Centurian52

I disagree with that last part. There are trade-offs. Turn-based is easier on your hardware, and has the advantage that you can replay exactly what happened in all parts of the battlefield over the last minute. But there is nothing more frustrating that watching your pixeltruppen mindlessly continue to carry out an order that you've just realized will get them slaughtered. In real-time I have far more precise control over my pixeltruppen. I can do things like cancel their movement orders the moment they come under effective fire, so they are never moving without fire-superiority, and I can have very tightly controlled area fire. My own feeling is that sometimes turn-based is better and sometimes real-time is better. I always play small scenarios in real time. My hardware has no trouble handling small scenarios in real-time, and I can see everything that is happening so I don't benefit from be able to rewind to check out action on other parts of the battlefield. The largest scenarios pretty much have to be played turn-based. My computer struggles to run those large scenarios in real-time without stuttering, and it is impossible for me to see everything that is happening without being able to rewind the action.

And I was emphasizing how valuable a whole new game would be, because there is only so much we can do with CMBS. The 14 T90Ms we've seen on Oryx are hardly what I would call large numbers. And CMBS doesn't have T-72Bs, T-72B3Ms, T-80BVs, T80Us, or T80BVMs. It does have T-90As, and those are more common than T-90Ms (perhaps common enough to warrent representation), though those should still be rare in scenarios based on the current war. So yeah, until we get a new game, scenarios using what we have in CMBS should mostly limit the Russians to T-72B3s (perhaps very occasionally they can have T-90As). My point is that I was agreeing that a full new game based on the current Russo-Ukrainian war would be nice to have.

The T-72B3 is the only Russian tank in CMBS that is actually present in large numbers. So a realistic scenario representing the current war in CMBS would have to limit the Russians to the T-72B3. Same goes for the Ukrainians and the T-64BV (actually The Military Balance 2021 says they should have had about 100 Bulats at the start of the war, but I haven't seen very many Bulats show up on Oryx). In order to represent the other tanks that they are using in large number in this war (T-72B, T-64BV 2017, T-72B3M, T-72M/M1, T-80BV, etc...) we would need BFC to release a new game or module that included all of those vehicles.

YESSS!! This war could definitely use the full Combat Mission treatment. We can do some stuff in CMBS (limit the Ukrainian tanks to T-64BVs, limit the Russian tanks to T-72B3s, give the Americans Ukrainian uniforms and voices so we can use their Javelin teams, etc...), but it is fairly limited and doesn't come close to representing the full scope of the war as it has unfolded. We need a whole host of different Russian tanks (T-72B, T-72B3M, T-80BV, etc...). For the Ukrainian side we need the T-64BV 2017, Warsaw Pact tanks (T-72M/M1), western vehicles (largely APCs, MRAPS, and Humvees for 2022, but IFVs and tanks will also be needed for 2023), artillery, small arms (seeing a lot of M4s in the combat footage these days), and anti-tank weapons (NLAWs, AT4s, Pzf 3s etc...). New formations will be needed. The Russian side will need L/DPR forces, Wagner mercenaries, and the VDV. The Ukrainian side will need the Territorial Defense and the International Legion. It's a lot, which is one reason why BFC might choose not to do it. But I think it would be worth it. And there may be a strong market for it, it being a recent and highly publicized war (by the time they release it (obviously it's still an ongoing war at the time of this post)). My guess is that the soonest we can hope to get it is 2025. Assuming that the war ends in 2023 and that CMSU takes two years to develop (I am absolutely in favor of calling it Combat Mission: Slava Ukraini). If the war ends in 2024 then adjust that estimate to 2026 (and so on if it lasts longer, although even at my most pessimistic I don't think it will go into 2025). In order to cut down on the amount of work needed the easiest thing might be to release the base game with just enough content to represent the initial phase of the war, from the start of the invasion to the Russian retreat from Kyiv. And then release modules to cover later phases in the war in order to ease the burden of cramming all of that equipment into the game. The fact that between CMSF2 and CMBS a large chunk of the equipment is already done should make it a bit more feasible.

I second that! If only it weren't for those pesky opportunity costs. I want more niche wars and theaters, but those are the very wars and theaters that are not likely to give BFC a strong return on investment. I bet there's a strong market for Vietnam or the Pacific, but Steve has already pointed out elsewhere that there is no way the CM2 engine could handle that much vegetation.

While I would absolutely love to have it, I suspect it is way too controversial to even be an option.

