Armored Brigade II News

We are proud to announce our new Home of Wargamers live event, which will take place on September 26th at 5 pm UK time.

Join us on our Twitch channel to know more about our biggest franchises. You can set a reminder here.

We will talk about a lot of important updates for some of our Matrix Games best sellers and coming soon games, such as:

• Modern Naval Warfare
  
• Armored Brigade 2
  
• Nuclear War Simulator
  
• Command Modern Operations
  
• Flashpoint Campaigns
  
• Rule the Waves 3
  

And much more.
Stay tuned!

Hello Armored Brigade fans. Today we have a trailer on Soviet ground vehicles and a short article to help you follow along.

[previewyoutube][/previewyoutube]
This is just a small snapshot of eight key vehicles in the Soviet ground vehicle arsenal, there will be many more vehicles in the full game.

T-80U MBT Screenshot of a T-80U

The T-80U is the premier Soviet MBT of the 1980's. Powered by a gas turbine engine and a modern suspension, the T-80U is a fast tank both on roads and driving cross-country. Armed with a 125mm smoothbore cannon and a modern fire control system, she can rapidly put accurate rounds downrange. Her gun is powerful enough to threaten even the most modern western MBT's. A combination of composites and explosive reactive armor make the T-80U exceptionally durable, capable of even defeating 120mm APFSDS. Her low profile also reduces her target silhouette.

The main downsides to the T-80U is it's production cost and crew ergonomics. The T-80U is meant for the best Soviet formations, and will usually be available in limited numbers. Like most Soviet vehicles she was not built with crew comfort as a high priority, reducing the effectiveness of the men actually fighting the tank. You will want to leverage the T-80U's firepower and maneuverability to outflank American anti-tank defenses, and attack rapidly from unexpected directions.

The T-80U entered service in 1985.

T-72B MBT Screenshot of a T-72B

The T-72 is far more common than the T-80U, but doesn't have quite as many high end features. This lower production cost was a deliberate design choice with the T-80U slated for more elite formations, while the T-72B filled out the rest of the army in the event of war and mobilization. This is why the T-72 was referred to as a "mobilization" model. While still armed with a 125mm smoothbore gun, her engine is a simpler V12 diesel. This has the tradeoff of less power, but a far longer operational range. The T-72B's reverse speed is also a pitifully slow 3-4 KM/H.

The T-72B also can mount Kontak 5 reactive armor like the T-80, but lacks most of the composite armor featured on the T-80. The jump from a T-72B to a T-80U is not a radical leap in quality, but more of a iterative evolution. You won't find any major differences in capabilities, but the T-80U is "better" in most ways than a T-72B.

The T-72B entered service in 1985.

BMP-1P IFV Screenshot of a BMP-1P

The BMP was a revolutionary vehicle when it debuted, the first Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV). Armed with a 73mm smoothbore low velocity cannon, a co-axial machine gun, and an ATGM launcher. The BMP could fight alongside the infantry she carried and even prove a threat to enemy tanks with her ATGM launcher. The main drawback of the BMP is it's fragility. Meant for nuclear and chemical battlefields, it was assumed that a penetration to the vehicle would contaminate the interior and kill all the occupants. As such the vehicle is lightly armored, proofed against rifle fire and not much else (although the clever design of the front of the vehicle can occasionally "bounce" heavier incoming fire). The BMP-1P mounts an AT-4 Spigot or AT-5 Spandrel on the top of the turret to engage enemy vehicles at long range. These ATGM's are leagues better than the earlier AT-3 Sagger.

Soviet doctrine has IFV's cooperating closely with the infantry. The vehicle commander is also the squad commander, meaning the BMP-1P is integral to the firepower and maneuver of your infantry units. Best practice is to keep your infantry squads and their BMP in close cooperation with each other.

The BMP-1P entered service in 1979.

BMP-3 IFV Screenshot of a BMP-3

The BMP-3 is ridiculously well-armed for an IFV. Her normal armament is a 100mm low velocity cannon capable of firing ATGM's or explosive rounds, a 30mm autocannon, and three 7.62x54 mm PKT machine guns. This give's her the ability to smash fortifications and buildings, destroy tanks and light vehicles, and suppress other targets. Her troop carrying capacity means her role is very similar to previous generations of BMP, cooperate closely with the squad she carries and effectively "act" as a part of the squad.

The main disadvantage, like earlier models, is a paper thin hide. With only 35mm's of aluminum armor at the front of the vehicle, she is proofed against .50 cal rounds and not much else, making her very vulnerable to catastrophic ammo detonations due to the prodigious amounts of ammo stored onboard. With good road speeds and cross country performance the BMP-3 can keep up with your tanks, allowing you to launch rapid attacks from unexpected directions.

