Kinophile

Actually, BS ends with both sides backing off. So it's literally about WW3 NOT starting, and the Ukrainian War remains regional. It's also about NATO reacting and very specifically NOT crossing the border. Because auto-nuke. 
Of course, that could also be read as simply the opening stage of a far broader and very muddled war, possibly consisting of multiple regional conflicts gradually combining into a general state of confused conflict across theaters/continents. 

Sigh. What is it about NATO that people don't get? 
The  basic organizing principle is DEFENSIVE. It's not even organized correctly to launch a strategic offense. 
I'm Not military and even I can see that. 

Actually, BS ends with both sides backing off. So it's literally about WW3 NOT starting, and the Ukrainian War remains regional. It's also about NATO reacting and very specifically NOT crossing the border. Because auto-nuke. 
Of course, that could also be read as simply the opening stage of a far broader and very muddled war, possibly consisting of multiple regional conflicts gradually combining into a general state of confused conflict across theaters/continents. 

No NATO force will ever attack / invade Russia. It was never designed for that, there was never an appetite for that. It will never happen. The Russian government can go on and on about the NATO threat but NATO forces are only a threat to Russians who are in someone else's country - specifically only other NATO members.

+1
 

The US has a distinct advantage in fires integration, targeting and precision.  

The greater question for artillery in the next few years is being able to achieve effects in the face of frankly terrifying counter-battery capabilities.  The idea a M777 battery is going to be able to fire off more than 1-2 rounds before having to displace or face total destruction is certainly sinking in.  The traditional massed and persistent Russian fires are basically inviting ruin on the firing batteries.  

From that fires and effects are going to have to be able to answer the question of how to achieve the same effects, with less time/rounds to do so.  Precision will certainly play a role  although the current laser/GPS guidance trend will be challenged by EW (while the laser itself is not subject to jamming, the spotting element's communications, let alone if it's a drone are), as will advances in non-kinetic ADA (or whatever we care to call lasers or similar hard kill non-bullet options) observation. 

One thing that will be interesting is the historic fires integration piece taken to a more refined output, in that it may be still possible to put dozens of rounds on a target while still only doing so from a small number of guns by coordinating and allocating fires across a wider collection of units, or as far as several batteries firing very small missions, but sequenced and coordinating digitally (Battery A shoots 1 round per gun, displaces while Battery B fires 1 salvo then displaces, then BN mortars drop 3 rounds before displacing then Battery A opens up again).  

Or to visualize, artillery will spend more time in motion than firing, and each firing opportunity will need to mean more, and each target will need to be more relevant (or the historical US/and to an even larger degree RU ability to simply dump fires on anything that's being troublesome will be deeply challenged).

Basically it's going to matter a lot less about the gun, or how the gun is loaded, and more about how the round gets where it needs to go, and how we accomplish effects while someone tries to kill the gun.  The Russians especially historically have counted on massed non-precision fires, which may be lethal but again it won't take too many "missed" displacements to start to reach parity in numbers and greater effects disparity in terms of fires.

As far as "Alas Babylon"

It would be a mistake to attribute too much of the damage to US fires, or to at the least, indicate somehow they were responsible for causing more damage that would have occurred anyway.  Both Mosul and Raqqa were subject to lots of dumb artillery and direct fire weapons from the non-US elements rolling in (some of whom conduct "recon by fire" and little else), and ISIS rather relies on booby traps or other scorched earth type techniques.  

Basically several bulls went through the China shop.  The US precision (either in guided or digitally aided) fires certainly did some damage, but it's a bit obtuse to pretend they made it especially bad after looking at the other actors and factors at play.  

I think, the first spotter that spots a target and is able to call for fire does so.  If the spotter sees more than one target at the same time I don't know if the AI is able to pick the most appropriate target for the available artillery or not.  That is a good question but not something I have tested.  Or if two AI spotters see two different targets at the same time but only one artillery asset is currently available.  Who gets priority of fire in the AI's army?    Interesting.    Besides those two above examples, that I don't know the answers to, I think it is basically first to spot and request, first to get a fire mission on the way.     
Maybe somebody else knows......... @Bulletpoint you're always testing stuff.

I wonder if something is "off" with the reinforcement time on the artillery?  As I understand it, after the initial bombardment the AI needs both LOS (spotter) and of course the asset to shoot.  If the arty does not arrive until 15 minutes into the mission it should not fire before 15 minutes into the game.  I have a scenario I am working on now  where this works multiple times. 

