Future modules ideas (unofficial topic)

[Cpl Steiner]

I doubt civilians will ever be given actual models in a CM game but can we at least have some vehicle doodads for parked/abandoned cars? Currently there is only one single vehicle doodad in CM:BS - a forklift truck.

[DreDay]

Big NO to SF being in game.  Unless they were extremely restricted, they have absolutely no place in CM, barring for some extremely themed single player missions.

 

 

I would be curious to know why you (or anyone else) think that SF have no place in CM. What makes you say that?

[BTR]

I'd like a broader, more polished Ru equipment module because looking at high-polycount Russian vehicles in CMBS makes me warm inside. 

 

1) T-72B with K-1 Era (good use for coastal defense units), also should be very interesting to see how T-72B vs T-64B fight plays out. 

2) KMT-7 mine clearing system with EMT jamming device.This is not a one-off inclusion, as it can be used on all T-64/72 in BS or earlier CM titles. As a cherry,KMT-10 mine clearing system for BMP-1 and 2 could be nice.

3) Proper APS 3D modeled for T-90A, T-90AM and T-72B3. The least intrusive way to deliver that without having to alter original turret model too much, is to include Arena in its latest form: example.

4) Additional armor modeled for BMP-3M like here. This configuration does not impede Shtora or Arena being mounted on the turret. 

5) Kamaz-53501 as a supply truck. Nowadays, these are the standard in the better supplied formations. 

[DreDay]

I'd like a broader, more polished Ru equipment module because looking at high-polycount Russian vehicles in CMBS makes me warm inside. 

 

1) T-72B with K-1 Era (good use for coastal defense units), also should be very interesting to see how T-72B vs T-64B fight plays out.

Agreed.T-72B/B1 are still the most common tanks in Russian arsenal; and most of them would probably stay operational by the time that CMBS timeline takes place.

[Stagler]

With all due respect to the modding contributions that you have made to CMBS and other games, which I very much appreciate - it is worth noting that VDV recon (i.e. 45th Recon Regiment) have completely different subordination and command hexarchy than GRU Spetsnaz and SSO forces of Russian MOD. Not that is not entirely impossible for them to cooperate on the same mission; but that would probably be an exception rather than the rule; as all of these formations have quite different command and subordination structure.

 

Cheers Dre, but AFAIK the 45th Guards independent airborne reconnaissance regiment has dual subordination to both the SSO and the VDV chain with it being the primary expeditionary unit at full readiness for unconventional warfare duties.

Could be wrong though, things have changed since 2012 quite substantially.

The recon companies of VDV units are much better equipped than their motor rifle counterparts. Though ingame they probably would not be much different than the existing "new" reconnaissance companies. Visually however, which is half the battle in CM and part of what I think constitutes a good game and immertial tool, they would be different equipped.

Edited May 17, 2015 by Stagler

[DreDay]

Cheers Dre, but AFAIK the 45th Guards independent airborne reconnaissance regiment has dual subordination to both the SSO and the VDV chain with it being the primary expeditionary unit at full readiness for unconventional warfare duties.

Could be wrong though, things have changed since 2012 quite substantially.

The recon companies of VDV units are much better equipped than their motor rifle counterparts. Though ingame they probably would not be much different than the existing "new" reconnaissance companies. Visually however, which is half the battle in CM and part of what I think constitutes a good game and immertial tool, they would be different equipped.

Cheers old friend! I agree that a lot of Russian Spec Ops structure has changed multiple times since 2010. At one point all the Spetsnaz Brigades were taken away from GRU and subbordinated to Ground Forces, although I believe that this has been reversed by now. As for Russian SSO - so far they seem to be just a tier 1 spec ops unit that is called up for most critical missions (roughly comparable to SAS or SFOD-D); but not a US SOF equivalent that would include multiple formations.

Edited May 17, 2015 by DreDay

[db_zero]

Civilians would add alot to the game. This has been mentioned in the past and I doubt we'll ever see them. If they ever were to make it into the game I'd like to see not only ones that hide and flee, but also angry rioting ones and give them plenty of molotov cocktails.

I'd like to see a sewer system you could use in the urban fights.

