IICptMillerII

Da, comrade! Check out this vid of me giving one such address to my men before a battle: Extra rations of carrots every day! How do you say, "hit the nail on the head" in German?

Huh. Pretty much all of my experience playing the Soviets is that I have T-62s both outspotting and outshooting M60s, and the M60s are unbuttoned while the T-62s are buttoned up. Crazy how different these anecdotes are.

A battlegroup is simply another term for a battalion task force. Battalion task forces were quite prevalent in the 70s and 80s. Both NATO and Warsaw Pact forces used battalion task forces (battlegroups) extensively.

Great video! Always love cinematic CM vids!

There have been three patches released for Cold War since it came out 9 months ago. What are you on about? Also, maybe being toxic about something you haven't even tried yourself isn't the greatest move.

Every. Single. Soviet campaign mission is a battalion level action, and the final battle is a regimental action. And all of them are on large maps that accommodate the force size. Most of the US missions are battalion level as well. The training scenarios for the Soviets are all battalion level actions, and a good number of the independent scenarios are battalion and larger actions as well. The record is so beyond broken at this point. Have you even played Cold War? Sheesh.

Mishlmao.webm

Whoops, you’re right! Mea culpa. A point to Chucky D. Definitely a “moment in time” type battle. It’s funny, I can imagine CM players screaming about how the game is broken cause no one in the company would shoot back/hit the one paratrooper firing into them

This scenario is in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy. It's called "Silence the Guns - Brecourt Manor"

It looks like you might have turned movie mode lighting on. Try hitting Alt+M to toggle it. Also, in one of those screenshots you definitely had modded unit icons, so you still have mods active.

The Soviets never intended to use fixed wing aircraft in a Close Air Support (CAS) role. CAS is defined as having some level of direct coordination with ground controllers, meaning that a ground controller is calling in and directing strikes in support of troops in contact. The Soviets did not ever intend to do that. Fixed wing aircraft were meant to carry out strikes along the enemy's depth, including targets that were farther behind the Forward Line of Troops (FLOT) than conventional artillery could strike. Nearly all of these targets were briefed, as in they were designated before the strike as opposed to having the pilots find their own. Helicopter gunships had more of a CAS-like role, in that their role was more about supporting troops in contact with air support, but even here it was not directed by ground controllers. The gunships job was to fly in, strafe enemy positions and then bug out. It was expected that helicopters would do a better job of engaging enemy forces in close proximity to friendly forces. There is a strong argument that the Soviets should have no fixed wing aircraft in CMCW. The reason they are included is because players would be up in arms about a feature being stripped from the game, and because there are some limited use cases for them to be present. All Soviet air support (helo and fixed wing) should be used as pre-planned strikes during the deployment phase. This best simulates how the Soviets would have used them in reality, as an opening pre-planned strike in support of an attack. Anything else begins to really stretch the definitions of Soviet "CAS."

Ack, you're right! man, what a typo on my part. My bad on that. You can see why the manual has a typo in it now! I was thinking about the T-72A and T-72A (1980), which both carry different ammo. I corrected my previous post to reflect that.

Yup. Actually that highlights a typo I made in trying to correct a typo. T-64A is equipped with BM15 T-64B is equipped with BM22 (same with the B1 variants)

This is actually a typo in the manual. The T-64B and B1 are firing BM22, just like T-72A (1980) and T-80B.

I definitely agree, though it is important to remember that the vast majority of players do not interact with the scenario editor at all. So if we are talking about improvements that affect the most amount of players, then gameplay improvements are the priority. I do think improving the editor (mainly by making it much easier to produce maps a lot faster) would be a massive improvement overall. Maps and their development tend to be the largest bottleneck when it comes to players and custom content.

Completely agree. I think this is one of the single biggest things that could be done to improve the experience of playing CM. Allowing the player to do more with less clicks would be a massive improvement. Anything that reduces the administrative burden on the player is good.

Warren nailed it on the head. We should put in bold in the manual something to the effect of “Ammo > gun size”

@Armorgunner It is also equipped with BM22 APFSDS rounds, which punch significantly harder than the BM15 APFSDS rounds the T-72A is equipped with. It is a significant upgrade that makes it competitive against Abrams.

Man you made the joke and then the man himself restated it just now in a new thread! Nice bait and switch!

Slitherines call.

Good points. I agree with most. Friendly reminder though: PBEM+++ is Slitherine's. Any requests for improvements to their system should be directed to them.

Glad to see another JK thread has run it’s usual course. Friendly reminder that everyone’s favorite Australian pup doesn’t even own Cold War, has no intention of buying it, and is not discussing anything remotely related to the topic at hand. Not that he ever does, but I digress. This thread should be locked for elder abuse. Not that it isn’t warranted, but still.

Great shots!

Calls a long serving member of the British armed forces a keyboard warrior. Combatintman was literally defending Western Europe in the BAOR while someone here was eating his homemade mushrooms that has given him the brain we all know and love today. Oh no, god forbid someone break out a legitimate, objective statement about a military's capabilities, on a forum about a sim that features various militaries and their capabilities. Don't slip on your drool on the way out! I'm sure there is someone here that would be slightly less entertained by the nursing home posts.

Egypt didn't operate the Mig-23. They bought a few but they were essentially hangar queens as they spend most of their time in storage. Anyways, my main point was that the A-7 is far from being "outclassed" by the Mig-23, nor was the Mig-23 a technological wonder in any way. In fact, it was largely using tech that was behind the times when it was rolled out.