Why ShockForce 2 should stay in the desert.

[Peter Cairns]

I know that talk of SF2 is that it might be in the former soviet Union, but the more I think about it I think it's probably the wrong move.

I can understand the desire to go somewhere different with different terrain and opponents but my issue is that I don't think the likes of the Ukraine would achieve that.

In part the desire to go there seems to be driven by "kit", the idea that russian would provide a better match than the Syrians. But would they.

Everything I have read seems to suggest that since Russia got a wake up cll in the first Gulf war and was awestruck by the second one, they have talked a lot about modernisation of both equipment and training but if anything they have gone backwards.

They haven't really deployed anything new in a decade and even the upgrades are piece meal. in addition conscription rates are below 20% in some cases with those that do turn up not worth having. From what I have read the attempts to create a proper NCO core have not increased quality in any noticeable way with officers still as overworked and under trained but now hating the new supposedly professional NCO's below them.

In short in it's current state the russians in manpower terms probably aren't that much better than the Syrians.

Equally given the plight of the current former soviet defence industries and their continued support for Syrian in SF2 you could make a good case for pretty much the best that Russian can currently filed being on a ship to Syria some time soon.

So what should SF2 be.

I would go for Either Arab Spring or Arc of Crisis.

You would be adding the obvious improvement that we have seen in CMFI,

Road and Fence tool, Map overlays, picking QB maps, QB unit choice, Water etc.

You could probably also add a fair bit of the CMFI pallet from terrain to Flavour objects.

(oh I'd like to put in a request for Industrial building; big but light weight with few internal floors and Chain link fencing, greatly impedes movement but gives no cover)

Those changes alone though no doubt a fair bit of work would be a huge improvement.

But as I don't think that would be enough to get people to buy next would be new units and the obvious ones for Arab Spring would be firstly the close neighbours, Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt and although controversial Israel.

These not only add new units but also a range of older equipment like the M60A1 that are a better match for what syrian has now.

I also think that post Libyan and given the current talk of arming Syrian rebels there is an argument for Blue Uncons; irregular units with M-16's and Milans.

If we were to go for Arc of Crisis then we would be extending it to go as far as Pakistan and Afghanistan which would raise the prospect of potentially even Iran, India and as it has it's own problems in it's easter provinces China.

currently be it in terms of equipment or troops Chinas recent modernisation makes it far more of a near peer opponent for the US than russia is.

I think it is highly unlike that we would see a US v China conflict any time soon, but a AofC update that focused on potential interventions from Morocco to Kashmir would have India and China on the Blue side with the US, Uk and Turkey allowing players to have Blue on Blue match ups without the delicate problems of upsetting people or creating a convoluted scenario.

In the same way a set of Scenarios that has Israel drawn into Syrian as blue and Egypt pulled into Libya in the same role lets anyone who wishes play Blue on Blue in the Sinai

Well these are my thoughts.

I would add that they are in no way a criticism of BF who I think to a brilliant job given what they have taken on. I am not being sycophantic it's just that sometimes people read posts and get the wrong idea.

What do people think.

Peter.

[Sequoia]

I have no real knowledge of the readiness of the modern Russian army but I think Battlefront is committed to the backstory at this point. Somewhere however, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, IIRC Steve mentioned a possibility of revisiting Syria with the updated engine as they already have so much work done on the subject.

[Sublime]

Im pretty sure theyre fixed on a Ukraine conflict. However think of the other possibilities - Russian equipment vs NATO, with perhaps Ukrainians on NATOs side with Russian equipment. Even though Im sure the new Russian Army as a whole has many problems, I also dont doubt that they have at least some pretty good units, and in general are a way more able, and dangerous opponent than the Syrians in SF ever could hope to have been.

I still think the best SF2 setting of all would be 80's WW3 Warsaw Pact vs NATO. 70's or 80s you'd have the best balance.

What Im NOT looking forward to is a flood of Russian gamers who explode at any negative comment whatsoever about the Red Army or Soviet capabilities... That and Russian Nazis like that moron posting on here a couple months ago

[Alan8325]

I think Russia still has more advanced weapons than China and doesn't export their most state-of-the-art systems. Also, they're going to have higher training standards than Syria's army, although you could argue that Syria's army has better experience right now from actual combat.

