Dude I LOVE the PVP vids. Playing the AI can be fun but humans will always do something that will throw you off balance, mistake or otherwise. Keep up the great content man!
I understand these videos must be really exhausting to make but I have to say in my opinion these pvp videos are your best content. You’ve nailed the pacing of the video and mixed in learning about combat mission with entertainment value. Great job 10/10.
Out of all the PVP videos this is probably the one that I learnt the most from, its a really good blend of your excellent pre-game planning and game summary content which is the majority of the channel, but the post-game portion also has been mixed really effectively with the kind of analysis/explanation content you make in the form of the basics, unit, but also more real-world application. To put it simply, I felt this video took a step up in terms of working out the differences between CM and real-life that was highly engaging and informative. Hope that helps!
I feel like a broken record saying this on almost every video covering the CM games in the modern setting, but that it keeps being relevant makes it seem worth mentioning. This battle really underlines the importance of spotting in the modern era titles, I really think it becomes the most important aspect of the game when the engagements are as volatile as they are, yet at the same time it's also the most opaque system in the game, often resulting in frustration and requiring the player to bend over backwards to accommodate it, and I really think that's a damn shame.
Also wow you are a pretty good sport! I would've been pretty peeved if my Bradleys consistently failed their spots, and the enemy was doing the exact opposite and making unbelievably crack spots on all of my forces. I guess that's just the nature of the game though haha.
Excellent video as always hapless, love the pvp vids man. Bonus as it’s Black Sea, my personal favourite. Perfect vid to mix with a VB and a soft couch.
Very impressive video, I particularly liked the analysis you've done. It will be interesting to see another video like this one, which would examine the CQB aspect of today's urban combat. Have a great weekend.
11:39 oof i've had that happen, the rattling crash of a IFV's autocannon crashing into a light vehicle and its occupants is always a shock. It is always happening to my M113s by a soviet BMP which always outshoots
Really interesting summary, UH. Especially after watching Chap's videos first. As always, thanks for taking the time to keep us all informed and entertained
Really interesting and informative video, always great to explore the real world connotations as well as the wider strategic factors that result in poorly performed combat missions. Keep educating us luddites!
@@TheBunt1111 We can dream! Seriously though Hapless puts unenviable volumes of prep work and video editing into his content - the man's dishing out Michelin Star level videos whilst mines more of an all you can eat buffet :-p
First class video as always Hapless! Good tutorial for folks figuring out on best how to use drones, and artillery together with the correct Fire support personnel.
I think there is a decent chance drone directed arti be useful as a part of your artillery in a larger scale attack rather than a small meeting engagement. When you are attacking on a larger map, identifying enemy strongpoints and hitting them with artillery without exposing your troops by moving them to direct line of sight, might be much more useful. I really like watching videos from the more modern titles, actually seeing what's going on is great! Like compare this to the first 20 turns of the attack in heavy hitters :D
One thing of note is that the BFIST crew also counts as Forward Observers, which I find rather gamey since you can get a pair of ravens, give one to the BFIST crew and one to the Foward Observers inside and they will both benefit from the the BFIST call-in time bonus (I think it is 3 minutes for 155mm and 2 minutes for 120mm mortars with both having an astoundingly quick 1 minute adjust fire time). I've used this to great effect against the AI in scenarios, but what I've found out is that human players will generally always move their forces around the moment your spottings rounds land, which opens an interesting tactical use for artillery as an area denial weapon, forcing opponents off certain key firing positions by threatening them with the prospects of being hit by accurate and effective artillery fire.
I think the most surprising thing from the artillery footage after its accuracy, is just how effective it is at destroying all armoured fighting vehicles. APCs and MBTs seem to brew up from near misses quite commonly. CM and most other games may model immobility hits from arty near misses, but only a direct hit stands any chance of knocking out AFVs generally. This seems to be really unrealistic faced with the Ukrainian footage. Maybe it’s done deliberately for balancing but it has dented my confidence in the game’s realism.
