Centurian52

I've been retired now for about a year and a half and I'm absolutely loving it. But I can't play CM all day. There are too many other things I'm really interested in. For example (not in order):
* I'm 66 and been a competitive runner since I was 18. Lymphoma took a bite out of that but I'm back at it again and feeling good. But at this age I'm much slower and need more rest after pushing myself.
* My model railroad
* Amateur radio
* Reading
* Piano
* Guitar
* Things my wife and I like to do together (she's retired and has her own interests too). This should really be higher up the list 😀
* Other games (yes, there are others, haha)
You guys wait until you retire. You'll see. I mean, still not having time for everything is a good problem because now "everything" is only stuff you WANT to do. The good news is I won't be bored in retirement!
Dave

Imagine that, playing CM all day! 😁

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.

Yes, must haves for West-Germany 1972-1982.

I've lived in both China and Taiwan, and aside from a common official language (which diverges more and more each year), I don't think they are really comparable.
From my perspective, there were a lot of things I liked better about living in China, especially when it came to food, urban planning and the unpretentious culture of the so-called 低端人口 "low-end population". But there's no denying that the political system is very hard to cope with as someone who grew up in a democratic country, especially as Xi keeps turning the screws tighter and tighter. The people who grow up in China don't have the same frame of reference, so even when they can admit to flaws in the system, they don't find them as objectionable as those of us who had the luxury of coming of age elsewhere. And, of course, unless they are especially wealthy, they don't have the option to escape to a democratic country anyway, so that shapes the way they look at things. Something someone told me there that stuck with me is that the government is like the weather - it's not something you can change, it's just something that happens to you, and if it blows up your house, or your business, well, 沒辦法 there's nothing you can do. Just deal with it and move on.
To get back on topic, this is why I think the Chinese government does not care especially much about the human cost of an invasion, which people overseas sometimes point to as a reason why an invasion would never go ahead. I believe that the government has a strong enough control over the media that they can manage public opinion, at least to enough of a degree that losing a hundred thousand or even a few hundred thousand soldiers wouldn't trigger major unrest. But I do think they would have to eventually win. Losing would really burst the bubble of infallibility that the party likes to maintain around itself. And I don't think they can frame it like the Russian government could frame the Ukraine invasion, making out like it was only ever a limited operation to stamp out a problematic element in certain regions. With Taiwan you either get the whole island, or you get nothing (with all respect to the people in Kinmen, Matsu islands etc - this is how I believe China will see it). So if they do go for an all-out invasion, they are going to want to have utterly overwhelming firepower... which is why I tend to favor the view of the wonks who predict a late 2020s invasion at the earliest.
In the mean time, the salami-slicing will continue, and I don't anticipate any of the countries having their EEZ violated or PLA bases built on sand bars objectively closer to their coastline than China's will do anything about it. Nobody can afford to lose their largest (or second-largest) trade partner.

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'd be down to play some US+ROK vs NKA/PLA. 
How sick would that be as the opener for CMx3? 

Yes, Panzerfaust 44 is the same as Panzerfaust Lanze, just a different name.
But as far as I know, they had the Carl Gustav at the same time. Maybe as "Panzerfaust 84"?

@Halmbarte
Yeah, that might be confusing. The Wehrmacht used those numbers to describe dates.
But in the Bundeswehr, at least for the handheld Anti-Tank weapons, it's mm. Until the Panzerfaust-3 came and it seems to be a succession number?

Spent time on Steel Beasts as well.  For the Soviets, as far as I can tell:
125mm - not much change as the BM22 and BK-14M cover off the entire time period.  They do lose the AT8 before 1979 though.
115mm - biggest change as they roll back to the BM21 vice BM28
100mm - goes from BM 25 to BM 20. 
None of these are overly dramatic.  The Chieftain looks like it may have an ammo challenge on its hands with that APDS round, the L23A1 does not look like it came online until 1983.  The L7 105mm will be firing the M728 (already in game) as it was basically the same for both UK and US versions.  On the Leos it will likely be the M735 or DM23.  And of course all the HESH and HEAT rounds. 
Oh my this is gonna be good. 

