LUCASWILLEN05

I do want to see US Marines and NATO forces (including East Europeans such as the Polish and perha[s Baltic States) Also the Ukranian Seperatists, Russian Marines and Russia Airborne types. Autumn and winter warfare would however be a most welcome development.
 
I daresay a reconquest of the Crimea and indeed an advance into the seperatist regions would be a part of a NATO counter offensive

When BS was released one of the developers, (sorry I dont remember whom) promised to upload a more detailed backstory for scenario designers.  I would love to read it and... can we have it please?

Kettle, Pot calling........
 
The Lithuanian response was right on target.

That is whole point of panic

Winter is Coming....Sorry, wrong forum
 
But, yes, a vote for winter war

Yes please. A module extending the scenario to cover a winter war would be most welcome!

Cool.  A pet peeve of mine in video games has always been as you progress, despite inflicting massive losses on the enemy, you always wind up facing a totally fresh enemy force that is in no way hindered by the death of several divisions worth of its comrades.  It also adds incentive to playing out losing battles more because you may lose the battle of stan's farm or whatever, but if it cost the enemy two companies to do it vs your scout section, it should make tomorrow's fight less difficult, while you can still make the previous battle valuable.  

Ah I see, I stand corrected!

It's really something I think the SOF community will get the most mileage out of.  While drones are handy, they also have a pretty tell tale audio signature (think, do the Tribal regions in Pakistan get much air traffic?).  It's the sort of thing that a ground observer could call within a certain window, and get the same results with no warning except for the missile's terminal phase.  It's too expensive for massed battlefield use, and the reaction time is well suited to "Shiek Muhammed and Abu Abdul Mutleb are sitting down for tea and terrorism" sort of strikes, but less so "Three tanks in the open fire for effect!"
 
If they ever do include MRLS type weapons into the game, ATACMS would be interesting purely because it has been employed in a more conventional artillery role (largely because of COIN mind you), but offers the same sort of profile that a tactical Tomahawk would.  

I wouldn't imagine these would be used in an environment that wasn't target rich or in a prolonged andccontinuous conflict. They won't retrofit existing Tomahawks with a recovery system, they'll just use them when they can guarantee someone somewhere will have a target. Tomahawk is old and the last batch has been ordered with a replacement missile starting development/procurement in 2017. Right now, the Navy cannot reload VLS at sea, so these won't be wasted.

Unit cost of a Tomahawk “Block IV”  :  $1.59 Million
 
Can't see this getting used with any regularity as a tactical asset on the battlefield.
 
A Hellfire missile comes in at about $110,000. A GBU-12 Paveway II at about $22,000.

U.S. Troops Can Now Call in Tomahawk Cruise Missiles for Close Air Support - And that’s not the old munition’s only new trick In a test on Jan. 29, a team of U.S. Marines called in an upgraded Tomahawk, called a “Block IV,” to quickly strike a nearby target—just like the Marines routinely do with their artillery, Harrier attack jets and Cobra helicopter gunships.
 
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/u-s-marines-can-now-call-in-tomahawk-cruise-missiles-for-close-air-support-2a8aa4a64428

If someone panics are they not, by the very definition of the word acting irrationally and hence do stupid things without thought to the outcome?

Perhps we need a special Black Sea politics forum where we can  debate political issues related to the conflict in Ukraine. Like you  I find hese discussions interesting and informative and there does need to  be a place available for this. However, political issues are not directly related to the game and there are a lot of intense views on the subject for obvious reasons.

Because, in the REAL WORLD the unexpected is a RISK  that must be anticipated. As ?I see it he failed to anticipate the contingency that something like this could happen by committing all of his force to an attack without thinking about what he would do if something happened that he did not expect or anticipate. If you look at what real world commanders do one important task is just that, planning for the unexpected.
 
This is of course a computer simulation game, obviusly not he real thing. But to succeed you have to think about what would be done in the REAL WoRLd. in this case on a real battlefield.
 
For example, if you read Into the Storm by Tom Clancy and General Fred Franks (Franks was the commander of US VII Corps during Operation Desert Storm) you will find somethig called FRAGPLANS (Fragmentory Plans) mentioned quite a lot. These are contingency plans to be used during the course of a military operation if certain things happen. Such as, in this case, the unexpected appearence (in time and place) of an enemy force.
 
Spitzenhund failed (or at least suffered heavy casualties) because he failed to anticipate this particular contingency. There is no shame in that. Even the greatest cmmanders in military history lost battles for that reason. Napoleon lost Waterloo in large part because he failed to anticipate Blucher;s arrival n his right flank. Just be glad that this is only a computer game/simulation and the fates of men and nations don't depend on the outcome of our computer game hobby battle.
 
And, like I said, you are going to be around to learn from your mistake, an opportunity you might not get in the real world. This is why the military train so hard. If you were in the military you can foul up in training. It is OK. You get a bollocking from your CO. But you probably won't make that mistake next time. And "next time" could actually be on a real battlefield,.
 
