Probus

I also nominate the base T-84 as another nice unit to add to the Ukrainian side.

What's not to love?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-84

As we all know, BFC is going to have its hands full adding to the Equipment (TO&E) of the Ukrainian Army (and even to the Russian Army).  I think it would be fun to start listing that equipment here.  This can be anything from a handheld firearm, drone, or SAM to an Abrams Tank or F-16 Fighter. Please include as much information as you can and a picture of the item if you have one. e.g.
Image: Name:  Model:  Version(s):  Description:  Weapon Subsystems: (if any) Ordinance: Date of introduction: (to the month)  Links to Equipment "Wiki": What other attributes should we list that would be helpful for BFC as a resource? I'll add 'em.
If someone makes an error, please correct it diplomatically.
This is going to be fun!  
Ready, Steady, GO! o7

I'm really hoping this war will be history soon.  At that point BFC will be free to release a CMBS update.  Before then its dicey. 
Having said that, personally, I would really like a platform that I could use to test out hypothetical scenarios based on current events (but again, that's just me).

I personally like the idea of Black Sea (not referring to another future title about the 2022 invasion) remaining in the fictional 2017 timeframe. Oplots, APS, and US forces in direct contact with (well-prepared and competent) Russian forces. In this regard, I am primarily interested in keeping a little bit of distance from the current invasion and the realistic developments of 2017. I think the game should stay historical fiction (again, not ruling out a future title).
Among many pieces of Ukrainian and Russian kit, I nominate the BTR-3 as a very sexy unit.
BTR-3U Has a 30mm autocannon, 30mm AGS grenade launcher, coax, and barrier ATGMs. Additionally, BTR-3E90 has a 90mm gun for fire support, and the BTR-3DA has improved weapons and presumably better optics. Give me some of these in mixed units, likely in the fictional context of greater Ukrainian procurement, and I'm happy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-3

FV432 and YPR-765 

As an aside, I started a new related thread that y'all might fun to add to:
 

As an aside, I started a new related thread that y'all might fun to add to:
 

Yeah I often refer to my tank gunners as lumberjacks! 🤪

Good take on this.  I look at this thing as an intended rape victim fighting back against the rapist.  I don't really care how much violence is req'd to make the rapist stop especially considering the rapist could simply leave the situation and avoid being injured.  The intended victim might be the most pacifist, non-violent person on earth with lots of totally pacificist non-violent friends.  But none of those friends would say "oh don't betray our ideals and violently oppose the rape!".  They would all say to do whatever it takes to make him stop and if nearby would also use violence to make him stop.  Option B is they would say "sorry, but I am non violent.  Ouch, that sure looks like a bad situation, I really feel for you." 
To me UKR war is that black & white.  Putin is trying to rape & enslave & rob Ukraine and we are the friends who are nearby.

My suggestion is that after the first round in a tournament, the bottom 10-20% of players are cut. Likely those who didn't start or finish their games or those who got beaten badly and probably will have a hard time winning (harsh, I know). Having players, for one reason or another who don't do their part, remain for round two will just make another player angry. In my first round my oppo just played a handful of rounds. Annoying. Never was told why.

@Haidukis back. Woohoo! \o/

If the quality of their BPs are on par with official BFC products i belive they most certainly could. I would buy it in a  hartbeat...😊

Have always thought that the Taiwan situation, just like Ukraine, are battles in a much wider war with much larger implications.  As with Vietnam we have too many people obsessed with winning all the battles militarily, but failing to see what the enemy's actual objectives are, so that we risk losing the war.
The "war" has been quietly going on for a couple of decades or more.  The goal of the "war" is to determine which power bloc will have the mantle of controlling the world by having the world's reserve currency.  China and ME nations, Iran plus more and more countries that are not happy with US hegemony are banding together to threaten the dominance of the USD. 
The danger we in the west are facing is the same that Great Britain did between the 1920's and 1950's when the pound was replaced by the USD and the British empire essentially imploded.  Half a century later one can observe that GB is well on the way to becoming a 2nd world nation.  At least it's hard to see much difference between life for the average person in London and (say) Buenos Aires.
For example, if one looks at the Ukraine situation another way, Russia's persistence is demonstrating weakness in the west and more and with Chinese support more countries are quietly cheering Russia on.  The west is in as much danger of running low on weaponry as is Russia.  Our lackluster reaction to Chinese spy balloons being sent to many places in the world sends a bad message. 
 

A blockade would be the most sensible option assuming no US intervention. It would have the highest certainty of success, for the fewest casualties. Taiwan would have no answer to it.
But that assumes no US intervention. The downside of a blockade is that, out of all of the options for subduing Taiwan, it would take the longest to achieve results. If you aren't worried about US intervention then that doesn't matter. But if you are worried about the possibility of US intervention then a blockade gives the US the maximum possible amount of time to respond.
I think these considerations mean that a blockade would be the best possible option in an environment in which there is no possibility of a US intervention, and the worst possible option in an environment in which there is a high probability of US intervention.
An invasion is by far the most dangerous option, with a high chance of failure and a guarantee of massive casualties. But has the potential of achieving results in the shortest amount of time. In an environment with no possibility of US intervention it would be the worst possible option. In an environment with a high probability of US intervention then the need to take Taiwan quickly, before the US arrives in overwhelming force, might make it the only realistic option.

