CM games I'd like to see

[Bulletpoint]

10 hours ago, Ivanov said:

 

Imagine the CM pathfinding as the Red Army tries to move its tanks through the Fulda Gap...

[Blazing 88's]

13 hours ago, Myles Keogh said:

...If by chance BF does have another CMx2 base game up their sleeves then I'd love to see it address:

WW2 North Africa, early Blitzkrieg, and Russia ('41, '42 or '43)....

Those would be great additions and have been craved by many forever.

As for modern, since I do own CMBS and CMSF, modules for CMBS /an Engine upgrade for CMSF I will /would appreciate as well. 

I have passed on CMFB and will pass on a CM:Berlin as I have ZERO interest in the closing months of WWII on the Western and Eastern fronts.  Having said that, I am very much looking forward to the CMFI module though.

Edited October 2, 2016 by Blazing 88's

[niall78]

Early Blitzkrieg and Russia ('41, '42 or '43) are the ones I'd really want to see. Playing 1941-42 CMBB campaigns and scenarios were probably my all time favourite CM moments. 

 

Cold War gone hot would also be super interesting. We'd need rules and graphics for chemical and biological weapons and also maps big enough to use tactical nukes of course.

 

Frankly I'll throw money at any era Battlefront want to simulate. I love the WW2 titles but I had great fun with CMSF and am immensely enjoying the hypothetical CMBS as well. Bring it on Battlefront! You produce the tactical simulators I dreamed of as a kid when I imagined the future of computer games in the early Eighties and I'll support you with cash every chance I get.

 

Did somebody mention CM:Battletech? I'd cut out a kidney for that - and no I'm not joking.

 

 

Edited October 2, 2016 by niall78

[Blazing 88's]

1 hour ago, niall78 said:

...Did somebody mention CM:Battletech? I'd cut out a kidney for that - and no I'm not joking.
 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

1 hour ago, niall78 said:

Did somebody mention CM:Battletech? I'd cut out a kidney for that - and no I'm not joking.

I think we'd need a license holder for Battletech that wasn't dumb/I think there's already a RTSy/turn based thing for them.

I'd like to see a near future scifi CM that was just based on the BF staff building out what the Belaruss Conflict of 2037 would look like based on their contacts/their own ideas on what it might look like/hiring me as a consultant to write the backstory and provide ideas.  

[IICptMillerII]

Not sure how I would feel about a CM: Battletech, but if we're throwing out fringe ideas I think a CM: Antiquity could be very cool. Of course it would require a whole new engine, but I would love to see CMs realistic depiction of combat applied to the Roman legions. Same thing goes for a CM: Napoleon. I know it is extremely unlikely that these games would ever be made, and I would never seriously ask Battlefront to consider it. Still though it is interesting to think about. 

On a more grounded note, I am very curious to see where Battlefront takes the future of CM. We know v4.0 is coming soon, and after that a few modules for existing titles. I'm curious about the next big step. My worry is that they go to an entirely new engine and basically have to start from scratch. Hopefully that isn't quite the case. I would rather see new titles and upgrades to the CMx2 engine than a CMx3 engine that has to redo all of WWII and beyond. 

[sburke]

I'll take anything in the cold war.  Hell half the board games I used to have were in that period.  The central front series (and it's PC counterpart  the Tiller series), Nato the next war in Europe and that monster Nato Modern Conflict in Europe,  Central America from Victory games, Flashpoint Golan, MBT (and it's sister IDF), Air and Armor, the Victory Fleet series, Air Cav, Air and Armor, Boots and Saddles, City Fight, Vietnam, Gulf and Aegean Strike.  Talk about having a ton of potential for op layer stuff.  The massive hole in my CM fix......

