Jump to content

Beta Testers - Does the BF Module plays differently


Recommended Posts

Hello All, and especially to the Beta testers!

I am seriously considering buying the BF module when it comes out, but I have a few questions that I need clarifications about, and I am sorry in advance if they have been answered elsewhere around these forums.

1) Do you feel that the Brits play different than the US forces depicted in the game so far? (Firepower, Mobility, survivability)

2) Do you need to play different tactics with your armor? do you feel more "secure" driving the vehicles or you still try to keep them away from the enemy as much as possible?

3) What is the one thing that is most "major" regarding the gameplay when you use the British Army? (taking aside the additions / fixes in the 1.20 patch)

Thanks a lot for the replies :)

Itai

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi,

Of course the Brits will play differently due mainly to the equipments and TO&Es. Javelin for instance is not as prevalent as in the US Army but is comparable (roughly) to USMC issue. On the other hand British Rifle Sections in numerical terms are closer to US Army ones vice USMC ones.

Challenger 2 is roughly equivalent to Abrams but you will have to be more careful with the former. Warrior and Bradley are very different - protection-wise about the same but firepower very different because Warrior has no ATGM.

Bulldog and Stryker are roughly comparable in terms of firepower and protection.

The CVR(T) series is different altogether - you must avoid the temptation move your Scimitars into vulnerable positions thinking their firepower will save them - it won't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello All, and especially to the Beta testers!

I am seriously considering buying the BF module when it comes out, but I have a few questions that I need clarifications about, and I am sorry in advance if they have been answered elsewhere around these forums.

1) Do you feel that the Brits play different than the US forces depicted in the game so far? (Firepower, Mobility, survivability)

Hell yes. Totally different feeling. What Combatintman said, plus some other stuff, like the increased presence of snipers compared to US Army, tiny squads compared to US Marines, different vehicles that don't play at all like US elements, which leads me into . . .

2) Do you need to play different tactics with your armor? do you feel more "secure" driving the vehicles or you still try to keep them away from the enemy as much as possible?

OK, Challengers feel fairly similar to Abrams, although at least when I was doing most of my testing (before they tweaked this a little), they seemed more vulnerable to enemy fire. Warriors, on the other hand, are quite different to anything on the US side. There's a temptation to use them like Bradleys, because they look kind of similar and have similar roles in the grand scheme of things, but then I got repeatedly whacked attempting to do this. ;) Other Brit vehicles need to stay the heck away from anything bigger than an MG! :D

3) What is the one thing that is most "major" regarding the gameplay when you use the British Army? (taking aside the additions / fixes in the 1.20 patch)

I would say the small section sizes. I find that the Brits require a much larger concentration of units (platoons, companies, etc.) to accomplish the same task as a US unit, particularly a Marine unit. They definitely play very differently in most respects!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recall early in the process I constructed a couple scenarios, but but had to use U.S. Stryker infantry as 'placeholders' until the finished British units arrived. When I finally swapped out U.S. for Brits the difference was quite a surprise! I had to go back and rework my Red AI movement orders because the long-barrelled L85 rifle was reliably knocking down enemy at noticeably longer ranges than the M4 carbine. Brits seem to possess the longer reach of Marines (perhaps slightly longer?) but without the brute force of the Marines 13 man squad. They really do 'play' differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was always rather under the impression that a Challenger 2 was ahead of the Abrams in the defensive scheme of things these days. After all it uses an armour that is supposed to be the most advanced.

Then again, the whole trouble with the modern setting when it comes to weapons is that they are classified systems, which must be a bugger to best guess at. If asked, I would say a Challenger would be slightly better than the Abrams and not the other way around.

So infantry wise and Javelin apart do the Brits play significally different from the US Army? Range has already been noted, but what about the rest? Squad firepower, support weapons etc, grenade launchers, ammo loadouts.

In sum, will I notice any mechanical difference in gameplay from US Infantry to UK Infantry? If so, what, and is it a big enough difference to buy the add-on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am, unfortunately, not a beta tester, but for $25 it seems worth it for additional blue on blue possibilities alone. We are just not talking about a lot of money, and I for one would like to keep BFC at least vaguely interested in shock force for a bit longer.

Just the different look between the two forces would improve blue on blue immensely.

Now if they would the the French......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

iam a little sceptic bout the british. the IBCT and the british forces is nothing i really need, and there are no additions to the RED side comming it seems, so i likely pass this module.

25 bucks isnt much, but 25 bucks for stuff iam not that interessted in, is quiet a lot on the other hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was always rather under the impression that a Challenger 2 was ahead of the Abrams in the defensive scheme of things these days. After all it uses an armour that is supposed to be the most advanced.

Let me reiterate, most of my playtesting that involved Challenger 2s was BEFORE THEY TWEAKED THIS. I'm not aware of how they compare to the M1s in their current state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

iam a little sceptic bout the british. the IBCT and the british forces is nothing i really need, and there are no additions to the RED side comming it seems, so i likely pass this module.

