LUCASWILLEN05

I like Korea 2019 but to give it a better balance PRC supports North Korea. A bit unlikely perhaps but we want a better technological balance Fulda Gap is also good but not that keen on Philippines or 1950s Korean War

My view is that Black Sea should get 1 Pro Russian and Ukrainian miiltias 2 Russian Spetznaz 3 Eastern European NATO. Definitely Poland and Baltic States. These are very likely to be dragged into this conflict. Maybe Romania could also be dragged into the war (a Russian escalation into Moldova etc) 4 Western European NATO UK, German and (because we haven't had them elsewhere) France. The LeClerc would be pretty col to play. 5 US Marines, obviously. Semper Fi

It would be good to release the campaign battles as single scenarios as well plase

I have been trying to sort out the re-installation of CM Normandy for the last two weeks and it has been a nightmare. I re-installed the base game without difficulty, then re-installed the Commonwealth module and Upgrade 3.0 which is where this nightmare started. Although I had installed and activated the Commonwealth modules were grayed out with a red error message on the right than side informing me tha the Commonwealth module is required and to visit the Battlefront site for details. I have uninstalled and re-installed several times and submitted a ticket to the help desk but am still no further forward. Since the new activation system was brought in has anyone else had a problem re-installing Normandy and were you able to resolve it? If so, how?

So, if a thread is getting out of hand, turning into a flame war with little chance of a productive resolution your decision would be to close it down? Remember some threads regarding modern conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine can be very politically charged. On this site we are allowed to have such discussions relevant to Black Sea and Shock Force but these rights are conditional on way participants communicate. The alternative would be to ban such debates altogether - which is what happens on some other sites. If the administrator thinks the discussion is getting over heated he locks thee thread. I personally might not always like or agree with that decision in a particular case but I do recognize that the decision to lock was a reasonable one in the vast majority of cases.

It is not about taking sides. It is more about acting as referee. Sometimes a debate might be over-heating and individuals getting hot under the collar. The administrators usually try other approaches first. In my experience they are not unreasonable people. But there are instances where it is best to shut the thread down. Would you consider tht an unreasonable step. What would your approach be if you were the administrator given conditions like this?

Sometimes discussions can escalate into flame wars or are clearly counter productive. At that point the best thing for everyone is to bring that particular thread to a halt. If, on the other hand the discussion is kept civilized and productive the administrator does not need to take action. There are certain expected standards of conduct we signed up to and w are expected to act accordingly.

I don't want a rehashed Syria conflict either but the ME theater is a fascinating venue for hybrid warfare scearios which was the strength of CMSFIran could be one of the main enemies in future ME conflict. Taking current events we could be looking at a complex multi sided conflict Blue US, NATO, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Yemeni Government forces and Israel Red Iran, Syria. Hezbollah, Hamas, Yemeni Houthi insurgents Black Islamic State (hostile to both Blue and Red Iran at the very least will have drone technology.and the updated air defense should help. As for a possible itl I like the sound of Combat Mission Devil's Cauldron

We still have to have the professional armies as well (yes I know that is pushing it a little with the Iraqis) I like the hybrid warfare of CMSF. In the ME you have many possible opponents which is why, next time, I would like a regional conflict, not something limited to just one country. Including Israel, Hezbollah and Hamas would be educational allowing a better understanding of some the problems the IDF confronts whe operating in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.

I am fine with a Middle East setting but a general regional conflict involving the various regional armies including Iran,Iraq, Syria,Saudi Arabia, Yemen,Turkey Jordan Israel and Egypt plus NATO would be my preference. I am not interested in a repeat of he original CMSF. This could be a multi-sided regional conflagration arising out of the current conflicts with IS and in Yemen. Obviously the improvements we saw in CMBS would be included particularly the AA capability.

