fireship4

29. Damage to map exportable as above for external campaigns. 30. Halftrack (and other appropriate vehicle) passengers firing and disembarking over the sides when vehicle opened up. 31. Strela launchable by operator inside/on top of BMP! 32. Crew reloads external weapons only when it is safe enough to do so, or pauses when under fire. 33. Tracer effects only for appropriate weapons. 34. Indirect fire with HMGs. 35. Fire. 36. Spotting: slower movement less likely to be seen when in view. 37. Vehicles able to conduct short stop and fire, when on the move and depending on doctrine. 38. Shoot and scoot re-implemented. 39. Finally fix weapon deployment and infantry over-exposure when firing from ridgeline. 40. While focusing on the engine, one of the main concerns should be terrain, building rotation and grid size making it possible to represent real terrain more effectively. This would encourage map-making, without the frustration /discouragement of having to adapt terrain so much to the engine limitations. For example, halving the grid size and doubling the number of cardinal directions a building can face, would bring us forward into the realm of 90s tech :P

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M60_tank Combat Mission: 1959-present confirmed!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M551_Sheridan Combat Mission: Civil War confirmed!

What is this? Combat Mission Fulda Gap? Are you trying to give the older forum members heart attacks? https://youtu.be/q1KYwXJM35E?t=11

1. Co-op support (each player commands a section of the force, a squad being the minimum size). 2. Support for larger maps. 3. Support for formations. 4. Artillery more lethal, destructive against infantry, vehicles, buildings. 5. Artillery able to target areas out of direct LOS with appropriate penalties. 6. Map with contour lines. 7. Slow movement should not be as tiring. 8. AI should exhaust themselves less often. 9. LMG/MMG/HMG effectiveness reappraisal. 10. Sniper effectiveness reappraisal. 11. Resupply system for off-map artillery and on-map units, or easier ways for mission makers to accomplish this. 12. Reappraisal of LWS implementation in Black Sea. 13. Indirect fire with grenade launchers. 14. AI better at attacking and defending in quick battles. 15. Smaller grid sizes for map creation, more building and road orientation options. 16. Personnel less vulnerable/exposed when turned out in vehicles. 17. Spotting individual units should be harder, AI should target areas with suspected enemy. 18. Data export for external campaign support. 19. More modding support. 20. More smoke available, including reloads. 21. Developer focus switches to improving and unifying game engine, with more support for modding allowing more content to come from third parties. Business model of "niche market means finding ways of getting current users to pay more often/pay for patches" should be re-appraised. Base should be expanded through Steam, payment for content only, turn more users into content creators via modding support. Developers should not focus so much on content with a small team. 22. Allow easier targeting of buildings that are only partially visible. 23. Some MLRS sytems where appropriate (ie those which form part of brigade artillery group supporting a battalion) 24. Artilery supports more than 700m line. 25. Spotter adjust fire on one artillery unit where they have others firing for effect. 26. Better fortifications/fortifications system, including slit trenches, overhead cover, vehicle trenches etc. 27. Recon vehicles and other appropriate vehicles able to reliably spot while turret-down. 28. Updated artillery system in general, including more options for timing, delaying, etc. with artillery moving between fires and counter battery fires modeled or abstracted if possible (or left to external campaign).

Check here also if you are still missing some, though I don't remember there being multiple (HD/SD) versions of Kieme's vehicles: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1L_vto8k7s-AnIKR4VfAY1k0o3tGRTxox

I think some of the Russian squads also put the RPG into the scout team in game.

Oh damn I wondered why they weren't being sold before...

I believe the sound effect is just there for flavour, similar to when you remove a target/target light order (I would assume). In neither situation do they actually cease fire.

I don't think the cover arc does anything you have mentioned, it affects "hunt" by changing it from "stop when you make contact" to "stop when you make contact within the arc".

Fire arcs do not improve spotting they only restrict fire and affect facing as far as I understand.

Thanks for the links IanL, I am having a read through those discussions. I have already learned something new, "fast" disables the behaviour until completed. And that "pause" may work to keep a tank in position while being lased. As I suggested above, If LWS were believed to be in common use by your enemy, I think tank crews would use other methods to set range when engaging them. I still think some kind of switch might be in order to deal with the context the AI doesn't percieve.

