Nothing prevents a modder from doing so, but the official database only goes up to 1991.

@@nikolasandic66 An official 90s to modern day dlc would be welcome

​@@badwolf66 I am not sure, not much peer opposition. The Russian army was in shambles, and PLA still armed with 1960s tech.

CM would have run a LOT more on my pc if it was optimized!

@@Jockesse It barely runs on anything lol

Yep, having helicopters and aircraft in the field looks good and feels realistic, and the timeline seems to have expanded to around the '60s. But to be honest, for me, something is off, regarding some vehicles, the last time they showed the BMP-1P with an AT-5 launcher, it used the BMP-2 internal style to fire. However, in reality, a gunner needs to be exposed to control the launcher and guide the missile, right? Wasn't the vehicle commander (TC) supposed to lower his head or stop using binoculars when he wanted to use the heavy machine gun (HMG)? And for the M48 or M60, the TC needs to be inside to control the turret for firing the HMG. Why are they still standing up to look through binoculars while being able to engage targets? Unless, Do they have magic hands to control another thing? Also, if Armored Brigade 2 looks better, and no doubt at that point is outperform Combat Mission (CM) in terms of FPS, then why do the vehicle models’ tracks and wheels look 2D instead of fully 3D? They or maybe someone on a comment claims to look more detailed and great, I ain't denied that, but why isn’t that the case at all? The model angles and shading don’t seem to be the same as reality at all. The texture of the model was a bit blurred, all over at which is good, But no specks of dirt on the track and some parts of the vehicle? Additionally, what’s happening with the infantry under fire? They’re just walking alongside the vehicles without shooting at all. And where are the soldier's or crew members' faces? Why do they look like a slender man? Is it either a person without faces or faceless figures? Don’t get me wrong, but what’s up with the end of the video scene showing the cover art? The M60 tanks and their M19 cupolas are shown on the left side, but not on the right. Everyone seems to be rushing toward the centre while an M48 Chaparral is placed too close to the combat zone for anti-aircraft duty. What’s going on? In Armored Brigade 1, the original game and DLC featured cover art showing T-72s advancing in the field, demonstrating distance and range engagement between tanks, troop deployment, and helicopter support, by which point it's better. But this? What is happening? [I don’t know what you’ll say to me; it probably won’t matter. Maybe someone will accuse me of being a spy from the BF (Battlefront) game, trying to mess with your moods, or perhaps someone just wants to kill me because I didn’t fully support AB2. I will dare to tell you, I never been send by sake of anyone else, I had no intention to destroy you all their moods about want to try the AB2 and Again, it probably won’t matter. I’m just saying what I want to say and pointing out issues. I like the AB series, but for now, I’m not going to be like those who rush to buy it as soon as it’s released. I’ll wait until they fix some of the logical issues or get a proper review and prove reliable at that point.]

necessary tradeoff to pull of the smooth gameplay at that scale. Plenty of good looking games that don't play well if that's more your style

Have you played the first one? This is a huge improvement.

@@SemperSalam it should be noted that a big reason they moved to a custom 3d engine was because players reported they had a hard problem reading terrain elevation, and the isometric 3d representation left a lot to be desired

@@iann6999 look at Graviteam Tactics or WARNO 10v10 games, even Regiments in some big ops, this is just lazy game design

Considering the amount of CPU and GPU resources available today, this is just not true. There is no such thing as a 'necessary tradeoff'. It's simply a design choice. And while I generally agree that wargames do not need super realistic graphics, I think a bit more realism would have done the game good. Especially when you consider that the engine has been changed anyway and 3D always requires more detail than a comparable 2D representation. At least they could have tried to make the maps more realistic. These 90 degree roads already bothered me in the predecessor.

Check the Home of Wargamers presentation, a lot of crisp smooth footage there showing some of the mechanics!

Yes, there is just about everything that was in operation between 1965 and 1991.

You're not playing this game zoomed in to see model detail, if it's not obvious they traded high res textures and high poly models for scale and smooth gameplay. WARNO has nice models for instance but you generally only appreciate them during replays

Your brain capacity is not enough to play these games, stick to something else, plebs

​@@iann6999so true, never once have i zoomed in, in the middle of a warno match

Regiment is goated with the sauce, sad it doesn't have coop or multi

Still can't beat Combat Mission, might be graphically outdated (although on par with AB2), gameplay is amazing

Combat Mission needs an engine upgrade so bad, I have a pretty beastly computer and the camera moves a whole second after the mouse does

@@Lisa-Azra_Broad I've been thinking about putting together a speedrun league for shock force 2, i think itd be hilarious.

Kinda wish there was an FPS set in this era though.

Yep, but the recent Home of Wargamers presentation I think they said some form of multiplayer down the line is on their roadmap. There are a couple Steam discussions about it, if it happens it'll likely be WEGO or something similar due to the complexity

Tamnk!!!!! :DDDDDdd

okay answer came closer to the end of the video-

I agree. The delay makes sense when moving around formations. But there are plentiful situations where player needs also supplement vehicle commander or a squad leader, such as quick reverse out of dangerous situation where the delay makes no sense.