[Photo of destroyed Iraqui M1A1M]

 

 

They may as well post pictures of Middle Earth.

 

ISIS has about as much to do with theologically correct Islam, or reality as middleearth, so it's a pretty fitting statement.  

[Future modules ideas (unofficial topic)]

And I'm saying the "bonuses" are off base.  SOF isn't harder to stop vs some regular infantry dude, they're just allocated with the time and resources to accomplish their given mission accordingly.  So if they're doing a movement to a hide site, they've got the 12 hours to go 2 KM sneakily.  Having some baseline "harder to spot" thing is dumb, as it's not like SOF is trained to run on their tip toes sneakily or something, the kind of stealth movement training they do is the long duration infiltration stuff, which is not something done in CMBS.  

 

Whatever advantage in skills or fitness can already be played out using the tools CMBS has, its just we lack the proper SOF type organizations to use those tools

[Future modules ideas (unofficial topic)]

Yeah, but what I'm saying is you're describing the sort of mission that doesn't translate out to being worth playing in a game.  If you're going to model the SOF doing a mission that is well replicated by CMBS it's going to be the high energy raid sort stuff, or they're going to have to allow for mission timers that go out to days to replicate how slow infiltration actually is, and weeks to show how long duration observation rolls.

[Future modules ideas (unofficial topic)]

 

 

As for using SOF teams as simply "Bad Ass MoFos" that kick ass and take names - that can certainly apply in asymmetric scenarios; but would not work when facing a (relatively) comparable foe. SOF ops would not survive against Tunguska fire any longer than regular infantry grunts; nor would Spetsnaz troopers bare a direct fire from M2A2 any longer than their Motor-Rifle counterparts... 

 

If it's an objective with AFVs parked on it, I've got news for you, the SOF isn't showing up unless they're initiating with an air strike.

 

The sort of long duration recon stuff, or the infiltration stuff isn't really well modeled by a game like CMBS.  And it's not like they sneakasneakaplantabombasneakaVICTORY! as that's your average video game BS.

 

It's not a matter of them being Rambo, it's simply a matter of how SOF actually operates.  When bullets start flying they're going to open with maximum violence over minimum time before leaving.

 

SOF, even sneaky SOF will die eighteen ways to sunday if it's going to attack something like a bunch of 2S6es parked in a field, as there's not a magic cloaking device that makes them less observable on the move.  

 

Re: Weasels

 

Only thing I could think of that violent that fit in pants.  It's not "rambo" it's exploiting the surprise and localized fire superiority to the maximum effect.  The longer you're on an objective the higher your chances of:

 

a. Something changing/the force proportions getting really unfavorable

 

b. Your detection threshhold gets higher the longer you're on station.

 

So yeah, start the fight, end the fight, get the hell out.  

[Photo of destroyed Iraqui M1A1M]

 

 

I can only speak for myself, but I enjoy not having to attempt to fix Iraq's problems while dodging roadside bombs and needing a gatling gun to avoid getting a rocket with my dinner.

 

I miss the ambiance of "test fire test fire test fire" followed by the BRAAAAAAPPPPPPP and then the popopopopopop that came with dinner sometimes.  I got to watch a for real rocket get shot down, which was cool though. 

 

But yeah.  Iraq has more issues than National Geographic.  The US intervention as I've said a few time simply shook free some that were going to fall anyway.

 

Which is why I hate the Micheal Moore rendition of peaceful Iraqi children kingdom until the big bad Americans came and destroyed everything.  I think what we're seeing now would have played out much the same, it's just we'd have seen Saddam or his kids boasting about how dead the ISIS dudes in Ramadi are going to be in a few weeks instead of the current administration (as Sunni as Saddam was, ISIS is way crazier, and the radical Islam-Saddam link never really existed).

 

Re: Obama vs Bush

 

They're both pretty marginal in their own ways.  I always felt Bush's getting us into Iraq was his greatest blunder (and a vast, huge one worth raking him over the coals for), but by the surge Bush was a lot smarter than most folks give him credit for, and put us on a glide path to exiting Iraq as gracefully as we could have.  

