Just an Idle thought about perhaps 'revamping' some CM:BS elements

[Sublime]

Ok. First I wanna make my points. yes I know its a fictional war, but a lot of this work is already done by CW so to speak

1. I havent seen ANY APS fielded AT ALL, even on oryx theres 'prototype' t80s with APS that basically just decoration because it didnt even have charges

2. The Russians use a lot of T80s. I can provide a interview with a UA tanker last year who says they consider the T80BVM the most formidable opp because its armor and reverse speed

3, UA has too many good tanks. We should be seeing a ****load more T64 BVs, no oplots, and a handful of armatas

4. Including random western kit from SF2, and oher titles would be amazing

5. The RU army ... its ok we all fell for it.  They dont have T90s like that ,the rarity should AT THE LEAST go up A TON.  But also like they should have more older kit, the B3s, all that stuff should be more expensive, and less common..  Yes itd be a n 00B nightmare bu just sayin, Im surpsied noone saw this coming as far as tanks given the Russians were saying in 2014 thered be 3k armaatas by 2020, or that their aps can kill an APFSDS from a 120mm. Their S400 cant even hit a HIMARS rocket from the 90s lol

6. Suicide drones.  They scare the **** out of me and would love tosee them in

7. more drones, give UA drones that can drop a grenade or make a grenade equivalent boom

yeah Im sure this is NOT a priority, its a fictional war and Im sure theres more pressure to expand the current force pool

But its the only thing thatd really rekindle my love that game. Im just.. burnt out.

 

Edited April 30, 2023 by Sublime

[Holman]

A good deal of what you're asking for can be done with scenario design: few T-90s., more older T-72s, etc.

Other revelations about the state of the Russian army are just that: revelations since long after the game came out. These, too, can be handled with scenario design (lower Russian skill and readiness, etc).

Suicide and grenade-dropping drones are an unexpected innovation. Maybe they'll come in the future, and maybe not.

[masc]

Like you mentioned I think BF sees CM:BS as an entirely separate setting about a fictional war based on what it seemed like the US/RU/UKR militaries would be like in 2017 looking forward from 2014? maybe earlier when development started.  If/when BF ever does tackle this war assume it will be an entirely separate entity released several years after the end of the war at least.  But obviously everything you listed I would like to see applied to it.

 

Only thing I'm unsure about is the grenade/suicide drones.  From what I've seen they don't appear to be used during combat/tactical engagements.  Much more a harassing or shaping thing that I think falls "off screen" from what CM portrays.  Maybe they could have a place in larger scenarios though.

[Traitor]

I believe that this game should stick to the fictional 2017 timeline, in an alternate reality where APS is in service and various models of tanks like Oplots and T-90s were produced in greater numbers. It's like Shock Force, where although it's inspired by real life conflicts, it's a fictional event and thus available equipment can differ from reality. I believe that the devs feel like it's in bad taste to profit off an ongoing conflict, which is the reason for the module hiatus, and therefore they are going to stick to Black Sea being a fictional 2017 conflict.

Many of the things you suggested and problems with the Russian army in the current conflict are operational/tactical/logistics issues that can already be replicated in scenario design such as lowering the morale, using older models of vehicles, etc to make scenarios that more closely resemble the current conflict.

If you make the "high-tech" stuff like APS and advanced tanks out of reach for most battles with extremely high rarity, the game will play too much like Shock Force in my opinion, and Black Sea is aiming more for a "near peer" and "near future" feel.

[Zveroboy1]

IMO there are three essential things we need if we want to be able to model the current conflict better.

- Much better drones: we need drones that are able to spot static infantry pretty much anywhere except inside buildings.

It wouldn't even be that hard to do for Battlefront really. There is no 3D model needed for it. Just take the Zala as a base, change the icon and description and just tweak its values by increasing the spotting capacity tenfold. Even though it would be obviously nice to have, we can do without Lancets or even quadcopters being able to drop small bombs but the drones we now have in the game can barely spot static infantry in the open. This is quite bad.

- Heavy machine guns like Kords or even older DShKs. They are very important for long range urban fighting and we have to substitute US HMGs to make do, it is immersion breaking. If it is a TOE problem, just make them available as separate teams in the editor.

