Even more ranting in praise of the Cold War for CMX2 :)

[kipanderson]

Hi,

This was set off by someone musing on the most likely setting for the first game with CMX2. Steve has posted that when CMX2 is officially announced the first two titles in the series will be made public. My guess is that both will be WWII. North West Europe plus one other; maybe Pacific; with Eastern Front to follow later in the series. Who knows, only employees of BFC could give us an answer and they probably will reasonably soon.

All of the above sounds great to me. The mix of the suppression model from CMBB, Absolute Spotting replaced by Relative Spotting, a new graphics engine plus one:one representation of men is enough to lead to near sleepless nights waiting for Christmas . Any high-intensity, combined arms setting with CMX2 will be more fun than any of us deserve. Certainly than I deserve.

However… it would be fun to move to a setting where there was a completely new set of toys to play with. If the first two titles with CMX2 do turnout to be WWII, that will be five games in a row set in WWII. i.e. with the same vintage of toys to play with. The same technology.

Now do not get me wrong, there is no sane, bigger fan of WWII as a setting for military history to study and wargames to play than I. As with many who frequent these forums I have hundreds of military history books, the great majority on WWII. In fact nine out of ten are WWII. When I last ranted on this subject I was reading David Glantz’s big item book on Leningrad, currently I am reading his outstanding new book on the Red Army 1941-1943. I would be very sorry if the majority of CMX2 games are not set in WWII. But none of the above means that “every” CM game should be set in WWII.

The technology, and the tactical implications and problems arising there from, are a big part of the appeal of CM/military history for me, and no doubt a number of others. (But… no… I am not claiming a “majority” of CM fans are as fascinated by the technology as I am… just quite a few.) Equally, it is high-intensity, combined arms, conventional war that interests me most. Given the above, an interest in the technology of war and in a high-intensity, combined arms war fighting environment, post-WWII is the way to go.

In a post-WWII game that is also high-intensity, combined arms warfare there is only one place to go, the big one, the one that never happened, NATO’s Central Front .

To get the most out of a game set other than in WWII one wants to move far enough away from WWII that even second line troops are using different toys from those used in WWII. If you go for a change, go for a real change, why set a post-WWII game in an era when WWII tanks were still widely used. Thus we are talking around 1970 onwards. The other huge advantage of the early ‘70s onwards is the wide spread availability of mature anti-tank, guided missiles, ATGMs. A “must have” feature or why bother to leave WWII behind.

There is the ’73 Arab-Israeli War but reading up on it again recently reminded me of just how small, and short a war it was. In the real world, of course, this is a very good thing. But from a CM point of view there really are a very small number of non-fictional battles to model. Just a small number, mostly lasting for one morning. Those who are accustomed to having all of the Eastern Front or NWE campaigns to choose from to model historical battles would be shocked by how thin the pickings are in the war of ’73.

This brings me back to NATO’s Central Front , the big one that never happened. I know some are put off by the fact that the Cold War never became “hot”. That it never happened. But high-intensity, combined arms war never has happened since WWII. Korea, Vietnam and all the contemporary wars were/are really infantry wars. There was armour in Korea and Vietnam but very much in a supporting role. Both of the Gulf Wars, as opposed to any following occupation, were indeed high-intensity, combined arms. But both were such a miss match that I have seen them described by the British military as “no-shows” on behalf of the Iraqis, or “live-fire” exercises. A good thing if you are British or American, but not a suitable or interesting setting for CM.

If post-WWII versions of CM are to be few and far between then it would be a waste not to take on the really big one, NATO’s Central Front 1970-1989 . In my view.

The mix of toys on both sides is truly fascinating, also very evenly balanced. Even in the second half of the ‘80s. The model of 120mm gunned M1 that entered service in 1985, using the ammunition available up to 1989, is far more evenly matched by the model of T80 that entered service the same year than many assume. I could real off example after example of the even and interesting match of Soviet technology to western technology all the way to the end of the Cold War. In the ’70s M60s, Chieftains, Leopard 1s matched off against T55s, T62s, T64s and T72s. In the ‘80s early model M1s, and still a lot of M60s, against T80s… and so on. With Milan, Tow, Sagger and Spandrel ATGMs snaking across the battlefield in the half light of a winters evening…

It would be a big job, but any group of individuals that pulled off CMBB to the stunning quality BFC did could do it…

Even if the Cold War is not a subject of the first two titles with CMX2… do not hold back in later titles .

