Maxx Posted October 25, 2000 Share Posted October 25, 2000 Just wanted to insert into the discussion what is often forgotten when discussing the colossal land battles on the eastern front. That being the contribution of the British and American bombing campaigns on German industry. According to Albert Speer (German munitions minister) these 'raids' had a HUGE effect on Germany's ability to prosecute the war from 1943 on. By late 1944 they were literally crippling Germany's fuel (oil) industry. How often i have read a German account of running out of fuel in Russia and having to abandon ALL their vehicles. No gas, no tanks, no planes, no victory. Ok I feel better now. ------------------ The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know - HS Truman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeT Posted October 25, 2000 Share Posted October 25, 2000 ciks, any chance you can create some highly faithful maps of your countryside for CM2 or even CM1 gaming purposes? MikeT ------------------ "Quando omni flunkus moritati" - Motto of Possum Lodge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Clark Posted October 25, 2000 Share Posted October 25, 2000 I understand where all of you are coming from and how far I need to go to reach that understanding. Bear with me please. I have read about long-range bombardments and would see that this would make your units more vulnerable at all times. However, since I have not seen or paid close enough attention to CM2 game designs, I am still wondering what the scale of CM2 will be? Here's why. Folks talk about 1500 tanks dueling each other (with many other types of support units of course). But how many tanks can you possibly put on a CM1 map? I don't know but I'm sure it's not more than a handful. I believe CM2 will require a much more hefty CPU and graphics card, but isn't it still going to be a short-/long-range tactical simulation between a relatively few number of units? You are still not going to sweep through the Neva River valley or do a grand flanking sweep around Kursk as you would in Talonsoft's Eastern Front. You are only going to fight through a ravine or a river crossing or a town/city building, right? Or unless the scale is changing in CM2. Also, I understand the accurate modeling of Soviet and German tanks (and other units) as mentioned above, and appreciate its importance in CM. However, some casual gamers that are playing CM really don't get to that level of detail, or care to. So much of the fine details mentioned above are lost on such gamers. But I think that is the genius of CM where a WW2 grognard and a casual wargamer can both equally play and enjoy the game. Given that perspective that tanks are tanks, MGs are MGs, etc., my questions still stand. Is the scale of CM2 going to encompass a much larger portion of the battlefield? Are the objectives going to be the same (capture or meet at this bridge/hill/crossroads/village/city building/etc.)? The reason I'm harping on this (despite BTS hyperbolism and non-answer) is that in many other forums that I participate in (most strategy games), I have recommended and gotten at least 10 folks to buy and play CM1. Some are beginning to ask if there will be a CM2 and what it will be like, from a non-wargamer perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj. Bosco Posted October 25, 2000 Share Posted October 25, 2000 So you want to know what some one who doesn't play wargames will want in this wargame? CM is a wargame, don't be fooled by the convenient interface, graphics and lack of teeny-tiny counters. What will some one who has up to this point only played twitch games like about CM2? The same thing they'd like about CM1. Why will CM2 be different than CM1? Different battle dynamics and changing battle dynamics. A fairly good overview of the changing tactical situations on the Ostfront has already been given. Right now in CM it's always "Germans have better armor and small arms, Allies have more troops and support". On the Ostfront both countries evolved new tanks, weapons, and tactics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-tink- Posted October 25, 2000 Share Posted October 25, 2000 All of you have said it very well. I will only reiterate: The Russian Bear broke the back of the Wehrmacht. From the artillery set up wheel hub to wheel hub all the way to the massive waves of Russian leg troops, the eastern front was the REAL war! -tink- ------------------ "Reality is created by the participation of the participants."- John Wheeler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Clark Posted October 25, 2000 Share Posted October 25, 2000 I know this Front was the real war with evolving technologies, strategies and tactics...but no one in 50+ posts have answered the questions: How are you going to a get a feel for the great Barbarossa campaigns and strategies (as everyone here articulated very well) when you fight for 20-75 minutes at 60 seconds at a time on a small battlefield? Are we going to have turns that last 5-20 minutes each and therefore can fight for days or weeks? Are we going to have 100+ square Km maps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Steiner Posted October 25, 2000 Share Posted October 25, 2000 Even if the scale of CM2 is no larger than CM1, it will still be a great game. I for one, can hardly wait to brew up some T-34's, and use the "Hitler Saw" on Uncle Joe's human wave assaults ------------------ "Follow me, and I'll show you where the iron crosses grow" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted October 25, 2000 Share Posted October 25, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Steve Clark wrote: I understand where all of you are coming from and how far I need to go to reach that understanding. Bear with me please.....