In my opinion, the factor that would make the biggest difference in the dynamics of a conventional war between Western powers and Russia compared to a conventional war between Western powers and a Middle Eastern state, is the possibility of the war going nuclear. In Syria and CMSF1, we assumed that the Western coalition obliterates Syria's air defenses and air force allowing uncontested air supremacy for the coalition. No danger of bombing runs or helicopter gunships for your Abrams tanks parked 1km from enemy lines.

The difference in a war against Russia is that, assuming Western powers could effectively wipe out Russia's air defenses with enough effort, Russia would almost certainly go nuclear before allowing their opponent air supremacy against their ground forces. In a back story like in CMSF2's, I think you could expect constant air-to-air battles over the Ukrainian AO and advanced mobile SAM systems moving around on the ground. NATO likely wouldn't even attempt to penetrate deep into Russian territory to attack air bases and air defense sites. You wouldn't see this in CM scenarios, but the result of the above in CM terms will be some areas with Russian CAS available and some areas with NATO CAS available. You might play a campaign were in one scenario you have CAS available and can call strikes on enemy positions, but in the next scenario you have to watch out for Ka-50s attacking your AFVs. It will be interesting to see how it works out!

[Vanir Ausf B]

I think Russia still has more advanced weapons than China and doesn't export their most state-of-the-art systems.

I'm pretty sure this is true. China still buys weapons from Russia. AFAIK Russia does not buy weapons from China.

And although I don't doubt that the Russian armed forces still have issues with moral and training I would question if China is any better. The PLA is also a conscript force.

Crashes happen, even to the United States. But for professional military watchers, the more they see inside one of the world's most secretive air forces, it seems, the less they are impressed with the Chinese military's aerial wing.

Pilots are neither trusted nor properly trained. Drills are regimented, centrally controlled, and divorced from realistic combat conditions. The People's Liberation Army (PLA) has nearly 2,000 planes, compared with a little over 3,000 for the U.S. Armed Forces, but only a fraction of the peace-time accident rate, suggesting pilots are not spending sufficient time in the air or training under pressure.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/30/can_china_s_top_guns_fly_pla_air_force?wpisrc=obinsite

[Lethaface]

I'm quite sure Russia's full spectrum conventional military might is in now way shape or form comparable to the Syrian Army's. That would be in the same street as saying that Egypt has a lot of Abrams and manpower, so it is similar in strength with USA?

[Peter Cairns]

Like I said in my original post, trawling through the net I can find little evidence that the Russians have done anything but go backwards in recent years. Most assessments I have read of their performance in Georgia suggest they struggled there and would struggle to project any distance beyond their own borders.

At least one of their own reports suggests that of their command and control was so poor that they were responsible for shooting down almost as many of their own planes as the Georgians.

Put in "most advanced tank" in wiki and you get the T-90 for Russia;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90

and this for China;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_99#Type_99A2

In a way to support my idea of Arab spring, although Russia has about 550 T-90A's, Algeria has 300! India a possible for AofC has 600 out of an order with local assembly for up to 2,000 by 2020. That will by then be probably twice what Russia will have!!!

On why China buys from Russia it is less and less every year already the have overtaken them in all but jet engine design. The other reason is that the Russians as desperate to sell to anyone for cash as they have no money.

As to why Russian doesn't buy from Chinese, partly pride but mostly the same reason they sell... they are desperate for cash but have no money to buy.

Peter.

[sburke]

I vote they do both- update CMSF AND do CMSF2 in Ukraine.

If I have to chose though, I vote Ukraine. Force projection for the US into Ukraine would be a whole other kettle of fish than Syria. I don't see our carriers moving into the Black Sea without the Russians threatening to mine it. It will be interesting to see the background story as it might be a much more limited engagement than Syria, but encompassing enough different type units to make for a good force mix.

