OBJ

Again, in my limited experience, at CM level, once the attacker is on the objective the attacker's focus is on consolidation and being ready to repel counter attacks.

My limited perception is at CM level attack and pursuit/exploit are separate battles, the attack battle might be followed by the pursuit/exploit battle in a campaign.

I am not entirely sure, defender losing/scenario ending at the point the Scenario Designer thinks the casualty/morale conditions would require the Defender should retreat I think does the same thing. Law of unintended consequences we could get a lot of complaints about scenarios ending too soon.

Hey @Centurian52 I agree, CM casualties are usually heavier than I would expect, but I lack in-depth historical data to know if my perceptions are accurate. That said, Scenario Designers may have more control than we think, from the engine manual: "Unlike most wargames, Combat Mission allows “asymmetric” victory conditions where each side has its own unique parameters and is judged based on how well it achieves them. The side that best achieves its goals is declared the winner, even if technically both sides were within specified parameters. You can specify the following conditions for each side: CASUALTIES - number of casualties the side is allowed to endure. CONDITION - number of units allowed to be panicked, routed, tired, or wounded. AMMO - amount of total ammunition that side is allowed to expend. For each parameter the scenario designer determines the threshold in % (from 0% to 100%) and the amount of victory points associated with each once the threshold is reached."

Just because I enjoy the conversation... Caution, I am not a programmer, of anything. 1. There is force preservation scoring in some modern era titles/scenarios, so typically the Blue player has a score incentive to keep casualties low. 2. It would be interesting to get Charles'/programmer's perspective on the viability of using the unit morale mechanic as a means of addressing what we think of as unrealistically effective units resulting in what are perceived as unrealistically high casualties. Victory conditions could be adjusted such that a lower threshold of destroyed/broken/shattered units ends the scenario. A randomizer could be added to provide variability in the threshold, separate thresholds for attacker and defender.

Warning, tangent, proceed at own risk I've assumed these 'percentage of unit strength overall casualties' were based on total unit strength, say ~15,000 men for a US 1944 Infantry Division. It always seemed to me the percentage should be based on total authorized rifle company strength as my understanding is that's where the majority of the casualties were taken, and the % of authorized strength metric would be more meaning full. So, just sayin,' a US 1944 Infantry Division that took casualties equating to 200% of division authorized strength, would have taken casualties equal to 575% of authorized rifle company strength. (6 officers, 187 enlisted per company x 3 companies per battalion x3 battalions per regiment x3 regiments per division). 300% of Division authorized strength would be 864% of authorized rifle company strength.

True, @TheVulture Turkey did decline to let Russian warships not based in the Black Sea into the Black Sea. Only my opinion, only one I got, it is certainly a delicate situation. Minesweepers are typically considered warships. I am not aware of any minesweepers not considered warships. Certainly the argument a warship is a warship is valid. On the other hand, I am not aware minesweepers have an offensive capability. I perceive there remains global concern about global food security, and the cost of food, as a result of the war. My impression is the Russians very much have targeted Ukraine's grain trade as a means to reduce Ukrainian economic strength, resulting in global concern for food security and cost. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-destroyed-300000-tons-grain-since-july-port-ship-attacks-kyiv-2023-10-13/

Meanwhile, as the Ukrainians continue to try to restore their grain trade to pre-war levels... https://news.usni.org/2024/01/03/turkey-to-block-u-k-minesweepers-on-loan-to-ukraine-from-black-sea excerpt: Turkey will not let minesweepers loaned to Ukraine by the United Kingdom into the Black Sea, the Turkish president’s directorate of communications said this week. The United Kingdom announced in December that it would loan two minehunters to Ukraine to help Ukraine protect shipping lanes in the Black Sea that have come under attack from Russian forces. In particular, sea mines have been a concern in the Black Sea since the beginning of the war. Both Ukraine and Russia have deployed mines in the region. However, Turkey is restricting any warships belonging to non-Black Sea nations from entering the Black Sea by invoking the Montreux Convention and closed the Bosphorus Strait to the loaned ships. Under the 1936 treaty, Turkey has the right to close the Turkish straits to the Black Sea. While ships of non-belligerent countries, in this case any country that is not Ukraine or Russia, can sail into the Black Sea during war time, the Montreux Convention ultimately leaves the decision on if warships can pass through to Turkey, if the country fears it could be pulled into the war. Turkey announced early on in the Russia invasion into Ukraine that it would not allow non-Black Sea nations to sail through the Turkish straits. In this case, Turkey can deny minesweepers if it deems them to be U.K. warships.

