Bulletpoint
-
Posts
6,886 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
20
Posts posted by Bulletpoint
-
-
10 hours ago, ThathumanHayden said:
Huh? I loaded up mission 2 for a test, and those aren't actually muddy patches; you can drive through them like normal. That instantly makes the campaign way more fun. I just wish I knew that sooner.
It depends on what ground conditions the designer has set for the battle. A patch of mud is traversible during dry times, but gets you stuck almost instantly in wet ground conditions. Looks exactly the same graphically though.
-
-
5 hours ago, Carolus said:
I guess it has to be true since it was posted by some random user on Twitter.
-
11 hours ago, Simcoe said:
China and Russia are definitely pushing for a multi polar world where the USD is less prominent. As we've seen in the Ukraine war, any nation that goes against the US interests can be locked out of the global banking system. I'm sure finding ways to circumvent this is top priority.
I know they are trying to take away the dollar as an instrument of US foreign policy - just musing about whether that would necessarily mean replacing it with China's own currency, or maybe a third-party currency (that they could somehow still control or influence).
-
37 minutes ago, Offshoot said:
It is a translation of a post (in the screen-shot) by Russian propagandist Anatoly Radov.
WarTranslated seems to be a Ukrainian propaganda blog.
Anyone got a link to the original post by that Russian propagandist? Because if even their propagandists have such a negative view on the war, then Russia has surely lost by now.
Which is of course what a Ukrainian propagandist would want us to believe.
-
6 hours ago, Simcoe said:
As for China overthrowing the dollar. I just don't see why they would want to. Their economy is based on export, if they become the reserve currency the currency will grow stronger and make exports unprofitable. Also, who is going to trust the CCP as a reserve currency? They value their ability to manipulate their currency and their stock market according to the whims of the government. No one would want to hold the currency if the CCP could make it worthless after some unilateral decision.
Maybe they don't want to replace the dollar with the renmimbi, but instead to make for example the Euro the new reserve currency?
Even if they did, the European Union is still too weak and politically divided to ever become the kind of rival to China that the USA is.
Or in other words: Pluck the feathers off the eagle and give them to the chicken.
-
Watching a video about how FPV drones are now mass-produced in their tens of thousands using 3D printing, how long before we see a head of state assassinated this way?
-
This is a very old issue, and the problem is that the game does not distinguish between different parts of each square as long as troops are moving. So there's no "run on this side of the wall".
-
9 hours ago, Kinophile said:
European train stations are almost universally dodgy AF. I remember the Florence and Koln ones as particularly iffy.
Meanwhile, in America
-
5 minutes ago, Haiduk said:
The war is not always victories. The enemy is strong, cruel and learn on own failures. It was big mistake of our state-propaganda to describe Russians so-long as "pathetic chmobiks", "alcoholics" and "stupid". Yes, they have stupid command, but Russian capabilities to survive in aggressive and deadly environment, their savvy, directed to survival, their natural aggression, fatalism and fanaticism make them very dangerous enemy.
I completely agree. And I think many people in Europe and the USA are now thinking: If those Russians are so stupid and incompetent, why haven't they lost yet? And why do we have to keep funding this war?
-
3 minutes ago, Haiduk said:
I wouldn't be name our media efforts as "propaganda" in negative sense, like in Russia. During WWII US news or war chronic in cinema before movies told the same as now in Ukraine and in any country at the war - "our brave soldiers fight hard, but they are crashing the enemy". Very rare about retreats, losses, burned columns etc. And this is quite justified for public morale reasons. But this have own back side...
Ordinary Ukrianian people, who track the war from time to time from TV or from internet rumors are very sensitive and can be easy affected by Russian PsyOps. When our army goes forward, they take it for granted. But if we lost some piece of field or a tiny village or OMG a town - that's all - internet is filling with a panic and defeatism.
We are all subject to propaganda. Showing our own side winning. You got my respect by also showing when your side is losing, even though I am sure it feels terrible for you to see. That must hurt like hell. I salute you for that.
-
13 minutes ago, Haiduk said:
Ten years in historical re-enactment taught me to have balanced point of view, cutting off obviuos propaganda and lie.