I suspect it's to do with how CM models artillery shrapnel. Vehicles can be damaged by near misses, which suggests blast is accounted for, but are ok when more distant and don't appear to be damaged by airbursts. CM doesn't physically model actual shrapnel projectiles, so they probably work via a %age hit chance within a certain range. So, should vehicles within x distance have a chance to suffer x number of hits to their subsystems? Maybe, but which subsystems? Without the actual modelled projectile impact, can CM account for subsystem locations when handing out damage? It's complicated. Hopefully there'll be an increase, but I'm not sure the best way to model it.
>APCs seem to brew up from near misses quite commonly You should keep in mind that we are talking about BTR, BMP and sometimes MTLB with their weak protection, which is looks insufficient nowadays, but at most I agree that artillery in CM requires unrealisticly direct hits to be effective. For me it looks unrealistic how clumsy directing fire in game works. It`s ok fo ww2 titles, but for modern one system where you should keep on firing to react and redirect fire faster looks stupid. Also waiting 5-10 mutes for UAV to move observation zone 50m away is pain in the ass too
This fits my experience with the US drone-artillery combo in CMBS. I tried a similar thing with Humvee mounted scouts, a few MGS, 155 and ravens (cause we were doing motorized vs motorized). When you are relying so heavily on drone+155, even though their reaction time is extremely fast, it is not fast enough. A 2 - 3 min call in time is enough for your opponent to start moving things around once he figured out what you are doing. But if combined with your usual US heavy mechanized forces, the combo then becomes extremely powerful. Then again, your opponent would have Tunguska to break the combo.
The crazy thing is, well, against _semi-competent_ opponents, air power is _not_ the be all end all it has been touted as. Serbia proved that, Sinai proved that, Vietnam proved that. Hell, even in Desert Storm the Iraqis managed to force anything that uses the 'low and slow' methodology of air combat to either stay as far away as possible (Apaches) or take to higher altitudes (A-10s). Going low is sadly a _death sentence_ at worst, a waste of ammunition at best. History tells us that the only real way to actually go up against a semi-competent IADS network is... ground forces. Air forces around the world are likely to 'reform' back to a system where they are under the direct command of the army, largely because the AAA game has evolved that much.
@@TheTrueAdept Disagree. The Iraqis in desert storm had the 3rd-best air defence system in the world at the time- behind Moscow and Washington- and were dismantled in a month. Yes, the USAF couldn't goo low and slow- but they didn't have to. Air power played a decisive role in that campaign. The stat about the Iraqi air defence system is from Stephen Budiansky's _Air Power_ Edit: The actual quote is: "Baghdad itself ... was the most heavily defended airspace on earth save Moscow" Page 419-420
@@whyme943 Here's the thing, the Iraqis in general were quite literally pants at, well, war in general. The best description of the Iraqi military has been 'despite being trained by numerous major powers, it's a military _without_ a doctrine'.
@@TheTrueAdept The A-10s might have been forced to fly higher, and attack different targets, however other aircraft like F-16s, F-15Es, and F-111s were still going after Iraqi targets without much difficulty
@@demanischaffer only because the Iraqis are quite pants with waging war outside of an individual context. Even then, there were losses. If someone with the competency of *_IRAQIS_* could make an air force have a rough time, then what does it tell about anyone semi-competent?
Mr. Hapless, I love your videos and am ever so great full that you got me into Combat Mission. Literally has to be one of my top games of all time. Never thought I’d be playing a game on PBEM, and I’m currently working on making my own AAR 👍🏽. I’ve been able to learn a lot as well as teach friends about the basics of combat. Hoping one day I get to try your hand at this, though I’ll probably be reduced to ashes. Cheers 😂 PS I love the War room series as well!
