The next Combat Mission?

[theFightingSeabee]

I thought that meant you all were over 65

Damn kids! Get off my grass mod!

Who has the power to directly impact the hard coding of future modules?

ie, who do I beg and plead with?

They are watching. They have heard your cries. They are working their butts off to bring you guys a lot of good stuff.

[InsanePerson42]

I hope they don't just stick with WW2 games. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see more WW2 and CM does a great job at it! But the engine is just so well adapted to any modern conflict that is would be a pity for it to be isolated to a single war.

Still, I can hardly wait for Operation Market Garden(there aren't a lot of games covering that campaign that I know of).

[Mord]

They have another modern game planned. Nato types Vs Soviet weapons wielding types, in temperate climate.

Mord.

[StellarRat]

CM: Space Marines

[Vark]

The NATO v's Soviet weapons, an intervention in Ukraine IIRC, should realistically be an easy victory for NATO (better equipment, more of it, air supremacy, better trained, multi-sensor superiority etc). Unless NATO operate under low-tolerence loss conditions, or some 'event' greatly diminishes their combat power I cannot see this being a real challenge. Correspondingly, the 'Red' player is rarely going to have a chance to conduct the massive mechanised operations, that his kit was designed for.

Turn the clock back to the 70's, early 80's and the NATO player would have a real fight on his hands, with his smaller units having a superiority in training, just holding an edge, or in many cases having parity or even inferiorities, regarding equipment. The Soviet player would be able to conduct actions/drills his kit was designed to perform and not have to scuttle around being a tactical genius just to stop the evisceration of his forces.

The only trouble with this scenario is to truly simulate a massed Warpac assault a campaign game would be needed to generate conflicts. The NATO player might have one battle where he holds the line against Regiment 1 only to find the next is a desperate stop gap fight to prevent Regiment 2 which has carefully been working around the flank. Bottom line, 21 Century NATO versus anyone else, for the foreseable future, means the 'Red' player has to be highly adept at tactical thinking, whereas the 'Blue' player does not, a complete inversion of reality.

[xian]

The NATO v's Soviet weapons, an intervention in Ukraine IIRC, should realistically be an easy victory for NATO (better equipment, more of it, air supremacy, better trained, multi-sensor superiority etc). Unless NATO operate under low-tolerence loss conditions, or some 'event' greatly diminishes their combat power I cannot see this being a real challenge. Correspondingly, the 'Red' player is rarely going to have a chance to conduct the massive mechanised operations, that his kit was designed for.

Turn the clock back to the 70's, early 80's and the NATO player would have a real fight on his hands, with his smaller units having a superiority in training, just holding an edge, or in many cases having parity or even inferiorities, regarding equipment. The Soviet player would be able to conduct actions/drills his kit was designed to perform and not have to scuttle around being a tactical genius just to stop the evisceration of his forces.

The only trouble with this scenario is to truly simulate a massed Warpac assault a campaign game would be needed to generate conflicts. The NATO player might have one battle where he holds the line against Regiment 1 only to find the next is a desperate stop gap fight to prevent Regiment 2 which has carefully been working around the flank. Bottom line, 21 Century NATO versus anyone else, for the foreseable future, means the 'Red' player has to be highly adept at tactical thinking, whereas the 'Blue' player does not, a complete inversion of reality.

My 2 cents...

This may be true, but CM games don't really simulate the strategic level of conflicts. The tactical nature of CM allows scenario designers to create balanced battles between radically mismatched forces.

[Childress]

They have another modern game planned. Nato types Vs Soviet weapons wielding types, in temperate climate.

Perhaps. But a retro NATO VS Warsaw pact game set in the 70s or 80s seems unlikely if Battlefront counts on building their relationship with Russian partners, like Snowball. Too much corporate controversy. Much the same way an Arab-Israeli setting, in many ways a perfect fit for the CM engine, would generate unwanted heat.

[xian]

Perhaps. But a retro NATO VS Warsaw pact game set in the 70s or 80s seems unlikely if Battlefront counts on building their relationship with Russian partners, like Snowball. Too much corporate controversy. Much the same way an Arab-Israeli setting, in many ways a perfect fit for the CM engine, would generate unwanted heat.

I'm still not sure that this is a valid argument either. BFC have always maintained a non-partisan stance and (from what I've read in the manual) are very aware of the importance of remaining non-political. The conflicts depicted in CM games are clearly just an interesting examination of men, machinery and tactics - nothing more.

