BMP-3 commander: how to?

[Kinophile]

19 minutes ago, Stagler said:

Maybe a way of getting around this is adding an additional split squad option (alongside scout team, at team, fireteam etc) which just splits off the SL, and the rest of the squad is led by the senior soldier/asst. SL?

That's what they're debating, and what I iterated near the top -  The addition of another button & function and it's questionable merit in terms of RL doctrine & work load/benefit  (to BFC) v.  increased in-game control and effectiveness (for the player) . 

[hattori]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

why are you taking such an aggressive, dismissive, and increasingly insulting tone?

That's an easy one.  As your tone increases in a dismissive and increasingly insulting tone, so does mine.  Especially given that you are customer support, I find how you speak to others on this forum who disagree with you very surprising at times.  I almost feel an obligation to speak up at times because you will hammer people relentlessly who disagree with you until they are bullied into submission.

For example, it is probably not appropriate for an admin to say these things:

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

If you would listen, maybe we wouldn't have to go through this so many times.

or

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

And the fact that you don't understand that proves that you're not looking objectively at this.

I'm not even going to get into how you speak to Vlad.  That man has the patience of a saint.

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Not respond to your arguments at all?  I can easily do that, but here I was thinking you wanted to have a discussion.  My mistake?

Ya, pretty much.  I didn't want your response the first time I talked about this, and I really had zero interest in discussing it with you, but you are incapable of not responding.  Feel free to assume I don't want you to comment on any of my posts.

For example, after this comment:

On 11/9/2016 at 4:53 PM, hattori said:

lol, I am aware of this.  If you read the comment in context, it was that Battlefront is not above hacking things to make game play (and their coding load) easier for all of us.  I do get disagreeing with me is fun though

Adding a "Split leader" function as you suggested is also another workaround I would be happy with.  I was just putting suggestions that I thought might be easiest for you guys to do, since there are only 2 coders.  

I don't think I'm really asking for a discussion from you here.

On 11/9/2016 at 5:41 PM, hattori said:

Exactly!  That is what the players were asking for!  They want to adapt their tactics to have better spotting, and are asking for a means to do this.  Perhaps you guys should just overhaul the squad splitting code to be completely customizable, instead of a few fixed choices.  To save it from being a real nightmare, you can limit the number of teams a squad can split into to 2.

I personally don't think it's the craziest thing for infantry units in real life on the ground on their own initiative to say, "hey, lets have someone stay in the BMP to have more eyes on over watch".

In the meantime, I will enjoy my mobile Russian death coffins

I don't think I'm asking for a discussion with you here either.

9 hours ago, hattori said:

So we already have a 'split scout team' function, 'split squad', 'split anti tank', but for some reason, a 'split commander' method would totally ruin this game and is a crazy corner case that is a totally unreasonable request.  Okay then lol.

I'm really sure I don't want a discussion by this point.

 

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I've handled customers the same way for 17 years and guess what? 

Guess what?  Battlefront is a still a tiny company.  Perhaps it's handling of customers could use some work.

[hattori]

26 minutes ago, Stagler said:

Maybe a way of getting around this is adding an additional split squad option (alongside scout team, at team, fireteam etc) which just splits off the SL, and the rest of the squad is led by the senior soldier/asst. SL?

 

22 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

No.

 

[John Kettler]

On 11/9/2016 at 4:41 PM, hattori said:

It seems that this issue is big enough now that most of us who play as the Russians (and read this forum) split off scout teams or buy sniper teams to correct an obvious flaw in Russian doctrine with our own tactics. (maybe the Russian army would benefit from playing Black Sea, you should see if you can hook up a bulk 'training' purchase from them  )

Hattori,

Only if BFC 1) avoids ITAR problems (very finicky in that group) and 2) gets to charge defense contractor prices, thus further crippling Putin's war toy budget!

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Not much of a penalty to a Russian squad with the SL gone (other than if he died which ofc will either drop morale or send the team into a revenge mode) i

VladimirTarasov,

That second mode is something not typically seen listed as a casualty response. That said, the US forces have exactly the same mode, to the point where it's a trope in our war movies. Appreciate your report of your own direct BMD experience. Quick. Which is worse in terms of ergonomics Commanding the BMD or being a guy in the back?

