DMS

Another one of those threads! Oh well, never hurts to dream. In order of feasibility...
1 - A pre-selected retreat path command (you could set a waypoint outside the normal waypoint chain that overrides the TAC-AI's chosen retreat position)
2 - A Shoot n' Scoot command (the most important use-case would be a bazooka team being able to retreat to a pre-selected position immediately after firing a shot)
3 - More fortification objects, perhaps in a pack (H-barriers, H-barrier bunkers, guard towers for modern games; large concrete bunkers, deep trenches, shallow trenches/breastworks, concealed foxholes, combined tank-trap/barbed wire for all games)
4 - The ability to save the state of maps for later use (in a campaign, or as the map of a different scenario)
5 - A game-mode similar to Close Combat's Operations
Goes without saying that I'd be more than willing to fork over some good money for those!

Can you tell us a little bit about the RT module? Lend-Lease? SS? Axis Minors? PTRS? Budapest?

Is it possible to split Syrian squads now?  To reduce casualties when advancing.

Think this might have already been posted a while back, but just in case...
http://www.allworldwars.com/German Field Fortifications on the Eastern Front.html

Deep trenches, that protect from artillery! Different types of trenches. Communication trenches, trenches with MG nests. Soviet style foxholes. (For firing prone) Covered MG nests. Stationary telephones.

Deep trenches, that protect from artillery! Different types of trenches. Communication trenches, trenches with MG nests. Soviet style foxholes. (For firing prone) Covered MG nests. Stationary telephones.

Deep trenches, that protect from artillery! Different types of trenches. Communication trenches, trenches with MG nests. Soviet style foxholes. (For firing prone) Covered MG nests. Stationary telephones.

Battlefront has stated, that most players play against the AI.
I had liked to play against the AI, but IME it's biggest problem is, that after a few games it simply is not a tactical challenge. That is no criticism, but with the player's god view the AI can't match a human opponent.
What about making playing against the AI a real challenge?
Keep expereienced players playing and not get bored by playing the AI?
Make tiny scenarios even against the AI great and challenging again?
The existing "Iron mode" points into the right direction, but as it is now, I find it just annoying, because the not displayed info when a unit is selected, can be gathered by unselecting the unit.
For this mode to really work, it needs the players commitment for self restraint. Which is not good. The natural way to play is to use all allowed possibilities.
How about a more realistic iron mode, that goes one step further and which fully utilizes the available individual spotting abilities of units and the already present excellent chain of command net?
In that mode the player's ability to move over the battlefield freely would simply be removed!
The camera view would be fixed on his unit (with a certain tolerance, for example around 1-3 action squares; maybe dependable on unit characteristics; same with the ingame zooming option).
Multi story buildings, or hills would become really important - but instead of only benefitting the units in game, it would be the player himself who benefits from occupying tactically important spots.
Current iron mode could have a nice side effect with that restriction:
if a friendly unit gets lost from the chain of command or gets out of LOS, it could be denied to select that unit with the consequence the player would really lose contact to it. The only way to learn what's going on with that unit would be to search it with other unit(s). The information net would become incredibly important. Just like it is in reality.
Imagine the impact a heavy and successful artillery bombardement could have on the ability for the player, to understand, what is going on, if important HQs and their comm was disabled!
I think that mode would make it possible, for the very first time, to understand the amount of confusion, that can happen on the battlefield.
Ok, that is beyond the current engine, but imagine, if that mode would in a later engine iteration, also allow to simulate small arms friendly fire… Do you really want to area fire where there was a friendly unit? Incredible realism. Incredible chaos.
I am fully aware that mode would not be suited for beginners but for experienced players wo do not have the time or do not want to play against humans.
Or just players who would prefer to play tiny but challenging (without being unfair), scenarios against the AI.
Summary:
Realism:
Unmatched realism.
Fully utilization of the engine's C2 and spotting abilities.
Convergence of the simulated tactical benefits on the map for the units and the benefits to the player from tactically realistic play.
No perfect knowledge of the terrain before being there.