My friend and I played a huge quick battle, where I played as the Americans and I set up what I considered the most ideal infantry force. I had enough points for 1 full mech company. Each platoon had a its own raven, company level fist had 2 ravens, 2 batteries of 155s and two 120 mortars. A scout platoon with, you guessed it, another raven. And 1 platoon of Abrams. Pretty much all as elite as I could make them. Enough point left for a single stinger team. I could literally cover my opponent’s entire side of the map with raven coverage. Absolutely demolished a full BTG and a fully company of T90s with 1 Bradley taken out. It was insane, having UAVs at the platoon level is absolutely a decisive advantage. The information sharing potential of the US Army in BS is leaps and bounds ahead of the Russians. I want to do a game where that strategy of UAVs down to platoon level is really tested. Can a company sized element effectively take on a BTG if given enough situational awareness?
It's always nice when you have a battle big enough to bring all the toys to! My take is that a US Coy can easily take on a BTG. Not saying it could destroy it, but certainly inflict enough casualties to stop it in it's tracks.
@@usuallyhapless9481 For sure, I have always wanted to see what type of force would needed to be mustard to take on a ABCT, that type of battle is probably outside of CMs ability to handle.
Now I'm left to wonder how the same battle would play out with symmetrical forces. That is to say, two US Combined Arms Companies with ravens, and attached support facing off. Seems like it might be 1914.
- I am not a native English speaker. Please take my intentions and not my words, and disregard my mistakes. - Great video. Perfect graphs and excellent camera footage. I wonder if you have a All-in-One to download and what are your shaders options and resolution. I am struggling to get such a good graphs. - I really loved how you cover your thoughts for planning, the battle, the post analysis and comparison with game and real world. That really helps for people like me, without actual military experience and struggling ( but loving ) this game. - Hoping to see more content like this.
By now I tested this out in a few quickbattles as well and I think my additional conclusions are the following: -One of the big advantages is that you can have your FO in the fire support vehicle and in a safe place at all time. Losing your last good FO sucks, so using the raven from an FO in a safe location lets you cut down on the number of FOs -The drone shines in terrain like village maps or crests where getting line of sight on a location of interest is dangerous and where you'd normally want your vehicles to occupy strong static positions until you know they are spotted -Precision missions directed from the drone sometimes seem to trigger the laser warning (might be a bug? or do the ravens have a laser designator?) which is very funny to abuse against players I think going forward I'll be directing my arty from a drone whenever the rules of the game make it likely that my drone will survive and where the terrain have strongly fragmented line of sight (or a big crest) without too many woods in good locations. Having the company commander and the drone/arty fo sit together in a fire support stryker in a safe position is also very neat, it gets the info out quickly and cuts the precision strike time down to 1-2min.
The terrain really was the wet blanket on your performance. In this terrain, a Stryker company probably would have been a lot better. At least in CMBS, drones are ineffective against infantry.
Infantry does seem hard to spot with drones, but at the same time we don't know what kind of altitude the drones are flying at, which can make a huge difference.
I have a friend from high school that was a Russian foreign exchange student. I could have sworn I saw a soldier that looks just like him and some footage coming out of that War in the East. This is a Brothers War I'm not taking sides I just hope that it answers quickly and bloodless late as possible without expanding.
its actually amusing how people act surprised. ig its so common to see cold war era apcs like the btrs and bmps getting destroyed we dont even talk about them anymore? well i guess this IS the only war we get news of bradleys actually getting destroyed.
@@Wyn_Wins I think that's a big part of it. Folks are starting to realize what modern penetrators mean for modern combined arms warfare and it was a bit of a wakeup call. The game is not grounded in reality.
Would you be down to do AAR for a game I'm playing In Normandy? I know you are most likely a busy guy but it will be sweet to see this match from your perspective. I do enjoy the way you make your combat mission videos
What I find weird is that combat mission drones have hard time spotting infantry, even in open ground or on roofs. Which given the recent experience should not be a case.
Yep. Drone observation does feel much less effective. The caveat is that drone observation in 2023 is not what game devs in the early 2010s thought it would be in 2017.
In CM, you can target moving vehicles, but it looks like the rounds will be aimed at where the vehicle was when they were fired- they don't adjust in flight.
What software do you use to record your Combat Mission footage. I just tried OBS to record some gameplay to show a friend and it was hellish when played back... most noticeably when moving the camera viewpoint around. Any tips?
