sburke

No way, that never happens.

Is the guy facing the wrong way with the thoughtful look muttering "rrrrrrr guys this might be a bad idea"? I think you got a bit greedy chasing individual soldiers there.

I had the PL games and I am mostly ambivalent about the UI critiques, however I do use Juju's mod. I am okay with the base game, but a little tweaking is nice. For me somewhat the same as tank's a lot buildings. Though honestly tanks a lot's stuff for me has more impact- it is gonna show in my screenshots whereas the UI won't. The one thing to keep in mind Macisle is the sheer number of community modders versus how many people BF has and how much work they have to do. The modders only have to touch what interests them, the BF guy (s) have to touch everything. How many folks have modded the interior of a tank? That round coming out of the Sturmmorser is I believe a direct contribution of the interior vehicle modding. Steve has already commented that he really really wants to hit the UI, I think from their view, why modify it now (assuming they even feel the icons are something they would change).

c'mon guys, let's not go down that road or this will end up another closed thread and it was still interesting.

says the man who took two weeks to come up with that reply. Hey you left your teeth in the glass at the table. Best go back and get em before one of the other Early Birders mistakes them for their own.

this is going nowhere. In the interests of getting this back on track I won't bother responding. More interesting to talk about where CM can work within strategic constraints than to rehash Iraq. That was to a couple posts back Vanir, thank you for getting us back on track.

quiet, now just eat your vegetables and stop thinking about what they grow in... oh and here is a coupon to eat at Chipotle.

not that I disagree with your skepticism, but we are now straying into areas that are going to prompt moderator involvement.

Then you just use it for cooking. I am a "whatever is in the glass I'll make use of it" kind of guy.

dang you aren't kidding. arty, armor and AT guns all making themselves known and very quickly.

Before we make the wrong assumptions in a discussion. Russia's ability to achieve a set of goals is entirely dependent on what those goals are. Could Russia outright defeat NATO. No, Could Russia achieve a set of objectives that NATO is opposed to, possibly. The nuclear equation would limit a NATO response. While NATO would pull together a force to stop an attack, the likely next step is a ceasefire and negotiations. CMBS would cover the period of the initial Russian attack until the offensive is brought to a halt. The actual decision of whether the offensive was successful, would depend on how things go after that point and likely are more a political negotiation than a military resolution. Personally I'd think a 1960's game would be pretty cool. The confrontation between US and Russian forces in Berlin came damn close to war. Here's a good read if anyone is interested. http://www.amazon.com/Berlin-1961-Kennedy-Khrushchev-Dangerous-ebook/dp/B004LRPDTQ/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1453697922&sr=1-1&keywords=berlin+1961 In June 1961, Nikita Khrushchev called Berlin "the most dangerous place on earth." He knew what he was talking about. Much has been written about the Cuban Missile Crisis a year later, but the Berlin Crisis of 1961 was more decisive in shaping the Cold War-and more perilous. It was in that hot summer that the Berlin Wall was constructed, which would divide the world for another twenty-eight years. Then two months later, and for the first time in history, American and Soviet fighting men and tanks stood arrayed against each other, only yards apart. One mistake, one nervous soldier, one overzealous commander-and the tripwire would be sprung for a war that could go nuclear in a heartbeat. On one side was a young, untested U.S. president still reeling from the Bay of Pigs disaster and a humiliating summit meeting that left him grasping for ways to respond. It would add up to be one of the worst first-year foreign policy performances of any modern president. On the other side, a Soviet premier hemmed in by the Chinese, East Germans, and hardliners in his own government. With an all-important Party Congress approaching, he knew Berlin meant the difference not only for the Kremlin's hold on its empire-but for his own hold on the Kremlin. Neither man really understood the other, both tried cynically to manipulate events. And so, week by week, they crept closer to the brink. Based on a wealth of new documents and interviews, filled with fresh-sometimes startling-insights, written with immediacy and drama, Berlin 1961 is an extraordinary look at key events of the twentieth century, with powerful applications to these early years of the twenty-first.

ha, you think you are gonna survive this?

Yeah I could name about 10 I'd be interested in and that without much effort...on my part. It is your fault, you've spoiled us.

I think that is cutting it a bit thin, but yeah technically they are different.

Ssshhhhh No one is supposed to mention the Emperor has no clothes! I'd have to agree, the rationale to do CMBS and yet not consider 1980's (or even 1960's or 1940's post WW2) Germany seems to be contradictory.