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think that's what it comes down to, that is the player's understanding of the period. You have to remember CM portays realistic tactical WWII combat, that has always been the designer's intent. I don't forsee the scale changing for CM2(why would it?). The tactical problems, like secure Hill 123 or take Village A etc, may very well be the same but the solutions will be different due to terrain, equipment, changing technology, training/C&C among others. History has shown that. You don't have to play the whole Barbarossa strategic campaign to get a feel for it, afterall it was made up of small tactical battles that CM2 will simulate, right? Perhaps for you these differences aren't enough, it is just more of the same, that's fine. For the people interested, there is a world of difference, it isn't "BTS hyperbolism and non-answer", lol. That isn't some form of elitism but simply different strokes for different folks. BTS has never claimed to be making games for non-wargamers. Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wwb_99 Posted October 25, 2000 Share Posted October 25, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Steve Clark: I know this Front was the real war with evolving technologies, strategies and tactics...but no one in 50+ posts have answered the questions: How are you going to a get a feel for the great Barbarossa campaigns and strategies (as everyone here articulated very well) when you fight for 20-75 minutes at 60 seconds at a time on a small battlefield? Are we going to have turns that last 5-20 minutes each and therefore can fight for days or weeks? Are we going to have 100+ square Km maps?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How can one get the feel for the battle of the Bulge (200,000+ men, 2000+ AFVs) when one fights for 20-75 minutes at 60 seconds at a time on a small battlefield? WWB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leclerc Posted October 25, 2000 Share Posted October 25, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Steve Clark: Some are beginning to ask if there will be a CM2 and what it will be like, from a non-wargamer perspective.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Maps will be much larger :some will be abosolutely flat( except ravines) and without vegetation ( except cropfields); other will be much forested with rare roads ( Belarus); others will be marshes ( prypiat). Weather will give new effects ( very cold winter, very hot summer, very rainy autumn) and I guess snow or mud effects will be much pronounced. Units will be considerably much numerous and some really unique: partisans, milicians badly equipped and poorly trained, security troops, possibly minor axis troops. Cavalry will maybe be introduced. The number of vehicles will be too greater and the 1941 vehicles are very different: poorly armored for most, slow and unreliable. Command and control and lack of ratio concerns will give very different tactics as units will have to be the nearest possible to leaders; but the Soviet progress and German advantages will still be present. The Soviet morale will certainly be pretty unique as troops alternated suicidous courage and total breakdown ( as much untrained troops). Finnish troops will present too some particularities as self initiative was very real but communications very poor. So the terrains will be much more varied, the troops too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pham911 Posted October 25, 2000 Share Posted October 25, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Steve Clark: But how many tanks can you possibly put on a CM1 map? I don't know but I'm sure it's not more than a handful.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> After extensive testing my lab techs tell me that 5 infantry Battalions lock up my computer. They also tell me that one tank is more than a handful, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pham911 Posted October 25, 2000 Share Posted October 25, 2000 Ok, on topic response part: The East Front is popular with this reporter because of the operational events, plans, and problems, and not because of anything at the level that CM deals with. Barbarossa? How cool is that? Advancing across the Russian plains in the mud, in the blizzard of '41, in the unseasonably cool summer of '42(I made that up). Again, pretty cool. The nasty fighting in Stalingrad, the desperation of the Sixth Army, the attempt to supply it by air, the attempt to open a corridor to it? Again, how cool is that? What's the West Front have? The Buldge? Gimpy few months in the Ardennes during an operation that never stood a chance. Barbarossa was a collosal gamble that could have worked, but it became Germany's undoing. Everything in the West after D-Day was doomed for the Axis, so it's not nearly as interesting. Too one sided. Off Topic part: Will CM2 feature more flamable stuff that you can ignite with tracers like hay and thached roofs? Will it have cold weather effects on vehicles and underdressed soldiers(or is this out of CM's scope)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Eyes Posted October 25, 2000 Share Posted October 25, 2000 Anyone that is familiar with the board game 'Advanced Squad Leader' can tell you the difference. This game system has evolved for more than two decades and there are still things being added to it. It is rich with varying units and national styles. There is a plethora of equipment and vehicles. You learn quickly that one doesn't play the Germans the same way as one plays the Russians or Americans or Japanese or any other nationality. My wish is that CM develops as the ASL system has, adding more depth year by year. ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russellmz Posted October 25, 2000 Share Posted October 25, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: My answer to that question would be 'no', BTW. Have a close look at the political system in Japan during the 1930s and you may agree with me. I was talking about the cold war, and not about now. Japan only became so rich because of the cold war and the potential for a Nato-WP conflict in Europe. Have a look at the Japanese economic miracle and where it started - the Korean war was the trigger. You are not honestly trying to tell me that Japan would have had the potential to become a long-term threat to the US like the Soviet Union? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ummm, yeah. massive fleets, aleutian islands base to threaten alaska, huge amount of oil and resources from any conquered territories, control of pacific trade routes and resources. the asian economic tigers would not have developed, or if they did, they'd benefit japan. japan may have had a screwed up inefficient governmental system, but then the soviets' system was not exactly a paragon of model governmental structure. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The main point here is that no matter how many flights of fancy about what Japan could have become <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> the fact that japan was defeated IS of massive "geo-strategic consequences" that i can compare to "the war between the Germans and the Soviets". it may have not been more important but i am comparing the two. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> the cold war was reality, and to understand it you have to know some things about the history of Europe <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> thank you for implying i am some ignorant who doesn't know or understand anything about the history of europe. i actually know a little bit more than the average person on the street about european history during and after wwii. please do not assume things about me, and i won't do the same to you. then we can have a civil discussion on european history. being a jingostic american my favorite parts are the marshall plan, the berlin airlift, and the truman doctrine. (truman was my fave president) by the way, i am not saying the eastern front was insignificant, or even necessarily disagreeing that it was more important than the pacific war. but i am disagreeing with you that it was not comparable to the eastern theater. ------------------ "They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush "They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj. Bosco Posted October 25, 2000 Share Posted October 25, 2000 CM is not about operational level warfare. It's tactical warfare. If another game about tactical warfare isn't interesting for you that's both a testament to the greatness of the original CM and a kind of puzzling lack of interest in the dynamics of the different forces. One of the great things about CM and other historical wargames is that rather than having every unit have a counter unit on the other side (Read: Blizzard Games) they've taken real conflicts and given us the ability to use the same units that were involved. Personally I can't wait to be on the side with the massively overpowering armored behemoths. I look forward to German troops screaming and running away from my tanks. I've already have an eyefull of allies screaming and running away from German tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted October 25, 2000 Share Posted October 25, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by russellmz: thank you for implying i am some ignorant who doesn't know or understand anything about the history of europe. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I did not say that. I suggest you read the discussion again. I am talking about why I think it is necessary to teach kids in the US something about why the last 50 years of history happened the way they did and why the teaching of some basics about the German-Soviet conflict is more important than the teaching of how many marines got killed at Tarawa, or why Iwo Jima was a major strategic turning point in the Pacific War (B/c now the B-29 could reach the Japanese mainland, and bomb away). You suggest teaching them something about why the last 50 years did not happen in a particular way that you have dreamed up. If Hirohito had fallen down some stairs in 1937 and died there might have been a whole different history, this is endless. I am talking about history lessons and you are talking about science fiction. Both have their place, but only one in history lessons at school. Finla point: at no point do I imply that you don't understand European history, but if you think you have to take this personally, be my guest. What I do think is that you do not bother to read my posts and the ones leading to this discussion closely, because closer attention to what I actually said would dispell your notion of me implying anything about you. Have a nice day. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Edited for sig problems [This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 10-25-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kking199 Posted October 25, 2000 Share Posted October 25, 2000 Nothing quite like a hot topic... Let me reiterate my point about the average American's knowledge of Russia's involvement in WWII. It is non-existant. Any American who has casually studied WWII should know about the scope of Russia's involvement, but the "average" American thinks America won WWII. I agree with other posts here in saying that Russia beat Germany, and would have beat Germany whether US entered War or not, would have taken longer, but I believe would have eventually prevailed. After learning more about WWII and military history I understand better why the more hard core WWII fan desires a Eastern front game. Tactics, equipment, terrain. The Western front has really been romanticized (sp?) in America. It makes sense really. We did win our part, it was in Europe the homeland for most Americans, if not birthplace. We were the liberators, most occupied countries welcomed us, there was wine and women, the evil enemy (Hitler), heroes and death. Storybook stuff. For contrast look at the Pacific War, which you can say was US vs Japan. No history for Americans there, no idea where most of these Islands were. No beautiful cities, or women at all for that matter. Japanese did not have any good or cool weapons. Every island was either a thick jungle or volcanic rock. Much of the War was Naval. Pretty much explains why there is no outcry for a Pacific Theater CM. However, war was as brutal here as on the Eastern front, IMHO. The casual American gamer is naturally intersted in the Western front, the more hardcore, the Eastern as well. If I was to choose the next CM I would like to see one built around modern armies, the thought of having 8 M1A1 tanks at my disposal makes me giddy. Bring on those T-80's, or maybe a Leopard, Challener?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddy Posted October 25, 2000 Author Share Posted October 25, 2000 OK, so this thread has proven that there are an awful lot of gamers out there who love the Eastern Front...if I may, as the originator of this thread, kind of change the topic slightly? AI modifications made in CM2 - will they be retrospective for gamers like myself who really dig the Western Front and aren't really into the Eastern Front? In other words, if CM2 comes out and does all this cool new stuff (better AI, better graphics, better explosions, better map making tools, etc) will I be able to apply those to the Western Front? You get where I'm coming from? If number 2 has all the bells and whistles then Western Front fans will feel a little rooked. Comments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Steiner Posted October 25, 2000 Share Posted October 25, 2000 Hi all. I'm new to the forum (and CM),and enjoy all the different topics. So anyway, here's my two pfennigs on the subject. kking199 states that he believes the Russians would have won even without the participation of the western Allies. Had their been no strategic bombing campaign to cut the Wehrmacht's supplies off to a trickle, the German military-industrial complex, undisturbed, would have been free to churn out vast quantities of war materiel, ALL of it earmarked for the Ostfront. In addition, the Luftwaffe would have been able to devote 100% of it's attentions to the Russkis, instead of only 30% or so. Even with most of the Luftwaffe tied down in the West, the Germans were still able to achieve local air superiority in the East, right up to the end of the war. With the whole of the Luftwaffe available, they would have had dominance front wide. And let's not forget about the German atomic program and other advanced technologies. In my opinion, the war would have probably had a very different outcome. In any case, all of this is just theory and opinion, and interesting what if, and we'll never know for sure (fortunately!).. ------------------ "Follow me, and I'll show you where the iron crosses grow" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 25, 2000 Share Posted October 25, 2000 OK folks, lets remember to keep things nice and calm <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Steve Clark wrote: I know this Front was the real war with evolving technologies, strategies and tactics...but no one in 50+ posts have answered the questions: How are you going to a get a feel for the great Barbarossa campaigns and strategies<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As someone else pointed out, the same way one gets a "feel" for Normandy, Arnhem, or the Bulge in CM1. Other than that, there is no difference at the STRATEGIC/OPERATIONAL level in CM1 and CM2. But since CM doesn't simulate this level of combat, it is irrelevant. The differences between the East and West Fronts are innumerable. Some people have touched upon some of the reasons, but I will list a few here: 1. Different weapons systems - we are not talking about minor differences, but major and radical ones. The Germans, for example, will be stuck with Pz 38Ts instead of Tigers What relevance does this have on tactics? Different weapons systems require different tactics. The greater the differences in the weapons, the greater the variety of tactical situations you will have to overcome. 2. Scope - CM1 covers less than a year's worth of combat, while CM2 covers nearly 4. This is semi-coupled with the above, but basically it means that the variety of different units you will be able to use (from mortars, to infantry, to tanks) greatly exceeds that which is in CM1. As the German player in CM1 you don't have to worry about hordes of AT rifle teams for example. In CM2 you are going to have to find a way to deal with this menace. 3. Character of the Soviet forces - In CM1 you do not have to command or face hordes of conscripted, ill equipped, and horribly motivated troops. For the first part of CM2's time period this will be the norm. Again, this sort of stuff requires totally different tactics to command or counter successfully. Plus, the Soviets managed to field AFVs that were, for the most part, on a par with even the heaviest German tanks. In some cases, they had the "better" tanks. This was not the case on the Western Front in general. 