Traitor
-
Posts
60 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Traitor
-
-
12 hours ago, BFCElvis said:
Whenever I find myself wondering somefink like this I check the manual. That will usually show availability dates. The Dshk is not listed in either the base game or Fire and Rubble manuals.
According to the threads from 2014, it was supposed to be in the game, but it was accidentally removed just prior to launch due to some sort of compiling error, and nobody noticed it was missing and forgot about it, but was re-added in a patch.
That would explain why it's not in the manual (it was left out and everyone forgot) but it's in the TO&E page on the website (that was the original intended TO&E) and the patch temporarily restoring it to the game (hence screenshots from @Brille proving that it once existed). There is discussion on the forum about an official prerelease screenshot including DShKs too.
What I think happened is that it was accidentally left out of the original release as stated by Battlefront, restored in a patch in November 2014, but at some point in time between 2021 and 2023 another patch caused some bug which omitted the DShK again.
According to Battlefront the DShK was coded in a weird way that creates a bug that left it out of the game, presumably a later patch created a similar situation once again. I couldn't find any official patch notes removing the DShK from the game, so a bug is the most likely problem here.
-
Technical Group (heavy) Formation missing for Unconventionals in Quick Battle (CMSF2)
I'm not too sure about where to officially report bugs, but it looks like this is the place. I've already made a post about it in the CMSF2 subforum, so I'm crossposting it here for tracking purposes.
Pretty straightforward bug, a formation that's supposed to be in the game a does not show up in the Quick Battle force selector, even though it shows up in the scenario editor's force selector like it should.
-
Are there no DShKs in the game? Seems like a bit of an odd omission if so.
Looking at older forum posts, apparently it was removed from the IS-2 for historical reasons, as it was supposedly a post-war addition. However, somebody posted contrary photographic evidence in the same thread, so I'm not sure what's going on there.
In older threads from 2014, there is talk about DShK HMG specialist teams that were supposed to be in the game, but accidentally left out due to an error.
Apparently, they were added back into the game in a later patch
However, I can't find any specialist teams with the DShK in the current version of the game. Am I missing something? Is this a reappearance of the bug that caused the DShKs to be omitted? Or were they intentionally removed from the game? If so, why? I'm pretty sure it's not disputed that they were used during the war, it would be an odd decision to remove them.
-
23 hours ago, Zveroboy1 said:
I am sure Battlefront is already aware there is an interest.
If it were up to me, I'd turn BS into the amalgamation that BFC is reluctant to do, I don't see why we can't have both futuristic 2017 and realistic 2022 scenarios in one game, Cold War's setting spans over several years with the balance of power and equipment available changing depending on the year the Cold War goes hot, they can do something similar, once the real life war is over, obviously.
I think this is a solution that will please both the hypothetical and historical fans and remove the need for development time for a standalone game just for the 2022 conflict. I don't think either side has to lose out, we can have both settings. -
On 6/22/2023 at 8:32 AM, Zveroboy1 said:
Hmm to be perfectly frank, I don't care much if at all about the hypothetical setting any more. Battlefront had a prophetic moment when they managed to identify Ukraine as a potential hotspot and came up with a good scenario for it as a pretext to use the game as a laboratory for future equipments and tactics.
And that was just fine until reality caught up with it and a real war broke out. But now current events have diverged so significantly from the fiction that they have made it obsolete in my book.
That's fair, but I think having a game explore near future equipment and tactics is also interesting. Personally, I prefer the hypothetical entries in the franchise like SF, BS and technically CW over the historically accurate titles, but I also understand liking the historical titles. Ideally, we can have both.
On 6/22/2023 at 8:32 AM, Zveroboy1 said:Personally I'd much rather use the game as a sandbox to explore real tactics and actual battles than stick to an alternate reality. I can see the appeal but I mean it feels a bit absurd to keep exploring a hypothetical branch of history while a different reality is unfolding before our eyes.
