Any modules ? National Family extensions or patches in the works ?

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, kinophile said:

If a game is too expensive I won't buy it. Drop the price and I will.

Simple as that.

Your loss, then.

[Kinophile]

Not really... It's BFC's loss of a sale :-) Drop 30% off and I'd probably buy BN,  MG,  CW and the x3 upgrade. Now THAT'S a wiN for BFC. 

But they have their business model, it's pretty set in stone so this is all moot. 

I'm a huge, huge HUGE fan of CMBS. I tried the demo,  loved it. Tried the demos of BN and FI and it was...  eh.... Ahhh.... Umm

Maybe if I'd tried WW2 before Modern I might be more forgiving, but the lethality if modern weapons systems, along with the modelling of drones, indirect fire, air support, helos was the clincher for me.

Playing WW2 after that felt like going back to the kiddies paddling pool and throwing rubber duckies at each other!

[A Canadian Cat]

4 minutes ago, kinophile said:

Not really... It's BFC's loss of a sale :-) Drop 30% off and I'd probably buy BN,  MG,  CW and the x3 upgrade. Now THAT'S a wiN for BFC. 

But they have their business model, it's pretty set in stone so this is all moot.

LOL your second line is the correct part.  If they dropped the price by 30% and did not get a 30% increase in customers then that is a huge LOSS to BFC not a gain.  I once had a guy in my company's marketing department put it to me this way "if you do not have potential customers dropping the idea of purchasing your product due to price - then you are pricing your product to low".  His point was simple there is a sweet spot where lowering the price does not net you enough new customers to make it worth while.  Same goes for too high if you move the price higher too many potential customers don't buy that it is not worth it. 

In other words: the fact that some people say "this game costs too much" in the context of good sales is a good thing (tm). 

 

[Kinophile]

Yah but are they good sales? It's a pretty niche product. 

You know what,, I'm a gonna stop here,  it's off topic and pointless. I'm just bored senseless  on set right now. 

[womble]

4 hours ago, Blazing 88's said:

[some stuff]; the quote box is borked...

I don't get how playing an earlier period or in some operational layer is going to have Western Europe under the heel of the Third Reich, any more than winning a platoon-level fight as the SS in the Ardennes is. It's all academic: the Germans lost, whether you are looking back at '43 or '39 or '45. From Winter '41 onwards they were just delaying the inevitable, and more campaigns they were involved in were defensive than offensive, and more lost/unsuccessful than won. Would fighting portions of Kursk (that the Germans lost) or Stalingrad (that the Germans lost) or El Alamein II (that the Germans lost) or Kasserine Pass (that the Germans won, but didn't make a blind bit of difference to the Tunisia campaign in the end; the Italians still lost all their hardware) make you feel less like you're rearranging deckchairs on a sinking ship? Even if you "win" the operation you're playing in the notional operational layer, the Germans still lost the war. How is winning some academic, fictional operation any less of a "technical exercise" and a hollow victory than winning (or, Ifni forfend, losing) some tiny 30 minute firefight?

For me, CMx2 creates the story that I engage with, because you can follow the exploits and fate of every one of your pTruppen, whether it's the steely-eyed survivor who guns down half a platoon and gets away, or the whimpering fate of some conscript in a shell hole, pinned down by a sniper, and relieved when the tanks plaster the church tower with HE. As you say, there's no point in trying to engage with the bigger story, because, at that scale, "what happens next?" is a rhetorical question, but that same query at the micro level actually has, if you're prepared to get down in the weeds with your poor bloody infantry, significance, as far as any game can. It does this far more than CMx1; Larry, Curly and Moe just didn't connect with me at the visceral level, which for the level of abstraction they represented isn't really very surprising.

