Fizou

Thanks Frank! What an amazing achievement. You are a treasure to this community. 

Thanks Frank! What an amazing achievement. You are a treasure to this community. 

Tonight, I have finished the complete (as it is now called) CampaignPack „Summer of Destruction“.
During the next hours, I will complete the short intro file and then start to send the content to all the guys who have ordered it. Within the next 2-3 days, everybody should get it 👍🏻
 
There is a small limitation:
The announced 20 master maps are not included yet. I simply don‘t have the patience to wait any longer with the release. I will send these maps with a second mail within the next 2-4 weeks.
Regards 
Mr.X

Yes, many thanks Frank. Excellent work and please don't cut off communication here my friend ❤️. 

Exactly one year after the first announcement, the project is now finished. In order to avoid
misunderstandings on the part of the company Battlefront.com, I chose the name CampaignPack 😎.
The pack (as described in former threads) consists of 5 campaigns in which the player is thrown
into the events of the summer of 1944 in the sector of the German Army Group Center.
In total you will play minium 52 single missions, maximum 55 single missions (depending on one
branch). To avoid technical problems, I didn't add any mods to the campaigns. But I can, for example,
highly recommend the excellent work of @JM Stuff, especially his extraordinary mod collection of vehicles
and wrecks 👍
I recently visited the forum regularly to stay in touch with people who wanted to register. However, I have
asked the people at Battlefront.com several times to delete my profile.  This request has not yet been
granted to me, so as a quasi "undead" I will always stop by - but I will no longer take part in any discussions
or answer any questions in the forum. To get in touch with me, please write to me at:
E-Mail: f-s-zbg@web.de.😎
Of course, I can still send the campaign pack to anyone interested.
 
So all I can say is:
It was a great pleasure for me to finish this project and share it with many people.
I hope you have as much fun playing as I did creating it 🙏
 
Best regards
Mr.X 

Honestly, I don't know if I would call it "anxiety" but I have had nights where for hours I have been awake thinking about this war.
I understand how important this war is for the direction this world can go, and I will keep following it until it is finished and will keep supporting the good guys in this war no matter how long it takes.
Personally I do recommend once in a while disconnecting from the internet and spending some time with family, go on a hike in the woods or something.
But ultimately compared to Ukrainian soldiers on the front lines, I really have nothing to be anxious about.
 

not so much anxiety as frustration.  I am so pissed at my own gov't right now for being so fk'in lame.

Would it be different if Russian paramilitaries had in reality run riot through an airport lounge killing hundreds of citizens and security guards? An event of such unimaginable violence that it would be on the scale of Oct 7th attacks, or 9/11. 

Regardless it needs to be considered that this is not only the reputational risk of a single company at stake, Slitherine and Steam share the risk of potential reputational damage and this in turn can affect future agreements re collaboration. In fact reps from those companies may have even expressed their own views on promoting and selling the planned module. A number of factors could have influenced the decision to pull it, these included.

P.S. This thread should have been titled "How cold is CMBS gonna' get?" 😀

I think we are missing the point of wargaming.  What would happen if Battlefront modeled the Israeli army in a fictional battle against Syria?  Does that now make the game a referendum on Israel?  Does it imply a stance by the game company?  I say no.  Playing Combat Mission is akin to playing a miniatures game in real life.  You have your armies and you fight it out.  It doesn't matter what happens in real life.  We play video games because we want to play war without the dangers of war.  Battling it out in a virtual Ukraine has nothing to do with what is happening in real life.  Has anyone looked at Command Modern Operations?  Some of the scenarios for that game are almost real time.  I just don't see a connection for developing a game and support for Ukraine or Russia.

It's because russia is losing and the war may not be over before the end of 2024. It won't look good to release a game about the war in Ukraine as the war will still be going on.... 
I  am pro-Ukrainian just calling it like I see it.
 
