Skwabie

Are you referring only to helos? For jets nowadays they mostly go with PGMs and a 10-18k ft hard deck is quite doable. Radar guided SAMs are another story though, you'd then need dedicated SEAD platforms providing cover. But then the single digit SAMs like SA2s and 6s are relatively manageable, it's the double digit ones that are the real killers. Hence the need for stealth fighters. The cat and mouse game...

Tis is about to develop into a discussion based on smoke and mirror and heresies. I'm sure some of you lived thru the tense period and have some strong sentiment about it, but for me the apocalypse didn't happen and the nuclear peace, although tense, was in the end peace. I leave this discussion to you wiser gents.

MM's tool couldn't be used on SF, but I got the Army, Marine and Brit campaign unpacked and ULed to the repo. Bogged down on the Brit camp tho, as it was somehow too boring for me..

On a side note, while most of the rotation rates look spot on in CM, I know at least for the tiger its 6 deg/sec rate is only when engine idle, for the rotation mechanism is linked with engine RPM. But when it comes down to it, doesn't quite seem this kinda feature (ala turret inertia or rotation mechanism) is yet within CM's engine limits...

I dunno, once nuke shells, no matter how small they are, started flying it could easily escalate to MAD (mutually assured destruction). Therefore from today's perspective it was simply a deterrent, as neither side has any real incentive to use it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction I'm sure someone smart can explain the Nash Equilibrium (or counter it!) At the end of the day I don't generally consider these WMDs as they are simply too... far out. Back to conventional means, in the later cold war years technology played a heavier role in combat where air power became essential. The 91 Gulf War caused quite a few WTF and jaw dropping moments in the eastern bloc countries. So despite the fewer numbers NATO had I'm sure they'll get some help. Interdiction sorties over soviet columns can absolutely rain havoc, provided the fights of air supremacy and SEAD are won ofc.

Thanks for the reply steve. Did a bit research of my own, mostly about how NATO planned to do it. Seems it comes down to defense in depth, fighting withdrawal and then counter attack. It's like... fighting an axe carrying giant 5 times your size with a bow and arrow, by shooting him repeatedly while running away.

Well... My vote goes to Red Storm Rising 2. (the land combat portion ofc) In memory of Tom Clancy!

Yep I was questioning more of the conventional means as once things go nuclear who knows what'll happen:rolleyes: Thanks c3k that makes some sense to me, although not exactly sure what you mean by flexible defense. I've heard multi-layered defense lines but reckon that's pretty common when fighting against mobile mechanized forces; also I know there're reserves in a defense so one can plug the broken hole but apparently you said once the soviets attack the reserve is immediately tied? I'm a bit new to this so excuse me if the Q's rather basic. For sure it's obvious Germany doesn't have the resources or the, should I say, political freedom to stop the offensive but just trying to think of a way to counter the doomy and gloomy reds in CM.

So, what strategy/tactic would you think is a good way to counter this soviet offensive, theoretically? More firepower like the van fleet load in Korea? (And what was the NATO doctrine at countering the red tide at the Fulda gap?)

Well from a scenario playing standpoint, Company A, B, C of the ruskies pile on a single company of germans. As the defender I would just expect the reds to keep coming until my forces all die or the reds die out. Doesn't seem too much different to me from previous CMBN/FI scenarios when the AI is attacking, it's just the ruskies will have much more manpower, which provides a better challenge. If it's not like this, I'd like to be enlightened.

Perhaps the lack of I in AI won't be such a problem for eastern front as it seems to me the ruskies win on sheer numbers instead of tactical prevalence..

Quite tempting but already got enough russian socialism hype over here so gotta pass it unfortunately:X

hell. Someone will just have to come out and say it. Might as well be me. National bias! :eek:

Just wanna say I'm learning quite much information while reading this thread, ofc in this case spotting related. Actually... I usually learn quite a lot of new stuff in these threads, so thank you. But I agree with Vanir, I know so little about how the game system works everytime I start it I feel like going in blind. Knowing how different it can be between things happening on a computer screen vs. the real world I don't put too much faith in my assumptions. I would love to get more info about how the game works in manuals instead of digging it up in deep threads like this.. That would motivate me to play the game more as well.

Hi Vergeltungswaffe yep just edit the core file and re-import them into the scenario, after that delete the unwanted core units. actually MadMike's tool extract everything except the core. Therefore some campaigns you can edit and some not. KG engel was the lucky few..

thnx vab and ofc steve, got me clear as well

Yes straight to the point Mr. X... guess tis what i was trying to say at the start but not that well expressed another point is, if the mission editor is easier to use, it would make things better. But obviously it is a long shot at best.

Actually I'm wondering if it's possible to ask some of the campaign makers to provide us the core unit file. This way the force on both sides can be adjusted. You can fight with/against different units from the original campaign and can generate a brand new experience. I'm thinking Conrath's counterattack, The fleeting moment, Panzer Marsch (from BN) and a moment in time. These have core units on the OPFOR side so just extracting the scenarios, make a new core and re-packing the camp is not practical.

lol... The Force was indeed strong!

I've never created a scenario before hence the lack of experience is inevitable... and more interested in campaigns so doing this atm: Create a core force. Deploy the core force to each default scenario that comes with the FI/GL install, matching the new unit strength to the replaced ones ofc. When I finished I intend to pack them all into a campaign. It provides me some lineage and continuity when fighting with the same core units. Last night I finished the first 4 scenarios and played thru them, was indeed enjoyable. PS nice pic! edit: missed the point. glad to help if i can.

Got it. Makes sense. Been pondering this for a while and obviously no way to verify it meself. Thnx YankeeDog.

and since we're on the general topic of spotting, there's a question i wanna ask: does establishing C2 link enhances spotting for other friendly units? for example an infantry squad spots an enemy tank. my own tank does have LOS to it but hasn't yet spotted it. if the infantry squad has C2 established, will it help my own tank see the enemy tank sooner?

I feel exactly that way from points 1 to 3. But atm I at least get some immersion out of fighting with the core units in campaigns, especially counting the kill stats at the campaign results screen and... yep one of the Tiger TC is named Carious and his platoon did rather good.

Nan, a dynamic campaign (or the operational level referred here which is somewhat geared towards the same thing?) is anyone can dream of for sure. Problem ofc is the cost of making one, for it's all just for entertainment hence there ain't a business model for it. history shows any business entity that has tried it has all been defunct and apparently CMC is bfc's own lesson... In another way of speaking... concept's ahead of its time. P.S. The downside does exist, once you get into the matrix, takes some effort to get out. So one with a busy real life can argue a DC is meaningless or.. harmful.

Tis good news:) Count me in as well when it goes KS