@@usuallyhapless9481 If you get around to it I'd love to watch a lets play. I've been watching you for years and basically learned how to play the game from you and I've been really struggling on that campaign lol
Yes the Bradleys in CM are superior to the BMPs but in real life Bradley square was their Cemetery in Ukraine like all American vehicles in CM are skewed in their favor thats why it takes at least 2 75mm AT rounds to put a sherman out of action making it as hard or harder to kill than a Tiger while the Germans and allied tankers said one round was enough to put the shermans out of action and on fire as reliable as a Ronson lighter. Thats why it took 4-5 Shermans to put a Tiger out of action. These realities are completely ignored in CM.
Great illustration of what's happening to the Russians in Ukraine. No, it isn't the end of armor or proof that it's obsolete. It's just a visceral demonstration of the viability and importance of infantry in a combined-arms approach. A lot of the Russian armor losses have been due to man-portable antitank assets in ambush. Without the infantry manpower to dismount and sweep the woods or towns ahead of the armor, they're setting themselves up for failure.
True, but I'd lump together for the sake of simplification. IIRC it's the same principle at work, shaped charges coming from cones and EFPs from bowls.
They both operate on the same principle, a more conventional shaped charge creates a jet-like EFP upon detonation while the ones found on TOW-2Bs and on something like the CBU-97 creates a slug-like EFP.
@@run2u520 The way I think about HEAT vs EFPs is HEAT moves at about 10km/s but is only effective for a couple meters at most while EFPs move at a couple km/s but can have a effective range of a couple hundred meters. It leads to the weapons being employed differently even though, in the end, they are both ways to stuff a fast bit of moving metal thru a hunk of armor using the power of boom
I think your issue is your playing against a human, not a rigid numbers based technical manual. Where as an American player thinks in mobility and assault, you need an enemy that bunches up and refuses to move. The drone artillery would be more effective against a Syrian AI or a Russian player who can't move until he's phoned his Dad who cannot see the gameplay. or gets. 3 platoons stuck staging in a traffic jam on a highway. Your opponent started in an offensive position. Once the enemy is fixed in place the drone/arty combo could smack.
American equipment is rubbish as proved by the Russians in the ukronazis country. Bradleys for instance last about 20 minutes when on the combat line. lol
Dude I LOVE the PVP vids. Playing the AI can be fun but humans will always do something that will throw you off balance, mistake or otherwise. Keep up the great content man!
100% agree.
I understand these videos must be really exhausting to make but I have to say in my opinion these pvp videos are your best content.
You’ve nailed the pacing of the video and mixed in learning about combat mission with entertainment value.
Great job 10/10.
Out of all the PVP videos this is probably the one that I learnt the most from, its a really good blend of your excellent pre-game planning and game summary content which is the majority of the channel, but the post-game portion also has been mixed really effectively with the kind of analysis/explanation content you make in the form of the basics, unit, but also more real-world application.
To put it simply, I felt this video took a step up in terms of working out the differences between CM and real-life that was highly engaging and informative. Hope that helps!
Thanks man! I think this format is a keeper. Takes forever though!
I feel like a broken record saying this on almost every video covering the CM games in the modern setting, but that it keeps being relevant makes it seem worth mentioning.
This battle really underlines the importance of spotting in the modern era titles, I really think it becomes the most important aspect of the game when the engagements are as volatile as they are, yet at the same time it's also the most opaque system in the game, often resulting in frustration and requiring the player to bend over backwards to accommodate it, and I really think that's a damn shame.
“War is the realm of chance, chaos and confusion”
Also wow you are a pretty good sport! I would've been pretty peeved if my Bradleys consistently failed their spots, and the enemy was doing the exact opposite and making unbelievably crack spots on all of my forces. I guess that's just the nature of the game though haha.
I think he's calmed down a bit over it by now. Probably wasn't too happy in the moment
@@brokenglass9814 You should check his opponents channel. He admits he also had some real emotional moments too.