 

On the other hand I've always felt like watching Obama do foreign affairs is like watching armature hour, and would be improved with a slide whistle at the proper times.  It feels like the only times he's done something right has been when "doing nothing' was the correct answer, and rarely was it on purpose, it was simply not coming to a decision).  Also the use of hashtags in lieu of meaningful action will always boggle my mind.

 

 With that all out of the way, I was on the ground in Iraq 2008-2009, and then again 2010-2011.  The training mission stuff to the Iraqis...it could have gone on until 2030 and gotten not much better results.  There's a lot wrong culturally with the Iraqis (or if you're being all nice about it, a lot that isn't compatible with modern military efficiency), and as long as you're building the Iraqi military from Iraqis, it's going to be pretty marginal (unless Iraq's security situation gets to the point where you can form a small, very selective force, and also have an external body to shoot/fire the Iraqis that fail to perform).

[Future modules ideas (unofficial topic)]

I'm against the bonuses too.  A Delta team isn't magically less spotable standing in an open field than a regular army team.  If we put SOF in, the differences in equipment should be the things modeled, and the rest of what makes a SOF team "special" should be replicated by the various troop quality/fitness ratings.  We wander too close to normal RTS realms when we're giving bonuses and other nonsense.

 

Also from my limited exposure, SOF when they're being used in a kinetic manner is less "harder to spot" and more "someone just dropped a very angry weasel with plans to destroy your gonads in your pants"  It's a lot of violence and well practiced speed and a whole lot of noise.  

[Photo of destroyed Iraqui M1A1M]

Re: Saddam's army

Here's more or less how the cycle went:

US military plans on having Iraqi army and police intact to help maintain security.

Bremmer half reads a book on occupying Germany. Decides zero baathists are to be in new government, and being baathist is pretty much something that happened if you bought a pack of gum this is bad.

All the people with guns and idea how to use them and a mild antipathy to Shi'a and US are now unemployed. Results predictable.

Actual sunni militants show up. Start killing lots of everyone. Former saddam era police and military have second thoughts. Start killing sunni militants.

US military starts finding dead terrorists. Puts two and two together. Offers to pay these former sunni terrorists to kill present terrorists. Results are actually pretty great. Goodwill between former terrorists and US restored.

US gets ready to leave. Offers to continue paying former terrorists but through Iraqi government. Hashes out deal to find employment or job training for former terrorists.

Iraqi government pockets the money. Arrests former terrorists more or less at random. Won't hire the ones it was supposed to.

Sunnis become re alienated and turn to anyone who offers to put shia heads on pikes. Enter ISIS.

Basically these former Saddam guys were more or less bought off. Basically tigers in a zoo, dangerous, but not so much as long as you fed them and kept the gates closed. Iraqi shia government ate the tiger food and sold the gate in turkey to pay for gay porn. Results predictable.

Ref: COL Reese

I was on the ground when he wrote that. His status reports were all like that just most of them didn't have distro off of SIPR. we used to read the really funny ones out loud.

Hes totally right top to bottom left to right. But even as broken as the Iraqi army was in 2010, if it just kept being that level of broken in 2014 it'd have been okay.

But yeah. Iraqis are the sorts to prove that you were wrong about having hit rock bottom.

[Photo of destroyed Iraqui M1A1M]

Re: US Training

 

It took sometimes.  The Iraqi Army of 2010 was not good, but it could handle the expected COIN type missions well enough.  Again do not think this means they were very good, could hold their own all the time, but again in terms of manning checkpoints, and entering and searching possibly hostile buildings, they got a C+.  Just when we left any semblance of equal treatment went out the window, a lot of experienced Sunni even Shia and Kurdish leaders were fired to make room for some Shia politician/religious dude's retarded third cousin because that's what counts more than competence in Iraq, which pretty much gutted what limited capabilities that "stuck."

 

Even before that, working with Iraqis....like even thinking about it gets me mad.  They will refuse to take even modest suggestions because their way is "better" despite the fact their way just got their asses handed to them.  They'll blame anything that goes wrong on anything but Iraqi failure to achieve mission.

 

 

I think it was politically motivated measure. US needed Iraq army to takeover after they pulled out, so they had to train and equip it.

Visibility of functioning army was needed more than actually functional army.

