Black Sea possible updates for any future modules

[WhiteWolf65]

I am sure that this has been discussed before but I wanted to comment on the Russian Federation ground forces for any future Black Sea module. After looking at the Black Sea manual, I noticed that there are no rocket artillery units, not even the BM-21. The Russian Army relies heavily on it's rocket artillery assets such as the BM-21 (is listed in the upcoming Cold War TO&E), TOS-1A, BM-30 Smerch, BM-27M Uragan-1M to name a few. I also noticed that the United States MLRS M270A1 MRLS is also missing from the United States force mix. Another Russian vehicle that is missing and is in use by their forces is the BMP-72T (Terminator). I feel that the inclusion of these weapon systems would only enhance this great game, not to mention some NATO units too, Germany and France in particular. And of course, the re-introduction of the venerable A-10. What is a modern battlefield without hearing that BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRP from that 30mm GAU gun? No, I do not believe that the T-14 Armata should be included as it does not enter service, other than the 100 test vehicles, until 2022 or later.

[AttorneyAtWar]

I don't think you want an MLRS because those can delete entire grid squares with one salvo. Trust me, there's a good reason rocket artillery is limited in CM.

[WhiteWolf65]

Why not? It is part of modern day warfare and war is hell, no matter what historical period game you might be playing. And the thing is, they would, like most rocket artillery be able to fire just one salvo. Takes too long to reload any of them unless you were playing a huge 2 hour long scenario. Besides that, there are all kinds of rocket artillery units in the Combat Mission games covering World War II. Granted, they aren't as accurate as modern day rocket artillery but they can do lots of damage in the right situation. I say, include them. If you got them, use them. A good fix to the problem would be to make them very expensive to purchase in a Quick Battle situation.

Edited April 4, 2021 by WhiteWolf65

[AttorneyAtWar]

30 minutes ago, WhiteWolf65 said:

Why not? It is part of modern day warfare and war is hell, no matter what historical period game you might be playing. And the thing is, they would, like most rocket artillery be able to fire just one salvo. Takes too long to reload any of them unless you were playing a huge 2 hour long scenario. Besides that, there are all kinds of rocket artillery units in the Combat Mission games covering World War II. Granted, they aren't as accurate as modern day rocket artillery but they can do lots of damage in the right situation. I say, include them. If you got them, use them. A good fix to the problem would be to make them very expensive to purchase in a Quick Battle situation.

An MLRS can delete literally a kilometer of ground, which is basically 3/4 to 1/2 of most Combat Mission maps. That doesn't seem very engaging to me honestly. And it does not take that long to reload them, I won't give you the exact times but its no where near two hours for a reload lol.

[WhiteWolf65]

One further note to this discussion. I noticed that in the upcoming Cold War game that cluster munitions are available for both artillery barrages and air-strikes. I've seen what these absolutely evil devices can do. So saying that, why have cluster munitions in the Cold War game if we can't have modern rocket artillery in any subsequent Black Sea module? It just doesn't make sense to me. One other Russian Federation vehicle is the TOR-M2 (NATO code-name SA-15 Gauntlet) self-propelled anti-aircraft missile system.

[WhiteWolf65]

7 minutes ago, AttorneyAtWar said:

An MLRS can delete literally a kilometer of ground, which is basically 3/4 to 1/2 of most Combat Mission maps. That doesn't seem very engaging to me honestly. And it does not take that long to reload them, I won't give you the exact times but its no where near two hours for a reload lol.

I can see your point and it is a very good one indeed. I would just like to see Black Sea taken to the absolute limit as far as a country's military might can be taken. As the game is now, the Russians can barely handle an attack from the United States especially if M1A2 SEPS are available. I ran a test with 30 T-90AM w/APS against a platoon of four M1A2s. Every single Russian T-90 was destroyed and only one Abrams was immobilized. Now that seems a little lop-sided to me.

[zmoney]

20 minutes ago, WhiteWolf65 said:

As the game is now, the Russians can barely handle an attack from the United States especially if M1A2 SEPS are available. I ran a test with 30 T-90AM w/APS against a platoon of four M1A2s. Every single Russian T-90 was destroyed and only one Abrams was immobilized. Now that seems a little lop-sided to me.

That’s interesting, I feel that T-90’s handle themselves well in scenarios against the Abrams. But I’ve never run that kinda test. What distances did you do this test from?

[zmoney]

In regards to the MLRS BFC have stated before that this is not in the scope of the game. MLRS is not meant to be a fire support weapon such as artillery. MLRS has a different roll in the US military, I can not speak to the Russian rocket artillery because I do not know how they employ them.

[AttorneyAtWar]

14 minutes ago, zmoney said:

In regards to the MLRS BFC have stated before that this is not in the scope of the game. MLRS is not meant to be a fire support weapon such as artillery. MLRS has a different roll in the US military, I can not speak to the Russian rocket artillery because I do not know how they employ them.

There are munitions the MLRS can fire for fire support, and they would fit with the scope of the game but there are already assets that are similar enough to it in-game.

[WhiteWolf65]

7 hours ago, zmoney said:

That’s interesting, I feel that T-90’s handle themselves well in scenarios against the Abrams. But I’ve never run that kinda test. What distances did you do this test from?

It was a huge map. The Russians approached over open ground from the other side of a tree line with some scattered small hills and a few copses of trees but hardly any cover. The Abrams were sitting at the far end of the map on a small ridge line in the open. They were not hull-down. As soon as the T-90s cleared the tree line, at least seven of them were taken out, as in destroyed completely.

Edited April 4, 2021 by WhiteWolf65

[WhiteWolf65]

7 hours ago, zmoney said:

In regards to the MLRS BFC have stated before that this is not in the scope of the game. MLRS is not meant to be a fire support weapon such as artillery. MLRS has a different roll in the US military, I can not speak to the Russian rocket artillery because I do not know how they employ them.

Then how can BFC justify that cluster munitions are within the scope of the game? A barrage of cluster munitions can take out a large chunk of any size BFC map. I'm just trying to make sense of what BFC is doing with these games. Don't get me wrong, they are and always have been great games. If they weren't, I wouldn't have been playing them for 20 years or so. I forgot one NATO country to include in any subsequent CM:BS module, the UK. I like Challengers a lot. Okay, onward and upwards. 

Edited April 4, 2021 by WhiteWolf65

[Jabble]

55 minutes ago, WhiteWolf65 said:

Then how can BFC justify that cluster munitions are within the scope of the game? A barrage of cluster munitions can take out a large chunk of any size BFC map. I'm just trying to make sense of what BFC is doing with these games. Don't get me wrong, they are and always have been great games. If they weren't, I wouldn't have been playing them for 20 years or so. I forgot one NATO country to include in any subsequent CM:BS module, the UK. I like Challengers a lot. Okay, onward and upwards. 

A game is still a game - no single wargame can hope to cover all aspects of theatre warfare.  It could be that the 'niche' of CMBS isn't appropriate for MLRS fire as it would entail scenarios that aren't fun or challenging to play.  Turn 2 - everybody dies - scenario over.

[WhiteWolf65]

1 hour ago, Jabble said:

A game is still a game - no single wargame can hope to cover all aspects of theatre warfare.  It could be that the 'niche' of CMBS isn't appropriate for MLRS fire as it would entail scenarios that aren't fun or challenging to play.  Turn 2 - everybody dies - scenario over.

I completely agree that it is just a game and it is meant to be fun to play. But going back to what AttorneyAtWar said about MRLS rocket artillery being outside the scope of the game could just as easily be said about naval gun fire support in CMBN and CMFI. You have anything from a destroyer's 5" guns all the way up to a battleship's 14" guns. And then you have the super heavy artillery of all the nations in most of the games. I just did a little math project with the scenario editor from CM:BS this morning. The absolutely largest map you can make in the editor is 4.16 Km x 4.16 Km or 520 grid squares x 520 grid squares at 8 meters each. That equates to 17.31 sq. Km or 270,400 grid squares. Now AttorneyAtWar said that a salvo of rockets from a  single MLRS M270A1 MRLS could obliterate a 1/4 section of a typical CM:BS map or 15,625 sq. grid square section or up to 1/2 a section of the same map or 33,750 sq. grid square section. Using this monster map I played with this morning, that wouldn't be possible with one salvo from one MRLS. Now a typical battery of four MRLS, yes that could be close to what AttorneyAtWar said and the unlucky troops on the receiving end would be vaporized. And I was dead wrong about the reload time for the MLRS M270A1 MRLS . A reload can be done in four to five minutes but these units use the shoot and scoot tactic and then reload at a different location. I am just one of those game players, for almost 40 years now, that has always felt that the guy with the most toys WINS!!!!

Edited April 4, 2021 by WhiteWolf65

[Jabble]

2 minutes ago, WhiteWolf65 said:

I completely agree that it is just a game and it is meant to be fun to play. But going back to what AttorneyAtWar said about MRLS rocket artillery...

I understand that - but would such scenarios be fun to play?  Much of the challenge of CM is a bit like a chess game - a limited number of tools can be used in a myriad of ways, all the while retaining a certain enjoyable balance.  It strikes me that introducing MLRS may well be possible, but it would make an off-map luck-based agent the overwhelming factor in deciding victory or defeat, somewhat going against the field-scale wargame that is CM.  Now on a larger theatre-sized scale it would make more sense and there's plenty of such games around, but that's not what CM is.

[chuckdyke]

@WhiteWolf65 they can obliterate all your units in the set-up zone in the beginning of a game. Some scenario designers are fond of having a barrage on units who can't move anywhere. They forget the customer has the last word or they play their games or not. In RL outside your 600mtr by 1000mtr there is a lot more real estate. 

[WhiteWolf65]

10 minutes ago, Jabble said:

I understand that - but would such scenarios be fun to play?  Much of the challenge of CM is a bit like a chess game - a limited number of tools can be used in a myriad of ways, all the while retaining a certain enjoyable balance.  It strikes me that introducing MLRS may well be possible, but it would make an off-map luck-based agent the overwhelming factor in deciding victory or defeat, somewhat going against the field-scale wargame that is CM.  Now on a larger theatre-sized scale it would make more sense and there's plenty of such games around, but that's not what CM is.

I agree with you. So, it might be best to stop debating this subject any further.

Edited April 4, 2021 by WhiteWolf65

[WhiteWolf65]

4 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

@WhiteWolf65 they can obliterate all your units in the set-up zone in the beginning of a game. Some scenario designers are fond of having a barrage on units who can't move anywhere. They forget the customer has the last word or they play their games or not. In RL outside your 600mtr by 1000mtr there is a lot more real estate. 

Yeah, I hate that those first turn pre-plotted artillery barrages and/or airstrikes. I usually have a house rule that says you can't pre-plot an artillery barrage or air-strike on turn one. Pre-plotted missions at five minutes is fine by me. No matter what BFC does with any updates for any of the games, I will always purchase and play them.

[WhiteWolf65]

And BTW, I was just wondering and not complaining.

[zmoney]

3 minutes ago, WhiteWolf65 said:

And BTW, I was just wondering and not complaining.

I don’t think you came off as complaining at all. I think you’re question is valid. I served in the US Army in both Iraq and Afghanistan, we had access to all sorts of fire support. To include lots of different aircraft, but never was MLRS ever an option. I believe (and could be wrong) it’s roll is more on the operational level than tactical.

 

As for cluster munitions same as Napalm, it was used as a close support ordnance.

[Sophist_13]

19 hours ago, AttorneyAtWar said:

I don't think you want an MLRS because those can delete entire grid squares with one salvo. Trust me, there's a good reason rocket artillery is limited in CM.

