Eastern Front Exclusivity?

[weapon2010]

" Welcome back! I expect we'll see a few more old timer CMBB exclusive guys back on this Forum very soon."

Steve

Why are some CM players only attracted to the Eastern Front?To each his own, but I don't get it, I enjoy the game on all fronts,Normandy,Belgium,France and Italy are just as exciting and challenging to me as the Eastern Front and yes Red Thunder will occupy 100% of my time for the next 3-6 months, only because its the latest version of the game with new features.Why would the "Eastern Front only" guys deprive themselves of great gameplay on the other fronts.To me,its about the game mechanics, not the front.

So Please,Eastern front guys, whats the deal?Why do you only love the Eastern Front?

[stikkypixie]

The explosions are bigger

[Ithikial_AU]

No idea but I guess the sheer scale would provide some attraction.

What I'm more hopeful for is there's enough demand for earlier time periods if and when BF starts working it's way back towards 1939. I think this late war fascination by most is weird but I can understand it - Big Cats, Big Guns etc. But the battles you can already fight in the earlier months covered by Fortress Italy offer there own unique challenges. Lack of 'zooks and fausts immediately springs to mind. I for one would love to go back further, to a time where a 37mm gun is a rare and fearsome beast.

[76mm]

Don't know why, but I was bored to death with CMSF and. Normandy, and Italy wasnt much better. I hared all the the hedgerow scenarios in particular.

Also, just to be clear, I'm not certain that CMRT will suck me in like CMBB, because CMBB had a vastly wider scope than CMRT. Mreover a good part of the reason I haven't much played till now was precisely because I didn't like some of the mechanics (action spots, ugh!), which won't change much in this title.

[mjkerner]

When I was board gaming a lot back in the day, I played Eastern Front games about 90% of the time. Don't exactly know why. Not so with CM, I will play ETO and MTO just as much. Like Ithikial, I much prefer the earlier years on the Eastern Front. Summer '42 - Summer '43 is the sweet spot for me.

[womble]

I haven't much played till now was precisely because I didn't like some of the mechanics (action spots, ugh!)

And yet you played lots of CMx1 where your troops were quantum clouds of abstract Firepower spread somewhere in the 20m square... and calculated from the centre of it: an Action Spot for all Actions.

I really don't get what's so distasteful about that mechanic. Sure, it imposes some limitations, but such things are necessary in games, and the impositions are vastly less constraining than they were in x1.

[Vanir Ausf B]

And yet you played lots of CMx1 where your troops were quantum clouds of abstract Firepower spread somewhere in the 20m square... and calculated from the centre of it: an Action Spot for all Actions.

A quibble, if I may. The terrain tiles in CMx1 were 20m square, but the action spots -- or the CMx1 equivalent of such -- were only 1m square since all units occupied only that much space under the hood.

[Mace]

The explosions are bigger

...and the tanks sexier...

[Fizou]

At the same time there ars those who only enjoy the western front. To each his own as you say.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Russian Front has always been my favourite for WW2. I am very interested in the other ETO theatres as well and modern Syria is great to game as well. Since CMBB I have definately missed gaming the Russian Front - sadly my current PC does not support it

I really would lke BF to produce versions of CM for the early war Blitzkriegs. With that early war equipment some very interesing scenarios would be possible.

A CM Blitzkrieg game September1939 - May 1941 could employ the same terrain map approach used to differentiate Market Garden from Normandy. In this case however you would be covering Poland, Norway, France, a hypothetical Operation Sealion, Yugoslavia and Greece (Including the initial Italian campaign agains the Greeks and Crete), Russo-Finnish War. It could also allow for other hypothetical situations in Europe during this timeframe,

Barbarossa and the Western Desert would be best covered as independent games

[womble]

A quibble, if I may. The terrain tiles in CMx1 were 20m square, but the action spots -- or the CMx1 equivalent of such -- were only 1m square since all units occupied only that much space under the hood.

I may be working under a misapprehension then; does that not mean that the 1m AS sat at the middle of the 20m square? Since (for infantry) they're either "in" one square or another, when they act, and the player certainly doesn't have any control over where in that 20m square the abstract avatars of Larry Moe and Curly are actually placed, and I didn't think it actually mattered much for resolution.

However you dice it though, the level of fidelity in x2 in all aspects is at least 3 (depends on how you define fidelity: linear? area? volume?) times that of x1.

[Tank Hunter]

I like them all.. For me tactical combat game is like chess. I want the engine to be as realistic as possible and provide good tactical challenge. Having multiple fronts and conflicts is just a plus since it provides diversity.