I wonder what these guys will be doing... https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/01/02/iran-sends-warship-red-sea-after-us-sinks-houthi-boats.html Iran dispatched a warship to the Red Sea after the U.S. Navy destroyed three Houthi boats, a move that risks ratcheting up tensions and complicates Washington’s goal of securing a waterway that’s vital to global trade. The Alborz destroyer traversed the Bab El-Mandeb strait, a narrow choke point between the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, on Monday, Iranian state media said without providing further information on the vessel’s mission.

Sorry to hear you are having so much trouble. Hope you don't give up. I don't know if you're into videos/instructional sites or not. Apologies if you've already done this but if you go to U-tube and search on 'Combat Mission Shock Force 2' you'll get a number of videos that could be helpful. I found these helpful: Bil's Battle Drill http://battledrill.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/combat-mission-tactical-problems-cmtp.html The Armchair General series of five videos (WWII) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ6dDlqye9Q Monster Combat Mission (WWII CMBN) Tutorial: https://youtu.be/SbE8795rt2s

For what it is worth, relating to the OP, I am with a number of folks here, expect to take some casualties regardless of side being played, try to suck it up when I make a poor choice and my pixeltruppen pay the price, but occasionally do replay a turn 'if the game did something wrong' e.g. I improperly accounted for some aspect of how the engine was going to deal with a specific situation. I find most of my casualties are infantry in infantry fights, built up areas, heavy forest, and that when I am honest with myself it is pretty rare for, 'the game to do something wrong' that I wasn't aware of and already knew how to counter.

and this, saw it before the Beirut strike, then thought there might be dots to connect. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/turkey-detains-33-people-suspected-espionage-israels-mossad-state-media-2024-01-02/ Turkey detains 34 people suspected of ties to Israel's Mossad -senior official 1st 2 paras - "ANKARA, Jan 2 (Reuters) - Turkish authorities have detained 34 people suspected of being linked to Israel's Mossad intelligence service and of targeting Palestinians living in Turkey, a senior Turkish official said on Tuesday, adding Mossad also recruited members in the country. Last month, Turkish officials warned Israel of "serious consequences" if it tried to hunt down members of the militant group Hamas living outside Palestinian territories, including in Turkey. President Tayyip Erdogan warned that would be a mistake."

Apologies, did not see anyone else post this yet, BBC is source. Where does this take the conflict? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67866346 Hamas deputy leader Saleh al-Arouri killed in Beirut blast 2nd January 2024, 03:42 EST Share By Raffi Berg & Graeme BakerBBC News Reuters Saleh al-Arouri (left) masterminded attacks in the occupied West Bank Israel has insisted the assassination of a Hamas leader in Beirut was not an attack on Lebanon, as its enemies warned of "punishment" for his death. An Israeli spokesman said Saleh al-Arouri had died in a "surgical strike against the Hamas leadership". Hamas condemned the death, while its ally Hezbollah said it was an assault on Lebanese sovereignty. Lebanon's prime minister, meanwhile, accused Israel of trying "to drag Lebanon into... confrontation". Lebanese media report that Arouri, a deputy political leader of Hamas, was killed in a drone strike in southern Beirut along with six others - two Hamas military commanders and four other members. He was a key figure in the Qassam Brigades, Hamas's armed wing, and a close ally of Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas leader. He had been in Lebanon acting as a connection between his group and Hezbollah. Israeli spokesman Mark Regev stopped short of confirming Israel had carried out the assassination, a standard position for Israeli officials, but he told MSNBC: "Whoever did it, it must be clear that this was not an attack on the Lebanese state. "It was not an attack even on Hezbollah, the terrorist organization. "Whoever did this did a surgical strike against the Hamas leadership. Whoever did this has a gripe with Hamas. That is very clear." Arouri, 57, is the most senior Hamas figure to be killed since Israel went to war with the group after its 7 October attack. On that day, waves of Hamas gunmen invaded Israel and attacked communities around the border, killing about 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and taking around 240 to Gaza as hostages. Israel launched a military offensive in response, with the declared aim of destroying Hamas. Since then, more than 22,000 Palestinians - mostly women and children - have been killed in Israeli strikes on Gaza, according to Gaza's Hamas-run health ministry. Hezbollah has fired scores of rockets into Israel and fought several skirmishes with Israeli forces during the Gaza war. Lebanon's state news agency said Arouri had been killed by an Israeli drone attack on a Hamas office in the southern Beirut suburb of Dahiyeh. Reuters Arouri is reported to have been killed in a drone strike on a third floor A witness from Reuters news agency saw firefighters and paramedics gathered around a high-rise building where there was a large hole in what appeared to be the third floor. Video footage on social media showed a car in flames and extensive damage to buildings in what is a busy residential area. Dahiyeh is known as a stronghold of Hezbollah. Mr Haniyeh, the head of Hamas's political wing, called the attack a "cowardly... terrorist act, a violation of Lebanon's sovereignty, and an expansion of its circle of aggression". Hezbollah said that it considered Arouri's death "to be a serious assault on Lebanon, its people, its security, sovereignty, and resistance, and the highly symbolic and significant political and security messages it contains". It said the attack was "a dangerous development in the course of the war... and we in Hezbollah affirm that this crime will never pass without response and punishment. "Its hand is on the trigger, and its resistors are in the highest levels of readiness and preparedness," it added. Iran, a major supporter of both groups, said Arouri's killing would "undoubtedly ignite another surge in the veins of resistance". An Israeli security cabinet meeting scheduled for Tuesday evening to discuss the post-war plan for Gaza was cancelled. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has previously vowed to eliminate Hamas's leaders, wherever they are. Arouri was also considered the de facto leader of Hamas's military wing in the West Bank, overseeing attacks there, according to Israeli media reports. He is believed to have been involved in the kidnapping and killing of three Israeli teenagers in the occupied West Bank in 2014, reports say, and had served time in Israeli jails for other attacks. The Times of Israel says he was also one of the Hamas officials most closely connected to Iran and Hezbollah.

