Peter Cairns

What do people think of these two suggestions. I think they might be able to be incorporated as little more than mod changes and there may even be modellers on here who could do them. I got the idea for both when I spent three weeks in the Dordogne in July! Pillars; Basically this would be a change to the removal of a buildings wall so that instead of being totally removed you would leave a pillar or column at each corner and one or more in the middle of the wall ( depending on the size of the building). The effects would be these; in large internal spaces there would be a network of pillars adding character but more importantly buildings with an external wall removed you could create open sided barns or farm buildings. Believe me across France these often lean to open barns or open need one are everywhere. Another feature even in the centre of village for markets are open buildings where the roof is supported by pillars and there are no full walls. Again these supported roofs are very common on farms. Doing this would I think, by just tweaking the wall graphic, allow map makers to add a lot of new character and flavour for not a lot of effort. One drawback is that as walls don't have any thickness the pillars themselves unlike walls or flavour objects would be two dimensional. Perhaps more problematically a graphic tweak would make them effectively invisible from the point of view of line of site and weapons fire. Bases; A base is a building without a building. As most people know building cancel normal slopes to create a level base so that a slope will be cut abruptly when it meets a building square. Bases would allow map makers to create levelled spaces like driveways gardens or terraces than were level. Again in villages in France you often see cur rungs a ground that has been levelled in fram yards etc. A problem I have had in the past is trying to create villages on slopes where the buildings step properly but the roads and gardens don't look right. Being able to selectively level the ground could help deal with the way buildings often don't quite fit naturally on sloping ground. I've never been to Holland although I did spend a night on my way home in Graveline which is a fortified town with canals and it has lots of areas around the canals that are levelled grass against the natural slope of the ground. That's one of the reasons I like the idea of a base, a building square without a building, I think they would come into their own with Market Garden. What do people think? Peter.

The key point about airpower stated in the First gulf war. When the US Airforce commander was asked if he had air superiority he replied "No, but we can take control of the air where ever and when ever we want." I think for the foreseeable future the US will be able to do the same. Claims of equipment survival from Bosnia or Iraq miss the key point that in order to survive they were rendered to all intents and purposes inoperable. There really is little point of bragging about all the kit you bring out of hiding after you have lost the war. It's a bit like getting the hang of CMBN; at first you look at the casualty figures and can't figure why those .50 cals that were blasting away all scenario hardly caused a casualty while infantry squads did. Then you realise that the reason the heavy stuff doesn't kill many people is that the enemy go to ground and stay their the minute it opens up. Not only did the pinned unit not move it rarely fired either. In terms of the outcome when properly suppressed it might as well not have been there. Time and again having lost their mobility and ability to effectively spot because of suppression they become easy meat for someone else. In the same way what airpower in the gulf didn't destroy was pinned isolated and identified for artillery and ground units to pummel and then roll over. Peter.

Well if we were to accept the maxim that "Airpower wins the War" then the only scenarios that brings up are where the US couldn't deploy it's airpower to negate an enemies conventional superiority on the ground. That really leaves us looking at a scenario where the event is unexpected and quick and at distance while being one that the US must react too. If for example however unlikely we were to see a conflict over South Korea or Taiwan the Us would perhaps not be able to dictate the start of the conflict the way it did in the Gulf, but couldn't let an ally fall. In this case South Korea is the poorer example because the US already has substantial support in place and has effective based near by. In addition if anything North Korea is in terms of kit even more backward than Syria, so it would be Tech v Mass so a bit too like SF1 Taiwan would be interesting but the Chinese though more able to interdict US support now, would still struggle to launch a substantial amphibious operation. So for a quick need to respond campaign for me the obvious one for me would be securing Pakistans 50+ nuclear warheads which puts us back in my Arc of Crisis game. The US having to react immediately and at long range would need to put boots on the ground to secure them at very short notice, so a long slow Gulf style build up wouldn't be an option. Looking at states bordering Pakistan; the US has forces in Afghanistan, Russia and India (it's only foreign base) have bases in Tajikistan and Iran and China have borders with it. A "Race for the Warheads " on very hostile and densely populated groundcould be interesting! Peter.

