Nefron
-
Posts
71 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Nefron
-
-
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:
-
34 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
If Russia believes it has a morale and/or legal justification for being in Ukraine, why does it lie about its activities there?
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?
-
1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:
P.S. I do understand you better now. You are not making a pro-Rusisan apologist argument. You are making a moral argument that violence is not morally justifiable even when being victimized by violence. I certainly have more respect for your argument now that I understand your motivations better.
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.
-
1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:
Of course you are
By unilaterally deciding that two things are equal you are saying they are morally equivalent. And that people like me, therefore, have no basis to judge one side more than the other.
If you take something that is largely and widely seen as having moral implications, and you attempt to remove morality from the equation, then you are making a morality based argument. You are, in effect, justifying what others see as immoral.
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.
4 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:Sure, got that. What you're against is accountability. Got that as well.
That's funny. If anything, I think the war in Ukraine demonstrates accountability perfectly.
5 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:What could be more important a cause than defending one's territory and people from a foreign aggressor? Most people would agree that a nation state's highest moral and legal obligation is to defend against foreign aggressors. Which is why you're likely to find such language in all nation state's constitutions. It's certainly in mine.
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.
-
12 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
It's called an analogy. If you do not understand how your logic applies to the scenario I laid out, then that likely indicates you don't understand your own position.
No, it has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying.
12 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:Yes, because it's applicable and you're obviously having no luck refuting it. But I can use plenty of other analogies.
Please don't, we risk you invoking Hitler for the second time. Here, I think I explained it perfectly above.
28 minutes ago, Nefron said: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.
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.
12 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:it decided to force Ukraine into a position where it had to fight, retreat, or surrender
And then Ukraine decided to fight a war, which takes two. You are making my point.
12 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:Ukraine did not surrender in the Crimea. They negotiated a retreat. There's a big difference between the two scenarios.
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.
-
5 minutes ago, Baneman said:
Let me try and get this straight - you're saying that in order not to have a war, a country that is invaded should surrender ?
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.
5 minutes ago, Baneman said:( btw, what country do you live in ? Just that I'm feeling the urge to invade one and it seems wise to pick one that's going to surrender straight away )
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.
-
8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
OK, but you are in favor of women lying still and letting themselves be raped just so there's no violence (although the act of rape itself is considered violence)? The man, in your opinion, has no obligation to stop raping once he's started? I just want to be clear about your opinion here.
No. What's up with you and rape, this is really getting weird for me.
8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:Wow, you get even more interesting! So you are saying that because Russia has a chance of beating Ukraine that it has an obligation to surrender.
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.
10 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:You did state your position clearly. And that is you feel that if Russia attacks someone the other party has an obligation to surrender. It's very clear and becoming even clearer.
What? Where did I say anything of the sort?
10 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:I will say this again. Russia has a moral and legal obligation to not wage war on its neighbors. Ukraine has a moral and legal obligation to defend it's territory from foreign aggression. If both countries followed their legal and moral obligations there would be no war.
I disagree.
11 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:However, one nation, and only one nation, has cast aside both its legal and moral obligations while the other one has not. The one that is in violation should be the one to stop fighting, not the one being victimized.
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.
12 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:A rape victim struggles because she feels it is in her best interests to resist being raped. And so you are perfectly fine with the man continuing to rape her because he feels it is in his best interests to do so. An interesting view of the world. Hitler had a lot to say about things like this. All sorts of stuff, in fact.
Again with the rape :S
12 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:Wow.
So, uh, they did not choose to surrender in Crimea? Were they mind controlled or something?
12 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:You shouldn't be.
K.
-
51 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
Sure, and as soon as the rape victim stops struggling then everything will end happily ever after? Great logic you have there.
Nobody said everything will end happily for everybody.
51 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:So if NATO starts a war with Russia in order to expand it's territory, what you are saying is that Russia should immediately call for a cease fire, stop shooting at NATO even if NATO continues to shoot at Russians, then lay down it's arms so that the war can end. That's your position? You might want to let Putin know because he's already said he'll use nukes if NATO touches its territory.
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.
42 minutes ago, kinophile said:@Nefron That's a pretty empty argument. It suggests national resistance to a violent foreign invasion is a choice, and not a basic necessity - politically, socially, culturally and even just in basic human psychology.