I see what you mean, but like you said, BFC is stubborn, they didn't switch up Shock Force when the Syrian Civil War broke out, I doubt they are willing to totally revamp Black Sea.
I think how long we will have to wait for a game based historically on the current war depends on how long the war will go on for. BFC have made it clear they are not comfortable with profiting off an ongoing conflict, so it seems like the war will have to end before BFC will consider making a game about it. They can reuse many of the assets though, so development time would probably be reduced. -
On 6/18/2023 at 10:35 AM, Zveroboy1 said:
There are tons of other things we would ideally need. But these three fairly simple additions would go a long way. I am omitting western equipment transferred to Ukraine on purpose because this would require lots of work. These are what I think are essentials and would love to see an small upgrade pack with them. Just make it a different timeline so we can keep the alternate really/future conflict with fancy toys without having to revamp everything. But personally I'd be really disappointed if BFC chose to simply ignore the current developments and decided to stick with the sci fi version. I understand the DLC is basically done and it would be daft to just scrap it. So just give us both.
I agree, I think there are ways to add in elements from the current conflict while still remaining firmly in the alternate timeline the game is set in.
I recall BFC saying that they would much rather have a new game in the future representing the Ukraine conflict after everything has died down rather than turn Black Sea into some kind of hybrid amalgamation of real and fictional wars. But like you said, there are many small additions BFC can make to make the game more "realistic" without straying away from their intention of representing a fictional conflict, such as adding equipment that was already in use in 2017 like HMGs and T-80s. (I personally think adding Fara radar sets would be an interesting way to improve the disparity in spotting, and Fara radars can be also be mounted on HMGs. From my understanding, although the man portable radar sets are in use currently, they were pretty rarely seen before 2018 or so due to training deficiencies, but if it's an alternate timeline I don't see the problem.) -
I believe that this game should stick to the fictional 2017 timeline, in an alternate reality where APS is in service and various models of tanks like Oplots and T-90s were produced in greater numbers. It's like Shock Force, where although it's inspired by real life conflicts, it's a fictional event and thus available equipment can differ from reality. I believe that the devs feel like it's in bad taste to profit off an ongoing conflict, which is the reason for the module hiatus, and therefore they are going to stick to Black Sea being a fictional 2017 conflict.
Many of the things you suggested and problems with the Russian army in the current conflict are operational/tactical/logistics issues that can already be replicated in scenario design such as lowering the morale, using older models of vehicles, etc to make scenarios that more closely resemble the current conflict.
If you make the "high-tech" stuff like APS and advanced tanks out of reach for most battles with extremely high rarity, the game will play too much like Shock Force in my opinion, and Black Sea is aiming more for a "near peer" and "near future" feel. -
On 5/19/2023 at 2:06 AM, Artkin said:
Bugs bugs bugs!
I think it's a bug, but if it is one it's weird that it has gone unnoticed for so long compared to other well known long term bugs like the Gill and the LAV TOW.
It's probably because nobody picks Uncons in quick battle very often
-
From the manual and older posts about the Unconventionals, they are supposed to have access to ZU-23-2 Technicals in the Technical Group (heavy) formations, however they seem to be missing in quick battle. They still appear in the scenario editor as part of the Unconventional's TO&E, but they're missing entirely from Quick Battle, even single vehicles aren't available.
From searching on the forums, I found this post which suggests that the ZU-23-2 Technicals and their formation seems to have disappeared some time in 2019 along with other TO&E bugs which were later resolved, but it seems like this bug was missed in the patch.Maybe this bug has gone largely unnoticed compared to other bugs like the initial Syrian TO&E bugs because the UNCONS aren't exactly a popular pick for Quick Battles, but it would be nice for them to have access to their ZU-23-2s again, especially since they still have them in the scenario editor.
No DShKs in the game?
in Combat Mission Red Thunder
Posted
Thanks for this! All I could find were old forum posts talking about the DShK, but this screenshot proves that it existed.
I guess now we have to figure out if it was an intentional removal or a reappearance of the bug that caused it to be omitted from the release version.