sburke

Possibly, but having to maintain a supply line for the Marines all the way back to the Med seems a bit much. Take a look at a map, short of Crimean airfields, the Russian Air force trying to hit the US Navy would be constrained to bases comparable to the distances from Lebanon to Crete. The 6th Fleet was fully prepared to operate in that area during the Cold war with the nearest Russian bases being in Syria. If the goal is to land forces in Crimea one is faced with either the land bottleneck to contend with or a forced entry. For the sake of the storyline a US Marine landing in Crimea is not an impossibility. This is not WW 2. Crimea would be a liability for Russia in the sense that they have no ability to reinforce it other than by sea. If the US establishes air superiority over the Black Sea from bases in Ukraine, Russia would be hard put to move any decent forces there. That in turn makes for some interesting scenario design options (which is all we really care right?)

As a one off or as a regular event? In testing one scenario I had a Stryker surprise a T 72 and hose it down with 40 mm. The Tanks optics etc were demolished, but the tank itself was fully capable of swatting the Styrker. Instead it backed up out of LOF and a nearby infantry team promptly eliminated it. If I were to ever try that again I expect my Stryker would be toast 99.999% of the time. That Tunguska fire should (I would think) turn that Stryker into swiss cheese. I'd have to have a closer look to try and figure out why it wouldn't.

Depends on your goal in the assessment. If you are trying to figure out what he is planning, or what is important to him you obviously need to form an assessment. From an overall view though, history will judge him as with everyone else years later when we have a much better picture. For example, I have a personal view of his and the FSB's role in the Moscow Apt bombings, but I don't really know the truth. Maybe in the years ahead that information will come out in one form or another where we will really know. Same thing with Ukraine. We have suspicions about how this all unraveled, but life tends to be far more complicated than we realize. I'd suggest the following as a really good read on events during a time of crisis and how complicated it can get, and how we humans can fundamentally completely misunderstand one another. It is a fascinating read for it's own sake, but the similarities in a crisis with so many different players all on their own agendas is enlightening. http://www.amazon.com/Berlin-1961-Kennedy-Khrushchev-Dangerous/dp/0425245942

okay that makes much more sense. Thanks Apocal

One of the interesting things about the US navy coming into San Francisco during fleet week is when the navy decides a new policy and then flexes it's muscle during the party. Years ago they announced a new direction where the navy would no longer limit itself to deep ocean warfare but declared an intent and ability to go in harm's way. They then launched and retrieved aircraft right in the bay, awesome is the only word I can think of. The Black Sea is pretty darn big and the Navy would have additional air cover from land based air. Crimea as a defensive air platform would be hit intensively by NATO air. I don't see any particular military reason why the navy could not project power in the Black Sea when the eastern Mediterranean is not really much bigger. The real issue is access to the straits. If that is presumed to be allowed, then I think it is well within US Navy's capabilities to move into the Black Sea and pretty much do whatever it pleases. What is going to stop it?

Which is pretty amazing considering the U.S. has over twice the population.

LOL sure call me geezer. I have tried to be a polite participant in the discussion, but the OP never addresses the actual points raised and can't even seem to provide a polite response. If that is your idea of a valid position, all power to you. The title of the thread says US soldiers. So what is his point? At no time in any of the responses has any question been answered or even included as a possible consideration. Examples between this and the other thread 1 What are the soft factors set for the unit 2. Is it US specific that he is critiquing or general unit behavior 3. US units being battle hardened is a questionable assumption. 4. How do you define "panicked" behavior The TAC AI is the same across all titles, that is the whole point BF has made about keeping all titles current. The only TAC AI adjusted has to do with specific weapons systems introduced for CMBS. TAC AI for infantry behavior has not for the simple reason BF has provided many times over. TAC AI is extremely difficult to get even approximately right. It will never be perfect and BF is very averse to trying to change it for one off or outlier issues unless someone can point out a behavior that is consistently uncharacteristic AND not something they player can adjust (by changing the soft factors for example) AND something they can actually address without a complete revamp of the TAC AI. As can be seen in both threads, there are a lot of opinions about the behavior of units. The behavior specifically cited in this post can be adjusted by altering the soft factors. If you disagree with the scenario designer, you can make your troops more resilient. That isn't necessarily a TAC AI issue.

huh, funny you'd think you and I had conspired to write similar responses on 2 different threads.

