need to clear that nasty hill though. Well that is really the Soviet condition, no way they would have moved like they planned and not constantly been getting hit just like in these fights. The US doctrine wasn't "let them form up mass" it was hit them hard first, then pull back. Constant pulses of "active defence". But 3 is nasty, the trick is to make sure that whatever is firing on your reinforcements is not there by the time they arrive. Not easy but it is the gig.

LOL! So what battle are you on?

Another big advantage the US had, even in 1979, was better C4ISR. The US could See and Think better than the Soviets, at least a the comparative tactical level. The Soviets designed a system where being big, dumb and blind was an advantage. So the US player has to kind suss out when and where it can out-see the Soviets and out-C2 them. But as you note...still a tall order without a lot of room for error.

Main difference is in major equipment: 1982: US: M60A1s, some A3s and the M1s/M2s make an appearance. M901s and more DPICM. Soviets are primarily T64Bs (T80s pop up) and BMP2, so that can be a tense fight. 1979: M48A5s, M60A1s and the A3s make the odd appearance, oh and M150s. Soviets: T55s and T62s are main tanks but T64s make an appearance and BMP 1s. Hard to say but based on feedback, 1979 is the tougher of the two.

Only thing I would add is : 1. Welcome to the Cold War. 2. The M2 on the M113s is very effective on BMPs at about 500m or less. So you you really need to sight them and use them carefully but each one is more than capable of killing a BMP at close range. 3. Don't discount the M72, or even the 40mm. This game is a big change from the other modern titles as the US is nowhere near able to dominate the battlefield, they are more often than not the underdogs that need to play really cagey.

Mission 6 “Bad and Worse” earns it name that is for sure. One beta tester pulled it off. But in a way I never even considered when I built the thing. He took the amphibious option and turned the scenario into a Marine assault.

Please do. Also if you haven't had a chance there are a lot of videos up on YouTube which also show off game play in a lot of detail. Not a substitute for a good old fashion demo but it might at least provide more info for any interested gamer.

Yes. It was decided that the Demo would have the same PBEM functionality as the final wide release (which makes sense) so it is going to have to wait until that whole add-on is incorporated. Short answer is we are looking at Steam release or shortly there after even though we have scenarios all picked out. Apologize for inconvenience.

Almost like it was designed that way . We avoided 1983 not due to any real equipment issues (as noted there was some ammo introductions) but more to avoid the organizational changes that happen in the US military. The J series Inf Bns (and a couple ‘interim’ structures) TO&E begins to emerge in the 83-84 timeframe and we frankly had enough on our hands trying to untie all that. So 79-82 gave the best window but players can easily tinker a year or so on either side and still be completely accurate.

It is definitely on the list as we keep moving towards Steam release. We have scenarios selected and built. Right now the long pole is actually getting an installer etc built but the same people needed for that are pretty busy. Short answer...soon and I would bet before or on Steam release, slated for 22 Jul right now

Noted and we are on it.

Ah, ok but what happens when one has other stuff running (and everyone does), with more RAM does one not reduce the risk of other things eating into the 4Gb? Honestly asking.

Well we debated that one as well and discovered in testing that it was playable even on older machines (like mine). So do we neuter the climax battle (that is also very realistic) risking player experience or risk players running into issues? We have been out for over a month now and this is the first time it has come up, further based on the OPs rig, this is not a "below spec issue" (or even min spec) regardless. Always choices, choices....

I think I know what about half those words mean,The Capt= Soldier (and amateur game dev trying to go semi-pro). Really encourage OP to get a hold of the troubleshooting crew at support, they know what they are about. And no one should miss out on The Citadel.

Ah, ok then something very odd is happening here...trouble ticket.

Ok, I think it might be the RAM to be honest, the larger scenarios can be very demanding on RAM. With this setup I would lean towards turn-based. Frankly your system can bury mine on everything but RAM (7th Gen i7, GTX 1050 mobile), which I have 16 Gb onboard. I just ran the first 15 mins of "The Citadel" in RT and it wasn't smooth as glass but definitely not what you are describing. I encourage you to submit a ticket and see if the real techs can help you out.

Well all a matter of opinion and tastes to be honest. But in this case the culminating battle of a Bn TF at the front end of Soviet bad-love in 1982 it kind of made sense to do a Main Body attack-defence (the Soviet attack on Alsfeld might be bigger actually). Very good point on RTS vs Turn Based, either is available but would personally do turn-based just for ease of management. As to a "sweet spot", well it is pretty much wherever those micro-drama's play out, the ones that really pull the player in, the ones they remember for some time afterwards, and that can happen in just about any sized battle. Now there are sizes where there may be higher probability but don't discount the larger ones as in CMCW they tend to disaggregate into several micro-dramas all happening simultaneously and dynamically. Definitely not for everyone as the larger battles are a lot more work but the payoff can be epic