Beta Testers - Does the BF Module plays differently

[GSX]

So to answer my own question by picking up bits and pieces before this thread gets totally derailed, the only difference between Brit and US Army is a bit of range and possibly, though not confirmed, a bit less firepower.

The 1.2 version is available to everyone regardless of modules and the CR2 is almost an Abrams Clone while the Warrior is a Bradley-minus but a Stryker-plus. The minor vehicles are similar to Hummers? Theres no new Red stuff to play with either but a new TOE for the US Army.

I have to say that being British Im sorely tempted to get an add-on that gives me Brit vehicles, but at the same time Im also swayed not to get it as I really dont see how it will play different to whats gone before. It looks like US Army lite to me and I get that already by leaving the Javelins behind.

What about the NATO module? Is it going to be more of the same or will there be any new Red forces in it?

However, dont take my answer as doom and gloom. Ive got a lot out of SF + Marines....

[Pandur]

Which means that we can have 6 or more full Blue Forces but maybe only 1.25 Red Forces simply because there isn't anything else to give the Red Forces.

hm, absolutely resonable!

Unlike the current Red forces, the Germans have tons and tons of unique hardware and formations to simulate. Way more stuff than we can ever possibly put into a single release.

ugh, i love it when you talk about CM Normandy nothing to add here about syrians, bring on the walking sandbags and zeeee hamsters, cant wait

[Sequoia]

What about the NATO module? Is it going to be more of the same or will there be any new Red forces in it?

I think this is a strong hint they will be including something Red and if isn't the t-80, than what will it be is the question.

Plus, you haven't thought of an obvious possibility... perhaps we're adding some more Red stuff to the NATO Module? Obviously whatever we add would be along the lines of the T-90SA and BMP-3 added to the Marines Module, since everything I've said previously about the limitations of Modules is still valid.

Steve

[Vergeltungswaffe]

never mind

[Redwolf]

Plus, you haven't thought of an obvious possibility... perhaps we're adding some more Red stuff to the NATO Module? Obviously whatever we add would be along the lines of the T-90SA and BMP-3 added to the Marines Module, since everything I've said previously about the limitations of Modules is still valid.

Steve

Well, as I mentioned in my initial post on this, that would be perfectly fine. But I assume that this thing is a long way, right? It requires the engine changes to deal with the veggies (which presumably come back from CM:WW2) and obviously a whole lot more gear, including indirect fires of various descriptions.

Plus, with all respect, contracted modules are something we didn't look at yet. What do we do if the NATO module is outsourced to a contractor that does a lousy job, not on time, or both?

The "idea" to spend some more time on the Brits to get something Red in is based on NATO being far off. If it isn't then never mind.

[Redwolf]

I know nothing, but I am seriously guessing that at this point 80% plus of BFCs effort is towards Normandy. Which I will surely enjoy immensely when it comes out.

For my own two cents I would prefer a vast expansion of CMSF to cover Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and perhaps the drier parts of the ongoing Africans disaster zones. I would pay 25 bucks just to get a good tactical treatment of drones. But if Normandy is what will produce the most active multiplayer community, and by extension sales for BFC, I can go with it. And enjoy the expansions they do make to CMSF in the meantime.

Britis and NATO are not done by BFC. Delaying Brits would not delay Normandy unless new units require new code.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

The 1.2 version is available to everyone regardless of modules and the CR2 is almost an Abrams Clone

Pretty much.

while the Warrior is a Bradley-minus but a Stryker-plus.

I'd mainly call it a Bradley-minus. It fulfills the Bradley's role as an infantry fighting vehicle in the armored infantry. I've not really seen a lot of Stryker in it.

The minor vehicles are similar to Hummers?

The Jackals and so forth are. I wouldn't say that a Scimitar is though. It's got a 30mm gun like the Warrior, and it's tracked. The other ICVs like the FV432 are kind of a Stryker/M113 hybrid (Stryker slat armo(u)r and on some FV432s, a remote weapons system, M113 tracks and level of armor).

I have to say that being British Im sorely tempted to get an add-on that gives me Brit vehicles, but at the same time Im also swayed not to get it as I really dont see how it will play different to whats gone before. It looks like US Army lite to me and I get that already by leaving the Javelins behind.