You get used to being let down by your pixeltruppen I guess :)
Atlast black sea content and pvp aar report at that. Glad you and a few others keep up this amazing CM stuff.
Interesting premise and solid conclusion. Good video.
Thanks very much man!
Excellent video as always hapless, love the pvp vids man. Bonus as it’s Black Sea, my personal favourite.
Perfect vid to mix with a VB and a soft couch.
Very impressive video, I particularly liked the analysis you've done. It will be interesting to see another video like this one, which would examine the CQB aspect of today's urban combat. Have a great weekend.
Well, Chap has thrown the gauntlet down for a rematch...
11:39 oof i've had that happen, the rattling crash of a IFV's autocannon crashing into a light vehicle and its occupants is always a shock. It is always happening to my M113s by a soviet BMP which always outshoots
Wow dude I've only ever seen your more historical vids love seeing you reference the (extremely) modern context of these weapon systems.
Really interesting summary, UH. Especially after watching Chap's videos first. As always, thanks for taking the time to keep us all informed and entertained
Always a good day when Hapless releases a new video
Really interesting and informative video, always great to explore the real world connotations as well as the wider strategic factors that result in poorly performed combat missions. Keep educating us luddites!
If hapless uploaded as often as you we would be completely educated
@@TheBunt1111 We can dream! Seriously though Hapless puts unenviable volumes of prep work and video editing into his content - the man's dishing out Michelin Star level videos whilst mines more of an all you can eat buffet :-p
Day made. Love to see some new Black Sea gameplay especially since I’ve just picked it up! Great video as alway.
First class video as always Hapless! Good tutorial for folks figuring out on best how to use drones, and artillery together with the correct Fire support personnel.
My only wish is that you uploaded more of these!
Same!
This was a very interesting game! Thanks for the video hapless!
I love thoses PVP battles !! The presentation is suberbe with thoses battle plans and diagrams !! Keep it up
"Situational Awareness" (SA) is perhaps a good catch-all term to be used instead of "spotting".
Probably, yes.
I think there is a decent chance drone directed arti be useful as a part of your artillery in a larger scale attack rather than a small meeting engagement. When you are attacking on a larger map, identifying enemy strongpoints and hitting them with artillery without exposing your troops by moving them to direct line of sight, might be much more useful.
I really like watching videos from the more modern titles, actually seeing what's going on is great! Like compare this to the first 20 turns of the attack in heavy hitters :D
Absolutely. I probably tried to bring a force that was beyond the scope of a small QB.
One thing of note is that the BFIST crew also counts as Forward Observers, which I find rather gamey since you can get a pair of ravens, give one to the BFIST crew and one to the Foward Observers inside and they will both benefit from the the BFIST call-in time bonus (I think it is 3 minutes for 155mm and 2 minutes for 120mm mortars with both having an astoundingly quick 1 minute adjust fire time). I've used this to great effect against the AI in scenarios, but what I've found out is that human players will generally always move their forces around the moment your spottings rounds land, which opens an interesting tactical use for artillery as an area denial weapon, forcing opponents off certain key firing positions by threatening them with the prospects of being hit by accurate and effective artillery fire.
In US Military doctrine, we would call that a "secure" fire mission.
I think the most surprising thing from the artillery footage after its accuracy, is just how effective it is at destroying all armoured fighting vehicles. APCs and MBTs seem to brew up from near misses quite commonly. CM and most other games may model immobility hits from arty near misses, but only a direct hit stands any chance of knocking out AFVs generally. This seems to be really unrealistic faced with the Ukrainian footage. Maybe it’s done deliberately for balancing but it has dented my confidence in the game’s
realism.
There have been some massive battles on the forums about this exact issue. The devs have said they are looking into it. Fingers crossed.
I think that at the very least, subsystem damage needs to get kicked up a few tiers
@@Hy93Ri0n For sure!
I suspect it's to do with how CM models artillery shrapnel. Vehicles can be damaged by near misses, which suggests blast is accounted for, but are ok when more distant and don't appear to be damaged by airbursts.
