Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 12/3/2018 at 9:32 PM, MikeyD said:

Here's a particularly clever scene about knocking out a Maus.

 

So they finally made World of Tanks into a cartoon movie? ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition, there is probably a serious chance that CM:ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE or a SCI FI topic eg CM:ALIENS would be a big hit.  It's just that any type of fantasy product is probably not something that BF wants to get involved in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Erwin said:

In addition, there is probably a serious chance that CM:ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE or a SCI FI topic eg CM:ALIENS would be a big hit.  It's just that any type of fantasy product is probably not something that BF wants to get involved in.

I'd play CM with zombies I'll admit.  Would be neat if it was extra content like a zombie module for Black Sea, Final Blitzkrieg etc.  But yeah this will never happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, at the rate things have been going, the overall series title will be Combat Mission: John Kettler Still Can't Play It  Really do wish someone would locate my spare head, thaw it and send it to me! Have missed out on simply enormous amounts of gaming for want of the necessary higher order brain function. Haven't had one such CM capable day in months.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

BF seems to show little interest in a Deutsche Afrika Korps module since apparently CMAK didn't sell well.  Personally, I loved it and it's a major reason I found CMSF to be so much fun.  The desert, long ranges, open terrain, maneuver warfare... and the sun...

But, once upon a time, BF said  not to expect a CMSF2... so if enuff of us keep nagging...? 

 

 

Edited by Erwin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Erwin said:

BF seems to show little interest in a Deutsche Afrika Korps module since apparently CMAK didn't sell well.  Personally, I loved it and it's a major reason I found CMSF to be so much fun.  The desert, long ranges, open terrain, maneuver warfare... and the sun...

But, once upon a time, BF said  not to expect a CMSF2... so if enuff of us keep nagging...?

I wonder whether CMAK's reception is less about the topic and moree about actual game mechanics or other market factors.  Matrix Games recently released "Desert Warfare 1940-1942".  Graviteam has "Tank Warfare Tunisia 1943".  Panther Games has Command Ops 2 "The Cauldron".  If one could get a sense of the commercial success for those games, one would have a better idea about CMx3 "Combat Mission North Afrika" as a good idea or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Those other games are only competitors in the sense that they cover the same era.  It's like saying TacOps is like CMBS or CMSF.  Not really comparable.   Graviteam's game is closer, but that is a RTS.  

I think people buy for the experience more than just the era or topic.  I wouldn't buy any of those other games either (well maybe Graviteam's).  

I love the experience of CMSF cos of the desert and the large maps and maneuver warfare etc.  An Afrika Korps CM2 would be as terrific as CMSF but with WW2 era stuff.

Edited by Erwin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Future Conflict on Iranian soil involving

US + Israel

vs

Iran +  Russian or Chinese Advisors

and

various religious/insurgent/terrorist fighters supporting the different factions or even following their own goals.

 

Edited by MANoWAR.U51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MANoWAR.U51 said:

Future Conflict on Iranian soil involving

US + Israel

vs

Iran +  Russian Advisors

and

various religious/insurgent/terrorist fighters supporting the different factions or even following their own goals.

 

Oh No...it wouldn't be just Russian Advisors if it's U.S & Israel on Iranian Soil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yeah I know Israel would probably kept out of such an conflict by the Coalition/US (like they were in Desert Storm) in order not to destabilize the complete Middle Eastern. However in the end everything everything can happen when given the right reasons and backstory.

Edited by MANoWAR.U51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I am being pedantic, but how would anyone be a "terrorist" in that hypothetical conflict? Sorry, but **** that brown-people-hating term

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If CMSF sells well (both to those buying the updates and new customers) maybe we might see a French & Italian module.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Kozlice said:

I know I am being pedantic, but how would anyone be a "terrorist" in that hypothetical conflict? Sorry, but **** that brown-people-hating term

The definition of terrorism has been twisted beyond all recognition by the media in recent years.....Hitler (accurately) used the term "terrorist' to describe both Commandos & Resistance/Partisan forces. 

