Roter Stern

I have a question for developers of the Combat Mission, did you think about making a single CM launcher and selling DLC in form of armies, theaters of war, era (WW2, modern, etc.). The era is needed so that the modern army does not fight with army of Second World War. DLC control is done as in DCS World or MFS 2020.

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.

After months in the making, I have finally completed my campaign Valleys of Death. It turned our to be quite an ambitious project, with 11 missions!
The campaign revolves around a US Army light infantry company, manning a remote combat outpost in an Afghanistan inspired terrain.
Unlike classic CMSF, which highly favors shock and awe and maneuver warfare, Valleys of Death deals with the issues of small units operating in a clearly defined AO. This means that, like in real life, you will conduct operations on the same map many times, with each mission focusing on different areas and objectives. By the end you will come to know the area very well, and this knowledge is key to defeat the enemy.
Features:
    11 missions     A large 2X2 km map and 2 additional maps     Modern counter-insurgency infantry combat     Heavily inspired by Afghanistan related media (Restrepo, Taking Fire, etc.)     Base game, no modules needed



 
Download from Dropbox
Please let me know ASAP if this link doesn't work! I'm not exactly a Dropbox wizz  

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.

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.
 

BFC is going to go whichever route they choose, but I hope that if there ever is a new generation, that it is Combat Mission as a base game and every module plugs in to that, so that it all works together as one.

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.

Not going to lie, a Russian module for CMSF2 would be a tremendous addition - especially now that the title is released on Steam.
Sure we have CMBS, which can pretty well portray most hypothetical modern day US-v-Russia conflicts, but I think it's save to say that CMBS is now a shelved dead-end product. We are approaching six years since release without as much as even a hit at a single module.
CMBS saltiness aside, I do find CMSF to be more compelling - in both the setting and the variety of OPFOR available. Personally, I'd rather see a 4th module for CMSF than a 1st module for CMBS.
As far as the argument that the Russian appearance in CMSF would "conflict with the lore" - well, that's the beauty of an alternate-history setting - you get the write any narrative to fit your end-goal.
Seems like a fairly reasonable scenario for the Russo-Georgian war to escalate into a Russo-NATO conflict about a year after the events in CMSF. In turn that could bring Russia to Syria in an attempt to re-instate the original Syrian regime, in order to solidify their allies in the Eastern Mediterranean region.
No re-write of the existing CMSF lore, simply a continuation of the original time line past the initial NATO invasion and into NATO occupation. NATO would be portrayed mostly on the defensive and counter-attack; where as Russian forces would be portrayed as a force-multiplier of whatever is left of Syrian military. Perhaps not so much "Syrian military" as much as bands of UNCONS, but that's besides the point.
I would also like to echo some of the things OP is saying (about CMSF:Russia, not so much the extensive apologism of real-life Russian involvement in Syria 🤨):
 

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.

I thought "Italy WW2, how can that be fun?" -- I was wrong, crazy good fun battles & gear & terrain
I thought "Syria 2008, how can that be fun?" -- I was wrong, so much fun, currently doing Highland Games
I thought "Russian front 1944 instead of 41-43, how can that be fun?"  -- I was wrong, absolutely epic battles!  T34-85 is such a good design compromise and what a difference maker on the battlefield.  Yes, of course, panthers are better, but I get lots of T34s.  Lots and lots.
I am not the smartest person but I am seeing a pattern here

Not going to lie, a Russian module for CMSF2 would be a tremendous addition - especially now that the title is released on Steam.
Sure we have CMBS, which can pretty well portray most hypothetical modern day US-v-Russia conflicts, but I think it's save to say that CMBS is now a shelved dead-end product. We are approaching six years since release without as much as even a hit at a single module.
CMBS saltiness aside, I do find CMSF to be more compelling - in both the setting and the variety of OPFOR available. Personally, I'd rather see a 4th module for CMSF than a 1st module for CMBS.
As far as the argument that the Russian appearance in CMSF would "conflict with the lore" - well, that's the beauty of an alternate-history setting - you get the write any narrative to fit your end-goal.
Seems like a fairly reasonable scenario for the Russo-Georgian war to escalate into a Russo-NATO conflict about a year after the events in CMSF. In turn that could bring Russia to Syria in an attempt to re-instate the original Syrian regime, in order to solidify their allies in the Eastern Mediterranean region.
No re-write of the existing CMSF lore, simply a continuation of the original time line past the initial NATO invasion and into NATO occupation. NATO would be portrayed mostly on the defensive and counter-attack; where as Russian forces would be portrayed as a force-multiplier of whatever is left of Syrian military. Perhaps not so much "Syrian military" as much as bands of UNCONS, but that's besides the point.
I would also like to echo some of the things OP is saying (about CMSF:Russia, not so much the extensive apologism of real-life Russian involvement in Syria 🤨):
 