 

More complex.  The US plan was always "....and then leave a stable functional state without US troops remaining."  A key part of this was an Iraqi military.  Speaking as someone who saw the Iraqis on the way out the door, they were at least somewhat functional, but then Iraqi inability to have nice things dismantled what little that worked we'd left behind, and replaced it with the same terribad they've been doing all along.  It's the folly of nation building, unless you're there to keep it in place at bayonet point, you'll be hard pressed to actually change anything the population isn't already doing for themselves.

 

 

 

So, basicly it turns out that ordinary ammunition storage inside Abrams could not blow turret off tank, right?

 

Yeah pretty much.  Explosion wouldn't vent down like that to give the turret "lift," it'd vent forward if the armored doors were open, and up through the blowout panels.  And there's nothing to blow "up" in normal operations.

 

Re: M1A1M

 

It's a pretty commonly accepted way to refer to the various M1 export models.  They're not all the same at all, the Australian ones are only the DU mesh inserts away from being the same as the remaining US active duty, and National Guard M1A1SAs, The Egyptian and Iraqi ones though are about on par with not quite as good as 1985 (pre-DU armor) editions of the tank though, and that's worth keeping in mind when you see either of those go up.  

 

 

 

This brings up the can of Worms of giving advanced weapons to untrained hands.

 

 

It's a common thing to deal with that many military forces and cultures mistake weapons for capability.  The Iraqis constantly blamed their short fallings on a lack of US equipment, while ignoring that it wasn't the inability of their rifles to shoot straight, it was the fact their soldiers didn't attempt to aim.  Time and time again we'd get requests for equipment that wasn't much better than what the Iraqis had, except it was newer, while they'd constantly turn down, not show up to, or not take seriously efforts to get them to address their actual performance issues.  

[Photo of destroyed Iraqui M1A1M]

 

 

This repeats a pattern in which defeated Iraq security forces have, over the past year, left behind U.S.-supplied military equipment, prompting the U.S. to destroy them in subsequent airstrikes against Islamic State forces.

 

I swear to god simply burning every dollar, ounce of construction material, all military equipment given to the Iraqis in a giant pit would be a less wasteful use than what the Iraqis have done with it. 

[Photo of destroyed Iraqui M1A1M]

The Iraqis shouldn't be allowed to use tanks.  It's simple as that.  In terms of behavior that might lead to a turret blow off:

 

1. Iraqis frequently disabled or turned off the armored doors to the ammunition compartment because it "slowed them down"

 

2. Iraqis almost always stored several rounds inside the troop compartment.

 

3. The short of it is it's rather likely it was abandoned, and then blown up by ISIS.  

 

There's nothing like the the carousel autoloader, or the hull stored ammunition that historically leads to turret flippy floppy behaviors.  Fuel burns, vs catastrophic explosion usually.  There's nothing in the Abrams hull when combat loaded that should cause the turret to blow off.  And in the event of Iraqi operated turrets, even with the armored doors disabled the explosion will still vent upwards, the amount of force required to blow the blowout panels, and the hatches etc clean off, while the downward force is still largely reflected by the bottom of the turret.

 

 Given the distance and lack of other apparent damage I'd say it was filled full of explosives and blown in place for whatever reasons ISIS deemed fit (might have been beyond their ability to repurpose, or they simply want the world to be superscared of them or something).  Looking at the hull in the background it's really hard to pin much on it, but it's clear stuff has been also manipulated after the explosion (the front skirts are clearly propped up against each other off to the right).  

[Some questions from a noob]

 

 

Are there antiradar missiles, i.e. can aircraft (or the ka-52 which i believe can carry the kh-25) conduct SEAD? Are all available weapons listed in the manual or is that a sample?

 

There's ATGMs or bombs broadly speaking.  There's no HARM type weapons.  

 

 

 

If I call in an airstrike do i need sight on all targets or will the aircraft spot its own targets? I thought it provided its own optics but in the third mission my apaches cant hit anything unless I see it.

 

They can, they're just a lot less good at it.  You'll need targets in the open and such or the chopper won't notice it especially well.

 

 

 

Can i turn off weapons, for instance on a sniper team to make it so they don’t get spotted but can still spot?

