Centurian52

@zastincahvsoz8689 Describe the tactical utility of space butter

Bloke on the Range figured his shot groups with the Kar 98k and SMLE were around 2 inches, and he was firing at 50 yards. That comes out to a hair under 4 MOA. Not as good as the 2 MOA that I remember the first guy claiming (I wish I could find that first video, but it's been years), but still perfectly adequate accuracy for military rifles (I remember being told that my M16A2 was accurate to within about 4 MOA). Whether these are 2 MOA rifles, 4 MOA rifles, or somewhere in between, it seems that neither of the shooters that I've seen comparing them so far were able to find a meaningful difference in their accuracy.

I'm still hopeful that they'll get around to it. I think a careful reading of what Steve means whenever he says that sales wouldn't justify doing early-war content suggests that sales wouldn't justify doing early-war content right now. They can't do it in one big leap because there is too much new equipment that has to be modeled. But he has also implied many times that it is something they might be interested in doing someday. He openly said in the 2024 part 1 thread that they think France 1940 would be a great game to make, there's just too much new equipment for them to do it right now. He has said before that the only realistic way to do early-war would be to move back incrementally (and he hinted that 1943/44 eastern front might be on the table). The barrier seems to be the sheer amount of new formations and equipment that needs to be done, which would require a greater investment in time and money than they would be likely to get back in sales. But it is a barrier that can be chipped away at by moving the clock back in increments rather than in one great leap backwards. What it all points to for me is that early-war, including North Africa, is probably still on the table. But it's a long way off, and no promises can be made at this point. They focused on doing the late-war first since that was clearly more profitable than early-war. Now that the late-war is finished it seems only logical that they're probably about ready to start inching the clock back. And pushing the clock back just one increment more from where we left off in the Mediterranean theater gets us into the fighting in Tunisia in 1943, which was the last campaign fought in North Africa. But I'm guessing at this point that a Tunisia 1943 game is still quite a few years away, seeing as other projects that shall not be named are probably going to be taking priority for a while. So no, I don't think there will be any North Africa content in the short term (next few years at least). But I don't recall Steve ever saying never.

I actually don't mind low-visibility missions. They are certainly different. Night tactics have to be different from day tactics in the pre-night vision era, and the same goes for fighting in thick fog in the pre-thermals era. Learning how to fight effectively at night, when you're used to fighting effectively in the day, is certainly a challenge. Night and thick fog make defense more difficult. Areas that would be covered by fire from one or more positions during clear daytime conditions suddenly become gaps in the line during low visibility conditions. Low visibility also makes attack more difficult. Supporting heavy-weapons that would be able to provide cover for your advancing troops during clear conditions become isolated and unable to help. The system for how to fight in clear daytime conditions breaks down, and you have to learn an almost entirely new tactical system. It's a challenge, and I don't think I've quite got it figured out yet, but I know I'm up to the challenge.

I started with CMSF in 2009, but then went on to discover the CM1 games years later. Which I think qualifies me to pass judgement on CM1 without the "first high school girlfriend" effect mentioned by @MikeyD. I think CM1 is an excellent game engine. It is definitely still the second best game engine in the world for realistic tactical ground warfare. But, CM2 is clearly better overall (especially in its current state). CM1 already had tank/anti-tank combat pretty much nailed down, and I think it may have even done a slightly better job of representing air support/anti-air (still no visual model, but my AA guns seem to be tracking moving air targets across the sky rather than shooting at an apparently fixed point). But CM2 is definitely a huge leap in infantry combat, spotting, and artillery. I have noticed the occasional feature in CM1 that would actually be really nice to have in CM2. The 'move to contact' order would be useful. The 'hunt' order tires out my pixeltruppen if I use it too much, so what I really want is to tell my men to 'move, but stop moving if you get shot at'. I think CM2 was right to ditch CM1's orders delay system though. My view is that the point of an orders delay system is to represent the time it takes for an order to travel from its point of origin (a commander) to its destination (a subordinate). A game can only calculate the correct delay if the orders have a single point of origin, meaning the player has to be a single officer on the battlefield. But since that isn't how CM games work (the player is every officer and NCO on the battlefield, not just one of them) an orders delay system really isn't a good fit for Combat Mission. Overall I can very highly recommend CMAK and CMBB (never bothered picking up CMBO since I assume it's been pretty much completely superseded by CMBN and CMFB at this point) to anyone itching for some early-war combat who can't wait for CM2 or a potential new engine to get around to covering the early-war.

I stand corrected. Fortunately my comment has a double negative in it that I must have missed when I was checking for typos, so what I said was accidentally correct.

