Annual look at the year to come - 2023

[Grey_Fox]

@BFCElvis can you clean up the crap on the previous page please?

Edited September 28, 2023 by Grey_Fox

[Vacillator]

28 minutes ago, Grey_Fox said:

@BFCElvis can you clean up the crap on the previous page please?

Well said.  Wrong place and just wrong.

[PEB14]

10 hours ago, Grey_Fox said:

@BFCElvis can you clean up the crap on the previous page please?

Oh yeah please!

Looks like the Ukraine thread is just overflowing ...

[Brille]

13 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

And frontal engagements against American tanks are a complete no-go

While all the other things you said I would agree I differ here a little bit. 

In general you surely should avoid frontal attacks on Abrams and try to outflank them and/or hit from different angles. 

But considering you have the latest models of T90s with a competent crew,you can definitely try it out if you have not a better option available. I didnt had that many CMBS human encounters so far, but in my latest game I was surprised how good the T90 performed. Truth be told most of the killed Abrams were side shots but in return the T90 sucked up incoming tank fire more often than not. 

Though I was fighting regular tank crews while mine were all crack. 

 

In a test before the match however I tested each tank against the other on a shooting range. And while the spotting performance and armor protection was better on the Abrams overall it was not to far ahead from my observations. 

So the general rule applies again: Don't do tank duels and get local superiority in fire power. 

So if one tank goes down the second (or third) will probably do the job. 

Edited September 29, 2023 by Brille

[ThathumanHayden]

25 minutes ago, Brille said:

While all the other things you said I would agree I differ here a little bit. 

In general you surely should avoid frontal attacks on Abrams and try to outflank them and/or hit from different angles. 

But considering you have the latest models of T90s with a competent crew,you can definitely try it out if you have not a better option available. I didnt had that many CMBS human encounters so far, but in my latest game I was surprised how good the T90 performed. Truth be told most of the killed Abrams were side shots but in return the T90 sucked up incoming tank fire more often than not. 

Though I was fighting regular tank crews while mine were all crack. 

 

In a test before the match however I tested each tank against the other on a shooting range. And while the spotting performance and armor protection was better on the Abrams overall it was not to far ahead from my observations. 

So the general rule applies again: Don't do tank duels and get local superiority in fire power. 

So if one tank goes down the second (or third) will probably do the job. 

I am a bit less interested in CMBS. I played the Ukrainian, base Russian, and TF-3-69 campaigns, but I am more interested in CMCW. I agree with what you said. Honestly in CW I would take the T-64/72/80 over the M-48 and M-60 A1. It gets harder with the A3s, and while I do love the aesthetics of the T-80, I would be lying if I said a 1v1 with an Abrams was a good match-up. Most importantly I find, both sides should be focused on forcing an unfair fight. As the Soviets, you should try to overmatch enemy armor with larger units opening up several angles (without forgetting how effective ATGMs and RPGs can be). For the US, you should be focusing on creating good kill-zones, brewing up some tanks and PCs, and withdrawing to set up another ambush while you're ahead.

[sttp]

There's an entire (rather ridiculous) thread on the Ukraine situation in the CMBS sub-forum. For the love of god can we please keep that stuff over there?

[Centurian52]

6 hours ago, ThathumanHayden said:

I am a bit less interested in CMBS. I played the Ukrainian, base Russian, and TF-3-69 campaigns, but I am more interested in CMCW.

I get it. CMCW is probably my favorite title so far, and it's where I'm spending almost all of my time right now. But you'd be hard pressed to find a CM game that I'm not interested in (CMBO perhaps, but only because it's been superseded by CMBN). For me part of the point of CM is the ability to compare different time periods and theaters in the same realistic engine, and you don't get the far right extreme on the timeline that has been covered in CM so far without CMBS (CMAK gets you the far left extreme of the timeline so far (finding effective ways to use anti-tank rifles is a challenge, but I think the trick is to mass a bunch of them on a single target from multiple angles)). I don't think you really get the full CM experience if you only play one CM game.

CMCW is definitely a good compromise starting point if you aren't sure if you want to dive into WW2 or modern warfare first, being roughly right in the middle between them.

6 hours ago, ThathumanHayden said:

Honestly in CW I would take the T-64/72/80 over the M-48 and M-60 A1.

Oh yeah, the M-48A5 and M-60A1 are definitely not as good as the Soviet 3rd gen MBTs they so often have to go up against. But I still love them.

6 hours ago, ThathumanHayden said:

while I do love the aesthetics of the T-80, I would be lying if I said a 1v1 with an Abrams was a good match-up.

Yeah, there is nothing the Soviets have that can match the M1 Abrams. The only thing keeping it from completely dominating in this time period is its rarity.

I don't think there's a whole lot on either side that is a perfect 1v1 match for each other (well, M-60A1 vs T-62, but other than that...). They generally seem to be either significantly better than their counterpart on the other side or significantly worse than their counterpart on the other side. It isn't the individual weapons systems, but the sum total of the units with all of those weapons working together that seem to be a remarkably even match.

Edited September 29, 2023 by Centurian52

[Murauder]

Guys, I just want to have more tanks to play in CMBS. Why the argument?

[chuckdyke]

12 minutes ago, Murauder said:

Guys, I just want to have more tanks to play in CMBS. Why the argument?

Maps are too small for modern formations. 

[Murauder]

1 hour ago, chuckdyke said:

Maps are too small for modern formations. 

I dont think the game engine cant handle too big map. Besides,my CMBS continue to re-rend all the stuff in a scenario. It already makes me feel painful.

[Artkin]

On 10/7/2023 at 3:54 AM, Murauder said:

I dont think the game engine cant handle too big map. Besides,my CMBS continue to re-rend all the stuff in a scenario. It already makes me feel painful.

You can play 5x5km maps in cmbs. I've done it. 

[Centurian52]

So I still don't see anything on that CMFI battle pack (did a ctrl-f for 'cmfi' through all 25 pages of this thread, and no battle pack thread is pinned over on the CMFI forum). Is that still a planned thing? Any nuggets of info?

[Vacillator]

So the new content list read:

On 1/30/2023 at 1:30 AM, Battlefront.com said:

  CMBN- new Battle Pack

    CMFI - new Battle Pack

    CMFB - expanded to include late war forces, including Commonwealth

    CMCW - move the timeline forward and some other fun stuff

@Ithikial_AU was/presumably is working on the first item.

Otherwise I don't recall any recent updates on the others, but I might have missed stuff.

 

 

[Ithikial_AU]

3 hours ago, Vacillator said:

So the new content list read:

@Ithikial_AU was/presumably is working on the first item.

Yes.  

Please be aware that the Battle Packs are led and being made by volunteers who have day jobs/mortgages/bills/significant others etc. I can't speak for the others, so maybe they have less demanding jobs, are retired or have secretly won the lottery and are living an Armchair General's paradise I'm just not sure.  Just please be aware we aren't employed by Battlefront working full time on content creation.

The first half of this year virtually nothing progressed because of my real life work skyrocketed, dominating my waking hours. If you can pull a 10-12 hr work day five days a week and then back that up with an additional few hours a night in the editor let me know.   Progress jumped ahead as I took much needed extra time off work in August. Two of three planned campaigns are now in the testing phase. My own testing for my vision of the Carentan campaign also didn't play out as expected. It just wasn't fun. I had to rejig that. It all just takes time.

Maybe I'll be able to post a bone or two soon.

I keep @BFCElvis in the loop on developments as they occur.

My personal secretary trying to keep my life balanced and on schedule, seen here looking up at my monitor trying to work out the differences between a StuG III (mid) and StuG III (late).

[Vacillator]

12 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said:

Just please be aware we aren't employed by Battlefront

I was indeed aware of this.  I can only imagine - I'm working but not pulling 10-12 hour days thankfully (unless you're paid by the hour of course).

A big thankyou is due for all that you're doing and have done.  Your communication is also to be commended, even when answering buffoons like me .  In my defense I'm keen to give your BP and the others a try. 

Now who can I ask about the other BPs ? @BFCElvis?

 

 

[BFCElvis]

3 minutes ago, Vacillator said:

Now who can I ask about the other BPs ? @BFCElvis?

