Graviteam

English-speaking community => Graviteam Tactics: Operation Star => Topic started by: andrey12345 on June 11, 2013, 07:19:29 PM



Title: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: andrey12345 on June 11, 2013, 07:19:29 PM
New DLC in realistic setting, coming soon.

Some screens:
http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3795094/GTOS_Zhalanashkol_1969_USSR_Ch#Post3795094


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: andrey12345 on June 17, 2013, 11:41:40 PM
New screens

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3798230/Re_GTOS_Zhalanashkol_1969_USSR#Post3798230
http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3798228/Re_GTOS_Zhalanashkol_1969_USSR#Post3798228

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3795099/Re_GTOS_Zhalanashkol_1969_USSR#Post3795099
http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3795096/Re_GTOS_Zhalanashkol_1969_USSR#Post3795096


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Dane49 on June 18, 2013, 01:39:35 AM
Not sure how I feel about this DLC :-\

The force mix is small and so is the map.
I think if any GTOS modern DLC needed a hypothetical theme,this conflict qualifies and could certainly use it to make it more appealing.

Hell if Graviteam wanted to add Chinese and hills,Korea 1950 would have been a better choice in my opinion.

If the price is low I'll probably purchase it,but don't see getting much playability out of it.


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Flashburn on June 18, 2013, 02:20:38 AM
To be honest I am not so sure on this one either.  But it seems alot of these DLC's are testing the waters of various concepts.  My concern is simply that alot of little this and that stuff will back fire in the long run. 


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Dane49 on June 18, 2013, 03:08:56 AM
A modern Chechen war DLC during 1995 would be nice.

Not Grozny because it is too urbanized but maybe the battles and skirmishes that took place in the Argun valley in the spring of 2000.
From what I've read there were quite a few decent sized battles that could be simulated rather well with this game,not to mention most of the content for the opposing forces has already been modeled.
There's all sorts of modern conflicts that have taken place in this area of the world in the last 20 years to simulate countless different battles that have recently been fought in that region.

Andrey mentioned that the modern stuff sells better than WW2,but that may change if the focus is on a bunch of little battles that no one ever heard of and/or could probably care less about gamming them either.

Chaco war ??? Wasn't that the war between Standard and Shell oil?


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Kyth on June 18, 2013, 05:36:19 AM
Chaco war ??? Wasn't that the war between Standard and Shell oil?

And don't forget the Gazpacho Conflict.

Myself, I'd appreciate simulating the battles of Mogaung and Myitkyina (and perhaps, Meiktila as well).  :)


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Dane49 on June 18, 2013, 06:04:27 AM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/776-Battle-DE.svg/800px-776-Battle-DE.svg.png)

This is a battle I would like to see simulated.
The Battle for Height 776, part of the larger Battle of Ulus-Kert, was an engagement in the Second Chechen War that took place during fighting for control of the Argun River gorge in the highland Shatoysky District of central Chechnya, between the villages of Ulus-Kert and Selmentausen.In late February 2000.

Quote
Myself, I'd appreciate simulating the battles of Mogaung and Myitkyina (and perhaps, Meiktila as well
Burma!I could go for that too.But I think we may be seeing more Angola prior Hooper for the next modern DLC after Zhalanashkol 1969.


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Dane49 on June 18, 2013, 06:20:12 AM
ULUS-KERT: An Airborne Company's Last Stand
 Sergeant Michael D. Wilmoth, US Army Reserve, and
 Lieutenant Colonel Peter G. Tsouras, US Army Reserve, Retired

