animalshadow

Vanir
 
Your solution, of giving the US a point bonus, works fine against the AI in QB's. The bigger problem is the *QB PBEM* scene. To replicate some kind of 'COMBINED ARMS' from CMx1 you are already going to need a butt load of rules. To replicate a modern version of 'SHORT 75' you are going to need another butt load of rules. Then to have the US player have to have another butt load of rules to cover how to spend that 40% adjustment.
 
Balancing point values is a bear, but it can be done. For instance, if you pulled the hood back a bit and we could see some of the values being used ingame we could better estimate how much 'better' a soldier really is.
 
For instance, your baseline soldier has no NVG, no armor, an average accuracy weapon and no weapon optics. Lets say he costs 10 points. Then if we could see under the hood, and knew a soldier with weapon thermals was 50% more likely to spot infantry at say 50 meters, and a soldier with NVG *and* thermals was 67% more likely to spot at that same range, now we have something to work with. Then if we say that 'normal' body armor defeats 30% of incoming rounds, but 'good' body armor defeats 40%, theres more data. Then if his weapon accuracy is say 40%, but another had weapon accuracy of 55% with optics - thats even more data.
 
If we were able to pull back the hood, you can see that everything that happens ingame is values like this: A Veteran solider, who is tired, and firing from a prone position at a point target behind a window in a wood building at a range of 56 meters is going, while under light suppression, is going to have a 14% chance of hitting on his first shot. Like any 'game' system, each one of those elements is factoring into the overall equation, and ultimatley, you roll the dice and see if you hit - no different than say taking a shot at a moving tank, from a moving tank, in ASL.
 
So if we, which we wont, have that data we could come to some concrete values about how much better any soldier in CM is than another soldier. Not this 'it feels about the same', but actual values that can help in making these balancing decisions. Again, taking ASL as an example, if you compare the American 1st line 6/6/6 squad against the German 1st line 4/6/7 squad, you can draw absolute, concrete conclusions about their relative strengths and weaknesses, by which you can start to base points off of - which is exactly what they did all those years ago.
 
My gut feeling, is that if those values were posted here we would see that the American solider is way, way overpriced for not that much more capability than his RUS counterpart - the value was a number that someone chose, and it got inflated and never rechecked. Which is fine, thats part of development, but now that the issue has been raised, lets revisit those values. 75% more points is huge - and you would expect that soldier to be that much better. In CM:BS, the average GI Joe is *not*, not even close, 75% more capable than his Ivan counterpart.
 
Just my continued thoughts - its out of balance.
 
Thanks
Chad

I can guarantee that I'm better than some Russian fanboys, who are living in the dream world like "m829a4 cannot penetrate t90am since t90am have 800mm+ KE defense without ERA" , or "T90am's shells can penetrate M1A2 front armor at any circumstances". "M1A2 are greatly over estimated" . Obviously, some Russian fantasy world lovers believe that their hope can realized beyond the physics.     
 
Russian technological inferiority, specially about core science related with chemistry and material science, is the real and main point behind all the Russian weapon vs US weapons discussions. Just simple, Russian technology and science is declining in its quality and quantity, since all smart Russians try to escape their nation, and their economy cannot support such expensive projects. 1960s and 1970s were the good days of Russian science.  Let's see, and let's observe how Armata looks like. But if someone expect Armata as an ultimate doomsday weapon which can beat M1A2 SEP v2 and Leo 2A7 like a cake, I will not convinced about that. 

Howdy all
 
I know in years past BFC has said that they dont want to *ever* get into point discussions on the QB purchases. If I recall correctly, there was some lengthy debate about the point value of the StuG III compared to the Sherman when CM:BN came out. I stayed out of that discussion because I didnt really see a problem with it - the much bigger problem was the AI purchases for me (a force of all AT guns, all mortars, all FO's or all MG's)
 
The great news is that with CM:BS, the problem with AI purchases seems to be a thing of the past - whether because the actual logic and coding was changed, or because the AI has fewer odd formations to choose from, in all the QB's I have run the AI purchased force has been pretty good. Not great, but pretty good. Certainly enough for an interesting fight. So whether intentional or not, much appreciated!
 
