Polo Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Polo, Bagration timeframe was choosen so that work needed on vehicles would be smaller then otherwise ie. most of the German vehicles were already done. Do you still think it was a stupid call? I am not really convinced... For example, all the Mark III were available, as well as some Mark II (from the Lynx) and most armored cars too. I am not so much for a Citadel game either, but had they chosen this one, they would already have Shermans, jeeps, Churchills in addition to all the Russian Hw. I apologize for the word "stupid" though. I was not a bad idea, but still, Bagration is all about the Germans being beaten to bits. Polo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 . As to a German campaign in 1945, how could you forget the 3 Konrad offensives for Budapest?!! One serious question. Why is an East Front game based in 1944/45 any different than an East Front game in 1941? Because the Russians are the winning side? Or the Balton lake offensives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spring_Awakening ( largest German attack in 45), or that 1945 saw the focus of German armoured units back to the east after the failed ardennes offensive. 15 March 1945 East PzIV 603, PzV 776. West PzIV 59, PzV 152. If the issue is why bother covering Germany getting "crushed" in 45, why would you be interested in covering 40s France being "steamrolled"? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polo Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Or the Balton lake offensives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spring_Awakening ( largest German attack in 45), or that 1945 saw the focus of German armoured units back to the east after the failed ardennes offensive. 15 March 1945 East PzIV 603, PzV 776. West PzIV 59, PzV 152. If the issue is why bother covering Germany getting "crushed" in 45, why would you be interested in covering 40s France being "steamrolled"? Yes you get a point here... About Balaton, according to wikipedia, 31 tanks lost in the operation... what a huge combined arms offensive... And SS again... OK anyway Konrad is better, as a module of RT, maybe ? With SS, right... Polo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) Yes you get a point here... About Balaton, according to wikipedia, 31 tanks lost in the operation... what a huge combined arms offensive... And SS again... OK anyway Konrad is better, as a module of RT, maybe ? With SS, right... Polo You have no idea of eastern front battles, Spring awakening included on the axis side. HG Süd 6.Armee (Armeegruppe Balck): III.Pz.Korps: 1.Pz.Div., 3.Pz.Div., 6.Pz.Div. (deployed later), 356. Inf.Div. 6.Pz.Armee: I.SS-Pz.Korps: 1.SS-Pz.Div., 12.SS-Pz.Div., 23.Pz.Div. (deployed later), II.SS-Pz.Korps: 2.SS-Pz.Div., 9.SS-Pz.Div., 44.Reichs-Gren.Div. I.Kav.Korps: 3.Kav.Div., 4.Kav.Div., 25.ung.Inf.Div. (deployed later). 2.Pz.Armee: LXVIII.AK: 16.SS-Pz.Gren.Div., 71.Inf.Div., XXII.Geb.AK: 118.Jäg.Div., 1.Volks-Geb.Div. HG Südost: LXXXXI.AK: 104.Jäg.Div., 297.Inf.Div., 11.Luft.Feld.Div., 1.Kos.Div. Wiki idea that 31 tanks "lost" is odd as by the 20th March 6th SS it self was down to 80 Pz/StuG's/JadgPz from starting with over 300 (over 400 runners committed including the 2 Pz Armee) It also does not square with Russian examination of the area post battle. “Upon completion of the combats between 29 March-10 April 1945, the artillery staff of the 3rd Ukrainian Front in presence of representatives of NIBT Poligon, Ammunition Narkomat (ministry) and artillery branch of the Soviet Army conducted again the inspection and research of the knocked out German combat machines in the area of Balaton Lake, Elusha canal, Kapos canal, Sharviz canal, Sekesfehervar. In the course of work the committee accounted and observed nine hundred sixty eight (968) knocked-out, destroyed or abandoned tanks and SP guns as well as four hundred forty six (446) personnel carriers (SdKfz). Many vehicles previously inspected in February 1945 were also included in statistics. Four hundred machines, which were the most interesting for research had been marked and examined. All heavy tanks and new brands of SP guns underwent the special study. Out of 400 examined destroyed tanks and SP guns there were 19 units of Tiger II, 6 units of Tiger, 57 units of Panther, 37 units of Pz-IV, 9 units of Pz-III (mostly flamethrowers, Pz BeobWg III and commanders’ tanks), 140 units of SP guns (StuG, Jagdpanzer etc.), 27 tanks and SP guns of Hungarian brands and 105 units of other vehicles (Wirbelwind, Wespe, Bergepanther, Brummbar, Hummel, SdKFZ 138 Ausf. etc.). Among the examined 400 vehicles, 389 vehicles were destroyed by the artillery fire, 11 tanks were either exploded on mines or destroyed by other means. By main statistical parameters the result of this inspection were similar to the one conducted in February 1945. The new finding was that the number of armor penetrations made by 76mm AP shells and 57mm AP shells became almost equal. The number of penetrations caused by 100-122 mm shells increased by 2.5-3.2 %. “ (a. O.Baronov, Balaton Defense Operation, Moscow, 2001, PP.82-106 b. Inspection of German armored vehicles, discovered after combats in the area of Balaton Lake, Elusha canal, Kapos canal, Sharviz canal, Sekesfehervar. April 1945 – Central Archive of the Russian Defense Ministry) Edited January 3, 2015 by Bastables 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polo Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Ok, I guess I should be more prudent. It is probably a case of wiki-BS. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 not having a France '40 campaign in CM ever is a ...shame . Polo 100% agree. Maybe someday, I haven't given up hope yet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molotov_billy Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Polo, Bagration timeframe was choosen so that work needed on vehicles would be smaller then otherwise ie. most of the German vehicles were already done. Do you still think it was a stupid call? I do, actually. Making decisions based on your own needs and requirements rather than what your customers would actually want, and pay for. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergeltungswaffe Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Except that BFC has a lot of customers that were and are really happy have to have Bagration. Lots of Soviet toys for the Commiephiles and sexy cats for the Panzerphiles. Sounds like a good business decision to me. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Don't bite the hand that feeds you, say thanks and hope for more. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hister Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Any timegrame andlocation chosen will always get people who are not interested in it and people who are. Not really a shocker there. Saying it was an unwise move from developers is obviously not based on any serious grounds worth scrutiny. If you personally don't like it and wont't buy it it doesn't mean other customers share your views. It was said from devs that that particular timeframe was chosen exactly becuse of what I already wrote. I'm sure there were other reasons too. Just the fact they are still here and producing new games is a testament they got it right so far. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aragorn2002 Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Note Aragorn that mentioning a 500 year treaty anterior to the mere existence of the Netherland as an autonomous country does not really strengthen your point. I don't think using Roman army efficieny makes a point for the Italians in 1940 either, for example. Don't know about that, Polo, I think it is pretty useful background information. The main point is that France never has been a very dedicated member of NATO, hence the decision of BF to leave your country out of CMSF. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aragorn2002 Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 (edited) I do, actually. Making decisions based on your own needs and requirements rather than what your customers would actually want, and pay for. Their own needs and requirements? I don't know any other company that listens so well to their customers. They know what they are doing. Post-Bagration will allow us to fight very interesting battles in the Baltics, Romania, Hungary, Poland, Eastern Prussia, Silesia, Saxony and so on and so on. Hopefully the Finns will be added too someday, so the battles in the summer of 1944 in Karelia can be simulated too. Beginning at the end of the war makes sense in every respect and I'm sure the vast majority of wargamers are very happy with that decision. Btw, talking about the Finnish war. Here is a very interesting article on Lauri Törni, a Finnish war hero, who deserves to be remembered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauri_T%C3%B6rni Edited January 4, 2015 by Aragorn2002 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polo Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 (edited) Thinking about all this, I think the best location for a East Front game would be KHARKOV 1942. The soviet offensive was a huge (HUGE) failure, but overall, the fight was locally balanced. The hardware is nicely balanced too, because the German one was outdated, so the "ersatz" solutions would be pretty fun to play with: short barreled Mark III, Short barreled Mark IV, even a handfull of long barreled MkIV F2, some Marders in a really useful (vital ?) role, short barreled StuGs, heavy arty used as AT, outdated 3,7 cm somewhat useless but ubiquitous, even a couple of 7,5cm in the mix. Even the Soviets had a "funny" mix (in Hobart's meaning of the term I mean): KV1 and T34 of course (but it was only 1/3 of the force !), lots of T60s, 1/5 from lend-lease (Matilda 2, Valentines anybody?), and even some BTs too !! I have seen a photo with a Stuart too. Did I mentionned there was... Romanians? Ok, not totally balanced, though... Polo Edited January 4, 2015 by Polo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hister Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 The main point is that France never has been a very dedicated member of NATO, hence the decision of BF to leave your country out of CMSF. Mostlikely yes. It's not that devs dislike French in general and thus don't wanna put them in the game, hehe. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aragorn2002 Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Kharkov 1942. How original. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polo Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Kharkov 1942. How original. Is it supposed to be ironic ? Right, Bagration is so original. What about Normandy ? Try at least to make the effort to have an argument, man. Polo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polo Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Mostlikely yes. It's not that devs dislike French in general and thus don't wanna put them in the game, hehe. I have never said they "dislike the French in general", just that it is not true France was not a dedicated NATO member. Tell me about an action ? (apart from Irak 2003). Try Yugoslavia, for ex. Apart from politics, is there no more "lobbying" about next game on the Eastern front? Polo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hister Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Polo, I had another user, not you, in my mind when replying. What do you mean about lobbying? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 I have never said they "dislike the French in general", just that it is not true France was not a dedicated NATO member. Tell me about an action ? (apart from Irak 2003). Try Yugoslavia, for ex. Apart from politics, is there no more "lobbying" about next game on the Eastern front? Polo Not sure what you mean, BF has already committed to doing the entire eastern front 1941-1945. Steve is after all one of you east front grognards. Patience, they will get there. The sequence is driven partly by what they can get out based on what they have. If they had started in 1941 we probably would not have an eastern front game yet at all. And there are plenty of eastern front grogs who actually are excited about this period. From a financial perspective (a reflection of paying customer interest) I expect the late year western front is more likely to generate cash flow. It has been commented previously on these boards about what period games generally create the best return. CMBO for example sold better than CMBB despite CMBB covering more area, units, time and more features. While BF looks to be on really solid ground after the lean years developing CMx2 I expect they would really like to secure their financial future as quickly as possible, which is in everyone's best interests. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polo Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 (edited) Not sure what you mean, BF has already committed to doing the entire eastern front 1941-1945. Steve is after all one of you east front grognards. Patience, they will get there. I meant "lobbying about where the next East Front game will be" Edited January 4, 2015 by Polo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Polo - by the way - the Bagration campaign does have a scenario with IS2s. I think there may be a couple T34s in it as well. And so what, theres plenty of single scenarios, qbs, and possibilities of user made campaigns. End of war makes sense because they haave most of the work done already, it can be produced quicker. Also end of war has a great amount of possibilties, the strategic situation is quite different than tactical. I for one look forward quite a bit to the bittter fighting in Courland, Seelow Heights, and most of all the Battle of Berlin. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 (edited) I meant "lobbying about where the next East Front game will be" gotcha, honestly I don't think you can. BF is most likely going to do 1943. Why? Because it is the year they can do with the least amount of effort. They have been pretty clear that the business model has to be sustainable. Therefore rather than jump to a period where they have to do everything from scratch, they will instead cover an era where some of the work is already done. It speeds up the overall process and makes it less expensive in time and resources to do. 1941 would mean a whole host of new stuff. 1943 means only the stuff they haven't already done in RT. Who knows though, maybe they will surprise us all, do the Battle for France and use those German models to do 1941 on Eastern Front..... Edited January 4, 2015 by sburke 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUCASWILLEN05 Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 I would like to see 41-43 since I have little interest in the final battles other than reading about them. But the list correctly identifies 1 Waffen SS 2 Romanians and Hungarians 3 Partisans 7 Winter weather BTW some of the coolest small unit battles can be designed from fall/winter 41 aka gates of Moscow. Kevin I agree. The 1942 and 1943 battles would definately beof intrest, particularly Kursk. But the 1944 - 5 batttles need to be expanded first. The Germans fought hard throughout this perriod and there are actually many interesting scenaios during thisz peeriod at tthe tactical level 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUCASWILLEN05 Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 Except that BFC has a lot of customers that were and are really happy have to have Bagration. Lots of Soviet toys for the Commiephiles and sexy cats for the Panzerphiles. Sounds like a good business decision to me. There is a lot we can do with Red Thunder as itr is now. There was a lot of hard fighting in Russia and Poland as Model fought, with some success to close the hole in the German lines ripped open by Operation Bagration. Then here is the fighting in Army Group North and in Romania at the same time including the Lvov operation and the Red Army advance into Romania. I hgope to see n expansion of Red Thunder covering the period October - December1944 at least which opens up many more scenrio possibilities including winter warfare. At the same time I think it would make sense for ?BF to open up the perod January - May 1944 opening up the final months of the battle fo the Dnieper Line and the first Soviet invassion of Romania. They can still do 1943 as a seperate game.that way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 ... Who knows though, maybe they will surprise us all, do the Battle for France and use those German models to do 1941 on Eastern Front..... And I sacrifice a dog regularly in the hopes that this will happen ... What ? I like goats... 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.