I'm excited that BF has included AI triggers, they will hopefully make it possible to create a more challenging AI behaviour. Having these ported to other fronts is a huge plus!

[Der Alte Fritz]

Why the Russo-German War 1941-1945?

Well that was where the action was, 6 million Soviets fighting 3 million Germans over a continent 4,000km wide, hundreds of battles, dozens of campaigns lasting 4 years. Huge cities such as Leningrad under siege for 900 days, street fighting in Stalingrad lasting 4 months, everything is on an epic scale. 4 out of 5 German casualties happen on the Eastern Front, this is where the German Army was fought, beaten and destroyed. In the time period of CMRT the Ostheer loses 2 Army Groups destroyed.

In the West you have a 6 week campaign in France in 1940, a small campaign in the Desert, a slightly larger campaign in Tunisia and Italy but the German never commit more than 15 Divisions to these at a time when they have 150+ Divisions in Russia. The only campaign that comes anywhere close to the Great Patriotic War is the Normandy Campaign with its 2 million Allied troops against 1 million Germans but this only lasts June 1944 till April 1945 - 9 months and the German Army had already been gutted and its best troops dead.

From a historiography perspective, there is a lot still to be discovered, the Germans were anything but candid about their experiences in the East - their occupation policies saw to that and the Soviets wanted to hide their own appalling casualty lists, so modern researchers can still discover many new facts and accounts of events. You have to strip away years of Cold War rhetoric as well with propaganda being taken as received wisdom for many things that we read. Some are now hotly debated and some are not, but there is still a great deal to discover.

[schwerpunktgrenadier]

Why do you only love the Eastern Front?

Nae Yanks. ;-)

[Vanir Ausf B]

I may be working under a misapprehension then; does that not mean that the 1m AS sat at the middle of the 20m square? Since (for infantry) they're either "in" one square or another, when they act, and the player certainly doesn't have any control over where in that 20m square the abstract avatars of Larry Moe and Curly are actually placed, and I didn't think it actually mattered much for resolution.

It mattered. LOS was traced to the center of the unit, not the terrain tile. Having units abstracted into amorphous data blobs rather than individual soldiers vastly simplified LOS and positioning calculations, allowing for that level of fidelity.

In CMx1 we had a fixed grid of 20m x 20m. This grid determined both the terrain data as well as the graphical appearance. We called these 20x20 spaces "tiles". CMx1 resolved the location of a unit down to fractions of a meter within a tile, however all units within that tile were treated as being in the same terrain regardless of position. Well, except for a few hybrid tile types, such as roads and small houses (i.e. things that were not 20x20, but instead contained within a 20x20 tile). The relative position mattered for LOS/LOF, explosions, movement etc. and therefore it did matter what your relative position was.

As for the resolution... remember that in CMx1 everything was measurable down to the partial meter. That's true for LOS checks, unit locations, etc. In that way CMx2 won't be any worse than CMx1 in some ways. What is different in CMx2 is that the terrain itself can be different every 1m instead of every 20m.

However you dice it though, the level of fidelity in x2 in all aspects is at least 3 (depends on how you define fidelity: linear? area? volume?) times that of x1.

True, dat.

[womble]

Why the Russo-German War 1941-1945?

...6 million Soviets fighting 3 million Germans over a continent 4,000km wide...Huge cities...street fighting...lasting 4 months...epic scale...this is where the German Army was fought, beaten and destroyed. In the time period of CMRT the Ostheer loses 2 Army Groups destroyed....

...150+ Divisions in Russia...campaign...2 million Allied troops against 1 million Germans but this only lasts June 1944 till April 1945 - 9 months...

From a historiography perspective...

I understand those facts. I get why they're interesting facts. What I don't get is what they have to do with CM, apart perhaps from a broader range of terrains to fight over (though Egypt through Italy to Normandy and the Low Countries is a pretty broad range and including them in your wargaming mix adds to the variety available, and adds a wide range of vehicles and TOEs.

...and the German Army had already been gutted and its best troops dead.

There were some pretty good troops in Normandy; "best" troops tend to arise on a continual basis when fighting is protracted. There were some pretty mangy ones too. But I can sort of see where you're coming from here.

It's the difference between playing CM as a game and as a historical re-creation, I guess, and as a game, it could lead to some pretty shonky history. For example, the frequently referred-to Soviet propensity to use a Company to do what the Allies would use a platoon to do might, from what I've seen of "even" matchups so far, lead to some very poor games, and "good" games poorly reflect historical orthodoxy. QBs for example, unless the German defender spends 50%+ of their points on fortifications, won't let the Russians buy a company for every platoon of German infantry...