There are no switches or buttons on the weapon to change the firing rate. You change the firing rate by swapping out the bolts (heavier bolt if you want a slower rate of fire, lighter bolt if you want a faster rate of fire). This will have been done in advance by the army adopting the MG3, so I don't believe there is any way for the end-user to pick their own preferred rate of fire.

I remember watching Lindybeige's video a while back. That's what first made me aware that there was even a debate at all. I think he did a decent job with that video overall, though he did repeat the Bren accuracy myth and the MG42 inaccuracy myth. I disagree with his overall conclusion. I still think the MG42 is probably better than the Bren, though I've come to realize that they're much closer than I used to think. When I started making my way through James Holland's books, and he also proclaimed the Bren to be better (though he also repeated both of the accuracy myths), I realized that there is apparently a lot more debate on the issue than I knew. While neither LindyBeige nor James Holland were able to convince me that the Bren is actually better, they did manage to convince me that there is an interesting discussion to be had, hence this thread. As for the Kar 98k vs SMLE, I suspect the Kar 98k may be suffering from a similar accuracy myth to the Bren. I've seen a couple of videos of shooters comparing the accuracy they could achieve with the Kar 98k and SMLE (Bloke on the Range most recently, and the other video was long enough ago that I don't remember who it was). And despite both of them complaining that they didn't like the Kar 98k's sights as much as the SMLE's sights, they both achieved very similar shot groupings with both weapons. I remember in the first video (the one that I don't remember who made it) the shooter achieved about 2 MOA with both rifles. Which is more than adequate accuracy for a military rifle. The SMLE is definitely a bit better in a handful of minor ways (bolt is right next to the firing hand so it's a smaller and quicker motion to operate it, the bolt is pulled back a shorter distance so you don't have to move your head and lose your sight picture, magazine takes ten rounds rather than just five), but I don't think they add up to a tangible battlefield advantage. For the most part WW2 bolt-action rifles all have pretty much identical battlefield performance (there's basically nothing at all to choose from between a Kar 98k, a MAS-36, a Mosin Nagant, and an M1903 Springfield). I did watch April 9th recently, about the German invasion of Denmark in 1940 (the first battle scene in that movie gives an excellent demonstration of just how rapidly a no.2 gunner can reload an LMG with a top-loaded magazine, though in this case it's a Madsen rather than a Bren). And the Krag-Jorgensen rifle that the Danish troops are equipped with is most definitely very tangibly worse than other WW2 bolt-action rifles. It's perfectly accurate and reliable, but it can't be reloaded by 5-round stripper clips like every other rifle. Instead you have to reload it one round at a time through a door in the side of the rifle. Absolutely a state-of-the-art rifle when it entered service in 1889, but there are downsides to being one of the first smokeless powder rifles ever designed (no one thought to design it to accommodate clips because no one had invented clips yet). Anyway, that was a bit of a tangent. Back to machine guns. Yes I believe the Bundeswehr MG3 is downthrottled to 1200 rpm (though the MG3 comes with options, and other armies that use it have downthrottled it to as low as 800 rpm). I believe the MG42 also had a bit of a range, depending on how heavy of a bolt you used, of between 900 and 1500 rpm. I think the default was near the top of that range, otherwise 1200 rpm wouldn't have been considered much of a downthrottling. James Holland certainly likes to talk a lot about just how much of an issue overheating was for the MG42. That's one reason why I really hope that small-arms overheating is modeled in CM3, so I can see for myself just how much of an issue it really would have been.

I think the Bradley could always withstand 14.5mm MG fire. It has always had tougher armor than the M113, which is part of why I don't think it has never been amphibious. I'd guess that it was probably 30mm autocannon fire that the Bradley was initially vulnerable to, and that it has since been upgraded to resist.

