Combat Mission Cold War - British Army On the Rhine

[Centurian52]

I feel like screenshots may still be a ways off (maybe something for Halloween?). But in the meantime there might still be some stuff left to speculate about.

I've been coming back around to wondering how British and Canadian infantry will stack up against the Soviets (I think the Chieftain has been covered half to death, and at this point there is nothing left but to wait and see). I imagine a Canadian infantry squad having firepower roughly comparable to a US infantry squad from CMBN with two BARs (assuming that a C2 is roughly equivalent to a BAR). That is, semi-automatic rifles augmented by two automatic rifles. They should have a bit more firepower actually, since each C1 has 2.5 times the magazine capacity of an M1 Garand, so time spent loading shouldn't cut into time spent firing as much (maybe that's something like a 20-30% increase in firepower per rifle, assuming my WW2 US infantry are spending a bit under half their time loading in an intense firefight).

I imagine a British infantry squad will have firepower similarly on par with a CMBN US airborne infantry squad (semi-automatic rifles with an MMG/GPMG + the same 20-30% increase in firepower per rifle for having a larger magazine). That's not an inconsiderable amount of firepower (and god knows I've lost plenty of Soviet pixeltruppen to Mujahedeen armed with bolt action rifles, and British and Canadian infantry firepower can only be significantly greater than Mujahedeen infantry firepower), but I can't help feeling that British and Canadian infantry (especially Canadian infantry*) are going to feel a bit anemic compared to US and Soviet infantry (Commonwealth forces having anemic infantry firepower may be a point of continuity with the WW2 titles come to think of it). But it's also possible that it might not matter too much. A significant difference in firepower will matter if there is a serious back and forth exchange of fire on more or less even terms. But for the most part I've noticed that most of my firefights are won or lost before the first round is fired, either through positioning, luck (both good and bad), or supporting fires. One place it might matter is in urban combat, where back and forth exchanges between infantry are more likely to erupt. I may be less confident in clearing towns and villages with British and Canadian infantry than I am with US infantry.

*Sorry, but the C2 doesn't seem to be doing them any favors (based on what I've read so far, but I'm well aware that there's no such thing as an unbiased source, and other sources may have different opinions). Which is why it may be odd that I can't wait to get my hands on it (honestly I might be even more eager to try out the Canadian forces than I am to try out British forces).

[LuckyDog]

I would imagine that 7 SLRs and a GPMG can make life very unpleasant in the 400m range. 7.62mm should retain energy to penetrate light cover. The trick is spotting and keeping your enemy at that range.

[Centurian52]

3 hours ago, LuckyDog said:

I would imagine that 7 SLRs and a GPMG can make life very unpleasant in the 400m range. 7.62mm should retain energy to penetrate light cover. The trick is spotting and keeping your enemy at that range.

That's one of the things I'm curious to find out. With US forces, at least for me so far, long range fights are almost entirely dominated by armored vehicles. At extreme ranges it's almost all ATGMs, artillery, and tank main guns. At under 1,000 meters the 0.50 cals on my M60s and M113s start to chime in. My infantry only start to really exert their influence at short ranges (which unfortunately means that my M60 machineguns haven't had much opportunity to shine, since once you get close enough that the riflemen start using their M16s in full auto the M60 gunner doesn't really seem to be contributing much more firepower than any of the riflemen). Either they are unexpectedly bumping into the enemy at short range in woods or towns, or they are storming foxholes, trenches, or buildings that have just been suppressed by my M60 tanks or M113s. I think my concern for the British and Canadian infantry is precisely that they appear to be configured to excel at long ranges, but my experience so far is that (in this time period at least) long ranges belong to the armored vehicles, ATGMs, and FOs.

Things might be different with the British and Canadians though. There is a decided lack of 0.50 cals in the British army (their APC has a 7.62, and the Chieftain just has its main gun and the 7.62 coax*), meaning that (for the most part, as far as I know), there is no medium caliber weapon between their 7.62 rifles and machineguns and the 120mm main gun on the Chieftain. I doubt the Chieftain main gun will have such an abundance of ammo that it can do all the suppression that I currently do with a mix of tank main gun and 0.50 cal fire with my US forces. So I may need to ask my British infantry to pick up more of the slack in the long range firefight than I would ask of my US infantry. Same goes for the Canadians (Leopard doesn't have a medium caliber weapon either, and the M113 gunner in the Canadian army dismounts with the rest of the squad). I think I'm going to miss my 0.50 cals.