 In four days of desperate fighting, from 29 February to 3 March 2000, a large force of Chechen fighters wiped out a Russian paratroop company in the harsh defiles and ridges of the Argun Gorge in the mountains of southern Chechnya. Although the battle was a catastrophic tactical defeat for the Russian airborne force, the company's stubborn defense to the last man and the concentration of Russian relief forces inflicted a strategic setback on the Chechens. The Russians stumbled into this catastrophe through poor unit leadership, but Russian blood and valor transformed it into victory.
 Hatred to the Bone
 In Fall 1999, the Second Chechen War began. The Russian Army sought to reimpose the Russian Federation's authority in lawless, breakaway Chechnya. The Russians and Chechens' shared 200-year history had been punctuated by convulsions of blood and cruelty. The First Chechen War, from 1994 to 1996, had ended in the Russian Army's humiliation and left Russia with its highest loss of resources and professionalism since the Soviet Union's demise. The loss of basic combat skills also had been horrific. This second round was the Russian Army's opportunity to show that it had recovered something of its former ability.
 Nothing expressed the depth of Russian-Chechen animosity more than the battle cries hurled back and forth across the firing lines during the siege of Groznyy. To the Chechen shouts of "Allah Akhbar!" the Russians would respond, "Christ is Risen!"
 After Groznyy fell, Chechen forces regrouped in the rough, mountainous areas of southern Chechnya. By late February, a large Chechen force of from 1,600 and 2,500 fighters had concentrated in the town of Ulus-Kert, where the Abazolgul and Sharo-argun rivers join.1 The area was one in which the Russians had not dared enter during the First Chechen War. This time, they did not hesitate to follow.
 A Russian Airborne Forces (VDV) tactical group attacked Chechen forces at Ulus-Kert, forcing them southeast. One of the VDV tactical group's regimental task forces, based on the 104th Guards Parachute Regiment (GPR) of the 76th Guards Airborne Division (GAD), was to block the gorge while the VDV tactical group encircled the Chechens.
 Area of Operations
 The small town of Ulus-Kert is surrounded by extremely steep, mountainous terrain. Approximately 6 kilometers south of the town and extending far to the southeast are the Dargenduk Mountains. A road leading generally south out of Ulus-Kert and up the northeastern edge of the Dargenduks crosses over a 1,410-meter hill, referred to as Hill 1410. Approximately 1.5 kilometers directly southeast of Ulus-Kert is Hill 705.6. Just about one-half kilometer south of Hill 705.6 is a narrow opening to a small gorge. Three and one-half kil-ometers southeast of Ulus-Kert, on the gorge's easternmost side, is Hill 776. Hill 787 is only 1 kilometer farther south.
 A road leading southeast from Ulus-Kert over Hill 705.6 turns south into the gorge. Another road intersects the first then leads to the western edge of the saddle between hills 776 and 787 where it divides into mountain paths crossing the saddle. Hill 787 is approximately 4.3 kilometers north of Hill 1410. At the time of the operation, the weather was foggy and cold, with snow on the ground.
 The Chechens planned to escape advancing Russian forces by using the advantage of the mountainous terrain southeast of Ulus-Kert. After slipping through the passes, the fighters could seize the strategic population centers of Makhkety, Elistanzhi, Zaduli, Kirov-Yurt and Vedeno, which provided a west-to-east corridor in relatively low, flat terrain through which remaining Chechen forces could withdraw to Dagestan.2 From Dagestan, they could renew the struggle on more favorable terms.
 The VDV tactical group's mission was to counter the Chechen force's objectives by blocking its escape through the mountains then encircling it so artillery and combat air support could be used. Engaging infantry soldiers in direct combat was to be kept to a minimum. The plan to encircle Chechen forces—a common Russian tactic—reflects the Russians' desire to minimize casualties.
 The First Chechen War had not been popular with the Russian populace because of the high death rate. Tension was also rife in the Russian command arrangement. Airborne forces felt they were being used as cannon fodder to reduce casualties among motorized infantry troops. Underlying this tension was the old rivalry between Russian airborne forces and ground forces. Historically, the VDV had been a separate service. Briefly in the late 1990s, it had been subordinated to ground forces. Newly appointed commander of Russian airborne forces Colonel General Georgiy Shpak had obtained a reversal of this decision and zealously guarded the VDV's independence.
 Shpak streamlined the organization and obtained new missions for it, primarily in peacekeeping operations. By the time operations around Ulus-Kert were under way, the grouping of airborne forces had been subordinated to Colonel General Gennadiy N. Troshev, Commander of the Eastern Grouping of Federal Forces, who reported directly to General of the Army Viktor Kazantsev, who commanded the Operations Group, Joint Grouping of Federal Forces, in the North Caucasus. The arrangement was not a happy one; airborne forces felt they were not being properly supported.3
 The Battle Begins
 The VDV tactical group was a task force based on divisional parachute regiments augmented with VDV command-level assets, such as reconnaissance subunits. The 104th GPR task force was assigned the mission of blocking Chechen escape routes east through the mountains. 104th GPR, like most Soviet/Russian parachute regiments, had three airborne battalions, an artillery battalion equipped with two S9, 120-millimeter, self-propelled guns and various support assets. Each airborne battalion had three airborne companies numbered sequentially one through nine, with the first, second and third companies composing the 1st Airborne Battalion and so on. Each 104th GPR company was augmented with reconnaissance and/or SPETSNAZ subunits from the VDV command to form company tactical groups.4
Hills 705.6, 776, 787 and 1410 were the main features of the net 104th GPR used to encircle the Chechen force. The VDV tactical group's main body crossed the Sharoargun and Abazolgul rivers, pushing the Chechen force out of Ulus-Kert toward the southeast. 104th GPR's 1st Company, 1st Airborne Battalion, still had not crossed either the Abazolgul or the Sharoargun. An unidentified 104th GPR company was on or near Hill 705.6. 4th Company and an unidentified 104th GPR airborne company, two VDV SPETS-NAZ groups and an elite Federal Security Service (FSB)—successor to the KGB—SPETSNAZ group, known as Vympel, were on Hill 1410. Present at 2d Airborne Battalion Headquarters on Hill 776 were Commander, 2d Airborne Battalion, Lieutenant Colonel Mark Niko-layevich Yevtyukhin, and Captain Viktor Romanov, the commander of an artillery battery of the regimental artillery battalion who was heading a forward observer team. 6th Company, commanded by Major Sergey Molodov, was en route to the saddle between Hills 776 and 787. 104th GPR was engaged in positioning companies to block escape routes over the mountains.
 The Chechen force, retreating to the southeast of Ulus-Kert along a road leading over Hill 705.6 away from the main advancing body of the VDV tactical group, was looking for the first unguarded or weakly held way over the mountains. The 1,600 to 2,500 fighters wore winter camouflage and were well equipped with various small arms, grenade launchers and mortars. They were supported by a logistics train of hundreds of pack animals.
 Day 1, 29 February 2000
 Early on 29 February, a 104th GPR airborne company encountered a significant Chechen force on the road leading southeast out of Ulus-Kert. Russian paratroopers engaged the Chechen fighters for control of Hill 705.6. The Russian company, significantly stressed during the fight, gained control of the hill and pushed the Chechen force southeast into the small gorge below. The company was most likely heavily supported by artillery and helicopters, as was the usual Russian operation in this war.
 The 104th GPR commander ordered 2d Airborne Battalion elements to block the saddle between hills 776 and 787, which was the next possible path over the mountains for the Chechens. The 2d Airborne Battalion headquarters was already in place on Hill 776. The 2d Airborne Battalion element was to be in place by 1400. In the early morning, 6th Company, including the third platoon, 4th Company, and two reconnaissance groups, probably from the regimental reconnaissance platoon, started on foot toward the saddle.5
 6th Company, with the other elements, minus the company's third platoon, arrived by late morning, ahead of schedule. The company commander established a linear defense in the saddle between the hills, fronted by a minefield facing west toward the gorge. The defense focused on the Chechen forces' expected direction of escape. No access routes through the minefield were prepared nor were platoon positions sited to be mutually supportive.6 After establishing company positions, troops began their afternoon meal, leaving their positions and congregating in the open.7
 The Chechen force clearly had a better grasp of the situation. The fighters had been listening to 104th GPR communications and used this advantage and good ground reconnaissance to locate 104th GPR subunits and to set ambushes. At 1230, a 6th Company reconnaissance patrol encountered approximately 20 fighters just outside company defensive positions. That the Chechens could approach that close without detection shows that the Russians had conducted no deep reconnaissance of the approaches to the saddle.
 The Chechens, armed with automatic weapons, grenade launchers and mortars, reacted quickly, seizing the initiative. The small force was probably followed by a combat element, which would have been consistent with Soviet-style reconnaissance doctrine that places great value on immediately seizing the initiative in any engagement by having a strong combat element close behind the advance reconnaissance ele-ment.8 Chechen reconnaissance elements also worked their way around the Russian position in the saddle and attacked from the rear where there were no defenses.9 With Chechens in the rear and no escape routes through their own minefield, 6th Company pulled back and dug in on Hill 776. Their retreat was so precipitous that they abandoned mess kits still full of food.10
 Chechen fighters, laying down constant fire on 6th Company, received reinforcements as the main body arrived. The force encircled 6th Company and sent waves of fighters into the attack.11 By the end of the first day, 6th Company had suffered 31 dead—a 33 percent killed in action (KIA) rate.12 6th Company had barely survived three basic errors: failure to establish an all-around defense; failure to aggressively conduct reconnaisance of the enemy's expected approach route, especially given the Chechen reputation for tactical skill, reconnaisance and working around the flanks; and failure to heed warnings about the Chechen force's approach.13
 For some reason, 6th Company did not anticipate with sufficient seriousness and energy the danger it had been assigned to forestall. It seems likely that weak command at the company level was compounded by a lack of timely supervision by the adjacent battalion headquarters.
 Day 2, 1 March 2000
 Early in the morning on Hill 1410, a reinforcement group of two VDV SPETSNAZ platoons, one Vympel SPETSNAZ group and two airborne companies departed on foot for the saddle. The group encountered several ambushes while traversing terrain as steep as 70 degrees. At approximately 0330, one VDV SPETSNAZ platoon broke through to Hill 787 but was forced to dig in because of stiff Chechen opposition.
 The 1st Company was also sent to reinforce 6th Company. While attempting to cross the Abazolgul River northeast of Ulus-Kert, the unit encountered a Chechen ambush force of up to 60 men. Despite repeated attempts to fight through the Chechen ambush, the 1st Company was forced to dig in on the river's bank. At 0300, during a brief lull, 2d Airborne Battalion deputy commander Major Aleksandr Dostovalov, with 4th Company's third platoon, broke through to the encircled company. While relief forces were being held back by ambushes, waves of Chechen fighters continued to assault 6th Company on Hill 776.14 When Romanov's legs were blown off by a mortar round, the battalion commander took over.
 While some reports question the lack of artillery and combat air support, others indicate that both where present throughout the four-day engagement. In his report to defense minister Igor Sergeyev, Shpak states that 2d Airborne Battalion "was supported by a self-propelled artillery battalion of the 104th Parachute Regiment and by army aviation."15 The presence of an artillery forward team with 6th Company, which included a battery commander, indicates that artillery support was at least adequate. While Shpak's statement and other reports make it certain that VDV artillery was employed throughout the engagement, it is unclear how effective it was at reducing Chechen numbers. Also unanswered is whether additional artillery assets were employed to support 6th Company.
 Press reports also cite use of "Grads"—122-millimeter BM-21 multiple-rocket launchers that VDV units do not have.16 Accounts of other engagements in the southern mountains show that the Russians employed available artillery from a number of units in coordination with army aviation helicopters. These accounts stress that artillery continued to fire when helicopters disappeared with daylight. Only one Russian hel-icopter in the Chechen theater had night capability. This supports Shpak's statement that 6th Company received no aviation support at night. Helicopter support was further limited by foggy conditions during the fighting.17
 The Chechens continued heavy attacks on Hill 776 from all directions throughout the early morning. Paratrooper officers showed an unhesitating willingness to sacrifice themselves, a trait the Germans had frequently noted in the grandfathers of the men on the hill. Dostovalov, already wounded, attacked a group of Chechens trying to carry off a wounded soldier and dispatched them with a grenade. Junior soldiers were equally valiant. After Private Aleksandr Lebedev ran out of ammunition, he threw himself and his last live grenade into a group of Chechens who had wanted him to surrender.
 At approximately 0500, the Chech-ens breached 6th Company defenses. Cumulative casualties and odds of at least 10 to one were too much for the dwindling Russian force. As Chechens overran Hill 776, fighting became hand-to-hand, and Chechens began shooting wounded Russians. The already wounded battalion commander took over the radio from the wounded Romanov and called in artillery fire on his own position, shouting into the radio, "I call artillery on myself!"18 The Chechens suffered grievously from the artillery, and at 0610, communications with the battalion commander were lost.
 As the second day of fighting closed, 6th Company counted another 26 paratroopers killed and many wounded. Counting the 31 men who had fallen the day before, 6th Company had suffered a KIA rate of almost two-thirds—57 out of 90 men.19 Chechen casualties also continued to mount. Repeated human-wave attacks are costly, especially when the defenders are supported by artillery and aviation.
 The Chechens had been throwing themselves at Hill 776 to keep open a path for the rest of their force. This movement was interrupted by the arrival of the relief force from Hill 1410. Major Andrey Lobanov, commanding a 45th VDV Reconnaisance Regiment SPETSNAZ group, was with this force. He noted that hundreds of pack animals had already passed by. The Russians moved into the saddle and found 6th Company's abandoned positions and soon encountered a large Chechen group. The Russians retreated to Hill 787 from which they could cover the saddle.
 The Russians intercepted the Chechen commander's desperate orders: "Do not engage in battle. Force your way forward."20 With the remnants of 6th Company still holding out on Hill 776 and new Russian forces on neighboring Hill 787, the Chechen escape route was dangerously constricted. The Russians sent a reconnaissance platoon into the saddle to find a better position. Instead, it found an ambush by Arab volunteers, covering an attempt by the main Chechen convoy to escape. Having suffered five wounded, the Russians committed another company, hoping to stop the Chechen escape attempt.21
 Day 3, 2 March 2000
 Late in the morning, the 1st Company broke through Chechen forces and reached the battle area. However, it could not relieve 6th Company, which was still under close attack. One officer and 32 men were still alive. Deputy company commander Captain Roman Sokolov had arrived in Chechnya barely 13 days before. Wounded in the hand, he organized the survivors' final defense. He placed the six most junior soldiers in the care of Sergeant Andrey Proshev and ordered them to escape. Then, as the Chechens pressed the attack, Sokolov called artillery fire down on his position as a desperate attempt to fend off the enemy. Another 16 paratroopers on Hill 776 were killed in the continuing fighting.22
 Day 4, 3 March 2000
 The struggle for control of Hills 776 and 787 ended on the fourth day of the fighting. The last 11 paratroopers on Hill 776 were killed.23 The relief force found Proshev's small band of survivors.24 The surviving Chechens, who had not been able to escape over the saddle before the relief's arrival, slipped back down into the gorge pursued by paratroopers and hunted by helicopters. The Russian pursuit took them about 5 kilometers east to the village of Selmentausen where a number of escaping Chechens had concentrated.
 Mopping Up
 The Chechens won a Pyrrhic victory. Tarrying to bludgeon through 6th Company allowed VDV forces to fight through difficult terrain and Chechen ambushes to close off the main body's escape. Most surviving Chechens were ultimately forced back into the gorge, where troops from 104th GPR took a number of prisoners.
 While no 6th Company personnel surrendered or were taken prisoner, the four-day struggle resulted in the death of at least 84 VDV soldiers, including 13 officers. Even after losing its senior officers, 6th Company held its final positions against a much larger force.
 Chechen casualties included approximately 400 dead. According to Krasnaya Zvezda, the official newspaper of the Russian Ministry of Defense (MOD), this figure was based on radio-intercept data, intelligence reports, eyewitnesses, local residents and captured Chechens.25
 