The BMP-3 entered service in 1987.

BTR-80 Screenshot of a BTR-80

The BTR-80 is a traditional wheeled battle taxi. Armed with a 14.5mm machine gun and a lighter 7.62 PKT machine gun, the BTR-80 has no anti-tank capability beyond harsh language and whatever RPG's the infantry dismounts are carrying. The BTR-80 is functionally very similar to earlier models like the BTR-60 and 70. The main improvements were better engine and door placements, allowing the carried infantry to dismount safer and quicker. A simplified engine (the BTR-70 had a complicated dual engine drive train setup) also helped reduce cost and made the vehicle more survivable if hit by enemy fire.

BTR's are even less armored than BMP's, making them vulnerable to anything heavier than rifle fire. The 14.5mm machine gun does give the BTR the ability to destroy M113's and threaten other vehicles with flank and rear shots, making it a threat to most Western APC's and IFV's at close range. Still, you should think of your BTR's more as well armored trucks rather than proper combat vehicles.

The BTR-80 entered service in 1986.

ZSU-23-4 Screenshot of a ZSU-23-4 Shilka

The Shilka (ZSU-23-4) is a Soviet self-propelled anti-aircraft gun. Armed with four 23mm autocannons and a radar system, the Shilka is a terror for enemy close-air support and helicopters. Western countries like the United States made air power an integral part of their planning for World War 3. Fixed wing aircraft would attempt to delay or destroy columns of Soviet vehicles, allowing them to set the tempo of battle and cause attrition before ground forces even made contact with one-another. For that reason Soviet air defenses were a major area of investment.

The Shilka is a key part of that arsenal, providing protection to your armored force and artillery. Any pilots attempting to attack targets under the Shilka's umbrella will face a wall of 23mm cannon fire, forcing them to either break off their attack or risk being shredded by high explosive shells. The Shilka's autocannons can be used against enemy infantry but these vehicles are rare, expensive, and not very well armored.

The Shilka entered service in 1965.

T-55MV and T-62MV The T-62MV...

The T-55 and T-62 are older vehicles, but have been upgraded (hence the MV designation) to keep them dangerous. These upgrades include new engines, Kontakt-1 explosive reactive armor, and a fire control system with a laser range finder. These upgrades still don't bring them up to the lethality and survivability of the T-72 or T-80, but they do make the T-55 and T-62 a threat to older Western tanks, APC's, IFV's, and infantry.

Just because a tank is older, doesn't make it useless. A tank is still an armored box with a cannon on it, and while these vehicles might be shredded by an Abrams, they remain a potent threat to just about everything else on the battlefield. The Soviet Union produced tens of thousands of T-55s and T-62s, and these upgraded vehicles will help fill out your roster with affordable and dangerous tanks.

The MV variants of the T-55 and T-62 entered service in 1985.

...and the T-55MV

Summary

Soviet vehicles are usually cruder than western ones, but they were deliberately built to fit a different way of war. The Soviets anticipated a war of massive mechanized thrusts conducted rapidly, supported by massive quantities of artillery and brief periods of local air superiority. This is reflected in your ground vehicles, your toolbox. You have a lot of tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and air defenses that can conduct rapid maneuvers to find the enemies flank.

If you have to go through the front door, then you should leverage your mass to conduct a rapid, overwhelming attack. Remember, the more power you put into an attack, the less casualties you take.

Greetings Commanders!

This week, we will take a closer look at the latest improvements in air support, particularly in Close Air Support (CAS). Flying low wasn’t just an option — during the Cold War, it was considered the option if survival was the goal. Although Coalition aircraft transitioned from low to medium altitude within five days during Operation Desert Storm due to effective radar suppression, NATO planners deemed it unlikely for non-stealth aircraft to survive at medium altitude over Soviet-controlled territories. Consequently, most aircraft could not deliver weapons accurately from medium altitude, making low-level delivery the primary method for fixed-wing support in Armored Brigade. However, we felt there was still ample space for improvement.



Loft delivery

One such improvement is the low-altitude loft or toss bomb delivery. As the name suggests, the aircraft transitions from a low altitude to a higher one in a pull-up manoeuvre, lofting the ordinance at a pre-calculated point. The benefit of lofting is that it allows the aircraft to avoid directly flying over the target, thereby greatly minimising the risk of enemy air defences. Additionally, bombs can be released from great distances, enabling the aircraft to turn around before entering the dangerous zone.