Not to beat a dead horse (I know deep down that CMGW will never happen, so at this point this is just about correcting historical misconceptions), but while life on the front may be boring and monotonous, I doubt actual battles in any period of warfare have ever been that homogeneous (in the pages of history you can probably find two battles somewhere that were practically twins, but I expect that is the exception). There would be considerably more variety than that, even just in the static warfare phase on the Western Front (so not even considering static warfare on the Italian front, Gallipoli, the somewhat more mobile warfare of the Eastern Front, or the mobile phases of the Western Front (and of course different armies with different TO&Es on the Western Front)). So far Hapless has done four videos on WW1 engagements, three of them in the static warfare phase of the Western Front, and each of them has been dramatically different from the others. The simple fact is that a trench is not a trench (well..it is a trench, but it's not the same trench). There is considerable room for variation in the shape of the front line, the distance between the lines, the relative elevation (is the opposing trench on flat ground, the top of a hill, base of a hill, on a reverse slope, is the second line elevated enough to support the first line). Some trenches could be caved in from bombardments, have more or less barbed wire or mines in front of them, they may be parapets instead of trenches (in some places the ground was too hard to dig deep trenches), the placement of bunkers and other hardpoints along the line would vary, there may be defenses in shell holes in front of, behind (in support), or instead of a contiguous trench line. And there are evolving weapons and tactics. Bayonets in 1914/15 give way to grenades as your primary close-combat weapon in 1916, with increasing numbers of rifle-grenades and light machineguns to provide support in the attack. Companies and platoons give way to squads/sections as the primary maneuver element as command responsibilities are filtered down to lower levels, etc... Remember that trenches were still in use in WW2, it's just that there were new and better ways to break through those trenches. And I don't recall anyone ever complaining that any two attacks on fortified positions in WW2 were all that similar (I personally found CMFI Gustav Line pretty interesting, even though it is specifically focusing on a period of several months of almost WW1 style static warfare in Italy). Is my point that Battlefront should make a WW1 game? No. I already know that will never happen. My point, as a military history enthusiast first and gamer second, is only that pretty much any period in military history is far more interesting and varied on closer inspection than it may first have appeared, and that includes the periods that have a reputation for being monotonous.

I think it would be more interesting than you think. They would be high density, high casualty scenarios (for both the attacker and defender). Your chances of taking the opposing trench line is actually pretty good. The issue is holding against the inevitable counterattack and taking the second and third trench lines in order to fully break through the enemy's lines (taking subsequent trenches will probably be out of scope for a given scenario anyway). You would have to think very carefully about your artillery fire plan, as you would have very little chance of changing it once the scenario starts (no man-portable wireless radios (and the field telephone back in your own trench has probably been cut by the enemy's artillery)). On the bright side, from 1916 on at least, you have plenty of artillery to build your fire plan around (of course, so does the enemy). This probably couldn't work in CM2, since it would require changes to how pre-planned artillery works. The ability to preplan for a battery to fire on one target for a set amount of time, and then lift and fire on another target, as well as some mechanic for creeping barrages would be needed.

I suppose they figured that was worthwhile because most of the work was already done. And in any case, I'm not the one calling the shots at BFC. While I do think CMSF2 is a clear improvement, I thought CMSF1 was perfectly serviceable (and I still enjoy CMA, even though it hasn't got an engine update). In an ideal world we would have every single theater of every single war (both historical and what-if) all in the latest and greatest engine. But we don't live in an ideal world. BFC has finite time and resources, and there are so many theaters in so many wars to cover. I'd rather they spent their time providing us new theaters, rather than just updating the ones they've already given us. I would absolutely be in favor of a Combat Mission game covering Poland 1939, Norway 1940, and France 1940, since those theaters haven't been covered yet. But CMBB and CMAK both do an excellent job of covering the Eastern Front and North Africa respectively. Yes, the CM1 engine is not as good as the CM2 engine. But CM1 is still the second best engine in the world after CM2.

We already have CMBB though

So my read on that is that my chances of selling you on Combat Mission: Great War are somewhere between "not a chance" and "not a chance in hell" (too much stuff that isn't already on hand (I believe between Rome to Victory and Fire and Rubble we have most of the rifles we'd need, but there are all of all of those early tanks in the late war, direct fire artillery that would need to be modeled in 1914, and lots of new uniforms), company sized "squads" in the early war would stress the hell out of the engine, etc...). Oh well. Maybe someday a dev somewhere will deliver a realistic tactical level WW1 game. In the meantime CMCW has gone a long way towards reducing the number of itches that need scratching (and I'm excited to be getting the BAOR and Canadians, plus an extension back to 1976!).

I'm digging for details on the Canadian army. Leopard 1 for the tanks as we already know (Leopard C1 specifically, which Wikipedia states is equivalent to the Leopard 1A3 with a laser rangefinder (I'm stoked to be getting both the Chieftain and the Leopard 1 in the same module!)). Although apparently Canada acquired those Leopard 1s in 1978, so I think that means Centurions in 1976 and 1977 (probably still some Centurions left over later on). For small arms they have their own FN FALoid, the FN C1, and the FN C2 for their squad LMG (C1 modified for the LMG role (automatic fire capability, heavier barrel, fold out bipod (I believe this makes the Canadians the first NATO force we're getting without a GPMG))). I'm not sure where to find information on specific squad and platoon organization. Anyone got any more details?