- T-80s

There are tons of other things we would ideally need. But these three fairly simple additions would go a long way. I am omitting western equipment transferred to Ukraine on purpose because this would require lots of work. These are what I think are essentials and would love to see an small upgrade pack with them. Just make it a different timeline so we can keep the alternate really/future conflict with fancy toys without having to revamp everything. But personally I'd be really disappointed if BFC chose to simply ignore the current developments and decided to stick with the sci fi version. I understand the DLC is basically done and it would be daft to just scrap it. So just give us both.

 

[Traitor]

On 6/18/2023 at 10:35 AM, Zveroboy1 said:

There are tons of other things we would ideally need. But these three fairly simple additions would go a long way. I am omitting western equipment transferred to Ukraine on purpose because this would require lots of work. These are what I think are essentials and would love to see an small upgrade pack with them. Just make it a different timeline so we can keep the alternate really/future conflict with fancy toys without having to revamp everything. But personally I'd be really disappointed if BFC chose to simply ignore the current developments and decided to stick with the sci fi version. I understand the DLC is basically done and it would be daft to just scrap it. So just give us both.

 

 

I agree, I think there are ways to add in elements from the current conflict while still remaining firmly in the alternate timeline the game is set in.

I recall BFC saying that they would much rather have a new game in the future representing the Ukraine conflict after everything has died down rather than turn Black Sea into some kind of hybrid amalgamation of real and fictional wars. But like you said, there are many small additions BFC can make to make the game more "realistic" without straying away from their intention of representing a fictional conflict, such as adding equipment that was already in use in 2017 like HMGs and T-80s. (I personally think adding Fara radar sets would be an interesting way to improve the disparity in spotting, and Fara radars can be also be mounted on HMGs. From my understanding, although the man portable radar sets are in use currently, they were pretty rarely seen before 2018 or so due to training deficiencies, but if it's an alternate timeline I don't see the problem.)

[Zveroboy1]

Hmm to be perfectly frank, I don't care much if at all about the hypothetical setting any more. Battlefront had a prophetic moment when they managed to identify Ukraine as a potential hotspot and came up with a good scenario for it as a pretext to use the game as a laboratory for future equipments and tactics.

And that was just fine until reality caught up with it and a real war broke out. But now current events have diverged so significantly from the fiction that they have made it obsolete in my book.

Personally I'd much rather use the game as a sandbox to explore real tactics and actual battles than stick to an alternate reality. I can see the appeal but I mean it feels a bit absurd to keep exploring a hypothetical branch of history while a different reality is unfolding before our eyes.

The only reason I suggested this is because Battlefront tends to be quite mulish and always sticks to their guns no matter what and so I figured this modest list of tweaks and addition is the best we can realistically hope to get without having to wait 5 or 10 years.

Edited June 22, 2023 by Zveroboy1

[Panzerpanic]

I know its a pet peeve for me , but most if not all Ukr tank should be without glatgm. I dunno about the russian side though.

[chuckdyke]

2 hours ago, Zveroboy1 said:

The only reason I suggested this is because Battlefront tends to be quite mulish and always sticks to their guns no matter what and so I figured this modest list of tweaks and addition is the best we can realistically hope to get without having to wait 5 or 10 years.

Exactly I stopped playing the game you just analyzed the reasons for me. Thank you very much for this.

[Traitor]

On 6/22/2023 at 8:32 AM, Zveroboy1 said:

Hmm to be perfectly frank, I don't care much if at all about the hypothetical setting any more. Battlefront had a prophetic moment when they managed to identify Ukraine as a potential hotspot and came up with a good scenario for it as a pretext to use the game as a laboratory for future equipments and tactics.

And that was just fine until reality caught up with it and a real war broke out. But now current events have diverged so significantly from the fiction that they have made it obsolete in my book.

That's fair, but I think having a game explore near future equipment and tactics is also interesting. Personally, I prefer the hypothetical entries in the franchise like SF, BS and technically CW over the historically accurate titles, but I also understand liking the historical titles. Ideally, we can have both.

On 6/22/2023 at 8:32 AM, Zveroboy1 said:

Personally I'd much rather use the game as a sandbox to explore real tactics and actual battles than stick to an alternate reality. I can see the appeal but I mean it feels a bit absurd to keep exploring a hypothetical branch of history while a different reality is unfolding before our eyes.

I see what you mean, but like you said, BFC is stubborn, they didn't switch up Shock Force when the Syrian Civil War broke out, I doubt they are willing to totally revamp Black Sea. 

