hellfish

Isn't that what scenario briefings are for? I mean seriously, how many people know the background of Operation Mars? Or the Commonwealth fighting in Ethiopia? How should the background of a scenario or operation I make in Korea 2006 be any different? And nobody's trying to compare anything with WWII (except you), but we're getting tired of WWII and would like a change of scenery for one or two games. Then we can go back to the Bulge or Normandy.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was trying to say, flamingknives.

My thing is that I know BFC will make an awesome game with all kinds of neat features and pretty graphics. They're probably gonna include stuff most people here haven't even thought of. Because of the fact that I trust the devs, I don't worry about features. Because of the fact that WWII is really getting overplayed in my little gaming world, the setting of their future games does matter to me. I'm much less inclined at this point to put down money for another Battle of the Bulge or Normandy game than I am to put down money on something post-WWII. Of course I'll buy whatever they put out, but I'll be happiest if they at least try something that doesn't involve the Wehrmacht for once.

I would be too, Juan.

So many other games have filled in the "classified" blanks. Why can't CM? Besides that, US troops have been engaged in combat for over three years now - we've got a very good idea of how'll they'll fight. We've got a good idea of how the hardware performs in combat (yes, even low intensity combat is relevant). Edit: And not only that, but several games that have filled in classified blanks have done so enough to please the most interested customers of all - the US Army and USMC. TacOps did it. VBS1 did it. They're info and estimations may not be 100% perfect, but even if they're only 95% perfect, they're still good enough for the troopers to train with. It'll be a cold day in hell before someone makes a game that completely satisfies grogs. Sometimes "good enough" is really good enough. The T-80 isn't exactly a new piece of hardware either, I'm sure there's lots of information about it out there, though I don't know that one ever saw combat. Maybe Chechnya? And what does doctrine have anything to do with the CM scale? The Soviet idea of operational maneuver groups and the US idea of the Airland Battle somehow will affect the battles at a company level so you can point to a mission (e.g. a US infantry company vs. a Soviet tank platoon) and say "That could never happen because doctrine X and doctrine Y tell us that such a battle could never happen"? Come on... I think you're making excuses. [ July 19, 2005, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: fytinghellfish ]

This topic is nearly 9 months old... :confused:

Sorry about posting so much (I'm gonna turn into Dorosh someday)but I had to expound on this - I remember one argument tossed around against a modern day CMx2 game was that the battles would all be hypothetical. Just last night I played a few quick battles in CMBB and CMAK and it dawned on me that at least half of the missions that shipped with those games were labelled semi-historical or fictional - probably several more were ahistorical as well, but just not labelled. Fact of the matter is that even if the US and NKPA haven't fought each other for years, the potential for them to fight a good battle within a CM game engine is very much there. The fact that the battles would be fictional is irrelevant, given the past history of the CM scenarios. And as for those of you who say that fighting in M-1A2 tanks wouldn't be fun because they totally outclass anything else, I would argue that fighting in Panthers against M5 light tanks isn't fun either, but ADMIT IT, WE HAVE ALL DONE IT. The ultimate responsibility of a fun game lies with the scenario designers, not the location or forces available.

Another reason I'd like to advocate a modern day module is that with the proliferation of detailed maps and satellite imagery, it's very possible to make detailed battlefields based on real world locations. With the proper models and textures, it would be very easy to make nearly any Korean village to scale and nearly perfect fidelity. If there was a Seoul terrain pack with specific landmarks and some generic buildings released to support a modern Korea game, then you could literally model areas downtown Seoul and have it look almost exactly like a photograph of the same neighborhood. I'd pay an arm and a leg for that, and it'd be much easier (IMHO) to make a mission and a corresponding map if I had a map and satellite images in front of me that were taken 1-5 years ago, as opposed to hunting through archives to find how a town in northern France was laid out in 1944.

Aw... someone does pay attention to me around here. :cool:

Korea ('50-51 or modern), any Arab-Israeli war, Suez Crisis, South African/Rhodesian bush wars, any region where the Cold War could have hypothetically gone hot (Fulda Gap, Bavaria, Norway, etc.)

I've got a case of it sitting here for you if you'll tell me something about CMx2 I don't already know.

I've got a case of it sitting here for you if you'll tell me something about CMx2 I don't already know.

I don't recommend them. I bought a couple dozen from a friend a few years ago and they have a bad habit of turrets popping off when I try to flex my muscle to my next door neighbors. Don't buy anything from a guy who drinks the fuel he sells you.

I hate not knowing things. I consume rumor and innuendo to survive, it seems. Kinda like drinking Bud Light instead of Boddingtons to survive. Damn my inferiority. :mad: :mad:

I hate not knowing things. I consume rumor and innuendo to survive, it seems. Kinda like drinking Bud Light instead of Boddingtons to survive. Damn my inferiority. :mad: :mad:

I bet KwazyDog is plugging away on the models and textures now, they're probably just not implemented in-game yet. No biggie.

I bet KwazyDog is plugging away on the models and textures now, they're probably just not implemented in-game yet. No biggie.

Rune knows something. Quick! Get the duct tape, some really long, thin, strong paper and lemon juice! That was an awesome scenario. I must have played it a hundred times, easy.

Fab. Thanks.

Fab. Thanks.

Quick hypothetical question for Steve: Would the CMX2 engine be able to handle Grand Tactical battles? For example, instead of handling individual tanks and squads, you'd maneuver platoons as single units. Basically something like at 1/10th the scale of the game now, where a terrain cell would be 100m instead of 10m. Just asking.

Quick hypothetical question for Steve: Would the CMX2 engine be able to handle Grand Tactical battles? For example, instead of handling individual tanks and squads, you'd maneuver platoons as single units. Basically something like at 1/10th the scale of the game now, where a terrain cell would be 100m instead of 10m. Just asking.

No offense, but that's kind of retarded. What does the release of the demo after release say? It says that you're getting a complete demo. Sheesh. So you might not be the first kid on your block with T-72... suck it up and drive on.

No personal recommendations? Nuts.

Any scenarios you can recommend for CMAK (preferrably) that are based on/similar to the ones in your book?