Yes.

[Vacillator]

2 minutes ago, BFCElvis said:

Yes.

Haha, good reply John . 

But do you have any news on the other BPs and expansions listed above (CMFI, CMFB and I suppose CMCW which I don't yet have)?  I'll understand if not, after all I didn't start this...

[Centurian52]

13 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said:

please be aware we aren't employed by Battlefront

I was not aware of that. I'll remind myself of that from now on whenever I start getting impatient for a Battle Pack. I'm working my way through WW2 chronologically (CMx1 included, so I'm still in North Africa (Barbarossa hasn't even started yet)). So it's going to be a while until I get to 1944 anyway, so there's no rush on the Normandy Battle Pack.

I was poking for info on the CMFI Battle Pack because I haven't even heard where or when it's going to be set.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

15 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said:

Yes.  

Please be aware that the Battle Packs are led and being made by volunteers who have day jobs/mortgages/bills/significant others etc. I can't speak for the others, so maybe they have less demanding jobs, are retired or have secretly won the lottery and are living an Armchair General's paradise I'm just not sure.  Just please be aware we aren't employed by Battlefront working full time on content creation.

The first half of this year virtually nothing progressed because of my real life work skyrocketed, dominating my waking hours. If you can pull a 10-12 hr work day five days a week and then back that up with an additional few hours a night in the editor let me know.   Progress jumped ahead as I took much needed extra time off work in August. Two of three planned campaigns are now in the testing phase. My own testing for my vision of the Carentan campaign also didn't play out as expected. It just wasn't fun. I had to rejig that. It all just takes time.

Maybe I'll be able to post a bone or two soon.

I keep @BFCElvis in the loop on developments as they occur.

My personal secretary trying to keep my life balanced and on schedule, seen here looking up at my monitor trying to work out the differences between a StuG III (mid) and StuG III (late).

We appreciate you and all the content creators for this game.

We're very blessed to have such talented, dedicated people.

[Thewood1]

Is this the way to run a business?  I appreciate volunteers building packs and scenarios, but BFC is getting paid and has put it on the official roadmap.  As a former product manager, I'm a little concerned that BFC is putting stuff in formal road map discussions that they have little control over.  BFC should stick to committing to stuff they control.  Otherwise you end up putting immense pressure on volunteers from the community.  As well as losing some credibility in not being able to control delivery.

[Centurian52]

17 minutes ago, Thewood1 said:

Is this the way to run a business?  I appreciate volunteers building packs and scenarios, but BFC is getting paid and has put it on the official roadmap.  As a former product manager, I'm a little concerned that BFC is putting stuff in formal road map discussions that they have little control over.  BFC should stick to committing to stuff they control.  Otherwise you end up putting immense pressure on volunteers from the community.  As well as losing some credibility in not being able to control delivery.

It is a very small company, likely operating under very different conditions from the company you were a product manager in. For one, there is almost certainly far less manpower available to Battlefront than there was at your company. This may be the only way to form enough teams to have so many parallel projects going at once.

[Panzerpanic]

Are we supposed to get the cmfb expansion this year?

[Thewood1]

2 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

It is a very small company, likely operating under very different conditions from the company you were a product manager in. For one, there is almost certainly far less manpower available to Battlefront than there was at your company. This may be the only way to form enough teams to have so many parallel projects going at once.

I'm not disputing that at all.  They'll take what labor they can.  But stop announcing them in a roadmap a year ahead of time.  But I think it now gives us a little insight into why they never come close to hitting their estimated roadmaps.

[Andrew Kulin]

I just refreshed myself on what they were aiming for (first post by Steve).  Looks like they have met their targets for Steam releases, and patches I have seen come out during the year, though if these are all patches people were expecting I don't know.  Nothing at all on the packs as noted above.  Professional, I don't care, does not affect us other than delaying other things if it is ongoing, but they did state they would be putting that on hold (did they however?).  And as for Engine 5, it was not really clear, to me at least, what they were implying about that in terms of timing in their first post.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

I suspect all the steam stuff has been an enormous drag on what their productivity would have been otherwise.