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Edited November 11, 2016 by John Kettler

[HerrTom]

21 minutes ago, John Kettler said:

ITAR

Ach! ITAR is such a pain in the behind in my line of work!  Just mentioning it gives me shivers  

1 hour ago, hattori said:

That's an easy one.  As your tone increases in a dismissive and increasingly insulting tone, so does mine.  Especially given that you are customer support, I find how you speak to others on this forum who disagree with you very surprising at times.  I almost feel an obligation to speak up at times because you will hammer people relentlessly who disagree with you until they are bullied into submission.

Perhaps then it's worth trying to keep a level(er) head even in the face of it?  Hate begets hate, or something like that.  Anyway, Steve has made his stance pretty clear on this, I guess all we have left is to cross our fingers!

[John Kettler]

HerrTom,

Is my memory working right? Are you an engineer? If so, doing what that's giving you the ITAR willies? Meanwhile, something absolutely under ITAR is the Mac Pro. If you haven't seen the video on it, go to Apple's site and do so. The visuals are breathtaking. The Mac Pro's not a high speed centrifuge or a kryton (not to be confused with Krypton or Criton), but its way up there on the controlled item list, since you can do CFD and hydrocode on it. Bad juju. Would also note that a friend of mine was given a Mac Pro by his kids. Being something of a tech geek, he looked at the About this Mac on his rig and what Apple had on its site. Would you believe his was substantially worse than the US Apple standards? Why? It was bought in Saudi Arabia, and the computer had to be built derated (markedly slower and different CPU chip) to meet ITAR requirements for export!

Regards,

John Kettler

 

 

[HerrTom]

John, I'm an aerospace engineer.  While the stuff I have worked on isn't usually directly ITAR controlled, ensuring it isn't is also a big bucket of fun.  I also wasn't aware of consumer electronics like Apple's computers in particular being controlled.  Perhaps I need to brush up on my training, though it mostly says, "Don't talk to foreigners if you can help it!"

[Battlefront.com]

5 hours ago, HerrTom said:

Thanks for taking the time to respond to me, Steve.  I thought a lot of that regarding the squad leader is already handled by the game mechanics, but now that I think about it in your terms, you're pretty right.  I thought losing the squad leader was a hit on C3 on the squad, but splitting squad as-is doesn't actually affect that.

Thanks!

5 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Not to nit pick into your post, you have the experience making games and balancing things but even if I were to die say in battle, I had a senior rifleman which could have still led my squad. Not much of a penalty to a Russian squad with the SL gone (other than if he died which ofc will either drop morale or send the team into a revenge mode) inside the IFV.

It is true that a Russian Squad Leader is not as useful to the Squad as an NATO Squad Leader is.  But there still needs to be consideration for the realistic restrictions on when the Russian Black Sea gamer can make the decision to split and not split.  Otherwise I am positive that players will split far more than would happen in real life.  And if that is the outcome, then allowing a split results in less realistic results.

5 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

But anyways, I almost always disembarked with troops (because I was in a BMD, try being a commander in one please) but BMP-2s and BMP-3s both have better commander optics than a BMD. Also better seating, also better positioning, also... Let's just say better everything! 

Saying a BMP-3 is better than a BMD is fair.  But the BMD is a bad thing to compare against because it is a very flawed vehicle.  We've had discussions about this in other threads.

5 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Actually, BMP-3s are looked upon well in the Russian military.

I was not aware the attitude had changed.  It was generally very poorly thought of for at least the first 10 years it existed, at least according to what I've read.

5 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

BMP-3s have 7 INF plus 2 crew where as a M2A3 has 6 dismounts and 3 crew as standard. 

The BMP-3 should have 6 dismounts and 3 crew.  The M2A3 has 3 dedicated crew with either 6 or 7 dismounts.  More importantly, a Russian Platoon has only 21 dismounts only if the vehicles are without dedicated commanders, otherwise it has 18.  The US Bradley Platoon has 26 dismounts and four fully functional IFVs no matter what.