You really are a piece of work. I guess it is just beyond you to understand the inherent difficulties in creating a TAC AI. You want what you want when you want it and if you don';t get it you will have a hissy fit until mommy.. oops I mean BF caters to you. Yeah I am getting a bit more aggressive in response. Considering you have displayed the same attitude in both threads it is clear your eventual goal is to get banned by BF as you certainly have the level of negativity and nasty social behavior that typically ends there. Yes it IS asking a bit much for $50 if you had any inkling at all how difficult AI behavior is. But you don't and therefore feel that a $50 game should have a human response level AI. Feeling entitled is such an incredible thing to watch.

Okay that is twice, I don't need a 3rd repeat of your snarky little responses. If disagreeing with your perspective means I can't possibly have a valid opinion (you left off the implied fanboi there, kudos to you) I'll leave you to talking to yourself. If you want a polite discussion of the subject I am here, but you are going to have to change your tone if you want a discussion.

There is a CMRT battle done with a fixed trench line that is really good. There are limitations based on depth that you can do have a position on map etc, but you should check out the battle. http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=3205 Beware playing it. Your forces are over matched and the fighting is desperate, but for what it is trying to achieve, I think it is darn near perfect.

I can. First I make a note to go do laundry as I need new underwear. Then I scream in a high pitched voice, perhaps subconsciously thinking someone will think a woman is in distress and then come to my assistance. I then run. Direction is random as I have my eyes closed knowing if I can't see them, they can't see me.

I disagree, I think Russia has committed regular forces and they have been in the frontline in a few battles. (I am assuming your first statement was a disagreement with that). Yes the Separatists have been well armed, but left to their own even with those arms they were almost eliminated in August. Anyone who thinks Russian regular units are not in Ukraine is going to have to come up with some explanation then how suddenly the Separatists went from a near military debacle to going on the offensive on a broad front with attacks launched from across previously secure section of the border. I don't buy it.

Should they? Let's just take as an example current reality and project out 2 years. Whose forces should have better experience in modern combat arms US or Russian? I'd say Russian. US forces have faced an enemy with no appreciable modern weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan. The lessons learned there have limited application in a full on modern battlefield. Russia on the other hand has faced off with a relatively modern army with aircraft, artillery and tanks. Granted it isn't widespread based on scale of commitment, but there are Russian BN level commanders getting much better first hand experience than ANY US commanders at comparable levels. As to panic behavior note the variables I have indicated above and remember the game limitations - friendly map edge, spotting and awareness of where enemy forces actually are etc. TAC AI is not non existent. Gaps in how it responds to previously known threats that are no longer in LOS yes, that is going to be an issue. Could you write a better TAC AI. No. At a certain point you do have to accept the limitations of the game. If you can't you will simply continue to be frustrated as changing TAC AI behavior to deal consistently with a variety of circumstances is just ridiculously hard. That it works as well as it does is pretty amazing. That it has issues where it seriously fails is not surprising, especially if you look at RL situations and see people do s**t that is just a stupid.

Are you feeling specifically US troops, or troops in general? I would argue you should be seeing the same behavior within a degree from both sides. That behavior is based on the soft factors as set by the designer and is applicable to soldiers of any nationality. As to being battle hardened, as I noted in your other thread, that is an invalid assumption. There is nothing to indicate in the story line (and likely reality) to indicate that US troops should necessarily have any prior combat experience. Some leaders yes, your average grunt, probably not. Motivation should perhaps be high, fitness as well. Experience, maybe not so much. Now if you are suggesting troops in general behave wrong, that is a different discussion. There are some questions as to how the TAC AI responds to fire that reflects more WW 2 conscript experience rather than how well trained troops would respond. That however is equally applied to all sides.

Please stop mis characterizing the discussion. You are only pushing folks like myself to not participate. Another factor to include - what is the position of troops relative to the "friendly map edge". Troops in panic will in the absence of a spotted enemy move towards it (and panicked troops suck at spotting). That may influence some of the behavior you are so quick to add exclamation points to. The AI is not human, don't make the mistake of forgetting basic code requirements and their influence on TAC AI behavior.