I just rewatched Battle Order's video, and you're right. He says they have the MAW "by" 1980, meaning they've had it since before 1980. But he also says that mainly applies to the mechanized infantry in practice. In the light infantry it is supposedly more common for the MAW to be a platoon level asset, not a squad level asset.

My own feeling is that the low point for the US as far as balance of conventional forces with the Soviet Union was in the mid to late 50s. That's when you have the Pentatomic Army doctrine. Conventional ground forces were viewed as having little importance, so US ground forces were neglected. The Pentatomic doctrine left US forces too dispersed to either attack or defend effectively, at a time when the US Army was not yet mechanized enough to concentrate quickly (I've heard it described as an overreliance on assets which did not yet exist). The lack of German forces in the early 50s to add to NATO's strength also probably hurt the overall NATO vs WP balance. As far as equipment is concerned the M14 probably does not stack up as well against the AK-47 as the M16 stacks up against the AK-74, and my guess is that the M47 and M48(A3 or earlier (the ones with the old 90mm gun)) Pattons probably don't stack up as well against the T-55 as the M60 stacks up against the T-62 (although I would love to test this, so an early 60s expansion to CMCW would be welcome). Mid 60s to mid 70s are also a contender since the Soviets have the T-64 at a time when the Americans don't even have significant upgrades to the M60 to help close the gap. I definitely think that by the mid 60s some sanity had returned to US Army doctrine and there was a realization that conventional ground forces would still be important even in the nuclear age. But obviously it took some time to catch up.

My approach as well Step 1: Find the enemy long range AT assets (AT guns in the WW2 titles, ATGMs in the modern titles). I don't go so far as to use 2 man scout teams, since I am usually content with regular sized fire-teams. Step 2: Destroy the enemy AT assets (preferably with accurate mortars/arty, but ultimately by any means available (pop up/shoot and scoot attacks with my tanks will work in the modern era (ATGMs take time to guide or lock on, and modern tanks are accurate enough to hit distant ATGM positions) if I have no assets available that will allow me to avoid exposing my tanks)) Step 3: Profit (tanks and IFVs can now provide close support to my infantry assaults on enemy positions and I can roll up the enemy defenses)

Yes, but there has always been an operational and strategic layer that went unsimulated in Combat Mission. Combat Mission is about fighting battles, not winning wars. But yeah, as difficult as logistics are under the best of circumstances, amphibious operations make it an order of magnitude more difficult just as they make it an order of magnitude more critical.

I have put a little bit of effort into trying to work out what a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would look like. I expect we would see very high force to space ratios (in contrast to Ukraine, which has low force to space ratios). The other side of the high force to space ratio coin is a lack of strategic depth. So very bitter struggles with lots of troops committed to defending every inch of ground. I expect we would see contested landings. The initial waves of Chinese troops would be supported only by light tanks, which the Cold War era Taiwanese tanks might be roughly a match for (unless Abrams have started to arrive by then, in which case the Taiwanese tanks might actually stand a chance against the Chinese MBTs that would come later). For the fighting over Kinmen I would expect to see a massive Chinese artillery advantage, which I would expect to be inverted on the main island (land based artillery is probably not the easiest or fastest thing to unload from a ship). The Chinese disadvantage in land based artillery on the main island would be offset to some degree by naval support, but I don't know enough about modern naval warfare to comment on that. I expect Chinese air superiority, at least in the initial phase of the invasion, simply on the grounds that an invasion is a non-starter if they don't have air superiority (if the Americans have established air superiority over Taiwan before the Chinese can invade, then I expect there to be no invasion (or the Chinese invade anyway and just get massacred (as the Russo-Ukrainian war has taught me, just because it's a stupid idea doesn't necessarily mean they won't do it))). In Combat Mission terms I expect dense, infantry-centric scenarios on beaches, urban terrain, and mudflats, supported by light armored vehicles and air power (and whatever modern ships provide in support of ground operations) on the Chinese side, and old armored vehicles and artillery on the Taiwanese side. It will definitely be an interesting game. Hopefully it will be depicting entirely hypothetical events that never actually take place.

I decided to browse through Battle Order's videos to see what we've got to look forward to. This is the British rifle section we'll have through this timeframe (saved the video URL at the timestamp for the late 60s-mid 80s section): So it looks like an 8 man rifle section consisting of a four man rifle group (plus the section leader) and a three man GPMG group (including the 2IC). That'll be five L1A1 rifles in the rifle group, with two of the riflemen being equipped with L1A1 rockets (M72 LAWs) by default, with a possibility of equipping more of them with L1A1 rockets. And two L1A1 rifles and an L7A1 GPMG in the GPMG group. As we get into the 80s it looks like one of the L1A1 rockets is replaced by the L14A1 MAW recoilless rifle (Carl Gustav) with the MAW gunner's rifle being replaced by the Sterling SMG. Should be interesting.

