What next suggestions......

[greywulf58]

I am sure a similar post to this one has already been posted but here goes. These are modules that should be considered, some more seriously than others, for the CMSF series.

Israel....what is a good Mideastern conflict without them. A definite need for this game.

What about a retro Cold War Era game.....Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact vs. US/NATO....call it Fulda Gap or other appropriate title.

As above but with current weapon systems. Yes I know that many of the those systems are already in the game but there are many new Russian weapon systems that aren't.

Viet Nam....ehhh, maybe not. PBR and river monitors might be fun to play with though.

Korea....with current weapon systems for both North and South Korea as well as the US.

Just food for thought.

Chris.

[greywulf58]

Some additional module ideas.

1) Balkans

2) First Gulf War

3) Russia vs. China

4) United States Civil War------The South Rises Again. Maybe not...but if you did, have "Sweet Home Alabama" as background music. Yeah, I'm a bit of a REDNECK!!!!!!!!!!

[LongLeftFlank]

First, BFC is done with CMSF, so there will be no further modules or patches (unless an issue crops up in the Mac release). Israel, Fulda gap and Vietnam have been frequently requested by others in the past but it's really a moot point.

There are Balkans war mods and scenarios out there, as well as a Korean Peoples Army mod. As to the redneck part, there's also a "Lone Star Shopping Mall" scenario featuring Marines vs US Army and a "Dukes of Hazzard" Humvee mod. Search the repository.

[Ranger33]

Someday, in the far future, there will be CMSF2, maybe. Pretty sure everyone and their dog would love to see Cold War gone hot, but I think they said it was going to be modern Georgia type thing. Kind of meh, but I guess Syria worked out in the end.

Would pay money for a module that ties CMA and CMSF together, with maybe some older US and newer Russian formations to balance things out. It's one of those dreams that's so close, yet so far away.

[black_prince]

CMSF 2: Pakistan

Elements of the army and ISI sympathetic to Islamic fundamentalists instigate a coup. International forces intervene to defeat the coup and safeguard Pakistan's nuclear weapons stockpiles.

I think this would make for an interesting mix of terrain, enemy oob and conventional/asymmetric warfare.

New features:

ISTAR assets such as UAVs (inluding micro-UAVs) integrated into players oob.

Fully functioning vehicle masts

Bridges and motorway flyovers

Improved scenario editor

More/better animations

[LongLeftFlank]

Endorsed. Especially since a NATO intervention would necessarily involve airborne forces raiding heavily guarded bases thought to contain nukes -- high risk ops where close air support is critical for an outnumbered attacker with little armour. And an Indian invasion from the east would likely also occur, creating more even tactical matchups between ground forces in the ATGM era. I also predict you'd get a mass of new Indian players.

[black_prince]

Yep, an opportunistic Indian invasion to secure more ground in Kashmere and raid terrorist camps would throw some very interesting things into the mix-Indian vs Pakistani armour and high altitude infantry operations accross the line of control.

[greywulf58]

BP....now that is something I haven't thought about. India vs. Pakistan....Pakistan would cry foul and ask for help from the Russian Federation and of course the old Red White and Blue would get involved on the Indian side. Boy, what a mess that would be. Chris.

[greywulf58]

Yep, an opportunistic Indian invasion to secure more ground in Kashmere and raid terrorist camps would throw some very interesting things into the mix-Indian vs Pakistani armour and high altitude infantry operations accross the line of control.

Can you say World War III?

[black_prince]

I think it's more likely that Pakistan would look to China who they like to refer to as their 'all weather friend' and which certainly has a much more antagaonistic attitude towards India than Russia has. Potentially, China could clash with India in their own disputed border regions in attempt to maintain the integrity of Pakistani territory in the hope that they would be able to recoup some of their investment in Pakistan and recover their interests their once the dust had settled.

[LongLeftFlank]

IMHO the Chinese would stay out of it militarily. Among other things, keep in mind it would be over before they could mobilize. Also, don't they already hold the disputed territory?

Like Iraq and A'stan, nuclear detonations aside (on home soil?) the invasion of Pakistan would be far less difficult than the subsequent occupation. India has a domestic "Muslim problem" of its own (i.e. Hindu birth rates are plunging overall, Muslims are still having 8 kids and all are surviving) and would have zero desire to reabsorb another 100 million of them. And NATO enthusiasm for nation building isn't much greater.

[Stagler]

Limited engagement on european soil over resources, starring the US Army and Russia. It sees two (almost) equally technologically capable land armies face each other in the near future. People from both of the countries are battlefront customers so they would have a vested interest in the game. Always makes it more popular, ref. ARMA series.

Ukraine decides to join NATO, something that has nearly happened in the past, or decides to cut the gas lines through into Russia. Russia invades to turn them back on/dissuade the Ukraine from joining NATO. The US military + NATO on the polish border reacts to stop them half way.

Fight goes on for a few weeks, both sides ceasefire. That way Russian players wont be annoyed because they lost, and American players wont be annoyed because they lost.

It could even be a civil war in Ukraine, where the country's electorate cannot choose a path after the country is split by elections. Pro russian party vs pro western party.

