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

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by CMplayer:

Since when was anyone still labouring under the delusion that the player in CM is supposed to be identified with the highest ranking local "combat leader"? It's been thoroughly demonstrated in this forum that the player takes on a variety of roles when issuing commands. In particular, in the case of vehicles, he is often issuing orders at the level of the vehicle commander and even the driver. Similarly the orders given to squads are often at the level of the squad leader, not anything coming from the company or battalion commander.

Since when? Since someone started climbing up the "modern communications tree".

If you read my quote in context, you will note that I hold that up as an example as to why the "what about communications and EW on the cold war battlefield"-argument doesnt really hold water.

[GreenAsJade]

Wow - lots of powerful arguing.

I just hope it won't be Cold War 'cause I don't find that very interesting! Hardly relate to it at all, in fact. Guess I haven't seen enough Cold War movies. Or played enough Cold Ware board games. I wonder why that is? Maybe they'd be as boring as the idea of Cold War CM?

GaJ.

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by GreenAsJade:

I just hope it won't be Cold War 'cause I don't find that very interesting! Hardly relate to it at all, in fact. Guess I haven't seen enough Cold War movies. Or played enough Cold Ware board games. I wonder why that is? Maybe they'd be as boring as the idea of Cold War CM?

TacOps isn't boring, in fact it can be fun as hell, and it's full of Fulda Gap type scenarios. So I don't see any reason to take for granted that a period CM would be boring.

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

If you read my quote in context, you will note that I hold that up as an example as to why the "what about communications and EW on the cold war battlefield"-argument doesnt really hold water.

Okay, good point then.

In any event the only way to marry squad level gaming with company or battalion sized battles without some degree of borg effect would be to go multiplayer. Higher level commanders would play one game, on a more abstracted map with FOW, issue orders to lower level commanders who would implement the orders on a more detailed map. This structure could be repeated on several levels.

[Kip Watson]

If the Cold War doesn't interst you, fine.

Some of us, having grown up confronted by the probability of war (which luckily never happened) are very curious about how it might have unfolded.

How does that make us only fit for insults?

Sheesh...

[dalem]

I respect the opinions of folks who dislike the concept of a Cold War CM game. In my opinion they are essentially correct about many aspects simply being science fiction - commo, weapon systems effects and effectiveness, the ability of the Sovs to even fight their units in the first place, etc.

But like a lot of other folks I kinda dig sci fi, and would have a hootin' good time seeing what a good game could do with a Pact-v-NATO battalion sized battle. The limitations in time of conflict (i.e. the generally accepted "2 weeks" until Sov offensive collapse or the entrance of Nukie McNukewille) could be offset by the sheer length of the hypothetical - 1945 - 1991 is a long time with a long list of TO&Es.

Maybe if it were to be called "Combat Mission: 'Maybe' to 'What If?'"

-dale

[MikeyD]

M60s vs T62s is, in my opinion, considerably less 'science fiction' than Sturmtigers vs IS-2s. Both sides of the Iron Curtain spent a good deal of time training for just such a war.

If CM wants to go in a purely historical direction they could do an OPFOR game! One side using thinly disguised Sheridans and M113s, and everybody shooting eye-safe lasers at eachother. Virtual referees scooting around the field. The tactical problems would be much the same as a 'science fiction' WWIII game with the benefit of being unimpeachably historical.

About nukes in the game, the problem is a blast would stop the game in its tracks for longer than a standard CM scenario takes. The official Russian offensive doctrine was indeed to drive their tanks forward through a path cleared by nukes, but I doubt the first BMP would be entering the hot zone within the first 15 minutes. A careful scenario designer could begin his scenario post-nuke in the same way CMBB scenarios sometimes start post-barrage.

[Soddball]

I agree that tanks, soldiers etc based on a Cold War premise sounds like fun. I find the idea that a Cold War game should model nukes as ridiculous.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by dalem:

The limitations in time of conflict (i.e. the generally accepted "2 weeks" until Sov offensive collapse

Seeing I don't know much about this subject, may I ask why that would be?

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Soddball:

I find the idea that a Cold War game should model nukes as ridiculous.

I want to be able to buy them in a QB.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

You ****ers just don't understand.

Nice.

What I am saying is that simulations tend to diverge from realistic outcomes unless there is some corrective supplied by the historical record. That is, it can say that a+b=c when that couldn't happen in reality, only we don't know that if there is no reality to serve as a check. And that is a bad thing because it gives a false impression that a+b=c when it does not. Can't you see that?

A simulation is only useful if it gives you an idea of what the reality is going to be, or at least what the bounds of possible outcomes are.

Michael

But in your argument, AIUI, the bounds of possible outcomes are limited by the historical happenstance.

A simulation depends on what gets input. You may need empirical data to validate it, but in the important features of the CM series, there isn't much missing that requires validation.

Unless you could name, say, two features that could be definitively validated from WWII data that could not be validated for WWIII, and would have a serious impact on the battlion-level simulation.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dalem:

The limitations in time of conflict (i.e. the generally accepted "2 weeks" until Sov offensive collapse

Seeing I don't know much about this subject, may I ask why that would be? </font>

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

[snips]

If CM wants to go in a purely historical direction they could do an OPFOR game! One side using thinly disguised Sheridans and M113s, and everybody shooting eye-safe lasers at eachother. Virtual referees scooting around the field. The tactical problems would be much the same as a 'science fiction' WWIII game with the benefit of being unimpeachably historical.

Also, victory points are decided not on how well you handled the tactical battle, but how well you debriefed at the exercise wash-up.

Come to think of it, just such a section could be included in an historical game -- years later, explain your stellar part in the battle in your memoirs.

Originally posted by MikeyD:

About nukes in the game, the problem is a blast would stop the game in its tracks for longer than a standard CM scenario takes.