I suspect that some of the scenarios might well have been designed by actual military professionals who have acually done the job for real and might well have don so in combat. Scenarios should give is a good ansd realistic gaming challenge. Within this context we should be prepared to anticipate the unexpected from some of our more tricksy scenario designers

They could have moved, or depending on the type of missile involved it might not be terribly obvious who was carrying what, doubly so if they shot off all their ammo. A LOT of units carry missiles, keeping track of your own can be tricky at times. every single one matters .

So despite what LUCASWILLEN05 sees how this conflict would go, and he has any right to envision it any way he wants to, what I described in some earlier posts is closer to what Battlefront envisions the scenario to be. To summarize:

1. Acts of war limited to Ukrainian soil and air space enforced by NATO ROE to avoid triggering nuclear retaliation. Maybe some naval conflict in the black sea.
2. Russia can freely use AA and artillery based on Russian soil, giving it a slight advantage over a full scale conflict.
3. No Articel 4 or 5, NATO forces act together but by choice, not becauce they are forced by treaty. That would probably leave Germany out of the conflict...
4. Both sides have short term war goals that do not aim at total destruction of their enemy. NATO wants an "independent" Ukraine, Russia wants a "Russian Protectorate" Ukraine. Armies are used to create facts and destroy possibilities while the politicians keep talking. That is pretty much what is happening already right now...

LUCASWILLEN05, your are free to question the likelyhood of this scenario, but I agree with Steve that this makes for a much nicer game than total anhilation. And no reason to go all red and underline, I read the other things you wrote and did not need additional emphasis to pay attention to what you write.

Phillip The point is that the armed forces of a NATO country were attacked. It is highly unlikely that the US and other NATO forces would have entered Ukraine under the auspices of the NATO Council to give poltical, lefgal and military cover to the mission. And it is unlikely that the intent f the mission was to fight Russia.
 
But something went badly wrong and, perjhps hrough a misunderstdig Russian Forces attacked the forces of a NATO State. That couuld well result in the invokking of Articles 4, 5 and 6 by the US whoose forces were probably involved. he USA woulld of course have to go back to the NATO Council and invoke Article 5. Historically this has oly happened once after the 9/11 terrorist ttack on he WTC.
 
In our Ukraine case the situation may be less clear cut. But if the US was operating as part of a NATO force when the first atack took place and fighting is on going the North Atlantic Treaty is highly likely to apply.
 
The Russians understan this and they understand, for the reasns outlined above that they don't have much timeto act being now art war with the US ad in every probabilty with NATO  as wel. If they wait ad let NAO mobilise hey will meet the same fayte Saddam Hussein did during the First Gulf War (1990 - 1) To sand any chance of victory he Russians must act quickly and aggresvely. They must press the attack uin Ukraine, they must attack th Baltic States and they must undertake air and naval action in the North Atlantic and the Meditteranean
 
Now you may regard that as Cld War thinking but you need to remember hat Russia's strategic problem in 2017 is exactly the same as it would have been during the 1980s and so is the problem fr the US. In both cases US reinfcements will have to deploy to Europe and Russia will have to delay them and attrite them while they are crossing the Atlantic. And Russia, as a continental (i.e. land) power must try to win the war quicckly before those fresh forces can be deployed. Effectively this is the race.
 
And don't forget both the Russian and NATO leadership (political and military) will have had the formtive experiences of their careers during the 1980s, the final decade of the Cld War. Don't forget Putin is a former KGB officer. The senior Russian generals in 2017 will have been junir or middle ranking officeers during the 1980s. Much the same can be said for Western military and politicl leaders. Sure, there will be 21st Century features to the war such as cyberwar s Philllipp mentions. But that does not chage the fundamental strategic premises unde which the war will be fought. The geography  is the same and it will affec war strtegy in exacly the same way as rthe Cold War. There will be new and untried weapons, technologies and tactics. As in 1914 and 1939 both sides will make many mistkes in the opening days. And, as in 1914 both sides will be pretty even at the start. Fighting will very likely be hard and bloody as portrayed in the game.It could very well become a vicious armoured slugfest.
 
If you cannot understand this /I can only conclude that you do not understabnd the strateegic and logistical issues or the politcal issues

In terms of how the US first comes into direct combat with Russia it could be like this. I  call it the "Camlann Scenario" thinking of the tragic final battle in the Arthurian legend.
 
Russia invades the Ukraine following the incident at the military base. After a few days consideration and consultations with NATO leaders the US President, with the support of NATO orders troops into the Ukraine with orders to halt the Russian invasion. In retrospect this turns out to be a tragic mistake. NATO umnits advance into Central Ukraine and moves into position where they are in a first contact siuation with Russian forces. The Russians know there are Ukranian units in the area but have not realised US forces have just moved into the vicinity as well. Nobody knows for sure what happened but the balance of probability is that the Russians misidentified US units as Ukranian and opened fire/ Within hours, before anyne can react to stop it events escalate out of control int a full scale battle right long the line. 
 