That all being said, when the game first came out, after snooping around in the editor first, I was curious to see the point values that were being used for modern equipment in the QB's. First, as everyone has noticed, the point values have gone way up from the WWII titles. Taking a fully patched and expanded CM:BN as my WWII example, in a SMALL ATTACK QB the attacker has 1908 points and the defender has 1185 points: a ratio of about 1.6 to 1. In CM:BS, in a SMALL ATTACK QB the attacker has 6662 points and the defender has 4037 points: a ratio of about 1.65 to 1. So while the ratio has remained the same, the points have obviously gone way up: there are about 3.5 times as many points as before. Which is fine and expected since the point values of everything has gone up.
 
I started this thread - http://community.battlefront.com/topic/117752-bug-with-american-squad-point-cost-or-intended/#entry1576371 - after release when I saw the points for American, Russian and Ukrainian squads. I was very surprised, and still am, at the point differences between them. To the point that I think the current squad point values are making AI QB's unbalanced, and destroying the option of competitive QB PBEM games.
 
Lets be specific. All point values from both CM:BS and CM:BN will be for REGULAR experience, NORMAL motivation, FIT and 0 leadership troops. A US rifle squad costs 229 points (9 man), a Russian one 88 points (6 man) and a Ukrainian one 95 points (6 man). So points per man are: US 25.4, RUS 14.6 and UKR 15.8. So that means that your average GI Joe costs 75% more than your average Ivan.
 
In my previous thread, everyone pointed out all the advantages that the US soldier has and justified the cost increase with this. So since release I have tried to look very close at those advantages and see if they justify this point increase and are **CONSISTENT** for all the squads.
 
So lets break down the advantages/disadvantages for each National squad:
PERSONAL ARMOR: As far as I can tell, everyone has personal body armor. I know for sure US and RUS soldiers do, and I have not read or heard anything that states that UKR soldiers do not. While there may be a slight advantage coded into the system for US armor, I can not tell a big difference between their protection and RUS protection - small arms seems to have a 50/50 chance of wounding as opposed to killing/incapacitating. So no clear cut advantage here. SQUAD SMALL ARMS: In the vanilla squads under consideration, US squads have M4's, SAW's, one M320, one M25 and one M110. RUS squads have AK-74's, a PKP and two GP30's. UKR squads have AK-74's, two GP25's, one RPK-74 and one PKM. US squads tend to have better optics, but I have seem no significant difference between these small arms and their RUS counterparts. As many have noted, I have not been impressed with the M25 - it sounded super cool, but its blast is just so weak that it tends to suppress more than kill. I do like having the M110 on the squad level and think its a great weapon. But, neither weapon makes any real difference to the cost of the squad - the M320 actually costs 1 point more than the M25. No again, no clear cut advantage here. SQAUD AT ASSETS: Here is where the US squads are actually at a *significant DISADVANTAGE*. The normal US squad has two AT4's - thats it. Yet, both the UKR and RUS squads have the RPG-7. In playing CM:SF and in CM:BS, the vast majority of my losses to US squads from enemy squads is the RPG-7. It is simply devastating against infantry in hard cover - one well placed shot and you lose half your squad. Not to mention the tandem warhead for actually shooting at enemy vehicles. Dont get me wrong - this is modelled correctly, thats exactly what a well placed RPG will do, and exactly what the tandem warhead will do. While the US squads have *access* to the wonderful and deadly Javelin, its not in the squad, so its points are elsewhere (ie. Javelin teams, Strykers, Bradleys, ect.). So this is an area where RUS and UKR squads have a clear ADVANTAGE over their US counterparts. SQUAD NIGHT VISION: This is where I am the most confused and this is the biggest reason that I feel like the current point system needs to be revisited. The US have night vision assets coming out their ears: both on their heads and on their weapons. The RUS soldiers have thermals on their sights, but the UKR soldiers have no night vision elements at all on the squad level. This is interesting, because the UKR soldiers cost *more* than their RUS counterparts, even though they have no NVG! Even still, I can not notice a significant difference between the squad NVG's on the US and RUS soldiers. Once the shooting starts, everyone sees fine, but before the shooting starts, the RUS soldiers seem to have no problem picking US ones out at night. There may be a small difference coded, but in practice, on the *squad* level, I see no advantage. But again, if NVG's are contributing to point cost, why are UKR soldiers, who have *no* NVG's, more expensive than RUS ones who do? SQUAD COMMUNICATION: Everyone has radios, so thats common across the board - its very nice to always be in command! But the US squad have an advantage here in that they have PDA's on the squad level. This is an advantage, but I would say not a huge one. Sure they can call in artillery strikes, but for a squad, this tends to take nearly 10 minutes to get rounds on target. During development people were debating the strengths and weaknesses of the Javelin, and one of the devs or beta testers commented on the Javelin taking 30 seconds to lock and fire - then made the comment that on the modern battlefield, 30 seconds is a long time. Well if 30 seconds to fire a Javelin is a long time, what about ten minutes! If an enemy asset is willing to sit still for 10 minutes while I walk artillery fire onto them, my squad is the last thing they need to worry about. So while the PDA does help with communication and calling in other assets, it takes so long to do so its not a big advantage. MISCELLANEOUS SQUAD ASSETS: Everyone has binoculars. US squads have two breaching (note, not demo) charges, which helps with flexibility in urban environments. So nothing huge here. So all in all, the US squads have a potential advantage in body armor, an advantage in communication thanks to the PDA, and a potential advantage at night, but again, I cant notice a difference: in playing at night, I tend to find the enemy with my US *squads* when they start shooting at me - Sniper teams with the M107 and vehicles are a much different story, but their points are elsewhere. But the SOV and UKR squads have a significant advantage in the RPG-7. Again, NVG/Thermals are clearly not a point contributor because the UKR squads, which are blind at night, have neither but yet cost *more* than their RUS counterparts.
 
