[Why doesn't the US Air Support roster in CMBS have the A-10 on it?]

Wasn´t aware of the Regulus, nice trick

 

The Panther and the Cougar I had some knowledge since both served in my country´s naval aviation wing, in low numbers, but not sure if they were ever embarked, Wikipedia seems to say no...that is when we still had a carrier, now naval aviation means the aircrafts are stationed close to shore while rusting I guess

[Why doesn't the US Air Support roster in CMBS have the A-10 on it?]

Perhaps the US Navy should rebrand their whole F-18E/F fleet to F-35D/E...that would send a clear message

[Why doesn't the US Air Support roster in CMBS have the A-10 on it?]

As of 2017 the worst thing to happen to the US Military since Pearl Harbor F-35 will only be able to use JDAMs and LGBs.  SDBs and the gun aren't going to work until like 2019-2022.  It's a really bad aircraft and it's supposed to reach IOC at the end of the year.  I do not want to set foot near it.  Fortunately the Navy hates them too and is only buying them because they have to.

Semi-related:

Why doesn't NATO assign different reporting letter schemes for Ground Attack aircraft besides "F"?  Examples: Frogfoot and Fantan.  I know A is taken, but why not throw them under B for Bomber (similar role) or like I for interdictor.

Edit:  I've done some research.  F-35 will be able to use its gun in 2017 (Block 2B upgrade).  The SDB is still stuck until 2022 (Block 4), leaving the good ol' GBU-12 and GBU-38.

Source on SDB: http://thediplomat.com/2015/03/oops-us-close-air-support-bomb-doesnt-fit-on-the-f35/

Source on gun: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/01/07/f35-gun-on-track/21401907/

 

 

Thanks for digging up that info

 

I guess "operational" doesn't mean what it used to...Still, if the thing is capable of putting some kind of weapon on target by 2015-17 it may show up in a later module

 

And about the Navy hating it, there is not much choice, right? Other than pumping out F-18E/Fs until everyone else has a 5th Gen. fighter, which, granted, may take a long while

[Why doesn't the US Air Support roster in CMBS have the A-10 on it?]

The A-10 should be in

 

If we are going to have a made up/fantasy sky scenario, just for fun, with a long contested air war and no stand-off CAS missions, why not go all in?

 

My bet is the A-10 makes and appearance in the next module, together with USMC air assets (assuming a Marines theme), just to add some value to the mix

 

Also, why no F-35s? Aren´t those being built and tested right now? Won´t they enter service by then?

[POKING THE BEAR]

Without looking at your map I can´t say for sure, but probably you just overextended your, rather tiny, forces and put them on the way of too much Russian armor, there are some platoons going extremely close to the starting position , if I remember correctly

 

It is possible to go about this mission without much contact, I´m not sure if zero contact is possible, probably not, but trying to take ground, beyond a few good observation/AT sniping points it´s suicidal on this mission

 

There are indeed tons of armor in that valley, the most I´ve seen on a CM scenario, if I have one suggestion for this particular one, would be to give the player a bigger map to maneuver, as it is, there is almost no buffer zone

 

And anyone having problems with mission should check the sticky topic with videos of the US campaign

[Please NO Marines or NATO forces module !]

The problem with SOF is that the game is not focused on...let`s say...finesse

 

They would end up there just for flavor, going along with regular troops...how do you simulate a complex assault on a compound? there are no "no-combatant" units to avoid, no taking of prisoners/hostages, no hold fire or silenced weapons only orders, etc

 

The only thing I can think of, is putting them behind enemy lines as target designators or deep recon forces, but I don't think it`s worth the effort, you could do that with regular sniper teams or recon units, even if it`s not their primary function

[Walkthrough and let's play of the BLACK SEA CAMPAIGN!]

You videos are both great entertainment and source of depression given how poorly I play this game in comparison

[Please NO Marines or NATO forces module !]

 

But with that said, shortcomings were recognized. It simply cannot provide sustained MG-like suppression like the M249 SAW can. This is fully acknowledged and is the reason why every company still has 9 M249s as T/E equipment to be employed as the company commander sees fit. That has essentially evolved to 3 M27 IARs and one M249 SAW per squad.

 

 

 

So, in game terms, assuming a Marines module, should the M249 SAW be:

 

1) A default weapon carried by squads 

2) An "Acquire" weapon as Javelins (not sure if it`s possible for the engine to do this with this kind of weapon)

3) Not present, it`s 2017 and we´ve moved on

[Please NO Marines or NATO forces module !]

The game is called Black Sea after all, I would be very surprised if no module touches on Crimea and/or some kind of amphibious landing

 

Also, I´m under the impression that the US Marine Corps not always gets all the new shiny toys the Army gets, at least from what I remember from CMSF I´m not sure their tanks were on par with the Army´s and I think they had less Javelins 

 

So, it may even bring a more challenging experience in some ways, given the setting against an enemy with plenty armored vehicles to throw around

[No American AAA?]

