Lethaface

Problem is this works both ways though as Ukraine isn't going win either. As the taps of western support start being turned off doubt we're going to see a resolution with clearly defined borders in Ukraine's (and the west's) favour. Not that they appeared to of made a difference in assisting an effective counter attack... donated Leopards are great but they can't be everywhere at once.
This whole affair I guess will continue to be talked about in defence and foreign affairs policy circles for a while yet about how the west can intervene without boots on the ground and get a favourable outcome. The idea of "21st Century Lend Lease" rather than directly intervening really hasn't worked if they expected the support to lead to a clear victory. Unless stalemate was the goal of Washington, Brussels and others... which I highly doubt.
Poses problems for strategy when the next move happens between the powers involving clear national military forces on both sides. China -> Taiwan? Are we really going to repeat the sending of equipment routine and harsh language in front of the cameras in that instance and hope for the best? We also know that sanctions really haven't altered the status quo inside Russia either as not all countries are adhering to them and forming their own blocks to challenge the West and it's institutions.

Nice.  "no one specified dead or alive".  Little gaps like that lead to - great movies

I've seen that many armoured vehicles stacked up in CM only when I'm playing the AI, have lots of drones, and on top of that know what route the AI will take because I've done the scenario before.
We keep talking about the RA learning.  It's certainly learning some tactically (Lancets, drone ISR, artillery and supply chain dispersal, etc. ), but it remains stone-cold stupid in other ways.  At least from what we see and how we assign value and the definition of success.  It may well be that funnelling all that juicy armour through one spot secured a senior officer's promotion for being aggressive, or prevented his humiliating dismissal for lack of aggression / obedience to plan.  In which case it was very successful for said officer even while being obviously not for the RA - kind of like big corporations where staff optimize their personal outcomes at the expense of the bigger picture.
In modern war, artillery arrives in near-real time, and you can't even drive out of it because it adjusts in real-time.  The C4ISR or overall OODA loop is that tight, as described in more detail by Haiduk a few days back.

And of course the CONOPS of all armour - essentially that significant threats will come from the front, so tactical and operational doctrine is designed to see that they do - is completely broken by real-time artillery and/or smart and/or area-effect artillery, copious and rapidly re-laid mines (wait until they have legs), long-range man-portable top-attack AT missiles, and drones.

PS: the Charge of the Light Brigade was a problem of communications, not tactics.  "The charge was the result of a misunderstood order from the commander in chief, Lord Raglan, who had intended the Light Brigade to attack a different objective for which light cavalry was better suited, to prevent the Russians from removing captured guns from overrun Turkish positions. " - Charge of the Light Brigade - Wikipedia
 

... and now I'm imaging a terminator-like robot tying to load a tangle of snakes into a trebuchet in an attempt to knock down F-35s 🤣

A bit more complicated but the sentiment is not entirely off.  We did an exercise about 10 years back trying to figure out all the components of military value.  In the end it looked like the Drake Equation, which was scary enough and then some egghead pointed out that some components were non-linear over time.  Over all military value is a pretty complex beast with all sorts of tangible and intangible elements.
So when considering something like a new platform one has to try and consider its value as a delta V to an overall system.  How is X giving an entire system an advantage to an opponents comparative opposing system.  So infantry in battle suits is not simply “how much does the suit cost versus the things that can kill it” it is “how does the system create effects advantage”.  Cost becomes an attritional factor but is offset by advantage.  
So beating up on the poor tank.  It isn’t the fact that cheap ATGMs or UAS can kill them that is driving their value down.  It is the fact that ATGMs and UAS are killing them before the tank can deliver its military value on the battlefield.  If tanks could survive long enough to create operational tempo and manoeuvre then we would not be having this conversation, even if we were looking at the same loss rates.  It is the fact we are seeing the loss rates without the tank being able to deliver value.  That is what is killing the tank.  Making it worse is the cost factor and those tanks being eliminated by incredibly cheap systems compared to the cost of the tank.
So if armoured infantry in battle suits can live long enough to create effect, force decision and sustain options then they have value that far outweighs strips cost.  Of course there is a threshold for this, we see that in WW2 Germany.  The Tiger was brilliant but far too costly to sustain even with the effects it could deliver.  The Tiger 2 is like modern tanks.  The damn things were very expensive and most could not even get to the start line.
So is a military capability below a cost sustainment threshold?  And does it deliver value for that costs?  When and where that value happens is also incredibly important.  In reality it is very complex - let alone when you factor in historical and cultural value.  There is a Perun video (if he hasn’t already done one, that guy has to be in FD somewhere).

Soldiers aren't cost effective compared to a 5.56mm round. Tanks arent cost effective compared to an APFSDS. Planes arent cost effective compared to a sidewinder. Ships arent cost effective compared to a harpoon.
And yet, here we are.

Dollar expensive, and likely time expensive, but probably not blood expensive. It'll suck for the guys doing the mechshuffle, but there wont be very many of them out there in total.

'This operation would make the charge of the light brigade look like a sensible military exercise.'
 

Well they already haul massive loads, especially the SF type of forces, with obvious consequences later on in life if not already during operations. But yeah probably only human organic power is too limited. But with the use of tech, engineering, tension and lever effects I'd say there is more to be gained from the human basic strength. Especially if you add 'hybrid' power. 

More Avdiivka insanity (Oct. 10):
 

Indeed everyone wants their new toys rather earlier than later. And when one has ordered them, almost all humans can be diagnosticised with the 'when is it ready/is it there yet?' syndrom. Some jobs role is basically to perform this role (PM ;-)).
Orwell called it 'time neurosis'.
Since time is relative, 'slow' is also relative. Some companies/games might come with updates every week/month. Some people will still call that slow. Other games might come with updates on a yearly/longer basis. One can find that slow on the 'expecting' side, those on the 'producing' side might disagree.
Then we also have different preferences for news updates.
I think Steve and BFC have commented very often in the past that they are weary of communicating news, as almost any communication will create expectancy, which will then have to be managed. They could probably hire a communications manager who's job it would be to update the community about ongoing stuff.
However, that in itself wouldn't do anything in the sense of 'faster' game development or releases. Instead it would probably be slower because the communication manager would need to be informed about progress on a regular basis. It would also soup up some of the budget now allocated towards development.
Give or take, that's how I understand BFC's hussle and I'm fine with it personally. Of course it is also fine if others would desire more information or more and faster releases, and post about that. 
I don't think things will change because of that. We can also ponder about the question whether it would be a good idea for BFC to grow by a large amount, potentially increasing development capacity and more releases in shorter time. That is one option, the other option is the risk that the extra releases don't offset against the extra costs and is a real potential business risk.
I think the ones best to make that decision is people inside the business themselves, because they have the knowledge. It's also their decision.
But yeah I'd also like to see game engine 5 rather sooner than later, or CM3 for that matter. SO, WHEN IS IT READY!!???   

Imo there is a 'holy trinity' between quality, budget and time. You can't change one without impacting the others, so if one or two are fixed, the other need to be flexible. With BFC committing to quality (this is not necessarily mainly about bugs, but rather realism and authenticity of the game engine and depicted period/battles), them having a sort of fixed budget, the result is that time needs to be 'subject to change'. This is about the big picture, not individual releases/bugs or investing a couple of (10)thousand extra to get some things done outside the core team.

Personally I'm also happy they sacrifice 'time' over quality. They could probably dumb down the game / new games and deliver faster. But that's not how they roll, in my experience since 2007. The result is that releases come when they are ready, it is what it is; still the lesser evil imo.

Indeed everyone wants their new toys rather earlier than later. And when one has ordered them, almost all humans can be diagnosticised with the 'when is it ready/is it there yet?' syndrom. Some jobs role is basically to perform this role (PM ;-)).
Orwell called it 'time neurosis'.
Since time is relative, 'slow' is also relative. Some companies/games might come with updates every week/month. Some people will still call that slow. Other games might come with updates on a yearly/longer basis. One can find that slow on the 'expecting' side, those on the 'producing' side might disagree.
Then we also have different preferences for news updates.
I think Steve and BFC have commented very often in the past that they are weary of communicating news, as almost any communication will create expectancy, which will then have to be managed. They could probably hire a communications manager who's job it would be to update the community about ongoing stuff.
However, that in itself wouldn't do anything in the sense of 'faster' game development or releases. Instead it would probably be slower because the communication manager would need to be informed about progress on a regular basis. It would also soup up some of the budget now allocated towards development.
Give or take, that's how I understand BFC's hussle and I'm fine with it personally. Of course it is also fine if others would desire more information or more and faster releases, and post about that. 
I don't think things will change because of that. We can also ponder about the question whether it would be a good idea for BFC to grow by a large amount, potentially increasing development capacity and more releases in shorter time. That is one option, the other option is the risk that the extra releases don't offset against the extra costs and is a real potential business risk.
I think the ones best to make that decision is people inside the business themselves, because they have the knowledge. It's also their decision.
But yeah I'd also like to see game engine 5 rather sooner than later, or CM3 for that matter. SO, WHEN IS IT READY!!???   

Imo there is a 'holy trinity' between quality, budget and time. You can't change one without impacting the others, so if one or two are fixed, the other need to be flexible. With BFC committing to quality (this is not necessarily mainly about bugs, but rather realism and authenticity of the game engine and depicted period/battles), them having a sort of fixed budget, the result is that time needs to be 'subject to change'. This is about the big picture, not individual releases/bugs or investing a couple of (10)thousand extra to get some things done outside the core team.

Personally I'm also happy they sacrifice 'time' over quality. They could probably dumb down the game / new games and deliver faster. But that's not how they roll, in my experience since 2007. The result is that releases come when they are ready, it is what it is; still the lesser evil imo.

As long as he buys enough green veggies, that's allowed! 😉 

Imo there is a 'holy trinity' between quality, budget and time. You can't change one without impacting the others, so if one or two are fixed, the other need to be flexible. With BFC committing to quality (this is not necessarily mainly about bugs, but rather realism and authenticity of the game engine and depicted period/battles), them having a sort of fixed budget, the result is that time needs to be 'subject to change'. This is about the big picture, not individual releases/bugs or investing a couple of (10)thousand extra to get some things done outside the core team.

Personally I'm also happy they sacrifice 'time' over quality. They could probably dumb down the game / new games and deliver faster. But that's not how they roll, in my experience since 2007. The result is that releases come when they are ready, it is what it is; still the lesser evil imo.

Imo there is a 'holy trinity' between quality, budget and time. You can't change one without impacting the others, so if one or two are fixed, the other need to be flexible. With BFC committing to quality (this is not necessarily mainly about bugs, but rather realism and authenticity of the game engine and depicted period/battles), them having a sort of fixed budget, the result is that time needs to be 'subject to change'. This is about the big picture, not individual releases/bugs or investing a couple of (10)thousand extra to get some things done outside the core team.

Personally I'm also happy they sacrifice 'time' over quality. They could probably dumb down the game / new games and deliver faster. But that's not how they roll, in my experience since 2007. The result is that releases come when they are ready, it is what it is; still the lesser evil imo.

Opinion about Avdiivka situation from Butusov:

Welcome to the community... 😉
 

Yeah this sort of “omg they’re not doing anything and they don’t care” nonsense always gets kicked around when there’s been few releases. Nothing new. Just because Steve talks about the Ukraine war doesn’t mean jack squat. You’re equating two things that are completely unrelated. It’s not logical. Does he need your permission to talk to his relatives on the phone too? How about running to the grocery store for food? 😗

So if Steve spends a two or three hours each day looking at what's happening in UKR war and writing a few posts of a few paragraphs each, then he is doing nothing else the rest of the day?  And also this war informs any CMBS games going forward, so it's not like it's off subject.  This is fascinating.  I watch ~10 hours of football each week, plus play some CM, plus play some guitar, cook, clean, do laundry, etc.  Therefore I can't possibly be doing my 40+ hour per week job.  

I keep seeing people commenting on Steve’s priorities like they know exactly what he’s working on and how he spends his time. But none of you do, unless you work closely with or know him well.
Now you can comment on the “impression” you get of how what he is working on, that’s fair, but to say he needs to sort his priorities out based on that is ridiculous 

My "Operation Coup de Main" campaign is now undergoing play-testing of the campaign script. I played through the first two scenarios a few times and in the most recent test I purposely lost the scenario "Tracked Vehicles Approaching".  The script ended the campaign as it was supposed to because the airlanding troops failed to hold the bridge, but then it awarded me a Tactical Victory for the campaign overall. That was NOT supposed to happen. It was supposed to be a campaign defeat. I checked that it gave me the [BLUE] player victory message and not the [BLUE] player defeat message. Very strange.
Does anyone have any idea how this happened?

I can't remember if I posted this once before when CW first came out, but I have still a small pocket handbook that was issued to all FIST Chiefs in the 1/320FA back then. At the time I got this book I was a FIST Chief in A Btry, 1/320FA (Abn), later a Fire Direction Officer at battery and battalion level (in 2/321FA (Abn), and later still a Fire Support Officer (at both Bn and Bde level in 1st Bde). 
It's 5 separate pdfs. The first one has a lot of info on how a Soviet MRR would operate in the attack, which may help with tactics opposing them. It describes the recon element, the advanced battalion, with tactics and TOE. There is a nice table on how each element is organized and fights, along with (importantly!!) vulnerabilities. There is a lot of fire support information which will be more useful for background information, but does include a lot of specs of both US and Soviet equipment - rates of fire, shell weights, even airlift requirements to move a battery and supply it by air. In those tables DRF and DRB refer to the Division Ready Force, and Division Ready Battalion, referring to the artillery units associated with the infantry brigade that is on "Mission" cycle - the ones who are always ready to fly away at a moment's notice. One battery is direct support for an infantry Bn, one artillery Bn in direct support of an infantry brigade. Back then those direct support roles remained rigid, so that the same units batteries always supported the same infantry. For example as a FIST Chief, I supported C Co, 1-325 Inf (Abn). We trained with them in the field all the time, so we built a good working relationship. 
The TOE for US is specific to the 82d Airborne so you can't really apply it to a US mechanized unit. More men per squad, limited vehicles, etc. The 82d is kind of unique, and keep in mind that it's walking infantry, and the tactics for defense are described as the 82d being put in a position to oppose a mechanized Soviet advance, but in general terms, they still apply pretty well. 
Hope you find it useful. Feel free to download and save copies for yourself. This was freely given out, never classified in any manner, and we carried them around. 
They may help with tactics opposing Soviet advances, which in the AI scripting are pretty well based on how it's described here. Any fans of Flashpoint Campaigns (either Red Storm or Southern Storm) may also find them useful there - easier to see the larger scale Soviet organization unfold.
Enjoy.
Dave
Fire Support Handbook -5.pdfFire Support Handbook -4.pdfFire Support Handbook -3.pdfFire Support Handbook -2.pdfFire Support Handbook -1.pdf