Euri

One interesting point from the paper: It seems that some T90-MBT deployed in Ukraine has in addition to ERA, "using radar to detect an incoming missile, the active armor system fires a shotgun like spray of pellets which disables the guidance at the head of the missile as it approaches the tank", a system labeled by Ukrainian ATGM crews as a "magical shield" . Is this supposed to be the Shtora-1 system, or something else?

Form a quick read, this is very very interesting.

That was a nice report, nevertheless. I have played this battle only as US against the AI. I believe that the overabundance of APS makes this battle impossible to loose for US. I want to try and defend as Russian against the AI but I am convinced that the only reason to win would be the incompetence of AI in attack.

To whom it may concern I am uploading the file. Locate 2nd Squad of "White Bravo" at NAI C105 and try to get it out of the building link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9z2aTq5oxcqWDBqWWxHeV80YUU/view?usp=sharing

Nor shaken neither stirred. Yes, I can share

I came across the following bug: A unit of mine (US inafanrty) entered a building (a normal two storey house). I spit teams. Team B got to the 1nd floor, took a casualty from HE, panicked, went to the ground floor, merged with Team A againt, and since then the unitede suad cannot execute an order to exit the building, as if there are no doors (there are two). After a reload the problem persists. Anyone else had experienced this?

I just finished the campaign, having been forced to do a second run in order to be able to play the last battle with the correct time limit. It was a great experience. All missions were well designed and some were quite unique. The last one was great both the map and the overall challenge. PS Has anyone managed to get anything better than draw in the "acts as valour" mission? That was a really tough one.

I have noticed (by chance) that a spotter could order arty fire one any part of the map observed by a friendly drone, not just on the part of the map observed by the drone operated by the specific spotter. Is this how it is supposed to be? Note: The spotter in question did not have any direct LOS on any part of the map relevant to the fire missions above.

Does really CMBS simulates the difference between the types of infantrymen optics (that US have thermal features). I would guess not.

Erwin, I have come accross the AI plan you describe.

I am definitely up to something. It applies consistently to infantry units. It is like a radar without getting an indication of the specific location. You just know something is within shooting range.

A favorite mission of mine as well. There is sufficient time to reach the ambush site even at walking pace. In formulating your plan you need to trust the briefing which says that you should expect patrols on the roads and not all over the map. Plan your approach accordingly. Ok you might come against a small surprise (or you may not) but it will not upset the general plan.

That was a very enjoyable battle. Well designed! Congrats!.

I have just come to realise that the first line of the suppression bar is a kind of sixth sense, pure and simple. When is on you know that the enemy is within a reasonable range. This suggests that I have to switch to hunt movements and advance deliberately in bounds. But on the other hand I feel I am exploiting the game. Your views?

I noticed that right next to the V-shaped suppression bars on the left part of the Unit Panel there is a switched-off round shaped red light indicator which I have never seen illuminated save for once. Have you understood what is its function?

#LOL

I have never designed a battle or a campaign, nonetheless I will be impertinent enough to offer some advice regarding large battles Blue attacking Vs AI defending.In particular, I have in mind maps where the attacker has to cross some land and then attack a village, industrial or other urban area. But the principle applies to other battles as well where there are one or more key objectives. Postulate 1: AI surrenders if it suffers too many casualties. Not sure what "too many" is exactly but my rough impression is 66% - 75% of its forces Postulate 2: Except for specific cases (deploy javelin teams, snipers and spotters) in CMBS warfare it is suicidal to attempt anything with infantry for so long as there are tanks and AFVs around. Infantry men face high probability to be obliterated. On the basis of the above each battle has two stages. The 1st is to destroy all enemy armor and fighting vehicles. The 2nd, which kicks in after 1st is completed is to clear objectives from infantry defending them. I have noticed that, more often than not, on or a bit after I am successful in accomplishing stage 1, the enemy has taken so many casualties that he soon surrenders. The Advice: make sure to allocate enough infantry in defense of the objectives (or in reserves that never arrive or a combination of two) so that the attacker after winning stage 1, is forced to proceed and solve stage 2. This way the battle will be twice as fun. An example of a well designed battle is for example the last of the official US Campaign. Successful as might one be in stage 1, he has to send troops and clear the compounds. An even better example is the "Factory" from the German Campaign in CMSF. Thank you for your patience and tolerating me.

Erwin, I believe you should give it a chance without an update. Missions 1, 2 & 3 are very good the way they are. Mission 4 is promissing, but with a well thought set up, one can win easyly. But with a lesser initial set up, it may get challenging PS a correction on my feedback on Miss 4. Substitute "my center and right flank" for "my left flank"

A feedback on the FOB senario:

Does the Blue player receives any core-unit reinforements during the campaing or one must play with what has been bestowed to him from the beginning?

I am at the set up phase of mission 4 (the FOB defence). I start with 4x2=8 tanks plus (1) the HQ. I guess I do not miss anything. BTW: Same mission. Some Latvian HQ have no radios. Is this the default case?

One of very the few things that annoy me in BS is the fact that once one creates a scout or antitank detachment from a US squad, then it is not possible to split the remain in two. This is frustrating as there remains a team of six-seven men which (a ) has redundant men if it enters a building (b ) it cannot be ordered to advance (c ) it risks taking many casualties (especially if hit by an RPG while in a building) (d ) cannot create any smaller detachements (it would be great for example it I could create two detachments: one antitank and one scout) The questions is: Is this in accordance to US infantry doctrine or a feature introduced by design Thank you

Have a look at this also: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/120334-the-eagle-and-the-bear-aar/ If I am reading correctly the AAR, the narrative speaks about a single lost Abrams but the report states 3 tanks killed (!?) I am currently at the third mission. So far it has been a great experience. I will report back

I just played the 1st mission. It was really a great one. Just one strange thing: In the AA Report (enemy surrended with at 07:53) I read that I lost three tanks when the truth is that I had lost just one Arbams (!). Is it not strange?. Will these two be subtracted from next missions? I have saved the file.

I have arrived at the last mission and realized that I was playing the 1st version of the campaign whereby there were only 30 mins for the last mission. (I had replaced the old file with the fixed one but it does not affected saves coming from the 1st file). Anyway, overall it was a very good experience and quite original because it involved many defensive battles which always pose a challenge, in the sense that one is forced to think hard on the initial deployment. If it it works the battle becomes a piece of cake but if not, the death toll may rise to frustrating levels. Good work