There are some differences that I find meaningful. There are others who probably won't find these as meaningful, but for me two things that make a big difference aside from Javelins are:

-Smaller sections sizes (with mechanized and light infantry, it's only 1 man difference, but with armored infantry it's a two-man difference, which in my experience makes the squads much less survivable and therefore requires greater tactical care)

-Lack of organic infantry MGs means that you NEED your vehicles for heavy long-range fire support

It's up to you to decide whether these differences are meaningful or not. Personally, I find the Brits more challenging to play as.

[Yardstick]

Angryson,

IIRC we gave all US vehicles a base ability to decrease the chance of falling victim to remote detonated IEDs. However, you are correct that we should make sure of that. It's not possible to do for v1.20, however it is a fairly simple fix that can be put in after if we think it's needed. At the very least perhaps we should toss up some more icons in the Defenses Report

Steve

Cool. Thanks for the reply.

[flamingknives]

So to answer my own question by picking up bits and pieces before this thread gets totally derailed, the only difference between Brit and US Army is a bit of range and possibly, though not confirmed, a bit less firepower.

I guess it depends on how you want to define differences

The 1.2 version is available to everyone regardless of modules and the CR2 is almost an Abrams Clone while the Warrior is a Bradley-minus but a Stryker-plus. The minor vehicles are similar to Hummers? Theres no new Red stuff to play with either but a new TOE for the US Army.

Whilst a T90 is pretty much a T72 TURMS. Bradley is a Stryker-plus or an Abrams-minus. BMP3 is a combination of BMP1 and BMP2, plus a little bit.

I have to say that being British Im sorely tempted to get an add-on that gives me Brit vehicles, but at the same time Im also swayed not to get it as I really dont see how it will play different to whats gone before. It looks like US Army lite to me and I get that already by leaving the Javelins behind.

I disagree.

What about the NATO module? Is it going to be more of the same or will there be any new Red forces in it?

Using your standards, it will be more of the same. 5.56mm NATO rifles, 40mm grenade launchers etc. But then again, perhaps there would be a single red motorcycle or an AFV like the MTLB that would revolutionise the game in such a profound way that no-one would notice.

[MarkEzra]

I just can't wait for the CM Normandy Brit Module thread. I assume the Brits as just "US lite" will be discussed at great length. Please...this is getting silly...

The British Module offers BFC's typically well crafted, thoroughly researched, and highly accurate British TOE circa 2008. It's National characteristics are well displayed. British testers (w/military service records and/or insufferable deep grog mentalities) have been active through out testing. Those with any interest in Britain's current Filed forces will want to take a look at this. Those that aren't so interested may want to check out the Demo...just in case

[MikeyD]

I keep hearing about all this mythical 'Red Kit' that's missing from the Syrian forces.

I honestly can't think of any different rifle types they should have, or any different machinegun types. For AT, I suppose there's the Iranian TOW 1B clone Hezbollah fields, but it would be a significant step down from Kornet. Milan would be indistinguishable from the current AT4.

Any different ACs that need to come in? Any significantly different APCs? I'd love to see Red fielding the MTLB APC, especially if I'm playing Blue side. We're up to MBTs. T-80. I can imagine folks being all enthused about its inclusion, then soon forgetting its in there due to its being indistinguishable from the other tanks.

There's no 'missing' equipment I can think of that would revolutionize the Red side. If you're willing to go crazy adding exotics, why not go into the editor and give Syria some Stryker MGS and Apache gunships to fight with! They need a truck? Give them a few Marine MTVRs. They're only a mouse click away. Hey, if we'e really reaching we could always import the THOR mortar tank from 'Drop Team'!

[Paper Tiger]

Britis and NATO are not done by BFC. Delaying Brits would not delay Normandy unless new units require new code.

Well, I'm no expert and I might be wrong but I believe that it's the Brit and NATO models that are being made out of house. BFC is doing all the TO&E stuff and Charles has to write little AI algorithms for all those new vehicles as well as for the mortar teams.

I base the latter on the following little anecdote. If you can remember back to when we were all waiting for the Marines module to arrive, BFC posted a video of the Brit vehicles performing a kind of 'curtain call' routine? Steve added after that the Challenger 2 in the video thought it was an Abrams because Charles hadn't got around to writing the AI routines yet.

[Paper Tiger]

GSX

I have never served in any branch of the Armed Forces and before I started playing this game, I had ZERO interest in Modern Era warfare. But I suspect that you have. Therefore, you will be in a better position to determine what the major differences between the US and UK kit should be. I believe that the US expenditure on Defence is about the same as the rest of the world's combined, although that reckoning may be a bit out of date by now. At any rate, it is massively more then the Brit Government is willing or able to spend. Therefore, the heavier Brit kit is not nearly as impressive in combat with Syrian forces as US forces is.