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Dane49 on June 18, 2013, 06:20:32 AM
The Arab volunteers fighting with the Chechens appeared, in particular, to have suffered severely. Heavy Arab casualties would not be unusual among particularly fanatical units, nor would it be unusual for the Chechens to have pushed the Arabs first into harm's way. Lobanov counted 200 enemy dead on Hill 776 alone, along with 75 Russian paratroopers. Survivor Viktor Sokirko stated, "I took a notebook from the pocket of one of the gunmen with a roster of 100 people; the bullet had hit him right in his heart; it had gone through his Koran."26
 The bodies of the 84 fallen VDV troops were evacuated on foot, with combat aviation providing support. It was shaping up to be a bloody month for the Russian Army; it had a total of 156 dead—a higher KIA rate than during the grimmest comparable period in the storming of Groznyy.27
 6th Company accomplished its mission. The Chechen force was blocked from escaping the encirclement. More important, Chechen commanders realized that they could not seize strategic population centers in the low terrain and would be forced to stay in the mountains. In the next few days, a number of Chechen fighters surrendered to the Russians. The day after the battle ended, a Chechen field commander surrendered with 73 men, including 30 wounded—the largest surrender to that date. Made up largely of Chechen teenagers, this band had actually escaped over the saddle before the relief arrived on 2 March. It surrendered on the outskirts of Selmentausen. The young men had had enough of war.28
 Recriminations
 The loss of 6th Company provoked an interservice exchange of recriminations. At a news conference, Shpak bluntly blamed the disaster on the Eastern Grouping of Forces' commander, to whom the airborne troops had been subordinated. Shpak's subordinates added their fire: "It all began back in Dagestan, when Kazantsev sent the airborne troops to their death and protected his own infantry."29 They claimed airborne forces had been stretched too thin and "in isolation from the main forces. . . . [T]he grouping command treats the airborne troops as cannon fodder."30
 By the middle of March, cumulative airborne casualties gave ammunition for their charges. Shpak reported that 181 airborne soldiers had been killed and 395 wounded in Chechnya out of a force of about 5,100 men. The total Russian force in Chechnya had averaged about 100,000 and had lost 1,291 Defense Ministry troops and 617 Interior Ministry troops for a total of 1,908, suffering 3,190 and 2,107 wounded. Airborne forces had numbered five percent of the force and suffered 10 percent of the deaths.31
 Shpak had a point. While the operational concept of blocking and trapping the Chechens was sound, the net was too weak. 104th GPR was forced to commit individual companies, which could not be easily reinforced, to oppose the breakthrough attempt of a lethal brigade-size unit. The airborne net should have been backed up with larger motorized rifle formations. Shpak's complaints carried enough weight to have the Grouping of Airborne Forces transferred from Troshev's command to the Joint Grouping of Federal Forces—the overall headquarters for operations in Chechnya.
 Reconnaissance and Security
 Kazantsev, former commander of the Grouping of Airborne Troops in Chechnya, accurately described the situation: "Such heavy losses could have been avoided. Reconnaissance must be carried out more carefully."32 After walking over the battlefield, Lobanov, who fought forward with the relief, also said pointedly, "There is a continual question in my head: Why was there no information that such a horde of gunmen was breaking through?"33 Compounding this failure was the lackadaisical attitude toward the company's security. 6th Company had blinded itself, allowing Chechens the priceless element of surprise. Had 6th Company been properly alerted and ready in proper defenses, it might have been able to hold off the Chechens successfully until relief arrived. One elemental failure cascaded into another, which might explain why the battalion commander suddenly emerged as the defense's motivating force once the disaster unfolded.
 However much the Russian official line emphasizes the heroism of 6th Company paratroopers, the results of the official inquiry ordered by President Vladmir Putin was professionally blunt. The force was accused of "slovenliness, laxity and unprofessionalism."34 The force showed a glaring loss of basic tactical skills at the company level during the encounters. Such basic tactical considerations should have been uppermost in the company officers' minds. Whether this was a local aberration or indicates pervasive problems throughout Russian Army elite forces, the VDV's failure poses important questions about Russian capabilities. While the VDV performed credibly and often with distinction in the Second Chechen War, there have been enough blatant exceptions to conclude that even the VDV's skills are no longer of a uniform high standard, despite Shpak's reforms.
 Pride of Corps
 On the positive side, 6th Company recovered and fought well against enormous odds once it moved to Hill 776 under the effective leadership of the battalion commander and his deputy. Other Russian airborne and SPETSNAZ forces in the area, responding to reinforce 6th Company, fought their way into the area and eventually stopped the Chechen breakout. All this occurred in enormously difficult terrain and weather conditions and against tenacious Chechen resistance. Because the Chechens are notoriously atrocity-****e, especially toward members of the more elite Russian military organizations, fighting to the death makes a necessity.
 Media reports consistently indicate that no 6th Company soldiers were taken prisoner. They refused to give up their position, even while knowing they would be overrun and killed. The VDV is known as an elite force composed of soldiers with high morale, discipline and a sense of purpose. Their actions make it clear that this characterization held true. Despite glaring tactical mistakes in security and reconnaissance, the Russian airborne spirit successfully imbued its men with the morale and courage that come with pride of corps.
 Despite the bad publicity surrounding the casualty figures in this battle, the Russian Army achieved an important victory. By holding Hill 776 long enough for additional VDV troops to fill the area, 6th Company defeated the Chechen strategy to break out of the mountains and regain the initiative. Chechen fighters, seeing they could not break through Russian lines, were forced to scale back their objectives. Instead of employing relatively large groups against vulnerable population centers, Chechen leaders realized they had to break up into smaller formations to wage war at a much lower level.
 But, this was an expensive Russian victory. Russian blood and valor had to make up for the deficit in basic combat skills, an issue larger than one small-unit leadership failure. The entire Russian force has suffered too many similar catastrophies for the fate of 6th Company to be just a tragic exception. Still, there was significant improvement in battlefield performance between the First and Second Chechen Wars, although performance levels still remained low, which reflected how bad things had become. The failure of an elite force such as the Russian airborne shows how fragile and perishable such skills are.
 The Aftermath
 The battle of Ulus-Kert was quickly enshrined in heroic myth, its theme loudly echoed by Russian media, the Ministry of Defense and the airborne forces themselves. This reflects popular support for the war and the military and a renewal of Russian nationalism. It also served to distract public attention from manifest failures the catstrophe revealed. Certainly the results of the official inquiry commissioned by Putin will never be made public. Nonetheless, he issued a decree decorating all of the fallen paratroopers, with all 13 officers and nine enlisted men receiving Russia's highest medal—Hero of the Russian Federation.35
 A memorial service was held on 14 March at the Novopasskiy Monastery in Moscow. The service was conducted by Russian Orthodox Patriarch Alekisy II of Moscow and all Russia, and was attended by Putin, Chief of the Russian General Staff General Anatoliy Kvashnin and national and military leaders. It was an enormous statement of resolve. Likewise, the funeral of most of the Russian dead at their home garrison in Pskov was a heartfelt demonstration of this sentiment. Most of the dead were buried in Pskov where the funeral service was held in the ancient Trinity Cathedral.
 Speaking at the funeral, Russian Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev stated, "This battle for a nameless height was the turning point of the entire Chechen campaign. It was a do-or-die crisis for the fallen, and they chose to follow the paths of their ancestors in similar desperate straits. Just such decisions were made by Russian servicemen on Kulikovo Field, on Lake Chud, at Borodino and at Sevastopol. In the winter of 1941 Panfilov's legendary heroes defended the last line with their lives on the approaches of Moscow. Nowadays the Argun Gorge has been just such a line for the Guards' paratroopers


