Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I know that the concept of this game relates late 2000s. And I know it is about Western action against Syrian tyranic regime. But for the sake of the game it would good to add one more module. 

Rph9wex.jpg

Adding Russia to this game would bring a new challenge - a new life to the game. 

 Ilsd32v.jpg

It would give opportunity to simulate battles between NATO, US and Russia. It would be more up to date and I think that this would lead to more copies being sold. 

GqJ0P4o.jpg

This game is already huge and at this point adding one module would not hurt (in my opinion). Just think about all those missions, and campaigns that will be created by the community. 

kImFiM9.jpg

I don't think that the development team would need to work on anything - they could simply port some (not all) units from the CMBS. 

rSpRavm.jpg

It would give us all a chance to simulate clashes of a different level. 

What do you thing @Bootie @Erwin @Battlefront.com

nErbFPW.jpg

P.S. Do not get me wrong - I am NOT supporting russian involvement in Syria. All I'm saying is that it would add some spiciness for the OPFOR side and it would be a nice for the sake of battles. 

Again - I'm not supporting russian actions in Syria as well as I'm strongly against tyrannic regime of bashar assad (not going to waste a capital letters for his name). 

So I guess my question is - is this possible in theory to see another module for this game since it is one of the biggest games in CM history. Thank you. 

P.S. P.S. All the photos that I've provided here as visualization are provided for supporting the idea that I've described here. I'm not charmed or excited by any of those images. Those are visualizations and I'm NOT supporting actions of russia and its puppets in Syria. 

P.S. P.S. P.S. In case if Russia as an idea would not work - would the development team consider adding Iran (due to recent escalations) as an alternative? Why? To have more advanced and more challenging enemy to confront while fighting on blue side against red side. 

Thank you for your time, comments and thoughts gentlemen. 

z8cTWmO.jpg

diAZuu1.jpg

ijbjGuB.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

CM:SF is an alternate reality, that was conceived during the "War on Terror". In 2008, Syrian terror cells explode nuclear "dirty bombs" in Western cities. The Manual says that there was very little opposition in the UN, to a Coalition invasion of Syria. Russian topographic maps show up in the British campaign, possibly implying solidarity (if not outright support).

A RF campaign supporting Assad would conflict with the lore, and would retcon all the campaigns. I think they could include an RF faction on the side of NATO -- an alternate reality pro-west Russia (this would be conceivable during 2002). Although, that'd be "too weird", considering the events that play out in our reality.

I am not sure if the Georgian War occurred in CM:SF's reality. Obviously, the RF OOB would be much closer to that than 2010's RF in Syria. Maybe a conflict with Turkey over Kurdish regions or naval bases? Set after the SF campaigns?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, DerKommissar said:

CM:SF is an alternate reality, that was conceived during the "War on Terror". In 2008, Syrian terror cells explode nuclear "dirty bombs" in Western cities. The Manual says that there was very little opposition in the UN, to a Coalition invasion of Syria. Russian topographic maps show up in the British campaign, possibly implying solidarity (if not outright support).

A RF campaign supporting Assad would conflict with the lore, and would retcon all the campaigns. I think they could include an RF faction on the side of NATO -- an alternate reality pro-west Russia (this would be conceivable during 2002). Although, that'd be "too weird", considering the events that play out in our reality.

I am not sure if the Georgian War occurred in CM:SF's reality. Obviously, the RF OOB would be much closer to that than 2010's RF in Syria. Maybe a conflict with Turkey over Kurdish regions or naval bases? Set after the SF campaigns?

Good point. I was more interested in a sandbox type of thing without changing the main stories for each nation. But, I understand what you mean. Thank you for sharing your thought. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

Not going to lie, a Russian module for CMSF2 would be a tremendous addition - especially now that the title is released on Steam.

Sure we have CMBS, which can pretty well portray most hypothetical modern day US-v-Russia conflicts, but I think it's save to say that CMBS is now a shelved dead-end product. We are approaching six years since release without as much as even a hit at a single module.

