CM: Korea?

[Childress]

And Childress - I wasn't trying to convince you about liking the Pacific. To each there own, no one theater is better than the other, though the Home Front is a little dull to read about

I find the War in the Pacific fascinating. But not as an ideal base for a CM type, ground tactical, treatment. Voila tout. There were suitable battles, yes, but the most famous ones, those with box office appeal to an American audience, not so much. I'm with JonS on that score.

Moderators, I guess we can close this thread. I win, right?

[Durruti Column]

I just think it's a great shame Battlefront decided to knock total conversion mods on the head. As well as some of the those already mentioned, the Spanish Civil War would make a great game ideally suited to the CM model.

[poesel]

I just think it's a great shame Battlefront decided to knock total conversion mods on the head. As well as some of the those already mentioned, the Spanish Civil War would make a great game ideally suited to the CM model.

It is - but OTOH it would kill them economically (IMHO). Think about it.

Although they could open the non-core parts of the game like flavour objects and buildings. Would add a lot of, sorry, flavour to the game.

Edit: just for the record - I would buy CM:Korea

[Erwin]

The irony is that BF believes (with justification if you look at board wargame sales of similar subjects) there isn't enuff market $ for them to develop games like CM:KOREA; WW2 PACIFIC THEATER; CM:VIETNAM etc... however, they also prevent volunteers from trying to do the work for this unprofitable sector, even though one would think that some sort of arrangement could be worked out.

There are modders who have worked with the CM series for a decade and would hopefully be trustworthy (not to abuse the situation).

[Michael Emrys]

The irony is that BF believes (with justification if you look at board wargame sales of similar subjects) there isn't enuff market $ for them to develop games like CM:KOREA; WW2 PACIFIC THEATER; CM:VIETNAM etc... however, they also prevent volunteers from trying to do the work for this unprofitable sector, even though one would think that some sort of arrangement could be worked out.

Perhaps the problem is that they would still be obligated to support any such title, and that would entail almost as much work as developing it themselves. I don't know just how big a problem that would be, but the thought comes to me and I thought I would share it FWIW.

Michael

[womble]

The irony is that BF believes (with justification if you look at board wargame sales of similar subjects) there isn't enuff market $ for them to develop games like CM:KOREA; WW2 PACIFIC THEATER; CM:VIETNAM etc... however, they also prevent volunteers from trying to do the work for this unprofitable sector, even though one would think that some sort of arrangement could be worked out.

There are modders who have worked with the CM series for a decade and would hopefully be trustworthy (not to abuse the situation).

I'm sure BFC would be open to someone collaborating with them on the same basis under which CM: Afghanistan was created, if some keen independent, capable folk wanted to take on something like Korea or Vietnam, or even the WW2 Pacific Theatre. Just handing some keen amateurs the key to the family jewels isn't likely to happen though.

[Seedorf81]

Maybe it's me, but I haven't heard or read anything on the Battlefront forum(s) about the HUGE victory the Russians gained on the Japanese in the summer of 1945. Everybody seems to have forgotten about this massive attack.

It would be a nice Pacific module though..

Loads and loads of JS-2's and 3's against some type-95's! Playing the Russki's would mean that even I could finish a Battlefront-campaign with a victory .

[Rokko]

Restricting modding for CMBN games like it is done doesn't really matter I'd say.

The community is very small and the amount of people with modding skills is even smaller. Even if all the people who upload mods here got together they couldn't make a total conversion in their free time I believe.

[Michael Emrys]

Maybe it's me, but I haven't heard or read anything on the Battlefront forum(s) about the HUGE victory the Russians gained on the Japanese in the summer of 1945. Everybody seems to have forgotten about this massive attack.

Not forgotten. It's been mentioned a number of times over the last five years or so, at least one of those by me. While it might be loads of fun to play the Soviets as you indicate, I wonder who would want to play as the Japanese. Maybe the same folk who find it an interesting challenge to play FI as the Italians.