[Blazing 88's]

5 hours ago, womble said:

I don't get how playing an earlier period or in some operational layer is going to have Western Europe under the heel of the Third Reich, any more than winning a platoon-level fight as the SS in the Ardennes is. It's all academic: the Germans lost, whether you are looking back at '43 or '39 or '45. From Winter '41 onwards they were just delaying the inevitable, and more campaigns they were involved in were defensive than offensive, and more lost/unsuccessful than won. Would fighting portions of Kursk (that the Germans lost) or Stalingrad (that the Germans lost) or El Alamein II (that the Germans lost) or Kasserine Pass (that the Germans won, but didn't make a blind bit of difference to the Tunisia campaign in the end; the Italians still lost all their hardware) make you feel less like you're rearranging deckchairs on a sinking ship? Even if you "win" the operation you're playing in the notional operational layer, the Germans still lost the war. How is winning some academic, fictional operation any less of a "technical exercise" and a hollow victory than winning (or, Ifni forfend, losing) some tiny 30 minute firefight?

For me, CMx2 creates the story that I engage with, because you can follow the exploits and fate of every one of your pTruppen, whether it's the steely-eyed survivor who guns down half a platoon and gets away, or the whimpering fate of some conscript in a shell hole, pinned down by a sniper, and relieved when the tanks plaster the church tower with HE. As you say, there's no point in trying to engage with the bigger story, because, at that scale, "what happens next?" is a rhetorical question, but that same query at the micro level actually has, if you're prepared to get down in the weeds with your poor bloody infantry, significance, as far as any game can. It does this far more than CMx1; Larry, Curly and Moe just didn't connect with me at the visceral level, which for the level of abstraction they represented isn't really very surprising.

Actually I think CMx2 is awesome as is, it can be a whole lot more with an op layer.  My comments were in response to what kino mentioned.

For me I just do not like the late war stuff (late 44 to the end), never have.

Having said that, I will be getting the CMFI module to complete that set, not sure what year that will cover?? Just like I will support CMBN and CMRT additions.  When it comes to CMFB and a CMBerlin, not my cup of tea.

[antaress73]

Going back to map size and modern battles, missiles are greatly nerfed because of that , this penalizes the Russians more. Thermals will find infantry sized targets at 2000 meters range  and less pretty easily. Launchers get detected and killed pretty fast on a typical CMBS map. I've fought battles at 4000 meters and the Russians were surprisingly lethal at that range. Kornets were able to expend all their ammo and Kill many m1s frontally. T-90AMs were shrugging off m1 rounds because of relikt and also killed many Abrams (also frontally)  by using shoot and scoot tactics over a hill. So at long range you can basically go head to head with the US and trounce them (destroyed 13 Abrams, losing only three T-90s and only ONE missile launcher team). Battles at that range rarely happen in the game because of the limitations. It would be common IRL on the Ukrainian battlefield with long LOS on the steppes where the Kornet would shine (the kriz too,with only the launcher being exposed ).

Edited June 16, 2016 by antaress73

[sburke]

1 hour ago, antaress73 said:

Going back to map size and modern battles, missiles are greatly nerfed because of that , this penalizes the Russians more. Thermals will find infantry sized targets at 2000 meters range  and less pretty easily. Launchers get detected and killed pretty fast on a typical CMBS map. I've fought battles at 4000 meters and the Russians were surprisingly lethal at that range. Kornets were able to expend all their ammo and Kill many m1s frontally. T-90AMs were shrugging off m1 rounds because of relikt and also killed many Abrams (also frontally)  by using shoot and scoot tactics over a hill. So at long range you can basically go head to head with the US and trounce them (destroyed 13 Abrams, losing only three T-90s and only ONE missile launcher team). Battles at that range rarely happen in the game because of the limitations. It would be common IRL on the Ukrainian battlefield with long LOS on the steppes where the Kornet would shine (the kriz too,with only the launcher being exposed ).

unfortunately making maps that size takes a lot of effort.  I am one of those who really does like the flexibility of a larger map and I do tend to make an effort on that.  I have one on that scale in CMBS (Ukrainian crossroads) and 3 in CMFB, but that is pushing it.  It takes away from time on other items.  One thing to keep in mind though.  Those same maps or terrain would make some great hunting territory for US air support with standoff weapons...there is always a tradeoff.

