DerKommissar

Wow, this would have saved me a lot of trouble with the Dynamic Campaign maps.

A month or two ago, I've had an MG open up on a friendly mountain troop. At night, and British recce units infiltrated into throwing distance. At first, I thought that the MG was firing at the British recce, and accidentally hit a soldat or two. After closer inspection, it looked like the MG sent a series of accurate bursts at my squad -- one guy killed and another wounded. The MG did cease fire, soon after -- possibly coinciding with the HQ getting in visual range of the casualties. I don't have any objections to this, from a gameplay/realism standpoint. Is this feature documented somewhere? Hopefully someone can confirm or deny.

In an offense mission, the Player can rush or take it slow. In a defense mission, the pacing of the gameplay is entirely up to the scenario's designer. Defense missions must take extra effort to set up AI plans and such. Maybe that's why we see less of them? I did enjoy the defense missions in Combat Mission: Afghanistan -- they felt very thematic. CM:SF2 Highland Games also had a very fun mission, where you hold off a Soviet-style mechanized assault. With QBs, it varies widely from "too intense" to "waste of time".

Tanks are just the modern incarnation of siege engines. Before petrol, man and horse had to tow protected towers, wheeled fortifications and protected rams. They can also fulfill a cavalry role, by firing on the move. The Javelin is a superb ATGM, but it cannot accomplish these tasks. Since both sieges and maneuver warfare have proved devastatingly costly, in the last century: their implement is on audit. But if they do occur, people will need the right tool for the job. The tank will eventually be obsolete, no doubt. Once humanity discovers a fundamentally new form of moving fortifications and large weapons.

Yep, that's my conclusion, too. Marines are also losing some attack helicopters, on top of artillery and tanks. USN sees themselves as the primary defensive arm and don't see the need for USMC to spearhead a breakthrough, against a prepared defender. If the Marines encounter determined resistance, there will be a "Oh, that's why!" epiphany (like CEFCOM had in 2008).

Fingers crossed for Scheldt!

Sure, the tricked-out Leo 2s may have been overkill for the job. NATO allies have plenty of spare parts, ammunition and infrastructure for them, though. CEFCOM could hardly afford an in-house design, or the logistics for such a unicorn. Not to mention that the tank concept was on trial, and the government did not want to commit to it. A dedicated heavy SPG with a casemate (ie. ISU-152, Sturmtiger) loses the ability to fight on the move and lacks an effective coax MG. Which will make it less useful on the march or against flanking infantry. The alternative is essentially an up-gunned MBT... which seems to be the way Leo 2 is upgrading. I do think you have a point, though. Western MBTs were designed with an anti-AFV focus. That capability is not cheap, and effective anti-personnel ammunition is just coming into service. There is a realization that these MBTs are going to be fighting more infantry than AFVs. Can we see a Western version of a T-72 to fill that role, on a budget?

A little case study from the Big Igloo: Canadian Armed Forces wanted to replace Leo 1s with mobile gun systems in the 2000s. Leo 1s were losing their relevance, and the LAV family was proving popular. This was well under way until they encountered well entrenched Taliban fighters. The tough mud buildings and rocky cliffs were impervious to everything but the heaviest of weaponry. Leo 1s started doing their job: help the infantry break through. The MEXAS upgrade came into action. Instead of ditching the tank, CAF began leasing German Leo 2s -- and using them to great effect against the Taliban. After that, the CAF began purchasing Leo 2s and the mobile gun system became a distant memory. Lesson of the story? Tanks may seem silly to a nation that avoids prolonged ground campaigns. However, the fighting on the ground still boils down to Joes fighting other Joes with their rifles. Anywhere you see heavy infantry fighting, you will see tanks rolling around like lions.

How about T-35 vs Dicker Max?

I love the LAV III Coyote! GI Joe says that knowing is half the battle, then the 25mm Bushmaster must contribute to the other half. I also love the US 60mm M2 Mortar -- very handy tool for dealing with those MGs. What I fear most is zeroed-in artillery fire. There's nothing worse than seeing big ol' rounds rain down on infantry, vehicles and heavy weapons. Even if you put them in trenches, dense woods and buildings -- you will take more casualties than expected. Those air burst rounds are especially dangerous.

Gladiators were owned by Gladiator schools and were expensive investments. They trained together to put on a display worthy of paying crowds and to reduce the risk of injury. A lot of the audience were wealthy, and a significant portion were women. I'm sure many boys watched the fights, on their parents' dime. Yet, I doubt they would get desensitized any more than watching a crucifixion, or seeing animals disemboweled at a temple. Watching the Legions train would probably give them more applicable skills (discipline and fitness), than Roman WWE.