Maybe but not really relevant to whether the US is going to be able to move air assets forward in a 4-6 month time frame that the back story allows for. Personally I think almost every country over rates it's military capacity and responsiveness. That gets lessened somewhat if you have had practical experience to prove real capability. For the US that logistical capacity has been in action for many years now so there is a much better sense of real versus assumed capability. For this thread a lot of assumptions are being made about Russian capability. For example, Russia might be able to pull off an attack from maneuvers but how truly capable is the Russian war machine to effectively pursue an offensive on that scale? Are they even really all that capable to coordinate an air campaign to take on US and NATO air forces? Based on what? What actual experience does Russia have coordinating a campaign on that scale and how much training time do their pilots get for that type of environment? Corrupt autocratic governments often make assumptions at the top divorced from what they are actually capable of doing. (not to say the democracies don't have their own issues, but at least there is some capability to objectively analyze). Frankly I have not been very impressed with Russian capabilities in the armed conflicts they have been involved in over the past number of years. I just don't see any basis for being so optimistic about Russian capabilites while maintaining that level of pessimism about the West.

There is nothing in the back story that presumes NATO is surprised by a sudden launch from maneuvers. In fact the back story presumes NATO is very aware that the "maneuvers" are not following normal standards. In the highlighted items below it is clear that the US and NATO have had time to build up forces. There is nothing in there that would presume Russia is going to achieve any kind of air superiority that would enable a large CAS mission. Now none of that precludes you from developing your own scenario and a completely different conflict. Hell I am working on a map of mountain terrain on the Syria, Turkish border. Do what you want. During early 2017, the gears of war begin to turn. Russian units in Joint Strategic Command South and West begin mobilizations. Russian combat units fill their manpower shortages and deploy along Russia's shared borders with Ukraine. Although officially labeled training exercises by the Russian government, Western observers note that important logistical and Air Force elements usually not used for training have also mobilized or heightened readiness. Additional Russian troops are moved to Crimea. In response to the observed Russian mobilizations, Ukraine begins to mobilize low-readiness units and call up reservists. An expeditionary NATO force comprised of American and European military units is moved to eastern Poland, adjacent to the Ukrainian border. An American mechanized unit on rotational training in Germany joins them. The United States begins to prepare logistically by moving more prepositioned supplies and equipment to Germany, while transportation plans for stateside units to be moved overseas are put in motion. On a morning in early June 2017, the situation comes to a head when a firefight erupts between Russian and Ukrainian forces at one of the isolated garrisons. The violence claims the lives of multiple soldiers on both sides. The next morning, fighting breaks out on the border, and the conflict begins.

Just out of curiosity and because I think it is germane to this discussion, does anyone have comparison figures for Russian, US and NATO training time? Live fire exercises, large scale maneuver training, flight time etc etc. Numbers only give part of the picture, combat readiness has come up prior in this thread, but not with any numbers to look at.

I can probably come up with a theoretical scenario where Russia commits a surge right out of maneuvers to occupy the Baltic states which could see US forces caught wrong footed like say having a Cav unit doing a political relations tour driving around Poland and the Baltic region The problem with that though is I believe the Russian leadership is smarter than that and would not risk an accidental confrontation. Personally I believe they would only consider such an action when there were no US ground troops around. Russia clearly does have an understanding of how to manipulate Western public opinion and spends a fair amount of hard cash doing so. A few US casualties from an unprovoked assault on Lithuania though could unwind that pretty darn quick. So from a strictly CM perspective I don't think I can see a scenario of Russia operating CAS forces in a tactical role. The US has the ability to stage a lot of air assets with our friends in Europe faster than we could stage boots on the ground.

They are nice, but kind of thought the point of this thread was to be a CAAR. It is also still a bit small.

Point Blank - A Javelin team finds itself in a knife fight with a Russian tank... and loses. While damaged, the Russian tank's gun is still functioning.

Is the guy in the middle picture using his rifle as a bong? Oh wait no this isn't from Nam.

One could always say there was a temporary ceasefire and open conflict then broke out again months later. There is always a way if there is a will.

The statements coming from the Russian gov't seem to directly counter what you are stating here. Saying "I wouldn't use the word 'collapse'." is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the state of the economy. The Baltic states are not oil exporters. If anything energy just keeps getting cheaper for them. http://news.yahoo.com/russian-ruble-continues-falling-hits-081757605.html Thursday's slip means the ruble is at its lowest level since the currency was redenominated in 1998, during Russia's worst post-Soviet economic crisis. President Vladimir Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov insisted, however, that the situation was not critical. "I wouldn't use the word 'collapse.' The rate is really changing, the rate is volatile, but it's far from a collapse," he said Thursday in comments reported by Russian news agencies. Putin had no plans for any emergency meetings, he added. http://news.yahoo.com/russian-central-bank-meets-bank-heads-ruble-plunges-193019069.html Moscow (AFP) - The Russian ruble slumped to an all-time low against the dollar Thursday, prompting the central bank to convene an evening meeting as chief Elvira Nabiullina cancelled her trip to the World Economic Forum in Davos. The government has already admitted that cheap oil prices will push it to slash spending as it struggles to keep the deficit to under 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).

but have you done the obligatory trashing of the as-yet-to-be-released product's lack of features on their own forum? No? What the heck are you waiting for?