zmoney

@ncc1701e
The game use these vehicles very simplified.
The core of COP is 1V14 - vehicle of battery comamnder. 1V14 crew can establish single main observation post or two or three observation posts - main, forward and side. Usually there are main and forward. Main located near battalion HQ. Forward - close to forward positions. Forward obserwation post usually leads control platoon commander and he is a spotter (this is FO team in unit editor). Main observation post usually deployed out of 1V14 - equipmnet allows to use it outside. 1V14 has obsolete equipment, so by experience of Donbas war used mostly as transport, than for FO missions. In real life positin of 1V14 is "zero point" for artillery battery. Relatively it current coordinates, the  firing data are calculated. So, in real life you can't move 1V14 from previous position more than on several dozen meters and open fire immediately - you have to re-calculate own coordinates and this will take as miniumum 6 minutes for very rough result (and probably your firing will have big under/over shots) and about 20 minutes for more precise data. In the game you can change position and open fire simultainously.
PRP-4M - this is the almost the same thing that Forward observation post, but which have own armor and this is vehicle of artillery battalion level. PRP can move on battlefield, determine coordinates of targets, transmit its to 1V14 or on higher levels etc. So, it almost similar by purpose to BRM-1K. PRP-4M has radar and even one of the first Soviet thermal sight 1PN59 (but in the game it probably has radar only). PRP-4M can conduct artillery recon in more improtant sector of artillery battalion or can be attached to one of battalion's battaries as additional recon means
1V152 is new Russian FO vehicle wich should substitute 1V14 and 1V18 (not present in the game - the same as 1V14, but on the base of BTR-60PB for towed artillery) vehicles. But it also can be used with the same purposes like PRP-4.
 

T-72B3 are visible on many photos and videos - they have thermal sight. Though, there are also enough older T-72B/BA/mod.1989, arrived from Central, Syberia and Far East Military Districts. T-90A have to be near the border too - for example 136th mot.brigade from Dagestan - their T-90A participated in Luhansk airport assault in August 2014. Last time their camp was identified as far as in summer in Crimea. Probably they still there, but maybe moved in other place.

Well said Aragorn. I hope war doesn’t break out. A lot of wasteful death.
One thing I saw or read a few days ago which made me curious, was a report stating that the Russians have deployed T72 & T80 but no T90 to the border area. Does anyone know why this would be? The article also stated that most of the Russian tanks weren’t equipped with Thermo sights, can that be true? I was under the impression that all modern variations of the t72 & t80 had thermos.

No matter what happens, this should be a wake up call for NATO and especially for it's European members to prepare for another cold war and drastically increase it's defence forces, to be able to wage war if necessary. It's sickening to see how little we've learned from history. Personally I also resent being dependent on the US for our safety and diplomatic options.
Still, if Europe has to chose between the US, Russia or China, the choice ain't difficult. 
 

Am I the only one that doesn’t see much difference in opinion between the two opposing sides in the OP post? That NATO tanks are better at spotting and NATO tanks have better FCS’s??? Both sides admitted this. I believe IRL and in game terms the M60 is a superior tank to anything the Soviets have T62 and before. Once T64 is introduced I believe the Soviets have better tanks until the Abrams, Leopard and Chieftain come out.
 
I think this plays out in game as well. Currently I’m in a PBEM where my opponent is utilizing the M60 and I the T64. Even though he has a numerical advantage I am absolutely winning the tank battle. I’d say spotting is about 50-50, sometimes I spot first sometimes he does. In fact first kill went to my tanks which spotting an M60 in a wood line and KO’ed it with the first shot at about 800+ meters. The only issue I have seen with either game is the Bradley in CMBS seems a little too resilient to 30mm rounds. 