*I've actually been surprised by just how useful having a medium caliber weapon is on the M60. I figured the coax and main gun combo was good enough, and the 0.50 cal would be completely redundant. But it turns out that having something that packs more punch than 7.62, but has more ammo than the main gun, is quite useful (the 20mm on the AMX-30 may have been a bit overkill though, and really I think a 0.50 cal is probably good enough (though learning that the AMX-30 has a 20mm has certainly reignited my interest in seeing French forces eventually)). It can often deal with infantry in buildings or in thick woods without expending any main gun ammo. The 0.50 cal on the M60 is one reason why it might remain my favorite of the 2nd gen NATO MBTs even after we get Chieftains and Leopards (at least until the AMX-30 has a chance to change my mind).

Edited October 4, 2023 by Centurian52

[Centurian52]

14 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

That's one of the things I'm curious to find out. With US forces, at least for me so far, long range fights are almost entirely dominated by armored vehicles. At extreme ranges it's almost all ATGMs, artillery, and tank main guns. At under 1,000 meters the 0.50 cals on my M60s and M113s start to chime in. My infantry only start to really exert their influence at short ranges (which unfortunately means that my M60 machineguns haven't had much opportunity to shine, since once you get close enough that the riflemen start using their M16s in full auto the M60 gunner doesn't really seem to be contributing much more firepower than any of the riflemen). Either they are unexpectedly bumping into the enemy at short range in woods or towns, or they are storming foxholes, trenches, or buildings that have just been suppressed by my M60 tanks or M113s. I think my concern for the British and Canadian infantry is precisely that they appear to be configured to excel at long ranges, but my experience so far is that (in this time period at least) long ranges belong to the armored vehicles, ATGMs, and FOs.

Things might be different with the British and Canadians though. There is a decided lack of 0.50 cals in the British army (their APC has a 7.62, and the Chieftain just has its main gun and the 7.62 coax*), meaning that (for the most part, as far as I know), there is no medium caliber weapon between their 7.62 rifles and machineguns and the 120mm main gun on the Chieftain. I doubt the Chieftain main gun will have such an abundance of ammo that it can do all the suppression that I currently do with a mix of tank main gun and 0.50 cal fire with my US forces. So I may need to ask my British infantry to pick up more of the slack in the long range firefight than I would ask of my US infantry. Same goes for the Canadians (Leopard doesn't have a medium caliber weapon either, and the M113 gunner in the Canadian army dismounts with the rest of the squad). I think I'm going to miss my 0.50 cals.

*I've actually been surprised by just how useful having a medium caliber weapon is on the M60. I figured the coax and main gun combo was good enough, and the 0.50 cal would be completely redundant. But it turns out that having something that packs more punch than 7.62, but has more ammo than the main gun, is quite useful (the 20mm on the AMX-30 may have been a bit overkill though, and really I think a 0.50 cal is probably good enough (though learning that the AMX-30 has a 20mm has certainly reignited my interest in seeing French forces eventually)). It can often deal with infantry in buildings or in thick woods without expending any main gun ammo. The 0.50 cal on the M60 is one reason why it might remain my favorite of the 2nd gen NATO MBTs even after we get Chieftains and Leopards (at least until the AMX-30 has a chance to change my mind).

Ok, a couple corrections. It's definitely not a full 1,000 meters that my 0.50 cals start chiming in most of the time. But it is in the ballpark of those medium (sub-1,000 meter) ranges. And the infantry definitely exert an important influence with their Dragon missiles at those medium ranges (I feel like the Carl Gustav, being unguided, isn't going to be quite as effective at the outer edge of those medium ranges as the Dragon is (though having taken a couple of nasty hits from Charlie-Gs in CMA I wouldn't underestimate it)). It's only their small arms (rifles and machineguns) that have so far only become dominant at close ranges. And part of that may be my tactics (avoid firefights on equal terms, beat down enemy positions with supporting fires first (mortars/artillery, tank main guns, 0.50 cals), finish off the degraded enemy with close infantry assaults while they are still suppressed).

[GhostRider3/3]

Well, I really can't wait for this expansion to come out, The Brits and Canadians will be a nice ad, but will still wait for my kin, the Germans.. LOL  Really want to blast with anything from a Leopard 1A2-A5.  I could see a late expansion as well using even more modern equipment in the mid-late 80s's But this expansion will be super fun.  Can't wait to play the Brits as well.

[FredP]

Hi All!

During the Cold War one of the hottest places where the Baltic Sea, and still is to this day, Lot of tension.

