Modern or WWII?

[Phantom Captain]

I was just reading a post on another thread about how one of our community members shies away from playing modern and only plays WWII.  I'm actually in the opposite camp in that I started way back in the CMBO and CMBB days thinking I would never play anything but WWII.  After all these years though, I am completely focused on the modern arenas now.  I really don't play much else but BS, CW and SF2.  Every now and then CMRT will get a spin but after falling hard into the modern era I just can't go back.  I played a bit of Fire and Rubble the other day and when one of my tank turrets started rotating at its impossibly slooooooow speed, I just...no.

I'm just wondering what everyone thinks the percentage breakdown is of our community who only focus on WWII, only on Modern and who play a mix of the two.

I'm sure it's impossible to answer but I feel like the WWII crowd still probably vastly outnumbers the dedicated modern players.

[JoMac]

I only play WWII as almost nothing else matters...Well, except ACW (and maybe a little Trek ) 

Edited March 28, 2022 by JoMac

[kohlenklau]

This is an awesome topic! Sadly, the folks that know the breakdown best are BFC and I think they don't ever release numbers. They could answer this and really open my eyes I suppose.

Wars happening for the last 20+ years means 10 year olds are now 30. 

 

I THINK THE MODERN BUBBAS NOW OUTSIZE THE WW2 BUBBAS BY DOUBLE OR TRIPLE!

[kohlenklau]

Some more comments...

Maybe the WW2 crowd is a pie chart (mmmmm, pie) and the WW2 CM crowd is just only a small subset with a small percentage, a tenth that pie? A small slice, a small proportion, a small market.

BUT the modern title junkies are younger and the subset that is boardgame and die rolling is much smaller so this essentially pushes them towards technology that they grew up with, mouse use etc., and so for CM, the arena has flopped to a high prevalence of the available gamers who would prefer modern titles, shifting to CM. 

And BFC has made a business shift to focus on them I feel. 

Edited March 28, 2022 by kohlenklau

[Probus]

I will be extremely helpful and say I only play... both.  I love both the WWII and the Modern.  They are so different I keep any burnout away by swapping back and forth.

[chuckdyke]

I try SF2 now and then. I am on the verge of getting rid of it. I am not going to waste money on CW or BS. Especially BS just watching the news make me sick to play a game about it. 

[kohlenklau]

a data point for what it is worth...

forum/total posts in 1,000's

CMCW/12

CMSF2/18

CMBS/73

CMSF/216

Modern Total = 319,000

CMFB/23

CMRT/61

CMFI/46

CMBN/199

WW2 = 329,000

 

[Codreanu]

WW2, a large part due to the massive amount of content that has been created for it, they all have heaps and heaps of mods and user created scenarios and campaigns. SF1/SF2 do as well but honestly I'm not the biggest fan of it, I don't think urban combat is CM's strongpoint and slapping around Syrians and Uncons with Javelins and Abrams gets old after awhile. If it was a purely REDFOR v REDFOR game I would have a lot more fun with it. Saying that, Cold War is fantastic and if it gets some good modules and a lot of user created scenarios I think it will be the best CM game out of all of them.

[kohlenklau]

34 minutes ago, Codreanu said:

Cold War is fantastic and if it gets some good modules and a lot of user created scenarios I think it will be the best CM game out of all of them.

In its core, it is based on a hypothetical war based off doctrine and TOE from each side in the geography of the most likely areas. Scenario writers go to what ifs and no actual accounts, right? But I get a devious smile when I sniff that CMCW has potential for Arab-Israeli actual historical scenarios. But BFC Business Model will most likely only allow the slow choked trickle of modules over the maximum duration and modders will have to cobble together a CMCW Yom Kippur Mod before 2032. I don't even own CMCW but the day I ever buy it, I would TRY to begin the Yom Kippur Mod.

[kohlenklau]

2 hours ago, Phantom Captain said:

I played a bit of Fire and Rubble the other day and when one of my tank turrets started rotating at its impossibly slooooooow speed, I just...no.

Maybe I can mod some old ww2 tanks to fill in as your modern stuff? PzIIIG with 120mm smooth bore? j/k

[Phantom Captain]

15 minutes ago, kohlenklau said:

Maybe I can mod some old ww2 tanks to fill in as your modern stuff? PzIIIG with 120mm smooth bore? j/k

Haha!  Panthers with mounted ATGMs and then everyone will be happy! 

[Phantom Captain]

1 hour ago, kohlenklau said:

a data point for what it is worth...

forum/total posts in 1,000's

CMCW/12

CMSF2/18

CMBS/73

CMSF/216

Modern Total = 319,000

CMFB/23

CMRT/61

CMFI/46

CMBN/199

WW2 = 329,000

 

This is interesting but could mean anything!  It could be that both groups have equal members or that everyone plays both or some combo of any of those.  And then, of course, many titles have been out longer than others and therefore have more posts.