One front could be comprised of a push from Poland and having to deal with possible involvement of Belarus.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Russia is introducing an all-new tank design in 2015, the T-99. They stopped buying T-90s a few years ago for that reason and also because they found that it was cheaper to upgrade their existing T-72 fleet to near-T-90 standards.

That China buys from Russia because it's cheaper than making it themselves is a new one on me. Frankly I would need some evidence to believe that. I would also like to see a list of Chinese weapon systems that are more advanced than their Russian counterparts.

Everything I have read about the PLA suggests they are nothing close to a peer rival to the US Army, but performance is largely theoretical since China hasn't been involved in a large-scale land conflict in over 30 years. If they can be believed, the Chinese don't think they could take on the US either:

“Through my visit over the past couple of days in the United States, I am surprised by the sophistication of the U.S. military, including its weapons and equipment and doctrines and so on,” People’s Liberation Army leader General Chen Bingde said. “I can tell you that China does not have the capability to challenge the United States.

http://defensetech.org/2011/05/19/pla-chinese-military-doesnt-compare-to-u-s-military/

As for Middle Eastern countries such as Algeria and Syrian presenting a more formidable challenge than Russia, I think that is pure fantasy.

[Peter Cairns]

Vanir,

The T-99 will be lucky to see the light of day let alone 2015. It will apparently use some elements of the abortive T-95 but it was on the drawing board for a decade before being scrapped.

The T-99 looks very much like what they thought about after Chechnya; An infantry MICV or APC built on a tank chassis to get round the vulnerability of the BMP's. If it does get produced it will most likely be a series of vehicles based on the T-90 design with possibly a Stryker MGS style 120mm gun.

An incremental improvement on the T-90 but still little match for the M-1.

I maybe put it poorly but the recent sale of Russian SU-35's is a good case. For about a decade the Russians fell out with the Chinese for reverse Engineering SU-27's but the turned that around over the SU-35 because even though they were reluctant to sell they needed to as it would finance the development and refurbishment of Russain Su-35's.

For the Chinese what they wanted weren't the SU-35's as such but the engines, the one place where they are weak. They reverse Engineered the SU-33 as the J-15 after they got one from the Ukrainians but with their own avionics and radar which appear to be at least or better than the Russian versions.

So China is really only buying from the Russians what it can't et build for itself or to acquire technology that it needs and can't get elsewhere. It gets it on the cheap however because Russia needs to sell weapons abroad to finance it's own faltering modernisation.

Right now the Chinese Type 99 is probably already on a par with if not better than the T-90. Equally I think the current J-20 and J-31 fighters are probably ahead of the PAKFA. You can also make a similar argument for the WZ-10 being technologically more advanced than the Mil Havoc.

Oh and have a look at Turkey too. They have a new Stryker style APC are soon to deploy a new MBT and there own Attack Helicopter based on the old Mangusta.

People keep looking over to see if the old bear is going to awake... It isn't it's comatose!

Oh and I don't see China as being on a Par with the US not for a decade or more at the very least, but I think it is now clearly ahead of Russia and potentially more dangerous as an opponent.

Where China is already a threat to Russia is in the way it is building it's arms industry as an export business and taking over in former russian markets. God knows how they will modernise their army if the lose the income from foreign sales.

Russia is decaying as a conventional military power because most of the people who run the country don't care about it's military as long as they make money and can spend most of their time in their London pent houses.

Peter.

[Buzz]

"I vote they do both- update CMSF AND do CMSF2 in Ukraine.

If I have to chose though, I vote Ukraine."

I like sburke's thinking;)

----

"In the same way a set of Scenarios that has Israel drawn into Syrian as blue and Egypt pulled into Libya in the same role lets anyone who wishes play Blue on Blue in the Sinai. .... I would add that they are in no way a criticism of BF who I think to a brilliant job given what they have taken on. I am not being sycophantic it's just that sometimes people read posts and get the wrong idea.

What do people think.

Peter.

----

Interesting ideas Peter. I too think Israel is going to be a "player" in the near future. BF seems to have a knack for knowing what should be relative in Modern Gaming. Look at CMSF and the current Syria.

