The Cove - The Australian Profession of Arms

[IICptMillerII]

1 hour ago, Apocal said:

The fun is being presented with plausible military challenges a modern commander might face and his likely options, regardless of the sexiness -- or lack thereof.

A full editor is provided with all CM games that allow for each user to create/modify scenarios that they want to play. If you want a long exercise that doesn't involve much contact with the enemy, you can make it yourself. Further, there are a handful of community members that create scenarios and campaigns that are extremely historically accurate, thus giving you scenarios that reflect real battles. 

So you can either make your own scenarios, or download scenarios made from other community members. There are plenty of options. 

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, Apocal said:

The fun is being presented with plausible military challenges a modern commander might face and his likely options, regardless of the sexiness -- or lack thereof.

Think of it as a boxing game and the clinch. Clinching is pretty unexciting and arguably unimaginative. Certainly no one wants to watch twelve rounds of it. But it represents a valid counter to certain moves and can be integrated into a wider strategy for winning matches, so pretty much every boxing game that goes beyond the most ridiculously cartoonish depiction includes the clinch. Most any wargame with a persistent force mechanic can offer the same dilemma facing a real commander, who does have to make command decisions such as when to break off a fight going bad or when pushing harder through a tough defense is desirable, rather than simply having to reach deeper and deeper into his bag of tactical tricks until he's expected to pull a rabbit out.

 

Oh, I certainly agree.  It's just that most of our customers don't   Or at least not full time.  So the majority of scenarios we include with our games will be aimed in one direction more than another, even though the game itself is capable of both.

Steve

[Combatintman]

6 hours ago, sburke said:

Whoot!  The whole point of this thread was to get you to say that.    Gimme gimme gimme, are we there yet?

My cunning plan has been discovered ... roll on CMSF-2 - no more endless measuring to create accurate maps in the editor.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Triggers, Exit Zones.....We has them (soonish)! 

Has it come out yet?  I'm getting quite impatient now.  It seems a very long time since the announcement! 

PS - I would love to see some low intensity uncon-warfare type scenarios included in the mix, one of my issues with the stock CM:SF & CM:BS scenarios is the way screenshots of the aftermath all to often look like something from Kursk, rather than what we see on our TV screens (& thanks be to the almighty for that). 

Edited May 27, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Apocal]

2 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

A full editor is provided with all CM games that allow for each user to create/modify scenarios that they want to play. If you want a long exercise that doesn't involve much contact with the enemy, you can make it yourself. Further, there are a handful of community members that create scenarios and campaigns that are extremely historically accurate, thus giving you scenarios that reflect real battles. 

So you can either make your own scenarios, or download scenarios made from other community members. There are plenty of options. 

I know. I have made scenarios. I also played through a pair of mini-campaigns that did the trick in CMSF.

[IMHO]

May be the answer is less then obvious. Depicting major principles of warfare will not suffice for giving real-life commanders an instinct to differentiate between right and wrong decisions. One needs to properly fine tune basic variables like probability to detect, accuracy, probability to kill etc. to real-life scenarios. And that might kill the gamer's fun by creating severe unbalances that are nonetheless observed in real life. Examples:

1. CMBS armour instantly turns in the direction of an ATGM launch. ATGM crews are basically one-shot kamikaze troops as US armour is portrayed as possessing near instant target detection. That makes armour rushes is quite a viable strategy in CMBS for US side. But we have multiple proofs that's not so in real life - last Israel/Lebanon war, Syria, Yemen. We know that an attempt to follow such a tactics will result in instant annihilation of an advancing armour force. So using CMBS to teach commanders for armour/infantry coordination is simply absolutely dangerous in this respect.
2. CMBS depicts TOWs as having lower engagement distance than tank guns. Quite logical in gamers' minds - tank is perceived as more expensive and formidable piece, it should possess an advantage when duelling with Bradleys. Yet we know for sure that in real life it exactly the opposite - Bradley's ATGM engages and kills tanks at ranges far surpassing tank guns. Again applying CMBS for real life training is quite counter-productive.
3. From Military Balance report we have real-life numbers of Ukrainian losses in heavy equipment (like 80% loss of all D-30 in inventory). There are enough sources to cross check the equipment deployed by opposing force. So my guess would be to properly depict the real life balance one may need to further weaken an already hard-to-play Ukrainian side. Good for RL - bad for gaming.

[Haiduk]

1 hour ago, IMHO said:

1. From Military Balance report we have real-life numbers of Ukrainian losses in heavy equipment (like 80% loss of all D-30 in inventory).

OMG! What a weird stuff! I wonder how they count these "losses"? They want to say we lost on battlefield over 350 D-30 for 2014-2015 ? This is ridiculos. For that period D-30 were only in airmobile brigades - a battalion per each + two batteries in separate airmobile battalions + battery in one National Guard brigade and further one more battalion have received airborne brigade and new formed 81st airmobile brigade. And that is all. 108 howitzers of staff ! 18 confirmed losses (destroyed&captured). Of course, for years up to 2016 many howitzers could exhaust own barrels and have been decomissioned. But to decomission 300+ guns for two years, this would be battles lile Kursk %)   

[IMHO]

@Haiduk, we've gone though this before. Just to recap: IISS numbers state how many UKR had before and after but not the reason of decrease. UKR president gave official estimations for UKR equipment losses that match IISS figures. UKR MoD position is COMBAT losses were not so severe but MoD is careful not the dispute the end numbers and refuses to provide their own. A sudden and massive decommissioning of equipment might theoretically be a reason for such a decrease. But this decommissioning mysteriously coincides with the very heat of the battles. So strictly speaking one's free to believe in... whatever... May we close this line of discussion or at least move it to a separate thread? Within this very topic I honestly believe first two points in my post may be way more important.

[Haiduk]

6 minutes ago, IMHO said:

@Haiduk, we've gone though this before. Just to recap: IISS numbers state how many UKR had before and after but not the reason of decrease. UKR president gave official estimations for UKR equipment losses that match IISS figures. UKR MoD position is COMBAT losses were not so severe but MoD is careful not the dispute the end numbers and refuses to provide their own. A sudden and massive decommissioning of equipment might theoretically be a reason for such a decrease. But this decommissioning mysteriously coincides with the very heat of the battles. So strictly speaking one's free to believe in... whatever... May we close this line of discussion or at least move it to a separate thread? Within this very topic I honestly believe first two points in my post may be way more important.

Ah... I have found origin of this: https://www.crowdstrike.com/wp-content/brochures/FancyBearTracksUkrainianArtillery.pdf 

This is report of US cybersecurity CrowdStrike company, which said Russian FancyBear hackers group infected UKR astillery soft with malware, which tracked their positions. But on first page of report in Key points we are reading:

According to an update provided in March 2017 by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) Research Associate for Defence and Military Analysis, Henry Boyd, "excluding the Naval Infantry battalion in the Crimea which was effectively captured wholesale, the Ukrainian Armed Forces lost between 15% and 20% of their pre-war D–30 inventory in combat operations.

Well, 18 lost howitzrs are really 16-17 % (between 15-20 %) of 108 howitzers, which be in service. But from where 80 % ?  

This is InformNapalm OSINT group and UCA (Ucrainian Cyber Alliance) investigation (in Ukrainian): https://informnapalm.org/ua/zvit-pro-zlam-fancybear/. They say really was several .apk files affected with malware, but this was primitive one, which couldn't to significantly help enemy in counter-battery fire. And all of this info of 80% losses was Russian PsyOps. Interesting, that artillery soft started to implement in artillery units only at the end of 2014, before all system were experimental and not mass - one of two batteries were equipped with this systems in 2012-2013. 

Edited May 28, 2017 by Haiduk

[IMHO]

@Haiduk, interesting as per the numbers. Do you have another source for the quote other than CrowdStrike? I couldn't find any and CrowdStrike is now right in the heat of PR battle of its own in the realm of infosec. InformNapalm carefully states they found no GPS payload in exploit code  Bull****ting for the masses  We disassembled an unloaded gun, the only energy storage we found was the return spring but it cannot conserve enough energy to propel a projectile to a high velocity so we conclude guns cannot shoot 

PS @Haiduk, let's move it into a separate thread. I'd be glad to join if you think it's worth continuing.

Edited May 28, 2017 by IMHO

[Kinophile]

@IMHOthe m1 reaction to atgm fire is a critical reason I extremely rarely play v US Armor batts. Their systems are already so vastly superior that this unfortunate bug makes playing against them a joke. It's ridiculously difficult to set realistic ATGM ambushes -  I find I have to game the engine to achieve reasonable ATGM team survival.  

Not complaining, just agreeing that this kind of bug is a strong caveat to keep in mind for simmers. 

The article also mentions SB. Anyone have experience with realistic M1 reactions to Atgm fire,  by comparison with CMBS? @TheForwardObserver? 

Edited May 28, 2017 by kinophile

[Haiduk]

8 minutes ago, IMHO said:

Do you have another source for the quote other than CrowdStrike? I couldn't find any and CrowdStrike is now right in the heat of PR battle of its own in the realm of infosec. 

Em... This is origin link on report. What do you want for quoting more ? All this story of "80 % D30 loses" have started from CrowdStrike report, which after was shared in many blogs and medias. You can google it. Here is Rusvesna separatist source, but they also point CrowdStrike report as source: http://rusvesna.su/news/1482595909

 

[IMHO]

@kinophile, it's easier to leave out some isolated behaviour rather than build it in. We know tanks react to ATGMs but not RPGs - a selector. We know not all vehicles react to ATGMs - another selector. My belief (though based on ****ing nothing ) it's a design decision rather than a bug. I guess if this behaviour is removed cheap RUS/UKR long range ATGMs severely limit the use of US armour. The combat may basically break down into battle-taxiing grunts safely then conducting purely infantry-on-infantry fighting. Which is exactly what we see in Syria and Yemen. It'd be interesting to hear the authority, @Battlefront.com

[IMHO]

@Haiduk, no, 80% is from the annual IISS Military Balances. 15-20% is the quote from CrowdStrike's report and it attributes these words to an IISS analyst. I couldn't find any other source for the quote. CrowdStrike is far from being pro-Russian - it's one of the main PR force behind DNC hack story. But it has quite a controversial reputation in infosec circles for being PR-heavy and substance-light. I don't dispute 15-20% - just asking if you know another source. Then 15-20% would be quite valuable.

Edited May 28, 2017 by IMHO

[Kinophile]

13 minutes ago, IMHO said:

@kinophile, it's easier to leave out some isolated behaviour rather than build it in. We know tanks react to ATGMs but not RPGs - a selector. We know not all vehicles react to ATGMs - another selector. My belief (though based on ****ing nothing ) it's a design decision rather than a bug. I guess if this behaviour is removed cheap RUS/UKR long range ATGMs severely limit the use of US armour. The combat may basically break down into battle-taxiing grunts safely then conducting purely infantry-on-infantry fighting. Which is exactly what we see in Syria and Yemen. It'd be interesting to hear the authority, @Battlefront.com

For me, the bug is not so much the reaction itself (which I've been told is reasonably accurate to model as a behaviour) but the turret slew speed and accuracy of the return fire. So I'd go for keep their superior reaction but build in a delay at various points to model human processing time, retargeting, etc. 

Ohhhh to have access to the AI decision tables.... 

Edited May 28, 2017 by kinophile

[IMHO]

7 minutes ago, kinophile said:

which I've been told is reasonably accurate to model as a behaviour

Can you elaborate? My reasoning is:

1. Technical feasibility:
   • MW radars: current and next generation of APSes have short detection radius. That's done not to overload APS processing with the task of discriminating between too many objects flying over the battlefield. So the tank will know the direction milliseconds before the impact not immediately after launch as in CMBS.
   • LWRs: LWRs do not give you exact direction to the launcher - again current CMBS behaviour does not fit.
   • UV/IR rocket motor spectrum discrimination by FLIRs: everyone's researching like crazy land-warfare applications but not even a proof-of-concept prototype.
2. Real combat reports:
   • Syria/Yemen - we see exactly the opposite to what CMBS demonstrates.
   • Israel/Gaza - in a couple of cases Trophy was "even able to pinpoint the direction", launchers were engaged by arty not the tank. Again MW - too late for CMBS model.
   • Israel/Lebanon - MW/Trophy was sometimes reported to point the direction direction and launchers were engaged by tanks. But certainly these were very isolated cases (if any) - we know there were multiple and continuous launches to each IDF tank hit. No sign of immediate destruction of ATGM after first launch.

So I wonder why? @Battlefront.com?

[Haiduk]

1 hour ago, IMHO said:

@Haiduk, no, 80% is from the annual IISS Military Balances. 15-20% is the quote from CrowdStrike's report and it attributes these words to an IISS analyst. I couldn't find any other source for the quote. CrowdStrike is far from being pro-Russian - it's one of the main PR force behind DNC hack story. But it has quite a controversial reputation in infosec circles for being PR-heavy and substance-light. I don't dispute 15-20% - just asking if you know another source. Then 15-20% would be quite valuable.

Pointed, this is 2017 year info. Looks like new MB issue, you can buy access for 405 British pounds on their site and look %). Only I can say, that Henry Boyd is real person %)

Ah. Now all clear. First report of CrowdStrike really said about 80 % of losses, but... 

Reading here:  http://www.voanews.com/a/cyber-firm-rewrites-part-disputed-russian-hacking-report/3781411.html

And some more detailed here: http://www.voanews.com/a/crowdstrike-comey-russia-hack-dnc-clinton-trump/3776067.html

International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), which publishes an annual reference estimating the strength of world armed forces, disavowed the CrowdStrike report and said it had never been contacted by the company.

The company removed language that said Ukraine's artillery lost 80 percent of the Soviet-era D-30 howitzers, which used aiming software that purportedly was hacked. Instead, the revised report cites figures of 15 to 20 percent losses in combat operations, attributing the figures to IISS.

The original CrowdStrike report was dated Dec. 22, 2016, and the updated reportwas dated March 23, 2017.

The company also removed language saying Ukraine's howitzers suffered "the highest percentage of loss of any ... artillery pieces in Ukraine's arsenal... Finally, CrowdStrike deleted a statement saying "deployment of this malware-infected application may have contributed to the high-loss nature of this platform" — meaning the howitzers — and excised a link sourcing its IISS data to a blogger in Russia-occupied Crimea.

In an email, CrowdStrike spokeswoman Ilina Dmitrova said the new estimates of Ukrainian artillery losses resulted from conversations with Henry Boyd, an IISS research associate for defense and military analysis. She declined to say what prompted the contact.

 

So, CrowdStrike got some real info about malware, but in strange way decided to tie it with wrong interpretaton of IISS data about UKR D-30, taken from Russian blogger. Perfect! %) Of cource, after IISS "guys, what a s...t ?!", they updated report with more real data, but "80 %" already has flew throwout all internet.

Edited May 28, 2017 by Haiduk

[IMHO]

@Haiduk, you ought to put more trust into people checking sources before posting  I have the report and that's exactly why I asked. The quote is not in the MB paper, not on the Web - just in CrowdStrike report and those guys have less than stellar reputation

[Haiduk]

1 hour ago, IMHO said:

@Haiduk, you ought to put more trust into people checking sources before posting  I have the report and that's exactly why I asked. The quote is not in the MB paper, not on the Web - just in CrowdStrike report and those guys have less than stellar reputation

So, when CrowdStrike wrote "80 %" their reputation was proper. When they updated info on "15-20%"  reputation turned out to "less than stellar". Well. Of course, information in VoA, which explains how it happened, is "fake". So, if you havn't 405 BP to buy access to MB2017, you can find Boyd's mail and ask him. 

 

VOA first contacted IISS in February to verify the alleged artillery losses. Officials there initially were unaware of the CrowdStrike assertions. After investigating, they determined that CrowdStrike misinterpreted their data and hadn’t reached out beforehand for comment or clarification.

In a statement to VOA, the institute flatly rejected the assertion of artillery combat losses.

“The CrowdStrike report uses our data, but the inferences and analysis drawn from that data belong solely to the report's authors,” the IISS said. “The inference they make that reductions in Ukrainian D-30 artillery holdings between 2013 and 2016 were primarily the result of combat losses is not a conclusion that we have ever suggested ourselves, nor one we believe to be accurate.”

One of the IISS researchers who produced the data said that while the think tank had dramatically lowered its estimates of Ukrainian artillery assets and howitzers in 2013, it did so as part of a “reassessment” and reallocation of units to airborne forces.

"No, we have never attributed this reduction to combat losses," the IISS researcher said, explaining that most of the reallocation occurred prior to the two-year period that CrowdStrike cites in its report.

“The vast majority of the reduction actually occurs ... before Crimea/Donbass,” he added, referring to the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

http://www.voanews.com/a/crowdstrike-comey-russia-hack-dnc-clinton-trump/3776067.html 

Edited May 28, 2017 by Haiduk

[JUAN DEAG]

5 hours ago, IMHO said:

So my guess would be to properly depict the real life balance one may need to further weaken an already hard-to-play Ukrainian side. Good for RL - bad for gaming.

Yes simulate the "3.5 million Ukrainian casualties between 2014-2017, the 2,500 figure is CIA inside job - Russian bloggers know the truth" xD 

 

5 hours ago, IMHO said:

(like 80% loss of all D-30 in inventory)

I can't breathe.

 

@Haiduk Don't even bother, you're wasting your time.

[Kinophile]

Soooooooooooooooooo how about them CMSF2 upgrades? 

Personally, I'd be very very interested to see what BF extrapolates from the current, extremely fluid,  situation. 

Never played SF,  am getting curious now. 

Edited May 28, 2017 by kinophile

[sburke]

34 minutes ago, kinophile said:

Soooooooooooooooooo how about them CMSF2 upgrades? 

Personally, I'd be very very interested to see what BF extrapolates from the current, extremely fluid,  situation. 

Never played SF,  am getting curious now. 

LOL yeah let's get back to the meat (and bone) of this thread.

My opinion (based on absolutely nothing) is you won't see much change in CMSF regarding on the current situation.  That will be up to designers and modders to reflect.  CMSF was always a hypothetical war and I suspect BF will maintain as is.  What is more interesting to me is what we can do with the new features on CM 4.0 that were just not possible in CMSF - maps with rivers and marsh land, overlays for more accurate and simpler mapping.  Items like supply dumps that allow for VPs for uncovering enemy arms caches.  Better AI plans that are reactive.  I need to cover my keyboard with cling wrap, the drool is gonna damage it.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Great.....The willy waving has started in here now. 

Maybe stick to ruining the Black Sea forum.....Leave this area for the rest of us?

35 minutes ago, sburke said:

LOL yeah let's get back to the meat (and bone) of this thread

Amen to that!

Give me the old CM:SF (& CM:A) units and the new game engine.....I'm a pig in mud. 

Have you any idea of the damage we'll be able to inflict on conventional forces with all these new tools.....And then we can run off through an exit zone giggling! 

 

Edited May 28, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Buzz]

On 5/27/2017 at 3:12 PM, Vergeltungswaffe said:

This CMSF2 BONE needs much further study... in detail.

Buzz ... CMBS +++ and CMSF2! ???

[JonS]

For the CMBN Battlepack I tried - with varying degrees of success - to craft scenarios which have plausible force matchup. That generally makes them much "easier" for one side or the other. "Balance" is sought through weighting the various VP sources, and by using time constraints (which some players then moan about anyway)

Edited May 29, 2017 by JonS