Roter Stern

@MikeyD I'm holding my breath to see those olive green vests appear in CMCW when the Canadians are added

Perhaps should've posted it here instead, but The Bovington Tank Museum has a video series of on Soviet cold-war era tanks:

For those interested, yet unaware, The (Bovington) Tank Museum has a vast series of "Tank Chats" videos on their YouTube channel discussing various (mostly WW2-era) armored vehicles. Recently however, they've been going though Soviet cold-war era tanks - posting one about the T-72 just yesterday. The series is well worth the watch, even if you hardly play as OPFOR - these have a fantastic mix of technical detail and historic context.

Yes, completely true. Therefore should be a complete non-issue to add it to the other NATO countries. However, if you currently play a quick battle as the Canadians you won't get an option to purchase anything non-Canadian. To best honest, I'd rather get an option to select "All Blue" and "All Red" forces as combatants in a quick battle setup. That would then also allow multi-national NATO ops, as well as a Syrian Army+UNCON mix, with the side-effect of giving Canadians and the Dutch some UAV's in QBs. You're right - the MQ-1C might've been developed in 2004, but seems like it wasn't operationally deployed until 2010.

+1 Indeed. I am surprised they didn't add the Gray Eagle, since it's been around well before 2008. It would be nice to see other NATO drones as well. In 2008 in Afghanistan the Canadians were extensively using the SAGEM Sperwer and the RQ-11 Raven. Additionally:

Yeah, but a wrong vest, Mikey! That OG LBV was fully discontinued by 2003. In fact it was discontinued with such extreme prejudice that even the Army Cadets didn't get them. I think they were all cut-up and sold as textile-scrap to recyclers. The odds of finding one of those vests on a paintball field in Canada, let alone an overseas operation in 2007~2008 is nil. Only to prove my point - here's the high-res version of this very photo. Those troops are (mostly) wearing the new CADPAT TacVest and two on the right are wearing some COTS gear. And even then, those two are M203 gunners and I'm guessing those COTS vests are for the 40mm ammo. Perhaps in 2007~2008 they were still wearing a mix of arid and temperate CADPAT, perhaps a mix of COTS gear (like @sigop22 mentioned above). But the point still remains - there was not a single OG LBV in sight. Have a quick look at this - Official photos from Canadian Forces Combat Camera from 2007 There is this photo from 21-Jan-2007 - one guy in arid and one in temperate vests, but both are CADPAT. Then there is this one from 31-Jan-2007 - wearing some form of COTS vest. The way CMSF:1 had it - all Arid gear - was (more) accurate than what we have in CMSF:2, in my opinion.

Abdul-Jalil and his battered T-72 - 1 part good position, 1 part unyielding AI plans:

That was my experience playing H2H back in CMSF:1 days. While it's still possible to have fun as Red, it's either from the hopeless comedy of "10 min into the battle and my entire tank company is already on fire" or the occasional rare events such as "an Abrams parks next to a KO'ed BMP3 just as it detonates with the power of an areal bomb, KOing the M1". My advice is to try playing Red-vs-Red - that's what we did with my few buddies a decade ago and it was a blast! Truth be told, other than running through the campaigns and some community scenarios I rarely play BLUFOR. The beauty of RvR (and CMSF in general) is the huge variety of formations to pick from. Two types of UNCONs, Militia, Reserve Army, Regular Army, Mechanized, Airborne, Republican Guard, and nearly BLUFOR-equivalent SpecOps. Huge variety of equipment as well - T-55/62/64/72/90, BMP-1/2/3, BRDMs, BTR-60, Shilka, and of course the trusty Hilux. Primarily however, it all comes down to lack of Javelin doom-sticks in every ISC, lack of thermal optics in every MRE Happy Meal, and lack of MBT armor made from unobtanium that can magically stop a sabot round from a 125mm cannon. While RvR scenarios aren't very numerous, Quick Battles actually work out decent even with automatic unit purchase. If you end up playing QB's and picking your own forces, don't always go with the "default" BMP-2 Mech Infantry. Mixing and matching will provide a surprising amount of battle variety. Militia cannon-fodder supported by SpecOps platoon with Attack Helos? That sounds fun. Buying a ton of Static T-54's when defending because they are dirt cheap? Yes please. Adding an extra 4-5 RPG teams to each of your infantry platoons? Who needs IFVs! I just wish QB's had a option for "Any Red" force composition - so you can mix UNCONs with Syrian Army units. p.s. And this is why I think a Red-focused module for CMSF would be amazing.