Well that is a loaded question to be honest.  Bil H will no doubt chime in but a few factors came into play as I recall:
- Resources.  We can take a really good shot at BAOR and not cripple ourselves in development for years - along with the other BFC titles.  The core team is pretty small and we were looking for a quick, but solid, follow up to the main game.  Germany would have been a lot more work, as would  any other NATO nations, and the French were just a non-starter.  Those modules will take much longer, particularly in vehicle modelling and artwork.  BAOR had a lot of new vehicle models but much more manageable in the timelines for a first DLC.
- Locale.  The Northern Plain was actually where the most likely Soviet Main effort was going to fall.  Hate to admit it but Fulda was a bit of a sideshow in the overall Soviet plan.  It made sense game wise simply because the largest market for the game is the US, and we had a lot of details on this fight - US research is a dream as they put everything out there, Canadians are a nightmare.  That said we really wanted to do the northern plains from the start and historically that is BAOR or the Germans.
- Expertise.  We had experts on both UK and Canadian orbats right out the gate, which made research a lot easier.  I joined in 1988 and had a lot of my old battlebox stuff to pull from and some old timers I still know from up the day.  On the UK side we had similar expertise.
- Timeframe.  Late 70s, early 80s is really the “tipping point” of the Cold War.  It was when the doctrine and equipment of both sides was pretty balanced, each offsetting the others strengths and weaknesses.  Before this you get the nuclear armies, which were just nuts. And after you get the  western advantage leaning into overmatch and then we start to look a lot like CMSF or BS.
- Straight up cool factor.  So how would the UK done against the Soviets?  Canadians are fun because they mix European and US kit.  You wanna know how a squadron of Leo’s would have done…well let’s find out.  Not saying the other nations are not interesting but when you add everything up it just made more sense to do BAOR next and they would be fun to play.
As to “how will they play”…totally honest…no freakin idea.  We also had no idea on the main game.  It wasn’t until I played those first few scenarios while we were early in did we see that we were onto something.  BFC doesn’t balance for gameplay or market. They literally plug in the data from research and then throw it at each other in game. The balance is almost entirely emergent.  When we do up scenarios and campaigns there is always a level of balancing that goes on but this is macro stuff like force size and enablers.  For CMCW we were amazed at how little balancing we had to do. I designed the campaigns and scenarios based on doctrine on both sides and basically how they would have gone into a fight with each other.  The fact that these led to tightly balanced fights that require deep understanding of what each side can do was all pretty much emergent design.

Canucks are in it? I'm sold. A prequel to the Princess Patricia Regiment campaign in Shock Force is a dream come true.
Highly approve of turning back the clock. Every wargame is doing 80s right now, but the 70s need love too.
We'll need a new music thread for all our classic rock and disco.

I am very interested to see how the Canadians fair to be honest.  The Leopards came aboard in 78 (although there were smaller number integrations earlier) and before that was the Centurion Mark 11.  Game timeframe  is set 1976-1982…so some good assumptions to be made there.  As usual we aim to be as excruciatingly accurate as possible, particularly for the mainstream vehicles and weapon systems.

We wanted to concentrate on the British Army of the Rhine and Canadians first, mainly for selfish reasons and also because we have a couple people on the team who are experts on the British Army so it was the obvious choice for us.
We do have plans for the German Army too, but that will unfortunately have to wait.
Bil

Cold Warriors.
  Well it looks like Steve has already dropped the mic over on the annual update thread, so let myself, Bil H and Cpt Miller (along with a small team of unwashed heathens - two of whom are actually from the UK), be the second to announce the first CMCW Module - CMCW - British Army On the Rhine (BAOR).

We are still in development so I will only outline the broad strokes of what we are working on, and insert the caveat that we reserve the right to add/subtract - 
 - Time frame of the game is going deeper backwards into the Cold War.  We are setting the clock back to 1976, so CMCW will now encompass 1976-1982 (including some minor tweaks to the existing US orbats).  As has been noted we are less interested in the later Cold War years largely because they really do start to resemble the later CM titles and we are shooting to keep CMCW distinct in its own right.
- UK BOAR - right now we have a pretty comprehensive build planned for the UK units as they transitioned from their 1974 structures - to where they landed in 1980.  As per the picture above players should be able to become deeply engaged within the historical BAOR sector of the ETO.
- And because I just have to represent the home team, we are also doing the Canadians.  That little black box is the planned 4 CMBG AO - you will note this was right at the tail end when the brigade was still part of the BAOR, although for those that really want to play First Clash and park them down in Lahr you are fee to do so because the basic unit structures remained the same.
- We do have plans for the Soviet side, but are going to hold off on details until we zero them fully in...more to follow. 
- I will let you all speculate and discuss what new vehicles and weapon systems we are talking about but there is a not insignificant list of new ones we are planning - more as we start to get some cool screen shots.  
As noted by Steve, we are well on our way and are planning for a release this year - content and full scope remains TBA.
Thank you all very much for your support, the response to CMCW has been well beyond what we were expecting and that is entirely thanks to you guys.