well, I would disagree with your characterization of panic. Panic does actually mean losing control of a rational decision making process, that is part of why those units can no longer be issued commands. Even battle hardened troops can panic. Now if you feel US troops panic too quickly, I'd suggest looking more at the soft factors assigned to the troops. Ignore for a moment the naming of the various levels, crack, elite etc and instead view them as a sliding scale of motivation, leadership etc. If you think the actions of those units don't reflect their capabilities, kick the scale up. The assumption they are battle hardened vets is not a good one. For example there is a new video out called "the November War." http://www.thenovemberwar.com/ It is focused on a Marine unit in Fallujah. This unit had no prior combat experience at all when committed. It was shipped directly from the Pacific into the most intense urban fight the US has faced since the Vietnam war. They acquitted themselves well, however the point is assuming US units are battle hardened Vets is simply wrong. Most are not and in our theoretical period even less so as this is years after US withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. US units are well trained and I think highly motivated, but definitely should not be viewed as battle hardened veterans. If anything I would assume that Russian units might have a better claim if one were to go by events now. If however viewed strictly from the story line, neither side has combat experience to any great degree. US units may have some core veterans in leadership positions. Both sides at this point should have a professional core of trained soldiers.

Guess it really comes down to definitions. In some cases the major power belligerents don't really get directly involved, but simply provide aid and possibly "volunteer manpower". Spanish civil war for example. Angola might be another as Soviet participation was mostly observers with Cuba providing the manpower. An alternative definition includes where one side is committed and the other only supplies aid to an indigenous force. Vietnam and Afghanistan being prime examples. I would agree UKR does fit under that example. Russia has committed regular forces, however the west as yet is supplying minimal aid and primarily non lethal aid. In that sense the West has not yet upped the ante to Vietnam or Afghanistan levels.

Well I am not going to get drawn too far into that, I think Steve's analysis of why the battle at Debaltseve changed from trying to close the bag to a more frontal assault speaks to the inability to stop UKR artillery. And I do follow it. Perhaps not from listening to the same sources as you do. As to credible evidence, there is more than enough. Way more than enough.

I don't think that is accurate. UKR is not a proxy war. Russia would like us to think in those terms as it is the goal of their denials, but they are well past the point of simply supplying arms. From the west however, the level of lethal aid is so small as to be ridiculous. I think this statement from the Kremlin is more about defining to it's near neighbors that Russia does not like interference in how it runs the battle near it's borders. It is a threat, however I think a threat that the Kremlin can only voice so far. Russia is not in a position to do too much without risking an escalation with NATO. With the war in Ukraine looking no nearer to a favorable resolution than it did a year ago, Russia has to be wary of overextending. However trying to get some kind of resolution in UKR does include keeping the west from arming UKR. Lithuanian aid is symbolic, but it opens the door. Putin wants that door closed.

As others noted, we have a tendency in the player as god mode to see the rational response in a given situation and then expect our pixeltruppen to take that. However that belies the whole point of panic and irrational behavior. So the truck driver is freaking out at incoming fire. Maybe he stalls the truck, maybe he slams it into reverse, maybe he is trying to reverse and turn to drive away, maybe he just slams it into reverse and doesn't care about direction. There are a lot of possibilities. What you have to accept for sanity's sake is, the rational thing even the obvious thing is now irrelevant. You need to suppress the enemy to save that guy. If you can't then you basically screwed up getting a soft vehicle into position of taking observed fire. It happens to us all.

Nor the Russians, which for me is a pretty interesting aspect of this. Sure Russia could bring in more arty if they are willing to keep pushing the escalation factor (which they probably are). I seriously doubt separatist arty capability and your earlier posts seemed to indicate you think this as well, the more sophisticated arty fire control is run by the Russians. One question regarding that. Coordination of artillery fire in the attack is a particularly different situation than in the defense. How much do you think a lack of coordination is behind the effectiveness of UKR arty on the separatist attacks? The trend from what I can see is the UKR arty is effective at breaking up separatist attacks. I am not sure it shows the same degree of effect regarding Russians regular forces. Is the forming up and assault doctrine and practice of Russian forces simply that much better that UKR artillery isn't given the same opportunity? Russian regular forces seem to be much better at infiltration and closing with the enemy to make it much harder to effectively deploy defensive fires. Better opsec? More dispersed attacking forces? One additional note- I have seen very little coming from the UKR side about effective counter battery fire from the Russians. Any thoughts on why that is?

Kettle, Pot calling........ The Lithuanian response was right on target.

Not even a Wal-mart?

Keep in mind the CMBS premise is not exactly conformed to what has gone on so far and Ukraine does not recognize (nor most other countries for that matter) the illegal annexation by Russia.