[ParaBellum]

Der Alte Fritz already gave a good answer. The Eastern Front has always been my main interest. The scope and the ferocity of the fighting, how weapons and tactics changed between '41 and '45, and I find it very interesting that both sides actually play quite differently.

Oh, and then of course the Red Army gets some incredible toys to play with.

:cool:

[dsf]

Why the Russo-German War 1941-1945?

Well that was where the action was, 6 million Soviets fighting 3 million Germans over a continent 4,000km wide, hundreds of battles, dozens of campaigns lasting 4 years. Huge cities such as Leningrad under siege for 900 days, street fighting in Stalingrad lasting 4 months, everything is on an epic scale. 4 out of 5 German casualties happen on the Eastern Front, this is where the German Army was fought, beaten and destroyed. In the time period of CMRT the Ostheer loses 2 Army Groups destroyed.

In the West you have a 6 week campaign in France in 1940, a small campaign in the Desert, a slightly larger campaign in Tunisia and Italy but the German never commit more than 15 Divisions to these at a time when they have 150+ Divisions in Russia. The only campaign that comes anywhere close to the Great Patriotic War is the Normandy Campaign with its 2 million Allied troops against 1 million Germans but this only lasts June 1944 till April 1945 - 9 months and the German Army had already been gutted and its best troops dead.

From a historiography perspective, there is a lot still to be discovered, the Germans were anything but candid about their experiences in the East - their occupation policies saw to that and the Soviets wanted to hide their own appalling casualty lists, so modern researchers can still discover many new facts and accounts of events. You have to strip away years of Cold War rhetoric as well with propaganda being taken as received wisdom for many things that we read. Some are now hotly debated and some are not, but there is still a great deal to discover.

Well said.

Regards

Scott Fraser

[c3k]

DAF has a great answer.

As for gameplay, the Soviets bring something that no one else does. It becomes a very different battle/game than other fronts. (Similar to how CMFI and CMBN are so different from one another, yet are the "same" game.)

[Koni]

Since barbarossa to berlin I've been waiting new eastern front CM game but I didnt knew I had to wait 12 years . Skipped all other titles between CMBB and red thunder. I hope we will see Finnish front expansion pack in future.

[Lt Belenko]

Why I prefer the Russian Front:

When you play Eastern Front every pixel troop that dies is either a Nazi or a Commie and that's a good thing. It's difficult to watch capitalist democracy loving pixeltroops from USA UK etc die.

[Rik81]

Some of the folks I normally play with are "Eastern Front" only types. I finally decided that is was because playing either side it was Bad Guys vs. Bad Guys, so either way you Win! My own feeling is like and early post here, it's the game mechanics that's important.

[gerzald]

Unlike the West. there is no BS about "The Good War." No BC about "The Good Guys." And no hypocrisy about desire for Empire. Its Pure. Pure humanity doing what it does best. Slaughtering its self. But with stylin Tanks!

[Battlefront.com]

A quibble, if I may. The terrain tiles in CMx1 were 20m square, but the action spots -- or the CMx1 equivalent of such -- were only 1m square since all units occupied only that much space under the hood.

A quibble with the quibble, if I may In CMx1 the 20x20m square is equivalent to a CMx2 8x8m Action Spot in almost every way except for unit placement. In CMx1 a Squad of 12 men was inherently positioned on (roughly) a single pixel. All LOS/LOF was calculated from that singular point and then fudged to make it not as precise. All forms of fire effects were downgraded to compensate for no tracking of spacing. In CMx2 each individual Soldier is explicitly tracked to (roughly) a single pixel with no fudging except to downgrade HE effects to compensate for spacing.

That and CMx1's "action spots" had no micro terrain and only consisted of, at most, 3 different types of terrain (ground, trees, manmade item). CMx2 can have... 8? I can't remember.

So if one wants a more realistic simulation of warfare... no comparison. Nothing in CMx1 is better than in CMx2 from that standpoint. Whether someone finds the older games more "fun" or not is a subjective concept, not a measurable one.

Anyway, just trying to once again set the record straight. I don't know why I bother, though, since I've been trying to do this for 7 years and it doesn't seem to be working very well

Steve

[schwerpunktgrenadier]

It's difficult to watch capitalist democracy loving pixeltroops from USA UK etc die.

Unless they're the Yanks.