[Photo of destroyed Iraqui M1A1M]

I was not aware of any Arab theocratic states.in 2008.

[Photo of destroyed Iraqui M1A1M]

Iraq currently very much reminds me of post-WW1 Germany. The following is by no means and objective or complete analysis, just my subejctive impression. I think people in Iraq have never lived in a democratic country and are in general not used to take the responsibilities that living in a democratic society requires of each and every citizen. Saddam was what held Iraq togather by force, and after Saddam was, gone people were attracted by various extremist groups because they offered them a sense of power and security in a time where they felt powerless and threatened. This attraction to extremeist groups was further amplified by the dire economical situation after the 2003 invasion and by the lack of experience of living in a democracy. The result of all of the above is ISIS, which is pretty much the Iraqi version the 1940s Nazis. The biggest difference between ISIS and the Nazis is IMO that, unfortunately, the Nazis had the economic and military power to actually implement their extremeist views. ISIS totally would do 1939-1945 all-over again if they had the power to do so. Here is a pic ISIS released recently:

 

 

 

They may as well post pictures of Middle Earth.

[Photo of destroyed Iraqui M1A1M]

There is a reason why countries like Iraq adopted Soviet doctrines.  It might not build the most efficient army, but if you want to armed a large group of poorly educated and disinterested people of wildly differing backgrounds and get them all to marching in the same direction, the soviets had a talent for it.  I'm not sure if Western soldiers would be conformable training them that way, or meting out Soviet style discipline.

[Future modules ideas (unofficial topic)]

I'd like to see:

 

Russian equipped irregulars.

 

NATO: Equipped irregulars.

 

New terrain and buildings.  Something to make it "feel" more like 2017 rather then 1944.  Chain-link fences of various sizes, water towers, Radio and TV towers, Electrical pylons and substations.

[Combat training ground near Luhansk?]

 She probably just ran a ****ty shop.

 

 

I read this, and my first reading was you suggesting she was running a strip joint.

[Modern-day Korea]

Honestly, I don't care about the "plot" to Black Sea.  I'd like them to just throw in army or two with each module.  Let the scenario designers figure out why Iran and North Korea or fighting.each other.

[Other Tanks]

Aside from not being entirely accurate, that statement is also based on an apples vs. oranges comparison. When the Germans encountered the T-34 their MBT was the Panzer III with the 50mmL/42 gun. Hell, a number of their divisions were still using the Czech design with a 37mm gun. When the Sherman appeared over a year later, the Germans were re-equiping with Panzer IIIs with the L/60 gun and the much more powerful Panzer IV with the 75mm L/48 gun. And the Sherman could still beat those.

 

The T-34 was the right tank at the right time and place, but so was the Sherman in a different time and place.

 

Michael

 

 

I'm sorry but I must disagree strenuously.  When the T-34s were produced they not the right tank at the right time  since they fail to hold back the German tide in 1941 and underperformed in 1942.  If they were the right tank at the time, they would have been able to brush off the German army and counterattack into Axis territory.  They could not do this in 1941 or 1942.  Despite the apparently "inferior" Sherman, American forces were never pushed back 1,000 miles by German armies instead, you saw a fairly steady advance.  Too often people look at tanks from a war gaming perspective, where armor and firepower are the most important things.  When compared, the Early Sherman beats the T-34 for two reasons.  It had a radio in every tank, and it could be landed on a beach.  T-34s were not required to land on beaches, but this was an important requirement for Shermans.

Keep in mind that the Germans had motives for claiming the superiority of the T-34, as it helped excuse their failure to win the war.  To Western Audiences after the war they wanted to create a reputation of superb professionalism that was undermined by forces out side of their control.  Blaming political causes helped distance them from Hitler which was useful in the early postwar period since a lot of people wanted to hang them and exaggerating the power of soviet weaponry helped convince Westerners to rearm Germany against the Russians in the Cold War (it also helped their own pride if an inferior people only outfought them because of numbers and better weapons which they would have been able to match were it not the political leadership they were not so eager to distance themselves from).  The Germans created a myth to explain their defeat in WWI, and I believe they did so after WWII.  I see no reason to believe either one.

[How do you play?]

Poorly!

[How about some basic advice for those of us new to modern?]

Let me rephrase that. Here's the basics of combat: Whatever you do, make sure there's a safe route for you to retreat, because in combat unexpected things often happen, forcing you to retreat and try again. If there's no safe route for you to retreat, you should reconsider what you are doing.

 

So, in the case of that video, you do not want to run down the hill into the open because if you get caught in the open, you have nowhere to go and you'll die (it looks like at least one of them got hit once or twice, so he'll probably die, the other guy got very lucky). It's better to stay behind the hills. And that's what they did at the end, after getting shot to pieces.

 

But hey, they were probably untrained which is why they just drove down that hill thinking it was perfectly safe.

