QB units values

[exsonic01]

Yes, I admit that I'm not that good to being redfor player, but I also like the point you mentioned when playing redfor, which gives me lots of thrill. It is looks like hunting for some achievements. I'm practicing redfor these days, using hotseat mode, defending or attacking my own few crack~elite Abrams + Bradley + Javelin + other supports assets. But still, putting a hole in Abrams is incredibly difficult, even in urban conditions. Bradley and Abrams combo with ambushing by US infantry gave me lots of trouble. If the blufor goes really patience but tricky, there's not much thing that redfor can do. Yes, like you mentioned, it is really hard part. But also yes, it is really fun, a lot, and I'm enjoying it. 

 

But still, I think the point prices for redfor tanks and IFVs need to be considered. I think it does not need huge discount, just what Kieme mentioned would be enough. 

[Sublime]

you should play pbems againsnt ppl as red for. you ll get drastically better quicker. hotseat i think is useless for teachinf yourself how to defeat an opponent and more a thing u can play w. someone present, do tests, w.e. and it doesnt matter if it takes more practice to play red for. you want balance play a command annd conquer derivative. players need more practice to win as the italians, russians, us, british (and CW nations), mujahideen, and syrians quite often too and noone complains i think its ridiculous. the facts are you have two miltaries that were tailored to fight eachother except one died (Soviets) when the other was doing better when one basically 'died' (fall of USSR) and the other didnt die(US) but continued to prosper and have the ability to invent and make lots more military than the other. And what if the blufor winner of your competition was playing Ukr? You could always play them too if you wanted more balance.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Sublime

[exsonic01]

No worry, I'm already enjoying lots of pbem enough. Playing hotseat is kind of 50% test + 50% practicing & challenging. I don't know about others but it works good for me, but of course it is bit less efficient in terms of practicing than real pbem game. 

 

You might very well think that I'm arguing about balancing, but it isn't. Well, I admit I complained things about redfor, but I never said 'redfor should be stronger' or something similar like that. IMO, considering given close-proximity circumstance of Ukraine from Russia, just a bit of readjustment in point for redfor vehicles would be reasonable. Also, that would be good for pbem, giving more fun & challenges for both side's players. And yes, some of other pbem opponents told me about his Syrian/insurgent army playing days in CMSF, which was worse than Rus in CMBS, but he told me that was ultra fun. I hope I would feel the same too sooner or later. 

 

Trust me, I played Wargame RD 1000+ steam time, and whole Wargame series might 2000+ time in steam, I'd seen enough redfor fanboys in Eugen forum, claiming that "T-90 should eat M1A2 for lunch" "My T-90s should be more stronger but cheaper" "Chinese ZTZ tanks are better than M1A2" something like that. And I was tired of some meaningless patch by Eugen. So, I was looking for more authenticity for modern warfare, and invested 55$ to get this game. With ARMA3 and Steel beasts SE, so far, this game is my top3 game after the year of 2010. It is interesting that some of Wargame tactics works well in here too. (and I wish there is a plan for CM coldwar Germany)  If you're saying I'm a person who claims "game balancing", you chose wrong person.

Edited June 27, 2015 by exsonic01

[Sublime]

well i do agree cm cold war germany would kick @$$

[Kieme(ITA)]

Set in the early '80s.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

Set in the early '80s.

 

I'd prefer later 80's.  However doing a game that is Fulda Gap 1982 and then having a module that brings the scenario forward to 1989 would be something I'd still go in for.  

[Vinnart]

One thing I can say is the QB points allowed need to be lower for battle size in CMBS. CMRT is working much better for this. When one picks TINY they are not expecting to get a battalion size force which is more than is desired for a tiny battle. I have noticed this always with Russians. I think more in terms of company size or smaller for tiny setting. Of Course the best system was how cmx1 had it where the amount of points allowed could be adjusted to preference. I also like how for combined arms fights it would allow a budget for each type of unit type.  This assured much better force balance for QB battles.

[Stagler]

I'd prefer later 80's. However doing a game that is Fulda Gap 1982 and then having a module that brings the scenario forward to 1989 would be something I'd still go in for.

Aye that really would be something.

[Sublime]

id take any but 80s and mid late 49s top my list. early 70s could be interesting

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

id take any but 80s and mid late 49s top my list. early 70s could be interesting 

 

Dunno man.  Until the 80's NATO's plan was really more or less "if Russians in West Germany equal to or greater than 1, launch nuclear weapons."  The early 80's covers when that had started to shift, but at the point where the new plans and equipment really hadn't changed the balance too much, while the late 80's gets into the realm in which the shoe is firmly on the other foot.  

 

Some sort of "We watched Patton too many times while slightly boozed and made a 1946 module that covers both a continued World War Two, and a hypothetical outbreak of war with the USSR and the western Allies" for the upcoming Bulge game  would be cool however.  

[Sublime]

id love patton west vs east 45. And yes i know NATOs plan was go nuclear more or less immediately. After all I was born in the FRG at Rammstein to an Air Force F 4 Phantom WSO

still early or late 70s i think we could have some non nuclear options. lets be real here anyway any conflict even through the 80s would have gone nuclear.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Sublime

[Vanir Ausf B]

There's still too little difference between the T-90AM and the A, given the fact that there's a Whole lots of difference in terms of armor protection (all around) and spotting ability.

 

This is probably because all T-90As come with Shtora. Admittedly, Shtora is less effective against US weapons than Ukrainian, but I have seen it spoof the occasional Javelin.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Regarding QB points for tanks in general, Black Sea is roughly in line with previous CMx2 titles:

 

Points ratios:

Normandy:

Panther A(mid) to M4A3(76)W Sherman: 1.36 to 1

 

Black Sea

T-72B3 to Abrams: 1.51 to1

T-72B3 APS to Abrams APS: 1.7 to 1

T90A to Abrams: 1.37 to 1

T-90AM to Abrams: 1.26 to 1

T90AM APS to Abrams APS: 1.4 to 1

 

Of course, it could be argued that Panthers are too cheap in the WW2 games but I'm just pointing out that Black Sea is broadly consistent within the CMx2 engine games.

[exsonic01]

Interesting comparison, but I don't think it is fair to compare WW2 and modern MBTs, specially 2017's Rus army vs WW2 German army, just because they both use same CMx2 game engine. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Re: Sublime

 

 

 

still early or late 70s i think we could have some non nuclear options. lets be real here anyway any conflict even through the 80s would have gone nuclear. 

 

There was a limited conventional plan for the 70's, but it was generally limited to I guess the best way to describe it would making it harder to cross the boundaries that would lead to a nuclear exchange.  During the 80's a nuclear exchange was not an unreasonable outcome given the sorts of things at stake, however it is the first era that NATO honestly had detailed plans to fight and win a largely conventional war against the USSR, and the first time it was reasonably equipped, trained, or focused to stand an okay chance at being more than something that kept the Russians from trying to pull a fait accompli sort of attack.  

[Sublime]

True enough. But I still say it would have gone nuclear. I mean one glaring problem that was secret at the time was NATO only had an air to air missile supply for 3 days of combat. Dont ask for a source it was verbal. So yes whilst it is more suspect than a well researched bopk source it DID come from someone who was a field grade officer in Phantoms in Germany and Europe through the period. In fact i remember according to my father when they were based in Torrajone (sp?) in '78 they didnt have a convnetional plan their plan was a low level all the way hail mary to Russian force concentrations to drop tactical nukes and they assumed it d be a one way trip because even if they somehow survived parts I and II part III would probably entail friendly fire shooting you down.

Im not as sure what plans or roles they had around the time I was born or 85 to when we left in 91 (obviously the plan then was Desert Storm) but yeah the 80s were the first period with conventional plans except the 40s. Of course one could assume the US woulda used its nukes (it would have) but it didnt have many, and there were war plans a la Op Unthinkable and other studies done.

Still I see the 80s going nuclear no matter how you cut it. Soviet doctrine had Spetznaz units with suitcase nukes for certain bases etc. The French were half in half out of NATO and its widely believed they would have used a tactical nuke on Soviet forces after a certain level of advance into Germany.. and of course we all know regardless if we started losing hard enough we were nuking em. During the time of Able Archer 83 which probably was the closest the world came to WW3 during the 80s besides that mistaken nuke launch episode at a Soviet early warning center and I believe the Soviets iirc during the Able Archer 83 thing were convinced the west was going to launch a gigantic surprise attack including nuclear weapons. So if the Soviets had fallen victim to their own paranoia one can see a massive and sudden Soviet nuclear missile attack on the US. To sum up, noone can be sure of anything

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

The degree in which both countries inflated each other's military capabilities is also interesting to reflect upon, in the Soviet eyes NATO was a force that well and could offer a realistic threat of invasion, while we all know how radically different the reality of the Soviet military proved to be from the unstoppable redswarm it was in many media sources.