Hm... So, maybe M1A2 SEP is unbreakable to 152 mm hit from above because of '' Trust me, there's a good reason"? 

By the way, what do you think about Zombie-Abrams Tactic? I love it! Take 'conscript, poor, -2, unfit' Abrams (387 points) as many as your red counterpart take T-72B3 (points 376 for regular, normal, +0, fit)! The same price, almost the same efficient as normal Abrams. Mix your pack zombie-Abrams with javelin-teams, UAV, artillery and DOMINATE by quality and quantity! CMBS Abrams have the newest strong AI, integrated sophon-system (as in The Three Body Problem) and his crew is added only to hide this. So you could put into Abrams a blind incapable crew, but Abrams will kill anything he would see (sophons see everyone and everything)  Ok, i'm joking... maybe ^)

Yeah, BM-30 (as blue MLRS) is a bad idea. But in CMSF2 we have BM-21 (completely useless, unfortunately) and it's very strange we don't have BM-21 in CMBS. 

7 hours ago, zmoney said:

To include lots of different aircraft, but never was MLRS ever an option. I believe (and could be wrong) it’s roll is more on the operational level than tactical.

Russian battalion tactical group have organic MLRS battery (BM-21). BM-27 or BM-30 given to operational level (artillery brigades). 

 

[AttorneyAtWar]

1 minute ago, Sophist_13 said:

Hm... So, maybe M1A2 SEP is unbreakable to 152 mm hit from above because of '' Trust me, there's a good reason"? 

By the way, what do you think about Zombie-Abrams Tactic? I love it! Take 'conscript, poor, -2, unfit' Abrams (387 points) as many as your red counterpart take T-72B3 (points 376 for regular, normal, +0, fit)! The same price, almost the same efficient as normal Abrams. Mix your pack zombie-Abrams with javelin-teams, UAV, artillery and DOMINATE by quality and quantity! CMBS Abrams have the newest strong AI, integrated sophon-system (as in The Three Body Problem) and his crew is added only to hide this. So you could put into Abrams a blind incapable crew, but Abrams will kill anything he would see (sophons see everyone and everything)  Ok, i'm joking... maybe ^)

Yeah, BM-30 (as blue MLRS) is a bad idea. But in CMSF2 we have BM-21 (completely useless, unfortunately) and it's very strange we don't have BM-21 in CMBS. 

Russian battalion tactical group have organic MLRS battery (BM-21). BM-27 or BM-30 given to operational level (artillery brigades). 

 

That goes for Russian MLRS as well dude, I'm not trying to just limit BLUFOR because "haha America has the best stuff Russia sucks!" I just don't think it would lead to very engaging game play when the entire map gets annihilated 5 minutes in. You're right though rocket artillery like BM-21 could definitely be included as it isn't as powerful, but I don't know enough about it to say whether or not its still used in front line Russian units.

As for the Abrams I don't think its that unfair in all honesty, maybe the acquisition of targets could be slowed down a bit but its optics package and hunter killer capabilities are very powerful.

[Sophist_13]

4 minutes ago, AttorneyAtWar said:

That goes for Russian MLRS as well dude, I'm not trying to just limit BLUFOR because "haha America has the best stuff Russia sucks!" I just don't think it would lead to very engaging game play when the entire map gets annihilated 5 minutes in. You're right though rocket artillery like BM-21 could definitely be included as it isn't as powerful, but I don't know enough about it to say whether or not its still used in front line Russian units.

As for the Abrams I don't think its that unfair in all honesty, maybe the acquisition of targets could be slowed down a bit but its optics package and hunter killer capabilities are very powerful.

You completely missed my point. And what is this newest stuff, that make M1A2 SEP invulnerable from 152mm shells (on the weak top armor)? Mother of God, this monster ignores even 203-mm shells!  But IRL M1A2 like any other tank, will feel very bad after taking 152mm shell (hit in top) - optics will be destroyed, the barrel - broke,  the turret - shimmed etc. Even fallen 152mm shell alongside should be a problem. It able to break a barrel, APS and other systems. 