I wasn't expecting this thread to suddenly get a burst of attention. To reiterate, it's not a question of which is better in CM. We all know the MG42 is better in-game. So really it's a question of how important the features that aren't modeled in CM are. Both assisted loading and overheating/barrel changes are elements that would move the needle in the Bren's favor if they were modeled. But by how much? That's interesting. I remember that I used to think of the Bren as being more similar to the BAR than the MG42, back when the only contexts I had seen it in were Call of Duty and CMBN. But having learned more about the real weapons (including what isn't modeled in CM) I really think it has far more in common with the MG42 than it does with the BAR. Both the Bren and MG42 are crew served weapons. The BAR is not. Both the Bren and the MG42 have quick-change barrels. The BAR does not. Both the Bren and MG42 are the backbone of their respective squads in a way that the BAR just isn't. The US squad isn't built around the BAR the way the British section is built around the Bren or the German gruppe is built around the MG42. These are both supposed to be crew-served weapons. They can both be operated by a single gunner, but you can't really get the most out of either of them that way. But CM2 doesn't really seem to know how to treat squad LMGs like crew-served weapons, so we see them both as they would be operated by a single gunner, without an assistant. I think this affects the Bren more, and mostly when it comes to loading. Those 30 round magazines would probably feel like much less of a limitation if the time it took to changes magazines was cut by half or more. In CM the Bren is only a bit better than the BAR. In-game the BAR will dump its 20 round magazine and the Bren will dump its 30 round magazine, they will both take about the same amount of time to reload, and then they'll keep going at that rate for as long as there is ammunition. But imagine for a moment, not a CM scenario, but a real Bren and BAR firing side by side. The Bren is operated by a 2 or 3 man team (just like an MG42), while the BAR is operated by a single gunner. After they have each dumped their first magazine the Bren team will be reloaded and halfway to dumping their second magazine well before the BAR gunner has finished reloading. Eventually the Bren overheats. The hot barrel is removed and replaced with the spare barrel in a matter of seconds (just like an MG42). Eventually the BAR overheats. The BAR gunner is SOL. That's why I limited the comparison to the MG42 in its LMG configuration (bipod, 50-round drum). In its LMG configuration it is serving precisely the same function as the Bren. In that configuration it is the squad automatic weapon, forming the backbone of every German rifle squad just as the Bren forms the backbone of every British rifle section. Yeah, overall I still think the MG42 is probably better than the Bren. But I don't think I can ever be completely sure unless assisted loading and overheating are modeled in CM3 (that's my personal feature request, if anyone important happens to read this). The point always brought up by the Bren's defenders is just how rapidly the magazine can be swapped out by the assistant. And the point always brought up by the MG42's detractors is just how rapidly it overheats. So these are the points that need to be tested in order to fully resolve the question.

15 years for me. I first picked up CMSF in 2009, and gaming was never the same again for me. I played every new game and module as they were released. There was a bit of a gap from late 2018 to early 2021 as life intervened (post-Army readjustments, college, realizing college was a waste of time, studying for IT certs, job hunting). But I was finally able to get back into CM in 2021, starting out with CM1 for the early-war content. I didn't actually get properly back to CM2 until 2023. I spent most of 2023 playing CMBS and CMCW, but since October I decided to start all the way back in Sicily 1943 for a full chronological playthrough of all my CM2 content. Even though the gap from 2018-2021 was a minority of the total time I've been playing CM, it was long enough that I still almost feel like a newcomer again. Despite starting out with CMSF I still haven't found time to play CMSF2 yet, but as I inch forward in the timeline I'm sure I'll get around to 2008 again.

I'll have to dig around to see where I got that from. I was sure Ukrainian intelligence had corroborated the 600k figure. But if their statements are actually that it's closer to 450k then that's more likely to be correct.

As far as Russian force generation, I heard they probably had a bit over 600 thousand troops in Ukraine as of December 2023. That comes initially from a statement from Putin asserting they had 617 thousand troops in Ukraine, which is not a reliable source. But it was apparently backed up by a Ukrainian intelligence estimate that there were around 600 thousand Russian troops in Ukraine. Based on ISW reporting it sounds like the main Russian recruitment strategy is to offer large financial incentives, which are very appealing to the poorer sectors of Russian society. That means when the Russians start running low on money they'll need to find a new recruitment strategy. They certainly will not be able to leverage their larger population, which people seem to be inexplicably making a big deal about. So their recruitment efforts over the course of 2023 seem to have been just about enough to replace losses, plus a bit to slowly increase the overall force size (I think they had something like 500k at the beginning of 2023?). Ukraine apparently had around a million troops in uniform at the beginning of 2023, and apparently similarly mostly just replaced losses throughout 2023 with current numbers apparently being around 1.1 million. As far as casualties, I'm not sure if I can trust the absolute numbers provided by third party estimates. But whenever third parties use the same methodology to estimate both Ukrainian and Russian casualties the Russian casualties usually seem to be between 1.5 and 2.2 times higher than Ukrainian casualties. From what I'm hearing the actual fighting on the ground is pretty even, and the likely higher Russian casualties is probably a reflection of the fact that they have generally been on the offensive, and they have generally been more willing to continue pressing costly offensives.

I believe we tested nukes in space. The EMP didn't fry absolutely everything. Just everything over roughly a continent-sized region, which is probably fine if your opponent is on the other side of the world. I believe the biggest problem with nukes in space is that it puts everyone on a hair trigger since the amount of time you have to respond to a nuclear attack is basically zero. Every time it passes overhead (which, in Low Earth Orbit, would be about once every 30 minutes) there is a chance that you could be facing a practically instantaneous first strike. Escalation risks skyrocket to the point that it just isn't a viable concept.

