Grey_Fox

Woah woah woah, I didn't save scum anything. I finished that mission over the course of 3 sessions, all livestreamed.

Soviet objective so far haven't had anything to do with killing the enemy - it's all about pushing past the opposition and seizing key terrain.
The US tank platoons in the rear were in mutually supporting positions. Fighting them would have risked getting into a fair fight, which only fools do.
Doctrinally I did the right thing - preserved my forces and reached the objective. Follow on echelons are the ones that mop up.
I don't want to criticize how another person plays a game, but it looks like Dbsapp lost about a third of their BMPs and half of their tank force.

Decided to finish off the second mission in the Soviet campaign this evening: 
Total victory.

 
Between them the ATGM BRDMs killed 3 tanks, so again I am very happy with their performance.

God I do love those ATGM BRDMs. Worth their weight in gold so they are.
And I really did outdo myself with that title card.
For those who haven't watched it yet, you absolutely should. First wave is in, lost 3 T62s, 5BTRs and 1 ATGM BRDM. In return have knocked out 3 Bradleys that I know of, and 1 was forced out of position by a non-penetrating hit.

Starting a livestream of the third mission in the soviet campaign now: 
 

The 1.02 patch has only been released on Steam. Whenever 1.02 is released for the BFC version you'll get access to PBEM+++.

Soviet objective so far haven't had anything to do with killing the enemy - it's all about pushing past the opposition and seizing key terrain.
The US tank platoons in the rear were in mutually supporting positions. Fighting them would have risked getting into a fair fight, which only fools do.
Doctrinally I did the right thing - preserved my forces and reached the objective. Follow on echelons are the ones that mop up.
I don't want to criticize how another person plays a game, but it looks like Dbsapp lost about a third of their BMPs and half of their tank force.

Decided to finish off the second mission in the Soviet campaign this evening: 
Total victory.

 
Between them the ATGM BRDMs killed 3 tanks, so again I am very happy with their performance.

Is this the Combat Mission equivalent of holding your pistol gangsta style? 

Ok, ok, everyone settle down.  My shot at dpsapps was more tongue in cheek because we have a long history with each other.  Sad Sack as in attitude, not performance to be clear.
This has no connection to GFs performance, which is pretty well done from my point of view, and I designed and built the campaign (warts and all).  Now Everybody Love Everybody.

Continuing the second mission of the Soviet campaign here: 

Not much happened really, lost a BMP and an igla team shot down what I believe to be a cobra.

 

This unofficial CM discord server has over 1000 members: https://discord.gg/dfvWxbmp
Elvis has joined it, as well as popular streamers such as myself (😆), Hapless, KOB, and others.

This unofficial CM discord server has over 1000 members: https://discord.gg/dfvWxbmp
Elvis has joined it, as well as popular streamers such as myself (😆), Hapless, KOB, and others.

This unofficial CM discord server has over 1000 members: https://discord.gg/dfvWxbmp
Elvis has joined it, as well as popular streamers such as myself (😆), Hapless, KOB, and others.

Issue I see is improper use of the TRP mechanic. Scenario designers tend to reserve them for defense and rarely distribute any to offense. In reality it should be the other way around. The attacker has initiative so fires have been planned and missions readied ahead of time. It's the defender who needs to prepare for impromptu or "emergency" fire missions on unregistered/unobserved sectors of front. Artillery in defense has a much harder job than artillery in the offense-where planning and initiative yield the greatest benefit of that arm's reach. 

Allegedly due today.

FM 100-2-1 says that authority to commit fire control assets for the Cold War Soviets rests at the level higher than the organic placement. That is, final authority to commit regimental artillery sits with the division's chief of artillery. In order for an officer to deviate from planned fires, he would first have to call up his boss and justify the reason for the deviation (as the plan would be passed down to the lower guy as a part of the over all movement and attack plans). The the higher chief would have to think about how the plan was developing and how the deviation would effect the overall plan, then make his decision. According to FM 100-2-1 final authority would rest with the chief, tho it seems pretty reasonable to me that in some cases the chief would have to check requests with the division commander or his CoS. This process of requesting, checking, and redelegating authority would make any serious (above mortar sized) asset take a long time to call in UNLESS authority were predelegated as part of an existing order or fire plan. IIRC the process for calling in air missions is similar, though you have the additional layer of beaurocracy in that its a separate service chain of command. 
Many Western-trained or oriented soldiers and chair warriors see this rigidity and central control as a liability. In the West flexibility is the name of the game. The defense of the Soviet system is simply that the Soviets never intended to reinforce failure. Successful attacks would enjoy the benefit of maximum artillery support, while struggling attacks would be denied everything. A battalion or regimental commander would always conclude that A) their attack was hitting the most resistance, and B ) that their action was the most vital in the division's sector. It was up to the divisional, and EAD, staffs to determine who was having success and who was running into a road block. Reinforce success, abandon failure. I cant weigh which system is better, but that would have been the Soviet defense of their own system. 

I've just finished streaming mission 2 of the Soviet campaign, will finish the rest of the mission over the course of the next few days: 
I suggest those who claim that sOviEt SpOtTiNg SuX!!! take a look from the 1 hour 14 minute mark.

Ok I had some time so went and finished off the first scenario:
Interestingly, despite the US force surrendering and having only 22 men remaining, I only got a Major Victory. If you go to the end of the video I go through the objectives list (I have a screenshot but herself is keeping me away from the PC). @The_Capt is this intended?
 
 

Ok I had some time so went and finished off the first scenario:
Interestingly, despite the US force surrendering and having only 22 men remaining, I only got a Major Victory. If you go to the end of the video I go through the objectives list (I have a screenshot but herself is keeping me away from the PC). @The_Capt is this intended?
 
 

I've just finished streaming mission 2 of the Soviet campaign, will finish the rest of the mission over the course of the next few days: 
I suggest those who claim that sOviEt SpOtTiNg SuX!!! take a look from the 1 hour 14 minute mark.

I've just finished streaming mission 2 of the Soviet campaign, will finish the rest of the mission over the course of the next few days: 
I suggest those who claim that sOviEt SpOtTiNg SuX!!! take a look from the 1 hour 14 minute mark.

And I've just finished the mission, got a major victory: 
 

Did the first mission of Crossing the Dnieper:
It's fun, I really enjoy using Russian gear. The BMP3 is an amazing vehicle.
Made a couple of errors, probably the biggest being that I should have used the T90s as the base of fire element on the left hill and waited for the T72B3s to show up to act as the assault element, rather than the other way round.
There's one ridiculous bit about 2/3 of the way in where two Ukrainian T64BVs decide to charge into the center of my BMP company, but they get clapped without causing any damage.

I left a positive review (I know, I know, you are surprised).