I do also find it interesting that you think the modern camp is bigger when I thought the exact opposite!  I'm 52 and started playing wargames on the tabletop with dice and cardboard counters.  Even then though I dreamed of what we have now in full action 3d.  I actually loved Battletech and how it went from a sci-fi tabletop wargame into all it's iterations.  So I am actually one of the "old-timers" who seamlessly fell into modern and do prefer that more even though how I started.  I am actually that generation that had the very first video games and computers etc, in my early teens so I think I am the hybrid of both old school tabletop and modern 3d computer game equivalents.

Edited March 29, 2022 by Phantom Captain

[Phantom Captain]

2 hours ago, Probus said:

I will be extremely helpful and say I only play... both.  I love both the WWII and the Modern.  They are so different I keep any burnout away by swapping back and forth.

Haha!  I fend it off with alternating between BS and SF and now CW!  

It actually is fun to go back and play WWII sometimes but now I far prefer the Eastern Front so I guess I'm spoiled with RT.  CMBB did it to me.  I went down that rabbit hole hard.

[kohlenklau]

20 minutes ago, Phantom Captain said:

This is interesting but could mean anything! 

yeah, I agree. Long ago I had posted and tracked it over some duration and tried to do some analysis of the percentage growth of number of posts at T=T1 and T=T2. 

The number of each title sold would be awesome to know! Imagine how secret that info is because the WW2 group might feel neglected if they learned that we were outnumbered by sales, age group demographic totals, posts and current BFC focus! But maybe we'll always have the edge in sense of humor, sex appeal, 70's trivia and carpentry skills! 

[BeondTheGrave]

46 minutes ago, kohlenklau said:

In its core, it is based on a hypothetical war based off doctrine and TOE from each side in the geography of the most likely areas. Scenario writers go to what ifs and no actual accounts, right? But I get a devious smile when I sniff that CMCW has potential for Arab-Israeli actual historical scenarios.

There are interesting ways to go with it based on primary documents. Field manuals are a good source to look at for scenario ideas, "hey this is what they said you should be able to do." As are wargames and other hypothetical situations, based on real data but conjecture obviously. Then you have scenarios from famous books or novels, ie Team Yankee, Red Storm Rising, and The Third World War. And lastly there are some interesting accounts of simulated combats and exercises which could be give 'teeth' in interesting ways. I have a memoir of a battalions NTC rotation which would make for a very interesting NTC campaign. And then you could of course translate other non-Central Front ideas into the German context. For example, I had thought about a Zika Greengold inspired 1-tank only campaign. And of course with a British module ft Centurions we could easily use the NTC tileset to make a very interesting and engaging Yom Kippur scenario. 

So there is the potential for a whole lot of stuff even if we dont have any 'real' battles to draw on. Some people will always be put off by the hypothetical nature of CMCW, but I think thats not as much of a restriction as some people think. 

3 hours ago, Phantom Captain said:

I'm just wondering what everyone thinks the percentage breakdown is of our community who only focus on WWII, only on Modern and who play a mix of the two.

I bought CMBS first and hated it (lol) because I didnt understand it. Then CMCW came out and it was like it was made for me, I saw the whole series with new eyes. After CW I wanted to branch out and try some of the meat and potatoes WWII games so I grabbed BN since it seems to have the most content (free and paid) of the WWII games. But, idk. I just bounced off it. Least playtime of my CM games, even though I just relatively recently got SF2 as well. After having done the modern stuff I just struggle with the older tech and worse gear I guess. Something about the slower pace of the battle feels glacial to me by comparison. And limiting! Not sure what it is about it, I cant quite put my finger on it. But after BN I lost all desire to fiddle with the WWII stuff. I think I will give BN another shot one day, maybe the second time will be the charm. I like it, its definitely good. But CMCW, oh boy. 

[Simcoe]

2 hours ago, BeondTheGrave said:

There are interesting ways to go with it based on primary documents. Field manuals are a good source to look at for scenario ideas, "hey this is what they said you should be able to do." As are wargames and other hypothetical situations, based on real data but conjecture obviously. Then you have scenarios from famous books or novels, ie Team Yankee, Red Storm Rising, and The Third World War. And lastly there are some interesting accounts of simulated combats and exercises which could be give 'teeth' in interesting ways. I have a memoir of a battalions NTC rotation which would make for a very interesting NTC campaign. And then you could of course translate other non-Central Front ideas into the German context. For example, I had thought about a Zika Greengold inspired 1-tank only campaign. And of course with a British module ft Centurions we could easily use the NTC tileset to make a very interesting and engaging Yom Kippur scenario. 

So there is the potential for a whole lot of stuff even if we dont have any 'real' battles to draw on. Some people will always be put off by the hypothetical nature of CMCW, but I think thats not as much of a restriction as some people think. 

I bought CMBS first and hated it (lol) because I didnt understand it. Then CMCW came out and it was like it was made for me, I saw the whole series with new eyes. After CW I wanted to branch out and try some of the meat and potatoes WWII games so I grabbed BN since it seems to have the most content (free and paid) of the WWII games. But, idk. I just bounced off it. Least playtime of my CM games, even though I just relatively recently got SF2 as well. After having done the modern stuff I just struggle with the older tech and worse gear I guess. Something about the slower pace of the battle feels glacial to me by comparison. And limiting! Not sure what it is about it, I cant quite put my finger on it. But after BN I lost all desire to fiddle with the WWII stuff. I think I will give BN another shot one day, maybe the second time will be the charm. I like it, its definitely good. But CMCW, oh boy. 