Since years this war will become a heritage of history. And researchers will discover many hard things about which shouldn't talk officially right now.
True, but to be critical of the propaganda of even your own side is rare. I appreciate your comments here.
-
25 minutes ago, Haiduk said:
It's hard video, but need to avoid "echo chamber effect". The price of our bridgehead holding and expanding in Krynky. Video of Russian propagandist account, shows result of failed attempts of river crossing and evacuation of fallen comrades (in black bags). Episodes lilkely filmed during late autumn or in early December.
Those, who fight there say too much "missed in Krynky", because not always it's possible to find and evacuate bodies, especially if enemy sank boats.
Haiduk, I have so much respect for you because you are always balanced in your opinion and share even horrible videos showing your countrymen getting killed, no matter how bad it must feel. That's very unique. I hope the best for you and your country.
-
1 hour ago, George MC said:
A lot of artillery comes in as reinforcements as there are around three phases in this action. Soviets have TRPs to facilitate this. A lot of the stuff is heavy arty so call in times are long even with TRPs.
Ok, I haven't played the scenario. Just thinking about how it could be made into an interesting H2H game. I guess the Soviet player could agree to schedule all artillery as soon as it becomes available then, to represent rigid artillery doctrine and planning and to give the opponent a fighting chance.
-
On 1/15/2024 at 12:12 AM, Commanderski said:
I played against the AI and that's what George recommends in the briefing. It would be very difficult to win against a human Soviet player with that kind of army.
I guess you'd have to agree beforehand that your opponent would have to put on his Soviet general's cap and get into the Russian Army mindset.. not trying too much to be clever. A bit of vodka might also help even the odds. Maybe also a houserule that all artillery had to be pre-planned and scheduled.
-
44 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:
Graviteam has amazing physical detail. But I didn't see much effort put into things like accurate TO&E. And options for setting up complicated scenarios seemed very limited. I was in awe of the physics, but they seem to have forgotten everything else.
I believe the TO&E is just as comprehensive as in Combat Mission, if not more. But yes, CM has a much better editor, and it does small-scale tactical way better than Graviteam, in my opinion.
Also, there's the whole multiplayer aspect, which is completely absent from Graviteam, but then on the other hand, it has persistent map damage and operations with repir and supply etc. Two quite different games.
-
On 1/13/2024 at 8:33 PM, Centurian52 said:
Graviteam Tactics and Armored Brigade model tactical ground warfare with far less detail than Combat Mission.
I must say I disagree here. The amount of detail in Graviteam is incredible, and they just keep adding more and more. Just recently, they added simulation of exactly where each soldier gets hit by bullets and fragments. Some hits will kill immediately, some will wound, and some wounds will eventually kill - again depending on what part of the body gets hit.
And just to take it to the almost silly levels: I suggested to the developer that Soviet molotov cocktails might in some cases fail to burst if they hit soft ground or deep snow, simply because the bottle won't break. To my surprise, they actually went ahead and used my suggestion and changed the game code to do this.
Which is not only detail for the sake of detail - it means Soviet infantry is now less effective against infantry in snowy and muddy battles.
One can definitely make an argument that Combat Mission is better as a game than Graviteam is, but I think it depends on one's preferences. Both are worth playing in my opinion. CM has micromanagement, turn replay and also better urban combat. But Graviteam has much more detail and work put in overall, as I see it.
-
7 hours ago, alison said:
I am really tired of the idea that there is a mysterious cabal of crypto hawks who somehow have the power to influence defense decisions in dozens of countries around the world and are dedicated to ensuring the war in Ukraine never ends. If anything, people in democratic countries have shown time and again that they do not want war, and even when a war does spark off, they certainly don't want long ones. War is not popular with the people. No politicians are running on a platform of "let's keep everyone at war". On the contrary!
Obviously not all decisions made by the government are communicated in detail to the people, but the whole point of democracy is that there is freedom of debate and eventual transparency. There are plenty of anti-war politicians around the world who have an interest in exposing a forever war conspiracy, and yet no evidence has been exposed. So why keep suggesting it exists?
