Jump to content

An Open Letter to Developing Team.


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

... it will be set against the original BfC 'Syria Scenario', not the real one, so I'd guess the same goes for the 'Ukraine Scenario' and frankly I think that's a damned good idea. 

I agree. Asides from being in good taste it may help put a hard upper limit on forum bickering. The fictional time-line also gives us more artistic licence; creating force-on-force scenarios alongside recreations of real world actions and COIN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Me?  :o

Dude my only real question would be whether it would last as long as the current scenario suggests before someone chucked a 'Bucket of Instant Sunshine' and everything went completely tits up.....We will definitely need more realistic modelling of burning buildings and some revamped ruin models if we are going to extend this one!  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was only directed at parties who think:

A) NATO would accept the membership of a country with a border dispute / oppresed ethic minority / low intensity war with a Nuclear  power. 

B ) Ukraine could fight above-mentioned power for 6 months into the winter (somehow).

C) If Ukrainian NATO membership was imminant, the other party wouldn't aim for a coup de grace to present NATO with fait accompli.

D) (miraculous) NATO involvement wouldn't lead to immediate de-escalation.

E) NATO is going to fight a mass-casualty war with Russia over a peripheral, divided country that the other power obviously considers to be a major national interest.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly.

It's telling that the packaged scenario we get from BFC ends regardless of the win branch with both sides horrified at their own losses, ready for detente and fairly non-radical map changes (or status quo ante bellum for the NATO win). No one is going to impale themselves when you're staring down a peer opponent.

NATO or Russia somehow finding the manpower or political will to continue fighting an attritonal conflict well into Winter is as farfetched a request as the people who asked why NATO wasn't invading Russia in the scenario :rolleyes:

 

Edited by Rinaldi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amen to that brother, Amen to that!  B)

Not to forget the joys of walking a linear mortar strike along occupied rooftops.....Then there's popping a tank round into a VBIED while it's still deep in ISIS territory, I always find that one raises a chortle too!  :D

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

1. Just to throw it out there, I can't name a good Korean scenario based on reality.  If you went pretty straight up crazy fiction, and warped geography it'd be fun, but there's not a lot of big mobility corridors, and just the NKPA isn't really in a position to be a conventional threat for very long.

2. I'd like CM: National Training Center.  Like the base game would be US ABCT/SBCT, the current OPFOR template (which is an interesting vehicle mix), in a desert enviroment(bonus points if you can have both "real" buildings and the classic connex training structures) but then modules could be added to throw in different terrain types, or different threat/friendly MTOEs.  If someone wanted to write a Syria scenario there'd basically be all the parts for it.  Same for Ukraine when the "Green"  comes out. 

There's just not a lot of likely Full Spectrum ground conflicts out there the US/major NATO powers are going to wander into.  There's a lot of contingency stuff that might still kick off, but I'm not sure you could hang a game on that as well.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

1. Just to throw it out there, I can't name a good Korean scenario based on reality.  If you went pretty straight up crazy fiction, and warped geography it'd be fun, but there's not a lot of big mobility corridors, and just the NKPA isn't really in a position to be a conventional threat for very long.

2. I'd like CM: National Training Center.  Like the base game would be US ABCT/SBCT, the current OPFOR template (which is an interesting vehicle mix), in a desert enviroment(bonus points if you can have both "real" buildings and the classic connex training structures) but then modules could be added to throw in different terrain types, or different threat/friendly MTOEs.  If someone wanted to write a Syria scenario there'd basically be all the parts for it.  Same for Ukraine when the "Green"  comes out. 

There's just not a lot of likely Full Spectrum ground conflicts out there the US/major NATO powers are going to wander into.  There's a lot of contingency stuff that might still kick off, but I'm not sure you could hang a game on that as well.  

Interesting idea, a sandbox in effect.  Problem for BF is they still need to develop all the ToEs and art .  Still it solves trying to come up with game story lines.  Pick a year and start creating the ToEs and art, do a couple different insurgent models and presto, the player can create whatever they want.  They haven't shown much interest in that, but it is a real stretch to come up with story lines now that involve heavy US units being positioned anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could the engine & the TOEs be separated to some extent, perhaps effectively making the current games into 'Official Campaign Settings' on a universal engine? 

