sburke

As stated before, BF is working on the store. The delay is not about the module. That is a whole other discussion. And no the ToEs for those games isn't gonna help here. BF ToEs are a lot more detailed as expected being at a lower scale. BF is dealing with everything down to personal sidearms. I have those games and I have seen the ToE discussions with BF. Really you have no idea how painstaking they get. I am constantly amazed. But yes we'd all love stuff to come out faster even if I have probably not played half the material that comes with the games.

You are over thinking it. There is no way to know for sure what will be the direction of attack, they don't follow from which side of the map is theoretically yours. Mainly you just want to make sure your guys have free fields of fire in all directions.

Heh I have the ladder next to the garage. Gonna hop up there so I can hopefully catch some video of the Angels before they do their flyover. When I climb down I expect to hear how you have defended Lori's mound. I won't google it.....

ha i just read Steppenwulf's comment. lol yes it is that apparent.

oh BS, you are playing XCom. it's okay, we know.

Lucas just a couple things then I am bowing out of this 1 I make no claims to any professional knowledge or experience, however I do try to get as clear a picture of an issue before opening my piehole. Sometimes stupid s**t still exits but most times I think I am at least rational and within the ballpark. 2 For someone who is basing a lot of his argument by gaming out a strategy, you seem to not know what the units you are talking about actually are - not to insult, but above you listed the Orbat for Northern fleet and then said Russia could sortie 30 boats... 8 of those boats are SSBNs, Russia would never sortie those. Even in the Cold War they were never meant to sortie. They are a nuclear deterrent platform and are meant to hide in protected waters. 6 are diesel electric boats that are not meant to go deep water, that isn't their strength or reason for building. It does call into question your understanding of the platforms and capabilities and therefore the basis of strategy. Sorry, but it is what it is. 3 I don't think it is a given that the Black Sea fleet has to sortie. Port attacks on a homeland cuts both ways. I do not believe given the scenario the US would plan for attacks on Russian bases unless Russia postured such that it would be required. It is plausible that both sides would perceive this as a fight to be waged on Ukrainian soil and do their best to not give the other side cause to escalate. Yes that means Russia would have to accept NATO reinforcing, therefore their goal has to be to reach a particular objective before those forces can intervene. Once those forces are showing up in theater, it is time to forestall NATO by going to ceasefire. That to me sounds more like what Putin and the Russian General staff would shoot for. NATO's weakness is that it isn't a single body. Maintaining the fight below a threshold that would unite NATO is a major strategic advantage I do not think Russia would be willing to give up without really good reason. At the same time I think NATO would not support a direct attack on Russian soil unless it was first attacked from Russian on their home soil. Ukraine does not count. The US has fought Russian forces before. Russian pilots were flying in N Korea and Russian advisers were in Vietnam. It isn't quite the same, but the general idea is there. Both sides have something to lose by expansion of the war. The Back Story does not even include the US going into Crimea. There is nothing in it that presupposes US strikes on Russian soil. The assumptions above are all that the Black Sea fleet has to sortie as it is going to be hit regardless. I don't think that is actually a given.

I think that is a fair general assessment of a lot of Russia's military. It's avowed purpose for force projection far exceeds what Russia actually needs or can financially afford. It is more a psychological feeling of a nation that wants to be an empire than it is actually a tool for Russian statecraft. A much smaller but more capable force would actually be far more in the country's interest. It is very human I think to want to feel you still have the place in the world that the USSR occupied, but it wasn't actually reality then much less now. The really sad thing is I think Russia actually could play the role it envisions itself as having if it took a different stance. From a geopolitical standpoint she is uniquely placed to influence a part of the world that is very unstable and could in fact develop a relationship with the US based on that. My impression is the US leadership hoped that would be the case in the reset, but it just hasn't panned out. Russia's behavior vis a vis the Central Asian nations has mostly been a liability and China is stepping into that void. Long term I suspect Russia will look back on the Putin period as the lost years. A time when Russia could potentially have truly became a major player in the international arena. Putin has tried, but has done so based on an obsolete perspective. All he has managed to do is squander a unique opportunity Russia had.

X Com 2 is out, FUGGITABOUTIT

Just cruised my house- yeah I am that close to the bowl. No I don't have tickets.