All very good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[Michael Dorosh]

How many times are you planning to waste bandwidth by saying this?

[flamingknives]

Well, so far, over an order of magnitude less than your good self, Mr. Dorosh

As per usual, I'll pitch in with my vote for a Cold War CMX2.

After all, wargames originated as a theoretical tool for examining battles that had not yet taken place, so the lack of non-fictional battles ought not be a problem.

[junk2drive]

Why not give us all the kit of 1946-2005 and let us make the battles that interest us?

[kipanderson]

“How many times are you planning to waste bandwidth by saying this?”

Until it happens

All the best,

Kip.

[stikkypixie]

BFC already said that with the new engine, it would be much easier to do different theaters, era, etc...

[rleete]

Heh, heh. As soon as I saw the topic, and the fact that Mr. Burningtableware had replied, I knew it was Kip's post. Well put, and agreed.

Dorosh, If I were Kip, I would be very insulted. You, who have almost double the posts of the others combined. At least he is posting about the game, rather than your lame whining about your even more lame love life. If you have nothing to add or even an intelligent rebuttal, I suggest you learn that you do not need to post in each and every thread.

I, too, submit my vote for a cold war game. Fulda Gap has always been a favorite "what if" scenario. I would also like to point out that WWII is "ancient history" to many of todays younger gamers. A more recent offering might entice some new blood into the hobby, rather than be lurred away by yet another FPS.

[junk2drive]

The age group poll at Civil War: Bull Run suggest younger gamers are enjoying ancient history too.

FWIW

[kipanderson]

Hi,

In fact until recently I was accustomed to posting that CM was the only PC game I played because it was the only wargame that came up to the required standard. With the release of MadMinute’s Civil War Bull Run that changed. In my view Bull Run does for muzzle loaders what CMX1 does for WWII. So recently I have been able to enjoy some change from WWII.

In military history/wargames I would only rank the American Civil War as coming fourth in terms of my interests. Behind WWII, Cold War and the Napoleonic wars. Yet still it was hugely good fun to play with a simulation of a standard close to CMX1, yet other than WWII.

I would also be happy to see BFC produce an operational level wargame. Again, change is good. But my wish for an operational game still does not mean that the current CM, and Squad Leader, scale is anything other than my favourite. The current CM scale with squads as the manoeuvre units, over battlefields around the 2km by 2km size is ideal. In my view. But not every time I play a wargame.

Anyway… lobbying for your favourite settings for future games is very much one of things BFC forums are for, its in part why they have forums.

In the end all depends on what sort of wargames take the imagination of BFC. I cannot see the guys from BFC spending months working on games that would be of no interest to them in terms of the setting.

I am very optimistic that I will see a Cold War game one day. I know Charles is hugely into the technology, the toys. I also know Steve is a big fan of the T72. With luck both, and other members of BFC, will wish to see such tanks manoeuvre in their games.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. The up and coming major mod to convert CMAK to NWE will also be great. Rounding off CMX1 by fighting some Bulge and Normandy battles with the CMBB suppression model will be a fun way to put CMX1 to bed.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by rleete:

I would also like to point out that WWII is "ancient history" to many of todays younger gamers. A more recent offering might entice some new blood into the hobby, rather than be lurred away by yet another FPS.

The Cold War is ancient history to many of today's younger gamers.

I've never been that interested in Cold War era games (at the time, we called them "Modern" ) myself, mostly because the matchups were too theoretical. Compare the raw stats of German Panzers and French chars in 1940 without knowing how the battle turned out, and your prediction as to how the war will go will likely be way off. Related to this is the fact that one big reason I'm interested in war games is because I'm interested in the history...and you don't really get this with completely hypothetical situations.

I also don't think that CM's scale is quite right for CW - to reflect the improved C3, enhanced mobility, and the use of air, it seems like the smallest unit should be a platoon, if not a company.

So my preference for CMx2 would be (1) WWII; and (2) another historical period - preferably napoleonics, actually, but Civil War would be okay. Or ancients - that would be neat, too.

Having said that, I would at least try a CMx2 (Fulda), since given BFC's history, it is likely to be better than any other game out there anyway.

[flamingknives]

Aha! Time to defend the Cold war setting!