I would be more than happy to both play and write scenarios for any of these Unconventional Forces were they made available to me in the CM engine.....Small units blowing big units to pieces always makes me smile!  ;)

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Kozlice said:

I know I am being pedantic, but how would anyone be a "terrorist" in that hypothetical conflict? Sorry, but **** that brown-people-hating term

You´re not pedantic but just wrong.

The term "terrorist" has absolutely nothing to do if wether a conflict is hypothetical or not but is defined by the means of "terror" someone uses to reach his goals, like specifically targeting civilian population with bombings in order to inflict fear or dissent for example. Politically of course it is often used to (incorrectly) disgrace organizations or individuals which the other side would probably call freedom or resistance fighters.

Regarding the rest you´ve wrote there. I think you got something completely wrong here. Organizations like the German RAF or the Irish IRA are also commonly designated as terrorist groups, so what in the hell has this suddenly to do with the skin color? No offense, but next time spent at least some time contemplating before posting, for your own good. Also nobody with at least minimum cultural aspiration describes Middle Eastern ethnicity with "brown people".

Back to topic:

Yeah also hope that Combat Mission Shock Force 2 will see success (I am pretty optimistic that his indeed will happen) and see further expansions.

 

   

Edited by MANoWAR.U51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MANoWAR.U51 said:

Nobody with at least minimun cultural aspiration describes Middle Eastern ethnicity with "brown people".

I take no offense in being described as brown, same way my white friends do not take offense in being described white. Some hella irrelevant arrogance there.

By your own definition, terrorist is someone waging war by terror, as an example targeting civilians, a rather political concept, somewhat out of CM games scope. Maybe you can re-read what you initially wrote and see how you are implying that middle eastern partisans = terrorists, which is simply wrong.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I opine that in war zones "terrorists" equal "illegal combatants" and everywhere else they are pretty much criminally violent anti-establishment extremists.  I agree that they lie outside the scope of CM games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Kozlice said:

I take no offense in being described as brown, same way my white friends do not take offense in being described white. Some hella irrelevant arrogance there.

By your own definition, terrorist is someone waging war by terror, as an example targeting civilians, a rather political concept, somewhat out of CM games scope. Maybe you can re-read what you initially wrote and see how you are implying that middle eastern partisans = terrorists, which is simply wrong.

 

 

It is not my definition of terrorism but one of the most common technical one you would find in a lexicon.

Also I give a single damn about what you and your friends do. Using a odd racial attribution like this in order to classify if the term "terrorist" applies or not is just completely off. Pointing that out has nothing to do with arrogance.

Also why should terrorist organizations be beyond CM´s scope? CM does not have to model the terrorism incident per se but isn´t it possible they could see assmyetrical conflict with regular forces? You basically already see an abstraction of that in Combat Mission Shock Force. The Uncons potrayed there basically can be everyone from displaced regulars, insurgents, to members of said organizations.

Also you are the one that should carefully reread what people are posting here. Point me out where I say  "all partisans = terrorists". Do you see the term "insurgent" there or did you conveniently skip that?

I don´t know what the hell triggered you to come up with this odd stuff.

I´m off for a round CM.

 

Edited by MANoWAR.U51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
terrorist
ˈtɛrərɪst/  
noun
noun: terrorist; plural noun: terrorists
  1. 1.
    a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
    "four commercial aircraft were hijacked by terrorists"
    synonyms: bomber, arsonist, incendiary; More
    gunman, assassin, desperado;
    hijacker;
    revolutionary, radical, guerrilla, urban guerrilla, subversive, anarchist, freedom fighter;
    rareinsurrectionist, insurrectionary
adjective
adjective: terrorist
  1. 1.
    unlawfully using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
    "a terrorist organization"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This is what you´ll find in most of the academic definitions, especially the civilian part.

