DreDay
-
Posts
477 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DreDay
-
-
No, the idea that China would get involved in such a conflict is even less grounded in reality than the idea that NATO would not come to aid of a country that wants to...join NATO. Throwing China into the pot would just make it look like BF wants to add China for no particular reason. Say what you will about the US becoming involved in a Ukrainian conflict, but the fact remains that the US, UK, and doubtless other NATO militaries have been and are conducting NATO exercises in eastern European nations such as Poland, and I highly doubt that's because they just find the scenery of Poland to be pleasant.
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!
-
And one more thing, I'm looking forward to the drones in cmbs, because I think it will save me from a lot of scout lives being wasted. Because I also wondered, why isn't there a 1 man scout team? It would save me 50% of my men and I would be 50% harder to spot. I only need one set of eyes to scout anyway. It's that 2 men split away from my squad is a big deal, when I only need one guy to scout. I mean it's the same thing, if 2 scouts get ambushed, what's the difference how many scouts die, it's not like anyone is going to get back to relay the information.
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?
-
Sorry, not even close. Given the backstory to the game, America showing up is far more plausible than China showing up which, like I said above, would be too much of a stretch.
Given the economics of game development and the game's region, it's probably safe to say the US Marines and British Army will be among the first NATO combatants added in a module. Poland is probably also a strong candidate. Germany....maybe. Their military isn't all that geared right now for a big-time military clash, and politically their population is very much against deploying the military for offensive operations. That, and to paraphrase one of the ISAF commanders, their performance in Afghanistan resembled an "aggressive camping trip."
There'd also be of course the whole psychological matter of sending the German military back to what was its graveyard in WWII.
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
-
NATO Eastern Europe
Poland
Romania
Hungary
Baltic States
Possibly Czech and Sloval batttle groups
NATO Western Europe
UK
France
Germany
Belgium
Holland
And of course we must have US Marines and Airborne/Air Mobile (if nt already covered by US Infantry bttalion - I suspect that could be Mech Infantry, not Light Infantry)
Possibly Itally ad Spain
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.
-
Argh!
Don't say that too loudly. We don't want to scare the developers off of a brilliant idea.
When it comes to China, I know very little about the actual performance capabilities of its troops and its equipment. I can't think of a recent "classic" invasion being carried out by China in modern times to analyze. Their tactics to conquer the world look mostly like them building schools, water treatment facilities, wells, and roads in whatever third world country who's mineral and labor resources they want to exploit. They do this before first blowing them to smithereens, and then they haven't, thus far, tried blowing them up afterward. And, honestly, this tactic to "win hearts and minds" seems to be doing very well for them. Of course, it helps that Western countries are endlessly pouring their capital to build state of the art factories on China's mainland, but that's a topic for a different thread, isn't it...?
So, I "sort of" get why you feel the developers would need a lot of time to dig up research on modern day Chinese military capabilities, but I don't think that China is anytime soon going to put on an all out invasion for anyone's behalf, so that leaves us in a perpetual state of guessing. There was a group of Chinese modders who invested a TON of hours into creating amazingly detailed PLA mods of Chinese units/gear/equipment for ArmA 1 and ArmA 2, but how accurate its depictions are is anyone's guess.
I say that we cheer the developers on in making their best educated guess as to what the Chinese can/can't do, and I'll be happy to open up my wallet in deference to the released product. Who knows? If some irate Chinese national wants to correct an error that Battlefront makes, they might just end up turning over valuable information over to prove their point. A month later, we'll have a patch!
Well, if a man's going to dream, dream BIG, eh?
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...
-
Yes, the details that you supplied have convinced me. Russian Airborne units it is then!
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'd like to suggest that for future modules, the following be strongly considered:
For the NATO allies, there would be...
Germany
Poland (big time on this one for obvious reasons)
UK
For Russian additions and allies, there would be...
Russian Naval Infantry (if not already present)
Chinese marines (whoa yeah!)
For all sides, I'd also like to see a significant integration of drones and low profile (meaning hard to see) combat robots.
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...
-
The OP was pretty clear this poll was not Battlefront's doing in any way.
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...