Is a viable concept for including irregular troops. Pretty varied scenery, Ukraine is very forested in the north, yet almost mediterranian in the south. Has a coastline for amphibious possibilities. Both belligerents have extensive airborne and marine forces.

Allows for scope of expansion modules: NATO, UK, USMC, VDV, MORPEH, other EU countries like Czech Republic and Poland.

Improvments over CMBN engine:

-Better graphics generally. Multi-core support for christs sake. The current engine is archaic, pretty much like anything about the current generation CM games.

-Same gameplay mechanics as always. These dont have to be changed at all really. Freedom to chose TO&E for campaign mode?

-Proper AI. Not just an excuse to say the game has AI when it clearly doesnt. Just follows preset paths. Doesnt react at all to the flow of battle.

-Better multiplayer system with lobbying and streamlined connecting.

-Better damn QB system. Random map generator?

-On screen air support?

-More choice of tiles/dates to increase mission design scope. Winter and summer in one package for example.

Jobs a gooden.

Im sorry guys but, you have to design a game people WANT to play to be able to sell it properly. Nobody wants to play as Pakistan or India.

[greywulf58]

Limited engagement on european soil over resources, starring the US Army and Russia. It sees two (almost) equally technologically capable land armies face each other in the near future. People from both of the countries are battlefront customers so they would have a vested interest in the game. Always makes it more popular, ref. ARMA series.

Ukraine decides to join NATO, something that has nearly happened in the past, or decides to cut the gas lines through into Russia. Russia invades to turn them back on/dissuade the Ukraine from joining NATO. The US military + NATO on the polish border reacts to stop them half way.

Fight goes on for a few weeks, both sides ceasefire. That way Russian players wont be annoyed because they lost, and American players wont be annoyed because they lost.

It could even be a civil war in Ukraine, where the country's electorate cannot choose a path after the country is split by elections. Pro russian party vs pro western party.

Is a viable concept for including irregular troops. Pretty varied scenery, Ukraine is very forested in the north, yet almost mediterranian in the south. Has a coastline for amphibious possibilities. Both belligerents have extensive airborne and marine forces.

Allows for scope of expansion modules: NATO, UK, USMC, VDV, MORPEH, other EU countries like Czech Republic and Poland.

Improvments over CMBN engine:

-Better graphics generally. Multi-core support for christs sake. The current engine is archaic, pretty much like anything about the current generation CM games.

-Same gameplay mechanics as always. These dont have to be changed at all really. Freedom to chose TO&E for campaign mode?

-Proper AI. Not just an excuse to say the game has AI when it clearly doesnt. Just follows preset paths. Doesnt react at all to the flow of battle.

-Better multiplayer system with lobbying and streamlined connecting.

-Better damn QB system. Random map generator?

-On screen air support?

-More choice of tiles/dates to increase mission design scope. Winter and summer in one package for example.

Jobs a gooden.

Im sorry guys but, you have to design a game people WANT to play to be able to sell it properly. Nobody wants to play as Pakistan or India.

Stagler. I agree with your upgrades for any future Combat Mission style game/simulations but I don't agree with your "Nobody wants to play as Pakistan or India." statement. I have been playing war-games of one sort or another for almost 40 years now. In that time I've seen some war-games that I thought wouldn't be worth the money spent on them but after playing them I found out I was wrong. You never know what someone might want, especially in this industry.

I am not a computer programmer, much less a game designer but I feel that most companies that specialize in these types of games have missed the mark, except one and that is the old SSI. Now that company knew what its customers wanted and it is a shame that they went out of business. What they did, and what Matrix Games did, with the Steel Panthers was a very enjoyable gaming system, at least it was for me. Then I got hooked on the CM games and I still play those from time to time. What I want to know is this. Why can't a game (gaming system) be developed that would cover small unit tactical warfare from say World War II to the present or near future? The game mechanics (unit type, weapon type, movement) would be the same for each period. It would be a monumental task to portray each weapon system for each period in the time frame I've proposed but it could be done. Of course it would have to be a gaming system consisting of a base game (period chosen by a customer popularity vote) and subsequent modules. As I said, it would be a monumental task to develop such a gaming system but with today's computers it would be possible. There could even be some what-if modules...say, an extended World War II module where some of the proposed German weapon systems actually see combat.

I am just dreaming but if such a game were to be produced...I'd be the first one in the line to buy it.

Chris.

[Erwin]

"that company knew what its customers wanted and it is a shame that they went out of business..." Not to be flip as I was a big fan of SSI as well. But, that statement is a bit of an oxymoron.

Other great game companies that I thought were also producing xnt product were Microprose, Spectrum-Holobyte, SSG (sorta out of biz except as an occasional hobby for the Aussies)...

The problem is our market is such a small niche. Be interesting if the iPad version of CMBN revolutionizes things.

[greywulf58]

Erwin....I'm a bit of an oxymoron .

Your list of companies is a good one as well. Some great games by some great companies.

Yes, the computer war-game market is a niche market and the iPad version of CMBN might open it a bit more.