Improved attraction to players:
Playing the AI becomes true challenge - even for experienced players (but playing h2h not less interesting).
Playing tiny and short scenarios, even against the AI, a challenge. Say hello to customers with not enough time to play currently sized battles!
 

Don't spend lots of time scouting. Don't bother to fix and flank, except with tank forces, who can do it at speed. But also don't just run infantry at the enemy or ignore casualties. That isn't Russian doctrine or how it actually worked, it is just a cartoon slander of their methods spread by the Germans, whomthought it made them defending against it sound all clever and also heroic for braving it etc. (A rather incoherent set of spin objectives, incidentally, but that is an aside).

The first idea is that any definite plan pushed will be faster than slow recon pull. The next is that the process of destroying the enemy really isn't that complicated - it is a matter of laying your ship alongside the enemy, as Nelson put it before Trafalgar. Meaning close aggressively with the enemy, brave what he can dish out to dish out as much as you can yourself, and trust in your strength to destroy him before he destroys you.

But that isn't a headlong charge. Above all, it isn't about movement in the first place, it is about firepower and punishment dealt.

The first infantry wave is fixing, but doesn't have to do it everywhere, or care too much about finding the enemy. Walking over your chosen route of advance will either penetrate the enemy and break up his defense, or he'll find you, and reveal himself stopping that. Let him. Then blow the living crap out of everything that reveals itself, with all your firepower arms. Tanks, mortars, artillery support - call down the wrath of God to avenge the first wave. All the first wave itself needs to do in the meantime is hit the dirt, take what cover they can, and rally as best they can. They did their part drawing the enemy's fire. Don't press. It isn't a race. Save as many of them as possible, by blasting the guys shooting at them and skulking them out of sight.

Then send the second wave. Not a new idea. Not a fancy razzle dazzle end around head fake double reverse. Send them at the spots your artillery and other fire support just blasted into the lower atmosphere, while the dust is still moving upward. They may occupy the places so blasted. Or they may draw fire from a new set of shooters, and repeat the experience of the first wave. You don't really care which. There is no rushing. You have all week. Everyone will get a turn before you are done, every bit of fire support you have will chew on something, and the enemy will need to shoot you all down and still have something left. If they don't, it may be in the bottom half of the clock that they start crumbling. Waves that have been out of the leading role are rallying the while, shooting back. You don't care how long it takes, but not because any of it is tentative or any part of the clock is quiet. Reuse the rallied early waves as fourth and fifth attacks. The whole point is to outlast them, to have the last rallied wave standing. Inexorable is the watchword.

Each wave doesn't bunch up. It isn't trying to run the enemy off his feet in one go. You only expose what it takes to make a serious threat to enemy position if he doesn't open up with a major line of battle. The ideal size of one wave is a numerical match for the defenders on the same frontage. You don't want to give them denser targets that make all their weapons more effective. Instead you want them to face trying to hold off the third wave with empty magazines and surrounded by blasted friends, worked over repeatedly by all your fire support.

They won't stand. Lean hard enough into them, back off for nothing, make no mistakes, and use every weapon in your force for its proper target - and they will go down. Trust your combined strength, believe it, press home and make it so.

No captain can go far wrong who lays his ship alongside one of the enemy.

This is from ChrisND's stream that aired today, enjoy guys, and thanks Chris!
 
 
 

While I certainly try to get veteran and crack Russians it depends on the situation.  Many qbs I play me and my opponents have a backstory. Generally I play with regular Russians and have some veteran or rarely crack units and some green units.   Sometimes I use green, or veteran and crack units more.   But generally to be realistic I will not use all veteran or crack troops.  That'd be very rare for a Russian force of battalion or above - not to say there arent such units, but it would be the exception to encounter these units.  Even US units I generally play regular with some veteran and crack, a little more veteran and crack than Russian units.  The US units are probably on average better trained, but this is also reflected in the fact that theyre more expensive than the Russian units.
Also playing with all elite (or high skill high motivation troops) all the time takes  a lot out of the game imo.  You'll miss a lot of the real human reactions that would be seen on the battlefield and in real life with an artificially high level of training and motivation for everyone that frankly isnt there in real life.

