Vanir Ausf B

On dry or very dry ground conditions dust kicked up by cannon fire will temporarily block LOS.

Also, line of sight for heavy weapons teams is checked from the perspective of the gunner.

Like this: Like I said, it's not a bad idea, although if implemented I suspect players would mostly use turns shorter than 1 minute instead of longer. I like that idea, although I suspect that any time you completely disallow area fire you are going to run into issues and people are going to hate it. Alternatively, area fire onto a position where no friendly unit has spotted an enemy unit or has an ? enemy marker is allowed same as it presently, but if any friendly unit does have a ? enemy marker on that position then friendly units without that marker that area fire on that position may randomly target an adjacent action spot instead of unerringly targeting the correct action spot. Something like that.

Variable turn length is a good idea, although I feel that turns longer than 1 minute would require an SOP system rather than just a new command or two. I personally am sympathetic to some sort of restriction or nerfing of area fire since lot of CM tactics revolve around abusing it, but this suggestion has been made many times and it is not popular so I doubt it will happen. The problem is that it eliminates recon by fire.

This means war!

I don't know much about the subject, but apparently the use of western-made devices does not necessarily mean they are not using GLONASS. You probably have a device in your pocket right now that uses GLONASS.

I actually find trenches quite useful. Foxholes, not so much. Hmmm, this reminds me of a bug report I need to make.

ATGs, infantry guns and anti-aircraft guns. To the best of my knowledge machine guns and mortars are unaffected, but they have never been difficult to keep hidden, IMO.

Wait... are you saying that foxholes reduce cover? Because that would not be true.

The most significant change from a game play perspective is (surprisingly) undocumented. The maximum range at which some AT guns can be spotted has been reduced substantially, and is even shorter if they do not move or rotate after setup. When placed in trenches even 88s can remain unspotted at ranges under 1 km.

Because the idea is to give each side a roughly equal chance of victory, and with 2-1 odds or better the attacker will roll over the defender almost every time, at least in human vs human play.

There is no way to order infantry teams to spread out over multiple action spots so it's not just a matter of making fewer foxholes per AS.

Hmm, that's odd. The amount of physical RAM isn't usually relevant, it's the amount of memory address space. Unless you are somehow using most of that 16 GB of RAM with no page file enabled? The Windows versions of CM are unfortunately 32 bit applications so can only use up to 4 GB of memory address space no matter how much RAM you have with a 64-bit OS. On my machine just the map takes up about 2.6 GB without units.

The Battle Type in the QB must match the Battle Type set in the editor. For this map it is "attack" by default although you can of course change it. Note that on Windows machines its will probably not be possible to play a game on the full map because the map plus units will take up too much memory unless you only have a small number of units. I would need to know your system specs to be sure, but I suspect you have a 32-bit operating system.

Article related this thread: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/entering-the-bears-lair-russias-a2-ad-bubble-the-baltic-sea-17766

Are you proposing a wargaming scenario or making a real-world assessment? If the latter, there would be no Western aerial response or any other response that involves combat with Russian forces.

Ammo dumps are a type of unit, not a feature. They are essentially immobilized trucks. I haven't seen many scenarios will Hummels or T-70 tanks either.

If anything I would go the other way. At least the VDV are fully mechanized which gives them some mission flexibility (VDV divisions are sorta like large SBCTs if Strykers were air-dropable). The role of the 82nd would be relatively more problematic in a high-intensity conflict since they would not be jumping into it either but would still be light infantry on the ground. I agree that in general the Russians are well represented in-game in terms of TO&E. There are some game mechanics that tend to favor the US a bit but most of those will hopefully be fixed in future updates.

You're confusing Arena with Shtora. Arena is a hard kill system that uses Doppler radar while Shtora attempts to spoof the missile with IR emitters and smoke. Arena is usually ineffective against Javelin because its engagement envelope does not include the space directly above the vehicle, but if the missile is targeting something off to the side of the vehicle but still very near it may pass through the engagement envelope on the way down. I am not confident this would work in reality since the missile would be within the engagement envelope for a very brief time but it's not outside the realm of possibility.

nm

I just looked at the latest results for the past 90 days on TheBlitz ladders and there have been 40 FB games completed over that time span compared to 4 BS games

It's not clear from you screenshots what you mean my "outspotting". Does the T-72 spot things that the Oplot never can or does it just spot them faster? If it is the latter, how many times did you run the test?

I am going to try to get that changed. Now that is interesting. Theoretically it should work if the vehicle spacing and missile approach vector are just right.

It's not the Bradleys I worry about. It's the Javelin-toting infantry.

I would like to have the ability to split off only the squad leader/vehicle commander. But those two extra bodies are useful on occasion. The BMP-3 has an usual feature: two bow machine guns. In conjunction with the coax MG a BMP-3 can lay down serious suppression on a building under assault by friendly infantry.