Holo

I must admit that I don't see the point of making such a limited UI. I consider myself semi-grog, which means although I memorized a lot of stats throughout the years of playing war-games, I don't know all the specs for all the gear that exists, so I need to consult some sort of help for more info. For previous versions of CM it was easy to just open info window and to find out what I was curious about, but limited UI as this in CM:SF seems to force player to look constantly into manual, and to memorize data instead of having it available all the time (presuming he wants to master the game). Let's take an example of "not so grog" player of CM:SF. He plays as Syrian. He has a Kornet-E team and Milan I team. Opposed to him is M1A1HC, with generalized stats for defense against missiles, as well as no distinction between Turret and Hull. Kornet-E is rated at 1200 RHAe, Milan I, if I remember correctly, at 600 RHAe. Turret of M1A1HC is rated at something like 1300-1600 RHAe, Upper Hull Front at 500-1000, Lower Hull Front at 800-1000 (this all might be wrong but let's take it as correct for this exercise). What this implies is that Kornet-E, if it hits Lower Hull Front, will penetrate M1A1HC. Milan I on the other hand will not. Generalized anti-missile defense stat for M1A1HC says only Big Green Cross. Now let's look at one Syrian MBT and one UK. First is T-72M1 with, for example, BM-15 or even BM-42 APFSDS 125mm ammo, with penetrations of 380 and 520 RHAe respectively at 2km. M1A1HC stats vs KE are Turret ~900, Upper Hull 560-590, Lower Hull 580-650. Both rounds are unable to penetrate M1A1HC frontally. Some other 125mm round like Ukrainian Vitiaz round rated at 760 RHAe would penetrate it. The other tank is Challenger 2 from some future module. It fires 120mm with L-27 Charm-3 round rated at 720 RHAe (or something better). It penetrates M1A1HC’s hull but not the turret at 2km. Generalized anti-large munitions defense stat for M1A1HC says only Big Green Cross. In both examples (ATGM and APFSDS) simply offering generalized stats doesn’t seem to inform enough the “not so grog” player of the facts. Although both Kornet-E and Milan I are ATGM’s, and both 125mm and 120mm guns fire large munitions, the outcomes are different. This suggests that generalizing stats, making no distinction between Turret and Hull (with all respect to Hull Down positioning argument), as well as not giving any weapon data can potentially misguide player and force him to memorize weapon abilities from the manual rather than to learn them on the fly by playing the game. Minimizing required info to play the game for a newbie may be a plus, but reducing a chance to master it by denying him in-depth stats from which to learn doesn’t seem to me as a big plus. Let’s hope that WWII version will be at least at the level of previous CM games.

I still think that having aditional numbers to deal with is better than solely comparing if penetration ability of my ATGM missile is a bit more "blue" than the "blue" of oposing tank's upper hull front protection level. Maybe in the game like CM:SF that is not a big issue considering number of items do deal with, but I can't imagine WWII game relying only on color coding scheme.

I think that we would all be more than willing to pay serious money for CMx2 version of Steel Panthers MBT game, and have all our desires for customization and diversity fullfiled.

Have this been done yet? Any screenshot, M1A2 stats perhaps?

My vote is for: 3. German based (this would likely include Germany, Canada, and perhaps The Netherlands)

I guess that, as someone mentioned earlier on another thread, at the end we'll end up playing blue on blue, just to get some balance. Shame for not including Russians, that could give us oportunity to make all sorts of scenarios and campaigns.

I was afraid that would be the answer. I must honestly admit that, as someone who lives in Europe, I'm not very interested in seeing USMC module as a first follow up. Sure, I guess it is easiest to make, but no matter what the differences are between one US military branch and the other, after all, I believe that for lot of players it will come to this - Abrams is still Abrams. My pick would be either Euro Force module, or Russian module. First consisting of something like combined UK/Germany/(France?) forces, so lots of new things to play with, and although this may look as too big job to do, if their forces are limited to "these SPECIFIC forces are sent to war zone" and not modeling everything there is in their armies and arsenals, I believe it's possible for module to be made in reasonable time. Russian module on the other hand gives us opponent that is much more advanced than Syrians are, so in scenario making terms I think it is more valuable. Besides, modeling extra equipment that ads on to original game should be easier than in Euro Force module, considering Russian equipped Syrian army.

Now that the concept has been more or less chosen (Syria with Minor backstory and Fictional Subsection), maybe we can discuss what should be the first follow up module (and why).

I would go for "Syria with minimal story", although this is not quite to my usual liking. My preference for war game settings are either "high-level" semi-reality conflicts or historical wars. But this is not Big Army vs. Big Army game setting, like BF2's US vs. MEC / US vs. China, or "what if happened" 70's NATO vs. USSR, or "all items included" fictional NATO-Russia vs. China-MEC or anything similar of the "epic" size, what might be what most players would like to see (including myself), and also it's not WWI, WWII, Hannibal vs. Rome or Napoleon vs. Europe or whatever historic. I think it's a bit late to make this game fictional all around ME conflict that would include every piece of equipment there is out there just to satisfy everyone's expectations, still, hard-locking story in "reality" Syria is closing doors for lot of further options, and no matter how much story is convincing and plausible, if you're not a prophet to see the future, it would still be fictional, so at the end you still have a fictional setting, but without all the high-tech possibilities. So, "Syria with minimal story" for me gives a compromise of real setting which is in the line with CM:SF development up until now, but leaves open doors for future modules, if you're ready to go bit more "fictional" and base modules on possible speculations, thus giving an option for Russia module, Europe module or IDF module. Than you can have lots of high-tech, and still have original "true" setting.