-
I think the battles start in the east/north and work their way towards Kiev. The next module with the US Marines will focus nearer the south coast and Crimea. That's just in general, the scenario designers could pick about any location that seemed appropriate as long as it fit in the storyline (nobody's waging battle on the mountainous border with Rumania).
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?
-
Actually, I'd disagree here. They are, from what I've read a minor kind of superman, to be able to do some of the things they do. Your average line grunt won't even pass Selection; that's what it's for, and the most difficult part of that process is almost invariably the endurance element. "Continuing to excel while fatigued" is very similar in-game to "not being fatigued yet".
I am by no means caliming to be an expert on this; but I am lucky enough to have some buddies that have surved in US Airborne/Light Infantry/Marine/Ranger/SOF forces. They are all tough and they are all fit (or at least used to be while in service) as hell. In my personal view - what sets the SOF guys appart is not so much their physical fitness, or even their firearms and tactical training; but rather their psychological conditioning where they are "programmed to perform their mission no matter what", which is something that regular or even elite grunts can't quite match...
True, the inputs are the same, and some of the responses can be simulated in-game by higher morale factors. But the elite units pride themselves on pushing their fitness further than "Regular" units, because they've selected the best specimens, both physically and mentally so they can.
Again, my personal (and very subjective) opinion is that the superior performance of SOF units has less to do with better fitness and much more to do with a different level of psychological conditioning (something that we would call "morale" in game terms).
Most of those wouldn't have much impact in the kind of action CM is concerned with.
With all due respect, I completely dissagree. Silenced and supressed weapons would have a major impact on small-unit infantry tacticts in this game; much like the do in real life. Of course if you are dealing with a scenario where one side has a massive advantage in tanks and other heavy firepower while the other is just using SOF - then yes, indeed their impact would be very small. Howver, those types of weapons do play in major role in small(er) unit infantry combat...
Definitely. In a game-design-scenario where any old unit can be assigned "Elite" experience and +2 leadership (the factors which affect the base ability in those areas), units from "SF" TOs should have higher base abilities, then modified up by their assigned soft values. To get SF into a scenario where pTruppen with the same soft factors have exactly the same shooting, spotting and hiding ability with the same weapon, regardless of their "TO-of-origin" (the situation which currently pertains), you'd want, as the designer, to make sure all the other units on the map were a grade or two (depending on whether the SF is Ranger or Delta, maybe) lower than whatever you assign to the SF.
Here we are in complete agreement.
-
All depends what you include in the bucket that says "Special Forces", I suppose. But even trying to add a handful of "Scout" or "Sniper" teams with maxed soft factors to represent the snake eaters, they'll have some of the same clay feet the ordinary crunchies do. The differences in physical conditioning can't really be represented (unless you downgrade everyone else to "Unfit").
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.
-
Speaking of equipment add-ons.. The T-72 upgrades the RF will receive in 2015 are now T-72B4s.. It adds a panoramic sight for the commander (the B3 is discontinued). It gives the tank a hunter-killer capability (greatly improves spotting)
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.
-
-
Ukrainian T-72's with mix of ERA?
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?
-
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.
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.
-
Give me everything Ukrainian, including the mashup jobs.
As for the US and AD, the Sgt York project was cursed and after that mobile AAA has kind of fallen out of favour in the West. The Gepard soldiers on (mostly in mothballs), but its replacement will probably be missile-based.
The Russians still like guns, maybe because they found the Shilkas very useful in Grozny.
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.
-
I wouldnt assume that for Black Sea NATO will have consistent air superiority. I think it will sway as the campaign goes along.
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...
-
It's a classic case of conflicting priorities and missions. The A-10 is great for colonial policing and third world show of force, i.e. the main missions for the US (and most other militaries) both historically and today. But against first or even second world opponents it is probably quite vulnerable.
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...
-
As I said before RF airborne reconnaissance units issue 1 AKMSB per section to the lead scout when operating in the dismounted role - which is often.
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...
\
-
1. Yes.
I am glad that we can agree on this
2. Are you sure about the 'major role' part of that statement, please quote your source.
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....
3. Terrain tiles in CM titles are about 8m x 8m from memory - One of the reasons Special Forces are special is because they work the margins. 8m is not a margin and that is what it has to do with the difference between CM and FPS games.
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.
Situational awarness and reporting from subbordinate units
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
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?