Holo

I must admit that I don't see the point of making such a limited UI. I consider myself semi-grog, which means although I memorized a lot of stats throughout the years of playing war-games, I don't know all the specs for all the gear that exists, so I need to consult some sort of help for more info. For previous versions of CM it was easy to just open info window and to find out what I was curious about, but limited UI as this in CM:SF seems to force player to look constantly into manual, and to memorize data instead of having it available all the time (presuming he wants to master the game). Let's take an example of "not so grog" player of CM:SF. He plays as Syrian. He has a Kornet-E team and Milan I team. Opposed to him is M1A1HC, with generalized stats for defense against missiles, as well as no distinction between Turret and Hull. Kornet-E is rated at 1200 RHAe, Milan I, if I remember correctly, at 600 RHAe. Turret of M1A1HC is rated at something like 1300-1600 RHAe, Upper Hull Front at 500-1000, Lower Hull Front at 800-1000 (this all might be wrong but let's take it as correct for this exercise). What this implies is that Kornet-E, if it hits Lower Hull Front, will penetrate M1A1HC. Milan I on the other hand will not. Generalized anti-missile defense stat for M1A1HC says only Big Green Cross. Now let's look at one Syrian MBT and one UK. First is T-72M1 with, for example, BM-15 or even BM-42 APFSDS 125mm ammo, with penetrations of 380 and 520 RHAe respectively at 2km. M1A1HC stats vs KE are Turret ~900, Upper Hull 560-590, Lower Hull 580-650. Both rounds are unable to penetrate M1A1HC frontally. Some other 125mm round like Ukrainian Vitiaz round rated at 760 RHAe would penetrate it. The other tank is Challenger 2 from some future module. It fires 120mm with L-27 Charm-3 round rated at 720 RHAe (or something better). It penetrates M1A1HC’s hull but not the turret at 2km. Generalized anti-large munitions defense stat for M1A1HC says only Big Green Cross. In both examples (ATGM and APFSDS) simply offering generalized stats doesn’t seem to inform enough the “not so grog” player of the facts. Although both Kornet-E and Milan I are ATGM’s, and both 125mm and 120mm guns fire large munitions, the outcomes are different. This suggests that generalizing stats, making no distinction between Turret and Hull (with all respect to Hull Down positioning argument), as well as not giving any weapon data can potentially misguide player and force him to memorize weapon abilities from the manual rather than to learn them on the fly by playing the game. Minimizing required info to play the game for a newbie may be a plus, but reducing a chance to master it by denying him in-depth stats from which to learn doesn’t seem to me as a big plus. Let’s hope that WWII version will be at least at the level of previous CM games.

I still think that having aditional numbers to deal with is better than solely comparing if penetration ability of my ATGM missile is a bit more "blue" than the "blue" of oposing tank's upper hull front protection level. Maybe in the game like CM:SF that is not a big issue considering number of items do deal with, but I can't imagine WWII game relying only on color coding scheme.

I think that we would all be more than willing to pay serious money for CMx2 version of Steel Panthers MBT game, and have all our desires for customization and diversity fullfiled.

Have this been done yet? Any screenshot, M1A2 stats perhaps?

My vote is for: 3. German based (this would likely include Germany, Canada, and perhaps The Netherlands)

I guess that, as someone mentioned earlier on another thread, at the end we'll end up playing blue on blue, just to get some balance. Shame for not including Russians, that could give us oportunity to make all sorts of scenarios and campaigns.

I was afraid that would be the answer. I must honestly admit that, as someone who lives in Europe, I'm not very interested in seeing USMC module as a first follow up. Sure, I guess it is easiest to make, but no matter what the differences are between one US military branch and the other, after all, I believe that for lot of players it will come to this - Abrams is still Abrams. My pick would be either Euro Force module, or Russian module. First consisting of something like combined UK/Germany/(France?) forces, so lots of new things to play with, and although this may look as too big job to do, if their forces are limited to "these SPECIFIC forces are sent to war zone" and not modeling everything there is in their armies and arsenals, I believe it's possible for module to be made in reasonable time. Russian module on the other hand gives us opponent that is much more advanced than Syrians are, so in scenario making terms I think it is more valuable. Besides, modeling extra equipment that ads on to original game should be easier than in Euro Force module, considering Russian equipped Syrian army.

Now that the concept has been more or less chosen (Syria with Minor backstory and Fictional Subsection), maybe we can discuss what should be the first follow up module (and why).

I would go for "Syria with minimal story", although this is not quite to my usual liking. My preference for war game settings are either "high-level" semi-reality conflicts or historical wars. But this is not Big Army vs. Big Army game setting, like BF2's US vs. MEC / US vs. China, or "what if happened" 70's NATO vs. USSR, or "all items included" fictional NATO-Russia vs. China-MEC or anything similar of the "epic" size, what might be what most players would like to see (including myself), and also it's not WWI, WWII, Hannibal vs. Rome or Napoleon vs. Europe or whatever historic. I think it's a bit late to make this game fictional all around ME conflict that would include every piece of equipment there is out there just to satisfy everyone's expectations, still, hard-locking story in "reality" Syria is closing doors for lot of further options, and no matter how much story is convincing and plausible, if you're not a prophet to see the future, it would still be fictional, so at the end you still have a fictional setting, but without all the high-tech possibilities. So, "Syria with minimal story" for me gives a compromise of real setting which is in the line with CM:SF development up until now, but leaves open doors for future modules, if you're ready to go bit more "fictional" and base modules on possible speculations, thus giving an option for Russia module, Europe module or IDF module. Than you can have lots of high-tech, and still have original "true" setting.

Will this be the way to model fully "over"-equipped infantry, giving them penalty in Fitness, versus light "rags and AK's" infantry? Or there is some other way to do it?

What is being used against ATGM positions nowdays, when tank runs into one? I have very little knowledge on this topic, especially I'm confused that usual western tank ammo load (at least in games) doesn't include HE like Russian counterparts. It was on many ocasions frustrating for me playing ie. Steel Panthers II with M1A1's vs Russia and knowing that only thing I have against infantry is MG.

Bravo. Very nice and simple UI. Steve, can you give us a little more on Fast, Quick, and other Movements orders? Will infantry be able to Reverse (keeping them oriented toward enemy, thus in position to shoot while withdraws) and Hunt as well?

And that was exactly the whole point of starting this thread...so, Steve, T-80/T-90?