One man's opinion (no, not mine ) below - US General and former CIA Director David Petraeus, from the BBC Gaza live update this morning (02Jan2024). My opinion (yes this is my opinion not Petraeus' ), "clear and hold all," certainly looks like it would cause the war in Gaza to last all of 2024 as the Israeli government is now projecting. For me, it is getting increasingly hard not to see how this conflict doesn't get bigger than it has already. Former CIA director: Israel has to clear and hold all of Gaza The former director of the CIA General David Petraeus has told the BBC that Israel has to "clear and hold all of Gaza" to achieve its stated mission of destroying Hamas and rescuing the hostages. Petraeus, a retired US general who served in Afghanistan and Iraq, compares the war to the battle against the so-called Islamic State. "If you look at the case of [the Iraqi town of] Mosul and destruction of the Islamic State - and I think Hamas can be compared to that, though it's an imperfect analogy, but if that is the model, you have to destroy Hamas, you cannot reconcile with them." Mosul was recaptured by the Iraqi army, assisted by US-led coalition warplanes, in 2017 during a huge military operation that left large areas in ruins and killed thousands of civilians. Petraeus says that after the current war, Gaza will have to be rebuilt. However, once Hamas has been destroyed it may have to be Israel that "takes on that task", because of a lack of alternatives, the general adds. Petraeus also tells the BBC that it is a "very legitimate concern" that Israel’s military operation in Gaza could radicalise future generations.

Happy New Year everyone, the best to you, your family, and all those you care for. I've prognosticated enough for this year and next year. Let's see how things turn out.

We can ask @The_Capt, but my impression is much of what came out of the 1949 Geneva convention and associated protocols was a direct result of what all parties experienced in WWII. The people that 'won' were trying to create rules and enforcement mechanism that prevented them, and others, from, in part, adopting behaviors most likely to increase pain and suffering of civilians while prolonging any future conflict. From a war fighting practical point of view their post war data seemed to indicate all terror bombing civilians did was make the enemy regime stronger, more resilient, more determined to resist, the opposite effect they were going for which was to break the enemy's will to resist.

While we're on the topic of terror bombing civilians, for those that have the time and interest I recommend "Masters of the Air" by Donald L Miller. It's an interesting read on the US air campaign over Europe 1942-1945. The results of the Bombing Survey probably most of interest in this conversation. My take away was terror bombing is counter productive. https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Masters-of-the-Air/Donald-L-Miller/9780743235457

Thanks Vet, we agree on many things but maybe not this one. I did a little research. I have heard a lot about this agreement without knowing anything myself. Apparently what was signed in 1994 was an agreement in which the US, Russia and the UK offered 'assurances' not to attack or coerce the minor countries, including Ukraine. I cannot find a commitment to defend the minors from aggression. If there is a bad faith actor in this it looks like Russia to me. Assuming Wikipedia is a reliable source in this context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum "The memoranda, signed in Patria Hall at the Budapest Convention Center with US Ambassador Donald M. Blinken amongst others in attendance,[3] prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-trilateral-process-the-united-states-ukraine-russia-and-nuclear-weapons/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-trilateral-process-the-united-states-ukraine-russia-and-nuclear-weapons/ https://www.npr.org/2022/02/21/1082124528/ukraine-russia-putin-invasion https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-ukraine-give-nukes-russia-us-security-guarantees-1765048 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/05/science/ukraine-nuclear-weapons.html

I think you may not understand US politics too well. I am sure I do not understand yours and others like you in your part of Ukraine. I do not have the lived history and cultural context to do so. I am also not sure you understand NATO and the treaty obligations each member has. There is no 'nuclear opt out clause' I am aware of.

