Nefron

I second the motion to have LWS just for the Russian (and maybe some Ukrainian) vehicles. It's not a question of whether the US can field this equipment, but of the fact that they choose not to, while the Russians do. It gives them their own unique flavor, and it makes a bunch of anti tank weapons more effective. It's kind of ridiculous that Kornet is a force to be reckoned with in Syrian hands (in SF), but in Ukraine it's a flop.

Then it reloaded, and one shotted another BMP-3 and a MT-LB. This was maybe the first scenario I played when I got Combat Mission, and I found it pretty easy, but today it is kicking my ass.

So this just happened in a single minute. I was failing pretty hard at Gagarina Checkpoint mission, and tried one final push when a Ukrainian T-64 destroyed two BMP-3s and a T-90 with a single round!

Just played it yesterday. I lost only two tanks when they ran out of APFSDS and took out almost a whole Ukrainian battalion, it was a massacre. However, it was a draw in the end since I did not exit the bulk of the T-90s. If I were a bit more aggressive it wouldn't be a problem. I did pretty much nothing until the T-90s arrived, and then I concentrated most of my tanks along the left side of the map. After a few rounds of firing from the treeline, I moved them slowly in bounding overwatch towards the exist. The T-90s performed so well in the dark it felt like an Abrams stomp.

So is there any other advantage to having those artillery observation vehicles except slightly faster call times in a few cases?

So, I've been playing Going to town again as the Russians, and I've found that the source of my biggest frustration are my Metis teams. Their hit chance seems to be a coin toss at best, so I came to ask if there's something I'm possibly doing wrong. I'm constantly able to get the drop on enemy armor and position the team with good line of sight, and still. I've done a bit of testing with the attached save file, and I've gotten around a 40% hit rate. The team is undetected, the weapon is deployed, the line of sight is completely clear. So, what gives? The only idea I have is that they're firing from a building. Is the self inflicted suppression a factor here? Here's the save file: https://files.fm/u/zcr7gpfd

Because doing it this way breaks political cohesion of their enemies to some degree. The West was slow to respond with economical measures because they were still trying to prove to each other what was happening, long after the fact. Denial gives an out to those that aren't so happy about engaging in economical warfare against Russia. Whatever Russia believes about the legality and morality of their actions doesn't matter. It's not like their enemies could be convinced to act against their own interests, so there's no point in trying. What exactly would Russia gain if they stopped with the denial, and what could they possibly lose?

Yeah, that's not really my point. If you're arguing that Russia is responsible from a moral and a legal perspective, I can understand that. What I'm saying is that it's wrong to say the war is only caused by Russia pursuing its interests, since there would be no war if Ukraine wouldn't pursue their interests. That is not arguing morality, that is simply a fact. I think you object to that because you see the Ukrainian use of violence as something just and holy, and above being classified as simply "pursuing interests". Or we simply misunderstood each other the whole time. And my criteria for use of violence is probably a lot more lax than yours (which I would most likely find to be hypocritical), considering I'm totally fine with Russia. So, probably an apologist in your book.

Again, I stated a fact and you are still moralizing. I have no issue with you believing that one side is evil or whatever, I'm not arguing against that. My point from the beginning was that you wrongly stated that the only reason there is a war is because Russia is pursuing its own interests. That isn't true. There would be no war if the Ukrainians didn't decide it's in their interest to fight that war. It took a conscious decision from both sides. That is simply a fact, and as such it doesn't assign a moral value to actions of either side. You are free to judge according to your morals standards, but don't warp facts. That's funny. If anything, I think the war in Ukraine demonstrates accountability perfectly. And those are your beliefs, fine by me. I think it's a little sad that you can't think of a cause more worthy than fighting over what flag waves over what piece of ground, but OK.

No, it has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying. Please don't, we risk you invoking Hitler for the second time. Here, I think I explained it perfectly above. This is literally my original point, which you ignored for how long now. I'm not moralizing, and I don't care about what you think is right, justified, moral or whatever. I'm not commenting on that. And then Ukraine decided to fight a war, which takes two. You are making my point. Not every surrender is unconditional and absolute. They handed over their territory and left their equipment behind as ordered by the invading force. If that's not surrendering, I don't know what is.

No, I'm not saying anybody should do anything. They are free to kill each other as far as I'm concerned. What I'm saying is that you need two warring sides to have a war, and each of them can stop the war, but they won't because it goes against their interests. That is simply a fact, and I stated it as a fact when Steve wrongly said otherwise. He is moralizing, and apparently believes I'm doing that too, which I'm not. I'm not advocating for a surrender. I'm OK with violence in some cases, when it's for an important cause, just as you guys are.

No. What's up with you and rape, this is really getting weird for me. Nobody has an obligation to surrender, but they have that option. They aren't going to take it, and opt for killing instead, so there's a war. This is pretty much the thing I've originally said, it's really not that complex. What? Where did I say anything of the sort? I disagree. If you say so, but the fact remains that the war is raging because both sides want to fight for their interests. You believing that one side is in the right does not change that. This right here is my point. Again with the rape :S So, uh, they did not choose to surrender in Crimea? Were they mind controlled or something? K.

Nobody said everything will end happily for everybody. No, that's not my position. since NATO cannot actually win that war. I think I stated my position clearly, I'm not sure why you keep misinterpreting it. My position is that you were wrong when you said that the only reason for the war is that Russia is pursuing its own interests. That's only one of the reasons, the other is Ukraine pursuing its own interests. I've also noted that you believe Ukraine is fighting for a worthy cause, and that their killing is justified. That's OK. I'm also OK with the other side doing the same. It is a choice. Remember how they've chosen to surrender in Crimea? I certainly hear you and understand where you're coming from. Both sides are OK with using violence to further their interests, and I'm OK that.

You just contradicted yourself. I don't believe in either of those responsibilities, but OK. I'm not making a moral or a legal argument. I'm saying that both sides are what's keeping the war going, because a war needs two warring sides. As soon as one side stops fighting, the war would end. In the end, it comes down to you believing that killing people to have the Ukrainian flag flying over a piece of territory is just the right thing to do. I'm OK with doing the same thing for the Russian flag.

I'm not saying that it's the same thing, I'm saying that there wouldn't be a fight without two sides that are willing to fight. If there weren't two sides that are willing to use violence to achieve their goals, there wouldn't be a war. Do you really believe that actually happened the way the Montenegrins say it did? Do you know who exactly Djukanovic is?