My point is that the Russian mech platoon is the BMP-3 assigned even more responsibilities to a non-dedicated crew position and increased the cost of the vehicle.  It should have been working to fix the problems of the BMP-2, not make them worse (or at the best the same).

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

5 hours ago, Nefron said:

 

I understand that perfectly, and I consider this game to be very heavy on micro, and I love it. I know that it's expected of me to micro units into little squares and plan each move in details, etc. 

It's the situations in which some of these little details matter very much, and I'm powerless to influence them that are the problem, but for some reason that should be handled by the AI, and it frequently gets handled in a completely unrealistic and immersion breaking way. 

And we do work hard to fix the problems without adding to them.  Over the entire life of the CMx2 family that can be clearly demonstrated.

5 hours ago, Nefron said:

I don't understand why aren't you embracing the micro all the way.

Because we would be out of business.  It is as simple as that.  Our type of game is extremely expensive to make and the micromanagement crowd is simply not big enough to support it.  If we had to swing in one extreme or the other, it would be a command level game for sure.

5 hours ago, Nefron said:

Why is it OK for me to place an IFV in an exact spot, but it's not OK to tell it to use ATGMs, etc. 

Because there are limits on the acceptable level of micromanagement.  As a self admitted micromanagement lover you are unlikely to agree.  I've had this debate thousands of times before and it never goes anywhere productive.  Nothing personal, just a universal experience that I can't think of even one exception to in all the years I've had these sorts of discussions.  No judgement there at all, just different strokes for different folks.

5 hours ago, Nefron said:

If I have a situation where my two man Javelin team easily spots stuff on the move, but cannot fire on it because they immediately go prone and lose LOS, I consider that to be broken. I have a realistic and reasonable intent, for them to be in overwatch on that hill, that the game simply won't let me express. That is not my fault.

The game isn't broken because of this.  The game is imperfect because of this.  There is a difference.  There's plenty of imperfections in CM.  There's plenty of imperfections in all games.  If the game were "broken" we wouldn't be in year 10 of strong sales and customers who own every one of the titles we've put out.  People do not support "broken" games like that.

5 hours ago, Nefron said:

This is a specific example that stuck in my mind from a user created mission (Myrne roadblock or something).

I understand that you are resource constrained, and being a developer I know that it's never so simply as adding a button or two and calling it a day. However, I think these problems need to be addressed, and that letting the player decide is going to be the easier way. I don't think any amount of tweaking the TacAI is going to produce much better results. 

I appreciate your understanding of the development side of things, however because of your self admitted predisposition to micromanagement I don't think you fully understand the slippery slope such a thing is on. 

For the record, I have long advocated a "NUDGE" Command for limited redeployment needs, but it's been repeatedly deemed technically problematic as well as the aforementioned micromanagement issue.  Which is why it never has, and likely never will, be a part of CMx2.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, hattori said:

That's an easy one.  As your tone increases in a dismissive and increasingly insulting tone, so does mine.  

Ah, I see... it's all my fault.  Of course.

Quote

Especially given that you are customer support, I find how you speak to others on this forum who disagree with you very surprising at times.  I almost feel an obligation to speak up at times because you will hammer people relentlessly who disagree with you until they are bullied into submission.

That's your interpretation.  My interpretation is that I argue a point of view and I think a discussion is better when it isn't watered down.  If someone has a weaker argument, I don't see why I should let up.

Quote

For example, it is probably not appropriate for an admin to say these things:

I answered your question and you came back around with a snide and dismissive response.  Why should I not be able to call you out on it?

Quote

I'm not even going to get into how you speak to Vlad.  That man has the patience of a saint.

Vlad can stand up for himself and does, even when he is arguing from an easily disproved starting point.

Quote

Ya, pretty much.  I didn't want your response the first time I talked about this, and I really had zero interest in discussing it with you, but you are incapable of not responding.  Feel free to assume I don't want you to comment on any of my posts.

At the risk of being even more condescending to you, let me explain what this place is.  It is a discussion forum. In a discussion forum people make comments and others make comments about those comments.  You do not get to pick and choose who responds.  If you have no interest in discussing something with someone, then DO NOT RESPOND.  If you do respond then you are inviting the conservation to continue.  You do not get to have your cake and eat it too, try as you might.

