Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Warts 'n' all said:

I'll try to be as polite as possible. This is a post entitled "Afrika Korps vs Early War". If people want to hijack it that's up to them. 

If we are truly playing in a bar I’ll take either as long as you serve Guinness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Warts 'n' all said:

I'll try to be as polite as possible. This is a post entitled "Afrika Korps vs Early War". If people want to hijack it that's up to them. 

The vandal has a point.  ;)

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both would be interesting I am sure.  

From a marketing POV one would think Early War a harder sell as it would feature weapons/vehicles that the average wargame customer may not be familiar with, or be interested in.  When I go to conventions I can't recall ever seeing early WW2 being played.  WW1 (eugh) is more popular!  Will check out Consimworld in Phoenix next week and see what they are playing these days.

Based on the excitement for CMSF2, it baffles me why people wouldn't want to play WW2 in the same desert terrain.  Am suspecting a complete misunderstanding about what "desert" actually looks like.  Yes, there are boring featureless tracts.  But, much desert is fascinating terrain.  If you like CMSF, that's the same terrain we'd see in Afrika Korps scenarios.   Did anyone see "Patton" and the Kasserine battle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Erwin said:

Based on the excitement for CMSF2, it baffles me why people wouldn't want to play WW2 in the same desert terrain.  Am suspecting a complete misunderstanding about what "desert" actually looks like.  Yes, there are boring featureless tracts.  But, much desert is fascinating terrain.  If you like CMSF, that's the same terrain we'd see in Afrika Korps scenarios.   Did anyone see "Patton" and the Kasserine battle?

I don't play desert armor battles in CMSF (not much anyway)... I am more into urban counter insurgency fights.  Not too many of those in WW2 desert battles.  :D  But that is just me... and @Sgt.Squarehead

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't believe I forgot the Balkans--not to mention Eben Emael in Belgium. As for Mr. Hock, I have a soft spot in my heart for him, because he was an OR/OA type like moi. The game meticulously analyzed weapon performance, but the big oops is it failed to provide weapon use doctrine. Rather than providing an effective range with, say, 50% Ph when not under fire, he provided no guidance whatsoever on this vital matter. Consequently, players would open fire at max range with a sub 5% Ph and were massively annoyed that a) they weren't getting hits despite lots of dice rolls ,and b) if they managed to, they did precious little. The 88 clobbered the Matilda IIs at Halfaya Pass from ~1 km range, yet the 88, under the right conditions, could massacre armor from 5 km out. The Germans did just that in Russia against massed armor milling about at a bombed out bridge over a river. May've been on a raised embankment but unsure. A battery blew up tank after tank. That said, these almost certainly were T-26s and BT-7s, most of the Russian tank force then. Meanwhile, the Russians hadn't a clue they were being shelled and thought they were in a minefield. Germans were monitoring their tank nets!

The other gripe about Tobruk the game is flat ground. In reality, most of the Western Desert combat was waged on ground so flat that major attacks were mounted to, so help me, secure a towering 2 meter height, for artillery observation was all. Certainly, there were exceptions: escarpments, wadis and the like, but the principal terrain, as Dad used to say of the American Southwest desert, was "miles and miles of nothing but miles and miles." Highway engineers eventually learned to put wiggles in what used to be arrow straight highways because the endless straight roads at night were putting drivers to sleep and causing them to crash. Tobruk was intended to be a rigorous analysis of weapon and weapon system performance, and it would give the player quite an education on that score. I think part of the problem is that people who played CMAK could fight in far rougher terrain, such as Tunisia with its towering djebels and places like Kasserine Pass. Tobruk wasn't intended to show that at all, yet seems to be dissed because of that.

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sburke said:

I don't play desert armor battles in CMSF (not much anyway)... I am more into urban counter insurgency fights. 

But that IS a desert environment just like any other.  It has habitation and buildings is all.  Otehr wise one may as well say that CMBN and CMFB and CMRT and CMBS have all the same terrain.  (Actually they are similar.)  What is wonderful about CMSF is getting out into the desert environment even if it includes a town or village.   

If you like WW2 games and you like CMSF, you'd like playing a WW2 version of CMSF.

And CMFI has much desert-like terrain.  Folks seem to enjoy that.  If BF could be persuaded to throw in some early war vehicles and mod some uniforms,  you got Afrika Korps.

Edited by Erwin

Share this post


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

But that IS a desert environment just like any other.  It has habitation and buildings is all.  Otehr wise one may as well say that CMBN and CMFB and CMRT and CMBS have all the same terrain.  (Actually they are similar.)  What is wonderful about CMSF is getting out into the desert environment even if it includes a town or village.   

If you like WW2 games and you like CMSF, you'd like playing a WW2 version of CMSF.

I think you missed the more important piece - counter insurgency urban combat.  Urban combat in Sadr City or Ramadi isn't remotely like anything in the North Africa campaign.

I don't relish North Africa desert combat and I also am not much into CMSF armor combat.  In that sense you are right, if you like one you theoretically like the other.  I am not into either :P I think what it comes down to (and I think I mentioned this somewhere up above) I am much more into Infantry centric engagements. Not that N Africa didn't have some of that, but it isn't known for it.  If BF produces it I'd most certainly buy it, but it isn't at the top of my hit list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, sburke said:

For Heaven's sake no man, not from the bottle!  From the Tap!  Guinness is built not poured!

With John Martin's Guinness you pour it slow, then near the end, swirl the bottle, and draw a brown smiley with the sediment on top of the tan head. Whilst genever drinking Jorrocks eyes pop out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Erwin said:

And CMFI has much desert-like terrain.  Folks seem to enjoy that.  If BF could be persuaded to throw in some early war vehicles and mod some uniforms,  you got Afrika Korps.

 

6 hours ago, sburke said:

I think you missed the more important piece - counter insurgency urban combat.  

CMFI partisans + mods = early Algerian rebellion.  :)  We can dream .................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idk. In FI when it was just Sicily I hated the terrain. Idk why. Especially those damned vineyards. My god those were like the ultimate tank trap.

FI went from being my least fav to my fav( at the time ) with the module to Rome though.

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

×