Will this be the way to model fully "over"-equipped infantry, giving them penalty in Fitness, versus light "rags and AK's" infantry? Or there is some other way to do it?

What is being used against ATGM positions nowdays, when tank runs into one? I have very little knowledge on this topic, especially I'm confused that usual western tank ammo load (at least in games) doesn't include HE like Russian counterparts. It was on many ocasions frustrating for me playing ie. Steel Panthers II with M1A1's vs Russia and knowing that only thing I have against infantry is MG.

Bravo. Very nice and simple UI. Steve, can you give us a little more on Fast, Quick, and other Movements orders? Will infantry be able to Reverse (keeping them oriented toward enemy, thus in position to shoot while withdraws) and Hunt as well?

And that was exactly the whole point of starting this thread...so, Steve, T-80/T-90?

Well, although I'm not politicly too educated, US attacking country that has Russian bases seems to me more or less similar to Russia attacking country that has US bases. But, it gives an oportunity for a game module that confronts US and Russia, while still being in the original setting of CM:SF.

"Furthermore, the London based "al-Awsat" reported on August 11, 2005 that Iran and a number of Gulf States have worked out a way to handle Syria's $12 billion arms debt to Russia so that Syria can now sign a new major arms deal with Russia which will include: 48 MIG-29's; 14-24 Sukhoi-27 [which is claimed to be a better performer than the Israeli F-15's]; SAM-11 ground to air missiles to replace the SAM-6's; SAM-12's for defense against missiles and jets to replace the SAM-5's, M300BMU - a development of the SAM-10 which is claimed to be superior to the American Patriot, able to strike jets 100 kilometers away and missiles 40 kilometers away; as well as 300 T-80 tanks." Does anybody knows what T-80 models are being purchased? "According to MissileThreats.com, in June of 2006, the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported Moscow's decision to establish naval bases in the Syrian ports of Tartus and Latakia. As part of the plan, the port of Tartus would be transformed into a naval base for Russia's Black Sea Fleet when it is away from the Ukrainian port of Sevastopol. The Russian plan involves the installation of an air defense system with S-300PMU-2 Favorit ballistic missiles. The missiles have a range of 200 kilometers (124 miles), allow a larger warhead and are equipped with a better guidance system than the previous version. The air defense system would be operated by Russia for the defense of the Tartus base and would provide potential protection for a large part of Syria. Through these initiatives, it is clear that Russia wants to strengthen its position in the Middle East." Hmmm, is this game getting more and more interesting or what?

Yeah, CMx1 was a bit skinny in sound department, I hope this imrpoves in CMx2, not that I think that is one of their major concerns right now.

Yeah, pretty much what I had in mind, though if you look at USA, EU, Russia (+ Ex USSR), China, any two of these confronted could give interesting (in game/simulation terms) war. Not that is very likely to happen, but then again....1929, Hitler, WWII

Being in the sound post business, I can tell you that we rarely depend exclusively on the "real things". Sure, we do use them as a base, but if you want that "big" movie sound, that is always by some means augmented. However, this is simulation, so it should be about real things. Not that they are easy and cheap to record, on the contrary, only high budgets can allow themselves to record all guns in reality, the rest must resort to sound libraries.

I can see the point in the "light" aproach with more active protection. But (and I may be awfuly wrong here) the whole thing of US vs ______ consideres only countries that are much inferior military, giving wars comparable to Hitler invading Poland (in military terms). What about some "more serious" scenario, something that is more like WWII Germany vs USSR? I don't want to go into ____ vs ____ trap here, just pick any two large, more or less equaly equiped armies, and imagine some lot more serious conflict (I know it's hard to imagine the way the things go, but I highly doubt that most of Europe thought in 1930 that in 9 years they'll get to witness interlude to world war).

I posted this because, as far as I was aware of the issue, US Army is currently using TOW 2A and TOW 2B, which are both wire-guided, and supposedly TOW Fire and Forget was cancelled in 2002, while TOW 2 RF (which is what was mentioned, radio frequency command link with range of 4.5km) was successfully demonstrated. Earlier in the thread we discussed this briefly, but I had no idea if anything "non-wireless" was fielded.

Any opinions on the "heavy concept" of IFVs, like BMT-72 based on T-72, BTMP-84 based on T-84, though these are more like crossbreed between MBT and IFV? It seems that this concept gives same protection and firepower as modern MBTs, while having additional infantry support (5 infantrymen in compartment in addition to crew of 3). I don't know if IDF's Nemmera is also a crossbreed, or just using chassis of Merkava. Though, all of these variants must be much more expensive then Stryker and such.

StrategyPage: "The range of the TOW is also being extended to 4,500 meters, and once the wire spool is eliminated, even longer ranges will be possible. Coincidentally, the wire control system is being replaced for reason's beyond the military's control. The last supplier for the control wire went out of business three years ago, and the stockpile of wire the army bought, is just about gone. So a radio control system is being built, to replace the old wire system. This is cheaper than paying a large subsidy to get someone to revive manufacturing of the special wire. Radio control systems are a lot more reliable and efficient than they were three decades ago, and the troops have been asking for a wireless version of the TOW for some time."

Yeah, but does it have to be DU? I think that BM-42M is tungsten and is rated (at least what the web data implies) 600RHAe at 2000m. I guess, in game terms, it would be like confronting T-34/85 against Tiger I, which can give results under 1000m (alhtough with high casulties on Russian side). So, with BM-42M maybe Syrian player would have some chance at 1500-2000m against M1A2?