It's true that a handful of actors here and there have an interest in dragging wars out for economic reasons, or believe it might be advantageous for geopolitical reasons, but they are far from "the ones in charge", and their position is not widely popular. On the other hand, we have plenty of evidence that warfare has changed in a way that it is no longer easy to deal out crushing victories against near-peer adversaries. Perhaps it never was.
You missed the point of my post. I am not saying there is some dark and secret conspiracy for a forever war in Ukraine.
I am saying that I think Western leaders probably say quite different things in public than they say at high-level meetings. And they think different things than they say even there. That is not a conspiracy, that's politics.
The goal is not to keep the war in Ukraine going forever. But the primary war aim is not that Ukraine wins this war or takes back all territory. That's also an aim, but it's secondary.
I think that the reason we see so slow drip-feeing of assistance is that the primary Western goal is to avoid escalation, and not only on the battlefield, but also to avoid a chaotic collapse of Russia.
The real goal would be to keep Russia intact but to effect regime change. And for that to happen, Russia has to be worn down, not crushed by a sudden shock on the battlefield.
The average Russian has to be made well and truly sick of this war, and responsibility has to be eventually placed on Putin. I think that's the actual US (and therefore Nato) plan.
-
1 hour ago, poesel said:
Ecuador and The US concluded an agreement on the exchange of Soviet weapons worth $200 million for modern equipment. The deal should be completed by the end of this month. Ecuador doesn't know for which purpose the US is receiving them.. could be Ukraine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Ecuadorian_Armed_Forces
Ecuador has some Soviet manpads and light AA. Nice to have, but nothing fancy. But why is the west not doing that more often? Should be quite some kit floating around.
Because we (the ones in charge at least) don't really want Ukraine to win, at least not too much and too fast. So we are going to continue to drip-feed supplies little by little, just enough to keep them fighting.
-
8 minutes ago, OBJ said:
I am however, still interested in this group's assessment of the viability if using tac nukes to create a breakthrough. Respect @Bulletpoint you came down on the side of 'No.'
Just to clarify, I definitely think it would be possible to use a limited number of tactical nuclear weapons to vapourise a section of the front big enough to drive through, but I do not think it would be viable for the current Russian Army to then exploit that breakthrough in any meaningful way. And I do not think Putin is desperate.
-
7 minutes ago, OBJ said:
Hey, I resemble that remark,
"a Cold War fossil who is unable to realize that the world has changed since he was in the army in the 1980s"
well, maybe not the part about not realizing the world has changed...
That was the important part
-
14 minutes ago, OBJ said:
To be very clear, I hope nothing goes nuclear. I don't want anything to go nuclear. My service conditioned me to both abhor that possibility, but also not to discount its use by the Russians, and to be prepared in the event the Russians exercised the option.
If the author of the article is credible, and based on research by folks here, he seems to be, his opinion is internal pressure on Putin to order a 'decisive offensive' based on perceived waning western will and window of opportunity the distraction western elections cause, drives use of tac nukes to break the stalemate, create the breakthrough, exploited by conventional mechanized forces.
We here have spent a fair amount of time on how to break the stalemate and it seems reasonable to:
1. assume this is only a Russian option
2. make our own assessment of how feasible a Russian breakthrough is with this method and Russia's ability to exploit the breakthrough
So, for the sake of discussion,
1. Do we here believe Russian conventional forces attrition has been significant enough they could not muster conventional exploitation forces or can not build up such a force by May 2024?
2. If we believe the Russians can build up such forces what do we believe we know about Ukraine's reserves to blunt and contain a breakthrough?
3. What do we believe the nature and timing would be of any Western response directly impacting either or both the Russian breakthrough and Ukrainian attempts to contain the breakthrough?Thanks to @The_Capt @billbindc @sburke @dan/california @Bulletpoint @Butschi and now @cesmonkey for chiming in so far. ...and yes, I agree, at CM level, a tac nuke supported breakthrough would make for a very boring wargame, assuming no further nuke use, exploitation and containment maybe less so.
Reference:
Putin may be about to launch an apocalyptic assault (msn.com)
"There are now rumblings in Moscow that a decisive offensive to turn the tides of the war squarely in Russia’s favour may soon be underway."
