exsonic01

Thanks to share, fair enough, it seems Taiwan has good enough amount of palm trees. Maybe some far-south islands of Japan would have too. But I would still argue these cannot be a "Fareast Asia" or "Northeast Asia" which covers Korea, Japan, and Northern China. It would be better to be described as "Southeast Asia".

I'm not claiming "CM must depict all those features shown in videos". But there are some parts, like SIGINT/ELINT/counter battery/ and etc..., which can be depicted inside the current CM time / length scale frame. Plus, I really wish next CMBS series with increased scale and I truly believe CMx2 engine (and upgraded engine in the future) has an ability to depict larger scale battles with more toys and more features. This part is my wish, but I think CMx2 engine has huge potential to become a game of depicting larger scale battle with "modern" technologies, which would includes some or little p

https://www.tradoc.army.mil/Portals/14/Documents/MDB_Evolutionfor21st (1).pdf After years and years of COIN-oriented operations, US armed forces are trying to increase their full-scale war readiness in a way to develop and prepare their forces and structures based on "multi-domain battle" doctrine. These are far future plan concepts, but as far as I know, US army is slowly but steadily trying to change their forces to meet new demands from new doctrine. I hope these contents hopefully convince devs to prepare next modules of CMBS with more features of "modern" ba

This is Vietnam, isn't it? Palm tree, rice field, tree house... As a person who has relatives in Korea and China, I can tell those are not Far East Asia (Northern China, Korea and Japan). Those are typical of South East Asian terrain and structures like Vietnam. Maybe you could claim as Guam or Taiwan, and I think Guam would be fine. But even Taiwan does not have that much amount of palm tree as far as I know.

So is that mod a So is this a Vietnam war mod? Because I don't see any Far-east Asian nation units or terrains. It looks like... Vietnam with Abrams tank? Could you introduce us more?

Do you have any detail about this battle? Kinda curious how combat flowed. And indeed, this is another example of how "small forces can maneuver and fight in huge map with many assets"

Good point, level of micro would be burden, and that is one of the reason why I brought AI issue. But if some controls are automated, then it would still be possible and reasonably enjoyable for turn based game IMO. Well, I just used concept of OMG for easy explanation, nothing more. +1 to this comment. Also what I wish to add is, not only the larger maps, but also other idea should followed. Like advanced / automated AI, ELINT/SIGINT, more artillery munitions and counter battery, light infantry and SF infiltration, etc...

OK, so it is just estimation based on btvt sources, not Thai army official or something, right? Still, thanks to let me know. I don't know about Nizh and Duplet's true capability. Tanknet or sturgeonhouse (there is a sturgeonhouse link about Nizh discussion in earlier replies of this post) still disputes towards this armor. But at least I also kinda agree, based on international armored vehicle conference presentation, looks like current CMBS UA tank's ERA might need some buffs.

I understand. I understand too big maps might bring frame rate and performance issue, and big maps will take huge time to make, and there might be a limit of game engine and computational burden which might be related with performance issue. And indeed, you are right. Phase of game will become slow, on-foot infantry will take forever to cross the map. As a person who do a coding as a part of career, I do understand all those headaches. But still, I think for "modern" battle, we need bigger size. If 10km x 10km is too large, maybe some optimization effort would be needed. Or, how about f

Any source about this data? Title of document?

Got it, thanks, I will be careful to separate Russians and pro-Russians. But any source about this info: pro-Russian separatist artillery and mortars?

I found the source myself. https://www.janes.com/images/assets/111/80111/The_Czar_of_battle_Russian_artillery_use_in_Ukraine_portends_advances.pdf Report from Janes mentioned But it also mentioned So it was work of both SoF recon + SIGINT operation.

Well, in real-life Donbass campaign, Russians were mostly based on BTGs rather than brigades or division operations. But this is because of unique political motivation which I don't even need to mention. However, in CMBS, the game hypothetically suggested what if scenario of full-scale attack of Russians to UA. In this case, I think regiments, brigades and divisions are major part of any Russian OMG (Operational Maneuvering Group). But there will be small-formation and small-group skirmishes of course. So, I wish if future CMBS module provide a larger map, like at least 10km x 10km

Good, we all wish next module of CMBS or any modern CM series would nicely cover modern battle.

Figure 4 of the report I linked also describes about potential weapons capabilities of Russian BTG during Donbass campaign. One or two Rocket arty company, and one or two tube arty company. BM21, BM27, BM30, and 9A52-4 as rocket, and 2S19 (direct and indirect) and 2S1 as tube. It coincides with your comment of "higher level". And yeah I agree "typical BTG" of Russians are not that arty-heavy, but "Russian BTG during donbass conflict" looks like particularly reinforced artillery capability. My guess is probably Russians and pro-Russians increased / reinforced their artillery capability in