zmoney

I know that the concept of this game relates late 2000s. And I know it is about Western action against Syrian tyranic regime. But for the sake of the game it would good to add one more module. 

Adding Russia to this game would bring a new challenge - a new life to the game. 
 
It would give opportunity to simulate battles between NATO, US and Russia. It would be more up to date and I think that this would lead to more copies being sold. 

This game is already huge and at this point adding one module would not hurt (in my opinion). Just think about all those missions, and campaigns that will be created by the community. 

I don't think that the development team would need to work on anything - they could simply port some (not all) units from the CMBS. 

It would give us all a chance to simulate clashes of a different level. 
What do you thing @Bootie @Erwin @Battlefront.com? 

P.S. Do not get me wrong - I am NOT supporting russian involvement in Syria. All I'm saying is that it would add some spiciness for the OPFOR side and it would be a nice for the sake of battles. 
Again - I'm not supporting russian actions in Syria as well as I'm strongly against tyrannic regime of bashar assad (not going to waste a capital letters for his name). 
So I guess my question is - is this possible in theory to see another module for this game since it is one of the biggest games in CM history. Thank you. 
P.S. P.S. All the photos that I've provided here as visualization are provided for supporting the idea that I've described here. I'm not charmed or excited by any of those images. Those are visualizations and I'm NOT supporting actions of russia and its puppets in Syria. 
P.S. P.S. P.S. In case if Russia as an idea would not work - would the development team consider adding Iran (due to recent escalations) as an alternative? Why? To have more advanced and more challenging enemy to confront while fighting on blue side against red side. 
Thank you for your time, comments and thoughts gentlemen. 

I know erwin, that is why the enemy in my Red Stream map do fight till the end...i alread did that back in 2008 in the original version, but in the stock scenarios or in mostly any scenario, hardly anyone does use it.
And it does not help scenarios that suffer from that problem that scenario designers "could" do that, they have to do it too for it to work 

For Dutch some pointers:
Dutch primary firepower comes from the heavy artillery(Panzerhaubitze 2000 ). This is what you use to "simplify the geometry of the map" as I like to say. That HUUGE factory locking down the whole map? No problemo The vehicles do not pack that much ammo. You cannot count on them doing the "map geometry simplifying". Only enough ammo for shooting mostly at identified targets. I contrast this to the Bradley or BMP-3/BMP2. With these you can fight MOUNT by demolition. Enough ammo to remove small towns. All the vehicles have lots of machine gun ammo so always have the shooting something with "target light". CV9035NL has very little ammo but expectional optics so mostly use the 35mm sparingly. Airburst is god against inf. CV90 can fight off modern T-72s one on one in defensive position. Always gets the first spot and shots. 35mm APFSDS-T seems to be enough even frontally with +20 hits. Leopards are your main weapon system. HEAT is good for hard targets like buildings. They do not have airburst so ATGMs are a great thread when positioned well. Fennek is awesome at spotting and light skirmishes or infantry support. It has thermals and 12.7mm with remote controlled turret. Also not too horrible to lose... Gill ATGM is pretty bad. Hard to hit buildings or infantry with it. Set up somewhere far back in overwatch incase of any counterattacks on tracks. Remember these come with Fennek, often more useful than the ATGM... Infantry. You do not have a lot of it so use it conservatively. Panzerfaust 3 is a RPG-7 on steroids. Manually target inportant buildings with it. Pretty much same effect as Leopard 120mm HEAT round would..

I also spent nights on Squad Leader
at the time it was very little distributed in France and buying them in the USA or in London was an adventure in itself,  souvenir souvenir !!!🙄
Currently I play Tanks https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/195242/tanks-panther-vs-sherman
very simple and fast with my 2 boys but once in 2 it ends in a fight:  the crooks they cheat🤬

Re-posting this as I know he was a well known figure among the early Combat Mission titles.  I remember his scenarios well from those early days of CM.  RIP "Wild" Bill Wilder.
"It is with a sad heart that I need to report the passing of Bill Wilder. For those of you that know my history, Bill Wilder was one of the first gamers to join me when I founded Matrix Games. Our first project together was the Steel Panthers World At War game. I had just recently chatted with him and it was just like old times. I will greatly miss him.
Bill's obituary can be found here and you may leave a message to his family. Leaf Cremation - Here
Bill Wilder services will be held on September 6, 2020, at 3:00 pm EST at The Church at Green Acres Baptist Church, Smyrna, GA. The service will also be online at - Here" ~ David Heath

As for the "Commonwealth" that came to an end in 1660, when that idiot son of mine tumbled down.