Wouldn't it be interesting to see some DLC being about the Scandinavian country's and NATO VS Soviet/PACT? Say Mid 80's?

There's the Scandinavian peninsula, the islands of the Baltic sea. 

Maybe include some kind of naval action in some way?

 

Thoughts?

 

 

[Rob2020]

The Swedish Stridsvagn would be intriguing, but other than that...I dunno.

Edited October 17, 2023 by Rob2020
you don't need no stinkin' reason

[Rob2020]

On 2/22/2023 at 8:38 AM, The_Capt said:

We worship the old gods here on the CMCW side of the franchise.

In this case - and I never thought I'd ever say this - God might actually be a woman.

Edited October 17, 2023 by Rob2020

[Centurian52]

On 10/13/2023 at 11:12 PM, GhostRider3/3 said:

Well, I really can't wait for this expansion to come out, The Brits and Canadians will be a nice ad, but will still wait for my kin, the Germans.. LOL  Really want to blast with anything from a Leopard 1A2-A5.  I could see a late expansion as well using even more modern equipment in the mid-late 80s's But this expansion will be super fun.  Can't wait to play the Brits as well.

The Canadians will have the Leopard 1. The A3 version I believe. So we'll be getting a good preview of some German equipment at least.

[Halmbarte]

11 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

The Canadians will have the Leopard 1. The A3 version I believe. So we'll be getting a good preview of some German equipment at least.

It'll be interesting to see how heavy and slow (Chieftain) and light and fast (Leopard 1) vs Sov 100, 115, and 125mm guns. 

I'm suspecting, based on how the M60 performs, that the Sov 115 & 125mm tanks will be able to take both our them out from the front at pretty much any range. 

H

[LuckyDog]

Are the development machines powered by a Leyland L60?  (JK) Any chance of a teaser of any kind? Pretty please!

[Millien]

Starting to get the feeling we may not get the module this year.

[Centurian52]

11 minutes ago, Millien said:

Starting to get the feeling we may not get the module this year.

I called it for 2024 back at the beginning of August. I'd guess that the module probably won't be released until around 3 to 6 months after we get some screenshots, and we haven't even seen those yet (we got some nice screenshots of one of the maps, but no pictures of any new units yet). If they aren't to a point where they have anything visual to show off yet, then it's still going to be a while.

[Centurian52]

Ok, so looking back through old announcements it looks like we first got word that work on a module for CMCW had just started around early September 2022 (that was way before it was announced what the new module would cover). So just going under the assumption that it takes about 2 years to develop a module then I'd guess that we can realistically hope to get our hands on it sometime around the third or fourth quarter of 2024. If I'm right that we can hope for screenshots around 3 to 6 months before the module is released then perhaps we'll start seeing screenshots sometime between March and June of 2024.

[SgtHatred]

On 12/6/2023 at 2:47 PM, Centurian52 said:

Ok, so looking back through old announcements it looks like we first got word that work on a module for CMCW had just started around early September 2022 (that was way before it was announced what the new module would cover). So just going under the assumption that it takes about 2 years to develop a module then I'd guess that we can realistically hope to get our hands on it sometime around the third or fourth quarter of 2024. If I'm right that we can hope for screenshots around 3 to 6 months before the module is released then perhaps we'll start seeing screenshots sometime between March and June of 2024.

Don't work yourself up over releases around here. It took 2 years to add "PBEM+" somehow. The tool used to make most of the scenario content is ancient and labour intensive. Be pleasantly surprised if they manage to scrounge up a release in 2024.

[Centurian52]

17 minutes ago, SgtHatred said:

Don't work yourself up over releases around here. It took 2 years to add "PBEM+" somehow. The tool used to make most of the scenario content is ancient and labour intensive. Be pleasantly surprised if they manage to scrounge up a release in 2024.

We were definitely overoptimistic to hope for a release in 2023 given that work apparently hadn't started until late in 2022. But a release in 2024 is entirely within reason. Around 2 years from first announcement to release is not uncommon for Combat Mission base games and modules. If anything, rather than getting worked up, I was hoping to temper expectations a bit for anyone who might still be hoping for it to come out any month now (Millien's comment reminded me that there might still be a few such people). But I'll grant that I'm only making an estimate based on past precedent, and there is a fair amount of variability here. While 2 years seems to be pretty common, it wouldn't be surprising if it ended up taking them 3 years. Which would bring the release out to the third or fourth quarter of 2025. I would be surprised if it took 4 years though.