Ther was a thread about this topic still active a few days ago

 

In a few words, the argument made by people that know about this stuff is that the US doesn't have this systems because it counts on the air force to do the job

 

So, basically the game assumes a situation that wouldn't be possible (or likely) in real life, except for a few very lucky Russian planes in the whole theater that would probably be shot down returning home anyway, but because this is a game it takes some liberties 

 

I won´t start an argument about this, since I don't claim any special knowledge about it,  but in the interest of not starting another never ending thread on this I would suggest you check that other thread, specially the arguments put forward by US officers and see their reasoning for how things are the way they are

[US soldiers act like cowards ingame]

Thanks for coming here to tell this things

 

Whatever the argument is or where each person stands, I very much prefer for devs and beta testers to share, to the extent it is possible without betraying trust of what it is said and done during the process of making a game

 

Good luck going to an EA forum and hear anything but silence from that side of the fence

 

And I sincerely hope I´ll never be able to raise my hand when someone ask if I have been in a firefight and remain completely ignorant about it

[Uh so has Debaltseve fallen?]

Thank you for your reply sir. I find it very informative and your analysis is very prudent and rational. BTW, (and I don't want to turn this into a love-fest) but your mastery of English language is terrific as well! But back on topic - it is very interesting to see how other major “non-aligned” countries approach the issue of US/EU/Russia/China relations. Unfortunately we get very little exposure or even acknowledgement of such dynamics over here. I love my country but I don't particularly care for our eagerness to speak of the "free world" that we supposedly represent.

 

 

Thanks, it´s kind of funny that much of my early "education" in english came from reading war-games and simulators manuals as a kid in the 80s

[Uh so has Debaltseve fallen?]

My bad. I do happen to love Argentina, it was actually our honeymoon destination and (for all my other travels) it was still an experience of a lifetime. To keep it on topic - one of the many things that had impressed me about the Argentinians was how politically savvy and worldly they are... Just out of curiosity - I know that your political establishment and especially your president are not exactly pro-American (to put it mildly). I also know that the Russians (including Putin himself) have made many overtures to them lately that seemed to be well received... so what is your local coverage of Ukraine like?

 

Well, good to know you had a great time here, it`s a big country with some great places to visit

 

And yes, to put it mildly the our current president is not exactly pro-american (she´s leaving office in December, still is not clear who will win the elections in October), not to Venezuelan levels of rhetoric but close enough, and a big chunk of the political establishment and population aren´t either, the reasons for this are many and complex, but it´s a common occurrence  in Latin America in general, politicians play on this all the time

 

As to the overtures of Russia and China in the region, the thing is that with the level of confrontation with the US and to a lesser extent the EU coupled with economic mismanagement, the options for foreign financing and investment are few, so some governments play again the anti american card and look for money in those countries, whom sometimes are happy to oblige to further their own geopolitical interest.

 

To what level our politicians truly believe that the Chinese and Russian governments are "Good" and the US government is "Evil", it`s a matter of opinions, personally I think a good measure of cynicism on their part should be assumed. But again, a big part of the electorate it´s happy believing we don´t deal with the US as much, some see through it as a political ploy to get some cash covered in nationalistic rhetoric, some don´t

 

Sort of back on topic:

 

Regarding coverage of Ukraine, sadly international news don´t sell that much, so, there are few local journalist dedicated to it, and big news services have very poor coverage that most of the time is limited to translate articles from foreign news services, so you end up with a poor translation of what was originally a poor article written by someone that can't tell a tank from and IFV

 

While I think most people would have a hard time pointing to Ukraine or Crimea on a map, articles do appear and people who follow the news are aware of it, pro government news services will probably reproduce articles that put Russia and Putin in a better light, while news services more critical of our government will tend to reproduce articles more favorable to Ukraine´s point of view, but it is a far cry from being a hot topic

[Uh so has Debaltseve fallen?]

Well, as you don't follow the Ukrainian political scene (which is perfectly understandable), you are simply not  aware of  how a "Political Fallout" works in Ukraine... let me just say that it is very different from what we would expect in our country (I am assuming that you are an American, please forgive me if I am wrong).  But yeah, their government and military is going to move on to other things (as will the rebels) and the war will unfortunately go on for even longer... Many local experts on both sides predict the next spike up in violence to happen in late March or early April.

 

 

I´m not from the US but it´s ok, don´t worry, I´m from Argentina

 

And no, I´m not familiar with politics in Ukraine so it was just speculation

[Uh so has Debaltseve fallen?]

Well, in the absence of a huge political fallout (of which I know nothing one way or the other, since I don´t follow this issue as close as others here), I would infer that the retreat was either planned and/or executed in good enough order

 

Either way the Ukranian government/army, while not happy might have already come to terms with the reality on the ground and move on to other things

 

Of course, is a highly speculative exercise

[Please NO Marines or NATO forces module !]