Git Gud
This is actually a scenario in the current tournament and fwiw I'm having fun with it, as USSR & USA. So far my USSR forces aren't slaughtered.  

I'm definitely a proud member of the obscure content faction! Although I'm not part of the faction asking for North Africa or early Eastern Front, mainly because those theaters were already covered in CMx1 and I still find CMx1 to be perfectly playable (CMx1 is still the second most realistic tactical wargame engine in the world after CMx2 after all). But any war or theater that has not yet been covered in either CMx1 or CMx2 is absolutely on my list of content I would like to see in the future (Poland 39, France 40, Pacific, Korea, Vietnam, etc...*). But I also understand that your time and resources are limited and that my interests need to be balanced with the interests of your other customers. I am just grateful for what you have delivered, and will be excited if and when you release a game covering a previously uncovered war or theater.
*My obscure content itch even extends into time periods that Combat Mission is poorly suited for anyway (there are loads of 19th century wars I want to fight, such as the Crimean War, Franco-Prussian War, and Anglo-Zulu War). I have a particularly strong itch for WW1, which no company in the world seems to have developed an appropriate engine for. It is hard to describe how badly I want a WW1 tactical wargame (almost as badly as I wanted a Cold War tactical wargame prior to the release of CMCW), but I am captivated by the image of entirely rifle-armed companies advancing by rushes in huge extended order lines in 1914 giving way to platoons advancing by fire and maneuver with specialist weapons sections in 1918 (I blame you @Hapless, thanks a lot for making me obsessed with a time period that is not covered by even a single tactical wargame).

Absolutely agree. But both the Germans and the British should be in. It would be ridiculous to keep one of those two out. The rest matters less, although I still hope the Dutch will be there.

Here is the link. The .zip files within the Euroscape.rar need to be extracted to one folder. From there follow the word doc instructions.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dasruptr0fdl4cc/Euroscape.rar?dl=0
 

I wrote a little python script to set the elevation in the editor according to a digital elevation model. Those come in various resolutions, for instance, in Germany data for the whole of Northrhine Westfalia is available for free with a 1mx1m granularity. I then use PyAutoGui in order to automate setting the correcting height and clicking/scrolling in the editor. The script currently sets the height information for every square in the editor, not just contours.
An example height map:

The resulting terrain in the editor (3328mx1920m):

Vista somewhere in there.

The script is not terribly fast, making this map took about 7h, but it beats doing all the clicking yourself. The limitation, btw., is the editor, the script could go faster. The advantage is that you can do much better micro-terrain, I think, the disadvantage is that you can't just use an old topographical map and draw the contour lines. It would be possible to do contour lines but you'd need to have those in a machine readable format.
Anyway, if people here are interested, I could polish the code a bit and make it available to everyone, e.g. via github. If there is additional interest, I could imagine doing other stuff that way, like, for instance, drawing roads from Open Street Map.

I concur ... My bolds from personal but not well-remunerated experience 😒 at the coal face of PSYOPS and the management level of PSYOPs and Information Ops:
1.  All of our PSYOPs product had to go through the lawyer and to get it through we had to describe the First, Second and Third order effects and then needed command sign-off once the lawyer was happy.  Not only describing those effects was hard work but persuading certain lawyers was a bit of a to-and-fro experience.  That whole process was usually more difficult than designing and putting the product together in the first place.
2.  I was the yeller rather than the yellee by the time I got into the Information Ops game. 😀
3.  Not necessarily lying - our doctrine did allow it, whereas other nations including the US did not.  I can only think of maybe one occasion where we did in my nine months in Afghanistan in the role and that had to be signed off by a two star.  The main reason for not fibbing is that the truth usually catches up with you and then you lose all credibility as a source of information.  You can get it away with it in a fluid tactical situation but not in the insurgency game. but it usually ends up backfiring because inevitably the truth will surface eventually. 

