BTR

Not just about graphics. 
 
Shadows and anti aliasing still look really bad.
Performance doesn't equal graphics quality. I could do with the current graphics quality if maps were larger (we're taking moden weapons. An M1A2 can engage beyond 4k) and performance was better.
 
Also, still 1v1 MP? Come on. 

Really disappointed in what I've seen with SF2 screenshots.
 
Looks like the same old CM2 game engine. Call it upgrade 4, upgrade 100...or whatever it's called now. It's still the same engt that was developed in the late 1990s.
 
I was hoping for something more...perhaps a new game engine that would support larger maps, better terrain, better performance, better multiplayer.
 

When a 45kg round smashes 25mm armor with ~12000J at almost verticaly, I'd think you don't even need to consider how effective the tip is. That's all discounting exсluding a 9kg explosive as well. 

The bitter bit for me here is a realization that CMBS module isn't happening before 2020

Not at random at all. That's where they were last seen as part of a formation (295th MRD) back in 1990. 

Well 🇮  don't think you would have much luck in an argument 🤔 with a T90 when all your Stryker has is a 🅱achinegun or a 🅱renade launcher. Hopefully the guy with the Javelin is able to deal with the threat but maybe having the extra 🇦 TGM capability like the 👅  🅱radley 👅 🍆 💦  have might possibly be quite helpful when you go toe to toe ⚔ ⚔ ⚔  with Russian 🇷🇺  🅱eavy armour units which is obviously going t be the case. So, what reasons might here be NOT 💯   to add ATGM capabilty to all the Strykers assuming the budget were available to pay for  the work?

I want to once again open the discussion on APC and IFV squad usage for RU side.
How is it done IRL?
Every vehicle has a dedicated commander's spot.  All traditional inter-platoon and inter-company coms are concentrated around vehicle command posts. Squad Leader (SL) occupies vehicle command post unless platoon commander (PC) or platoon 2IC (P2IC) are seating there. In that case SL must sit in the back with his squad.  PC and P2IC are seated in separate vehicles (1 and 3) thus establishing comms chain and company cohesion.   Vehicle 2 command post is usually staffed by squad 2 SL or by platoon political officer in times of war.  PC used to dismount vehicles and P2IC used to always stay in the vehicle, but with introduction of C4 systems and secondary thermals on some vehicles both stay inside.  SL must dismount and control his squad from outside the vehicle in combat. So effectively vehicles 1 and 3 traditionally took the initiative and vehicle 2 followed without the commander seat occupied. In CMBS we are not given the option of splitting our platoon command, but the lack of a commander negatively affects vehicle spotting and performance. I always leave the command team inside the vehicle they are in so at least one is fully operational. I sometimes also split a scout team from squads to man a second vehicle. 

I want to once again open the discussion on APC and IFV squad usage for RU side.
How is it done IRL?
Every vehicle has a dedicated commander's spot.  All traditional inter-platoon and inter-company coms are concentrated around vehicle command posts. Squad Leader (SL) occupies vehicle command post unless platoon commander (PC) or platoon 2IC (P2IC) are seating there. In that case SL must sit in the back with his squad.  PC and P2IC are seated in separate vehicles (1 and 3) thus establishing comms chain and company cohesion.   Vehicle 2 command post is usually staffed by squad 2 SL or by platoon political officer in times of war.  PC used to dismount vehicles and P2IC used to always stay in the vehicle, but with introduction of C4 systems and secondary thermals on some vehicles both stay inside.  SL must dismount and control his squad from outside the vehicle in combat. So effectively vehicles 1 and 3 traditionally took the initiative and vehicle 2 followed without the commander seat occupied. In CMBS we are not given the option of splitting our platoon command, but the lack of a commander negatively affects vehicle spotting and performance. I always leave the command team inside the vehicle they are in so at least one is fully operational. I sometimes also split a scout team from squads to man a second vehicle. 

Again not such a lifehack, but if you want to "infantry à la russe" consider always acquiring all the RPG-26s from purchased IFV or APC that are provides at your deployment phase. Originally discardable launchers were introduced as replacement to handled AT grenades so it is accurate to use them en-masse when they are available. MG team takes 1, sniper team can be loaded with 2, and platoon HQ can take 2 as well. A BMP squad can take 3 and BTR/MTLB squad can take a rather hefty load of 4. As such, a typical BMP load of 4 RPG-26s can be fully distributed between its most likely occupants of MG or sniper section and a squad (which already comes with 1 RPG-26 by default). If you split your squad into equal teams the team with RPG-7 operator will always get 1 RPG-26 and the rest of discardable tubes will go to the second team. 
To illustrate how my infantry squads always try to look - 

Thank you and yes, those are my reskins of Vein's excellent Ru infantry reskins brought up to 2017 standard. 6Sh122 dual pattern overall is now standard issue to every soldier as a mid-season (autumn/spring) wearable. Our forces love them so much that they wear them throughout the exercises no matter the season because they provide better camo than regular EMR and because they are much more durable than issued EMR and thus help to save it from wear and tear.  