BlackCat, As I started this I thought that the walled dense cemetery would be a good feature to add to maps but it may be that they are more the standard further south. Peter.

Sgt Josh, "The Russian army fights more like a western army, as we can see from 1943-45 or the 2008 war." I'd have to challenge that. Firstly although in 43-45 Russia was far better than in 41-42 They didn't fight like the US or the Germans. Consistently they used tactics where weight of numbers overwhelmed the enemy but at huge cost. They just couldn't do that now. As to 2008, a bit like the UK lauding the performance of it's forces in the Falklands you need to remember that although the British were highly professional the Argentinians were not, particularly their conscripts. The main view of the short 2008 conflict was; Georgia: Better equipment, poorer troops Russia: Poorer equipment, better troops. The US has far better equipment and far better troops and they have been fighting a tougher war for a lot longer. The Russians would present a stiiffer challenge to the US than the Iraqi's but not hugely so, but.... The Russians haven't met anything like the current US since Barbarrosa, and you could argue that right now the Russian army is in closer shape to "41" than "45", so I'd expect a similar outcome. Peter.

Sgt Josh, Thanks for the links, they are well worth a read. I suppose different people will take different things from them, but for me the description of the current Russian army they give is one that in terms of structures, command, equipment, training and moral is more akin to Syria's than Americas. I think the Russians would generally be better but the gap between the US And Russia would be a lot bigger than the one between the Russians and Syria. The only way I would see the Russians avoiding a slaughter would be in a heavy ECM. Or post EMP scenario where both sides lost their net capabilities and GPS. Even then I would expect the US to be the clear winner as they have better leaders, doctrine, tactics, communications, training, organisation and equipment. Better trained and more disciplined Russian troops might stand and fight, but for me that would mostly mean they would just die rather than run away. Different casualty count same outcome. Peter.

Vanir, There are two views on the T-99 project for a new family of vehicles; The official Russian one is that after years of delay they have got there act together an a world beater is soon to be deployed as part of ongoing force modernisation. The other view is that it is just more hot air and like the T-95 all we will see is models and drawings and what will finally emerge in about 2020 are little more than modifications of the T-90. By that time India, China and Turkey will be building and exporting better. As to China v Nato/US, that's not at all what I had in mind. The idea of Arc of Crisis is to move away from Us and them, to Intervention v insurrection. The "blue" forces would be those with the ability to project power not just over distance like the US/NATO but across their border like Turkey, Egypt or Israel and those that might have to do it internally, like Syria now or China with Xinjiang. A US V China fight wouldn't be part of the game theme like the blue v red US V Syria in SF1 it would be a blue on blue option in Qb's or player designed scenarios. I think it is better to bring new nations with new kit into a realistic setting, which could include Russians in Georgia as Blues so you could use them in your own scenarios against the US, than to invent some Tom Clancy come James Bond that has the 82nd airborne dropping in to Kiev. Peter.

Vanir, The T-99 will be lucky to see the light of day let alone 2015. It will apparently use some elements of the abortive T-95 but it was on the drawing board for a decade before being scrapped. The T-99 looks very much like what they thought about after Chechnya; An infantry MICV or APC built on a tank chassis to get round the vulnerability of the BMP's. If it does get produced it will most likely be a series of vehicles based on the T-90 design with possibly a Stryker MGS style 120mm gun. An incremental improvement on the T-90 but still little match for the M-1. I maybe put it poorly but the recent sale of Russian SU-35's is a good case. For about a decade the Russians fell out with the Chinese for reverse Engineering SU-27's but the turned that around over the SU-35 because even though they were reluctant to sell they needed to as it would finance the development and refurbishment of Russain Su-35's. For the Chinese what they wanted weren't the SU-35's as such but the engines, the one place where they are weak. They reverse Engineered the SU-33 as the J-15 after they got one from the Ukrainians but with their own avionics and radar which appear to be at least or better than the Russian versions. So China is really only buying from the Russians what it can't et build for itself or to acquire technology that it needs and can't get elsewhere. It gets it on the cheap however because Russia needs to sell weapons abroad to finance it's own faltering modernisation. Right now the Chinese Type 99 is probably already on a par with if not better than the T-90. Equally I think the current J-20 and J-31 fighters are probably ahead of the PAKFA. You can also make a similar argument for the WZ-10 being technologically more advanced than the Mil Havoc. Oh and have a look at Turkey too. They have a new Stryker style APC are soon to deploy a new MBT and there own Attack Helicopter based on the old Mangusta. People keep looking over to see if the old bear is going to awake... It isn't it's comatose! Oh and I don't see China as being on a Par with the US not for a decade or more at the very least, but I think it is now clearly ahead of Russia and potentially more dangerous as an opponent. Where China is already a threat to Russia is in the way it is building it's arms industry as an export business and taking over in former russian markets. God knows how they will modernise their army if the lose the income from foreign sales. Russia is decaying as a conventional military power because most of the people who run the country don't care about it's military as long as they make money and can spend most of their time in their London pent houses. Peter.