I think how long we will have to wait for a game based historically on the current war depends on how long the war will go on for. BFC have made it clear they are not comfortable with profiting off an ongoing conflict, so it seems like the war will have to end before BFC will consider making a game about it. They can reuse many of the assets though, so development time would probably be reduced.

[Zveroboy1]

Right, that's fair enough.

I just thought I'd offer a counterpoint in case one of Battlefront's honchos read this thread and also add my voice to the group of players who are not satisfied with the current state of the game and wished it was closer to real events. You just need to look at the number of people who have modded uniforms, added blue and yellow bands, tanks with Z markings or are trying their hands at recreating scenarios about the war in Ukraine. And that's just modders, the visible tip of the iceberg. I am sure Battlefront is already aware there is an interest.

 

[Traitor]

23 hours ago, Zveroboy1 said:

I am sure Battlefront is already aware there is an interest.

If it were up to me, I'd turn BS into the amalgamation that BFC is reluctant to do, I don't see why we can't have both futuristic 2017 and realistic 2022 scenarios in one game, Cold War's setting spans over several years with the balance of power and equipment available changing depending on the year the Cold War goes hot, they can do something similar, once the real life war is over, obviously.

I think this is a solution that will please both the hypothetical and historical fans and remove the need for development time for a standalone game just for the 2022 conflict. I don't think either side has to lose out, we can have both settings.

[NiceBoat]

I'll give some feedback, because this issue has been bugging me and I recently tried to play a few CMBS PBEM scenarios and it left a sour taste in my mouth.

I don't really enjoy this game because of small things that don't even require Battlefront to change the setting. It's mostly about how they handled drones - Ukraine doesn't have access to them, Americans can't shoot them down, Russians and Ukrainians can unless it's that one expensive US drone - it's all a mess, honestly. And while I salute Battlefront for their clairvoyance, the current events have clearly shown many drones to be cheap consumables that have a huge impact on combat and can't be dealt with in a cost-efficient manner (or sometimes at all).

So I'm stuck with a game that can either be a very clumsy simulation of a US vs RF confrontation, or a weird reskin of the Cold War with APS.

It's just not interesting to me - CMCW does the 80s better, and I can't explore more modern tactics because the balanced scenarios axe the drone game (both sides are guaranteed to buy SPAA), and the imbalanced scenarios make it so that both sides see everything at all times.

Obviously some of this can be worked around with custom scenarios, but it's a lot of effort for things that should've already been included in the game. Especially for multiplayer, which is how I do 90% of my CM anyway.

 

Just to reiterate: the argument isn't based on real vs alternate timeline. The argument is based on the irrefutable fact that Battlefront designed CMBS around a very poor interpretation of drones as something that's hard to produce and very hi-tech. This wasn't true for any "near future" scenario back when the game was released (although it was probably harder to anticipate at that time) and it isn't true now.

I'm not asking for additional features, I'm not asking for a setting change, I'm asking for small (but very significant) TOE changes that in hindsight should've been there since 2014. And if it's not too much, add cheap observation drones with less FOV than Zala to simulate something like Mavics.

Unless this happens, I'm planning to stick to CMCW for all my modern warfare gameplay.

Edited July 3, 2023 by NiceBoat

[chuckdyke]

59 minutes ago, NiceBoat said:

Unless this happens, I'm planning to stick to CMCW for all my modern warfare gameplay.

I agree I can't honestly recommend BS to anyone. I stick to WW2 and modern SF2 is far better value.

[NiceBoat]

To be honest, even a setting allowing the players to pick mixed Ukrainian/US units in Quick Battles would address at least some of the issues. Why this isn't a thing when it's perfectly possible to do this in the scenario editor is just incomprehensible to me. There is a setting for "Random Blue", why not just "Blue"?

If someone doesn't want to use it, just PM your opponent to keep it off. I understand this option wasn't included to make the game... I don't know, more realistic? It is available in the scenario editor and the official campaign features a mixed unit at one point. Besides, Ukraine having some access to Western equipment would make the game more realistic, not less. To make PvP more balanced? We already can adjust force ratios to generate extremely lopsided games, so this wouldn't be a fair argument.

It just feels lazy and extremely constraining, as if the devs wanted to limit player freedom in one particular mode for no specific reason. And it really exacerbates all the issues I mentioned in my post above.