Now, there's a separate issue here.  This is my forum in no small way because it is my company and my game being discussed.  I designed it, I represent it.  It seems pretty odd to me that you want to complain about something and NOT have the one person who can do something about it not pay attention to what you have to say.  Cripes man, I apparently have more interest in what you say than you do.

Quote

For example, after this comment:

I don't think I'm really asking for a discussion from you here.

I don't think I'm asking for a discussion with you here either.

I'm really sure I don't want a discussion by this point.

And yet you keep going.  Make up your mind.

Quote

Guess what?  Battlefront is a still a tiny company.  Perhaps it's handling of customers could use some work.

No, what keeps us small is we continue to cater to a tiny niche market with a very well deserved reputation for being perpetually unhappy about everything.  If we wanted to grow then we'd not make CM any more because that's what's holding us back.

Fortunately we understand that is just how it is.  We accepted that a certain percentage of our customer base is more like you than Herr Tom.  It comes with the territory.  Fortunately, we've seen how our most vitriolic and abusive customers are also the ones who preorder (sometimes on day one) every time we offer a new product.  It's a fun job

The important thing is that we keep moving the game forward.  Having discussions like this, even with people who are looking for a fight, is valuable.  It is why I'm here.  Why I'm not here is to tell you how great you are and we'll make sure to have more fuzzy bunnies in the a future release if you promise to just like us on Facebook.

My experience over the 17ish years I've been doing this is that our customers, by and large, prefer to be talked to as gamers and adults, not coddled and pandered to like cash machines.  Of course you can have your own opinion, as can I.

Steve

[John Kettler]

HerrTom,

Here is the Munitions List which drives what is and isn't exportable. This is from 2013. Am still looking for an actual computer restriction list.

https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/documents/official_itar/ITAR_Part_121.pdf

Steve,

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

we continue to cater to a tiny niche market with a very well deserved reputation for being perpetually unhappy about everything

May I take this opportunity then to suggest that we have a one day moratorium of complaining about something in CM? Were this actually achieved, it would, of course, disprove your statement! That reminds me, I need to go download the latest patch. I keep forgetting to do that. Could it possibly have anything at all to do with having not (for brain function reasons) been able to play CMBS in over a month?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Nefron]

8 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Because we would be out of business.  It is as simple as that.  Our type of game is extremely expensive to make and the micromanagement crowd is simply not big enough to support it.  If we had to swing in one extreme or the other, it would be a command level game for sure.

Quote

It's not that I must have my micromanagement to be happy with a game. I played a lot of Flashpoint Campaigns recently where everything is done in broad strokes, and I love it as well. If you could go the command route, with a way smarter AI, I wouldn't want micro.

The problem as I see it is that I consider CM to be very micro heavy as it is. When I don't have these options at my disposal, it doesn't seem that it's because that's not what the game is about, or that it's forcing me to take a more hands off approach because I should command from a higher level. It simply feels that it's missing features. I guess I'm just having trouble identifying the exact niche you are going for here. 

In any case, we might have different definitions of broken software. The imperfections as you call them are not preventing me from enjoying the game most of the time, but it does get frustrating, and I can't help but wonder if it could be much better with relatively small improvements (if there's such a thing in software).

[VladimirTarasov]

10 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I was not aware the attitude had changed.  It was generally very poorly thought of for at least the first 10 years it existed, at least according to what I've read.

Well the only bad experience they had were in the 90s during the first Chechen war, 2 BMP-3s were lost catastrophically, but we all know the reasons why the Russian army performed poorly during that conflict. BMP-3s are the best IFVs in service with the Russian army, the only drawback it faces is crew protection (sitting on top of HE) and sensors. Other than that, it has immense firepower, great mobility.

A Russian BMP-3 platoon basically has 3 heavy direct fire-support weapons that can lob 100mm HE out to long distances, and it can engage tanks (or atleast attempt to with a good chance of damaging or destroying a tank) they're pretty good for what they are. The only thing the Russian army is missing out on is the thermal systems for these vehicles... 

10 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

The BMP-3 should have 6 dismounts and 3 crew. 

