DreDay

Panzersaurkrautwerfer, I think that we are pretty much in agreement. I really have nothing to contest with what you've written. My original point though, was that SOF units would use max firepower/aggression when facing an enemy that is likely to succumb to it; otherwise they will stay low and slow and rely on the support assets to deliver fire missions on their targets, while staying concealed as much as possible. Would you not agree?

I certainly don't expect any "magical bonuses" either; but it is perfectly fair to expect the elite SOF (or Sniper/Recon) team to have better concealment skills and tools than an elite mech infantry team... As for using SOF teams as simply "Bad Ass MoFos" that kick ass and take names - that can certainly apply in asymmetric scenarios; but would not work when facing a (relatively) comparable foe. SOF ops would not survive against Tunguska fire any longer than regular infantry grunts; nor would Spetsnaz troopers bare a direct fire from M2A2 any longer than their Motor-Rifle counterparts...

I really don't want to turn this into a big argument (especially since I very much appreciate your contributions to CM community); but I just don't get why you refuse to acknowledge that SF teams have a unique skill sets that don'y not quite correspond to those of Elite Mechanized/Light Infantry teams... As for the spotting system, I have no idea of how CMBS is coded - so I would not dare to speak with any degree of certainty; but I do know algorithmic logic fairly well, so I can't image why the CMBS developers could not put in a condition along the lines of: If (unit.class == SOF) { unit.concealment = .5 }

With all due respect, I do not agree with this line of thought. The focus on realism and authenticity is what sets CM apart from other RTS games... Well... it might not be an ideal, nor the most realistic way of handling this; but like Panzersaurkrautwerfer has already pointed out - that's nothing new to CM... It's simply a compromise that allows for unique options and tactics that are representative of what a real-life commander would face... With all due respect sir, I happen to know a few things about algorithmic logic as well. There is absolutely no reason why another condition could not be placed in the spotting algorithm that would lower the chance of SOF team being spotted. We a talking about a couple of extra lines of code here...

Why not sir? What's wrong with having an SOF team having +50% (just as an example) concealment bonus; or let's say +50% lethality bonus when operating within a building? Surely that can't be that difficult to program in one of the future modules...

Kieme, I understand your points, and I appreciate you taking the time to express them so thoroughly and eloquently. At the same time, I have to respectfully disagree. CM engine already has allowances for special skills that are utilized by certain teams (i.e. engineers and FOs). SOF teams would fall into the same bracket. There is a difference between a top level Mechanized/Light Infantry team and a Spec Ops team; as certain levels of training, equipment, and SOPs are unique to SOF units. I personally have never served - so take it for what it is; but I have quite a few close friends that have served in US light infantry/mech infantry/marines for many years and have risen to E7+ levels through multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. They are about as good as their branch of service has to offer, yet they would be the first ones to admit that SOF guys are on entirely different level. It has to do with unique tactics, equipment, and drills that are the SOF guys are taught. Now as far as CMBS is concerned – the last thing that I’d want is a bunch of uberman green berets (or Spetsnaz) that are bullet-proof and wipe out their enemies at first sight. I see the Spec Ops guys being just as vulnerable to enemy fire as any other infantryman. However, it’s only fair to have them utilize their unique skillsets that are not used by regular infantry units. Obviously this would come at a higher price and rarity level.

Not sure that I follow you friend, please explain. I have re-read your earlier post regarding this; but I fail to see why a slight increase in some abilities would make the SOF teams into Rambos... They would still be just as mortal as anyone else; it's just that they would be better than regular infantry in some parameters (i.e. sort of like engineers are better at spotting mines, or FOs are better at calling in strikes).

I am not so sure about this claim. ATGMs have their own propellant boosters, so I don't see why the gun tube type would matter so much... I mean, what about BMP-3/BMD-4 that have low velocity guns that still fire advanced ATGMS?

Right, I've heard something along the same lines as well... My overall point though, is that the SOF units use unique weapons (whether it's SCAR-H or HK 416/417) that would be a welcomed addition to CMBS...

I was thinking along the lines of US SOF using weapons like SCAR-L/SCAR-H, MK46/48, and others; hopefully "tuned up" with latest thermal sites, suppressors, and other add-ons. By the same token, I would like to see Russian SOF armed with AS Val, VSS Vintorez, KSVK, and some other (imported) sophisticated sniper rifles... again with advanced sights and such. I would also like to see SOF units to get additional bonus for concealment (and possibly CQB).

Thank you for your input Kieme. I have followed your contributions for a while, and have a ton of respect for what you have accomplished so far. I completely agree with your points and that's why I had limited my experiments to the vehicles that have similar attributes (besides actual models), like BTR-80 and BTR-82... What I am curious about - is whether anyone has had any luck with fixing some oddities like wrong hatch and door openings in CMBS vs. CMA/CMSF...

I am sure that the Russians would have loved to secure a land corridor to Crimea; but if you look at their actions - they have never made a decisive effort to push for it. Their "vacationer" BTGs had strict orders to stop short of Mariupol in the summer of 2014 (per multiple sources)... so I see no evidence to indicate that they had considered it to be an easy or even feasible task, as they had never made any effort to accomplish it... even when the ZSU forces seemed to be in disarray.

Good point. Along the same lines, it would be nice to see more military buildings/objects, like radar towers, tents, storage depots and such...

Thank you good sir! Loking forward to trying this out.

No. At best that gives you a rough equivalent of a Ranger battalion. Special Forces use unique equipment, org structure, and skill sets. I seriously doubt that. A few hunderd of T-72B3s have been upgraded so far and most of these seem to be going out as a replacement for T-80BVs. The overall Russian size of Russian active tank force is estimated to be around 2500, most of which are T-72Bs.

