Force Balance in NATO

[Damian90]

M2A3's with dynamic protection, this means Explosive Reactive Armor are capabale to survive hits from some ATGM's, RPG's and HEAT rounds fired from some vehicles.

But remember, M2 is IFV, Infantry Fighting Vehicles and such vehicles are intended to fight along side Main Battle Tanks. If You fights in oppen terrain remember, tanks are on the first line, IFV's on the second and infantry should be near them but not to close so vehicles that was hit, the explosion will not kill them.

In city, similiar, tanks at first line, IFV's behind them and infantry covering their flanks and rear and tactic should be that way, some infantry squads cover rear and flanks. Other are slowly advancing near the main road of Your approach and search the building, if they find a strong point that can be taken out by vehicles, use vehicles, if strong point can't be taken out by vehicles, use infantry AT weapons, call artillery or air strike.

But remember, MBT's are safe if they are facing enemy with their front armor, IFV's with dynamic protection like M2A3 with ERA or FV510 Warrior with WRAP2 armor kit, can survive some HEAT weapons, even the bigger ones if they are lucky.

IFV's without dynamic protection, should be kept at safe distance to enemy infantry, so they can still accuratly fire to that enemy, and enemy can't provide accurate fire of light AT weapons.

As for the T-90S, I really don't know how the hell it should be less survivabale than modified T-72M1's, it's armor protection is far superior to these modified T-72's.

[Alex]

Alex mentioned T-90SA's destroyed by Leopard 2's, well Alex, it depends where rounds hit. Hull is allways less protected than turret, even at front, it of course depends also on design, but T-90SA should also be used from hull down position and, if it is possible from maximum range to use it's GLATGM's.

Just test it, do 3x1km map and put T90 and leo2 to both sides, you will see that Leo kill T90 by one shot at front 9 from 10 tests. Also may compare VS Abrams and Chell2 May be it's just seems to me, but Leo round looks more powerful.

[dan/california]

The more/less armor for red tanks is almost a distinction without a practical difference in game terms. All red armor is extremely vulnerable to all three primary blue weapon systems, 120 mm sabot, Javelin, and TOW. The better armor on a T90 might matter against sabot at ranges considerably longer than most CMSF maps.

The best blue armor is better against the the best red missiles, Kornet and Metis, but not better enough that its a good bet by any means. The red sabot rounds though are not in the same league as blues.

[Damian90]

Just test it, do 3x1km map and put T90 and leo2 to both sides, you will see that Leo kill T90 by one shot at front 9 from 10 tests. Also may compare VS Abrams and Chell2 May be it's just seems to me, but Leo round looks more powerful.

Well it is strange, T-90S armor should be on similiar and in some places better than Leo2, and a M1 and CR2 armor should be better than both T-90S and Leo2.

The more/less armor for red tanks is almost a distinction without a practical difference in game terms. All red armor is extremely vulnerable to all three primary blue weapon systems, 120 mm sabot, Javelin, and TOW. The better armor on a T90 might matter against sabot at ranges considerably longer than most CMSF maps.

The best blue armor is better against the the best red missiles, Kornet and Metis, but not better enough that its a good bet by any means. The red sabot rounds though are not in the same league as blues.

It's not so simple, but I susspect that it is very difficult to simulate in CMSF.

[MikeyD]

One additional reason why its more of a fight playing NATO & Brits compared to the basegame is scenarios designers have got additional practice too. There's fewer dumb tactical errors being made in AI orders, fewer AI infantry firing on you from exposed balconies or rushing into the center of an open field for no particular reason. Fewer isolated forces without covering fire from a nearby location. I've said this before, its the module scenarios that make the module updates worth the money.

[dan/california]

And an excellent job you have done with them ,too!

[dan/california]

Damian90, the game cannot possibly model every single subtlety in the real world physics and engineering involved, but just as a guide to playing the game what I wrote above is pretty close.

[Sakai007]

Dan, Damian, Mikey, three great points. If the physics were a dead match, and ALL armor values exact matches to real life, all weapons to classified real world specs, we wouldn't be playing it at all, unless we were all in the service together

But, that being said, it doesn't mean that what works in the real world wont work in game. The engagement distances are a bit on the small side, but the only place that is a handicap is with long range tank battles and ATGMs being used to their maximum capability. Infantry fighting is still done much as it always has since the advent of the machine gun, under 400 meters (for the most part, I can almost feel the heat from the flames now lolololol, j/k) Damain's thoughts are inspiring, and I am getting that CM itch just writing this (or its from that escort hmmmm......)

Mikey, you really hit the nail on the head with that comment. I can't comment on the British Forces module, since I don't have it, but the scenarios for Marines were a touch tougher and well thought out then the base game, and the scenarios with NATO make me pull my hair out. I enjoy the missions, don't get me wrong, but sometimes I just love the sandbox ability the mission editor gives, being able to play with accurately modeled high tech toys that I love in terrain of my choosing is one of the main reasons I play CM at all. I have built more missions then I can count just to mess around with different combinations and see what the outcome will be. Maybe I will release a few since most of them are just for fun, every now and again I make one that is actually, genuinely fun.

[Battlefront.com]

The Modules benefited from two things:

1. A finished game to start with. The original CM:SF base game scenarios and Campaigns were made as the game was being made. Thats pretty tough to do, not to mention have the battles stand up to 3 years worth of game changes. Some of which were never envisioned when the base scenarios were made.

2. Experienced CM:SF scenario makers. Every single one of us that made base game scenarios were inexperienced before we made them. Didn't matter that we were also the only ones playing it!

Similarly, CM: Normandy is benefitting from having a very stable game environment being worked on by highly experienced CMx2 scenario makers. Progress

Steve