 

 

Well, they probably weren't well trained, but it's hard to tell anything from a video like that.  We don't exactly have a lot of context, and grainy film can give false impressions.  For all we know, they thought were ambushed in territory they thought safe.  When you are being shot at, it's hard to keep situational awareness, so people make all sorts of mistakes. There is a reason that coolness under fire is so highly valued.

[Strategic and tactical realities in CMBS]

Steve, I hoped to get an answer from a native american on why US goverment keeps so many citizens in prisons? I am just puzzled with this fact. Is it how true democracy functions? You ignored this question so you don't know the answer (it's ok you may not know) or US goverment will prosecute you if you tell me the truth?

  What you are discussing is very much the product of democracy.  The reason why so many Amerircans are in jail is because people demanded "tough on crime" measures be taken in the 1980's and 1990's.  Politicians who were "tough on crime", won elections, Politicians who were not lost elections.  One of the downsides of a Democracy is that voters sometimes make poor choices.  What the Snowden revelations revealed was that the United States spies on civilians of foreign countries.  Most Americans don't care about that or approve of it.  The US doeds spy on some Americans, but are heavily restricted on what it can do and what it can collect.  A lot of Americans don't care or approve of this as well.

[Why doesn't the US Air Support roster in CMBS have the A-10 on it?]

I'm not sure this a is a good enviroment for the A-10.

[Strategic and tactical realities in CMBS]

If there was a part of Russia that was historically largely inhabited by Americans and pro-American Russians (lets call it, say, Newamerica, for simplicity sake ), and an armed uprising has toppled the Russian government, replacing it with a regime that people of Newamerica felt was unfair and dangerous for them, which led them to protest against it and demand broader regional autonomy, which led to said new regime threatening and intimidating them with nationalist forces and hired thugs, which led to Newamericans and their friends, relatives and sympathisers from American mainland organising into militia squads and arming themselves by capturing local police and SBU FSB stations (actions that were perpetrated with impunity just several weeks ago by their opponents in Lvov and Kiev Saint-Petersburg and Moscow), which resulted in them being pummeled by the new Russian regime's artillery, tanks and airstrikes - then yes, American help with weapons, supplies and advisers would not be an invasion, but aiding in defense of their own people.

 

Sorry for bringing up political questions, but could not just stay quiet.

 

 

There acutally is a similar situation with the US.  We call the place Cuba.  It was a seperate nation but under the thumb of the US with many Americans living there and much of the business run by Americans.  The pro-American government fell, and the US used a large group of disidents and exiles to build a small army ordered it to invade Cuba.  This disaster was called "the Bay of Pigs Invasion", in American history.  The US denied responsibilty in the spirit of plausable denialitbility, but nobody believed it.  It was absurd.  Only the most extreme anti-communist partisan called it anything but an invasion despite the attacking force being mostly made up of Cubans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion You can read more about it here.  I never heard it seen as the Bay of Pigs uprising or Bay of Pigs civil war in English historiagraphy.

[Strategic and tactical realities in CMBS]

So they'd eradicate their own support in the country they're invading? That's... cynical even for Russian Realpolitik.

 

It's what they did in Grozny.

[How about some basic advice for those of us new to modern?]

I'm basing this on my experiences on Shock Force: and when I transitioned from the first Comabt Mission games to the newer engine.

 

Okay everyone mentioned that infantry is more deadly.  That can't be stressed enough.  You can fail a mission very quickly with just one wrong move.  In Shock Force you were often attacking enemies that outnumbered you two or three to one.  So you had a platoon of infantry against a company of Syrians.  I found that annoying, and hopefully it won't be in this game.  With the better kit that Redforce is getting it probably won't be an issue.  Still, keep in mind that a squad moving up in Normandy and running into infantry might lose a couple of guys and then retreat, in a Shock Force you probably won't have anyone come back.  Since so much metal is being thrown around you'll have higher casualties even when in areas that are fairly safe.

 

Abrams have a reputation as invincible war machines.  They aren't..  Some guy in a building can hit an Abrams and disable it from a pretty good distance away.  The RPG-29 is very long ranged and offers a credible threat to pretty much anything (I just realized that they aren't even in this game, or at least not in the manuel).

 

Soldiers carrying a Guided missile launcher look silly.

 

Artillery has proximity fuses.  Anyone outside of a building is in danger.

 

BMPs look like tanks.  They are armored tracked vehicles with turrets, cannons and even missiles.  They arn't tanks. They can be knocked out by small arms fire.  They are also rolling bombs.  Keep your infantry away from them as much as possible becuase when they blow up, they'll take out pretty much everything around them.  Honestly, you are probably safer riding a bike into combat.

 

Russian tanks have poor situational awareness.  I once ambushed a platoon of Abrams with a company of T-72s.  My guys never got a shot off.

