Tux

Hi, all. This is my first post on any forum thread for many years but I'd like to say I have been reading this one avidly since the start of the war and I very much appreciate the balance you have struck between as-it-happens commentary, critical analysis and (often extremely well) educated opinion. I agree with those before me who've noted that there doesn't seem to be a comparable resource anywhere else online. While I'm loathe to clutter the thread with idle speculation (I admit I occasionally find myself having to skim-read a few pages whenever someone revives the 'nuclear question') I thought this might be as good a place as any to ask a question that's been niggling away at me for a few weeks now. Apologies in advance since I'm pretty sure I'm going to find myself tumbling down the reverse slope of Mount Stupid as a result of this post... Still, here goes: Is there a chance that Putin is now trying to get NATO into this war? If Russia can probably-but-definitely-not blow up some gas lines; sabotage the odd power-supply cable to a NATO member; unleash a low-level cyber attack on a few airports and continually attack Ukrainian civilian targets can they goad NATO into an overt conventional confrontation that gives Putin the excuse he needs to withdraw from Ukraine? Can he then claim that Russia was forced to invade Ukraine by insidious NATO, who then sprang the trap, stabbing Russia's mighty armed forces in the back? Maybe that allows Russians to swerve the cognitive dissonance caused by a defeat to Ukraine and instead spit at the treachery employed by the Anglo-Saxon-dominated West to subdue mighty Russia? Most importantly, maybe all that keeps Putin in power? It has to be sold as purely NATO's plan to get involved, so provocations have to be relatively subtle and ideally plausibly-deniable. It will lead to Russia's total military defeat but that's basically already the case, if not now then imminently so. I also think it could be well worth NATO refusing to grant Putin such an excuse, even if it means this war lasting longer than otherwise necessary (I hate myself for writing it, don't worry). Our goal is to drive a long-term cultural change in Russia and for that reason we have to deny them the ability to cry foul and to resolve to try again or even to get 'revenge' in future. In my opinion it was the denial of such plausible counter-narratives to 1940s Germany and Japan which carried a lot of weight in the post-war period. The aggressors have to think, nay know that they tried violence, they threw everything at it and, in a square fight, they failed. I have half a dozen other directions from which to come at this and I really don't like the way it potentially 'justifies' NATO inaction but this post is already long enough and I'm interested in what you good people think.

Just what I was wondering. To be honest, though, in my opinion that whole piece reads as though it was written by a credulous adolescent. If it wasn't for the fact that it is (presumably) based on an official medal citation then I wouldn't bother believing any of it. Out of interest, and not wishing to cast doubt on anything in particular, what level of evidence/corroboration is/was required for a medal to be awarded for extraordinary acts? Presumably it varies depending on factors such as those described by Mr Emrys, above, but what is an acceptable minimum? Apologies if that should be for a new topic...

As a UK resident who has lived at various times in London, Liverpool, Peterborough and Doncaster (which basically represent the full range from high immigrant/liberal to low immigrant/conservative population) can I just inform you that this is the biggest pile of c**p I've read in a long time (and that's saying something in today's environment). Your post is literally the first I've ever heard of "violent Turkish gangs" and there is no more problem with "Eastern Euro gangs" than there is with any of our home-grown British ones. These subjects are NEVER the topic of day-to-day discussion in the UK outside extremist groups like BNP or EDL. To lend the slightest modicum of weight to your opinion, how many people from the UK have personally voiced this opinion to you and how many British people "flood" to NZ each year? How does that compare to the numbers of British people who "flood" to other European countries? Do the answers to these questions support your opinion? Sorry if I come across as short-tempered but being told by someone the other side of the world that he spoke to a guy who said we have an immigrant problem is beyond stupid. Edited for typo.

I wouldn't be surprised. I am reading this AAR from your side, only, to maximise the suspense, so I will be fascinated to learn why Baneman's attack is so infantry heavy so early. Given how little I assume he has known about your defenses (until very recently, at least) I am surprised to see such large numbers of dismounted infantry committed to advancing under their own steam. A few scout teams screening for/supported by a powerful complement of feline steel would have been my preference, I think, on such an open map. Then I'd have had some mounted Grenadiers and mortars held back out of harm's way but ready to dig out any defensive infantry positions you might have deployed. As it stands (and it is obviously still early days) it looks like Baneman might be going for a 'overwhelming pressure'-style infantry foot assault, with relatively light tank support to help with tough obstacles. It might be hard for him to find anything for such an attack bite down on against so mobile and 'slippery' a defense as yours...

