Cpl Steiner

Hi All, A very long time ago, I used a set of rules to run a "Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin" random-battle single-player campaign. Here is a link on the BFC forums to where the rules could once be downloaded from (although the links are now broken). http://community.battlefront.com/topic/45284-biltongs-campaign-rules/ It was a great idea. You started with a certain force mix and used random tables to generate the parameters of your next battle. You then did a "Quick Battle" using those parameters and your force package, all the units of which you tracked out-of-game on a paper roster. In the Quick Battle you only selected the units you still had, using the force selection points option rather than having them generated. If you lost a unit, you could not use it in the next battle. If you did well in a battle a roll on a random table might grant you a new unit to add to your roster. The effects of victory and defeat in each battle acted as modifers to the roll for the next battle, so lose too many times and you might be facing a massive enemy assault, outnumbered and outgunned. I had a lot of fun with these rules. It was almost like roleplaying but in a war setting. Does anyone remember these rules? Do you think this could be done again for CM:BS?

I watched a documentary about Gettysburg recently in which one of the commentators said that Robert E Lee's intention at Gettysburg was not just to win another battle but to win the war. This comes close to what I would describe as a "set piece batte" - a battle in which neither side is willing or able to withdraw and the stakes are very high at a strategic level. There are numerous occasions throughout history when the fate of nations has been decided more or less on one huge set piece battle.

The Javelin is a truly amazing weapon system, as demonstrated by British troops in this video (or perhaps not)...

It's not unusual for weapons to be in use for a very long time. The famous "Brown Bess" musket of the British Army was in use from 1722 to 1838 according to Wikipedia. We are used to a fast turn-over in gadgets due to the modern computerised age but weapons at the infantry level are not the kind of technology that changes rapidly as they are pretty low tech and don't need much improving.

Loved reading the made-up inner thoughts of the officers. Avalon Hill's "The General" magazine published something similar years ago for a "Panzer Blitz" scenario AAR and I still remember it to this day. I don't know "Team Yankee" but do remember reading a book about a single combat team's view of a battle in a hypothetical "Fulda Gap" style WWIII engagement years ago which I don't remember the title of, and it read just like this. Maybe it was the same book, though I seem to recall it was a British unit, so maybe not. Anyway, don't listen to the doubters, in my mind I'm already with these guys in the field waiting with anticipation and dread for the coming battle! [EDIT] Just did a search in Amazon and I think that book I read was "First Clash" (Kenneth Macksey, 1985) about a Canadian unit being attacked by a Soviet Motor Rifle battalion at the outbreak of WWIII.

Just thought I would comment on UK's defence cuts. The plan was to reduce the size of the "regular" army whilst increasing the size and capability of the Army Reserve, what used to be called the Territorial Army, to make up the gap. That plan now looks in tatters as the rate at which people are signing up to the Army Reserve is laughably small. One statistic I read said that at the current recruitment rate it would take 25 years for the Army Reserve to be up to planned strength. The other big "hole" in the UK armed forces is the lack of an operational aircraft carrier until 2020, but I don't think that is such a big issue for NATO operations as it only really hurts UK's ability to carrier out "independent" military operations in regions where aircraft cannot be based on land. For example, there would be no chance of the UK pulling off an operation like the 1982 Falklands War until the new aircraft carrier is operational. Given the failure of the policy, I would think it will have to be changed soon, and most probably will be.

What an interesting post, though I am coming to it late. Re. "guilt", I don't feel this per se, but I do feel the need to balance play of these sorts of games with games where violence is not the central theme. I play "Kerbal Space Program" so I can experience the thrill of a challenge that does not involve trying to cause harm to people. If I played nothing but war games I think my soul would somehow become "dirty".

I am sorry if you disliked my post. To my mind, games are just another medium of artistic expression, so if it's OK to recommend a book or film that has some bearing on the games BFC makes, why not a game, as long as it is not a direct competitor to BFC's own products. I don't see why this should be viewed as bad forum behaviour but I respect your opinion.