While true, point still remains - there is absolutely no reason why the OG LBV should be worn by the CAF troops in CMSF. @MikeyD - any insight into this?

Most certainly intended that way, yes Apologies if anyone is reading this post in a serious tone, I'll go back to eating my pineapple pizza now

I don't want to alarm anyone, but there appears to be a HUGE problem with the Canadian uniforms in CMSF:2. Have a look at these fellas that greeted me when I loaded up the Cunuckian campaign: Year 2008. Arid CADPAT - check. C7A2s - check. BEWs - check. Olive green Load Bearing Vest circa Bosnia 1994 ... what in the tabarnak is this? Alright, drama for the sake of comedy aside, this is a strange one considering in CMSF:1 Canadian troops were (correctly) represented as wearing all Arid CADPAT gear. Where as it seems for CMSF:2 a conscious decision was made to change the Canadian uniform artwork and clad troops in their ancient OG LBVs. Yes, the Canadians kept using the LBVs well out of the 90's - even surviving the introduction of CADPAT. In fact the initial force into Afghanistan wore Temperate Woodland CADPAT and OG LBVs. Afghanistan c.2002 (source and source) : Not long after in 2003, the new Tac-Vests are introduced, albeit still in "Temperate Woodland"; the LBVs are never seen in combat operations again. (source and source) : Then in 2004 Arid uniforms and C7A2s were introduced. Can you believe they still drove the ILTIS in Afghanistan in 2004? (source and source) : "Arid uniform - Green TacVest" combo survived for a while, well into Op Medusa in 2006 (source) : By 2007 however, the entire ensemble can be seen in Arid CADPAT; also issued ballistic eyewear is introduced (source and source) : Thank you for making it to the end of my brief on The Woes of the Canadian Military Equipment Procurement. Seems pretty clear that by mid-2008 CMSF timeline the gear would be all Arid CADPAT and new-pattern TacVest ... as it was in CMSF:1. Anyone have any insight into what happened in CMSF:2 with the LBV's? @MikeyD or @BFCElvis perhaps? Cheers!

It was a fairly simple scenario, another RvR H2H: "The scenario takes place on the evening of 17 May 1995 after a Federal Mi-8 transport helicopter is shot down over a Guerrilla controlled mountain region in South Chechnya. The Company sized engagement is between the Russian Federal forces attempting a rescue and Chechen Guerrilla forces advancing on the crash site to eliminate survivors and gather intelligence." More or less a conscript BTR company walking into a rebel fighter ambush attempting to rescue Spetnaz survivors defending the crash site.

Here you go - uploaded the entire archive (400Mb compressed) for your viewing pleasure: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tQzcIe4b8lJnQ3tBX2yEfjoCnY4O7RXa/view?usp=sharing Red Rebels and Rus Spetznaz are my handy work; credit for the rest goes to all the respective amazing folks. Shameless self-indulgence follows. Apparently the "Red Rebels" were so revolutionary (pun intended, sorry) back in the day, that MikeyD even had this to say: followed then by his own rendition of a Rebel skin:

The full name is most likely either "Chechen War - Black Bear Down" or "RvR Chechen War - Black Bear Down". Can you check please? I would actually be interested in getting it back as well.

Sounds good, glad to hear it works for someone other than me. Now that I look at the BFC website, seems like v2.03 is the latest patch listed on the CMSF:2 website (https://www.battlefront.com/shock-force-2/cmsf2-base-game/?tab=patches). Where as v2.04 is indeed the latest patch listed on https://www.battlefront.com/patches. I wonder if this is what has some folks thinking that v2.03 is the latest.

@Erwin, @Vergeltungswaffe, @37mm - have any of you guys tried running this scenario? Someone over at the Scenario Depot (down in the comments) can't even see the scenario show up in their game. I wonder if there is something off on my end. I'm running CMSF:2 v2.04 (Game Engine 4) - Steam version, if that makes a difference.

