Bulletpoint

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. 

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.

True, but to be critical of the propaganda of even your own side is rare. I appreciate your comments here.

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.

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.

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.  
 

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.

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.

I couldn't help but imagine this as an episode of "Keeping up Appearances"

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.

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.

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.

I fully agree (and always have ) that combat mission is the best in class...What i and some others find dissapointing is the lack of progress in the last 10+ years.
CM2 has been around for many years now and the improvements/additions to the system over the years have been far from as impressive as the original product was...
Reading the 2024 update part one it does not seem we are likely to see any major improvements any time soon...apart from the stated game performance improvement wich offcourse is a nice thing to get.
I honestly had hoped to se the series evolve more over all these years...
 
 
 

BS is just not worth playing it is a hypothetical game and biased US No 1 Russia No 2 Ukraine No3 and no expansion pack is planned to rectify this. Kudos for the WW2 games it is where BF shines and we really enjoy playing it. FI is the next game I will buy. 

I completely agree, and I'm not German.

Just me or number of missiles being shot down is way down?

This.
I didn't keep track of this but back in 2022 there was quite the controversy in Germany because top politicians, including Scholz, refused to say the goal was that Ukraine should win. They said Ukraine must not lose or Russia must not win but never Ukraine must win. I think so far that hasn't changed.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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?

"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?