Beta Testers - Does the BF Module plays differently

[dan/california]

I would bail the static crews minute one, with rare exceptions there only use is to run up the red KIA numbers.

[MikeyD]

Scenario design-wise, they do have the benefit of drawing the Blue units into a vulnerable position. In order to get LOF on the T54 the Challenger would have to enter the Kornet's kill box-for example. Still, I would hate to be one of the poor guys sitting in the T54 waiting, that's for sure.

[Thomm]

The thing also has to reload every six shots ...

Awesome! Pitching these against BMPs perhaps has that much-desired WW2 "anti-overkill" feel about it!!

Best regards,

Thomm

[flamingknives]

It depends on the BMP, but RARDEN was designed to eat up BMPs (1s definitely and 2s are just 1s with a new turret and different gun.)

[Thomm]

It depends on the BMP, but RARDEN was designed to eat up BMPs ...

Uhmmm. Okay, I take it back then!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Damian90]

Ok, about CR2 and M1.

M1A1HC and M1A2 have both same armor.

Turret: 880-900 Glacis:560-590

Lower front hull:580-650mm vs. KE/Turret: 1310-1620 Glacis:510-1050

Lower front hull:800-970mm vs. CE.

M1A1SA and M1A2SEP same armor (and weight 63,100kg):Turret: 940-960 Glacis:560-590

Lower front hull:580-650mm vs. KE/Turret: 1320-1620 Glacis:510-1050

Lower front hull:800-970mm vs. CE

FV4034 Challenger 2: Turret: 920-960 Glacis:660

Lower front hull: 590mm vs. KE/Turret: 1450-1700 Glacis:1000

Lower front hull: 860mm vs. CE.

US don't use Chobham/Burlington armor after M1A1HA arrived, they use more modern derivative, similiar to UK Dorchester.

Newest M1's have slightly better protection against KE.

Both are comparabale, M1 is more safer to the crew (ammo cook offs), CR2 more economic (Diesel).

Side hull protection are better in M1 in frontal section over driver compartment, in CR2 over the rest.

Rear protection similiar on versions without slat armor.

Front turret LOS armor thicknes are same: 870-900mm, side no less than 300-350mm in both.

CR2 have slightly better angled frontal turret armor and M1 side turret armor.

Both are probably comparabale in mobility (M1 more powerfull engine, CR2 better suspension).

M1 have slightly better AP rounds, on the other hand CR2 have HESH rounds good against light armor, no armor, buildings and troops.

M1A2 and M1A2SEP commander have CITV with thermals, CR2 TC have only CIV without them.

M1A1SA TC have thermal sight attached to his CWS.

CR2 slightly better turret top protection, but it don't protect against something bigger than really small and old RPG's.

So both tanks are preatty same in many terms.

And one more thing, M1A1SA's and M1A2SEP's are not old tank desings, in fact this are very modern vehicles, same of course for CR2.

CR2 in fact is what should like CR1, better turret etc. same for new M1's also new turret (but it's same turret starting from M1IP, so called long turret opposite to old short turret from baseline M1).

So comparabale, both have good and bad design solutions as any tank.

From the front in fact there are no modern rounds that are capabale to perforate their turret front armor (only modern western APFSDS's from range beneth 2000m or even beneth 1000m). (this means M1A1HC/M1A2, M1A1SA/M1A2SEP and FV4034 Challenger 2) :-)

[Flanker15]

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.

That's what I'm feeling like.

I bought Marines straight away just for the T-90 and BMP-3 but with no new red units in British I'm less excited. I might still get it just to see if I like playing with the British and to support BFC. I reckon BFC is missing a good opertunity by not releasing a dedicated red modual with a red v blue campaign for CM:SF.

[Damian90]

Addition to my post.

Don't fight against any M1 or CR2 in game from the front, even with T-90AS, best tactic?

Side shot's from the most powerfull AT weapons you have, same from the rear or, big IED's to make mobility kill or very big overkill IED's with straigh underbelly explosion.

BTW.

Up-armored CR2 will not resist side shot's to the hull or turret from:

a)125mm APFSDS and HEAT or 100mm or 115mm gun's.

b)bigger ATGM's.

Same for M1A1SA and M1A2SEP with T.U.S.K.

Or any other modern tank.

Besides M1 have more MG's... especially with T.U.S.K. ;-)

Oh and it seems that M1's with T.U.S.K. have better underbelly addon armor, so called C-IED kit. 200mm of addon armor, maybe layered or spaced + special seats for all crew, first versions only for driver. CR2, dunno, probably less belly addon armor, don't know about seats.

[Battlefront.com]

Thank you for posting the side-by-side information Damian90!

Steve

[MikeyD]

I reckon BFC is missing a good opertunity by not releasing a dedicated red modual with a red v blue campaign for CM:SF.

What Syrian equipment is missing, besides Shilka and a truck, and other odds & ends that would just be 'targets'? KIA Sportages to carry uncons perhaps? Panhard AML90 ACs from Lebanon? Sounds like a pretty wimpy module.

