Kieme(ITA)

Another thread about steam, I really start to dislike this campaign, people with no real interest in participating on CM discussions come on these boards, make quick accounts or use old accounts only just to push an already over-discussed subject, which received in the past all the attention from developers it deserved. Besides, I don't really see the necessity of publishing a direct link to buy another (steam) game on this board, since we discuss of CMBS here. I am glad that the more of these threads pop up the less Steve will be interested in steam. So, to all those who are opening this discussion over and over and over again from time to time: good job!

Shouldn't be hard to make some mods to accomodate Chris' suggestions, a dedicated map genre would require some careful decision by the maker, but a few mods could improve the sensation. Leafless trees for example, scorched earth due to extensive secondary fires, little use of the green grass Tiles and high use of the Yellow grass ones, destroyed buildings or skeletons of such buildings, use of thick fog to simulate smoke coming from fires all around the fields... The only big limitation I see now is the lack of specific equipment for the infantry. Even a simple gas mask over the face would be convincing enough for the sake of aesthetics.

I don't belive this would fit CM games series, considering their scope. Besides, there are so many potential scenarios that would fit the game scope to fill 50 years of game development at least. Some special mods/campaign could be intended that way, such as the US war campaign for CMSF, but other than that I belive this is just out of scope of any CM game.

Hehe, *points finger at nose*

"Under construction"

I am sorry Kettler, but I can not take your words seriously. It's not the first time you reference to special connections of yours, sensitive information and such. At the same time you say you are not to disclosure what these sources are, adding sensitivity and secrecy as justifications. This is a public internet board dedicated to a videogame and while I recognize that some people here are, or were, involved in the armed forces, I really don't buy other people talking about special sources, secrets etc. thus posing themselves over the Others of us normal people who have no special connections to military or governative agencies and are just here because we like the subject or the videogame. I find this attitude a bit insulting. I am all happy to discuss with anyone about what we like, tanks, armed forces, events and such, but when I read someone telling me he is "sitting on a trove of intel of varying sensitivity which may or may not be allowed to use" I feel like I am being joked around. It's like a kid saying "I know the president of USA thinks this but I cannot prove it, so you should take it as granted, because I have connections". Really cuts any wish to discuss further for me. I respect any personal opinion, even very deep or strong analysis done by some people here, but they never refer to secrets, special information to prove their ideas that only they have access to. If someone thinks differently than me or has a different opinion, be it, different points of view, but I cannot respect someone who say or infer that his opinion has more strenght because he has access to information I (and all the Others here) don't have access to. Phrases like: "Whole categories of important-shocking-mind-bending matters of which you likely know nothing". I really have no connections with US government, army, or agencies, I am here willing to discuss about anything for what I know, but if you come up with phrases like that I just consider you a fraud. Really, I can't belive someone with such connections would write things on a video game discussion board (with all respect to BFC of course). And the fact that you expect me to belive this kind of things and treat you as someone who is doing a big favour to us by giving bits of special information from the inside, is insulting.

I think that another way to deal with the ATGM poor performances (terrain/aps systems) would be to go on another direction, instead of keeping a measure/countermeasure race: back to good old kinetic energy weapons. A new generation of medium caliber weapons (higher than 20/25/30mm automatic guns, lower than a 105/120mm MBT gun), mounted on IFV hulls or a new hybrid hull smaller than that of an MBT, larger than that of an IFV. Or a vehicle capable of withstanding the fight against IFVs, given that a tank is still the best way to deal with another tank, while an IFV is not the best to deal with Others IFVs (due to their low survivalability and infantry carring bourdens).

I am all in favour of australian troops too, I just hope there will be something new compared to what CMSF had.

From an uploader point of view I welcome repository changes with broad open arms.

Although, even an X-com game could represente a 1:1 soldier and his movements with a good approximation, and it's not really an FPS. Ayway, I agree that simulaton special units combat in detail using CM engine as it is now would be like pretending to use a wooden log as toothpick.

I see your point, I am just not sure that CM games developers imagine that route to take with further expansion of the game development. If we take a look at what came in the past 7 years, since CMSF came out, we see a precise path: new mechanics were added, graphic improvements, AI editor options, etc. although I don't see any decisive step towards a more detailed infantry combat or representation. For example: I belive that in such conditions a single soldier should be represented as a unit, that would require a lot of work, not to mention the spotting issue, should be completely reworked. Sound spotting is in game now, but it's basic. I belive that the amount of work needed to modify the actual game engine to cope with your idea would be so high (especially when compared to just following the development trend) that creating a new engine/game from scratch would make more sense.

Not sure the actual mechanics would fit such a specific level of simulation of a specialized infantry combat. For example: spotting and sound suppression should be completely remodeled. But you can perform some kind of scenario with such idea in mind. I remember CMSF 1st mission of Marines campaign.

I don't use a specific site, I just search for random pictures of the real things. Mainly I refer to Zaloga's, Markov, Kinnear books, although I also have a gap concerning the last decade. NONA 2S9 AVENGER AN-TWQ-1 and Maybe US Army didn't develop short and medium range AA assets due to their confidence in air superiority? Or are they really that behind in anti Aircraft mobile units? Because there sure is a gap between them and practically all EU armies too, which have developed heavy AA vehicles of various kinds.

BTR-RD This brings to 8 the total number of potential versions of BMD family vehicles for future modules (VDV dedicated vehicle). Pus the NONA S9 which might be or not considered off scale for the game pourpose. Then there are about 4/6 vehicles of special kinds. I am in big difficulties with US Army equipment, does anybody have any idea of what could be added?

Yes, that hummer has Ukr VDV symbol on the side door. So, in a VDV confrontation we would have Ukraine VDV: BMD-1 BMD-2 BTR-D (bmd without turret) BTR-D with SZU (?) Hummer (uparmored and with NSVT) BTR-80 (bar armor version) - according to an above picture. Russia VDV: BMD-2 BMD-3 BMD-4M BTR-D BTR-MDM The only vehicle in common would be the BMD-2 and, possibly, BTR-D. Is this right?

Hand launched drones require some assembly prior to their use.

Ukraine Unidentified Hummer version:

BMD-1 appears to be still around:

Ukraine: BTR-80 (bar armor version) Please note the chain hanging on the front lower hull:

Now that we have vehicle mine clearing technology, how about this one: USA M1 Panther

That's the problem, does a trained marksman (military) get a sufficient benefit from having a modern optic at short/medium ranges (not talking about sniper rifles) to justify the investment of equipping him with it? And how do compare two trained marksmen (military) when it comes to shooting with and without such aid? Do their performances differ much or little?

BTR-4E (bar armor version)

BMPT-64

BTR-T

BTR-D and BTR-D/ZSU TOS-1a Prolly more of an off-map support vehicle, but its range is limited, so might work? Can't say. BMO-T BMP-T