Simcoe

Ya I don't have time to respond to all the dissertations I get back but It's fun riling you all up every once in a while.

Thank you for the well thought out reply. #1 As your map suggests. Avdiivka is the closest and it's not out of the question to fire a shell or two into Donetsk. Being that close allows for shorter range to guns or drones to conduct fire missions. #2 Doesn't matter whether they are new or not. Currently Ukraine can tie up a much greater percentage of Russian manpower with comparatively fewer forces. The question is how dense are the fortifications behind it. If there are none or few behind Avdiivka then Ukraine now has a section of the front that must be much more heavily manned. #3 Here's a few examples. These were from a quick google search. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/21/ukrainian-shelling-donetsk-shopping-area https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/21/russia-says-at-least-25-killed-in-blast-at-donetsk-market#:~:text=At least 27 people have,Tekstilshchik on the Ukrainian military. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_Donetsk,_Russia https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-shelling-russian-controlled-donetsk/32676019.html #4 Even the US argued that Ukraine should leave Bakhmut. Multiple Ukrainian officials have lamented that Bakhmut should have been given up earlier to spare manpower. https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/24/politics/ukraine-shift-tactics-bakhmut/index.html I don't bring these up to celebrate one side or the other just to challenge viewpoints here. I've enjoyed reading the responses even with the insults.

I don't really buy this narrative. 1. It's close enough to the heart of Donetsk to shell/send drones from. This restricts the Russians ability to move and transport supplies up and down the line. 2. The most heavily fortified part of the entire line. You won't find such a large concentration of concrete bunkers after this until you reach the new line they're building farther to the west. 3. The Ukrainians have shelled civilian areas regularly from Avdiivka. As long as it stands the DPR and the civilian population will question Russians commitment to their cause. Finally, I have a hard time believing Russia is the only one suffering during this battle. It's pretty easy to geolocate equipment losses but what about infantry hit farther behind the line with artillery, thermobarics, glide bombs, FPV drones. This is a fire sac surrounded on three sides. Whether it's worth it I don't know but we have to stop assuming Russians are stupid. It's counterproductive. If they are spending this much blood and treasure and we don't understand why then there must be something they know that we don't.

I agree, it would be fascinating to see how the US adapts to the warfare environment we're seeing in Ukraine. I'd rather them focus on Combat Mission 3. Unless we get some huge changes to how drones are handled, EW, artillery and aircraft a new modern game is still WW2 mechanics crudely bolted onto a modern game.

Playing the new Final Blitzkrieg campaigns and the first Canadian scenario has mine clearing Shermans. The mines and mine clearing vehicles adds an exciting element to an otherwise bog standard scenario. Why hasn't this concept been expanded upon? The Cold War especially, the Soviets invested heavily in mine clearing tanks and NATO invested heavily in mines. Why hasn't Battlefront added mine clearing vehicles to other modules?

True. Do you think Biden is forcing Zelenzky to continue the fight until after the elections?

With Russia it made a bit more sense. They were already overmatching in tanks, artillery and airpower. Once they fixed their manpower issues they were able to mount a strong defense and immediately go on the offensive. For Ukraine they are pulling people off the streets and they haven't been able to pass the new conscription measures. They may have the will but they are running out of people and equipment to man it.

China and Russia are definitely pushing for a multi polar world where the USD is less prominent. As we've seen in the Ukraine war, any nation that goes against the US interests can be locked out of the global banking system. I'm sure finding ways to circumvent this is top priority.

If we assume the US is done sending support and the EU sends small batches of equipment and supplies I don't see how Ukraine can make it past the end of the year. Either Ukraine runs out of men, equipment or the will to continue. All three are possible. My prediction is the loss of one or both of Chasiv Yar and Avdiivka trigger negotiations if they haven't already started. How do you see Ukraine surviving past 2024? As for China overthrowing the dollar. I just don't see why they would want to. Their economy is based on export, if they become the reserve currency the currency will grow stronger and make exports unprofitable. Also, who is going to trust the CCP as a reserve currency? They value their ability to manipulate their currency and their stock market according to the whims of the government. No one would want to hold the currency if the CCP could make it worthless after some unilateral decision.

Nothing to see here folks.

Thanks for sharing these. Short of a miracle I don’t see how Ukraine can last past this summer. Russia makes gains daily and doesn’t look to be slowing down. Targets like Avdiivka and Chasiv Yar which used to be a pipe dream now seem to only be a matter of time. This is exacerbated by the US and EU dropping or slowing down their support. The US was paying for pensions and government salaries. How will Ukraine make up this budget shortfall? How long will soldiers fight without pay? Finally, where are they going to get the soldiers to man the NATO equipment? Is Europe going to deport millions of Ukrainians back so they can drive tanks and dig trenches? Able bodied men are already being kidnapped and sent to Avdiivka. I believe the US, EU and Ukraine need to come to the negotiating table now while they still have leverage. How much leverage I’m not too sure. I’m concerned the US will keep this going until the bitter end to further Russia’s attrition at the expense of Ukraine’s destruction. This is just my take as someone that looks at the information from both sides.

Totally agree. Either let us decide what risk we’re willing to take or restrict the ordnance based on the AA/EW factor of the scenario.

On the first point. I'm coming at this from a fun standpoint. I totally understand that CAS isn't fun for the opposing side in real life but there are many aspects that aren't fun that have been removed from the game in the name of fun. All I'm saying is the mechanics are not fun because neither side has much agency over the results. I think there are ways to make it more interactive but I have low confidence it will happen.

Great point. WW2 mechanics have been bolted onto a 21st century conflict. It would be great if you had more control over CAS. For example, on the Russian side you could use the safe option of unguided rockets with a low chance of intercept but low impact or a full on bombing run that would have major impact but high risk of intercept. Until then I'd rather stick with the age the mechanics were made for.

Thank you for the well thought out reply. I really don't have any good ideas on how to fix air support other than quality of life features like allowing the player to zone off larger portions of the map as open for air strikes. Air support is just frustrating to deal with on both sides. The side calling it has no way to influence the air strike. The enemy team will hide their AA assets and aside from a lucky artillery strike there's no way you can take them out against a competent opponent. The team receiving the air strike either has AA units and can destroy any air support no matter their position or they don't have any AA and you are at the mercy of a completely random mechanic. Sometimes you lose an infantry squad, sometimes you lose your only artillery observer. At least in WW2 games it's a limited mechanic used in a small number of scenarios. As for tank spotting: I have no issue with tanks not spotting every target I can see. I've gone out hunting in the real world and glassed an area for an hour before noticing another hunter in a bright orange. I have an issue when the randomized spotting mechanics lead to losing an entire company of tanks in a turn. In WW2 you at least have time to respond because tanks miss and shots bounce.

I could pull up a picture of someone winning the lottery and say the same thing.

Care to elaborate?

I used to be a big modern CM player but I'm firmly in the WW2 camp now. Modern games exacerbate all the weaknesses of the engine. I think most people will agree the biggest issues in the game are aircraft(control is very basic and you either shoot them down easily or it's an enemy that you have no control over and completely random), vehicle spotting (T-62's in Cold War especially are crewed by Stevie Wonder) and artillery interaction with tanks (there's a bug where subsystems can't be damaged on tanks. Modern modules all have more airpower, more tanks and more subsystems. Until these issues are fixed (when hell freezes over) I'll stick to T-34's and Tigers.

It's because Ukraine is losing and the war may be over before the end of 2024. It won't look good releasing a game about the war in Ukraine after they surrender or give up a large chunk of their territory. I'm not pro Russia just calling it like I see it. Bring on the hate mail.

Thanks for the update! I may be in the minority here but I'm not too sad about the scrapped Black Sea module. I just don't think the current engine does modern warfare very well. If this helps the team focus on WW2 and Cold War then I'm happy. The new Final Blitzkrieg module is an auto buy for me.

Thanks! Great tips.

Good tip.

I'm getting a new PBEM started and I've been obsessing over how to defend as the Germans for long enough to get my reinforcements. I think the big tactical problem here is the lack of anti armor early on. You have few units that can stop a T-34 and they are short range hand held launchers or slow, clumsy SPW with mounted cannons. The scout tanks can maybe take out the optics after a few bursts. You have towed AT but do you put them forward where they get hit by indirect or bypassed or do you keep them back and leave your infantry to fend for themselves? Finally, the amount of artillery available to the Russians means that the obvious ambush spots are equally obvious targets for indirect. The Russians on the other hand have a dilemma of speed vs safety. They could slowly march forward with infantry on foot, calling targets for the tanks but that would give time for the German reinforcements. They could charge forward with infantry mounted but even a singe MG42 can make life Hell for any tank riders. I'm definitely not looking for a "put pixeltrupen here" answer but does anyone else have any experience with this map in a PBEM setting? Any insights after finishing that you didn't see at the beginning? Also, I just think this is a fun map with a lot of interesting tactical choices and it would be fun to discuss.

Thank you for the detailed response. I hope to continue this discussion when I have time to write out a suitable reply.

Not rude at all. The difference here is the addition of massive airstrikes. Neither side has been able to making meaningful use of aircraft to support an offensive until the mass production of FAB glide kits. The Russians have been dropping FAB 250, 500, 1500 bombs consistently for the last month. Not to mention Tornado S which has given the Russians a HIMARS like ability to strike rear areas. This has allowed the Russians to suppress fires, logistics and C2 to a greater degree than at any other point in the war. I think if they are unable to achieve their goals this will show that even with complete suppression of defenses, the proliferation of handheld ATGM's and mines can still stop an offensive by themselves.