The Warrior is definitely NOT a dumbed down Bradley. It's not even close to being in the same league with that vehicle. Neither is the Bulldog is a dumbed down Stryker. These differences between these two types of vehicles alone will change the way you play the game. Further, the Brits have no dedicated ATGM vehicle. Neither do they have an equivalent for the Stryker MGS or the Syrian BMP-3 for that matter. Therefore, they need the Challenger to take out the strongpoints. It might be more accurate to say that you will have to play the 'heavier' game as a sort of higher tech Syrian side with split sections, air support and super fast call in time for your artillery. That's obviously an exaggeration but that's how different the game feels to me.

As a fellow Scot, I can assure you that you will enjoy the voices for the Brit module. It has no impact on gameplay whatsoever but, as a Scot, I'd have to say that hearing authentic Brit accents in the game is one of the most immersive features in this module. There are Scots, Brummy and Scouse accents all mixed in there (No Dick Van Dyke 'Mary Poppins' voice acting thankfully) and that really enhances the immersion exponentially for me.

[TheVulture]

d those "ignorant Yanks" can blow up a Challenger 2 instead of yet another Red tank model. Somehow, I think they might just enjoy that even more. Modern versions of battles of the American War of Independence in 3...2...1...

I've been toying with ideas for some modern 'War of 1812' scenarios, with Yanks, Brits and the Syrians cast in the role of native American forces. Might have a crack at a battle of Queenston Heights scenario / mini-campaign.

Back on the point of the thread, I'm not a tester and so haven't seen anything of the Brit module yet, but I would note how different even the pure infantry squads of the marines and US army play, and that's just 'minor' changes in numbers and organisation. Same basic weaponry (SLAW aside) but it is enough that they play very differently.

The 'hidden' changes of different rifle types, numbers of LMGs / MMGs, grenade launcher, organic AT assets, grenade loadout might not look like game changers, but they can have a dramatic effect on gameplay once you notice that squads are more or less effective in different situations, and you adapt how you use them to optimise their behaviour. It has a knock-on effect to how you organise your whole battle plan.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Also, keep in mind that if any of you are still on the fence, you can play the demo when it comes out, and decide for yourselves whether the Brits play differently from the Yanks without needing to shell out any cash.

[GSX]

Irrelevant post as questions were answered by Papertiger, thanks........

[GSX]

GSX

I have never served in any branch of the Armed Forces and before I started playing this game, I had ZERO interest in Modern Era warfare. But I suspect that you have. Therefore, you will be in a better position to determine what the major differences between the US and UK kit should be. I believe that the US expenditure on Defence is about the same as the rest of the world's combined, although that reckoning may be a bit out of date by now. At any rate, it is massively more then the Brit Government is willing or able to spend. Therefore, the heavier Brit kit is not nearly as impressive in combat with Syrian forces as US forces is.

The Warrior is definitely NOT a dumbed down Bradley. It's not even close to being in the same league with that vehicle. Neither is the Bulldog is a dumbed down Stryker. These differences between these two types of vehicles alone will change the way you play the game. Further, the Brits have no dedicated ATGM vehicle. Neither do they have an equivalent for the Stryker MGS or the Syrian BMP-3 for that matter. Therefore, they need the Challenger to take out the strongpoints. It might be more accurate to say that you will have to play the 'heavier' game as a sort of higher tech Syrian side with split sections, air support and super fast call in time for your artillery. That's obviously an exaggeration but that's how different the game feels to me.

As a fellow Scot, I can assure you that you will enjoy the voices for the Brit module. It has no impact on gameplay whatsoever but, as a Scot, I'd have to say that hearing authentic Brit accents in the game is one of the most immersive features in this module. There are Scots, Brummy and Scouse accents all mixed in there (No Dick Van Dyke 'Mary Poppins' voice acting thankfully) and that really enhances the immersion exponentially for me.

Thanks for that, its nice to get a decent answer to a question. From what youve written then it does seem like giving the Brits a try will bring something else to the game that the US Army doesnt. It seems the Module will be released any minute now, so hopefully others will describe more of the same.