They would fire on US coastal facilities and then try to avoid escalation in the Pacific? Why? For what possible reason would the US not immediately assume any Russian military anywhere is an immediate target?

i suspect the expert advice offered by his senior commanders will be significantly different than yours. the comments about the sailors seems rather like Ken's commentary in his aar. LOL Lucas you are a fairly callous commander. Anyway I think our perspectives are just too far different. I don't see anyone on the Russian side as believing it is in their interest to escalate any conflict with the US at all. A clinical computer war game perspective of shifting assets ignores the larger consequences. I firmly believe Russia understands very well what those might be and would make every effort to avoid them.

If a single Russian missile hits a US port facility, the US population would back our gov't doing damn near anything short of nuclear release and would expect absolutely that the US navy would retaliate in kind and in a way to make clear to Russia that there is only one way that fight was going to end. It would be the single worst mistake Russia could make. Think Pearl Harbor. The very nature of the war would change. The US would no longer look at it as trying to bolster some nation which would be debated in the US as being not strategically important to the US. Instead it would escalate to a direct head to head conflict with Russia with nightly news broadcasting non stop images of whatever was struck by Russia. Think about it, prior to that point US viewers would be watching reports of an escalation of hostilities in Ukraine and frankly I think you'd see a lot of debate in the US as to why our troops are going. Russia might actually find some success in spinning the story of this being just another example of the US trying to fix a hopelessly screwed up European problem. There is a strong isolationist tendency in the US. All that would change with the first news reports of US dead on US soil. Even if the US exercised restraint in responding, it would still mean the US populace would view this as an existential war and would seek absolute unequivocal victory. A total commitment to the conflict, gearing up the economy. authorizing any expenditure necessary. The world has not seen a US war machine that unified and committed in a very long time. There would absolutely be a loser in that conflict and the regime in power in Russia can not risk the perception of losing on that scale. I give the Putin regime more credit than that. I realize the back story for CMBS has a 3 month timeline. but Russia would have to have a plan to freeze the armed conflict before the scales totally tipped for it. Escalating with an attack on the US mainland would immediately do that.

Ha I missed that comment as well. Damn Kaliningrad dock works would be a smoking ruin, as would every other Russian Naval base. It also begs the question- if Russia sorties the tiny little fleet they have, are they going after convoys or US port facilities? That tiny little force seems to suddenly be everywhere. Sinking 5 ships per convoy, targeting US naval bases etc. Dang they are good. Anyway back to the post I was writing. To put some perspective on this discussion, below is the current Russian Northern Fleet. There are a total of 10 Nuclear attack boats in the Northern fleet. The diesel electric Kilo boats are designed for shallow waters. So Russia in the most optimal planning could sortie 10 boats to the Atlantic. Another 7 diesel electric boats to try and interdict coastal European waters and 5 diesel electric boats into the Med. In 1990 the USSR had some 136 Nuclear attack boats and 65 diesel electric. Currently it has 26 Nuclear attack boats and 20 Diesel electric. as @Codename Duchess has noted, the Russian navy has transitioned it's force to primarily a coastal defense force.The US in 1990 had 89 Nuclear attack boats, currently it has 54. Whatever strategy the USSR had for wartime deployment, the Russian Navy is clearly not capable of pursuing that strategy. Rather than forcing the US navy to spread forces to find the numerically superior USSR fleet, the US now outnumbers that fleet. In the event it had to sortie it is questionable how many could actually do so. For example there are 9 Akula class boats listed as "active" - of those 6 are in overhaul, 2 supposedly completed in December. Assuming those two are actually ready that means 5 of the 9 could actually take part. Note of the 6 Akula's listed below for the Northern fleet. 2 are in overhaul, and a 3rd has just completed in December. So even a figure of 10 is hopelessly optimistic. 11th Squadron, Zaozersk Typhoon-class SSBN Dmitriy Donskoy (ТК-208) (Nerpichya) Two other Typhoon class submarines are assigned to this squadron but are not active. 7th Division, Vidyaevo [12] Commander RADM Aleksandr Ildashov Sierra I-class SSN Kostroma Sierra II-class SSN Nizhniy Novgorod[12] Sierra II-class SSN Pskov (K-336) Victor-III-class SSN Daniil Moskovskiy (K-414) Commissioned 1990 other submarines 24th Submarine Division (Yagelnaya Bay, Sayda Inlet) Commanders xxx 200x-present RADM Anatoliy Minakov Akula-class submarine I-class SSN Pantera (K-317) Akula I-class SSN Volk (K-461) Akula I-class SSN Leopard (K-328) Akula I-class SSN Tigr (K-154) [12] Akula II-class SSN Vepr (K-157) Akula II-class SSN Gepard (K-335) 43rd Missile Ship Division Commanders RADM Veregin RADM Avakyants RADM Kasatonov Present - RADM Aleksandr Turilin Kuznetsov-class CV Admiral Flota Sovetskogo Soyuza Kuznetsov (063), Navy flagship. Kirov-class battlecruiser CGN Pyotr Velikiy (099), Fleet flagship Slava-class CG Marshal Ustinov (055) Sovremennyy-class DDG Gremyashchiy Sovremennyy-class DDG Admiral Ushakov 2nd Anti-Submarine Ship Division [12] Udaloy-I Class DDG Vice Admiral Kulakov Udaloy-I Class DDG Severomorsk Udaloy-I Class DDG Admiral Levchenko Udaloy-I Class DDG Admiral Kharlamov Udaloy-II Class DDG Admiral Chabanenko 4th Submarine Flotilla (Polyarnyy) [12] Commander Captain 1st Rank Aleksandr Gorbunov Kilo class submarine-class SS Novosibirsk (B-401) Kilo-class SS Vologda" (B-402) Kilo-class SS Yaroslavl (B-808) Kilo-class SS Kaluga (B-800) Kilo-class SS Vladikavkaz (B-459) Kilo-class SS Magnitogorsk (B-471) Kilo-class SS Lipetsk (B-177)

