Combat Mission Cold War - British Army On the Rhine

[Aragorn2002]

12 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Just to travel from North to South is a challenge for a Stryker Brigade. Just what we need here, 40C the size of Europe without Scandinavia. 

Australia is huge. I've been there and experienced it. Beautiful country.

[Redwolf]

12 hours ago, Sunbather said:

Yeah, you said that in the 2023 update thread already, I think, and of course you are right. And what a wonderful job the modders are doing!

However, I still think that it is way better to have such assets (snow maps, winter uniforms, snow vehicles) as official content. Why? Because then scenario and campaign creators in the community and also the modders themselves can concentrate on giving us new stuff. All those winter mods for Red Thunder and now for Black Sea! Only so that at some point snow will be officially added to the game after all?

In fact, the only custom campaign with snow for Red Thunder I can think of right now is Dragonwynns Last Panzer. And that doesn't even work without the additional mod package Dragonwynn included (incl. mods by Kohlenklau. I.e. it doesn't use the tagged assets we now have in Fire and Rubble. Why is that? Of course Fire and Rubble is relatively new and campaigns take a long time to create. But isn't it also so that most community campaigns came out shortly after Red Thunder released? Seven (7!) years later the module came out, giving the creators a lot to toy around with. But where is that momentum now, again: 7 years after the game came out? And now the very same mistake is made with Cold War? I said it in the 2023 update thread already but it is not only asset content that CW is lacking (i.e. factions, units) but I think for a lot of people it is quite taxing on the mind to see and play the ever same maps with green hills, lots of forest, country roads, and some small villages. While there are certainly other areas in central Germany one could portray to mix things up (industrial zones, big lakes, ruins from a former battle), the "easiest" way to mix things up map-wise (and the most realistic on top of that, even influencing the gameplay!) is to implement the different seasons.

In the end, I just wanna say this: the sooner we get more variations (including master maps, vehicles, different weather!), the sooner we will see community content with those variations. And community content is what makes these games so long-living in my opinion.

Good post.

Shipping units and factions in a module years later does a lot less damage than shipping map oriented features. Snow conditions would be much appreciated.

[Redwolf]

12 hours ago, Sunbather said:

Yeah, you said that in the 2023 update thread already, I think, and of course you are right. And what a wonderful job the modders are doing!

However, I still think that it is way better to have such assets (snow maps, winter uniforms, snow vehicles) as official content. Why? Because then scenario and campaign creators in the community and also the modders themselves can concentrate on giving us new stuff. All those winter mods for Red Thunder and now for Black Sea! Only so that at some point snow will be officially added to the game after all?

In fact, the only custom campaign with snow for Red Thunder I can think of right now is Dragonwynns Last Panzer. And that doesn't even work without the additional mod package Dragonwynn included (incl. mods by Kohlenklau. I.e. it doesn't use the tagged assets we now have in Fire and Rubble. Why is that? Of course Fire and Rubble is relatively new and campaigns take a long time to create. But isn't it also so that most community campaigns came out shortly after Red Thunder released? Seven (7!) years later the module came out, giving the creators a lot to toy around with. But where is that momentum now, again: 7 years after the game came out? And now the very same mistake is made with Cold War? I said it in the 2023 update thread already but it is not only asset content that CW is lacking (i.e. factions, units) but I think for a lot of people it is quite taxing on the mind to see and play the ever same maps with green hills, lots of forest, country roads, and some small villages. While there are certainly other areas in central Germany one could portray to mix things up (industrial zones, big lakes, ruins from a former battle), the "easiest" way to mix things up map-wise (and the most realistic on top of that, even influencing the gameplay!) is to implement the different seasons.

In the end, I just wanna say this: the sooner we get more variations (including master maps, vehicles, different weather!), the sooner we will see community content with those variations. And community content is what makes these games so long-living in my opinion.

Good post.

Shipping units and factions in a module years later does a lot less damage than shipping map oriented features. Snow conditions would be much appreciated.

[Redwolf]

12 hours ago, Sunbather said:

Yeah, you said that in the 2023 update thread already, I think, and of course you are right. And what a wonderful job the modders are doing!

However, I still think that it is way better to have such assets (snow maps, winter uniforms, snow vehicles) as official content. Why? Because then scenario and campaign creators in the community and also the modders themselves can concentrate on giving us new stuff. All those winter mods for Red Thunder and now for Black Sea! Only so that at some point snow will be officially added to the game after all?

In fact, the only custom campaign with snow for Red Thunder I can think of right now is Dragonwynns Last Panzer. And that doesn't even work without the additional mod package Dragonwynn included (incl. mods by Kohlenklau. I.e. it doesn't use the tagged assets we now have in Fire and Rubble. Why is that? Of course Fire and Rubble is relatively new and campaigns take a long time to create. But isn't it also so that most community campaigns came out shortly after Red Thunder released? Seven (7!) years later the module came out, giving the creators a lot to toy around with. But where is that momentum now, again: 7 years after the game came out? And now the very same mistake is made with Cold War? I said it in the 2023 update thread already but it is not only asset content that CW is lacking (i.e. factions, units) but I think for a lot of people it is quite taxing on the mind to see and play the ever same maps with green hills, lots of forest, country roads, and some small villages. While there are certainly other areas in central Germany one could portray to mix things up (industrial zones, big lakes, ruins from a former battle), the "easiest" way to mix things up map-wise (and the most realistic on top of that, even influencing the gameplay!) is to implement the different seasons.

