Am I the only guy here who is sick of WW2?

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

Just read the Wikipedia entry on the Korean war.

Now if that would not make a spectacular background, I do not know ...

Best regards,

Thomm

I have always been a big Korean War fan and would love to see a CM:Korea, but I doubt that will happen, it is truly the "Forgotten War".

Although I still enjoy WW2, I have gained a new appreciation for modern war and weapons since CMSF came out and I hope CMSF will not be left to die on the sidelines after the move to WW2.

[Snake Raper]

These points are all reasons why I feel that WW2 is played out. There is virtually no mystery, the people who have been gaming that war for years can show you (to the man essentially) the OOB for every unit there was. Place one extra MG team and I am sure you will hear about it.

At least these days there is still some degree of mystery because it is new or hasn't happened yet. The unknown is more fun in my opinion. I do still enjoy a wide variety of war sims, but there is more in the world than WW2. Some very interesting options have been presented and I think they should be explored. As has been pointed out, we don't really need another WW2 game based on the shear volume of them (even if we have only gamed less than 10% of the battles).

This is where I go back to the modding community. I am sure that people are already making the WW2 mods for CM:SF, so if you can do that and make it accurate then why make a another game focussed on it? Then again, by that argument why not make any war then allow the community to transform it into any other war. I don't mod, so I really don't know how it works and if the game engine is conducive to that kind era change.

I guess for a mod community it really doesn't matter what era a game is made in, it matters more to people like me who just pull it out of the box and play. So for those like me, no more WW2 please do something new and exciting.

[Bigduke6]

Personally, I think Korea 1950-51 would be fantastic wargaming material with the new engine and the advances it has made with infantry simulation. Marines and Chosin, the Chinese intervention, the stand at Imjin, Pusan perimeter, house-to-house in the Korean capital, amphibious landings at Inchon, the list goes on and on. Chinese hordes vs. quad .50 halfracks. Almost all of it is infantry-intensive, there is pretty much every kind of terrain you could want save desert/arid.

On the scale CM works at, there is huge scope, and terrific variety; you are pitting Chinese/Korean fieldcraft and training and numbers, vs. the UN firepower buzzsaw. The scenario possibilities are pretty much endless, which you sure can't say about a pretend war between the US and Syria.

All of which is proof that an asymetric conflict, need not mean that one side totally dominates the other. In Korea, it was not at all clear who would win the tactical fight.

But you have to sell the game, and the Americans didn't win, so the American market knows little about the war. So my only hope is an add-on package maybe tied somehow to the heroics of Chesty Puller. *Sigh*

As to this:

But apart from that you can more or less count me among the "mental masturbators". Though the game would be wholly unattractive without the realistic and tactical elements, I mainly love to blow "stuff" up and shoot people.

I guess I wasn't quite clear. The people I was talking about largely are the SS fanboys and their ilk, who play a wargame in hopes of getting the fantasies about some mythical army or weapon validated, they get a vicarious thrill about seeing their object of love behave in an "ueber" fashion on the computer screen.

That has nothing to do with watching stuff blow up. That is a healthy instinct of most human males traced straight back to man's hard-wired fascination with fire. Except when it's my CM vehicles, I love seeing stuff explode on a computer screen.

[track]

Nice to see that I'm not entirely alone with my ideas about the next theatre.

The only Korean conflict computer game that I can recall is Mig Alley Ace and that's ancient history.

Korea or early Blizkrieg in the west and I would be a very happy gamer.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Snake Raper:

These points are all reasons why I feel that WW2 is played out. There is virtually no mystery, the people who have been gaming that war for years can show you (to the man essentially) the OOB for every unit there was. Place one extra MG team and I am sure you will hear about it.

At least these days there is still some degree of mystery because it is new or hasn't happened yet. The unknown is more fun in my opinion.

I'd have thought your own demonstration just now of your basic ignorance of how the war was fought proved just the opposite.

[wunwinglow]

Korea! That would be cool, as you could get air support from these guys!

Tim

[Stingray]

My favorite war games have always been on WW2.

As military modeler for more than 50 years, I had assembled almost all the major vehicles used during WW2. I gained a good knowledge of their strengths and weaknesses. Seeing them come alive and in action was always a thrill.

Maybe the real reason I enjoy WW2 wargames is because of my age.

[luderbamsen]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

As to this:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But apart from that you can more or less count me among the "mental masturbators". Though the game would be wholly unattractive without the realistic and tactical elements, I mainly love to blow "stuff" up and shoot people.

