Is Russia Overpowered In Black Sea?

[sid_burn]

Hello,

In light of recent events (I do hope this thread remains as non-political as possible) and also given that Steve has expressed interest in expanding Black Sea to cover the current conflict, I think it is worth having a discussion about whether Russia might be over modeled in CM. Just a few suggestions to kick off the thread:

1) Steve has said before that in WW2 CM titles things like inefficient slave labour is modeled by having German armoured vehicles suffer catastrophic failures, I think you could bring this to Black Sea by having a chance for Russian tanks to have no ERA or Russian vehicles having low supplies.

2) High-end Russian vehicles such as the T90 may need to be made rarer to represent Russia's reliance on older vehicle models.

3) Typical Russian soldiers should have severe morale and leadership penalties. I think your average Russian unit needs to be set to green and negative leadership. Then more "elite" units like the VDV can be set to Regular (but they should clearly still maintain the leadership issues).

Just want this to be a friendly thread where we discuss ways to improve the simulation .

[akd]

A lot of these issues are operational.  You can account for them by what the player has when the tactical battle starts.  Leadership?  Again, not clear if it is tactical leadership failures, or more operational failures letting down tactical leaders.  Morale I expect to be somewhat a bi-product of the nature of this particular conflict (insane war aims and justification coupled with a completely different reality on the ground).  We could perhaps consider that NATO getting involved might somewhat alter this equation in the game.

We definitely need some older model tanks, in particular T-72B obr. 1985.

[Queen_Sasha]

The Russian army seems to suffer systemic morale and leadership problems.  Units can still perform well even in poor operational circumstances. Good soldiers don't just surrender or fight incompetently because of an operational error.

[Mishrae]

In light of recent events I think this is a great idea, I'm astounded at the capabilities of the Ukrainians and lack of for the Russians. 

 

I hope that we can have a robust discussion about this and Steve considers the possibilities more accurate representation can bring  

[Battlefront.com]

I've seen no evidence that anything in CMBS is wrong.  As AKD pointed out, most of the failings of the Russian forces can be attributed causes which are outside the scope of a tactical battle or are directly related to decisions by the player.  Look, we can't help it that CM2's AI is actually superior to Russia's real world capabilities!  We suggest starting up a battle with a toddler playing the Russian side.  I'm sure any pre-schooler can leave his vehicles all parked in a neat row as good as in the real world.

The one thing we'd do if we had to do CMBS all over again is lower the Experience and Morale values significantly.  Fortunately, that's something you guys can manipulate directly without us lifting a figure.  Except for Campaigns, but we're not going to touch those with a 10' pole.

Steve

[Rinaldi]

12 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I've seen no evidence that anything in CMBS is wrong. 

I disagree. Evidence is beginning to emerge that these systemic issues are creating real issues in the minutiae; T72B3s and T90s entering battles with six or seven ammo types, many of them wildly outdated, etc. In CMBS, if modelled, that would translate into a real degradation of Russia's ability to kill hard threats. This is just one example, they're coming so hard and fast that it's dizzying. 

Ultimately, to declare all these issues as "operational" is hand-waving away real criticism. Having a ****ty plan conducted hastily doesn't ultimately speak to things like "do Russians have peer equipment" or "can a Russian motor rifleman actually conduct a reaction to fire and have faith in his NCO." These are systemic issues, as I said, and that does ultimately have visible knock-on effects in the tactical plane. 

12 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

 Look, we can't help it that CM2's AI is actually superior to Russia's real world capabilities! 

 

At this rate, the SF2s Syrian OPFOR is better - and again, you can indeed help it. Crank those numbers down in future battlepacks - still time to change the incoming campaigns and standalones ;).

Edited March 6, 2022 by Rinaldi

[burning_phoneix]

6 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:

 T72B3s and T90s entering battles with six or seven ammo types, many of them wildly outdated, etc. In CMBS, if modelled, that would translate into a real degradation of Russia's ability to kill hard threats.

Well in CM, Panthers come with functioning final drives and Syrians come in somehow with Air Support during a NATO invasion.

[Rinaldi]

1 minute ago, burning_phoneix said:

Well in CM, Panthers come with functioning final drives 

But they also have poor quality armour and manufacturing failures modelled. Much more in the vein of "provide the Russians with poor/previous gen sabots" than your example, I would think. 

[Benjamin Ritchie-Hook]

1 hour ago, akd said:

We could perhaps consider that NATO getting involved might somewhat alter this equation in the game.

