Rinaldi

You take 1000 extra rounds of 5.56/5.45 on top of a full combat load in-game and you are unable to move faster than "move" for units. Considering GPMG and AGL and ATGM teams start the mission incapable of moving faster than 'quick' (or worse, for some AGL units) I am not exactly sure what you're basing this on. Certainly nothing empirical.

Wow welcome back Mord, hope all is well.

As old as photography, ultimately; 'war tourism' is a common theme - just look at how much photographic evidence the Germans unwittingly amassed against themselves in WWII. More recent examples too; like Abu Ghraib, the Balkans, etc.

@HerrTom would love to look at the map when it's finished!

Yes, exactly. The BMP-3Ms that carry the ATGM ammo can be set to dismounted and will become caches.

Wow first off thanks for the flattering assumption; but I must qualify that I was but a humble Canadian reservist (who actually did his PLO and showed up for parade days!) and am an enthusiast at best. The only fights I have now are in small claims court/OCJ and with my growing beer gut ! That being said I think your assumptions are based on sound observations. Afghanistan was a very formative experience for the Soviets and the successful continuation of many Afghanistan tactics to Chechnya would prop your assumptions up. That being said; I can't speak to the Israeli experience. I've read nothing beyond pop histories and a few CSI articles. The Israeli penchant for offensive action doesn't really provide insight about technical specifics.

I'm currently playing a match as the REDFOR and it's too early to tell. My opponent is smashing the vehicle fighting positions with arty fire so it's looking grim; but he's barely advanced and has lost an Abrams and two Bradleys. The mission is very time sensitive so his pace may play to my advantage. Myself and a couple of mates playtested V2 as the Russians; they won two major victories and one tactical. Those results would've survived the point adjustment. In my first Russian playtest I was able to counterattack my hapless opponent. It's a pretty tough mission for both sides - but I've tried my best to compensate by putting realistic expectations. If the Russian player delays and attrits; he or she stands a good chance of winning. The idea is that the Federation is trying to establish depth. The NATO player has all the usual political constraints of affordable cost, to boot. Finally; as it's a breaching mission: a mobility kill is all REDFOR needs. I scored my major victory through punishing tardy movement with precision artillery; an immobilized Bradley or Abrams can't complete the penetration after all. A good question. See above. My discovering of how to give ATGM units ammo caches have really changed the game. The US player must close and fast or suffer constant deterioration. I know people have qualms with portrayal of one side or the other; but I've done my best to portray both sides as competently lead, motivated professionals. Which the US and "echelon A" Russian units definitely are!

But they have Digi camo! It must be modern

Yes, that's correct.

This certainly; indeed in-game APS stands a fair chance of defeating the 2B as well.

Abrams loaders are issued with Thermal Weapon Sights, ostensibly for use with the M240 but can be used in what we call eye-defilade on its own. They've had that since the first TUSK package. Additionally they have a rear-security thermal sight oriented to the chassis' 6. The separated ammo compartment is handled by a foot pedal and I think we can safely say has very little to do with using one's upper body and eyes. The loader also has 360 degree periscope, standard for most 4-man tanks. If memory serves; the driver shares his night-driving vision with the same periscope so its use is limited to daylight hours. Not sure if it has magnification; never seen through it myself. I've likely missed a few other amenities, but my real life encounters with M1s and their crews were fleeting, brief moments. However, the bottom line is that they have a 4th man with limited thermal capabilities and a wide field of view. I think it's uncontroversial to conclude that is more useful viz. situational awareness than an auto-carousel. As an aside; unlike Leopard 2A4s as well; the Abrams loader has less technical tasks; the gunner on an Abrams must keep track of rounds, compared to a Leopard's loader. Leaves more time to look and listen for the Abrams' loader.

Serious wargames present the opposing forces as realistically as possible. Combat Mission is a serious war game. Funny no one complains about how the Italians are as brittle as dried elastic - isn't that unbalanced ;)? Balance isn't realism; it's a tournament.

This is spicy bait.

New version of power hour released. Shane is currently on holiday in Ibiza and will upload to TSDIII when he returns. For now the new version can be found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzk0WVH5NChWdlFVX2wzZE1HMWs/view?usp=sharing CHANGELOG V2: Accidentally forgot to give the Americans credit for ammo preservation (>50%) - which is why I ended up with a draw in my match with @Saint_Fuller Improved fighting positions for the Russians further; this will allow BMP-3Ms to engage with much greater ease Adjusted objectives; more breakdown in points for vehicles for the Russian side. Adjusted objectives; Russian total points reduced from 1500 Adjusted objectives; US player total points increased to 1250 Reduced Russian TRPs; changed artillery package to match with what is stated in briefing (added a battery of 152s) Added ammo caches for AT-14s Changed recommendation from experienced player REDFOR to BLUFOR Final playtest video; also can be found in Screenshot thread. Only difference between the video and the release is a slight improvement in fighting positions and the ammo preservation gaffe. Spoilers, obviously. That'll be that for this scenario, hopefully.

Were there TRPs?

@Chudacabra I actually made an attempt with one of the security teams to use a Javelin and knock out the ATGM but had trouble with targeting. For most of the map all the good fire positions are simply out of range or exposed enough that the enemy would probably get the Javelin teams. Power Hour is a fairly quick scenario relative to its size; being only forty-five minutes long. The need for a rapid exit overrides some of the more cautious tactics that would work in seize-type missions.

Thanks for watching. I fight habitually unbuttoned in 4-crew tanks and 3-crew IFVs unless I'm doing a BP engagement or have already identified the enemy. Yes, I find it helps for spotting moving units and close-ins and improves things in general. Maybe its only a placebo in-game but we fight our tanks like that in reality; generally mirroring reality hasn't done me wrong yet in a CM match.

I'm a big fan of the Hull Down command, like @IanL but my only issue with it is that its impossible to jockey with it in the same turn. I usually off set that by trying to activate near the end of the minute cycle. Otherwise I try to manually find hull downs and plot the jockeying myself. I don't see a reason for shoot and scoot - just like the tabled follow command its something that sounds wonderful in theory but might be a mess in practice. We already have people who insist that Hull Down doesn't work for them, for example. Every time shoot and scoot is mentioned to, I notice CM1 players tend to roll their eyes . Apparently it didn't work very well in that title either.

Final release to follow. And yes, I realize there's a typo; for some reason I didn't see it when I was spellchecking.

Very useful, thanks for taking the time to compile. I'll be sure to edit the credit for the vehicle fighting positions to you in my scenario!

Well they made it clear that Chris is under some kind of stress, and I'm not inclined to ask after it further for a multitude of reasons. He was definitely a young, fresh face for the brand (twitch and all). So its definitely a loss; but I'll keep to wishing him well and hoping all the best for him. He'll do well wherever life takes him, I'm sure.

Good memory. It was actually the same pattern you see the USMC using later on in WWII. I think it was called "duck hunter." Saw limited use in the ETO as well: There was also the concern of friendly fire which cooled the use of the camo HBTs for the US Army.

Disagreement is the spice of life Squarehead. Bear in mind I argue for a living and never take anything I say too much in stride and we'll be cheery. Contrary opinions are healthy.

Sometimes the best contribution you can make is to not throw out any wild claims and just keep the thread on topic. Which happens to be about a book about the war in the Ukraine. Not Angela Merkel's biography. Unfortunately we've well butchered the chances of the latter, which is fine, lord knows it happens enough, but we can correct the former .

So yes you'd rather just de-rail a thread and dance away again. Well bravo brother.