The_Capt

So my advice is to always try and offer your opponent dilemma. Particularly if you are the attacker. So here maneuver become extremely important, try and come at the opponent from different angles simultaneously (90 degrees is very good). The pull up multiple shooters at the same time, here you are leaning on the weight of your firepower, which as the attacker is normally heavier that the guy dug in. Then if you have support (arty or air), you should try and time its arrival with all of the rest of this. In the end, you wind up with a system overload situation on your opponent. If you try to do onesy-twosy sneeky peeky they will sit back and pick you off one by one and you are right the attacker is at a sever disadvantage here. If you have no choice but sneaky-peek, use the M901s, the periscope system works so you can fire without exposing the vehicle, that and the little guys are wicked accurate.

We actually toned it down somewhat from RL. You managed to keep 2 x TOWs alive, impressive. Normally those BDRM AT just light up that poor hill. Let me know when/if you make it to the Citadel...I keep feeling like I will have to apologize. Then when you feel strong go play the Soviet - March or Die Campaign, I have yet to see anyone beat it.

So which version of Neuhof did you play? Bear in the Mist, or Bear in the Sun? The Potash Hill is a real place next to Neuhof Germany (they started mining there in the 1910s): Which as you can see has a road running up the side of it. So we debated what to do with the hill, in the end we made it players choice. So if you got away with this in Bear in the Sun, you are very lucky. This fight happens as 1100 am so no mist/fog cover, which means the Soviet ATGMs can all see that hill very well. In my experience if the player puts anything up on that hill in this scenario it is going to die very quickly. For Bear in the Mist, the fog cover gives the TOW on that hill a real advantage, but if you are playing this scenario you have already lost a fight previously, so I really had no problem giving a struggling player a leg up. Dollbach Heights is not only a fun little break from the Soviet onslaught it is actually pretty accurate. The Soviet doctrine basically was "stop for nothing" until you get to the objective. So a BTR Bn caught in the open is going to 1) hope the tanks cover them and 2) run like stink. The last thing the Soviets are going to do is dismount a company to clear the woodline because it would seriously slow them down. So the scenario is more of a bit of cat-and-mouse than a stand up fight (but do not forgot those T64s) and a well deserved little side jaunt before what comes next, which are all big tough battles.

Whoops...uh "below 30%". Please do not start calling arty on yourselves...bad for morale.

So just to follow up. I just took the same map and pushed an M60 platoon underneath it and all the vehicles passed under it fine. Just make sure not to try and push a bunch of vehicles in all at once. If you still see this please submit as a bug and we will get to the bottom of it.

Nice shot. So the Soviet troops in the US Campaign are notched up in experience, morale and leadership. This reflects the fact that the break out divisions in this operational scenario would likely be the best as the Soviets are really racing against the clock. So what you are seeing are Soviet Crack tank crews in action. If you were to play this H2H I would recommend dialing down the Soviet side to Veteran. You got a Major Victory on "Hill to Die On"? Well done there.

James, Ok, so for the overpass "teleportation" thing, that is a bug, so a screen shot or file would be very helpful and post it on the bug thread. I can check it out as we might have also made the overpass too low. As to the Neuhof battle, I would need to see the end game screen shot to real understand what happened. From your description sounds like you chopped them up well but 1) took too many casualties doing it and 2) the Soviets took too many terrain objectives. It probably would have been better to try and clear the second objective if you were already in the "too many casualties" range, but then the question is "did you have enough combat power to do it? So for this battle in priority - Take out 50% of that MRB, and leave it really in pieces - Keep your own casualties above 30% - Try and keep them off at least one town objective. And you should be golden. Those are RPG 18s, which look a lot like the US LAW. Thank you and very constructive.

I do not disagree and maybe the modders can jump in on that. But we really did not want to risk delaying release further over it, we had enough on the ol plate already.

