LuckyDog

I'm sure both weapons are accurate; the question is, where is the barrel pointing? This raises the idea of bias and precision—i.e., grouped shots but off-target centre (top right of the attachment). I've fired a Bren; honestly, my lack of control meant it went quickly off target. I know someone trained will do way better, but when both weapons weigh roughly the same, having a higher volume of fire would seem less controllable. This shouldn't matter if you have a close group of targets and want to put as much lead on them as possible before they scatter. But how long can you do this before you are off-target and wasting ammo? At a longer range, does the lack of control lead to a Noisy/Inaccurate situation (top left)? How much difference is there in the effective fire rate if I have to reduce my fire to small bursts for controllability? I read somewhere that Bren gunners were trained to move frequently to make return fire less effective (sorry, I can't remember where). This is a potential addition to the host of soft factors other posters have mentioned. My two cents is that the choice is somewhat dictated by the encounter range. Closer - MG42; Longer - Bren. I have no idea where the dividing line is, but I do know I don't want to be shot at by either!

Thank you for the detailed answer and for not adding minefields! From a defence in-depth perspective, how far back did NATO forces prepare firing positions and PTPTs? (if you are allowed to say) Based on my expectations of human nature, those positioned closer to the front would pay way more attention to this than further back. Is this scenario still in the zone where the troops feel like this is essential? Until this mission, it feels like I haven't hit the main line of resistance - rather, some painful tripwires. Your answer gave me some perspective about why I cannot stop and bypass - this is the "lane" for my MRR, and I have to move along or die trying. In this scenario, the US kit quality definitely helps—without M2s, it would be much easier. However, this brings up a general issue with the ability of tanks and AFVs to spot infantry in woods when they are hunting them from the side/back. The commander may have their head on swivel, but It seems they spot me way before I spot them. Maybe this is my tradeoff for a less intricate defence and no minefields...

I've been waiting to read this post until I finished the third mission; having played it twice and achieved a minor victory, I feel 'qualified' to add my thoughts. Note: I did have the cluster and regular arty in the menu, but could only use the mortar/air support as I had one FAC and the scout leader. Maybe I have an old version of the campaign. *** Spoliers*** I went right on my first attempt (draw), and it looked like the videos in the "How hot is Ukraine gonna get" thread. I recovered, pushed the village, and had success against the M60s but stopped below the hill on the left with the four Bradleys. On attempt two, I went left and got much further, but I think I only hit one Bradley with direct fire; the rest were taken out by artillery. USAF and US cluster rounds reduced my force in the village so much that I couldn't overcome the last Bradley near the exit road (M901s were destroyed). @SHVAKS mentioned the difficulty in keeping the scout team alive - welcome to the CM school of hard knocks! Previous pain has led me to believe that 1) if you have to wait 5 minutes for real troops, then there is something out there to be seen, and 2) Soviet vehicles are so poor at spotting that I dismount anyone with Binos and hide the vehicles, and 3) if you have to hide your vehicles, dismount the crew to prevent VP loss when they inevitably go bang... @M.Herm's map does a great job of explicitly showing the best locations for your troops. I've started seeing this campaign as a maneuver puzzle, with pathfinding and subtlety as essential. It took me at least 4 attempts to get to mission three because I thought my Soviet horde should use overwhelming firepower and shock to overcome anything in its path! I'd love @The_Capt's feedback on whether Soviet commanders would have the time and tactical training in maneuver warfare to implement what is required to overcome this mission, or would they stop and bypass elsewhere? Did NATO forces plan such intricate and effective ambush/denial zones? I enjoyed this mission; thank you!

I'm unsure if we will have a chance to get to war. In retrospect, if Russia were to invade Ukraine again, it would probably start with hundreds of thousands of drone strikes to cripple infrastructure, command and control. Take out government offices, cell towers, TV masts, power stations, command HQs, water utilities, fire stations, docks, oil/gas storage, and cause major traffic accidents on the arterial roads the army will use to deploy. Never mind the military targets. What kind of response could be coordinated and executed if they did that? If this is a realistic possibility, how can any country guard against it? Sanctions have reduced border traffic, but there are too many avaricious useful idiots that will enable this to happen (again, in any country). Have we arrived at mutually assured destruction version 2? [Edit - after thought] And that is why we can't stop helping Ukraine now. It will be worse next time.

Do you plan to allow the Swingfire launcher to be separate from the control unit so we can leave it hidden behind cover? That sounds like a very different game mechanic and is tough to implement. If we get it, it will make a huge difference in survivability.

I stumbled across this article about using face-hardened and RHA armour, specifically for the Panther. It seemed to align with my basic knowledge, but I wanted to pick the group's wisdom on whether the article was accurate and your thoughts on the site's quality overall. Thanks! https://tankhistoria.com/wwii/panther-armor-quality/

Have we discussed the possibility of AI analysis of the drone camera feeds to complement other intelligence feeds? Good enough data could even track vehicle and soldier movement. The geolocation and time stamps could enable predictive observation (resupply/build up) and potentially predictive artillery fire. The feeds don't look very high resolution but I've seen AI pick out PPE use on similar sized (relative to the screen) objects. Any thoughts?

