Childress Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 I think a Pacific theatre would be called CM BUYFR (Bu***er up your framerate) Or CM: Alt+T! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Can someone explain how the AIW 48-73 can be seen as flammable politics? Because the very mention of the existence of Israel ignites some personalities. A game showing them as victorious in battle risks infuriating them. They are historic events, as is Vietnam. Don't see much reticence with producing endless games featuring the SS. That is a rational, sane point of view, and one BTW that I happen to agree with. Not everyone on the web is as rational and sane as you and I. As I have posted before, I have lobbied for over a decade for an AIW game to no visible effect. What I state above is the most likely speculation (BFC has no official policy statement on the issue) for the reason. At any rate, it is certainly plausible and so far they haven't denied it. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Because the very mention of the existence of Israel ignites some personalities. A game showing them as victorious in battle risks infuriating them. That is a rational, sane point of view, and one BTW that I happen to agree with. Not everyone on the web is as rational and sane as you and I. As I have posted before, I have lobbied for over a decade for an AIW game to no visible effect. What I state above is the most likely speculation (BFC has no official policy statement on the issue) for the reason. At any rate, it is certainly plausible and so far they haven't denied it. Michael Do a campaign in South Lebanon and you'll likely have both sides ranting at you. Politics, war and religion is such a volatile mix. Shame really as the point is just to objectively examine stuff, but there isn't much objectivity to go around in general much less that part of the world. That would be the nice aspect of doing the Central Front 1980s. Neither side would be offended. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Because the very mention of the existence of Israel ignites some personalities. A game showing them as victorious in battle risks infuriating them. Michael By 'personalities' who exactly do you mean, Michael? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crushingleeek Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 WWII 4eva! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 I would love to see a CM based on the oct.73 war or Vietnam, but it is very unlikely BFC will create it. Partly, it may be based on controversy. CMSF1 generated a lot of controversy, even though it was fictional, because a lot of people saw it as an ersatz Iraq 2003 invasion game. However, the real reason you wont see CM:AIW or CM:Vietnam is based on their perceived commercial potential. Steve has stated in the past that the most commercially viable projects are based on WW2 or modern, like CMSF1. That point may be arguable, but since BFC is risking their own money, we can presume that future BFC products will pretty much stick to that timeframe. The only way I see a CM:AIW or CM:Vietnam happening is if another company is interested in using the game engine, as happened with CM:Afghanistan. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Partly, it may be based on controversy. CMSF1 generated a lot of controversy, even though it was fictional, because a lot of people saw it as an ersatz Iraq 2003 invasion game. Also, in the Arab world, Syria and Iraq are/were viewed as secular states. If the game had centered on an invasion of sacred ground, say Saudi Arabia, that might have caused an uproar. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vark Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Don't think the initial Peace for Galilee operation was remotely linked to religion, its original intent was to stop Northern Israeli population centres from being Katyusha'd daily. Trouble was Sharon 'misinterpreted' his orders, as he was historically prone to do! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Don't think the initial Peace for Galilee operation was remotely linked to religion... No, apart from the inherently religious basis for the whole inception of Israel as a state (a homeland for Jews, a people defined by a religion), and the coincidence that "all" the people the returning Jews displaced were Muslim. The people doing the Katyusha-ing were doing so because of the formation of the Israeli state, at root, so while it was, perhaps, a remote connection, the connection is there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 It used to be that title suggestions were hancapped by a requirement for duelling tank forces, which is a large part of the game engine. But that was before CM:Afghanistan which has highly asymetric opposing forces. The Mujahideen are virtually without armor or significant anti-tank capability, while the Russians were armor-heavy, with robust airpower, but with grotesquely wimpy infantry units. The success of that title opened up title possibilities for CM dramatically. No more absolute requirement for duelling tank forces. Actually, old-time CM players often tend to find the presence of tanks to be an annoyance. You want a straight up knife-thrust infantry battle but there's a danged Pz IV in the far corner of the map shooting at anything that comes into its LOS. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 It used to be that title suggestions were hancapped by a requirement for duelling tank forces, which is a large part of the game engine. But that was before CM:Afghanistan which has highly asymetric opposing forces. The Mujahideen are virtually without armor or significant anti-tank capability, while the Russians were armor-heavy... I think one side at least has to have a heavy armour component. Otherwise huge chunks of the coding effort are wasted. At least in an asymmetric environment, you're seeing RPGs vs top armours, and using the vehicle movement routines all the time. If it was all jungle fighting with no tanks for 100 miles, there'd be no need for all that code and you could spend the time getting tricksy with the individual troopers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vark Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 So AIW it is then! Tank heavy battles 67-73 but also fighting in Jerusalem, the Golan Heights (in 67 with predominantly infantry). You could have scenarios in 48 with tank heavy Arab forces fighting lightly armed Haganah units, or switch to 56 with a mixture of both. MD, why are the Russian infantry units "grotesquely wimpy"? I didn't think their TOE was much different similar Cold-War units. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 No, apart from the inherently religious basis for the whole inception of Israel as a state (a homeland for Jews, a people defined by a religion), and the coincidence that "all" the people the returning Jews displaced were Muslim. The people doing the Katyusha-ing were doing so because of the formation of the Israeli state, at root, so while it was, perhaps, a remote connection, the connection is there. Actually a significant portion of the Palestinian population defines itself as Christian. At least it used to. The British Mandate estimated just under 10% of the population as Christian. Estimates now vary by territory but is in decline. With that bit of trivia data as my sole significant..okay maybe insignificant contribution, I'll just go back to sitting in the corner...Central Front 1980s!!!!! (or even 1961, Berlin crisis escalates into open conflict!) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 MD, why are the Russian infantry units "grotesquely wimpy"? I didn't think their TOE was much different similar Cold-War units. Ack! I'm at the wrong computer and can't open CM:Afghanistan to confirm. But (if I recall correctly) after you get used to a 13 man Marine squad in the CMSF module (and a 12 man US inf squad in CMBN) its quite a shock to find yourself with a 6-7 Russian armored inf squad in CMA. With one the officer, another carrying the RPG, and a thrid carrying the sniper rifle. That's not a lot of infantry firepower. Forces you to be 'clever' in their use and reliance on combined arms. I guess Russian tactical theory is tanks and artillery do the killing then the soldiers walk in to hold the objective over the charred corpses of their enemies... in theory. Really, any discussion about a 'future CM title' should require that at least the Russian demo be downloaded and given a test spin to have all the current titles 'under your belt'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sakai007 Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Heh. Funny you say that Mikey, but that was the sole inspiration I had for getting CM:A. I was waiting for CMBN and wanted something.....new to play with in the mean time. What a treat that turned out to be. I only played CMBN hard for a week or so after launch and went back to CM:A for a few more weeks cause I was having so much fun. The Russian forces in CM:A are light on the durability side as far as infantry. Tanks and APC/IFV's this is not the case at all. In fact, after a lot of CM:A play my 'usual' tactics became dependent on having BMP-1 IFVs on hand at all times to saturate with HE while my troops advanced. There is no 2800 rounds of ammo in the APCs for you troops either, so the Ruskie infantry runs out of ammo quickly if you let them sit there and blast. The DRA forces even more so since there is only 440 rounds of AK47 ammo in any APC in game, that is nothing compared to the average of 2800 5.56 rounds allied troops get in CMSF. The Russian airborne are closest to CMSF capability as far as equipment goes. They have grenade launchers, RPG-16s, and RPK74s with a decent ammo load. The squads are still small however, and grenade launcher ammo is always in short supply. If you don't have IFV's to support your attack, you had darn well have some arty. If not, well then things get very difficult very fast. One of the coolest features of CM:A is the active defense system on the best Russian tanks. Given that this is in the 80s it surprises me that no allied or syrian tanks have that or similar systems in 2008. Be that as it may, that feature is one that no other CM game has, and might be one of CM:A's coolest claims to fame!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 For the uninitiated RPG-16 is a different beast than RPG-7. A recoilless rifle, actually, more along the line of the Carl Gustav. As an aside, the developers were finding it almost impossible to locate reliable specs on RPG-16 (wikipedia is wrong). It wasn't til the last minute that a definitive Russian language reference was located, the round's velocity almost doubled just in time for release. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vark Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 So a US Cold War M2 platoon would be in the same situation, though with lots of ammo to share amongst 5-6 dismounts. Thought Russian TOE had the SVD distributed at platoon level, with dedicated BTR mounted sniper squads later on, to counter the short AK range. Also thought at least one squad had two PKM,s and the others a mixture of PK/RPK and AK (some with the GL). What are the AGS-17's like as a company base of fire? Might download the demo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 CM:A is a great game. It showcases the ability of the CM series to model tactical strengths and shortcomings. As MikeyD stated, the Soviet units fought the way they did because they had to. Ditto for the Muj. Both have very different fighting styles than the US Marines in CMSF. This can also be seen in CMBN/CW when comparing Commonwealth forces to US forces. The CM modelling/coding accurately replicates what every small unit leader was facing. That is the incredible strength of this game. If you haven't downloaded the free demos of the various other CM games, you should. Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.