I guess I wasn't quite clear. The people I was talking about largely are the SS fanboys and their ilk, who play a wargame in hopes of getting the fantasies about some mythical army or weapon validated, they get a vicarious thrill about seeing their object of love behave in an "ueber" fashion on the computer screen.

That has nothing to do with watching stuff blow up. That is a healthy instinct of most human males traced straight back to man's hard-wired fascination with fire. Except when it's my CM vehicles, I love seeing stuff explode on a computer screen. </font>

[vincere]

Not really sick of WWII; but do prefer modern wargames. Personally find I have more empathy for the pixel troopers.

[Snake Raper]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I'd have thought your own demonstration just now of your basic ignorance of how the war was fought proved just the opposite.

Nope. I think I like my ignorance over reality, more fun.

[Guest]

Honestly, I find it more tactically viable for me to have *less* empathy for the pixel troops. I do more with them.

Snake Raper -- agreed, sometimes ignorance can be bliss. Imagine approaching a paper wargame of a battle you'd never heard of! You might not know the best way to win or the nineteen variations thereof, but you'll probably have some great fun. I'm totally in that boat.

Although I have to admit that I do enjoy reading a lot of military history... I suppose that's why I enjoy sci-fi games so much.

MD, I'm not sure it's "ignorance", in the classical sense of "whass Whirl War 2, man?" just a need for more info. I think a bibliography should accompany any accusations of ignorance, at least then we'd all learn a bit more. I personally lean towards German authors on WWII, which probably gives me SOME kind of bent, I'm not sure what.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Snake Raper:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I'd have thought your own demonstration just now of your basic ignorance of how the war was fought proved just the opposite.

Nope. I think I like my ignorance over reality, more fun. </font>

[Snake Raper]

Well, let us follow the chain in brief and see...(take with a grain of salt, no harm intended)

I say WW2 is an American market, you say East Front is the most popular (which does not contradict what I said).

I say Germans = good combined arms, you say they had crappy weapons and rarely saw a tank.

I say weapons are of similar function, you say they have crappy troops.

I say WW2 is played out, you say I am ignorant of how the war was fought.

I may not have the same level of knowledge as we have seen, but the Germans did take over a good chunk of land so they must have been at least marginally effective. Yes, I not a student WW2 history in Europe and now everyone knows it, damn.

Bottom line, WW2 is gamed to death. I stepped a few inches outside of the line and was beat down with a history lesson. I have learned that Germans had bad troops, bad weapons, invisible tanks, pitchforks and that I like eggs.

I am not upset or anything, knowledge is knowledge . But it does prove my personal unwritten point that knowing too much can sometimes take the fun out of it.

My vote returns to NATO vs Warsaw in a conflict that begins in 1988-89 (that way the Canadians will at least have C7s).

[Sgt Joch]

The distinction is between how interesting a war is in historical terms and it's potential market as a game. There was a thread where Steve stated that, purely in terms of sales potential, the only two interesting periods were:

-North-West Europe 1944-45; and

-modern warfare 2007+

While WW2 is interesting, I see no reason to always refight the same battles. (Is'nt the definition of insanity to keep repeating the same action while expecting a diffferent result? )

Hopefully, if BFC's idea about allowing authorized third party modules pans out, we may get a CM:Korea or a CM:Vietnam, which would be a welcome change.

[panzermartin]

How can you be sick of WW2? Have you played CMSF? You got sick of modern warfare really quickly. 90% of the scenarios are US only (woohooo!), its all about bringing down buildings with Tanks/Javelins/Arty/Airpower, armor battles last a second or two and you never know what really hit you. BFC has done a good job in simulating this, no doubt but although I needed a change from the classic WW2 themes myslef, I'm now desperate to fight again with shermans and panzers, where tactics

matter more than putting your godlike FO on the top of the highest building. Fighting with Syrians is much more interesting but unfortunately QBs are out of the question and since 90% of the people here are from US, we get the same building cleaning scenarios over and over again. And why the hell should I be interested in hunting down poor conscript syrians with high tech weaponry?

The only instance I can think of having a balanced modern fight is that of Arab-Israeli wars of 1973 for example. I always thought Vietnam is better for some great anti war movie but wargaming?? Now thats asymmetrical

Chess has been done to death too. You get to play with the same toys for ages now. But guess what? Its perfectly symmetrical. WW2 justs ticks all the boxes for a balanced and challegning TWO sided fight. You cant do that with any other historical setting without making the rules more asymmetrical and ultimately more complex. And making the rules more complex is just the start for a less enjoyable game.