Ah. Well I suppose that's what I get for just skimming it

I don't see any mention of a planned release in 2023 in the original post. We definitely assumed 2023, since it was announced at the beginning of 2023. But I don't think they really "plan" to release in specific years. I think the plan is always to release when it's done, whenever that might be. But they do make guesses about when they expect to be finished. Those guesses usually seem to turn out to be wrong, but the final product always ends up being worth the wait. To the other half of your comment, I'd guess that you're right that it will probably be finished in 2024. Though probably not early in 2024.

NATO fourth gen platforms may perform better than Russian fourth gen platforms. But there is no comparison with fifth gen platforms. Any fourth gen aircraft, including NATO fourth gen aircraft, is hopelessly outclassed by any fifth gen aircraft. The difference is much greater than going from third gen to fourth gen. The difference between T-55s and Abrams might actually be pretty close to the mark. Yeah, that's fair. I believe a lot of guesswork had to go into that simulation. That's probably unavoidable unfortunately. It's probable that neither the Russian nor the US equipment was represented quite right. But the Russians generally overstate the capabilities of their equipment. The US by contrast is generally truthful about the capabilities they reveal, but they don't always reveal all of the capabilities a new platform may have. So if the simulation is inaccurate, it is likely that the Russian equipment is overperforming and the US equipment is underperforming.

It's possible my information was flawed. I'll look into it. I was aware that the UK was broke by the end of the war. But I hadn't heard anything to the effect that it had anything to do with Lend Lease.

It's also worth remembering that all of the aircraft currently operating in Ukraine are fourth generation aircraft. My own view is that fourth generation aircraft are obsolete. The capability gulf between fourth gen and fifth gen aircraft is enormous. I'm not sure if I've posted this video before. But I assume all of us here appreciate the value of simulations for providing insights into warfare:

It sort of was. From what I recall the idea of "leasing" equipment to the UK, and later to the Soviet Union, was basically a way of selling the still isolationist US public on the idea of sending large amounts of military aid overseas, but with the understanding that the US probably wouldn't actually want any of the equipment (that survived) back after the war. Legally the equipment was leased, but in reality it was pretty much just gifted. Of course it wasn't entirely a gift. The US was hoping to get a friendly and non-hostile Europe out of the arrangement.

Maybe someday in the distant future, when we all have our own personal moon-sized supercomputers, someone will make a single game that fully integrates air, ground, naval, and space warfare on the tactical, operational, and strategic levels in the full rich detail in which Combat Mission currently covers tactical ground warfare. For now though, there's Combat Mission for tactical ground warfare. There's Command Ops 2 for operational ground warfare. And there's Command: Modern Operations for air and naval warfare. There really isn't anything that does a good job of covering the strategic level, though I suppose either Darkest Hour or Hearts of Iron 4 are ok until someone gets around to making something better. For nuclear warfare I can highly recommend Nuclear War Simulator. In any case, I don't see any sense in Combat Mission trying to push up into the operational layer. The tactical level is where it specializes.

It actually should help a bit. Have you ever watched over a friend's shoulder as they were playing a video game, and you spotted an enemy that they seemed completely oblivious to? You're both looking at the same screen, so should theoretically be capable of spotting the same things. But they're focused on one part of the screen, while you are free to scan another part of the screen.

I'm still hoping for that eventually. But I think it's going to be a while. A lot of other things may take priority

It's funny because it's true Anyway, I've been away from this thread for a while, so I'm not sure when we got the greenlight to discuss something as sensitive as US politics (I suppose US politics are directly relevant to the war, since so much depends on continued US support). But my view on the consequences of a second Trump administration are that it would be more of what happened the first time around. Which is to say that it probably would not lead to a sudden and immediate collapse of US democracy. US institutions would probably emerge largely intact. We're probably just looking at further degradation, not outright destruction, of US democracy. Norms around acceptable political behavior would be further eroded. More dangerous precedents would be set. The Republican Party would be further radicalized. US political discourse would be further radicalized. Taken far enough this sort of thing can weaken a democracy to the point that is ceases to function. Democracies can and do collapse, and it would be arrogant for us to assume that the US is somehow immune. But how likely things are to go that far in this case is hard to say. My guess is that it's unlikely to go that far in this case, but it's a real concern and something to be on guard against. The main thing is that it would be frustrating. I doubt any of the damage would be irreparable. But it would still be further damage at a time when we are still trying to recover from the damage of the first administration (damage to norms and discourse, not so much direct damage to institutions). All that said, I don't think a second Trump administration is even legally possible. After the January 6th insurrection I don't think he's even eligible to hold office. So I think it's a moot point. If he is allowed to hold office at all, that would be setting a dangerous precedent for how the constitution is interpreted. So far it looks like most, though not all, states are allowing him to be on the ballot. But we'll see how that pans out.