Interestingly, I certainly the spotter arrived, the mortar fired a, few mins later (ie Urs as noted automatic call). 
Now, the 122s arrived as reinforced 5mins After the spotter - but did not fire at all. Not once. 
My next test will be to add a 2nd spotter, (timing his reinf arrival w/ the 122s) and see if he activates the 122s. 
While very hacky, thus could turn out to be a way to have arty fire on attacking blues as they occupy an objective. 
Ie:
US inf enter a church, marked as a Red AI trigger. 
Rus Spotter 1 spawns off that trigger
Rus Mortar Battery cycles up, impacts 3-5mins after the trigger /spotter have activated/spawned. 
---
Now, you could easily add some variation to this by not making the Spotters arrival "Exact" in the timing drop down. Maybe set it to within 5 mins. 
Then, you could set a new spotter to arrive for different triggers, giving the impression of reactive Russian arty. 
Of course, we want to avoid a plethora if spotters, so probably need to create an exit box, spawn them right beside it, time  their orders to leave to 5 mins after arrival (to ensure their battery fires) then have them leave. 
Repeat ad nauseam. 
Naturally, thus would only work in a strictly Human v AI map,ie a campaign. 
 

I have had off map artillery become available as reinforcements, spaced out during the mission, so the red AI does not expend all their rounds in the early battle.  This worked well and kept the AI artillery active, on and off, during most of the mission.  However, I did not use support target (where you paint the map area) for this. I let the AI use opportunity fire.  The AI used it pretty well.  I also read that the AI will use TRPs.  I suspect TRPs may be more useful than the painted support target mechanism after the initial bombardment.  The AI needs LOS to target areas except for the opening bombardment.   
I also thought I read on the forum that the painted support target was just good for an opening bombardment?  The AI's version of pre-planned fires.   I've looked back through my notes but can't find additional information about this. 
So, in practice, I used the painted support target for the initial bombardment and then let the AI have opportunity fire using off map reinforcement mortars/artillery spaced out to last as long as I thought appropriate. 
@Sgt.Squarehead with all the out of the box thinking you do with scenario design you should probably take notes on it!!!         

Not true.  I Have only done a few scenarios for BF but I have tried to have more than one and usually 5 AI plans.  It really comes down to time, the scenario itself and the designer.  The editor allows for more than one.   If you really like a scenario, but it does only have one plan it is a simple step to open the editor, copy that same plan and tweak it just a bit.  Do that 4 times and you now have a scenario you like and variability in what will happen.
As to learning the editor and AI plans, that is mostly just toying around and practice.  Use a small unit scenario so you can really focus on their actions and try different options observing their behavior in scenario edit mode.  Getting really good is a whole other thing.  I can't claim to be at that level, but I can do the basics. Getting really good is more an issue of learning from experience.  The rules don't change, but your understanding of how to make the best of those rules will grow.  I prefer to stick to small unit stuff as you have very specific control versus broad brush.  Some designers though excel at  larger scenarios that I find totally intimidating.

Description:
A bit different setup to speed up testing - 100 experiments in five batches of 20 each:
All tubes and spotters are Elite Fire mission is preplanned to the points where tanks are Mission effect is set to General, I assume it denotes something like Variable-Time vs. Point-Detonation, HE vs. HEFRAG Results:
Direct hits 3 4 10 6 7 Module damage 1 0 4 0 1 Knock-outs 1 2 6 4 3 Analysis:
Unlike previous tests I had module damage here - weapons, smoke launchers, targeting etc. If direct hit does not result in the module damage then it resulted in severe tracks damage though ALWAYS a step or two short of total immobilization. I didn't count tracks as modules in the table so these cases are reflected in direct hits less module damage and knock-outs. Comparing to the 100% of severe damage from the direct hits as given in the Field Artillery article I gave above we'll have different results depending on what we count as severe damage in CMBS context: If we equal knock-outs AND module damage AND severe tracks damage to "severe damage" then 100% of direct hits resulted in severe damage If we count knock-outs AND module damage as severe damage then 22/30=73% of direct hits resulted in severe damage If we use only knock-outs then we have only 53% of direct hits Since I used different experience level and point fire command instead of direct aiming the ratio of shots to direct hits is not comparable to the first data set. Near miss NEVER results in module damage - only tracks damage. I didn't do all distance measurements between tanks and points of impact in near misses but a rule of thumb is: Light tracks damage starts at ~8m from the tank Total immobilization requires 1-2-3 meters In-between those two we have varying degrees of track damage IMHO:
All non-airburst direct hits from 155mm HE should result in total knock-outs - whether PD or delayed. Arguments: All direct 155mm HE hits are named as lethal for tanks in "Who Says Dumb Artillery Cannot Kill Armor" by Maj. (Ret.) George A. Durham, Field Artillery Journal, Nov-Dec 2002 Even at 10 feet airburst for each M107 there are three fragment penetrations for 2" RHA plate. Source: Report on protection from fragments from HE ammunition by Aberdeen Proving Grounds of 1961. At point detonation there should tens of them with much higher energies. I figure even Abrams top of the nose should have multiple perforations save turret or engine compartment Assorted Russian language sources: Krasnopol 152/155mm HE testing. Krasnopol is a Russian equivalent of Excalibur WWII tests of ML-20 152mm howitzer Near misses within 10/20/30m should result in total immobilization AND considerable module damage BUT NO crew casualties. Arguments: Field Artillery Journal gives 30m as "considerable damage" distance Russian 152mm HE damage tables give 20m as an equivalent distance Judging from "Report on protection..." give 6-10m as the distance with enough fragments to penetrate 25-30mm RHA; tracks and wheels are not RHA but side/back tank armour is thicker

I havn't gone backwards to 3.0 but I fully agree with Hilts on "the fleeing of troops from buildings and fortifications when a HE round lands anywhere near them!".Please correct that in 2018.Other than that I love 4.0.