Like I said in my original post, trawling through the net I can find little evidence that the Russians have done anything but go backwards in recent years. Most assessments I have read of their performance in Georgia suggest they struggled there and would struggle to project any distance beyond their own borders. At least one of their own reports suggests that of their command and control was so poor that they were responsible for shooting down almost as many of their own planes as the Georgians. Put in "most advanced tank" in wiki and you get the T-90 for Russia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90 and this for China; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_99#Type_99A2 In a way to support my idea of Arab spring, although Russia has about 550 T-90A's, Algeria has 300! India a possible for AofC has 600 out of an order with local assembly for up to 2,000 by 2020. That will by then be probably twice what Russia will have!!! On why China buys from Russia it is less and less every year already the have overtaken them in all but jet engine design. The other reason is that the Russians as desperate to sell to anyone for cash as they have no money. As to why Russian doesn't buy from Chinese, partly pride but mostly the same reason they sell... they are desperate for cash but have no money to buy. Peter.

John, Looking at them reminds me that, particularly for towns, metal railings would be a good addition as a new type of wall. They give little cover but can be harder than a fence to cross and can block non armoured vehicles. I wonder what Italian graveyards are like? Peter.

While I am posting a little map tip I picked up from my annual trips to france is this. In French Villages the church is often the most prominent building often close the village centre even in a small village. However there is nearly never a graveyard beside it. French graveyards tend to be just outside the village or at it's edge, not beside the church. They also look quite different. By an large they have a high wall around them are densely packed and are full of small mausoleums odd but true. I've tried to find some good photos but a search tends to bring up war graves which really aren't typical. Try using Google Maps to zoom in on a small french village and then use Street view to take a close look. The best I can come up with to get it right would be to create some new skins for the basic "Shed" Flavour object and fill it with those. Peter.

This might seem an odd request for a future inclusion but bare with me! You might well think when do you see Triangular buildings and the answer is well actually all the time. As I am off for my annual 3-4 weeks in France at the start of July I was reminded that it pretty much every village at the town square or a cross roads in a village the building at the corner is angled. for you americans think of the front of a saloon at a corner in a western. A set of triangular buildings would really only be used to add on to an existing building to create a feature or to smooth out corners in a town where you want to go from a North/South street to a East west one using an angled building at the corner without triangular gaps. Any thoughts? Of if there is a technical reason why it would need a lot of extra coding etc. the I can fully understand why you wouldn't want to do it. Peter.