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: andrey12345 on June 18, 2013, 07:23:13 AM
Not sure how I feel about this DLC :-\

The force mix is small and so is the map.
I think if any GTOS modern DLC needed a hypothetical theme,this conflict qualifies and could certainly use it to make it more appealing.

Hell if Graviteam wanted to add Chinese and hills,Korea 1950 would have been a better choice in my opinion.

If the price is low I'll probably purchase it,but don't see getting much playability out of it.

I think it should be clear that the war in Korea, or somewhere else - large-scale conflict, it is not for the DLC at all. Just because there is a need ten times more equipment and other whole. That there is no place to take. It makes no sense to offer every time, do something. The developers are well aware of their capabilities.

The presence of Chinese soldiers in uniform with weapon of 60s, absolutely does not mean that it was possible to make the war in Korea in 50s.


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Dane49 on June 18, 2013, 07:39:22 AM
Quote
It makes no sense to offer every time, do something. The developers are well aware of their capabilities

I'm well aware of my interests.
Zhalanashkov 1969 does not interest me or my wallet.


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: andrey12345 on June 18, 2013, 08:22:17 AM
Quote
It makes no sense to offer every time, do something. The developers are well aware of their capabilities

I'm well aware of my interests.
Zhalanashkov 1969 does not interest me or my wallet.

We still can not stop doing the unpopular conflicts in DLCs :)


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Dane49 on June 18, 2013, 08:43:04 AM
Quote
We still can not stop doing the unpopular conflicts in DLCs Smiley

Do what you like.
I'll find something else to play till you make something I do like or realize that popular is more appealing than unpopular.

Different doesn't mean better different just means different.


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Flashburn on June 18, 2013, 09:03:16 AM
Testing the market with various DLC's is ok I guess.  I mean look at Hooper.  It worked out.  This one I do not think will do well in the west at all.  But may have appeal in CIS states, maybe with the few guys in China as well.  It is always the small frys that find the next good thing that WILL WORK.  And companys simply can not keep remaking the same crap over and over for ever.  HMMMM six day war or Sinai in 73 seems a good thing to test out with current assets...  Clears throat..  Also test out if publishers/sellers would pick it up.  AND as it would do pretty damned well IMO......... If handled right that is.  Something vary sexy in my mind about super shermans and t34-85 facing off.  I dont know...maybe it is just me.  :D  Hmmm and IDF M3 halftracks and btr152's.  I really wish I knew more about the six day war.  Finding a small battle that could have gone either way.  And included some sherman/t34 figthing.  YAYAYA and t55 and idf centurians (had the older 20 pounder I beleave at this time before upgraded).  Oh and everyone had AMX-13's.  Then there was the odd ball M4 shermans with amx13 turrets of Eygpt.  Ok all that is to much for a DLC BUT t34-85 VS super sherman with m3 and btr152 is not. 


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Flashburn on June 18, 2013, 01:20:31 PM
Oh and Dane,...  you know you will get it for the polygon sooner or later.....


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Dane49 on June 18, 2013, 02:39:59 PM
Oh and Dane,...  you know you will get it for the polygon sooner or later.....

No,I don't think I will.
The more you support things you don't like or care for,it seems the more often you are likely to see it.
I'm getting bored with the modern stuff anyways and prefer WW2 and lately it seems each new modern DLC is more watered down then the last.

I have a few American Civil war board games I haven't even opened yet,that I bought 4 years ago.
I think I'll tool around with them till the Mius Front game is released.


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: andrey12345 on June 18, 2013, 03:30:21 PM
Oh and Dane,...  you know you will get it for the polygon sooner or later.....

No,I don't think I will.
The more you support things you don't like or care for,it seems the more often you are likely to see it.
I'm getting bored with the modern stuff anyways and prefer WW2 and lately it seems each new modern DLC is more watered down then the last.

I have a few American Civil war board games I haven't even opened yet,that I bought 4 years ago.
I think I'll tool around with them till the Mius Front game is released.
But what about the next two DLCs in WWII setting?  ;D
One of them is practically at your request be done.


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Dane49 on June 18, 2013, 03:38:22 PM
Quote
But what about the next two DLCs in WWII setting?  Grin
One of them is practically at your request be done.

Like I stated earlier.
I prefer WW2 so I'm sure I will buy them.I'm just losing interest in the modern setting choices.


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Bekro on June 18, 2013, 03:43:40 PM
Modern settings are good. I hope to see more in fact I believe this approach is better which rather than seeing only WW2 or Modern settings seeing both provide better gaming experience. However, the latest DLC seems too small and not enough toys to play with  :)


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Dane49 on June 18, 2013, 03:53:39 PM
Quote
But what about the next two DLCs in WWII setting?

I'm aware of the" tank pack" DLC.

What is the other one?
Is it the Voronezh DLC I saw being mentioned on the Sukhoi forums?
If so,I am very interested in the Voronezh DLC also.


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Schuck on June 18, 2013, 07:32:12 PM
Well Guys,
If i had to pick a modern DLC it would have to be the Falklands Conflict,
Warships, high speed landing craft, aircraft, artillery, helicopters, the Parachute Regiment, Royal Marines, its got the lot!
And i dont think anybodies tried to tackle it before, i would love to it.

And i had mates of mine fighting there!


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: andrey12345 on June 18, 2013, 08:20:15 PM
Its good setting, may be same good as Chako war. But not for DLC, for standalone game


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Flashburn on June 19, 2013, 01:01:42 AM
The issue is of course time and budget.  Not a clue what is costs for Graviteam to get a new vehicle made.  But its pretty much a solid 2 weeks from start to finish.  So doing an all inclusive DLC with LOTS of new stuff takes time and recourses away from Mius. For a small scale thing like a DLC as I learned with longstop is simply TO much for TO long.  And that is not a dead project, just sleeping.  But yes vary concerned with make up of new DLC's.  And there is nothing wrong with Modern.  But IMO just not the right perfect force mix and land form to really show off.  For Armor max of 3km by 3km IS TOO SHORT.  Needs to be 2x as large.  WIth cherry picked land form IMO.  Prophet REALLY showed that.  But I miss WW2 as well.  But I like to mix it up along the way.  I would like to see at this point destroyable aircraft, aaa guns, and a few new vehicles in ww2 setting and OF course modern stuff too.  Maybe I am crazy but a couple destroyable aircraft and a few aaa guns (self propelled) as a stand alone DLC I would pay for.  However I keep slowly making stuff in that direction.  Flak 38 anyone?   


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: wodin on June 19, 2013, 07:14:47 PM
I'm desperate for Graviteam to go back and do some more WW2 east front operations..these recent modern offerings hold no interest for me at all. Now I'm not saying I wouldn't buy a standalone game setting Cold war gone hot in say the late seventies early eighties, or a Korean War game as I would, but these wars your currently doing don't have me looking for my debit card. The recent DLC are probably alot more interesting to the Russian GTOS community.

Hopefully the Muis front game comes along soon..or at least a new WW2 operation DLC for OS. Lots of tweaking can still be done for the WW2 game setting as Flashburn mentions.

(Also I like the sound of Falklands as mentioned a few posts up. However you'd have to do seaborn invasions etc..loads of work).


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Dane49 on June 19, 2013, 07:47:49 PM
Quote
The recent DLC are probably alot more interesting to the Russian GTOS community.