This would allow the engine to be developed in a more universal-sandbox-like fashion that would maximise its flexibility (T-34s vs. T-72s etc.) and increase its appeal to scenario designers/modders & so forth (including some sort of custom TOE design tool would be useful).  A more comprehensive version of the editor could even be marketed as a separate product for those who prefer to design stuff.

At the same time BfC could still release new titles with 'Official TOEs & Scenarios' that plug straight into the existing engine framework which would appeal more to those who just want to play the games.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that was the original concept for "CM2" around the time CMSF started being talked about.  Then it got broken up into multiple games supported by modules.  I had said at the time and continue to believe the universal game engine approach with on exe framework would have been the better approach.  That instead of having to support a half dozen "nearly" similar exe games and the DRM around them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/7/2017 at 3:40 AM, akd said:

Like the 4th Guards Tank Division only (and then not all regiments, I think).  And that is T-80U mostly.  Some T-80UK and maybe a handful of T-80UE-1s.  T-80UM is just rumor at this point (although T-80Us have received some modernizations, e.g. laser illuminators).

Vitaly Kuzmin recently published a photo report on an open day for the division:

http://www.vitalykuzmin.net/Military/4th-Kantemirovskaya-Tank-Division-Open-Day-Part1

Nice post...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A modern 'present-day' CMSF Syria title would be a depressing mess. All the factions, the fuzzy borders, the siege warfare, the terrorist enclaves. Would we be allies with the Russians or opponents? Allies with Assad or opponents? Would we be assaulting villages or liberating them? CMSF force selection is flexible enough for you to create most scenarios you can think of already (excluding Russians). Back-in-the-day I did scenarios involving everything from militia-on-militia violence to Army vs Marines in a Texas shopping plaza. ;)

About CMBS, I doubt anyone this side of Langley VA is more up on the military goings-on in Ukraine than Steve. But he's sticking to his original combat theater concept. You may recall Steve strongly resisted turning CMSF into an 'Iraq occupation' title (in the middle of the war). In CMBS he's strongly resisting mirroring the current war in Ukraine for much the same reasons. Heck, Steve may be more likely to revisit Iraq than do a ripped-from-the-headlines Ukraine title. Because at least the Iraq occupation is behind us now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

Because at least the Iraq occupation is behind us now.

But will the US/Coalition/UN/whatever need to redeploy to keep the peace once the battle against ISIS is won?  It's a serious question and I don't think we know the answer just yet.  :unsure:

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2017 at 3:20 AM, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

One hopes that US and Russian forces never shoot at each other on a real battlefield. However, back in the 1980s in  similar Cold War situation moderns table top and board wargamers invariably gamed World War 3 situations in Germany and sometimes in other parts of the World. In the event the real world situation never developed.

Speaking of, I would love to see Battlefront release a NATO vs Warsaw Pact circa 1985 battlepack one day for CMBS.  The contemporary US/Russia/Ukraine setting in interesting, but I think a nostalgic "Cold War Gone Hot" West Germany module would sell like hotcakes and provide lots of ideas for expansion packs.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 8/6/2017 at 8:45 AM, MikeyD said:

A modern 'present-day' CMSF Syria title would be a depressing mess. All the factions, the fuzzy borders, the siege warfare, the terrorist enclaves. Would we be allies with the Russians or opponents? Allies with Assad or opponents? Would we be assaulting villages or liberating them? CMSF force selection is flexible enough for you to create most scenarios you can think of already (excluding Russians). Back-in-the-day I did scenarios involving everything from militia-on-militia violence to Army vs Marines in a Texas shopping plaza. ;)

About CMBS, I doubt anyone this side of Langley VA is more up on the military goings-on in Ukraine than Steve. But he's sticking to his original combat theater concept. You may recall Steve strongly resisted turning CMSF into an 'Iraq occupation' title (in the middle of the war). In CMBS he's strongly resisting mirroring the current war in Ukraine for much the same reasons. Heck, Steve may be more likely to revisit Iraq than do a ripped-from-the-headlines Ukraine title. Because at least the Iraq occupation is behind us now.

That#s why I would avoid another Middle East title for now Instead maybe look at Asia (Sino/Pakistan v India or a Second Korean War) Or expand the Black Sea game considerably. The latter is probably easiest but Asian scenarios would be completely new ground

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...