Walls, doors and stairwells inside of buildings.

Rubble and other impediments that get created if you go around destroying buildings. It seems that in h2h games the SOP of players is to use massive recon by fire and hose down a building you think there may be enemy positions. There really is no downside to doing so.

If we're to believe the unofficial accounts of the latest raid on ISIS human shields were used and it got down to hand to hand combat. Hand to hand combat has been mentioned in the past.

[MOS:96B2P]

I'd like to see a sewer system you could use in the urban fights.  

 

Now this would be cool.  Back at Fort Bragg in the 1980s we had a MOUT training area that had a sewer system.  (The tunnels had CS popped in them so often you could not use a tunnel without wearing your protective mask)  I am not sure if the game engine could handle sewers but it would make for some interesting tactical situations.  And someday we are going to have a CM title with Stalingrad...........  

[db_zero]

Ladders would also be interesting. The only way to enter and clear a building is through the door or to blow a hole in the wall. Ladders and the ability to enter a building via a window from an oposite and covered direction at a higher level would give more variety to urban fights. You could also make an improvised ladder bridge between buildings and you could scale walls you normally can't do so at present.

 

Goes without saying that the ability to just enter a building via the windows would be a welcome addition.

 

If they are going to add Special Forces then the ability to repel and fast rope from a helicopter should be added...anyone remember the old Command and Conquer series? I thought one of the coolest things to do was to load a chopper with troops and see them fast rope down to take a building.

 

Perhaps someone can shed more light on this-but I've always understood one of the best ways to clear a building was to work your way down, not up.

[DreDay]

Ladders would also be interesting. The only way to enter and clear a building is through the door or to blow a hole in the wall. Ladders and the ability to enter a building via a window from an oposite and covered direction at a higher level would give more variety to urban fights. You could also make an improvised ladder bridge between buildings and you could scale walls you normally can't do so at present.

Are you thinking of external ladders that are built into the buildings (i.e. firescapes), or assault ladders that would be deployed by soldiers? I can see a case for both, but the assault ladders are much more likely to be used by CT or police teams rather than army units...

Goes without saying that the ability to just enter a building via the windows would be a welcome addition.

Yes! 100%!!

If they are going to add Special Forces then the ability to repel and fast rope from a helicopter should be added...anyone remember the old Command and Conquer series? I thought one of the coolest things to do was to load a chopper with troops and see them fast rope down to take a building.

I would love to see this at some point, but CM engine has no means of accurately depicting air assult deployments right now. We might have to settle for deploying such teams on the top of buildings in the scenario editor for the time being...

Perhaps someone can shed more light on this-but I've always understood one of the best ways to clear a building was to work your way down, not up.

You are absolutely correct. There are many other factors that go into this, but clearing building is generally much more preferable from top down, rather than the other way around.

[db_zero]

Are you thinking of external ladders that are built into the buildings (i.e. firescapes), or assault ladders that would be deployed by soldiers? I can see a case for both, but the assault ladders are much more likely to be used by CT or police teams rather than army units...

 

I was thinking of assault ladders. It should probably be limited to engineers and ranger or SF units if they do decide to add them. I didn't think about external ladder or fire escapes, but that too would be a welcome addition.

 

You could easily make a game just centered around urban fighting. The trend is for the population to gravitate to urban areas as thats were the employment is and that's were they say much of the future fighting will take place.

 

As mantioned above a Stalingrad module will eventually be released...

[DreDay]

I was thinking of assault ladders. It should probably be limited to engineers and ranger or SF units if they do decide to add them. I didn't think about external ladder or fire escapes, but that too would be a welcome addition.

I gotcha. I would certainly welcome both additions; but I am a bit hesitant of how often the assault ladders are used by army units (as opposed to CT/Police teams); still it would certainly be a nice option.

You could easily make a game just centered around urban fighting. The trend is for the population to gravitate to urban areas as thats were the employment is and that's were they say much of the future fighting will take place.

As mantioned above a Stalingrad module will eventually be released...

Agreed. The current engine is already quite good for handling MOUT operations, but more features would have to be added if that becomes the focus. Right of the top of my head, I can think of modeling of building interiors and walls and basements (shot out to CMBB).