CM doesn't physically model actual shrapnel projectiles, so they probably work via a %age hit chance within a certain range. So, should vehicles within x distance have a chance to suffer x number of hits to their subsystems? Maybe, but which subsystems? Without the actual modelled projectile impact, can CM account for subsystem locations when handing out damage?
It's complicated. Hopefully there'll be an increase, but I'm not sure the best way to model it.
>APCs seem to brew up from near misses quite commonly
You should keep in mind that we are talking about BTR, BMP and sometimes MTLB with their weak protection, which is looks insufficient nowadays, but at most I agree that artillery in CM requires unrealisticly direct hits to be effective. For me it looks unrealistic how clumsy directing fire in game works. It`s ok fo ww2 titles, but for modern one system where you should keep on firing to react and redirect fire faster looks stupid. Also waiting 5-10 mutes for UAV to move observation zone 50m away is pain in the ass too
This fits my experience with the US drone-artillery combo in CMBS. I tried a similar thing with Humvee mounted scouts, a few MGS, 155 and ravens (cause we were doing motorized vs motorized). When you are relying so heavily on drone+155, even though their reaction time is extremely fast, it is not fast enough. A 2 - 3 min call in time is enough for your opponent to start moving things around once he figured out what you are doing. But if combined with your usual US heavy mechanized forces, the combo then becomes extremely powerful. Then again, your opponent would have Tunguska to break the combo.
The crazy thing is, well, against _semi-competent_ opponents, air power is _not_ the be all end all it has been touted as. Serbia proved that, Sinai proved that, Vietnam proved that. Hell, even in Desert Storm the Iraqis managed to force anything that uses the 'low and slow' methodology of air combat to either stay as far away as possible (Apaches) or take to higher altitudes (A-10s). Going low is sadly a _death sentence_ at worst, a waste of ammunition at best. History tells us that the only real way to actually go up against a semi-competent IADS network is... ground forces.
Air forces around the world are likely to 'reform' back to a system where they are under the direct command of the army, largely because the AAA game has evolved that much.
@@TheTrueAdept Disagree. The Iraqis in desert storm had the 3rd-best air defence system in the world at the time- behind Moscow and Washington- and were dismantled in a month. Yes, the USAF couldn't goo low and slow- but they didn't have to. Air power played a decisive role in that campaign.
The stat about the Iraqi air defence system is from Stephen Budiansky's _Air Power_
Edit:
The actual quote is:
"Baghdad itself ... was the most heavily defended airspace on earth save Moscow"
Page 419-420
@@whyme943 Here's the thing, the Iraqis in general were quite literally pants at, well, war in general.
The best description of the Iraqi military has been 'despite being trained by numerous major powers, it's a military _without_ a doctrine'.
@@TheTrueAdept The A-10s might have been forced to fly higher, and attack different targets, however other aircraft like F-16s, F-15Es, and F-111s were still going after Iraqi targets without much difficulty
@@demanischaffer only because the Iraqis are quite pants with waging war outside of an individual context. Even then, there were losses.
If someone with the competency of *_IRAQIS_* could make an air force have a rough time, then what does it tell about anyone semi-competent?
Mr. Hapless, I love your videos and am ever so great full that you got me into Combat Mission. Literally has to be one of my top games of all time. Never thought I’d be playing a game on PBEM, and I’m currently working on making my own AAR 👍🏽. I’ve been able to learn a lot as well as teach friends about the basics of combat. Hoping one day I get to try your hand at this, though I’ll probably be reduced to ashes. Cheers 😂
PS I love the War room series as well!
Really interesting deduction about drones
My friend and I played a huge quick battle, where I played as the Americans and I set up what I considered the most ideal infantry force. I had enough points for 1 full mech company. Each platoon had a its own raven, company level fist had 2 ravens, 2 batteries of 155s and two 120 mortars. A scout platoon with, you guessed it, another raven. And 1 platoon of Abrams. Pretty much all as elite as I could make them. Enough point left for a single stinger team. I could literally cover my opponent’s entire side of the map with raven coverage. Absolutely demolished a full BTG and a fully company of T90s with 1 Bradley taken out. It was insane, having UAVs at the platoon level is absolutely a decisive advantage. The information sharing potential of the US Army in BS is leaps and bounds ahead of the Russians. I want to do a game where that strategy of UAVs down to platoon level is really tested. Can a company sized element effectively take on a BTG if given enough situational awareness?