I don't want to start any drama here, especially since I have absolutely no remorse for the treatment of Tsarnaev brothers... but I can't help pointing out that a person who makes bold and unsubstantiated claims that the terrorist bombings in Russia (that have taken many more lives than these two scumbags) were carried out by Russian government and not Chechen terrorists, is so fired up and vindictive about two Chechen terrorists that have carried out an act of terror on our soil... Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture?

It is certainly uncommon to have SF units take part in mechanized battles; no argument here. However, why do you want to limit CMBS scenarios to mechanized battles exclusively? What's wrong with having a couple of SF teams assault a strategically important bridge or some key compound? The game engine is flexible enough to handle such scenarios and the newly added SF teams should fit quire organically into it.

That has been my experience as well when talking with Russian historians and foreign office personnel (back in a day when I had access to them). I have heard quite a few say: "this kind of a mess would never have happened back in Stalin days" or "Stalin had gotten our country to the peak of its strength" (which might be a little debatable, but certainly not ungrounded); but by the same token, I never got an impression that any of them would like to relive those years... Oh I feel you. I have dazzled in ALB/RD quite a bit as well; however I think that you would agree that a small sample of Russian forum members there and an even smaller portion of them that praise Stalin are not a viable population sample.

I agree, but whom exactly are you refering to when you say that? Have you met a lot of such people? If so - where and when?

I might be mistaken, but I have seen zero evidence of BTR-82 being deployed. I believe that originally it was designed as a vehicle for Police and Interior Troops who would not be expected to face enemy AFVs... Still though, it does not appear to have gone into service so far. In any case, the focus of this thread is to share experiences and tricks that will help with introducing CMSF/CMA models in CMBS..

[ I hear that argument a lot, as it has pretty much been accepted on our side of the pond. All the historical evidence that I had seen (and I would be a first one to admit that I am not a historian) seems to contradict these claims. Which is not to say that Stalin was not a brutal dictator; but I personally tend to think that this line of thinking (i.e. "Stalin was worse that Hitler") has been fed to us for reasons that are less than objective... And this is coming from someone who absolutely despises Stalin. That I agree with. Russians do need to have some closure with the Stalinist era and it would not be prudent to completely demonize him; however, he is certainly not a character that deserves to be celebrated and honored either.

Panzersaurkrautwerfer, you make a very good point. I completely agree that it is way too simplistic and short-sited to say that all powerful states are equally bad (or good) in their actions and that their military and geopolitical ventures should always be held to the same standard. My original point is that they all operate with intention of pushing their geo-political, military, economic, and (less so) ideological interests; but the way that they go about it is by no means universal. For the record - I don't believe that any of them are evil (nor righteous); and that their actions are driven by (first and foremost) the natural dynamic of foreign affairs (i.e. how much they can accomplish based on their strengths and weaknesses vs. those of their rivals). The tough question (that many observers, myself included) struggle with - is how do you evaluate such actions from a moral/humanitarian standpoint. My personal view is that the value of human life is the most essential standard when evaluating the actions of these states. Unfortunately we (US) do not have a good record on that end, as we have easily been directly responsible for more deaths than any of our geopolitical rivals post WW2. Again, that's not to say that our rivals have not done tons of damage as well; but there is no escaping the fact that our military ops have brought more death and suffering to civilians all around the world than those of Soviets/Russians/Chinese/Vietnamese/Iraqis/Serbs post WW2. An opposing view (which I don’t quite share, but still very much respect) is that the freedom of expression and speech is the ultimate virtue that is worth fighting for. On that end, we (thank God) have done a much better job than any of our rivals. The point that I was trying to make above though - is that all powerful and independent states strive to strengthen their national interests – that is an ultimate goal of any strong country, which is to be expected. Are they all equally bad (or good) in their actions? Absolutely not! However, the impetus for their actions is generally the same, while the execution might be quite different..

My two biggest pet peeves that I would love see addressed in the upcoming patches are: 1) RPO-As and RPO-AMs need to be buffed in their accuracy, penetration (i.e. enough to penetrate light APC or non-reinforced walls), and anti-personnel lethality. I personally find both to be completely useless right now; which does not seem to be the case IRL, based on Russian appreciation for them. Moreover, Ukrainians have an extremely short supply of RPO-As - both for their designated RPO teams (each gunner should be carrying a pack of 2 tubes instead of one) and supply vehicles (i.e. one RPO per vehicle) 2) ATGM and RPG/LAW teams wait to reload their weapons before following the "flee" order which often times leads to their death before they can seek cover; this is completely counter-intuitive and goes against standard training/SOPs for such units.

Hello friends. I would like to know if any of you have played around with moding existing vehicles in CMBS by replacing them with models from other CM 2/3 games. I have recently experimented with replacing OOB Russian BTR-82 (which has never gone into service) with models and textures of BTR-80 from CMA (which are still extremely common in Russia and Ukraine). My results were quite pleasing. There are still some issues (as expected) with hatches and exit doors; and of course all the parameters for the modded BTR-80 are exactly the same as BTR-82, but everything else seems to work great and definitely adds to the realism of the game. Has anyone else played around with this? If so, do you have any tips or advise that you could offer? PS: In the interest of full disclosure - I legally own both CMBS and CMA and have absolutely no intention of sharing my personal mods with anyone else, nor trying to monetize them.

On a quick side note - this mod from Stagler (which is excellent, as we should not expect anything less from him at this point) can also be used to represent DNR/LNR forces who are mostly using Flora; which is almost completely extinct in Russian regular formations... PS: Stagler - do you still have your Gorka uniforms for the Russians available for download somewhere?