[antaress73]

standoff weapons would be great against vehicules if they can detect them and burn through extensive jamming

9 hours ago, sburke said:

unfortunately making maps that size takes a lot of effort.  I am one of those who really does like the flexibility of a larger map and I do tend to make an effort on that.  I have one on that scale in CMBS (Ukrainian crossroads) and 3 in CMFB, but that is pushing it.  It takes away from time on other items.  One thing to keep in mind though.  Those same maps or terrain would make some great hunting territory for US air support with standoff weapons...there is always a tradeoff.

standoff weapons would be great against vehicules if they can detect them and burn through extensive and powerful russian jamming. They would be of limited effectiveness against small well hidden (with thermal signature reducing measures) ATGMs launchers operating 4-5 km away. Its much more difficult in real life to detect small objects that dont want to be seen on the battlefield than in the game.Remember Serbia in 1999. With a LOT of NAto air power involved, hitting tactical targets in Kosovo was a massive failure. They had to switch to strategic targets in Serbia proper to force Serbia out. WHen the serbian army retreated from Kosovo, they discovered that the damage done to them in two months of intensive bombing was ridiculously low. I would not rely too much on air power alone in a war with Russia. Even if NATO could get air superiority early, supporting ground troops and lowering ground  casualties by using air power would not be something I would count on. It will be bloody and would require a TOTAL commitment and many sacrifices. Its not worth it and it wont happen unless everybody goes full retard.

[Kinophile]

40 minutes ago, antaress73 said:

standoff weapons would be great against vehicules if they can detect them and burn through extensive jamming

standoff weapons would be great against vehicules if they can detect them and burn through extensive and powerful russian jamming. They would be of limited effectiveness against small well hidden (with thermal signature reducing measures) ATGMs launchers operating 4-5 km away. Its much more difficult in real life to detect small objects that dont want to be seen on the battlefield than in the game.Remember Serbia in 1999. With a LOT of NAto air power involved, hitting tactical targets in Kosovo was a massive failure. They had to switch to strategic targets in Serbia proper to force Serbia out. WHen the serbian army retreated from Kosovo, they discovered that the damage done to them in two months of intensive bombing was ridiculously low. I would not rely too much on air power alone in a war with Russia. Even if NATO could get air superiority early, supporting ground troops and lowering ground  casualties by using air power would not be something I would count on. It will be bloody and would require a TOTAL commitment and many sacrifices. Its not worth it and it wont happen unless everybody goes full retard.

Ah, now. That's a big stretch as an example. 

1) It was almost 17 years ago

2) it was 2 high tech,  high intensity wars ago

3) it used what would now be considered pretty obsolete tech for guidance, targeting and surveillance. 

4) no drones

 

[antaress73]

51 minutes ago, kinophile said:

Ah, now. That's a big stretch as an example. 

1) It was almost 17 years ago

2) it was 2 high tech,  high intensity wars ago

3) it used what would now be considered pretty obsolete tech for guidance, targeting and surveillance. 

4) no drones

 

They had drones .  Jstars .. laser guided ammo, special forces painting targets 1999 is not 1945 you know 

Edited June 16, 2016 by antaress73

[Sublime]

15 hours ago, Blazing 88's said:

Actually I think CMx2 is awesome as is, it can be a whole lot more with an op layer.  My comments were in response to what kino mentioned.

For me I just do not like the late war stuff (late 44 to the end), never have.

Having said that, I will be getting the CMFI module to complete that set, not sure what year that will cover?? Just like I will support CMBN and CMRT additions.  When it comes to CMFB and a CMBerlin, not my cup of tea.

Ok the GL module goes to May 44. The next module Idk if itll goto end of war. GL argues yes because that almost covered a year and so would may to may. OTOH we have partisans lotsa formations havent been represented yet so it may only take it so far and a final module to finish it off. This is all purely conjecture.