Yes if the commander stays in the vehicle and you pointed that out anyways. But yes I of course agree that Bradley's are designed with a permanent commander, and then with a squad dismount of course. But a Russian platoon has less dismounts because the Bradley platoons have 4 IFVs. 

Edited November 11, 2016 by VladimirTarasov

[Euri]

Not sure if this is relevant, but 2/3 Russian platoon leaders mounted in BMP, when dismounted have no radios! The third one does have. Any explanations?

[akd]

31 minutes ago, Euri said:

Not sure if this is relevant, but 2/3 Russian platoon leaders mounted in BMP, when dismounted have no radios! The third one does have. Any explanations?

I don't see this.  Sure they are not close enough to PL to show voice link instead?

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Re: Dismounting Commanders

I'd like a button to split the vehicle commander from his squad for vehicles that commonly use their commander for both mounted or dismounted operations.  It's been a while since I played with M3s but I believe their BC dismounts with the scout section.  When I was Bradley-ing (or at least around Bradleyers), this was done sometimes, although equally often the scout section was kicked out while the commander stayed with the vehicle.

Especially in the US Army the emphasis is the Commander/Leader goes where he is needed vs doctrinally correct.  I'm not sure how valid this is for Russian operations given their higher emphasis on doctrinal adherence..

/;/.////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I'm keeping the above because it's my dachshund's contribution to the discussion. 

Anyway.  At least looking at the option from the American recon perspective, choosing the dismounted leader, or mounted leader would be good.    

[antaress73]

13 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Well the only bad experience they had were in the 90s during the first Chechen war, 2 BMP-3s were lost catastrophically, but we all know the reasons why the Russian army performed poorly during that conflict. BMP-3s are the best IFVs in service with the Russian army, the only drawback it faces is crew protection (sitting on top of HE) and sensors. Other than that, it has immense firepower, great mobility.

A Russian BMP-3 platoon basically has 3 heavy direct fire-support weapons that can lob 100mm HE out to long distances, and it can engage tanks (or atleast attempt to with a good chance of damaging or destroying a tank) they're pretty good for what they are. The only thing the Russian army is missing out on is the thermal systems for these vehicles... 

Yes if the commander stays in the vehicle and you pointed that out anyways. But yes I of course agree that Bradley's are designed with a permanent commander, and then with a squad dismount of course. But a Russian platoon has less dismounts because the Bradley platoons have 4 IFVs. 

The BMP-3M has thermals. But I guess not many were put  into service since they expect the Kurganets to be available soon.

[Battlefront.com]

15 hours ago, Nefron said:

It's not that I must have my micromanagement to be happy with a game. I played a lot of Flashpoint Campaigns recently where everything is done in broad strokes, and I love it as well. If you could go the command route, with a way smarter AI, I wouldn't want micro.

We have some of the best AI in the business.  We have one of the best sims ever.  We don't have a problem pushing envelopes.  But a CMx2 detail level game with higher level hands off control is beyond our abilities.

15 hours ago, Nefron said:

The problem as I see it is that I consider CM to be very micro heavy as it is. When I don't have these options at my disposal, it doesn't seem that it's because that's not what the game is about, or that it's forcing me to take a more hands off approach because I should command from a higher level. It simply feels that it's missing features. I guess I'm just having trouble identifying the exact niche you are going for here. 

It should be obvious... "hands on" tactical warfare.  Since there is no one definition of what that is, obviously there's room to debate what that means.  In our view, backed by going on 17 years of experience with CM, there's a fine line between too much and too little control.  However, a consistent lesson for wargamer developers since the 1960s is that the more control you give the player, the smaller your audience becomes.

"Missing features" is obviously also a personal opinion, though it is universally held belief.  Meaning, every single person who has ever purchased any of CM's many iterations believes it is "missing features".  We, as the developers of the CM series, also feel it is "missing features".  The problem is that nobody can agree on which ones are most important or how each could be incorporated.  Very few customers have any sense of difficulty or even practicality when it comes to implementing features.  And that means the game will always be "broken" as you define it in someone's eyes even if not for even remotely the same reason.  It's healthier for people to accept that this is the only way it will ever be.