It's always nice when you have a battle big enough to bring all the toys to!
My take is that a US Coy can easily take on a BTG. Not saying it could destroy it, but certainly inflict enough casualties to stop it in it's tracks.
@@usuallyhapless9481 For sure, I have always wanted to see what type of force would needed to be mustard to take on a ABCT, that type of battle is probably outside of CMs ability to handle.
Now I'm left to wonder how the same battle would play out with symmetrical forces. That is to say, two US Combined Arms Companies with ravens, and attached support facing off. Seems like it might be 1914.
Finally some black sea!
I love the comparison with real life problems of Russia. Makes tactics in CM seem more grounded.
- I am not a native English speaker. Please take my intentions and not my words, and disregard my mistakes.
- Great video. Perfect graphs and excellent camera footage. I wonder if you have a All-in-One to download and what are your shaders options and resolution. I am struggling to get such a good graphs.
- I really loved how you cover your thoughts for planning, the battle, the post analysis and comparison with game and real world. That really helps for people like me, without actual military experience and struggling ( but loving ) this game.
- Hoping to see more content like this.
Your English is spot on.
@@bundyfay6447 thank you for the kind words.
By now I tested this out in a few quickbattles as well and I think my additional conclusions are the following:
-One of the big advantages is that you can have your FO in the fire support vehicle and in a safe place at all time. Losing your last good FO sucks, so using the raven from an FO in a safe location lets you cut down on the number of FOs
-The drone shines in terrain like village maps or crests where getting line of sight on a location of interest is dangerous and where you'd normally want your vehicles to occupy strong static positions until you know they are spotted
-Precision missions directed from the drone sometimes seem to trigger the laser warning (might be a bug? or do the ravens have a laser designator?) which is very funny to abuse against players
I think going forward I'll be directing my arty from a drone whenever the rules of the game make it likely that my drone will survive and where the terrain have strongly fragmented line of sight (or a big crest) without too many woods in good locations. Having the company commander and the drone/arty fo sit together in a fire support stryker in a safe position is also very neat, it gets the info out quickly and cuts the precision strike time down to 1-2min.
The terrain really was the wet blanket on your performance. In this terrain, a Stryker company probably would have been a lot better. At least in CMBS, drones are ineffective against infantry.
Infantry does seem hard to spot with drones, but at the same time we don't know what kind of altitude the drones are flying at, which can make a huge difference.
True. Worth bearing in mind that CMBS is in 2017 though, so probably not quite so good cameras up there
I have a friend from high school that was a Russian foreign exchange student.
I could have sworn I saw a soldier that looks just like him and some footage coming out of that War in the East.
This is a Brothers War I'm not taking sides I just hope that it answers quickly and bloodless late as possible without expanding.
20:04 wait a minute! There is a professional version of this game???
Ist it aviable to the public or like CMO only for military useage???
Big fan of these vids 👨🏿🦰
Well, now there are literally dozens of videos of Bradleys being turned to scrap
its actually amusing how people act surprised. ig its so common to see cold war era apcs like the btrs and bmps getting destroyed we dont even talk about them anymore? well i guess this IS the only war we get news of bradleys actually getting destroyed.
@@Wyn_Wins I think that's a big part of it. Folks are starting to realize what modern penetrators mean for modern combined arms warfare and it was a bit of a wakeup call. The game is not grounded in reality.
Would you be down to do AAR for a game I'm playing In Normandy? I know you are most likely a busy guy but it will be sweet to see this match from your perspective. I do enjoy the way you make your combat mission videos
What I find weird is that combat mission drones have hard time spotting infantry, even in open ground or on roofs.