*Honestly an upgraded CMSF-2 in the same Syria setting that could use the HUGE resources of CMSF would be fantastic IMO but it may not sell as well as their planned releases.*

BF CM: Shock Force 2 ... "we've chosen to simulate a full spectrum conventional conflict between NATO and Russia in the Ukraine. This gives players a rich tactical environment to explore with the most advanced militaries the world has ever seen..."

Either way.... return to modern warfare is long overdue and will be here sooner than many suspect;)

[Vark]

Firstly games like CM, that focus on the tactical environment, do not play to Russian military strengths, especially true in CMBB. The Russians destroyed the Germans because of Operational parity and strategic superiority, whilst being poor tactically. I'm sure BF will reflect this with a backstory of cyber attacks, maskirovka, pre-emptive strikes and a rapid deployment of fast moving Russian OMG type units, made up of the top units, not a 58th Army.

For a good primer on the curates egg nature of Russian forces in 2008 this is quite good.

http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/09spring/mcdermott.pdf

As for the Syrians providing similar opposition dream on. The Russians would prove to be a pretty nasty opponent, 91 and 2003 required massive build ups of force and equally massive mobilisation times. With the last UK and US armoured units departing from Germany, just where are the Allied heavy units going to come from? Cue scenarios where airborne and SBCT's fight the heavy Russian kit, buying time for reinforcements. The story might have a US armoured brigade on a goodwill tour, or joint exercise with Ukraine when everything kicks off.

As for China, it does not buy much Russian equipment because the majority of the PLA's deployed equipment is ripped off from Russia, a practice started during the Cold War. As for fighting abilities they have historically been less than spectacular and have none of the operation experience the Russians have of large scale armoured warfare, history, even old history counts. The Chinese navy is the most sophisticated of the armed services as it is anticipated that it will bear the burden of any meaningful force projection, if any of the historical maritime disagreements end up in a shooting war.

Far more worrying is the fact that BF predicted conflict in Syria, what do they know about the Ukraine that we don't?

[Buzz]

"...the fact that BF predicted conflict in Syria, what do they know about the Ukraine that we don't?"

Ask the NSA... as they have the "PRISIM"

Yes... CMSF may have been a long range business decision based on real world.

CMSF-2 .. where ever it ends up.... will be interesting and a return to Modern Warfare.

[Vanir Ausf B]

The T-99 will be lucky to see the light of day let alone 2015.

Do you have some information on the likely cancellation of the T-99 or is this just your personal opinion?

The T-99 looks very much like what they thought about after Chechnya; An infantry MICV or APC built on a tank chassis to get round the vulnerability of the BMP's. If it does get produced it will most likely be a series of vehicles based on the T-90 design with possibly a Stryker MGS style 120mm gun.

There will be other vehicles based on the T-99 chassis, including an APC, but the T-99 is in fact a battle tank. It has an unmanned turret and ammunition stowage separate from the crew as in Western designs. That it is a further evolution of the T-90 is not what I am reading.

As for the rest, you are making a lot of unsupported claims, but I am not interested in debating them in detail since I am not opposed to the idea of a China vs. NATO/US game. But it seems to me this would be a separate project than another Middle Eastern-based CM. China is not involved militarily in the Middle East and has no real ability to do so.

Is anyone really excited about the idea of Syria vs. NATO Round 2? We already know how Syria matches up against NATO. They are not significantly more capable now than they were in 2006.

[Buzz]

It seems a return to Modern Warfare ..."a full spectrum conventional conflict between NATO and Russia in the Ukraine...." offers several game options beyond Syria vs. NATO Round 2. I do not expect BF will do a reboot of CMSF Round 2 but it would be intriguing to compare and contrast the differences in CMSF-1 vs. 2.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I didn't word that quite right. I know BFC isn't going to do that. I was referring to Peter's proposal.

[Peter Cairns]

Vanir,

There are two views on the T-99 project for a new family of vehicles;

The official Russian one is that after years of delay they have got there act together an a world beater is soon to be deployed as part of ongoing force modernisation.

The other view is that it is just more hot air and like the T-95 all we will see is models and drawings and what will finally emerge in about 2020 are little more than modifications of the T-90.

