vincere

Excellent, thought provoking Vid, +1 thanks.

Slightly OT, but been following this thread and found it fleshed out some previous informative discussion about Bradley IFV development in the Shock Force forum. So thank you to all posters for contributing to another excellent discussion that makes these forums stand out so highly. Also, the insights about the difficulties of design leaps and their practical implementation with engineering leaps really prompts me to look at USA developments in a different light. Yes war brings leaps because of the mobilisation of effort, monetary, labour, mental etc. But in some ways some of the leaps the US has made is quite remarkable in a way. So, while easy to criticise, that systems like Osprey, F22, Stealth Bomber, made light of day is some testimony that the system is functional. Cost wise, how long can the US maintain trying to keep a generational edge over most rivals in pretty much most areas is the BIG question. Regarding Russian new vehicles being like a vanity project. I've for some time now started to suspect that Putin gets 'something' from militarism. Imagine being the Big boss of a whole country where you have mafia style power over the system and enough money most of anything. Many of the day-to-day stuff bores Putin, you can see it sometimes in the press. But then every now and then there's the buzz of a moderately sized military operation that really all hinges on his orders. From his portrayed characteristics, I really suspect that his personal psychology plays some role in his decision making.

Ahhh, thanks Guys! Really appreciated- at least I can correct the issue. Yeah, must be bad memory after a lay-off. And, yes I see the logic with the traffic jam pauses. At the moment I'm playing all infantry battle with 3 trucks and 3 UAZ's so really don't want to leave them taking fire- but need them for mobility especially as contact quickly developed into a Russian Company+ having fire supremacy on one of my Ukrainian platoons.

Seems like the Tac AI took a step back with disembarking. I used to be able to pause a vehicle for 30 or 45 second while the guys disembark and then get the vehicle moving again before end turn. Just had a long run of whenever trying this the troops stay inside the vehicle for 30-45 secs despite quick orders out. Anybody else notice this??

I see that point and think it can be viewed that way. But also I think the risk and the hazards can be viewed as higher than for periods of the Cold War. The risk is increased because the old SU was very much a rational actor- somewhat less rational actions are more likely when power is so narrowly held. Plus, their new strategic doctrine seems riddled with risk, and potential miscalculations. The reliance of the internet is increasing the risk and hazard of something full spectrum warfare.

1. It's considered a Prep fire- pre plotted. If you play vs Human a good house rule is to not arty the opponent's set up zone. If you want to shorten your arty response time in Quick Battles buy target reference points. 2. The Heli or Aircraft will attack what it sees itself. It's one of the missions that you can plot across the board without a spotter seeing to zone. 3. Use a shorter range target arc- this helps the units face where you want it to and stops them firing off into the distance.

Yep... join the dots up.... maybe ex panzer grenadier who had a sex change to work in Berlin.

Same here, much prefer infantry heavy battles.

WT hell, it's the opposite. This thread is temporally displaced, and is in fact risking a paradox because it should have been on Refresh Monkey night. Wait, or is that it should have been on the next Monkey night,

Do you take a red pill or the blue pill.... No worries, maybe I got it because I play with females.

Believe it or no, some women play war games. And dang, bitches don't like sexism.

The thing is, buildings are very abstracted, and while I fully appreciate the mechanics of thermobaric weapons, consider the 2 guys in the corner could be 2 or three rooms over with doors closed and walls in between.

For a real politic it's Intent Capability= threat. Because intent can change in a day.

Yeah, I've noticed this, but more so with US rifle grenade than anything else. Regarding points for QB and Russia having smaller squad sizes. I find the 2 to 2.5 to one in formations more than adequately, even over balance, that !

Hmm going to have a think, and re-observe when I'm back playing with US. It could partially be observer bias of me noticing more when my squads take hits. That said, RPGs can be killers in buildings more so than the M320. Add- I know this is observer bias- but those Russian machine guns tend to sting too.

I meant to add: If armour or IFVs are in the mix, US Javelin is an edge, but the Russian RPGs are numerous and deadly infantry team killers, even in green troops hands.

US infantry's biggest advantage I've seen so far is communication, and quicker and more diversified ability to call in fire support. Much like RL since at least, Nam', possibly before if we include Ground-Air communication and support. Biggest disadvantage- QB pure Infantry: points that will get you a US company + buys a Two, yes 2!!! Battalions of Russians. That just isn't pretty, especially in close terrain.

Ambiguity is part or humour sometimes, and the "am I in danger, what is 12?" cracked me to reply that one. That said, we all know that the Russians have a heavy web presence, and with the Black Sea topic is, well so topical.

Thank you 'Sir'. that was genuinely comical response. Seriously though, be careful with what you post here, especially if you have hot sources, Putin's people are watching this site closely. 42

Close action is all the more satisfying when in the woods. And to think back in the day is was just some shovel type slap sounds. I'd settle for abstracted animation and those sounds back

I miss those rare climaxes, that really added to a battle's 'story'.

Putin openly admits the pre-'referendum' plan to annex Crimea. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31796226 Ok, nothing new in a way; but to now openly admit it is 'something'.

It was released- I couldn't get in to it. Scourge of War is working on Waterloo for this year Ok, back on topic. Well deserved to in tope 20, and fully agree. (and with the strat layer comment of the mini review

Azov Battalion training. Short, and not overly insightful, other than them using stick formations I've seen use for MOUT, and repetitive action/ reaction drills, which will pay off when adrenaline and fear tsunamis flow: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31657354

OP I spot on and has been my experience of QB. My favourite QB if Infantry vs Infantry and with woodland/forest. First game was US defence. I managed to buy a US company + few assets and I bought 2 battalions of Russian + liberal artillery as presumed for them. Was way unbalance, albeit my tactic were rusty. So next game I stripped the Javelin teams out of the platoons as there's no need for them. And again managed a Company + (improved skill on most), plus few some GLs, one section of 81mm and 120 mm mortars. For same points again 2 battalions + company. My tactics and attention to detail was spot on, but still almost mission impossible to defend against a horde with those odds- and that is against AI. Would be very VERY unbalance in human-human.