Not from what I've read on the Russian forums, it seems they don't seem to be very happy with the modern stuff and think Graviteam is pandering more to foreign community interests ($) at the expense of their wishes and desires for the game.

I'm not all that interested in the choice of modern settings either(Past,present or so far-future plans).
Like most people I only bought into the modern stuff to get the new force mix to use on the much more interesting maps of Russia.
I haven't even touched the campaigns in the Shield of the Prophet game- the area depicted is too barren and uninteresting and Hooper gets none of my attention anymore.


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: wodin on June 19, 2013, 09:31:47 PM
Well looks like the customers\players are voicing their concerns over these modern rather unknown little conflicts even those from Nations involved...I do hope Graviteam are taking it onboard and get back to WW2, the only modern setting I really imagine being a hit is a NATO vs WARSAW PACT cold war gone hot.

Fingers crossed Muis is not far away.


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: andrey12345 on June 19, 2013, 09:37:23 PM
Well looks like the customers\players are voicing their concerns over these modern rather unknown little conflicts even those from Nations involved...I do hope Graviteam are taking it onboard and get back to WW2

Now is modern sells more than better than WW2. Even hi-res textures better than WWII. I think we make some modern again, after 2 next DLCs about WWII.


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Dane49 on June 20, 2013, 02:37:56 AM
Quote
Now is modern sells more than better than WW2. Even hi-res textures better than WWII. I think we make some modern again, after 2 next DLCs about WWII.

Graviteam hasn't released a WW2 DLC in over a year.Krasnaya Polyana being the last released about this time last year.(I don't consider the Hi-res. Texture to be a standard DLC,to me it's more like a mod)

I'd be interested in seeing the sales difference between modern and WW2 once you have some new WW2 DLCs to offer.I think the majority of us who bought into the modern DLCs still prefer WW2 and if given only one choice would take WW2 over modern.

I'm not advocating one or the other,but if WW2 DLCs are going to suffer because more people are buying the modern and development is being determined by sales numbers alone,then I'll stop buying the modern.
Considering the direction Graviteam is going with the modern DLCs it won't be a difficult decision.


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Flashburn on June 20, 2013, 06:21:10 AM
I think they are onto SOMETHING with the modern stuff.  Fills niche of missing things from 50-80's.  BUT perhaps really needs a stand alone game maybe?  I certainly do not see why BOTH can not co exist.  So far however, WW2 as a game following history plays out better.  Now with the modern DLC's time will tell if this increases interest in WW2 stuff or not.  FOr me the modern stuff is like a refreshing brake.  But I want to go back to ww2 after done with it.  However, this maybe due to missing elements and such of a lot of the modern junk. 


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Aces on June 20, 2013, 02:02:45 PM
Count me out too, I've bought all of the modern stuff lately but it's not my interest and this one latest DLC definitely isn't. I'll happily buy any WW2 games or DLCs GT release but not interested in this trend towards modern era stuff. IMHO the most exciting thing by far to happen to the game of late is Nightpostman's work, really excellent.

Kind regards

Aces


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Flashburn on June 20, 2013, 02:59:16 PM
So far the best part I have seen of this DLC is the MI4.  That is SEXY.


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: andrey12345 on June 20, 2013, 07:35:14 PM
So far the best part I have seen of this DLC is the MI4.  That is SEXY.
And danger, but only with 250 shells.


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: chashka17 on June 20, 2013, 09:17:38 PM
I shan't complain about the opportunity to experience more 'obscure modern conflicts'.
I like the possibilities presented by this modular approach.  It means the core game can get a much wider audience & I get a choice of engagements.
It raises questions for me about just how far this could be taken.
I do think a Fulda Gap scenario would be fun, but going the other way historically, what about Borodino as a GTOS DLC?  :D

If GT are getting new/broader customer base because of non-WW2 DLC then the subsequent $s hopefully ensures the company continues & will have resources to use for new WW2 projects (also my favorite war ;)).


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: andrey12345 on June 20, 2013, 10:37:02 PM
Existing WWII DLCs is the practically the same options like base game scenarios. New different DLCs can open a new gameplay options, especially Zhalanashkol  ;D.


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Flashburn on June 21, 2013, 08:37:35 AM
Existing WWII DLCs is the practically the same options like base game scenarios. New different DLCs can open a new gameplay options, especially Zhalanashkol  ;D.

While I am NOT sure about this USSR/CHINA border dispute thing, I do think doing different stuff in DLC's is good.  But yes, will appeal to smaller numbers of people FOR sure.  And as why the heck DLC's like krasnya Polina did not do as well as modern DLC's... STRANGE.  The only thing I can think of is that base GTOS had ALOT of content.  If perception was more of the same I am guessing that many just passed.  Maybe if included some stupid panther tank or new feature like AAA guns and planes that can get their wings blown off? 

Of course needing new soldier models all the time will prove a problem.  :-\

But want Mius at this point :P :P :P :P ::)


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: andrey12345 on June 21, 2013, 09:21:51 AM
Maybe if included some stupid panther tank or new feature like AAA guns and planes that can get their wings blown off? 
This content is somewhere we have to take. That is the problem. If there are funds on ~1.5 helicopters  ;D, the tank, and the more complex model such as AA gun, get nowhere.On the other hand, if there is a possibility (people) that makes small arms and draws textures on soldiers. Even if it will make it 10 times or even more so the tank or AA gun, does not get it.

But want Mius at this point :P :P :P :P ::)
Mius|Nomongan given to those costs that are obtained after paying off the DLC and fan help.


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Flashburn on June 21, 2013, 10:16:55 AM
Maybe if included some stupid panther tank or new feature like AAA guns and planes that can get their wings blown off? 
This content is somewhere we have to take. That is the problem. If there are funds on ~1.5 helicopters  ;D, the tank, and the more complex model such as AA gun, get nowhere.On the other hand, if there is a possibility (people) that makes small arms and draws textures on soldiers. Even if it will make it 10 times or even more so the tank or AA gun, does not get it.

But want Mius at this point :P :P :P :P ::)
Mius|Nomongan given to those costs that are obtained after paying off the DLC and fan help.

Ya I noticed... 1.5 choppers...lol.   Yes redoing textures for SOME similar things is ok.  A good texture artist can do great things......IF models are similar.  Sort of like Iran soldier can pass as an Eygpt guy or even Isreal with good texture.  And a few extras.  But Germans and Red army guys are never going to pass as US army circa 42-44. 

As to the stupid aa guns a plane wings that blow off.  Funny how I keep bringing that up and also slowly make stuff in that direction.   :-\  AS I hit pause button on Longstop for now...all of a sudden I have all this time..... and keep looking for little things to do while I figure out if Longstop is ever possible. Or if I need to slowly do small things that in a round about way get there.  In the end if all I needed to worry about was a few vehicles, small arms, and basic land form for longstop...well a lot more possible.  BUT I REFUSE TO do it half assed.  So now over my head with needing buildings, soldier models, a few trees bushes.  Add that to everything else AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!  TO much. 


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Fracchione on June 21, 2013, 11:06:41 PM


And as why the heck DLC's like krasnya Polina did not do as well as modern DLC's... STRANGE.  The only thing I can think of is that base GTOS had ALOT of content.  If perception was more of the same I am guessing that many just passed.  Maybe if included some stupid panther tank or new feature like AAA guns and planes that can get their wings blown off? 





Polyana has been on gamersgate at full price for months, Prophet was 40% off at launch. No wonder...


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Dane49 on June 22, 2013, 01:59:22 AM
Existing WWII DLCs is the practically the same options like base game scenarios. New different DLCs can open a new gameplay options, especially Zhalanashkol  ;D.

Still not enough meat on this bone.
Give it to the dog. ;D


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: andrey12345 on June 22, 2013, 06:19:17 AM


And as why the heck DLC's like krasnya Polina did not do as well as modern DLC's... STRANGE.  The only thing I can think of is that base GTOS had ALOT of content.  If perception was more of the same I am guessing that many just passed.  Maybe if included some stupid panther tank or new feature like AAA guns and planes that can get their wings blown off? 





Polyana has been on gamersgate at full price for months, Prophet was 40% off at launch. No wonder...


It was a pre-order, but there is not very much bought it. Major purchases after pre-order. And at that time there were big discounts> 50% for the other DLCs, but it's not very helpful for it.


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Flashburn on June 22, 2013, 06:22:47 AM
Maybe if included some stupid panther tank or new feature like AAA guns and planes that can get their wings blown off? 
This content is somewhere we have to take. That is the problem. If there are funds on ~1.5 helicopters  ;D, the tank, and the more complex model such as AA gun, get nowhere.On the other hand, if there is a possibility (people) that makes small arms and draws textures on soldiers. Even if it will make it 10 times or even more so the tank or AA gun, does not get it.