Can aircraft provide air defense?

Is there information somewhere about hit percentage for atgms and how certain protective systems effect it?

No to all.  In regards to the first/last one, basically the on-board AI decides if it's worth a shot or not.  The "cease" firing is something you can apparently trick the AI into.  

 

 

 

If I acquire a javelin and my antitank guy dies can someone else fire it?

Yes with caveat.  If the unit is too weighed down, it won't pick up the weapon.  Other squads may recover the weapon, but it's really up to how the unit AI is feeling for both.

 

 

 

How does cover effect hit chance, and which is better cover buildings or heavy forest?

 

The hit chance thing...I won't touch that, but buildings are generally better.  Be mindful of their construction, some won't take much to go to pieces, and many are at best "bullet resistant"

 

 

 

I’ve found that when a tank gets a laser warning it pops smoke and reverses, is there a way to ignore threats? Like if im carefully planning an armored push with three tanks, I don’t want one ducking out all of a sudden, especially when i have a numerical advantage.

When moving give them a "fast move."  I believe you can also get the tanks to stand fast with a "pause" command.

 

 

 

Is there a counter battery system for artlillery i missed somewhere?

Nope.  That's something way above and beyond the echelon you control in the game. 

 

 

 

And last but not least, why no BMPT? I know it was never selected for service, but what about the BMPT-2? It fits the time frame (ok maybe its off a few years but who doesnt want the terminator?)

Because none of the parties in CMBS have expressed interest in it.  

 

It's pretty obvious you're coming straight off of Wargames: Red Dragon.  CMBS is a totally different kettle of fish as I'm sure you're finding out. 

[More Bulge Info! (and a few screenshots...)]

 

 

I am scratching my head trying to figure out how you managed to get such a reputation in such a short time.  You must an amazing fellow.     I've got my eye on you.

 

I'm a highly opinionated former M1A2 SEP V2 company commander.  It's made me somewhat popular over on the Black Sea part of the forum.

 

 

 

Oh, and of course I agree with everything else you said.. actually, the period from October though the end of January 1945 is my favorite period in the ETO.  Looking beyond the first title in the Bulge family, the potential for some very interesting follow on modules gets me very excited about what's to come.

 

Same.  I read "Company Commander" and "A Time for Trumpets" as a cadet, and I still go back and reread them every now and then.  It's really a very interesting part of the war.  Seems odd that it tends to get even less attention than Market-Garden.

 

I'm very excited for the post-Bulge possibilities.  The whole gotterdammerung aspect of the very late war is compelling, as is the possibility of making some fairly modest "what if" type scenerios.  I think Pershings are a shoe-in for a "to VE day" module.  I wonder if the one Super Pershing merits inclusion though.  It's certainly historical, saw combat...but man one vehicle is a bit uncommon. 

[More Bulge Info! (and a few screenshots...)]

I think I should get the game free for my quality posting on this forum and stunning good looks.

 

I'm pretty pumped Bulge is getting a game.  It's a battle worth  whole game.  Really tired of the largest battle for the US Army in Europe simply being a growth onto a game about Normandy.  I keep mentioning that fact because its worth repeating.  The June-September into early October fighting was on terrain, and with troops and equipment that would look totally alien to January 1945.  

 

And Normandy is cool, but something like 120% of all World War Two FPS, Strategy games, etc, etc etc take place sometime between June 6th-June 7th.  Obviously going a bit over the top here, but it's nice to have a game doing justice to the 7-8 months of war that happened after the pursuit phase wound down.

 

 

 

I've tried to be as polite as I can Ian, but damn you test my patience. This is not a 'silly' thing. To me it is a fundamental issue which shows BF are willing to drastically lower the bar in terms of the content they offer in their titles - which is a longterm issue. Sorry I bore you by not jumping up and down over Bulge, but to me this is a fudamental issue about how BF treats its longstanding customer base. 

 

Seriously go and look at other companies that make strategy games.  Then come back and tell us if it's any better.  A certain company/game series I know had broken/messed up models from the first game, then fixed up maybe one or two, someone complained because the fixed version was still dramatically casual observer level wrong, and then simply opted to rarely/never update even terribad messed up models for the next two games.  

