DerKommissar

I've moved on from my prototype Black Sea campaign to the Canadian CM:SF 2 campaign. Syrian RPG-7s are as effective as firecrackers against the front glacis of my Leo2a6s. I've been parking my Leos right up to enemy buildings -- and I've never seen any entrenched defender turn POW so easily! Recoil-less rifles and ATGMs tend to miss on first shot, and are quickly eliminated by overwatching IFVs. The biggest threat to my IFVs has been the mud. I also played the UK campaign in CM:SF1 and remember only losing 1 Chally due to a bottom glacis RPG-29 hit. I was quite upset, until I realized that actually happened. I've lost quite a few Warriors to RPGs, though. My advice: a. Keep your MBT's sides facing secured positions. You can't rely on side armour for anything more than .50 cal protection. 14.7mm can mess up your tracks, which leads you to mobility losses. This means flanking MBTs with infantry squads should be standard operating procedure. b. Don't use IFVs, or gods-forbid APCs, in assault roles. Either leave them to the rear, on overwatch -- or have them follow behind your MBTs & infantry. Don't trust ERA or cage armour, even if it looks impressive. c. Try to engage less technologically advanced opponents at arm's reach. Enemy RPGs, recoil-less rifles and ATGMs have less chance of scoring hits at longer ranges. The flat, desert, terrain allows for good LOS. It just so happens that Western optics and weapons are designed for long ranges.

Really excited for 2020, the roadmap looks almost identical to my own internal wishlist. Good to hear UNCONs are coming to RT, and fingers crossed for CM:FB Scheldt campaign. I am surprised that you dismiss Citino so easily. All the lectures I've seen, have been hosted by the US military in US military institutions. I believe he worked at West Point, and other military colleges -- his specialty being Wehrmacht operations. I'd recommend checking out his lectures on youtube, because he talks about how/why Jerry lost WW2.

Task Force D AAR 999 - 176 = 823 Points added to Force Pool, and Objective Completion

Agreed with most of this, except that Fortnite and Overwatch are good shooters. As a fan of Unreal Tournament and Quake series', I felt both games were a step backwards in terms of both content and quality. I'd recommend trying out WW1 shooters, like Tannenberg and Verdun -- I've enjoyed them more than I thought I would. Insurgency Sandstorm is also fun, especially for CMSF fans. My favourite Battlefield was actually 2142, and I think they were all good up until BF4 (which should have been a DLC for BF3). In ye olden days, not everyone had viable internet. So, even MP shooters had to have singleplayer components. This meant they had to develop AI, varied maps and game modes (like UT 2004). Now, multiplayer shooters have no need to develop AI, or any sort of asymmetric component. All they need to do is use the same perfectly balanced scheme, and let the players entertain themselves. Until the new one comes out and/or the community dies and the game becomes essentially useless. Balance is a double edge sword, and a requirement for a 32v32 game. Both sides become reskins of eachother, and each map is essentially mirrored. As variance approaches zero, the game's identity does too. I've had this issue with Starcraft 2, as well. Once you've played a day or two, you've seen all that there is. The only time I play this type of game is when I have a squad of friends to muck about with. Which is something I love about CM -- there's no one-size-fits-all solution. Whenever I settle into generic tactics, I find myself in a crazy situation with AFVs burning and pixeltruppen screaming in agony. Sun Tzu said something about knowing your enemy and knowing yourself -- in modern multiplayer shooters, you're already done. I'm a big Arma fan. It's an engine for amazing community mods, rather than a solid vanilla game. I've recently been having a blast playing Drongo's Random Displacements Campaign with the IronFront mod. The original IronFront devs allowed the modders to use their stuff, as long as they reduce the texture detail. So, the modders are introducing their own skins to beautify it. I do wish more shooters had combined arms and high command interfaces.

Task Force C AAR 999 - 113 = 886 Points added to Force pool, and Objective completion

Could it have something to do with the Malmedy massacre? I've recently beaten the Peiper campaign and was surprised how well the US infantry stuck to their foxholes. The execution of POWs by SS troops may have motivated them to fight to the last man -- like in Ostfront. Even though, I managed to round up 3 to 6 POWs every battle. Hate to think of what would have happened to them.

Is it the T-72B3 or the T-72B3M? The 'M' variant is very recent AFAIK, and has the brand new 360 degrees TC's thermal optic. As mostly a UKR player, I aught to say that my conclusion is not different from yours. The Oplot-M is not a significant enough improvement to warrant the price tag. I'll say this about the T-90AM too. The T-72B3 (I don't think they have the 'M' variant, yet), and the Bulat are your best choices for bang/buck. I've had 1 well placed T-72B3 destroy most of my Oplot-M squadron, along with a platoon of ATGMs. I've heard that the UKR tank AI likes to use ATGM instead of APFSDS. But in my experience, that is not the case:

Thanks for the response, I appreciate the consideration. I realize you guys have bigger fish to fry. Eagerly awaiting R2V patch

The import/export of OOBs has 3 major benefits, outside of an interface for third-party campaign systems: a. Import your forces from a scripted campaign, and continue their struggle in QB. b. Have a persistent OOB over a series of QB battles. Gives the player incentive to minimize casualties. c. Convenience. A player can save their favourite formations and easily swap them in and out without having to spend time editing. I cannot speak for the customer base, but I think there would be great value in such a small feature.