Seconded. A cup of Kona coffee and Bil's AAR make for a very satisfying way to kick off a Sunday morning. Thanks for taking the time to write such engaging updates, Bil. I remember how much time and effort it used to take when I wrote a few AARs for the CMBB and CMAK forums; it is not a trivial task! Looking forward to the next instalment. Tux [Edit: typo correction]

Sublime just put [ img ] and [ /img ] (without the spaces) either side of the image url to post a proper screenshot. Example, using your first link at the top of the page:

Really sorry to hear that, Bud. Hope things go well for you both.

Have you definitely cancelled the rest of the barrage, Bud? The reason I ask is that rocket barrages come in salvoes, as mentioned earlier in the thread. The other half of your rocket ammo might just be being loaded onto the rails, ready to land in 2-3mins' time... Enjoying the read so far. Looking forward to when your units can properly sink their teeth into some meaty defensive positions!

Wiggum, it is often said that the definition of intelligence is knowing how much you do not know. With that in mind please re-read what you have just written and think again about how it makes you sound. Most people on these forums want all the same improvements that you do. They are not disagreeing with those ideas, they are pointing out that it isn't as easy to do as you keep asserting that 'you think' it is. If you don't like that, you have two interesting options: 1. Start a religion which teaches that, yes, the world is as Guru St. Wiggum (peace be upon Him) Thinks it is, that He has Thought that BFC represents the sinful twin heads of the Daemun of Coding Incompetence and Overpriced Wargames and then base yourself in Britain so that you can sue everyone on these forums who disagrees. 2. Learn how to code a game engine which is quick and easy to update seven years later and how to make AI pixeltruppen act like human soldiers did in the 1940s, then come back, prove that you were right and everyone else was wrong and bathe in the respect you earn for doing so. Every other option IS boring, because I think it is, so please keep it to yourself.

The most cursory glance at the games disproves this. Every new game has new content in it (vehicles, uniforms, weaponry, equipment variations, TOEs, environments, landscape types/features). The engine is common to most and no-one in their right mind remodels a Kar 98k for every new WWII game but, apart from that...? Back on topic, good catch. T90A hull remodelling strikes me as the sort of thing which might get caught in a patch so worth pointing out. [edited for punctuation]

Ouch! Excellent example of what happens when you let a Stryker get within range of a well-armed enemy. What sound mod are you using, btw, Rambler?

HMMWV gunners seem to survive ok the way I use them; providing covering fire and (generous) area fire from keyholed positions. I fairly frequently run them dry of ammo, in fact! In my experience, when they do die, it's rarely the enemy at 12 o'clock, being engaged by the HMMWV's weapon, which kills the gunner. It's the guys off to either side who are taking their time laying accurate, unsuppressed fire on him as a priory target. Good positioning/keyholing removes that threat and means that if anyone wants to shoot your gunner they need to brave a hail of Mk19 or machine gun rounds to do so.

Thanks, Kuderian.

Quick question: are those command lines coming out at an angle from your tank? How do you get them to show? I haven't noticed a shortcut for them in the Hotkeys list...

That screenshot was taken of the most extreme example I had found in order to make a point and was the result of several turns' frustration with the team positioned in other, more reasonable locations. To quote the relevant post of mine, with added emphasis: Also, I don't think I've ever had a unit unilaterally decide that it is going to stay quiet and not open fire on a dangerous enemy. If anything I often find I have to be almost paranoid in how closely I control my units' cover arcs to make sure they don't open fire in suicidal contexts. If I'm wrong and the AI can make a reasonable decision to refuse to fight (before taking any incoming fire, btw) then yes, the situation I posted a screenshot of is not ideal for demonstrating the problem! . If I'm right then, given that we are trying to demonstrate the absurdity of AT teams with clear LOS being unable to fight due to inappropriate posturing, I doubt that there are many better examples of this "out there" . Incidentally, I have had very, very few problems with this behaviour since the example I posted. In particular I haven't often found my teams kneeling with their faces pressed up against LOS-obscuring tree-trunks in any other scenarios, notably the US Campaign, thankfully! Impotent Javelin teams would be a serious hindrance in most of those missions.

