Sunbather

I interpreted it more like a mutual understanding. On a more lighter note (or heavier): I'd rather they publish more content on an existing conflict instead of releasing a game about a 'fictional' conflict. If for example they release Combat Mission: Tiger Dragon, three years later China will invade Taiwan! We've already seen it happening twice.

I just want to reiterate that Matrix/Slitherine will publish Broken Arrows this year and they have been advertising it heavily since 2022. Although the game is 'fictional' it literally has all the TOE from the current war (drones, heavy airstrike jets, heavy bombers, Bradleys, T-90s and Armatas) and the maps look frightingly similar to what we've seen on the news in the past years. Broken Arrows is set in the Baltics (which makes it completely fine, I guess) and yet after a 30 minutes match with 8 players, the map looks exactly like Mariupol. Sorry, but I have a great distaste for double standards. And denying the release of the Black Sea module, yet putting so much PR effort into a game like Broken Arrow is just too much. And we didn't even speak about the seriousness of Combat Mission which could even be called educational, whereas Broken Arrows is a competive game for fun. And to multiply that: Combat Mission is a niche product, whereas Broken Arrows will be a beststeller relative to wargaming standards. (similar to CM: Red Thunder and Steel Division 2 if you will.)

I don't think hardware is the main limitation here. The question is more like, how you would implement all this in a single game and still make it playable? Air warfare (aircrafts, weaponry and systems) covers 100s of kilometers and demands a vast but less detailed map; naval warfare (crafts, weaponry and systems) is even grander in its scale, covering 1000s of kilometers, and demands a completely different map with lots of water, obviously. Meanwhile, ground warfare can only be tactical when the map is reduced to a few dozen kilometers to allow for enough map detail. So you can't just combine these three levels, and it's not a hardware issue. How would you go, naturally and without utterly breaking the gameflow, from one map scale to a hugely different map scale? Then there is staged aspect of modern warfare: the Air Land Battle doctrine, for example, does not mean everything happens at the same time. First come the missiles from ships, then the airstrikes, then ground troops with limited CAS (to crassly simplify the whole thing). Another temporal aspect would be the huge differences in travel distance, speed, engagement range etc. as is exemplified superbly in the movie Dunkirk. It is also telling that you completely forgot to mention logistics which would add a whole different layer to the whole affair but would, in my opinion, be necessary to realistically depict full-scale modern warfare (especially when you want the game to be operational or even strategical). All the problems (regarding the map and the temporal aspect) would now multiply. With all that being said, the closest thing we have that combines all three combat layers, and to a very minor degree also logistics, are the games by Eugen Systems. Especially Wargame: Red Dragon comes to mind or the current WARNO that now has a campaign that is add a lite operational layer to the game. However, when you play these games you can immediately see how wonky it gets when you try to put naval, air and ground warfare all in one game.

I see! Thanks for taking your time to answer my question. So it's basically a voluntary donation and not a payment since money and downloading of the mod are not connected.

I was quite shocked when I saw the thread being closed because of a comment from a random user. Why not delete that specific comment, the only one by the way that mentioned a monetary aspect in a thread of 3 pages? At the same time, now that Battlefront explained things, I do see how the wording "Battlepack" and "pre-order" might cause problems with users stumbling upon the forums or what not. And as one can see, even long-term users of these forums had big troubles in reading through Mr.X' first few sentences in the original post in which he clearly stated why it is called "pre-order" and that everyone receives the Battle Pack for FREE as long as he registers with him. [EDIT: Made a mistake: it's in the third post, the first one is only a picture, but the argument still stands that the chances you might think you actually have to pay for the Battle Pack are nil. Well, until the comment in question.] From what I understand, modding CM games (creating maps, scenarios, campaigns or even 'new' vehicles) is already a painstaking process. Throw sticks between the feet of those who create mods is a real headscratcher, especially in the year 2023 when most if not all wargame developers endorse modding and do all they can to give the modders the tools they need. Heck, even Eugen Systems finally introduced a map editor. But apart from having an opinion, I am very curious about one thing and I hope someone can enlighten me: a LOT of games with a huge modding community - Rimworld, Paradox games like Hearts of Iron IV etc. etc. - have modders with a Patron page or saying right in the official Steam workshop that if you like their content you can buy them a coffee (with a link to a Paypal account). What differentiates the EULA of Combat Mission from the EULA of Hearts of Iron? Is it maybe that the USA has the right to the vehicles? But I can't really see that when it comes to the WW2 titles. HUGE DISCLAIMER: I don't ask that so in the end Mr X gets donations for his work (which he doesn't want anyway which he has stated now over and over again). I ask because I always wondered how it is allowed (or only tolerated?) for modders to get donations for their content which clearly is new content (otherwise it wouldn't be a mod) but based on existing, official content or at least the framework of the respective game.