That's why I switched to the modern games. I have them all and I'm sure I'll go back to WW2 but it's just so damn slow. 

I started Cold War with the NTC campaign/deliberate attack decision. You press go, artillery is hitting everywhere, a Soviet recon team is rushing through the pass, an ATGM takes out one of your tanks. This is all just the first turn! 

I couldn't go back to 10 turns of moving your infantry into position for the actual fighting.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

I love gaming both genres and am very grateful to BFC for providing so many choices.

If I could only have 1, it would be CMRT (though if they ever do CMAK and North Africa again, that would vault to #1) but I really enjoy modern very much.

Just as RT, FI, and BN have very different feels, so too do CW, SF2, and BS.

I stand to be corrected and current events may be fueling a lot of BS sales, but I would hazard to guess that WWII has outsold modern by an order of magnitude.

[Simcoe]

50 minutes ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:

I love gaming both genres and am very grateful to BFC for providing so many choices.

If I could only have 1, it would be CMRT (though if they ever do CMAK and North Africa again, that would vault to #1) but I really enjoy modern very much.

Just as RT, FI, and BN have very different feels, so too do CW, SF2, and BS.

I stand to be corrected and current events may be fueling a lot of BS sales, but I would hazard to guess that WWII has outsold modern by an order of magnitude.

What draws you to Red Thunder? 
 

[George MC]

2 hours ago, Simcoe said:

What draws you to Red Thunder? 
 

Large armoured actions. Tanks!! Both sides (politically) are *****

Seriously fir me wargaming sparked from interest in Russo/German front WWII and tanks. 
 

But I do also play modern. Different pace. Similar but very different. 

[domfluff]

Arbitrary distinctions don't really help anyone, and clearly the answer is "both", but:

Based on what Steve has said previously, WW2 outselling Modern, outside of CMBN, isn't true at all, and this has been hinted at being quite the reverse. CMBN is likely to be the best seller individually, certainly (although the lack of CMBN on Steam might have cut into that for the time being).

In terms of comparison:

It's an awful lot easier to make a workable scenario for a WW2 title. You can throw a US rifle company and a German rifle company onto a map, stick an objective in the middle and have a decently interesting game. That means the floor is a lot higher, and it's a lot harder to get it wrong.

The problem with the WW2 titles though is that you're answering questions that are extremely familiar, and all have well-trodden answers. There's little mystery to engage with, and few high concepts to grapple with. One of the most interesting experiences with CMBS was reading some of the Lessons Learned from the fighting in Ukraine since 2014 (e.g.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316122469_Karber_RUS-UKR_War_Lessons_Learned). It's very interesting how many of those lessons are learnable using CMBS - a testament to CM as a valuable tool for simulation, as well as how some or most of the assumptions made by BFC were correct, or at least along the right lines.

So with the modern titles you can engage with some Big Ideas - some of which have no real-world solutions. There's a Stryker brigade sitting in real-Europe as a quick reaction force, which could be brought into action against a peer opponent (or as recent experience suggests, possibly a peer opponent). How well could that do in a near-peer situation? Black Sea can give you some answers to that. The Modern titles allow you to solve novel problems that haven't been solved hundreds of times before. That means the potential ceiling is significantly higher.

Now, that brings with it some other issues. Specifically because the ground is not as well trodden, the scenario and map design is significantly more difficult. All of the modern titles are asymmetric to some degree - CMCW is the most balanced in power level between the factions, but they play extremely differently to each other. The more asymmetric a scenario, the more difficult it is to create something that's interesting. Also, if the aim is to explore unanswered questions, then it's more than possible that the tools provided are not appropriate.

So, no, I don't think it's an age thing (aside from the short-term situation, where only the modern titles are on Steam - that will skew things). I also don't think it is or should be an either/or thing. Preferences are personal, naturally, but it does seem a bit daft to limit yourself in that way, since it doesn't seem to serve a particularly useful purpose.

[domfluff]

Oh, and in terms of my personal preference - I'm pretty confident that CMCW will end up being the strongest CM title in general. It probably needs a module, it could do with those mysterious "performance improvements" slated for engine 5, and it certainly needs a significantly better selection of QB maps, but there is so much about the scale of the game which makes total sense in CM.

[Vacillator]

1 hour ago, George MC said:

Seriously fir me wargaming sparked from interest in Russo/German front WWII and tanks. 

+1 to George's comment.  Started with RT, then BN, then FI, then FB, and F&R recently to add on to RT. 

So all WW2 so far, although the modern bundle interests me, as does a certain Vietnam mod for SF2.

[Probus]

SF2 is the weakest title for me because of the accuracy of the modelling of the forces.  The Syrian military is just not up to fighting most of the Blue forces so I end up fighting red on red most of the time.

[chuckdyke]

30 minutes ago, Probus said:

The Syrian military is just not up to fighting most of the Blue forces

Abrams, Leopards, Challengers vs Toyota Hilux. 

[Commanderski]

WWII titles for me. The modern wars are too fast paced for my liking.