CMBS saltiness aside, I do find CMSF to be more compelling - in both the setting and the variety of OPFOR available. Personally, I'd rather see a 4th module for CMSF than a 1st module for CMBS.

As far as the argument that the Russian appearance in CMSF would "conflict with the lore" - well, that's the beauty of an alternate-history setting - you get the write any narrative to fit your end-goal.

Seems like a fairly reasonable scenario for the Russo-Georgian war to escalate into a Russo-NATO conflict about a year after the events in CMSF. In turn that could bring Russia to Syria in an attempt to re-instate the original Syrian regime, in order to solidify their allies in the Eastern Mediterranean region.

No re-write of the existing CMSF lore, simply a continuation of the original time line past the initial NATO invasion and into NATO occupation. NATO would be portrayed mostly on the defensive and counter-attack; where as Russian forces would be portrayed as a force-multiplier of whatever is left of Syrian military. Perhaps not so much "Syrian military" as much as bands of UNCONS, but that's besides the point.

I would also like to echo some of the things OP is saying (about CMSF:Russia, not so much the extensive apologism of real-life Russian involvement in Syria 🤨):

On 4/26/2020 at 11:47 AM, Oleksandr said:

New challenge - a new life to the game. 

Would lead to more copies being sold. 

This game is already huge ... missions, and campaigns that will be created by the community. 

Port some units from the CMBS.

It would give us all a chance to simulate clashes of a different level. 

What do you thing @Bootie @Erwin @Battlefront.com

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, The Louch said:

We are approaching six years since release without as much as even a hit at a single module.

CMBS saltiness aside, I do find CMSF to be more compelling - in both the setting and the variety of OPFOR available. Personally, I'd rather see a 4th module for CMSF than a 1st module for CMBS.

It has a DLC - a battlepack - even though it doesn't add that much.

Personally I don't want to see any more DLCs for CMSF as I find it boring. CMBS is much better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Bufo said:

It has a DLC - a battlepack - even though it doesn't add that much.

Personally I don't want to see any more DLCs for CMSF as I find it boring. CMBS is much better.

Well, it depends. CMSF has actually better potential in terms of wich nations could be added to it I think. Turkey, Israel or Iran come to mind, with the last one adding another conventional army, which i would guess it will be somewhat more of a challenging force to fight against than its sirian counterpart, for bluefor to fight against. 

Instead I feel Black sea is somewhat more limited in that regard, whit the british being the most likely candidate for any addition to the roster of nations. And dont get me wrong, the Brits would also be quite the fine addition, but we already have them in SF,( the same with the germans for example) Nevertheless, I guess they could add Poland, which would be quite the interesting nation to play.

 

Thought, if I am honest, for any new game or addition to the modern timeframe I will prefer them to leave europe and the middle east for a while, and go to the far East. Like, how cool an hypothetical game about a Chinese invasion of Taiwan with US support could be? Or some South vs North Korea war, with all of its bizarre equipment. Feel like the East battlefield is somewhat neglected in wargaming in general, and keeping in mind how China is transforming itself into a new superpower, it shouldnt be that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CHEqTRO said:

Instead I feel Black sea is somewhat more limited in that regard, with the british being the most likely candidate for any addition to the roster of nations. ... but we already have them in SF,( the same with the germans for example)

That's exactly my issue with CMBS - all probable additions to the Black Sea theatre have already been done in CMSF; and those not already in CMSF are even less plausible in CMBS.

5 hours ago, Bufo said:

CMSF as I find it boring. CMBS is much better.

Sure I get that, I enjoy CMBS a great deal as well - a well equipped OPFOR is a fun challenge; but that's exactly my point.

The way I see it, we can either have CMBS play catch-up to the tune of 3-4 modules ... or get a single new ("well equipped") OPFOR combatant for CMSF and make a solid title even better. Russia is where my vote is, but Iran would indeed make a solid addition as well.

Additionally, playing an interesting BLUFOR, like the Dutch or the Canadians, against a Russianesque and UNCON combatant seems a lot more interesting than commanding Yet Another Stryker Battalion(tm), even if it's against a "real" Russian force.

