CM Black Sea - Beta Battle Report - US/UKR Side

[leakyD]

  But US commanders nowadays are fairly intolerant of casualties, and you will see this reflected in VP scoring in many scenarios. 

 

In other words, play CMSF as BLUE for CMBS primer, and we should be OK.

 

Except for all that new tech stuff.

 

[Macisle]

In other words, play CMSF as BLUE for CMBS primer, and we should be OK.

 

Except for all that new tech stuff.

 

 

I think it's too early to be pessimistic. The Russians have a lot of good gear. It's probably only when the Abrams in on the field that scenario balance becomes tricky.

 

Also, we haven't seen the full Ukrainian arsenal in action. Don't they have some good stuff? Don't their newer tanks at least match the Russian T-72?

 

Probably, the UK vs. RU battles will be worth the price of admission alone and will be easily balanced without CMSF-like casualty penalties.

 

And again, probably the US vs. RU will be too, UNLESS the Abrams is in play. In that case, designers will need to be very careful and should remember that most players are looking for "different but balanced" matchups, rather than balanced through high casualty penalties for the NATO player.

[AttorneyAtWar]

In other words, play CMSF as BLUE for CMBS primer, and we should be OK.

 

Except for all that new tech stuff.

 

 

Guys, go watch some of ChrisND's videos and you will see that the Russians can fight the US, instead of relying on a single relatively unbalanced scenario at this point to base off all your judgement on the game. Remember this AAR is good for spectacle, it makes people come back and read and want the product through what is shown (You get to see the abrams, the bradleys, Russian tanks, all that good stuff). This isn't representative of every single scenario you are going to play.

 

Now that that's out of the way...crush em pnzr...

 

...What can I say, I am a patriot!

 

Edited January 8, 2015 by Raptorx7

[womble]

You'd sort of hope that the simple balance measure for Abrams would be their points cost, compared to the "big hammer" of the other side. I know it's difficult to compare the "oranges that can kill the apples" type matchups directly, but the MBTs all perform similar roles, so their points costs should be admitting of comparison for effect. So if (WAG numbers pulled out of my ass for illustrative purposes) a dozen Abrams of a given spec has a 50/50 chance against 15 T-90s, their points should be in the order of 5:4 with the Abrams being the more expensive.

[Michael Emrys]

I read it as "Don't be where the enemy expects you to be".

 

Or, even more importantly, "Don't be where his guns are pointed."

 

 

Michael

[akd]

T-90 has an ammo bustle on the back of thé turret so no raining turrets

That is external ammo storage for the small number of rounds that were previously stored in various locations in the hull. Crew have to exit tank to access it. The autoloader beneath the turret is still full of ammo. Autoloader is at least armored some, so moving the other ammo outside of the hull does reduce risk to degree.

[agusto]

 

And again, probably the US vs. RU will be too, UNLESS the Abrams is in play. In that case, designers will need to be very careful and should remember that most players are looking for "different but balanced" matchups, rather than balanced through high casualty penalties for the NATO player.

 

The T-90 in CMSF isnt that bad actually - at least it is much better than any of the other russian tanks. There are some CMSF scenarios that match T-90s vs. Abrams tanks and when i play vs. the AI i can easily get a 2:3 kill ratio against the M1. Things would probably look different vs. a human player though. It is tricky but you can sucessfully battle Abrams tanks even with the later T-72 varaiants, although casualty rates will be very high unless you can engage at point blank range. However the premise for sucessfully engaging M1 tanks with russian equipment is always numerical superiority. The older russian tanks - T-62, T-55 and the like - are worthless vs. M1 tanks in CMSF. Even under the best circumstances, like when you have a 3:1 numerical superiority, close engagement ranges, broad daylight, and the option to flank the Abrams from 2 side simultaniously, you will still loose. Those old soviet tanks are only good against infantry that lacks long range anti-tank weapons like ATGMs.

[Lethaface]

Recall, we were playing from a version of our scenario file that apparently suffered some 'version control' save issues.  My units arrived, out in the open, not tactically deployed but parked hub cap to hub cap.  I deliberately didn't show this, but had to cope with the deployment the best I could.  In the open on moderate high ground, so only one way to go.  I anticipated casualties, hence the INF jumped off many of the Brads as a hedge.  Assuming we don't get overly lit up when I get the file back, they will remount in a turn or two aside from maybe a single team to overwatch from this particular piece of high ground.  

 

AT-14 would indeed be bad, and can challenge - if not outright ruin - a real-world Abrams' day. But recall, I have the benefit of our assumed pre-deployment APS upgrade, so have a fair chance of blasting said evil nastiness from the sky before it can hurt me   His Krizantemas could have been quite nasty, but they were positioned so close - somewhere between 900 and 1400m - that I spotted them before they even saw me.  If you give George MC's "Bridgehead at Karylk" a spin, you will see what the long range AT fires can do.  

 

Oh, and let me assure you, you can very easily fill up the hour and half.  Just depends on the map.  When we stretch it to 5 x 2 or 4 x 3, with lots of folds, micro-ridges, and intervisibility lines, it will get very challenging.  Oh, you can just charge forwards and hope you can suck up the casualties - might work if you have beau coup Abrams.  But US commanders nowadays are fairly intolerant of casualties, and you will see this reflected in VP scoring in many scenarios.  Just ran the 5th US campaign mission against the AI.  You have nought but a PLT of mech, a section of tanks and a PLT of Stryker INF to seize a fairly large mega-city urban district.  If you take more than 15% casualties, you are significantly penalized!  

 

Thanks for the clarification of your (forced) tactics!  So you have 12+ all APS equipped Abrams under the gun? Given the Russian (and Ukrainian) focus on ATGM equipped vehicles/troops, APS equipped vehicles might be a large factor in CMBS? In CMSF ATGM/RPG flank shots where a very important tactic for RED forces. Against APS it might be even more challenging to fight BLUE effectively. Although the Russian tanks are probably much more of a match compared to the Syrian tanks, so modern RED on BLUE armored clashes could actually be feasable and interesting. Like others posted in CMSF a head on duel between any BLUE tank VS a RED tank was very lopsided. Still, using hit and run tactics it was very possible to defeat armor heavy BLUE forces with the high end of the Syrian forces (equipped with AT-13, AT-14, T-90S, BMP-3 and RPG-29 a.o.); even in PBEM battles against skilled players. 

Curious to see how PBEM battles will fare in CMBS. Will RUS vs UKR be dominant and or are RUS vs USA QB's also easily balanced for a fair fight?

 

As stated previously I really enjoy your AAR style, even if it slows down progress. 

[pnzrldr]

Will hopefully have next post out tonight (will see what Honeydo's await me at the house!).  Blackknight Six is going to be pissed when he see's LT Upham's track KO'ed.  He was, apparently, Upham's mentor and former Company CDR, before he was selected as BN Scout PL.  Also, will show another BMP-3 in the north - far treeline - that got KO'ed by Bradley 25mm fire.  Hit decals on the front and back, for through-and-through's.  Should settle the issue of Bradley lethality vs. BMP-3 from front.  

[Michael Emrys]

Hit decals on the front and back, for through-and-through's.  Should settle the issue of Bradley lethality vs. BMP-3 from front.  

 

<channeling Gary Cooper>

 

Yep.

 

</channeling Gary Cooper>

 

Michael

[sburke]

<channeling Minnie Pearl >

 

Yep.