I wish CM had animated case extractions for appropriate vehicle. 

Well I wouldn't call it a full blown mod, but the tools are certainly superb. What I would call a mod is what I am working on right now - which is the 6B48 crew individual protection kit. Once it is done I will release it, the AKS-74U fix for Ru force and the 6Sh122 kitted infantry (like the pic above) all in one pack. While I was on the fence about the 6B48 initially as it is used only in several formations atm (all western MD but the arctic brigades) but there is no way to assign different crew models to different vehicles and the 6B48 provides something fresh for the game. 
WIP
 

Well there is a vehicle just like the stryker that in fact can swim so the big question is why was this ability dropped and in favor of what was that decision taken?  

You can improve or replace models, but you can't improve their function.

I think the 30mm upgrade for stryker comes from exactly the same desire to improve vehicle versatility as our 30mm APC projects. It won't necessarily change its tactical niche but expand the application within that niche. Supporting dismounted infantry from a distance with a 30 is a lot easier and more effective than with a .50 after all.  

I think the 30mm upgrade for stryker comes from exactly the same desire to improve vehicle versatility as our 30mm APC projects. It won't necessarily change its tactical niche but expand the application within that niche. Supporting dismounted infantry from a distance with a 30 is a lot easier and more effective than with a .50 after all.  

Some screens from the Gagarinina Avenue Checkpoint scenario
Tank platoon moving to battle stations

T-90A trying to spot enemies

Fire!

Close to the end of the battle, one of mine T-90 finally spots (trough smoke) and eliminate that pesky Bulat that was ruining my day


Then i was able to close on objectives and win the battle, despite losing 2 tanks 1 apc and some troops
 

See now? Building a company of Oplots takes less time than CMBS expansion

I am of a firm belief that most of what works IRL, bar with some gamey exceptions like when working around trees that eat APFSDS, works in CM. I don't particularly find it any fun to come up with tactics that only work inside CM because I can't relate to that. As such I do not find it fun to go against opponents that use cookie cutter tactics, so I don't see a need to propagate that play-style and therefore I don't think we need an explicit distinction of where what tactics are applied. 
As a fun experiment I whipped out a rando page of some rather dated marine light armor employment material (for you eng speakers) and as I expected - stuff that is said there can also be applied in CM 100% . 

 
 

I am of a firm belief that most of what works IRL, bar with some gamey exceptions like when working around trees that eat APFSDS, works in CM. I don't particularly find it any fun to come up with tactics that only work inside CM because I can't relate to that. As such I do not find it fun to go against opponents that use cookie cutter tactics, so I don't see a need to propagate that play-style and therefore I don't think we need an explicit distinction of where what tactics are applied. 
As a fun experiment I whipped out a rando page of some rather dated marine light armor employment material (for you eng speakers) and as I expected - stuff that is said there can also be applied in CM 100% . 

 
 

I got rather curious yesterday and I feel like I am getting somewhere :).
 

And a quick export later we are a go. Damn this bug bothered me since release and thanks to you @sbobovyc  I finally corrected it. 

Well I wouldn't call it a full blown mod, but the tools are certainly superb. What I would call a mod is what I am working on right now - which is the 6B48 crew individual protection kit. Once it is done I will release it, the AKS-74U fix for Ru force and the 6Sh122 kitted infantry (like the pic above) all in one pack. While I was on the fence about the 6B48 initially as it is used only in several formations atm (all western MD but the arctic brigades) but there is no way to assign different crew models to different vehicles and the 6B48 provides something fresh for the game. 
WIP
 

Do you not see the difference between solid painting the wheels which is fine and painting a shape on the wheels that spins like a kaleidoscope on the move? Former is a sound practice, latter is a marketing or pokazuha stunt. That said, I retract from discussing this here. Your mod - your rules and so forth. 

I'd hoped to postpone this post Sublime wanted done until I got some sleep and could think clearly, but time was of the essence. I'll start with a brief rundown of what happened that led to the end of our just revived game.
 