As a player, I think a very important consideration in making choices in the modeling, to not only be accurate, but to give an impression of being fair. This is all the more important if your model doesn't allow for perfect replication anyway, so you have decide how to circumnavigate the limitation.
One example I always like to bring up is the 2-crew BMP. I know it came from a Soviet manual. But the Soviet manual also assumes 50m wide frontages (thus the squad AOR is also only 50m wide), which I don't think many players obey strictly.
Further, even with with squad mounted I still suffer from a disadvantage b/c CM counts the commander and the BMP crew as two entities which means the interaction will never be as seamless as "one crew" even though that's what they are supposed to be. Finally, if I want to keep a spotter in the BMP, I have to peel off TWO people from my already small squad due to CM's limitations.
While acknowledging there's no perfect solution to this problem, I think the better circumnavigation would have been to use a 3-crew BMP even if it means giving another penalty to the squad - for example, maybe it can't split, which will be doctrinally correct in the CMCW period and even CMBS (there's a fire and a maneuver group, but they act in such close company it's equivalent to that Assault Command, so it doesn't have to be allowed to Split).
Because when you use a 2-crew BMP, even if it may be of less actual difference than I fear ... it's psychological. When an M113 or Bradley doesn't spot something, it's no one's fault. Every time a 2-crew BMP doesn't spot something, or it's late, it's hard not to have dark thoughts.
At least CM:CW finally got rid of that 9-footslogger Bradley.
Another thing is ... On-Map artillery. I don't think it's a huge problem that Soviet response times are slower, nor is it unrealistic. On the other hand, the Soviets also know that and compensate by attaching artillery down to company and battery commanders are up front with direct lines to their batteries to speed up the process. The artillery is pushed up much further forward, enough artillery calculations can be simplified for speed. 
But I can't do ANY of that in CM:CW, because only Mortars can be on-map. Oh, and I can't program fires either, so instead of a preplanned fire program smoothly (if inflexibly) switching to hitting deeper and deeper lines in turn, what happens is that the Artillery hits target 1, then takes a TEN-minute break before it hits Target 2, which I already knew I wanted to hit from the start but couldn't pre-program. Of course, the Americans can't pre-program either, but if your on-call delay is only three minutes you are hurt a lot less by it. You see how the "realism" acts in symbiosis with the game's limitations to really make things hard on the Soviets. Perhaps harder than it should be.
I think it's little things like this that gives BFC a reputation in the opposite direction of Gaijin. And when players go into the game with that mentality, every unspotted T-62 is just bad luck, while every unspotted M60 is a conspiracy. 😅

To defend the Sarg, spam bot 5000/ John K was asking for it. From what I remember, he doesn’t own this game so why is he commenting on something like this other than to create spam and troll.

in theory, laser guided should be more accurate than GPS. CEP less than 1m to couple m vs CEP >10m.  But as you have already mentioned , LGB needs a prefect condition to achieve its high accuracy. Costwise GPS is more favorable   

No disconnect on my part mate:


Just someone who doesn't actually play these games waffling on again, as far as I can tell. 

Wow, maybe THAT explains why I woke up in the gutter this morning.

I really enjoy playing with Dutch forces in CMSF2. So I would love to see if them in this. In fact if the mods for CMSF2 came out for this plus a French mod I think that would be perfect.

I would be surprised if there was much official attention paid to "meeting engagements" in any armed forces training and SOPs, since they are, by their nature, both "unicorns" and outside of SOP in the first place. I would be doubly surprised if the Soviets spent much staff time on such occurrences, with their greater emphasis on pre-planned operations.

They're "unicorns", in the sense that really, they're very rare occurrences in the real world of armoured combat, and are mostly a gamist construct to enable "equal" forces to engage with neither having the advantage of being the defender in a prepared position.
They're outside SOP, because if they happen in the real world, something has gone wrong at a higher level and with local recon, so you won't have the support structures of planned assignments of fire from arty assets because the engagement is unexpected. They also are inherently wildly variable, so there isn't really any SOP that can be broadly applied, beyond the basics of good combined arms fire-and-movement.

Thanks man looks great, using it now. You are one of my favorite modders!!!!

It's been a shamefully long time (it was finished years ago) but here be The Steppenwulf's UI mod for SF2.



**It's currently awaiting authorisation so you'll have to be patient and keep trying the download**  

I'm not sure, but in the game Oplot can use either 3BM32 or hypothetical Ukrainan-developed 3BM44U ammunition, based on Polish "Pronit" APFSDS which really had specimen in 2000th, but never was launched in production. Bulat in the game uses 3BM42 Mango, T-64BV - 3BM22 Zakolka. As I can recall, some patch had to fix UKR tank ammunition, but I doubt

Finally returned to the "Broken Shields" campaign after long period of oblivion since July. I stuck on the 10th mission "The Whirlwind" and left. Turned out it was the last scenario of the while campaign and I was several inches from the victory.
Well... not the victory actually. 

The last mission ended in bitter defeat for my German troops. It was close to impossible to win it and I guess it was meant to be lost. After all it resulted in complete failure for the Reich in real world. Anyway, the mission did well in conveying the apocalyptical feelings of retreating German troops seeking to save their lives and trying to find exit from the deadly trap among heavy snowfall and dozens of Russian tanks. 
To my surprise Reg Norge HQ himself was suddenly ambushed by the team of bailed out T-34!

I planned to send him to the extraction zone after all of his troops left, but it seems that the old fox decided to save his skin, ignore my orders and to flee first. Actually, he survived and escaped 😆 contrary to great number of troops under his command. 
I lost all of the remaining tanks in this mission.


Despite defeat at the end, the campaign was quite generous to me. 

 

Wow! That last mission had me at the edge of my seat the entire time. The Russians had cut off my escape route, my vulcan was out of ammo and a hind had free reign on my troops. The BMP's smartly disembarked their infantry and waited for me on a reverse slope. I charged my infantry, M113's, M60's over the hill with heavy casualties and rushed my remaining troops through to extraction while missiles and cannon fire rained overhead.
The Russians were merciful and didn't bring artillery which would have easily decimated the small patch of hills I used for a defence but they swarmed the entire map. They flanked me at every turn and set themselves up on hills overlooking my position hoping to catch an unsuspecting vehicle with an ATGM. 
There was this glorious point where I said out loud "AM I ABOUT TO BE OVERRUN!?" My wife was very confused. I cheered every time my brave tankers got a hit and yelled in anger whenever my M150's missed their target. 
Thank you for everyone's hard work. I felt it the entire time.
A few observations:
To me, this campaign should be called "Hull Down in the Desert". I never used the hull down command before this campaign. Boy did I get my ass kicked until I finally did. Before, I was getting hammered by ATGM's and tank fire but after I wised up those babies were sailing over my head all day long.  The mortar teams feel very anemic. They are quite inaccurate and the smoke they produce is pitiful. On the other hand they have a large amount of ammo and call in times are very quick. They were able to take out a few BMP's and distracted tanks in a pinch I was slightly disappointed with the first two missions (probably due to ignorance). They both start out really fun. I took "Hasty Attack" in the first mission and loved the early artillery barrage and watching the BMP's racing toward my position but after a while they just sat there and it was up to me to finish them off while they sat there. The second mission had the enemy slowly retreating with hull down positions but once the full battalion showed up they just sat there while I slowly carved them up.  ATGM's are terrifying. I shelled the AT-4/7 on the hill in the "Hasty Attack" mission for 20 minutes before moving a M-150 out in the open and sure enough.... I don't know if I can go back to the WW2 titles after this. The modern titles can be very frustrating but they are so fast paced that you can iterate over and over until you get it right. I replayed the first five minutes of the first mission in this campaign for a week trying to figure out the best way to attack it. The first five minutes of a WW2 title is just infantry slowly walking into the combat zone. Still need to finish the Rollbahn D campaign though... I love how balanced both sides are while being so fundamentally different. For example: each unit in a US infantry platoon has at least one pair of binoculars and an observer team. Compare that to the standard Soviet infantry platoon that has one pair of binoculars! The US feels like a tall lanky boxer squaring off against a smaller, more muscular MMA fighter. The US wants to keep you at bay and hit you with long range fire and indirect support. This requires flexibility and constant information on the enemy. The Soviets embody the old saying "everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth". The third mission put into perspective how devastating they can be once they are inside your defensive line. It's really interesting seeing first hand why the BMP was so revolutionary. In a US company combat team, I was constantly wishing my M113's could do...something...anything. Meanwhile, the BMP's were hitting my tanks with ATGM's, peppering my infantry with cannon fire, dropping off troops AND supporting them. I can't wait to get my hands on them in the Soviet campaign. If you've reached the end, thank you for listening to me ramble. 

Helicopters can be called from anywhere, with fighter bombers you need to have an LOS but not necessarily an LOF.  

Probably this is mistake. I never heard that Ukrainian tanks, even Oplot used PPHE ammunition. Just usual 3OF26 HE. Should be fixed.

USSR mechanized unit in Austria.

This pic was taken in my back yard. Got tired of the neighbors trying to spy while I sunbathe.

I won't criticize the lack of diversity through the various titles that comprise Combat Mission. I talked in another thread how the historical nature of what they are portraying ties the devs hands to a degree. And I like the Combat Mission formula from a battle perspective. It really is a delight on the battlefield. WEGO's brilliant.
But until Battlefront commits to a campaign overhaul and gives us something akin to an operational and tactical level hybrid campaign system and campaign generator I doubt I'll drop any more cash on it. Like most here I've spent a lot of money on it, and I don't complain. I'm willing to pay for stuff I think is worth it, and Combat Mission has been worth it.
But I'm at the stage now where I have a bunch of titles and they give me the base CM experience and I am no longer tempted by the newer releases. SF2 is my most recent. I have zero expectation that I'll ever see the sort of campaign system I think the wonderful tactical engine deserves, and that's fine. But that's what would bring me back to purchasing CM products I think. Never say never, but I no longer desire to see new units, maps or modules as they are. I want a new campaign system. Simple as.

Agree and disagree. 
Agree that game needs more healthy criticism instead of permanent worshipping. In many aspects it feels outdated, ancient and cumbersome. 
Some things could be fixed quite easily without much time investment (at least it seems so). E.g. movements command, hunt etc. 
Disagree that modules feel the same. In my opinion they are all quite different and require different playstyle, variable strategies and approach. You can't command your Soviet troops in Red Thunder the same way you manage US troops in CMBS. That's one of the best achievements of Combat Mission: basically it's the same engine, but units properties differ substantially and it makes different game every time. 

Some good points here but I had to LOL at Combat Mission playing the same between modules.
You're telling me Fortress Italy and Red Thunder play the exact same? Or Cold War plays the same as Shock Force 2?
Do you go on the Halo subreddit and make posts about Halo 1, 2 and 3 are the same? Or Counterstrike Global Offensive is the same as 1.6?
Get out of here with your clown ass.