Can anyone post an in-game screenshot of the soviet infantry at close range?

[Guest l_biscuit]

I hope I am wrong, but it seems like the soviet infantry in the game wears the american m1 helmet instead of ssh-60/68?

[Bil Hardenberger]

Please be patient... the game is still in BETA and I am purposefully staying away form the Soviet infantry in my AAR thread because they are not yet ready for their close-up.

Bil

[Peter Panzer]

@Bil Hardenberger

Congratulations on bringing a vision of CM so many of us have pined for to reality!  This is the most excited I have been for a CM game in some time and the potential to build off of the initial title only heightens the anticipation.

Speaking of the visual representation of infantry, wouldn’t it make more sense to model disposable AT rockets (M-72, RPG-18, etc.) as collapsed when on the backs of infantry models?  Just an opinion from the outside looking in seeing as this would be the correct depiction for the vast majority of the time the models are displayed to the player.  Rendering them in firing position all of the time to satisfy a firing sequence that lasts only a second or two seems backwards to me if a choice has to be made.

Anyways, thanks again for your dedication, here’s hoping the final pieces fall smoothly into place for your team.

[Ultradave]

It would be and it has come up, however we were told it's a limitation of the animations and they have to be one way or the other.

Dave

[Amedeo]

I think that the decision to depict the launchers in extended position is due to the fact that, although these weapons "spend" the majority of their CM time simply being carried around, most of the situation in which we players are actively looking for and at them (watching a replay, taking a screenshot) are when they are fired or are ready to be used. 

[Bil Hardenberger]

8 hours ago, Peter Panzer said:

@Bil Hardenberger

Congratulations on bringing a vision of CM so many of us have pined for to reality!  This is the most excited I have been for a CM game in some time and the potential to build off of the initial title only heightens the anticipation.

Thank you, but this is more than just my idea... @The_Capt has been working with me since the beginning on this project and it was our brainchild, not mine, ours. 

In addition @IICptMillerII has been a boon since he joined the core team, managing scenario development and doing a ton of research and testing.  There are also a few special people like @George MC, @Pete Wenman, @Combatintman to name just a few that have contributed some serious content, from campaign, scenarios, maps, quick battle map development, etc. to this project.  

Cheers, Bil

[ratdeath]

This has been my dream CM for "modern" era, the war that thankfully never happened

I would probably have picked 1984-1988 era if I have had a choice, but the 1979-1982 era actually sounds more interesting.

It will be hard to find the time for everything released within a few months: CMFR & CMCW (plus non CM titles like Elite Dangerous Odessey and maybe a replay of Mass Effect)!

Thanks to Team CMCW & Battlefront!

 

[Double Deuce]

1 hour ago, ratdeath said:

This has been my dream CM for "modern" era, the war that thankfully never happened

I would probably have picked 1984-1988 era if I have had a choice, but the 1979-1982 era actually sounds more interesting.

I'm with you there but would tweak the dates to be from 83-87. Fortunately, with the equipment listed, I think designers can easily cover those time frames. We'll need to fudge the dates in the editor (and the OOB's as much as we can due to the US forces changeover to Division 86 standards) but for the most part, it'll be feasible.

[Amedeo]

I'd like to see 1983 included just because it was the year we really risked the third world war; 1985 is also interesting (new pieces of kit: 120mm armed Abrams, reactive armour on Soviet tanks etc,). Indeed the decade 1979-1989 saw the introduction of many new weapons systems, especially in land warfare, just to keep up with the new ammo types for the same gun (just consider the kinetic penetrators used during this decade in the US 105mm gun: M728, M735, M774, M833; M900) would be daunting!

 

[The_Capt]

57 minutes ago, Amedeo said:

I'd like to see 1983 included just because it was the year we really risked the third world war; 1985 is also interesting (new pieces of kit: 120mm armed Abrams, reactive armour on Soviet tanks etc,). Indeed the decade 1979-1989 saw the introduction of many new weapons systems, especially in land warfare, just to keep up with the new ammo types for the same gun (just consider the kinetic penetrators used during this decade in the US 105mm gun: M728, M735, M774, M833; M900) would be daunting!

 

Interestingly, 83-89 would have been easier from a design perspective.   The US formations are well known and structures had pretty much settled down as the Bradley's came in.  Problem is that I personally think that tactically it would have risked being lopsided.  The M1A1 is a monster from another epoc in military development, the Leo 2s and Challengers not far behind.  The T80s would be challenged except for the T80U (which according to some sources never served in Germany, but we could "what if" that) and anything less is very disadvantaged.  BMP 3 would see the light of day but it probably is not going to tip things.  Soviets still had mass, so there is that but the digital battlefield was already well on its way.  The Gulf War demonstrated what things probably would have looked like, basically because the Soviet system ran out of gas to keep up.

My personal opinion was the distance between an 83-89 version is too close to CMSF or CMBS. '82 and earlier this is not the case, the Soviet has tactical parity and even advantage making for a better balanced period.

[Thewood1]

I think T-80Us in one group ended up in East Germany in late 1989.  But the wall fell shortly after that and they most likely were pulled back soon after that.

 

btw, the arms control treaty census from early 1990 had 600 T-80Us west of the Urals.  I think thats how they defined European location for the treaty.

Edited March 5, 2021 by Thewood1

[Amedeo]

4 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Interestingly, 83-89 would have been easier from a design perspective.   The US formations are well known and structures had pretty much settled down as the Bradley's came in.  Problem is that I personally think that tactically it would have risked being lopsided.  The M1A1 is a monster from another epoc in military development, the Leo 2s and Challengers not far behind.  The T80s would be challenged except for the T80U (which according to some sources never served in Germany, but we could "what if" that) and anything less is very disadvantaged.  BMP 3 would see the light of day but it probably is not going to tip things.  Soviets still had mass, so there is that but the digital battlefield was already well on its way.  The Gulf War demonstrated what things probably would have looked like, basically because the Soviet system ran out of gas to keep up.

My personal opinion was the distance between an 83-89 version is too close to CMSF or CMBS. '82 and earlier this is not the case, the Soviet has tactical parity and even advantage making for a better balanced period.

I completely agree that the early '80s are more interesting from the perspective of having a more balanced game. That said, I'd like to see the timeframe extended (a bit) in future expansions. As I said, nothing dramatic, up to '83 or better '85... and '78! Just to have the M551 Sheridan in the 11th ACR and recreate the opening engagement of Hackett's The Third World War! 

Poor Sir John! Technological development was so fast that just a little after the publication of his novel (written in 1978 but set in 1985) many piece of hardware that played a role in the story were retired (from Polaris SLBMs to Sheridan tanks).

Anyway, the Sheridan continued to soldier with the 82nd, so if an airborne module is in the works... 

[MOS:96B2P]

1 hour ago, Amedeo said:

the Sheridan continued to soldier with the 82nd, so if an airborne module is in the works... 

+1  AATW!!!

[Sequoia]

IMHO what was done with the choice of the time period was perfect as it allows us to experience the transformation between '79 and '82,  when material factors switched. It was also not too far into the 80's during which a US build up numerically occurred, especially with the Navy which is an important factor. If the Soviets were going to go for it, they would have done so before the mid to late '80s.