Combatintman

Second definitely

I hope the ADF is evaluating it and buy it - that would make my day to see the Aussies in game.

M1A1TC - any chance of reskinning the flavour object barrels as Hesco - they're closer to the shape that's all.

Jason C, One minute you're whining about lack of content and then say you're not planning on buying the Marines or the British Module both of which will add extra vehicles and TO&Es? Hardly a reasoned argument is it?

Sure that'll be popular!

I'd love to see the Aussies in a module - although of course the downside is it means the M113 issue will raise its ugly head again!

Most units that go below 40% combat effectiveness lose all cohesion - the AI is right to surrender.

The King Tiger - but its a niche vehicle and only went into service with one army

Sorry - am I being picky here - but if we know what the surprise is then it won't be a surprise?

In addition to tea - the "must haves" are: BV (boiling vessel) Egg Banjos Curry powder

Sigh ... its in the blog - last paragraph under the last screenshot.

Gents - this smacks again of cherry picking units without calling it a points system. Quite simply if a platoon/company/battalion is only authorised a certain number of 50 cal and a certain number of grenade launchers then that is all it should have. I admit there is slightly more justification for fiddling around with individual soldier equipments because soldiers nick stuff and personalise their kit. Of course on occasions they will get issued 'gucci' kit for particular operations - maybe a night operation to lift somebody might call for the platoon to be issued with more NVGs or suchlike. However the bottom line is that the system that has been adopted is to model TO&Es as accurately as possible and I doubt Battlefront will change it.

Anything that doesn't break down/fall apart is usually a bonus!

None that I've seen. Its going to happen and should be the next release after the USMC module according to the various posts from Steve. I doubt you'll hear anything for a while to be honest.

Zwobot, According to the 1988 version of Jane's Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army it states that 'The Resistance has no made use of captured Saggers.' (Page 208 refers). Also having skim read my copy of The Other Side of The Mountain - Mujahideen Tactics in the Soviet-Afghan War - I can find no mention of the Mujahideen using Saggers. Anti-tank weapons were mostly RPG-7, SPG-9 or BT-10. So I'd delete the ATGMs altogether if I were you.

Sequoia, I doubt it - according to some comedians because of CMSF the words Combat Mission = a tarnished brand. Therefore nobody will buy it because Battlefront have 'alienated their core fans' ad sodding nauseum. They can call it what they want - I've been begging on the streets for weeks now just to make sure I've got the cash.

I'm all for having Red airpower if for no other reason than it opens up Red v Red campaigns. Otherwise within the Coalition v Syria context there is no doubt that the design decision is correct.

How do I play - badly! But it is still fun and realistic.

How do I play - badly! But is is still fun.

Roger - send SITREP over

You are kidding me aren't you - have you ever seen the women I've been out with?!! Looks are subjective - its what the engine does that' important

Adam1 - I'm just answering 76mm's questions now - I'm over the trench thing.

76mm, I don't know about the US forces but the Royal Artillery own Desert Hawk in the British Army. In Afghanistan Desert Hawk detachments have operated/been attached to Company/Squadron sized groups and because of the compactness of all of the equipment involved it is quite capable of being employed in all types of tactical operation. Remember the airframe is launched using a bungee cord - it doesn't need a runway. So to that end a company group could have an attached Desert Hawk team with the control station and one or two airframes and they could squeeze into the back of say the company commander's or company 2IC's AFV. The live downlink would only be seen by the operators and the OC or 2IC in this instance but this information could then be passed over the Company Net in near real time - namely 'Charlie Charlie 1 this is 0, enemy trenches identified at grid 123456, out'

76mm, Try these links - gives you an idea of what Desert Hawk is and does. In essence though it is a mini UAV with a realtime downlink: http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=10467 http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2003/articles/apr_03/hawk/

76mm, Well clearly you're not! Yes a system that works is a good thing - but at the end of the day I think there will be far more whinges about a whopping great decal on the map if it were to be introduced. I ain't going to die in a ditch about it if you'll forgive the pun. I do agree that the defending player should be given the option to place their own trenches in order to plan the defence in the way they want to and the fact that they cannot do so is unrealistic. Having dug down to stage 3 I know exactly how long it takes and therefore I am aware that real world time constraints preclude 'littering' the battlefield. However creating a couple of dummy positions is realistic. Modern systems such as Desert Hawk deployed down to Battlegroup level will see defensive positions - so being able to see them as the Blue Player can be justified. If dummy positions aren't broadcast to the enemy then how do they achieve their purpose of deceive and surprise plus a whole host of other things? The whole point is to 'set out the stall' to attract the enemy's interest. As has been pointed out by other posters - the default setting is 'I see trench, I call in offensive support'. Of course other effects can be achieved such as to shape the attacker into your preferred Target Area of Interest or maybe to focus the attackers ISTAR assets into the wrong area as examples. Oh and its not my reasoning - its the British Army's reasoning - the quote is from the pamphlet.