The state of CMBS

[WhiteWolf65]

I have been playing CMBS now for a couple of months. I have made several comments about it and most of the time my comments have been shot down for one reason or another. When I mention that some of the newer weapon systems be included in any new expansion (hopefully there will be one), I'm told that those weapon systems are outside the "time period" of the game. People, this is a "what-if" confrontation between the United States and the Russian Federation military forces. Now you could say it is somewhat of a "historical" representation of the conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Otherwise, it is still a "what-if" situation because the Untied States has not gone to war with the Russian Federation (and I hope we never do). If it is a matter of "time period" for not including some of the newer weapon systems that have gone into service recently, then expand the time scale another 10 years, into the mid to late 2020s. What about the inclusion of Special Forces from the United States and the Russian Federation, especially units such as US Army Rangers, US Marine Corps Force Recon, Russian PDDS/Spetsnaz? I am sure to catch all kinds of flak from this post, so shoot away. But please understand that it is not my intent to start a HUGE argument concerning the future of  this excellent game. The Battlefront team has brought hundreds of us countless hours of enjoyment with all their Combat Mission titles and I only wish the best for that team in the future.

[Erwin]

Probable political issues - similar to why no Arab-Israeli version.   Wouldn't be good optics if it came out that Russia or Arabs were using CM2 to practice successful tactics vs the west.  That's the downside of attempting to create an "accurate simulation".

[A Canadian Cat]

6 hours ago, WhiteWolf65 said:

I have been playing CMBS now for a couple of months. I have made several comments about it and most of the time my comments have been shot down for one reason or another. When I mention that some of the newer weapon systems be included in any new expansion (hopefully there will be one), I'm told that those weapon systems are outside the "time period" of the game.

Given BFC's desire to maximize accuracy they have to put limits on how far they look ahead. The TO&E list had a set time frame with a shortish look ahead. They did the same with Shock Force and made some tweaks in the update to fix some of their predictions that panned out differently. BFC's design strategy is to create a what if scenario (in the geo political sense) and build the story and time lines around that. They, so far, have not expressed a desire to create a generic sand box game. So, the design decisions they make are constrained by that box they created. Design, happiness and choices are actually governed more by constraints on choice that maximizing choice.

 

6 hours ago, WhiteWolf65 said:

People, this is a "what-if" confrontation between the United States and the Russian Federation military forces. Now you could say it is somewhat of a "historical" representation of the conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Otherwise, it is still a "what-if" situation because the Untied States has not gone to war with the Russian Federation (and I hope we never do). If it is a matter of "time period" for not including some of the newer weapon systems that have gone into service recently, then expand the time scale another 10 years, into the mid to late 2020s.

The problem with that is the further out you go the harder it is to get a reasonable representation of equipment capabilities. If you look around YouTube there are some videos with some pretty out there claims of the capabilities of the T90 and those claims can be checked at least a little bit against reality. Something like the new Aramata platform vehicles have zero or close to zero reliable information available.

Based on this I think reaching out more that a couple or a few years is totally off the table based on the way BFC have show they like to work.

 

6 hours ago, WhiteWolf65 said:

What about the inclusion of Special Forces from the United States and the Russian Federation, especially units such as US Army Rangers, US Marine Corps Force Recon, Russian PDDS/Spetsnaz?

The contents of the next module for CMBS have not been officially announced but there has been open discussion about it being for marines so some of the forces you list above will very likely be in scope. We will have to wait for something official from Steve.

 

6 hours ago, WhiteWolf65 said:

I am sure to catch all kinds of flak from this post, so shoot away. But please understand that it is not my intent to start a HUGE argument concerning the future of  this excellent game. The Battlefront team has brought hundreds of us countless hours of enjoyment with all their Combat Mission titles and I only wish the best for that team in the future.

Why would you catch flak? I suppose if you consider what I wrote flak then I guess so. But that's not intended as flak.

PS. my notes on the lack of reliable information on the Armata is way way more likely to get flak.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

It's a wargame, a bit of flak is normal.....Don't take it to heart fella. 

Armata seems to mostly be for parades at the moment (Kurganets seem fairly numerous though).....What I want to know is what happened to the T-90M turrets with the long gun?  We saw them on the factory floor, but what happened to them? 

 

[WhiteWolf65]

Thank you gentlemen. Maybe 'flak' was the wrong choice of word. What I don't want from BFC (any time period) is one that is more of a fantasy type CM (World War II going beyond May/August '45) than what actually happened (or could happen in the case of CMSF or CMBS). Now saying that, I feel that if BFC brought CMBS up to the current time, or even 2020, that wouldn't be too much to ask for. Of course, this is their company and I am just glad they have done what they have done.

[WhiteWolf65]

Yes, throw the Marines, the Brits, and NATO into the fray. What was/is good for CMFS2 is good for CMBS as well.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

11 minutes ago, WhiteWolf65 said:

Now saying that, I feel that if BFC brought CMBS up to the current time, or even 2020, that wouldn't be too much to ask for.

We did.....It (almost certainly) is**. 

