LUCASWILLEN05

Fleshing this out politically Korea ight be partt of the reason. However sooner r later war between the US and China is a highy plausible scenario http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/29/us-china-war-increasingly-a-reality-chinese-army-official-says.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-china-war-be-end-of-life-earth-nuclear-weapons-apocalypse-steve-bannon-donald-trump-white-house-a7561821.html https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/02/steve-bannon-donald-trump-war-south-china-sea-no-doubt ussia is also a hostile power and is the other senior member of the SCO. In the right circumsances the SCO might well morph into a military alliance. China has other disputes such as he one with Vietnam that might bring about a situation where the US has to commit large ground forces to the Asian mainland. While the US will likely suffer early defeats in a war that would clearly be of World War proportions (we are assuming no nukes here - the war leaders are assumed to be too scared of the consequences and so are assumed to figh an extended conventional war instead) it is probable the draft will be re-introduced permitting the US to raise a large enough army to fight the war. I am not saying it will end with US tanks rolling into Tianaman Square. There is however a strong likelihood of extended ground campaigns in South East Asia and perhaps India in addition to Siberia (remember the old Lehman Doctrine from te 1980s) and eventually, yes, maybe an invasion of mainland China. Bear in mind we are talking about the US when fully mobilized, not the US with current capabilities. Anyway, this is a GAME allowing us to use high tech armies in a theater not previously addressed As far as geopoltical "realism" is concerned - back in the late 1980s war gamers were gaming "Sci Fi on the Rhine" - and I notice someone has recently suggested a Combat Mission 1985 game!

Indeed. I think the Far East has at least as much potential for high tech armoured combat and we already have games for the Middle East and Eastern Europe. As you suggest paddy fields would be a significant terrain addition. I consider a Far East game would offer far more than a Middle East repeat. Possibly the game would open up a potential Far East market for Battlefront :-) Regarding the year 2021 does seem like a reasonable plausible date for a conflict as well as allowing for gaming several other interesting regional conflicts, thus killing several birds with the same stone. I rather fancy gaming India v Pakistan, a Sino - Indian or a Second Korean War but I accept that these conflicts on their own might not be commercially viable as a game in the way that Ring of Fire could be given the variety of armies that might be available. Battlefront has also shown an ability to model different terrains hence they ought to be able diverse terrains such as Northern India and Pakistan including Kashmir Nepal, Korea, Taiwan, Mainland China, Siberia and South East Asia where the main ground combat would most likely take place in this scenario.

A great power conflict along the Pacific Rim against Russia and China could very well involve significant ground warfare from very early in the conflict, The first ground contacts would likely, as you say, be in Korea. However, this would be a conflict of World War proportions and would require a reintroduction of the draft. One can assume that the US would eventually win the war at sea and would then have to conduct large scale ground operations against China While this game might concentrate on the Far East this would be a world war with likely theaters in the Middle East, Europe and possibly Africa. Perhaps an upgraded CMSF might be linked in to his future scenario history Particularly f game design went down a multi theater route there would be tremendous scope for expansion within the timeline There are some interesting considerations here

The Russians could even get to use the Armata and then we would see plenty of Chinese equipment. not to mention South Korea. Japan and Taiwanese equipment. Als Indian tanks like the Arjun and the Pakistani Al Khalid. Many different terrain/theater options as well such Kashmir, Korea, South East Asia Siberia and Mainland China. This is a conflict could easily last two or three years (assume the war leaders are too scared to go nuclear) so different seasons could be featured. As indicated earlier this CM game might cover smaller regional conflicts that might not otherwise be regarded as commercially viable on their own even with US intervention.

Wht about this for a future conflict scenario. This would pit the United States and her Pacific Region Allies such as Japan,Taiwan South Korea. Australia and maybe European allies such as the UK against the armies of he Shanghai Co-Operation Organisation in a widespread conflagration in the Pacific Rim region (essentially a WW3 scenario. Combat in this game might be in any area within the region during this lengthy conventional war including Taiwan. South Korea, and Siberia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation It coud alo be potentially used to game wars such as a Sino-Indian conflict or an Indo-Pakistani conflict though, as always, the main focus must be on US ground forces. I think this would be a far better option than revisiting the Middle East. The Far East has much potential for a high tech modern conflict - and we have never had a Combat Mission game set in this region. Perhaps Korea or Taiwan might be the spark that sts the region (and the world) ablaze.

Sounds more like a scenario designer's tool to me. Perhaps rather than a slide bar something like this should be implemented as a drop down menu. Perhaps placed in the description or data sections of the scenario editor. I do not feel that a player should be able to change the intensity of fighting as such but a scenario designer could

So was Ukraine until there was a revolution. If Belarus remains a Russian ally they might well allow passage through their territory for an invasion of the Baltic States and/or Ukraine. They might even commit their own army in support of Russia. Either way NATO would regard Belarus as a belligerent Regarding the Baltic States, the best time for Russia to make that move is very early in a war - and there probably is not much NATO can do to stop them from being overrun http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/23/nato-cant-protect-baltics-from-russia-says-us-general/ Indeed the Baltic States could easily become a trap just as Belgium was a trap in 1940. That is not to say that Kaliningrad would not be a NATO objective later in the war, during a NATO counter offensive. It very likely would have to be taken as a pre -requisite for the liberation of he Baltic States. If Belarus were in the war on Russia's side NATO would have to occupy that territory in order to protect the right flank of forces advancing into the Baltic States (and for that matter the left flank of forces operating in Ukraine. All of this should generate an interesting background for scenarios...