Right. So my idea for "simulating" tactical nukes is that, instead of just having "Surrender" and "Ceasefire" buttons to end a losing game with, you can pick "Nuclear release" and melt the sky.

All the best,

John.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by dalem:

[snips]I should have been more specific. Once the NATO doctrine solidified into REFORGER (link here ) then it fell into a sort of race. The Sovs would jump off toward the West, the tripwire blocking forces try to grind them down, then eventually the main U.S. stuff arrives via REFORGER and kills the Sovs.

Unless the main U.S. stuff gets sunk in mid-Atlantic by Sov submarines, who will of course have sortied in big, fat surge numbers to zap the convoys.

Mind, I don't think anyone in NATO would have had ammo stockpiled to last more than a couple of weeks, and I bet the Sov loggies would have had an impossible time bringing adequate combat supply with them.

All the best,

John.

[dalem]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

Unless the main U.S. stuff gets sunk in mid-Atlantic by Sov submarines, who will of course have sortied in big, fat surge numbers to zap the convoys.

Mind, I don't think anyone in NATO would have had ammo stockpiled to last more than a couple of weeks, and I bet the Sov loggies would have had an impossible time bringing adequate combat supply with them.

All the best,

John.

I agree the successes of the convoys are paramount. But SOSUS and the fact that the Red Banner Fleet was mostly crap except possibly the Backfire regiments leads me to believe the majority of the convoys would have gotten through.

-dale

[Berlichtingen]

Pointless arguement. If CM: Tom Clancy comes out, I won't buy it

[dalem]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

Pointless arguement. If CM: Tom Clancy comes out, I won't buy it

You can just use Seanachai's copy when you move in together. Are you going to network your computers together?

-dale

[Abbott]

I wrote a set of table top rules way back when for (what was then) modern combat. A friend of mine used them to train his Cavalry Troop using CnC and GHQ micro-armor. The troop preformed well in Barstow. We used Hinds, Cobras and troop ships. M-48’s, M-60’s, T-62’s and BMP’s roamed the battlefield. A 6’ X 12” table. It is not difficult to do whatsoever. Battlefront just has to lay down the rules and we adhere to them. Exact accuracy be damned, make it plausible and fun.

On a side note, it would not bother me a bit if CMx2 started out right where the original did. I would play the Western Front until the Eastern Front version came out. I am not a big North Africa fan and hardly play CMAK (except Italy) and am enjoying a few Western Front mods. My point being I will buy BFC’s new game engine if it is set in the wars of Lower Afganbobia.

(great post there Dale, LOL!)

[GreenAsJade]

Originally posted by Kip Watson:

If the Cold War doesn't interst you, fine.

Some of us, having grown up confronted by the probability of war (which luckily never happened) are very curious about how it might have unfolded.

How does that make us only fit for insults?

Sheesh...

I'm not sure if it was me or someone else you were insulted by.

I wasn't meaning to insult anyone, I was just registering my disinterest in the period

GaJ.

[Hortlund]

Exactly, I would buy the game even if the first module was "CMX2 - Border clashes between the Ngiri tribe and the Ulumpi Government in the Upper Volta region 1958-1959".

I guess some people just like to whine, thats all.

[mrpwase]

This may be a bit revolutionary, but...I'm annoyed at BFC (or BTS?) for claiming that CM should be a simulation rather than a game. For example, smoke grenades with used in WWII (albeit not much), but they weren't included in the game because they might 'be used unrealistically'.

Why didn't they just release them and then have the option to disable them? Surely if one person doesn't want to use smoke grenades in a game, the players can come to an agreement...?

My point is that I don't care what historical setting CMx2 is set in - I just want to play a CM-style tactical wargame with tanks, and infantry, etc. Ideally, if CMx2 turns out to be moddable (properly moddable, not just texture editing), one could just create an entirely fictional situation and just play. Along the lines of Onion Wars.

But that's unlikely to happen anytime soon.

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by dalem:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

Pointless arguement. If CM: Tom Clancy comes out, I won't buy it

You can just use Seanachai's copy when you move in together. Are you going to network your computers together?

-dale </font>

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by dalem:

But like a lot of other folks I kinda dig sci fi...

-dale

No. Lots of people 'dig Sci-Fi'. You have an autographed picture of Marina Sertis in your freaking basement.

You're just not right, fella.

Anyone who's relying on Dalem's support in this discussion, is looking to a man who doesn't simply have all the original Star Trek episodes (with William Shatner, fer chrissake), on DVD, but a goddamn CD of the 'Original Star Trek Series Music'.

I mean, what kind of fecking junkie buys a CD of Star Trek music themes?

What's worse is, you can stand there, drunk, in his kitchen, and ask: What episode is this from? And he'll reel it off as though he was on the set.

That's just not right. There should be more to Human Existence than that.

Dalem is a deeply, deeply damaged human being; so lost in a fantasy world that any division between 'right' and 'wrong' is almost indistinguishable from his belief that 'Captain James T. Kirk' is the greatest leader of our time.

I will not condemn him, but I cannot, in all good conscience, ignore the fact that many Serial Killers boast a more normal profile of behaviour.

Do not hate him. But do not look to him for anything other than the gibberings of a poster who wants nothing more than 'to be respected by his peers', despite the fact that No One, literally No One who isn't a fecking halfwit, thinks that William Shatner is even a real actor.

Besides that, Dalem is a big big fecking freak. I'd kill him in a minute, if it wasn't for the entertainment value...

[Andreas]

Now that BFC are publishing Dropteam. Kip should be happy

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Andreas posted,

“Now that BFC are publishing Dropteam. Kip should be happy ”

Andreas has gone over to the Dark Side!!!

All the best,

Kip.