Livdoc44

So it is about 11 pm in Kyiv so let's summarize day 3 of this nasty bit of business.  If I miss anything feel free to jump in. [aside: people will recall when Iran shot down that Ukrainian airliner (just weird) how a bunch of internet nerds figured out where the shooter were before western intel did, well this little thread is doing one bang up job of intel analysis so I wanna try and capture that].
Caveat - this assessment is based on unclassified open source intelligence, much of it unverified or unverifiable at this time.
Strategic Level:  While the strategic causes of this military action by Russia remain vague and unconfirmed (i.e. I still have not seen a reason "why now" beyond "why not"), the overall most likely strategic objective is the total defeat of Ukraine as a nation, followed by installation of a puppet regime as a demonstration to NATO and western powers of Russian power in the region. 
The overall Russian strategy in this action was to overwhelm the Ukrainian forces quickly with a knockout blow aimed at Kyiv designed to break the will of Ukrainian resistance.  It appears that this objective was in a 48-72 hour window, other strategic objectives are largely unknow at this time (?).  One of the biggest strategic unknowns at this time is the overall will of the Russian people to continue to prosecute this war, current Russian leadership likely remain fully committed and short of a regime change will not likely voluntarily pull out.
Over the last 72 hours Europe and the West appear to have solidified their stance on this war with respect to increasing sanctions and military support to the Ukraine.  China and India remain two global powers who have not engaged in punitive measures against Russia, nor have they provided direct support to Ukraine. Another unknown at this time is whether Turkey will close the Black Sea to additional Russian maritime forces.  
It is clear that outside Russia, at least, Russia has not managed to control the strategic narrative for this war nor have dis/mis information campaigns been effective widening divisions in Western responses.  In fact the opposite appear to be true as this action has created unity in NATO and the European community, at least in the short term.
Operational Level:
- As of 72 hours into the war there is evidence that Russia has not achieved air superiority, information/cyber superiority, decision superiority or effectively eroded the Ukrainian infrastructure (military or civilian) or power centers of gravity at the operational or tactical level.  Russian advances on a multi-pronged assault have made modest gains however it appears that some lines of advance may have stalled. 
- Russian casualties are likely high (again very hard to get specifics) or at least higher than expected.
- There are indications that Russian logistical systems have failed in some locations, whether this is an indicator of isolated issues or a broader issue remains unknown.  Evidence of fuel shortages has been presented suggesting disruption in operational LOCs
- Russian forces are currently of questionable quality along some axis of advance at least based on captured POWs.  Further based on largely anecdotal evidence, it appears that Russia has not employed a form of Mission Command, nor really provided any detailed SA to some Russian tactical units (again based on POW interviews).
- Latest reports are that heavy concentrations of artillery are forming one the outskirts of Kyiv, which could signal a shift in strategy from a "knock out maneuver" toward a more "shock and awe" approach, or the Russians have essentially opted for an attritional approach to Kyiv at least. 
- Ukrainian forces have demonstrated a level of lethality and coordination beyond expectations of open source analysts and likely Russian planners.  How much of this is do to outside support and how much is due to Russian setback remains unclear.  
Tactical:
- Ukrainian forces have broadcast examples of both ambush and deep strike, the role of specific military capability remains vague.   The effectiveness next gen ATGM systems and MANPADs remains unknown but reported high armored vehicle casualties indicate they have been effective.
Overall Summary:  As of the first 72 hours of the war, it appears that the Russian military has overestimated its own capabilities and/or the capabilities of Ukrainian resistance and has not likely met the timelines it had set during pre-war planning.  The assessment is that the next 24-48 hours will be critical in the outcome of this war and if Russian forces are not about to take Kyiv and inflict some serious damage to the Ukrainian people's will, their own strategic center of gravity will become more vulnerable. 
Did I miss anything?  Seriously, jump in.

Been binging the news nonstop - have barely got any work done. Stay safe, Haiduk - and others who are less visible but in the conflict zone. All right minded people are with you.
Speaking of right minded people, how telling it is that so many of the usual suspects have fallen silent on these forums. I hope you stay silent, you silly little men :). 