4. Terrain - The war in the East was fought on everything from Tundra to Desert. CM1 is just the middle slice of this range. Again, new terrain means new tactics will be needed. 5. Weather - Not sure exactly how we are going to change the simulation of weather for CM2, but you can bet there will be some differences. As with everything else stated above, new weather requires new tactics. Or at the very least, it will produce a greater range of outcomes using the same tactics. 6. Game changes - some of the changes we are planning on making to the core game engine will radically effect the feel of battles. For example, an optional "Rarity" system will often find the Germans fighting T-34 76s with nothing better than a Pz 38T or Pz IIIe, instead of always picking whatever the heaviest vehicle is at the time. Overall... CM2 will FEEL very much different than CM1 because the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddy Posted October 25, 2000 Author Share Posted October 25, 2000 Moderator Steve, CM2 will be newer than CM, so it will presumably have better AI, mapmaking, etc...will CM be brought up to speed to accomodate players who like the Western front but will want the new features? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russellmz Posted October 25, 2000 Share Posted October 25, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: You suggest teaching them something about why the last 50 years did not happen in a particular way that you have dreamed up <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> acutally i didn't say anything about teaching. i was just arguing with your point that the soviet-german consequences were not comparable with the pacific war consequences. (that's why i mentioned it a lot ) i'm sorry if i mis read your post. but i am not trying to make science fiction, i am saying that the winning of the PTO prevented a lot of BAD global consequences, and is thus comparable to the ETO. thanks for your time. ------------------ "They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush "They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted October 25, 2000 Share Posted October 25, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by russellmz: i'm sorry if i mis read your post. but i am not trying to make science fiction, i am saying that the winning of the PTO prevented a lot of BAD global consequences, and is thus comparable to the ETO. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry about my tone earlier, I get a bit upset if someone says that I am insinuating that he is stupid (normally if I think it I either say it directly or not at all). I think there is just a misunderstanding on what we were talking about. My fault for not being clearer to start with. And before I forget to clarify - I do not think you don't know what you are talking about and I do not think that your opinion on what could have happened is stupid or wrong. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. [This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 10-25-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 25, 2000 Share Posted October 25, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>buddy wrote: CM2 will be newer than CM, so it will presumably have better AI, mapmaking, etc...will CM be brought up to speed to accomodate players who like the Western front but will want the new features?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> We have said for a long time now that we will actively attempt to allow CM1's setting to take advantage of CM2's enhancements, but we will also not hobble CM2 for this to happen. The most important thing is to advance the game system, so nothing is going to stand in the way of that goal. Meaning that our good intentions of backwards compatibility might run into stiff opposition from reality Way too soon to say at this point. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeT Posted October 25, 2000 Share Posted October 25, 2000 Steve, the additional info on CM2 is music to my ears, good music at that. This is what makes the East front so much fun. Set piece battles is one thing but to have to deal with the technological advances in vehicles, ATGs, and weapons is another. This is what made the front so terrible for so many people. One month your T34 is the king of the battlefield and suddenly the Germans remove the 37mm ATG (the door knocker) and introduce the 50mm ATG. It is going to be fun. Now the hardest part is going to be the change in the Russian fear of the Wermacht. From my reading the initial German success implanted a mindset in the Russian soldiers, and officers for that matter, that the Germans couldn't be beat. This fear was omnipresent up to the battle of Stalingrad when the Russians learn that they could fight and defeat the Germans. This is essential to duplicate/simulate in order to capture the feel of this conflict, and that makes its capture essential to make CM2 a real success with gamers. This is where, IMHO, Close Combat Russian Front failed. Your comments in CGW about a special command/control system for Russian hordes sounds nice but I am unsure about your plans to make it workable. There was a book in my old SL days by Von Mullethin (spelling wrong) that covered the Russian soldier mindset well. I will try to find it tonight. About weather, any chance it could by dynamic? Instead of having weather at the start of the battle be the same as the beginning how about a rainstorm gradually start or snowfall to gradually stop. Is the time period sufficient to allow for such changes slowly as the game progresses? MikeT ------------------ "Quando omni flunkus moritati" - Motto of Possum Lodge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts