I am at a Delima. Stick to Normandy Bench with all it's module's or something more modern.

[lcm1947]

 If we where to get things like current day Iran Vs Western, Current day Korea or current day China Vs Western then the fully modern stuff might very well become my favorit games...

I too would love to do current day equip like of China and Russia on one side and the USA and Israel on the other.  

[lcm1947]

Well, gents I greatly appreciate all the helpful suggestions.  Really helped me understand more about what the different games were and that helped lots.  So, I will at this point try those Demo's like Kohlenklau pointed out.  I was totally unaware of them so that will surly point me in the right direction so thank you yet again Kohlenklau for your help.  Those German smocks showing up in my games are awsome!    

I too would love to see a China and Russia versus the USA and Israel for example.  

[Double Deuce]

On 1/3/2022 at 6:29 AM, Ultradave said:

One piece of advice that gets mentioned often, not just by me, is to choose the period and theatre that most interest you and you'll be guaranteed to enjoy.

^ This right here! ^

If you have a preferred era/theater of the games that are available, I'd go with that one to start. Having more interest, imho, will help keep you interested and motivated to play, learn the interface and system. Then branch out from there. 

[lcm1947]

I would like to thank all for the suggestions and information.  It has helped me a lot in deciding although I've not quite there yet.  Special thanks to Kohlenklau for pointing out that there are those demo's I could check out and I did check them out this morning.  It's a shame that CW doesn't have one but oh well.  Really lots of good information so again thanks all for your time and I will let you know if and when I bite the bullet.  Have a good new year guys!

[Grey_Fox]

On 1/3/2022 at 12:46 AM, Simcoe said:

How do you feel like modern russian doctrine differs from the US? For example, the first mission of the Russian campaign. How would they approach things differently?

Well for one thing the US infantry have heavy enough weaponry that they can operate effectively on foot and be a threat to even the heaviest armour. This means that if it were US forces in place of the Russians for the first mission of Crossing the Dnieper, if the US had an armoured force of Bradleys and Abrams, you could dismount the infantry from Bradleys and have the infantry operate separately, with the Bradleys being an overwatch element and the infantry being an assault element.

Contrasting this with the Russians, the BMP is an integral part of the squad and has their heaviest weapons, meaning they have to operate closely together and neither is really capable of independent operations from the other. Russian doctrine is an evolution of Soviet doctrine, so what you'll see is that the tanks are in front leading the charge, followed by the BMPs, and the infantry stay mounted until the last possible moment. The infantry are also important in the operation of the BMP in that the squad leader is sitting in the vehicle  commander's seat and providing a lot of spotting capability, with 2 squad members operating the hull-mounted machine guns, and the other passengers have their own viewports and firing ports, providing even more spotting and self-defense capabilities.

Russians also have slower call-in times on their artillery and have fewer FOs in their formations, meaning that you really want to be calling in the heaviest artillery bombardments you can and using them to provide cover. In the US formations, every fireteam is capable of calling in artillery, meaning precision fires on targets is not only achievable but advisable.

Since US call-in times on artillery is faster than Russian call-in times, you really can't afford to be particularly cautious as the Russians, you are rewarded to keep pushing in the Russian campaigns and stay ahead of the artillery. If you look at my videos on the 4th mission of the Crossing the Dnieper campaign, the only vehicle I lost was because I left it static for too long and artillery landed nearby, knocking it out.

That's off the top of my head anyways.

Edited January 4, 2022 by Grey_Fox

[Simcoe]

3 hours ago, Grey_Fox said:

Well for one thing the US infantry have heavy enough weaponry that they can operate effectively on foot and be a threat to even the heaviest armour. This means that if it were US forces in place of the Russians for the first mission of Crossing the Dnieper, if the US had an armoured force of Bradleys and Abrams, you could dismount the infantry from Bradleys and have the infantry operate separately, with the Bradleys being an overwatch element and the infantry being an assault element.

Contrasting this with the Russians, the BMP is an integral part of the squad and has their heaviest weapons, meaning they have to operate closely together and neither is really capable of independent operations from the other. Russian doctrine is an evolution of Soviet doctrine, so what you'll see is that the tanks are in front leading the charge, followed by the BMPs, and the infantry stay mounted until the last possible moment. The infantry are also important in the operation of the BMP in that the squad leader is sitting in the vehicle  commander's seat and providing a lot of spotting capability, with 2 squad members operating the hull-mounted machine guns, and the other passengers have their own viewports and firing ports, providing even more spotting and self-defense capabilities.

Russians also have slower call-in times on their artillery and have fewer FOs in their formations, meaning that you really want to be calling in the heaviest artillery bombardments you can and using them to provide cover. In the US formations, every fireteam is capable of calling in artillery, meaning precision fires on targets is not only achievable but advisable.

Since US call-in times on artillery is faster than Russian call-in times, you really can't afford to be particularly cautious as the Russians, you are rewarded to keep pushing in the Russian campaigns and stay ahead of the artillery. If you look at my videos on the 4th mission of the Crossing the Dnieper campaign, the only vehicle I lost was because I left it static for too long and artillery landed nearby, knocking it out.

That's off the top of my head anyways.

Thank you that was a great write up.