It is a choice. Remember how they've chosen to surrender in Crimea?
42 minutes ago, kinophile said:Considering Russia maintains Russian troops within Ukrainian borders, is effectively in control of the local militias, then continued resistance and attack by the armed forces of Ukraine is guaranteed, inevitable and justified.
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.
-
23 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
You are equating the two because the alternative is for the victim to surrender and give the aggressor everything it wants. So no, Ukraine does not want to fight... it has to fight. It has no alternative.
You just contradicted yourself.
23 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:So again, you are equating the responsibility to not cause violence on others with the responsibility to defend others against violence. That is an extremely poor argument, both morally and legally. But I do understand it is a position that some pro-Russians might find comfort in because it offers Russia excuses for the thousands of people it's killed and the hundreds of thousands displaced by its actions.
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.
-
19 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
OK, so if I viciously attack you with a baseball bat so I can steal your wallet, you raising your arms in defense of your skull is "the same thing"? Oh boy.
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.
19 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:Look at the assassination attempt of the Montenegrin Prime Minister.
Do you really believe that actually happened the way the Montenegrins say it did? Do you know who exactly Djukanovic is?
-
3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
however there is only one reason there is a war... Russia pursuing it's own interests. Without Russian weapons, ammunition, armed forces, organization, training, financial support, and political support there would be no war. As complex as the war is, this truth is extremely black and white.
That can also be said about Ukraine. If they didn't pursue what they believe to be their interests, there would be no war.
-
8 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Years ago when I was researching how long it took Russia to move forces around I found a very detailed analysis of the Russian forces which fought against Georgia. It showed that Russia was moving these forced into position up to 5 days before the Georgian artillery action that Russia used as the excuse to start the war. There was no mention of Russian military officials possessing a crystal ball to foresee the future. Sadly, I did not save this report (IIRC it was done by RAND) and several attempts over the past few years have failed to find it again.
What I did find was this analysis which clearly shows Russia covertly building up for the invasion of Georgia perhaps 3 months prior to launching its offensive. This is a link to a PDF and you can start on Page 9:
I'm not sure how that shows that Russia orchestrated the whole thing, rather than simply having sufficient intelligence to know that an attack is going to happen.
The Georgian posture towards the breakaway republics was aggressive for quite some time. Sakashvilii promised to reunite Georgia, and Georgian military spending was over 8% of their GDP. It was obvious that they were preparing for a war.
-
6 hours ago, Haiduk said:
Minsk is just opportunity to relative calm for us, we using this time for army improvement, "crawling offensive" and expecting - either Russia under sanction pressure will go out from Donbas or Croatian scenario.
Is this the prevailing opinion in Ukraine now? Holy ****, that can't be good. If so, I'd expect the Ukraine to be rudely reminded of the circumstances that forced the government to sign the two capitulation agreements.
Georgian scenario is more likely: insane military spending that boosts courage, followed by a crushing military defeat.
-
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:
It also is further evidence that the separatists can not hold land unless backed by major Russian military forces.
I was being sarcastic a bit, because that part of your comment seemed really silly. Nobody thinks Ukraine isn't able to win a few skirmishes here and there.
13 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:Russia, having no real moral reason to wage the war, would suffer morale problems at home and the front compared to Ukrainians fighting for their land against a blatant aggressor
Really? I don't see the Ukrainians as being that courageous in actually fighting Russia. The last time they actually faced a prospect of an open war with Russia they surrendered without a shot fired.
I'd say that they only reason Ukraine was able to fight back at least to some degree is because Russia was using it's forces in a piecemeal fashion. It makes little military sense, but it it suits them politically.
I don't know, you seem like a knowledgeable guy in general, but your predictions on this always strike me as complete fantasy, Russian civil war and everything. Is this personal for you in some way, if you don't mind me asking?
-
31 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
However, they do show that if Ukraine wants to take back land it can
I guess they just don't want to retake the rest of their country.
-
17 hours ago, JUAN DEAG said:
And separatists were pretending to attack to, of course. Everyone was pretending. George Bush also did 9/11.
