DreDay

Good day gents. I am an "old school" CM/CMSF player that has also spent some time with the latest CM WWII titles as well. One major shortcoming that I (and many reviewers) have found in this (otherwise) amazing game engine is a low level of situational awareness and reporting from your subordinates (i.e. your units on the map). As a battalion/battlegroup commander you should be getting real time reports on the contact that your subordinates are making and the fire that they are taking. Those reports might not always be timely or accurate; but it is a duty of any CO to report such events to their superior in a chain of command. The lack of such features had made the real time mode completely unplayable for me in a past. So now I am wondering if the developers are planning to add any new features that would aid the players with situation awareness (especially in real time)... What do ya'll think about such features and do you miss them at all, or am I on my own here?

Ok, I see what you mean. Those are fair points. So let me put it this way then - there is no chance in hell that US will fight Russia over Ukraine in a near future and there is no "f'in" way in hell that China would somehow get involved in such conflict; so you're right - Chinese involvement is even less feasible; but both scenarios (US or China) are completely unfeasible to begin with. Can we perhaps agree on that? If we can't, I am sorry - but that is as far as I am willing to debate politics on this forum. Cheers!

Well there are multiple reasons for scout teams having 2-6 men in most modern armed forces. For one thing, it allows them to to be on watch duty 24/7 with (at least) one scout staying awake when the others rest... On top of that, you generally need at least 3 men to cover a 270 degree area for obeservation while moving.. plus you need extra men for overwatch, medical aid, extra ammo, RTO duty and a whole host of other tasks...Think about it this way - if you were assigned scout duty... would you rather do it alone or with a couple of buddies that you can trust your life with?

First of all, as my fellow countryman you will probably agree that there is absolutely no support in our society for engaging in a war against an enemy that does not pose a direct threat to us (at least on a same or higher level than Al Qaeda did in early 2000s). There would be even less support for engaging a strong opponent (albeit not nearly as strong as we are) like Russian Armed Forces over Ukraine (that most of our countrymen cannot even find on a map). However all of that is moot point due to our nuclear parity with the Russians and a mutual distraction principle. The last thing that any responsible American or Russian leader would want to do is to escalate such conflict to DEFCON 1 level. As I've said in quite a few other threads - CMBS provides a very interesting and challenging scenario that I am really looking forward to; but their premise (as far as direct US Military involvment is not really well grounded in reality - which is something that I am perfectly OK with btw).... so in that sense PRC involvement in such cisis is just as likely as US involent - which is to say that neither one is likely to happen; yet it is still fun and challenging to consider in a game like CMBS

No offence - but you have pretty much listed 80% of NATO countries. Do you really think that this kind of a broad and ambiguous list helps the developers or the game fans in any way? If I was to follow your lead - how about: Belarus, Kazakhstan, Iran, Serbia, Syria, Hezbollah, Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina, India and North Korea for the other side? Do you find this list helpful? ....probably not - again, no offence, but that's how your list looks like to me without any additinal arguments on how easily it could be implemented and what kind of impact it would have on the game.

I pretty much agree with everything that you've written here. Chinese military has not really gained any practical combat experience since their invasion of Vietnam in late 1970s which was largely a disaster for them. At the same point, they have been acquiring and developing (domestically) quite advanced and modern weapon systems which (besides their economic and nuclear power) make them one of the strongest conventional forces in the world today. Still, so far they have cosen to assert themselves economically and culturally around the world, much more so than militarily. I personally believe that to be a very smart (although somewhat unscalable strategy); but still if we are considering fun and challenging (albeit not very feasible geopolitical scenarios - a-la Russia Vs. US); it would be very nice to see the Chinese military in that mix either as a module or a separate title. I would be perfectly willing to pay for either...

I am glad that you agree. As for the rest of your post - I have already mentioned this in a couple of other threads... The scenario of US/NATO conventional force confronting Russia is certainly interesting and attractive from a gaming perspective; but it is absolutely unrealistic (Thank GOD!) in a near future because of a near nuclear parity between both sides... That's my personal view on it and that's as far as I am willing to carry on a political debate on this board. Now as far as the other countries that could be added to OPFOR - the obvious choice would be Russian "Eurasian Union" allies like Belarus and Kazakhstan. Still, those countries mostly use older Soviet equipment (much like Ukraine); so the actual impact on gameplay would be minimal Now China, on another hand, has a very unique set of equipment and a different doctrine from other Russian allies; so their addition would in fact add a lot more substance and depth to the game... but such scenario would probably have to be released as a different title in the CM series due to the amount of research and development that would have to go into it.

I agree with most of your points, except for Russian Naval Infantry. Their OOB is almost identical to that of regular BTR battalions. Obviously they are somewhat better trained and motivated than average Motor-Rifle formations; but their equipment is almost exactly the same. I feel that Russian Airborne units (VDV) with BMDs, BTR-Ds, 2s9s, 2S25s would be much more unique and interesting than Naval Infantry...

My bad, I did not realize that. Still though, my original point stands - it would make much more sense to ask which OPFOR and BLUEFOR formations would you like to see in a new module...

Thank you good sir for clarifying this. It certainly makes sense. I am well aware that individual gamers can make their scenarios based on any location; but it would also be very interesting to adjust the tactics based on the (mostly) open steps of Eastern Ukraine vs. the rolling hills of Crimea. Seems like a very wise and sensible decision by the game designers.