They must think it is Prokorovka July 1943! Judging by all the smoke columns in the background it could be..... -)

Even if Belarus attempts to stay neutral does not guarantee they would not be invaded. Once a war has started with NATO Putin might weld decide to attack Belarus States. While an escalation this would still keep the war relatively limited to the territories of the former Soviet Union. Regarding Kaliningrad it may well be that Russia would invade the Baltic Sates in order to link up with the Oblast. However, if Article 5 is not in play at this point it would be pretty quickly following a Russian move of that sort. Militarily NATO might not be able to prevent the conquest of the Baltic States but, politically it could be a mistake for Putin Russia however would have to move swiftly to achieve all military objectives before NATO is fully mobilized and deployed to Eastern Europe

Short periods of high speed are, as you say, another matter. You might have to get across that open ground rapidly. We already have the fast and quick orders to do this and tanks do move fast enough when you use these orders. I do not think we need any changes there :-)

You would not normally run your tank at sustained full speed though - for the same reson you would not do this with your car! :-)

Expanded war options would be interesting. Belorussia might also be invaded hAttp://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Will-Belarus-Be-The-Next-Ukraine-For-Russia.html And I believe they do use the T-80...

In fact extending the timeline to allow a winter variant (say September 2017 - March 2018 would be welcome :-) Either he war lasts for a few months or the same scenario as we have now occurs but. instead of war starting in June the conflict imitates in November and pauses when the Mud Season starts. As with the current scenario allows negotiations. If we had a continuation of the original scenario one might assume the war continues following a breakdown of the talks with the situation continuing o develop from he positions at the end of August with the war continuing during the winter - one or both sides initiate winter offensives in the hope of achieving a decisive victory

I am starting to like these battle packs despite some initial doubts. Maybe the CMBS packs could go for a theme. For instance the next one might examine he Russian attempt to take Kiev and the early phases of the NATO counteroffensive. I would like to see more night tank battles - both sides have good night vision capability and would be using it. An assault on Kiev would result in some of he most intense combat of the war and both sides would be going for broke at his point. Perhaps the pack could be organised into the Russian and NATO victory timelines with some attention granted to a Russian exploitation of success in the Battle of Kiev

I would not expect tanks to travel at full speed on the battlefield. If you want them to travel at speed you need to issue the appropriate orders. In reality there are gong to be constraints such as fuel consumption (what happens if you drive your ca at maximum speed all the time? :-) ) and tactical concerns (if you move at full speed you won't be using the ground very effectively and accurate shooing becomes much better. Usually I move my tanks at "Normal" speed.and "Slow" when I want to fire accurately on the move. "Fast" and "Quick" movement is probably best used when you wan to cover a short distance quickly

Personally I have not noticed anything seriously wrong. Actually if a unit is out in the open and comes under heavy fire they probably should bug out if the fire is heavy and close range. Maybe if they are in good cover (trenches, buildings) they might stay where they are if they cannot reach better cover very quickly. I do not see Battlefront making changes until they are convinced by video evidence of what you are saying. Personally I am far from convinced myself that there is an issue here. If you can provide evidence to the contrary such as videos of incidents combined with information regarding troop quality, motivation, levels of suppression which may affect the result that would generate solid data. So far nobody has provided any firm evidence

From what I have seen so far with the current update (and I only purchased this a week ago) units in cover coming under heavy fire stay there most of the time rather than bugging out. Units in the open but in a bad situation (heavy close range fire causing casualties probably will bug out. Which is as it should be. Perhaps the way forward on this is to document situations and responses taking into account tactical circumstances, type of cover. morale, leadership, amount of incoming fire etc. Videoing what happens and quantifying the ratings of the unit in question is necessary to assess what happens and why

Good advice there. I would add 1 Avoid sending units out into the open as much as possible 2 Use overwatch/covering fire Machine guns and tanks! 3 Soften up likely enemy positions with artillery/air 4 Use smoke! 5 Always remember the key is Combined Arms

Quite a few CMSF campaign games were made available as standalone games

Green or conscript units don't have to be low on morale (motivation in CM terminology) although they often will be. You might sometimes give them good morale and maybe good leadership which my help them to some extent

Maybe the occasional individual may break and run. However If a squad were to be under very heavy, close range fire bugging out could be the best option particularly if cover is poor. This is why I want to know more about the circumstances exsonic01 observed. How close were the enemy? How much cover did his squad have? It may be that, if the enemy was quite close and/or their fire was heavy the squad leader sensibly decided to "bug out" Maybe that is what he actually observed.

Sometimes people will do strange things when they panic.I am not saying what is happening is right but do you by any chance have a video of the circumstances? Was this squad in cover and of what kind? How close were they to the enemy? These factors could well make a difference

That one has aways bugged me as well :-)

Seems reasonable enough to me. In real life a squad will probably bug out when it comes under heavy fire as you describe. They have, as you say taken a couple of casualties and are pinned down. Even veterans might consider bugging out under these conditions particularly if their cover is not great where they are. In terms of game play maybe it is annoying. Maybe look for tactical solutions like putting another squad on overwatch and attempting to suppress enemy fire which would at least give the targeted squad a better chance

I would like to see the next BP cover the US counter offensive or just its' early stages And some more night battles please! :-) A nice mix of heavy armour and infantry scenarios would be good