FV102 striker

[Hev]

Is it actauly in game? The British army was still fielding them in 2005.... weren't they?

[flamingknives]

Maybe in 2005, but the game is set in 2008 by which time they were definitely out of service.

[Hev]

http://www.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/l0094.html

Seems to imply that its still being used, although in the process of fasing out!

If they are being withdrawn from service currently then they would definetly been used in a 2008 invasion of.....well anywhere.

Be nice to give a British mechanised unit some different anti armour options and it wouldnt be out of the game scope, im surprised they were left out realy.

[lomir]

Hev, I guess it happened the same to the FV120 Spartan with MCT (MILAN Compact Turret). They all got tactically replaced by the Javelin missile launcher in mid-2005.

[Hev]

*cry's*

Ah well.

We'll just have to wait for the "Cold War" module to get our hands on all that funky 80's kit

[Blackcat]

*cry's*

Ah well.

We'll just have to wait for the "Cold War" module to get our hands on all that funky 80's kit

What cold war module would that be? Have I missed something? I thought Battlefront had sworn that they would not do a 1970s/1980s game.

They have promised a game set in the near-future in circumstances of a full-on war, but that probably will not include any Brit or European kit because we (the Brits and Europeans) won't have any serious forces that could fight in such a war.

[Hev]

Ok, my original comment about a cold war module was a joke....

Now on the subject of a near future game, asuming near future mean 2015 onwards. (Two years to reach the consumer + five to make it near future) what would that actualy add to the game?

And your Brit and European comment is wrong on so many levels, you could just as easily apply that argument to shock force, after all its supposed to be about high intensity combat, and yet we have brits and a nato module on its way.

[Blackcat]

Ok, my original comment about a cold war module was a joke....

Now on the subject of a near future game, asuming near future mean 2015 onwards. (Two years to reach the consumer + five to make it near future) what would that actualy add to the game?

And your Brit and European comment is wrong on so many levels, you could just as easily apply that argument to shock force, after all its supposed to be about high intensity combat, and yet we have brits and a nato module on its way.

When CMSF SF was being designed and for the period in which it is set the Brits were capable of fielding a full armoured division equipped and trained for nation on nation high intensity conflict. As of 2010 we might just about be able to that still, maybe. After the effects of the forthcoming strategic defence review kick in the UK will give up that capability. It might retain an amphibious light force capability, but otherwise will almost certainly be geared for low intensity warfare al al Afghanistan. France will probably go the same way and the rest of Europe too, maybe Germany will retain the capability but that is all.

So for a game set in 2015 involving full on armoured warfare the Brits and Europe aren't going to a realistic party.

[Hev]

I dont see that the picture you paint for the furure is any different to how things are now. In any future war, as the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US will provide the wests major componant, however europe (the rest of nato) will still be able to provide a considerable presence although likely it would be a major combined/multi cultural effort.

To steer this towards the subject of any game set 2015 onwards lets say, i still think BFC would want to add the major nato players (france, england and germany to name a few)

I certainly believe though that even if its decided that European forces would not be realistic in a real life conflict, i believe it would be a sensible money making prospect (not to mention good for BFC's countless loyal customers) to add such content.

After all, every one of the combat mission games is one we all want to have as much content for as possable.

(Cos its more addictive then crack)

[Blackcat]

I dont see that the picture you paint for the furure is any different to how things are now. In any future war, as the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US will provide the wests major componant, however europe (the rest of nato) will still be able to provide a considerable presence although likely it would be a major combined/multi cultural effort.

To steer this towards the subject of any game set 2015 onwards lets say, i still think BFC would want to add the major nato players (france, england and germany to name a few)

I certainly believe though that even if its decided that European forces would not be realistic in a real life conflict, i believe it would be a sensible money making prospect (not to mention good for BFC's countless loyal customers) to add such content.

After all, every one of the combat mission games is one we all want to have as much content for as possable.

(Cos its more addictive then crack)

You might well be correct in your second paragraph - Battlefront could make more money from including European forces in a module. By then, of course, they might be able to make even more by including the Chinese PLA.

If the new game is about high intensity armoured warfare set in a few years time, the difference between now and then is that it is almost certain the the UK, and probably the rest of Europe, will not have the forces that could participate in such a conflict. Low intesity wars such as Afghanistan are a different matter.

As to NATO, I am not sure it will, or should, still exist in 2015 - but that is an argument for a diifferent time and place.

[Hev]

mmmmmmmmmmm chinese units, do you think if BFC focused on a purely 2 sided conflict that we would see EVERYTHING in the inventories of the respected sides make the game?

[LuckyStrike]

If its 2015 you will need combat robots as well.

[Hev]

What about space lobsters?

[Blackcat]

If its 2015 you will need combat robots as well.

You have a point there, given the exponential progress in robotics and computer technology that is continuing. Just to illustrate this, there was a programme on Radio 4 (for non-UK readers, Radio 4 is the BBC's serious non-music radio channel which puts out many well-researched an interesting programmes on a whole variety of subjects) where the discussion was about the ethics of combat robots. It wasn't whether they would, our could, be manafactured - that was accepted, but the ethics of their use against humans and the degree of autonomy that they should be allowed.

Science reality will meet Isaac Asimov in the next few years.

[Sergei]

Isaac Asimov? I'm thinking more of James Cameron...