No offense Lucas, but I think you are kind of caught up in the German WW 2 experience. I seriously doubt you will see a "happy time" for the Russian boats. If anything considering their scarce numbers, any attempt to sortie will find them being ruthlessly hunted. With no serious surface element to present a multi tiered threat, the US can focus all of it's assets to hunting what is more likely only to be handful of boats. Regarding the 3 months, yeah I keep going back and forth between this thread and the other on the Baltics. sorry. Still I think the premise still holds, the Russian military will not attempt to challenge the reinforcements coming. It may seem counter intuitive, but really the attempt is likely to be so costly with little hope of return that Russia is better off keeping the long term view. It needs to maintain a view to having a force post conflict. It is costly enough trying to rebuild now versus having to replace all those ships, aircraft and crews post conflict when the international economic relationships are most likely going to be far worse than simple sanctions. It is vitally in Russia's interests to limit the scale of this conflict, doing so keeps Russia on closer to equal terms. The more it expands, the more the force disparity goes against them. What Russia needs (assuming any of this makes any sense at all for Russia) is to push Ukraine into a negotiating position where in order to remove Russian tropps concessions need to be made that Russia views as strategically important to it's interests

Well it looks like Putin didn't approve. http://www.newsweek.com/kremlin-slams-bbc-ww3-programme-simulating-nato-russia-conflict-423141

Wells so far we have or have planned... CMBN - multiple nationalities CMFI - multiple nationalities- and beards added for that very reason CMBS - multiple nationalities CMFB - multiple nationalities CMSF - multiple nationalities Why anyone would think it isn't within BF's capacity is beyond me. If anything that would make CMRT the first with only two protagonists. I am betting we will see Hungarians...now to go lobby Steve! Maybe I'll email the Hungary gov't that BF is NOT going to cover the liberation/defense of Budapest.

Ken would be so disappointed in your ability to motivate your men.

well yeah good point. I did google a bit and also found this. According to the 2005 annual report, "about one-half of RAND's research involves national security issues". Many of the events in which RAND plays a part are based on assumptions which are hard to verify because of the lack of detail on RAND's highly classified work for defense and intelligence agencies. The RAND Corporation posts all of its unclassified reports in full on its website. Still I do think a consideration of strengthening NATO resolve internally fits within the umbrella, but the original posit might not have allowed for that option

LOL thanks, that was a pretty good chuckle. I am just wondering what my coworkers will think of me when I toss that one out. "Yes that is all true, but the Lanchester Exchange rate is in my favor!."