Yes, I foresee their morale slightly improving - for about a nanosecond.

[DesertFox]

Besides moral, which can be edited by everyone himself, I´d rather see some russian units added to CMBS. T-80 family just as an example or "older" T-72s. We now know that this gear is still used in different configs as you can see from this site:

Attack On Europe: Documenting Equipment Losses During The 2022 Russian Invasion Of Ukraine - Oryx (oryxspioenkop.com)

[akd]

34 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:

I disagree. Evidence is beginning to emerge that these systemic issues are creating real issues in the minutiae; T72B3s and T90s entering battles with six or seven ammo types, many of them wildly outdated, etc. In CMBS, if modelled, that would translate into a real degradation of Russia's ability to kill hard threats. This is just one example, they're coming so hard and fast that it's dizzying. 

Ultimately, to declare all these issues as "operational" is hand-waving away real criticism. Having a ****ty plan conducted hastily doesn't ultimately speak to things like "do Russians have peer equipment" or "can a Russian motor rifleman actually conduct a reaction to fire and have faith in his NCO." These are systemic issues, as I said, and that does ultimately have visible knock-on effects in the tactical plane. 

This is certainly an issue, but we will need more analysis than a few snapshots.  Giving every tank 3BM26, for example, would not be justified based on limited information.  Need a broader analysis to draw conclusions.

[SgtHatred]

59 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I've seen no evidence that anything in CMBS is wrong.

Not enough T-80s though.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

The one thing we'd do if we had to do CMBS all over again is lower the Experience and Morale values significantly.  Fortunately, that's something you guys can manipulate directly without us lifting a figure.  Except for Campaigns, but we're not going to touch those with a 10' pole.

Steve

This is the key and as @akd mentioned, once they have a lot of evidence to sift through about ammo, etc., they can see about changes in that.

[Sequoia]

2 hours ago, sid_burn said:

 

and also given that Steve has expressed interest in expanding Black Sea to cover the current conflict,

 

Did he really say he was interested?

[Chrizwit3]

Similar discussion on Reddit, though didn't take part. Had missed the ammo issue. Initial instinct, in light of current fight, yes Russia OP but game an alternate timeline. Only just re-read intro since original purchase and has been tweaked to account for 2014. So now more closely linked to this reality. Is UKR under-represented, to what extent have their doctrines and tactics altered relative to the game? Aware received advice and training from West. The intro also provides win states for the protagonists, can you engineer a plausible win state for Russia?

Based on what am seeing, bearing in mind in game US involvement how do you engineer actual engagements? Only challenge could see is US/UKR loss rates and/or massively inflated Russian numbers. Only how did the chuffing numbers plausibly get there because this reality would have to accept total air supremacy on US/UKR part. (TBH even in current alternate game always been a bit sus about Russia having air assets beyond drones. Then again ofcourse, drones).

So from purely selfish point of view, believe Russia clearly Op but would have zero interest in this game reflecting that reality. 

[Battlefront.com]

5 hours ago, Rinaldi said:

I disagree. Evidence is beginning to emerge that these systemic issues are creating real issues in the minutiae;

I've spent probably 8-10 hours a day studying this war as it happens and so far the major problems.  What I see is crap planning, crap training, crap leadership, and crap battlefield conditions (of all people, Russians should know NOT to attack at the start of mud season!  Sheesh) with a ridiculously divorced from reality belief that the enemy could be brushed aside is what I've been seeing.  None of which are relevant to CM or can be easily adjusted for by changing some settings already available to players.

Besides the possible example that some tanks are being issued crappier ammo, what else you got?  Because you seem to think we should be running around with our hair on fire and I just don't see a reason why.

5 hours ago, Rinaldi said:

Ultimately, to declare all these issues as "operational" is hand-waving away real criticism.

I'm hand waving away irrelevant points, you're waiving around hyperbole.  So far I've seen one very minor issue that might be a battlefield fluke for all you know.

Mind you, I've seen a lot of "your game totally sucks because the Panther's chin armor is over modeled" arguments before.  Is any one of our games absolutely perfect?  Nope.  No game is.  But there's a difference between something being imperfect and the sky falling down around our heads.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, Sequoia said:

Did he really say he was interested?

Interested in the portraying the current war sometime way down the road, not revising CMBS.  Revising CMBS is absolutely not going to happen.  That would be kinda like "revising" a game covering the 1939 invasion of Poland to reflect the fighting in 1944.  Two different beasts.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Chrizwit3 said:

Similar discussion on Reddit, though didn't take part. Had missed the ammo issue. Initial instinct, in light of current fight, yes Russia OP but game an alternate timeline. Only just re-read intro since original purchase and has been tweaked to account for 2014. So now more closely linked to this reality.