 

</channeling Minnie Pearl>

 

Michael

 

Oh right, oops this isn't the MBT

[Macisle]

The T-90 in CMSF isnt that bad actually - at least it is much better than any of the other russian tanks. There are some CMSF scenarios that match T-90s vs. Abrams tanks and when i play vs. the AI i can easily get a 2:3 kill ratio against the M1. Things would probably look different vs. a human player though. It is tricky but you can sucessfully battle Abrams tanks even with the later T-72 varaiants, although casualty rates will be very high unless you can engage at point blank range. However the premise for sucessfully engaging M1 tanks with russian equipment is always numerical superiority. The older russian tanks - T-62, T-55 and the like - are worthless vs. M1 tanks in CMSF. Even under the best circumstances, like when you have a 3:1 numerical superiority, close engagement ranges, broad daylight, and the option to flank the Abrams from 2 side simultaniously, you will still loose. Those old soviet tanks are only good against infantry that lacks long range anti-tank weapons like ATGMs.

 

Right. By being careful about balance, I mean giving the Russian player a decent chance of achieving local fire superiority in terms of number of tank guns vs. the Abrams. For the T90, I guess that means 2 to 1 or better (at the point of fire superiority). For the T72...dunno.

 

Of course, I'm assuming a situation where the heart of the battle is an armored clash and flanking ambush positions are not so easy to find. Obviously, if Abrams were trying to work their way through, say, a city with ATGM everywhere, spotters with precision arty on call, and T90s in excellent ambush positions, it would be a different story.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Macisle

[pnzrldr]

 

CPT Eric Farmer felt his gut turn to stone.  His company team, the Blackknights, had just linked up with the remnants of the Speed and Power Scout PLT, and Farmer could see Outlaw 16’s blasted and scorched track in the woodline ahead of him.  He couldn’t see the bumper number at this range, but it was the only Bradley supposed to be in front of him, and his gunner confirmed the bumper number through his sight.  Farmer and LT Upham were close – he had been Farmer’s 2^nd Platoon Leader for over a year, before being handpicked by LTC Falkner to take over the scouts.  Farmer was proud of Upham’s competent leadership and quiet competence, and wondered whether he had survived.  It only increased his fury as he watched the spectacle unfolding in front of him.

 

 

His mech-heavy company team had popped up from an overgrown sunken cart-track, run up the back of a slight hill and popped out onto a small open hillock looking straight towards Krichek.  They had seen some signs of the many smoke pillars climbing into the sky, but had missed entirely the fact that they were suddenly in direct contact with the Russians literally as they were deploying from column into tactical formation.  Still bunched though, there fire was doubly lethal.  The first Farmer – in the middle front – knew of it, was both his 1^st and 3^rd Platoon leaders screaming “Contact, Front, Out!” nearly simultaneously over the net, and then the sudden flurry of firing.  He was up on the hill himself and quickly shifted his gunner onto the BMPs in the nearest field, but by the time they had set it up, both were already flaming.  He ordered a quick burst at some fleeing infantry, but they were still catching it from the tankers’ fifty cals, and he instead concentrated on the company-level fight, calling on all his PLTs to dismount even sections and bound forward odd.  Then he got his FST on the net and worked a fire mission on the most prominent structure he could readily see – a farm complex at about 1400m.  Maybe a bit close, but Eric figured on taking a few minutes here to ensure he wasn’t waltzing into anything and had firmly established ownership of this approach to Kricheck before he advanced further. 

 

 

Elsewhere on the battlefield...

 

 

 

 

But...

 

[dan/california]

Your usual excellent write up, gets across that its a hard business.  The Russians in the last picture seem likely to regret that....

[pnzrldr]

We'll see.  In the next write up you will discover that Steel has blundered upon an element of completely undetected Russian mech INF backed up by their BMP's in the next gully forward.  The results are not pretty.  They are the ones templated for sweeping the south side of 347, so now it may be awhile before those particular Russians receive their just desserts.  

[Michael Emrys]

Whew! Hot and heavy are upon us. Let the fun begin!

 

Michael

[agusto]

Thanks for posting screenshots from high above the map this time. It is really difficult to get and idea of the overall situation without those birds eye shots. It would be great if you could continue throw in 1 or 2 screenshots from high above the map every turn.

[agusto]

Of course, I'm assuming a situation where the heart of the battle is an armored clash and flanking ambush positions are not so easy to find. Obviously, if Abrams were trying to work their way through, say, a city with ATGM everywhere, spotters with precision arty on call, and T90s in excellent ambush positions, it would be a different story.

 

I think that on the defense in a dense urban environment weapons like the RPG-29 are much more deadly than ATGMs (except the Javelin, maybe) or tanks. They are available in large quantities - in CMSF every squad of every nation is equipped with sometimes even multipe AT weapons. They can be fired from any house or room, without needing time to deploy. They can easily be hidden, unlike tanks which are almost impossible to hide (except in forrests, maybe, but you shouldnt move your tanks into a forrest in the first place). In short, they are perfect for ambushes. Additionally some laser guided weapons like the Panzerfaust-3 are even deadly accurate up to 400-500 meteres.

[poesel]

 

 

'unable to depress its guns'!?! Narrative or really happened? Because gun depression limit is AFAIK on BFC's 'never' list.

[akd]

Just narrative.

[pnzrldr]

'unable to depress its guns'!?! Narrative or really happened? Because gun depression limit is AFAIK on BFC's 'never' list.

 

Just narrative.

 

Hey, it sure looked to me like that was the problem.  I will literally go back and relook the tape on this, but I would have sworn that seemed to be what happened.  Either that, or perhaps both HE rounds have a min range?  Don't know.  What happened:

 

Vehicle started backing up.

Leader TM threw a grenade which exploded short, and I think fired a burst or two (duh, like that's going to do anything).

Vehicle mucked about a bit.  I thought I literally saw the turret and/or hull waggle side to side and the guns 'hunt.'

Leader TM morale goes to hell and they cower.

Dudes jumped out the back and shot crap out of Leader TM

[sburke]

Hey, it sure looked to me like that was the problem. I will literally go back and relook the tape on this, but I would have sworn that seemed to be what happened. Either that, or perhaps both HE rounds have a min range? Don't know. What happened:

Vehicle started backing up.

Leader TM threw a grenade which exploded short, and I think fired a burst or two (duh, like that's going to do anything).

Vehicle mucked about a bit. I thought I literally saw the turret and/or hull waggle side to side and the guns 'hunt.'

Leader TM morale goes to hell and they cower.

Dudes jumped out the back and shot crap out of Leader TM

There are some built in limitations for engaging close infantry since MG module, but given time the AFV will drill your infantry If they don't have an AT weapon or are in hide mode. That last about hide is something I just ran across and don't know if it is situation specific, something new or something I just haven't noticed. Needs some more testing Edited January 9, 2015 by sburke

[Sergei]

Specifically

 

Armored vehicles have dramatically increased aim times for weapons when fired at extremely close range, making it easier for infantry to close assault.

[akd]

Hey, it sure looked to me like that was the problem.  I will literally go back and relook the tape on this, but I would have sworn that seemed to be what happened.  Either that, or perhaps both HE rounds have a min range?  Don't know.  What happened:

 

Vehicle started backing up.

Leader TM threw a grenade which exploded short, and I think fired a burst or two (duh, like that's going to do anything).

Vehicle mucked about a bit.  I thought I literally saw the turret and/or hull waggle side to side and the guns 'hunt.'

Leader TM morale goes to hell and they cower.

Dudes jumped out the back and shot crap out of Leader TM

 

 

Yup, the delay combined with tendency to retreat from close-in infantry results in more realistic behavior, but vehicles can still shoot straight up and straight down if targets end up in those positions.

Edited January 9, 2015 by akd

[agusto]

Yup, the delay combined with tendency to retreat from close-in infantry results in more realistic behavior, but vehicles can still shoot straight up and straight down if targets end up in those positions.

The ability to shoot straight up is especially a problem in close engagements in urban terrain. Check out the footage from Syria i posted below. The only reason the cameraman lived to tell the tale is because the T-72 couldnt liftb their barrels high enough.

 

 

HD version:

 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=91e_1358349215

Edited January 9, 2015 by agusto