I've been experimenting with my own dynamic campaign system, and I couldn't get around that you can't load/import OOBs. I believe persistent OOBs are already in the editor, and especially in the scripted campaigns. Just one button that loads an OOB from a save file into the QB force builder, would open up a world of possibilities.

Just tried to play the South African campaign. Can confirm this, on my end -- as well.

The jugular straps look great!

Early Axis, if you will? Excited to try it out, when I get home.

Thanks for sharing. Lots of historical proof for Sun Tzu's universal formula. "In reality, there are no major cities that have been destroyed by war. Groningen and Aachen — and even Berlin, Stalingrad, Hiroshima, and Carthage for that matter — were all back in business soon after being blasted to smithereens in warfighting that verged on the exterminatory. Sometimes, nature may destroy a city, but man, despite his best efforts, does not." Does he consider Warsaw destroyed after German reprisal? The elephant in the room is collateral damage. "Military operations invariably have an impact on the urban landscape — even small arms can be devastating to structures — and there is no straightforward, correct answer to whether and to what extent it is acceptable to damage a city in pursuit of a political objective." I think that's a uniquely modern problem. The political reality of today is that the effect of any firing solution can be recorded and reported. The practical reality is that artillery and precision bombing are fundamental tools against a fortified defender. The defender can use civilian infrastructure as a human shield, and blame any collateral damage on the attacker. It's a catch 22: follow rules of strict engagement, relinquish your force multipliers and get bogged in destructive attritional warfare. Gaza, Libya, Syria and Yemen come to mind.

Sure thing, bud. Appreciate the interest, and I could always use play testers. I have a couple of options: a. I can set you up with a new task force, next turn (Turns = Time of Day). This turn is half way done, as 2 out of 4 QBs have been completed. b. You can assume command of either one of the BLUFOR Task Forces, next turn. I already fought their respective, generated, QBs. c. Take control of one of the REDFOR Task Forces in QB. I haven't started playing Task Force C or D, but their QB settings are ready to go.

Open image in new tab to see OOB details. Note that the 3 cannon support won in the Operational layer are added on top of the UKR Task force Point pool. 6391+871 = 7262 Breakthrough! A stunning success by the UKR Task Force. HQ will be pleased. Net Points Gained = 1000 - 118 = 882

Just when I was looking into presents for my younger brother. How good is the quality of the plastic? I've got bad memories of bad-fitting Megablocks.

US Task Force A AAR The Player can determine the size of the Battle and the Battlefield in the QB Menu. Other factors are dependent on Actions, Operational Map and Conditions. Legend: Green options are chosen by the Player. Blue options are chosen by the Operational Map. Orange options are chosen by the Day's Forecast. Red Options are chosen by the success of Actions. The US Task Force A Player picks 6400 Points worth of Forces and 473 Points worth of Fortifications. They decide to keep their 1 Apache Support, for now. The Defensive has been a minor success. The Net Points (412 - 205 = 207) will added to the Task Force A Player's Point pool, as well as the accomplishment of Operational Objective 1. In the event of a defeat, the Net Points are negative and will be subtracted from the Player's Points, as well as the Objective's success.