This game would actually be very interesting to play in QB mode if players were allowed to deploy mixed units. Imagine playing as RF when your opponent has Bulats instead of M1A2s. Just this little change alone would fix like 90% of issues this game currently has when it comes to multiplayer QBs.

 

Maybe we should just start a self-help group that creates the initial Custom Scenario save from unit lists provided by both "Custom QB" players. All it takes is just an additional person that doesn't participate in the game and can be bothered to spare 15 minutes to generate the scenario without participants knowing what the other guy has.

Edited July 4, 2023 by NiceBoat

[A Canadian Cat]

17 hours ago, NiceBoat said:

I'm asking for small (but very significant) TOE changes that in hindsight should've been there since 2014.

LOL really, should have been? BFC did a really good job in 2012-2014 in guessing what the battlefield would be like in 2017, including drones. It was based on lessons learned in Afghanistan and other places. What they have makes a lot of sense. I suspect what they got wrong was the ease that drones are downed by some AAA, even then I'm not sure we have clear evidence on that.

For sure if they were to create a game in 2023 guessing what the battlefield would be like in 2027 they would have a lot more drones of different sizes and capabilities.

I would like to see a TO&E in a module that includes more types and more instances of drones in the org chart. I think that's about all you can expect. Even then we might be disappointed in their interpretation of drones in 2017 since by definition the game is not set in 2022.

[NiceBoat]

You're quoting me out of context. They treated all drones as hi-tech gear, as evidenced by the fact only US and RU have access to them in-game. This assumption turned out  to be blatantly wrong. And yes, it was likely possible to anticipate that development in 2012-2014, as neither the components nor the technology were prohibitively expensive at that point, although it'd be foolish to hold this against BFC because they're game-makers, not drone market analysts.

Still, failing to update the TOE when the kind of warfare CMBS is trying to simulate turned out to be heavily influenced by cheap, readily available drones is something that can be held against them, which is why I'm criticizing them.

As it stands, CMBS simply fails as a modern warfare simulator unless you're willing to go the extra mile and create scenarios that dodge this issue. It's literally impossible to have a realistic UA vs RF game in Quick Battle mode because there's no way to get the kind of transparent battlefield that emerged in the real world. You can kind-of, sort-of get it if you play US vs RF, but the force purchases required to achieve that state are downright ridiculous.

Now, you could argue that this isn't a big deal, but if you play multiplayer it kind of is. Which is one of the reasons people are complaining here.

As a consumer, I'm also flabbergasted by the fact that this issue could've been rectified to some extent by a simple TOE change or a new force selection setting, and maybe the adjustment of the way you can target small drones, but for some reason wasn't. Which is why I said I'm not planning to play CMBS going forward unless this gets fixed (well maybe I will, but definitely not in QB mode) - the game promises to simulate modern combat, but fails to deliver because, again, drones. Unless you put in additional time and effort to design scenarios around the aforementioned issues, in which case it pretty much works.

And the fact that it's so close, yet ultimately broken is what's really annoying to me. I shouldn't have to pump out my own scenario pack just to get the kind of simulation I get out of the box in any mode with CMCW or CMSF.

Edited July 5, 2023 by NiceBoat

[A Canadian Cat]

On 7/5/2023 at 6:56 PM, NiceBoat said:

You're quoting me out of context. They treated all drones as hi-tech gear, as evidenced by the fact only US and RU have access to them in-game. This assumption turned out  to be blatantly wrong.

No, I have the context right I just totally disagree with you that this is some kind of disaster. Yes, they were shown to have not quite got it. I still think they did as good a job as could be expected so I have no beef.

On 7/5/2023 at 6:56 PM, NiceBoat said:

As a consumer, I'm also flabbergasted by the fact that this issue could've been rectified to some extent by a simple TOE change or a new force selection setting,

OK sure. First they have long ago said they have no plans for any updates or modules or new content for CMBS while the war is on going. So, you should not be surprised. Second OK sure whatever. I have no idea if BFC will agree with you about adding more drones in their 2017 simulation there is a high likely hood they will not change course. I just don't know. I hope to see some lethality changes sure but even bugs take a long time to get fixed sometimes.