Much Respect, Denis! I recently watched the Battle Order video on modern RF motor rifle company organization. I was surprised to learn the RPK and SVD were no longer standard issue for the infantry squad -- a single PKP was, instead. What's the doctrine behind this? Is this exclusive to motor rifles? This is especially weird because the USMC is trying to replace belt-fed SAWs (Minimi) with mag-fed M27s (HK 416). As a Canuck, I'm used to having 2 belt-fed C9s (Minimi) per squad. The more lead going down range, the better? There's a transport with every squad, to carry ammo, anyway.

Lovely landscapes. Looks like a welcome change of scenery, from swamps and Eastern European villages. RT could use more QB maps -- looking forward to it!

Loved that Emcha action in the AAR -- maybe more lend-lease stuff? Valentines? M3 Half-tracks? M10s? I'd love to see some crazy halftrack or schleppe based SPGS, too.

I find that melee combat is laughable in computer wargames. In Theatre of War and Graviteam Tactics, the soldiers kick in the air -- as if they were dancing. Then a random algorithm causes 1 of them to fall dead. In Island of Fire (Stalingrad book, by Jason D. Mark), they do mention sharpened shovels used in hand-to-hand fighting (by both sides). However, the King of room-to-room fighting are grenades and assorted explosives. SMGs being the Queen, if you will. I actually don't remember any mentions of bayonets being used against personnel. Troops would either run or surrender before they ran out of all ammo. Bayonets were primarily designed to be used against cavalry. So, I wouldn't mind seeing cavalry, as well... Is modelling something that rarely happened, and is largely irrelevant in a world with grenades and guns, the top priority here? No matter how much money, or people you have working on a simulation -- you can't simulate /everything/.

You're preaching to the choir, mate. To be fair, it's been a very unusual year for everyone. In a small company, folks have to wear a lot of hats. I'm sure Steam integration has cost some development time. From what I gather, CM:SF2 is going to be the only CM title on Steam for the foreseeable future. If all the games get released on Steam -- we'll be waiting for a while. Dropping CM:RT with the new module on Steam would be an amicable compromise. Due to the unusual year, an unprecedented number of games have been delayed to Q4. I don't know if it will impact sales, but it's also partnered with decreased disposable income.

No pain, no gain! Sounds like the plot to Mad Max: Fury Road.

I feel you, Mr Strider. I was expecting it before Cyberpunk 2077. This holiday season is oversaturated with postponed games and I doubt that will be good for sales. However, it's a Catch 22: release the game early and people will complain too. I'm not a fan of the fixation on Steam, so far into development. Yet, I think it is a use it or lose it scenario with the Slitherine offer. Usually companies ramp up promotional material as the release nears and there's been a long pause since the first AAR. That's worrying for me, and potentially anyone else interested in the product. With the Steam stuff hopefully concluded, hopefully we'll see screenshots and AARs again.

It was a Q&A, a month back or two, where it was asked what he played outside of WoT. He mentioned a handful of games, including Steel Beasts and Combat Mission.

If one track breaks, most AFVs can rotate/pivot. Graviteam simulates various tank steering systems, and mobility depends on that (and suspension, power plant, etc.). The damage system allows a track to be blown into track links. The crew fixes AFV tracks, in the rare case they've been out of combat for ~15 minutes, and generally take 20 minutes up to eternity. If the damage is too extensive, or the crew stressed out, it will not happen at all. The game has an operational layer, where repair units will fix most of your damaged AFVs. One downside to Graviteam is that there are significantly less AFVs to play with, as all of them have to be sim-standard. Another downside is that the AI has more autonomy and can often get itself stuck on morph-able terrain. In regards to CM:SF2... I've recently noticed DiplexHeated was making SF2 videos again: He responds very positively about the game, and I've heard universal praise from youtubers (from Chieftain to Matsimus). I don't know why people are getting defensive over hate/bad reviews.

Damn. I was hoping for Freddie Mercury's birthday, which was yesterday (September 5th). Any possibility of a patch, before then?

Run, Hun, Run! Poles fighting Germans in Italy

Another Bug Hunt

Be Quick or Be Dead We're not Luftwaffe!

I'm very familiar with his work on Steel Panthers, but had no idea that he contributed to CM. His talents will be sorely missed. RIP.