Traitor

Yeah I really like shock force but some parts are clearly showing their age and many things are just broken

Would love if they just did a proper comprehensive bugfix for the older games once they get engine 5 sorted out

I have done a little more testing and it seems that the specific issue is that Syrian units in quick battles seem to default to "limited" supply status with occasional slight variation. Which isn't too bad for most units, for example, units equipped with the RPG-7V1 have two PG-7VL rounds at limited supply, which is still workable. However, units equipped with the RPG-7D3 go from multiple rounds including tandem PG-7VR, thermobaric TBG-7V and fragmentation OG-7V at "adequate" supply levels down to just one singular PG-7VL round at "limited" supply levels, which is a significantly larger decrease in availability of rounds and thus corresponding decrease in firepower in quick battles. So the specific issue is that units equipped with the RPG-7D3 are disproportionately affected by the "limited" supply status and go from having multiple rounds of various types down to just one. A possible solution would be to tweak the availability of rounds for each level of supply status to allow for a more gradual decrease of capability, perhaps at "limited" level troops could have the same number of RPG rounds, but fewer of the rarer thermobaric or tandem rounds, while at "scarce" they could have fewer rounds overall, perhaps 2 or 3. I believe that having a singular PG-7VL round for the entire squad (the current situation at "limited" supply status) is too severe of a penalty and should be adjusted to only occur at "severe" supply levels.

This is definitely still an issue present in the game, I am seeing the same issues. In the editor, the loadouts are fine with the correct amount of ammo (4+ rounds), however, in quick battles, there seems to be some sort of bug that severely limits the amount of RPG rounds carried most of the time, Syrian Special forces and Airborne tend to just have 1 standard round for their RPGs which is a huge nerf to their already limited capabilities. Occasionally, some special forces and airborne squads might mysteriously come properly equipped with the default ~4 rounds or so including specialized rounds like Tandem, thermobaric and frag. One time, after randomly swapping between the RPG-7 and RPG-16 a bunch of times in the quick battle force selector, I somehow managed to get all the squads equipped with their intended loadout of RPG rounds similar to what they have in the editor. I could not replicate it though despite repeatedly trying to see if I could find a number of swaps to reproduce the results. At best, I got maybe one squad per platoon with the proper amount of ammunition. I have also encountered a trend where restarting the game would lead to a slightly higher chance of some squads having a proper ammunition loadout, while not restarting would almost guarantee that soldiers in any new quick battles would only have 1 basic RPG round. I am very sure that it is a bug, the loadout of 4+ rounds is default in the editor, while it appears extremely inconsistently in quick battle. I do not believe it is an adjustment specifically for quick battle due to balance concerns, as during testing I was able to somehow equip every Airborne Infantry squad with the correct default amount of ammunition of 4+ rounds as seen in the editor, how ever unfortunately I was not able to replicate the result. Perhaps @BFCElvis can add it to the list of issues for the team to take a look at after they get Engine 5 sorted out? PS: I can also confirm that Syrian PKMs in squads only have 100 rounds, not sure if that's intended or a bug, but feels a little odd.

That's very interesting, because according to the manual, it states that, and I quote " The AT-13 has increased maximum range, thermal sights, better accuracy, and a significantly more lethal tandem HEAT warhead, while retaining light weight and mobility." (Emphasis mine) However, after running some tests with a BMP-1 in Shock Force 2, which I'm pretty sure has non-thermal blocking smoke, the AT-13 lost the spot and was not able to reacquire it through the smoke. So you seem to be correct, the AT-13 doesn't seem to have proper thermals in CMSF2, and the manual is wrong. I've just been taking the manual's word for it that the Shock force 2 version of the AT-13 has thermals, as Black Sea manual's entry on the AT-13 has no mention of thermals and testing does appear to confirm that it lacks thermals in Black Sea. Therefore, CMSF2's manual is wrong and the listing should more closely resemble the one in Black Sea with no mention of thermals. Unless it's a bug and it's supposed to be thermal sights but it's just not working properly of course. Thanks for pointing this out!