[MarkEzra]

90% US only? No way to get balanced play? Allow me to point out that there are some 40 balanced scen (2P by QBG) at www.CMMODS.com that any Red players (like me!) would take heart in. As for scen: Chance Encounter (already up) Last Defense and Riesberg (coming just in time for Christmas!) All offer a TOUGH Red opponent.

I really think you shouldn't be too hard on scen designers who naturally have been excited to work with the REALLY high tech equipment Blue force offers. As we all learn to use the new editor tools game balance will improve. The fact remains, However, Modern War is asymmetric and "Winning" or "losing" in game terms need serious re-evaluation by scenario designers and player alike. If you lose half a Stryker Company but Kill 70% of the Uncom force and destroy ALL their pick up trucks are you actually a "Winner"? Is Holding a Victory point in a Modern setting actually as important as WW2? I think not. Casualties, morale, and civilian damage/casualties (my dream) should be a far more significant factor. And this is up to the scen designer to build and the players to embrace. It is the significant difference in WW2 Gaming and Modern.

And for the record: WW2 is my favorite period and Modern next in line...Civil War/Napoleonic or Star Wars I choose not to play... Just less interest those periods.

[DavidFields]

Just an opinion, from an old person (me):

ACW: It is a cultural thing. Growing up in the South, I was amazed when I moved North in the 80s and found they weren't still fighting the Civil War (War Between the States) there. At that point, Richmond Virginia airport still had old trenches, with cannon facing north. (As it happens...I think the South did finally "win" between 1980-2001).

So half the US is/was interested in the ACW, even/especially when unbalanced. The old Avalon Hill game Gettysburg is almost impossible to win as the South--but, wow, I spent enormous amounts of time trying. Too many of those, lower quality, Union troops--sound familiar? (In collage, I think my roommate watched "Gone with the Wind" so much because he hoped that, at least once, Sherman would be stopped, and Atlanta saved.)

As for WW2, my distinct impression with AH PanzerBlitz when it came out was (Cold War mentality in US) the Germans were "us"--smart, technologically more sophisticated--matched against an overwhelming horde. Playing the Russians (I don't remember calling them "Soviets") had the guilty pleasure of playing the monsters.

Yes, Hitler and the Nazi's were bad (And the Germans seem one of the few people who seem to accept their demonology) But there were those good, clean, up-standing front-line German fighters......

Again, MYTHOLOGY, I know. But I still think we can see residuals of that thinking today--at least in the US.

And, in the US, one almost had to be a student of history to realize that....there were British troops at D-Day? I swear, as many military books that I had in my house growing up, I had not heard of a Cromwell tank until I played CMBO.

In contrast, moving the Napoleonic era, who is the good/bad guy? Napoleon is...dashing. He is not portrayed as a Hitler. But, is he a good guy? And he is French. (I am a francophile now--but I am talking about decades ago)

Perceptions. I am talking about perceptions. I know better. But incorrect perceptions move a marked amount of money.

But, no. I am not tired of WW-2. And after what I here about 1.05 patch, I found myself for the first time getting excited about CM2-WW2.

[ December 19, 2007, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: Rankorian ]

[panzermartin]

Originally posted by MarkEzra:

90% US only? No way to get balanced play? Allow me to point out that there are some 40 balanced scen (2P by QBG) at www.CMMODS.com that any Red players (like me!) would take heart in. As for scen: Chance Encounter (already up) Last Defense and Riesberg (coming just in time for Christmas!) All offer a TOUGH Red opponent.

I really think you shouldn't be too hard on scen designers who naturally have been excited to work with the REALLY high tech equipment Blue force offers. As we all learn to use the new editor tools game balance will improve. The fact remains, However, Modern War is asymmetric and "Winning" or "losing" in game terms need serious re-evaluation by scenario designers and player alike. If you lose half a Stryker Company but Kill 70% of the Uncom force and destroy ALL their pick up trucks are you actually a "Winner"? Is Holding a Victory point in a Modern setting actually as important as WW2? I think not. Casualties, morale, and civilian damage/casualties (my dream) should be a far more significant factor. And this is up to the scen designer to build and the players to embrace. It is the significant difference in WW2 Gaming and Modern.