[Ivanov]

2 hours ago, kinophile said:

Ah, now. That's a big stretch as an example. 

1) It was almost 17 years ago

2) it was 2 high tech,  high intensity wars ago

3) it used what would now be considered pretty obsolete tech for guidance, targeting and surveillance. 

4) no drones

 

There are even examples of NATO drones from the campaign in the Museum of Aviation in Belgrade. In total about 40 were lost (crashed, shot down ).

 

 

I remember watching some expert on BBC the day they started the bombings. He said that in case of Serbia the air power would not be very effective, mostly due to the terrain and weather. Also keep in mind, that unlike Russia, Serbia didn't have modern air defences. In general the effectiveness of air power is greatly exaggerated. Even in perfect conditions like Gulf War I, the air power wasn't nearly as effective as the initial reports were suggesting. For example the pilots of A-10s and AH-64s claimed about 600 T-72's. In reality there were between 300-400 T-72's in the area of operations and their loses were between 50-150 tanks.

Of course the air power would be more effective in attacking Russian mechanized units advancing in the open. But it would much more difficult to dislodge Russian forces the would dig in after a short, blitzkrieg campaign, for example in the Baltics.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Ivanov

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, antaress73 said:

They had drones . 

Really? Huh I always assumed Drones were a post 9/11 thing. 

Still though,  the points of 17s and the longest war in US history  still stand,  the sub point being that the war drastically accelerated various tech.

A modern air assault against a Tier 2 or 3 integrated ADS  would be a very different beast. 

Edited June 16, 2016 by kinophile

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

3 hours ago, antaress73 said:

standoff weapons would be great against vehicules if they can detect them and burn through extensive jamming

standoff weapons would be great against vehicules if they can detect them and burn through extensive and powerful russian jamming. They would be of limited effectiveness against small well hidden (with thermal signature reducing measures) ATGMs launchers operating 4-5 km away. Its much more difficult in real life to detect small objects that dont want to be seen on the battlefield than in the game.Remember Serbia in 1999. With a LOT of NAto air power involved, hitting tactical targets in Kosovo was a massive failure. They had to switch to strategic targets in Serbia proper to force Serbia out. WHen the serbian army retreated from Kosovo, they discovered that the damage done to them in two months of intensive bombing was ridiculously low. I would not rely too much on air power alone in a war with Russia. Even if NATO could get air superiority early, supporting ground troops and lowering ground  casualties by using air power would not be something I would count on. It will be bloody and would require a TOTAL commitment and many sacrifices. Its not worth it and it wont happen unless everybody goes full retard.

Do try to find some real life 4-5 KM sight lines.  I'll be waiting.

Or less sarcastically, even fairly flat land often holds a variety of terrain features that prevent unobstructed shooting out to max range.  Outside of select parts of open deserts, and very large firing ranges, it's just not common, or reliable enough to expect reasonable very long engagement ranges.

Not to mention the sensor fidelity works both ways.  

Either way 1999 is a poor analogy as it was the impetus for major sensor system overall.  It also highlights how irrelevant ATGMs hiding in bushes are if they haven't seen food ina few days.  Further the Serbian military could afford to take measures well beyond what the Russians could afford to accomplish (and still be mission-capable) to protect assets. 

[Kinophile]

@antaress73 true it's a given at this point that air alone will not defeat a ground force (eg ISIS)  without sufficiently capable  friendly ground forces. 

 

[Kinophile]

40 minutes ago, Ivanov said:

There are even examples of NATO drones from the campaign in the Museum of Aviation in Belgrade. In total about 40 were lost (crashed, shot down ).

 

 

I remember watching some expert on BBC the day they started the bombings. He said that in case of Serbia the air power would not be very effective, mostly due to the terrain and weather. Also keep in mind, that unlike Russia, Serbia didn't have modern air defences. In general the effectiveness of air power is greatly exaggerated. Even in perfect conditions like Gulf War I, the air power wasn't nearly as effective as the initial reports were suggesting. For example the pilots of A-10s and AH-64s claimed about 600 T-72's. In reality there were between 300-400 T-72's in the area of operations and their loses were between 50-150 tanks.