3 hours ago, CHEqTRO said:

I will prefer them to leave europe and the middle east for a while

To be completely honest, I feel the issue of "geographic setting" to be of little consequence. At least to my mind, it is purely an aesthetic issue, one which can be easily solved with a texture pack. To illustrate that point - I have more play-time in CMSF(1) re-textured to look like CMBS, than I do in actual CMBS.

Perhaps that's just me, but I'd rather see a single modern title with a half-dozen modules, than a half-dozen titles with a single module each. 😉

Edited by The Louch
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Louch said:

I'd rather see a single modern title with a half-dozen modules, than a half-dozen titles with a single module each

+1   CM1 was much easier to access in that regards as one could play from Barbarossa to Berlin in one game.  However, the modular method of CM2 development is understandable as it results in more $ for BF's business.  But, development speed of new modules/products seems to be becoming ever more glacial. 

After playing CM2 since 2013 I find that all the WW2 games start to feel the same since they all feature the late war era, and feature more or less the same vehicles and equipment - with small variations of uniforms etc.  If you've been playing these games for a decade, all the WW2 games pretty much play the same/provide the same gameplay experience.  I think we were all hoping to have reached early WW2 (1939 or 1941 at least) by now, and next iteration due soon would have been CM3 with all the improvements we have been listing for over a decade now.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember the CMSF2 timeline, 2008. I don't know how much of the fancy-schmancy Russian stuff wasn't fielded yet on that date.

At the time of CMSF1 Steve was adamant about not including 'occupation duty' equipment in the title (I was the guy lobbying to put them in). No Bremmer walls or Hesco barriers, no mine-protection vehicles like RG-31 Nyala (thought the Canadians did get it) or MRAP. He never said it explicitly but I suspect Steve thought it was in bad taste to do an overt Iraq War game while we were still fighting the Iraq War. Maybe now that we're into the third decade of the century Steve would be slightly more amenable to an 'occupation vehicle/force pack'. Thought BFC's go so many irons in the fire currently they're unlikely to get to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 9/26/2020 at 6:45 PM, The Louch said:

Sure we have CMBS, which can pretty well portray most hypothetical modern day US-v-Russia conflicts, but I think it's save to say that CMBS is now a shelved dead-end product. We are approaching six years since release without as much as even a hit at a single module.

IRRC they're working on a module for CMBS: it should include US Marines, Ukrainian VDD, and Russia VDV units.

Nevertheless I wholeheartedly support the idea to port some russian units to CMSF2, even changing the lore, if needed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2020 at 3:30 PM, MikeyD said:

Remember the CMSF2 timeline, 2008. I don't know how much of the fancy-schmancy Russian stuff wasn't fielded yet on that date.

Yeah, absolutely - it's enough to look at the state of their heavy and personal equipment during the 2008 conflict in Georgia. It was not much better than what they had back in the 90s - they won despite the equipment, not because of it.

Even CMBS is being very generous with equipment in some cases - T-90AM, which is featured so prominently in that version of 2017, has just started trickling in to the top tier units earlier this year.

I would, however, argue that fancy-schmancy-equipmenttm is not the predominant reason for adding a combatant to a CM title. After all, Italians do exits in both CMx1 and CMx2 ;)

 

On 9/27/2020 at 3:30 PM, MikeyD said:

At the time of CMSF1 Steve was adamant about not including 'occupation duty' equipment in the title (I was the guy lobbying to put them in). No Bremmer walls or Hesco barriers, no mine-protection vehicles like RG-31 Nyala (thought the Canadians did get it) or MRAP. He never said it explicitly but I suspect Steve thought it was in bad taste to do an overt Iraq War game while we were still fighting the Iraq War. Maybe now that we're into the third decade of the century Steve would be slightly more amenable to an 'occupation vehicle/force pack'. Thought BFC's go so many irons in the fire currently they're unlikely to get to it.

Hesco barriers - sure, but that's just a fancy sandbag that a backhoe can fill.