Put this in perspective with the level of care and detail put into the fiddy flavors of Shermans or Panzer IVs that persist throughout the CM line of games.  And not only that, the fact that for reals if I started a thread complaining about something broken, there's a good chance I will actually hear from the person who made the game in a somewhat productive manner.

 

I mean they're not perfect as a company, CMSF was a near disaster at release for instance, but I'm hard pressed to think there might be an unrealistic expectation for how far your 20 bucks will carry you.  

[Future modules ideas (unofficial topic)]

 

 

-the use of suppressors, these would need to be modelled accordingly, especially when it comes to spotting system, and it would take a lot of work even if it was possible to program such kind of thing with the actual game engine. The same goes for all those special and high end equipment a special unit might have, such as flashbangs, smoke grenades, for example.

 

I think one of the US sniper weapons is already suppressed.  

 

 

-buildings and structures. These are generic an abstracted in game, any kind of special unit shines in close combat conditions and fighting in a closed environment, all of this could not be simulated with the actual game engine.

-commands; the available commands for infantry would not allow to represent all the possible tactics special forces could use. The actual commands don't even allow for a full representation of standard infantry tactics, go figure those of a special unit.

 

Yeah, but not doing it perfect isn't something that's stopped CM from doing it before to at least include it.  The civilians in Shock Force are a good example of this, basically it should be included, but we can't get it perfect, soooo here's pretty good

 

I think we're getting too deeply wrapped around making SF ultimate amazcore.  They've got a distinct MTOE and some special weapons/different allocations of weapons, and a lot of their "special" skills are simply why the "elite" troop option exists.  The suppressors are already in the game, I wonder if the flashbang should just be a grenade that does purely suppression or something.  

 

Again wouldn't be too hard, and for "very small" type missions, it'd be an interesting addition.  

 

 

 

But i would love to see one of the coolest vechicles ever designed the BMPT and the BMPT2

 

As pointed out, the Russians never opted to purchase the platform.  They went from "this is something we are interested in" to "maybe we'll buy it if you make these improvements" to "please go away" levels of interests.  I think Kazakhstan is the only country to use them at this point.  

 

In terms of Patriot/S300, if they're within direct fire range, something is super-wrong.  If enemy troops got even moderately close to a battery of either, the battery would be tearing down and moving further to the rear ASAP.  

[Future modules ideas (unofficial topic)]

Re: SOF

 

Yeah.  You can sort of fudge Rangers but the actual operator stuff isn't well represented by elite rifle teams.  

 

I'd like having the option to field various special forces operators in game.  Giving them some crazy rarity ought to keep folks from going crazy on using Delta elements to clear out city blocks, but there's a lot of small action stuff that lends itself well to operator type teams.

 

Could be neat, and a good fit for the smaller scenarios.  

 

Re: T-72B3

 

I'm with akd.  There's more than a few T-72B3s, but there's also still a fair amount of earlier tanks kicking around.  Might be more T-72B3 centric by 2017 though as BTR pointed out.  

[Moscow Victory Day (70 Years) Parade]

 

 

VERY important thing I've learned over the past 1.5 years is: One should not tell people from other places about what's wrong with their counties. People have to discuss their internal problems with their own. That's the most productive and most useful activity politics discussion wise.

 

There's a difference between calling a steaming pile a feces and picking it up yourself.  The observation it's a steaming pile of feces is anyone's right to make.  Scooping it off your lawn is your business.

 

So in that regard if you LIKE the feces and expect me to come over to visit while it's still sitting on your lawn, I'm not going to engage with you.  If you start putting your feces on my lawn though, then we're going to have a fight on our hands.

 

Which is pretty much my take on international affairs in a nutshell. 

 

 

 

As an American I am pretty used to people telling me what is wrong with my country, and sometimes, even frequently they are right.  Earlier in this thread someone reverenced George Bush Jr as one of the stupidest presidents ever.  I wasn't about to disagree and I don't take offense.  I don't have a problem with folks criticizing my country.  Sometimes I'll agree, sometimes I won't. There is certainly nothing about a national border that makes their observations somehow irrelevant or unhelpful.