By that time India, China and Turkey will be building and exporting better.

As to China v Nato/US, that's not at all what I had in mind. The idea of Arc of Crisis is to move away from Us and them, to Intervention v insurrection. The "blue" forces would be those with the ability to project power not just over distance like the US/NATO but across their border like Turkey, Egypt or Israel and those that might have to do it internally, like Syria now or China with Xinjiang.

A US V China fight wouldn't be part of the game theme like the blue v red US V Syria in SF1 it would be a blue on blue option in Qb's or player designed scenarios.

I think it is better to bring new nations with new kit into a realistic setting, which could include Russians in Georgia as Blues so you could use them in your own scenarios against the US, than to invent some Tom Clancy come James Bond that has the 82nd airborne dropping in to Kiev.

Peter.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Vanir,

There are two views on the T-99 project for a new family of vehicles;

The official Russian one is that after years of delay they have got there act together an a world beater is soon to be deployed as part of ongoing force modernisation.

The other view is that it is just more hot air and like the T-95 all we will see is models and drawings and what will finally emerge in about 2020 are little more than modifications of the T-90.

Those are two views. I doubt they are the only two. An unmanned turret does not sound like a modified T-90.

What is your source for the 2020 date? It is presently scheduled for 2015.

By that time India, China and Turkey will be building and exporting better.

You are making a lot of judgements about the relative combat performance of weapon platforms that have never been tested in combat and in most cases are still in development, which suggests that you either have access to some very hard-to-come-by information or you are guessing.

As to China v Nato/US, that's not at all what I had in mind. The idea of Arc of Crisis is to move away from Us and them, to Intervention v insurrection. The "blue" forces would be those with the ability to project power not just over distance like the US/NATO but across their border like Turkey, Egypt or Israel and those that might have to do it internally, like Syria now or China with Xinjiang.

A US V China fight wouldn't be part of the game theme like the blue v red US V Syria in SF1 it would be a blue on blue option in Qb's or player designed scenarios.

Where would this joint China/US intervention on the same side be set, and who would they be intervening against?

I think it is better to bring new nations with new kit into a realistic setting, which could include Russians in Georgia as Blues so you could use them in your own scenarios against the US, than to invent some Tom Clancy come James Bond that has the 82nd airborne dropping in to Kiev.

From what we know of CMSF2 it seems to be based on a NATO and Russian intervention in Ukraine, though BFC hasn't said much about the story line beyond that.

This "Arc of Crisis" idea is interesting but seems more broad in concept than BFC would ever implement into a single game, even with modules, and some of the countries mentioned would not realistically be involved the same conflict. China vs. India is a possibility, but neither would likely be seen anywhere near Turkey, Syria or Israel. You might want to narrow it down a bit.

[z1812]

I still think the best SF2 setting of all would be 80's WW3 Warsaw Pact vs NATO. 70's or 80s you'd have the best balance.

I agree with the above. Who knows, perhaps it is something they will consider in the future.

[Sgt Joch]

Russian military performance has always been something of a mystery. On paper, the Russian Army has many of the same weaknesses as Arab armies: overly centralized C2, unmotivated/poorly trained soldiers, pervasive corruption in the officer corps, etc.

For 20 years or so after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Army spent very little on new equipment and in 2008 had around 80% legacy equipment and only about 20% modern equipment while in most western armies, the proportion is the reverse.

The 2008 war exposed many of the problems:

-the command chain was overly complex;

-much of the equipment was obsolescent or worn out: many units were still equipped with T-62 tanks and many vehicles/AFV broke down;

-the communication system was obsolete and many units had trouble just staying in radio contact with their HQ/subordinate units. Ordinary soldiers did not have radios, only platoon leaders/officers;

-the GLONASS system went down for 48 hours (CIA/DoD/NSA? ) and the Russians could not use any of their GPS guided munitions.

Despite that, tactical performance of Russian units was actually quite good, certainly much better than what Arab armies have achieved. Certain VVS (airborne) units redeployed up to 2,000 km from their bases and were in action within 36 hours of the Georgian attack. Russian officers/units showed a lot of tactical initiative in defeating Georgian units and keeping up the momentum of the offensive.