[lcm1947]

Well for one thing the US infantry have heavy enough weaponry that they can operate effectively on foot and be a threat to even the heaviest armour. This means that if it were US forces in place of the Russians for the first mission of Crossing the Dnieper, if the US had an armoured force of Bradleys and Abrams, you could dismount the infantry from Bradleys and have the infantry operate separately, with the Bradleys being an overwatch element and the infantry being an assault element.

That was very interesting Please go on.  

[Phantom Captain]

3 hours ago, lcm1947 said:

Well for one thing the US infantry have heavy enough weaponry that they can operate effectively on foot and be a threat to even the heaviest armour. This means that if it were US forces in place of the Russians for the first mission of Crossing the Dnieper, if the US had an armoured force of Bradleys and Abrams, you could dismount the infantry from Bradleys and have the infantry operate separately, with the Bradleys being an overwatch element and the infantry being an assault element.

That was very interesting Please go on.  

Javelins.  The prevalence of javelins everywhere for US infantry is a HUGE force multiplier and an advantage all the Russians don't have. While Russian squads work integral with their BMP-3Ms as Grey_Fox described, the US can use their infantry independently because of their ability to destroy enemy armor by themselves.  This frees up their vehicles to do other things.  Additionally, the thermal sight on the Javelin launcher also gives the US very good spotting ability from way out allowing them to employ their technological tricks.  

The way I think of it is the US can be more surgical while the Russians are much more brute point force.  But don't get me wrong, the US can be as much brute force as the rest when need be.

Edited January 5, 2022 by Phantom Captain

[Probus]

17 hours ago, Grey_Fox said:

Well for one thing the US infantry have heavy enough weaponry that they can operate effectively on foot and be a threat to even the heaviest armour. This means that if it were US forces in place of the Russians for the first mission of Crossing the Dnieper, if the US had an armoured force of Bradleys and Abrams, you could dismount the infantry from Bradleys and have the infantry operate separately, with the Bradleys being an overwatch element and the infantry being an assault element.

Contrasting this with the Russians, the BMP is an integral part of the squad and has their heaviest weapons, meaning they have to operate closely together and neither is really capable of independent operations from the other. Russian doctrine is an evolution of Soviet doctrine, so what you'll see is that the tanks are in front leading the charge, followed by the BMPs, and the infantry stay mounted until the last possible moment. The infantry are also important in the operation of the BMP in that the squad leader is sitting in the vehicle  commander's seat and providing a lot of spotting capability, with 2 squad members operating the hull-mounted machine guns, and the other passengers have their own viewports and firing ports, providing even more spotting and self-defense capabilities.

Russians also have slower call-in times on their artillery and have fewer FOs in their formations, meaning that you really want to be calling in the heaviest artillery bombardments you can and using them to provide cover. In the US formations, every fireteam is capable of calling in artillery, meaning precision fires on targets is not only achievable but advisable.

Since US call-in times on artillery is faster than Russian call-in times, you really can't afford to be particularly cautious as the Russians, you are rewarded to keep pushing in the Russian campaigns and stay ahead of the artillery. If you look at my videos on the 4th mission of the Crossing the Dnieper campaign, the only vehicle I lost was because I left it static for too long and artillery landed nearby, knocking it out.

That's off the top of my head anyways.

Thanks Greyfox! That description was exactly what I wanted to know. What's funny is that I almost came to the same conclusion playing the game. The Russian/Soviet squads really need to work with their BMPs in order to be very effective.

If the Russians ever start equipping their squads with Dragon-like weapons, whoa... hold on! That changes the game.

I agree, It would be interesting to try inserting a blue force in CMCW. Probably pre-Abrams to form a blue-on-blue game to see how it plays out.

[lcm1947]

Well guys I think I have decided.  I am personally shocked because I never thought this would be even a consideration, but Black Sea is right this second what I am very close to buying.  Cold war is next and is the only thing keeping me from BS.  I figure I can always go back to FB if the modern games don't interest me as much.  

[lcm1947]

I have tried both the BS and SF and decided that I am just a WWII kinda guy.  I do appreciate the comments, advice and recommendation but like everybody knows and mentioned numerous times  from various members,  a person has just got to decide his passion and go with it and for me that is WWII.  

Going with RT. 

[kohlenklau]

49 minutes ago, lcm1947 said:

Going with RT

We welcome you with open arms Comrade!

[Vacillator]

1 hour ago, lcm1947 said:

Going with RT. 

+1 from me, welcome to the Ost Front.

[Monty's Mighty Moustache]

Good choice, you won't regret it. After a few year hiatus from CM and only owning CMBN I started buying the other titles a few years ago. I held off buying CMRT cos I was waiting for Fire and Rubble but I caved and bought it last summer and I wish I'd bought it sooner. With the F&R content it's simply awesome.

MMM

Edited January 7, 2022 by Monty's Mighty Moustache

[Erwin]

17 hours ago, lcm1947 said:

Going with RT. 

Well done.  An xnt series.  And with the early war mods being created by Koh, you will be able to also play Barbarossa.  

[Phantom Captain]

18 hours ago, lcm1947 said:

 Going with RT. 

Nice, excellent choice honestly.  Of all the WWII titles this is the one that I still play too.  It's REALLY good.

[lcm1947]

I am glad you guys like my choice.   It does appear to be an interesting and kinda different game but I see myself fighting over what side the enemy is.  If you get where I'm coming from.