Centurian52

Well yes I suppose that would be the easy way out.

I was just filling out my Combat Mission Career Record Tracker spreadsheet with the results of my latest battle when I hit a bit of a snag. You have the option of identifying the battle type as Allied Assault, Allied Attack, Allied Probe, Meeting Engagement, Axis Probe, Axis Attack, or Axis Assault. The problem is that the scenario I've just finished, TWC Right Hook at Valguarnera, opens with an ambush. The document doesn't have an option for ambush. So I started scratching my head as to whether an ambush is closer to attack or defense. In one sense the ambushing side resembles a defender, in that they are in a static position, and the ambushed side resembles an attacker, in that they are moving. But then I thought, no, that's the wrong way to think about it. Who's attacking and who's defending isn't about who's static and who's moving. After all, it is possible to conduct a mobile defense, and it is possible to attack with fire alone. If I were to ask Clausewitz he would say that the attacker is the one conducting the weaker form of warfare with the positive objective, while the defender is the one conducting the stronger form of warfare with the negative objective. Here we hit another snag though. The ambusher is clearly conducting the stronger form of warfare (springing an ambush), but they have a positive objective (destroy the enemy). Meanwhile, the ambushee is clearly conducting the weaker form of warfare (getting caught in an ambush), but they have a negative objective (don't get destroyed). One solution might be to say that, while the defense is typically stronger than the attack, Clausewitz was wrong to roll the relative strength and weakness of attack and defense into his very definitions of attack and defense. Perhaps the important part of his definition is the dynamic between positive and negative objectives. In that case the ambushing side, being the side with the positive objective, is clearly the attacker. A better solution might be to say that an ambush is its own thing, neither attack nor defense. But that solution isn't available on that dropdown menu in the Combat Mission Career Record Tracker. So what do you think?

No Challengers in the upcoming 1976-1982 setting. So that's one thing that would be added with a timeline extension to 85'. Wikipedia says the Stillbrew armor upgrade for the Chieftain started being fitted in 86'. So no Stillbrew armor on Chieftains in either the current setting or potential future extension to 85', but remaining Chieftains in 89' should have Stillbrew. Even if it hasn't gotten the armor upgrade yet in a 1985 extension, the Chieftain will still see a significant boost in firepower with the introduction of the L23 APFSDS. And, infamously, in 1985 British infantry will start getting the L85A1 rifle. Supposedly most later L85A1s weren't as bad as the ones from the initial Enfield production run. But still, I wonder if Battlefront might have to break from their usual practice of not modeling misfires in order to accurately represent it.

Only someone on the development team would know for sure what the current plans are. And I expect they might be a bit hesitant to share those plans, lest they be interpreted as promises (reality has a way of interfering with plans). But earlier in this thread I suggested that they might try to alternate which direction the timeline extensions go in which each new module. The first module is extending the timeline back a bit, so it would make all the sense in the world for the next module to extend the timeline forward a bit, perhaps up to 1985. Certainly when CMCW was first released I had a strong interest in seeing the timeline extended all the way out to 1989. Yes, that would start to look a lot like CMSF. But I think part of that is because a lot of scenarios, particularly a lot of community made scenarios, in CMSF were trying to approximate late Cold War combat in the only title at the time that had roughly the right equipment. But they didn't quite have the right assets to do it right. There are no T-80Us in CMSF, and even the M1A1 Abrams are slightly later models (generally M1A1SAs IIRC, though I'm not at my home computer where I could check at the moment) with later ammunition. By 2008 the ammunition that the Abrams is firing can defeat Kontakt-5 ERA, while I believe the ammunition it was firing in 1989 could not. So seeing proper late 80s M1A1s against T-80Us would be interesting. The Abrams will still have a huge advantage, since it has a thermal sight while the T-80U doesn't. But they both have excellent fire-control systems, and they are both unable to penetrate each other's frontal armor (except for weak points). So NATO vs the Soviet Union in 1989 should still be less one-sided than NATO vs Syria in 2008, even when you stack the Syrian side with T-90s. But that's one of the things I'd be curious to find out. All that said, I have to admit that the biggest reason I wanted 1989 is because that's when World in Conflict is set. Basically I wanted to play World in Conflict, but realistic. But now that the game has been out for a few years, I think I've been won over to the 1979-1982 setting that they went with. It might actually be the more interesting time period overall. The modern titles, CMSF2 and CMBS*, provide plenty of opportunities for 3rd gen MBTs to shine. The earlier 1979 timeframe gives the 2nd gen MBTs a real opportunity to take the spotlight for a change. And it gives you a chance to really fear and respect the mighty beasts that T-64s and T-72s once were, before you go on to slaughter them in CMSF2. Also I'm pretty sure the 1979 Soviet economy would have been much more capable of sustaining a major war effort than the 1989 Soviet economy. So the earlier setting probably makes more narrative sense anyway. I'm still curious to see 1989. Seeing the T-80U vs M1A1 and Leo2A4 (firing 80s ammunition) is still on the bucket list. But it's not as urgent for me as it used to be. *While CMCW is often counted among the modern titles, I think it is rightfully categorized in its own era, distinct from either the modern or WW2 titles.