However as it seems that the terminology inflicts a rise in blood pressure in some individuals which then proceed to see words that aren´t there or neglect words that are there, I hereby declare an updated suggestion 2.0 in order to return to topic:

Future conflict on Iranian soil an surroundings involving:

US and allies

vs

Iran and allies

vs/with

Unconventional forces engaging in symmetrical and asymmetrical warfare for the different factions or even following their own goals.

Who could the Allies of US and Iran? Bring in a Chinese PLA expeditionary force perhaps? Other ideas? Other soil?

Edited by MANoWAR.U51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

That is almost exactly what I'm planning to do with CM:SF II.  ;)

My story will be set in the backdrop to the war, Iran's first line of defence is Shia militias in Iraq & Syria, to counter these the US & allies arm & encourage the local Sunnis.....I'd imagine you can already guess where this is leading. 

My hope is to use @LongLeftFlank's Ramadi map and the superior AI capabilities of the new engine to make some low level (no tank battalions to be seen) MOUT madness.....Big(ish) maps (I will slice & dice the original), small(ish) units, lots of sneaking around & lots of big explosions.

PS - My assumption is that the US will be going it alone in Iran, after no proof of Syrian regime involvement in the 'Terrorist Attacks' that provoked the war was ever found (Hey don't blame me, I'm just following the historical precedent!  :P ), NATO units will be restricted to peacekeeping duties in Iraq & Syria (which will be fun for them).  :D

 

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

That is almost exactly what I'm planning to do with CM:SF II.  ;)

My story will be set in the backdrop to the war, Iran's first line of defence is Shia militias in Iraq & Syria, to counter these the US & allies arm & encourage the local Sunnis.....I'd imagine you can already guess where this is leading. 

My hope is to use @LongLeftFlank's Ramadi map and the superior AI capabilities of the new engine to make some low level (no tank battalions to be seen) MOUT madness.....Big(ish) maps (I will slice & dice the original), small(ish) units, lots of sneaking around & lots of big explosions.

PS - My assumption is that the US will be going it alone in Iran, after no proof of Syrian regime involvement in the 'Terrorist Attacks' that provoked the war was ever found (Hey don't blame me, I'm just following the historical precedent!  :P ), NATO units will be restricted to peacekeeping duties in Iraq & Syria (which will be fun for them).  :D

 

Sounds like an outstanding idea, seeing a campaign like this would be awesome.

I also noticed the detail you put into the briefing on that Golden Division scenario. While I understand that it is somewhat dangerous waters for an official game release to include real world factions like religious faiths (Sunnis, Shiites) as a custom scenario designer you have much more freedom to model such important aspects. Especially in such an environment it isn´t just about knowing and defeating your enemy anymore but about knowing the country and the population there. Some hard lessons were learned in the not very successful "hearts and minds" campaigns seen in AFG and Iraq and some may even argue that it contributed to the partial failure of these operations. Keep this good work up.

Edited by MANoWAR.U51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, MANoWAR.U51 said:

Some hard lessons were learned in the not very successful "hearts and minds" campaigns seen in AFG and Iraq and some may even argue that it contributed to the partial failure of these operations.

Absolutely.....I don't know if you've read through all of @LongLeftFlank's Ramadi thread, but there are some superb discussions and articles there that make this abundantly clear.

I'd go so far as to say the campaign in Afghanistan has been an almost total failure in this regard, several recent articles make it clear that the US administration is largely living in a fantasy land with their discussions of ceasefires and participation in the democratic process.....Afghans have never had a total ceasefire in their entire history and the concept of democracy is utterly alien to them, they are a nation of warlords FFS!  :rolleyes:

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody take a deep breath.  

The definition of terrorist is varaiable and largely dependent on which side of the conflict you are on. Some times it is clear cut regardless. Unconventional Warfare by its very nature is a fight for control/support of the local populace. In Vietnam the US regarded the Viet Minh as terrorists and frequently they were right. However at the same time US actions and those of the ARVN were frequently clearly terroristic. The same can be true of almost any conflict of that type. Algeria, Zimbabwe/Rhodesia, Israel/Palestine etc etc. that is a debate that does not belong here. 

Uncon forces is a much safer definition. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×