15 hours ago, Nefron said:

In any case, we might have different definitions of broken software. The imperfections as you call them are not preventing me from enjoying the game most of the time, but it does get frustrating, and I can't help but wonder if it could be much better with relatively small improvements (if there's such a thing in software).

No argument here at all.  Which is why we're putting the finishing touches on Upgrade 4.0 instead of abandoning making game improvements.  The issue is, as I said, that we have to pick and choose what we work on very carefully.  There are some really good TacAI improvements in the next Upgrade.  They might remove one or more of your frustrations or at least diminish them.  Or not, because it's impossible to ensure that everybody gets something specific that they want.

13 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Well the only bad experience they had were in the 90s during the first Chechen war, 2 BMP-3s were lost catastrophically, but we all know the reasons why the Russian army performed poorly during that conflict. BMP-3s are the best IFVs in service with the Russian army, the only drawback it faces is crew protection (sitting on top of HE) and sensors. Other than that, it has immense firepower, great mobility.

A Russian BMP-3 platoon basically has 3 heavy direct fire-support weapons that can lob 100mm HE out to long distances, and it can engage tanks (or atleast attempt to with a good chance of damaging or destroying a tank) they're pretty good for what they are. The only thing the Russian army is missing out on is the thermal systems for these vehicles... 

My understanding of the Russian military criticism of the BMP-3 is that it costs a lot more than a BMP-2 and yet has most of the same core deficiencies.  This means Russian units are still mostly using BMP-2s even though the BMP-3 came out more than 20 years ago.  It also means that the units with BMP-3s do not have significantly greater capabilities vs. a BMP-2 unit embedded inside a BMG.  Yes, the BMP-3 is a better vehicle than the BMP-2 in many quantifiable ways, but sometimes better doesn't really matter.

13 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Yes if the commander stays in the vehicle and you pointed that out anyways. But yes I of course agree that Bradley's are designed with a permanent commander, and then with a squad dismount of course. But a Russian platoon has less dismounts because the Bradley platoons have 4 IFVs. 

Even if the US Mech Platoon was 3x Bradleys the Americans would have an advantage because they would have 3 fully functional IFVs + up to 21 dismounts.  The Russian Platoon can not match that.

3 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Re: Dismounting Commanders

I'd like a button to split the vehicle commander from his squad for vehicles that commonly use their commander for both mounted or dismounted operations.  It's been a while since I played with M3s but I believe their BC dismounts with the scout section.

Thanks for this!  I was positive there was an equivalent example on the US side that I had to deal with long ago.  This is the one.  Hopefully this proves to any doubters that the position I'm taking isn't about any specific nationality.  We pride ourselves on being neutral in that regard.

Here's the problem.  Adding UI, TacAI, and potentially game rules to allow a couple of narrow cases to be fully utilized is something we generally have to stay away from.  There's quite a few of these sorts of arguments that can be made and we simply have to pick and choose which ones to cater to very carefully.

One of the things we added to Upgrade 3.0 was the ability for Platoon HQs to be Squads.  When we developed Shock Force we quickly ran into this problem with traditional Soviet style platoon structures.  We worked around this with the real world HQ Squad being portrayed by two Teams.  This was sub optimal for many reasons, but in the end we had to leave it alone because of the major coding headaches that came with it.  Then we found that many European formations had similar issues, so they also had to deal with the sub optimal solution.  CMBN and CMFI largely were OK, except for the Italians.  By the time we got to making CMRT (the first 3.0 game) the weight of exceptions had grown to become fairly routine.  What was acceptable for a while simply was not any more.  The significant development effort we put into making the change is likely taken for granted now.

Maybe some day we will find we kinda have to support leaving the commander in the vehicle or dismount it as desired by the player.  However, I don't see that day being any time soon because of the things I've laid out in previous statements.

Steve

[Jotte]

5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Which is why we're putting the finishing touches on Upgrade 4.0 instead of abandoning making game improvements. 

Looks like @panzersaurkrautwerfer dachshound found a bone...

 

[VladimirTarasov]

13 hours ago, antaress73 said:

The BMP-3M has thermals. But I guess not many were put  into service since they expect the Kurganets to be available soon.

