First follow up Module

[Dirtweasle]

What about the opposing side? Any thoughts to expanding beyond adding some updated gear to Syria? Say, Iran via a module?

[Battlefront.com]

More updated gear is all we are planning on doing. We are not planning on moving the setting out of Syria at all. That runs contrary to our new Module strategy, which is the key to our future success as a development house.

Guys... you have to reel back in the enthusiasm. To cover all the stuff punted out here we'd have to do contemporary combat only for the next 4 or 5 years. And that is only if we keep it centered on 2007/2008 technology. Otherwise we'd be in the business of making contemporary combat stuff for the rest of our lives. Obviously, that would make everybody unhappy, so obviously there are some significant limitations on what we will do with contemporary combat.

Steve

[Homo ferricus]

i usually improvise, hell, i recreated the October 3rd Battle of Mogadishu in CMBB, with crack Airborne playing as Rangers, elite Guards playing as SFOD-D, veteran mountain troops as the 10th mountain division, TONS of conscript volksturm to simulate the Habr Gidr militia, and some German Major playing as Farah Aidid. i built a mogadishu, used grain to simulate sand. In the end, it was kinda rough to see it modern if you don't have a vivid imagination, like me

edit: there was 1 unforeseen technicality, apparently you can't load prisoners on your own vehicles, so i had to shot Aidid dead right on the spot and then extract my troops. so BFC, whudafuxup with the prisoner loading?

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Wisbech_lad:

Obviously the British Army...

But, French as a close second. The very fact that their equipment is different (90mm armoured cars et al) would be interesting, whereas for UK and US, the gear fills much of the same "space" (Abrams=Challenger, Warrior=Bradley etc)

Must admit bias against modern tactical wargames - due to the "one shot, one kill" nature, anything that gets seen gets killed, then whatever did the killing gets seen and killed in return...

Ah, but there is a subtle but notably different role for Challenger and Warrior - Abrams and Bradley are cavalry vehicles, whereas the British "analogues", despite what the donkey-wallopers might tell you, are not.

Then you've got the joys of the CVR(T) family, different infantry organisation and support weapons, WMIK landrovers for gamey jeep rushes.

[Moronic Max]

Ah, but there is a subtle but notably different role for Challenger and Warrior - Abrams and Bradley are cavalry vehicles, whereas the British "analogues", despite what the donkey-wallopers might tell you, are not.

What does that mean? Serious question.

[flamingknives]

Well, the US kit seems to be designed to act like cavalry - fast, sweeping maneuvers, fighting on the move, hence the Abrams engine, which is definately not suited to static fighting, and the stabilised armament on the Bradley.

The Challenger and Warrior, OTOH, are designed to be at their best sitting still. Low profile, heavy turret front armour and the lack of stabilisation on the Warrior.

At least, that's my interpretation.

[PSY]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

As for Brits before Germans...

I'll put in a vote for Brits.

So no chance of having the Russians intervene in Syria in some future module? I know it wouldn't be realistic, but it would be awful fun to have the Russians in. As Holo mentioned that would also give everyone much more opportunity to create custom scenarios and campaigns.

[V]

The Syrians are gonna put a jihad on BF.C for this Crusade...

[mav1]

Italy would also be a good choice, their army is starting to get good equipment in recent years.

[Dirtweasle]

Perhaps an Israel module would make sense...

Syria threat over Golan puts Israel on war alert

By Harry de Quetteville in Jerusalem

(Filed: 30/09/2006)

Israel has gone on heightened alert over a possible war with Syria amid reports that President Bashar Assad may be considering military strikes to regain the Golan Heights.

For years Israeli military intelligence has down-played Syria's capacity to launch a meaningful attack against Israel, and the threat level has been kept "low".

But Israeli reports have revealed that the threat level had been raised after intelligence assessments that Damascus is "seriously examining" military action.

The raised threat level comes as Israel prepares for Monday's Day of Atonement, known as Yom Kippur, a solemn Jewish holiday when the entire country effectively shuts down as residents fast and seek forgiveness for sins.

It was on Yom Kippur in 1973 that Israel was caught by surprise as Syrian and Egyptian forces launched a joint attack and inflicted heavy losses before being repelled...

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by cassh:

rudel.dietrich said </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Not sure why Britian would come first unless it is just preference

?

Cos we're still allowed to fight wars on foreign soil!!