The attacking aircraft approaches the target at a speed of up to 300 m/s and low altitude before entering a full-power climb at 30 degrees and releasing its bombs at an altitude of about 600 metres. The aircraft then dives back to a low altitude as soon as possible.

This new bombing profile was introduced to allow players to target specific fixed terrain points, rather than relying on semi-independent low-level strikes that search for and target hostile air and ground units. While this method makes aircraft highly resilient, except against highly capable SAM units like the SA-8 or fortunately positioned short-range systems, it is balanced by its poor accuracy. Also, since this question is certainly going to appear in the comments: helicopters will not perform loft delivery. While I personally believe the Soviets, in particular, would resort to this after taking heavy losses (as both Russians and Ukrainians have done in the ongoing conflict), pilots on both sides rarely, if ever, practised this inefficient method, which was primarily meant to deliver illumination rockets. However, this brings us to the next point.



Running Fire

Even if the fascinating evolution of helicopter tactics during the Cold War and the improvements we have planned for them deserve a separate DevDiary, it should be kept in mind that, in military terms, CAS is defined as air action by both fixed and rotary-wing aircraft against hostile targets in close proximity to friendly forces, which is why running fire is relevant to this discussion. In game terms, the introduction of running fire as a separate flight type was intended to expand the role of helicopters beyond the dominantly anti-armor and ambush-focused tactics of the late 1970s and 1980s. This new method allows for more dynamic engagements, such as gunships providing support during air assaults, offering additional flexibility.

It is best defined as a rapid "pop-up and peek" or "bump" while a helicopter has forward speed. Upon entering the map (or airspace), the helicopter climbs to low-level flight at maximum speed. The helicopter deploys countermeasures such as flares (if available) while maintaining speed, then initiates a slow, gentle dive upon locating the target. After completing the attack run, it performs an aggressive turn away from the target, reduces altitude using a sideslip-dive manoeuvre, and returns to terrain flight altitude to exit the danger zone. While this offers more responsive support, it also exposes the helicopters to exceptional risk, particularly when facing modern defences, so great care must be exercised.

More ordnance…and more space?

An attentive reader at this point might start wondering how this can be implemented on smaller maps, considering that both new methods require quite a lot of airspace to be performed correctly. We faced the same dilemma and came up with a clever solution. The airspace can now expand beyond the map edge, increasing the total on-map and off-map area to the current 15 x 15 km map size. This means that if the battle size is 15 x 15 km, there is no difference in how it works now. However, if the battle size is smaller, a buffer zone is added for aircraft.

Furthermore, to provide more tactical options and variety, we have introduced additional bomb weight categories (from 50 to 500kg, instead of the current 250kg equivalent). This gives you a wider array of choices when selecting ordnance, and more potential for modders. Rocket attacks have been significantly reworked to focus more on area effect. This change means that rocket strikes are now better suited for saturating larger areas with firepower, making them ideal for dealing with dispersed infantry or lightly armoured targets. The improved area effect allows you to disrupt and demoralise enemy forces more effectively.



Conclusion

CAS has played a critical role in military operations since its inception: it can halt enemy attacks, help create breakthroughs, destroy targets of opportunity, cover retreats, and guard flanks. To be most effective, CAS should be employed at decisive points in a battle and concentrated to apply maximum combat power and saturate enemy defences. It can be argued that aircraft have benefited the most from the new three-dimensional battlefield. Not only can you enjoy their aesthetic appeal, but they also come with significant functional improvements. These updates are just the beginning of what we have planned for Armored Brigade 2, as these reworks open the door to many more exciting possibilities. We’re eager to hear your thoughts and see how you use these new tools on the battlefield.

Stay tuned for more updates, and thank you for being part of the Armored Brigade community!

Greetings Commanders!

As we continue the development of our game, today we take a slight detour from our usual feature updates to delve deeply into the doctrines that shaped a tense period in modern history. In this developer diary, we explore the tactical and operational evolution of the formidable Soviet Army from 1965 to 1991.

Why start in 1965?
In the early 1960s, the assumption was that the war would go nuclear at the outset, either because NATO, undeterred by the weak Soviet nuclear arsenal, would attempt to offset its conventional inferiority with nuclear weapons, or because the USSR would resort to first use. However, as the USSR attained nuclear parity, the likelihood of immediate nuclear escalation decreased. While 1967 might be seen as a pivotal year due to major doctrinal shifts, including NATO's formal adoption of the “Flexible Response” doctrine, we chose to start our database in 1965 to encompass a broader range of older equipment. This period saw Soviet military strategy adapt to the potential for conflicts beginning with conventional warfare that could escalate to nuclear war after several days or weeks. The Dnieper-67 exercise, focusing solely on conventional warfare, marked a significant shift from earlier exercises like “Vltava” and “October Storm”, illustrating a growing recognition of the catastrophic consequences of nuclear warfare and the utility of nuclear weapons as mere political tools.


