Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 500
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In all seriousness, does the Shtora system actually do anything other than make the tank look angry?

He reached out from the past!   

Hi all, I haven't posted here in a while. I was did own Shock Force, but I'll be dipped if I can find the manual and disk. That was quite a while ago.

Sorry to hear that. :(

Consider a "floating timeline". Time makes fools of us all, so putting an exact date on the war may not be the best way to go. This was a minor problem with Shock Force which took place at an exact date about a year in the future. It quickly became dated and you had expansions that took place in the future age of last year. Instead of having the war take place in 2017 have it take place in x+3 where x is always the current year.

This is definitely a very valid suggestion. We picked a specific date (mid 2017) so that we could base the list of required equipment around something fixed i.e. a date. Of course we could just subsequently omit all mention of that date from the story. That idea has been floated before, and it's still an option.

I applaud you for picking Russians as OPFOR this time around. I tried to sell some my friends on Shock Force but weren't interested. One referred to as derisively as "Combat Mission: Squish the Arab", perhaps a bit crude but the US vs Syria is one sided.

Some of the Russian equipment we've put in is pretty cool, at least to me. :D I'm already fond of the BTR-82A and can't wait to take it up against a Ukrainian BTR-4! In fact, I think I'll show some of the new Russian stuff for the next Saturday stream.

If this is to be WWIII let us make the most of it! Don't be shy about throwing in additional OPFOR countries in. I know you have stated you weren't interested in having Belarus join in, but I ask you reconsider. Perhaps adding in CIS units in modules. Admittedly these units aren't likely to be particularly effective, or even distinctive but having more countries join Russia in the war gets rid of the feeling that Russia is being dog piled on. Further afield some other countries might be fun to throw in the mix such as Iran (who have an interesting mix of equipment) or even North Korea (Good Lord, is that T-34!).

I'd love to see some of former Warsaw Pact countries that are in NATO in the game. Countries like Poland have an interesting mix of Soviet and Western equipment another NATO country that might be interesting is Turkey. A Turkish campaign against say, Iran could be really neat.

We actually aren't try to depict a full-blown World War III here. It's a regional conflict that NATO and Russia end up trading blows over. As cool it would be, we don't have the resources to make a game depicting every major military force in the world. ;)

We'll of course add more red and blue forces in with future modules/packs, but they'll be regionally relevant to Ukraine, so the possibility of North Korean forces appearing in Black Sea is slim. ;) Luckily there's already plenty of interesting forces in the area to draw from, as you've pointed to out.

Of course, we can always expand on the story and setting later if we want to. It's not like we're writing in stone here. ;) More likely though, a significant deviation from the setting would be done with a new game, not tacked on to Black Sea.

I believe the Russians will be introducing a new MBT in the time frame in the game. I don't suspect it'll make an appearance. Figuring out capabilities of current generation equipment is difficult enough. Coming up with the capabilities of equipment that hasn't even been put in use (and may never be put in use) is all but impossible.

We definitely won't be seeing any of the secretive new Russian tanks that are supposedly coming out in a few years. At least for base game release. The sad fact of the matter is that so little is known about them that we'd basically be making something up out of thin air.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Afternoon Gents.

It would of been nice to see the only recently conceptualised "Armata" MBT in CM:BS and its a shame we wont. A 152mm APFSDS or GLATGM would make an unfortunate mess of any M1.

As for the three Russian tanks entering ukraine. It is highly likely, judging from viewing the pictures myself, that they are the same vehicles captured in Crimea, resprayed, then given to the separatists with a small training package or to experienced ex-soldiers or reservists. Many media outlets are claiming T-72 but they are obviously T-64BV which the Russians do not operate in the Moscow District, let alone in the rest of Russia.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Afternoon Gents.

It would of been nice to see the only recently conceptualised "Armata" MBT in CM:BS and its a shame we wont. A 152mm APFSDS or GLATGM would make an unfortunate mess of any M1.

Well, Russian experts believe that most recent iteration of T-90 is more than a match for any MBT.

As for the three Russian tanks entering ukraine. It is highly likely, judging from viewing the pictures myself, that they are the same vehicles captured in Crimea, resprayed, then given to the separatists with a small training package or to experienced ex-soldiers or reservists. Many media outlets are claiming T-72 but they are obviously T-64BV which the Russians do not operate in the Moscow District, let alone in the rest of Russia.