I know that talk of SF2 is that it might be in the former soviet Union, but the more I think about it I think it's probably the wrong move. I can understand the desire to go somewhere different with different terrain and opponents but my issue is that I don't think the likes of the Ukraine would achieve that. In part the desire to go there seems to be driven by "kit", the idea that russian would provide a better match than the Syrians. But would they. Everything I have read seems to suggest that since Russia got a wake up cll in the first Gulf war and was awestruck by the second one, they have talked a lot about modernisation of both equipment and training but if anything they have gone backwards. They haven't really deployed anything new in a decade and even the upgrades are piece meal. in addition conscription rates are below 20% in some cases with those that do turn up not worth having. From what I have read the attempts to create a proper NCO core have not increased quality in any noticeable way with officers still as overworked and under trained but now hating the new supposedly professional NCO's below them. In short in it's current state the russians in manpower terms probably aren't that much better than the Syrians. Equally given the plight of the current former soviet defence industries and their continued support for Syrian in SF2 you could make a good case for pretty much the best that Russian can currently filed being on a ship to Syria some time soon. So what should SF2 be. I would go for Either Arab Spring or Arc of Crisis. You would be adding the obvious improvement that we have seen in CMFI, Road and Fence tool, Map overlays, picking QB maps, QB unit choice, Water etc. You could probably also add a fair bit of the CMFI pallet from terrain to Flavour objects. (oh I'd like to put in a request for Industrial building; big but light weight with few internal floors and Chain link fencing, greatly impedes movement but gives no cover) Those changes alone though no doubt a fair bit of work would be a huge improvement. But as I don't think that would be enough to get people to buy next would be new units and the obvious ones for Arab Spring would be firstly the close neighbours, Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt and although controversial Israel. These not only add new units but also a range of older equipment like the M60A1 that are a better match for what syrian has now. I also think that post Libyan and given the current talk of arming Syrian rebels there is an argument for Blue Uncons; irregular units with M-16's and Milans. If we were to go for Arc of Crisis then we would be extending it to go as far as Pakistan and Afghanistan which would raise the prospect of potentially even Iran, India and as it has it's own problems in it's easter provinces China. currently be it in terms of equipment or troops Chinas recent modernisation makes it far more of a near peer opponent for the US than russia is. I think it is highly unlike that we would see a US v China conflict any time soon, but a AofC update that focused on potential interventions from Morocco to Kashmir would have India and China on the Blue side with the US, Uk and Turkey allowing players to have Blue on Blue match ups without the delicate problems of upsetting people or creating a convoluted scenario. In the same way a set of Scenarios that has Israel drawn into Syrian as blue and Egypt pulled into Libya in the same role lets anyone who wishes play Blue on Blue in the Sinai Well these are my thoughts. I would add that they are in no way a criticism of BF who I think to a brilliant job given what they have taken on. I am not being sycophantic it's just that sometimes people read posts and get the wrong idea. What do people think. Peter.

I think a lot of the above doesn't need a new Game so much as a module with some of the new features in CMBN and now Italy added to the original. The module I would like would be an update on the current game still set in Syria but featuring a wider conflict. CMS:Borders would feature; Turkish, Egyptian (not strickly a neighbour I know but 1,000+ export M-1's), Lebanese, Israeli and even Iraq forces, with the venerable M60 in it's different guises making a welcome appearance as a western tank that better matches soviet era tanks. Turkey has a range of it's own equipment, including a new APC and Stryker type APC. It goes without saying that Israel has a good selection of new equipment. Another addition would be "Militia" a semi regular force better than combatants or fighters on a par with reserves but with a possible mix of red and blue weapons. As well as representing the likes of the free Syrian army and Libyan rebels it could also simulate the many tribal and ruling party paramilitaries we see in the region. Adding Red and Blue weapons to combatants and fighters would also help given that irregulars have since the Arab spring started to receive a wider range of weapons, all be it at a lower level. Peter.

I would sort of assume that rather than reinvent the wheel they would just port the new CMBN QB unit system over to SF2, as well as all the improvements with terrain like different symbols for types of fences etc in the editor. So for some think new I'd like "flypast" This would be the ability to watch replays of airstrikes form a realistic angle and height close to what the pilot would see. For Helicopters that might be the equivalent of view "4" at quick and aircraft view "5" at fast. Nothing fancy involving animation just a variation on looking the view on a moving unit Peter.

I think this has been asked for on numerous occasions but as I haven't been on as frequently as I used to in a while I thought I would try again. It would just to great if at the end of a QB you could reverse it and play the other side or have another go using different tactics. It goes without saying that the AI could use different set up's too. I have also found that I play the occasional great QB that if it was saved could be tweaked to make a really good scenario. So being able to save edit and replay QB's would be a plus for me. However it goes without saying, as Steve and others have often said, that is BF is a small company if there is a technical issue that makes this "simple change" a lot harder than it looks then fair enough. Peter.