25 bucks isnt much, but 25 bucks for stuff iam not that interessted in, is quiet a lot on the other hand.

Well, if all you're interested in is Red forces, then don't buy the module. It will not help you in any way.

There are some fabulous scenarios in it, but I don't think there are any Red on Red.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had a lot of discussions about the Challenger 2's armor compared to an Abrams. As we all know, the data for both are classified and therefore we don't have definitive answers. The values we have in the game now are based on our best guess using the information we were able to examine. Which, I have to tell you, was sometimes wildly different. I mean 1960s Woodstock type wildly different :D In fact, the numbers we found for the Challenger 2 were much wider in range than for the Abrams.

One thing we concluded was that the Challenger is not significantly better than the Abrams at best. The sorts of things which would penetrate would likely still penetrate even if we increased the resistance a little. That's because the only weapons which can penetrate that amount of frontal armor tend to be significantly overmatched, which means slight increases in resistance won't effectively matter most of the time.

The information we used tended to suggest the Challenger 2 is a little bit weaker than the modern Abrams overall. The argument that the Challenger 2 should be better because it has a newer type of armor isn't valid since thickness, for example, matters.

Put another way, if Material A has the resistance of 400 per inch, and Material B has a resistance of 600 per inch, which is better per inch? Material B, no doubt. But if Vehicle 1 has 3 inches of Material A and Vehicle 2 has 2 inches of Material B, which is better? Neither since they both have a resistance of 1200. What if Vehicle 2 has only 1.5 inches instead of 2? It will be inferior to Vehicle 1. What if Vehicle 1 has Material C laminated onto Material A? Well, now things become even more muddled!!

One variable that is often left out is that the Abrams does not use 1st Gen Chobham armor only. It uses Chobham plus a depleted uranium layer on the frontal armor. This means that comparing 2nd Gen Chobham against 1st Gen Chobham, without taking the DU layer into account, is a flawed comparison.

Another thing to consider is that armor is not developed purely for is resistance capabilities. "Improved" armor can be no more effective than the old armor, but weighs less. Or it could cost less to manufacture. Or it can be produced quicker. Or it can be assembled using less expensive processes. etc. etc.

Armor also has different capabilities vs. different types of hits. The Abrams has the DU layer added to increase defenses against all types of hits, including KE strikes which Chobham is inherently less capable of defending against. Which means that it's possible that the Abrams is still superior, even with an older Chobham based defense, than a tank with a newer Chobham armor but no DU layer.

Finally, newer does not always equal better. Though in this case I do think newer is better in some way or ways. Just not necessarily translating to superior defensive capabilities.

In the end we've come to the conclusion that the Challenger 2 is only slightly (and I stress SLIGHTLY) less strong compared to the modern Abrams. If someone can show us sources which are both credible and different than what we're using, of course we can make changes.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was always rather under the impression that a Challenger 2 was ahead of the Abrams in the defensive scheme of things these days. After all it uses an armour that is supposed to be the most advanced.

Then again, the whole trouble with the modern setting when it comes to weapons is that they are classified systems, which must be a bugger to best guess at. If asked, I would say a Challenger would be slightly better than the Abrams and not the other way around.

With the introduction of the M1A2 and TUSK, that distinction is pretty thoroughly blurred, especially without unclassified scientific data to compare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And before our British friends go into shock over what Steve just posted, I should point out that the Challenger 2 will massacre any combination of Syrian armour as ruthlessly and efficiently as the M1A2 (and with more panache because of that cool british accent).;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

heh... yeah, that's true. It's kinda like saying two guys trying to prove who is richer by buying the biggest yacht they can find. To us mere financial mortals they are both disgustingly rich and it doesn't matter one bit to us if one is up a few hundred million over the other... they can both buy whatever it is they want whenever they want, so effectively they are equal.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their firepower is so inferior to Bradleys that I have to be far more careful how I use them.
Without re-checking, I recall that the RARDEN cannon is not stabilized. Is this noticeable? Does the vehicle stop to fire when on the move?

Best regards,

Thomm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without re-checking, I recall that the RARDEN cannon is not stabilized. Is this noticeable? Does the vehicle stop to fire when on the move?

Best regards,

Thomm

It fires on the move, but much more slowly. The thing also has to reload every six shots and has a very limited main gun ammo load out compared to a Bradley. You actually have to carefully consider whether you want to use the main gun or the MG, because there is not a lot of ammo to play with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Head-to-head comparisons are rather fruitless. Remember, you're not just playing the equipment, you're also playing the scenario. The scenario designer can select from two different standards of Challenger 2, plus the designer can select any experience level he wants for the crew. That means a troop of 'Regular' experience Telic-armored Challenger 2s against a platoon of Elite T90s (yes that would be mixing modules, I know) in no way has a guaranteed outcome. Also, the game is combined arms. So 'Elite' Challenger 2 (enhanced) versus static conscript T54s and hidden Kornet missile launchers is not a sure bet either! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...