I've never been that interested in Cold War era games (at the time, we called them "Modern" ) myself, mostly because the matchups were too theoretical. Compare the raw stats of German Panzers and French chars in 1940 without knowing how the battle turned out, and your prediction as to how the war will go will likely be way off. Related to this is the fact that one big reason I'm interested in war games is because I'm interested in the history...and you don't really get this with completely hypothetical situations.

And yet, most CMX1 scenarios are entirely hypothetical. Most CM battles are 'way off' as they allow the Germans to take frankly ridiculous numbers of tanks, let alone uber-kitties and do not highlight the flaws of the average German tank as much as perhaps it should. Thus uber-kitties unrealistically dominate the battlefield. Same goes for early war Soviet heavies and would go for the French armour.

I also don't think that CM's scale is quite right for CW - to reflect the improved C3, enhanced mobility, and the use of air, it seems like the smallest unit should be a platoon, if not a company.

Actually, it would be more likely that the progression to more modern scenarios would mean that the current level of C3 would more accurately model the reality. For WWII, the level of C3 that you have is godlike and unrealistic.

I have no doubt that any possible Cold War kick-off has been extensively wargamed by the military. You learn about history in that way.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

There is another point I think needs making.

Once you get away from WWII, in fact once you get away from NWE and the Eastern Front, you are into settings for CM that have a far smaller following in their own right.

The great majority of wargamers, and military history nuts, are enthusiastic for quality simulations of the campaign in NWE and on the Eastern Front. When it comes to the Med many will have bought CMAK because it is a great wargame and they have such good experience of CMBO and CMBB, but will not have been huge fans of the Med as a setting. But bought the game anyway because they trust BFC.

The attitude towards a Med game will be repeated when BFC turn to the Pacific or the Cold War, or some pre-WWII game.

All fans of CM need to harden themselves to the fact that some titles will not be amongst their favourite settings for CM. If BFC are to do any games other than ones set in NWE, or on the Eastern Front, quite a few fans will be disappointed by the time period and theatre of operations. This is inevitable.

However, even accepting that I too will not be a fan of all the time periods and settings BFC go for, change is good . My personal preference would be three WWII games followed a Cold War game. If you enjoy mechanised, combined arms warfare I see no other way to go. But others will disagree.

Anyway… we must all harden ourselves to the prospect of the odd setting for CMX2 that would not have been our choice. But of course, I in common with most on this forum, will buy any wargame BFC produce.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. Yes…Fulda Gap is the one…

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Lord Peter:

I also don't think that CM's scale is quite right for CW - to reflect the improved C3, enhanced mobility, and the use of air, it seems like the smallest unit should be a platoon, if not a company.

I meant to comment on the mobility issue. I don't think that a Cold War unit is significantly more mobile than a WWII unit. Certainly a Cheiftain is actually slower than a WWII Cromwell, and I don't think that, for example, an M113 will keep up with an M3 halftrack too well. Compare a WWII British mechanised unit with a Cold War mechanised unit, the difference will be in protection and firepower rather than mobility (unless you count the amphibious vehicles that crom up here and there)

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Lord Peter:

I've never been that interested in Cold War era games (at the time, we called them "Modern" ) myself, mostly because the matchups were too theoretical. Compare the raw stats of German Panzers and French chars in 1940 without knowing how the battle turned out, and your prediction as to how the war will go will likely be way off. Related to this is the fact that one big reason I'm interested in war games is because I'm interested in the history...and you don't really get this with completely hypothetical situations.

I agree completely. I always viewed WARPAC/NATO games as a form of science fiction. Interesting—to an extent—but not really proving much of anything. A lot of game design is of necessity guesswork, but W/N games are nearly all guesswork. Thankfully, the scenarios involved were never put to the test.

If you desire mech warfare in the post-WW II era, I suggest doing the Arab/Israeli Wars. They span the years 1948-82 (so far), and involve a goodly percentage of the weapons systems commonly available at the time. If you wish, toss in the India/Pakistan Wars as well, to get a bit of different kit.

Michael

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

[snips, as otherwise this is liable to get ridiculous]]I agree completely. I always viewed WARPAC/NATO games as a form of science fiction. Interesting—to an extent—but not really proving much of anything. A lot of game design is of necessity guesswork, but W/N games are nearly all guesswork. Thankfully, the scenarios involved were never put to the test.

If you desire mech warfare in the post-WW II era, I suggest doing the Arab/Israeli Wars. They span the years 1948-82 (so far), and involve a goodly percentage of the weapons systems commonly available at the time. If you wish, toss in the India/Pakistan Wars as well, to get a bit of different kit.