On 7/5/2023 at 6:56 PM, NiceBoat said:

Which is why I said I'm not planning to play CMBS going forward unless this gets fixed

OK but as one of my son's hockey coaches used to say "don't hold your breath - cause you might die"

[NiceBoat]

I mean it isn't really a disaster, it just makes the game less exciting and pretty redundant. Black Sea was an opportunity to introduce a transparent, truely modern battlefield to the series, you could even say the attempt was there, but it just failed to deliver because the real world trends were more significant than BFC anticipated and the counterplay they introduced is just awkward. It's not the end of the world, but it turns CMBS into a green CMSF reskin with less content, APS, and absolutely terrible multiplayer balance. It's also kind of infuriating to play because, again, some of these issues could be fixed with a few notepad edits if in-game TOE were moddable. It's also worth noting that the game is set in 2017, and first Mavic drones appeared on the market in 2016 if I remember correctly, so you need to get really deep into the whole "alternate timeline" argument to make what's represented in the game make sense.

 

Consider this: if you were asked to recommend CMBS to someone, what would you say? "It's a fictional alternate timeline with a war in Ukraine that fails to portray drone-corrected artillery correctly because of weird TOE and funky countermeasures, but hey, at least you get APS"? Keep in mind that while the conflict in CMSF is fictional, the game does a good job representing GWOT-era NATO forces and certain types of OPFOR. CMBS could be similar for post-GWOT years, and if you use the editor it can actually get close, but the amount of effort required to get this kind of experience rolling makes it a very hard sell.

 

I don't really think it's nice of Battlefront to leave their game in such a state regardless of their reasons, especially when the base game costs as much as CMCW and CMSF, which are significantly better at representing their respective eras. Compared to the other modern warfare CM titles, CMBS sticks out like a sore thumb. It's the sick man of the series, and this sucks if you're primarily interested in contemporary tactics.

[Lethaface]

On 7/6/2023 at 12:56 AM, NiceBoat said:

You're quoting me out of context. They treated all drones as hi-tech gear, as evidenced by the fact only US and RU have access to them in-game. This assumption turned out  to be blatantly wrong. And yes, it was likely possible to anticipate that development in 2012-2014, as neither the components nor the technology were prohibitively expensive at that point, although it'd be foolish to hold this against BFC because they're game-makers, not drone market analysts.

Still, failing to update the TOE when the kind of warfare CMBS is trying to simulate turned out to be heavily influenced by cheap, readily available drones is something that can be held against them, which is why I'm criticizing them.

As it stands, CMBS simply fails as a modern warfare simulator unless you're willing to go the extra mile and create scenarios that dodge this issue. It's literally impossible to have a realistic UA vs RF game in Quick Battle mode because there's no way to get the kind of transparent battlefield that emerged in the real world. You can kind-of, sort-of get it if you play US vs RF, but the force purchases required to achieve that state are downright ridiculous.

Now, you could argue that this isn't a big deal, but if you play multiplayer it kind of is. Which is one of the reasons people are complaining here.

As a consumer, I'm also flabbergasted by the fact that this issue could've been rectified to some extent by a simple TOE change or a new force selection setting, and maybe the adjustment of the way you can target small drones, but for some reason wasn't. Which is why I said I'm not planning to play CMBS going forward unless this gets fixed (well maybe I will, but definitely not in QB mode) - the game promises to simulate modern combat, but fails to deliver because, again, drones. Unless you put in additional time and effort to design scenarios around the aforementioned issues, in which case it pretty much works.

And the fact that it's so close, yet ultimately broken is what's really annoying to me. I shouldn't have to pump out my own scenario pack just to get the kind of simulation I get out of the box in any mode with CMCW or CMSF.

As a (fellow) human I wonder if your breakfast is on the sour and salty side. I mean I agree that the stuff you mention could be improved upon. But this game was released about 10 years ago and implemented a (at the moment) fictional war in Ukraine. 
If you lose the hyperbole and just present the issues as possible improvements which could make the came much more close to the real 2022 conflict, I guess it's more pleasant to read and more chance of getting interaction or being listened too. Or if you like more critical posts: you use an unnecessary volume of words in un unpleasant tone to get your point across. It's really a shame because it was so close to being a good post, but ultimately it sounds like a broken record. We shouldn't have to put in the time to read those extra words, which bring nothing to the table and just clutter up our forum experience with negative vibes.  

FWIW BFC has said they don't plan to retroactively update CMBS to be like the 2022 war. But there might come a new game depicting the '22 war.