Consequently the US and Russia are engaged in a full scvale war niether of them anticipated. Moscow and Washington furiously blame each other. By this time it is too late to stop the conflict which escalates quickly and alarmingly ino a full scale European War. While the land ighting is mostly or entirely in Europe tere will be air and naval actions elsewhere outside the scope of the game. Many people will regard the conflict as World War 3 even though both sides will try to limit the fighting to Europe. I see naval actions in the Atlantic and the Baltic as a certaimnty. Very likely there will be naval and air combat in the Medditteranean and probably similar clashes in the North Pacific. 

In terms of how the US first comes into direct combat with Russia it could be like this. I  call it the "Camlann Scenario" thinking of the tragic final battle in the Arthurian legend.
 
Russia invades the Ukraine following the incident at the military base. After a few days consideration and consultations with NATO leaders the US President, with the support of NATO orders troops into the Ukraine with orders to halt the Russian invasion. In retrospect this turns out to be a tragic mistake. NATO umnits advance into Central Ukraine and moves into position where they are in a first contact siuation with Russian forces. The Russians know there are Ukranian units in the area but have not realised US forces have just moved into the vicinity as well. Nobody knows for sure what happened but the balance of probability is that the Russians misidentified US units as Ukranian and opened fire/ Within hours, before anyne can react to stop it events escalate out of control int a full scale battle right long the line. 
 
Consequently the US and Russia are engaged in a full scvale war niether of them anticipated. Moscow and Washington furiously blame each other. By this time it is too late to stop the conflict which escalates quickly and alarmingly ino a full scale European War. While the land ighting is mostly or entirely in Europe tere will be air and naval actions elsewhere outside the scope of the game. Many people will regard the conflict as World War 3 even though both sides will try to limit the fighting to Europe. I see naval actions in the Atlantic and the Baltic as a certaimnty. Very likely there will be naval and air combat in the Medditteranean and probably similar clashes in the North Pacific. 

And please, god, separate the campaigns from the scenarios when you fix the repository.

I've defeated T-90s frontally.
 
With my GI Joe kung fu grip.  
 
True story.  I am not making this up.  I am not at all a kind of biased source.

Ken, yes. Scenario briefing hints would be nice. ~Or warnings given of the approach of enemy forces approaching. Often that would happen in ther real world. But smetimes the boys and girls in Military Intelligence just miss something or the enemy does something unexpected in the wider tactical and operational environment. Sometimes your pickets are destroyed before they can report in or they just fail to spot the enemy approach. Maybe they were in the wrng place r looking the wrong way. Sometimes commanders just get suerprised. It has happened on countless occasions throughout military history. That's why we have flank and rear security considerations. And, as I found out today, air defence positioning is of great importance.
 
In this game you step into the combat boots of a Combat Team or Battalion Commander. These ssues are what goes with that pay grade. It is your job to anticipate whaat the enemy might do and to be ready for the contingency even with little or no warning. That is the nature of the beast. This game in particular teaches some very harsh lessons about real war and, indeed, so it should

Just goes to show what happenswhen  gamer makes a mistake. In this case it looks to me like he over committed his forces, in this case throwing everyhing into the attack. The scenario designers cannot be expected to legiislate for tactical blunders. You pver commit your force and fail to keep reserves then you are going to be taken by surprise. Which is what most likely happened in this instance. If the briefing hinted at the possibility that reinforcements were on the way and likely to be comuinng from a certain direction and someone does not read that, forgets or ignores the advice then a military disaster is on the cards.
 
Which is clearly what happened here. In the real world that kind of thing could get a commander relieved of his command  and reassigned to a position on the staff preferably in a role where a foul up won't do too much damage. A foulup here does not end military careers, nor does it get a lot of people killed. You probably lost the game but, if you learn the lesson you do better next time. I lost a game today because I negleccted my air defencce cover, ggot a Combat Team into a Hind Kill Zone and lost a lot of men and vehicles. As a reult of this my attack bogged down. Result a minor US defeat because I also recognised when to quit instead of pressing a clearly failed attack.I think I understand where and why I went wrong and consider it a valuable learning experience for next time. Hopefully Spitzenhund can learn a lesson from his defeat. And others can learn from both his mistakes and mine.
 
Lessons of this thread
1 Don't over commit your force too quickly
2 Maintain flank, rear and air security
3 Read the scenario briefing
4 Anticipate that unexpected situations are going to occur and may happen with little or no warning. Be prepared
5 Scenario developers may need to think about clearer warnings regarrding approach of unexpected enemy reindforcements (unless they wish to simulate an intelligence failure or surprise attack) using both he briefing and the reinforcement buttons t provide relevant messages  Maybe that did not happen in this scenario, maybe not intentonally however.

Because he saying things that you don't like. 
 
"Trolling" is too often used ad hominem on the internet.