No BMP-3Ms in standard service AFAIK, the Azerbaijani army operates the BMP-3M and from my understanding they love it. 

12 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

My understanding of the Russian military criticism of the BMP-3 is that it costs a lot more than a BMP-2 and yet has most of the same core deficiencies.  This means Russian units are still mostly using BMP-2s even though the BMP-3 came out more than 20 years ago.  It also means that the units with BMP-3s do not have significantly greater capabilities vs. a BMP-2 unit embedded inside a BMG.  Yes, the BMP-3 is a better vehicle than the BMP-2 in many quantifiable ways, but sometimes better doesn't really matter.

Yes it does cost a lot more, and it doesn't add decisive technology like thermal sensors to the mix... Which is shame, but that's because our Soviet inheritance did not focus on Thermals what so ever. After the collapse you already know what happened... The BMP-3 has been ordered recently, 200 of them. But that's to keep the factory working I guess. Because sooner or later we're transitioning into those new armored vehicles. 

12 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Even if the US Mech Platoon was 3x Bradleys the Americans would have an advantage because they would have 3 fully functional IFVs + up to 21 dismounts.  The Russian Platoon can not match that.

Correct, but even with a regular American platoon, a Russian platoon can still compete in wartime with them. Albeit, with the American platoon obviously having an advantage. I mean let's face it America and Russia operate under two different doctrines with totally different budgets and history.

15 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

 I'm not sure how valid this is for Russian operations given their higher emphasis on doctrinal adherence..

Same here, but it varies depending on the unit. BMDs have horrible commander seats, if I were to face against an enemy with advanced armor, I'd do so very delicately and using tactics to negate the fact that the armor on the vehicle is paper thin (IFV category wise) and that we didn't have any thermals on them. But with a BMP unit of course the commander can stay where he is needed. 

[Battlefront.com]

On 11/12/2016 at 0:53 PM, VladimirTarasov said:

Yes it does cost a lot more, and it doesn't add decisive technology like thermal sensors to the mix... Which is shame, but that's because our Soviet inheritance did not focus on Thermals what so ever. After the collapse you already know what happened... The BMP-3 has been ordered recently, 200 of them. But that's to keep the factory working I guess. Because sooner or later we're transitioning into those new armored vehicles. 

I think we're largely saying the same thing.  The BMP-3 is definitely better than the BMP-2, but it still has many of the basic problems of the BMP-2 which has many of the problems as the BMP-1.  Russia's new IFV design, on the other hand, seems to address many of these issues.  If the cost can be sustained (a big question given the BMP-3's history) then that is very good for Russian soldiers.  Driving in stressful conditions in something based on a 60+ year design is not something I'd like to do, even with a civilian vehicle

As far as I know you are correct that the 200 BMP-3s were ordered to keep the factory in business.  At least the timing of the order is suspicious.

On 11/12/2016 at 0:53 PM, VladimirTarasov said:

Correct, but even with a regular American platoon, a Russian platoon can still compete in wartime with them. Albeit, with the American platoon obviously having an advantage. I mean let's face it America and Russia operate under two different doctrines with totally different budgets and history.

Yes, for sure.  My point was that the BMP-3 really doesn't give a Russian platoon much more survivability against a NATO IFV platoon than a BMP-2 platoon.  Which leads to the next point... 

On 11/12/2016 at 0:53 PM, VladimirTarasov said:

Same here, but it varies depending on the unit. BMDs have horrible commander seats, if I were to face against an enemy with advanced armor, I'd do so very delicately and using tactics to negate the fact that the armor on the vehicle is paper thin (IFV category wise) and that we didn't have any thermals on them. But with a BMP unit of course the commander can stay where he is needed. 

Most vehicles, including NATO IFVs, are under armored against the most modern AT weapons.  The difference between a BMP-3 based platoon and a US Bradley platoon is automatically capable of maximum vehicle effectiveness and maximum infantry effectiveness at the same time, not one or the other.  The BMP-3 platoon has to make a choice and it is already always under strength compared to the Bradley platoon.  From my perspective, this is not a good thing for the BMP-3 platoon.

Steve