The problem is that according to the Institute for the Study of War, a US-based think tank, the Russian military is likely unable to “conduct an operation to seize significant territory in Kharkiv Oblast in the near term”
This does not mean that such an assault is impossible. It simply means that it would require weapons on the battlefield we have yet to see. In my opinion, the only weapons that Russia has which could achieve this in this time frame would be a tactical nuclear weapon or some sort of chemical or biological attack. Given the infamous failure of Obama’s “red line” in Syria, and the reluctance of the West to fully commit to defending Ukraine, Putin might think this is a gamble worth taking."
"The drift towards militarization of the Russian state and the surging calls for a greater offensive must serve as a warning that the West needs to wake up before he acts. We must fully support and arm Ukraine. If we don’t, as predicted by the Polish Chief of Security, NATO will be at war with Moscow within a few years."
"This does not mean that such an assault is impossible. It simply means that it would require weapons on the battlefield we have yet to see. In my opinion, the only weapons that Russia has which could achieve this in this time frame would be a tactical nuclear weapon or some sort of chemical or biological attack".
Funny how a guy who specialises in chemical and biological weapons predicts an attack by chemical or biological weapons. When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
I think he's either a Cold War fossil who is unable to realise that the world has changed since he was in the army in the 1980s, or maybe he's paid or instructed by someone to play scaremonger in order to put pressure on the Western public and politicians to provide more aid to Ukraine. Because his scenario seems to make no sense to me.
His piece seems to rest on the assumption that just because some ultra-nationalists in Moscow want a grand offensive, Putin somehow has to deliver that. But Putin doesn't need to take the whole of Ukraine to declare victory. He just has to keep what he has taken.
Also, Hamish de Bretton-Gordon seems to think that you could just use a couple of tactical nukes to "blow a hole" in the front line and then "exploit by mechanised formations". That's Cold War stuff and not how it works now in an age of ATGMs and drones everywhere. You don't just pop a small hole in the front and then race to Kyiv. Especially not now that Russia's mechanised formations have been ground down.
If Putin wanted to use nukes, he would have to nuke the entire front line, burning up most of the Ukrainian Army. And even then, those Russian columns would get mauled by Nato conventional airstrikes inside Ukraine within a couple of days. And then what?
-
4 minutes ago, Butschi said:
At the beginning of the war, the fear of nuclear escalation was rather strong in Western Europe. Remember, this is why ostensibly - and probably partially in truth - we made those incremental steps in weapon deliveries. By now, we all have pretty much settled in the thought that Russia is not going to escalate as long as we don't interfere directly, I think.
I think it's not really about whether we interfere directly, but that we stopped fearing nuclear escalation the moment the Ukrainian offensive failed. If Ukraine had been marching on Crimea by now, or seriously threatened the "republics", there would have been serious escalation fears.
-
23 minutes ago, dan/california said:
I listen to "Ukraine the Latest" pretty religiously. It is the best daily podcast about Ukraine. They give a very just the facts rundown of what is happening on the battlefield, and very strong political/opinion support for Ukraine. Some of the Telegraph's other stuff can very Fox Newsy, but on Ukraine they are quite solid.
I'm also a regular listener. Most of it seems valid enough, but they are definitely very pro-Ukraine, to the point of the presenters sometimes going on little anti-Russia rants or using heavy doses of sarcasm.
I've begun to suspect the podcast series of being a "grey propaganda" channel. Not really lying, but presenting the news with a strong slant in order to promote one side's narrative.
This would also help explain why they keep asking listeners to write in, with a special interest in finding out where people are listening from around the world.
Adding to my suspicion, the Telegraph has a bit of a history of being paid to run propaganda, but it used to be for the other side - Russia, China, and others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Telegraph#Accusation_of_news_coverage_influence_by_advertisers
The year to come - 2024 (Part 1)
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
That's not true at all.
What actually happened was that there was initially some quite polite discussion about how it should work, both from a historical and gameplay perspective.
But then very quickly, MikeyD stepped in and said uncontrolled air support in Normandy was actually an unintentional change in CMBN. It was then quickly reverted to how it used to be with a patch.