But want Mius at this point :P :P :P :P ::)
Mius|Nomongan given to those costs that are obtained after paying off the DLC and fan help.


Kind of like how I am sitting on all the US small arms from ww2 except the m1 carbine and m3 grease gun?  LOL.  Ok not all complete but could be right fast.  :P  Ya it is vary true.  A low poly gun from start to finish maybe 3 or 4 days.  IF doing the ALL out job.  If doing good enough 2 or 3 days.  This is for low poly models of course.  Doing FPS current levels...more like 2 or 3 weeks for good work.  So ya, in 2 weeks that a tank would take you have a hole army's small arms....maybe two.  Ya I remember that G3 taking not to long to make.  But spent a lot of time debugging the rigging. Which in the end did not matter LOL>


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: andrey12345 on June 22, 2013, 09:27:05 AM
Existing WWII DLCs is the practically the same options like base game scenarios. New different DLCs can open a new gameplay options, especially Zhalanashkol  ;D.

Still not enough meat on this bone.
Give it to the dog. ;D

Dogs are now spoiled and only eat tenderloin or fillet.
But the cow we scored the eaten in the spring  :D


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Bayonet on June 22, 2013, 12:17:35 PM
Quote
Dogs are now spoiled and only eat tenderloin or fillet.

Has my dog wandered over to your house?


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Rod on June 24, 2013, 03:36:23 AM
Is GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)  stand alone or will it be part of Graviteam Nomonhan? Sure would like some screenshots on Nomonhan.




Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Tac Error on June 24, 2013, 04:28:24 AM
It is a DLC to Operation Star.


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: andrey12345 on June 25, 2013, 09:45:32 AM
Some pics from body armor tests
(http://www.steelfury.com/demo/k43t/!forum_images/2013_06_25/shot_2013_06_25_12_40_13_0000.jpg)
(http://www.steelfury.com/demo/k43t/!forum_images/2013_06_25/shot_2013_06_25_12_40_28_0001.jpg)
(http://www.steelfury.com/demo/k43t/!forum_images/2013_06_25/shot_2013_06_25_12_40_40_0002.jpg)


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: andrey12345 on June 25, 2013, 10:56:44 PM
PLA troops
(http://www.steelfury.com/demo/k43t/!forum_images/2013_06_25/shot_2013_06_26_01_52_44_0007.jpg)
(http://www.steelfury.com/demo/k43t/!forum_images/2013_06_25/shot_2013_06_26_01_52_55_0008.jpg)


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Rod on June 26, 2013, 05:14:18 AM
 ;D I like it. And yes I'm buying it-nonwithstanding the debates on the theater of action.
Played DLC Operation Hooper last night. Mostly Infantry fight  (Unita vs Cubans and MPLA). Only (3 Cuban BMP's and and one MPLA BTR) and hordes of MPLA  infantry.  I enjoyed that challenge and I will enjoy this.
How will the body armor values be reflected in the files. It's not just cosmetic -right?


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: andrey12345 on June 26, 2013, 06:50:10 AM
How will the body armor values be reflected in the files. It's not just cosmetic -right?
Of course not cosmetic. In historically operation will not appear immediately, it is a relatively new body armor. But is available in a quick battle. Serves its purpose - the protection from low impulse bullets and shrapnel.


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Flashburn on June 26, 2013, 03:42:57 PM
How will the body armor values be reflected in the files. It's not just cosmetic -right?
Of course not cosmetic. In historically operation will not appear immediately, it is a relatively new body armor. But is available in a quick battle. Serves its purpose - the protection from low impulse bullets and shrapnel.


So basically stops 9mm rounds? 


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Tanker on June 26, 2013, 04:37:33 PM
How will the body armor values be reflected in the files. It's not just cosmetic -right?
Of course not cosmetic. In historically operation will not appear immediately, it is a relatively new body armor. But is available in a quick battle. Serves its purpose - the protection from low impulse bullets and shrapnel.


So basically stops 9mm rounds? 

I just knew I should have bought .40 Glock.


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: andrey12345 on June 26, 2013, 04:57:54 PM
How will the body armor values be reflected in the files. It's not just cosmetic -right?
Of course not cosmetic. In historically operation will not appear immediately, it is a relatively new body armor. But is available in a quick battle. Serves its purpose - the protection from low impulse bullets and shrapnel.


So basically stops 9mm rounds? 
Basically KIA reduce to heavy wounded or wounded.
9 mm not used in this DLC


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: andrey12345 on June 26, 2013, 06:13:50 PM
Some screens

(http://www.steelfury.com/demo/k43t/!forum_images/2013_06_26/shot_2013_06_26_21_09_36_0001.jpg)
(http://www.steelfury.com/demo/k43t/!forum_images/2013_06_26/shot_2013_06_26_21_11_16_0003.jpg)
(http://www.steelfury.com/demo/k43t/!forum_images/2013_06_26/shot_2013_06_26_21_11_23_0004.jpg)


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Flashburn on June 27, 2013, 01:21:39 AM
How will the body armor values be reflected in the files. It's not just cosmetic -right?
Of course not cosmetic. In historically operation will not appear immediately, it is a relatively new body armor. But is available in a quick battle. Serves its purpose - the protection from low impulse bullets and shrapnel.


So basically stops 9mm rounds? 

I just knew I should have bought .40 Glock.

LOL would not matter...  9mm has more penetration effect than 45 or 40 anyways.  Early body armors pretty much stop all the normal pistol caliber rounds.  But really intended for shell fragments.... >357 mag might go through :D


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Flanker15 on June 27, 2013, 08:57:53 AM
Some screens

(http://www.steelfury.com/demo/k43t/!forum_images/2013_06_26/shot_2013_06_26_21_09_36_0001.jpg)
(http://www.steelfury.com/demo/k43t/!forum_images/2013_06_26/shot_2013_06_26_21_11_16_0003.jpg)
(http://www.steelfury.com/demo/k43t/!forum_images/2013_06_26/shot_2013_06_26_21_11_23_0004.jpg)

Do the helos have a damage model now or is it just to show that the helo took enough hits to leave?


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Wiedzmin on June 27, 2013, 07:19:14 PM
Early body armors pretty much stop all the normal pistol caliber rounds.  But really intended for shell fragments.... >357 mag might go through :D

it's 6B5 body armor  "Hive(Uley)" series(which consists of 19 modifications), i will make 6B4, 6B3 and 6B2 later.

-6B5 and 6B5-11 provide protection from case fragments(1 gramm @ speed 500-550m/s) and 9x18 PM, only kevlar(TSMV-DJ).
  weight 2.7-3.0 k.g

-6B5-1 and 6B5-12 provide protection from case fragments(1 gramm @ speed 600-620m/s) and 9x18 PM, 7.62x25 TT (cartridge 57-H-134C) from 25 meters, 7,62x39 AK/AKM(cartridge 57-Н-231) from 450 meters, 5.45x39 AK-74(cartridge 7N6) from 600 meters, TSVM-DJ + titanium plates in chest(11-13 plates) and back(7-9 plates)
  weight 4.7-5.0 k.g


-6B5-3 and 6B5-14 provide protection from case fragments(1 gramm @ speed 600-620m/s) 7,62x39 AK/AKM(cartridge 57-Н-231) from 10 meters, 5.45x39 AK-74(cartridge 7N6) from 35 meters, 7.62x54 SVD(cartridge 57-Н-323С ) from 100 meters,TSVM-DJ + steel plates in chest(11-13 plates) and  steel/titanium back(7-9 plates)
  weight 11.0 k.g

-6B5-4 and 6B5-15 assault vest provide protection from case fragments(1 gramm @ speed 600-620m/s) 7,62x39 AK/AKM(cartridge 57-Н-231) фтв  5.45x39 AK-74(cartridge 7N6) from 10 meters, 7.62x54 SVD(cartridge 57-Н-323С ) from 100 meters,TSVM-DJ + boron carbide plates in chest(17-20 plates) and  boron carbide back(18-20 plates)
  weight 12.0 k.g



-6B5-6 and 6B5-17 chest provide protection from case fragments(1 gramm @ speed 600-620m/s) 7,62x39 AK/AKM(cartridge 57-Н-231) from 10 meters, 5.45x39 AK-74(cartridge 7N6) from 35 meters, 7.62x54 SVD(cartridge 57-Н-323С ) from 100 meters
 back provide protection from case fragments(1 gramm @ speed 600-620m/s) 9x18 PM, 7.62x25 TT (cartridge 57-H-134C) from 25 meters, 7,62x39 AK/AKM(cartridge 57-Н-231) from 450 meters, 5.45x39 AK-74(cartridge 7N6) from 600 meters.,TSVM-DJ + steel(S) and titanium(T)plates in chest(S-8, T-3 or 5 plates) and  titanium back(7)
  weight 11.0 k.g



and so on... :)

here my 6B5-15, plates inside "pocket massive", they are mounted in vest on the ring, and buttons.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img685/7854/6b5.jpg)



Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: andrey12345 on July 02, 2013, 04:55:57 PM
We test the operation of the USSR border guards - 6 turns, historically accurate (as possible in a game). Very specific gameplay: few units, a small number of story variants (in a fairly strong historical framework). USSR have a total superiority in heavy weapons (helis, APCs), but Chinese soldiers only old RPG-2 (Type 56) AT grenades and AP bullets in SKS (Type 56) rifles and MGs and...relief.
To work DLC will need a patch March13 d1, what introduce some hidden features to support DLCs - extended horizont distance in operations (up to 4km), automatic expand battle radius. New commands for the operational AI ​​that make it during the combat to take a more strict limits to enhance the historicity of combat.
And Mi-4 will be configured so that it can shoot down. It's hard to make by small arms, but sometimes happens.