Ah, so we have been expecting the "NBCD Question". Yes, we did look at it in detail and the decision to leave it out was a conscious one. We knew some would disagree but hear me out: - Nukes. Ok let's just put that one to bed. We have a beta tester who was in the "nuclear artillery" in the time period and the smallest strike would wipe out our largest maps, so not real point in modeling this as there is already a ceasefire/surrender option in the game. - As much fun as it would be to drop a nerve gas salvo on the enemy and watch them squirm (I think inside all of us is that kid with the magnifying glass and the anthill) this is highly inaccurate use of these weapons in context of the game. At a minimum chemical warfare was controlled and used at the operational level or higher due to the whole escalation dynamics. So in game it really becomes an environmental factor much like weather or EW as opposed to a tactical weapon system (i.e. it is highly unrealistic for a Bn CO - the main rank of players in the game - to have control of chemical rounds.) - So that fact really impacts the whole cost/benefit equation for the feature, we prioritized new features that the player can actually employ (e.g. ICMs). So as an environmental factor, unlike rain or fog, chemical warfare was basically invisible beyond the initial drops, which look like smoke rounds. So modeling smoke rounds outside of the players control, who then has to live with the effects is starting to sound shaky. - So what does chemical warfare do. Well it puts everyone in TOPP/MOPP whatever, so there are now uniform modeling efforts which are not small. Then play-wise it slows everything down. All infantry take a serious movement, morale and fatigue hit (which as has been noted the player can already model), vehicles are fully buttoned so spotting goes down. And probably most importantly logistics take a serious hit, which was the actual main point of chemical warfare, strain operational logistics. [Aside: this was over 60 years after Ypres, so no one was expecting magic breakthroughs, that is what the nukes were for]. So now supplies may run low and medivac becomes a nightmare. Interesting but who does that really effect the 90 mins of a CM Battle in any better way than what we already have? - So now we have a significant amount of work to essentially take decisions out of the players hands. Play would risk slowing to a drag, which really goes against the fun factor. And, if a scenario designer really wants to, they can already simulate some of this in the current game. So at the end of the day, even though we knew many players had been talking about this feature and it is likely that chemical warfare would have been employed, the effort was simply not worth the potential gains to in-game experience. We needed to put it on the shelf right next to real-time area denial through flooding and psyops as all really cool and realistic stuff but simply not worth the level of effort to implement while a lot of other priorities existed.

Right?! At about 3:05 hrs in he did that RTS style blind rush over open ground, god love the poor lad but I saw what happened next coming. People can watch it here: I have to tell you, it really made me question the difficulty we had built into some of the campaigns/scenarios as guilt and glee crashed upon each other. Anyway, we will see things start to build I think, for some reason this little wargame seems to resonate. Maybe the last 16 months has gotten us all in the mood for The Apocalypse.

Hey guys, well there is always room for improvement but just remember that this is the very beginning of CMCW's journey. This month the Slitherine marketing machine will start kicking into gear (check out their stream on 11 May and you will get to see Mrs Hardenbergers beautiful baby boy). Then we are looking at full release in "early Jun" once the whole PBEM+++ thing get bolted on, complete with Steam release. I googled "Combat Mission Cold War" and was blown away at press releases (most from the initial announcement but a few about our early release) going 3-4 pages deep. Sat night I watch a twitch guy play a couple QBs live. So word will get out and marketing will ramp up, right now enjoy the small town feel in with a bunch of early adopters.

Oh and if you plan to take this guy on, come with DNA-level evidence (don't tell anyone but he actually scares me).

Well we will see, I went back and asked. All of these systems are guided by the human eyeball, so that could be the issue or it might just be a glitch. I got your "moving point". In the test I ran the M901 sat on top of a berm for about a minute, spotting quite well but not firing.

So if I am reading this correctly, the TOWs will not fire when paused is the issue. I just ran a test which confirms this and will follow-up. This may be a bug or could be an oddity with the TOW systems in CMCW. In-game these are TOW and ITOW so there could be an issue with flight times and guidance, which can be very long but let me see.

Ok, so the A10 is not a bug. It is supposed to be "Anti-tank (Light)" hence the load out, we did that for play balance. Yes, the big blue zone really hits the framerate but that is the tradeoff. The Soviet come in full force and we wanted to give the player the broadest options on deployment. Good luck btw, this one can be tough.

Oh MikeyD re-started the whole ICM effectiveness thing up again...here we go again!

You can take is as unofficial aspiration along with hopes and prayers. Personally I will keep doing this as long as they want Bil and me to keep going. We do have many ideas, dreams and fancies.

Ok, I actually have no problem with that, to be honest. I would say 80-81 is more than reasonable amount of time for the BM22 to become "the 125mm round". Well that is one way to look at it. The other is that it supports my point (along with a 32 year career in defence) that large military procurement always take a long time to ramp up, therefore seeing T64As with older rounds in 79-80 is not remotely wildly out of whack based on introduction rates and observed friction in delivery of the tank itself. In fact the smaller fleets of T64Bs and T80s would have probably gotten first choice, which was the way we went in modeling. Ok, I am a total sucker for flattery...and this part is unfair. You know, like most of these things the distance between positions is not really that far when you really break it down. I really like the idea of a T64(1980 or 81) option with the BM22 as in reality both ammo types were likely available and loaded with mixed types (like those magic APCR rounds in the 6 pounders in Normandy). It would truly set up the T64A to be a transition tank, which was a theme we were really shooting for. We will see, only so many hours in the day and all that. As to the M833...most definitely it should be in, right alongside the TOW 2 and Apaches.