 

Tanks don't carry as much ammo as they did in WWII.  It's kind of disapointing.

 

With Guided anti-tank missiles you don't need to wait till the enemy gets close.  It will lower the fly time the closer you get, but unlike an AT gun it does the same damage.

 

Clearing out buildings is a real pain.  You can lose half a squad to two dopes hiding in a corner.  You have to do a lot supressing before you go in.

 

The US army doesn't have flamethowers anymore.

[MT-12 100 mm Anti-Tank Gun...mostly harmless?]

I'm sorry, I meant T-55s and T-62s.  They don't appear to be making it in the game.

[Update on Black Sea release]

I'm guessing 23 or 22.  Almost all releases have been on Fridays or Thursday.

[MT-12 100 mm Anti-Tank Gun...mostly harmless?]

Well, while not in game I  think it could probably kill a T-55, or T-62.  Last year during the Maiden protests the protesters got a hold of some of these and put them in the barricades.  I imagine that at the close ranges of a street battle it has a chance to knock out nearly anything the Ukranian government would send down the street.  HEAT rounds could probably threaten tanks without ERA defenses as well.  Still it is a museum piece and it doesn't look like something you move around very easily, but it can still kill people.  Soviet designed armored vehicles that aren't tanks, such as BMPs, BTRs, SPAAGs etc would all be easily knocked out.  The wiki article says that it can fire a guided missile which could possibly disable a Western tank.

[Age Range of Players]

34 years old.  Like seeing things go boom.

[sell on Steam?]

Make no mistake, going on to Steam entails some risk, just as continuing the same business model.  Combat Mission is niche, but not so niche as "99.90%" won't understand it.  That's just elitism talking.  Personally, I would hire more staff and try Steam.  But it's their company, and they can run it the way they want.

 

And God, do I wish was 18-25 years old!

[sell on Steam?]

They did use gamersgate for a short period, maybe that soured them.  My impression is that Battlefront is very careful about losing control of their stuff.  They have kept the company very small, despite being around for 15 years, they aren't exactly friendly to modding, and are resistant to publishiers that might decrease the price of their of products.  They are also very proudly niche, and there is an air of resentment about them.

[Are we getting new Terrain,Buildings?]

I'd kind of like to see some more modern types of buildings such a large TV and radio antennas and water towers.

[Combat Ranges for tanks in black sea - engagement ranges?]

Well the original post does have a point, though it's certainly not limited to this game or just guide missiles.  Battlefields tend to be bigger in real life then in PC games for both techinical and flow reasons.  Armor and Mechanized forces can cover 4km in a very short period of time.  Line of sight can be much, much further.  Ukraine is a big place, some of it can is forested, some of it you can see for miles.  For proper scale you might need 40 square Km.  Frankly that would be kind of boring. 20 mintues of driving through farm land punctuatied by a guy launching a Sagger into an unoffending barn.  Combat Mission is still a game, and realism takes a back seat at certain points.  When you start a mission, you know you'll face some stiff resistance.  In real life, you have no idea what you'll face.  Often it'll be light resistance or none at all.  You might fight an small urban battle in Combat Mission shock force and go for 45 minutes of game time and win a decisive victory over the insurgents.  In Iraq, you might be get in a six hour gun fight and never know if you actually inflicted any causalties on the enemy or how many there were, or even who they were and what their problem was.  That doesn't make for a good game experience (or any kind of good experience!).  There will always be a conflict between simulation, game, and what can realistically be produced on a computer.  I'm not saying tha Battlefront is beyond critisism on any of these factors, but you should take these factors into consideration.

[Black Sea terrain, walls, flavor objects etc.]

This was something I was wondering about. In particularly things like Cell towers, large radio and television antennas and water towers.

[Map size and lethality]

I get the impression Abrams is a too hyped up weapon. Does it really have such a superiority? I mean in real life.

It's difficult to actually know. Unlike WWII tank battles, there's not a lot of data. Often things like armor thickness or makeup is classified. Not to mention what any given weapon will do to the armor. For all we know the Russians figured out how to defeat Chobham armor ten years ago. We really have no idea what happens if missile x hits vehicle y. Well someone probably knows, but that tends to be secret.

In my mind the Abram's armor and guns are somewhat overhyped. The vehicle certainly isn't invincible. The biggest advantage is in crew training.

[Status update on "Black Sea"]

A move to the Pacific is a great idea for the future, both for WWII and a modern setting, maybe Taiwan?

Or maybe a Taiwan scenario wouldn't be such a good idea. Then we'd probably see a real life Chinese invasion around the time of the release of the game.

Yeah, I'm thinking their next game should be an unlikely war like Switzerland vs Iceland. If war breaks out in either of those countries they should give up wargames altogether and make games based on peace, prosperity,and recipes for fried chicken.