Hi all, I have been playing a game today called "This War of Mine" in which you control a group of civilians living in a bombed out house in Eastern Europe during a civil war. The group scavenges for food and supplies during the night, and spends the days resting, improving their shelter, or manufacturing items they can use or trade. Each day is a struggle to keep fed, healthy and warm. Some members of the group are smokers or coffee drinkers, and get miserable without their daily fix, but coffee and cigarettes are also valuable trade items, so it's a tough choice to consume them. Sometimes raiders come in the night to steal supplies, and sometimes the group is faced with the moral dilemma of whether or not to become raiders themselves. It's a bleak but artistically beautiful game that really makes you think about the civilian casualties of war. I thought I'd mention it in case anyone wants to try this game whilst waiting for CM:BS. It will give you a new perspective on what life would be like for civilians in a NATO-Russia war over Ukraine. I highly recommend it. P.S. I hope I haven't breached any forum rules with this post. "This War of Mine" is in no way a competitor with any of BFC's games but I think it will make players of BFC's games think just a little bit more about the consequences of their pixel-troopen battles on the otherwise invisible civilian population.

I will be buying the digital download only version of the game so would I gain anything by pre-ordering?

Well, if the situation in the region continues as it is, maybe some spook will turn up at BFC's door with a shopping list of additions they'd like adding to the game for some undisclosed purpose along with a nice fat cheque. I just hope for our sakes it's in dollars and not rubles!

It strikes me as quite likely that military planners in Russia and NATO might buy the game to evaluate possible outcomes should the conflict happen for real. Does anyone else think this might happen, and if so, would the game provide them with any useful data or practice that they don't already get from other more secret sources?

As a Brit myself I would advise against writing us off too soon. Yes, the public is fed up with war right now. After 13 years spent propping up a corrupt government and police force in Afghanistan, and the shambles that Iraq is now in, the public is rightly skeptical about any more "foreign adventures". On top of that there's the deficit and subsequent austerity measures, including substantial cuts to the military. Despite all this, we still have one of the most powerful armed forces in the world, and strong links to the US. Personally I doubt even the US would actually enter into a shooting war with Russia over Ukraine, but if that line was crossed, you can bet the Brits would be under immense pressure to join the conflict. It would be difficult for any British government to stay out, even with public opposition.

Is BFC going to rewrite its backstory to take into account recent developments? I hope so, otherwise the backstory will feel too much like an alternate universe. In my opinion they need to include recent events, however tragic, in the lead up to the war (I speak of course of the downing of flight MH17) and extrapolate from there as to how NATO and Russia get into a shooting war over Ukraine. I know it might draw some criticism but if done with sensitivity I am sure it won't cause too many protests. In any case, CM games are so "niche" as to be almost under the radar of the mainstream media, who would likely be the only ones to criticise the backstory.

Well that's a pity if true. One of the things I like about Steam is that you buy the game once but can play it on either a Mac or Windows machine as long as you are logged into your Steam account on the machine you want to play it on. I know lots of people don't like Steam but this is a nice feature as it allows you to try the Mac version first and if it doesn't work well you still have the PC version to fall back on.

Hi all, I see that for CM:BN, BFC are releasing new installers that will include installers for both Windows and Mac in the same download. Does anyone know if this will ever be done for CM:RT? I purchased the Mac version but it plays only sub-optimally on my old mid-2010 Unibody Macbook, even with the 8GB of RAM I put in it recently. I do have a Windows desktop in the house but tend not to use it too much nowadays. If they released a Windows/Mac combined installer like for CM:BN I would be able to see how CM:RT plays on my Windows machine without having to buy the game again.

I am looking forward to CM:BS but I am not sure what a hot war between NATO and Russia with modern weapons will look like. My instincts are that it will look, well, pretty bad. Having got used to achieving wins against Syria/Uncon forces with minimal casualties in CM:SF, I think vs Russia the losses on each side are going to be a lot more balanced and the battlefield potentially a lot more deadly. Presumably the scenarios and campaign will have to take this into account, so that we can still achieve victory even with much heavier losses than in a typical CM:SF battle? Anyway, I hope we will find out soon just how costly a battle against a modern Russian force would be.

Thanks for your replies. I will check out those links. As regards an ISIS PoV campaign I have no interest in that as I basically hate those ISIS scumbags now after having watched footage of some of their recent massacres on LiveLeak. it's shocking to think what must be going on in areas of Syria and Iraq under their control right at this very moment whilst a war-weary world turns a blind eye. Sooner or later ISIS will have to be wiped out - it's just a matter of when and by whom. If they are allowed to thrive then their twisted ideology will only spread - I see already their hated black banner has been raised in Kashmir. I know it may seem odd to want to fight them in a game but in the absence of any real life effort to rid the world of this evil it will be cathartic for me to waste some of them in pixel form! Thanks again.