 

I don't have a problem either.  Sometimes there's a point to it.  Other times its a good chance for mutual education.  Others, it's just an amazing chance for me to have a laugh at how much outsiders think they know about America.  

[Moscow Victory Day (70 Years) Parade]

 

 

The only thing I'd ask people is to stop riding white horses. As Pablius have just said, talks about freedom and democracy sound hollow. Ideals and reality are two separate things.

 

I agree, but respectfully differ in that while they are separate concepts, they strongly influence each other.  The American idealism and desire for more free government was curtailed by the reality of Latin America 1950-1995/present really.  The realpolitik US maneuvers in the middle east often come saddled with unreasonable expectations of freedom human rights and other such high minded ideals.   Striking a balance between those too might be seen as how a "good" government functions.

 

 

 

I love sci-fi. There were these two great writers, Strugatsky brothers. I very much enjoyed their pure sci-fi stuff, but didn't really want to read their social-related stuff. But, when I was bored (well, this is why I never am, really), I started going through their social sci-fi. And you have no idea how cool it turned out to be. Actually, much relevant even today. Those who want something to read, keep an eye out. They go deep into social problems, and "uplifting" specifically.

 

Neat.  I've been meaning to check out roadside picnic.  Anything else they've done with good English translations?

 

Addendum:

 

 

 

I agree, but whom exactly are you refering to when you say that? Have you met a lot of such people? If so - where and when? 

 

I used to be a forums terrorist on the Wargames EE/ALB/RD.  There's some out and out Stalin did nothing wrong sorts on there.  Some other limited encounters back in college (same sort of idiots who back North Korea because communism).  

[Moscow Victory Day (70 Years) Parade]

Re: Latin America

 

It goes back to what I said about the US national interest.  And we'll take the most direct route to get to that.  As you said in terms of:

 

 

 

I put the blame of it more on our own shortcomings than on the US or any other foreign power, but the narrative the US propagates about being about democracy and freedom sounds completely hollow for most people here, it´s just the way it is

 

And that's the reality.  If you're the US looking to achieve our own goals in region, we're going to support the most realistic means to that end.  And when the most realistic set of government is honestly choosing which authoritarian cult of personality leader is going to run the country (and looking at Castro, Chavez and even Allende if we're being honest), we're going to give some support to the one that will achieve our objectives.

 

Not that great for the "long haul" in Latin America, but US policy in the region is a sign of how Latin America was doing more than a sign of how the US prefers to operate.

 

Re: baby Hitler

 

You get sucked into the "well Stalin only killed <insert number smaller than Hitler here>" route if you compare the two.  They've both terrible people who did terrible things, I'm just not inclined to deal with some apologist saying that 1.15 Million people really isn't that bad or something.  

[Moscow Victory Day (70 Years) Parade]

Re: National Interest

 

But we can discuss which national interest is less malevolent quite handily.  Which is getting back to Orwell.  Throwing your hands up and declaring they're all evil is sort of a cheap cop-out.  Effectively some national interests are less helpful, and others more.  So looking at say, the Cold War, we can compare the actions of the two competing super powers:

 

The US broadly wants you to buy their stuff, not be communist or too socialist, and to not mess with their ability to do business in your country.

 

The USSR wants more or less complete political and military control of your country, and a strict adherence to political doctrine.

 

That's really the loose version of it.  But the sort of freedom enjoyed by much of the west despite being firmly within the US sphere of influence vs the treatment of Soviet dominated Eastern Europe is worth noting and discussing (as is the occasionally "better dead than Red" policies of the US relative to the "sorry, you're not Soviet enough Hungary, hope you like our new tanks!" policies).  As in the relative virtues of Chinese investment in Africa's infrastructure vs the balance of trade and often willingness to work totally within corrupt systems in corrupt ways.

 

It's really easy to simply declare all parties are equally evil and walk away because that removes the importance of an educated, involved population in a country, and ultimately works against the accountability that we all as citizens should demand of those who nominally rule in our interest.  The blind acceptance of either total good, or total evil is just as inexcusable.  And worse when simply declaring everyone equally evil, it actually favors countries that do the least good (of which I'm comfortable saying the USSR/Russia historically has been one of those).

