Kieme(ITA)

I don't know about you, but the Bulat seems blind as a mole.

S300 and patriot are indeed out of the scale of the game. Even though it would be potentially realistic and feasible to have a battle showing such kind of asset within the battle map, their use would only be limited to a scenario target. Considering the amount of time/effort needed to model the vehicle and add it in game with even a basic bahviour, resources are best spent on usable units/vehicles. The BMPT might come in a future module if its use is effectively confirmed as an integral part of a Russian Army formation. Same goes for the heavy IFV of the new Armata.

Sorry guys, I'm very late with the new mods. I hope some more will be finished in the next days.

Special forces implementation was discussed before. The main problem that emerged with those is that the actual game/engine doesn't allow to depict precisely what special forces can do in terms of equipment/tactics/actions. You could try to overcome the lack of flexibility by making or allowing very small teams (even 1 or 2 men per each) but the game logic Tiles between which the units move wouldn't allow for a precise movement of said units. So one big problem would be the movement capabilities of such units, which would be as cumberstome or generic as the normal infantry we have now thus taking away any kind of speciality. This lack of movement control and detail is extremely negative to special forces in CM games and the main reason such units cannot perform correctly. Other problems concern -the use of suppressors, these would need to be modelled accordingly, especially when it comes to spotting system, and it would take a lot of work even if it was possible to program such kind of thing with the actual game engine. The same goes for all those special and high end equipment a special unit might have, such as flashbangs, smoke grenades, for example. -buildings and structures. These are generic an abstracted in game, any kind of special unit shines in close combat conditions and fighting in a closed environment, all of this could not be simulated with the actual game engine. -commands; the available commands for infantry would not allow to represent all the possible tactics special forces could use. The actual commands don't even allow for a full representation of standard infantry tactics, go figure those of a special unit. Moreover, such kind of special forces would need big boosts when it comes to several abilities, such as spotting, otherwise they would just be simple infantry units, if that's the case their capabilities in game would be more like those of a rambo man than of a specialized unit. All in all, given the actual game engine, special forces are not likely to be added, or desirable, because the game itself, its structure, logic and engine, are not capable of depicting such units, their tactics and abilities in the correct way, therefore such units would really be out of place. I would support an infantry-centric campaign or scenarios. But keep in mind that we have limitations that the game engine imposes as well as abstractions (buildings).

I don't really see anything on the armata pointing upwards suggesting it's part of the APS capable of dealing with top-attack weapons. The best coverage of APS seems to me it's on the kurganets IFV, were the tubes on the hull cover 360°.

I did some things like these to create a few new flavor objects, but other than that the swap of a unit usable in game is in my opinion useless. Fact is the unit will look like something else but behave like the original vehicle in game. Therefore this can only add confusion, there's no real game impact, with few exceptions such as a very similar vehicle with same armament/crew etc. Besides, this practice leads to a lot of problems with shaders (some older CM games didn't have that), and the ported models often display glitches with animations and shadows.

I think I agree with panzersaurkrautwerfer on this matter. We could imagine an alternative outer shell, thicker and with ERA/NERA of some sort, but all this, in a way or the other, will need to be attached to the turret structure somehow, and even if robust strouts are used, there's no way to hold in place tons and tons of resistant material and guarantee their effectiveness (not to mention structural integrity) against kinetic energy projectiles. Seems that all the protection effort went to the hull, leaving the turret relatively weak on pourpose, and/or resting a lot of hope on the active protection system. Either way the visual evidence doesn't really support the concept of a massive resistant turret capable of withstanding direct shots (such as the turret of a coventional tank), and the add-on argument has less supports than the turret itself has.... Thanks for the images L0ck, I don't understand all the writings on them, wonder if they are meant to be sold or anything, but this practice really ruins the pictures.

What's that thing on BTR chassis behind the naked kurganets in the last photo?

I smell a game developer's brain already at work on the subject.

Could you name some (if not all) of those sovereign countries please? I am a bit lost.

A little late, yet I still imagine Steve's when he heared about it...

Do you still belive there's a package of additional armor for the sides?

If the turret has no basket there's plenty of room for many people in there.

Wait a second, was there some change to russian APS with the last patch?

Seems to me the Kurganets IFV APS covers the back of the vehicle too, making it 360° good.

Really looks like the outer shell is more a mock up than anything. Look how thin it is on the lower-left part, there's a hole where the first tube ends (the one pointing forward), it's not even 10mm of plate to make up that ugly shaped turret, and behind the metal sheet there's just nothing.. The real turret is much much smaller, and has a different shape. Why do you think they added all that shell outside?

You people just let Steve win the internet...

The two grenade launchers on the top of Armata turret.. they seem to be 360° capable aren't they?

Maybe a place to eject expended shells from?

I miss the tarps. -1 No really, thanks for sharing the new pictures! Armata tank: Maybe I am old fashioned, or my mind is already pointing to the "old man" attitude, but really I can't process that turret shape. Armata heavy IFV: I keep saying that the front part of the vehicle stresses a lot the few front shock absorbers.

The change in ammunition type for the BMP-2M is a key feature. Before the patch the BMP-2M had very hard time penetrating a Bradley front armor, while the BMP-3 favoured shooting AT missiles to enemy IFVs at most ranges. The changes made the BMP-2M capable of penetrating Bradley with ease and the BMP-3 now favours its best weapon to deal against enemy IFVs, the 30mm gun. Therefore BMPs now are much more lethal than before.

I recently had a PBEM where I used the hiding command for infantry plenty, and they never broke that command even if some enemy infantry was in less than 200m radius and in LOS. Those units were all veteran and crack. To enforce the "don't open fire" discipline I also set up a few cover arcs, very close to the units. ChrisND used this also in his training videos, where it came down to make sure an artillery spotter wouldn't reveal its position by firing a few shots with AKs. It is possible that yours were of a lower experience level like Hister suggested; experience/training levels are represented by the game in that particular way, and the level of a unit influences how that unit will perform under independent situations (tactical AI) and under your direct commands, not to mention the quality of the outcome of carrying orders. As a rule of thumb, you can't 100% rely on green and conscript units. Regarding cover arcs, well, it's your choice but consider that you loose a very powerful instrument when it comes down to the game play. As regarding any reference with a realistic situation cover arcs represent strict orders that any soldier would be trained to follow, such as: "don't open fire until the enemy you see is closer". But again, it's your call.

This is strange and should not happen at all. Hidden units should only fire back if they get hit first, and sometimes require even some time to do that. Do you have a savegame/video/screenshot to show the specific situation? An alternative would be to use a very small cover arc, but you would miss the "bonus" of hiding.

Could someone please confirm that the BMP-2M model works 100% right in 1.3 patch? The modernized equipment looks transparent to me, might be something about my mod but removing it doesn't solve the problem, so I'd like to ask you here if your BMP-2M model looks correct. Reported here : http://community.battlefront.com/topic/119440-13-patch-and-bmp-2m/#entry1605517

Here is an example: (custom icons by Ian) the infantry icon shows a green triangle to indicate that the unit is embarked; the vehicle icon shows a blue square with an M to indicate the "Move" command is happening (if it was a "fast" command, then a F would be there with a Yellow square, hunt would be a H with a purple square etc.)