I have overcome my uncomfortableness with getting off the couch and am going to get some food.

The concern I am aware of is some US Allies worry a US president would hesitate to engage in a regional conflict if it could result in a nuclear attack on the US, hence S. Korean, even Japanese, recent interest in having their own deterrent nuclear forces. I am not aware of any US allies being uncomfortable the US will directly engage in their defense in a conventional war if attacked with conventional means.

I think you need to be clear, are you postulating a conventional attack on other countries, like the unprovoked RA attack on Ukraine? There did not seem to be a lot of 'uncomfortableness' about supporting Ukraine in defense of it's sovereign territory. Over the course of the conflict the concern over Russian nuclear escalation seems to be receding, not growing, as evidenced by the West supplying systems with increasing offensive capabilities.

Apologies in advance, I just really want to try to wrap my head around everything being shared over the last couple days/weeks to understand how it all fits together. I am counting on forum members to counter in typical lively debate fashion, hopefully with credible external opinion pieces and data where it exists: Military 1. We seem to agree the war in Ukraine is presently at a military stalemate 2. We agree at present there is no clear path to offensive parity, let alone primacy 3. We are not sure what Russia’s military industrial output might be, but so far overwhelming it is not 4. RA seems to be conducting local offensives to improve their geographic situation in the Donbas and East bank of Dnieper, suffering heavy losses 5. Thanks to members actually ‘in theater,’ we get daily reports confirming the UA ability to hold ground defensively 6. Crimea seems to be UA focus with raids and strikes in/on Crimea, airbases, AA systems, logistics centers, BSF HQ, BSF vessels, one strategic objective being to secure the western Black Sea for Ukrainian grain shipments/national revenue 7. The RA operational objective and militarily significant results of last nights concentrated missile/drone attack are not clear, if significant likely will be in next weeks Political/Social 8. The Israeli/Hamas war has diluted Western focus on Ukraine 9. We are split on Western 2024 political resolve to sustain Ukraine, optimists (me) believe timely 2024 support is coming, soon, pessimists are not so sure, implications of non-support to be discussed when relevant 10. UA needs more manpower to support its strategy for prosecuting the war 11. General consensus Putin is less secure in his role as Russian dictator, also consensus at present Putin’s status has no meaningful impact on Russian strategy in Ukraine 12. The purpose of Putin's cease fire proposal (NYTs) ceding him all RA occupied terrain is not clear 13. We seem to agree UA missile and drone violations of NATO member boundaries will not provoke an article 5 response 14. We also agree NATO has no desire or intent to directly engage Russia unless first attacked by same 15. Nobody thinks the West is afraid of Putin/Russia, just conscious of their nuclear arsenal ..and so discuss. What about this is an incomplete or incorrect reading of this forum's generally accepted opinions?

Agree @chrisl apologies, my bold and underlining of your post, apologies if previously posted. I think the move towards more nuclear proliferation is already happening. Last I heard estimates were Iran could put nuclear warheads on ballistic missiles in months, not years. Within democratic alliances: https://apnews.com/article/north-korea-south-korea-nuclear-arms-race-543e85e5e6832c50ba9dc26a91ef071b "Frequent polls show a strong majority of South Koreans — between 70% and 80% in some surveys — support their nation acquiring atomic weapons or urging Washington to bring back the tactical nuclear weapons it removed from the South in the early 1990s. It reflects a surprising erosion of trust between nations that like to call their alliance an unshakable cornerstone of America’s military presence in the region. “I think one day they can abandon us and go their own way if that better serves their national interests,” Kim Bang-rak, a 76-year-old security guard in Seoul, said of the United States. “If North Korea bombs us, we should bomb them equally in retaliation, so it would be better for us to have nukes.”

Thanks Steve, Yes, I agree NATO would defend itself if attacked. To me, the question is more, if attacked, what means would NATO have to prosecute the war and how would the war be prosecuted? What else would be going on around the world when NATO was attacked? What would Xi's reaction be when things start going south for Putin? From below, 'to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area,' is pretty broad, for me it's capability limited in the full range from just push them back to the NATO borders and ask for an armistice, or, not just regime change in Moscow, but full on cultural replacement of centuries of traditional authoritarian rule with democratic institutions, ala Germany and Japan circa 1945-on. The UN's ability to provide collective security in this case would seem more limited than usual given permanent security council members would be attacking each other. Article 5 “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”