Kieme(ITA)

Yes it does. I belive the amount of ammunition could be dependant on the portion of the system being used, but I am not sure about that. Anyway I remember a T-90AM intercepting 3 shots before it couldn't intercept the fourth, but I am not 100% sure.

Given that the building simulation is abstract (this means that the real "defence bonus" a unit gets while standing inside a building in game is given by more factors than the large empty room you see with your eyes), we should also remember that CMBS simulates the use of passive personnel defensive equipment, which isn't just helmets, such ballistic protections often lead to a lightly wounded soldier in a situation where a WW2 soldier would have been killed; therefore, despite the number of highly deadly weapons in the modern warfare the single soldier has, in most -but not- all situations, a higher survivalability than he could 60 years ago Anyway, RPGs have HE/fragmentation warheads and thermobaric munitions, the first are very effective in covering a large area with "shrapnel", the second are extremely Dangerous when used against closed spaces; let's not forget that the HEAT warheads are effective against buildings and walls as well as vehicles.

I am open for discussion on the bad aspects of the game and I agree with some critics about them, but this personal 1-man war against Steve, BFC etc. is getting boring and annoying.

Now take a look at this picture. It shows the lower part of the carousel, where the explosives are stored horizontally, see the cavities where you could see them if they were stored like in a combat situation. As you can see they are directly exposed, there is nothing between them and the crew compartment, this means that any fragment of hot metal getting inside such comparment can hit any of those explosives without encountering any metal obstacle. If you wander what's under those three seats you can see in the previous picture... Another ammo rack... So, in conclusion, you have a fighting compartment housing something like: 22 High Explosive rounds (100mm), located in the turret. 18 High Explosive rounds (100mm), located behind the turret under the passenger seats. Each round (and I belive missiles too) requires and has a propellant charge to be used (separate). Each round has a mass of 13 to 15 kg, add the explosive of each charge... To the above add the available missiles (3 + 5), plus the 30mm rounds. Considering all of this I really can't find anything strange that the game sets a high probability for a catastrophic explosion when it comes to the BMP-3.

Another storage, 5 rounds (If I am not mistaken missiles), it's on the left sponson... (take a look at the extreme left of the picture) As you can see it is designed to take 5 rounds, they are practically in direct contact with the left armor plate, the top one and the one covering the tracks... they are few centimeters from at least 3 crew members and as you can see there's nothing between them and the entire compartment (same goes for the red carousel you can see on the previous photo). Here they are when stored:

The BMP-3 is filled with explosives, not just the turret carousel... This is how exposed the carousel is...

To get more units working (like administrating several battalions), would require a re-scale of the entire management of units within the game, like a tactical AI which takes control of an entire platoon and manages it in the parts of vehicles/infantry squad/teams, as fit by general orders and/or terrain. The game would change scope. You can repeat the above over and over up to the commander in chief level, but it's just another game.

Now this is a twist I didn't consider... But aren't campaigns "baked", therefore already protected?

Indeed, and that was implied, as any user can take the map/scenario coming with a CM title and change it as they like. The problem isn't there as long as there is one side who buys and one who makes out of it other things for free. The problem only comes if the side who pays also gets money out of it, a Whole can of Worms opens up.

Oh, plenty of reasons. The strongest one in my opinion is because that would kill mods. An example? I modded all CMBS russian vehicles, with the aim of acheiving a dirty/realistic looking and changing the green colors of the original textures. A thing that would have never happened if BTR, another user, had researched and changed such textures in a green color fit for the subjects, without his mod I would have never made mine. If he had his mod for sale I couldn't use it to make my own out of it nor I could sell it (and I never intend to). Pay-for-mods is a bad formula, it shrinks the modding community, it ruins it in many ways. The above is just an example. But all this discussion on pay-for-mods has nothing to do with the BFC battlepack product.

I made several mods for CM games and I feel like this "battle pack" that has been announced is not a mod per se. While it is true that it will be done with the tools that are available to any one who owns the game, at the same time it's also true that any kind of content made with such tools is extremely intensive in terms of time, dedication, historical and technical research. Therefore I belive that such content is not a modification of content already available but it's really new content. If the author was Steve, owner of BFC, would you call it differently? No, because the substance is the very same. I am looking forward for this new kind of product within the CM family. When it comes to the price vs quality/quantity of the content we can't say anything until we can purchase and avaluate such product. And I am one of those who fought against pay-for-mods formula.

All CM games are designed with a given force size in mind. Terrain size, control capabilities, unit compositions, are all structured in order to enforce and make possible to control forces of that given size (or better, from 1 single unit up to that size). You could field more units of any kind, but that wouldn't mean you could actually manage them as well as you would with less. The concept is that you might have a small map, with a platoon to control, and that platoon is part of a bigger force that fights on nearby locations commanded by other officers. Extend that frame and you can give the player a company size force, but the concept is Always the same, as IanL pointed out, the force you control does not represent an entire army or front, it's just part of it. CM games right now allow for a perfect fit up to battalion level forces in my opinion. Anything larger becomes harder to control.