About a Red vs Blue campaign. Syria is overmatched and on the defensive, and one supposes is being bombed mercilessly. Sounds like a Red campaign would involve your units waiting to get crushed and winning the occassional pyric victory. Unless you mean to discard the entire Syrian invasion storyline. Well, come winter you'll get to play Red in Afghanistan, I suppose.

[Sivodsi]

What Syrian equipment is missing, besides Shilka and a truck, and other odds & ends that would just be 'targets'? .

Well, perhaps the T80 could have been plausibly included - wiki (font of all knowledge) lists Syria as having bought 320 T80Us in 2000 (however, in their page on the Syrian Army there is no mention of this tank type).

Yeah, I would have liked to see at least a couple more Red units, just for the sakes of balance. Blue has all this new stuff, why not give some more toys to Red?

Won't stop me from being among the first to get the module though.

[Battlefront.com]

That T-80 deal never went through. When it came to payment terms the Syrians said "can we pay with credit like the old days?" and the Russians said "er... we're Capitalists now. No" Around 2006 or so, I can't quite remember when, Syria's old Soviet era debt was forgiven with some help from Iran. Assad went on a shopping spree, which included T-90s supposedly. But the majority was focused on anti-air technologies and, uselessly, aircraft. As far as I know they haven't taken delivery of any of that stuff yet.

Steve

[Peter Panzer]

A few questions...

In reference to the operation of the 30mm Rarden cannon, NormalDude noted...

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.

Has the manner in which the AI selects which weapon to emphasize in relation to "Target Light" or "Target Heavy" been modified in v 1.20?

Recall the requests for a more precise manner for the player to prioritize AFV weapon use over the last several months - conserving limited ordnance was one of the big reasons why.

Also, the online manual notes that in reality, FV510 employs electronic countermeasures for IEDs. Is this reflected in the game?

If so, is it safe to conclude it is only effective versus microwave/cell detonated explosives (i.e. a jammer)? Does this only provide a radius of protection that moves with the AFV or does it actually "fry" the circuitry of the detonator rendering the IED harmless to follow-on forces?

[MikeyD]

FV510 employs electronic countermeasures for IEDs. Is this reflected in the game?

Yup! Even to an ECM icon in the control panel (next to the ERA icon)!

Its difficult to say how it works in-game simply because IEDs are so rare in scenarios.

[Paper Tiger]

Does this only provide a radius of protection that moves with the AFV or does it actually "fry" the circuitry of the detonator rendering the IED harmless to follow-on forces?

From what I've seen in the game, it would appear to provide a radius of effect that moves with the vehicle and doesn't 'fry' the circuitry.

Example:

I was playing a mission where I was informed that the bridges were probably mined with IEDs so I drove a Bulldog onto the bridge. Nothing happened. Leaving the Bulldog there, I got a fair number of my forces across. They soon ran into some trouble and I forgot about the IED and moved my Bulldog off to support the troops. The next unit to cross the bridge triggered the IED. Oops...

[Paper Tiger]

By the way, I have no doubt that most folks are going to want to play missions with the heavies, the Armoured and Mechanised Infantry formations with C2s in support. However, I think the Brit module really shines when you play missions with UK Light Infantry units with artillery, air support, Jackals, WMIKs and the little light armoured vehicles in support. Bloody brilliant!

[Yardstick]

Yup! Even to an ECM icon in the control panel (next to the ERA icon)!

Its difficult to say how it works in-game simply because IEDs are so rare in scenarios.

So are all US vehicles in-game now equipped with DUKE or SSVJ CREW systems?

[Sequoia]

What Syrian equipment is missing, besides Shilka and a truck, and other odds & ends that would just be 'targets'? KIA Sportages to carry uncons perhaps? Panhard AML90 ACs from Lebanon? Sounds like a pretty wimpy module.

About a Red vs Blue campaign. Syria is overmatched and on the defensive, and one supposes is being bombed mercilessly. Sounds like a Red campaign would involve your units waiting to get crushed and winning the occassional pyric victory. Unless you mean to discard the entire Syrian invasion storyline. Well, come winter you'll get to play Red in Afghanistan, I suppose.

Just out of curiosity what ever happened to this concept?

After much discussion about the pros and cons of these things, with most (I think it is fair to say) siding with either Fictional or "I don't care, ship the f'n game!" I think I've managed to come to a good compromise that gets us the best of both and the worst of neither. See if you like this:

Syria with Minor Backstory and Fictional Subsection

Everything that I said above with "Syria with Minor Backstory" is included here. However, we create a new type of OPFOR force, called a Branch in CMx2 speak, to represent units that are not realistic for Syria. Let's say we call it the "Ahistoric Branch". It would sit right next to other Branches such as Syrian Army, Syrian Special Forces, Irregulars, etc. (we aren't quite sure how we're dividing stuff up yet). This is pretty similar to how we did things in CMx1 and it means that the player knows for sure that he is using unrealistic stuff. Scenario Designers that want to make a strictly realistic scenario set in Syria can therefore know not to include anything from the Ahistoric Branch and everything will be fine. When making Campaign battles we would not use anything from the Ahistoric Branch either, obviously. We could also make it a toggle option for QuickBattles so you could for sure only play with legitimate Syrian forces only or play with "unrealistic" cool stuff.