[Machor]

Re: CM: Antiquity

While I too would have loved this, the problem, as has been discussed at length in Slitherine's Pike&Shot forum by Richard Bodley Scott, is that we simply do not have the necessary micro data to make what he calls a 'bottom-up' wargame - as CM is - about pre-modern periods. It's easier to guesstimate top secret specs of a modern system than the performance of certain weapons in antiquity. There are folks arguing to death on forums about the merits of longbows vs. crossbows and whether chariots were junk or doom. Richard argues that the most 'realistic' take on antiquity is to make a 'top-down' wargame whose rules reflect the macro data that can be extracted from historic accounts of pre-modern battles.

Re: CM: Battletech

Just wanted to make sure that you guys are aware of "Titans of Steel." No CM, to be sure, but super-detailed nonetheless.

[IICptMillerII]

37 minutes ago, Machor said:

Re: CM: Antiquity

While I too would have loved this, the problem, as has been discussed at length in Slitherine's Pike&Shot forum by Richard Bodley Scott, is that we simply do not have the necessary micro data to make what he calls a 'bottom-up' wargame - as CM is - about pre-modern periods. It's easier to guesstimate top secret specs of a modern system than the performance of certain weapons in antiquity. There are folks arguing to death on forums about the merits of longbows vs. crossbows and whether chariots were junk or doom. Richard argues that the most 'realistic' take on antiquity is to make a 'top-down' wargame whose rules reflect the macro data that can be extracted from historic accounts of pre-modern battles.

That makes sense. I know that there are a lot of variables that are either hotly debated or completely unknown. It would pose a significant challenge. Add on top of that an entire new engine to simulate the fighting, and taking into account the various fighting styles of factions of the time (regimented Roman battle drill vs Gaullic not-so-regimented battle melee) makes the project essentially completely undoable. I have no delusions to think that Battlefront would ever consider such an endeavor. Still interesting to ponder however. 

[Blazing 88's]

1 hour ago, Machor said:

,,,Re: CM: Battletech

Just wanted to make sure that you guys are aware of "Titans of Steel." No CM, to be sure, but super-detailed nonetheless.

FYI...  Even better, have you tried the free open source MegaMek game which also has a Mercenary campaign tracking /generator MekHQ (in depth and vast)??  Don't let the name fool you, it is Battletech. 

You don't just get Mech's you get EVERYTHING to play around with (Original and user created maps, Mechs, Tanks, Vehicles, Infantry /Elementals, AeroTech, Jumpships, Starships, etc).  All the original Mech names are used (Warhammer, Phoenix Hawk, Shadow Hawk, the Clan stuff, etc).  The unit library is filled with all the centuries covered in Battletech, including the new stuff......

Very well done and continually updated.  MegaMek /MekHQ are worth your time to have a look at if you are a fan of the BATTLETECH games. 

Did I mention MegaMek and MekHQ are FREE!!!l.... runs on PC and Mac (some other OS as well).

Edited October 2, 2016 by Blazing 88's

[Machor]

[Hopefully without going way off-topic...]

Re: Antiquity

Just wanted to illustrate how the Field of Glory system (which Richard co-authored) neatly handles the different fighting styles of the Romans and Gauls 'top-down.' Gaul warriors are classified as "impact foot," which means at the very beginning of melee - which is a separate combat round called "impact" - they are highly likely to cause disruption if they win. If they're attacking Roman legionaries and the legionaries hold together, however, they'll most likely waste the Gauls.

Re: MegaMek

Took a quick look at it and yes, it does look better than Titans of Steel; thank you for bringing it to attention. Alas, I probably won't go back to sci-fi until Children of a Dead Earth - about which I found out from this forum - grows up or at least gets multiplayer. I hope a serious publisher takes interest in that little gem [glances sideways at BFC].

[IICptMillerII]

3 hours ago, Machor said:

Re: Antiquity

Just wanted to illustrate how the Field of Glory system (which Richard co-authored) neatly handles the different fighting styles of the Romans and Gauls 'top-down.' Gaul warriors are classified as "impact foot," which means at the very beginning of melee - which is a separate combat round called "impact" - they are highly likely to cause disruption if they win. If they're attacking Roman legionaries and the legionaries hold together, however, they'll most likely waste the Gauls.

