DreDay

This is turning into another political discussion that I simply refuse to take part in on in this forum. Sorry, but I not the one to who cares to carry a debate about the evils and madness of Putin/Obama/Merrel/Castro/Assad/Charlie Sheen/Octomom or any other media personality...

That's pretty much all that needs to be said here. No one (neither US nor Russia) will risk a direct military confrontation of any kind in a foreseeable future. That's how the nuclear deterrent works. And no, no one is going to be "crazy enough" to try out that principle in practice. That's not how the world works; otherwise none of us would be alive by now.

Russian military doctrine calls for a first-strike nuclear option when facing a superior conventional force. It's a well known and publicized fact. That is precisely why any kind of war between Russia and US over Ukraine is a fantasy that might be interesting model in a wargame; but should not be debated too seriously by adult men (or women).

Right that's exactly what I mean. There would need to be an engine enhancement to handle visual and sound identification based on weapon sound and flash. However, this would also create many interesting tactical scenarios and options that we don't have right now (i.e. have your scout team take out enemy patrol or HW crew without alerting the rest of their force to your positioning and actions).

Say what? CM is designed to model infantry combat just as much as other components of combined arms. Silenced/suppressed small arms play a major role in today's battlefield and effect the tactics that are used by any modern military force. If a module was to focus specifically on the special forces, that would even be more of a factor; but it should fit organically with the existing engine. What does that have to do with FPSs?

If I may make just a small correction - you are talking about the Soviet military doctrine here, not Russian. Current Russian doctrine is still in a state of flux, but they are very aware of their limited human and financial resources that simply would not allow them to wage the kind of "Total War" that Soviet military was geared for... They are still far from mastering it, but their general trend is to put much higher emphasis on the quality of their new equipment and superior training of their personnel; as opposed to building a massive "just-good-enough" force for a global war against NATO and China...

As tempted as I am to reply to your (well-stated) points; I will stick to my promise and not get into the discussion of politics or history here any more. I very much respect your perspective, although I also disagree with a fair amount of your analysis... but I will stick to respectfully agreeing to disagree with you in this thread. Please feel free to PM me if you want to have a little friendly debate. It would be my pleasure to carry this on in a different format...

Fair enough, I did not realize that it was an intentional feature rather than an "engine quirk". Big props to BattleFront for already incorporating it into the engine. That being the case - perhaps the failure rate can be increased for older ATGMS (i.e. AT-4/5) and other weapons like "ancient" RPG-18/22? Also perhaps older artillery pieces (like 2s1 and 2s3) could have higher chance of over/undershooting due to using older poorly maintained ammo?

Honestly Steve, I think that we see things very differently on this matter and I am perfectly willing to agree to disagree on this. I will try stick to discussing the game itself from now on and I will do my best to offer my support and any possible help (if ever needed) to make it into another Battlefront staple.

I get your point, and I certainly don't care to defend Russian misinformation, but what about "The civilians in Lugansk had died due to their own MANPAD locking on to the nearby AC unit", rather than a strafing run by a Ukrainian SU-25 that was documented by multiple sources? Is that disinformation or misinformation? Does it really matter, and can a government that pulls that kind of sh$$t time after time claim any moral superiority? And there are hundreds of other examples like that as you well know... Which world do you live in my friend? I love my country to death, but by your definition our government is extremely irresponsible, and so is any other one that cares enough to protect its national interests to protect... Russians are not that different from us in this sense and all that Soviet legacy BS has very little to do with it. If our power elites decide that we need to escalate our commitment Vietnam - we get the Gulf o Tokin BS. If they decide that we need to invade Iraq - we get the WMD BS. And you know what, I get it - that's how the geopolitics are played; but let's not pretend that we play that game any differently from others. I just hope that we play it better...

I mostly agree with the rest of your post so I will just try to address this part. The assumption that the Russians are waging a war against the people of Ukraine is just as subjective as an assumption that the Ukrainian government is waging a war against their own (possibly-former) people in Eastern Ukraine. If you honestly believe that the majority of Donbass locals support the Kiev regime and see Russians as the aggressors; I can respect your opinion (especially given the news coverage that we get here), but I also find it completely unsubstantiated (given the Ukrainian, Russian, and Donbass sources). It's just as short-sighted as saying that we (US) were waging a war against the people of Iraq (or Libya, or Afghanistan, or now Syria - take your pick). It's a complex scenario where Russians (and US, and EU) are acting in their national interests; but saying that one side has any kind of moral authority over the other (or doing something that we ourselves would not have done under the same circumstances) is extremely subjective and biased in my humble opinion.

Question for the developers - are you considering some feature that would account for potential failures by certain munitions (i.e. duds). It has been reported by both Ukrainians and DNR/LNR rebels that a lot of their ATGMS (and even RPGs) had failed to launch properly due to their poor prior-maintenance and expired storage dates. I realize that this could make things a bit frustrating for us (the players); but it would also add another dimension and level realism to the game...

This is the one that I have followed and tried to contribute to the most, until I had come to a conclusion that it was taking up too much of my time and was not leading to a constructive debate... but there is plenty of good info and opposing views there: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?236054 I am sure that they are plenty other ones on Reddit and such...