Haha pretty interesting take on a non offensive speech. Lol. I am curious though why the hostility?
 
I for one am a veteran, but am not one for mushy speeches but to get bent out of shape about it (unless you are standing in formation while someone drones on about blah blah blah) I just don’t get. I personally feel that the US and the U.K. are the closest of allies and very similar culturally. I know lots of Brits and it’s never awkward talking to them due to cultural reasons. Only their goofy accents lol. 
 
Kidding, I’m just having a laugh (see that was for my British friends). I think everyone loves the British accent that’s why Brits narrate every documentary on earth.

Just for your information:
https://www.baesystems.com/en/article/bae-systems--cv90-increases-lethality-by-testing-spike-lr-anti-tank-guided-missile

IMO, for what its worth, the firing rate may need to be adjusted in game. I think a lower firing rate would cure the CV’s from blowing through all their ammo to quick.

But I could be wrong. I really love those vehicles. Just an observation for the designer of the CV by chance they’re monitoring the battlefront forums lol, you should include some kind of ATGM system on the vehicle. That would make it a truly dominant vehicle.
 
id like to say again to BFC bravo for this latest patch, IMO the game is really close to perfect now. Thanks to all the Beta testers as well. 

IMO, for what its worth, the firing rate may need to be adjusted in game. I think a lower firing rate would cure the CV’s from blowing through all their ammo to quick.

But I could be wrong. I really love those vehicles. Just an observation for the designer of the CV by chance they’re monitoring the battlefront forums lol, you should include some kind of ATGM system on the vehicle. That would make it a truly dominant vehicle.
 
id like to say again to BFC bravo for this latest patch, IMO the game is really close to perfect now. Thanks to all the Beta testers as well. 

http://www.baesystems.se/hagglunds/brochure/cv9035markiii.pdf
Thats a Mark III, not sure if it's eqvivalent to the NL version in game, but that info broschure put ammo as 2x35 ready rounds plus typical stowage as 140 rounds.

In the barracks I shared my space with someone who had the ATB Milanschütze and I remember talking with him about his course. And what he told me about firing the Milan was that after firing it does take a few seconds until the rocket is center lined and you had to avoid obstacles like fires or trees. I suppose it's initial speed is slower than the average but it would still travel over hundred meters in 2-3 seconds. Could you still fight a closer target? I don't know. Unfortunatly I didn't ask him about minimum range. Other than that I only looked through it's thermal sight so I'm of no help here.

Gotta say this is one of my favorite scenarios I have played recently. Bravo to the designers of this one. It really highlights why I and others love the CM games. It's a short battle (30mins) with a small amount of troops on both sides. I love using British troops and equipment, cant wait for the updated campaign to be released. IMO other than the US, the English are the only other force that I have used in the modern titles that have well balanced infantry units. Even though this scenario only use's engineer troops just an observation of mine and am wondering what others think. Possibly the Canadians as well, but the Dutch, German, Ukrainian and Russian infantry units are just too fragile and lacking firepower IMO. 
 
Give it a shot, and Bravo again.

Thoroughly enjoyable fight...
... if you forced me to be overly nit-picky I'd say the reinforcements came pretty late... but, as those troops were likely smoking hashish or something, that's not exactly unexpected.

Not a cartoon character then? 😉

(Purely from a user perspective, rather than speculating about business reasons, which gets complex and non-intuitive fast)

On some level it wouldn't - it would obviously allow people to use CM to model more things, and a wider selection of scenarios would become possible.

On the other hand, imagine trying to discuss anything without a firm frame of reference. "How do I do x?" (and by the way, I've changed Y to be more like Z and I "fixed" A and B to be more like C).

There's a chap who reviews a lot of wargames on BGG, but most of his reviews are for his own variants and "fixes". They might well be superior to the published material, but what use is that rating to anyone else?


It would be great to have more control over CM, and for some of the mechanisms to be less obtuse than they are. I don't really understand why I can't add a single Technical to an uncon force in CMSF, or have those technicals selectable with  a drop down for the different weapon types available. I think that kind of thing would be a strong net positive. Giving Uncons javelins might even be pretty interesting, for a weird scenario. Altering the stats of a recoilless rifle because I think I know better than Battlefront? That I'm less clear on being a positive force. I might, but there's some value in playing within the model as presented.
 