Which given the recent experience should not be a case.
Yep. Drone observation does feel much less effective.
The caveat is that drone observation in 2023 is not what game devs in the early 2010s thought it would be in 2017.
I would love it if Battlefront were to port the more advanced drone handling from PE to the “public” version.
Can precision arty target only stationary target or it can also hit if target moves?
In CM, you can target moving vehicles, but it looks like the rounds will be aimed at where the vehicle was when they were fired- they don't adjust in flight.
What software do you use to record your Combat Mission footage. I just tried OBS to record some gameplay to show a friend and it was hellish when played back... most noticeably when moving the camera viewpoint around. Any tips?
Yeah, OBS and CM don't like each other for some reason. I used Shadowplay for a bit, but mostly use Bandicam.
Oh joy
Let slip the dogs of war!
Can you link the article you cited in the description or whatever it called where you put all the sources. Thanks
Knew I forgot something. Here it is: warontherocks.com/2022/06/not-built-for-purpose-the-russian-militarys-ill-fated-force-design/
Have you tried playing the Charge of the Stryker brigade campaign missions?
Not yet.
@@usuallyhapless9481 If you get around to it I'd love to watch a lets play. I've been watching you for years and basically learned how to play the game from you and I've been really struggling on that campaign lol
What sound mod do you use?
Waclaw's HQS Sound Mod
That's the one
love it
I hope someone told Battlefront to just stop making games about hypothetical future conflicts. They're 2/2, and I'm getting scared. XD
Luckily for everyone, Chinese TOE is apparently a massive pain to research.
Yes the Bradleys in CM are superior to the BMPs but in real life Bradley square was their Cemetery in Ukraine like all American vehicles in CM are skewed in their favor thats why it takes at least 2 75mm AT rounds to put a sherman out of action making it as hard or harder to kill than a Tiger while the Germans and allied tankers said one round was enough to put the shermans out of action and on fire as reliable as a Ronson lighter. Thats why it took 4-5 Shermans to put a Tiger out of action. These realities are completely ignored in CM.
Great illustration of what's happening to the Russians in Ukraine. No, it isn't the end of armor or proof that it's obsolete. It's just a visceral demonstration of the viability and importance of infantry in a combined-arms approach. A lot of the Russian armor losses have been due to man-portable antitank assets in ambush. Without the infantry manpower to dismount and sweep the woods or towns ahead of the armor, they're setting themselves up for failure.
The Bradley is OP in CM like most US vehicles.
This is true for the WW2 titles as well.
Poor bloody infantry.
Technically, TOW2Bs use EFPs instead of shaped charge effect
True, but I'd lump together for the sake of simplification. IIRC it's the same principle at work, shaped charges coming from cones and EFPs from bowls.
@@usuallyhapless9481 For most cases the differences don’t matter and I get that your channel isn’t science oriented.
They both operate on the same principle, a more conventional shaped charge creates a jet-like EFP upon detonation while the ones found on TOW-2Bs and on something like the CBU-97 creates a slug-like EFP.
@@run2u520 The way I think about HEAT vs EFPs is HEAT moves at about 10km/s but is only effective for a couple meters at most while EFPs move at a couple km/s but can have a effective range of a couple hundred meters. It leads to the weapons being employed differently even though, in the end, they are both ways to stuff a fast bit of moving metal thru a hunk of armor using the power of boom
I think your issue is your playing against a human, not a rigid numbers based technical manual. Where as an American player thinks in mobility and assault, you need an enemy that bunches up and refuses to move. The drone artillery would be more effective against a Syrian AI or a Russian player who can't move until he's phoned his Dad who cannot see the gameplay. or gets. 3 platoons stuck staging in a traffic jam on a highway. Your opponent started in an offensive position. Once the enemy is fixed in place the drone/arty combo could smack.
and yet the bradleys perform no btter than bmps in ukraiane
Drones are cringe. Never use 'em.
American equipment is rubbish as proved by the Russians in the ukronazis country. Bradleys for instance last about 20 minutes when on the combat line. lol