I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head as far as the advantages of real time gaming is concerned.It works very well when you play against the AI, even more so when you play with the larger forces. You don't have to issue orders every minute and certainly not to every squad/individual vehicle. In this came we might typically take on the role of a company/small battle group commander. We will only want to pause the game when something significant happens that requires a significant change in our battle plan. That will not happen all that often, maybe four or five times during a scenario. We might also have times when we need t step into the role of a platoon leader at times to give detailed orders to deal with a situation such as an assault on a position. This works fine when playing against the AI which obviously does not object if we keep it waiting. A human opponent however might find the same thing somewhat annoying though

According to the BBC article the Armata is not going to be in service until 2020. That assumes it does not go the way of previous projects such as Black Eagle and gets cancelled. It sounds like a techically complex project which means expensive technical problems. It may very well be later than 2020 before the Armata is in service, assuming it ever is. Certainly far too late to see service in the 2017 Ukraine War! :-) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32478937

This would be a great background for CMSF II. As matters stand with the ongoing civil war in Syria, ISIS and now Yemen the Middle East may very well be heading for a full scale conflagration involving most, if not all the magor regional players. Outside actors including the great powers might well be dragged ito this conflict, and to some extent this hs already happened

The ranges would be quite close (urban. mountain and forested terrain) which would lessen the disadvantages of Chinese/North Korean tanks. The paddy fields would also be a problem in a summer campaign. In the more likely winter war the paddies would freeze but US/SK air power would be more limited. If defending the best NK move would be to fall back into the urban and mountainous/forested terrain making Coalition dforces fight there on MNoth Koean terms. The North would still lose the conventional war but would still have to fight gainst fanatical insurgents based on NK Special Forces remnans and People's Militia

That's a couple of CMK games, a 1970s/1980s version and a near future version. Why couldn't BF do both?

This is a fine information source directly relevant to CMBS and the equipment currentlt porttryed or whichich might be included in the future. Thanks for shasring it with us John

Give the North Koreans a lot of support from China and perhaps make the official scenario a US invasion and it would be interesting enough as a game - Chna is there to provide the NKors decent armour and air support. Plus North Korean Special Forces fighting a guerilla War. Plus of course People's Militia. This way you get a better game of it than a doomed North Korean invasion attempt of the South - though scenarios could explore that possibility.

Russia would need t cross the Dnieper as Alexey shoul know from the Stratfor posthe himself put up

I think it would be ok to comment if you avoid politics and discuss military strategy only. I agree that for Russia securing the labd corridor to Crimea makes sense. However, Moscow may well also wish to secure Kharkov due to the city's historical and strategic importance. In that case the bigger offensive operation would be needed if only to gaurd the northern flank and pin down or destroy Ukranian units. Severely damagingthe Ukranian army would be something Moscow would want to achieve.

A very interesting article Alexey. In the event of a fully fledged invasion of Ukraine and a clash with NATO as depicted in CMBS do you see Russia attemting to pusue additional foreign policy goals incluing in particular an attempt to occupy the Baltic States which would threaen Poland and NATO supply lines through ht country? This would require troops from Western Military District http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Military_District I assume Southern Miltary District would be taskd with the Ukraine operation itself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Military_District Central Military District operates as a reserve

That was my first thought

Up to dateand expanded to a general Middle East conflagration involving all the regional powers. IS or a similar future version US/NATO, maybe even the Russians helping Iran. I see this one as being a complex, multi sided scenario

So have the Baltic States actually purchased the Abrams then? Putin won't like that at all! And if so BF really must include Latvia, Estona and Lithuania in the NATO expansion. It might have to be a Western European NATO and and Eatern European NATO. Not that any of us woud mind if the NATO expansion were split into two parts which it might have to be

It was rhetorical

A couple of interesting gepolitical assessment of the Ukraine conflict http://nationalinterest.org/feature/nato-unleashed-stopping-russia-its-tracks-12363 http://nationalinterest.org/feature/europes-nightmare-could-still-come-true-nato-russia-war-over-11418