CM:BS has a set scenario, a hypothetical invasion of the Ukraine by Russia in the summer of 2017.....Therefore the units available are limited to what was available at that date. 

The game was written without the benefit of hindsight and, at present, it actually is a little bit sci-fi/fantasy in its choice of equipment, particularly tanks (Ukraine had exactly 0 BM Oplots, the US had exactly 0 Abrams with APS, the Russians had exactly 0 T-90AM or T-72B3 with APS etc. etc.).

8 minutes ago, WhiteWolf65 said:

Yes, throw the Marines, the Brits, and NATO into the fray. What was/is good for CMFS2 is good for CMBS as well.

I believe that this will happen (eventually).....But they'll be the Marines, Brits, NATO of summer 2017(ish), not 2019 & onward. 

**  Some of us hold out hope.....But not much. 

Edited May 15, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead

[domfluff]

Similar to CMSF, they picked a real, near-future date and stuck with it. Also similar to CMSF, there's been quite a bit of wiggle room around what that actually means.

CMSF has Syrian air assets, for example, and CMBS has US APS systems. The advantage of choosing a fixed date is that you can build to something known, and that more can be known about that period as time continues.

More factions are inevitable. US Marines, Russian airborne, British etc. are all extremely likely, if not certain.

Updating the TO&E (and all future TO&E's) to 2020 or other future dates would be significantly more work than choosing one date and sticking to it, not least in that the Campaign would have to be rewritten, since it's now even more alt-history than it was when it was made.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

@WhiteWolf65.....I know you are a Warthog fan, do you play CM:SF2? 

Now there's a game where a Warthog can have some fun.....But watch out where you send them, because the Shilkas & ZPUs work properly now, as do the MANPADS! 

[WhiteWolf65]

53 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

@WhiteWolf65.....I know you are a Warthog fan, do you play CM:SF2? 

Now there's a game where a Warthog can have some fun.....But watch out where you send them, because the Shilkas & ZPUs work properly now, as do the MANPADS! 

This video from ArmA II should answer your question.

[WhiteWolf65]

Yes, I do play CMSF2. Actually getting my rear-end tore up in a Syrian vs Brit scenario at the moment. Yes, I'm the Syrian player but I did manage to take out one of my opponent's Challengers. He still has at least two, maybe three, more that I am hoping I can kill but it is doubtful. The three T-72s I had are toast.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

The negative G performance of those Warthogs looked suspiciously high to me! 

[Erwin]

Love the video.  Does one get to fly aircraft in ARMA as well, or onLy ground?

[Tuthorn]

30 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Love the video.  Does one get to fly aircraft in ARMA as well, or onLy ground?

All vehicles in game are controllable. Plane and helicopter controls are pretty simplified compared to a sim like DCS though. 

[WhiteWolf65]

13 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

The negative G performance of those Warthogs looked suspiciously high to me! 

ArmA II and III are not really meant to be a true reflection of combat aircraft performance and are not actual flight simulators, although you can fly them as a player if you wish. Those were probably AI controlled A-10s and the guy laying on his belly was the player acting as an FO with a laser designator.

 

[WhiteWolf65]

2 hours ago, Tuthorn said:

All vehicles in game are controllable. Plane and helicopter controls are pretty simplified compared to a sim like DCS though. 

Aircraft in ArmA II and III are not meant to represent actual flight simulators. The true jewel of ArmA II or III is your basic foot soldier. It is the only game (actually a military simulator) that has made me flinch. All the ArmA simulations are based off a real military simulator by BIS, VBS and VBS II (Virtual Battlefield Simulator) which is not available to the public consumer. Also, ArmA II and III will not be sold to anyone living in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and I think Pakistan. At the moment I am in the process of getting all the mods for ArmA III so I can play I-44 (Invasion 44) which is a massive World War II simulation. Okay, enough about ArmA or one of the moderators is going to bark at me.

Edited May 16, 2019 by WhiteWolf65

[Erwin]

4 hours ago, WhiteWolf65 said:

Also, ArmA II and III will not be sold to anyone living in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and I think Pakistan.

It's understandable why that is the rule.  However, in our connected world, it's hard to see how anyone could think this distribution can't easily happen  - and already has.

[WhiteWolf65]

Oh, I am sure that certain enemy states of the United States have gotten their hands on pirated copies of these simulations. Several years back, two of their design team were arrested in Greece on charges of espionage for taking photos of the island that most of ArmA is based on. I never found out what happen to those two BIS employees but I think they were everntually released.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

A Russian software writer just got properly stitched up for buying F-16 manuals on eBay:

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-says-a-russian-man-tried-to-smuggle-f-16-manuals-into-russia-2019-5?r=US&IR=T

[grungar]

                         I don't know about anyone else but the Russians have been pretty good with wargame simulations themselves and I doubt they lag in computer versions either. so I say who needs to steal ours. its all rather presumptuous I think. I don't think third world enemies need to pirate commercial wargames. where there is a will there is a way happy discussions.

Edited May 20, 2019 by grungar
to add more to the post