This is incredible - I didn't realize there was footage of anyone playing though the old scenario! Not doing to lie, I got a little bit chocked up seeing the familiar little village still being dug up over a decade later! Thank you for that! As for the actual update - while the overall layout and the buildings are exactly the same as before, I ended up changing the terrain features quite a bit. Having played the old map with comrades in H2H about a dozen times, I always felt the terrain did not allow for much diversity in tactics for either side. Hence the update features an addition of orchards and a few rolling elevation changes. Same goes for the river - the intention was always to create a few vehicle choke points; the bridge being the obvious one, but also to funnel any BTR trying to cross the river bed. Unfortunately CMSF-1 lacked any terrain which would block vehicles, yet allow solders on foot to traverse - luckily "marsh" tile in CMSF-2 fits the bill perfectly. On the new map you might now notice there is only three spots were vehicles can get across the muddy river bed. No trouble at all - I've actually been trying to figure out what happened to my old CMSF-1 installation and recover other scenarios as well. Unfortunately having gone through a few old computer HDDs I found nothing - no scenarios or campaigns, at least. I did find however, an old back up of the "z-folder" with a bunch of mods in it. Let me know if any of those seem like something you'd like to add to your collection. Cheers!

"Field Trials" Red-vs-Red - Syrian Army attacking Uncon Fighters Base game only - no modules required 1-hour on a 544m x 400m map 05 MAY 2008 0615H – Latakia Region Syrian Army BTR Company is approaching a farming village captured in the night by a band of fighters. In the center of the village is a regional government administration center of vital importance to maintaining control in the region - it must be preserved and liberated at all costs! ---------------- Decided to update an old (circa 2007) scenario of mine for CMSF:2 - this time sticking with the Syrian setting of the base game. Best played as the Attackers or Multiplayer. The AI has several plans for the defenders and one basic plan for the attackers. I kept the force balance pretty well exactly the same as the original scenario - which in multiplayer has proven challenging, but fairly balanced for both sides - at least back in CMSF:1. Download here - https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/cm-shock-force-2-2/cm-shock-force-2-scenarios/field-trials-red-vs-red/

Started playing though - I'm only three missions in and already had to come here to say how well done this is! Being rather burnt out on "shock and awe" from the official campaigns and majority of scenarios - this is a breath of fresh air! Never has poking your head over the crest of a hill as BLUFOR has been so tense! The fewer assets you have, the more you care about them.

Absolutely! Let me make it clear, that the issue I take with CMFB is not a financial one. If $60 is what it costs to justify the volume of work to introduce proper winter conditions - then so be it. I just wish they released it as a $60 module for CMBN and built up on the existing content, instead of splintering away from it. After all, the British were present in the Battle of the Bulge, so no real reason to explicitly exclude them from appearing in that time frame. That said, I still think CMFB is a little thin on features... How exactly are the hedges treated? "Light snow / snow / deep snow" is just a map-wide setting - much like "damp / wet / muddy" in every other title. As far as I can see there is no way to create localized impassible snow drifts, as it would've been the case during the actual Battle of the Bulge. What effect does the temperate have exactly? Do troops left on a wind-swept open field suffer injury? Do vehicles stall? The manual makes precisely zero mention of any winter or snow mechanics, beyond "vehicles have been given a new coat of whitewash". Excuse the eye roll here.

Yeah, definitely - those are fantastic ideas. I'm actually surprised they didn't add the Gray Eagle from CMBS, since they did add the other two drones. It would be nice to see other NATO drones as well - by 2008 in Afghanistan the Canadians were extensively using the SAGEM Sperwer and the RQ-11 Raven (or some derivative of); and I'm sure the Germans and the Dutch were not any different. As for UNCON equipment - in the ideal world, what would be amazing to see is the ability too choose auxiliary equipment in the editor - much like we're currently able to choose RPG/LMG/Sniper equipment: I think that really depends on the type of battles you predominantly play in CMSF. For those mostly playing BLUFOR vs UNCON, I can see how the addition of Russian forces does nothing for their experience. On the flip side, anyone who plays OPFOR either vs BLUFOR or as Red-v-Red, would cherish the idea of more varied (and better) OPFOR units. For example for my taste, one of the most interesting (and challenging) small-scale battles I set up is to play as a mass of UNCONs together with Syrian SpecOps engineer platoon in BMP-3s attacking a BLUFOR urban position. Nothing quite like the feeling of flanking an M1A2 and putting an RPG-29 into it's ammo compartment. Like I was saying in an earlier post, I would love to see CMSF depict scenarios where the Russian forces are a force-multiplier of a Syrian counter-offensive. Exactly - that part of the CMSF "lore" is left very much open-ended, and to be honest, I always imagined that the events of CMSF took place despite any Russian presence, not because they allowed it. I don't think it's a big stretch to imagine that the Russians "tolerated" the Syrian invasion at first, but after the (nearly historically accurate) NATO intervention in the Russo-Georgian conflict, the Russians in turn intervened in Syria. One thing I completely disagree with is that "Russian forces are not relevant to the CMSF timeline as currently written". I think it's a mistake to treat an invasion of Syria as if it would invoke the same reaction from Russia as did the invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan - seems like the real-life events are a proof of that. Sure, currently the Russian and US forces are not in a direct opposition in Syria - but short of that they're also as far from being "on the same side" as you can get.