What can not be done clear in DLC:
1) Correct numbers on APCs, for example need 216/217 - will be 211, 212
2) Correct family names for Mi-4 pilots and for some PLA and USSR squads.
3) There are some differences in the number of forces and weapons from the Soviet border guards. Selected the most conservative version, but if you enable the non-historic units in the settings, then added more weapons from the "extended version" of events.
4) It did not localize where the border markers and secret observation posts. Therefore border marks located approximately at the boundaries between the areas of responsibility of border posts.
5) It is not clear whether there was a barbed wire fence on the control-track-line (in the game it is).


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: andrey12345 on July 02, 2013, 05:10:26 PM
Big thanks:
- to Wiedzmin for light weapons and ammunition
- to NightPostman for PLA soldiers and Soviet body guards skins
- to Krabb for digging and searching for historical documents on these events and corrosive testing  ;D.


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Flanker15 on July 03, 2013, 02:34:28 AM
And Mi-4 will be configured so that it can shoot down. It's hard to make by small arms, but sometimes happens.

Cool!  Can this be retrofitted to other aircraft in the game past and future or too difficult?


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: andrey12345 on July 03, 2013, 08:26:57 AM
And Mi-4 will be configured so that it can shoot down. It's hard to make by small arms, but sometimes happens.

Cool!  Can this be retrofitted to other aircraft in the game past and future or too difficult?
There's nothing special. Simply aircraft (in this case, the Mi-4) ceases fire and flies over the map bounds, steaming or flames. This feature was long ago in game (about year), just happened to die pilots, but now added if damaged aircraft components.

It's not that difficult, just to debug and test a very long time and uncomfortable in each aircraft. While there will be on the Mi-4.


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Flashburn on July 03, 2013, 09:58:51 AM
And Mi-4 will be configured so that it can shoot down. It's hard to make by small arms, but sometimes happens.

Cool!  Can this be retrofitted to other aircraft in the game past and future or too difficult?
There's nothing special. Simply aircraft (in this case, the Mi-4) ceases fire and flies over the map bounds, steaming or flames. This feature was long ago in game (about year), just happened to die pilots, but now added if damaged aircraft components.

It's not that difficult, just to debug and test a very long time and uncomfortable in each aircraft. While there will be on the Mi-4.



LOL well send me some notes and Ill set up the F5E for that.  ;D  I mean why the heck not..... seems all I am doing right now is revisiting old work of mine.   ;D


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: andrey12345 on July 03, 2013, 12:30:57 PM


LOL well send me some notes and Ill set up the F5E for that.  ;D  I mean why the heck not..... seems all I am doing right now is revisiting old work of mine.   ;D


Simply add p_engine and p_transm damage boxes + config description and install Mar13d1 patch  :D.


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: andrey12345 on July 07, 2013, 12:25:19 PM
DLC Info:
1) New Area near Lake Zhalanashkol on the Soviet-Chinese border, 36 sq.km wide.
2) Two new operations for the USSR border guard and the People's Liberation Army, showing a realistic version of events.
3) Operation for the PLA, showing China's version of events.
4) Vehicles: BTR-60PB, GAZ-66, Mi-4.
5) Infantry Weapons: AKM, Type 56 SAR, RPG-2, RKG-3, RPK, SVD, body armor 6B5 (in quick battle).
6) New infantry units: the soldiers and commanders of the PLA, the border guards of the USSR.

P.S. DLC will most likely international, once English and Russian in one.


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: andrey12345 on July 08, 2013, 09:57:15 AM
Soviet border patrol
(http://www.steelfury.com/demo/k43t/!forum_images/2013_07_07/01/shot_2013_07_08_12_33_24_0004.jpg)
(http://www.steelfury.com/demo/k43t/!forum_images/2013_07_07/01/shot_2013_07_08_12_33_39_0005.jpg)

Soviet soldiers in body armor (available in quick battle)
(http://www.steelfury.com/demo/k43t/!forum_images/2013_07_07/01/shot_2013_07_08_12_34_19_0007.jpg)
(http://www.steelfury.com/demo/k43t/!forum_images/2013_07_07/01/shot_2013_07_08_12_34_34_0008.jpg)
(http://www.steelfury.com/demo/k43t/!forum_images/2013_07_07/01/shot_2013_07_08_12_34_56_0009.jpg)


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: andrey12345 on July 08, 2013, 09:59:46 AM
PLA machingunner with RPD 44 LMG
(http://www.steelfury.com/demo/k43t/!forum_images/2013_07_07/03/shot_2013_07_08_12_38_55_0015.jpg)
(http://www.steelfury.com/demo/k43t/!forum_images/2013_07_07/03/shot_2013_07_08_12_39_54_0016.jpg)

PLA grenadier with RPG-2
(http://www.steelfury.com/demo/k43t/!forum_images/2013_07_07/03/shot_2013_07_08_12_42_07_0018.jpg)
(http://www.steelfury.com/demo/k43t/!forum_images/2013_07_07/03/shot_2013_07_08_12_42_55_0021.jpg)



Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Wiedzmin on July 08, 2013, 09:29:41 PM
(http://imageshack.us/a/img96/8574/uha8.jpg)

6B5, SH60, KLMK-R, criticism is welcome  :)


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Dane49 on July 08, 2013, 10:30:02 PM
Your work looks very good Wiedzman.
No criticism from me concerning the body armor and helmets.

Too bad I'm not interested in Zhalanashkol.

Put the body armor and helmets on the modern Russians and Cubans and I can find some use for them in my game,but I can't use the 1960's border guards or Chinese for anything except for the Zhalanashkol DLC.

I've been using the Cubans as Ukrainians against the modern(Federalist Russian)forces for Quick Battles on the Ukrainian maps in the game and having some interesting battles.

The body armor and helmets on the more modern forces would make them look much better and more interesting.


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: lockie on July 09, 2013, 01:09:30 AM
criticism is welcome  :)
Looks nice!
Unfortunately, it's impossible to implement it into SF, but I hope to see it meanwhile :) Whatever)


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Rod on July 09, 2013, 04:09:27 AM
Everything looks great-but PLA could use more color-if there is a winter map we put them on in QB.


 ;D

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v348/Tempest555/pla_zpsf9842524.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Tempest555/media/pla_zpsf9842524.jpg.html)


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Wiedzmin on July 09, 2013, 05:22:34 PM
The body armor and helmets on the more modern forces would make them look much better and more interesting.

Production of 6B5 vests stopped in 1998. Withdrawn from army in 2000, but is still in use, it's "modern" enough :)

i can make 6B11/12/13 "Zabralo" family vests, and 6B23-1 vest, but what's the point?


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Dane49 on July 10, 2013, 12:04:25 AM
Quote
i can make 6B11/12/13 "Zabralo" family vests, and 6B23-1 vest, but what's the point?

No not new vests or helmets

I think what you have already made would also look good on the mechanized infantry for the Cuban forces from Hooper and the Russian forces from Shield of the Prophet.

The infantry wouldn't look so out of place as much when I use them on the Winter Ukraine maps during modern Quick Battles.

Like these troops.
(http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&docid=PT2kZnYIEhT8RM&tbnid=wwMNhPoAz3X68M:&ved=0CAUQjBwwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2Folmedia%2F625000%2Fimages%2F_627514_troops300.jpg&ei=MqfcUYKbHpCw8QTClIGYDw&psig=AFQjCNHjsjDDO08PFH95pu0ql2akFSEBcg&ust=1373501618548671)


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: andrey12345 on July 10, 2013, 02:29:34 PM
Camo pigs on Zhalanashkol border post
http://content.foto.mail.ru/community/kwpo.uch-aral/640/h-658.jpg


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: chashka17 on July 10, 2013, 05:33:59 PM
Camo pigs on Zhalanashkol border post
http://content.foto.mail.ru/community/kwpo.uch-aral/640/h-658.jpg

Time for camoflage шашлык ?  ;D


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Wiedzmin on July 10, 2013, 05:57:31 PM
Like these troops.
(http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&docid=PT2kZnYIEhT8RM&tbnid=wwMNhPoAz3X68M:&ved=0CAUQjBwwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2Folmedia%2F625000%2Fimages%2F_627514_troops300.jpg&ei=MqfcUYKbHpCw8QTClIGYDw&psig=AFQjCNHjsjDDO08PFH95pu0ql2akFSEBcg&ust=1373501618548671)

(http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/6747/000855w.jpg)

I can do any soldier, but for what? you have a polygon "Chechnya"? have a clear idea what you want to do?


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: andrey12345 on July 16, 2013, 10:19:59 AM
Already released
http://www.gamersgate.co.uk/DD-APOSGTZ1969/graviteam-tactics-zhalanashkol-1969

DEPENDENCES

1) Game core update v5.81 c1.
2) Game update March 2013 d1, available on
http://www.graviteam.com/AP-STAR/gtos_patch_march13d1_eng.gt2extension
or on Gamers Gate


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Flashburn on July 16, 2013, 12:32:54 PM
(http://imageshack.us/a/img96/8574/uha8.jpg)

6B5, SH60, KLMK-R, criticism is welcome  :)

OK call me stupid.  Curious about background of armor.  When introduced etc etc.

Seems like so many ideas flying out all over the place that GTOS may get swapped with lots of half done things.  But if MODERN really is popular....well hmmm.  :D  I know I keep making stuff from 60's-70's era.  But just keeps happening with little planning.  Just OH that seems like good idea.  BAM.  APC, armored car, fighter plane....etc etc. 


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Nokturnal on July 16, 2013, 06:27:51 PM
Already released
http://www.gamersgate.co.uk/DD-APOSGTZ1969/graviteam-tactics-zhalanashkol-1969

DEPENDENCES

1) Game core update v5.81 c1.
2) Game update March 2013 d1, available on
http://www.graviteam.com/AP-STAR/gtos_patch_march13d1_eng.gt2extension
or on Gamers Gate

Hooray!
Bit of a shame about no pre-order discount, but I guess it's quite cheap anyway. ;D
Thanks for letting us know mate.


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Wiedzmin on July 17, 2013, 05:40:55 PM
OK call me stupid.  Curious about background of armor.  When introduced etc etc.

if i understand the question properly
Camouflage overalls 1943
(http://nabludatel70.users.photofile.ru/photo/nabludatel70/3370983/xlarge/83299694.jpg)
Camouflage overalls  1944
(http://nabludatel70.users.photofile.ru/photo/nabludatel70/3370983/xlarge/83299130.jpg)
Camouflage overalls  1950
(http://nabludatel70.users.photofile.ru/photo/nabludatel70/3370983/xlarge/83243691.jpg)
Camouflage overalls modernized,1957 var.1( incorrect designation "KLMK")
(http://nabludatel70.users.photofile.ru/photo/nabludatel70/3370983/xlarge/83243930.jpg)
Camouflage overalls modernized,1957 var.2( incorrect designation "KLMK")
 (http://nabludatel70.users.photofile.ru/photo/nabludatel70/3370983/xlarge/83243940.jpg)

but because of the features of the basic model(thigh pockets),not to make changes, i had to do a "split" version of the suit, as far as i know, she appeared in the mid 80s

what is shown in the screenshot, it's just a sketch of a half hour, it will still finish


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Flashburn on July 18, 2013, 06:09:47 PM
and the body armor was introduced when? 


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Wiedzmin on July 18, 2013, 09:44:58 PM
and the body armor was introduced when? 

at page №4, my post №56


6Б1 entered in service in 1957
(http://imageshack.us/a/img809/7483/lh4v.jpg)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img690/4940/u011.jpg)
6Б2 entered in service in 1981(first experimental batch 1979 in Afgan)
(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a152/Densalakhov/Different%20equipment/USSR%20Body%20Armor/6B2_02.jpg)
(http://vdv.combat345.ru:8034/WWW/fotos/00443.jpg)
(http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/9216/14824558.30/0_70345_3c16029c_orig)
6Б3 and 6Б4 family entered in service in 1985 by order №0253
(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a152/Densalakhov/Different%20equipment/USSR%20Body%20Armor/6B3_01.jpg)
(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a152/Densalakhov/Different%20equipment/USSR%20Body%20Armor/6B3_03.jpg)
(http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/1571/ww0ew.jpg)
(http://uploads.ru/i/9/x/A/9xAGp.jpg)
modernized 6B3-TM-01 in "Flora" camo, South Osetia
(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a152/Densalakhov/Different%20equipment/USSR%20Body%20Armor/6B4_01.jpg)
(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a152/Densalakhov/Different%20equipment/USSR%20Body%20Armor/6B4_03.jpg)
(http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/9167/14824558.30/0_70346_4ab1ace4_orig)
(http://phglobal.my1.ru/_fr/1/1782641.jpg)
man with VSS in 6B4  ;) South Osetia
6Б5 family entered in service in 1986 by order №217


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: johncage on July 25, 2013, 03:56:23 AM
very nice. i'd like to synthesize this isn't the afghan campaign in steel armor. really wish you guys can get full rights to steel armor and develop dlcs like this for that game.


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: andrey12345 on August 02, 2013, 10:43:43 AM
Video
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x12lc2s_zhalanashkol-1969_videogames


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Flashburn on August 02, 2013, 01:42:37 PM
very nice. i'd like to synthesize this isn't the afghan campaign in steel armor. really wish you guys can get full rights to steel armor and develop dlcs like this for that game.

YA or make a tank sim with mius assets once its released.   ;D ::) ::)

Indeed I would like MORE sabow too.  The last patch was on the right track.  And I still feel that the ability to fight in squares without an m60 or t62 with some other lesser vehicle would have been great feature.  AS fighting tanks without a tank is pretty damned interesting in its own right. 


Oh and nice video too. 


Title: Zahlanashkol 1969
Post by: Rod on August 24, 2013, 08:17:09 PM
This small DLC definitely has it's challenges-large expanses-you have the APC's and trucks and the mobility if your the Russians. But the Chinese have the numbers.
Those hill victory locations can be tough nuts to crack if you don't want to take casualties.
Yeah yeah I know it doesn't have Tigers and the Ukraine and all that. But it's a neat little DLC you can get for the price now for a bag of chips at Gamersgate.
Patch to the latest patch and the only issue I had was the Chinese infantry firearms weren't showing. Fiddled with the heirachy in the update putting Zahlanashkol 1969 above Operation Hooper and Shield of the prophet and all is well.

Going to be real fun when the Red Army meets the Japanese tanks. Aside from fold in the terrain there is nothing to give you cover in this boring terrain.
Got a Minor Victory but it wasn't easy keeping casualties down.


(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v348/Tempest555/sc_zps1aec8bed.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Tempest555/media/sc_zps1aec8bed.jpg.html)


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Krabb on July 24, 2014, 03:21:20 PM
Zhalanashkol 1969 on Steam
http://store.steampowered.com/app/313281/


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: johncage on August 06, 2014, 05:05:19 AM
how do you get the soldiers with vest? i cannot fnd them


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Dane49 on August 06, 2014, 06:10:00 PM
how do you get the soldiers with vest? i cannot fnd them

I haven't played the campaign, so I'm not sure who they are attached to.
In Quick Battles you can find them in the Border Guard reinforcement panel under support units and they have an icon that looks like an engineer and are called the assault group.


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Krabb on August 06, 2014, 06:16:43 PM
They are available only in quick battles in the border guard reinforcements, as Dane said.


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: johncage on August 07, 2014, 01:29:37 AM
strange, i can't find ths support unit.i have 18 platoons to select. where is support?


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: Dane49 on August 07, 2014, 02:34:25 AM
Select any platoon from the border guard detachment 1st, once you have them on the map you can click on the platoon and draw from the support unit in the reinforcement panel.

There are 2 squads called assault group in the support unit in the reinforcements that have an engineer icon-click on it then click on any slot in your platoon to add them to the unit.


Title: Re: GTOS Zhalanashkol 1969 (USSR-China border conflict)
Post by: johncage on August 07, 2014, 03:07:24 AM
ah, thanks a lot.