German equipment, while interesting has limited combat reality other than with the Dutch. The German constitution means the Budenswehr is a white elephant in combat terms. I don't know how many of us would buy CM-PeaceKeeper... </font>

[flamingknives]

I think the 'common equipment' is not as true as some people think.

Canada operates G wagon and Leopard 1-based engineering vehicles in common with Germany (Canada also has Leo 1, but then Germany doesn't anymore) as well as the M113.

Australia and Gemany share the M113, in limited service, other than that...?

The Leopard 2 is a common MBT, but comes in many flavours, Puma is unique, Marder is used by Greece only, Fennek and MRAV are shared only with the Netherlands, UH Tiger is used by France and Australia, but in country-specific modifications. Fuchs sees service as a specialised vehicle, MLRS is common, but the US has it anyway and it wouldn't be seen in CM. Weisel is, AFAIK, unique to Germany

Did I miss anything?

Warrior and Challenger 2 are used by Kuwait and Oman respectively, although the former in a different flavour. CVR(T) is fairly common across a few countries, as are infantry support weapons - Milan, Javelin, HMG, GPMG, 81mm mortars, Minimi and Mastiff (Cougar) although some of these are subject to UK specific mods

Some things are unique: FV430-series, RARDEN armament, SA80 and the proliferation of SUSAT, LAW80 (although this is being supplemented/replaced by ILAW, which is a modern AT4), 51mm mortar and a few other not as relevant to CM-scale.

So, no, you don't really get anything "free" for either. The Canadians come for the cost of Leo 1s, some infantry AT weapons and LAVs, once you have the US.

Plus it makes more sense to the UK first, because we're a bigger market.

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

We served in both the Balkens and in Afghanistan.

I am thankful we were not so unwise as to be tricked into entire Iraq mess.

Germany also sent a CBW Battalion to the Gulf as part of OIF. Not sure what they did after they got to Kuwait.

[Vanir Ausf B]

IIRC they were there specifically to help Kuwait respond to any NBC attack from Iraq and they stayed in Kuwait until withdrawn.

[Vanir Ausf B]

BTW, I want French and Israeli modules so we can game a "face off" gone bad on the Lebanon border.

[Battlefront.com]

Most of the work for a tank is the base model. Making variations, such as those of the Leo-2, are fairly easy for the most part. So even though the same specific variant of Leopard isn't used in all countries, that is irrelevant to us.

Many nations use the MG3 and G36. Both are significant to us since models and animations are not trivial to do in CMx2 as they were in CMx1.

However, equipment isn't the big issue for us. We're picking forces based on other factors. As I said, we know there is a huge market for a USMC version and Brit version. Other versions are certainly going to be less popular, therefore we have to prioritize things. As I've said many times, if it was just to do something on personal interest alone, I'd be pushing for Italian or even Swedish forces. But the thought of marketing such games gives me a headache

Steve

[Cpl Steiner]

Please don't put the Germans in. Last I heard they were causing NATO massive headaches in Afghanistan by refusing to fly at night! The Brits, in contrast seem to be up for anything and thus much more likely to get into a large engagement.

P.S. This is not intended as any slur on the German soldier, just a reflection on the unlikeliness of German forces actually being involved in any large-scale combat operations (which I'm sure has much to do with the German Legal Constitution post WWII).

[Battlefront.com]

Please don't put the Germans in. Last I heard they were causing NATO massive headaches in Afghanistan by refusing to fly at night! The Brits, in contrast seem to be up for anything and thus much more likely to get into a large engagement.

Such things will never enter into our choice of subject matter. No more than "never include US forces because their Air Force tends to shoot up friendlies and therefore nobody would ever want them on the battlefield". In short, this is nonsense logic

In the Syria scenario, with NATO active, I don't think the German constitution's restrictions would apply. For something like West Africa, it certainly would.

Steve

[cassh]

Steve said -

In the Syria scenario, with NATO active, I don't think the German constitution's restrictions would apply.

Not true I'm afraid. Hence my comments above.

[Homo ferricus]

i wouldn't mind a USMC addon, it would probably be the easiest to make, plus, the blue on blue possibilities are quite exciting too. Think about it, you get to settle the old Army/Marines rivalry...

[Vanir Ausf B]

The Budenswehr is going to be the OPFOR for guys like me who want to use some tanks instead of skulking about in buildings will all-infantry forces, unless the Syrians get enough "what-if" units to opproximate a modern Russian force. And I think BFC is looking at the sales numbers in Germany more so than the German constitution.