[NiceBoat]

I'm sorry, but CMBS doesn't exactly fill me with positive vibes. I'm really disappointed in the state of this product, and even more disappointed in the fact that this war is being used as an excuse to keep it broken.

 

If CMSF was updated with drones to better depict the 2008 battlefield (because IIRC it didn't have US drones on release), why can't CMBS receive a drone update or a TOE update to better depict a hypothetical 2017 battlefield? The current war has nothing to do with this argument aside from the fact that it proves modern drone use isn't at all like how it was depicted in CMBS. Again, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, commercial civilian drones became available to the public around 2016, and yet CMBS treats drones as a hi-tech tool that isn't available to AFU.

 

If you're going to accuse me of using an "unnecessary volume of words", at least engage with my argument as it was presented. I think I made a pretty good case why CMBS isn't an accurate depiction of a hypothetical 2017 battlefield, I could really do without the remarks on my delivery. I paid for this game, I have the right to be disgruntled, disappointed, sour, and/or salty. Sorry if you find that offensive.

[Simcoe]

Really interesting discussion so far.

Honestly, I’m starting to think that depicting modern warfare is just beyond the engine at this point. Rather than change CMBS I’d like to see a brand new engine.

the problem here is modern games focus on the worst mechanics of the engine.

Drones in reality should be able to see the entire battlefield on any map. This breaks several mechanics. I can now call artillery on on the enemy deployment zone and angles of attack.
 

Air support: Right now aircraft are either laughably useless when you have air defense or incredibly unfun when you don't. There's no real middle ground.
 

Finally, the battlefield has grown so large yet so empty. Attacks are being carried out by a couple tanks and a squad at most of infantry. You either need to have a map as big as the donbass and game time of 5 hours or a small platoon sized map. The Russians recently conducted a larger company sized attack and it did not go well.
 

I just don't see how you fix any of these problems using the same engine. Finally, with how slow Battlefront is I doubt we ever will get a new one.
 

I would sooner wait on CMO to get good ground combat.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

11 hours ago, Simcoe said:

I would sooner wait on CMO to get good ground combat.

Don't hold your breath.

[Brille]

13 hours ago, NiceBoat said:

I paid for this game, I have the right to be disgruntled, disappointed, sour, and/or salty. Sorry if you find that offensive.

Well if bfc published CMBS today with the premise to depict a historical representation of the Ukraine war, then you would be rightly disappointed maybe. 

But as it stands now you can be disappointed all you want but that's somewhat on you. You bought the game based on the facts bfc has given you: An alternate, fictional war in Ukraine (that wasn't even happening at that time). 

If you haven't informed yourself beforehand, you are the one to blame. 

Its like going into a fish restaurant and being disappointed about getting a fish for your meal while you would have liked a steak instead. 

Don't get me wrong your points itself surely make sense and probably would be great to see but this game is a finished product with maybe some tweaks, modules and battlepacks in the unclear future. Maybe bfc will give it a credit in one of those but probably not. This game is several years old now. Other companies would have already dumped it and be getting to their next game. 

And though I would myself like to include some of these ideas for historical accuracy, I doubt that it would make that much fun in a quick battle. Getting hammered by roaming drones half of the time is hardly anything tactical challenging. 

I somewhere read that bfc isn't all that fond of air assets getting involved in the ground combat at all. So thats maybe partially why Syrians don't getting hammered by Nato airforce in CMSF2 most of the time, rather being attacked by normal ground forces. So I doubt that bfc will adjust drones to be more common. But they should be at least available for Ukraine too, I give you that. 

 

CMBS may be the weakest game in the series for me too but that's mostly about the lethality of things. Tanks and infantry can be wiped out in an instant if one is not careful enough. 

Often you split your infantry to small spread out teams to reduce casualties by one artillery barrage or a tank round. 

Artillery is more common and deadlier than in any other game in the series. 

So comparing to real events I think bfc nailed the feel of a modern battlefield, while not depicting the historical war entirely. 

[kevinkin]

14 hours ago, NiceBoat said:

I'm really disappointed in the state of this product, and even more disappointed in the fact that this war is being used as an excuse to keep it broken.

Aren't there plenty of wargames out that depict today's war in Ukraine? All that competition must make BF very nervous. Look for something that comes out of the blue aka Cold  War. But I doubt precious development time will be devoted to the present horrific war for good reason.