---------------------------------------------------------
          Sniper in the Corn
----------------------------------------------------------

Description :
With the release of Shock Force 2 on Steam, I wanted to create an relatively simple introductory scenario with a low troop density thus easy to manage where new players can practice small units infantry tactics against an insurgent force. In the end the map size and the length of the battle are probably too large for a real basic scenario but that was my initial starting point.
The scenario has you lead a single platoon of British infantry plus support elements, belonging to the C Company, 2nd Battalion, Parachute Regiment and takes place in september 2008, early morning in Helmand province, Afghanistan, in the green zone roughly halfway between Sangin to the North and Gereshk to the South West.
Mission length : 1H30 minutes plus extra time.
Map size : 1150 X 1680m

There are three AI plans each with a different and semi randomized setup.
Play as Blue attacker against Red AI only.
 
Install :
Make sure your game is patched to version 2.04 and you have the British module, then extract in : documents/battlefront/Shock Force 2/game files/scenarios
or for a Steam install : steam root folder/battlefront/Shock Force 2/game files/scenarios
Download :
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4cqqqprigsy5n29/afg - sniper in the corn - isaf.rar?dl=0
Sources :
Insurgent Tactics in Southern Afghanistan 2005-2008
Jerry Meyerle, Carter Malkasian
Michael Yon, Death in the Corn
https://www.michaelyon-online.com/death-in-the-corn-part-i-of-iii.htm
 

Not entirely relevant, but at least as relevant as a lot of the other stuff in this thread:
http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2020/09/blog-post_21.html
This article really does underline the need for more T-72 variants (especially T-72Bs) in CM:BS.

Heya,
I'm not quite sure, but I think the Panzerfaust 3 model seems a little to big. At least I don't remember it to be this big when I was in the army, even when extended for the tandem warhead.

That's exactly my issue with CMBS - all probable additions to the Black Sea theatre have already been done in CMSF; and those not already in CMSF are even less plausible in CMBS.
Sure I get that, I enjoy CMBS a great deal as well - a well equipped OPFOR is a fun challenge; but that's exactly my point.
The way I see it, we can either have CMBS play catch-up to the tune of 3-4 modules ... or get a single new ("well equipped") OPFOR combatant for CMSF and make a solid title even better. Russia is where my vote is, but Iran would indeed make a solid addition as well.
Additionally, playing an interesting BLUFOR, like the Dutch or the Canadians, against a Russianesque and UNCON combatant seems a lot more interesting than commanding Yet Another Stryker Battalion(tm), even if it's against a "real" Russian force.
To be completely honest, I feel the issue of "geographic setting" to be of little consequence. At least to my mind, it is purely an aesthetic issue, one which can be easily solved with a texture pack. To illustrate that point - I have more play-time in CMSF(1) re-textured to look like CMBS, than I do in actual CMBS.
Perhaps that's just me, but I'd rather see a single modern title with a half-dozen modules, than a half-dozen titles with a single module each. 😉

I'm not sure audience you're targeting with this review. You start as if you're addressing those already invested into the Combat Mission franchise and familiar with Battlefront's past publication practices:
But then you carry on to explain Combat Mission as if to someone completely new to the series, while making a reference to something fairly obscure ... which "War on Terror" are we talking about here - the 15 year old PC game, the 14 year old board game, Labyrinth another 10 year old board game? 
I do agree with this wholeheartedly:
Without a doubt the biggest reason to own the game on Steam.
Every time I come back to Combat Mission after a year or two break, it seems my PCs hardware has changed enough to invalidate all of my activations. Can't find serial keys, login to web account, can't remember password, reset password, go to activate, out of activations, submit a ticket for a reset.
Granted, CM series is not for those lacking patience, but hardly something the mass market will accept when it takes a day or two to get a game running.
 