From a strictly realism point of view France would be a more logical subject than Germany, but that seems unlikely to happen, unfortunatly.

[Vanir Ausf B]

i wouldn't mind a USMC addon, it would probably be the easiest to make, plus, the blue on blue possibilities are quite exciting too. Think about it, you get to settle the old Army/Marines rivalry...

Blue on blue is going to be the main selling point for me. I probably wouldn't even buy the game if I had to use Syrians all the time.

For me personally, US Army vs. USMC is like Heer vs. SS. Bleh US vs. UK poses some intesting tactical issues, but it doesn't feel right without muskets.

[Battlefront.com]

Cassh,

Not true I'm afraid. Hence my comments above.

It's been a while since I read the relevant passages from the German constitution, so I just double checked.

There are two components. One is the German Constitution, the other the NATO charter. The key thing is determining if pending military action is a war of aggression or self defense. This is a quote from an article detailing how the current war in Iraq is a war of aggression (as determined by Germany's highest court):

The court referred to Article 4, Paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter, which classifies “every” threat and use of military force against another nation as an act of aggression. It specifies only two exceptions: a formal resolution of the UN Security Council and for self-defence purposes.

Since no member of NATO was attacked and the UN Resolution 1441 was not an authorization for military force, the German court rulled that the war in Iraq is a war of aggression and therefore the Bundeswehr is not supposed to do anything to support it. This includes use of logistics and anything else involving BW personnel.

Back on topic, this is a relevant passage from an International Law website discussing the German constitution's relevance:

The German constitutional debate over external uses of the Bundeswehr had focused on the interpretation of Article 87(a)(2) of the Basic Law and its interrelationship with Article 24(2) of the Basic Law. Predictably enough, the complainants argued that Article 87(a)(2) prohibits all external uses of the Bundeswehr (except for defence purposes) and that Article 24(2) does not explicitly authorize the involvement of the Bundeswehr, as required by Article 87(a)(2).

The reasoning of the constitutional Court, however, starts from Article 24(2). The Court asserts that the permission to enter collective security systems granted in Article 24(2) also includes the authorization to fulfil all tasks typically arising from the membership in such systems. Hence Article 24(2) also authorizes the involvement of the Bundeswehr in activities performed within the framework and according to the rules of collective security systems.

In the Court's view, this authorization is not affected in any way by the restrictive wording of Article 87(a)(2) because none of the constitutional amendments was intended to prohibit uses of the Bundeswehr which were already permitted by norms of the Basic Law such as for example Article 24(2) (the opinion as a whole relies heavily on arguments from the legislative history which are usually only employed as ancillary arguments). The Court tends to regard the authorization to participate in collective security systems as a lex specialis in relation to the general provision on uses of the Bundeswehr contained in Article 87(a)(2).

This means as long as NATO is acting in self-defense or as part of a UN Security Council Resolution then Germany can act within the framework of the NATO operation. Hence how it is Constitutionally legal for German troops to be in Afghanistan.

In our hypothetical scenario, a direct attack on NATO countries from forces within Syria, which shares a border with a NATO member, would allow the Bundeswehr to participate in a military action with or without a UN Resolution. A UN Resolution would simply reinforce the ability. Plus, I would suspect that if Germany were attacked, and everybody else was going out to get the ones who did it, the German Bundestag would have the 2/3rds majority needed to ammend the constitution even if there wasn't the ability to go to war without it. And to me, the NATO Charter and the German constitution do not need changes in any case.

Steve

[ October 01, 2006, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Hpt. Lindemann]

I missed that about the LeClerc being deployed to Lebanon. Well they will need heavy firepower if it gets ugly over there again, to keep the peace of course. I'm glad the French have decided to deploy the LeClerc. It looks like a very capable AFV.

As for the first module, I like the order you've chosen. I would like to see more NATO members added to the list though. Perhaps make the 2nd and 3rd modules combination groups of units.

2. Westerna Europe NATO: UK / France / Germany /

Netherlands / Denmark / etc...

3. Eastern Europe NATO: Czech Republic / Poland

/ Hungary / etc...

[Battlefront.com]

The problem is that soldier models, uniforms, textures, TO&E, and unique vehicles make it very difficult to simulate more than a single country or two at a time. The work is just too daunting. So it is unliekly we will be able to simulate anything but a mere fraction of the total NATO forces, not to mention global forces.

Steve