Michael

[Seedorf81]

Not forgotten. It's been mentioned a number of times over the last five years or so, at least one of those by me. While it might be loads of fun to play the Soviets as you indicate, I wonder who would want to play as the Japanese. Maybe the same folk who find it an interesting challenge to play FI as the Italians.

Michael

I once knew a person who, when playing a WW2 flightsim, switched every available option to EASY. Then he made use of the editor to position himself (in the best available fighter) behind a dozen or so of the slowest, most vulnerable bombers. Who were flying line abreast.

He shot them down and did it again. And again and again.

I bet he was no candidate for the Japanese side, too.

[sburke]

Not forgotten. It's been mentioned a number of times over the last five years or so, at least one of those by me. While it might be loads of fun to play the Soviets as you indicate, I wonder who would want to play as the Japanese. Maybe the same folk who find it an interesting challenge to play FI as the Italians.

Michael

Depends on the scenario created and the victory conditions set. I do enjoy playing the underdog. I am sure within the overall campaign there has to be some decent last ditch covering force actions that would make an interesting fight.

After all, if you look at it only from the big picture you could say - who wants to play the Germans? They take on the countries with the biggest navies and armies with production facilities outside their reach while their own are pummeled by a Bomber armada and have no chance of winning whatsoever.

If you check out some of the matrix forums on War in the East, the subject does come up from time to time. (at least it used to, I haven't touched the game now since CMFI came out,- not enough time) The battles are only interesting for a German player until mid to late 1943 and then they fight a losing campaign to stave off the Red Army... being the German player is fraught with issues about knowing you will lose eventually no matter what you do. Getting a German player to continue past the point where they have any offensive capability used to be a problem.

From a CM perspective however, we'd fight the war until the fall of Berlin and undoubtedly we will have a scenario on it.

[TheBlackHand]

Just chiming in to say (if I haven't already) that I would gladly fork over my hard earned money to play CM:Korea. I'm sure most if not all of the old school players would as well. I'd even chip in for a team of modders to do it, if that were possible.

[Childress]

Think of all the months and years it took Battlefront to come out with 2 WW2 games plus one module. And we want them undress down to their skivvies (hmmm...) and dive into a Korea project? One questions whether the theater would attract enough buyers outside the hardcore. And, as sBurke pointed out, you run into the same issues as a hypothetical War in the Pacific. Though, personally, I'd prefer the former to the latter. With Korea you get tanks!

[Michael Emrys]

And, as sBurke pointed out, you run into the same issues as a hypothetical War in the Pacific. Though, personally, I'd prefer the former to the latter. With Korea you get tanks!

There were tanks in the Asian-Pacific war. Even the Japanese had some tanks. Crummy tanks you could almost defeat with spears, but still tanks. And the Allies had proper tanks and knew how to use them. What you do not usually see are such things as tank armies, at least until we get to Manchuria. Don't even get whole armored divisions. But the Allies often employed battalions of armor and that's as much as you need for a CM battle.

Michael

[Wodin]

This Kind of War by Fehrenbach is a great read. Highly recommended.

[Childress]

If you check out some of the matrix forums on War in the East, the subject does come up from time to time. (at least it used to, I haven't touched the game now since CMFI came out,- not enough time) The battles are only interesting for a German player until mid to late 1943 and then they fight a losing campaign to stave off the Red Army... being the German player is fraught with issues about knowing you will lose eventually no matter what you do. Getting a German player to continue past the point where they have any offensive capability used to be a problem.

From a CM perspective however, we'd fight the war until the fall of Berlin and undoubtedly we will have a scenario on it.

And it would be a good scenario. The beautiful thing about the CM tactical system is that you can always extract a few engrossing engagements no matter how one-sided the strategic picture.

I bought War in the East. A mistake attributable to a lack of self-awareness at the time- way too giganormous. It recalls some huge and indecipherable Jackson Pollock hanging on the wall which resists all deconstruction and frightens the cat. Never again...