Actually, that storyline is the same as it has always been.  We released after Russia's invasion.  We did have to make some small modifications just before we released, however they were fairly small.  Russia pretty much did in 2014 what we predicted it would do in 2010.  The big difference, of course, that NATO didn't intervene in real life.  We never thought they would, but not having them in the game for that reason would be dumb.  This is a game, after all

1 hour ago, Chrizwit3 said:

Based on what am seeing, bearing in mind in game US involvement how do you engineer actual engagements? Only challenge could see is US/UKR loss rates and/or massively inflated Russian numbers. Only how did the chuffing numbers plausibly get there because this reality would have to accept total air supremacy on US/UKR part. (TBH even in current alternate game always been a bit sus about Russia having air assets beyond drones. Then again ofcourse, drones).

So from purely selfish point of view, believe Russia clearly Op but would have zero interest in this game reflecting that reality. 

Yup.  I don't think anybody would like CMBS if you play as the US, hit GO!, watch the Russian units break down and run away, and the rest ineffectively move around in platoon sized groups without combined arms capabilities.  I mean, this can be done with CMBS by having really bad AI Plans or playing against a bad player, but really... how many games of that would one play before getting bored?

Steve

[Centurian52]

I think Battlefront probably modeled everything more or less correctly based on the information that was available at the time. I do think more of the older Russian tank variants should have been modeled from the start. And considering that Ukraine only has around 10 Oplots those probably should have been omitted entirely. And T90's should be a lot rarer. And of course we now know that moral and experience levels should be lower for the Russians.

[MikeyD]

To get a good approximation of Russians in CMBS go look for those Youtubers who decided to give the Steam CM franchise a spin without ever having played the game before. A lot of 'How does this work?', 'Oh! I just blew up!', 'Oh no, my men are dying!' and 'I'll just run him into the middle of the field and..."

[Battlefront.com]

11 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

I think Battlefront probably modeled everything more or less correctly based on the information that was available at the time. I do think more of the older Russian tank variants should have been modeled from the start.

At the time Russia assured us they were going to be put out of service.  Like so many things, Russia fibbed   But who is to say that Russia in the CMBS scenario would have committed them and not the many T-90s and updated T-72s that are currently sitting opposite the Baltics and other locations?

The lack of older vehicles doesn't have much impact on gameplay.  First, players are not forced to purchase low end stuff.  In fact, they tend not to.  Which means, again, this is outside of CM's scope.

11 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

And considering that Ukraine only has around 10 Oplots those probably should have been omitted entirely.

We always include a few things which we understand, at the time, are more speculative than others.  Often because inclusion is more interesting than exclusion.  This is one of those things.  We don't tend to go back and edit things out years later.  We did some tweaking with CMSF2, but that was a fresh game and so not really the same thing.

11 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

And T90's should be a lot rarer. And of course we now know that moral and experience levels should be lower for the Russians.

This I disagree with.  Russia has plenty of T-90s, but they aren't being committed to Ukraine most likely because Putin didn't think he'd have to.  The CMBS scenario has Russia taking Ukraine more seriously than it did now.

Steve

[Grey_Fox]

2 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

And of course we now know that moral and experience levels should be lower for the Russians

Morale is probably an effect of the conditions that they're fighting in; give them better conditions and their morale would be better.

[Rinaldi]

4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I've spent probably 8-10 hours a day studying this war as it happens and so far the major problems.  What I see is crap planning, crap training, crap leadership, and crap battlefield conditions (of all people, Russians should know NOT to attack at the start of mud season!  Sheesh) with a ridiculously divorced from reality belief that the enemy could be brushed aside is what I've been seeing.  None of which are relevant to CM or can be easily adjusted for by changing some settings already available to players.

Besides the possible example that some tanks are being issued crappier ammo, what else you got?  Because you seem to think we should be running around with our hair on fire and I just don't see a reason why.

I'm hand waving away irrelevant points, you're waiving around hyperbole.  So far I've seen one very minor issue that might be a battlefield fluke for all you know.

Mind you, I've seen a lot of "your game totally sucks because the Panther's chin armor is over modeled" arguments before.  Is any one of our games absolutely perfect?  Nope.  No game is.  But there's a difference between something being imperfect and the sky falling down around our heads.

