animalshadow

Funny scene (not mine)  from demo scenario: 
 

Talks about operational level have begun just after the first CV game is released. In our community we have made several attempts to complete the task. First and second (based on custom rules) were partially successful. And only third became a success.
With received experience the concept of approach was based on:
The bottom line. Operational level will be interesting to play with at least divisional level, at least 3-4 day duration of battle.
The upper line. Combat Mission scenario must be maximum about 1 hour long at 1500-2000 m battlefield with battalion(+) force size.
Simplify. Gamemaster must be released from tiresome calculations. It will be made in-game. IGO-YOUGO rules instead of WEGO at operational level. Hex-based battle maps.
Speed. Not all actions, even not all battles, can be played in CM because of slow progress. It will be made by operational game itself.
 
So, we choose The Operational Art of War III (TOAWIII) as an operational level game. Especially because very smart system of unit strength – every unit consist of given number of rifle squads, guns, tanks, etc. Contrary to "rifle Co" with given "strength" (attack 4, defence 3) or "132 men" (without any other weapons) in other games. Same about supply – every unit tracked available amount of supply during whole campaign. It spends on moving and battles and replenished with supply network.
 
Here is Google doc (in English) which describes the flow of campaign.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aZUo83DNHG8_QfmiQNc3CWo72IQRXEKMTAg8eCSJMr4/edit#
 
Unfortunately, rules are not yet translated. More on this – it is under some rework and enhancement. But if you have any questions I'll try to answer.
 
And, finally, we think about new campaign. One of problem here is that we need more gamers (in this campaign took part 6 gamers and 2 admins – not as much as we want to). So I want to understand the level of interest – we can play East or West front, Russian community against "west" (English speaking) or mixed, etc.
 
May be pin this topic up?

When directing a multi-aircraft strike with one JTAC, it is irritating when aircraft break off due to being unable to find a target and -- due to the one strike restriction in place -- cannot be brought back into play. As for solutions:
 
1) Aircraft in a multi-aircraft strike will not break off as long as at least one aircraft spots something, i.e. all or nothing. Either they all break off due to failure to spot targets or they all stick around to continue hunting.
 
2) A special status like "HOLDING" enabling them to be either re-directed by the original JTAC or snapped up by another available JTAC.
 
3) Remove the one strike restriction.
 
4) Allow unassigned aircraft to seamlessly join a strike already in progress.

Maybe it would be a good idea to have some sort of better bug reporting and seeing what is being currently worked on framework like github or devheaven.

It already would be enough if BFC would show some kind of activity here on the forums, especially in bug report threads...

Not the first time these issues have been raised.
 
As I said a while ago, engagement sequence in Russian MBT is as follows. Thermal, IR ,Dayoptic.
 
You look through thermal, oh there's thermal a return.
Can I see him with my IR optics, because they are slightly better than day optic in low light conditions. I can.
Can I see him with my day optic gun sight. I can.
Now I engage.
 
Accuracy with GLATGM will always be higher than gunnery, if your manually putting something onto the target around 100% is expected. You can guide it, duh. With regular gunnery on the move 100% accuracy is unexpected, I think that's where you might be mistaken. But firing GLATGM from stationary, yes that is feasible. If you cant do it right then your not doing your job properly and will be enjoying stint as driver mechanic for the next few weeks. All you need to do is fire and keep the aiming reticule on the target, and it is guided to its explosive end by the will of Putin himself.
 
BRM series requires an extra "crew" or team in its passenger slots to utilise the radar function.

TEST:    T-90am (elite, undisturbed, standing still in a tree line, clear weather, day) vs  M1A2 (veteran, moving in open field, 2.5-3 km away)   (number of tries: 10. Map: Death Valley).   ---------------------------   Well, despite of all conditions above and CLEAR LOS, T-90 almost never discovers M1A2 first! Even more, in plenty of times the T-90 does not see the damn muzzle flash after m1 starts shooting!   Logically thinking, even with only binoculars you cannot miss an incoming and shooting tank in  open field, not speaking about more sophisticated tank optics.     Moreover,     Tank destroyer 9p157-2 Krizantema-S with millimeter-wave external RADAR built especially to  detect armored objects(!!) in all weather and smoke, is blind just like T-90. Always getting  killed by (?) signs from open field 3 km away.      Same for recon vehilce BRM-3K which has radar as well. Not mentioning various BMPs that somehow manages to detect enemy infantry in woods better than  detecting IFV  in open 100 meters ahead.     CMBO was great long time ago. CMBB was good. CMSF is ****    But CM Black Sea is a funny Super Mario game, not a "tactical simulator" as promised. 

Links to what? If you don't believe that an M1a2 SEP 2 isnt an overall superior tank to a t-90, then nothing I post will change your mind. If I was a T-90 crewman. I wouldnt be excited about attacking an M1a2 or Challenger.

It's an opinion and since they haven't foughy, anything anyone links to is the same. BElieve what you want

The M1/challenger/leapard 2 tanks were very innovative.

Do you think a russian tank crew receives the same training via simulator and operations against "professional OPFOR trained to mimic US tactics? That is unbelievably expensive. U.S. NCOs attend various schools from leadership academies to staff NCO academies. Nothing I have read would indicate that Russia is economicly capable of trainimg its tank crews to that level...not just the tank but operation with other arms.