Sounds very interesting. I'll have to take a look!

[HerrTom]

I fully echo the calls for CM: Fulda Gap or CM: North German Plain or what have you.  I'm itching for a realistic Cold War tactics game (obviously, only Combat Mission fits!).  Except I'd go for 1980 rather than '89.  Gives us some chances to play with things that aren't super high tech with modern equipment beginning to be sprinkled in.

[IICptMillerII]

19 minutes ago, HerrTom said:

I fully echo the calls for CM: Fulda Gap or CM: North German Plain or what have you.  I'm itching for a realistic Cold War tactics game (obviously, only Combat Mission fits!).  Except I'd go for 1980 rather than '89.  Gives us some chances to play with things that aren't super high tech with modern equipment beginning to be sprinkled in.

I actually want the year to be 1989 but for the same reason you listed. In 1989 there was still a lot of older tech floating around for all forces involved. Jeeps with TOW mounts were just as common, if not more so than their Humvee counterparts. M1IP Abrams were around as much as the new M1A1s, and there were still plenty of M60A3 Pattons. In fact I believe most of the US tanks in Western Europe were still Pattons by '89. If not, then it was close. The Soviets were mostly using T-72 series tanks (T-72B obr. 1985 in particular) in the Guards divisions. There were T-80 variants in some of the Guards units, but the vast majority were T-72s. Reason being as I've heard is that the T-80 was primarily a prototype tank that never truly developed fully. They still made a decent number sure, but there were only 500 T-80Us, the best variant. Kind of a King Tiger of the 1980's. The non Guards divisions were mostly T-55 and T-62 variants with BMP-1 mounted motor rifles. Other NATO and WARSAW Pact nations would have a similar smattering of new and not so new hardware to play with. 

I would rather have a game set in '89 and have access to the new toys (at greater rarity) as well as the older toys (which were still very much in use by all sides) so you could pick and choose. It would also give you more flexibility in making scenarios and campaigns. You could still easily do a 1985 scenario/campaign if you wanted to. A module could always take things back a decade or so as well. 

All that said, I would still be beyond overjoyed to get a Cold War CM game. It's by far the highest thing on my personal wishlist for CM, and I would be more than willing to donate $$$ to the cause if necessary. Maybe one day... 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

32 minutes ago, HerrTom said:

I fully echo the calls for CM: Fulda Gap or CM: North German Plain or what have you.  I'm itching for a realistic Cold War tactics game (obviously, only Combat Mission fits!).  Except I'd go for 1980 rather than '89.  Gives us some chances to play with things that aren't super high tech with modern equipment beginning to be sprinkled in.

CPT Miller beat me to the punch.

But yeah in 1989 there's still a ton of earlier equipment in service.  And because we'd have that wide toolbox, there'd be no reason you couldn't actually do a "Fulda 1989" or a "Hamburg 1982" campaign.  The game already allows for setting timeframes (although mostly on the month basis) for QBs, so that'll keep you from wanting to sit down to a 1980 game and getting M1A1s and late model T-80s pouring out of the woodwork.  

The real critical part is shooting for the 80's as a concept though.  Prior to that, it's really too much nuclear tripwire for NATO and not enough conventional emphasis.  Realistically a initial game focusing on Fulda with US vs Soviet equipment to start, then likely a Germany vs Germany, BAOR, etc, etc modules until the current staff of BF have died of old age, filthy rich from wargamers who want to fight the biggest war to never happen. 

I know I've seen some official BF "meh" on World War Three, but if we're day dreaming, that's what I'd run with.  

[AttorneyAtWar]

CM: Fulda Gap is pretty much my dream Combat Mission game honestly.

