hattori

lol, you sure come across as touchy sometimes Sublime. I can give you a little more info on the variable from my tests to see if it makes any difference. First, the distance I had them firing at was 1400m. Abrams were elevated above the BMPs, with no trees or other major vegetation or any other obstacle remotely in the way. The BMPs did not have target arcs, only the Abrams to keep them from firing (which they eventually did anyways after receiving fire). The BMPs appeared to take some time to actually fire. I was also playing hotseat, the Abrams clearly saw all the BMPs for a while before they fired. There is zero chance the BMPs would have ever got those missiles off in a real game before going up in flames. I am starting to suspect the reason we are not seeing it in games is purely the BMPs stand no chance of being undetected long enough to actually fire their Kornets before an Abrams spots them and fires. I also wonder if there is any logic that they will not use Kornets if there are any obstacles remotely in the flight path. Anyways, until I actually crack open the code and read it, I'm just guessing.

If Hitler doesn't invade Russia, it's not really a world war, it's probably going to stay just a European war. My suggestion of promoting Ukrainian independence at first ... well, I don't think it would be beyond Hitler to "promise" Ukrainian independence, then turn on them after Russia was knocked out. Divide and conquer and all that. I certainly don't think Estonia was really going to get it's independence in the end. Hitler just figured once he 'kick[ed] in the door, the whole rotten structure [would] collapse', and didn't need to bother with anything other than a frontal assault on Russia.

Yup, sorry Sublime. I ran a lot more thorough tests last night, and yup. I had my regular BMP-2Ms dual firing their Kornets at Abrams. (I still can't get over how tough those tanks are). Strange that I had never actually got one to do that in a game. Perhaps without short fire arcs on the Abrams, none of the BMPs would have ever had a chance to fire them. It did seem to take a while from spotting to firing (and then guiding on top of it).

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the real appeal of having the BMP-2Ms was that if they worked properly, they would launch both Kornets at the same time, which would hopefully defeat an Abram's APS? I definitely have never seen that happen (too be fair, I rarely have the time to play BS these days)

Interesting discussion for sure. Emrys -- I give you full props for reading Adam Tooze's book. Incredibly interesting, one of the very few to actually talk about this subject, but an enormous slog to anyone not interested in economic matters (although the backbone of any war effort ...) I don't like to give Hitler too much credit for the economy -- he basically ran a short term stimulus package right at the tail end of a global recession, so yah, the short term results were going to be good. Increase the amount of government employees by almost 2 million ... eh voila, there goes some of your employment issues. Pour government money into infrastructure projects and over 10% of GDP into domestic military spending ... ya, you're going to see a short term gain, no doubt. It's not like Hitler cared in the least about potential long term debt obligations, and the long term footing of his economy. Hitler didn't do away with unions, he just reorganized them all into the German Labour Front and banned strikes. Not quite the same thing. I'm also not entirely sure Germany industry wasn't producing a lot of goods for foreign consumption. I *think* they even had to move some steel allocation away from the military to meed foreign consumption demands of goods -- in essence, I believe they were basically trading things like German made radios and the like to countries like Yugoslavia in return for desperately needed raw resources. Germany certainly didn't have the spare foreign currency to straight up buy globally all that they wanted. It has been too long since Tooze's book, I'm not sure what percentage was allocated to this. Anyways, always value all your different viewpoints.

Just imagine what would have happened to Kai-shek with no lend lease -- I don't know enough about that conflict to say the Japanese would have finished off the Chinese, but the results would have probably been much worse. Even then, Stilwell was convinced Kai-shek was hording a lot of the supplies so the Chinese National Army would be ready to crush the communists (that didn't work out so well either) once the Americans had finished off the Japanese for them. I'm also not sure Kai-shek was all that interested in bringing the fight to the Japanese once they were slowed down if he could get the Americans and the British to do the fighting for him.

Well, now it feels that you're swinging a bit too far to the Russian side and implying the Russians were absolutely amazing at all operational planning. Operation Mars went so poorly the Russians basically tried to hide it to protect Zhukov's reputation. Let's also remember the Russians were able to maintain their later operational successes because the other allies were shipping them a ton of supplies as well -- what, 500k trucks? 40k motorcycles? Something like 10k tanks? 15k fighters? Thousands of train engines and cars. Not to mention boots, food, oil, and all those other goodies. It's a whole lot easier to plan great operations when you have a ton more stuff logistically.

