Lethaface

Well hopefully the trained soldiers and officers knew what they were doing, at least sometimes So I guess that because of the average untrained CMBN player commanding all stations, among other reasons due to CM:BN being a game, casualties were a little lower in RL!

Was some time ago so can't really distinguish between the two earlier IG scenario's anymore, but IIRC at least one by losing an AC Probably I discovered most by sneaking scout teams as deep possible and keeping as much eyes towards the objectives as possible. In the briefing of all guards missions there is notion of enemy AT and AA guns, so I was expecting some. So after losing the first and failing to recover your wits in the second mission, you get bumped into the easy track? Sounds reasonable to me! How many times does that happen? I remember one 88 on the far/deep right on the edge of a small forest, behind some sandbags. They weren't hard to spot because of the sandbags, but just wouldn't die...for a long time. In the end it did succumb to sustained machinegun, 75mm and mortar fire

I'd pre-order today if they'd agree keeping the physical product in their warehouse, perhaps give it to charity or sacrifice it together with the goat. I don't feel obliged to pay more taxes or helping the postal services trying to hold on to their outdated business model

I based my conclusions on the END Mission screen (knocked out), somehow I presumed that the status of equipment is the same for all sides in the END mission screen?. Could be true that enemy tanks/bunkers never show 'destroyed', haven't been looking that close either to be honest. Threw in a second test before I moved on and it resulted in a similar outcome. Game was over after 7 minutes, 1 bunker empty 1 ko'ed although this time not burning.

Aalst after 12 minutes without almost a shot fired, spotted 88 circled. Only my Little John adapted scout car fired on an enemy Jpz. It actually penetrated but no visible effect apart from buttoning up. Fired of plenty of smoke rounds, arty and suppressive fire though. A good chunk of it wasted on empty buildings I guess the bloody part is still to come!

I won the scenario and only lost an armored car to those 88's, but I don't see nothing wrong with this setup in a campaign. Actually, I think that type of between mission carrying status functionality is the pinnacle of a campaign and should be used more often. Otherwise campaigns are just sewed together scenario's with or without some core units. Having encountered plenty more 88's in the game and having just discovered another cleverly hidden 88 (spotted by a scout team) in bloody Aalst, imo they are indeed tough like they should be to be but surely not 'unovercomeable'. Now let's see how that 88 handles incoming 88 Howitzer fire

I was indeed incorrect about the ammo. There are even visible crates of m Just fired up a single amateur test myself. Two bunkers full with pz grenadiers against 8 m1917A1's separated by 300 meters of open terrain. The yanks won with just a few casualties. One bunker got emptied out, the other was burning after a couple of minutes. However it was 'knocked out', not 'destroyed'. After 100+ penetrations I guess there is a chance for the ammo to brew up, all ammo being tracer rounds

Those are some heavy hauling scouts hehe.

.30-06 actually destroying bunkers (no KO'ing) is indeed strange Ammo cookoffs sound like an explanation, apart from bunkers not having any ammo available? Did you try any tests with anything else than a scout team, for example a full squad?

BFC would be boss if they would make this joke officially

Small arms i.e. max caliber .45? Sure seen some bazooka's take out a bunker, but a bazooka ain't a small arm in my opinion.

Too bad Putin isn't among the refresh monkeys

This concept really works but not in all cases, unfortunately. I'm not into BFC sales figures but I guess they can make out whether it will work for them. I am sure as hell one that would pay for a map pack, for whatever that matters And who knows they will be able to enforce some type of constraint in the missions which is only met if you bought the pack. IIRC they never said scenario/campaign oriented packs are a no go?

Just to add while I'm busy posting I understand players not enjoying these type of mission if they haven't tried (or just don't enjoy) asymmetrical style warfare type of missions. Personally I had one of the best times in CM:BN playing this mission (Thanks, PaperTiger!). While playing CM:SF for a while I started to prefer playing as RED. Nothing beats playing the underdog and snatching away victory from those in (hold of supreme) Power! While I enjoyed the power of Abrams, Marines, Javelins, Apache's and Warthogs, I thought it was refreshing to have just a rag tag bunch of soldiers armed with the odd RPG or PKM and hurt the superior BLUE forces in a cleverly spawned ambush. Employing those tactics in PBEM battles, fielding Syrian special forces with AT-14 Kornet-E's and RPG-29's was simply heart warming The Red Sun Rising mission reminded me of the first time I took out a Challenger 2 from a few hundred meters with a shoulder mounted AT-13 positioned on a rear facing balcony of a ~10 story apartment tower