If we are going to proceed with a follow up module, that sounds like a good way to go about it (deliberately vague with shifty eyes). However, I am already a “foreign national veteran” so there is that.

So there is the BFC team, all the guys that make this whole place go, Steve Charles, ChrisND, BFC Elvis, MikeyD etc. Then there was our core dev team, myself, Bil, Capt Miller +1 (who is kind of shy), we were responsible for overall game design, TO&Es and content development. Basically BFC owns the engine, artwork/models and marketing, we were on the hook for content (with a lot of help mind you)

FASCAM (scatterable mines). They really barely apply to a CM battle but would be so cool. Close second would be mineplows and rollers/flails. But all of that would have added months to dev time (it wasn‘t an easy port from elsewhere, we asked). Done differently...hmm. Well we definitely have a few ideas moving forward and there are some things that I will avoid. For example it may seem simple but the US 1979 Campaign was a serious pain to make even though it was supposed to be nearly the same as the 1982 but with older kit. Doing multiple versions of the same campaign is something I will personally avoid if I can. Beyond that probably a bigger team, we did a lot of the early stuff with only four of us and it was a lot. We could have gotten farther with a few more people earlier on. Plus we can move faster with a core team.

Well military manufacturing really doesn't work that way. Re-tooling to a new round would come with same startup costs etc. These things are not binary (Fri we made BM22s and on Mon now we make BM 29s), nor was how industrial contract were distributed. This also assumes a linear production model, when it was more likely a curve upward with a slow start and then most production done in the early 80s. It does and not the first time I have heard it, nor do I think BM22s were absent in the late 70s (obviously), so what? I agree with the intro dates but am still not entirely sold on that statement....I can't do both? The question here is BM22s to T64As, which based on introduction of both items most likely saw a transition period over the period of our game. Of course if this is going to devolve into some sort of Reddit games, from the article you posted (English translation): "For example, in 1977 it was possible to equip six tank and motorized rifle divisions with T-64A tanks" [note, not the 8 you claim later in your post] "But when the "sixty-fours" were pulled out of the inner districts, it turned out that the Kharkov plant (KhZTM), the only manufacturer of the T-64 , was not able to provide the required rate of equipping the GSVG with new tanks. During 1978, T-64A tanks received only 25 Guards. Panzer (Vogelsang) and 21 motorized rifle (Perleberg) divisions." [And there would be the delays I was talking about] "In 1980, two more units were equipped with new machines. But there were still many formations on the T-62 , for example, the 7th Guards. etc., separate tank regiments of army subordination. By the end of 1980, it became finally clear to the military-political leadership of the USSR that the industry was not able to provide the required rate of renewal of tanks in the GSVG." [It got worse] So by your articles admission T64 introduction into the GSVG was slow and delayed but somehow the mountains of BM22 ammunition arrived entirely on target on time? This does not point to "massive stockpiles" of BM22s in 1979, now does it? It points to normal communist inefficiencies and general FUBARness which leads to there being a lot more T62s in the game and T64As having to live with older ammo. Again, not digital (emphasis mine). So the Soviets had stockpiles of BM15s, in depots in Western Germany and on Jan 1st 1976, while cleaning up after New Years, they packed them all up and shipped them all out of country. "Oh, look those (much fewer) T64s have shown up but again the factories have not kept up with BM22 production (which they just started this year), oh well I guess we will roll out empty." Tell you what, because as fun as this is it is a bit of a time suck. You go out and find some hard data on BM15 vs BM22 stockpiles in the GSVG between 1977-1982, if you can find something that says "zero BM15s and 10 million BM22s", I will buy you a virtual beer. While you are doing that, I will go back to central and try to get a T64A (1980) version that had the BM22 loaded on it.

