The_MonkeyKing

I will find out in couple of days. I have confidence I get around 2/3 of my force to evac zone with most American going to Jesus.

You need tactical victory to win. How did the point math go in the end screen?

I got it when the HQ arrived. (he had survived the previous battle) Thanks for the support The left flank was what I was going for. Now with renewed confidence.

Hi, I have to confess I could not complete the soviet campaign ironman style... a couple of battle restarts were required already. haha (I am playing the "March or Die" version) how the fuq is anybody supposed to win the soviet campaign 3rd mission? Some pointers would be welcome. map: https://i.imgur.com/2UJvlBK.jpg

hmm, I found it an easy mission I only took the couple Marborn city blocks that were required for the mission though. Main damage was done by the Starships and TOW located at the position marked on the button of the map. plan: https://i.imgur.com/yHXzaqN.jpg only saved screenshot I have is when the starships started: https://i.imgur.com/xiKY3Wo.jpg Culmination point was at 10min when everything indirect hit the enemy positions preplanned and after 5min of that air arrived and also the TOWs and starships where driven to position. That toke care of the enemy main force. Only cleanup after that. Losses where half a tank platoon and half a inf platoon

Also if the US player uses the M60 inside poped smoke from itself or other vehicles it is unkillable and sees all.

Red has to rush to the village right away. No other way. One decision left for the red is do you leave the T-64 on the high ground or risk it and rush to town with everything else. And by rush to village I really mean rush, you have to get everything there one the first 1-2 turns and at once so you overwhelm the US ability the destroy them before reaching the village. M60 are killed by massed firepower and ambush. And remember to spread your RED forces so the smoke doesn't blind them.

hmm, I smell module soon™

Before jumping to conclusions one needs data. Where the hit occurred and at what angle? Preferably lots of repetition. There are a lot of weak spots on tanks and under battle condition the angles that the hits come from can be significant, you could hit the roof or if you hit 30 degree front slope when the tank is going down 30 degree hill you can count out the slopes effect on effective thickness of the armor. My experience is varied with the Dragon as expected, if the engagement happens to be under laboratory like conditions, meaning front facing hull-down T-64, good luck! But more realistically this is not the case more often than not.

yes, but you get stunned afterwards. Even Dragon can be shot indoors, but about 50/50 change of gunner getting lightly wounded and everyone gets stunned. same with most soviet stuff.

who says LAWs don't hit

No way of doing that. Workaround is to just use the normal target arch to make the unit to hold fire until the enemy is in a optimal position for the RPG and then give the fire command or a new target arch. Rifle will still be used in this case. Or well, you could deplete all the firearm ammo with the "target light" command first. haha

Even if it was true that flak vest made projectiles wounds of certain velocity and mass more deadly you have to remember the whole "table of deadlines" shifts. This means that projectiles of lower velocity that would have been deadly without the vest now are less so. And now when we remember what causes the casualties on war. That is shrapnel. It is a lot less likely to be hit with a bullet (and this case a full energy, direct hit) I am sure a helmet also causes some problems where it would be better to be without one. Not hearing many complain about helmets.

now I get it. you are right

It seems to be that rarity is taken in to account when the prices have been set. standard rarity 1979: with standard rarity 1982:

How about the rarity price?

Every hit with 120mm penetrated the Bradley. (interesting find was that when I first tried with friendly fire I only got immobilized, the bombs went though the units, and with soviet mortars I didn't get any track damage at any point) pics: https://imgur.com/a/UQAOfiG

The fact that some of the scenario names end in number really messes with the PBEM numbers. First turn auto names from "Tank training 1980" -> "Tank training 1981" -> "Tank training 1982" and so on..... should be "Tank training 1980 001" but I think this is "engine limitation" so I renamed to "1980 Tank training 001". I think this should be the fix implemented to the game.

With a computer that can barely handle large scenarios the saving process might take several minutes. Click the save button only once and the leave your computer untouched for lets say 5 minutes. The game will go to "unresponsive" state according to Windows for maybe several minutes. It will recover if you let it. This is my experience when I am sometimes forced to play with laptop.

hmm, have to give them a try as PBEMs.

What was the thinking process of putting (some)campaign scenarios in the scenario listing? First time seeing this in CM. Are these rebalanced for H2H or just particularly good ones in general for all kinds of play? Why these particular ones? And why 82?

Comprehensive answers. Thanks!

I wonder if the game was made to represent soviets accurately why would the games main campaign creator see it necessary to bump up the experience level of the soviets to unrealistic levels?

How about Vietnam then? Comparable to Afghanistan in many ways. Experience but maybe not the right type for general European war. I have been under the impression US had a generally better (or atleast more recently) trained army than the soviet counterpart. Professional(with draft) vs conscript.

Hi, I wonder why are the soviet troops often with higher experience than the US troops? Soviet are crack/veteran and US are regular. Is this only for the purposes of gameplay or is there a historical precedent? I understand the case for the NTC-campaign but not for the regular campaigns.