Of course the air power would be more effective in attacking Russian mechanized units advancing in the open. But it would much more difficult to dislodge Russian forces the would dig in after a short, blitzkrieg campaign, for example in the Baltics.

Fascinating, I had no idea re so many drones lost.

[General Melchid]

Certainly I agree that ranges would be a lot closer than one would 1st assume. Even though Ukraine is relatively flat, there's plenty of dips and folds and a surprising amount of foliage cover.

Been reviewing a few vids of the conflict , and open long-range sight lines seem to be the exception rather than the rule.

[antaress73]

 

43 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Do try to find some real life 4-5 KM sight lines.  I'll be waiting.

Or less sarcastically, even fairly flat land often holds a variety of terrain features that prevent unobstructed shooting out to max range.  Outside of select parts of open deserts, and very large firing ranges, it's just not common, or reliable enough to expect reasonable very long engagement ranges.

Not to mention the sensor fidelity works both ways.  

Either way 1999 is a poor analogy as it was the impetus for major sensor system overall.  It also highlights how irrelevant ATGMs hiding in bushes are if they haven't seen food ina few days.  Further the Serbian military could afford to take measures well beyond what the Russians could afford to accomplish (and still be mission-capable) to protect assets.

well.... hills would provide fairly long unobstructed views. Also, kornets on tigr and kriz would not expose anything other than their missile mast and sensors. They probably have sensors that can differentiate tank targets at the ranges they were designed to operate. A different task and difficulty than detecting a well hidden kornet crew at the same range even with superior sensors.

As for Kosovo, yes... sensors are better now but so are countermeasures.

36 minutes ago, General Melchid said:

Certainly I agree that ranges would be a lot closer than one would 1st assume. Even though Ukraine is relatively flat, there's plenty of dips and folds and a surprising amount of foliage cover.

Been reviewing a few vids of the conflict , and open long-range sight lines seem to be the exception rather than the rule.

depends on where you are in Ukraine. Its less restricted than central europe where 1 km seemed to be the norm.

[General Melchid]

Well you would be able to get extended sight lines in keyhole type settings , but a unobstructed view of the whole map (to use game terms) would be unusual.

As a example I saw video of a tank engaging at approx. 3km's , but in front of him was a low valley and he had 'dead ground' that he couldn't see for 500m-2000m.

[antaress73]

2 hours ago, General Melchid said:

Well you would be able to get extended sight lines in keyhole type settings , but a unobstructed view of the whole map (to use game terms) would be unusual.

As a example I saw video of a tank engaging at approx. 3km's , but in front of him was a low valley and he had 'dead ground' that he couldn't see for 500m-2000m.

Yeah I wasnt talking about the whole map. Of course a skilled opponent would recognize these "ideal" positions for long range engagement and area fire or arty them.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

13 minutes ago, antaress73 said:

Yeah I wasnt talking about the whole map. Of course a skilled opponent would recognize these "ideal" positions for long range engagement and area fire or arty them.

Very long range engagements will always be the exception.  You need to get that key overlap of sensor-weapon system-location, and then an enemy that opts to wander through your keyhole.

They're simply not a statistically important type of engagement.  

[Kinophile]

I'm curious... 

What was an average tank engagement range for WW2? 1Km?

And it's now,  what,  2km?

[Ivanov]

21 minutes ago, kinophile said:

I'm curious... 

What was an average tank engagement range for WW2? 1Km?

And it's now,  what,  2km?

I've heard something like 840 yards ( about 770 meters ) for the western front in 1944. Curiously enough, I've heard about the same average for the tank combat during the recent war in Donbass. It has more to do with the terrain and tactical situation, than with the potential range of the main tank armament.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Ivanov

[Abbasid111]

A US study of engagement ranges during 6/44 and 12/44 found the average ranges was between 750 and 900yards with a mean of about 840yards.