Hi all, Having watched one too many ISIS propaganda videos I now have a great desire play a CM:SF campaign in which I command a Syrian or Iraqi military unit tasked with eradicating these nut jobs, so has anyone made such a campaign yet?

If ISIS (or IS now apparently) ever succeed in toppling Assad we will be one step closer to Battlefront's vision of a future Western invasion of Syria. The backstory was that the invasion followed the takeover of the country by Islamists who then committed terrorist outrages in several major Western cities. Does anyone believe ISIS/IS is not capable of such atrocities? This time around however we would have unlikely allies in the shape of Iran and AQ. Truth is indeed stranger than fiction. CM:SF is a great game and one I have now bought twice just so I can play it on my macbook. That alone says a lot!

BFC will probably have to change their backstory again to avoid accusations of bad taste.

As a UK citizen I can confirm that this is very true. In part it has come about because politicians are spineless and feared raising the issue in parliament in case they were accused of racism - despite it being the number one concern of the constituents they were supposed to represent. Large parts of the East End of London are very foreign in culture now, with places like Tower Hamlets having a muslim population of over 30%. A view down a Tower Hamlets street... There is nothing wrong with immigration per se - most immigrants just want a better life for themselves and are hard working and respect the native culture. The problem occurs when you have the whole-sale takeover of areas to the point where they become unrecognisable to the native population. My son, educated by the liberal establishment state school system thinks I am some sort of racist for these views but I wonder if he will feel the same way in 50 years time when he is a minority in his own native land.

Not sure if this is the appropriate thread (or even forum) for this but I read recently that modern islamism arose in 1928 in Egypt with the birth of the Muslim Brotherhood and its ideology is firmly rooted in that period, drawing for inspiration on Hitler and Mussolini's Fascism and Stalin's Communism. It has very little to do with the last Caliphate, which was by all accounts quite enlightened for its time, practicing tolerance towards other faiths and patronising science and the arts. If the islamists were to bring back the Caliphate of history rather than their own fantasy version, we could all get back to living our lives in peace. [EDIT] Apparently Hitler was quite a hero amongst the Arab world in the 30s... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Arab_world I don't want to stretch the point too far but just saying that radical islamism is a pretty recent phenomenon with its roots to some extent in Nazi Germany rather than any Caliphate of the past.

Thanks for the corrections JasonC - my recollection of that book is a bit vague. I just tried this battle again, this time using the trees as cover as much as possible, and I did get 2 out of the 3 StuGs. I found that the best way to avoid your tanks going AWOL in the woods is to use the Slow move order and actually pick your way through the trees with short waypoints, looking for gaps that would fit a tank. They are more likely to behave themselves and move through the woods along the path you intended that way.

JasonC - interesting alternative approach. This chimes in with my own readings on Soviet tactics, admittedly more 1980s era, although the tactics learned the hard way during The Great Patriotic War certainly must have been a major influence. The gist of what I read back in the 80s was that the Russian way of doing things was radically different to the tactics taught in military academies in the West, with the central underpinning theme being the reinforcement of success. I forget the author's name now but he was some sort of Soviet defector. So, say you are advancing on three fronts. Your left flank runs into stiff opposition, your centre encounters average resistance, and your right flank encounters virtually no opposition. Where do you throw in your reserves? The Western way would be to throw them into the left flank battle, to overcome the stiff resistance there. The Russian way would be the complete opposite. They would instead throw everything into the right flank, where only minor resistance had been encountered, and just bulldoze through to achieve a quick victory on the right. With that flank blown completely open the rest of the enemy force would presumably then have to fall back anyway to avoid being surrounded. Applying to a CM:RT battle you would have to keep back a reserve force, and probe the enemy position for weak spots. Any probing force that encountered light or no resistance would then be reinforced with the reserve - which could be maybe half your tanks - and would just motor like hell for the other side of the map. Obviously the terrain has a part to play as the fords create bottle necks in this battle, but I think the principle is worth a try.