However, I'm not sure adding Russians to CMSF inherently requires occupation duty units or equipment; not any more so than a late-WW2 title requires "occupied population logistics", shall we call it.

I imagine the initial thrust would focus on taking over airfields and ports - not civilian centers were NATO is conducting 'occupation duty'.

 

On 9/27/2020 at 11:01 AM, Erwin said:

After playing CM2 since 2013 I find that all the WW2 games start to feel the same since they all feature the late war era, and feature more or less the same vehicles and equipment - with small variations of uniforms etc.  If you've been playing these games for a decade, all the WW2 games pretty much play the same/provide the same gameplay experience.  I think we were all hoping to have reached early WW2 (1939 or 1941 at least) by now, and next iteration due soon would have been CM3 with all the improvements we have been listing for over a decade now.

My feeling exactly - hearing that they're working on USMC for CMBS makes me cringe, if I'm honest.

I realize this is going to be a segue from the topic at hand, but as much as I like how the new CMx2 modules add depth, I equally dislike how the multiple titles shatter the breadth.

CMx1 worked out pretty well, once all of the titles were out - CMBO was the first one you'd only play if you really wanted the Tiger-II; CMBB was the East Front; and CMAK was 95% of WW2 west of Warsaw start-to-finish. 

Where as in CMx2 I struggle to understand why CMFB is a title and not a module for CMBN - the two share about 80~90% of TO&E and are separated by less than 200km of land and two months of time.

I suppose in the same vein I struggle to find a reason for CMBS to exist - especially if they already knew CMSF2 was going to be developed. I understand that it is not feasible for CMSF to span a decade and two continents worth of combatants; but considering the conflict is hypothetical, perhaps I just wish CMSF was a bit more of a sandbox (not a desert pun, I promise).

Edited by Roter Stern
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2020 at 1:44 PM, Roter Stern said:

Perhaps that's just me, but I'd rather see a single modern title with a half-dozen modules, than a half-dozen titles with a single module each. 😉

  Yup, that's a +1 from me too.  B)

On 9/30/2020 at 3:11 PM, Roter Stern said:

Where as in CMx2 I struggle to understand why CMFB is a title and not a module for CMBN - the two share about 80~90% of TO&E and are separated by less than 200km of land and two months of time.

  That may appear to be the case, but it ain't actually so.....The resemblance is only skin deep at the most.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/30/2020 at 4:11 PM, Roter Stern said:

I would, however, argue that fancy-schmancy-equipmenttm is not the predominant reason for adding a combatant to a CM title. After all, Italians do exits in both CMx1 and CMx2 ;)

Of course Italians were included only for their fancy hats 😀

On 9/30/2020 at 4:11 PM, Roter Stern said:

I realize this is going to be a segue from the topic at hand, but as much as I like how the new CMx2 modules add depth, I equally dislike how the multiple titles shatter the breadth.

CMx1 worked out pretty well, once all of the titles were out - CMBO was the first one you'd only play if you really wanted the Tiger-II; CMBB was the East Front; and CMAK was 95% of WW2 west of Warsaw start-to-finish. 

Where as in CMx2 I struggle to understand why CMFB is a title and not a module for CMBN - the two share about 80~90% of TO&E and are separated by less than 200km of land and two months of time.

Agreed! I hope that for CM3 they release less title and more modules/contents for each title like the total war series. Currently we have 4 ww2 games and 2 moderns, some with minimal contents (CMRT and CMBS).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets hope the upcoming Red Thunder module will be better. The Fortress Italy modules were a serious meh. Not even sure what I paid for. 

If bfc plans to appeal to the masses with the Steam move, they better up their game

 

Market Garden module for cmbn is the kind of thing id consider extremely beneficial to bfcs business

Edited by Artkin
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

You are kidding, right?

There are some really, really good scenarios in the R2V pack.

GL and R2V continue to make FI great and so unlike any other CM.

He's welcome to his opinion, but it's hard to imagine anyone finding it meh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...