slysniper

very true, but that is one thing the game does not take into account. It could be cloudy with trees and brush and shadows behind them and it would make no difference at all as to how the game spots. And it is one area that they will not be trying to put that factor within the game any time soon.

Along with the economics of our modern battlefield. I have always wondered. What happens if a war somehow is prolonged enough in a time with the economy in a challenging state. We have this tendency to use all these smart weapons for getting the job done now. And I think about how much each one of them shots are costing and then I look to see, what kind of stock piles of these weapons do we have. How quickly would they be used up. And is there anyway to replace them in a fast manor. From what little I know, there is statements as to how low we have managed to deplete our supplies at times. there is statements of stock piles not being able to last any prolonged time. So is it possible that at some point, all the advantages we presently have in the tech war would be lost just by a planned move to make sure the war is designed to outlast the high tech munitions.

Yes it did. And from this event, I am sure a few units were in position to spot, but did not manage to before they received the deadly returning fire. But Tunguska's seldom have spotting issues. ( But i was suprized to get the jump on a few of them in this game , so they can be caught sleeping as to spotting also. Likely it goes back to how the game spotting works.)

Just as I said, Americans are cocky. It is easy to see how we trust our air to never lose a war and that will be a major factor in any war we are in. All I am saying is If I was any country that was thinking of truly taking on and wanting to win the conflict dealing with the US. I would be working on a unexpected plan to defeat the US air and I would be doing it in a manor that has not been done before. And too many think that is a impossible event. (I personally do not) Plus, as also can be seen. You still do not win wars with air, is so ISIS would be long gone. (it takes troops on the ground ) Have you really looked at the size and number of men the US actually have that are truly available to fight a war on foreign land . Has it been so short of a time that you do not remember how long it took to prepare for a ground war when we went to Iraq. We cannot get enough troops there fast enough if needed right away. Plus how much could we strip from other locations before a second enemy might take advantage of that. And what would really take the cake would be for a second unexpected enemy to be in on the plan to wait for just that moment which will happen. Because we are spread too thin trying to guard too many interest in the world. Just saying, we are cocky fools.

wow, no takers?? Not even insults a to how I could allow such a thing to happen. Well, lets put a little more out there and see if it stirs up any comments. Timing is everything. If you want to overwhelm the enemy. you need all units to crest and find the enemy at the same time. Which from the results can be concluded did not happen according to plan. What was it that I did not anticipate that manage to blow the timing of my units enough that the Tunguska had a fun day.

Wars, always hard to predict the future and what will happen. but a enemy that is preparing for battle is always looking for the weaknesses of their enemy to use to their own advantage. I think of pearl harbor - America was cocky with the power that they held and did not think the enemy could challenge their power in the sea. Well History shows how that worked out and the cost it involved. I for one think we Americans are again cocky and think we have a Military that is unchallengable from without, but if we were to look at it more closely. There is many signs of weakness . ( Our present strength comes from the Techno advantages we have, more than anything else..) Now the question is, if a enemy was planning and preparing somehow to take that away in some type of high tech warfare that had not been planned on. Would we really be all that strong. And if you have any real knowledge of how this high tech stuff is being made, it is sad to say it is not within the control of our country. Much is being done from other Nato countries also. And if one thing is for sure, with how fast things can change in our days and times. I can see any country for the right price get the latest new gismo. So is it far fetched to think that a enemy could get the jump on the next new technology that could swing the advantage to them. Not in my mind. There is plenty of greed and hate in the world still, much of it pointed at America. I for one just think we rely too heavy on our tecno advantage and we are cutting corners and items and size of our forces and that we are becoming more and more dependent on outside sources for creating our war machine. Only the future will tell if our present decisions will be costly in that point of time.

Now, replaying the whole mission is another story. I enjoy doing that, especially if the designer has a few AI options. It can be really enjoyable. That is when if I did not like my overall results from the battle plan I had created, I go back in and try another one I might have thought of and see if it should have been my first choice. When doing this I try to not cheat the AI and make any moves that I know are good because I have played and know where the enemy units likely are. Thus a real present surprise if the game throws in and plays one of its other programmed options

Actually having something like this happen is what makes me love this game. I like it when unexpected outcomes happen , especially if they looked realistic. Which how this played out , it did. It sure made me rethink my fool proof plan. But I am waiting to see if someone can write the story as to what might have happened.

Play it how you see fit, that is your decision. I like playing h2h. So like now, since I am playing a few games against the AI to get some training in so I know what to expect from units and to make sure I know how to work them correctly. I would never replay a turn, no matter what. I don't have that option against another player and I sure would not have it in real life. Play it through with your mistakes. That is where the lesson is really learned. You are not learning how to handle situations when things go wrong, you sure do not remember your mistakes if you do not see them play out. The best lessons learned are the ones we fail at, it helps us remember them and helps us avoid doing them again.