For sales to individuals between member states of the EU, the distance selling system means that below an annual figure of approximately €100,000 (or €35,000 in some instances), VAT is charged to customers at the point of sale and kept by the exporting country (if I understand correctly). This would seemingly mean it is in the interest of the exporting country to make sure the tax is collected (since they keep it) and likely increases collection, and would perhaps therefore even out between states that trade with each other. Above that value, you would have to register with the importing country, charge VAT at their local rate, and pay the collected tax to them. For digital goods the limit is €10,000 and is EU wide, not per country. If the fulfilment centre (where the physical goods are when they were sold) is in Ireland and you buy from within the EU, Ireland's VAT rate of 21% applies and is collectable and kept by the republic until yearly sales to EU countries hits €100,000 (actually £70,000 I think, the conversion rate at the time the rule was made). After that point you pay the importing country the tax instead, collected at their rate (the UK's is 20%). Since January 1st, distance selling no longer applies to the UK, VAT is payable to HMRC at the point of sale, on all sales if digital (someone correct me if I'm wrong), and below £135 consignment value for non-exempt physical goods. Above that VAT is now no longer charged at the point of sale and is charged when the goods enter the country, payable at your door I think in cases where the courier has taken care of it at the border. The £135 figure matches the rate at which customs duty is charged (2.5%).

Creative indeed. I wonder if you have an associated sound effect if that is possible? You could probably find something in the following goldmine, I know plenty other creators (perhaps not for CMBS) have. Er, probably not the last bit of dialogue though, though sadly that kind of attitude is not entirely a thing of the past. Oh, and back on topic, it would be nice to be able to adjust one artillery unit at a time when a spotter has several firing for them. A delay for re-use to simulate them swapping positions too perhaps. Counter battery fire. A map! Contour lines! A second vote for the Grad. Fewer, larger maps. A second look at the mechanics of MMGs/HMGs - they are not as effective as they should be in my opinion. Finally a setting for quick battles which sets the amount of intelligence on enemy positions you have.

I made an assumtion it was a Russian photo, my mistake. I focused instead on whether or not it would be appropriate to show unconventional fighters at military funerals in Russia. Had it been such, I maintain the same opinion. The fact that it is a Ukrainian fighter (that we have learned thanks to Haiduk) gives it a bit of a different slant. Soldiers in uniform are masked in public if they would be targeted by some hostile group or power, if they are special forces which may also work at home or abroad out of uniform and would not wish to be identified, or if their association and presence at a funeral would give useful intelligence to the enemy. In this case it is more likely because having soldiers (all or below a certain rank) unmasked could put them in danger, assassinations by Russia have occured in Kyiv if I remember correctly, though I claim no expertise in the matter. @Sgt.Squarehead your reaction is very strong. I am sincere in my position, and would not want present a distorted picture of the world. Let me be clear though, since you said I am biased. I am heavily against what I have seen of the Russian system: firstly because it is not democratic (except where it is unimportant and democracy is the most efficient political technology), and cannot be reformed or change peacefully in the long term. The political pretense that corruption and conservatism are "traditionally Russian" somehow and need to be protected from Western influence and Western ways, etc. etc. No ideology except some kind of apparent rule of the strong real-politik fetishism. This extends to my view of Russian actions abroad. Their interests are not the world's interests, all the more since they no longer claim to be working on behalf of the global working class. I am not naive about the uni-polar and somewhat cynical nature of US global power. However, there is no other country I would trust on the planet as world hegemon. They are sometimes a force for good and sometimes not, but they are democratic, have strong institutions and rule of law, and on balance make the world a better place. We know what the world is like to live in with the US as the world power. I don't want to find out what it is like were another country to take that mantle. Being against the illegal actions of the Russian state is not bias, it should be the default for anyone that believes in the principles of international law, specifically in this case idea that changes to borders must be done peacefully.

Laser warning systems on vehicles have a large effect on the use and effectiveness of tanks in CMBS. They are likely highly classified, and so must be abstracted to some extent. I would like to have a discussion on whether what we have in game at the moment is realistic, and secondarily on how it affects the tactics in game and on the modern battlefield. If they are as effective as depicted, I think we can still agree some modification is needed to the TacAI's response on being lased. Sometimes it is desirable to press ahead or not pop smoke. It seems an apparent sea change in how certain tactical situations would play out compared to WW2 and the Cold War, yet something that would seemingly be easy to circumvent with passive ranging or wire-guidance.

Uncons, platoon radars, and possibly a re-think of laser warning systems on tanks, since it is such a game-changer. Vehicle emplacements, mine clearing equipment for vehicles, etc. I'd be more excited for an engine update though, oh, and co-op multiplayer. A simple ammo replenishment mechanic for artillery and on-map units. A second look at making artillery more realistic, specifically more deadly to infantry, more destructive to buildings, more likely to knock out tanks with misses. And the option to call for fire anywhere on the map, or at least anywhere the unit has enemy spotted markers. Hookers. Blackjack.

That smoke grenade looks like it went quite a way.

This board serves double duty in discussing modern warfare, with details about Russia and NATO in particular, and seeing unconventional russian military units at funerals is pertinent as it is relatively rare to have soldiers in uniform (official, open) but masked (unofficial, special forces and spies). It is evidence of how much unofficial or illegal fighting Russia is doing abroad.

Do battalions have organic spotters at all? As I understand it, Russian army (and related) artillery are their own arm with their own brigades and divisions, parts of which are then attached to manoeuvre battalions or brigades. In a motorised rifle brigade with attached tank company, each battalion has an attached battery of 120mm mortars (8 tubes), the support of the brigade artillery group (comprised of 2 battalions of 152mm artillery (36 guns) and 1 battalion of 122mm MLRS (18 launchers)) plus any other attached artillery (that I've read is normally attached for a specific purpose) and perhaps support from the brigade antitank battalion's artillery (6 100m guns). In the case of a BTG or similar formation (perhaps a brigade forward detachment or advance guard, but I am not sure), one mortar battery (8 tubes) and an artillery battalion (18 tubes) seem to be the standard, and I would guess (perhaps depending on doctrine/precision indirect fire ability) no artillery from the antitank battalion, but one of their three antitank platoons. It seems to me that each artillery battalion provides a spotter (with vehicle if they have it) to the battalion or brigade it is attached to. If this is the case, a BTG or similar would have a spotter from the mortar battery and one from the artillery battalion (what we see in game). Battalions forming part of a manoeuvre brigade (I mean here a brigade fighting as some kind of formation on the front line) would have a spotter each for their attached mortar battery, and the brigade artillery group would have 3 spotters to split between the battalions of the brigade's first echelon (often 2 battalions) plus a spotter from the artillery battery in the antitank battalion. Therefore it seems to me that two spotters (one for the battalion mortars, one for the brigade artillery, what we see in game with BTGs) would be what I would expect to see in a first echelon battalion. Are these the attached spotters you mentioned? If that is the case it seems my point still stands. It seems a bit fragile not to have more spotters in a force that apparently focuses on artillery (manoeuvre to enable fires, as opposed to fires to enable manoeuvre), and has caused me a bit of trouble in a scenario where I had to split a battalion's two forward companies each side of a terrain feature. Or do I have you wrong and there are other common attachments (like reconnaissance-fire groups perhaps) we should be seeing as part of the front line? PS further to the BTG point, from "The Russian Way of War", linked on the previous page, a short quote I happened to read while researching this post: In addition, a subsequent (2018) short paper on Russia's View of Mission Command of Battalion Tactical Groups .

Ok, thank you.

You misread my post or I wasn't clear enough: in a situation where VAT is paid on domestic purchases, and is due yet regularly unpaid on imports, enforcing the current law should not be cast as "protectionism", as it is a correction toward neutral from entirely the opposite. What new VAT model? VAT is 20% and is due just the same as before. LVCR is no longer in effect, and the EU will be doing the same in July. Protectionism is a pejorative carrying it's own ideological baggage. I agree somewhat in that it can be used correctly to describe a broad range of policies, but not that such policies are limited to those that restrict imports. I am however not up to a discussion on the definition protectionism at the moment further than saying it was misused in this case, for the reasons I stated above.

Ok, good to know, but it seems what I said holds true at least for the battion mortars, unless the forward spotters are attached to the battalion. I presume they are attached to brigade artillery though, and that brigade fires are (at least in the main) planned on an objective and as part of an offensive, not used to respond to recently spotted targets. Yes I remember someone (possibly you) saying that in a "proper" war battalions as part of brigades/divisions would be used and not BTGs, and I have kept that in mind, and imagine anyone in the field understands this. However it should be considered that (as far as I have read) BTGs may not be there only because they work well in specific conflicts, but because Russia may have trouble maintaining brigades/divisions throughout long conflicts (during which troops must be rotated home). This may mean that BTGs would be used more often in more types of conflicts outside total war.

That's my coin you skelpie!

I tell you what, I don't envy any BTG commander going up against dug in infantry with Javelins. A full battalion of artillery (18 155mm) tubes is not enough, lacking MLRS, the tanks would have to storm forward or sit back as their spotting won't do, smoke would have to be used liberally, or troops would have to creep foward and be mortared. Company mortars would have to be called in by platoon commanders for the most part, since there is one spotter per battalion.