Wait so to get that final replay camera, you had to do a snapshot from the same angle every turn? thats some dedication.

Interesting look at this considering current events

Hap, nice way to present this scenario. In the scenario realism department, the lack of heavy armor or fire support can easily be explained away by various constraints: this was a secondary or diversionary effort, for instance. However, the large commitment of troops (by both sides) into such a small area, and especially for the attacker such unfavorable terrain, is harder to rationalize. Two platoons with support should have been the maximum for each side.

The sun is shining and Hapless releases another Combat Mission video. Dear diary : today was a good day.

The discussion about whether CMBS is a tactical game is interesting; for me It comes down to scenario size. The small infantry-biased scenarios are great. Combined arms often turn into a slugfest with high vehicle casualties. It's very hard to bring the combat power of APCs to bear in CMBS without them getting tagged, even the humble RPG is accurate enough at a distance to make strongpoint assaults a nightmare. UKR quite often have green infantry too, who break if they hear a soud noise (there's a hilarious post at BF forums about a BTR crew being rattled because their vehicle got bogged). Maneuver warfare is hard to pull off when weapons have such accurate coverage and range, any map with defense in depth becomes extremely tough to get an attack started on. The UKR campaign 'Shield of Kiev' has examples of both 'Attack on Zalissya' and 'Parks and Retaliation' are hell followed by heaven. The latter will feel very familiar to anyone used to CM2 WW2 stuff.

well im glad you posted, currently you're my favorite channel.

As a CMBS PBEM player (mostly as redfor) I can't agree that the CMBS is not a tactical game. I can't understand how those ppl say such comment, and wonder if those ppl ever played CMBS for once. There are too much things to consider to win this game (especially if someone plays redfor). Location of possible front line and kill zone, main approaching route and plan B, plan C, high and low terrain, weather, day/night, and wind .... This game needs huge amount of tactical sense, thinking and predicting. Playing US is bit easier than Russia, since US has easier learning curve than playing redfor. But eventually, it will not that much easy game for US army as well. Modern technology, such as thermal vision and UAV, will take out a bit of chances for flanking or ambush, but they are not ultimate game ender or cheating tools. And still, a lot of players successfully flanks and kick opponent's ass regardless of those modern tech toys. It just depends on how to use and counter those high tech toys, terrain, and play style. Some maps are not balanced, but most of the maps has numerous rooms for proper maneuvering, specially if it is meeting engagement (and that is why I more prefer meeting engagement). Attack defense game is bit limited in that sense. And current mine mechanism in this game is broken. Mines are clearly OP now, and I wish Battlefront bring something, such as tanks with mine plow, in next CMBS module. Anyway, I think this really depends on how to play this game. If someone think of Warthunder or Wargame Red Dragon while playing CMBS, that will be a huge mistake. It will be ass-kicking game, and the person will say "CMBS is biased, totally non balaced" or "CMBS is not tactical at all". I'm tired of those claims. I agree that CMBS is not a noob-friendly or easy game, but this game needs some level of tactical thinking and approach.

Great video as always! I think that you might have been using too many points for such a small map (looks like micromanagement nightmare to me!! lol). With a smaller number of troops in relation to the size of the map, even Black Sea is highly tactical. There is more room for manoeuvre, the whole reconnaissance/information(sharing!)-aspect kicks in, you have to make very hard decisions where to defend and how to react to enemy movements because you can't defend all approaches to the objective to the same extent, and setting up reserves and (APCs with) extra ammo becomes very important. Setting up fair games can still be very tricky though. You really have to pick the proper map size, game mode (probe, attack, assault) and time limit. Also, as a defender, I think that proper usage of field fortifications is often an essential aspect.

Great stuff, the overhead timelapse is a nice touch.

As ever watching this while keeping with developments with the ongoing war.

Dammit, Hapless, you have to stop uploading videos at 3 PM my time when I'm trying to work!

Tactics is what do I eat now. Strategy is what do I eat tomorrow. CMBS is a tactical game as you in MP only play singel battles and you dont need to preserve forces or you cant withdraw or so on as it has no effect. maybe if you do a MP campaign with other players and only play on super huge maps with company sized+ elements you can bring in strategy.

Awesome video man keep em coming!

Hapless, if your into it, I'd be down to play a game of CM:BN with you

what was the ratio defender - attacker? Seems to me that the attacker did quite a big stumble by trying to attack along the whole line instead of overrunning your defences on the bottom while making sure you cant flank them from the high ground.

Maybe if you played on a bigger map or with less troops, you could have had a more "tactical" approach.

Does whacking EW up to max even things out at all?

Great video, love from Ukraine mate! Слава Україні!

Where can I get all these vehicles for UA side?