Russian module for CMSF2.

[MOS:96B2P]

IMO CMFI came with some cool stuff.  As a quick, small example of some of the content::

Indian troops.

 

Free French troops.

 

South African troops.

 

All of which make more mods and user created scenarios etc. possible. 

 

And to return to the topic I look forward to More Russian equipment and mods created by the author of this topic @Oleksandr.  

  

Edited October 9, 2020 by MOS:96B2P

[Artkin]

19 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

You are kidding, right?

There are some really, really good scenarios in the R2V pack.

I actually never really played the scenarios. FI is my least played title, and it wasnt immediately obvious finding what I paid for, so I completely forgot about it. For the amount of cash i spent on that game, it is absolutely nothing compared to the CMBN modules

[Sgt.Squarehead]

2 hours ago, Artkin said:

actually never really played the scenarios.

IMHO some of the scenarios are amongst the best; well balanced, challenging and very different to anything we've seen in CM:FI before:

Edited October 10, 2020 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Sgt.Squarehead]

15 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

 

The BTR(OD) got a respray! 

[Roter Stern]

On 10/2/2020 at 5:43 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

On 9/30/2020 at 10:11 AM, Roter Stern said:

Where as in CMx2 I struggle to understand why CMFB is a title and not a module for CMBN - the two share about 80~90% of TO&E and are separated by less than 200km of land and two months of time.

  That may appear to be the case, but it ain't actually so.....The resemblance is only skin deep at the most.

I'm starting a new topic to discuss the above - in an attempt to steer this topic back on track.

I suggest those discussing CMFI to do the same.

...

On 9/27/2020 at 3:30 PM, MikeyD said:

Remember the CMSF2 timeline, 2008. I don't know how much of the fancy-schmancy Russian stuff wasn't fielded yet on that date.

At the time of CMSF1 Steve was adamant about not including 'occupation duty' equipment in the title (I was the guy lobbying to put them in). No Bremmer walls or Hesco barriers, no mine-protection vehicles like RG-31 Nyala (thought the Canadians did get it) or MRAP. He never said it explicitly but I suspect Steve thought it was in bad taste to do an overt Iraq War game while we were still fighting the Iraq War. Maybe now that we're into the third decade of the century Steve would be slightly more amenable to an 'occupation vehicle/force pack'. Thought BFC's go so many irons in the fire currently they're unlikely to get to it.

To bring us back a bit, while what I said earlier is still valid:

On 9/30/2020 at 10:11 AM, Roter Stern said:

it's enough to look at the state of their heavy and personal equipment during the 2008 conflict in Georgia. It was not much better than what they had back in the 90s - they won despite the equipment, not because of it.

Even CMBS is being very generous with equipment in some cases - T-90AM, which is featured so prominently in that version of 2017, has just started trickling in to the top tier units earlier this year.

It is also worth noting, that a large number of equipment present in CMBS 2017 time-line was already available back in 2008, albeit it not widely integrated in some cases.

For example these have been available for a while prior to 2008:

• Tunguska and Strela SAMs (1970s-80s)
• MT-LBM (1950s)
• Arena APS (1990s)
• Shtora APS (1980s)
• BTR-80A (1990s)
• Pchela UAV (1990s)

And a few recent or near-future appearances in 2008:

• Tigr (2001)
• Zala 421 (2008)
• BTR-82 (2009)

Personal equipment has indeed seen some major improvements for the Russians in the last decades, sure. But aside from that, I'm not sure how valid your argument is @MikeyD.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Don't forget Predator.....An armed drone would open up a wealth of modern scenario options.

Or how about Scout (NVG equipped) & Breach (demo-charge equipped) teams for Uncons.....IMHO the game needs these a lot more than it needs Russian forces that are not relevant to the BF timeline as currently written.

That being said, the Russian presence at Tartus is never discussed in the timeline, but I'm sure that the Russians (with their S-300 SAM & P-800 Bastion systems, not to mention nuclear tipped ICBMs) would have had a big say in whether an invasion took place or not.