 

World War 2 military history was my gateway drug so to speak into military history. Now that Ive branched out and started to understand, study, and play games involving that period it has me very interested.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Raptorx7

[Doomed]

If we're daydreaming I'd like to see CM:Jutland or CM:Ironbottom Sound since BF must be getting bored of tanks 

Perhaps more realistically France 1940 would get my vote since it would make a nice change from Sherman's and T-34's. 

[niall78]

10 hours ago, Blazing 88's said:

FYI...  Even better, have you tried the free open source MegaMek game which also has a Mercenary campaign tracking /generator MekHQ (in depth and vast)??  Don't let the name fool you, it is Battletech. 

You don't just get Mech's you get EVERYTHING to play around with (Original and user created maps, Mechs, Tanks, Vehicles, Infantry /Elementals, AeroTech, Jumpships, Starships, etc).  All the original Mech names are used (Warhammer, Phoenix Hawk, Shadow Hawk, the Clan stuff, etc).  The unit library is filled with all the centuries covered in Battletech, including the new stuff......

Very well done and continually updated.  MegaMek /MekHQ are worth your time to have a look at if you are a fan of the BATTLETECH games. 

Did I mention MegaMek and MekHQ are FREE!!!l.... runs on PC and Mac (some other OS as well).

Was a big MegaMek player. I helped run a few of the on-line campaign MegaMek servers for a good few years.

For those that like modern graphics Jordan Weisman  - Battletech creator - is releasing a new turn based tactical Battletech game in 2017. It blew through its Kickstarter of $1million by another $1.7 million. It'll be super if even half the promised content is live on release.

http://battletechgame.com/

 

[Ivanov]

8 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

. The Soviets were mostly using T-72 series tanks (T-72B obr. 1985 in particular) in the Guards divisions. There were T-80 variants in some of the Guards units, but the vast majority were T-72s. Reason being as I've heard is that the T-80 was primarily a prototype tank that never truly developed fully. They still made a decent number sure, but there were only 500 T-80Us, the best variant. Kind of a King Tiger of the 1980's. The non Guards divisions were mostly T-55 and T-62 variants with BMP-1 mounted motor rifles. Other NATO and WARSAW Pact nations would have a similar smattering of new and not so new hardware to play with. 

Ehm, the majority of the first line Soviet tanks deployed in Eastern Germany in the 80's were T-80's or T-64's. The second echelon forces were mostly equipped with T-64. At that time T-72 was primarily designed for export. Only in the 90's a decision was taken in Russia to make T-72 their main tank. The T-72, T-62 and T-55 were the backbone of Iraqi army during the Desert Storm, but not of the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany. The allied WP armies were much weaker in terms of armor - around 80% of their forces were T-55's and the rest T-72's. So the situation on the central front, would much different than on the deserts of Iraq, where the allies deployed their best equipped units, could wear down the enemy with a month long bombing campaign, had numerical superiority on the main axes of advance and were able to chose the place and time of the attack.

It seems that CM Fulda would attract a lot of attention. No surprise here - I'm guessing that a lot of people here were even deployed to Germany at that time. I guess that as always money is the main problem. So why not to organize a kickstarter? It works very well for the niche board games designers. I'd gladly contribute my hard earned Euros for that purpose, even knowing that we'd need to wait years for the final product. 

[Ithikial_AU]

I really hope BF don't do a modern Korea title. Not because it wouldn't be an awesome game/setting, but because of BF's ability to scarily predict where a conflict will be about five years out from the fact.

[Placebo]

9 minutes ago, Ithikial_AU said:

I really hope BF don't do a modern Korea title. Not because it wouldn't be an awesome game/setting, but because of BF's ability to scarily predict where a conflict will be about five years out from the fact.

I was just about to say the same, it could make for a really interesting theatre of war, but if BF decide to do it I does mean there is a realistic chance of it happening!!

Also as CMSF was the first incarnation of the current game engine, it would be good if it or a newer ISIS version of the game could be brought out.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Placebo

[Machor]

1 hour ago, Ivanov said:

Ehm, the majority of the first line Soviet tanks deployed in Eastern Germany in the 80's were T-80's or T-64's. The second echelon forces were mostly equipped with T-64. At that time T-72 was primarily designed for export. Only in the 90's a decision was taken in Russia to make T-72 their main tank.

