LUCASWILLEN05
-
Posts
1,591 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by LUCASWILLEN05
-
-
12 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
Fair comment, the Stirling connection was probably over-egging the cake, but I still think both subjects are relevant to the wider topic here and thus worthy of discussion.
Maybe they would be of some use on the steppes. Kind of a modern day equivalent of Cossack light cavalry perhaps.? Light, fast vehicles in a reconnaissance/raiding/exploitation role. Not really there to fight head to head although with an ATGM maybe they could harass like the 1980s NATO "3 men and a jeep concept
-
If BF go the Middle East again I would love to see them include Israelis, Turks. Egyptians, Iranians and others. The could even include Russian expedtionary forcesThat however would mean a great many expansions - for which no doubt many of us would be happy to pay
However I would be even more interested in a Far East game. Although maybe India and Pakistan might be included in a Middle East scenario depending on how loosely you wish to define the Middle East
-
By the way do Russian MREs come with a Vodka ration?
-
On 8/5/2017 at 11:43 PM, John Kettler said:
panzersaurkrautwerfer,
Have nothing against canned tuna, and it clearly is excellent for military use under all sorts of conditions. What blew me away was how it so utterly dominated the ration. A few days of that, an I wouldn't want to see tuna again for quite some time. If nothing else, there are other types of canned seafood available. Would be interested in knowing the shelf life of well packaged dried figs. What about straight up dates in strong packaging?
Appreciate your take on the short course on food for soldiers in the field, what they eat, when and why. What are your thoughts on Clif Bars and such? No idea what their shelf life is, but have you ever taken any into the field yourself? I see one of their primary virtues, for someone in AFVs, as being, notably in the case of the Chocoiate Brownie, they don't crumble much. They take up little space, require no heating and are compact high energy sources.
Regards,
John Kettler
My cat would greatly appreciate the canned tuna
-
I would love to help but, sadly, I cannot gauruntee to commit the time right now due to course work
-
Ths looks interesting but requires further research to confrm. For which, sadly, I don;t really have the time right now .
-
On 6/19/2017 at 11:15 PM, John Kettler said:
Bulletpoint,
If it was Kharkov, where was LSSAH fighting and against what Russian force? Was it attacking static defenses or engaging in mobile warfare? Knowing the answers would help define the threat set. At this stage of the war, the Russians have 45 mm, 57 mm and 85 mm (DP role for 85 mm) ATGs, 76.2 mm tank/Su-76 cannon and 122 mm howitzer firing HE in both towed and SPG form. To get a 122 mm cannon with true AP (APHE), you're talking at least Army level, though the guns might actually be in a division's sector. Symmetry of damage and lack of typical HE extensive frag damage indicate a DF engagement with AP, not a HE hit. That's as far as I can go for now. The presence of a penetration or two for the gunner's sight creates an unusual situation in which an AP hit (not Arrowhead) may be able to create a considerably larger hole than usual because it has already got a situation in which a precursor penetration exists and is able to exploit this. Given this, I deem it possible this is 76.2 mm AP.
Regards,
John Kettler
You might find this very useful https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/last-victory-in-russia-george-m-nipe/1111951643
-
As an interim measure, just updating the current CM game to BS standards would be good. Making Ant aircraft weapons function as such would be more than welcome. As would adding drones and relevant additional terrain (rivers, maybe railways)
-
Not quite Ukraine. For those who don't know
the Suwalki Gap is the strip of territory between Belorussia and the Kaliningrad Oblast running along the border between Poland and Lithuania
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/why-suwalki-gap-keeps-top-u-s-general-europe-night-n469471
This link has a nice little video that gives us some idea of the terrain in the area
Wikipedia gives some further background information including a map of the region
The idea of a Russian attempt at a takeover of the area (either as part of an escalation.of the existing Ukraine conflict or as a seperate conflict involving a Russian invasion of the Baltic States
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/nato-aims-be-more-responsive-wake-russian-aggression-n266956
We don't yet have NATO units for the Very High Readiness Task Force but we can do a US infantry contingent based on deployments of 101st or 82nd Airborne. Potentialy 10th Mountain Division might also be deployed, elements of the Division (10th Combat Aviation Brigade) having deployed to Eastern Europe as part of Atlantic Resolve
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_Mountain_Division#Readiness_controversy
-
On 6/19/2017 at 11:24 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said:
We've come a long way from AVLBs gentlemen.....Maybe we should create a 'Tabletop Wargaming Nostalgia' thread?
Might bean idea there Sarge!