Glad to here there is going to be a CMSF2 at some point. Having just bought the Mac version I quickly noticed a few things that are in CMBN that could be put into CMSF. Things like wall junctions and water are some but an obvious one would be different colours for walls and fences of different types. I'd also like to be able to port maps between CMSF and CMBN particularly the Italy terrain If we are looking at a Collapse of the Russian federation scenario is their any chance of the Chinese. I know it isn't the most realistic scenario, but as the Chinese widen their arms exports their stuff is showing up in more and more Countries, with Pakistan one of the most prominent. Given that India buys or licence builds a fair bit from Russia too, any Russia scenario that lets people mod other theatres would be great. Peter.

Schrullenhaft, You are the man ( or women), found it job done. Thanks. Case closed. Peter.

I got CMSF last month and think it is great but I have one problem. I can't find where on my Mac it saves games. I can save them all right and replay them but unlike CMBN 2 I can't delete. In the original CMBN I could find the saved games folder but I don't seem to be able to find a version of that anywhere on my Mac. Given that they are being saved okay they must be somewhere. I put my hands up to being a typical Mac user, because they are reliable and easy to use I've never really had to bother about how they work! Peter.

I refuse to pre order till I see a screen shot of a Red Berret. I am not that hard to please as I am prepared to play Pegasus Bridge without bagpipes. Peter.

First impressions after a few attempts at the training scenario. This is either a game I'll hate to love or a game i'll love to hate. The game is great but I am crap at it. I am having difficulty getting used to the spotting.... Why don't the Krauts stand up and wave flags so I can shoot them rather than shooting me and disappearing... are they trying to deliberately get me angry. That and opening up on me without warning when I am in the open... can't they at least fire a warning shot like the police.... I mean they are acting as if this is real warfare rather than just a game. No sooner have i lined a squad up to concentrate fire on a target from behind a hedge than they hit them with artillery. And don't get me started on that bloody 75mm anti-tank gun.... I've just realised what was wrong with the Oldies thread... we're actually all in our teens... Its games like this that have aged us..... Peter.

one in six.... Picked that up from a SIPRI report years back. Forget the differences between ammo, and gun type. For pretty much any modern fire arm one shot in six will kill instantly or might as well and half the others will down the target. Thats what so many people use AK's... because they are as good at killing as everything else but are dirt cheap. Most of the rest is bull**** put out by people trying to sell the stuff. Peter.

My philosophy for the little it's worth is that CMBN will be like war, as a good simulation should be. That means that with luck, or more likely, years of hard work from BF you will quickly become immersed in the game. I have enough confidence in these guys track record to think that this game like those before us will suck us in like they did before. Sure there will be bugs and behaviours we don't like but to be honest if you get caught up about the difference between two MP40's v two M-3's your focusing on the wrong thing because our own poor decisions or misjudgements will have a lot more impact than any coding error. The game won't be perfect but it won't need the reworking CMSF did at first and certainly when I watched the AAR's I kept trying to control the cameras and issue orders. Even compared with games of it's time CMBO wasn't a top rated game for graphics but it was such a good game that you just didn't notice. When they posted the examples of the new Sherman in CMBN compared to the original CMBO it was clear how far they had come and yet I didn't feel "Wow thats so much better than the old crap", because once you pressed go and watched the action start you were there. Iam going to give this game more than an even break because they deserve it and because as the Oldies thread shows this isn't just taking us back a decade for some of us its anything up to fifty..... So hang on Marty..... "It's Back to the Future" Peter.

"Yes, we're all individuals!" Well said No 5..... Peter (No 17)

More seriously I think in the old SPI game raid it gave you the TOE of a British Commando company which as I recall was something like 64 men with 8 sections of 8 each with 3xStens, 4xSMLE and 1xBren. There was also a command element and I think some 2"mortars. Thats a good little force for a small QB scenario. Peter.