How would you handle vehicle tracks in a PBEM match?

Well, there are situations where you wouldn't like that, for example when your BMP is at less than 1000m and is engaging an enemy on the side or rear. In that case you do want the 30mm to be used as a first option, at least for the first few seconds of the engagement. If the missiles are Always preferred then you'd have the 30mm used only against infantry, and you would most probably lose fights where your missile drops due to a misguide or hits a tree and a 30mm burst would have made you win immediately... My conclusion is that right now the system works, but it's not perfect. Given the amount of possible situations the only improvement to the system would be to give us players a button (or more than one) to set the bahaviour of a specific unit when it comes to multiple weapons Platform. For example: -"use missiles only" -"use mix" (what we have now) -"use gun only" Other than this I can't see how any modification to the actual system might work, again, due to the variety of possible situations that you can find on the field.

Did some tests with BMP-2M vs Bradley at 1000m, the BMP-2M always engages with 30mm gun and kills the Bradley. In one test: At 2000m the first 30mm burst wasn't effective enough (despite striking the Bradley with few shots) and the BMP-2 engaged with a missile, the Bradley did the same, Brad's missile arrived a second first and killed the BMP, which dropped its missile. All in all seems to me the BMP-2M does fire their missiles, but this behaviour depends on range and target type, moreover, against "softer" targets the 30mm gun is used at least as a first strike weapon, and I find this correct.

In a quick test I had 3 BMP-2M against a single M1 (conscript, facing sidewards), only 1 BMP managed to fire against the M1 (before being killed), and it fired a salvo of 2 ATGM. Range was 1000m.

Repeated the test, the BMP-2 Always engages with an ATGM right after a complete positive spotting, a second one if the first one misses.

Just made a quick test. At 2000m range, perfect conditions, a BMP-2M (regular crew) spotted a T-64BV, immediately engaged with 1 missile, it dropped short on the ground at 500m, immediately fired a second shot (same turn), it reached the target and destroyed it.

Can we say that, apart from a SU-100 a some other things, BFC might pretty much cancel the CMRT winter module?

I might be wrong but the latest patch upgraded all BMP-2 ammo to the kind that can penetrate the Bradley.

When it comes to fire support I feel that the BMP-3 can give you quite an advantage over the BMP-2. At the same time, the best all around BMP is in my opinion the BMP-2M, and it's not a case it's also the most expensive one. Consider this: if you need to shoot an enemy infantry squad hiding inside a building, the BMP-3 will shoot some 100mm HE, but being such projectiles airbursts they won't have the impact you'd expect on the structure. The 30mm gun of BMP-2 and 3 can do extreme damage, but only BMP-2 will Always use it as its main weapon in this situation. The BMP-2M grenade launcher is a bit of a hit and miss, and useful only at close ranges (otherwise it's good for some suppression).

I would so as womble suggested, create an AT team dedicated to the mission. If you don't have a specific AT weapon you cna split a team (like a recon team) and hope a sub-par AT asset will be in their inventory.

After some thoughts, I have decided to buy the new CM title, given the following: -the game, given the contents, setting, new features, feels to me more fit as a Normandy module. -despite the higher price (when compared to previous CMs in terms of contents) I have decided to buy it because I want to support the CM games series. -with the above stated support I have higher expectations for the next CM title (more content and/or new setting) and the future modules of existing titles (especially for CMBS, but this is a personal remark). From what I infer from information and screenshots posted around I would have wished for at least more tree types (let's say a small conifer to represent younger trees and a large conifer with branches reaching the ground).

My personal view on tank riders and the new CM game is that this particular feature is something I relate to CMRT, where it was first introduced. Now, a new feature that is ported from a game to another one sure is important per se because it keeps the available content at a higher level, but it's not as groundbreaking as it was within the previous title. Therefore, while I do appreciate the work necessary to adapt such "old" feature to some of the new vehicles (which is new work), at the same time, it doesn't add as much as it did with CMRT... let's say its marginal value has decreased a lot in front of my eyes.

Thanks for your reply. What I personally didn't like is that most of QB maps ported from CMRT to CMBS didn't fit the situation, first because they were seen already in a previous game and second because most of them didn't fit the modern setting, and this was marked especially by road and buildings layouts. At the same time I do realize how difficult and time consuming it is to create a new map from scratch. And while I recognize that some maps could fit the game and the temptation to port them all is very strong, I would personally prefer less maps but more fit rather than many not fitting very well.