I'm ok. I just too tired about all these news monitoring, so I havn't enough energy to write here. Today I tried to depart my wife from the city to her parents in more calm Cherkasy oblast, but we can't reach to railway station. Municipal transport stopped on the left bank of Kyiv, though on the right it works like and subway. 
All day from my balcony, wich exits to Obolon' and Vyshhorod periodically heard a sounds of shellings. Now I heard outcoming shots of our 2S7 Pion guns, located in 5 km from my house close to city limit. They fire somewhere to the west, where Russian troops concentrates to attack on the city. All day there were periodycal clashes on the line Irpin'-Bucha-Vorzel-Hostomel. There was attempt of Russian tank attack from Chernobyl zone through Ivankiv on Kyiv, but because of we had a time to demolish the bridges through the Teterev river, they halted. 

If Russia employs tactical nuclear weapons, or even chemical...I am going out back to dig a deep hole.  

overflowing recruitment offices no Ukraine formations surrendering or abandoning positions (we have seen this from Russians)  many cases Ukrainians fighting to a last man or sacrificing their lives for the cause Ukraine cities and people are remaining stoic. (no panic, no looting) Government and officials showing no sing of wavering  civilians indeed taking to arms I think we are looking at the "worst case scenario" for the Russians in terms of Ukrainian will to fight.

I am ashamed of the actions of my government, I hoped to the last that there would be no war and this is just a bluff. Now anti-war rallies are taking place all over Russia, no one supports this war, there are a bunch of idiots who support it, but I assure you that the majority of the population is AGAINST THIS WAR. 
I honestly empathize with Ukrainians, but in no case will I rejoice at the death of our Russian soldiers! Young guys who could live a long life and do so much good in life, and not die for the sake of crazy ideas. 
 


 

 

 


 

This is great. I never noticed the storage boxes on British Shermans but now I can't unsee them. Just adds another little detail that I didn't even know that I needed. Thanks!

This game is about the military-tactical challenges of warfare in various eras and areas.  We all put up w the outdated graphics because we want the challenge that we can't seem to find elsewhere.  If someone came up w CM's challenge w modern graphics & such, yeah, we'd all want that.  but where is that game? 
Men of War has better graphics (I played it for a while long ago).  It also has fighting all happening within ~ 100 meters, which is nice playground fun but utterly ridiculous.  If one wants a realistic military challenge, CM is the place. 
Most games sacrifice realism to gain bigger market, that's cool for them, but then again all those games kinda play the same.  Make base, base makes stuff, get better stuff, make better base, get more better stuff......

Hmm, well you have some points to be sure, some fair, some unfair and some, well everyone is entitled to opinion and choices.  I am not going to weigh in everything, we already know we want to fix quite a few things in the next engine (e.g. graphics) and I totally agree that 1v1 (and maybe one day 2v2 or 3v3) is in need of an overhaul.
As to "all games being the same", well they do all share the same engine so in that way, yes they are but then again so are a lot of franchises. New features get added over time which add some new flavors but the base engine is pretty consistent, which is a good thing if you are fan and maybe not so much if you are not. 
As to "skins. maps, equipment", here you (and others) are way off.  Each game has hundreds of hours of research on organizations and equipment/weapons and then we test them and re-address issues after release. CMSF2 and CMCW  are an excellent example of this, if you imported all the forces from CMSF 2 to CMCW, the game would crash as the TO&Es and equipment are very different; US force structures are completely different (H series vs J series), the basic squad of infantry has different firepower (e.g. Dragon vs Javelin) and even the mighty M1 Abrams is the 105mm gun version in CMCW.  All this effects sighting, C2 etc.  Soviets are armed with different equipment from the era and - the big one - CMCW is not hybrid warfare while it is in CMSF 2. 
Your point on maps might have traction between CMFS 2 and CMCW for the NTC maps but we built over 300 sq kms of German specific maps...from the actual ground that is there (as best we could) and they have very little in common with CMSF 2.  And then there is the hours of content in the scenarios and campaigns which are all custom for the game they are made. 
But hey I get it.  I bought MS Flight Simulator and find the 4 versions of Cessna's all pretty much the same but I am definitely not a hardcore flight sim guy.  My guess is that for people that the game seems the same and bland, well you might have bought the wrong game (I would suggest you give it a chance).  CM is for the (fanatic) hardcore wargamer, for whom the differences between CMSF 2 and CMCW are immense, to the point that they are not even the same species.  CM is not really designed for mass appeal (swear to god we should do the zombie thing) but instead has employed a niche strategy that relies on a small but really loyal base.  It is franchise that is never going to compete with "Call of Honor 8: Arms of Brothers" but it has survived (and thrived) for over 20 years with the same model...so there is that.
So to partially answer the title of your post: "we did"  