[Alternativeway]

just hope won't be many years to release one of the DLCs and extend the timelines, because we're all expecting and waiting for it.

[Rob2020]

BFC, I'd just like to say that I have a large backlog of as yet unplayed computer and board games, so go ahead and take your time and get it right.

[JMDECC]

I know BOAR is of course the current focus and the future is uncertain. If more expansions are to come after BAOR, what is the likelihood of the timeline being extended beyond 1982?

I would really love in the future to see the game pushed out to 1985. 1983-1985 really opens the door for some Able Archer-gone-wrong scenarios. In a perfect world, seeing the timeline stretch all the way to 1989 would be the dream and would leave open such a vast stretch of time for all sorts of campaigns and scenarios, but I also recognize that leaping that far ahead pushes us closer to match ups like we already see in CMSF, as far as the typical East vs. West equipment is concerned. 

[Centurian52]

On 1/12/2024 at 7:07 AM, JMDECC said:

I know BOAR is of course the current focus and the future is uncertain. If more expansions are to come after BAOR, what is the likelihood of the timeline being extended beyond 1982?

I would really love in the future to see the game pushed out to 1985. 1983-1985 really opens the door for some Able Archer-gone-wrong scenarios. In a perfect world, seeing the timeline stretch all the way to 1989 would be the dream and would leave open such a vast stretch of time for all sorts of campaigns and scenarios, but I also recognize that leaping that far ahead pushes us closer to match ups like we already see in CMSF, as far as the typical East vs. West equipment is concerned. 

Only someone on the development team would know for sure what the current plans are. And I expect they might be a bit hesitant to share those plans, lest they be interpreted as promises (reality has a way of interfering with plans). But earlier in this thread I suggested that they might try to alternate which direction the timeline extensions go in which each new module. The first module is extending the timeline back a bit, so it would make all the sense in the world for the next module to extend the timeline forward a bit, perhaps up to 1985.

Certainly when CMCW was first released I had a strong interest in seeing the timeline extended all the way out to 1989. Yes, that would start to look a lot like CMSF. But I think part of that is because a lot of scenarios, particularly a lot of community made scenarios, in CMSF were trying to approximate late Cold War combat in the only title at the time that had roughly the right equipment. But they didn't quite have the right assets to do it right. There are no T-80Us in CMSF, and even the M1A1 Abrams are slightly later models (generally M1A1SAs IIRC, though I'm not at my home computer where I could check at the moment) with later ammunition. By 2008 the ammunition that the Abrams is firing can defeat Kontakt-5 ERA, while I believe the ammunition it was firing in 1989 could not. So seeing proper late 80s M1A1s against T-80Us would be interesting. The Abrams will still have a huge advantage, since it has a thermal sight while the T-80U doesn't. But they both have excellent fire-control systems, and they are both unable to penetrate each other's frontal armor (except for weak points). So NATO vs the Soviet Union in 1989 should still be less one-sided than NATO vs Syria in 2008, even when you stack the Syrian side with T-90s. But that's one of the things I'd be curious to find out.

All that said, I have to admit that the biggest reason I wanted 1989 is because that's when World in Conflict is set. Basically I wanted to play World in Conflict, but realistic. But now that the game has been out for a few years, I think I've been won over to the 1979-1982 setting that they went with. It might actually be the more interesting time period overall. The modern titles, CMSF2 and CMBS*, provide plenty of opportunities for 3rd gen MBTs to shine. The earlier 1979 timeframe gives the 2nd gen MBTs a real opportunity to take the spotlight for a change. And it gives you a chance to really fear and respect the mighty beasts that T-64s and T-72s once were, before you go on to slaughter them in CMSF2. Also I'm pretty sure the 1979 Soviet economy would have been much more capable of sustaining a major war effort than the 1989 Soviet economy. So the earlier setting probably makes more narrative sense anyway.

I'm still curious to see 1989. Seeing the T-80U vs M1A1 and Leo2A4 (firing 80s ammunition) is still on the bucket list. But it's not as urgent for me as it used to be.

*While CMCW is often counted among the modern titles, I think it is rightfully categorized in its own era, distinct from either the modern or WW2 titles.

[danfrodo]

21 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

Only someone on the development team would know for sure what the current plans are. And I expect they might be a bit hesitant to share those plans, lest they be interpreted as promises (reality has a way of interfering with plans). But earlier in this thread I suggested that they might try to alternate which direction the timeline extensions go in which each new module. The first module is extending the timeline back a bit, so it would make all the sense in the world for the next module to extend the timeline forward a bit, perhaps up to 1985.