1970s: A Decade of Soviet Dominance
The 1970s could be seen as the zenith of Soviet military power relative to NATO. Despite the ongoing nuclear threat, Soviet military experts believed nuclear weapon use would be delayed by fears of Soviet retaliation. The high oil prices that depressed Western economic performance buoyed the Soviet economy and undoubtedly prolonged the duration of the Soviet regime. During this decade, the Soviet military fielded hardware, such as the T-64/-72/-80 family of main battle tanks, that was often a match for—or even superior to—their NATO counterparts. Artillery units also began to receive self-propelled howitzers, closing the qualitative gap with NATO. Moreover, this decade saw a reorganization of Soviet forces, particularly tank divisions, which transitioned from being predominantly tank-heavy to a more balanced composition with more motorized rifle battalions. This change enhanced their staying power but also highlighted a critical issue: increases in unit size were not matched by corresponding improvements in doctrine, training, or command and control capabilities, potentially slowing operational tempo.


1980s: Intensified Competition
The failure of détente in the 1970s led to an intense flare-up in Cold War tensions during the 1980s. This decade might have set the stage for the most significant armed conflict in history, had it erupted. The Soviet Union, similar to Germany in both World Wars, faced a potentially overpowering coalition of Western economies and militaries. The imperative was clear: win early or not at all. Despite impressive paper strength, the reality was that full mobilization of Soviet forces could cripple the civilian economy, as partially revealed during the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia. Furthermore, the late 1980s marked a critical period of lag in the quality of Soviet weapon systems compared to NATO advancements. The era of stagnation under Brezhnev severely affected military capabilities, leaving Soviet units increasingly equipped with outdated technology and hampered by poor command flexibility. In response to these challenges, Soviet military theorists experimented with new organizational structures and reforms aimed at enhancing combat agility. They proposed replacing the traditional "regiment-division-army" hierarchy with a "brigade-corps" structure, remarkably similar to the 1980s-era French Armée de Terre. This new organization featured large battalions operating semi-autonomously within self-sufficient brigades, which were, in turn, loosely controlled by the new corps headquarters. However, these organizational reforms were still in the experimental phase when the Soviet Union collapsed.


Principles of Soviet Land Warfare
Soviet military doctrine was distinctly characterized by its emphasis on offensive operations and mathematical methods—specifically the COFM (Correlation of Forces and Means) approach—in operational and tactical decision-making. This strategic orientation reflects a broader philosophical approach that viewed defense as a temporary and transitional phase, primarily serving to prepare and position forces for a counter-offensive to prevent war on Soviet soil. Despite the apparent rigidity of a highly centralized command structure, Soviet doctrine was flexible in execution, with operations meticulously planned but also adaptable to battlefield conditions. Commanders were expected to manage large formations in a synchronized manner, ensuring that all elements of the army worked towards a unified goal. This centralization supported the mass and tempo, allowing for coordinated strikes and maneuvers.

The essence of Soviet maneuver warfare rested on two tenets: rapid tempo and concentrated firepower. These principles dictated that Soviet forces concentrate overwhelming force rapidly at decisive points to break enemy defenses and maintain operational momentum. Maintaining a high tempo meant reducing the time the enemy had to react, thereby forcing them into a defensive posture. The Soviet Army aimed to dictate the pace of the conflict, leveraging surprise and operational speed to disrupt enemy plans and cohesion. Mechanized and armored formations, supported by aviation and artillery, were designed to seize the initiative, penetrate defenses, and drive decisively into enemy territories.


How does this apply in game?
In wargaming, the principles of Soviet military doctrine offer a compelling gameplay framework. By emphasizing rapid, offensive operations, players are encouraged to think aggressively. This approach not only challenges players to maintain an offensive mindset but also to skillfully manage resources and timing to sustain the momentum. This means that even when positioned defensively, players should plan counter-offensives that exploit any lapse in the enemy's operations. Deploying forces in a concentrated manner at decisive points allows players to overwhelm specific sectors, mimicking the Soviet strategy of achieving overwhelming local superiority. This tactic, combined with an echeloned attack structure—where the initial forces engage and fix the enemy, allowing subsequent forces to exploit openings—mirrors operational art and brings depth to gameplay. Moreover, recognizing the inherent limitations and strengths of Soviet artillery in the game—its power versus its responsiveness—encourages players to pre-plan artillery strikes, shaping the battlefield in their favor before major assaults. This necessitates a proactive rather than reactive approach to combat, urging players to think several moves ahead. Additionally, strategic use of terrain is crucial, not only for masking movements in offense but also for defense and setting ambushes. Players must leverage mass and positioning to counteract technological superiority, turning numerical or operational advantages into a winning strategy against better-equipped foes. By integrating these elements, you will ensure that each decision is impactful and each victory satisfying.