 

History repeats itself again and again because humans are basically the same throughout History. The same motivation and desires just re-spun with different words. The technology changes but humans remain the constant. 

To continue that thought. The highest award of the British Commonwealth - the Victoria Cross - was introduced to honor valour during the Crimean War.
The metal used to create the original Victoria Cross medals was from Russian cannons captured at the Siege of Sevastopol. There has been some dispute about the metal origin, especially with later-era VC's, but nonetheless.
I personally know of another example where Russian trophy cannons from the Crimean War show up - a monument to Sir John MacDonald in Kingston, Canada features a pair of cannons on pedestals with the Russian Imperial double-headed eagles cast into the cannons. 
Tells you something about the significance of that war.

Also, in CMBS, Breach kits carried by-non-engineers, can be used to breach walls & buildings but not used against vehicles or barbwire.  Demo charges carried by actual engineers can be used against vehicles, barbwire, walls, buildings etc.   

Normally, that would be a very sensible approach.  However, we are blessed with a CM2 fan base that has astonishing talents and willingness to do hundreds of man-hours of work to produce scenarios, campaigns and mods to improve the game.  These talented and dedicated folks may comprise far less than 20% of the market.  But, just look at what they have accomplished. 
Based on that, hopefully BF may reconsider that approach and make provision so that those dedicated folks (such as yourself Mikey) can have access to and utilize these extra features.

Yeah, absolutely - it's enough to look at the state of their heavy and personal equipment during the 2008 conflict in Georgia. It was not much better than what they had back in the 90s - they won despite the equipment, not because of it.
Even CMBS is being very generous with equipment in some cases - T-90AM, which is featured so prominently in that version of 2017, has just started trickling in to the top tier units earlier this year.
I would, however, argue that fancy-schmancy-equipmenttm is not the predominant reason for adding a combatant to a CM title. After all, Italians do exits in both CMx1 and CMx2
 
Hesco barriers - sure, but that's just a fancy sandbag that a backhoe can fill.
However, I'm not sure adding Russians to CMSF inherently requires occupation duty units or equipment; not any more so than a late-WW2 title requires "occupied population logistics", shall we call it.
I imagine the initial thrust would focus on taking over airfields and ports - not civilian centers were NATO is conducting 'occupation duty'.
 
My feeling exactly - hearing that they're working on USMC for CMBS makes me cringe, if I'm honest.
I realize this is going to be a segue from the topic at hand, but as much as I like how the new CMx2 modules add depth, I equally dislike how the multiple titles shatter the breadth.
CMx1 worked out pretty well, once all of the titles were out - CMBO was the first one you'd only play if you really wanted the Tiger-II; CMBB was the East Front; and CMAK was 95% of WW2 west of Warsaw start-to-finish. 
Where as in CMx2 I struggle to understand why CMFB is a title and not a module for CMBN - the two share about 80~90% of TO&E and are separated by less than 200km of land and two months of time.
I suppose in the same vein I struggle to find a reason for CMBS to exist - especially if they already knew CMSF2 was going to be developed. I understand that it is not feasible for CMSF to span a decade and two continents worth of combatants; but considering the conflict is hypothetical, perhaps I just wish CMSF was a bit more of a sandbox (not a desert pun, I promise).

A T-90 and a BMP-3 kept hitting this immobilized Abrams for about 3 minutes at a range of 600m - the T-90 ran out of APFSDS ammo and the BMP ran out of ATGM rounds.
The crew eventually bailed out.
Notice the penetration hits inside the commanders cupola and all over the RWS.

 

A T-90 and a BMP-3 kept hitting this immobilized Abrams for about 3 minutes at a range of 600m - the T-90 ran out of APFSDS ammo and the BMP ran out of ATGM rounds.
The crew eventually bailed out.
Notice the penetration hits inside the commanders cupola and all over the RWS.

 

A T-90 and a BMP-3 kept hitting this immobilized Abrams for about 3 minutes at a range of 600m - the T-90 ran out of APFSDS ammo and the BMP ran out of ATGM rounds.
The crew eventually bailed out.
Notice the penetration hits inside the commanders cupola and all over the RWS.

 

Here's my first attempt at a video AAR. The voice isn't fantastic (hopefully fixed for the future) and its a quick battle against the AI so this could seen as a training exercise in more than one sense. Here's all the action:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oRNHcjmIaA
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvYEWHQ0lEM