This. They are -no doubt - T-64s -a tank still in service in Ukrainian army.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, Russian experts believe that most recent iteration of T-90 is more than a match for any MBT.

That was funny. When did "Russian experts" ever have an opportunity to say what they really think? Everything that comes out of Moscow is of course thorougly checked by Putins PR people, to make sure it's consistent with the official propaganda.

I really hope that Black Sea will not have any fantasy super weapons based on Russian information, but rather more realistic assesments of the Russian equipment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That was funny. When did "Russian experts" ever have an opportunity to say what they really think? Everything that comes out of Moscow is of course thorougly checked by Putins PR people, to make sure it's consistent with the official propaganda.

I really hope that Black Sea will not have any fantasy super weapons based on Russian information, but rather more realistic assesments of the Russian equipment.

And you will build realistic assessments based on what information? Iraqi T-72s using ammo that was almost of my age? Good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope that Black Sea will not have any fantasy super weapons based on Russian information, but rather more realistic assesments of the Russian equipment.

We are taking an objective and critical look at all available sources of information. I think most gamers will be happy with the results.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Most likely Western experts, who, unlike their Russian counterparts, are free to share the information that they have, regardless of political concerns.

I am pretty sure you studied a lot of works of Russian experts on the subject.

And good luck reproducing reliable results while ignoring experts from the country manufacturing half of the equipment in game. Certainly I wouldn't play YOUR game.

We are taking an objective and critical look at all available sources of information. I think most gamers will be happy with the results.

Sounds very well!

Link to post
Share on other sites
That was funny. When did "Russian experts" ever have an opportunity to say what they really think? Everything that comes out of Moscow is of course thorougly checked by Putins PR people, to make sure it's consistent with the official propaganda.

I really hope that Black Sea will not have any fantasy super weapons based on Russian information, but rather more realistic assesments of the Russian equipment.

To put it plainly and without revealing too much, I am well versed with Russian produced kit, so much as I get paid for it. It would be wise to underestimate Russian equipment. Many of it is capable of compromising NATO kit, well at least ours (British) anyway, which isn't too far flung from American capability and protection wise.

@ChrisND.

Not to be a peen like, but I saw the BMP-3M models ingame. What classifies the BMP-3"M" is the Bakhcha-U turret which the models you displayed don't have. Are they going to be updated?

Cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to reiterate my point, now I have some figures in front of me.

The ERA depicted in game (Kaktus I presume) reduces KE effect of penetrators by 55%.

The FCS depicted ingame on the T-90 series is capable of a 55% chance of first round hit with APFSDS at 2.5km and 90% chance of hit with GLATGM at 4km both with upward of 750RHA penetration.

This is just for MBT alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
@ChrisND.

Not to be a peen like, but I saw the BMP-3M models ingame. What classifies the BMP-3"M" is the Bakhcha-U turret which the models you displayed don't have. Are they going to be updated?

Cheers.

Some 3D stuff is still a work in progress. I'll check and see what else is lined up for the BMP-3M.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ChrisND.

Not to be a peen like, but I saw the BMP-3M models ingame. What classifies the BMP-3"M" is the Bakhcha-U turret which the models you displayed don't have. Are they going to be updated?

Cheers.

Although there could be other possibilities for BMP-3Ms in hypothetical future Russian service, this is not the case for the BMP-3M currently in production and recently delivered to Azerbaijan.

Fire power of the upgraded BMP-3 is enhanced due to introduction of an upgraded fire control system. The system comprises SOZH main sight for the gunner with an integrated laser rangefinder and an ATGM guidance channel, Vesna-K sighting system with a thermal imaging camera and AST-B automatic target tracker, TKN-AI day/night vision device for the commander, a ballistic computer and an armament stabilizer.

link

In my opinion, it is very realistic as an interim, affordable modernization. (In reality, there will probably never be a "BMP-3M" in Russian service with their next-gen IFV on the near horizon.) However, Bachka-U would be great additional "what-if" option down the road, especially after the BMD-4 is added to the game.