Graviteam has amazing physical detail. But I didn't see much effort put into things like accurate TO&E. And options for setting up complicated scenarios seemed very limited. I was in awe of the physics, but they seem to have forgotten everything else.

I'd say the biggest improvements in CM2 are infantry combat and spotting. Vehicle combat in CM1 actually isn't noticeably any worse than CM2, apart from being less visually gratifying. So it's definitely a good way to scratch any early war tank itch you might have if you can't wait for CM2 to move back to the early war. But there is no denying that infantry combat is much more abstracted.

I have played Graviteam Tactics, Armored Brigade, War in the East, and Command: Modern Operations. Graviteam Tactics and Armored Brigade model tactical ground warfare with far less detail than Combat Mission. War in the East and Command: Modern Operations do indeed offer impressive levels of detail. But War in the East models ground warfare at the operational/strategic layer, not the tactical layer. And Command: Modern Operations is more about naval and air warfare than ground warfare. At present, nothing does tactical ground warfare like Combat Mission. Never is a very long time, and I have no doubt that someday someone will produce something that measures up to Combat Mission. But I'm not expecting that day to come anytime soon.

Some people argue that. And it was certainly a very inefficient use of resources. But as I always point out to such people, the Germans were already fighting a lost cause by then anyway. So it wouldn't have made any difference. There's some argument to be had about the exact moment the Germans lost the war. Some people say it was when Fall Blau fell apart. Some say it was the moment they invaded the Soviet Union. And some people say it was the moment they found themselves in a war with the world's greatest naval power, with no hope of ever being able to build a navy that could challenge it (while it does make for some fun alt-history wargaming, Sealion was always a pipe dream). I'll usually point to the triple hammer blows of Uranus, El Alamein, and Torch in November 1942 as the moment when there could be no further doubt. Certainly by the beginning of 1943 the outcome of the war was sealed, well before their desperate late war equipment experimentation. The only things left in doubt were how much more time it would take, and how many more casualties it would take (perhaps if they had made more efficient use of what resources they had left, rather than wasting them on wild experimental weapons, they might have prolonged the war and extracted a heavier toll on the Allies). I'm reading James Holland's book on Sicily right now (while I pointed out one of his mistakes in an earlier post, he's still an excellent historian and I highly recommend his books), and he pointed out that the Allies were taking absolutely no chances with Operation Husky. Not because failure would have had any chance of changing the outcome of the war (it wouldn't). But simply because failure, while it wouldn't have changed the ultimate outcome, would still have been a serious setback that would mean it would take more time and blood to reach the end.

I recently played one in CMFI that was British armored cars against Italian armored cars. I'm pretty sure that was part of the mass of user-made scenarios I downloaded, as I don't remember it being one of the original scenarios in the game. Unfortunately I don't have my home computer in front of me right now, so I can't check what the scenario name was. There should be a handful of recon scenarios throughout the WW2 titles, and plenty of larger scenarios in which recon forces play a part at the beginning. So there are certainly opportunities to take armored cars out for a spin from time to time, particularly if you've mass downloaded all the community made scenarios you could find like I have.

Ah, in that case it was not what I thought it was.

If the Sherman Tulip is what I think it is then I'm guessing it would have been used as self-propelled rocket artillery, rather than for direct fire against targets the crew could see. In which case, if it is in the game, it would probably be best represented as off-map artillery. The game can handle off-map rocket artillery, so if it isn't included then a lack of provision for it in the game engine isn't the reason.

I'm right there with you. I can hardly wait for Battlefront to get around to covering the early-war period. In part because I find all military history fascinating, so I will always advocate for any period that I feel is underrepresented in wargaming. In part because I have a particular love for early-war tanks, such as the R-35 and Panzer 2. And in part because I believe that giving people an opportunity to experience this period for themselves will do much to bust the myth that these early campaigns were a complete walkover for the Germans at the tactical level. Despite the speed of the German advance on the operational level, the small scale fighting at the tactical level was much less one-sided than most people realize. For example, while the German army as a whole was basically unstoppable in Poland in 1939, there were no shortage of occasions in which individual tank attacks were stopped cold by Polish anti-tank guns. And there were even a handful of moderately successful Polish counterattacks. But, they'll get there. Impatience does us no good. Battlefront made the call to finish up the late-war period first. And whether or not you think that was the optimal call, I don't think any reasonable person could argue that the late war period wasn't also worth covering. Now that they have finished up the late-war period we can be very confident that future work will start incrementally rolling the clock backwards until they reach the beginning of the war (there will probably be more Battle Packs covering certain late-war campaigns in greater detail, but future modules and base games will certainly be going backwards from here on out). I'm hopeful that they'll get back to the beginning of the war before the 1st of September 2039 (I definitely intend to start another chronological CM playthrough around this date).

I'm expecting those scenarios to start to feel a lot like CMCW. Which wouldn't be at all surprising considering that the early-gen tanks of CMCW (M48A5, M60A1, T55, T62) feel a lot more like really powerful WW2 tanks than like modern tanks.

Maybe a good compliment to the upcoming Utah Beach Battle Pack would be to cover Gold, Juno, or Sword beaches? I'm always happy to see a bit more representation of Commonwealth forces. I know you said you wanted to do German campaigns, though honestly I think I'd prefer to play these from the Allied perspective. Maybe split it with a couple Allied campaigns and a couple German campaigns? Edit: Nevermind. I just reread the initial post and you said no Normandy in addition to no Italy.

I'd definitely buy Combat Mission: Operation Unthinkable. Though, seeing as I've already affirmed that I'd buy any Combat Mission game, that may not count for much.

Why not both? I find the best learning comes from a variety of sources (in my case books, youtube, and simulations). The quality of the military history content on youtube has reached really spectacular levels. They usually have much higher research standards than traditional documentaries. Real Time History isn't even the best of it (as much as I enjoy their content, they tend to repeat common myths a bit more often than most of the other channels I go to, so their research standards seem to be a bit more on par with traditional documentaries). There is Eastory, Drachinifel, Military History Visualized, TIK, Military Aviation History, Usually Hapless, Battle Order, The Operations Room/Intel Report, Kings and Generals, Forgotten Weapons, The Chieftain, The Western Front Association, GI History Handbook, and so many more that I'm sure I'll remember in a few minutes. No source is perfect, and I've caught all of these channels making the occasional mistake. There is just so much misinformation out there that it's impossible for even the best historian to filter out all of it. That goes for books as well. The format that the research is presented in has no effect on the quality of the research, so books will contain as many errors as videos. I was just reading James Holland's book on Normandy, in which he repeated the myth that the Bren was extremely accurate and the MG42 was extremely inaccurate (they actually seem to have roughly the same accuracy, about 4-5 MOA). I doubt anyone could say that James Holland isn't a good historian. There are simply so many myths out there that it's impossible for even the best historian to catch them all.

Oh, for those of you who have a Nebula subscription, the upcoming release of Downfall means that now might be a good time to point out that Real Time History has done a series on the Allied fighting over the Rhine river in 1945. For those who don't have a Nebula subscription, unfortunately this series isn't available for free on youtube, but I seem to recall that Nebula was pretty cheap back when I signed up for it. https://nebula.tv/videos/real-time-history-1-come-hell-or-high-water-i-rhineland-45

They spent their time bringing all the fronts up to the end of the war. And honestly I think that was a good use of their time. But now that all of the fronts have been brought up to the end of the war, there is really nowhere for them to go but back. We can be very confident that the next WW2 CM release will be an incremental step back in time, promises or no, because there is no direction left to go but back. The only things that are in question are how far back will the next release go, and which front will they roll the clock back on first. Will it be earlier in 1944 on the eastern front next? Or will it be Tunisia 1943 next?

I think they'll do early war eventually. They just need to work backwards towards it from what they have right now to minimize the number new assets that need to be created with each release.

While I'm dissapointed that we probably can't look forward to Korea anytime soon, I'll buy whatever you put out in any time period. It's all interesting to me.

Seems to do modern warfare just fine to me. But, while I'd like to see a new modern warfare game (China vs the US/Taiwan seems the obvious pick for peer vs peer warfare, while NK vs the US/SK would be much more assymetric, though I would be very interested in seeing SK forces in action), I wouldn't want that to come at the cost of Cold War content right now. There are so many armies that need to get added to CMCW, so I hope it doesn't take too long to greenlight the next module after BAOR is released. And there are other conflicts in the Cold War era that could use some attention, particularly the Korean war now that all the late WW2 equipment is in.

There are already BMDs in CMA. So in theory 1980s VDV should already be ready to go. I don't know if there are any licensing issues around that though, since the partner company behind CMA is defunct.

Seconded. Making a new near-future base game might be risky with Battlefront's track record so far (I kid, if more conflicts are going to break out, they will break out whether or not Battlefront makes a game about them first). But with further development of CMBS apparently dead, and the modern era still being an area of interest, now might be a good time to look at the possibility of a new modern era base game. Recent lessons about modern warfare could be taken into account (higher density of drones). And I'm very eager to take a US force equipped with M7 rifles (I'm assuming the 'X' will be dropped from the name when it's no longer experimental), M250 machine guns, and M10 Booker light tanks out for a spin.

I doubt they'll ever do anything with equipment that doesn't already exist at the time of development, or at least isn't near enough over the horizon to have a good idea of its characteristics. That being said, that doesn't mean they won't eventually deliver some far-future content (from our current perspective). All we need is for them to still be around in the far future. They've managed to stick around for 25 years already, so what's another hundred? I'm sure the 2124 new year's bones thread will announce some exciting content!

Funny you should mention them doing some other Cold War conflict. It just so happens that I expressed a similar thought over in the 2023 thread as part of the whole "will they/won't they include the Pershing?" The thread is locked now, which seems to have eliminated the normal Quote feature, but it's towards the top of page 30.