So, usual artillery already weakened because of... balance? Nope, there's no balance. Maybe realism? Nope, there's no realism. But you believe that MLRS is totally bad idea. (I think, abrams, which could survive after taking a shot by Death Star is a bad idea. So, how many times you call fighter-bomber in QB? I think it happens rare. But in scenarios it's interesting thing to attach.) There is no problem with MLRS, devs can make it less powerful (as they did the same with usual artillery).

My point is very simple. M1A2 is the most powerful tank in the world. But it isn't an invulnerable tank. There are measures to oppose this (in attack), 152mm artillery for example, or MLRS with cluster munitions, or heavy ATGM like 9M123. These things are available to BTG-commander. Ok, Khrizantema is ineffective, let it be so. Ok, reds don't have MLRS. But heavy artillery is ineffective to Abrams too. So, for some reason you worry about MLRS.... ^) If CMBS had them, it wouldn't be a problem. Powerful tool, big price. 

 

[zmoney]

I get what you are saying about Abrams and agree. The only part I disagree with you is..... and I am 99% sure of this; MLRS is NOT a battalion asset. At the minimum it is brigade but most likely a Division or Corps asset. Thus not being included in game. Like I said before maybe the Russians or Ukrainians deploy rocket artillery different so that there may be a case for that. The thing I do not want to see is a weapon system nerfed or buffed included in the game. 

[Sophist_13]

55 minutes ago, zmoney said:

I get what you are saying about Abrams and agree. The only part I disagree with you is..... and I am 99% sure of this; MLRS is NOT a battalion asset. At the minimum it is brigade but most likely a Division or Corps asset. Thus not being included in game. Like I said before maybe the Russians or Ukrainians deploy rocket artillery different so that there may be a case for that. The thing I do not want to see is a weapon system nerfed or buffed included in the game. 

Oh. Russian Ground Forces have MLRS on two levels. First level - Brigade\Division, second level - combined arms army (separate artillery brigades). Russian combined arms battalion(BTG) can have in possession MLRS battery taken from brigade's MRLS divizion (Battalion) (just like BTG has SPH artillery assets from brigade's artillery battalions or division's artillery regiment). Usually it's BM-21 on battalion or brigade level and BM-27 or BM-30 on army level. 

But there is reason in your words. Newest russian BTG are more powerful, it's something mid between batallion and regiment (by soviet standards) and more likes US combined arms battalion by sized. As Viktor Murakhovsky (an expert at Russia's Military Industrial Commission) wrote (too long to translate, it's google's work)

Quote

The composition of the battalion tactical group formed in the motorized rifle brigade: management and headquarters; motorized rifle battalion; two tank companies; howitzer self-propelled artillery battalion; rocket artillery battery of a rocket artillery battalion; ATGM platoon of the anti-tank artillery battalion; artillery reconnaissance department of the command and control battery and artillery reconnaissance (chief of artillery); platoon of control and radar reconnaissance of the head of the air defense brigade; anti-aircraft missile battery of an anti-aircraft missile battalion; anti-aircraft missile platoon MANPADS of the anti-aircraft battalion; reconnaissance company, two crews of short-range UAVs of the reconnaissance battalion; sniper platoon of sniper company; engineer platoon, defensive platoon, detachment of the heavy mechanized bridge of the engineer battalion; flamethrower platoon of the RCB protection company; an electronic warfare group of an electronic warfare company; the communications company of the communications battalion; a commandant platoon of a commandant company, an evacuation platoon (of armored vehicles) of a repair and restoration battalion, two automobile platoons (supply of ammunition and fuel) of a logistics battalion; evacuation department of the medical company. 

 

1 hour ago, zmoney said:

The thing I do not want to see is a weapon system nerfed or buffed included in the game. 

We already have a weakened artillery. 
 

[zmoney]

4 hours ago, Sophist_13 said:

We already have a weakened artillery. 
 

Agreed, I actually started a thread about this in the SF2 forum a while back