EvilTwinn

I'm not going to disagree with you there, but 8 vehicles in the battalion recce platoon is en masse, even if it's just achieving the battalion commander's PIRs.

Honestly that's the biggest one for me. Everything else is more or less similar to the Americans. A tank platoon acts more or less like a tank platoon and a rifle platoon, while gonna be somewhat different due to the difference in AT weapons, is still gonna perform more or less like a rifle platoon. The one thing that's truly unique as far as ORBATs go is the CVRT en masse. How effective are they at supporting the battalion fight against their intended foe? In Shock Force we got a bit of them, but the enemy there tended to be far less mechanized and the scenarios didn't necessarily cater to it. For that matter, how does the 76 on the Scorpion perform? I'm excited to find out.

Honestly the score at the end of the game doesn't ever really matter. What matters is the lessons you can take from it. I mean, and enjoyment too, but who plays video games to have fun? In either case, I really do think the NTC forces you to learn how to fight and to abandon any bad habits you might have formed in other games. Focus in on proper execution of the fundamentals and you get good results, just as it should be.

Excellent work so far! Keep it coming!

Excellent AAR and a firm understanding of the concepts behind it all! Well done!

The M60s are certainly capable of competing against most of the tanks of their day, with CMCW coveringn the short period at the end of their lifespan when they could be truly considered outclassed as the next generation of Soviet armor comes in. The TTS being a slight exception due to the sheer utility of thermal optics. T-64s are a big jump up comparatively, but their own teething issues really keep them from being as big competitors as they could be until the late 70s, when the others come around. When the other guy suffers 10-20 percent attrition by the time he reaches you just due to mechanical issues, that's a pretty significant disadvantage.

And indeed the M150 and M901 in CW should have a dismountable TOW tripod and sighting system to be used as necessary, but unfortunately the only vehicle with a dismountable ATGM is the TOW jeep, to my knowledge.

Not sure if this is the place for it, but I do hope the Swingfire missiles get the NLOS launcher capability with a dismount aiming team. Not sure if you can do that in engine, but it'd really give the British a very needed capability to try and gain parity in the dog days of the early 80s.

Capt, I'm going to have to disagree with you to some extent here. While you're certainly correct that in many such fights your artillery is going to be dragged in many directions, I don't think that's enough rationale to make this feature unrealistic. If an artillery unit was given to your direct support, or you are the brigade or even possibly division main effort, there is no reason in the world why you couldn't have artillery missions waiting for a specific go word, especially on the attack. But even on the defense, having an Final Protective Fires mission ready and waiting to go without having to have it all spotted or making a wild guess with how long it'd take for the TRP to call in would be a serious jump in capability. As it stands, FPF can't even really be modeled in CM in a useful way, and one can't go on to pre-registered attacks on enemy depth following an initial mission without extensive TRPs covering practically the entire map. tl;dr, The fact that they often might not be realistic doesn't completely obviate the times that they are completely realistic.

For Cold War: In Quick Battles, the Soviets cannot get the tank company assigned to their motor rifle battalion task forces. They are present in the Scenario Editor, but that doesn't particularly matter. Considering these are by far the most common unit in the Soviet military, it's physically heartbreaking that we can't use the most common units in most multiplayer games.