LarsS

I appreciate the answer and the fact that you are willing to give estimates on the numbers involved. Most knowledgeable commentators I've encountered aren't -- which is perfectly understandable since it's so very easy to be wrong when the FoW lies as thick as it does over the eastern Ukraine.

I've had a hard time getting any real grasp on the scale of this conflict even though I've followed it somewhat closely, and this is especially true regarding the separatist side. The estimation of 25 000 thousand fighters on the separatist/Russian side at present is one of the first 'hard', if still 'best guesstimate', numbers I've come across. Would the numbers have been significantly higher in August-September, during the counter offensive? And how many AFVs (lets say BRDM-sized and bigger, and include SPGs firing from inside Russia) would have been part of it? I understand that any number would be highly speculative, but are we talking 100 or 2000, or what?

I also find breach teams very useful in urban terrain. They can open new, covered approaches to the enemy by blasting inconvenient house walls, letting you move through the city blocks instead of having to expose your units in the streets. They also double as tank hunters, since their charges can take out/immobilize enemy armor.

Great stuff so far. I always learn something new following these AARs. (Too bad I tend to forget it at first contact with the enemy, though.) How many points do the two sides have in this battle? I haven't seen it mentioned in the thread.

Nice test. It comes as a bit of a relief to see that a much shorter spotting cycle is used whenever moving units are involved. The other thread had me slightly worried. I mean 7 seconds is an eternity in MOUT, in thick woods and other situations where abundant cover/concealment limits engagement ranges. Especially for when vehicles are involved. A 2 second cycle, which on average means an actual delay around 1 second before units make the spotting check after they have come into LoS of each other, is perfectly reasonable and more in line with how the game "feels".

I second this request. And third, fourth and eighth it, too. I currently don't have much time for any CM: Time Thief games, so I like to enjoy them vicariously, in any format.

It's all about scenario design. If the defender gets reinforcements late in the battle, additional time will let him use them to greater effect. If the defender's units are forcibly spread out over a large area (by way of a big map and different setup zones), he might need the extra time to concentrate his forces to first stop the enemy attack and then later counterattack (there is of course nothing preventing the defender from having objectives inside the attacker's setup area). If the attack starts pre-dawn, a longer battle might mean that the defender better can use his long range fire power as the light conditions improve. Etc.

Meet Small Village tells you that that specific map is made for Meeting Engagements and that the map is of the type Small (size) and Village (terrain). This means that if you pick either Random or ME as type of battle; Small or Random as map size; and Random or Village as terrain type when you set the QB up, that specific map is elegible to be picked at random, among all others that fulfill the criteria you've chosen. Tiny or Huge are used both with regard to battle size (i.e. force size) and map size. Both can be set to random. The maps are made so that it doesn't matter which side is attacking or defending, the defender always sets up on one part of the map and the attacker on the other. So you don't need to make maps specifically stating that the Axis are defending and Allies attacking (or vice versa).

If you play as the attacking side in an Assault QB you get intel on the setup locations of some of the defending units.

But I want a wildly inaccurate estimation of exactly when. It's more fun that way.

It's actually out! I expected at least three it's-out-but-not-really-haha-threads before the patch would see the light of day. Nice work!

My memory might be way off, but I think someone else brought this issue up a while back, and the fix was to delete all area objectives. After that free expansion of the map was possible again. (Best to save the map before you try, obviously.)

Yeah, I agree that the problem lies in too limited setup areas on some maps, not in pre-planned bombardment as a feature. In a perfect world, every map would have a minimum of a 500 m deep setup zone for the attacker and lots of space for the attacker to defend in depth and keep reserves hidden and not too concentrated. Mapmakers' and low end computer owners' lives would get a lot harder in that world, though.

Making the table "crew served" and have it function like a gun is actually brilliant. You'd need to "limber" it to pack it up for transport, you'd "unlimber" it when setting it up, and preferably you'd transport it by a loading it unto a truck or a jeep/K-wagen. Carrying it would be slow. And the HQ team, i.e. the "crew", could "bail out" and ditch the table in an emergancy, just as you say. Best idea ever, come to think about it! I trust it will be included in the soon-to-be-released patch;).

I especially like the folding map table idea for HQs. The effect when having it deployed could be a bonus to the time it takes for C2 information to be dissiminated, or maybe increased accuracy for spotters in the HQ's chain of command, or a shorter arty response time for fire missions that are conveyed through it, or...the possibilities are endless.