I hope I am wrong and this is all over soon and in a positive way for the Ukrainian people

I think it's extremely likely that Steve is referring to CMx3. There is nothing else BFC could be doing -- no new module, no engine upgrade, not even a whole new title in the CMx2 series -- that would warrant that type of language.
Steve had talked about Charle's insane programming workload over the last xx months. Nothing in CMx2 would likely be taking that much programming time. Plus there is now defense contract money coming into BFC. The engine is showing its age, despite still providing most of use with many hours of fun, so it's reasonable to surmise that the wargamers on this forum are not the only ones pushing for advancements. Plus... a few things said only a week or two ago in the "Is CMBS Dead?" thread might've revealed more than some people desired or noticed?
It's fun to speculate about what the potential first CMx3 title would be.
To me, yes, Normandy (or at least France '44), makes the most sense. CMBN is the company's most popular and highest selling CMx2 title for a reason.
I am so, so ready to give BFC even more of my money!

That seems a little 'counter-progress' if I may say?  I know what you mean, but long term it's the way to go (and Steve is not retiring just yet, he said so).
I'll buy Utah anyway and keep playing CM2 for now.

The more I think about it the less I think I'd mind CM3 starting over at Normandy again. It would mean backtracking on any progress towards eventually covering the whole war. But CM3 would presumably represent such an increase in realism that it would be well worth going over old ground again. I'm sure there will be significant improvements in the ability to represent modern warfare in particular (better handling of drones, EW, modern air support, and modern air defenses). But as far as improvements that would significantly improve the representation of WW2 I'm hoping that we'll get assisted loading for crew served weapons. I believe that will significantly narrow the current gap between the Bren and the MG42.
I still hope that Combat Mission will eventually cover the whole war (and hopefully a few other wars as well). But maybe recycled TO&E and vehicle data from CM2 will help to streamline the rate at which they can cover larger stretches of time on each front.

If it's anywhere on the Eastern Front I hope that @George MC is working on it. His maps and scenarios are some of the best ever.

BF have always pooh poohed chances of early war or NA as apparently those theaters didn't sell well.  But, maybe if increasing numbers of our voices asking for those keep rising...

While I agree that the methodology in those examples are ridiculous, I don't think that using Soviet documents is automatically a bad idea, not that you were saying that was the case of course, I understood you as saying that he cherry picks the finding from the studies that are in line with his pre-existing beliefs without considering the proper context etc, but I just felt like I should expand on the point of Soviet sources.

When it comes to sources and documents from non-allied states like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, there is a tendency to dismiss all the data as inherently unreliable which isn't necessarily the case. After all, these countries were doing tests to collect data for their own military development, there is an incentive to collect accurate data that can help when designing their next tank or planning out future tank doctrine. It's a generally a bad idea for engineers to make up nonsense test results to send back to the ministry knowing that that bogus data will be used to design the next generation of tanks, that would ironically be much more deserving of punishment than simply reporting that the current equipment isn't up to snuff.

What people should be looking at is the type of sources. Official press releases, state news, personal accounts, biographies and anything else intended for public consumption are not always the most reliable of sources and can include a great deal of propaganda, I would take them with a grain of salt even if they were written by the Allies. However, a declassified technical report meant for internal consumption within the ministry of defense can generally be assumed to be relatively accurate, in this case they need accurate data, they are perfectly capable of conducting accurate tests and there's no real incentive to make stuff up if the data was not meant to be publicly released. Like you mentioned, the Soviet helmet report did indicate that no usable conclusion could be drawn due to the flawed methodology, indicating that they were actually trying to collect usable data instead of just trying to show that their equipment was the best. For WW2 primary sources a good rule of thumb is that primary sources intended for internal consumption within the government or military tend to be at least fairly accurate as that was the information which the decision makers relied upon to fight the war, while primary sources intended for the general public can generally be assumed to include elements of propaganda.

I don't know much about this Samsonov guy in particular, but from what I've read in this thread he translates Soviet primary sources, but tends to draw flawed conclusions from them. In this case, my suggestion would be to take his conclusions with a grain of salt and for people to look at the translated primary sources instead, consider the context in which those sources were written to gauge their reliability and draw their own conclusions from the sources.

check this
 

This!!  They said they had no interest in CW either....
I would literally chew off my own left leg, slather it in tactical space butter, and eat it for CM Pacific.
And if they did do it, it would open the door for every tropical/jungle/island conflict moving forward.