-
14 hours ago, c3k said:
Hmm, it's kind of tough to bridge the two topics.
I'll be here all week. Try the veal.
Somehow we managed it - but was it a Bridge too Far?
-
19 hours ago, kinophile said:
The tactical/short term political situation changes constantly but the long term Geopolitical trends will remain - energy control, religious antagonism, population exploitation by the regional powers and external global powers.
BFC's recognition, exploration and understanding of Russia's permanent needs and desires is what underpins CMBS and makes it so plausible as a concept (instinctive aggression against a westward leaning Ukraine leading to conflict with the West). In fact, an article talking about just how close their narrative was to reality is what brought me to CMBS in the first place :-).
I'd fully expect BFC to do as thorough an analysis and breakdown of the ME regions trends as they did of the Black Sea region. It would take longer, with a lot of wild cards constantly popping up, but the base needs and wants of the governing elites would remain.
If you're building your story on hard truths then it will ring with the echo of authenticity. CMBS is a perfect example, dispite its various disconnects from the final real life narrative(s).
Personally, a SF 2 is my biggest interest right now. And I haven't even played SF.
True. The problem is that things are happening so fast at the moment.
-
2 hours ago, Kaunitz said:
I fully agree on fortifications. The lack of a broader choice of defensive structures is a real pity and my biggest (still very, very small compared to other games on the market!) criticism. For CM:BS, it is most significant, because you don't even get bunkers. Ideally, we'd get a variety of different bunker/pillbox sizes and shapes, slit trenches, proper foxholes (single, two-man), additional camouflage options, options for overhead-cover, battlepositions for vehicles, straight sandbag-walls, (oh and also allow the defender to use democharges during the deployment phase!) etc. Right now, I think that overall casualty rates for defending infantry are too high - especially in CM:BS - which is to a good part also the result of a lack of fortifications. The first thing an infantry unit would do if tasked to defend is to dig in. And if they had only half an hour, they would still have some kind of pan for cover.
A problem seems to be that fortifications need to be set into the ground-mesh/earth. If you're a scenario-designer and do some terra-forming to make your fortifications "sink" into the ground properly, then their position is immediately evident to any opponent who takes a look at the ground. Far from ideal. If you make fortifications purchase-able and placeable by the player, then that kind of blatant terra-forming is impossible and the fortification needs to be spotted, but the fortification will be placed on top of the ground-mesh, rather than sink into it - I can't really tell the gameplay-implications of it. Obviously the fortifications is easier to hit/the troops within it suppressed more easily?
That being said, I wonder if it would be possible for fortifications and soldiers occupying them to simply clip into the ground. I couldn't vare less if the legs of my soldiers in a slit trench were cut-off. This way we would need no terraforming and the bunkers/trenches would still have a low profile. I think it's already partly the case with foxholes right now, while soldiers in treches or bunkers don't clip.
I can only speculate wildly - and there are some theories about how foxholes and trenchers are working right now -but another issue might be to model the ingame-effects of fortifications. Here a problem might be that an action spot comes in the size of 8m², whereas some fortifications might ask for a more detailed resolution.
Also, I think it's worth noting that strong defenses (bunkers) might not be that interesting from a gameplay-perspective. For the attacker, it's a case of identifying them (which is rather one-sided in favour of the defender) and then either evading it (not on CM's tactical scale) or bringing heavy weapons to bear to suppress & assault it or knock it out - which, in turn, is rather one-sided in favour of the attacker. Scenarios in which support is not strong enough to fully suppress a bunker might be interesting though.
One fortification type I would like to see is an anti tank ditch
-
11 hours ago, kinophile said:
Go on.....?
I wonder what the back story for a CMSF II might be. With such a fast moving real world situation it could be very hard to write convincing back story before the situation changes again. in the bboadest terms however we might be looking at a massive regional conflagration with multiple nations involved including US/Western and Russian intervention forces clashing. In effect the game in a CMSF 2 might be representative of the region being just one theater of a global war.
We are however moving to far away from the OP. Oleksander raise a number of good points, many of which I agree with such as extending the time frame to allow for a winter war and including additional fortifications. To his list I might add anti tank ditches and for that matter ICMs/artillery delivered mines. Not essential for enjoyment of the game but certainly would be nice to have.
As for the units/equipment list I would suspect some of these would be coming in new modules
-
10 hours ago, DreDay said:
I can only speak for myself. And for the record - I support CMBF. It's just that the conflict between US and RF seems so unlikely due to its potential consequences that it is hard for me to suspend my disbelief and to take it seriously... but that's just me...