Edited October 10, 2020 by Sgt.Squarehead

[danfrodo]

I thought "Italy WW2, how can that be fun?" -- I was wrong, crazy good fun battles & gear & terrain

I thought "Syria 2008, how can that be fun?" -- I was wrong, so much fun, currently doing Highland Games

I thought "Russian front 1944 instead of 41-43, how can that be fun?"  -- I was wrong, absolutely epic battles!  T34-85 is such a good design compromise and what a difference maker on the battlefield.  Yes, of course, panthers are better, but I get lots of T34s.  Lots and lots.

I am not the smartest person but I am seeing a pattern here

[danfrodo]

ooops posted that to wrong thread, very sorry to hijack

[Blazing 88's]

I recognize that driver from somewhere!!.....

Edited October 10, 2020 by Blazing 88's

[Artkin]

alright maybe the drama queens can all converge on the new thread then

Edited October 10, 2020 by Artkin

[Roter Stern]

20 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Don't forget Predator.....An armed drone would open up a wealth of modern scenario options.

Or how about Scout (NVG equipped) & Breach (demo-charge equipped) teams for Uncon

Yeah, definitely - those are fantastic ideas.

I'm actually surprised they didn't add the Gray Eagle from CMBS, since they did add the other two drones. It would be nice to see other NATO drones as well - by 2008 in Afghanistan the Canadians were extensively using the SAGEM Sperwer and the RQ-11 Raven (or some derivative of); and I'm sure the Germans and the Dutch were not any different.

As for UNCON equipment - in the ideal world, what would be amazing to see is the ability too choose auxiliary equipment in the editor - much like we're currently able to choose RPG/LMG/Sniper equipment:

 

20 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

IMHO the game needs these a lot more than it needs Russian forces 

I think that really depends on the type of battles you predominantly play in CMSF. For those mostly playing BLUFOR vs UNCON, I can see how the addition of Russian forces does nothing for their experience. On the flip side, anyone who plays OPFOR either vs BLUFOR or as Red-v-Red, would cherish the idea of more varied (and better) OPFOR units. 

For example for my taste, one of the most interesting (and challenging) small-scale battles I set up is to play as a mass of UNCONs together with Syrian SpecOps engineer platoon in BMP-3s attacking a BLUFOR urban position. Nothing quite like the feeling of flanking an M1A2 and putting an RPG-29 into it's ammo compartment.

Like I was saying in an earlier post, I would love to see CMSF depict scenarios where the Russian forces are a force-multiplier of a Syrian counter-offensive.

21 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

That being said, the Russian presence at Tartus is never discussed in the timeline, but I'm sure that the Russians (with their S-300 SAM & P-800 Bastion systems, not to mention nuclear tipped ICBMs) would have had a big say in whether an invasion took place or not.

Exactly - that part of the CMSF "lore" is left very much open-ended, and to be honest, I always imagined that the events of CMSF took place despite any Russian presence, not because they allowed it.

I don't think it's a big stretch to imagine that the Russians "tolerated" the Syrian invasion at first, but after the (nearly historically accurate) NATO intervention in the Russo-Georgian conflict, the Russians in turn intervened in Syria.

One thing I completely disagree with is that "Russian forces are not relevant to the CMSF timeline as currently written". I think it's a mistake to treat an invasion of Syria as if it would invoke the same reaction from Russia as did the invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan - seems like the real-life events are a proof of that. Sure, currently the Russian and US forces are not in a direct opposition in Syria - but short of that they're also as far from being "on the same side" as you can get.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

7 hours ago, Roter Stern said:

As for UNCON equipment - in the ideal world, what would be amazing to see is the ability too choose auxiliary equipment in the editor - much like we're currently able to choose RPG/LMG/Sniper equipment:

 

That's pretty much exactly what I'd like to see.....Kudos for knocking it up. 

[BarendJanNL]

18 hours ago, Roter Stern said:

It would be nice to see other NATO drones as well - by 2008 in Afghanistan the Canadians were extensively using the SAGEM Sperwer and the RQ-11 Raven (or some derivative of); and I'm sure the Germans and the Dutch were not any different.

Actually, the Dutch made extensive use of the Sperwer and the ScanEagle in Afghanistan, AFAIK also in the CMSF timeframe. So I definately second the idea for more drones for NATO countries! Although I don't know if there is any chance we will see that in the nearby future..?