LUCASWILLEN05

Fulda Gap or modern Asia. Yes. WW2 Pacific probably not

True - I was thinking more of, let us say, the less intelligent kind

How about expanding the time frame covered to the period 2003 - near future and, over time, creating new armies eg Turkey, Iraq (Saddam era 2003 and New Iraqi Army), Saudi. Egypt, Iran. Jordan, IDF, Hezbollah etc This would allow scenario designers to create historical, current,and hypothetical scenarios giving sF the new lease of life it so badly needs

For CMSF2 there are opportunities here to do a lot miore with the original game. For example 1 Expand the time frame to cover the period to 2003 to the near future allowing gaming of historical conflicts such as the Iraq ar, 2006 Lebanon War, the war in Yemen, the war against ISIS and hypothetical conflicts 2 Add a variety of new armies to support the above eg Iraq 2003, the New Iraqi Army, Turkish, Iranian, Jordanian, Saudi Arabia. Egyptian, IDF. This of course would not have to be done right away - expansions over a period of time would be the way to go. This I think would give the original CMSF a whole new lease of life. Yeah I kniow the lefties would hate the IDF but they would hate this game anyway. If one is going to be hanged for a lamb....

A moderns game in the area might have more traction than WW2 though. Korea. India v China and/or Pakistan (not strictly Pacific ). Taiwan

This seems to be a definite for me (damn you Battlefront ) Am I right in understanding that this is going to be an upgrade for the existing. CMSF? I really hope so

Interesting news about upgrading CMSF code to Engine 4/ I was under the impression that SF was not going to be upgradable but I am open to pleasant surprises. Any news about CMBS developments?

More likely his mistress!

Indeed. There is more than on way to skin a cat. Not that I ever would - so Kitty you are purrfectly safe :-) In all seriousness though I think it makes more sense to start with major offensives eg 2nd Kharkov May 1942, Citadel July 1943. That however means that the previous series would have to tail off with the lull for the Spring Raspuita for 1942 and 1943. Patrols and small scale operations were still likely even at times of major lulls, However Spring 1944 is not a problem as there was considerable major fighting throughout early spring eg the First Soviet Invasion of Romania April/May 1944

As for the next Russian Front family my vote would be for Kursk although the May 1942 - March 1943 period is also of great interest. However Rd Thunder needs finishing before anything else

Fr the Russian Front I think they would be better organizing each game in the family into a (roughly one or two year time frame June 1941 - March 1943 (Barbarossa - 3rd Kharkov). May 1943 - May 1944 (Kursk - the first Soviet invasion of Romania) and the current Red Thunder module. Reason being that, while I would like a game dealing with Barbarossa I actually want that game to deal with the early to mid period war period with the Red Army starting to learn the lessons of the early defeats. There are of course other ways of organizing this but I am thinking of the break in major fighting between 3rd Kharkov and Kursk as a natural break point between families

Instructive and interesting video series, Maybe a few more videos covering aspects of modern warfare covering the differences between this and WW2 eg ATGMs drones, APS etc

No, I am saying that all members of the team are as important with the caveat that this depends on the tactical situation.. For example, in combat i desert or steppe terrain tanks and mechanized infantry are likely to be more important than leg infantry. In urbban terrain leg infantry is likely to be more useful with the tank playing a more supporting role

Arguably tanks are more part of the combined arms team. Infantry supporting tanks is part of that. but it would be more accurate to say this is only one facet of the job

This should, by and large, please the tankies

Looks interesting Maybe a slightly larger map on the Ukrainian side allowing for a possible armoured counter attack

I seem to have inadvertently started WW3 through starting this thread. Apologies. However being part Swiss I shall remain neutral; and sell arms to both sides making hug profits which I shall keep in my secret bank account - while, like Dr Blofeld stroking my cat - who is not a white Persian by the way

Apparently the Iraqis lost a fair number of M1A1tamks but those would have been the export models lacking the fancy gear http://www.janes.com/article/39550/iraqi-abrams-losses-revealed

Half Swiss on my late Father's side actually. Which means I stay neutral, sell arms to both sides and make huge profits. And gt vry offended if you call me GERMAN!

I found the issues around lack of training/experience in high intensity warfare most interesting Then the EW challenge. Finally confirmation, at least in terms of leg infantry units the deficiency in AA capability. If these problems also exist in 82nd Airborne, 101st Airmobile then, given these are the Rapid Deployment forces the US military may face a "nasty little Kasserine" in the event of war with Russia or even a second rate army like North Korea.

Obviously, against ground vehicles good hull down positions behind hill crests are best.Note the new hull down command

I recall a very unfortunate incident in one of my early games where I rushed most of a combat team across a large open area without first deploying stinger teams to cover the move. Sure enough the company was caught in flagrante delicto by a pair of Russian Hinds. With ugly results as you might expect! Needless to say I learned a valuabl tactical lesson from that one

This probably applies more to light infantry units like 173rd airborne than to heavy forces although some issues raised in the article may well apply there. In the real world complacency in peace time will be paid for in blood in war http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/02/army-study-173rd-airborne-brigade-europe-russia-242273 In game terms perhaps scenario designers will have to consider downgrading thE troop quality of at least some US units to take account of relative inexperience in high tech conventional warfare, skills that may have atrophied over years of COIN. Maybe we should be more regularly giving the Russians an EW advantage over US forces early in the war. We can assume that over the opening weeks US forces will learn lessons (at a significant cost) and rduce or remov these penalties later

The fuel hog issue is a well known one. There were also some interesting remarks in the letters section The defensemedianetwork link may be more useful. As usual though it will probably b decided by the bean counters https://www.defensetech.org/2013/12/20/army-to-review-m1-engine-upgrades/