LUCASWILLEN05

I am playing the second game of the US campaign Charge of the Stryker Brigade. While have disliked the Stryker as a combat vehicle ever since CMSF and while I have always found combat in built up areas tricky (which t is in real life as in Mosul) this is an interesting game. With only light forces and needing to keep casualties down I am playing this one cautiously. I have run into serious opposition at Objective Tomahawk and have established a line to the South West of that position while awaiting the arrival of my 3rd platoon and the helicopter gunships. Softening up the area with artillery and mortar fire for now.

Militia could be fun. The CMBS version of those Shock Force irregular types. And maybe some of Putin's "Little Green Men" to add some ambiguity! :-) Definitely NATO. You have to do the Poles and Baltic States!

Some feedback on the Charge scenario. I played this one this evening without really trying and found it far too easy to win, achieving a Total victory in just over half an hour. I lost 1 tank and one man killed. That#s all! Maybe a second and even a third wave of Russian armour would make it more challenging. As it stands it was like 73rd Easting! ;-) The campaigns will be better I hope!

I seem to recall this in Barbarossa to Berlin urban scenarios but rarely used it. It might be a nice feature to have back if it works

I refer you to Eastern European History which I think you would do well to study. Poland and the Baltic States all have strong historical grounds to fear Russian agression nd indeed have been victims in the past.

It is not Germany that feels threatened. It is Poland and the Baltic States. Given the previous history and the way Moscow has been behaving over the last two or three years in particular these states have good reason to feel nervous. They have seen what happened to Chechnya, Georgia and Ukraine. You need to view the situation from the perspective of Warsaw, Riga etc http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26526053 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31759558 NATO membership of course isan insurance policy for Eastern European governments. In strategic terms irt would be a significant coup for Moscow to bring Belarus under Russian control. Russian forces based in Belarus could, in a future war be used to mount a direct invasion into Poland and/or into the Baltic State linking up with Kaliningrad. Given that NATO forces might well still be in the process of mobilizing and deploying to Eastern Europe these Russian moves would be highly disruptive and potentially result in a situation where the Baltic States are overrun and Poland knocked out of the war generating an early battlefield success for Putin with important political ramifications

If you read about Eastern European History with particular reference to the way they have been treated by Russia in the past yu might better understand why countries like Poland an the Baltic states fear Russia. It is commonly argued that Russia is paranoid about being invaded from the West but we must also consider past Russian aggression. Russian involvement in the 18th Century partitions f Poland. the 1939 invasion of Finland, the 1940 annexation of the Baltic States for example. The post Cold War Eastern European governments correctly saw NATO as their insurance policy against future aggression by their far larger neighbour to the East. Furthermore, during the Cold War we, in Western Europe lived for over forty years with the threat of invasion by massed tank armies of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. Not to mention the threat of nuclear annihilation. That is why we also regard Russia with dark suspicion. .

Hoping this will help inspire the developers to include the Polish army!

I would expect a number of Black Sea modules probably including additional US, NATO, Russian and Ukrainian forces. Possibly Belorussians and Baltic States (hint, hint!:-) As far s modern theaters after the Black Sea game your guess is as good as mine but I think a return to the Middle East s most likely. However a 1980s "Fulda Gap scenario would be a good one for the "tankies" among us 1:-)

For interest and information only. Not political debate, However, if Russia were to occupy Belarus it could be strategic game changer http://belarusdigest.com/story/belarus-centre-russia-nato-wargame-simulation-29037

As Emrys says I expect there will be a Battle of the Rhineland/Rhine Crossing theme to the expansion which I suspect will take us to May 1945. Apart from the opening of the Scheldt Estuary, Walcheran Overloon and Geilenkirchen I am hard prssed to think of major British/Canadian operations over the autumn/winter of 1944 - 5. In FB Battlefront#s policy of "US forces first" makes even more sense than usual. In addition to the obvious Volksturm I would like to see the German 2nd Marine Division so we can game their battles in the final weeks of the war http://www.feldgrau.com/2kms.html The Free French would be a good addition they were equipped and organised as US but it wouuld avouid having to come up with a lot of French names :-)

The Red Army did develop considerably during World War 2 and by 1944 had become highly effective at the operational level and was at least competent on a tactical level. That said, as the research of David Glantz reveals there were many serious setbacks and defeats along the way. he failed April 1944 invasion of Romania being but one example. Did the Red Army win by brute force? No. They were up against a very tough and resourceful opponent as were the Western Akllies. It was a tough and bitter slog often to the very end of the war