I can't prove a negative or something that hasn't happened. My response was directed to the comment that the poster wished the T-90 could go up against the Leopard 2 to show its superior...I think that would get a lot of T-90 crews killed

Hi !
 
we all know that CMx2 + AMD GPU + most drivers gives you long loading times, bad performance or graphic glitches...
And we all know that updating or downgrading the GPU driver is one of the few things that an help...
But updating or downgrading your GPU drivers is a pain in the a** and can cause problems with other games.
 
But there is a way of using a newer or older AMD OpenGL driver without changing your whole GPU driver !
 
How does it work ?
Download a older or newer (or Beta) AMD Catalyst Driver Open the the "driver_you_just_downloaded.exe" with a program like 7zip Inside that directory, traverse into ->Packages\Drivers\Display\W86A_INF (depends on the driver)\B151068 (depends on the driver) and look for the file: atioglxx.dl_ and copy (unpack) it to your CMBS folder (the folder where the game .exe is located !) Open a command window (On the start menu, type "cmd.exe" in the search box, you should see "cmd.exe" appear at the top search results. Right click on this and run as administrator) You should now be in a DOS prompt/DOS box command shell. Type CD C:\Program Files (x86)\Battlefront\Combat Mission Black Sea (or whatever, its the directory where you installed CMBS) and hit enter Now type EXPAND ATIOGLXX.DL_ ATIOGLXX.DLL
* It should say the file has inflated or expanded like 127% or similar factor. You now should see a atioglxx.dl_ and a atioglxx.dll You can delete the atioglxx.dl_ now CMBS will now use the AMD OpenGL driver from the driver you took the atioglxx.dl_ from, it only affects CMBS and by deleting the atioglxx.dll you can undo it in a second !
This works with all CMx2 games !

the engine was designed for world war II combat unfortunately. This is how they make their money. Doing modern is not really their primary mission but it does have an appeal. They have done very well with the engine they have. If they weren't making a foray into modern there would be no game like Black sea available on the market. There must be some unforeseen technical issues for placing a spotter on the radar/sensor mast as a workaround. Unforeseen consequences which we cannot anticipate since we dont know everything about the game mechanics. Heck, we dont even know what data numbers they are using for the modern stuff. 
 
I would very much like this to be fixed but it just doesnt seem possible with this game engine. They are a very small company and they must be really careful, a big business mistake and it's so long battlefront. World War II wargames are very niche and when you're a company that caters to a niche customer base you stick to it or else you do it at your own peril.

Sadly, there is no model or proven method of proving that any sensors ingame actually work. Its just an arbitrary chance based on time and distance it seems when your actually playing.

... knows about CMBS.
 
http://bit.ly/cm-helper
 
Thanks to Bud for digging out the info I needed.
 
 
GaJ
 
(Edit: it looks like its working OK on Mac and Windows)

Addendum:
 
Totally support rarity boosts for APS though.  They're not super-common on anything quite yet.  Having a higher rarity cost for US systems would be good too given the super-speculative nature of that system.

It will be in the next patch, but not just for the US.
 
The other option is to just ban US APS. It's presence is speculative anyways.

Honestly I don't trust that in a forehead the M1A2 tank Abrams can sustain at distance to 1000 meters hit from APFSDS (3BM42/3BM44, 3BM42M/3BM44M, 3BM46/3BM48, 3BM59, 3BM60).
 
 

 
 
P.S. 
 
Hello, I have a question to the development team:
Where do you get information about the performance characteristics of armored vehicles & weapons (including munition and armor).     Quote
 
I apologize for my bad English.

I heard from someone who heard from someone that BFC has recently looked at this issue and it should be addressed in a future patch. But you didn't hear it from me, y'understand?

I was experimenting with QB setup today and set rarity on normal, and could get M1A2s with APS at no rarity cost. Same with M2A3 Bradleys.

Isn't APS supposed to make those more costly?

The old hands here have been asking for flares since CMx1's CMBO (2000), yet 15 years later we still don't have them. Given the proliferation of night vision devices both image intensifying and thermal, I'm less concerned with the use of flares for illumination in CMBS than I am with their signaling applications, which go back to at least WW II. Colored flares were used to warn of tank attack, air attack, call down protective barrages, signal attacks and retreats, etc.
 
Ironically, in a game in which we have voice radio, digital encrypted voice comms, even secure PDAs which don't use voice at all, we don't have the all time great backup communication option. The one which is near instantaneous, totally immune to even the worst jamming (which we now do have) and has high WX immunity, too. It's a known fact that during the Cold War the Russians also used flares to warn of nuclear, gas and biological attack--while carrying on with the same sorts of uses as during the GPW. Consequently, unless proven wrong, I'm of the considered opinion that both UKR and RUS still use them, but I can't speak to the US, where my info base on that is nil.
 
Would the military/ex-military members from UKR, RUS, POL et al. please discuss this to me very important issue as it applies to "broken back" and EMCON comm situations?
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

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. 

What is wrong with having both .... and much more.  There is lots of interesting things that can be done under the umbrella of a 'NATO' module, like the Poles, which I would like very much like to see in the game. 

I am easy - I will buy them all!

Blasphemous!!!! 

Dropbox it is then.
 
ENJOY

A well hidden BTR-70 provides overwatch...

 
 
...while a Scout team dashes over a field.

Ah, Rugged Defense. I cut my PBEM teeth on that ladder way back when. Good times.
 
I don't know if Black Sea is amenable to Short 75 type rules. I would probably not allow the US to use APS vehicles, the presence of which is speculative anyways from a reality standpoint. The Russian micro UAV that I can't remember the name of should be banned, IMO, since it is immune to US AA (in reality they can be shot down with machine guns if spotted). Beyond that I'm not sure.