BletchleyGeek

Let me second Ian. Your move was the right one. Assaulting the town would have taken more than 15 mins, you'd probably have a more degraded force due to losses and still would the fricking Host of the Valar be coming right on your backside.

That's a pretty massive force, coming all of it into play simultaneously. Which probably is going to start acquiring and firing at enemy targets right away... spectacular fireworks, indeed. You might get lucky with all that chaos ensuing: your force is deployed for combat, and Scott's isn't. What are the chances of friendly fire being a concern for Scott? His air support could be well be fragging friendlies, if they start using fragmentation bombs and other nasty stuff. I am not sure what are the ranges, but they do seem very close. Last, what's the VP situation like? You might not win by KO, but you could still win on points

I need to quote this because it quite explains why I have almost a dozen stillborn scenarios amongst CMBN, CMFI and CMRT, sitting in my hard disk. Sizes going from minimalist Platoon on a 300 m wide map, to reinforced Bn on a 2 km wide map. The hardest is to find the concept... and then find the time to make it work

Bil and pnzrldr are playtesting this scenario, after all. I do think this scenario would be improved with some more depth for the US/UKR side. But I have the benefit of hindsight If am pretty sure that the scenario designer is taking notes of what might need to be changed. And, most importantly, if we were not to be satisfied with the scenario we can change it to our heart's content when BS comes out. If we really want to lawyer things, agusto, and discuss about gameyness, the thing is that pnzrldr would have "surrendered" the scenario. That would account rather well for the US side to re-evaluate its plan, possibly maneuver around or bring forward more firepower. That, most certainly isn't going to happen.

Well, it's not nearly as common as in German :-) And probably in Latin America they might have a different opinion regarding whether it's right and proper to use it or not. Good catch on the nick, John!

Thanks for not forgoing the ñ, Michael. As an Spaniard, I appreciated that. They missed an umlaut in that other title though, it's "degüello" which can be translated as "no quarter". A literal translation would be "slit their throats".

I guess it all boils down at reckoning what's a reasonable ammo expenditure, you would probably need to 'cut' a man-sized hole in the wall. Thinking about it, such a system to get through walls reminds me of something out of a Roger Moore's Bond movie - pretty ludicrous

Thanks for that Chris. YT can be a pain in the back sometimes, but it is, by far, the most dependable video-on-demand streaming service out there, bar Netflix.

Associating that exception with the regular Target command might be a good idea so that 'Target' in the context of an action spot featuring a tall wall meaning 'demolish', and 'Target Light' means 'kill stuff behind the wall'. I understand the limitations of what the UI can convey, but the 'one-dimensionality' of certain commands becomes more apparent in modern titles, where vehicles have a quite varied set of weapons mounted.

Kudos on the effort Husker. The kind of delays you mention on question 4 are factored into the time enemy spotting information takes to propagate along the chain of command, as in the WW2 titles. That time depends on the channel used to transmit the info, and the EW level set by the scenario designer. The gameplay effects of those delays haven't been especially important in past titles, but who knows if bfc has some surprises in this department.

"Fun" as in "I'd have rather read about these times in a history book, than live in them". The consequences of a Russian default would probably hit the hardest German banks... and following that, well, pretty much anything can happen, really.

My experience of the match up between the Abrams and those new Russian tanks comes from Chris video of an early build, where T90s were engaging Abrams from the frontal aspect - and killing them. Indeed, the Abrams weren't firing back, and that's huge, but it made apparent the vulnerability of the Abrams if the T90 gets the first shot. Of course, things might have changed a lot as Black Sea approaches the release phase line. Looking forward to both the deliverance and the game.

I am not very familiar with these OOBs, so most definitely I've lost the count Thanks for the answers. It is true that pnzrldr's advance didn't seem to be very highly coordinated. Maybe his intent was to perform a recon in force or a probe rather than an actual determined attack on the Key Terrain areas. That might explain the lack of coordination you have perceived. I haven't read pnzrldr's thread, and I am personally wondering whether he has a plan at all, other than kill you with the Abrams (and I'm quite skeptical about that, you're going to engage them at "short" range which I think may even the scales quite a bit). I can see that concentrating fires on the enemy from several directions is important when you're the technological underdog - as in delivering a volley of guided missiles from different directions on a target equipped with anti-missile systems - is important as in "the only chance you (may) have". Indeed, as you say, maneveuring elements supporting each other has always been important, and more so in these conditions. Yet I can't help thinking that future warfare will be fought by machines with a substantial degree of autonomy - the reaction times are almost inhuman with near future equipment, let alone with the stuff that will be economically viable to deploy in a battlefield by the end of the 2020s - with their goals and plans formulated by human operators that might well be on the other side of the planet. Human units being reserved for highly specialized roles which we won't probably be able to automate any time soon. This seems to me to follow logically from the lethality of these vehicles: it kind of makes the employment of infantry a bloody and pointless exercise in any terrain other than 'urban'. Unless that infantry is equipped with 'invisibility cloaks' blocking radiation on the visible, IR and UV bands, of course. Stuff which isn't going to be 'affordable' not even by the spending levels of the US military any time soon. Looking at the kind of research grants I'm seeing being offered and awarded at the present, seems that there's a definite push to achieve the scientific and technological knowledge necessary to enable an scenario like the above by the 2040s at the latest. Looking forward to the "decision" of this battle - that seems to be looming quite close.

Thanks for the AAR - plenty of info to digest, presented in a compact and clear manner. The lethality of the contemporary combination of sensors and computerised targeting systems is truly horrifying. You wiped out - or so it seems - a whole platoon, moving along a mostly covered approach in less than five minutes. I can't help the thought that modern weapon systems show a level of self-sufficiency that have made obsolete "traditional" conceptions about combined arms. What do you think? Has the "game" changed so much? In the past, such capacity to project firepower -and associated lethality - made combatants to favour the spade over the bayonet. But nowadays, fixed positions seem to be a death trap. And maneuver requires ample protection and/or firepower not only to be enabled, but to offer some chance at survival while executing it, as pnzrldr seems to have discovered.

I second the comments regarding Bil's force engaging pnzrldr's armour as it comes on the map. The range would be very short, about 1,000 meters. Chris' videos made apparent the Abrams vulnerability at that range. It will probably boil down to who spots first whom. Pnzrldr has a substantial advantage in crew quality - maybe - but Bil hs the high ground. I'd expect pnzrldr to start beating the bushes on those hills with all the support fires he can muster, otherwise I think his chances of breaking through aren't good. I am wondering if the above could change with the timely use of UAVs and the US superior C3i. Being pnzrldr a real pro I expect we'll see a master class on using those assets.

This is a beautiful map and a not less beautiful tactical puzzle. Thanks for making the scenario - looking forward to play it myself soonish!

I think your initial plan is quite sound Bil. I reckon that you're right that pnzrldr will initially hunker down in the town. But eventually he'll be guessing what your actual attacking forces are up to. Maybe some sort of demonstration is in order, to mask your intent. If I understood correctly, you'll be directing a beefy barrage on the town. The longer that barrage is, and the more of your recon assets he sees, the longer you'll keep him guessing. (I haven't read pnzrldr thread yet, will do so when the battle is over )

Looking forward to the analysis, Bil. On the other hand, if you could concentrate against the relief force and contain those guys in the urban area, you might set up the battle to your advantage. Those UAVs change the rules of the game, though. They're quite an unknown quantity for me.

This is going to be pretty fun to watch, Bil Encirclement battles are very hard. You're the defender but you'll be indeed doing a lot of attacking . If pnzrldr plays his cards well, and stalls your attempt to crush the bypassed forces, he may have you to divide your forces.

May I ask what compiler are you using? Has anything to do with activating floating point math optimizations? It's good to know - from a professional perspective - about these kind of compiler shenanigans.

I am not sure Nakidka is meant to play a very important role at the tactical level. It does look quite unwieldly, and I wonder how long it would take to it to degrade under fire or to just fall off the vehicle as this maneuvers off-road. What I do see is that equipment like this does indeed have a massive effect at the strategic and operational level, and makes more sense in the context of the "traditional" Russian operational-strategic theory and practice. Which revolves around the maskirovka - or the active misleading of opponents or hiding of one's force to obtain surprise. The capabilities of this thing seem to me more than able to render very ineffective passive theater-level recon assets, such as satellites, or active, like JSTARS. Which are invaluable assets and a major trump card in NATO sleeve. Of course, those can be negated with either obtaining air superiority - chancey, expensive and not a given - and ECM - and I am not sure what kind of ECM would be able to shut down JSTARS sensors, other than a continuous series of high-altitude kiloton nukes going off at regular intervals over the battlefield. I think that Russia is here borrowing a page from the Serbs tactics - camouflage and deception - during the bombing campaign over Kosovo in 1999, rather than from Red Storm Rising or Popular Mechanics. The idea is to negate the standoff capability of strategic NATO assets, as cheaply and effectively as possible, preventing NATO from preempting any offesnive operation by the obvious expedient of bombing the bejesus out of the staging area of the attacking force (if you can see the tanks, then you know where to look for the fuel dumps, and if you find them, you can pretty much strangle an offensive in its cradle).

There are quite a few significant differences between the Taliban and the Viet Cong, but they do have something in common: their strength, more than religious or political, comes from drumming in their propaganda that they're fighting a foreign occupation. It's interesting to see (page 51 and onwards) how stuff written by the RAND Corporation back in 1967 on the subject of "Why men join the Viet Cong" resonates strongly many themes which we see to come up in the news time and again, and I think directly applicable to Afghanistan provinces with a Pastun majority (or to the Sunni dominated provinces of Iraq): http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2007/RM5486-1.pdf I'd hardly qualify RAND as suspect of being "PC" - their business was (is) realpolitik. I can't either help thinking about the 2009 Kunduz incident where the Bundeswehr CO requested an air strike that resulted in a significant number of civilian casualties. Did that undo the work the German armed forces did in the province since 2001? Who knows, really. You can take a look at the casualties listed for the German Armed forces in 2009 and those for 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Armed_Forces_casualties_in_Afghanistan#2009 establishing a cause and effect relationship would be a bit far-fetched, but there's indeed some correlation. Did that incident, possible military repercussions and the fallout on the home front have a role to play in the decision by the German government to pull out? Let me quote Steve for this one

I am sorry, DB, but I fail to see how I am trying to "force" anything on anyone or how I am being "inconsiderate". Nonetheless, I am not going to take issue with this attitude of yours. I invite you to spell out for me where I am being inconsiderate with anyone in the two posts I've made on this thread. Battlefront.com used to publish several titles (and still does) besides Combat Mission (which they own). And, as far as I know, Slitherine only owns the IP of a few titles in their catalogue, for the most part they operate by having distribution contracts - sometimes exclusive, sometimes not - signed with developers. As anyone applying some "due diligence" to study this business should know. If by pointing out that there's people out there doing things differently from Steve, I am insulting Steve or Battlefront or anyone reading these forums, I reckon you're stretching the meaning of the word "inconsiderate" to the breaking point. Cheers and goodbye!

That intersects neatly with the demographics that BFC is interested in and they may reach through Steam. I have been tracking the Steam forums for Command: Modern Air Naval Operations, and yes, there's a lot of butthurt trolls with staggering amounts of self-entitlement who have been bombing the forums with threads complaining about the price, calling names at people buying it and at the developers. Funny thing about Steam is that you can actually check those trolling persons profiles and you see curious things. Like the guy - "Liam Neeson Punching Wolves" or something like that, check it out yourselves - with 605 titles in his Steam Library, who has written over 80 "reviews" of games which are usually shorter than a paragraph and you can see he plays each title for an average of 5 to 6 hours. Is people like that representative of the kind of people who hang out on Steam? Not really - many here do hang out on Steam and we are able to handle ourselves in a more intelligent way in this digital environment where one can get stuff - sometimes at outrageous prices -on a whim. Looks to me that there's a quite vocal minority of people with a very ugly consumerist addiction hanging out there, who go to great lengths to "police" those developers that "dare" to put their products at a price point beyond their reach (or not really, 605 games is an awful LOT of cash and indication of someone having a problem). What I also see are former servicemen - or active ones - coming forward to the forums flabbergasted at finding something like Command on Steam. And who don't mind the price point and never had heard about Command before. A similar thing I can see in some simulators, like IL-2 Battle Of Stalingrad. Leaving aside that those devs are alienating their potential audience in weird ways, a great deal of the noise on those forums were people coming from that War Thunder thing, complaining about the game being a scam (!!!). Now, do those forum antics matter at all? I don't think so - it's way too cheap to rant on Steam forums, not so cheap to rant on a Steam review (that requires you to buy the game).

Just a few comments from someone who has spent a fair bit of time doing research on Steam and what it does imply from a development standpoint (that is, extra programming, etc.): * Valve never enforces discounts on the products on the store. That's up to the developers/publishers to decide. They do offer market advice and coaching, though. There's no such a thing as "pricing guidelines". * Valve takes away a 30% cut from the retail price from the majority of the products on sale (I say majority because Valve admits that especially successful games would get much better terms). With their current arrangements, BFC gets 100% out of each sale. That's a significant impact in your income stream, especially if you have a working fulfillment system as BFC does. On the other hand, it is a quite reasonable percentage, taking into account the kind of royalty splits most publishers have. * Devs can generate as many redeemable Steam keys for their games as they wish. So it is perfectly feasible for BFC to continue selling their stuff on their site, capturing 100% income from those sales, and providing customers that express an interest to have the game available on Steam with a key to activate it. Of course, you need to put the game on Steam in order to have access to this service. * Integrating the game into Steam can be very minimalistic: basically, packaging the game executables, libraries and assets so it fits into the distribution framework offered by Steam cloud storage solution. For a recent example of this "keeping it simple approach", check out Wasteland 2. InXile hasn't bothered integrating the Steam overlay. Of course, one can choose to make their product more dependant on Steam, by integrating a number of services their API offers (Steam overlay with browser etc., in-game micro-transactions, achievements, et al.). For a small developer like Battlefront, getting your stuff on Steam offers the following opportunities and risks (this is my personal assessment): * Opportunity #1: Increasing the reach of your product. This means more people get exposed to your stuff, and may lead to an increase in the number of sales. * Risk #1: If your existing audience decides to buy your stuff from Steam rather than from you, and your audience doesn't grow significantly, then your income will be reduced by a 30%. What I would advise Battlefront to do, if they're worried about Risk #1, is to put into Steam CMSF with a deep discount and the modules as DLC at full-price, and see what happens. CMSF is soon to become obsolete by CMBS, and probably Battlefront has sold as many copies from its storefront as it is reasonable to expect. With that in mind, every sale BFC makes on Steam would be a bonus.