Single player run through on the Dutch scenario.  Last vid to be done on my ancient computer.  Next vid on new gaming rig.

Almost sounds like he patched the wrong location because he mentioned something about the icons being messed up

Odd thing in CM: when you look at shell craters, it seems all shells are delay fuzed, because those craters appear when shells are allowed to dig into the ground before exploding.
But when shells hit buildings, they burst immediately upon contact, instead of penetrating. So buildings give quite a lot of cover, even against direct hits, which burst harmlessly on the roof.

Testers here are highly resistant to anecdote-based complaints due to repeated instances of following up on anecdotes with time-intensive controlled tests and finding either a non-issue, or results nearly opposite to that claimed in the anecdote (i.e. something claimed as happening all the time is actually statistically rare).  Users are very prone to confirmation bias regarding failures and negative events.  If the failure or negative event involves something where probability is a factor (like artillery casualties), not an always / never event, you really should try to set up a test to confirm.
But that is just general commentary.  On air bursts vs. trucks, I did setup a quick 155mm (point, heavy, quick) vs. mounted platoon in 32x32ish square test and the results did not diverge significantly from same test with "general" fusing.  Trucks and troops in trucks are certainly not immune to air bursts.  However, it does feel off in several ways:
Neither airbursts nor ground bursts seem to deliver sub-system (radio, engine, wheels) damage to trucks even when they are causing casualties to passengers.  Trucks appear to either be fine or KO'd with nothing in between.  The distance threshold for a hit to be likely to KO a truck seems to be the same for air bursts and ground bursts, maybe a little tighter for air bursts.  Might be a bug in this, or maybe any sub-system damage results in immediate KO? (If the latter, then trucks are definitely not taking sub-system damage as would be expected.) Because air bursts never directly strike trucks, all air burst KOs appear to be without damage.  Trucks won't blow up / burn from air burst KOs.  Also noticed that sometimes the KO would happen a turn or so later, further giving the "no effect" feel. Troops in trucks appear to have higher protection vs. artillery bursts compared to troops in the open on the ground.  But if their trucks are KO'd and they exit, they go down much faster to air bursts than to general.  

Cpt Miller, upon further testing the vehicle fired air burst munitions do appear to be working better than I first assumed. I think your response regarding how they work is 100% correct. I think I initially observed a couple one off bad lucks.

Just ran a little test scenario in CMSF2, where Syrian infantry was hiding behind a low wall while I fired air burst 155mm at them. The result was even if the round burst right over them it would cause maybe one casualty.  

@nikolai,
Yeah, I figured out the stripping away of the assault team leaves the remaining team with the AT4s and the Javs.
There are a few things seeming to be going on here. Like I hinted, I've tested this for years, and I thought it had been resolved. I'll go back behind the closed Beta doors and work on it there.
The AT4 shows a range of 0 to 300 meters (point target) and the Javelin's is 75 to 2,500 meters. Their ranges overlap from 75m to 300m. This is the problem area. (Inside of 75m, only the AT4 should be usable...and used.) The desired behavior would be for NO AT4s to be used outside ~75m, if a Javelin is present in the team/squad. Fudging that ~75m up to ~100m would be fine to me (so it's not such a hard cutoff). So, enemy armor (IFV or MBT) inside ~100m, use the AT4s and anything else (absent a restrictive cover arc). Outside that ~100m, with a Javelin, no one should fire until AFTER the Javelin(s) engages the targets.
^^^
That is what _I_ would like to see. I'm not sure if it's possible to code it that way. But, as I said, I'm ducking behind the Beta curtain.
Thanks.
Ken

(If anyone has better information, please chime in.)
The KETF round has a variable fuse. It is the preferred round for all but armored targets. The "solid shot" should be saved for those armored targets. The KETF can, theoretically, be fused for airbust, delayed burst, contact burst as well as pre-burst and pre-spread. In this case, it should be pretty effective against the bunker. Not a one-shot, everyone inside dies, but a few bursts should neutralize the bunker.
Somewhere, I've got pages and pages of PDFs on the KETF/CV90, as well as many html links. Hmm...

Love your videos, thanks for taking the time. Your videos have lead to many hours of entertainment and lack of productivity at work for me. 😀😀😀😀