My life aspirations in a nutshell

I've never developed a game. But I've learned some programming (C++ and Java, covering material from basic flow control up through data structures). Even with the relatively small projects I worked on (I think at most my code was in the hundreds, not the thousands, of lines (class projects and hobby/practice projects, never got up to making anything useful)) it seemed there were always bugs to squash. I could never predict when I would solve a particularly tough problem. I would be tempted to add features, which would often be big improvements but which would often require a dozen other changes which would introduce new bugs. I know that time and energy are resources, and that you need to be disciplined about what you focus on and flexible in how long you expect it to take. So yeah, I get you. That experience is one of the main reasons that I'm not one of the ones demanding new features and updates on short timelines (not that there is any shortage of things I'd like to see (whatever performance improvements you can squeeze out of engine 5 will be highly appreciated)).

If it takes 2 years per module, and they follow the pattern I described (forward next to 85, then back to 72, then forward to 89, then back to 67) then it will take another 6 years to get to 89. So even under the optimistic assumption that we will ever get the late 80s at all (there seems to be a surprising amount of pushback on the idea (and the way things are going in Ukraine a future update to CMBS might give us Leo2A4s vs T80Us anyway)), it is going to be a while. But what the heck. Since it's a testable prediction that I can't backpaddle on if it turns out that I'm wrong I'm going to go ahead at call it for 6 years to 89. That will be 2029, so we will get to play out the events exactly 40 years after they didn't take place.

I appreciate your assumption that we'll get another timeline expansion back to 1972 when the German forces come out A little extension to the timeline with every module would be pretty nice. For my part I would like to see some oscillation, with it expanding backwards every other module and forwards every other module. So for this first module we are going back to 1976, perhaps for the next one we can go forwards to 1985, and then back to 1972, then forwards to 1989, then back to the 1967. I am eager to see both earlier and later stuff. From 84mm armed Centurions, the Conqueror, and M48A3 to the M1A1, Leo2A4 and T80U. Although that many modules may be a bit optimistic. Yes people are complaining that late 80s would be a repeat of CMSF. But for one thing I'm not sure that's the worst thing in the world (first, because it would be balanced by earlier content in which the Soviets have more of an edge (and you can always play as the Soviets in the later period if you think things are getting too easy (I know I enjoy taking a bit of a beating from time to time)), second because CMSF is my second favorite title after CMCW), and for another I'm not really sure it would be so one-sided. Sure the Americans have the M1A1 Abrams, which is a lot tougher than the M1 Abrams we got in 1982, but the Soviets have the T80U, and the Americans don't have the Javelin yet (still have to make do with the Dragon). And ultimately, just how CMSFy the late 80s would be is one of the things I'm very curious to find out.

I couldn't find exact information on when the last Centurion in the BAOR was replaced by a Chieftain. But I'm confident we will get Centurions as well, same as we got M-48s with the Americans. It takes a long time to replace old equipment with new equipment. So much so that through most of history most armies have operated two or three tiers of equipment. You might have the newest and best equipment, which has only been produced for a few years, operating alongside older equipment that is slated for replacement, but which is still so numerous that it still forms the backbone of that equipment type, both operating alongside even older equipment which still hasn't been fully replaced yet (three tiers). Or if the newest equipment has been around for a decade or two it may have been produced in large enough quantities to form the backbone of the front line units, but the older equipment is still around in second line units, in storage, and perhaps in limited numbers in front line units (two tiers). The US only managed to get to a single tier with the Abrams because the thing has been in continuous service for 40 years without replacement (IIRC there were still M60s in reserve units as late as the 2000s). For my part I expect the Centurion to perform pretty similarly to the M48A5s we've already got. It's a first generation MBT that has been upgraded with a second generation gun (the 105mm L7 (I would absolutely be interested in rewinding the clock far enough to get those 1st gen MBTs with their original 1st gen guns (Centurion with its old 84mm gun and the M48 with its old 90mm gun))). So that's 1st gen armor, optics, and horsepower, with 2nd gen firepower.

Since we are rolling the clock back to 1976 are we likely to see more Soviet frontline units in central Europe armed with AKMs instead of AK-74s? CMA has plenty of Soviet troops armed with AKMs as late as the early 80s, but I assume that's because the units in Afghanistan are lower priority units for new equipment than the units that would be pushing into West Germany. Obviously, as the name suggests, the AK-74 entered service in 1974, so some would have been produced and issued by 1976. But I suspect that 2 years might not be quite enough time to replace every old AKM in frontline units with a shiny new AK-74.

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.