[Fade2Gray]

I would be curious to know why you (or anyone else) think that SF have no place in CM. What makes you say that?

 

Can you show me where its common to see mass SF deployments into major mechanized fights?  As others have popped out, a few "advisers" here and there would be alright, but Navy SEALs or Delta making an appearance in the middle of a slug fest between tanks is laughable to the extreme.  About the limits I could see for US forces as is (which is based on the US Army) would be Rangers.  Anything above them is simply out of the question.

[DreDay]

Can you show me where its common to see mass SF deployments into major mechanized fights?  As others have popped out, a few "advisers" here and there would be alright, but Navy SEALs or Delta making an appearance in the middle of a slug fest between tanks is laughable to the extreme.  About the limits I could see for US forces as is (which is based on the US Army) would be Rangers.  Anything above them is simply out of the question.

 

It is certainly uncommon to have SF units take part in mechanized battles; no argument here. However, why do you want to limit CMBS scenarios to mechanized battles exclusively? What's wrong with having a couple of SF teams assault a strategically important bridge or some key compound? The game engine is flexible enough to handle such scenarios and the newly added SF teams should fit quire organically into it.

[LukeFF]

Scenario Editor > US Army > Infantry Battalion > Crack or Elite skill level > Excellent equipment quality > SF troops. Easy, and done. 

[BTR]

Agreed.T-72B/B1 are still the most common tanks in Russian arsenal; and most of them would probably stay operational by the time that CMBS timeline takes place.

 

T-72B is maybe the most widespread tank available in storage, but I don't think it is the most widespread tank in service. The latter would be T-72B3. 

Edited May 18, 2015 by BTR

[DreDay]

Scenario Editor > US Army > Infantry Battalion > Crack or Elite skill level > Excellent equipment quality > SF troops. Easy, and done. 

 

No. At best that gives you a rough equivalent of a Ranger battalion. Special Forces use unique equipment, org structure, and skill sets.

 

T-72B is maybe the most widespread tank available in storage, but I don't think it is the most widespread tank in service. The latter would be T-72B3. 

 

I seriously doubt that. A few hunderd of T-72B3s have been upgraded so far and most of these seem to be going out as a replacement for T-80BVs. The overall Russian size of Russian active tank force is estimated to be around 2500, most of which are T-72Bs.

[akd]

It is more than a few hundred at this point.  I think count is up to 500+?  However, there are still large numbers of T-72Bs and T-80BVs in service in the Central and Far Eastern MDs, so it is difficult to declare any tank dominant at this point.  I think only one brigade in each of those MDs has received B3s at this point.

[BTR]

270 T-72B3's in service by 2013, additional 294 tanks in 2014 and I am counting at least 35 in 2015, possibly double that. Overall, that gives us at least 599 T-72B3's in service by now. With 350 T-90A's in active service we have 949 tanks in active service which are not T-72B's or T-80BV's. I think the 2500 service number is also counting storage and training tanks, which is not entirely representative of the combat capabilities. So, again, T-72B might be the most widespread available tank, but it is not the most widespread in service anymore. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Re: SOF

 

Yeah.  You can sort of fudge Rangers but the actual operator stuff isn't well represented by elite rifle teams.  

 

I'd like having the option to field various special forces operators in game.  Giving them some crazy rarity ought to keep folks from going crazy on using Delta elements to clear out city blocks, but there's a lot of small action stuff that lends itself well to operator type teams.

 

Could be neat, and a good fit for the smaller scenarios.  

 

Re: T-72B3

 

I'm with akd.  There's more than a few T-72B3s, but there's also still a fair amount of earlier tanks kicking around.  Might be more T-72B3 centric by 2017 though as BTR pointed out.  

[astano]

Special Forces use unique equipment, ...

 

Curious what you have in mind equipment-wise.  The super-tacticool high-speed-low-drag rifles, optics, plate carriers, etc. would seem to me to be almost entirely cosmetic.  Obviously if SOF make it into the game those should be modeled, but I'm wondering if there's something beyond essentially visual changes I'm not thinking of?  I guess there's also suppressors (also already in-game on at least US marksman rifles) but I don't know how much difference that might make.  I don't have enough of an idea to comment on any Ukrainian or Russian elements.