After long consideration, I agree that this is the better solution, haha. Thanks!

Since I will eventually buy the game as well (as soon as I have an interest in the Russo-Afghanistan War again), wouldn't it be easier to just upload the affected scenarios in the download section?

What makes you think that? I don't want to trigger yet another discussion about how good game X is compared to game Y but Graviteam has insane TO&E and OOB, at least for those operations I could verifiy it for. Some other battles and operations are so obscure that there aren't any published sources in English for it. Look at e.g. the "Bird Grove" DLC where a user has compiled a +100 pages book with English translations of the original Russian and German war diaries, including 'exact' notes on what equipment was used, lost, destroyed etc. In fact, I would say that Graviteam Tactics doesn't really look like a correct TO&E and OOB because there hardly ever was a thing like that in real life, especially from 1942 onwards: so many cobbled together Kampfgruppen and ill equipped 'divisions'. Combat Mission does the same, of course.

I think this is what I was ranting about. I love Combat Mission, still my most played wargame when you take all the different iterations into account. But it's not perfect and there won't ever be a perfect game for the simple reason that sometimes you're just in the mood for something else, maybe 2D instead of 3D, maybe obscure African conflicts instead of WW2 Normandy, maybe Cold War 1989 instead of 1979 or maybe even Cold War 1971. Maybe you get frustrated with the micromanaging or spotting in Combat Mission and for that reason you go to Graviteam. Then you find flaws in that game or something that just doesn't speak to your mood because maybe you're in the mood for some micromanaging. At the end of the day, I am just glad that the wargame genre is so thriving (as is the RPG genre) and I am in no shortage of "complex" games that had a lot of "labour" put into them (yes, I am still irked about that quote, haha). That being said, Combat Mission Yom Kippir when?!

Once again, this was not the argument. The argument was that never ever will be something created that is so ridiculously complex and had so much work put into it like Combat Mission. There are already several games in the works that might be "measuring up" (AB2; Broken Arrow) but again: who is the measurer and what is the measurement tool? A lot of people seem confused here between their personal opinion and having objectively measured the goodness of a product.

Some might call that a virtue.

That wasn't your argument so please don't twist my words. You said never again a wargame that "complicated and labour intensive" will be created. By stating quite a few "complex" and "labour-intensive" games, I proved your argument wrong (objectively, if you just measure the "labour" and "complexity" that went into those games with the "labour" and "complexity" that went into Combat Mission by the same curious yardstick you apparently possess).

Yeah, that kind of "argumentation" (if one is generous enough to call it that) is easily enough flipped around. Swap out CM for GT or whatever, and you have the same effect in a like-minded forum. Heck, a 17-year old could say, I've tried all games but what game I have the most hours in? Fortnite! Alas, it must be the best game ever created.

What an incredibly ill-informed statement. Ever heard of Graviteam Tactics? Armored Brigade? War in the East? CSL Campaign Series? Command: Modern Operations? Heck, even a gamey game like Warno is "complicated and labour intensive" production.

Thanks for answering me so clearly on this one! However, this is devastating news. CMBS is my favourite CM game but it always lacked a bit variety. I can understand your decision but this makes me incredibly sad. As for Slitherine/Matrix, they are soon releasing Broken Arrow. A game that features the realistic destruction of entire building blocks via rocket strikes, painstaking detail when it comes to authenticity of units and overall a very smiliar landscape to Eastern European countries. I don't really see them squirming there. Maybe because that game could be their first mainstream hit? And personally, I've never understood why contemporary conflicts are taboo while it is completely fine to have SS Todeskopf troops in your fun wargame or bomb the Vietcong without any notion of all the civilian casualties. I probably know all the arguments why this war is okay to depict but not that one. And I can even comprehend most of them. But Wargames are not some casual fun games. They are - more often than not - simulators and show us the workings of modern equipment and tactics. And, at least for me, they even have an anti-war element to them, much more than most of so called anti-war movies. And in that regard, they transcend the regular piety rules that apply for entertainment media. Anyways. It is great to hear that there is enthusiasm for other modern settings from your side. I do know that it's not gonna be a game featuring the IDF though.