Certainly when CMCW was first released I had a strong interest in seeing the timeline extended all the way out to 1989. Yes, that would start to look a lot like CMSF. But I think part of that is because a lot of scenarios, particularly a lot of community made scenarios, in CMSF were trying to approximate late Cold War combat in the only title at the time that had roughly the right equipment. But they didn't quite have the right assets to do it right. There are no T-80Us in CMSF, and even the M1A1 Abrams are slightly later models (generally M1A1SAs IIRC, though I'm not at my home computer where I could check at the moment) with later ammunition. By 2008 the ammunition that the Abrams is firing can defeat Kontakt-5 ERA, while I believe the ammunition it was firing in 1989 could not. So seeing proper late 80s M1A1s against T-80Us would be interesting. The Abrams will still have a huge advantage, since it has a thermal sight while the T-80U doesn't. But they both have excellent fire-control systems, and they are both unable to penetrate each other's frontal armor (except for weak points). So NATO vs the Soviet Union in 1989 should still be less one-sided than NATO vs Syria in 2008, even when you stack the Syrian side with T-90s. But that's one of the things I'd be curious to find out.

All that said, I have to admit that the biggest reason I wanted 1989 is because that's when World in Conflict is set. Basically I wanted to play World in Conflict, but realistic. But now that the game has been out for a few years, I think I've been won over to the 1979-1982 setting that they went with. It might actually be the more interesting time period overall. The modern titles, CMSF2 and CMBS*, provide plenty of opportunities for 3rd gen MBTs to shine. The earlier 1979 timeframe gives the 2nd gen MBTs a real opportunity to take the spotlight for a change. And it gives you a chance to really fear and respect the mighty beasts that T-64s and T-72s once were, before you go on to slaughter them in CMSF2. Also I'm pretty sure the 1979 Soviet economy would have been much more capable of sustaining a major war effort than the 1989 Soviet economy. So the earlier setting probably makes more narrative sense anyway.

I'm still curious to see 1989. Seeing the T-80U vs M1A1 and Leo2A4 (firing 80s ammunition) is still on the bucket list. But it's not as urgent for me as it used to be.

*While CMCW is often counted among the modern titles, I think it is rightfully categorized in its own era, distinct from either the modern or WW2 titles.

Hear hear!  Btw, what would the Brits look like in 1985?  In 1989?  Wiki says challenger 1 came out in 1983.  

[Centurian52]

19 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Hear hear!  Btw, what would the Brits look like in 1985?  In 1989?  Wiki says challenger 1 came out in 1983.  

No Challengers in the upcoming 1976-1982 setting. So that's one thing that would be added with a timeline extension to 85'. Wikipedia says the Stillbrew armor upgrade for the Chieftain started being fitted in 86'. So no Stillbrew armor on Chieftains in either the current setting or potential future extension to 85', but remaining Chieftains in 89' should have Stillbrew. Even if it hasn't gotten the armor upgrade yet in a 1985 extension, the Chieftain will still see a significant boost in firepower with the introduction of the L23 APFSDS. And, infamously, in 1985 British infantry will start getting the L85A1 rifle. Supposedly most later L85A1s weren't as bad as the ones from the initial Enfield production run. But still, I wonder if Battlefront might have to break from their usual practice of not modeling misfires in order to accurately represent it.

[danfrodo]

8 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

Supposedly most later L85A1s weren't as bad as the ones from the initial Enfield production run. But still, I wonder if Battlefront might have to break from their usual practice of not modeling misfires in order to accurately represent it.

Professional humor there, well done 

I know some folks would say that by 1985 & 1989 the NATO side would be overpowered relative to warsaw pact. What is wrong with that?  Recent events make me very much want to kick the living daylights out of some RU forces.  

[Rob2020]

As a long-time player of CM1, years ago, I've only dabbled with the demos for CMA and CMBS, so take this comment with a grain of salt, but why all the rage for the 1980's? I wouldn't mind going back to the 1950's-1970's.

[Halmbarte]

45 minutes ago, Rob2020 said:

As a long-time player of CM1, years ago, I've only dabbled with the demos for CMA and CMBS, so take this comment with a grain of salt, but why all the rage for the 1980's? I wouldn't mind going back to the 1950's-1970's.

I really, really want the Arab-Israeli wars. Interesting mix of equipment, capabilities, and terraine on both sides and it is the last time entire nation states went all out prior to Ukraine-Russia. 

WWII Africa would be acceptable too. 

H