Cheers

[GSX]

I just can't wait for the CM Normandy Brit Module thread. I assume the Brits as just "US lite" will be discussed at great length. Please...this is getting silly...

Apologies for this assumption, but did you know that the US and Brit forces in 1944 were very different beasts? They have totally different infantry weapons and support weapons and the comparison between them and modern infantry is just not there.

In 1944 I would say that everyone would be German-lite to one degree or another.

[MarkEzra]

Apologies for this assumption, but did you know that the US and Brit forces in 1944 were very different beasts? They have totally different infantry weapons and support weapons and the comparison between them and modern infantry is just not there.

In 1944 I would say that everyone would be German-lite to one degree or another.

Did I know?... When I didn't back in CMBO days, my Brit pals, like YOU set me straight rather quickly. It was, in fact, a very educational game for me. Hopefully others will find CMSF Brit Module equally instructive. I know I have.

[Kat Johnston]

I believe that the US expenditure on Defence is about the same as the rest of the world's combined, although that reckoning may be a bit out of date by now. At any rate, it is massively more then the Brit Government is willing or able to spend. Therefore, the heavier Brit kit is not nearly as impressive in combat with Syrian forces as US forces is.

You're correct, US spending is enormous. But the US forces are also many times larger than British forces, so the disparity in equipment quality is not necessarily as great as the disparity in spending level. On a per-soldier basis, British military spending is very high; not as high as the US, but higher than just about everywhere else. Whether it's high enough is obviously in the capable hands of Mr. Brown.

Not saying that the US kit isn't better, it is, at least for medium vehicles and anti-tank weaponry, and for the general amount of support kicking around. I'd like to wave a flag for the Challenger, but then I'd also love to know why noone wants to buy 'em...

[flamingknives]

The reason that no-one wants to buy Challenger is simple. Economics.

Abrams and Leopard 2 are available in large numbers and at low prices because the US and Germans respectively bought enough for a cold war which then ended, so they had lots spare (and therefore cheap). Added to that they both use 120mm smoothbore which has more ammunition development behind it, while Challenger was bought in small quantities with the UK specific 120mm rifle. Anyone wanting to buy a Challenger would have to pay new production prices, while they can get Leo2 or Abrams second-hand.

[Damian90]

Small correction.

Saudi, Kuwait and Egypt M1's are not from US stocks but specially builded export versions for these countries, Saudi and Kuwait tanks were builded in US, part of Egypt tanks were builded in US and part were builded from parts in Egypt.

Australia have modified M1A1SA's from US stock's and Iraq will be equiped with modified and overhauled M1A1's from ARNG stock's.

FV4034 Challenger 2 is not so popular because, it's in limited numbers, still no smoothbore gun, and probably in export version offers non significant advantage over export models of other modern tanks.

[MikeyD]

But remember its competing against LeClerc. if you read the popular literature anything should win a competiton against LeClerc, but its not winning competitions.

I understand the Brits moved so quickly from Challenger 1 to Challenger 2 because the turret electronics were impossible! A vertiable rat's nest of wiring. I recall reading it took 90(?) flipped switches after climbing in the tank before you were good-to-go. So a lot of Challenger 2 design may be considered 'corrective' rather than 'innovative'.

[Damian90]

Challenger 2 have new turret because CR1's turret was just a bad design, no to mention old IFCS from Chieftaine series. Now they use derivative of FCEU FCS from M1A1SA/FEP and M1A2SEP and other upgrades.

And Leclerc is comparabale to any other western III and III+ gen tank.

Leclerc is nothing special, just good piece of kit.

[flamingknives]

Small correction.

Saudi, Kuwait and Egypt M1's are not from US stocks but specially builded export versions for these countries, Saudi and Kuwait tanks were builded in US, part of Egypt tanks were builded in US and part were builded from parts in Egypt.

Australia have modified M1A1SA's from US stock's and Iraq will be equiped with modified and overhauled M1A1's from ARNG stock's.

FV4034 Challenger 2 is not so popular because, it's in limited numbers, still no smoothbore gun, and probably in export version offers non significant advantage over export models of other modern tanks.

I had always supposed that the M1s were refurbs based on the Australian experience, so I've learnt something new today. However, even a new-build M1 has cost advantages over CR2, as the economies of scale reduce the unit price and increase the support base.

The CR2 could have a smoothbore gun, it's just a drop-in replacement, physically, but whoever wants it has to pay for the trials and the implementation of the firing tables into the electronic architecture.