So overall, I see no clear cut advantage. But instead I see the strengths and weaknesses of both balancing out. Similar to the age old question: would you rather have 10 Garands, 1 BAR and 1 Thompson, or 1 MG42, 1 MP40 and 7 Mausers?
 
So looking back to the balance of CM:BN, the vanilla US Rifle Squad cost 47 points and got you 1 Thompson, 1 or 2 BAR's, usually one sniper 1903, one AT rifle grenade and the rest Garands. So for that 12 man squad, you were paying 3.9 points per man. Compare to the Fallschrimjager rifle squad that cost 57 points, has 2 or 3 automatic weapons (MP40, MP44 or FG42), 2 MG42's, 2 rifle grenadiers, rest mausers, *plus* 2 demo charges, 1 or 2 Panzerfausts and 4 AT grenades. All that for 5.7 points per man, or a 46% increase in cost. So this squad has a significant and real advantage in firepower, and AT assets, plus the demo charges - I would expect it to be more expensive, and 50% more expensive sounds about right. Compare this against the CM:BS balance, where the US square are 75% more expensive for no significant advantages.
 
So how is this affecting QB's? Simply put, the US player is facing the red horde. When attacking if 30% of the points are set aside for artillery, support and/or vehicles assets, on a SMALL, ATTACK QB the attacker would be left with approximately 4660 points and the defender with 2825 points for infantry purchases. So if US infantry costs 25.4 points a man, they would have approximately 180 guys attacking against a SOV infantry force of about 190 guys. Carefully playing against the AI, youll win just fine depending on what assets you purchase beyond your infantry and how you use it. However, defending as the US, you would have approximately 110 US infantry against *320 RUS Infantry*. Against the AI, depending on how you use your artillery, sure you can still win, but it feels more like a zombie game than a CM game.
 
In both of these situations though, playing against a human opponent, the US player is at a SIGNIFICANT disadvantage because of the cost differences in infantry while not really gaining any clear cut advantage.
 
I have been waiting since the days of CM:BO to get back into PBEM play. The days of "1500 ME SHORT 75" bring back very fond memories. Playing on Rugged Defense, I thought the balance in purchasing points was great and had a blast playing. I was really looking forward to CM:BS to see if the SHORT 75 rules could be duplicated and a similar experience could be had. But given these current squad points, I would never play as a US force. UKR versus RUS could still work, but the US player is severly handicap because the US soldier is way too many points for no clear advantage.
 
So I ask the same question my original thread did: Are the current point values for US/RUS/UKR squads balanced? If NVG/Thermals are not contributing to points, why are the US Squads 75% more than their RUS counterparts?
 
I am really enjoying CM:BS in particular, and CMx2 in general, but this issue is leaving a bad QB taste in my mouth, which is especially bad considering the long standing AI purchasing seems to be much better.
 
Thanks in advance
 
Chad

Would be nice to see AGS-17/30 and Mk19 in Support menu like on-map mortars.
With less correction fire of course. 

Not the target consumer of CM games.
If you ask a dog about CMBS you won't get a different reply.

Glorious Comrade Tunguska:

 
Sturm-S(I'm sure that driver In his heart is happy):

If you had to rank the world's 10 most capable airforces, 1-4 or so would simply be the USAF, 5 would be the USN, then maybe France and the UK, followed by the USMC, then maybe Russia and then some of the lesser NATO countries.
 
There's simply no reasonable challenge to the US military's air control abilities.  Combined with IADS, and hostile fighters there's a chance to keep the various US aviation forces out of your backyard, but the possibility of getting a flight of SU-25s to the target is right up there with snowballs in sulfur lakes survival odds.  
 
 
This.  From my end of things I tend to exclude red aviation, or strongly limit it because I think it's doubtful it'll get on station, or if Russia surges to attain situational air parity, it's going to be for targets more interesting than a tank company or two.  Conversely the USAF in a three month sort of war against a near peer threat is going to focus on air superiority, SEAD, and what high value targets it can hit without going into Russia, before shuffling some of those strike assets to CAS.  So the June fighting would see almost no CAS, July a fighter or two here or there, before August being CAS being fairly common.  

I described what the situation currently in the Russian army with optical sights and complexes.
 
 
 
 
 
 
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/116715-cm-black-sea-–-beta-battle-report-russian-side/?p=1564057

For newbies, tooltips are super essential.  In this case, I am referring to the white/bluish icons that show the different systems vehicles have.
 
Why can't you add tooltips to at least describe what these icons are?  I am constantly having to look in the manual to see what each one does. 
 
Tooltips would solve this, and make the game much more user friendly to new players, and folks like me with poor memories.  After so many upgrades to this game engine, tooltips are still lacking.  
 
Tooltips.  White/bluish icons.  And more!
 
Please.
 
Onwards!

Okay, I know there are a lot of these getting released lately.. but I think mine are just a bit unique, vehicle icons are handled uniquely... when selected the icons flash blue for Ukrainian and olive for US units... 
 
Note that these are BETA.. I will be making adjustments, but wanted to get something out there for those of you waiting to try my floating icons.  I was going for clarity and ease of identification with this set.
 
If you download them and try them out please give me any feedback you like... I know there are some issues: for example the FOW icons, ammo dumps get the ammo bearer icon etc.. I need to adjust those for sure.
 
Grab them here: Bil's Floating Icons-BETA
 
Previews:
 

 

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE. YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED. 

Vin Arrow Bases Mod
 
This mod works with all cmx2 games. The default is the thick bright arrow, which I think is the best, but there are lots of other alternate base shapes such as a pentagon to use if you like.
 
Check these out. I think you will find them more functional, and attractive over the stock bases.
 
 

 
Vin Arrow Bases Mod.
Vin's arrow base mod.zip
 
Still doing some tweaks and testing with the Easy Vis UI.  Plans later tonight, so will probably have it up tomorrow.

Vin Geometric CMBS Unit Icons:
 
Changes unit icons to unique geometric shapes for unit categories to better differentiate between types, and to make icons smaller.
Uses different color icons for spotted and FOW to make spotted icons pop out.
Uses different colors for fortifications to make them easier to tell from spotted icons during set up phase. 
 
The FOW, and fortifications icons can be used with the stock icons, or other icon mods if desired by adding a few "Z"s to the folder name.
 
 
 

 
Vin Geometric Unit Icons - CMBS v.1
Vin Geometric Icons CMBS.zip

Vin's Animated Text- CMBS v1
 
First, special thanks to Marco for updating the mod concept's graphics to better reflect modern warfare. The preview pic shows the light version which keeps the word "spotting" as a filter that can be ignored allowing the more important icons to stand out. The heavy version replaces the word "spotting" with the symbol of an eye. Both versions replace the word "casualty" with a "red cross" in the weapons panel.
Enjoy!

 
 
*BONUS*
Right Facing Weapons Silhouettes like in preview pic.
Flips the weapons as shown in the pic to better accommodate the text so it does not cover the weapon graphic.
Now included in "Easy Vis UI" mod on next page.
 
EDIT: I deleted the files in this post as they are now outdated. Look further in the thread to find version 1.03 compatible download
 

Huh, what? No, it's not correct, and wee was right for reporting it. 

They are ready. Since there is no repository yet I have attached the .zip files here - they are only 400K or so each.
 
Here is the key:

 
I have a mod for the US including Ukraine (both red and blue sides) and a separate mode for the Russians.  My eventual plan is to create a Russian tactical symbol set because my preference is to play with the symbols used by the given army.  I do not know how long it will take me to get there but it will be a while.
 
US and Ukrainian icons
CatTacticalIconsCMBSUSNato.zip
 
Russian icons
CatTacticalIconsCMBSRussianNato.zip

Noticed that too,  it's Makarov ammo. Looking like a mistype.

Pardon my possible ignorance, but when looking Ukranian infantry squad unit roster, there's listed 9.25mm ammo, usually 48 rounds in the squad? Being quite familiar with russian origin small arms, I've never heard of such ammunition. 
 
Possible typo, meaning 9x18mm Makarov ammo? 6x8 = 48 -> six 8 round magazines in the squad?

Sigh. This was a good thread. Please don't let it get locked.

As others have stated on the Forum, BFC has really produced a fascinating and very well done simulation of a modern Eastern European conflict.  However, I am feeling a strong sense of unease while playing CM:BS due to the very disturbing fact that the CM:BS storyline is quickly merging with reality.
 
From the Game Manual on Pg. 4
 
"War in real life is a terrible, horrible thing that should only be embarked upon as an absolute last resort. Combat Mission: Black Sea is thankfully still a fictional story, and likely to remain so unless our global leaders and populace collectively lose their minds. The stories that will be created within this game can serve as a grim reminder of the human cost incurred when diplomacy and decency fail."
 
Maybe BFC will consider sending a few free copies of CM:BS to the "leaders" involved in the current situation.
 
Here is an interesting discussion of recent events:  http://www.democracynow.org/2015/2/3/is_ukraine_a_proxy_western_Russia
 
 

My feelings exactly. I finished the training campaign, but I probably won't continue with any actual campaign at this point, because the whole setting just feels too dark and foreboding right now.
It's the whole authenticity of the game that just feels troubling in a certain context. I felt the same when I first started playing CMSF in 2007. It was just like watching news coverage from the Battle of Fallujah or the Lebanon War.
 
I still have a lot of CMSF modules to play through, so there's enough fighting to do until hopefully things cool down in Ukraine.

Best of the series. Can't get this game play anywhere else.

Absolutely agree with TS.   At first, when new information on Black Sea started to pop up, I thought that this will be just CMBN "reskin" and I was too sceptical on this project, then came up new videos with unfinished textures and etc. and thought - "OMG, they're making just CMBN reskin, I'll skip it for sure" and this feeling was all the way till final release.  My friend(HUSKER on the forum ) preordered it and asked me If I'll order CMBS too. I decided to wait when game will be released and will ask him - "So? How's CMBS?". And you know, his word were just - "It's amazing!" and I decided to get CMBS, I was preparing myself for "so-so" CM. Finally, when I downloaded it I started first scenario and damn! It's really amazing. I like dev. team approach on CMBS, it really feels different and it's definitely not a "CMBN reskin" and is one or even two heads above CMSF for me. Whole week we were playing WeGO TCP/IP Scenarios and QBs. New ideas like laser/GPS guided artillery munition, ERA and APS systems, UAVs, EWS and etc. - they are so nicely done, I couldn't believe that it will be done in such a good way.   Thanks Developers and Battlefront team, - you brought me back to Combat Mission.

Well thanks to the blizzard last night I didn't have to work today!  What better way to spend a snowed in day?
 
Black Sea is the best yet in my opinion.  It's completely engrossing and consuming.  This is the game I've been waiting for since falling for modern era because of Shock Force.
 
I'm completely loving playing as the modern Russian Army.  Now I have to split my time playing as the Soviets in WWII and the Russians in the Ukraine, oh the humanity!
 
Great work gang, you continually impress year after year.  Combat Mission is the only game I've played so intensely and for so long.  Sheesh, since 2001!  Fourteen years of non-stop combat goodness.
 
Ok, I'm fawning.  But seriously, this title really deserves the praise.  Just incredible.

Nope - I prefer choice - you want to play that way you can do already don't impose it on others.