Wat? The interest overlap is that it's a Combat Mission title by Battlefront. You release all the things and I buy all the things.
 
I SAID ALL OF THEM.

Forget it, even if you could you’d be stuck with the whole family of knuckleheads. This is one of those moments where you just back away slowly and hope no one notices you. 

Have you guys really never used Civ's "Just... one... more... turn" button?  I mean, I obviously could go back and change the victory conditions and play through the whole game again... but am I really going to get to that point where I'm defending my capital from Montezuma and just built a nuclear bomb when Washington wins the game with a culture victory and... the game prevents me from continuing?
I mean, I'm not saying to drop everything and do this right now but I agree that it would be a handy feature should the opportunity present itself.

Maybe two of them will do the 8 mouse clicks necessary to open a scenario in the editor, add the time, save it and then exit back to the battle screen.

I've had games where I wish I could have just another 5-10 turns, where the AI surrendered when I just about had a flank shot on that King Tiger or where I had an awesome barrage 2 minutes from falling.
It's a non-solution to say you can tweak the editor, because this is not something that you want in every game, and because using the editor means you have to start the game again from the beginning.
If there were an option upon AI surrender to click a button to extend the game by 5 turns or 10 turns, I would enjoy that.

Lets differentiate between 'titles' for a theoretical next generation CM and their continuing to support & expand the current game engine. CMSF is being thoroughly rejuvenated, CMBS is the jewel in the crown with detailed future plans laid out. BFC has so many long-range projects that it may take 'em past retirement age to get to everything. Its not as though Steve can simply wake up one morning and proclaim "I want to do an India/Pakistan title!' and the final product magically appears three months later. Its a lot of prep, a lot of planning, a lot of research, and all the of gears in the BFC machine working together to produce a final product.

There was the below in a different thread.  Link is below.  @Oleksandr if your looking for a little CMBS information.
6.  CMBS jumped ahead of others with its own Battle Pack, but is owed a Module.  We've been doing them in order of release and that means CMBS is theoretically next after CMRT.  Marines are an obvious selection for the first Module and the work being done for CMSF2 is going to pave the way for that to happen.  
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/125797-another-reason-for-a-centralized-forum/?do=findComment&comment=1724848

Thanks @Rinaldi for doing that. I personally had not fired 122 precision at anything during testing but I did 155 vs M1s and T90s and get expected results the vast majority of the time. This test shows yet again the artillery doing the expected thing - serious effect - on targets. So, I just do not believe that you frequently see Bradley's shrugging of hits and carrying on as if nothing happened. These test shows that is not common. Sure it can happen - I saw T90s that survived a hit from a 155 - it was not common but it did happen. Just because it can happen and it sucks when it does *does not mean it is common*.

No worries fella, frankly that's exactly what I thought you'd say.....My interest is in a balanced game that as accurately as possible reflects the difficulties commanders and troops on the ground actually face, but I'm sure that is some times taken as some sort of pro-Russian trolling in some quarters.   
As it goes I am something of a Russophile, I just happen to like Russian stuff, especially their tanks, for reasons I can't explain.  I also like Soviet propaganda posters and artwork, but for their distinct artistic style rather than any kind of political identification, truth to be told I hated Soviet state communism then and I still despise it now.....Probably for different reasons to you, but all the same. 
 

Ahaha, so going by BFCs engine development it will visually look like a game from 2002?
J/K guys, love the game.

Another minute of trading fire across the river while I wait for an opening to bring my forces to cross.
 

The tanks by the bridge attempt to destroy the last visible T-64.  It is hull down and a number of shots land short.

The ATGMs of 4. Plt, 1. Company join in, but there just isn't enough of the tank visible to land a good shot.

But they don't go without notice...

Kaboom!  The shot lands short and fails to do any real damage, other than to the ATGM team's eardrums.


A Ukrainian ATGM manages to land a hit on one of the T-72s and knocks it out.  It appears to have come from the church, so I'll make sure it doesn't last to fire a second shot.

The ATGM section attached to the scout team manages to guide true on the troublesome T-64 and knocks it out (hopefully for good).

Smoke is beginning to land on the far bank, so hopefully in the next couple of minutes we can assault the Ukrainian positions and turn this into a more dynamic battle!

You miss the point - its the Abrams unrealistic reaction/acquire/fire time that bothers a lot of "us". Not the T-90's. It , for now, is a reasonably dangerous beast, not the magical psychic 6-eyed unicorn that the Abrams can sometimes feel like.