I think I have figured out what is going on. According to this video, which cites a document named B-GL-309-003/FP-001 "Infantry Section and Platoon in Operations" (which I am unable to access, but based on some googling I believe that the relevant information would be on page 390 if anybody has a copy), the Tank Hunting team in the weapons platoon is supposed to be armed with a SRAAW(M) aka Carl Gustav, which they do indeed carry in their LAVs. So I suppose that the way that it's depicted in game is technically correct as the Carl Gustavs are left in the LAV until needed. That being said, they don't carry any more Carl Gustav launchers or ammunition for it than the (Light Mortar) variant's LAV or even a regular Squad's LAV. I suppose the only real distinguishing feature about the Antitank variant is that there is a soldier marked "Antitank" which I've read in the forums is supposed to have a higher proficiency with AT weapons compared to the average soldier. Therefore I believe it's intentional and accurate, not a bug, although it would still be nice if they carried just a couple extra Carl Gustav rounds over the (Light Mortar) variant to truly distinguish them as "Anti Tank" over a regular rifle Squad that also has access to a Carl Gustav and the same amount of ammunition in their LAV.

It does indeed seem like the AT-13 in Black Sea does not have thermal sights. Which is interesting as the AT-13 in Shock Force that the Syrians use does have thermal sights. Perhaps @Haiduk is right and in Black Sea's setting the thermal sights were mainly exported instead of used domestically. However, it's still rather strange as the Russians in Black Sea's setting seem to be generally better equipped than in real life, it feels like they should have them, after all, the Russians in Black Sea adopted other high tech gear like APS it would be weird if their AT-13's had inferior sights compared to the Syrians from Shock Force.

I believe it should, wikipedia claims that the T-64 has the equivalent of 500 mm to 575 mm vs HEAT for the Hull and Turret. Looking into it further, I found this site. Which states that "T-64 front hull protection was also new for tank design. The front hull had composite protection consisting of 80 mm steel plate at 68 ° and 140 mm STB (glass fiber) plate with total thickness of 220 mm ( 587 mm LOS). Such armor was equivalent to 450 mm of steel against shape charge projectiles." I believe this is referring to the T-64A, as one of the design changes was replacing the aluminium armor layer with fibreglass. So it seems that the wikipedia figures are a little too high. Even then, even the earlier Tandem version of the AT-10, the 9M117M, should be able to penetrate about 600mm of RHA equivalent post ERA, while the more advanced 9M117M1 can penetrate 750mm of RHA equivalent post ERA. So based on what I've seen so far, I believe it should reliably penetrate at least the upper front plate of the T-64B, as the T-64B does not seem to have any noticeably improved armor over the base version, at least from what I can find, just a better gun, fire control system and engine (Unlike the T-72, where the armor was actually increased in the T-72A and later the T-72B).

Thanks for the update on the patch, I understand if it takes a while, seems like the team is busy with Engine 5! Could you ask if they could take another look at the IS-2 (Late) potentially regaining it's DShK as well? According to a post I found in the forums it was removed for historical accuracy reasons as it was supposedly a post war addition, but then @akd found evidence that DShKs were indeed installed on not only IS-2s but a bunch of SPGs like ISUs too. So it seems like the original reasons for removal of the IS-2(Late) with 12.7mm HMG was flawed and that they were in fact used in WW2. There is photographic evidence of an IS-2 with a mounted DShK, and a link to an order 'State Committee of Defense Decree #6723s" which mandated factories install 12.7mm DShKs on SPGs and IS tanks from late 1944 onwards. I don't expect new DShK equipped variants of SPGs to be included in a patch (probably more suited for a vehicle pack as it'll be a new variant of ISU), but perhaps the IS-2(Late) could be re-added to the game along with the DShK? After all, it was once in the game and is still included in the manual for Red Thunder as an option and so isn't really "new content".