I've had better results with dismounted infantry next to the BMPs and AT-5s - especially if the infantry is close and from the vehicle. Whenever possible, I unbutton. Numbers of eyeballs really help... The Russian forces do have issues spotting things a short distance away.

Alright, I'll start a little speculation about campaigns to pass the time! Will there be two NATO campaigns (BAOR & Canadian) or one with a force mix based on the USSR pushing at the boundaries of formations? I'll make the assumption that the USSR campaign will be a Guards shock army against the BAOR. How about the timeline? In 1975, the Chieftain was strong - as T64s become more common and then T80s appear, things will get tough for the BAOR. Stillbrew, L23 ammo, and the Challenger are apparently out of scope, so there won't be an Abrams/Bradley-style power reversal. I don't think the Canadians got the Leopard until 1978, so Centurian vs. T64 will be "interesting"... Thinking about the possibilities has given me a lot of respect for the amount of research needed for mapping, unit placement, and playtesting; it's not surprising that it didn't happen in 2023. I'm hoping for 2024!

Several pages ago, someone mentioned that Ukraine works with ClearView for facial recognition for IDing senior RU commanders and war criminals. Have they started to identify the dead RU soldiers, catalog them on a website, and target relative's social media feeds? It would make the Russian attempts to avoid paying death benefits more difficult, bring the reality home to the civilian population, and reduce state coffers. Or would this have the unintended consequence of raising support due to the payments?

I was playing scenario four today in the American campaign - Dollbach Heights. There were a number of Russian units my M16 armed troops would not open fire on, as the range was over 400m... An unusual case where I didn't need to hit them, more to stop them, and an SLR would have been perfect.

@Centurian52 Thanks for the detailed response! To clarify, I knew that the SLR/L1A1 is single shot, more that the film showed a much more deliberate rate of fire than repeated trigger pulls - you make a good point about the recoil being a limiting factor for maintaining target/sight alignment. While the round is, as you said, essentially overpowered, it will be interesting to see if the greater penetration is modelled - turning cover into concealment. And yes, in a CQB, I'd prefer my section to be armed with Sterlings (L2) - I saw what the Russian squads did in CMBB...

Thanks for sharing @Halmbarte. Was that a Chieftan dressed up as a T series at the 12-minute mark? In another thread, someone asked about the volume of fire from an SLR vs an M16. If this is to be taken as representative, then single, controlled shots will be the norm! It would be handy to be able to shoot through floors when house clearing.

Are the development machines powered by a Leyland L60? (JK) Any chance of a teaser of any kind? Pretty please!

I would imagine that 7 SLRs and a GPMG can make life very unpleasant in the 400m range. 7.62mm should retain energy to penetrate light cover. The trick is spotting and keeping your enemy at that range.

It ties in so perfectly with the Russian talking point about the Ukrainians allegedly being Nazis and the opportunity to include Zelensky that I'm starting to wonder if the FSB had some influence in making this happen. Not that it shouldn't have been stopped, but why did someone think this was a good idea?

@The_Capt Is there anything you can share? I'd love to hear any details you feel comfortable imparting!

It would seem that someone is watching - it remains to be seen if a nice summary (that could have been lifted from the last couple of pages of this thread) can be put into action. https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events/news/2023/09/army-announces-new-way-of-winning-future-wars/

Perfect; thank you!

I ran the upgrade on Windows 10 from 1.06. The home screen says "cold war v1.07brz" is missing. I'm not sure if this is due to Norton doing its very best to stop the upgrade (the "Data Protector" module) over four attempts before I managed to suspend the service. The quick battle selection options are "interesting" (force type: Vickers Berthia or Spandrel), and the force selection is WW2! Any ideas on how to fix this, please?

***Spoliers*** I played as the Soviets and had a shaky start before I figured out how the terrain impacts spotting. I won a major victory - I lost five tanks, mostly to infantry and M150s. I didn't spot the M150s with my tanks; I used arty to degrade/destroy them. I had a couple of point-blank encounters (well <200m) with M60s where my T64s took one or two hits and little to no damage. Due to my inability/lack of interest in fighting simultaneous battles, I ended up with a pack of 9 T64s that I moved as a pack, and they smashed an M60 counterattack they ran into for no losses - I think I picked the easy side! I'm going to try the 1981/1982 scenario next.

Fantastic - thank you, 37mm! This should be pinned. It's like a whole new game and there is some amazing work from a hugely talented group of modders.

How's the Easter Bunny doing with our treat?

Double post sorry

I was reading "First Clash" and didn't understand the phrase "thinking two levels down". Is this thinking about the impact of actions two levels down command-wise or two steps ahead? Thanks!