Armata soon to be in service.

[Wicky]

Reminds me of the Banana Buggy from the 70s  

 

[slysniper]

Reminds me of the Banana Buggy from the 70s  

 

Are you sure these are not the new tanks we will see in May

[Battlefront.com]

They sure do look sexy, that's for sure! But I'm withholding performance judgement until there's more information. Looks alone don't mean much. After all, I think the T-72 is a beautiful machine too.

Reminds me of the Banana Buggy from the 70s  

 

I wonder if youngsters still pop LSD and watch that show like people just a little older than me probably did.

Steve

[Douglas Ruddd]

I did once, the colors were spectacular! On a black and white TV!

I wonder if youngsters still pop LSD and watch that show like people just a little older than me probably did.

Steve

[Pablius]

So...do we have enough for a Parade Module???

 

That would be new...

[Battlefront.com]

So...do we have enough for a Parade Module???

 

That would be new...

No! People would complain about the tarps not properly flapping in the wind

Steve

P.S. I kid. I'm sure they will be removed for parade day.

[agusto]

Steve, if military technology develops in a way different from what you guys predicted in CMBS, will the game be adjusted? Let's say for example the Armata platform and all the vehicles derived from it enter mass production and when 2017 arrives IRL, the Russians have multiple Brigades fully equipped with their new IFVs and MBTs, will these formation be present in CMBS? My knowledge on russian military technology isnt up-to-date so i cant judge how likely this is to happen, but it's a fact that CMBS is the first CMx2 game that doesnt use contemporary or historical TO&Es but instead "guesses" what the Armies of the nations participating in the conflict might look like. But what if you guessed wrong?

Edited April 24, 2015 by agusto

[Stagler]

I am hoping that they will come in the last module for CMBS. Like T-90, airsupport, and BMP-3 kind of did for the Syrians in CMSF.

[akd]

Steve, if military technology develops in a way different from what you guys predicted in CMBS, will the game be adjusted? Let's say for example the Armata platform and all the vehicles derived from it enter mass production and when 2017 arrives IRL, the Russians have multiple Brigades fully equipped with their new IFVs and MBTs, will these formation be present in CMBS? My knowledge on russian military technology isnt up-to-date so i cant judge how likely this is to happen, but it's a fact that CMBS is the first CMx2 game that doesnt use contemporary or historical TO&Es but instead "guesses" what the Armies of the nations participating in the conflict might look like. But what if you guessed wrong?

 

It is safe to say that won't happen.  And the game is on an alternate track of reality where decisions made yesterday and today are affecting what is available in 2017.  Equipment available isn't a guess about our real future that can then turn out to be wrong, but about that future.  Pretty much everything in the game now that is not contemporary, actual TO&E is in as an option, so has zero affect on the game's validity as a sandbox simulator.  The content included has a storyline that uses some of those options.  They are part of that story.  You are free to make your own stories and leave those options out.

 

This Armata / Kurganets / Boomerang would better be handled as a future equipment pack that could include other just out of time frame equipment like JLTV, AMPV, Warrior CSP, FRES SV, etc.  That would be fun, enhance sandbox value, but not require bending the base game narrative to fit them into the storyline.  Here are some toys.  Use them responsibly.

[Kieme(ITA)]

I like that approach, with the hope that many scenario designers will carry on with the production.

[agusto]

This Armata / Kurganets / Boomerang would better be handled as a future equipment pack that could include other just out of time frame equipment like JLTV, AMPV, Warrior CSP, FRES SV, etc.  That would be fun, enhance sandbox value, but not require bending the base game narrative to fit them into the storyline.  Here are some toys.  Use them responsibly.

 

That is what i was talking about. There is no need to change the already existing TO&E & scenarios because they are part of a fictional timeline, but i definately want CMBS to be capable to simulate real world conflicts as accruately as possible. For example i would definately buy a module that adds unconventional forces so i can play or make scenarios representing the currently ongoing war in Ukraine. This versatility is one of the greatest strengths of CMSF IMO: you can recreate any conflict ranging from the US led 2003 Iraq War, the Iraq Insurgency against Coalition rule, the War in Afgahnistan and the Libyan Civil war to the currently ongoing wars in Syria and Iraq with CMSF. There are even mods that allow you to make scenarios set in Mali in Africa! I would like CMBS to be as versatile, and for that we need an accurate representation of that military hard ware that was either historically or is contemprarily used by the nations involved in those conflicts.

Edited April 24, 2015 by agusto

[Kieme(ITA)]

From a modder point of view I can tell you that if you want (we all do) more versatility more content is needed. I mean: for each single bit of stuff BFC puts in the game (module/vehicle pack whatever), the potential versatility of the game increases.

 

Example: if an older model of T-72 (like the first generation ERA covered one) gets introduced, this will allow modders to make scenarios/mods that will represent other nations than Russia employing that piece of equipment.

