Kieme(ITA)

If you add the specific TAG to your scenario, called "rubble", this will turn the normal "ground heavy rocks" into rubble. Then you can make some small irregular Hills and paint them with heavy rocks, they will show up as rubble. You can also add a few flavor objects to enhance the effect. Other interesting combinations might be done with gravel and rocky ground to simulate more types of rubbles.

Again, when it comes to spotting, being your enemy units or yours, there are many factors to be taken into account, here is a list: -crew motivation -crew experience level -crew leadership modifier -crew fitness -crew condition (ok, nervous, shaken, rattled etc.) -crew suppression level -weather conditions -distance to the target -presence of elements within the LOS (trees, bushes etc.) -elevation differences -position relevant to the target (front, side/front, side, rear, just to say a few) Moreover, additional influence might be given by chain of command, other units spotting at the same time and communicating with each other, etc. on both sides. We don't know how you play the specific scenario, you might be repeating mistakes, bad positioning of units, being spotted by enemy units you don't spot etc. There are too many factors. So, you can do as many playthrough as you wish but until some real data is put into the equation it's just a personal feeling, that's all. PS: I just checked, and after a very first quick look I can already see that you are comparing T-84 Oplot with regular crew against T-90a with veteran crew, as you can see this is a very first signal that will point to the result you find strange, while I find it consistent with this very first and simple information. And before you wonder, yes, a difference in training level can be very important when it comes to few seconds of game time. As much as I would not even know how to turn the turret of an abrams if I happen to be inside it (Kieme, conscript, motivation poor, leadership -2).

From a modder point of view I can tell you that if you want (we all do) more versatility more content is needed. I mean: for each single bit of stuff BFC puts in the game (module/vehicle pack whatever), the potential versatility of the game increases. Example: if an older model of T-72 (like the first generation ERA covered one) gets introduced, this will allow modders to make scenarios/mods that will represent other nations than Russia employing that piece of equipment. Also the irregular units example fits very well, if irregulars were introduced both for Ukraine side and Russian side, the potential settings expand a lot and would allow for any kind of asymmetrical warfare setting, even one in the desert again! Not to mention any asian unstable former URSS country.

I like that approach, with the hope that many scenario designers will carry on with the production.

I found the T-84 spotting ability pretty good. A single case can not speak for all the possible situations. Besides, there are many factors that influence spotting ability of any vehicle, and the vehicle itself is just one of them.

Open letter and personal statement I would like to express a few words on a recent situation that came out in the gaming community: pay for mods. I have no intention to, I never had intention to and I will never ask for money for my mods. I strongly belive that my modding is something done for myself and my tastes (first of all) and for the benefit of the community (or at least those who might be interested in trying/using such mods). I belive that a lot of credit should be given to BFC (in this particular case) for making not only a great game but also a good mod support (instruments for unpacking/packing, file priority upload for the game mods, dedicated modding folder, easy to work with file formats). I am for FREE modding, I respect those modders who ask, or are open to, donations and such, but I do not support any kind of paywall for mods, which are, in my opinion, a form of player-generated, free content for a game. I kindly ask not to start a Whole discussion about this matter here, but in case use another forum section. At the same time I had the desire to express these few lines here because I felt as part of the matter in question.

Well, first of all a dead commander will greatly reduce the spotting ability. Not to mention the absence of a 5th pair of eyes. So, in my opinion, the first trouble you got there is that your tank will be a mole much more than usual. Second, the turret people should be able to shoot the coaxial mg with no problem, the bow mg won't be used anymore I guess, so you can consider that asset lost. It's in bad shape overall, I am pretty sure the remaining crew is not really ok in terms of motivation. All in all, I'd consider that sherman a lucky survivor but not a combat ready tank, your main problem is going to be your spotting ability.

I think that everybody is entitled to their opinion, but since the game depicts a future setting, which would also be another branch of side-reality, the ability of UA to field oplots and APS is not bothering me at all and appears consistent with the game setting and purpose.

I am having lots of fun with the ukrainians

I would reconsider tactic there.

I wouldn't really call such kind of vehicles "support assets". You can't rely on open vehicles and hope that the gunner will survive a few more seconds under fire from a number of enemy weapons, even them being light. These HMG bearing wheels can be useful for sure, but don't bring them to a fist fight, because they are not heavyweights. I mean, do you really think that man up there has a long life expectance in a direct confrontation? It's not a case that more and more unmanned turrets are being developed and introduced on all vehicles of this type.

Thanks for the very good pictures. Looks like the rear propellers for the boomerang are powered by a direct transmission mast, just like if they were a 5th wheel.