US Task Force A Plan(7000 – 600 = 6400 Points) *These are the Player's orders. Everyone starts with 7000 Points, in this Campaign. This can be spent to accomplish operational tasks like requesting support, digging in, logistics, movement or securing the perimeter. The remaining amount of Points (6400) is the maximum amount of points used to purchase forces in Quick Battle, for the Player's side.* Orders: Defend Area 1 *The Player picks an Operational Objective to pursue. Their Victory Points in Quick Battle will contribute to its completion.* Actions: *The Player plans out their Operational actions here. They can pick as many as they want, and invest any number of Points in their success.* 1. Request Attack Helicopter Support (x2) (400 points) *US Player has decided to bid 400 of their total Points into obtaining a support of 2 Apaches in 1 Quick Battle.* DC: 800. Roll: 343 + 400 = 743/800 *The GM decides the Difficulty Check, which determines how high the roll must be to ensure the Player's success. The Player's invested points are added on top. For this one the roll is between 1 to 800, and the Player must get 800 for a full success.* Obtained 1 Apache support for 1 battle *The GM declares the result of the Action. The result was a partial success.* 2. Construct Fortifications (200 points) *The Player can invest in digging in.* DC: 400. Roll: 273 + 200 = 473/400 *Digging in is easier than receiving attack helicopter support.* Obtained 473 points worth of Fortifications for 1 battle *The success is directly proportional to the outcome of the roll.* UKR Task Force B Plan(7000 – 600 = 6400 Points) *This is Player 2's plans. This would be its own post on the forum.* Orders: Attack Area 2 Actions: 1. Advance 1 kilometer (100 points). DC: 100 *Advancing a square kilometer on the map takes a Difficulty Check, as well.* Roll: 29 + 100 = 129/100 Advanced 1 Kilometer 2. Secure 2 square kilometers (200 points). DC: 400 *In order to turn the square kilometer to your side's control. A Security DC is required.* Roll: 354 + 200 = 554/400 Secured 2 square kilometers 3. Request artillery battery support (300 points). DC: 600 Roll: 513 + 300 = 813/600 *Great success!* Obtained 3 heavy guns for 1 battle *Engel Matrix is the basis for this system. The Player is encouraged to use creativity and attention to detail when laying out their plans.* RUS Task Force C Plan(7000 – 500 = 6500 Points) Orders: Attack Area 2 Actions: 1. Advance 2 kilometers North (100 points) DC: 200 Roll: 79 + 100 = 179/200 Advanced 1 Kilometer 2. Secure 4 square kilometers (400 points) DC: 800 Roll: 371 + 400 = 771/800 Secured 3 square kilometers RUS Task Force D Plan(7000 – 400 = 6600 Points) Orders: Attack Area 3 Actions: 1. Advance 2 kilometer (100 points). DC: 200 Roll: 170 + 100 = 270/200 Advanced 2 Kilometers 2. Request Close Air Support (300 points). DC: 600 Roll: 17 + 300 = 317/600 Obtained 1 Hind support Operational Map *Note: Each square kilometer is occupied by Non-Player forces, that are represented by the Faction's colour.* Legend: Light Blue: US, Dark Blue: UKR, Red: RF

11 July 2017 Dawn Forecast: TimeAndDate.com Conditions: Overcast, Dry BLUFOR Operational Objectives (roll 36-72, roll 32-66): 1: Defend Area (Grid: 39, 36) 2: Attack Area (Grid: 59, 39) 3: Defend Area (Grid: 56, 55) REDFOR Operational Objectives (roll 36-72, roll 32-66): 1: Attack Area (Grid: 68, 64) 2: Attack Area (Grid: 61, 59) 3: Attack Area (Grid: 70, 51) Operational Map (Open Image In New Tab for greater resolution)

Quick Battle Campaign: Donetsk (Prototype) This is a field trial for an operation-based Quick Battle generator. After taking into consideration all the great systems that were recommended to me by the community, I've finally settled on an implementation. This thread will contain both the operational mechanics and the Quick Battle AARs. I apologize for the lack of flavour text, as this is a test. The objective of this trial is to get the balancing right, both for the QB settings and the Operational Metagame component. I'm starting this demo with 4 players (1 US, 1 UKR, 2 RF). You are welcome to participate as one of the players, and play against CPU, or a partner. If so, please post below -- as well as any questions you may have. Note: BLUFOR and REDFOR sides will be able to see eachother's "hands" in this trial. This way it is easier to compare, for balance.

Thanks for the tip, I may have tested it out by sending a Bradley IFV hurling through into the enemy line. Once the FAST order was completed, they saw a tandem warhead RPG pointed at them and retreated. They survived. TCs have self-preservation instincts, apparently. Now that you mention it, in most tank combat footage I've seen (Syria, Iraq) -- AFVs almost never pop smoke. Even under fire. Be it an M1, Leo 2, BMP2 or T-72 -- they all carry smoke discharges, why not use them? Training issues are something one does not consider.

I've been messing around with CM:BS Quick Battles for my campaign system prototype. When a T90 emerges from a hilltop and begins to identify targets and compute firing solution, an M1A2 SEP or a M2A2/M2A3 gets a LASER WARNING. They automatically pop IR blocking smoke and reverse. This can save your skin, as I've seen T90s penetrate M1A2's lower glacis and cupola. However, I've had AFVs reverse in a weird way that exposes their side armour to the T90s. This happens often when there are trees, buildings or the edge of the map behind my AFV. The AFV will steer to the side, and become more vulnerable as a result. Sometimes, the automatic smoke launchers are triggered for a trivial threat -- leaving those charges spent, while a serious threat approaches. Is it possible to prevent my AFVs from automatically reversing and/or popping smoke on LASER WARNINGs? Or is this immutable TC protocol IRL?

In a recent quick battle, I had T90AM APS explode 3 TOW-2Bs in short succession. I've also seen top ERA stop a Javelin. They also managed to take out all three of my M1A2SEPs, which were at the back of the map, behind foliage, in low-light conditions. I've also seen a T90A destroy a Bradley, while its TOW was still in the air. Also, hidden in foliage and low-light conditions. IDK how it is from the Russian side. But from the American side, I've learned not to underestimate T90s -- especially the AM variant with APS. They're not equal to the M1A2SEPs, but they can certainly kill them. I did take screenshots, and may post an AAR -- documenting my experiences.

Fingers crossed for a Smokin' Snakes campaign!