 

Yeah.  You can sort of fudge Rangers but the actual operator stuff isn't well represented by elite rifle teams.  

 

I also wonder if anything beyond that can be done.  Given that BFC has said that there are no national differences between infantry (e.g. a Ukranian +0/+0/+0/+0 rifle squad is the same as a Russian +0/+0/+0/+0 rifle squad is the same as an American +0/+0/+0/+0 rifle squad) other than their equipment, I'm not sure I'd hold my breath for differentiation within nationalities either, though it's certainly possible that such a capability exists and lack of national differences is strictly based on philosophy.  But given that BFC have repeatedly stated that that is their philosophy, I'm not sure why they'd take the time to build an unused capability into the engine.  In that case a US mech rifle squad and a US SFOD team might only be capable of performing identically (other than their typical soft factors and whatever might be attributable to their equipment).

 

I'd still also like to see SOF in game anyways, if for nothing else than to add some flavor and more possibilities for smaller infantry-focused scenarios.  Their inclusion could also make sense as advisors in the possible future separatists module, since foreign internal defense is a traditional SOF mission.

Edited May 19, 2015 by astano

[db_zero]

I enjoy the infantry stuff as much as the armored/mech stuff. I would enjoy a infantry centric module that added features specific to infantry fighting, raids, special operations and urban wafare. .

[Kieme(ITA)]

Special forces implementation was discussed before. The main problem that emerged with those is that the actual game/engine doesn't allow to depict precisely what special forces can do in terms of equipment/tactics/actions.

 

You could try to overcome the lack of flexibility by making or allowing very small teams (even 1 or 2 men per each) but the game logic Tiles between which the units move wouldn't allow for a precise movement of said units. So one big problem would be the movement capabilities of such units, which would be as cumberstome or generic as the normal infantry we have now thus taking away any kind of speciality. This lack of movement control and detail is extremely negative to special forces in CM games and the main reason such units cannot perform correctly.

 

Other problems concern

-the use of suppressors, these would need to be modelled accordingly, especially when it comes to spotting system, and it would take a lot of work even if it was possible to program such kind of thing with the actual game engine. The same goes for all those special and high end equipment a special unit might have, such as flashbangs, smoke grenades, for example.

-buildings and structures. These are generic an abstracted in game, any kind of special unit shines in close combat conditions and fighting in a closed environment, all of this could not be simulated with the actual game engine.

-commands; the available commands for infantry would not allow to represent all the possible tactics special forces could use. The actual commands don't even allow for a full representation of standard infantry tactics, go figure those of a special unit.

Moreover, such kind of special forces would need big boosts when it comes to several abilities, such as spotting, otherwise they would just be simple infantry units, if that's the case their capabilities in game would be more like those of a rambo man than of a specialized unit.

 

All in all, given the actual game engine, special forces are not likely to be added, or desirable, because the game itself, its structure, logic and engine, are not capable of depicting such units, their tactics and abilities in the correct way, therefore such units would really be out of place.

 

I would support an infantry-centric campaign or scenarios. But keep in mind that we have limitations that the game engine imposes as well as abstractions (buildings).

Edited May 19, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[Hash_Slinging_Slasher]

im brand new to combat mission, so i dont know if anyone asked this yet, or if it is not reasonable. But i would love to see one of the coolest vechicles ever designed the BMPT and the BMPT2 in the game. Also its a little out of scale but why not have the s300 and the patriot? are they theater level? because having one of those on the map it would become critical to knock it out 

[Kieme(ITA)]

S300 and patriot are indeed out of the scale of the game. Even though it would be potentially realistic and feasible to have a battle showing such kind of asset within the battle map, their use would only be limited to a scenario target. Considering the amount of time/effort needed to model the vehicle and add it in game with even a basic bahviour, resources are best spent on usable units/vehicles.

 

The BMPT might come in a future module if its use is effectively confirmed as an integral part of a Russian Army formation. Same goes for the heavy IFV of the new Armata.