Possibly, but having to maintain a supply line for the Marines all the way back to the Med seems a bit much.  Take a look at a map, short of Crimean airfields, the Russian Air force trying to hit the US Navy would be constrained to bases comparable to the distances from Lebanon to Crete.  The 6th Fleet was fully prepared to operate in that area during the Cold war with the nearest Russian bases being in Syria.  If the goal is to land forces in Crimea one is faced with either the land bottleneck to contend with or a forced entry.  For the sake of the storyline a US Marine landing in Crimea is not an impossibility.

 

This is not WW 2.  Crimea would be a liability for Russia in the sense that they have no ability to reinforce it other than by sea.  If the US establishes air superiority over the Black Sea from bases in Ukraine, Russia would be hard put to move any decent forces there.  That in turn makes for some interesting scenario design options (which is all we really care right?)

 

I say that for the sake of storytelling the US, after achieving air superiority and bombing everything for a while launches  a combined assault, and amphibious landing and an airborne drop to cut the retreat and possible reinforcement in Crimea

 

There you have it, the two most dangerous military operations performed at once, just for bragging rights! And they do it on the 6th of June of course

[Uh so has Debaltseve fallen?]

Wouldn`t a local commander be subject to a martial court or at least sacked for retreating from such a position without, at least, tacit approval from the higher levels of the chain of command?

 

I understand that politics can obscure the subject, and the local officer may be punished anyway to save face, but any consequence to the lower officer would be, in principle, and indication of the higher officers intents and orders

[Please NO Marines or NATO forces module !]

I wonder if there is a super top secret NATO forum where they are planning an actual campaign by throwing around the same arguments put forward here??? 

[US soldiers act like cowards ingame]

No, I don´t see a difference between US and Russian soldiers either, and I don't see a problem with soldiers hitting the ground instead of being suicidal running towards gunfire

 

It`s just frustrating to see them just freeze and do nothing sometimes, you would think that eventually someone would fire in the general direction of incoming fire, even if ineffective or at least take cover

 

But I don't know which option is more realistic, I don't know if the chances of survival are better one way or the other or what are squad leaders supposed to do in such situations, given it would fall to them to overcome the very natural survival instincts of their soldiers

 

Maybe it is better to stay put but on the other hand, you have a job to do and the only way to do it is fighting back, or at least move to cover and think again

[US soldiers act like cowards ingame]

Maybe I'm wrong but the US soldiers in CMBS seem more likely to cower and less likely to return fire than they did CMSF. I don't know which behavior is more realistic. 

 

Yes, that´s my impression too, but honestly it´s been many years since I played CMSF and maybe it´s just my memory playing tricks, so I can´t say for certain

 

I can only say that I don´t remember to feel this way about this topic back then, nor I remember US troops being super soldiers either

[US soldiers act like cowards ingame]

I´m not going to argue what is more realistic, but I confess that sometimes it angers me when troops hit the ground  and stay put waiting to die and not even crawl away or try to shoot back...or shoot at all for that matter

 

Maybe that`s what happens most of the time in combat, I have no way to know, but it is somewhat frustrating to see them cower and just wait for the next bullet

[Acquire visual aid wanted]

A revamped Aquire menu would be great, as of now it is serviceable but nothing more, some visual cues would be helpful, perhaps dividing items in category columns, I don`t know if there is enough space to do that though 

 

Small arms visuals in general are somewhat neglected in CM`s user interface, except for soldier animations which were definitely improved since CMSF, I guess this is a consequence of assuming wargamers know this stuff by memory, and probably it`s true in many cases

 

There was a Mod for CMSF that turned small arms one color silhouettes into full representations of each weapon that added to the immersion, hope someone makes one for CMBS, as it is beyond my abilities (which are none)

[Please NO Marines or NATO forces module !]

Marines is a given, they probably sell better than anything else and in CMSF they feel different enough, specially with their big infantry platoons

 

In one of CMSF modules, they included US light infantry formations that were a challenge too, and fun to play

 

And I would like for the French to be included at last, not very familiar with their stuff, but I´m not counting on it, UK, Germany and Poland are much more likely

 

In any case, every module should, and probably will, include some red forces, airborne, naval infantry, separatists are all good candidates, special forces (as in seals, spetnatz, etc.) I´m not sure are a good fit for this games

[Walkthrough and let's play of the BLACK SEA CAMPAIGN!]

"Backs to the wall" is a great mission, one of my favorites so far, together with the amphibious mission from the Russian campaign

 

Regarding CAS, the manual states that a contested sky is assumed, forcing aircraft to fly low, it`s a design decision to make Russian ADA relevant I guess, and the lack of US SPAA a problem not seen in real life, at least in recent times

[T-14 might be appeared... sooner than May.]

It`s a stealth tank...nobody will be able to see it

 

At this point we should start a betting pool, it`s like the third of fourth thread about this thing and that parade...it better show up and it better be the best tank that ever existed!