I suspect carrying weapons, shells, ammunition etc is heavy work! :-)

Maybean improvement could be an "Open Order" command that lets an infantry secton or team spread out more albeit with the cot of takinga little longer to respond to new orders, Ability to select squad frmation eg chelon, line abreast, column, etcwould be a good improvment to have. Assuming it can be done with the software

I wouldn't entirely agree with that. The Waffen SS were certainly not what they were. Dupuy certainly has his biases and the reader should be aware of these. When you have studied History at graduate level bias is an issue you will be keenly aware of. The German accounts such as Meyer's History of the 12th SS, the history f the Panzer Korps Grss Deutschland (he ccount f the Fuhrer Begleit Brigade is the relevant section here) and even Michael Reynolds' various modern histories all have some degree of pro German bias n my opinion. One should never rely on a single text and use a variety of sources wherever possible.All of the above sources including also Cole's official history, Charles B MacDonald's book and, for the US Bulge counter offensive in the Bulge sector Victory in Europe : the last offensive in Europe are useful but mainly from an operational perspective We must not however forget the other battles fought by the US Army at this tme for example Aachen, Huertgen Forest, the Saar, the Vosges Mountains and of course Operation Nordwind. There are a number of texts covering these battles from both the US and the German sides. Additionally here were operations in Holland, often in co-ordination with the British, a few of whom also participated in the Battle of the Bulge

I guess I am just used to seeing what you see in CMSF. I got used to seeing the black smoke as being IR- blocking incendiary smoke.Not seeing it in CMBS resulted in an incorrect assumption it was just normal smoke. Not to worry -Know better now :-)

Thankyou for the clarifications

Simple enough. If US and other Western forces have the technology,why do they not have it in game. I can understand it for CMSF. Syrians do not usually have TI,hence Western forces do not require smoke that blocks their night vision equipment. Ukraine however is different. Here Russian equipment does have TI and it would be useful to obstruct TI/ However, in game tank mounted smoke grenades only seem to dispense ordinary smoke, not the dark colured variety i am used to seeing for the incendiary variety

I am yet to be convinced of that, Incendiary smoke is designed to block thermal Imaging. I would however like NATO tanks and artillery to have the option of using incendiary smoke.I have nothing against tank crews deciding for themselves to use it.However, when I use artillery I would like the option to choose what kind of smoke think is appropriate. I would not hwever want o change the actual effects of smoke although some testing to determine the effecs of thermal imging through smok creens would be a good idea

I agree with what yo say John.I am however looking at this fro the geopolitical/strategic angle. Certainly it s vital that Putin understands that he should not push beyond certain boundaries. On the other and, were NATO to step beyond certain boundaries Moscow would see this as too provocative and,potentially provoking a war that is neither sought nor intended. As you say Russia no doubt has contingency plans for a full scale war with NATO which might apply. Indeed, the situation before the war depicted in the CMBS scenario assumes just the circumstances. My personal view is that, if a war were inevitable it would not matter if Ukraine joined NATO. It might make Puin pause and think about whether he really wants a war with all of NATO over Ukraine, decide this isn't a good deals and step back from the brink.Or, as is equally possible it might simply precipitate a clash that, at this future point is deemed insatiable, Ukraine then forms a greater defense in depth for NATO. It gets invaded.NATO moves troops in and Ukraine becomes a battlefield. In an al out war so does the Baltic States and perhaps Eastern Poland depending o how the fighting develops. However it dveops this scenario would be all out war in Europe, deterrence having failed

Note Infantry often have night vision equipment enabling hem to see through smoke to a certain extent (except incendiary smoke))

Thermobaric weapons accomplish pretty much the same effect

Some interesting points in regard t what is happening "under the bonnet" Judging by personal observation a building like a wooden Russian hut in CMRT or a small Middle East house in CMSF require only a few rounds before they collapse.Larger buildings like a brick house or a stone church require more punishment.Those big apartment block type buildings are most impossible t destroy. A prolonged and heavy bombardment might eventually do it. However, such building still takes visible battle damage. Beyond the above I really don't worry too much about it

I am curious about this In CMBS and CMSF Russians/Syria have it but US/NATO forces do not. Are not Western forces equipped with this technology and, if not, is there any reason they could not be so equipped. It does block Thermal Sights but Russian tanks have this level of technology as well.NATO would want to counter that capability. No such qa problem in Syria b when fighting the big boys in Eastern Europe...