 

There's a table top wargame (well system of rules) I futz with that goes as far in its cold war scenarios to divide them up into:

 

1. Cold War as imagined: basically the massive red hoard plowing into Germany ala Red Storm Rising/Team Yankee

2. Cold War as a reality: Warsaw Pact fragments, Soviet offensive stalls out with limited NATO counter-offensives (with the more interesting scenarios being an insertion of the 82nd Airborne into Poland to bolster the Polish exist from Warsaw Pact, and to hold long enough to link up with NATO elements driving across Germany).

3. Cold War as fiction: WOLVERINES!, and other implausible, but common in fictional portrayal cold war scenarios.  

 

It makes it interesting and I think it's the only way to really approach a Cold War gone hot sort of game while covering all the bases and themes people expect.  

 

Either way neither side realistically could sustain a long war.  While there's a lot of talk from the Soviet end of things as far as replacing losses and somesuch, the Soviets would have had a hard time fueling and arming whatever weapons they made after the start of the war.  NATO fully embraced the concept of exhaustion, basically planning and hoping to be able to be the less exhausted one after the few few days or weeks of war, and then turn that into a status ante bellum sort of gig.

[Vanir Ausf B]

True enough. But I still say it would have gone nuclear. I mean one glaring problem that was secret at the time was NATO only had an air to air missile supply for 3 days of combat. Dont ask for a source it was verbal. So yes whilst it is more suspect than a well researched bopk source it DID come from someone who was a field grade officer in Phantoms in Germany and Europe through the period. In fact i remember according to my father when they were based in Torrajone (sp?) in '78 they didnt have a convnetional plan their plan was a low level all the way hail mary to Russian force concentrations to drop tactical nukes and they assumed it d be a one way trip because even if they somehow survived parts I and II part III would probably entail friendly fire shooting you down.

Im not as sure what plans or roles they had around the time I was born or 85 to when we left in 91 (obviously the plan then was Desert Storm) but yeah the 80s were the first period with conventional plans except the 40s. Of course one could assume the US woulda used its nukes (it would have) but it didnt have many, and there were war plans a la Op Unthinkable and other studies done.

Still I see the 80s going nuclear no matter how you cut it. Soviet doctrine had Spetznaz units with suitcase nukes for certain bases etc. The French were half in half out of NATO and its widely believed they would have used a tactical nuke on Soviet forces after a certain level of advance into Germany.. and of course we all know regardless if we started losing hard enough we were nuking em. During the time of Able Archer 83 which probably was the closest the world came to WW3 during the 80s besides that mistaken nuke launch episode at a Soviet early warning center and I believe the Soviets iirc during the Able Archer 83 thing were convinced the west was going to launch a gigantic surprise attack including nuclear weapons. So if the Soviets had fallen victim to their own paranoia one can see a massive and sudden Soviet nuclear missile attack on the US. To sum up, noone can be sure of anything

Mord actually did break your phone!

[Vanir Ausf B]

Interesting comparison, but I don't think it is fair to compare WW2 and modern MBTs, specially 2017's Rus army vs WW2 German army, just because they both use same CMx2 game engine.

While technology has advanced, the role of armor and of the MBT in particular has remained essentially the same.

[exsonic01]

While technology has advanced, the role of armor and of the MBT in particular has remained essentially the same.

Still, that does not justify that same-line-comparison of WW2 vehicles vs 2017 vehicles, using CM game system's deployment points. I agree with your mention about role of MBT, but both side's battlefield is different, surrounding geometry is different, supporting assets are different, tank's combat abilities are different, and Russia is very close from Ukraine, and etc.... I don't know how BFC estimate the points of units, but that bit of discount for redfor vehicles would not hurt game's authenticity and thrill.  

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

While technology has advanced, the role of armor and of the MBT in particular has remained essentially the same. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen_hypothesis

 

Rarely will something so dramatically change the battlefied as to re-write the book (see the massive increase in firepower in the late 1890's leading into the First World War, mechanization, etc), but fairly often it's just the same tools, only upgraded to stay relevant against the tools made to break them.  