AI controlled vehicles and infantry units should more often shoot at question marks, I think.

If Trophy APS is realistically as insanely effective against all forms of ATGM from every angle, including the massive Kh-25 which is a rough equivalent to Maverick, Russian air support AI needs to change to use cannons first to strip the APS.  I've done a few tests using two SU-25s against just a single platoon of Abrams, all equipped with APS, and the Frogfoots were completely ineffective at even making a dent until they used their cannon and stripped the external systems from the Abrams, but at this point the missiles were expended.  This happened every time (5 tests).  Helicopters were a little more effective only because they had enough missiles to keep shooting after the APS was expended.
 
I'm absolutely certain that if Trophy isn't bugged and is really this much proof against every kind of ATGM threat until it runs out of ammo, the Russian pilots would try to strip this system off their targets before they waste valuable ATGMS to explode harmlessly a few meters from their target every time. 

So, sides are chosen, there is a map:
 

 
I am playing for Russians, starting at the left setup zone. c3k is playing for U.S., right setup zone.
You can read conditions there. In short, I must take that bridge.
 
As you see, there is a large open space between the bridge and the town.
Of course, it would be nice to take a company of good old T-72s and to make a tank rush. (I have 7500 points - enough for 1,5 tank companies)
But Javeline and Abrams...
 
 I chose:
-152mm battery
-120mm mortar platoon
-Zala UAV
-Artillery and air spotters
-BTR company without a platoon
-T-90, Chrisantema and Tunguska. 1 piece of each.
-ATGM battery
-Su-25 wing
 

 
Setup for long range engagement and some infantry for guarding spotters and final attack.
 
I am awaiting for you advices! Have I any chances?

Thank you all for watching, I am pleased that you liked it!
 
 
Your luck is that I didn't expect company HQ to deal with Abrams!   Too optimistic expectation.
 
Su-25 30mm guns were much more effective than expensive laserguided missiles. They should first attack with gun, then with Kh-25. Now I want to buy DCS flight sim and try it.
 
 
 
Yeah, but wouldn't that elite Abramss tanks kill them like sitting ducks in meeting engagement? And I could take only a company of them. Though some T-90s and BMPs would be a better choice. BMP spots better and 100mm gun is more serious weapon.
 
In that battle my best units were artillery guns, I think. UAV was very helpfull. This thing changes warfare not less than APS!

I've noticed in AAR vids that many people do not use walk very often.
 
Walking is a very good way not to be seen.
 
I've walked recon units and FOs to locations in full view of the enemy and reached ideal locations
without being spotted.
 
When I quick move to a building, I walk to an elevated floor and setup. Only if the enemy is very close do I become spotted and invariably not even then.
 
Also walking around leaves your troops rested and ready for assaults or fast running.
 
I don't know how many times I've seen experienced players assault a position with tired forces and have them smacked.
 
If you plan to assault, rest your men. Too many times, people are in a hurry to engage. Condition is a very important part of the game and is seemingly ignored by many.
 
Also, C&C is also ignored by many. Its very important. I see players either move their command units to dangerous positions, leading from the front. This is American Civil War stuff. Think about moving command up to a safe, close position in relation to their troops. Try not to include them in the attack.
 
If you have to move them up for observation purposes, move your troops up first, wait a bit for spotting, then if its safe, move the command up slowly to a good observation spot.
 
Just a few thoughts.

Because they have no army, only volunteers consistently fight. The conscription efficiency was about 15%. Officers cadre is saturated with Russians and Russian sympathizers - neither HQ nor soldiers trust them. HQ itself is infiltrated. There are 8 mln ethnic Russians  in Ukraine, over 4 mln still living outside of Crimea or combat zone. There are millions of Ukrainians  who voted for Yanukovitch (elected according to all democratic standards) who all now are devoid of any democratic political representation (their parties/representatives declared illegal). Ukraine is far from being homogeneous, even not considering the frontline.
 
 
I disagree. With superior equippement, morale and command they can afford to limit loses and still meet political and military goals.
 