Greetings Commanders!

Following up on the infantry improvements highlighted in our previous developer diary, the roar of engines heralds the arrival of motorized infantry as a novel force in Armored Brigade II. Motorized units combine the rapid mobility of mechanized transports with the adaptability of foot soldiers, enabling commanders to swiftly shift their forces to where they are most needed, be it for a surprise attack or to bolster a faltering defense. This category of unit was underrepresented in the original game, and their appearance not only facilitates more dynamic gameplay but also enriches the database with a greater variety of combat formations and support units. They exemplify a tactical trade-off between protection and mobility, balanced with affordability. These units enable rapid troop movement across the battlefield, presenting a cost-effective alternative to traditional APCs and IFVs, which are more heavily protected or equipped with greater firepower.



However, the real enabler is the new option to separate dismounts as a distinct formation from their organic transports, a feature highly anticipated by our community. The separation mechanic allows for nuanced tactical play; transports can be directed to safer locations once their precious cargo has disembarked, minimizing losses while maximizing offensive and defensive potentials. This feature not only facilitates the appropriate use of unarmored transports, such as trucks or jeeps, but also enables the recreation of tactics like the Soviet bronegrupa or experimentation with the motorized experience of the US 9th Infantry Division in the late Cold War. However, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight a mechanic often overlooked even by seasoned Armored Brigade players: using the Advance command while dismounts are disembarked enables infantrymen to move ahead, with their vehicles following in support. To make this effective, simply allow them time to reorganize.



Next, we want to introduce the Waypoint Editor, a game-changing tool designed to give you more control over the movement and behavior of your units. This feature allows commanders to meticulously plan the path of their units, editing waypoints and orders along a route where units can adjust their standard operating procedures, formations, and even engage in predefined actions like disembarking and separating from their transports. The editor is designed to be intuitive, making it easy for both veterans and newcomers to plan their strategies down to the smallest detail.

The Waypoint Editor is still a work in progress

To complement the waypoint editor, we have also implemented waypoint synchronization. This feature enables formations to coordinate their movements, ensuring that they arrive at their objectives simultaneously. This is crucial for executing complex strategies that rely on timing, such as coordinated attacks from multiple directions or simultaneous strikes on different enemy positions. Synchronization ensures that no unit goes in alone unless specifically intended, bolstering the effectiveness of combined arms tactics.

This level of control empowers commanders to execute complex maneuvers that were previously difficult to manage, bringing a new dimension of planning to Armored Brigade II. By synchronizing the actions of diverse formations, players can create synergies on the battlefield, exploiting timing and coordination to outmaneuver their opponent. Moreover, this is part of a broader development plan, as these features serve as enablers for AI scripting. This will eventually allow for greater control over scenario creation, and enable the development of predictable tutorials. We will delve deeper into this aspect in one of our future developer diary installments.



Both of these features stem from our commitment to providing a deep, strategic experience that mirrors the complexities of real-world military operations. The waypoint editor offers the flexibility to navigate the battlefield with precision, while waypoint synchronization brings a new layer of tactical coordination, allowing for more deliberate and impactful engagements. We believe these updates will significantly enhance the gameplay experience in Armored Brigade II, offering players more tools to craft their approach to each mission.

It should also be mentioned that alongside these substantial improvements, a series of changes, perhaps superficially irrelevant at first glance, have been implemented to enhance the overall gameplay experience. A notable improvement is the overhaul of our road march formation and pathfinding algorithms, designed to facilitate smoother unit movements across the battlefield. Additionally, new parameters have been introduced into the database, such as mobility and acceleration, which further refine the behavior and performance of units. Each change, no matter the scale, is aimed at providing a richer, more detailed simulation of warfare. As always, we are eager to hear your feedback on these new features. Your input is invaluable in our ongoing efforts to improve and expand the game.

Stay tuned for more updates and developments in our next DevDiary. Until then, let the engines roar and your strategies unfold on the digital battleground!