[Vanir Ausf B]

And, as sBurke pointed out, you run into the same issues as a hypothetical War in the Pacific. Though, personally, I'd prefer the former to the latter. With Korea you get tanks!

Korea was an infantry war for the most part. At the beginning of the war the North Koreans only had 276 or so tanks, the South Koreans had none and as far as I can tell the Chinese never used tanks in Korean at all. So after the Chinese intervention in particular most of the time only the UN forces had tanks and even then due to the terrain they were most often used for indirect fire support.

Personally, if you gave me a choice between a Korean War game and a Pacific War game I would chose C: Patton Goes East - 1945

[sburke]

Personally, if you gave me a choice between a Korean War game and a Pacific War game I would chose C: Patton Goes East - 1945

Okay now that I'd have to go with too.

[Sublime]

Me three. With the 10 characters.

[Childress]

Korea was an infantry war for the most part. At the beginning of the war the North Koreans only had 276 or so tanks, the South Koreans had none and as far as I can tell the Chinese never used tanks in Korean at all. So after the Chinese intervention in particular most of the time only the UN forces had tanks and even then due to the terrain they were most often used for indirect fire support.

You're right. This excerpt from Wikipedia confirms your position:

Initially, North Korean armor dominated the battlefield with Soviet T-34-85 medium tanks designed during the Second World War.[247] The KPA's tanks confronted a tankless ROK Army armed with few modern anti-tank weapons,[248] including American World War II–model 2.36-inch (60 mm) M9 bazookas, effective only against the 45 mm side armor of the T-34-85 tank.[249] The US forces arriving in Korea were equipped with light M24 Chaffee tanks (on occupation duty in nearby Japan) that also proved ineffective against the heavier KPA T-34 tanks... Countering the initial combat imbalance, the UN Command reinforcement matériel included heavier US M4 Sherman, M26 Pershing, M46 Patton, and British Cromwell and Centurion tanks that proved effective against North Korean armor, ending its battlefield dominance.[252] Unlike in the Second World War (1939–45), in which the tank proved a decisive weapon, the Korean War featured few large-scale tank battles. The mountainous, heavily forested terrain prevented large masses of tanks from maneuvering. In Korea, tanks served largely as infantry support and mobile artillery pieces.

[Sublime]

I have to point out out that the Korean war, especially after the Chinese intervention is characterized largely by the warfare that Childress specifically said he didn't want - human wave attacks. It was routine for US forces to designate 'bug out routes' to use once to hordes became overwhelming. Still though, the battles wouldn't necesarily be as boring as it initially sounds. The level of detail in CMx2, and recalling that it's tactical level, would still allow for lots of interesting battles. The Chinese would just be liberally equipped with large infantry squads, extremely heavy on automatic weapons. Lots of mortars. To be honest though, the game wouldnt be as balanced force wise as WW2. The game would shine more on it's variety of units - UN (British/French/Belgian/S Korean/Etc) US Army, Marines, NKPA, Chinese.. I'd still love to see Chosin Reservoir battles, along with the British stand on the Imjim. Recently reading Cummings 'Korea's Place in the Sun' I was shocked to see that the US issued orders for several nuclear weapons to be dropped in April/May 1951 on Chinese airfields and staging areas. Apparently the order was somehow 'set aside' and not carried out because there was a hubbub when MacArthur was fired.

The summer 1950 also has a somewhat different character - NKPA with tanks, but their infantry still seems to have attacked more en masse like the Chinese. Even with all the human wave attacks I've still read plenty of small unit level accounts in Korea that show tactical finesse and strategy on the Red side. And the bugles and whistles, and insane odds in the night attacks sends shivers down ones spine. So cold that one night the men slept standing up in their sleeping bags. Later in the war you see trench warfare with limited attacks and raids. Many histories mention the resemblance to WW1.

[Childress]

Many histories mention the resemblance to WW1.

This is a plus?

[Sublime]

No it is not. Especially not over CM Pacific or Vietnam. However it is only later war - the early war - from say June 50 to June 51 is pretty fluid and interesting. 1950 is insanely fluid.