[Mord]

The NATO v's Soviet weapons, an intervention in Ukraine IIRC,

The Ukraine was brought up by a BB member. All BFC have stated was NATO vs Soviet weapons...no specific Red force or location has been locked down...or even which NATO countries will be involved.

Mord.

[Vark]

To be honest, whether its the latest CIS forces, or some proxy, it still will need major 'balances' to allow Red any chance of victory. I also am dubious about not making 'political' games as all wargames are political in some sense. Seems BF don't want to antagonise the small but very vocal outrage brigade, good business sense but shame really, as any it rules out any decent/moderately realistic modern scenarios.

[Childress]

To be honest, whether its the latest CIS forces, or some proxy, it still will need major 'balances' to allow Red any chance of victory. I also am dubious about not making 'political' games as all wargames are political in some sense. Seems BF don't want to antagonise the small but very vocal outrage brigade, good business sense but shame really, as any it rules out any decent/moderately realistic modern scenarios.

The 'outrage brigade'. Ha ha, very fitting. As a player I'd much prefer the Arab-Israeli concept to Viet-Nam or the Pacific theater which, in addition to lacking sexy vehicles, would entail grinding through triple canopy jungles. Or beach invasions against entrenched and invisible foes. Fun? Not. WWII is bit too distant in time to generate anger from easily offended minorities ( I can cite a major one). The A/I Wars offer a lot of pluses; Battlefront could go historical or contemporary- or both- with countless modules. Lots of tanks, fascinating doctrinal differences. On the other hand, life for the BFC crew would be a lot more pleasant without at Fatwa hanging over their heads.

[sburke]

The 'outrage brigade'. Ha ha, very fitting. As a player I'd much prefer the Arab-Israeli concept to Viet-Nam or the Pacific theater which, in addition to lacking sexy vehicles, would entail grinding through triple canopy jungles. Or beach invasions against entrenched and invisible foes. Fun? Not. WWII is bit too distant in time to generate anger from easily offended minorities ( I can cite a major one). The A/I Wars offer a lot of pluses; Battlefront could go historical or contemporary- or both- with countless modules. Lots of tanks, fascinating doctrinal differences. On the other hand, life for the BFC crew would be a lot more pleasant without at Fatwa hanging over their heads.

The easy solution would be to simply release another CMSF Module for Israelis forces. Don't have to sat a word, it's just another ToE.

These days it seems like everyone is a bit too sensitive about how they feel they might be depicted, even if it is accurate.

[InsanePerson42]

ok, I have a few points to make

First, Its a tactical wargame, not a political message! Who is there to offend? As long as the game doesn't take sides or portray either side as "the good guys" who is going to be offended? Set the game in any conflict you like, with any set of opposing forces. As long as both sides are fairly and accurately represented and have playable campaigns I don't think there is any reason to worry about offending people.

Take Vietnam(or the Second Indochina War) as an example(I realize that CM might never go to Vietnam, its just an example). American players would enjoy the game because it allows them to relive the bloodiest war for the U.S. since WW2. Vietnamese players would enjoy the game because it allows them to relive part of their (very, very bloody) struggle for independence.

As for certain red forces being "too easy" to defeat, CMSF had a unique solution to that problem. Set higher objectives! Once winning is certain you start to think about doing so as elegantly and efficiently as possible. A fight can still be a challenge even if your enemy has 0 chance of winning. The difference is you have higher performance expectations. Not only do you have to win, you have to win with very few casualties and little to no collateral damage. There are scenario's in CMSF in which the blueforce must keep its casualties at below 5%! I am constantly increasing my performance expectations as I get better, the result is that CMSF remains as challenging for me today as the day I bought it. The goal of course is always the perfect mission(all objectives achieved, 0 friendly casualties, 100% enemy casualties or surrender, no collateral damage) but that still remains out of reach for me most of the time. Also, the red force remains playable by simply setting lower performance expectations. Can't defeat the enemy? well do what damage you can and try to keep some of your forces intact.

But that may be irrelevant because if your NATO equipment is CONTEMPORARY with the Soviet equipment you're facing, and the Soviet equipped troops are up to Soviet training levels, and are following competent tactical doctrine, the fight will be anything but a walkover for NATO.

[Vark]

But that may be irrelevant because if your NATO equipment is CONTEMPORARY with the Soviet equipment you're facing, and the Soviet equipped troops are up to Soviet training levels, and are following competent tactical doctrine, the fight will be anything but a walkover for NATO.