How's this? I screwed up big time and unwittingly chose the wrong size map. Worse, and I didn't know this going in, because I didn't eyeball the maps then choose one which benefited me, the high ground, from certain places and angles, provided LOS clear to the back of his setup zone, whose boundaries I didn't know, since it wasn't visible to me ever. Mine looked like a chunk of jigsaw puzzle.  I chose the map based on being Probe, of good size and not a city fight.  The combination of map size and the LOS issues have, in his view, ruined the game from out of the gate. My heavy casualties, which seem minor if you don't know how little I started with, would argue an opposing view. The long LOS let me shoot him up at/near the map edge, while a too small map deprived him of maneuver opportunities. Consequently, the game has been called. When I've had some sleep, I'll provide links to my initial position screenshot and what things look like now. But duty calls.

Sublime is a very busy man holding two jobs and has a son he shares custody regarding. He chose me, of many possible candidates, to tutor in the arcane arts of putting together a proper CMBS force, especially an American one, possibly prompted by watching my meltdown in trying to suddenly go to BadgerDog size QBs. Thanks to him, I was able to, after much coaching and encouragement, work through my feelings of overwhelm and veritable panic, allowing me to buy a force for a QB many times larger than the one I fought vs BadgerDog. 

I then compounded matters by screwing up my force buy when I got crossed up and bought Cav rather than Mech Inf. This left me very thin on the ground and without a single tank. But we can go into all that later.

Today's lesson is about sharing what he's taught me as his student. This material, especially the insights on Stryker use is CMBS, is presented by me on his behalf for the benefit of the new players, as is what he has to say about my highly unusual force buy. Presuming nothing goes pear shaped in our replacement QB, there will be an Easter egg in his part of that DAR, so stay tuned. He specializes in the Russians and utterly disagrees with the notion the Russians are nerfed in the game. He says people just don't know how to use them! Here's what, with a certain amount of translation from leet speak or whatever it's called, he texted me.

1. "If you rush or don't pay attention to what you buy, you'll wind up with a bizarre force mix."
 
2. "It was very stupid to field all those Bradleys and not one Abrams. An Abrams parked on that top hill would've been like Zeus hurling thunderbolts, and because of map size I probably wouldn't have been able to kill (the tank). The trees probably would've defeated ATGMs and no flanking maneuvers."
 
Note: I have no idea what he meant to say ref flanking maneuvers.
 
3."Instead of bizarre force picks, remember you can always pare down bigger units, and for mixed battle you must have tanks and IFVs and infantry and artillery, maybe air support. Air is iffy with the Russians, since only air controllers can call it in, whilst in the US side, any unit with a HQ can."

4. "Mines should always be the last thing you buy.If you've got the points, buy a few trenches, but only if you want to set up a heavy weapon or if RUS or UKR, an ATGM. The only fortification you should always bring is TRPs. Javelin teams do not need fortifications.

Note: I bought a very cutdown (one platoon excised outright and the second only the HQ and 1 CFV; lopped out a bunch of IRL staff and ops types, too) Cav troop (Squadron CO was big boss; he's dead now), 2 x .50 HMG, 2 x M107 sniper teams, 1-2 (forget which) additional Javelin teams, 2 sets of AT mines, gobs of barbed wire and four (is it five per?) sets  of foxholes. I bought a set of TRPs and kept both Ravens. I also bought a Stinger section and pared it down to two Stinger teams (two gripstocks total) and a guy with a Hummer as HQ. Fire support was run by two BFIST and consisted of an 81 mm mortar unit with two tubes and another with a brace of 120 mm mortars. 155s were too pricey for me, and the 120 did give me Excalibur capability. Tacair was insanely expensive, so I bought none and dumped the JTAC, too. I unloaded everything remotely useful from the Bradley CFVs during setup and parceled out the goodies where and as needed.
 
5. "You should always have one or two rifle platoons. They come with Javs and goodies."
 
6. "You should always have one Abrams, preferably a couple, with some Bradleys. Unless you go the Stryker route. Then you should always make sure you have plenty of Javelins 'caise Strykers suck! Don't rely on MG Strykers except to reduce enemy infantry positions at range. TOW Strykers and .50 cal Strykers  with Javs for armor and MGs in overwatch. .50 cal Strykers spray everything that looks like men may be in and carry troops in. always start and park those Strylers behind cover and disembark infantry. (Use) Quick or Fast move to get them close  or do what I always do with one BMP platoon and have a QRF of Strykers that can race a platoon to exploit or assist. They go in mounted and disembark, as close as you safely judge it, behind cover. Since REDFOR ATGMs are guided, unless it's a tank (you're F'ed if it is), use Fast to move the Strykers. That way you have a chance, though definitely not a certainty of the missile missing. I'd never willingly choose Strykers, though."
 
He went on to say
 
"My advice was only if you have to use Strykers. I firmly recommend Bradleys and Abrams."
 
Sublime, If I missed something, which is entirely possible, I'll deal with it when I can see straight! Thanks again for all your help--even if I'm not your star pupil just yet!
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler