C'Rogers

This is a very good idea and would make the back story not only much more reasonable but potentially more balanced (in a realism sense). My problem with the back story hasn't been that of military action in Syria, more so of the entire world jumping on. I can imagine Syria giving a hard fight to any major power, but if the whole world (including the surrounding Arab states as the intro suggests) helped out than it should be decimating. Now let's bring nukes or another WMD into the backstory as you suggest. After overthrowing the Assad regime it is found that the new government has/is building a nuke and fully intends to do as much damage as possible (if they really wanted to have the whole world jump on as they have suggested, than an attack could already have taken place). So you still have a vast power differential, but now time is much more of an issue. Even in a situation where all nations wanted to take a military action against Syria, if they only had a few days to set it up, how effective would it be. So if it is thought about this way the US has a far more challenging time. After the coop in Syria, and potentially a devastating terrorist attack, the UN quickly authorizes military action. The USA has the most troops in the region, but even they could probably only mobilize a small force on such short notice. With how long the USA took to mobilize troops for the Gulf wars, they probably could not get more than some special forces and maybe close by troops to combat that quickly (if someone knows more about mobilization times and what could be thrown against Syria given like a week I would love to hear it). So a few, fairly lightly armored and supported but highly trained, troops are sent in. One company (you) is given the task of cutting right through the middle. So while you have superior equipment/training, you would be going at a dangerous rushed pace with minimal back up. Of course that is in all likelihood that isn't how the BFC story will go, just how I think it could go. But personally if the game plays well, which I almost undoubtedly think it will, it could be the USA vs Sri Lanka and I would gladly get it. A good back story is a nice bonus though.

Just to add my my $.02 on the matter as a casual forum follower, I wasn't surprised at all by the fact that game wouldn't be set in WWII. I recall forum posts were BFC mentioned things like 'We never said the next game would be WWII. For example we have always wanted to do a modern setting'. On the other hand I wasn't really looking forward to a WWII release and was hoping it would be another setting. I suppose if you really wanted it to be WWII then you might not have taken such posts the same way I did.

Everyone in the Middle East isn't a diehard Muslim? Craziness I say! Next thing you will be trying to say is that there are common conflicts between religious groups or some such nonsense. Seriously though if BFC implements this what would all the game haters complain about? If they can't allege the game is a simple marketing ploy by BFC to sell games to the teen market to kill Muslims, what will they complain about?

So I make a new thread, a first time event I believe, after doing what I thought was a pretty extensive search of posts. Not long after posting I come across the thread which deals with my third question extensively. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=000124 And if I may be so bold, I would suggest the above thread be stickied. It was immensly helpful.

Now you have me thinking, if Battlefront did a MMMORPG, what would it be like?

Here are a few question that I can not find a specific answer to (sorry if I missed them searching the forums). 1)Will there be operations in the game? 2)In multilayer will Syria vs. Syria be playable? I know they said Blue vs. Blue, and it seems logical that there would thus be Red vs. Red, but would like confirmation to be certain. 3)Overall will it still be Combat Missions? Will it still be basically the same as the previous versions? New graphics, new setting, but still the same game? There has been a ton of discussion about whether Syria is or is not a good setting, I am far more concerned how will the new engine treat the game. -My general comments (everyone else gets to make theirs, I decided to sneak mine into a question thread). I am always astonished when I come to this forum (a frequent occurrence though I obviously don't post much) to see how people react to this game. To me Combat Mission is the best, most thought provoking multiplayer game I have ever come across. It is just an added bonus that it also happens to strive to be a realistic WWII scenario. To many others it is the opposite it seems (though thanks for the many wonderful WWII articles by the way). Personally I have very little opinion on the plot line. If by some unfathomable miracle I had been in charge of designing their modern game, I would of tried to realistically model as many modern armies as possible, and not really worrying about why they were fighting (which is why I really look forward to Blue vs. Blue). I plan to get CM:SF as soon as it is released. I look forward to games against my friends and online opponents very much and hope that it will, and expect it to, live up to the standard set by the series. I do hope though to see more explanation of how this game will play compared to the previous CMs.

How different are they from anti-tank teams currently under control? I know I have seen my share of anti-tank teams throw their lives away trying to reach their target (or be killed shortly after they hit their target). To answer your question, yes, suicide bombers should be included as troops carrying a large deal of explosives. Should they be called suicide bombers, definetly not. My opinion at least. Also to my understanding (which is somewhat limited in this field) suicide bombings are much more of a political message than an effective military tactic. Thus I doubt they should have much place in a game representing an a short battle.

I was reading over some earlier posts and noticed the discussion on medics. As we have been recenlty talking about resupply issues for Operations it gave me a thought. What if medics were incorporated into the resupply system (instead of getting things into battle, how are we getting guys out). Of course this assumes that there is a resupply system of some sort. The second question is, why bother? What effect do medics have on the game. I do not think that medics should have an effect on the battle, per se. Okay, maybe one of every hundred casulties the doc sees that it is a minor problem that looks much worse and does a quick fix and sends the guy back out. And maybe for a long term battle it has a slight effect on how fresh the unit's are and fighting quality (minor wounds are properly bandaged and such). However both of the above are just minor issues. I think there is a very important thing medics have done historically that could be simulated; and that is after the battle how many people go home to their famalies, and how many get buried. In many cases the promptness in which a casulty receives medical attention is almost as important to his chances for survival/better recovery as the quality of the service itself. Thus I think if a player succesfully managed medics he would see a lower KIA amount. Overall this would have an affect on the score. Dead soldiers are much worse than injured soldiers (even if both get sent home). Thus the medics result would not be seen until battle end. Of course this all requires there being a desire for medics in the game; one that I do not particularly have. However if it was to be done, and for those who support it, I hope you consider the above reasons for doing so.

I have often wondered if there was a way to make an operation continuous as you suggest. Perhaps when neither side has engaged in combat for a couple turns the time limit per turn increases. If the players are just moving their units around and their hasn't been combat for a long time then you could start issues orders for periods of an hour (if not more). Once serious combat starts to take place the turn timer shrinks down. Granted there are a whole lot of problems that could emerge from this (mainly calculating the difference between what a heavy engagement is) but a continuous battle; or at least a more continuous version of what currently exists would create a more realistic simulation of a commander's responsibility in battle.

Cross posted to its own topic by accident because I didn't see this thread. Many people on this forum have posted their ideas on what should/could be incorporated into CM2. Though I do not have many posts on this board I have read it for quite some time and greatly enjoy the game (otherwise known as best game ever). And like everyone I have quite a few ideas on what can be done to make the game better; and as some have done I am going to try and pitch one now. I am unsure how many people play Operations here; but I believe that it is a feature that has a lot of potential. I also know that a lot of people want a single player campaign; and that Battlefront is never going to give them one (unless I am hugely misinterpreting their stance). So what I suggest is a compromise between these two. Operations could be greatly expanded upon to allow a long (real-time days) game. This would allow players to have a long continuous game like a campaign, yet retaining the realism that makes Combat Mission so great. They would still happen over the same game span time as the current operations, with more intricate options to create a deeper depth of play. In addition I imagine it could make for some interesting multiplayer. So what needs to be done to expand Operations to the point that they take place of a campaign? Here are my suggestions of just some of many possibilities. First, quick battle Operations are needed. Sure Operations can be set up in the scenario editor, but allowing a quick battle option with similar settings to allow a fast construction would make operations much more playable. As well operations need to feel like they are more than just a series of linked battles, but actually one large combat. More concepts need to be put in about the ‘out of game concepts’ that have always been talked about as existing, but not incorporated into the game. Designate supply lines that players need to know about is one example (ie. If we are to keep the armor reinforcements coming in we need to hold that road as it is the only terrain they can come in safely on). As well have a higher focus on resupply issues. Has combat been close quarters, men low on grenades? Could the commander request additional grenades and SMGs perhaps instead of the standard reinforcements? The opponent brought heavy armor; do we need to request additional anti-tank weaponry? Though many parts of the reinforcement would be what had been prepared pre-battle, their should be dynamic elements depended what the commander finds his troops have engaged. I imagine there are many issues that could easily come up in addition to these examples. Of course Battlefront should keep the focus on the battles but there are a number of important tactical issues that a commander in an operation would be responsible for and could enhance the game play. Lastly the surrounding world of the battle should be defined a little better. Is your battle just a solitary engagement, or is it just one part of a massive series of engagements your side is engaging in? Are you starting off the battle or are your forces coming in as reinforcements to an area with already heavy battle? Though normally this might not affect the game; it could have important issues on what ammo and supplies are available, who could you count on for reinforcements, and what effects have the combat had on the terrain. In all a player should feel like he is part of a larger world and has control over some of the decisions being made in those periods in-between battle. These decisions should be quick and occur after a combat has finished/before one started; but also not just be limited to before the game choices. This I believe would expand on an interesting game type as well as satisfy some of the desires of those seeking a campaign. Of course it should not be on the scale of units increasing experience, as Battlefront has said many times, but there would be a bigger connection if you had battles were units fought, removed, and than brought back into the battle after being re-supplied than the current model. Just some thoughts. I have always been intrigued by the concept of the Operations in this game but always thought that it could be improved upon. In CM2 the core of what makes this game great should remain unchanged; but there are meta-game (at least currently) issues that it would be both realistic, tactically significant, and straight out enjoyable to incorporate into the game. I look forward to people’s thoughts and criticisms on my idea. P.S. Of course there are number of other things that wouldn’t disappoint me. Multiple players to simulate commanders having to work together. An option to set a quick battle to ‘realistic random’ so the game calculates the random factors based upon the actual conditions of the time and area. With a host of other ideas, better graphics and such, but my main focus is on the Operations.

Many people on this forum have posted their ideas on what should/could be incorporated into CM2. Though I do not have many posts on this board I have read it for quite some time and greatly enjoy the game (otherwise known as best game ever). And like everyone I have quite a few ideas on what can be done to make the game better; and as some have done I am going to try and pitch one now. I am unsure how many people play Operations here; but I believe that it is a feature that has a lot of potential. I also know that a lot of people want a single player campaign; and that Battlefront is never going to give them one (unless I am hugely misinterpreting their stance). So what I suggest is a compromise between these two. Operations could be greatly expanded upon to allow a long (real-time days) game. This would allow players to have a long continuous game like a campaign, yet retaining the realism that makes Combat Mission so great. They would still happen over the same game span time as the current operations, with more intricate options to create a deeper depth of play. In addition I imagine it could make for some interesting multiplayer. So what needs to be done to expand Operations to the point that they take place of a campaign? Here are my suggestions of just some of many possibilities. First, quick battle Operations are needed. Sure Operations can be set up in the scenario editor, but allowing a quick battle option with similar settings to allow a fast construction would make operations much more playable. As well operations need to feel like they are more than just a series of linked battles, but actually one large combat. More concepts need to be put in about the ‘out of game concepts’ that have always been talked about as existing, but not incorporated into the game. Designate supply lines that players need to know about is one example (ie. If we are to keep the armor reinforcements coming in we need to hold that road as it is the only terrain they can come in safely on). As well have a higher focus on resupply issues. Has combat been close quarters, men low on grenades? Could the commander request additional grenades and SMGs perhaps instead of the standard reinforcements? The opponent brought heavy armor; do we need to request additional anti-tank weaponry? Though many parts of the reinforcement would be what had been prepared pre-battle, their should be dynamic elements depended what the commander finds his troops have engaged. I imagine there are many issues that could easily come up in addition to these examples. Of course Battlefront should keep the focus on the battles but there are a number of important tactical issues that a commander in an operation would be responsible for and could enhance the game play. Lastly the surrounding world of the battle should be defined a little better. Is your battle just a solitary engagement, or is it just one part of a massive series of engagements your side is engaging in? Are you starting off the battle or are your forces coming in as reinforcements to an area with already heavy battle? Though normally this might not affect the game; it could have important issues on what ammo and supplies are available, who could you count on for reinforcements, and what effects have the combat had on the terrain. In all a player should feel like he is part of a larger world and has control over some of the decisions being made in those periods in-between battle. These decisions should be quick and occur after a combat has finished/before one started; but also not just be limited to before the game choices. This I believe would expand on an interesting game type as well as satisfy some of the desires of those seeking a campaign. Of course it should not be on the scale of units increasing experience, as Battlefront has said many times, but there would be a bigger connection if you had battles were units fought, removed, and than brought back into the battle after being re-supplied than the current model. Just some thoughts. I have always been intrigued by the concept of the Operations in this game but always thought that it could be improved upon. In CM2 the core of what makes this game great should remain unchanged; but there are meta-game (at least currently) issues that it would be both realistic, tactically significant, and straight out enjoyable to incorporate into the game. I look forward to people’s thoughts and criticisms on my idea. P.S. Of course there are number of other things that wouldn’t disappoint me. Multiple players to simulate commanders having to work together. An option to set a quick battle to ‘realistic random’ so the game calculates the random factors based upon the actual conditions of the time and area. With a host of other ideas, better graphics and such, but my main focus is on the Operations.