Guess your right, NATO would be trounced in the scenario "Picking and peeling potatoes". Sorry, could not resist. The CIS would be eaten alive by conventional NATO units, their tanks are upgraded T-72's, and their infantry pretty woeful (apart from a few divisons who would equate to second line NATO). Logistically they are barely more advanced than WWII, in comparison with NATO's specialised lifting equipment and palletised stores. Poor showings in Chechnya and Georgia, against mediocre opposition, shows a downward trend starting in the late eighties. If you wanted to give them a chance make it a Russia v's Ukraine match up, then it's Red v's Red and a decent game. Best game would be late 70's early 80's where their traditional disadvantages are more than outweighed by numbers and doctrinal approach.

I think it would be ideal if BF could supply the kit and we could do with it what we wanted, alas their design approach seems to preclude this. As for politics, my point was a wargame simulates the final stage of the political process, so it cannot be avoided.

Ideas for new modules

India versus Pakistan (historical and rematch)

AIW (48-future)

Iran-Iraq war (early stages, before Pasdaran and chemicals)

China v's Vietnam

China v's ? (future conflict)

Vietnam (armored engagements both US and Australian v's NVA/VC)

WWWIII (70's-80's)

Falklands (small scale infantry engagements)

SADF v's various neighbours and proxy forces

Again no harm in dreaming!

[Michael Emrys]

Ideas for new modules

India versus Pakistan (historical and rematch)

That could be good.

AIW (48-future)

Excellent, but stop after '73.

Iran-Iraq war (early stages, before Pasdaran and chemicals)

Maybe, but starting to get into obscure areas.

China v's Vietnam

Meh. Who cares?

China v's ? (future conflict)

Too hard to quantify.

Vietnam (armored engagements both US and Australian v's NVA/VC)

WWWIII (70's-80's)

That's one I could get interested in, but probably a minuscule market for it.

Falklands (small scale infantry engagements)

Again, not much of a market.

SADF v's various neighbours and proxy forces

Virtually no market whatsoever.

So in sum, the only really good idea is AIW and I don't think BFC would touch it.

Michael

[Vark]

Michael, that is were you have identified the problem, I want the hardware then I can create the scenario. A Centurion could fight in three of those conflicts, with minor modifications, ditto an M113 or M48 or T-54. I don't really want to be restricted by what is seen as a commercially viable setting as that will be the safe option.

So you might not care for China v's Vietnam, or Sino-Soviet, Sino-Indian border engagements but I find them tactically fascinating. SP MBT ofers those options but it's archaic gameplay renders it's flexibility a trifle pointless as proper doctrine is replaced by gamey strategies.

[Childress]

The easy solution would be to simply release another CMSF Module for Israelis forces. Don't have to sat a word, it's just another ToE.

C'mon, Burke. The right phrasing in the title would salve the old wounds and compensate for

the presence of, er, you know who. Like, CM: the Wars of Unjust Aggression financed by the Great Satan on behalf of their Zionist Lapdogs! A bit of a mouthful, sure, but it works for me.

[Michael Emrys]

Michael, that is were you have identified the problem, I want the hardware then I can create the scenario. A Centurion could fight in three of those conflicts, with minor modifications, ditto an M113 or M48 or T-54. I don't really want to be restricted by what is seen as a commercially viable setting as that will be the safe option.

Okay, so basically a kit with all the world's weapons, vehicles, and small unit organizations represented. Well, that would be cool, but BFC has stated that that kind of thing wouldn't make them enough money if released as one package. If you can figure out some way to release it in modular form without once again getting dragged back into flammable politics, you then might have a winner. Maybe.

Michael

[Arnoldio]

CM:Vietnam

Then i can die in peace.

[JonS]

The irony is strong in this one.

[Vark]

Can someone explain how the AIW 48-73 can be seen as flammable politics? They are historic events, as is Vietnam. Don't see much reticence with producing endless games featuring the SS.

[Frenchy]

BFC has stated before that they will not do a Pacific Theater version of CM. As much as I would like to see it, it isn't going to happen unless they change their minds...which I do not think will happen.

[Vark]

I think a Pacific theatre module would be called CM BUYFR (Bu***er up your framerate)

[Brindlewolf]

Can someone explain how the AIW 48-73 can be seen as flammable politics? They are historic events, as is Vietnam. Don't see much reticence with producing endless games featuring the SS.

My thoughts exactly.

[Lt Belenko]

Can someone explain how the AIW 48-73 can be seen as flammable politics? They are historic events, as is Vietnam. Don't see much reticence with producing endless games featuring the SS.

Yup. It's just a game.