One hopes that US and Russian forces never shoot at each other on a real battlefield. However, back in the 1980s in similar Cold War situation moderns table top and board wargamers invariably gamed World War 3 situations in Germany and sometimes in other parts of the World. In the event the real world situation never developed.
However it mustbe stated that in both cases we were/are gaming hypothetical situations
-
1 hour ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:
I most certainly believe it.
I didn't say absolute top of the line equipment for Red, I said decent equipment and you can bet BFC will include things within the reasonable range of hypothetical, just as SF had T-80's.
No one has a problem with US/Russian conflict. I love BS, but I will love me some SF II every bit as much.
What the Russians have probably been doing is combat testing the T-90 in Syria.
One point Ido have to call you on is that CMSF does not include T-80s. I assume however this was a typo and you actually meant T-90
-
I also tend to be more interested in gaming small unit actions these days (company to battalion level (strongly influenced here by CM games :-) ) so tend to be more attracted to rules like Battlefront WW2, Battlegroup Kursk, Sabre Squadron and 3rd Generation Warfare.
So I guess the real answer to your question Michael is that I have simply moved on and that my interests approach has changed :-)
-
On 6/18/2017 at 8:30 AM, Michael Emrys said:
You have piqued my curiosity; what was it about the 4th. Edition that turned you off?
Michael
A couple of small things really. First I was not willing to pay the asking price. Second and more importantly I didn't like the change in the time scale from 15 minutes to half hour turns which I did not feel appropriate for armoured warfare. I was happy with the 15 minute turns in second and third editions, copies of which I already have.
Finally, by this point I had largely switched to other rule sets, in particular Battlefront WW2 which do a similar job and have online support for moderns up to the end of the Cold War.
This set Command Decision is a good set of rules for regimental/brigade evel gaming and I have enjoyed playing them a lot over the years. I have just moved on now for the most part, though I may still play the occasional CD game from time to time, probably with 3rd edition
-
3 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:
That's plausible. They had their fans and it does not strain credulity to imagine that some of them might have had inside dope and were willing to drop hints where they thought they would do the most good.
Michael
I used to play Frank Chadwick's Command Decision rules for many years right up to 3rd Ediion, I parted company with these rule with 4th Edition fir various reasons although I still play the occasional game with 3rd Edition
-
2 hours ago, Thewood1 said:
I'm sorry, my mother isn't into traning. Its a religious thing.
Excuse the typo! We are all guilty sometimes However I don't wish to know about your mother's proclivities thanks - there are other websites for that!
-
33 minutes ago, George MC said:
My name is George and I am a nerd...
-
The use of computerized simulation is interesting. Doesn't the US military do much the same?
-
5 hours ago, kinophile said:
The Nerdpocalypse Is Upon Us!!
Doom, I tell Ye, DOOOOOOOOOMMMM!
:-)
We're all nerds! Erm, hate to break it to you but we war game on computer! And many of us are miniature war gamers as well - and probably board games as well!
-
8 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
I've got a pile of FoW stuff that I keep telling myself I'll paint, but increasingly eyeing it as a means of cash to buy air brush stuff. Have thought about how attached I am to some of the stash too (or like, if I'm going to do a T-62, is this later model with ERA the one I want sort of discussions with myself).
Basically I have infinite room for Sherman's and Abrams because they're close to my heart, but the DAK Panzer III I'm planning might be the only Panzer III I do for the next 10 years vs all the variants.
Every miniatures wargamer has this problem. I have a pile of 2mm Napoleonics (heresy!
) on my work table gradually being painted/repainted for use in multi corps games of March Attack - an 8 x 6 foot table scales to just over 3 miles in the official scale. However my landlord refused t let me knock holes in walls so I could have a bigger table So I had to go down a scale and since I already had quite a few 2mm from my student days,,,,
However a won't be trying Fulda Gap or Desert Storm in 2mm I like tanks I can see!
the Suwalki Gap is the strip of territory between Belorussia and the Kaliningrad Oblast running along the border between Poland and Lithuania
) on my work table gradually being painted/repainted for use in multi corps games of March Attack - an 8 x 6 foot table scales to just over 3 miles in the official scale. However my landlord refused t let me knock holes in walls so I could have a bigger table 
Russia Light Infantry
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted · Edited by LUCASWILLEN05
You know the definition of Cossacks? A bunch of inebriated thugs who will "courageously" attack half their number. But only if their enemy are women and children who are mortally wounded and preferably already dead!