[Vanir Ausf B]

Still, that does not justify that same-line-comparison of WW2 vehicles vs 2017 vehicles, using CM game system's deployment points. I agree with your mention about role of MBT, but both side's battlefield is different, surrounding geometry is different, supporting assets are different, tank's combat abilities are different, and Russia is very close from Ukraine, and etc....

I'm not sure what Russia's geographic proximity to Ukraine has to do with QB prices but there is little difference in how I use tanks in Black Sea and the WW2 games. Maybe I'm doing it wrong.

I don't know how BFC estimate the points of units, but that bit of discount for redfor vehicles would not hurt game's authenticity and thrill.

If by "that bit of a discount for redfor" you are referring specifically to Kieme's suggestions then we are taking about 2 Russian and one Ukrainian tank. I won't comment on the T-64 as I have limited experience with it, but I think the T-72B3 is perhaps the best bang for the buck tank the Russians have against the US (vs Ukraine is a different story).

[Sublime]

i disagree vanir. but it could just be experience honestly. ive had across the board lousy luck with 72 B3s. Whats the best bang for yoyr buck vs Ukrainians then? Question for you- for my T64 ans T72s unless artys coming in I unbutton em. every other mbt stays buttoned. those i feel are better with human eyes due to age and crappy sensors. Do you agree with said strategy with the 72? The only risky thing with Soviet mbts and unbuttoned is one crew member catches a stray and the tanks neutered. And mord didnt break my phone. Did you not see my meme?

for me most Abram kills are from Khriz and T90AMs,rhen T90As and AT14/13s man portable. Redfor has a huge problem in that its tanks flanks can be oenetrated by Bradleys. If that werent the case blufor would still be tough but it.d really make a huge difference.

I used T90As for the first time in a recent battle and was pleasantly surprised. Shtora helped a lot not in deflecting missiles but popping smoke and getting tanks to react to threats in the threats general direction well. Its hard to play redfor theres a time though the window is very situation specific and small where its appropriate to charge out guns blazing. otherwise its best to rush to good ambush sites, keyhole positions, or spots where you can pop out and start pumping rounds into the flank of an axis of an advance and kill it. Even thats hard.

RE Panzer: what cold war game are u talking about? anyways it has to be remembered the m1 wasnt the version we know now. Soviet attack before HAs woulda been bad even after we had nowhere near the numbers we have now. And the Soviet Army just in East Germany outnunbered the entire US military worldwide iirc. Personally i think the Red Army woulda steamrolled through West Germany and if not or plans seriously derailed introsuced nuclear weapons. I mean remember WW3 for the SU if lost means ruling party is basically dead. They'd play for keeps. And i think the surprise attack nature and horrendous casualties (imo Vietnam levels of dead within a day or two) would mean the US public would be seriously pissed off...

Edited July 1, 2015 by Sublime

[Vanir Ausf B]

Whats the best bang for yoyr buck vs Ukrainians then?

Probably T-90AM with Arena.

Question for you- for my T64 ans T72s unless artys coming in I unbutton em. every other mbt stays buttoned. those i feel are better with human eyes due to age and crappy sensors. Do you agree with said strategy with the 72?

My experience so far matches yours. If I had more time to waste I would test it.

And mord didnt break my phone. Did you not see my meme?

I did not. Please repost

Edited July 1, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[exsonic01]

I'm not sure what Russia's geographic proximity to Ukraine has to do with QB prices but there is little difference in how I use tanks in Black Sea and the WW2 games. Maybe I'm doing it wrong.

If by "that bit of a discount for redfor" you are referring specifically to Kieme's suggestions then we are taking about 2 Russian and one Ukrainian tank. I won't comment on the T-64 as I have limited experience with it, but I think the T-72B3 is perhaps the best bang for the buck tank the Russians have against the US (vs Ukraine is a different story).

Maybe I'm wrong, I'm just expressing my thoughts. If we really become authentic, we need to consider each nation's 2017 economic situation and procurement ability, but that is too complex and difficult. And rarity point or deploy point of Rus / UA units even can be increased, based on grexit, china bubble.... and all other economic problems out there, which is 

 

Since I have no idea about how BFC decided the deploy point, I can't comment on price - performance ratio of any units. But still, purely my opinion is T-72B3/T90A/T90AM are all a bit expensive. But I think that BFC would not modify the deploy points of any tanks in near future. Maybe a bit possible in next expansion pack? Well, all I need to do is just try to get used to current situation.