Which module would you like first?

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Yup.. although a Brit.. I voted for Germany.

NATO is not going to take on Russia within the Former Soviet Union.. no one is.. so let’s have some fun and refight some of the WWII clashes with new toys to see how contemporary, high intensity war would work.

All the best,

Kip.

[DreDay]

I very much appreciate Battlefront soliciting the user input on future modules. But if I might make just a small suggestion - perhaps it would make more sence to split this poli into two areas - upgrades for the OPFOR (Russia and Eastern Rebels in this case) and upgrades for the BLUEFOR (NATO and Ukraine). The game developers have a very admirable history of releasing new units for both sides in their modules. So perhaps one could vote for having VDV for the OPFOR and Polish Army for the BLUEFOR as a part of a single module?

[speedyglides]

Vote for Spain

[A Canadian Cat]

this thread is NOT a question from battlefront.com and it doesn't influence developers choices, i just wanted to know what others people thinks

 

 

I very much appreciate Battlefront soliciting the user input on future modules

 

The OP was pretty clear this poll was not Battlefront's doing in any way.

[Jargotn]

I think the battles start in the east/north and work their way towards Kiev. The next module with the US Marines will focus nearer the south coast and Crimea. That's just in general, the scenario designers could pick about any location that seemed appropriate as long as it fit in the storyline (nobody's waging battle on the mountainous border with Rumania).

First module confirmed. US Marines.

Edited January 2, 2015 by Jargotn

[DreDay]

The OP was pretty clear this poll was not Battlefront's doing in any way.

 

My bad, I did not realize that. Still though, my original point stands - it would make much more sense to ask which OPFOR and BLUEFOR formations would you like to see in a new module...

[A Canadian Cat]

I just did not want any misunderstandings. I do agree with your point though.

[LukeFF]

Not getting political, but USA have the same chances of showing up there as China.

 

Sorry, not even close. Given the backstory to the game, America showing up is far more plausible than China showing up which, like I said above, would be too much of a stretch.

 

Given the economics of game development and the game's region, it's probably safe to say the US Marines and British Army will be among the first NATO combatants added in a module. Poland is probably also a strong candidate. Germany....maybe. Their military isn't all that geared right now for a big-time military clash, and politically their population is very much against deploying the military for offensive operations. That, and to paraphrase one of the ISAF commanders, their performance in Afghanistan resembled an "aggressive camping trip."

 

There'd also be of course the whole psychological matter of sending the German military back to what was its graveyard in WWII.

Edited January 3, 2015 by LukeFF

[DreDay]

Sorry, not even close. Given the backstory to the game, America showing up is far more plausible than China showing up which, like I said above, would be too much of a stretch.

 

Given the economics of game development and the game's region, it's probably safe to say the US Marines and British Army will be among the first NATO combatants added in a module. Poland is probably also a strong candidate. Germany....maybe. Their military isn't all that geared right now for a big-time military clash, and politically their population is very much against deploying the military for offensive operations. That, and to paraphrase one of the ISAF commanders, their performance in Afghanistan resembled an "aggressive camping trip."

 

There'd also be of course the whole psychological matter of sending the German military back to what was its graveyard in WWII.

 

First of all, as my fellow countryman you will probably agree that there is absolutely no support in our society for engaging in a war against an enemy that does not pose a direct threat to us (at least on a same or higher level than Al Qaeda did in early 2000s). There would be even less support for engaging a strong opponent (albeit not nearly as strong as we are) like Russian Armed Forces over Ukraine (that most of our countrymen cannot even find on a map). However all of that is moot point due to our nuclear parity with the Russians and a mutual distraction principle. The last thing that any responsible American or Russian leader would want to do is to escalate such conflict to DEFCON 1 level. As I've said in quite a few other threads - CMBS provides a very interesting and challenging scenario that I am really looking forward to; but their premise (as far as direct US Military involvment is not really well grounded in reality - which is something that I am perfectly OK with btw).... so in that sense PRC involvement in such cisis is just as likely as US involent - which is to say that neither one is likely to happen; yet it is still fun and challenging to consider in a game like CMBS

[LukeFF]

but their premise (as far as direct US Military involvement is not really well grounded in reality

 

No, the idea that China would get involved in such a conflict is even less grounded in reality than the idea that NATO would not come to aid of a country that wants to...join NATO. Throwing China into the pot would just make it look like BF wants to add China for no particular reason. Say what you will about the US becoming involved in a Ukrainian conflict, but the fact remains that the US, UK, and doubtless other NATO militaries have been and are conducting NATO exercises in eastern European nations such as Poland, and I highly doubt that's because they just find the scenery of Poland to be pleasant.  

[DreDay]

 

 

 

No, the idea that China would get involved in such a conflict is even less grounded in reality than the idea that NATO would not come to aid of a country that wants to...join NATO. Throwing China into the pot would just make it look like BF wants to add China for no particular reason. Say what you will about the US becoming involved in a Ukrainian conflict, but the fact remains that the US, UK, and doubtless other NATO militaries have been and are conducting NATO exercises in eastern European nations such as Poland, and I highly doubt that's because they just find the scenery of Poland to be pleasant.  

 

Ok, I see what you mean. Those are fair points. So let me put it this way then - there is no chance in hell that US will fight Russia over Ukraine in a near future and there is no "f'in" way in hell that China would somehow get involved in such conflict; so you're right - Chinese involvement is even less feasible; but both scenarios (US or China) are completely unfeasible to begin with. Can we perhaps agree on that? If we can't, I am sorry - but that is as far as I am willing to debate politics on this forum. Cheers!

Edited January 3, 2015 by DreDay

[mrzafka]

I voted Eastern Nato countries for the first and French for the second but, to be true, I would be quite surprised if they should appear in the first module for real.

BTW, last time I read something about Polish Army they had quite a mix of western and soviet equipments. How is the situation now?

Pretty much a mix.

 

MBTs - Leopard 2A4 and 2A5. But there are still more T-72s, some of them upgraded (PT-91, essentially reactive armor, thermal sight for the gunner and new stabilization system with fire computer). No sane commander will send T-72s against modern Russian force, the upgraded model isn't exactly cutting edge either.

 

IFVs - Patria AMV, locally known as "Rosomak" ("Wolverine"). Exists in a few variants, the most interesting being one armed with the Hitfist turret (30 mm cannon). Roughly similar to the Stryker variants. Proved to be a good vehicle in Afghanistan. What else? BMP-1...not changed in any way since the seventies.

 

Individual equipment has seen some significant upgrades, at least forces used in Afghanistan had your usual sets of night vision, GPS, modern comms and body armor. Israeli Spike missiles are the main AT asset.

 

In the Air Force there are 48 F-16, about 30 each of MiG-29 and Su-22. Only the F-16 have a reasonable chance of being used against ground targets in CM battles (forget about Su-22, it would be suicidal).  In 2017 there is a chance that new attack helicopters will be in service, nowadays we have just the Mi-24 (which are left only with unguided ordnance, as guided missiles have reached end of shelf life and nobody is going shopping to Moscow...)

 

I think Poland would make an interesting addition. Perhaps together with other neighobouring countries, Czech Republic also has some interesting equipment.

[Sandokan]

I see. Thanks for the info mrzafka!