 

Which is really tragic in that the Russian people deserve better leadership than they've...uh, perhaps ever had?  Some of the Czars were about par for the course of the era, none of the various communist leaders were really worth a damn in retrospect (Lenin's actual accomplishments as a ruler are pretty lame, especially in light of the human suffering of the various people of the USSR, Stalin is at best Hitler Jr, Khrushchev was divisive, but likely some of the better leadership, but after that it was all "how many senile angry old men can we put in power?" until the whole mess burned down.  Gorbachev was pretty good in recognizing the world had changed, but really was the pilot of a crashing plane at that point, Yeltsin eeeeeeeh, and Putin is simply a well disguised robber-baron vs a "good" leader).

[Armata soon to be in service.]

 

 

The mounting spigots for the alternative armour would be under what is on there for now. Who knows what weight they can support in regards to alternative options for turret armouring.

 

I don't have drawings, but the sheer size and weight of the sort of armor required to get a reasonable protection against KE is a bit massive.  It's not going to be sometihng like bolt on armor, it's going to have to be something like the Dolly Parton armor that showed up in the 80's to achieve modest results.

 

It's a bit like claiming that just because we cannot see into the prototype for the next Honda Accord, doesn't mean we cannot rule out equipping it with a helicopter engine.  The size of equipment required, and the existing infrastructure appear incompatible by known means.  Which isn't to rule it out entirely, but it's to raise a lot of questions to as if it can be done.

 

 

 

I don't think its as simple as "they forgot to armour the turret". It will have been built like that for a reason.

 

I think that's a straw hat you're trying to eat.  I do not believe anyone has suggested it was anything but a purposeful choice to not have a well armored turret.  I went as far as to say the same thing you just went on about in terms of reliance on APS/ERA arrays.  I'm skeptical of same because that was supposed to be the sort of technology that would let the FCS waltz around the battlefield without much passive armor, but in....I'm reluctant to call wargaming and the numbers crunching side of development "practice' and paired with experience from Iraq/Afghanistan indicated, neither of those systems are fool proof enough to really rely on.  Your moat may be impressive, but the castle still needs walls and all.  It also adds to the complexity of the "defeat" system, if you have to make your way through ERA and not much else, then it requires a simpler weapons system.  If you've got to dodge APS, go through ERA, and then a thick passive array, the system gets more complicated and harder to execute.  

 

The Russians are not stupid.  They're just trying something that historically hasn't panned out, with technology that hasn't by most accounts matured to the point where it needs to be.  It's a gamble, and time will tell if it pays off (or not, the Armata could simply be the future T-64).

[More Bulge Info! (and a few screenshots...)]

Oh totally.  The all elite/crack forces in scenarios are terrible and ahistoric.  I'm just saying we're looking at a wide spectrum of units, so a reversal of the classic "tired and worn out, but very experienced Germans vs new to war but fairly fresh and well kitted out Allies" dynamic can be entirely reversed easily in the Bulge, and there's a lot of interesting units from "pull this to not fall to your death. WELCOME TO THE FALLSHRIMJAGERS!" to the US armor crew and infantry in 2 AD and 1 ID that had seen combat from Africa, to Italy, through Normandy, and beyond.  Then you toss in the wild mess of late war US Armor, German late war stuff, and the bottom of the barrel, and a battle best characterized as a wild series of meeting engagements, hasty defenses, and anything from Divisions colliding to squad vs squad,  it really offers an amazing tool kit, and if we see a Commonwealth module, and a "to the Rhine and VE day" module too, there's just so much possibility.  

[Moscow Victory Day (70 Years) Parade]

 

 

if we accept USA (or USSR) stand for progress in general, someone has to pay the price for that progress. from one point, it is even worst when progress of superpowers is paid by people of countries far far far away. would be much more fair that USA (or USSR/Russia) pays for its progress by themselves. but they can't because what progress represents is actually expanding (or mantaining already achieved) boundaries of influence which by definition includes other nations. spreading democracy by bombs is by no means different from spreading communism with equal means.

 

I think you need to study the foreign policy of the USSR and US a little closer before you can make straight up one is the same as the other claims.  

[Moscow Victory Day (70 Years) Parade]

Pretty much any time someone brings up the 9-11 Truther community in a way that isn't "hey look at this veritable hive of idiots!" I have to question if they're intelligent to be living without proper adult supervision.

 

 

 

Russian Apartment bombings - yes, you may have a point, but then what about when the US economy was tanking, and 9/11 happened? Its circumstances were also too dubious to completely dismiss that it was an inside job. America needed a war, and a war against "terrorism" is a very clever concept, because its not a war against a neighbour, or a nation, or a political system - its a war potentially against EVERY nation, and gives your country carte blanche to bring the might of its military to ANY country, that might harbour the perceived "threat of terrorism" (who determines where that threat lies? Your state analysts? Good job in Iraq). So, Expansionist Aggressive Culture? Me thinks so (i mean, a shedload of your countryfolk were whipped into a frenzy of retaliation against foreign threats, and the US military saw a surge of fresh and willing recruits. Next step, bringing democracy by force into areas of the world that never wanted it nor cannot work under it (middle east)? Me thinks so. Oh, and the DUMBEST politician I have ever seen gets elected for a SECOND TIME as president of the most powerful country in the West? Manipulation? Me thinks so.

 

Like prior to this, unless you're being ultra sarcastic, and you should really clarify that shortly, I thought of you as "someone I might not agree with, but likely reasonably intelligent" and that's since migrated into "raving idiot."

 

Errata:

 

 

 there really is no difference between the two.

 

 

I found the essay I was looking for, so I'll let Mr Orwell reply.

 

 

 

One has to remember this to see the Spanish war in its true perspective. When one thinks of the cruelty, squalor, and futility of War — and in this particular case of the intrigues, the persecutions, the lies and the misunderstandings — there is always the temptation to say: ‘One side is as bad as the other. I am neutral’. In practice, however, one cannot be neutral, and there is hardly such a thing as a war in which it makes no difference who wins. Nearly always one stands more or less for progress, the other side more or less for reaction

 

I'm pretty clear on who represents progress in this mess.  

 

For those of you who are bored and fans of Orwell:

http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/Spanish_War/english/esw_1

[Does CMBS (Modern) Require shorter turn timers?]

I'd like the option for it to be shorter at least.  I'm a bit turned off of wego because some of the stuff that's very much battle drill/small unit leader choices within a few seconds of contact is still beyond the AI.

 

This is not a complaint about the AI, I think that sort of virtual Corporal/Sergeant/2LT is pretty far outside of reasonable, but the ability to better replicate that leadership by allowing the player more frequent control periods as an option (emphasis on option!) would be a nice compromise until Battlefront invents Skynet.   

[More Bulge Info! (and a few screenshots...)]

 

One nice thing about the Bulge battles is its one of the few theaters of operation where CM-style 'meeting engagements' feel legitimate. You've got two opposing tank armies both on the move. Often in the fog! Most other CM theaters of operations attack vs defense is the rule. Attack vs attack seems 'gamey' somehow, opposing tank battalions would never really stumble upon each other blindly, right? In the Bulge maybe they would! Also most other theaters German armor would never outnumber American armor in a battle. In the Bulge maybe they would!

There's another advantage - in my mind at least - in that the opening engagements are so badly documented. That's a good thing. All was confusion and panic. So you can construct imagined 'semi-historical' scenarios of the wildest sort without guilt. No references to consult. Nobody's going to call you out for using Hetzers instead of Jpz IVs in a particular engagement, excepting in the better-documented encounters.

 

Also just beyond hardware you have a wide variety of troop quality on each side.  There's some American units that by this point are hardened veteran, kraut killing machines (2nd, 3rd, 4th Armored all stand out for tank units, 1st, and 2nd ID to a similar extent for dismounts) while others are absolutely new to the idea of two way rifle ranges (11th Armored, 106th ID etc).  The same goes with German units, some composed of hardened veterans, others could at best be represented by the "conscript" troop quality in CM.  

 

It's really an excellent, and historically correct blank slate for building a scenario, lots of equipment and formations all colliding in sharp nasty fights pretty much tailor made for Combat Mission.