Depends on the position of the scout team and of the tank in the chain of command. In the best possible situation, when selecting your tank: the enemy tank -which is directly seen by the scout team- will turn into a ? icon for an enemy vehicle or even a tank, with no fading. So, your tank crew will know that there's a tank there, but until they don't see it directly you won't get any different command/capability. In your specific example the scout team might get the information up to the chain of command, and such information might get down to that tank of yours. But even if the information is perfectly shared your tank will still need to see the enemy with its own eyes before taking appropriate action. Let's say that all this is more for your own benefit than for your troops on the ground; as you said, it's up to you to set up an appropriate cover arc, or act in another way, thanks to the information you have collected. Another example: you have an ATGM team without binoculars, attached to it there's its own platoon HQ. Suppose they are in the same position, top of a building. It's quite probable that the HQ unit will spot an enemy tank hiding somewhere first, thanks to its binocs. Then the information will be shared in a matter of few seconds, and this will make sure that your ATGM team will also spot that enemy unit in less time than they would have required if they were alone. Be careful, there is Always a delay, sometime you'll select a team that will show on the map ? icons that were good several turns/minutes before, while another unit will give you a more recent situation. Delay in information sharing depends on many factors, not all accounted in the manuals etc., I'm pretty sure that the availability of special communication equipment and position in the chain of command are the most important elements, remember that the information need to go up the chain of command and then down again, before it's available from one extreme low to the other. All of these informations are yours to decide how to filter, and recognize old news from fresh information.

But the turrets in CMBS' hummers are not those used in Iraq/afghanistan in the recent years, there are no viewports etc. CMBS hummer: Hummer in Iraq: The difference in level protection for the gunner truly is evident.

Well, there's a Whole bounch of new vehicles, not just one or two. The entire family of new borns is there. They share several details, one for all: the new small front headlights, that's a little detail, but appears to be tailored for serial production. On the boomerang: -seems very tall -it is amphibious, (propellers on the back, splash shield on the front) -appears to be having an applique armor in front and on the top sides -the shape of lower hull seems consistent with the concepts of higher protection against ied and mines.

Hi all, I would like to start this thread to have some confirmation about which is the most correct and, as much as possible, problem-proof procedure to patch the game while playing PBEM matches. The patch is released -wait for my own turn -load up the turn -watch the action phase -after hitting the red button, and before issuing new orders, save the game -exit the game -install the patch -reload the saved game, issue orders and hit the button again, send the turn to the adversary Is this the correct procedure? Thanks in advance

Thanks womble, I understand your point. What if current "surplus" javelins were removed from the vehicle storage? Or maybe reduced in numbers (% chance of getting them on any of your bradleys for example)?

Thanks Agusto, I couldn't do something like that on my own.

I agree on the fact that there are many javelins available for US troops. There was some discussion about this already. First of all it's Worth to note that the next patch will bring quite many changes to the point values of units in QB purchase, so any discussion would be more worth it after the release, not right before.. Anyway, I belive that the main problem is the common availability of the javelin asset within US troops, in reality. If that's the case this is well modeled. At the same time I would also reduce the quantity of "free" javelins available on the vehicles, especially considering that no russian active protection system is capable of intercepting them. For example: you might discard the presence of so many RPG V2 within russian infantry, but if you'll ever play a close-quarter battle against US troops you'll see how powerful is the russian infantry thanks to so many RPGs, not to mention the ability to set up very powerful close-quarter ambushes. On the other hand there are other sort of imbalances, just think about air support and anti air assets. The russians in current game have a potential absolute control over the sky, they have powerful and varied airborne assets, they have missile and combined missile/gun anti-air assets, they can shoot down any plane/helicopter or drone, at the same time the US army has no anti-Aircraft asset (but for the manpads, which is inferior to a complex weapon such as a tunguska) and are not capable of shooting down drones. Couple this with the ability to use precision artillery strikes and you get a very powerful combination that the US side simply can't use (or at least will risk/have difficulties to). That's another form of non-balance. But all of this is about "balance" and this game is not balanced because it represents reality and a close as possible simulation. I understand that when it's down to playing quick battles against human opponents, you desire (and need) some balance (in terms of points), and that's what the next patch is indeed trying to bring us, we'll see how that works out. Meanwhile it wouldn't be too hard to set up some simple rules in your quick battles, many people already do that, and they call these "house rules", for example, one of them may be: no use of active protection systems; or, you can give the russian player a % bonus of points when playing against the US. There are a few instruments we can use to tweak balance.

As explained, that would require an entire new game with new programming and different units and assets.

If the tank with cover arc was "missed" by a missle it's possible (and realistic) that the crew didn't even notice that. The only possible alternative is if the missile in question had a laser guided device homing it. If that was the case, and the T-72 had a laser warning device (not damaged), then the T-72 would have reacted. If a tank gets shot by PK machinegun fire you can't pretend the crew to think that a 125mm gun might be aiming toghether with the PK, thus reacting to the machine gun fire as it would for a 125mm shot, if that's the case cover arcs would be useless. Player is there for a reason, to give order to the units, there's a tactical AI that takes immediate decisions and reacts to the situation as it folds out during a turn. Cover arc is an extreme tool, very strong in its way, and it's a direct order the player can give to a single unit to force a specific behaviour. Without strict and strong cover arc commands we couldn't plot ambushes, for example. In the end it's very simple: You need to rely on your troops: if you want them to be free to react to all threats then you must not use the cover arc commands. If you want them to focus on a specific area/range and ignore the rest as much as possible use a cover arc. The game gives you a lot of instruments. If you want to keep the freedom of reaction of a unit, yet still get it to fire some shots to a target you can use the target briefly command, for example. Not to mention that a cover arc command can be taken away/modified the next turn.

Very interesting and quite easy to add in game.

I have conducted some tests (while making a dense urban map), and from the top the RPG-7 Always scored a full kill out of abramses.

Also the successive CMBS module might take advantage of the new winter environment developed for CMFI/bulge/red Thunder module.

Well, it might come in one of the modules.