That is somewhat true. However, you also have to consider that Russian budget is currently aided by their falling currency (which makes domestic production of military hardware much cheaper than before). They have also embarked on an ambitious re-armament program that allocates high amounts of their GDP to defense spending. Finally, in game terms - if they were to go to war (per game's story line); you better believe that they would be sending their latest hardware into that theater of operation. Look at all the modern weapon platforms that they are deploying to Crimea right now - why do you think they do that? Certainly not because they don't anticipate it being a potential hot spot.

You are absolutely correct. Ukranian authorities had anounced that their stockpile of T-72s (both un-conserved and upgraded for sale to other states) will be used to equip the National Guard (what used to be called Interior Troops) units; although I don't believe that we have seen any Ukranian T-72s deployed to the combat zone so far...

Agreed 100%. Mike drop, case closed.

I have a ton of respect for Steve, but he is a subject to his own biases and information availability (or the lack of such) - just like any of us. This debate has already been played out in hundreds of other forums across the net, so I am sorry but I am not going to go through 20 pages of arguments that I have already been exposed over-and-over for the past year...

Sorry bud, but I am a "grown-ass" man I do not have the time nor the inclination to go through 33 pages of debates that have already been aired on other forums for many months. Yes, Ukranian authorities have just as little credibility in their reporting as Russians in my book. I really don't care to recite all the BS that they had claimed so I'll give myself exactly 30 seconds to see what comes to mind: -The attack on the civilians around Lugansk city council was done by a separatist SAM launcher that had locked on to the air conditioner; not the SU-25 that was filmed firing on it by multiple sources -Russians had used nuclear munitions on Lugansk airport -Russians are shelling Donetsk airport from Russian territory (at least 70km away) -All (yes All) civilian casualties and damage has been done by the separatists (nay terrorists per Ukrainian officials) bombing themselves and their families -There are dozens of Russian units in east Ukraine at any given time (even though half of them don't even exist in real life - 200th GRU Spetsnaz brigade) That's it. My 30 seconds are over. That's all you get for now bud. Now I have to climb back to my tree so that great experts like yourself that know everything that goes on there with 100% certainty could educate the rest of us on what we are incapable of comprehending without your divine analysis.

I would love to see an SOF module as well; but it would need to come with some special engine features as well (i.e. silenced and suppressed weapons, extra cammo options for the infantry, etc...). VDV are obviously a must; as for Russian Naval Infantry - their kit is no different than an average BTR battalion, so that module might be a bit disappointing to most... What I would really like to see are irregular forces on both sides (i.e. DNR/LNR rebels vs Ukrainian volunteer battalions). This would give the game a lot more depth and accuracy as opposed to adding the latest war-machines that can all kill you as soon as they spot you and leave very little room for actual tactics and maneuver.

Interestingly enough, I have had this exact discussion with one of my old buddies that was designated a Javelin gunner during his first deployment to Iraq. Per his words - it took an average of 10-30 seconds to get a lock and to initiate a launch on a vehicle even under normal conditions; which was a bit confusing and frustrating to less experienced operators... However his simple answer to such issues was to switch to the "Viper" mode (direct lase); which was much more practical and reliable per his words. Then again, most of their targets there were not vehicles...

You make very good points, and I would generally agree with everything you've said; except for one distinction - there is absolutely no credible evidence that Russian regulars are in East Ukraine right now or more-so that they are directly involved in any fighting there. It was a different story in August of this year; but it very much appears that they had in fact left once their immediate objectives were accomplished. Yes Russian government has flat out lied about it and has tried to keep their actions as conspicuous as possible; but that does not all of a sudden mean that we should put any more stock into the claims of their Ukrainian counterparts who had shown themselves to be equally deceitful...

Not sure friend. My 5 minutes of research seem to indicate that both of them (along with Mao and Trotsky) are credited with that quote by different sources. The first time that I had read it, was in one of the older Steven Zaloga books; that is kind of symbolic of this whole thread - I'll bet you most of the people that post here grew up on his writings in the 1980s....

Sure, per Lenin's quote "Quantity has a quality of it's own". It could very well be a case at that time that 3 T-72Bs (which would cost about as much as one M1A1) would have been a better investment (although T-72s were only deployed in Czechoslovakia in the 1980's, while the rest of Soviet offensive armored force was made up of T-80s and T-64s). However, my main point here was to say that Kontakt-5 (while a good defensive measure on its own), was not enough to make up for the inherent survivability issues with Soviet tanks of that era..

You are absolutely correct in reference to the mid 80's and early 90's. At this point (i.e. CMBS time-frame) many T-72s have been fitted with K-5 ERA as part of T-72BA or T-72B3 upgrades (not to mention T-90s). However, despite this potent defensive package, they still suffer from poor ammo stowage that tends to cause catastrophic explosions when the vehicle is penetrated. In that sense, K-5 ERA package offers only a marginal improvement to Russian tank defenses; while not addressing their major problem - poor survivability post-penetration from sides or rear areas.