umm yeah so the Sahara is beautiful. If I were playing far cry, fallout or tomb raider that might matter. However to my pixeltruppen it is friggin awful terrain. On the other hand yeah I probably have to admit to having no soul.

well the fundamental point is deterrence right? Making sure Russia understands it shouldn't even consider invading. That is all NATO wants, not a force that could be considered in an offensive orientation. So how about this, instead NATO take a clear hard line position on sanctions in the Ukraine and continue to escalate them every month until Ukraine re-establishes full border control. Would that not show the kind of resolve that is fundamentally the core of deference? That would cost far less and provide less provocation than trying to establish a serious military force on Russia's doorstep. Yes that is more work and can not be done unilaterally by placing US brigades overseas, but it is a far more civil approach. A NATO that has more unity and shown greater resolve in action is going to be a far better deterrent all around and not just in the Baltics. It also focuses on something more sustainable than simply expecting the US to become the sole guarantor of peace in Europe. Fundamentally this is a European problem that this study provides only a US solution for. As I said earlier I went to a problem solving workshop last year. One of the aspects they pushed is in developing a proposal you need to list all possible options - all inclusive and mutually excluding so you end up with a full picture of your available options then you start vetting to see what works and what doesn't. This report started from one place- the only way to deter aggression was to have the military force in place to win. Why is that the only option? What other options did they consider beside military? Doesn't this sound frankly very much like the US lead up to Iraq? We have enormous economic resources, why do we not consider those first? Call me cynical, skeptical, whatever you want, but what I see missing from this report tells me that from the start it has only one agenda. A military option for Baltic security. That is fine as long as they say that is what it is.

does anyone else feel kind of uncomfortable with the topic line of this thread when scanning the form?

LOL after all the stuff our gov't has done, this is chump change silliness. Hell we went to the UN with doctored info and left our Secretary of State hanging out to dry to back a policy that had just been discredited. Call me cynical, but that this paper may have been part of an agenda wouldn't bother me at all. I just read it, disagree with it's conclusions and move on.

5 ships per convoy for the first 2 or 3 weeks? You really think that is at all a viable picture? I have to say my perception of Russia's naval capability and posture is far different. I don't believe Russia would ever consider that type of escalation. Instead they would look for an opportunity to grab what they could within days, then go to a ceasefire and negotiations hoping that those would drag on and possibly utilize some kind of disagreements within NATO to allow them some kind of strategic advantage as a result. If the Russian navy attacked NATO shipping all bets would be off. First they would lose their Navy, secondly the negotiations would be much more difficult. As a last item I seriously doubt Russia would sink 5 ships total. Their force has been neglected far too long, they need more time to get a properly trained and equipped submarine fleet to project that kind of power. It is like that argument going on about the sudden appearance of a Chinese aircraft carrier capability. As if suddenly overnight, China will have mastered carrier flight operations and be able to project that power. I don't know where these projections come from that in the space of two years Russia can somehow almost from scratch field a full spectrum military force that could actually present a global challenge to the US. I definitely respect Russia's capabilities and creativeness in design. However the financial strain to accomplish all of what they dream of doing is out of their reach within the timelines that keep getting floated, and yet all that is accepted as not only gospel, but as if it has already been accomplished. To top that off, the fact that the US alone outnumbers Russia in every conceivable way with more modern, much more highly trained crews is discounted as being pretty much irrelevant. I don't consider any of the naval actions you have posited as viable. Not because I think Russia wouldn't like to try them, but because I give Russia more credit. Overall I think Russia has been a master at strategically stopping just short of doing anything that would unite the west. Matching their capabilities to their strategic goals has been done overall I think better than the west. However I think they have pretty much run their course and overplayed their hand in Ukraine. To think that somehow they would suddenly get stupid and go all in daring the west to respond in kind belittles the kind of strategic planning they have already shown themselves capable of.

Then I hate to say it, but I kind of agree with Jon. And no thread can't be improved with a Monty Python reference. I really get into the infantry component in CM. somehow I think the NA desert is just not going to add much. The first thing I did upon getting CMAK was to add the Northern Europe mods. All I wanted were the commands available in CMAK and I promptly stopped playing CMBO. This is comes from someone who has bought everything and loves CMSF.