So I am playing the battle that I have to take a platoon of these things out. You all might know the battle by now. What do I have that can do the job quickly. My bmp's. So I start trying to decide how best I might do this. Well, I managed to spot and shoot 2 of them before they saw me. Two others I ran 3 bmp's at them and while they where destroying one of my bmps, I destroyed them with one of the other BMP's. Then I had one that managed to take out two bmp's while I ran another one up on it to within spitting distance from a blind spot because of a building blocking its view til I was on top of it. So the count 5 Tunguska's to 4 bmp's (I felt this was a very good trade.) But then there was this guy. - I will provide the images, you can come up with any story line you want. But believe me it was the Tunguska from Hell. When I did later finally take him out , it felt so good to get a little revenge for all that blood he spilt.

Great advice, but you also have to be ready for the worst case situations also. Man, you know the enemy likes to try and get the odds in his favor also. Unless you only play the AI - then the enemy is very kind in helping you out in many things.

Interesting results, of course, letting a sniper do that in the game would require really poor play. But I never knew they were that accurate before receiving any return fire. Good to know.

NO, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE HAVING A LUCKY DAY OR PERFECT CONDITIONS, The game does not give that type of results normally, at least it did not the last time I checked. Now play CMBS and you might see some deadly shooting

Good to know, It was somewhat surprising how many I was seeing doing it. So I was wondering what was up with that. Do you have any insights as to how it is deciding to fire either one or two missiles at a time???

oh, this is a perfect tactic if you can set it up. Plus I managed no losses because I made sure the smoke screen did last. even the tanks were providing smoke instead of getting in the fight. Now a few things to note. man you have to make sure that the Khrizantema stays in a good morale state, if not, they will not sit and fire missiles, they want to bug out. Two, and I am not sure why. many missiles were duds, they would fly a few hundred meters , then crash. (was that something from the American side causing that) because after a few minutes. No more problems, the rest flew on target from that point on.

This is not how the game is working, they are lasing, even at basically point plank range. So there is one thing that should be pointed out as maybe a feature that could be adjusted.

Don't miss-understand, I have no clue as to how he lost both tanks from a flanking position. I was just saying that during testing. From the front the M1's were normally getting a kill before the first smoke screens were going up. So no matter what, they generally were always getting one kill, no matter what the odds were against them. In real battles in the game I am sure there is plenty of chances for the T90's to get the drop on and first shot off on the M1's

Good point, I will have to check that out. It would be interesting to see if they thought of that in the game. With what little testing I have done. The M1 fires so fast it can get a round off and deploy smoke before the enemy returns fire, Thus a Russian tank spots, is blocked from firing because of m1's smoke, fires its smoke because of being lased, but too late, hit and killed.

Well, it is good to know it is not worth getting into it too much til the patch is released. I was just wanting to get a feel for what my odds ratio needed to be to challenge the M1's from the front if I needed to. So I just started out at the 800 meter mark thinking it might be a good range to get a kill and was surprised to be getting frontal kills on every shot. So when ERA is working correctly. It sounds like maybe I will not be extending that range much farther.. The M1will likely always get it shot off first, but It can only kill one at a time. So with numbers, all things are possible, even killing the Beast.

Lets make this a little clearer. It is not a question of trying to be stupid and attack at long range. It is a question as to if I am going to engage My Russian armor from the front and expect to get rounds on target, with or without friendly losses. i want to know at what range I can expect kills. So far I know I can do it at 800 meters, From one post here it sounds like 1300 meters is already starting to push my luck. So it sounds like maybe I need to do my own test and no one else knows what the game is giving.

So, what is the optimum range for the Russian tankers to engage the American M1’s. I was doing just some prelim. Test but have not had the chance to sit down and run it at multiple ranges. I know I want to be close, but at what range is it that I take away the advantage to the M1’s. I was running at 800 meters and The Russian armor was having no problems defeating the M1’s from the front, What is the max. range I should go to when dealing with them from the front.

well, the one thing that does seem correct is that the plowed field does seem to be a high risk area for bogging. So it is one to learn to avoid at the present time unless you are willing to have it happen. I had a T90 Bog in a field and thought, oh man this is terrible. But somehow he was just located perfect for when the enemy showed up he was in a perfect overwatch position for the rest of the force and actually became the leading units in kills all from his immobilized spot. Sometimes it just pays to be Lucky

All I can say is the spotting imperfections within the game are they will likely always be there until a day someone tries creating a whole new program and try another approach to the challenge. What I have noticed is the more I have played the game, the less issues I have with spotting. I know what to expect and I plan my moves to that expectation. seldom do I find spotting not working to what I now know to expect now. Thus not a surprise anymore, its just how the game works and I have learned to accept it. Smoke is one of the biggest challenges for the spotting program when you have troops right within the smoke. (it is going to give you some unusual results.) but if you have ever been in a real smoke screen, you might not think it so unusual. In real life, you want to be behind it, or looking into it. if you are within it, you are at a huge disadvantage.

Sorry, not a game option. But using demo charges does sometimes help in that the defenders do go to pinned status normally when they are in a room that receives a blast. But they recover too quick from it as they do from most things. So your troops need to be in the room right after the blast.

I want to hear what the indefinite pause is good for.???