Is that the Red Sun Rising scenario? I managed a tactical victory holding on to the hotel and retaking the buildings near to it on the Island after the blunt of the attack was over, although on 2nd try. Was a tough fight and it got me back on my feet regarding ambushing, since playing as RED in CMSF. If you try to defend this in a symmetric warfare style you will be utterly annihilated. That's about a battalion worth of infantry (?) with tank support assaulting 1 reinforced US Airborne platoon. Those are tough troopers but even against the AI it is too much. I learned that after failing to realize what it was the briefing told me the first few minutes of my first try. Before the enemy attack basically got started I lost most of my platoon, positioned in a way to get fire superiority against attacking enemy forces. I restarted the mission from scratch and took a different approach. Place your troops in smart positions away from general view with short covered arcs. For example first floor of the hotel buildings with covered arcs until the border of the compound or a little further. Re-position troops when local fire superiority is needed. Hide your bazooka team somewhere from where it can relocate without getting shot up directly. Sacrifice live in order to save more lives. Fight!! victory at all costs

IIRC The road to Nijmegen has a built-in mechanism that gives players after losing 2 consecutive missions. Specially for the people that want to enjoy all it's missions which they couldn't manage otherwise. So, losing doesn't mean the end of the campaign AND you will be rebuffed when you lose a lot. Best of both worlds I guess

I've given up this mission after one real try (and some mishaps ). The MG changes after 2.0 seem to have made it too realistic In other CMx2 missions I didn't find bunkers too hard to take out. They can be a PITA indeed, if you only have INF and have to sneak around the sides. Bunkers can be suppressed though, and smoke helps to sneak to the side/back in order to close assault it with grenades and or satchels.

Found time to play this campaign last weeks. Am now starting Aalst, with most of my IG forces still battle worthy. Seems I got a LOAD of artillery so not sure why others had so much problems in this scenario ;-). IIRC I won all mission with a Total Victory, apart from Night Fight and the one after that: Minor/Tactical Victories. It wasn't easy but apart from some reloads due to goofed up orders/sloppiness (by myself) I didn't find it too hard to deal with. Try blue and grey campaign first mission, now that's impossible! The thing that people should realize is that (many) CMx2 campaigns are different to most other games in that LOSING MISSIONS IS NOT A NO GO, YOU CAN STILL GO ON

Coincidentally I tried this mission (1st from blue and grey campaign) last weekend. While I managed to take out a bunker with a direct tank shell the 12.7cm naval guns didn't knock m out. Although they obliterated all enemy forces in the trenches, didn't check for bunker personnel casualties. The Omaha mission seems rather unwinnable indeed, after losing about a battalion worth of men without any real progress I called it a day. No point in waiting 30min or more just to throw another battalion in the meat grinder It was a fun mission though, especially seeing those 5" naval guns getting revenge for their fallen comrades! In general I have had no real problems taking out bunkers in CMx2. Direct large caliber (tank) fire or close up infantry from the sides work very good. Even sustained MG fire will kill the inhabitants over time, after which the status of the bunker will changed to KO even though it is fine itself. IIRC it is not possible to reman bunkers in CMx2. I have never before tried to take out a bunker with artillery, for the simple reason that it is a bunker

Any chances to see some screenies?

Heh well JonS ain't the most friendly forum poster around but I gotta agree posting a thread with a thumbs down and said description would have probably invited a similar reaction from Jesus himself

So who decides upon the takings of seriousness? ;D

Could it be taken seriously if the Russian troops withdraw from the area and have the referendum held while Ukrainian security forces maintain order?

Guess the house wins indeed. They even brought some guns to show they mean business, I guess.

If 60% of Crimea's population vote for 'anschluss', who are we to denounce it? Personally I think that Putin might be the type of leader that works best for the majority of Russians today. Perhaps also better for the majority of people living in the Crimea than Timosjenko would be. To be clear, I prefer a more democratic type of leadership. But not every 'nationstate' is ready for the type of democracy that (sort of) works for many Western countries. If we look at Iraq, which was referred to earlier in this thread, you could argue they have more freedom now than under Saddam. But what about safety, and at what cost did that freedom come? Perhaps most importantly, how durable is it? Of course, Iraq is not Russia. But neither is Russia like the USA, or like West European countries. I'm not convinced that what I think is best for me is also best for Ivan. Who 'wins' if Ukraine joins the EU or if Putin would fall to a similar revolt like that in Ukraine? The oligarchs? Returning to the current issue in Ukraine, obviously I think the best solution to recent events and especially the Crimean issue is one without war. Additionally I think we (the west) should try to gain a more on par relationship with other nations in the world. Pushing the human rights and international law agenda when opportune is kind of hypocrite and probably disfunctional. We should try to lead by example (if anything) instead of trying to manage the world to do as we say. Another 'cold war' would be a lose-lose situation.