So what do you think?

Steve

[dan/california]

The ever slipping schedule would be my guess.

[Peter Panzer]

Paper Tiger:

They soon ran into some trouble and I forgot about the IED and moved my Bulldog off to support the troops. The next unit to cross the bridge triggered the IED. Oops...

Now that is very cool! I have said again and again it is the "little" things that really invigorate the game or vice versa. Thanks to you and MikeyD for the quick replies!

...I think the Brit module really shines when you play missions with UK Light Infantry units with artillery, air support, Jackals, WMIKs and the little light armoured vehicles in support.

Broadly speaking, I agree that small unit actions revolving around light armor and cavalry/recce are tremendous fun. Indeed, the bulk of my scenarios center around this OOB and I am glad a Beta Tester shares this perspective!

That said, lavishly crafted models and detailed TO&E's are a fantastic start, but the engine has to get the details right in order for those new elements to come to life.

As someone who has not had the luxury of play-testing the newest build, I will place significantly more weight on the items in the v1.20 change log than all of the present "word-of-mouth," videos and web pages for CMSF:UK when determining if I invest more in this incarnation of CM.

For example...

Will WMIK/LMTV crews button up at the first crack of small arms fire like M1114 gunners in v1.11?

Can I conserve those precious 30mm Rarden or 25mm M242 rounds and rely upon the AI to emphasize the coaxial guns via "Target Light?"

Will unarmed Recce vehicles and the M707 finally be able to scan sectors using Cover Arcs?

Will OPFOR infantry on rooftops remain invisible to your Light Dragoons and Jarheads even at ranges inside fifty meters while pitching grenades?

I remain very cautiously optimistic about this patch/module and look forward to learning more in the coming days.

[dan/california]

Target/target light will work right for the British AFVs because they don't have an ATGM to cross things up.

[ChrisND]

Target/target light will work right for the British AFVs because they don't have an ATGM to cross things up.

Correct.aa

[ChrisND]

Awesome! Pitching these against BMPs perhaps has that much-desired WW2 "anti-overkill" feel about it!!

Best regards,

Thomm

I'd still put money on a Warrior (a BMP-3 might be a different story!). All that Warrior has to do is connect with 1-2 shots and with crew quality usually being better, they'll hit quickly.

What it definitely means is that you cannot hose a building that does so much as looks at you funny like you can with a Bradley.

[Sixxkiller]

Late to the party but my take on the Brit module.

Paper Tiger is correct, the British forces are a far better and more interesting mix as light infantry, especially with the dearth of light/medium vehicles they have in their inventory. They have nothing that even comes close to the power of a Bradley, so you dont have anywhere near the cushon for mistakes if you dont formulate a serious effort to use these vehicles to provide proper support. And losing a few of them can effect the outcome, so head my advice, use them right or else.

As for the "heavies", well if you will recall in CMx1, you didnt have much danger of losing the scenario if you knocked out all of the enemy tanks. You could sit back and wait for the opposing crunchies to move and wack the hell out of them at your leisure. Now if you rely on them to win your scenario for the most part, you are in for a rude awakening. Challengers IMHO are the same as the M1A2. No real difference as they can both knock whatever faces them, including eachother, and both can be knocked out by Javs, RPG's and At-14's with equal malice.

So if I was to tell you why to buy this British Module, I would say cause the British are more involved to master. They have brought less firepower on average than the US troops, and require far more knowledge of real world military tactics to do as well as the US. The 1.20 version is also so much better than 1.11, MUCH BETTER!

[GSX]

So if I was to tell you why to buy this British Module, I would say cause the British are more involved to master. They have brought less firepower on average than the US troops, and require far more knowledge of real world military tactics to do as well as the US. The 1.20 version is also so much better than 1.11, MUCH BETTER!

Thanks for the information on the MBT comparisons, as I thought, the C2 and Abrams are almost the same vehicle in the game. The warrior seems to be somewhere in between a Stryker and a Bradley, so no worries there. The light vehicles all seem to be as frail as a Hummer which is to be expected. And the Syrians are still the Syrians.

Two questions then.

1. We all get 1.2 right? Its not Brit Force exclusive?

2. I asked a question on page one just how different a US Army Infantry unit is to the Brit Army one and it seems to have been partially answered above.

But what I want to really know is if the UK Infantry platoon plays any different from the US Army one. The reason being is that I believe SF is very much infantry based more than anything else. I dont expect a Landrover or other light vehicle to even be used in Syria by the Brits to the extent it seems to be here. So that leaves the armoured infantry and some other light forces.

So, its going to come down to an infantry fight for me. What difference is there (apart from the Javelin) between a US Army Inf squad and a UK one? Apart from the new graphics and models what military difference will there be in moving around a bunch of Brit Infantry as opposed to a bunch of US?