All games age over time and no game is perfect. Considering the size of the Battlefront team they are doing a great job in what they have done so far and I'm sure we will see improvements in the future.
And after all this time yet here we all are with people still creating new scenarios, maps, campaigns and mods. So BF must still be doing something right and people are still enjoying the game.

Still in awe that a single programmer could pull off something like CMx2.
Best regards
Thomm

This one makes me laugh.
First a little history. The CM1 series started with Beyond Overlord followed by Barbarossa to Berlin and finally Afrika Korps. Each follow on game added features to both the engine and the UI. But the older games were not updated with the new features. Which meant that Afrika Korps played better and had a better UI than the other two. People were sad that the new work was not available in the still very playable Beyond Overlord.
In the CM2 series BFC decided to not do that again and so when Fortress Italy came out Beyond Normandy got an update to add in the engine and UI improvements too.
So, what are you asking for? Did you really want Beyond Normandy to languish behind as new titles came and made improvements? I don't. You shouldn't either.
 
Everyone feels that some graphics improvements would be welcome. I do have on bone to pick with the above - the sky? The sky in CM seems pretty damn good to me. I don't think I have ever heard someone complain about the sky.
 
Indeed. This is another area that would be great to add.
So, as a point of interest if they added some of these things would you want that feature to only be in the new release and leave all the others behind? That's how adding new features and differentiating a new game from the older ones would work. Rhetorical question.
 
TFB Honestly I don't want to be mean or angry but this is such a bull **** complaint. BFC will price it where they think they can make good money. Bitching about it is so boring.
 
Sure it would be cool but as you said a lot of those assets really would be out of view. Not all of them, so yeah cool. Planes actually do sometimes crash on map. There is no wreckage model though just an explosion.
So cool would be nice.
 
LOL see two points above. If you don't like the price no one is pulling money out of your pocket. Vote with your dollars.
 
In your opinion. Enough people disagree and think the games are worth the money. That's kind of the end of the discussion.
The argument I expect to hear: but if you lower the price you will sell so much more. Facts not in evidence (BFC know their audience and what price differences do and how many copies they think they will sell. There is no way that you know better than them).
 

CM is a unique animal. It is not a "computer game". It is a tabletop historical wargame translated to exploit the things that computers are good at. If you have ever sat at a 6 x 3 table and pushed miniatures around, it is the best iteration of that hobby yet. Its graphics more than suffice to represent the elements required to a still-startling degree of fidelity to "real life". It retains gamist features in places, but does not rely on them like many tabletop wargame rulesets these days do. The skybox is way better a background for the game than any wargame club hall I've ever been in, and the ruleset is more intricate a simulation than any hand-calculated set of rules could come close to matching.

But if you expect the total perspective immersion of modern computer games out of it, you're going to be disappointed, cos it ain't that.

As to "all the games are the same", that's true on a very broad and superficial sense, but if you actually play 'em the "progression" between the titles is noticeable. There are common principles, but they are consequences of the fidelity of the simulation: the principles of warfare don't change much. The available tools do, however.

The other day I heard the Beastie Boys' track Sabotage which I haven't heard for years and I thought to myself 'that would be a good accompanying track to a Shock Force 2 montage'. So I took some inspiration from the track's video and put this together. See what you think.
 
 

Admittedly, I'm a BFC forum lurker and always have questions but neglect to ask. Must say old boy that you nailed these two. Thought both you and Bil were doing something to enable those black squares and was super curious about the size of the Panzerfaust 3. Thanks to the both of you for demonstrating the new features; I cannot wait to get my hands on my own copy.