I read the same report, ok so we know stockpiles of BM22 were built up, but the question remains "when?". Your T64 transition timeline does not really say to me "massive mountains of BM22 ammunition" by 1979 when those tanks were about 60% of in theatre tanks (and which tanks are we talking about A or B?). Particularly when we both agree that ammunition production lags fleet introduction. This logic is losing me. So we had a war in 2014-15 that saw use of old stockpiles of BM22 (makes sense that the new stuff runs out first). New APFSDS rounds (the ones that ran out) started coming online in the mid-80s...ok, got it. Then we leap to, "ergo there must have been large stockpiles of BM 22 in the late 70s". So here is another story: So I do not know if you have ever worked in strategic military procurement but it really does not work how people think. Stockpiling takes time due to 1) massive bureaucracy and 2) starting up industrial production runs (remember this was all in "peacetime") and a;; of this occurs with the normal human screwups and corruption. So when I do a quick search of introduction dates: http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo.html And I see the BM12 and 15 as introduced in the late 60s early 70s, in my experience (which is western based, so there is that) I would think massive stockpiles of that ammo by the late 70s (especially the BM15) due to aforementioned production realities. Then I see a DOI for the BM22 in 1976, which is basically when the project would have been green lit for implementation. Unless the Soviet Union was in an actual war in 1976 (which in our game they are not), then normal stockpiling lag would occur and I would not expect to see large stockpiles until 1980-81 at the earliest, likely a bit later. This matches the timeline your timeline above. In 1976, the Soviet began to replace the T62 with the T64 (which had been around since the late 60s, "Prototypes were tested in 1966 and 1967 and, as production began after the six hundredth T-64, it entered service in the Soviet Army under the designation T-64A. Chief engineer Morozov was awarded the Lenin Prize for this model's success." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-64)) Prior to this the numbers would have been modest in our theatre and industry would be set up for those numbers, probably relying heavily on existing stockpiles of BM15s. In 1976, someone lit a fire under the T64s ass, right about the same time the T64B entered service ("On 3 September 1976, the T-64B and the T-64B1 were declared good for the service" (same wiki article)). So what, well that is also the time the new BM22 round entered service, so clearly there is a link there (that and the T64A was a bit of a lemon). So now the Soviets are ramping up T64B production along with BM22 ammo, all point to mountains of steel in 1980-81, at the earliest. So what? Well then in-game, where we have to live with engine restraints we went with the older round for the T64A, which kind of matches its place in the timeline. The T64Bs and T80s get the BM22, which kind of makes sense with their timeline (lets leave out the T72s, which insiders say wasn't even in the GSVG). The T62, which was at the end of its life also had a its best round introduced in 1975 (Ah but Capt, do not the same rules apply?!). No not really, as there would have already been a very large industrial base tooled for making 115mm rounds and the communists really like to keep everyone as busy as possible. But it is very plausible that T62s would have used older rounds in context of our game, but we erred on favor of that good old beast and gave it a break (and it does really well with it). So what? Well in a perfect game we would be able to customize ammo loadouts as the player pleases and tailor the rounds to whatever they please...but CMx2 is not set up for that. So instead we went with a middle ground that makes sense. Now if you can come forward with some solid evidence of massive stockpiles of BM22 in 1979 and no stockpiles of BM12/15s, I think we could revisit (or at least try to). Finally, lets not forget the other side of the equation, what the US was fielding. If you look here: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/Ammunition_Data (and I do trust these guys as they are as nerdy as we are). Every 125mm round (and I am pretty sure on the 115mm as well and hell the T55 had a solid chance) could kill the M60A3 from the front. Then those damned Yankees started making noise about a tank they are making that uses all that technology from the Roswell crash. And in 1976 all three guns types all start fielding ammo that tries to jump to over 400mm penetration, just when the M1 is becoming more than rumor (that and that pesky Brit new composite armor). So now the scramble makes even more sense, which might be a shot in your favor but I still remain skeptical.

Following this up but there seems to be an error in the manual. The T64Bs should be showing the BM22. Just to add, based on your timeline of T64 intro above, it kind of makes sense to have a better round for the T62 when these two types were in the middle of transition. The rub here is military logistics and procurement. If the T62 was the main tank in the theatre then stockpiles of its best ammo would be well established whereas the newer tanks ammo would still be in early production, so less availability. This post suggests exactly that based on intro dates: Unless we are assuming perfect symmetry between tanks and their ammunition...which never happens. Ammo normally lags because the platform creates the main effect of deterrence here (big new tanks rolling down Red Main). In the West ammo lags are endemic (TOW, the M1 having the 105mm early on, DPICMs) and I do doubt the communist system was any better.

A little of both. We were all looking for special features really indicative of the period (my personal favourite is the MGB). This led to a LOT of research and pleading. I honestly thought we had little chance then Charles kind of sprung it out of a hat and viola, “CM in violation of international conventions(tm)” was born. We tinkered with them, they are nice and deadly but not overwhelming now. When testing we started to see results pretty close to real world studies (at least those we could find).