Michael

So, what is going to be guesswork as opposed to a game based on real happenstance?

[Michael Emrys]

How the opposing weapons systems, organizations, etc., will interact to produce an outcome. In other words, all the important stuff.

Michael

[Andreas]

What happened Kip? Your local ran out of beer again? Someone pour that man a pint, and on the double!

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

How the opposing weapons systems, organizations, etc., will interact to produce an outcome. In other words, all the important stuff.

Michael

AFAIK, much of the data used to create CMX1 is based on government studies conducted away from the actual combat. These studies exist for later equipment and organisations, so a later CM could be based on those and be nearly as accurate a simulation as one of WWII.

Firepower is abstracted, and all small arms that would be used have been used, artillery effect has been studied and quantified for WWII and later ammunitions. Armour/anti-armour is also reasonably well known - up to a point.

Kip will disagree, but as you move into the 1980s, the figures do become decidedly fuzzy.

[flamingknives]

This deserves to be higher on the board.

Did I mention that a Cold War CMX2 would be great?

[rleete]

I think you should change your username to flamingspammer. Or Mr. Pickyspam.

[laze and blaze]

I play CM because I love how it perks my interest in WWII. It seems I go play CM after reading a WWII history book or vise versa. But I also really got a kick out of playing the game Mech Warrior. I always thought that sim lacked the strategy component necessary for replayability. I think it would be cool to have a detailed product like CM in a future war addition. This would make lots of economic sense for BFC too. There are plenty of younger people who would buy the game just because it was like Mech Warrior.

You could have UberMechs and whimpy Mechs just like CM. Armored vehicles, light vehicle, aircraft, and tough fortifications could all be in a game like that. Infantry would be nearly useless however. I would dearly miss the crunchies.

The forum for a game like that wouldn't have all the interesting historical tid bits about how the actual weapon systems fared. But what it would have is lots of posts from excited players wanting to tell their stories of how they managed to keep their Mechs alive.

I'm not advocating a future war additon for CM2 be the first or second product out, but it would be cool to have a different arena to test your skills in.

[Michael Emrys]

If we're gonna go for that sci-fi crap (like WARPAC/NATO for instance), I vote for a game based on Frank Herbert's Dune. Now that would rock. And the crunchies would still have a major role to play. (And oh those lovely sand worms!)

Michael

[kipanderson]

Hi,

As posted above there will always be quite a few who are not taken by a Cold War game. This will be true of all settings other than WWII NWE and Eastern Front.

In fact, in common with many, I view the Eastern Front as the mother of all wargame settings for a long list of reasons. One of which it that the German ground forces suffered 76% of their total casualties in WWII fighting the Soviet Union up to the end of March 45, i.e. excluding the round-up of the last six weeks. The entire NWE campaign accounted for just 14% of German ground forces casualties.

Anyway… in the hope that there will be other settings for CM the question is which settings.

If BFC went for Arab-Israeli Wars in no time there would be a demand to play with the same equipment in a first world v first world setting in other than desert terrain. The nearest this ever came to happening, so far, is NATO v Warsaw Pact. It would be far easier to mod from a NATO-Warsaw Pact game, to an Arab-Israeli game, than the other way round.

Steve has posted to the effect that not all will like the setting for all the games with CMX2 but if they dislike one release they will hopefully enjoy the next in line. He has also stated that the aim is to get through six plus games with the CMX2 engine.

I remain of the view that one of the games with CMX2 will be post-WWII mechanised warfare. BFC are “almost” inevitably, I clearly do not “know” this, going to want to have a go at modelling some form of more modern, mechanised warfare.

NATO Central Front seems the more likely choice to me, but I would not die of shock if an Arab-Israelis game got the honour of the post-WWII slot .

All the best,

Kip.

[David I]

I would not be adverse to a WWII 1939 - 1941 Game. Poland, Norway, France, Balkans, etc.

Of course I will want horses!

DavidI

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

[...] Steve has [...] also stated that the aim is to get through six plus games with the CMX2 engine.[...]

Really ? I don't recall this. I do remember some hints given about outsourcing the engine for eras that are of no interest for the BFC team per see, under what I suppose will be a close supervision from them, but I don't remember reading anything even remotely related to a global strategy for the engine. Any pointers?