Great points. I will say that while I know Japanese shipping elsewhere in the Pacific was severed by the allies, I don't believe they were able to shut down shipments through the Sea of Japan, especially between the Busan in Korea and Japan -- I believe the convoys could make the trip at night relatively safely. If someone has proof to contradict this, I would greatly appreciate it. I'm not trying to say the atomic weapons had no impact, but I know Japan was desperate for some type of peace with the Russians -- they felt they could hold out against the Americans, but not against both. They were really trying to negotiate something all through '45 with Stalin. I just don't want to dismiss the Russian contribution, as late as it was coming, for the Japanese collapse. It's like saying the Americans had little impact on the outcome of World War 1 because they only showed up at the end. I actually think an independent Ukraine could have solved some of the logistical problems for Germany. Removing the majority of partisan activity would go a long way towards that. An active willing Ukrainian population that would actually help with the dirty work of road construction, snow removal, bridge repairs, redoing rail guages, etc, I believe would have also really helped with logistical problems. You're also depriving the Russians of a large source of manpower, and freeing up German soldiers from guarding and anti-partisan activities. I don't think I would suggest to the Germans to arm, train, and form a Ukrainian army. You are right, feeding the population would have been an issue -- but again, with a willing population uniting behind a common traditional hated enemy -- Russia -- you can probably get a lot more out of farming (and you'd also be doing away with the terrible Russian collective farm idea, and that the Russians used to take most of the grain out of Ukraine anyways) Sublime, you do make me laugh sometimes -- Ukraine is a pipe dream? The entire line of thinking of what the Germans should have done differently is a pipe dream lol. Not go to war is really the best answer. Perhaps you should also research the 29th SS division, or the Eastern-Waffen SS if you feel the Germans would never take Russian soldiers - never say never.

It seems to me a very western idea to think Japan surrendered purely because of the nuclear bombs considering the fire bombing did considerably more damage (although it certainly contributed). I would say Russia's entry into that war and quickly overrunning Manchuria did much more to break the Japanese will to fight -- after that they were truly out of most resources to keep fighting, and would not be able to hold out nearly as long. I also think the biggest mistake Hitler made in the war was to see Ukrainians as people that needed to be wiped out and starved to death. When Germany first invaded, they were seen as liberators in Ukraine. The first order of business on capturing Kiev should have been to run up the Ukrainian flag. Had Hitler promoted Ukrainian independence instead, and gotten that population behind him like the Estonians or Latvians, I think he stood a much better chance at knocking out Russia.

This game does require a certain level of patience and micro management, it is a very niche game, but probably the best one out there for realism. I would totally recommend trying the demo, but I have a feeling you would prefer something with far less control, like one of those hex based strategy war games -- a lot less management and button clicks (but because you put a lot less into a victory, the reward is so much less sweet).

I suppose you don't see the irony in being pretty rude in your attack on others not sticking to the topic ... while completely contributing nothing related to the topic.

To be fair, "terrorist" is purely a matter of perspective, and why I hate the term. Russia supports Assad, so to a Russian, the FSA would be made up of "islamic terrorists" who get some of their supplies from the U.S.

I think people are only bothered because they want to read what you have to say, but in all honesty, it can be very difficult to follow. You're one of the few that seems to enjoy playing as the Russians, so at least for me, I'm always interested when you have thoughts about them. You are right though, head on, Abrams vs T72 head on is a very bad idea. I've had 2 platoons of 72s crest a hill to take on 1 Abrams head on from about (I think) 800m, and I ended up down 4 tanks for nothing in return. I definitely never ever put them heads up against an Abrams (anymore). The T90AM is without a doubt the best Russian tank, I don't disagree. It's just that it feels like it's equally likely to die from a javelin, and an armoured rifle company has at least 18 javelin shots. I figured even if they hit with all of those, I still have 3 to 1 odds on the Abrams. Anyways, just thoughts, I don't have the time to flesh these ideas out as much as I would like. I also agree no APS is more interesting, but to me, it's in the game, so I have to / want to figure out how to deal with it. It's a bit of a slippery slope, because then someone can start saying how Javelins are too unfair and house rule ban them too. Anyways, please do keep posting, I appreciate your thoughts on Russian tactics to deal with the American technology advantages.

Awesome, thanks Vanir, that definitely answers the question. Sublime -- I said T72B3s (comes with a thermal imager), not old T72s, and you can take a company of infantry along with those engineers which are very useful for scouting. I apologize, I didn't mean to criticize your play style, I'm trying to offer alternative approaches to the problem other than just banning APS. I think most people will toss APS on their Abrams (I certainly do), making ATGMs highly ineffective against them. It's really hard for infantry not to get spotted close to an Abrams unless they're in a building, so that leaves me thinking the most effective weapon I have against them are my own tanks. My own tanks are going to get mashed by javelins, so my thinking a counter to that was to go with more T72B3s over less T90AMs. Quantity is a quality all it's own as they say.

The picture you linked is from an older model zala, the 421-08. The specs I looked up for the newer 421-16EM claims they have x20 zoom on the cameras now, with 18 megapixel resolution. If that is true, that would imply a much higher operational height than the older models. We also don't know if the zala in game is supposed to be the even newer 421-20. The other question I have in case I missed it, how do we know for certain the developers hard coded that zala's could not be shot down, as opposed to just giving them incredibly small odds of being shot down?