And for the record: WW2 is my favorite period and Modern next in line...Civil War/Napoleonic or Star Wars I choose not to play... Just less interest those periods.

I know how hard is to make a decent scenario, I have tried that myself. My last intention was to be hard on the precious scenario designers. Some of their work is downright brilliant. But the fact remains..a modern setting of this kind is more or less biased towards one side and what we get is one sided gameplay. Its inevitable anyway. You have one more mobile side attacking and the other obsolete and static side defending. Clearly its more interesting to attack against the AI, than defend. You can have some fantasy red on red or some syrians attacking under very strict and special conditions but this is where the setting fails. You just cant launch a quick and balanced fight like in a WW2 game. You have to wait for the scripted, very carefuly planned and balanced, asymmetrical scenario that might not be that balanced and interesting in the end anyway. The particular setting is why QBs are almost impossible to have a purchase system similar to the older CMs. Much harder to price an M1A2 vs various T72 versions compared to a sherman vs a PzIV. So, its hard for me to tell I'm fed up of WW2, when

you have an almost perfectly balanced set of opposing assets straight from the box. With this engine and some further fine tuning, CMx2WW2 will be miles ahead of CMSF in terms of gameplay imo.

PS. I was delighted when BFC announced the shift to the modern era. It was something that had to be done. It was cool to see those cult russian tanks in game, guided missiles, the Abrams etc. But ultimately gameplay and tactics is what matters the most. I'm now patiently waiting for its comeback with the WW2 release.

[ December 19, 2007, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: Ali-Baba ]

[MarkEzra]

Asymmetry of Modern war is a fact not in dispute. Whether one cares to play it or design scen to reflect it or prefers the more balanced action of last century is soley a matter of taste.

They need not be mutually exclusive. I don't think Dorosh or Jason will take my de-coder ring and toss me out of the WW2 club because I like Modern War's unique challenges, would they?...On second thought...forget all that...WW2 ROCKS...Modern SUCKS!!

[Echo Delta]

I think the ultimate wargame would be a combination of Combat Mission and Steel Panthers.

One series dealing with WW2 and one series dealing with modern conflicts where you could pick and choose the theater and units.

[track]

Modern War is asymmetric

In my mind this translates into: " Recent modern conflicts are not comparable to WWII". A comparable all out modern war would be EU vs. USA or Russia vs. EU or USA.

[MarkEzra]

Originally posted by track:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Modern War is asymmetric

In my mind this translates into: " Recent modern conflicts are not comparable to WWII". A comparable all out modern war would be EU vs. USA or Russia vs. EU or USA. </font>

[pad152]

I would like to see a 3D Tacops or 3D modern Steel Panthers, something SF is not and never will be, that said, I don't think Modern warfare works as well as WWII at the tactical level, how many times in SF have you seen your units fire and something goes boom before the player has seen what your units are even shooting at! The enemy is dead yet you didn't even see them, this doesn't make for good game play!

I think Battlefront has a big challenge as it moves back to WWII. First I think we've been so spoiled by the earlier CM games, what if Shock Force had been a WWII game released with only 1 or 2 US, Germany, Russian tanks? Everyone would still be screaming (including me! )

How many are willing to buy 4,5 or more expansion packs to get the same amount of content (unit wise) we got in just one of the CM1 games? Do we really want to go the John Tiller route Eastfront 42, Eastfront 43, Westfront 43, Eastfront 44, Westfront 44, etc, etc, etc?

[track]

More about post (and WWII) conflicts:

- None of the post WWII era conflicts have been fought with the same brutal mentality and determination as for example Barbarossa was. It could only end in the total destruction of the other nation - by any means available.

They managed to kill tens of millions without nuclear weapons. It is hard to comprehend the scale of fighting that took place on the Eastern front. Compared to it Pacific theatre was a small fart.

[ December 19, 2007, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: track ]

[Omenowl]

Somalia wasn't a fair fight and I am sure we can point out in several situations where American forces were in danger of being overrun.

I don't expect the massive clashes of WW2 to be in CMSF, but still it is not unreasonable to assume at some point Americans won't have the upperhand. They will lack air support or artillery and the rescue is 30 minutes away. This is fun to me playing blue. Will I survive till the end of the battle and at what cost? This tests my mettle.

My only complaint about CMSF setting is lack of terrain. I would love to see trees, snow, mist, sandstorms, fog, night, etc. I think this is the bigger pro for WW2 because you could fight anywhere.