No Oplots either. The Ukrainians only had a handful at the beginning of the war and I haven't seen much evidence of them showing up in combat. Bulats should be very rare as well. For the most part the Ukrainian tanks should be T-64BVs (out of what's available in CMBS).
For Ukraine:
44.58% T-64BV
17.03% T-64BV Zr. 2017
8.98% T-72M/M1
8.36% T-80BV
7.12% T-72B
4.02% T-72AMT
2.79% T-72AV
2.48% T-64BM 'Bulat'
2.17% T-64B1M
0.93% T-72 'Ural'
0.62% T-64BM2 'Bulat'
0.31% T-64BVK 
0.31% T-64B
0.31% T-64A

Great post Centurian, Oryx has been a very helpful resource with keeping up on vehicle and equipment loses. The CMBS missions that I play with my friends are mostly Ukraine vs Russia with limitations on what the Ukrainian and Russian armies can bring to the battle to be a bit more realistic to what is observed in the war.
As far as game play I’ve found it be a lot more balanced and enjoyable to play CMBS. When all vehicles and equipment in the game are allowed in a quick battle it usually means that the US Army dominates the Russian one and the Russian Army dominates the Ukrainian one. But when you apply the more realistic limitations to the equipment and vehicles the Russian and Ukrainian armies are surprisingly on par with each other. It makes for more interesting and intense attrition fights in quick battles or scenarios.
Andrew

My idea of what is present in Ukraine and in what quantities is based on the Oryx blog. Equipment has changed over time. IIRC the most common Russian tank at the beginning of the war was the T-72B3 Obr. 2016, whereas right now it is the T-72B3. At the beginning of the war there were no T-62s or T-90Ms, now they are both present but rare. T-72Bs have become a lot more common over the course of the war, and are currently the second most common after the T-72B3. Adding up all of the Russian tanks knocked out so far and recorded on the Oryx blog (not counting all "unknown" tanks) the Russian tanks in Ukraine seem to have consisted of (keeping in mind that these numbers are not final, since the war isn't over yet):
19.25% T-72B3
16.71% T-72B
15.07% T-72B3 Obr. 2016
14.17% T-80BV
7.29% T-80U
5.73% T-72 Obr. 1989
4.91% T-80BVM
3.6% T-64BV
3.19% T-62M
2.87% T-72A
2.05% T-90A
1.8% T-72BA
0.66% T-62MV
0.66% T-72AV
0.66%  T-80UE
0.41% T-90M
0.25% T-72B3 Obr. 2014
0.16% T-64A
0.16% T-80UK
0.08% T-80UM2
0.08% T-80BVK
0.08% T-62 Obr. 1967
Which frustratingly does not add up to 100%, but I assume that's down to a rounding error. If I were making the hard calls about which vehicles to include in the game I don't think I would include anything less common than the T-72A, since at that point more than 90% of the Russian tanks would be represented. Unfortunately that would leave out the T-90M, but so it goes. The most important tanks are the T-72B3, T-72B, and the T-72B3 Obr. 2016. With just those three tanks you can represent just over 50% of the Russian tanks that have actually been used in Ukraine.
I don't have the time to run the same numbers for IFVs, but you get the idea. The Russians have a huge diversity of vehicles, some more common than others, some fairly new and some which would be more at home in CMCW. It looks like the BMP-2 is by far the most common, with BTR-82s being the next most common, still significant numbers of BMP-3s, and a surprising number of BMP-1s. It looks like there have been a significant number of BTR-80s (Oryx records 133 knocked out BTR-80s so far), but in general IFVs appear to be much more common than APCs.

If they left it a few days ago, UA would have open a direct road from Slavyansk north, and could then drive to Oskil bypassing all the forests. IMO LPR holding to Lyman was a saving grace for them. But as you say, now it's value seem to be much lower. If UA pushes from vicinity of Oskil no the north of Lyman, they will have to vacate it or be surrounded.
In other news:
 

Long thread, but it basically boils down to lying at every level of the Armed Forces, such that the picture is so distorted by the time it gets to Putin, it is not reality whatsoever. It is so distorted, that any action, whether it be artillery fire, air support, a push by infantry or armor, anything whatsoever, is marred by lying, and so despite it being reported a successful strike opened the war for a advance, the infantry and armor that move out get a boatload of lead and retreat, except the commander reported his units are intact, succeeded and have more fighting strength than true so then a supporting attack goes underway with the same poor result....
There is a real possibility the Russian General Staff supposed their Izyum and Kharkiv front was perfectly manned, when in reality, everyone was just lying and covering their own behind.