 

Also the irregular units example fits very well, if irregulars were introduced both for Ukraine side and Russian side, the potential settings expand a lot and would allow for any kind of asymmetrical warfare setting, even one in the desert again! Not to mention any asian unstable former URSS country.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[ChrisND]

Steve, if military technology develops in a way different from what you guys predicted in CMBS, will the game be adjusted? Let's say for example the Armata platform and all the vehicles derived from it enter mass production and when 2017 arrives IRL, the Russians have multiple Brigades fully equipped with their new IFVs and MBTs, will these formation be present in CMBS? My knowledge on russian military technology isnt up-to-date so i cant judge how likely this is to happen, but it's a fact that CMBS is the first CMx2 game that doesnt use contemporary or historical TO&Es but instead "guesses" what the Armies of the nations participating in the conflict might look like. But what if you guessed wrong?

 

We wouldn't adjust the base game in reaction to events similar to those you describe, no. That means that the base game's equipment, story, and scenarios stay the same. From the moment it released Black Sea is now in it's own parallel world, and not attempting to be a current up to date depiction of the real world. If you really think about it, it would be impractical to keep changing the base game to keep up with new developments anyways.

 

Now, adding new stuff for a themed pack or new module, that appears in new content? That's another story. I definitely find the idea of a slightly further future content release with next gen equipment to be appealing.

[danzig5]

As one of your customers, I would buy the hell out of that.

[Battlefront.com]

AKD and ChrisND got it right. Not surprising, is it?

We got most of everything in Shock Force pretty much spot on correct. There were, however, some thing we got wrong. Instead of going back and "rewriting history" we left them in. We did not add anything new to the story that had developed since we first started making the game, IIRC. The T-90 and BMP-3 already existed in real life and we decided to add them to the game to keep things interesting for the Syrian side. Since they were definitely evaluating them at the time we made the game, it wasn't a huge break with reality to suggest that in the future (our story line) they got a small number of them delivered. It is entirely possible we will do the same thing for CMBS.

Generally speaking new TO&E is not needed for simple equipment swaps. For example, let's say that in 2016 the US puts wheel spinners and neon glow lights on Abrams, complete with an option for "low riding" to impress the chicks. We could easily add this into the game as an optional pick for Abrams variants. The existing variants would remain because it would be unlikely that any of them would be pushed out of service as that isn't the historical record for pretty much any nation with any piece of equipment in wartime. Old stuff tends to die rather than be withdrawn.

Steve

[L0ckAndL0ad]

[Stagler]

Looks to me like button down driving cameras.

 

Also looks like back door of K25 can be opened dually as a ramp or swing door. Good news.

 

I would rather see proper rebels before all of this new kit anyway.

[Kieme(ITA)]

Wait a second, those two smaller hatches in the back, lower part, look like swiveling hatches, maybe it's a water-propulsion system (seems too small though)?

Edited April 25, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Not really smaller than those on BMP-3. Comparable.

[Kieme(ITA)]

Then this thing is fully amphibious? Maybe this explains the very large ERA on the sides.

[c3k]

Definitely water jets for amphib propulsion. (The Russians, with all the rivers there, are leaders in swimming tanks. Ever since WWII..)

 

Ramp: yeah, the wheeled BTR upgrade has some hinges which also make the rear seem to have dual modes of ingress/egress. I'd be surprised if, with all the other bells and whistles (and modernizing) they've done to this family of vehicles, if the rear did not have a primary ramp (door for when the hydraulics (electrics?) don't work).

 

My .02.

 

Ken

[akd]

Then this thing is fully amphibious? Maybe this explains the very large ERA on the sides.

 

These look more like passive armor modules than ERA to me.  But yes, volume is probably high to maintain buoyancy.  BMP-3 and BMD-4M have a passive armor module option that maintains amphibious ability, as seen mounted here:

 

 

As you can see, fairly large in volume but only increases side protection to 12.7mm level. That suggests a good deal of empty space or buoyant material.

Edited April 25, 2015 by akd

[Stagler]

They are composite armour block proxies - filled with polystyrene probably at the moment or something. They are too large to be ERA as the explosion of one module would leave about a two foot square space of vulnerable armour behind.

[Kieme(ITA)]

Yes, thanks for the correction, I have the bad habit to call ERA any box on vehicles.

 

So, in the specific case (and maybe the BMP-3 ERA, like the one we have in game), do you think that the buoyancy is given by an empty chamber inside them or the use of a very light filler material? Because, if I am not mistaken anything based on ceramics should be quite heavy.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[Djiaux]

Hmmm the 9th of May is going to be great this year.

 

The Marines module was great in CMSF, it added some good options for the Syrians so quick battles and some scenarios would be better and it added a very interesting American army with way less javelins to make things more balanced, I loved the marines module.

 

So hell yeah, a last update for CMBS with all this heavy metal I think it's a must and having the Russians have a little upper hand in armor while being back on ATGMs (Javs), infantry (loads of people squads) and air would be great for the game and theoretically possible. If you want to make that module outstanding making Russians have more infantry and thus causing some sort of balanced WW2 ostfront in modern times would hit the spot. I think its reasonable as this game doesn't represent a full scale war between the US and Russia, the conditions could be meeted.