I used my starting forces to make contact with the enemy on each flank and in the centre. Once contact was made I took my time obtaining keyholed firing positions for my Bradley to blow the substance out of the troops I had discovered. APS kept it safe from what RPG rounds did get through. At the same time I used UAV-assisted Excalibur rounds to protect my right flank since I had identified the tree line on that side as too powerful a spot to let the Russians park tanks on. Once the Abrams arrived I found remote, commanding positions for each one and it was game over. Eventually got a surrender having suffered a single wounded and buddy-aided casualty (got caught in the open by a Tigr while assaulting the Government Complex) and zero vehicle damage. I found it generally useful to remember two things about this specific scenario: 1. You are parrying a Russian attack, not attacking yourself. Once you've made contact don't chase the advance, just apply consistent, heavy fire and let the red forces dash themselves against your forces. 2. You will get a full ammo resupply after each mission in this campaign. Use it!

That's the way to think of it; the TacAI needs rules to follow which will produce reasonable results more often than not. Your above suggestion is a good idea but what if the nearest position of non-panicking friendlies is 300m away across open ground? I suspect the resulting Panic behaviour from the truck driver as he attempts to churn through the mud on his journey to Safety would then be just as annoying as your example of reversing slowly into an exposed tree line. Our pixeltruppen are (fortunately) not actual beings with actual thoughts and, even if they were, they wouldn't 'know' everything we, as the player, knows about the battlefield. That means that having any given unit judge where the nearest cover is when taken under fire is a colossal problem to try and solve: Does the unit know, for sure, where the fire is coming from? How can it judge where is covered from that fire without running CPU-intensive LOS checks between the assumed source of incoming fire and every local action spot? How many action spots should it consider? All within 50m for infantry units, and 200m for vehicles? Then what if an enemy tank is "known" by the panicking unit to be idling in clear view 500m away from the resulting "good cover" solution? All of a sudden we have a player tearing their hair out again because their pixeltruppen did something 'stupid' when panicked. Or, you can not tear your hair out, take it on the chin and recognise that coding a human-level thought process into the TacAI is not going to happen any time soon and so the best solution is to work on improving your game so that your pixeltruppen (whether they are uber all-American too-cool-to-panic hero superhumans or otherwise) don't get into such bad trouble in the first place.

I was pleasantly surprised to find that you get a big, plain text notification next to the successful unit when you shoot down an enemy aircraft, in the same style as the "LASER WARNING" text. I had several of my troops fire Iglas at attacking helicopters in Holding The Line and wondered, like you, what effect they were having. All of a sudden the text "ENEMY AIRCRAFT DESTROYED" (or something similar) showed up next to one of my men! Since I couldn't give him another missile he just got to kneel there looking smug for the rest of the game and boy, did he milk it! Unfortunately the save game is long gone so I can't post a screenshot.

Yes, I know. Sorry, I should have made clear that they have a Javelin as well. In the screenshot the Javelin Operator (the guy without an AT-4) is choosing to arm himself with an M4 instead so the Jav is invisible... Probably makes perfect sense to him, given that he can't see any tanks. I've tried this but it hasn't worked, possibly because of the long aiming time required to use the Javelin. I've also tried leaving the team still, as suggested by jspec, but the tanks are "only" in view for 2-3 minutes and they didn't take a shot in that time.

Screenshot of one of my 'blind' teams: They see all of the advancing tanks if they so much as lift their heads but never actually fire their AT weapon because going prone breaks contact.

Yep, I am currently struggling to get three separate Javelin teams to fire at tanks 2000m away across the Valley of Death because they all have daffodils in their face. If I ask them to Hunt they get up, spot a tank and immediately hit the dirt again, losing the spot before they can get around to "aiming". Didn't troops occasionally get up on one knee to spot in CMBN? They don't seem to do that very much in BS and I am now on the fifth Valley of Death reload trying various combinations of orders, arcs and movements to get a Javelin team (who I have positioned in a wide open field with a dangerous lack of concealment, out of desperation) to fire a damned missile!

If you give them the order to Hunt to the Action Spot they already occupy then I think they will at least get up and shuffle about a bit, hopefully improving their spotting ability in the process (but also making themselves more likely to be spotted, unfortunately).

Matches my understanding, pretty much. Now that you mention it, I agree that "penetrator" is usually considered the correct term for the 'dart'.

Minor Quibble #1: It's only pronounced "say-boh" by Americans, similar to the way only (some) Americans say "eye-rack" for Iraq. Sabot is actually pronounced "sabbow" by everybody I know and by French people. Minor Quibble #2: The sabot is the 'shell' or casing which folds off in flight. As far as I know, the high-density penetrator is just called a dart.

Even more useful than anything I was hoping for, thanks! At night or in low-light conditions then I guess I just favour IR/night vision where possible. I had noticed that BMPs seem slow to spot when buttoned. I suppose they're already vulnerable enough in battle that the crew can't reasonably complain if I ask them to stick their head out of the top as well!