Since 2008, the Russians have embarked on an ambitious project to modernise their army:

-the command chains/levels have been simplified. The division structure has been scrapped in favor of NATO style brigades. This is already in place and results of training exercises appear promising, although efforts to reform the officer corps and improve the professionalism of ordinary soldiers appear less successful.

-much of the equipment is due to be replaced, Russia wants to increase the proportion of modern equipment to 30% in 2015 and 80% in 2020. This seems overly ambitious, although all T-62s have been removed from front line units and the principal battle tank is now the T-72BM which is more potent than the T-72 turms in Syria.

-GLONASS has been improved by the addition of several satellites. Russia wants to put in place a net centric system like the U.S. "Blue Force Tracker" in 2015-17, but that seems overly ambitious since they seem to be struggling just to make sure each soldier has a reliable radio.

Overall, Russian units should perform better than the best Syrian units in CMSF, although U.S. forces should maintain a training/equipement/technological edge for at least the next 5-10 years.

[Michael Emrys]

Far more worrying is the fact that BF predicted conflict in Syria, what do they know about the Ukraine that we don't?

Yeah, but the conflict they predicted isn't the one that we've got...at least not yet.

Michael

[Aured]

Okay, does this actually mean that CMSF2 is confirmed? Who said this?

(I'm a little excited now, so please do not fail me.)

[Lethaface]

Steve from BFC has already, long time ago, confirmed CM:SF 2 and that it is taking place in the Ukraine, with Nato and Russia involved.

Best news that it is due to come out this year

Search the forum (through google) for details.

[Buzz]

From Moon.... 06-22-2012

A new CMSF2 ... maybe on a New Mac Pro:D

That will work!

The Road Ahead

Combat Mission fans have a lot to look forward to in the next year as the CMx2 game engine continues to produce games at an every faster pace. At the moment we have three games in active development and more planned. While we aren't in a position to make detailed announcements right now, we can tell you what the three are about (in no particular order):

1. CM: Battle for Normandy Module 2. This Module picks up where CM:BN and Commonwealth left off... with the September push out of France to the German border. The content centers around Operation Market Garden, though it covers more ground than just that. The game includes a number of new vehicles, formations, and new terrain models/textures. Adding new terrain, a first for any Module so far, ensures that you feel like you're fighting near Germany and not still back at the beacheads.

2. CM: Eastern Front 1. The first of four Eastern Front "families" starts with Operation Bagration (June 1944) and eventually covers through to the end of the war (May 1945). For many tactical warfare enthusiasts, this period is considered the most tactically interesting since both sides were at their peak of their military technology, organization, and experience. The scope and scale of the combat offers plenty of subject matter to explore.

3. CM: Shock Force 2. Our return to modern warfare is long overdue! Given how close Shock Force 1 was at predicting a conventional conflict in Syria, we're a little nervous about choosing a topic this time around. Especially because we've chosen to simulate a full spectrum conventional conflict between NATO and Russia in the Ukraine. This gives players a rich tactical environment to explore with the most advanced militaries the world has ever seen. Having said that, we hope the politicians aren't insane enough to try it for real. Even thought this is great stuff for a game, it's the last thing this world needs in real life.

We have more games planned for 2013, however we are making no formal announcements at this time. These three mini-announcements should be enough to keep you busy for a while.

[Sgt Joch]

for those who like to study, there are some good in depth articles on Russian military performance in the 2008 Georgian war and the ongoing modernisation efforts:

1. Roger McDermott, "Russia's conventional armed forces and the Georgian war".

good overview of the strength/weaknesses of the Russian army.

http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/09spring/mcdermott.pdf

2. Rod Thornton, "Military modernisation and the Russian ground forces"

good overview of the ongoing modernisation program

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1071.pdf

3. Rod Thornton, "Organisational changes in the Russian airborne forces: the lessons of the Georgian conflict"

another overview of the modernisation program, but focusing on the VVS which are the elite forces of the Russian Army.

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1096.pdf