I live in Taiwan. The vast majority of the population here does not live in the mountains. I can't imagine the PLA would care to spend a lot of resources trying to control what geographically might be the largest portion of the country but demographically and politically is not especially significant. I don't know much about military operations, so perhaps there is some strategic value in controlling a position on top of a mountain in the middle of nowhere, but I suspect any invading force would have their hands full just trying to cross the plains where all the people live.
I think there are two parallel discussions on this thread, and they're not the same thing.
On one hand, it would be cool to have a Combat Mission style game where we could play both Chinese and Taiwanese units duking it out in close quarters on a watery map, something like around the Erren river or Taoyuan airport, for example. Quadcopters. UGVs. Factories. Rice paddies. We all know that's a game that would exist more for fun than serious simming, but there's plenty of people on both sides of the strait who would love to play it.
The other topic is what a real-world invasion - or at least military-backed pressure - would look like. And that is likely to be continued economic punishment, diplomatic isolation, political manipulation, spreading of disinformation, cyberwarfare and ultimately a naval blockade and targeted missile strikes to try encourage a critical mass of the Taiwanese population to support a government capitulation. Not really something that can easily be wargamed in the traditional sense, although it could be interesting to see a political sim go there. I suppose Kinmen might be a plausible (and simable!) military target, but I'm not sure the Chinese government would want to risk what that might turn into unless they really feel out of options.
In the real-world scenario, I think the biggest question is just how strongly the US (and Japan) will stand by Taiwan. I have my doubts about the American people's resolve, and I think the Chinese government does too, which is why the PLA continues salami-slicing the median line, building bases all over the South China Sea and flying spy balloons over the continental US. The trouble is for most Taiwanese the status quo is seen as a better situation than increased tensions with China, whereas Americans are playing a different game - they have their own competition with China where Taiwan just exists as an abstract bargaining chip or domestic points-scoring exercise - so it's difficult to get a sense of just how serious the US government is about the country's defense.

I'm impressed you have Soviet stuff still moving able to exit - mine's is having errr....mechanical issues...  

Ohhhh...I thought that was last round only. My Soviet plan is now a death trap
Is the word out to all involved that we shouldn't play the last turn? Or exit units?

Oh good point - but I bravely drove my Soviets to their deaths so makes no odds to me...
I assumed we were not playing the last turn but don't quote me. @BFCElviswill have the word.
Ekvis did post this earleir in this thread: 
Either way I've cooked my Soviet goose! Not much left to exit cept the panicked, scorched and shattered survivors of my AFVs...

Ah. Ok, thanks George. That makes it simple. 

Expression of gratitude to Battlefront team.
Like other players of Battlefront's Combat Mission series, I have my own wish list, of things I'd like to see that I think would make the game better. Now at the age of 72 and wargaming as my primary hobby for 64 years, I have learned that such expressions of "I'd like to see it done this way", appear to be an inevitable response to any set of rules and any game. Tiresome sometimes. To rules writers, game coders and games masters, such feedback can be a bit discouraging. So at this time I want to say:
I am VERY HAPPY playing the WWII Combat Missions series 'as is'. It is afterall - a game.  From my perspective it is a perfect follow-up or replacement for miniature wargaming. To me this is what it feels and looks like. Except it looks better than minis, I can field larger armies, and I don't have to learn a 60+ page book of rules!
When we gamers sometimes appear to gripe about this or that feature no implemented - we might as ourselves, "How long have I been playing these games." For me the answer is "Continuously since the release of series one - Combat Mission Barbarossa to Berlin, CM Afrika Korps etc." So I must have been enjoying it as is. No? So many years of fun.
And I LOVE having an easy to use Scenario Editor. I probably spend more time tinkering with map making, or tweaking graphics than actually playing. I have yet to play through all of CMBN's over 300 sceanrios in my collection.
In conclusion. THANK YOU Battlefront for many years of happy gaming, for your many hours of coding work, your responses to the community. Given my wonky ticker, I don't knwo if I'll be around to enjoy engine 5. I hope so.
Dr. Wilhelm C.T. Oudshoorn BA, DDS (a.k.a. WimO, a.k.a. Kandu)
 

Ah, you’re missing out Centurian. Multiplayer is where it’s at. Well worth the time. In my humble, but correct,  opinion. 

I'm actually not offended, but I invite you to take a look at it from the other side. Some of us spent a long time testing and reproducing bugs and dutifully logging them in order to help improve the game.
Maybe in a couple of cases, I've been wrong about a bug, that's possible. But in most of the cases, I'm pretty sure I have been right. And in some cases, those bugs have then been picked up by a beta tester like yourself, verified, and then fixed, which was very nice.
In recent years though, patches have been getting pretty scarce, and I'm sure there are many good reasons for that. But I'm also sure the reason is not that there are no more bugs to fix. If BFC prefers to focus on developing a PBEM tournament system instead of doing patches or new features, that's of course their decision.
The thing that triggered me was not that the stuff I like doesn't get worked on. I understand there are many different things to balance when running a business, and feedback from geeks like me is just one of them. It was more that I was getting the feeling that the community here is in general being looked down on and portrayed as irrational, childish, and unreasonable, when I think there are actually a lot of really clever and creative people here.
Not including myself, because my contribution has been mostly limited to bug reports, various gameplay change suggestions, a couple of scenarios, and trying to help people with tech and gameplay questions. And, yes, occasional grumbling.
But I think Battlefront's "typical customer" deserves a bit more credit. Unless there are a lot of angry and stupid players out there that I overlooked.

In an effort to find out what on earth "sewer movement" is (it's what it sounds like, apparently), I found a thread on the topic from 2003 and you were posting in it!   Anyway, now I consider CM4 fundamentally broken until we can trundle around in sewers again... I can not live without this... 😉
 

Extreme violence. Yeah… I’ve been suffering from some of that in the 2nd round. Man have I been suffering!! 😬

Steve's will is my command.