Sugestion for NATO module: Canadian Leopard 2A4M CAN

[ricnunes]

In the NATO module the Leopard 2 tanks that are modeled for the Canadian Forces are the Leopard 2A6M and the Leopard 2A4+ which (the later one) was supposed to be a Leopard 2A4 equiped with longer barrel L55 gun seen in the Leopard 2A6 (instead of the stardard Leopard 2A4 shorter barrel L44 gun). This was at the time when Combat Mission Shock Force: NATO module was made the plan that the Canadian Armed Forces had for their Leopard 2 tanks.

But the final plan changed a bit and what's happening regarding the Canadian forces Leopard 2 force is that the Leopard 2A6M are being retained like previously planned but instead of upgrading their Leopard 2A4 to Leopard 2A4+ (mainly with the purpose of training crews for the Leopard 2A6M) the Canadian Leopard 2A4 tanks (or at least some of them) are being upgraded to a standard called Leopard 2A4M CAN.

The Leopard 2A4M CAN is an upgrade that includes addon armour around the turret and hull which is very similar to the addon armour seen in the Leopard 2A6 (or Leopard 2A7 to be more precise) but it will retain the shorter barrel L44 gun instead of being upgraded with the longer L55 gun.

So externally and even in terms of defensive/armour capability the Leopard 2A4M CAN is almost identical to the Leopard 2A6M CAN.

The external diferences in the Leopard 2A4M CAN (compared to the Leopard 2A6M CAN) are the shorter barrel gun (L44 gun) which is the standard Leopard 2A4/A5 gun and a small "notch" in the frontal right side turret armour in order to accomodate the gunner's sight which is located in the front right side of the turret (while in the Leopard 2A5/A6 this sight is located in the top of the turret).

So my suggestion is:

Replace the Canadian Leopard 2A4+ model in the NATO module with a Leopard 2A4M CAN model. This would be much more realistic and it would even improve the capability of the Canadian forces in the NATO module since the Leopard 2A4M CAN is much more resistant/armoured than the Leopard 2A4+.

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that making a Leopard 2A4M CAN wouldn't be that or too hard: Only small modifications on the Leopard 2A6M CAN model and the replacement of the longer barreled L55 gun with the shorter barreled L44 gun would be needed.

Here's some info regarding the Leopard 2A4M CAN:

http://www.armyrecognition.com/krauss-maffei_press_release_defense_company_german/krauss-maffei_wegmann_delivers_20_upgraded_leopard_2a4_main_battle_tanks_to_canada_canadian_army_uk.html

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Ab1faf659-0da2-4fe9-b677-88858c8d0aa4

http://www.casr.ca/bg-leopard-2a4m.htm

What's your oppinion regarding this?

Thanks in advance for replies...

[Sequoia]

I'm sure your info is valid but Battlefront has said there will be no more patches to this game. Sorry.

[Stagler]

Im sorry for your concern, but battlefront has removed further support for a game and modules you payed alot of money for.

Nice one.

Lads.

[phil180]

I'm sure your info is valid but Battlefront has said there will be no more patches to this game. Sorry.

Have you got a linky for that? I'm debating buying some of the modules, but I'd rather hope that there was some ongoing support....

-Phil.

[Sergei]

2A4M CAN did not exist in 2008 which the game is set in.

[Sequoia]

Have you got a linky for that? I'm debating buying some of the modules, but I'd rather hope that there was some ongoing support....

-Phil.

Well you still get tech support of course, and maybe the MAC edition will require a patch of some sort, but as far as enhancements go I found these quotes:

A long time ago when we first thought of how to go about the new game engine we had a fundamental decision to make. We had to choose between:

1. Discernable start and end to a particular game

or

2. A never ending upgradable product

Games almost always choose #1, most other computer programs usually go with #2 (with caveats). We weighed the pros and cons for both us and our customers. We felt, overall, that #1 was the better way to go about CMx2. It still seems that's the way to go and therefore each CMx2 "Family" of games will eventually reach an end state as did the CMx1 games. Unlike CMx1, however, we will come back around with a much improved game engine sooner rather than later. As soon as Normandy is out we'll officially start working on CM:SF 2.

Steve

It took us nearly 4 years to develop CM:SF with no active development support for CMx1. Just imagine how long it would have taken if we keep hacking stuff into the old code base? Therefore, for the sake of keeping things moving along and covering a wider array of combat we MUST stop actively improving a Family at some point. It's simply impractical to do anything other than that.

Steve

Anyway, the news is not all bad as apparently CMSF II is already being worked on.

[LongLeftFlank]

...Or we can pray for CMSF Touch. Not likely though; I think BFC eventually accepted that the gross mismatch between Syria and All of NATO creates a fundamental problem. The only way to create balanced scenarios is either impose highly implausible "ambushed at 3 to 1 odds and airpower is grounded" outlier events or BLUE VCs so stringent that you can lose a scenario by pure mischance.

CMSF-2 seems to involve NATO intervention in a Russian intervention in a Yugoslavia-style civil conflict in Ukraine.

[phil180]

Well you still get tech support of course, and maybe the MAC edition will require a patch of some sort, but as far as enhancements go [...][

The diversion of development effort due to patches, especially for small outfits, is an important point, and I don't have any major issue with the quotes from Battlefront. I wonder what people view as the difference between "patches" and "enhancements" ("bug fixes") etc. For example, if CMSF was to not run properly on Windows 8 (I haven't checked, and I have no reason to think it has problems!), surely there would be a reasonable expectation of a patch fixing that.

It seems reasonable to draw a line under the feature set at some time-- so no new vehicles, etc. The greater the cost of the game, the further away I'd expect that line.

[dpabrams]

CMSF-2 seems to involve NATO intervention in a Russian intervention in a Yugoslavia-style civil conflict in Ukraine.

Still a mis match. Just give us NATO vs PACT 1979-1986.

[ricnunes]

2A4M CAN did not exist in 2008 which the game is set in.

And neither did the Canadian Leopard 2A4+

Actually the Leopard 2A4+ never existed, it was a concept (original planning) to fit a standard Leopard 2A4 with the same gun that equips the Leopard 2A6 in order to train crews for the Leopard 2A6M CAN since the original plan consisted in having 40 combat ready Leopard 2A6M CAN.

But now what Canada decided to drop the "Leopard 2A4+" concept because it was decided that the combat ready force would be composed by 20 Leopard 2A6M CAN and 20 Leopard 2A4M CAN (a total of 40 combat ready tanks).

As for the remaing Leopard 2A4s (the "training force") they will either be upgraded to Leopard 2A4M CAN or will be simply be kept as standard Leopard 2A4. The later possibility is more likelly, even because if there's ever a need to send "training" Leopard 2A4 tanks into combat those same tanks could be easily and quickly upgraded to the Leopard 2A4M CAN configuration.

Actually the reason why I asked for this (the replacement of Canadian Leopard 2A4+ for the Leopard 2A4M CAN) was because like I previously said, the Leopard 2A4+ never existed!