Steve

Relax. The words "I disagree" aren't vitriol, and saying you've been looking at 8-10 hours of OSINT and think tank feedback is impressive, but pretty much what everyone else on these forums is doing (or attempting to) - not to disparage. Nothing I have said is hyperbolic, like you, it's based precisely on what I've been seeing, beamed directly into my skull 8-10 hours a day like everyone else. Perhaps I've reached a less cautious conclusion, but what I'm saying isn't without historical precedent.

I will cede that separating poor logistical planning from endemic, open corruption is going to need a post-mortem, likely more than a decade from now. However, given the very real historic precedents for shameless supply corruption and the active black market the Russian forces (and late-Soviet) partake in, is it really hyperbolic to ask if these issues we see are more reflective of the Russian forces as a whole than some wing-dinged plan?

So, yeah, an example of "it's going to require a post mortem on whether this is a result of poor planning or something far more endemic" - the ammo we've already discussed, how about active countermeasures for the RuAF? Chaff/Flares appear to be extremely limited - operational or systemic? If we could have a 200 page thread based on fever-dreams about how Russia is under-represented in BS, I think its fair game to have a 4-5 page thread on how the Russians may, in fact, be a paper tiger and not just having a bad war. 

I'm not demanding you ask how high when I say jump, just being tongue-in-cheek  

Edited March 6, 2022 by Rinaldi

[BletchleyGeek]

3 hours ago, Rinaldi said:

how about active countermeasures for the RuAF? Chaff/Flares appear to be extremely limited - operational or systemic?

A bit of a tangent but relevant to this conversation: there's plenty of footage of helos dropping flares to evade MANPADS and being hit. We don't get to see or hear about the countermeasures that actually work. This inherent bias in the sampling of events needs to be kept in mind.

I tend to agree with your take on this matter, @Rinaldi. There are explanations of why we don't see say, a more even distribution of T-90s in the "semi-verified" attrition statistics such as "they keep the good stuff in reserve because of overoptimistic planning"  or "keeping them close to Moscow in case a Tiananmen happens", that just do not   cut it for me. Those would be like considering the notion that in 1991 the US Army marching into Kuwait with M60s mostly, that were "good enough" to deal with the export T-64 and T-72 of the Iraqis. There maybe something cultural in play here, as in the Western militaries being so averse to casualties that they tend to overestimate adversary capabilities, so rather than going for plans that require the minimal amount of resources that have positive probability of success, they go for plans that no matter the amount of resources do maximize the probability of success. But this also feels to me phony, like I am telling myself something I want to believe.

What it does cut it for me are explanations based on the sampling being biased. It could be that less T-90s have been lost by the Russian Armed Forces just because the "first class" BTGs using them are caught up in that traffic jam north of Kyiv, for instance. Or perhaps there just didn't happen to be nearby someone from the Ukrainian TDF with a phone to make a video for youtube. Perhaps there is some Russian commander doubting whether to commit them or not. Perhaps they're in Belarus, waiting for an order to cut Ukraine from Poland, too. Or they maybe do not exist at all, and existing figures that were used to make the assessment when CMBS was made stated overly optimistic projections of how efficiently and quickly those weapon systems became available and those readiness levels reached. Or they could well be deployed to counter a threat that does not exist (e.g. NATO forces with an offensive posture in the Baltics). I am listing these options in the order of their "likelihood" from my point of view.

Over the course of the last 2 or 3 days more "next gen" equipment has appeared on the attrition lists.

Also, have anybody seen any footage of Javelins in action? I haven't yet, but I do not think the Ukrainians are keeping them as a surprise. Probably it's just that it is super dumb to be fiddling with a smartphone while engaging enemy armor (and probably any NCOs around would kick your a**).

 

Edited March 6, 2022 by BletchleyGeek

[Grey_Fox]

43 minutes ago, BletchleyGeek said:

Also, have anybody seen any footage of Javelins in action? I haven't yet, but I do not think the Ukrainians are keeping them as a surprise. Probably it's just that it is super dumb to be fiddling with a smartphone while engaging enemy armor (and probably any NCOs around would kick your a**).

There's been very little footage from Ukrainian (and Russian) soldiers. 

I believe it's because the Ukrainians are observing strict electronics hygiene protocols due to their very negative experiences in 2014 where Russians were triangulating positions from people making phonecalls and using heavy fires on them.

This would explain why almost all the footage we've seen is from civilians.

Edited March 6, 2022 by Grey_Fox