In Avalon Hill's Tac Air from 1987, of the three Soviet divisions that were supposed to spearhead the advance through the Hof Gap, only one - a Guards tank division - was equipped with T-80s; the other two with T-72s. I would appreciate if this matter could be clarified.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

1 hour ago, Ivanov said:

Ehm, the majority of the first line Soviet tanks deployed in Eastern Germany in the 80's were T-80's or T-64's. The second echelon forces were mostly equipped with T-64. At that time T-72 was primarily designed for export. Only in the 90's a decision was taken in Russia to make T-72 their main tank. The T-72, T-62 and T-55 were the backbone of Iraqi army during the Desert Storm, but not of the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany. The allied WP armies were much weaker in terms of armor - around 80% of their forces were T-55's and the rest T-72's. So the situation on the central front, would much different than on the deserts of Iraq, where the allies deployed their best equipped units, could wear down the enemy with a month long bombing campaign, had numerical superiority on the main axes of advance and were able to chose the place and time of the attack.

It seems that CM Fulda would attract a lot of attention. No surprise here - I'm guessing that a lot of people here were even deployed to Germany at that time. I guess that as always money is the main problem. So why not to organize a kickstarter? It works very well for the niche board games designers. I'd gladly contribute my hard earned Euros for that purpose, even knowing that we'd need to wait years for the final product. 

Fast and hot because I'm leaving for work:

Many cold war era assessments vastly overstated how many modern Soviet tanks were available on hand.  The reality was in terms of top tier tanks (M1A1, Leo 2, Challenger vs T-80/72/64) the numbers were much closer to a 1:1 ratio vs the 10-12:1 many sources indicated.  

As far as Iraq, the big shock was not that NATO would devour the heart of the Soviet military easy, it was that a lot of stuff the Soviets still put combat value in was actually totally obsolete, and that NATO capabilities were more potent that had been counted on in many ways.  No one expected a Operation Poland Storm, but people who still had T-72M/62/55 fleets lost their minds.  

[Ivanov]

49 minutes ago, Machor said:

In Avalon Hill's Tac Air from 1987, of the three Soviet divisions that were supposed to spearhead the advance through the Hof Gap, only one - a Guards tank division - was equipped with T-80s; the other two with T-72s. I would appreciate if this matter could be clarified.

If anything the Soviet armor strength was underestimated by the Western  planners. 

Steven J. Zaloga, T-80 Standard Tank, Osprey publishing 2009:

sube

Apart from that, there were about 300 T-80U's. The rest of the tanks deployed in East Germany were T-64's Only one Soviet regiment of GSFG was still equipped with the T-62's.

I'm not entering a discussion about the supremacy of Soviet or Western armor. It's just the numbers.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Ivanov

[Scipio]

20 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

...

My worry is that they go to an entirely new engine and basically have to start from scratch. Hopefully that isn't quite the case. I would rather see new titles and upgrades to the CMx2 engine than a CMx3 engine that has to redo all of WWII and beyond. 

IIRC, Steve once wrote that the step from CMx1 to CMx2 has been the final engine rewrite. But that was already around the time when CMSF was released. Of course I have no idea if they changed their minds since, but what should do a CMx3 engine, that a CMx2v4, v5... can not do?

Only CMx2 thing I find not a smart design is that they release each new family with it's own core engine. From an outsiders view, it would be smarter to have

1) a core engine with all the shared content like the graphic engine, the editor and such, that can be independently updated.

2) for a main release the theatre specific stuff/graphics and unit data, which can be expanded with modules. 

That way BF could keep all titles updated at once, and it wouldn't be necessary to update a rising numbers of major releases one by one. Of course I don't know the reason behind this design decession, assuming that there is a good one.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Scipio