Simcoe

All the advice in this thread has been good. You need as many AFV's pointing at the enemy as possible. There are some problem children on the Soviet side, T-62's especially. I have them unbuttoned as much as possible and sometimes they can't see enemy tanks 300 meters away. It's like the tank commander is crewed by Ray Charles. BMP-2's have this issue two but they get a pass since they only have gunner and driver most of the time. I would stick to the year 1980 when playing CMCW.

I appreciate that we have both options. As long as both players are in the same page I would rather let my opponent surrender if they are tired of the game. 10 turns can be a week or more if you're busy and it's probably more fun to move on to the next game instead.

That's a good idea. Have you ever been stuck with another 30 turns waiting for your opponent to finish the job?

Agreed on both counts. I prefer larger scenarios and some of those go for 3 hours. Most of the time the game is pretty well decided after an hour in.

Me and the person I play PBEM's generally end the game once victory us practically assured for one side or the other. This can make it feel like a buzz kill for the winning side but also gets us to the next game faster. What's the etiquette for you? Play to the last man? Or somewhere in between?

No worries. Thank you for following up. I'll use the search button next time.

I think Red Thunder is the best WW2 module. Both factions play wildly different. Artillery: Soviets have long call in times and few observers so they focus on pre planned bombardments. This necessitates carefully orchestrated maneuvers. Germans have radios everywhere and focus on observed fires. Tanks: Soviets have good firepower and armor but bad optics. Focus on massed maneuver to get in close. Germans focus on good optics to snipe tanks from a distance. Infantry: Soviets have either expendable rifle infantry or smaller groups of smg teams that are peerless in close quarters. Germans are focused around the MG42 so they excel in longer ranged engagements. I think this makes for more fun than US vs German who both play pretty similar.

didnt think about that one. So hard line figures would want to permanently break Russian influence in the West. I'm still skeptical but I think that's a valid theory.

Ya I understand. It's hard to separate people that have genuine skepticism of certain points like the pipeline and pro Russian trolls. Probably better to stay out.

Kind of sad that being even slightly skeptical of the mainstream narrative brands me as pro Russian. I won't bother the "discussion" any further.

Let's say you're right. Why would the Russians blow up their own pipeline? Can't they just fake technical difficulties and cut off supply instead?

I apologize if this has been brought up already but I can never find the time to keep up with this thread. What does everyone think about the destroyed Nordstream pipeline? Originally, I figured the US did it because they have the motive and the means to do it but several people disagreed. Now the story has changed to "The Ukrainians did it" after Seymour Hersh laid out a case for the US blowing the pipeline. Has anyone's opinions changed? Does it make that much of a difference? https://www.democracynow.org/2023/2/15/nord_stream_sy_hersh https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/us/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-sabotage-ukraine.html

I apologize if this has already been discussed but the more videos I see from Ukraine the more I wonder how much of a difference western tanks and IFV'S will make for the counter offensive. The videos I see are platoon up to companies of tanks and IFV'S advancing, observed by drones and getting shelled to bits or hitting mines. You also see tanks driving up from the rear and blasting an enemy position for a few minutes and retreating. This is either drone observed or direct fire. Let's say the Ukrainians aren't able to shoot down all the drones and destroy all the artillery. Does a Panther or Bradley really do these jobs better? Will they just shrug off mines and artillery? What's everyone's opinion?

Hell ya! I'm all for hordes of T-34 with tank riders against Shermans and Pershing.

For sure. This is in response to the common western view of Soviet doctrine and the death before dismount focus. The example shows how Soviet equipment and infantry can be used in creative ways outflank a NATO defense.

You have a good point. I think the most interesting part of Cold War is playing out battles that never occurred and seeing how the doctrine differs. For example, in the second mission of the Soviet campaign you need to take a town at the far end of the map. There is a valley in between with a large hill on the left and a small town/forest on the right. If you follow Soviet doctrine and run straight through the valley you will get blown to pieces. Instead, take the hill on the left with infantry and flank the rest of your force behind it. You barely take losses this way. Has anyone else found success with Soviets using modified tactics?

Thank you for the response. What about the Soviets? I thought they dismount anywhere from on the objective to 300m out.

Would you mind on elaborating on the last point? Is the objective a trench line etc? Where would they dismount otherwise?

You're right about everything except for the improving part. There are no good guys here. The US is the hegemonic empire and will do what it needs to maintain that power, we're just conditioned to think otherwise. Americans should know the amount of bloodshed required to maintain our standard of living.

I think you bring up an interesting point. It seems like the American military is built for Desert Storm. Gain air superiority, use air power to destroy C2, use combined arms to destroy the hapless remains. What happens if we can't fulfill that checklist? The Russian/Soviet doctrine is bloody because they can't assume those first two criteria are met. Their aircraft can be shot down and missiles don't always hit their target. In a conflict with China we can't assume air superiority and the destruction of C2. Without those, things start to look like Ukraine.

My concern with graphics is the increased development time they require. I would rather have more content over a photo realistic panzer IV.

BFC Elvis is a wrathful god.

Saw this a bunch in my last game. Even had one where My TOW was hit while missile was in the air but it still hit its target.

That definitely tracks with my experience. I'm situated behind a rise and popping up for a couple shots then backing out. My tanks always seem to miss the first shot but T-64's don't.

If they did unreal 5 I wouldn't want better graphics. Just make it as fast as possible. I wonder how hard it would be to do all the calculations for spotting etc.