Black Sea needs CW size maps

[THH149]

It's so that I can do this:

The linear battlefield may be replaced by the fragmented, or nonlinear [очаговый], battlefield, where brigades maneuver like naval flotillas, deploying maneuver and fire subunits over large areas, protected by air-defense systems, electronic warfare and particulate smoke. Strongpoints will be established and abandoned, artillery fires will maneuver and difficult terrain will become the future fortresses and redoubts. (source: Grau Bartles Armour Winter 2022)

[Grey_Fox]

Strong agreement. I've been playing the The Push From Dniprodzerhyn'sk campaign, and the maps are quite frankly absurdly small and disappointing. By contrast the maps in Crossing the Dnieper are far larger and makes for a better experience.

The quick battle maps also need to be reworked or completely changed. They are by far the weakest part of Black Sea and Cold War, far too small and cramped and too often uninteresting.

[Artkin]

You might be happy to know that the CMCW maps port over very nicely to CMBS. 

[Simcoe]

17 hours ago, THH149 said:

It's so that I can do this:

The linear battlefield may be replaced by the fragmented, or nonlinear [очаговый], battlefield, where brigades maneuver like naval flotillas, deploying maneuver and fire subunits over large areas, protected by air-defense systems, electronic warfare and particulate smoke. Strongpoints will be established and abandoned, artillery fires will maneuver and difficult terrain will become the future fortresses and redoubts. (source: Grau Bartles Armour Winter 2022)

Agreed, Combat Mission Excels at the battalion and even brigade level. This is where true combined arms comes into play. 

[Artkin]

9 minutes ago, Simcoe said:

Agreed, Combat Mission Excels at the battalion and even brigade level. This is where true combined arms comes into play. 

The author is arguing against that. They are saying combat will be more shoot and scoot with ad-hoc formations in a high mobility environment.

[Simcoe]

1 hour ago, Artkin said:

The author is arguing against that. They are saying combat will be more shoot and scoot with ad-hoc formations in a high mobility environment.

It seems like the author is arguing for larger maps to allow for larger units which allows for more combined arms game play. How does the author argue against that? He is talking about brigades working in tandem with air defense, artillery and electronic warfare. Not something you can do with a company.

[Artkin]

2 hours ago, Simcoe said:

It seems like the author is arguing for larger maps to allow for larger units which allows for more combined arms game play. How does the author argue against that? He is talking about brigades working in tandem with air defense, artillery and electronic warfare. Not something you can do with a company.

"deploying maneuver and fire subunits over large areas "

This insists the force to map ratio will be smaller, rather than larger. 

Larger maps, smaller forces. 

[Grey_Fox]

7 hours ago, Artkin said:

"deploying maneuver and fire subunits over large areas "

This insists the force to map ratio will be smaller, rather than larger. 

Larger maps, smaller forces. 

Hardly a revolutionary statement, it's been a trend for centuries.