I'm sure we're all aware by now that the BMP's AT-10 appears to be using a non-tandem warhead due to the poor performance against any form of ERA, even the T-64BV's Kontakt-1. However, I came across the patch notes for v1.04 from 2016 which includes the following: FIXED: The AT-10's tandem HEAT warhead from the BMP-3/3M was too weak against ERA. It appears that the AT-10 is intended to use a tandem warhead, and it was buffed years ago in order to better perform against ERA. However, through testing, the AT-10 still seems consistently stopped by the T-64BV's Kontakt-1 ERA (let alone Nozh and Duplet which are much more modern ERA systems with even better protection). So, what's going on here? I think there are two possibilities. The AT-10 wasn't successfully fixed for some reason, or it was fixed but subsequently broken again later on The AT-10 was successfully fixed, but the fix was not sufficient, and it needs another buff Even the non-tandem 9M117 Bastion should be able to penetrate about 550mm of RHA after ERA, which means that even the non-tandem warhead should be able to defeat the ERA and armor of the T-64BV if it hits anywhere but the front of the turret, let alone the tandem warhead that's supposed to be in the game (either 600mm after ERA for 9M117M and 750mm after ERA for 9M117M1). In my opinion, I think that the AT-10 is still underpowered. I don't necessarily think the AT-10 should be able to defeat Nozh or Duplet ERA as those offer much better protection and the 100mm AT-10 isn't really that big of a warhead compared to other ATGMs, but the tandem warhead on the AT-10 should be able to overcome the ancient Kontakt-1 ERA on the T-64BV at least.

I'm wondering if they were originally equipped with some form of Anti tank weapon but something got messed up over the years in an update. Wouldn't be the first time that updates introduced TO&E bugs that weren't noticed for a long time. I could see the weapons team being equipped with an ATGM in place of the light mortar. I suppose the only way to know if that's the case is if we have a player that remembered them being equipped differently in an older build of the game.

I was looking at the Canadian Mech Rifles and noticed an option to toggle between Antitank and Light mortar for the platoon weapons team Selecting this option switches out the 4th section of the platoon with the (Antitank) variant However, I can't figure out what's Anti-tank about the (Antitank) variant of the platoon weapons team As the rest of the platoons are identical, I looked for the LAV carrying Section 4, the (Weapons) Section. The Light mortar variant is on the left, while the Antitank variant is on the right. The only noticeable difference is that in the (Light Mortar) variant, the pixeltruppen are split into two separate teams, a two man team with the Light Mortar and a three man MG team, while in the (Antitank) variant, the two teams are combined into one 5 man squad. However, the (Antitank) variant does not seem to actually possess any anti-tank weapons. The soldier marked as Antitank isn't even in possession of a 40mm GL, let alone any actual anti tank weapon. And yes, I checked, there are no extra anti-tank weapons stowed away in the LAVs, both LAVs contained one SRAAW(M) aka Carl Gustav and the same amount of rockets, in fact, all the LAVs in the squad have the same amount of weapons in storage. So, it appears that the (Antitank) variant of the weapons team trades a light mortar for absolutely nothing, no extra AT weaponry, not an ATGM, no extra Carl Gustav launchers or rounds, not even a couple of SRAAW (L) aka M72 LAW. Absolutely nothing. Am I missing something here? What's "Antitank" about the (antitank) variant of Canadian Mech Rifle platoons? As far as I can tell, not much. I would really appreciate it if anybody is able to replicate this. Is my copy of the game just bugged? Am I missing something really obvious and there are some ATGMs hidden somewhere? Are we supposed to use that squad to close assault tanks? Is this just an overlooked bug? If it is a bug or a TO&E mistake, what weapon was supposed to be assigned to the (Antitank) team? Did they have an ATGM or something in previous versions of the game that was lost in some update? Or is the whole thing intentional and the (Antitank) designation a mistake or a holdover from a previous version and it's intended that the team has no AT weapons?

Thank you Elvis for the update on the issue!

@BFCElvis Sorry to ping you again, but any update on this TO&E Bug? The Technical Group (heavy) Formation for the Unconventional is both listed in the manual and available for selection in the editor, but for some reason it does not show up in Quick Battle, so it appears to be a straightforward bug. Thanks for taking a look at this!

I think the issue here is that "spraying and praying" in the general direction of the enemy is probably more effective than it is in real life as the bursts of fire seem to either be in the general direction of the enemy or missing completely, I don't think the game models how recoil causes each shot within the bursts itself to become increasingly inaccurate. And since SMGs in game can get more bursts off in the general direction of the enemy due to higher ammunition expenditure, they get more kills. I'm not sure if they should artificially make SMGs take more rounds to kill, realistically, a 7.62 Tokarev at 150m will probably kill just fine, maybe they should just increase the chances of SMG bursts being completely off target and missing completely to better simulate the recoil.

I know it's a bug but the way you explained it is so funny that I almost want the bug to stay .