There were skirmishes and probes, but the Ukrainians were acting as if the separatists were throwing themselves at the defenders
17 hours ago, JUAN DEAG said:Really? Some obscure and unnamed pilot reported by a tabloid magazine, hardly the Ukrainian president.
On 12/25/2016 at 9:20 AM, DMS said:Sorry, it wasn't Poroshenko, but the Ukrainian "ATO" spokesman. Poroshenko only threatened to kill hundreds, the actual claim about a thousand separatists killed in airstrikes was said by Lysenko. Here's a Reuters article on it. Satisfied?
"According to preliminary assessment, Ukrainian pilots ... killed about 500 (rebel) fighters and damaged two armored transporters," Lysenko told journalists.
In an earlier air attack on a base near Perevalsk, north of Donetsk, two tanks, 10 armored vehicles and "about 500" rebel fighters were destroyed, he said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-idUSKBN0FH09720140712
-
7 hours ago, JUAN DEAG said:
[citation needed]
Really? It's a minute away on Google.
7 hours ago, JUAN DEAG said:A score is 20. Russians lost a lot more than 20, way more. Even the most extreme separatist sources do not deny this, only you.
Nobody actually knows who lost what, but the Ukrainians were pretending that they fought back assaults every day.
When it came to it, they were defeated, and their fighters were humiliated and slapped around on camera, while the scores of separatists that supposedly died were never documented.
7 hours ago, JUAN DEAG said:They conduct investigations and estimate casualties based on the scientific method
How does that look like exactly? Where's the scientific method in estimating casualties in Eastern Ukraine?
5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:As for Donetsk Airport, the attackers suffered very high casualties. Same with Debaltseve. The degree of losses were confirmed by independent sources and, to some extent, the separatists themselves. I saw and read reports where separatist commanders stated exact losses and complained that the Russian commanders used them like cannon fodder. This was before Russia went about wiping out troublesome, independent minded separatist leaders. I've not heard much complaints about their casualties since.
That's cool, but the real, tangible result of those battles were the dead bodies of Ukrainians, and the Ukrainian POWs being slapped around on camera. The separatist leaders always bitched about their losses and general inferiority, because they want to get as much help from Russia as possible.
-
13 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
As for estimating the enemy casualties... this is where the two sides are on more even ground at the tactical level. It is normal for forces to overestimate the casualties of the other side. Fog Of War is what it is. However, at the strategic level things are a little different. Ukraine tends to keep their estimates reasonable, DPR/LPR come up with some wild statements. Again, they are criminal organizations with criminal motivations, therefore it makes sense that they over estimate Ukraine's losses just like they underestimate their own.
This could be a new development, but I remember Ukraine coming up with some seriously ridiculous claims, like 1000 "terrorists" dead in airstrikes etc. and this was coming from the president himself.
And then you have myths about Donetsk airport defenders heroically mowing down scores of attackers every day, artillery strikes on mysterious Russian columns etc.
-
3 hours ago, kinophile said:
Multiple, separate non-government sources are still putting total Ukrainian casualties as far lower than the DPR ones, so far - for now.
What would non government sources know about DNR loses?
-
8 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Because we would be out of business. It is as simple as that. Our type of game is extremely expensive to make and the micromanagement crowd is simply not big enough to support it. If we had to swing in one extreme or the other, it would be a command level game for sure.
QuoteIt's not that I must have my micromanagement to be happy with a game. I played a lot of Flashpoint Campaigns recently where everything is done in broad strokes, and I love it as well. If you could go the command route, with a way smarter AI, I wouldn't want micro.
The problem as I see it is that I consider CM to be very micro heavy as it is. When I don't have these options at my disposal, it doesn't seem that it's because that's not what the game is about, or that it's forcing me to take a more hands off approach because I should command from a higher level. It simply feels that it's missing features. I guess I'm just having trouble identifying the exact niche you are going for here.
In any case, we might have different definitions of broken software. The imperfections as you call them are not preventing me from enjoying the game most of the time, but it does get frustrating, and I can't help but wonder if it could be much better with relatively small improvements (if there's such a thing in software).
By unilaterally deciding that two things are equal you are saying they are morally equivalent. And that people like me, therefore, have no basis to judge one side more than the other.
How would the upcoming Module for BS change the balance against the US in BS ?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
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.