The ERA depicted in game (Kaktus I presume)

That depends on the vehicle in question.

T-72B3 and T-90A - Kontakt-5

T-90AM - Relict (possibly Kaktus on turret sides)

BMP-3M (ERA) - Kaktus

T-64BV - Kontakt-1

BM Bulat - Knife

BM Oplot - Duplet

Link to post
Share on other sites

That depends on the vehicle in question.

T-90AM - Relict (possibly Kaktus on turret sides)

Just to reiterate my point, now I have some figures in front of me.

The ERA depicted in game (Kaktus I presume) reduces KE effect of penetrators by 55%.

The FCS depicted ingame on the T-90 series is capable of a 55% chance of first round hit with APFSDS at 2.5km and 90% chance of hit with GLATGM at 4km both with upward of 750RHA penetration.

This is just for MBT alone.

I was suggesting as much. The T-90MS demonstrator has Relikt on turret and side panel configuration. The turret side panels on the hypothetical AM model would probably be fitted with Kaktus panels. Kaktus was planned to be fitted to the turret panels of the T-95 demonstrator I believe, so it doesn't rule out it being adapted to other turret applications. Guess we will have to see when we get a better look at the models :D

I wasn't referring to Ukrainian vehicles, and I haven't got the lethality and survivability stats for those at hand.

In my opinion, it is very realistic as an interim, affordable modernization. (In reality, there will probably never be a "BMP-3M" in Russian service with their next-gen IFV on the near horizon.) However, Bachka-U would be great additional "what-if" option down the road, especially after the BMD-4 is added to the game.

This is true. Although with the models made and the release being months away, I think that its highly likely that they wont be changed sadly. However I also would like to see the Bakhcha-U turret on a BMP-3 if the BMD-4 is put in an airborne troops expansion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is true. Although with the models made and the release being months away, I think that its highly likely that they wont be changed sadly. However I also would like to see the Bakhcha-U turret on a BMP-3 if the BMD-4 is put in an airborne troops expansion.

I checked with a couple guys. Yeah, as akd said, for base game we won't have the Bakcha-U turret on any of the BMP-3 variants. We're also past the point where we'll be adding stuff unless it is absolutely critical. I keep a list of equipment that is to be considered for future modules/packs, I'll add a Bakhcha-U variant to the list.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A quick note of thanks to ChrisND for his previews of Black Sea through its developmental stages. This title has considerable potential and I'm definitely looking forward to seeing how it turns out.

It may be too early for scenario design questions, however I would like to learn more about the thinking behind the perceived readiness of the future combatants represented in the game. How might the regular, conventional (i.e. non-SpecOp/Airborne/Ranger, etc.) US, Russian and Ukrainian army units best be envisioned in terms of in-game experience and motivation levels?

Is it assumed the represented US forces will have an advantage in terms of overall experience stemming from their more recent 10+ years of involvement in low intensity conflicts? Would the bulk of the lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan be viewed as non-applicable versus a modernized, digitally networked opponent?

What about the contemporary Russian army's perceived capability and performance? Bearing in mind their participation in the Chechen wars, the resulting counter insurgency operations and select units involvement in South Ossetia, will the Russians be depicted as bringing a comparable level of relevant battlefield experience to this hypothetical regional conflict?

Would it be reasonable to say scenario designers could best represent US and Russian forces in a state of relative parity with the Ukrainians portrayed in a more uneven state of experience and motivation?

This might translate into game terms with the US and Russian armies exhibiting a combination of predominantly "Regular" units with some "Veteran" formations in the mix - most of which rating with "Normal" or "High" motivation values. Should the Ukrainians then best be simulated primarily by "Conscript, Green" and some "Regular" formations with "Normal" and "High" motivation values to represent their inconsistent training while fighting for their homeland?

What do those of you with in-depth knowledge of these forces think?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I checked with a couple guys. Yeah, as akd said, for base game we won't have the Bakcha-U turret on any of the BMP-3 variants. We're also past the point where we'll be adding stuff unless it is absolutely critical. I keep a list of equipment that is to be considered for future modules/packs, I'll add a Bakhcha-U variant to the list.

Any word on the Ka-50, or is that one another item to be considered for a future expansion?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...