That may appear to be the case, but it ain't actually so.....The resemblance is only skin deep at the most. I'm starting a new topic to discuss the above - in an attempt to steer this topic back on track. I suggest those discussing CMFI to do the same. ... To bring us back a bit, while what I said earlier is still valid: It is also worth noting, that a large number of equipment present in CMBS 2017 time-line was already available back in 2008, albeit it not widely integrated in some cases. For example these have been available for a while prior to 2008: Tunguska and Strela SAMs (1970s-80s) MT-LBM (1950s) Arena APS (1990s) Shtora APS (1980s) BTR-80A (1990s) Pchela UAV (1990s) And a few recent or near-future appearances in 2008: Tigr (2001) Zala 421 (2008) BTR-82 (2009) Personal equipment has indeed seen some major improvements for the Russians in the last decades, sure. But aside from that, I'm not sure how valid your argument is @MikeyD.

Splitting this off from another topic to steer it back on track. I struggle to understand why CMFB is a separate title and not a module for CMBN. I do not own CMFB and perhaps I am missing something, so I'm genuinely interested to find out what others think of this. Here's how I see it: 1. Geographically, CMBN and CMFB are separated by less than 200km of land. While the Ardennes is different from the Normandy region - it is not more different than Market Garden is different from Normandy. Quite the opposite actually, Market Garden differs from Normandy more than the Ardennes. 2. In the time domain, CMBN and CMFB are separated by merely a few months of time - which is a similar amount of time between Normandy and Op Market Garden. I find it hard to believe there were such dramatic changes in Winter 1944/45 which would invalidate anything present in Summer-Fall 1944. 3. On the TO&E side, 90% of CMFB heavy equipment is represented in CMBN and all of personal equipment is identical. There is only nineteen items unique to CMFB - not even enough to flesh-out a module. It is also either niche pieces - things like the Jagdtiger, Sturmtiger, flame tanks, etc - or things which could've also been represented in Normandy and Market Garden - US Armored cars and extra Sherman versions. On the other hand, the Commonwealth module, introduced something to the tune of four dozen new pieces and an entirely new combatant. 4. The only real difference between CMBN and CMFB is the winter setting and the appearance of snow. While I can see snow being an issue to add to CMBN, as it would appear the game engine is currently not set up to swap textures based on a season. Which is not to say the game can't swap textures dynamically - the introduction of mod tags allows different scenarios to display different textures without any manual file swapping by the user. Beyond a few snowy textures, CMFB did not seem to introduce actual snow mechanics - neither actual visual effects, nor an abstracted representation of deep snow or frozen conditions. I'm being very careful not to sound salty or accusatory, but it seems that while CMFB is an aesthetic re-skin of CMBN and adds the content equivalent of a $10 "battle pack", due to the sheer volume of art that had to be re-done in "whitewash" BFC could not justify the time investment unless the content was released as a full-price title.

@Lethaface, you know @LXGTR might be onto something here. The largest length of a loaded PzF3-IT that I found is reported as 1.35m - so let's assume that's what we should have in game. From that we have the following: Seems like a rather below average height German pixeltroopen to me. Wikipedia lists "average human height" as 1.7m - from that it does seem the PzF3 is in fact 30% too large. Here's a fairly similar side-by-side of CMSF2 and real life. Granted it's not the "IT" model on the right, however the launch tube should be fairly close in size across the PzF3 family.

Don't get me wrong - the BFC support has been nothing short of stellar. I do think however, that there is now an entire generation of people who have never used a serial key to register a product and will find CM licensing rather jarring. Steam is no the be-all and end-all platform of course, but a lot of people are familiar with it.