I believe I said zala's aren't gamey, just as I don't find APS gamey. Maybe difficult to deal with, but both seem to be realistic possibilities of what equipment could be like in 2 years. Zalas also have the disadvantage of no precision arty strikes. I'm well aware APS makes it very difficult to deal with Abrams for the Russians if you're ATGM heavy, which you like to be. Another way to deal with APS is to throw numbers at it (or at the very least, something I'm playing with), with vehicles that are not affected by it. I've been playing around with different setups, and if you're attacking with the Russians, you can throw an entire regular Russian Tactical Tank Battalion (T72Bs, change out the BTRs or BMPs for trucks, remove the AA platoon) with a Tunguska at a single American armoured rifle company. That's around 30 tanks to their 4, and you have plenty left over for the inevitable javelin kills (which can be mitigated by having your tanks in woods). You also have a company of infantry and a platoon of engineers. Or if you're defending, you have enough points to have 2 companys of T72Bs, and enough left over for some infantry, Tunguska and/or Khriz. The Americans could come at you with an armoured company with 2 platoons of Abrams, but you still have 1 company of tanks for each of his platoons. Anyways, just some other thoughts as dealing with APS is a serious challenge.

Sublime -- in 2008, the Zala was model 421-06, the first attempt at a UAV by that company. Since then they have made a 421-12 and are developing a 421-20 model. I don't think we can say for sure zala's are still noisy. I do know they are pretty small, can fly up to 3.6km above sea level which could make them near impossible to see, and electric motors are capable of being insanely quieter than gas powered engines. I can only assume they have really attempted to address each flaw with each new model. I don't know one way or the other, but I'm also not willing to say zala's are gamey because we for sure would be able to see them and shoot them down with small arms in real life.

Awesome, thanks so much for the info. So the zala has it's trade offs then. Can't get shot down, but no precision arty strikes. I guess I stupidly only tried out precision strikes with a zala before.

Sublime -- I wouldn't take it personally. If you ever read ww2 forums, you will see posters constantly attacking each other, especially over sources they use. ANY slip up will be pounced on, so you have to be very careful when getting into a debate. If someone can punch a hole in one of your arguments, then it calls into question your entire argument, and that is a common tactic.

"the US doesnt currently have APS" ... in all fairness, this game is set 2 years from now. As for the zala, if I have my stats right, it's 40cm by 80cm with an electric engine. I would guess that would very difficult to detect, and hard for software to differentiate from a bird (just a guess though). IanL -- I must be completely misinformed. I had thought the Russians needed line of sight with a laser in order to do a precision strike -- but they can order one from seeing the target through just the UAV?

" ... spear is all point no shaft, just like me in real life" I'm sure I misunderstood what you meant by that, or you have a very self deprecating sense of humour I am curious about this battle, but really, it's near impossible to tell what's going on.

Very Clausewitz of you ... "What do we mean by the defeat of the enemy? Simply the destruction of his forces, whether by death, injury, or any other means—either completely or enough to make him stop fighting. . . . The complete or partial destruction of the enemy must be regarded as the sole object of all engagements. . . . Direct annihilation of the enemy's forces must always be the dominant consideration." I do think you're enjoying trolling everyone though by refusing to acknowledge any of the other people's points. Or you're just incredibly stubborn lol.

Rinaldi -- don't be intimidated by the points in BS. You'll actually have less forces to work with than a similar sized battle (medium, large, etc) compared to RT (and especially if you are the Americans) because the cost of each individual vehicle is higher, and you will likely want to toss every squad in a vehicle of some sort. I personally find a large battle in RT much more time consuming to manage.

As a bit of an outsider, I *think* JasonC's comments are being taken a bit the wrong way -- I don't know enough about any of you, but I don't think he's trying to be offensive. I would guess he's promoting the idea from Napolean's quote, 'There are in Europe many good generals, but they see too many things at once. I see one thing, namely the enemy's main body. I try to crush it, confident that secondary matters will then settle themselves.' As in, you can use the objectives for clues to where the enemy might go or be, but don't make trying to capture them your primary objective -- make destroying the enemy force your main goal, and capturing the objectives will fall into your lap. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with that theory, just trying to mitigate some of the drama before it blows up -- JasonC, Bill and Ian are some of the posters whose material I value the most. I think the entire comment was meant to be a little sarcastic in tone, not really calling the scenario designers idiots. His choice of word "murdering" seems a bit out of character from other posts of his I have read, making it also seem a bit more sarcastic in tone. I mean he wrote haiku's when told he should shorten his comments! I could be wrong, but I'll assume the good until proven otherwise.

Sorry, I didn't mean to ask if the U.S. force is gamey, I like that set up and is generally what I would use as an American -- it feels pretty balanced. I was curious if the near all Armour Russian force was ridiculous