This is very interesting. I'm not sure if I'm interpreting the data correctly, but it seems that the SMGs are expending more ammunition in order to achieve this result? I would assume the StG44 is more accurate and hits harder generally speaking, but in WW2 titles without body armor, italso makes sense that a higher ammunition expenditure leads to more casualties, as the sheer rate of fire might be able to offset the inferior accuracy and lethality compared to the StG44. However I assume the StG44 will engage targets past the 200 hard cap that SMGs have? Perhaps that is the new niche for the gun.

Apologies for reviving a dead thread, but I found this essay disputing and refuting many of the claims in that video with detailed sources and references. Here is the original post, which is split into 5 parts and here is the entire essay in one place. It's a long read, about 30,000 words, but it is very detailed and does seem to show that the original video contained quite a number of misconceptions even when it tried to debunk other misconceptions. I think it's an interesting read for anyone interested in WW2 tanks, even outside of the context of it being a rebuttal to the video as the essay draws upon the analysis of multiple respected historians such as Zaloga, Michulec, Glantz and others, which @Erwin might be interested in.

I agree with @NiceBoat that even according to a fictional 2017 timeline, there would be more extensive usage of drones. A fictional 2017 timeline would also see more usage of Russian company level ground radar for spotting (Fara) and PMC formations (Wagner) as all of these were already in use post 2014 in the real world and would not be out of place in the 2017 setting. I don't think these are huge changes, ground radar is already coded with the BRM-3K and that ability can be given to company recon infantry units, drones are already coded and can easily be tweaked and given to Ukraine since there is no in-game model needed, and Russian PMCs is just a matter of creating a new formation with a different TO&E and training/motivation levels and can be done with existing assets. I think small tweaks like these would make CMBS a better simulation of both 2022 and the fictional 2017 timeline, I don't see any downsides to this.

It definitely does seem odd. My gut feel is that it's a bug, although I don't know for sure.

I think it will be fine if it's limited to specialist teams only like BFC originally intended, it's not unreasonable that a commander might attach one of the AA HMG teams to other formations to serve as a HMG, it's not like they have to re-mount the gun or anything as the carriage can be quickly converted for either role.

I agree, but since the existing DShK model in the game is in the ground combat configuration, if BFC restores the DShK into the game it will likely be in that form. I suppose it's not unreasonable for a commander to use a primarily AA HMG team for ground combat given how the gun mount can be quickly converted for either role, but that would mean it would only be available as a specialist team as it wasn't the most common usage of the weapon. Hypothetically, and it would require more coding and new models, it would be cool if the wheeled HMG/transport configuration functioned as a "semi-deployed" state and you could choose to fully deploy it to use it as AA.....however I'm pretty sure all the non self-propelled AA in the game are static emplacements, I don't even know if it would be possible to code such a weapon.

I think that's the reason for the DShK only being available in the game as a specialist team, historically they weren't mass issued to Rifle Divisions or machine gun battalions. You can find pictures of them from WW2 in both tripod mounted AA roles and wheeled HMG roles, so they were used, but it was probably only for specialist teams instead of standard issue equipment. PS: I'm pretty sure the DShK AA tripod and wheeled mount are actually the same mounting, the wheels and gunshield can be detached and the carriage converts into a AA tripod. From Forgotten Weapons. So the AA specialist teams could easily convert the gun for the HMG role depending on the need.

@BFCElvis Hello, could you help to confirm if the Technical Group (heavy) Formation for Unconventionals is intentionally excluded from Quick Battle or if it's a missing unit bug? The Technical Group (heavy) Formation is both listed for the Unconventionals in the manual and available in the scenario editor, but it does not appear in the quick battle force selector for some reason. I managed to dig up a forum post from 2019 discussing how the heavy technicals disappeared along with other units like the BMP-3 due to a bug, seems like the other missing units were patched back in but the Technical Group (heavy) Formation for the Unconventionals was missed. Thanks!

Thank you! Thanks @Kevin2kand @Brille too for helping to confirm that it's supposed to be in the game. @BFCElvisAre we allowed to ping you for similar issues with other CM games? I have another threads in the CMSF2subforum detailing a similar issue, a unit is missing in quick battle despite it still existing in the scenario editor and there being talk about it being in game on the forums. Would be nice if it was added to some official list of missing units.