I think this is an extension of the whole Zelensky/Zaluzny thing.  Politically towns and cities matter very much.  Militarily the answer is far less cut and dry. 
Looking on the map:

Adiivka has next to zero operational value.  It is stubborn salient that the RA is breaking a division upon - that is its military value.  If Adiivka falls it means next to nothing unless this is somehow the lynchpin of the entire UA defence in this sector - which we know it is not.  No natural obstacles, no transport infra implications.  Any core resources or communications tech centered on Adiivka?
This whole "not one step back" plays well to the public but in reality land war is a lot of trading ground for options.  And right now the RA is not buying anymore options through this whole exercise. 
"But if we lose it, we will just have to take it back."  Well true, but if the RA breaks another division there, perhaps it might be much easier to take back afterwards?  And frankly this whole sector is an offensive nightmare - you take back Adiivka...so what?  Next stop is an urban hell called Donetsk.  This is a side show the RA is being pushed into politically and blowing itself all to hell over.  So Ukraine should keep it just as long as it keep delivering 10:1 loss ratios for the RA.  After that pull back and find another Bakhmut/Aviidka and let the RA smash itself to pieces.
As to Bradleys and Abrahams - sure keep them coming but they are not what this fight will ride on.  C4ISR, unmanned, infantry and guns - get those right and then if there is room on the plane, load a Bradley.
The RA is not some bottomless behemoth.  It is a mess of a military that is playing chicken with itself.  Eventually it will lose.

exactly what I've been wondering.  So a pile of rubble once called Andiivka is lost?  As TheCapt says, it's doesn't give RU any more operational or strategic options.  Putin will act like they just won the war, like w Bakhmut.  Hold it while it makes attritional sense, fall back when that's no longer the case.  
And maybe the f--ing criminals in the US House of Reps could stop doing the bidding of Putin and send the gear that will make a difference.  We all saw Tucker Carlson in Moscow recently.  He was the public voice of these folks.  Tells me a lot.  
EU doing its part.  We need enough GOPers to do the right thing and override the Putin lackies -- there's not many of them.  This could all end if just a small minority of GOP house members did the right thing, right now.  I believe most of them very much want to do the right thing but think they'll be punished for it -- but that's why it's called courage.  The other choice is called cowardice.

BTW, to echo @Anthony P.s excellent points above, the guy in the video has a website (linked in the video description) containing a wealth of Soviet primary source material. But he is absolutely not an impartial investigator. He presents information that supports his narrative, ignores everything that doesn't, and is hostile to anyone who questions the data.

That's the issue I wasn't going to raise by myself, but since it's been broached...
Samsonov's written some interesting bits based on translations of original documents but he sorely lacks a historian's background, and it shows in some ridiculous methodology. I'm not going to trawl through years' worth of his blog posts to provide an extensive list of examples, but some which come to mind:
"Disproving" the notion that the T-34 was a cramped tank by comparing a T-34 and a Panzer IV's manuals, and measuring the headroom available to the crewmen illustrated in said manuals. Since the illustrated T-34 crewman had a millimeter or so more space between the top of his head and the roof in the manual's pictures, he'd "proven" that the T-34 actually had a roomier crew compartment than the Panzer IV.
"Proving" that Soviet helmets provided superior ballistic protection to German helmets based on a 1942 report testing half a dozen completely random, captured German helmets from the battle of Moscow against new Soviet helmets. Ironically he'd also translated the part of the report which noted that the methodology was so flawed that no conclusions could be drawn from it.
Basically, anything he reads in original Soviet documents, he takes at face value with supreme confidence. It seems he doesn't realise the point of studies beyond those he is already capable of, i.e. translations.

This is reportedly a Tiger I mantlet hit by an IS-2 in Romania. Granted, we don't know the range, but the close grouping suggests it was not super far.


 
 
 

So do we believe it?  I have an open mind but he does use Soviet data.  Just saying.
Anyway as for in-game I recall one of my first encounters with IS2s (Gog and Magog I think) - perhaps it agrees with what you're saying as the 88mm L/71s on my KTs certainly could penetrate the IS2s' fronts at some distance, unlike the above data.  Not quite the same, but more recently my opponent in Cat and mouse with 75mm L/70 Panther guns had no trouble achieving penetrations either.  My IS2s prevailed on that day however...

Good stuff, and very interesting indeed.
Does this mean we have to find a PBEM on King Tigers vs IS-2s now?  Haha!