 
 
No. Further conscription attempts will put the country dangerously close to another rebellion, at least at some areas. People in Donbass enlist for separatist army willingly (and to be honest this is often the only way they can feed their families) and it is suspected that some oligarchs pay both sides for immunity. And there is always endless mecrcenary source in Russia.
 
 
 
Contrary. The inevitable fall of Debaltseve was an obvious fact to all sides of the agreement and bears no impact on its viability. And I think cease -fire is still probable. In long term there is only one side interested in prolonged war: USA - as the conflict makes whole Europe less competitive.
 
And there is Biden's son 'helping' big Ukrainian gas company....yeah
 
There is even a joke:
Q: "How long will USA fight Russia in Ukraine?" 
A: "to the last Ukrainian volunteer standing"

IR is to the left of the barrel. T-64.
 
 
 
Wheels. T-72s.

Thanks!
 
http://youtu.be/asDgss27FfU

"Obviously Russians won't bother with ROE"

Nice...

So, sides are chosen, there is a map:
 

 
I am playing for Russians, starting at the left setup zone. c3k is playing for U.S., right setup zone.
You can read conditions there. In short, I must take that bridge.
 
As you see, there is a large open space between the bridge and the town.
Of course, it would be nice to take a company of good old T-72s and to make a tank rush. (I have 7500 points - enough for 1,5 tank companies)
But Javeline and Abrams...
 
 I chose:
-152mm battery
-120mm mortar platoon
-Zala UAV
-Artillery and air spotters
-BTR company without a platoon
-T-90, Chrisantema and Tunguska. 1 piece of each.
-ATGM battery
-Su-25 wing
 

 
Setup for long range engagement and some infantry for guarding spotters and final attack.
 
I am awaiting for you advices! Have I any chances?

So, sides are chosen, there is a map:
 

 
I am playing for Russians, starting at the left setup zone. c3k is playing for U.S., right setup zone.
You can read conditions there. In short, I must take that bridge.
 
As you see, there is a large open space between the bridge and the town.
Of course, it would be nice to take a company of good old T-72s and to make a tank rush. (I have 7500 points - enough for 1,5 tank companies)
But Javeline and Abrams...
 
 I chose:
-152mm battery
-120mm mortar platoon
-Zala UAV
-Artillery and air spotters
-BTR company without a platoon
-T-90, Chrisantema and Tunguska. 1 piece of each.
-ATGM battery
-Su-25 wing
 

 
Setup for long range engagement and some infantry for guarding spotters and final attack.
 
I am awaiting for you advices! Have I any chances?

pnzrldr,
 
In a QB for which I have the Save, I observed a complete Kill Chain occur in four (4) seconds. NO LOS from anyone but my tank, which had zero LOS until it Hunted forward and cleared terrain mask and foliage LOS block. While moving, buttoned, it saw a T-90AM at what I subsequently determined to be a range of 654 meters, lased and fired. First shot kill. Veteran vs Veteran. T-90AM got no shot off at all. I know our guys are super well trained, but to me, that seems ridiculously fast, even with SABOT up the spout. And I'm not sure I believe that, either. I'd think AMP would be the default round. Would very much appreciate your thoughts on this. Original post is on CMBS Tech Support.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

I recall awhile ago (a LONG time ago) I was playing battles where I did not ascend to 'eye of God' observation height and I never moved the camera beyond my own troops front line. I kept the camera a ground level as much as I humanly could. And of course no tree toggle. The game turned exponentially more challenging. Being in a copse of trees where you can't see three feet in front of you, hearing unseen rifle fire and suddenly an artillery barrage shakes the ground beneath you is pretty terrifying, especially when there's no fleeing skyward with the tap of a key. 

We have a winner!!!
 
 
Drum roll, please....
 
Based on timeliness and being the closest to the actual date/time of release (1244 of January 30th (30102015)), and bonus points for actually formatting his answer correctly,
 
 
 
The
 
 
Winner
 
 
Is
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Don, come on down!
 
Congratulations. A PM is wafting its way...
 
Ken