Soviet Campaign Discussion (Spoilers)

[Simcoe]

Hi Ya'll,

Just finished mission four and thought it might be fun to discuss what everyone thinks of the campaign

Mission 2

• I tried so hard to find a way to complete the mission WITHOUT taking the hill but those M60's on the hill are crack shots and a single M60 in the town on the right usually decimates my tanks before they get a single spot
• I ended up taking the hill first and it was a fun excercise in quickly taking a piece of ground with mechanized troops since you need to make sure the M60's are gone before the reinforcements arrive.
• Once I took the hill it was pretty easy getting into the city. It feels like the Soviets excel in city fighting, they have so much HE that they can level half a city without breaking a sweat.

Mission 3

• This was a tough one and I have to admit that I save scummed quite a bit. On my first try I didn't hit the correct location with airstrikes and the first company was decimated. Even after I optimized my support fire I still found I needed to save scum a few times. It took about 3/4 try's before the Bradley's DIDN'T take out my precious observers. On the save I continued with they spared my observers but nailed my company commander... I'll take it.
• I think this mission is good at teaching you to think like a Soviet. Attack on a narrow front and if your first wave is decimated while breaking through that is a success. I focused on the left flank and used my first company to take out the infantry and Bradley's on the hill. They succeeded but not before most of the company was crippled by airstrikes and artillery. The second company continued to push through, taking out Bradley's on the way and occasionally dismounting to flank some well covered defenders.

Mission 4

• I had to retry this one about four times. Each revision had me folding my defenses deeper so that the attackers were hit in the flanks or rear.
• I found it best to ignore urban areas and have my basic infantry holding folds of terrain in the open fields. In this way they acted as speed bumps and triggers for the ATGM's.
• Abrams and Bradley's are terrifying. Are they really this good IRL? my ATGM's would get one missile off from 2.5k meters and they would receive an accurate tank round before the missile reached it's target.
• I think RPG's>Dragon's in Cold War. They are so versatile and they have better ammo count. I think RPG's took out more tanks than anything else.
• It was really fun finally getting to use the defensive units that I've been lugging around for the last three missions. The AT4's, AT7's and SPG-'s really came in handy. It was nice to finally use the strengths of an infantry heavy formation.

Mission 5 thoughts before I start...

• I received engineers... That can only mean one thing.
• This seems to be the most simple map so far. Deceptively simple. This feels like an extension of the basic deliberate attack training. Sad that I don't get any TRP's.

Any thought's on your experience so far?

[domfluff]

Some quick thoughts:

 

12 minutes ago, Simcoe said:

• Once I took the hill it was pretty easy getting into the city. It feels like the Soviets excel in city fighting, they have so much HE that they can level half a city without breaking a sweat.

If you have the ability and (more importantly) time to reduce a city, sure. If you're forced to clear it dismounted (i.e., actual MOUT), the Soviets are at a strong disadvantage. There's a reason why the doctrine was to bypass cities where possible.

 

14 minutes ago, Simcoe said:

• Abrams and Bradley's are terrifying. Are they really this good IRL? my ATGM's would get one missile off from 2.5k meters and they would receive an accurate tank round before the missile reached it's target.

Yup. This is one of the core arguments that CMCW is making - there is a generational change between the early and latter half of the period CMCW covers, and it's designed to highlight this transition. It's a fundamental shift in power that the USSR was never able to catch up with (for a number of reasons, including the deficiencies in semi-conductors and the aging political elite dying out).

It's also why a late eighties Cold War game (which most of them seem to be) would be a lot less interesting, I think.

 

17 minutes ago, Simcoe said:

• I think RPG's>Dragon's in Cold War. They are so versatile and they have better ammo count. I think RPG's took out more tanks than anything else.

The RPG-7 is a world-changing weapon. Dragon has a few issues - the 1km SACLOS means that you're going to give away your position and remain exposed, well within range of the thing you're aiming at. If you miss (and you will miss a fair percentage of the time), then you may well just die. It does, however, give the squad a significant capabilities in thermal optics and range which the Soviets just can't match.

An interesting point though, is that the RPG-7 really shouldn't be compared to Dragon. Everything in Cold War can be divided into Short, Medium and Long AT ranges. The direct comparison to the RPG-7 is the LAW, and the RPG-7 has some major advantages there. Interestingly, a more direct comparison to Dragon might be the squad's BMP, which changes the equation significantly.

An aside, but I've noted elsewhere that CMCW might be the only CM title where all "Anti-tank" weapons can be reasonably expected to kill tanks. The WW2 titles have ATRs and the lighter AT Guns which are sometimes only good against lighter vehicles, and in the later titles composite armour, ERA and eventually APS can render a lot of the HEAT-based systems mostly irrelevant.

[domfluff]

26 minutes ago, Simcoe said:

Any thoughts on your experience so far?

Oh, the campaigns in Cold War are some of the very best in any CM title, and the Soviet campaign in particular does a fantastic job of communicating its high concept, and rendering that down into an expression of doctrine and an exploration of what problems that needed to solve, where that works and where it struggles.

[Simcoe]

7 hours ago, domfluff said:

Some quick thoughts:

 

If you have the ability and (more importantly) time to reduce a city, sure. If you're forced to clear it dismounted (i.e., actual MOUT), the Soviets are at a strong disadvantage. There's a reason why the doctrine was to bypass cities where possible.

True, if you're dismounting you're giving the American FO time to call in fire support.

7 hours ago, domfluff said:

Yup. This is one of the core arguments that CMCW is making - there is a generational change between the early and latter half of the period CMCW covers, and it's designed to highlight this transition. It's a fundamental shift in power that the USSR was never able to catch up with (for a number of reasons, including the deficiencies in semi-conductors and the aging political elite dying out).

It's also why a late eighties Cold War game (which most of them seem to be) would be a lot less interesting, I think.

Makes sense. I love the beginning of Mission 4. No artillery, just silence. Then you spot them, they've already moved up farther than you expected. Real spooky.

I don't get the obsession with the 1989 Cold War scenarios in so many books and games. It's like watching a sports movie with a professional team playing against the local high school team and you're expected to root for the professionals. Based on the scenarios in game it would be a bloodbath.

7 hours ago, domfluff said:

An interesting point though, is that the RPG-7 really shouldn't be compared to Dragon. Everything in Cold War can be divided into Short, Medium and Long AT ranges. The direct comparison to the RPG-7 is the LAW, and the RPG-7 has some major advantages there. Interestingly, a more direct comparison to Dragon might be the squad's BMP, which changes the equation significantly.

An aside, but I've noted elsewhere that CMCW might be the only CM title where all "Anti-tank" weapons can be reasonably expected to kill tanks. The WW2 titles have ATRs and the lighter AT Guns which are sometimes only good against lighter vehicles, and in the later titles composite armour, ERA and eventually APS can render a lot of the HEAT-based systems mostly irrelevant.

I guess I was comparing the dragon with the RPG because both are an independent anti tank system carried at the squad level, and reusable. It's interesting how they embody their factions doctrine. The RPG is meant for anti tank and anti personnel and Soviet tanks carry a ton of HE. the Dragon is only meant for tanks and M60's are terrible against infantry (relatively). Speaking of the BMP, any idea why the US didn't try to copy the BTR before the Stryker? Seems like an 8 wheeled APC is a no brainer in a world with developed roads.

On your last point. Everything seems to be more lethal in this game compared to other titles. Infantry doesn't have body armor but they sure have a ton of automatic firepower. Seems like firepower took a massive leap compared to defense.

Thank you for your response!