I very much appreciate Battlefront soliciting the user input on future modules. But if I might make just a small suggestion - perhaps it would make more sence to split this poli into two areas - upgrades for the OPFOR (Russia and Eastern Rebels in this case) and upgrades for the BLUEFOR (NATO and Ukraine). The game developers have a very admirable history of releasing new units for both sides in their modules. So perhaps one could vote for having VDV for the OPFOR and Polish Army for the BLUEFOR as a part of a single module?

Just out of curiosity - has Battlefront reveald which areas of Ukraine would be used as battle locations for the game scenarios? There is a big difference between the terrain of East Ukraine (i.e. Donbass) vs West Ukraine vs Crimea... Based on the game's title - the action seems to take place around the Black Sea.... but is it based in Crimea/Kherson or Odessa or Mariupol?

I see your point, SF personel are not some kind of supermen and they are subjected to the same fatigue, morale, and stress factors as regular line infantry units. At the same time, they do use special weapons that are not available to regular infantry (like silenced/supressed ARs and Sniper Rifles); and their overall level of training allows for a higher degree of camouflage and spotting than regular infantry units (regardlress of their readiness and training). Hopefully this can be simulated in CMBB as it would allow for a wider range of tactical choices and scenarios.

That is true, but than again - they are not planning to buy any more T-90s; so realistically speaking a T-90AM is more than a fair substitute... Now if you really want to make it interesting - consider the fact that ARMATA (aka T-14/15) is supposed to go into service in 2015...

Mine technology both (anti-personel and anti-tank) has definitely improved tramendously since WW2. Nowdays we have "smart" sensor activated AT mines that target the side armour of passing vehicles with little to no human interaction. There are also all kinds of sisemic sensors to activate entire minefields based on certain input parameters (i.e. a group of 10+ men). Not sure if we would see that in the initial release of CMBS, but it would certainly be an interesting tactical option to consider for future releases.

Very informative. Thank you for the refference, good sir. Hopefully we will find those in future modules.

Interesting mix of ERA setups on those T-72s. Ukranians had equiped their older T-72As and T-72Bs with a same "angular" turrent pattern that was used on T-64BV and T-80BV. We saw those pieces in Georgia during the war of 8.8.2008. However there are some pieces here with more advanced turrent pattern as well. Are those Kontact-5 or Nozsh plates on the newer vehicles? Does anyone happen to know the answer or have a reference source about them?

On a side note, Tunguskas had supposedely used their missles (and not just guns) to engage Chechen strongholds in the first battle for Grozny. From what I've read, they were actually quite effecive... to the point of leveling small buildings and collapsing several storys of large stractures in one salvo.

Russians utilize a combination of guns and missles on their modern short-range AD platforms (i.e. Pantsir, Tunguska); which seems logical and reasonable. I am not aware of Shilka usage in Grozny (as opposed to Tunguskas that had some serious issues with mantaining their combat effectiveness in such environment). However, it definitely gives them a nice tactical option to use such systems against enemy infantry and light vehicles in low-threat environments.

That is certainly a reasonable assumption, but please remeber that CMBS can be used to simulate different scenarios and campaigns (not just NATO vs Russia). Would Russia have an air superiority if they were to fight Ukraine one-on-one? ...most likely... Then again, what about a case where Russians go in covertly and avoid using their air power (which is exactly what has happened in August of this year)? It would be really nice to play out all these options in CMBS...

Agreed 100%. It's a great platform for low-intensity conflicts with limited SAM and AAA threat (which are mostly the kind of wars that we are fighting now); but it is very doutfull that it will be able to operate in a conflict where the enemy fields advanced AD systems and associated C3 network (which is a scenario that CMBS presents to us). Exactly the same can be said about SU-25, btw...

You are correct when refering to an older (pre 2000's) Russian OOB. At this point though, they use a lot more silenced weapons (like VSS and AS Val) at recon/sniper company and spec ops team level. Same is the case with our (US) guys as well. As I've said before, silenced/supressed weapons are definitely a factor on a modern battlefiled and it would be nice (if possible) to see that in CM games.

That is entirely dependant on the cadre of troops that are involved in a particular enagement. If you have special forces and proper recon units - then the role of silenced/suppressed weaopns would be a major facrot. On the other hand, if you only have regular mechaniaed infantry - then, inded, there would be very litle use of such weapons.Similafly, the battle editor in CMSF allows you to designate your regular infantry units with a highest degree of training. However, Special Forces units' training and equipment are on entirely different level and that is not something that the older CMSF engine can handle... \

I am glad that we can agree on this I guess that depends of your definition of major. Both Russian and US SF and Recon units use a wide variety of suppressed and silenced ARs and sniper rifles. These weapons have a major influence on their tactics (i.e. support team suppresses an enemy strongpoint while the silenced snipers pick out enemy personnel from a different position without being spotted). I am not sure what kind of reference source you are looking for here. Just look at standard kit of Russian and US SF personnel and you'll see what I mean.... When I am talking about the special forces in context of CM, I am not expecting some super-ninja SWAT-like teams that kill all their enemies with king-fu death-grips in CQB. I am referring to scout/sniper teams with superior training, better camouflage capabilities, better spotting, and some suppressed/silenced weapons that are effective to 200-400m. So I don't feel that the game scale is at issue here. Now if the developers tell us that this can not be done with the current engine, so be it; and I will certainly not loose any sleep over it. But if it can be done, it will add a lot of new interesting tactical options to the current engine.