In the end, I just wanna say this: the sooner we get more variations (including master maps, vehicles, different weather!), the sooner we will see community content with those variations. And community content is what makes these games so long-living in my opinion.

Good post.

Shipping units and factions in a module years later does a lot less damage than shipping map oriented features. Snow conditions would be much appreciated.

[Redwolf]

12 hours ago, Sunbather said:

Yeah, you said that in the 2023 update thread already, I think, and of course you are right. And what a wonderful job the modders are doing!

However, I still think that it is way better to have such assets (snow maps, winter uniforms, snow vehicles) as official content. Why? Because then scenario and campaign creators in the community and also the modders themselves can concentrate on giving us new stuff. All those winter mods for Red Thunder and now for Black Sea! Only so that at some point snow will be officially added to the game after all?

In fact, the only custom campaign with snow for Red Thunder I can think of right now is Dragonwynns Last Panzer. And that doesn't even work without the additional mod package Dragonwynn included (incl. mods by Kohlenklau. I.e. it doesn't use the tagged assets we now have in Fire and Rubble. Why is that? Of course Fire and Rubble is relatively new and campaigns take a long time to create. But isn't it also so that most community campaigns came out shortly after Red Thunder released? Seven (7!) years later the module came out, giving the creators a lot to toy around with. But where is that momentum now, again: 7 years after the game came out? And now the very same mistake is made with Cold War? I said it in the 2023 update thread already but it is not only asset content that CW is lacking (i.e. factions, units) but I think for a lot of people it is quite taxing on the mind to see and play the ever same maps with green hills, lots of forest, country roads, and some small villages. While there are certainly other areas in central Germany one could portray to mix things up (industrial zones, big lakes, ruins from a former battle), the "easiest" way to mix things up map-wise (and the most realistic on top of that, even influencing the gameplay!) is to implement the different seasons.

In the end, I just wanna say this: the sooner we get more variations (including master maps, vehicles, different weather!), the sooner we will see community content with those variations. And community content is what makes these games so long-living in my opinion.

Good post.

Shipping units and factions in a module years later does a lot less damage than shipping map oriented features. Snow conditions would be much appreciated.

[Redwolf]

[double post, forum malfunction]

Edited February 2, 2023 by Redwolf

[Lethaface]

9 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Btw @Lethaface, I've ordered my new CM tailor made PC. Thanks again for all your advice!

My pleasure! Hope you will be happy with it! Show us some screens when your playing CM on it

[Amedeo]

17 hours ago, Sunbather said:

May I inquire what book you are talking about? Is it a book about the Cold War? A brief look on his publications only shows WW2 era books?

Yes, of course. The book is: First Clash: Combat close-up in World War Three.

[Amedeo]

8 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Well, let's hope one day Russia or China will make the mistake to invade Australia.

You've got it backwards. Remember, as CMSF and CMBS showed, first there is a BFC game, then the war starts! 

[Combatintman]

4 minutes ago, Amedeo said:

You've got it backwards. Remember, as CMSF and CMBS showed, first there is a BFC game, then the war starts! 

As someone still on the Australian Army's books ... I am glad that Steve never mentioned such a game in this year's outlook.

[Aragorn2002]

29 minutes ago, Amedeo said:

You've got it backwards. Remember, as CMSF and CMBS showed, first there is a BFC game, then the war starts! 

Ah yes, so true.

[Aragorn2002]

1 hour ago, Lethaface said:

My pleasure! Hope you will be happy with it! Show us some screens when your playing CM on it

I will do that.

[Sunbather]

58 minutes ago, Amedeo said:

Yes, of course. The book is: First Clash: Combat close-up in World War Three.

This looks like the perfect book to read when the module comes out! Saved on my yet quite meager list of Cold War books. Thanks!

[Sequoia]

On 2/1/2023 at 7:50 AM, The_Capt said:

UK BOAR - right now we have a pretty comprehensive build planned for the UK units as they transitioned from their 1974 structures - to where they landed in 1980.

So how many different British TO&Es might we see?

[DerKommissar]

Canucks are in it? I'm sold. A prequel to the Princess Patricia Regiment campaign in Shock Force is a dream come true.

Highly approve of turning back the clock. Every wargame is doing 80s right now, but the 70s need love too.

We'll need a new music thread for all our classic rock and disco.

[Casual_Insanity]

Will the British troops have to take tea breaks in order to prevent morale loss?

I am exited to get to play with the brits!

 

On a different note I wonder if the US marines will ever get added to CMCW in the future as part of a Norwegian theater of war expansion. It would be an interesting expansion and could be used to set up scenarios like the battle of Iceland from Red Storm Rising. Anyhow thats really a bit of a pipe dream and wouldn't happen for a years anyway.  

Edited February 2, 2023 by Casual_Insanity

[The_Capt]

33 minutes ago, Sequoia said:

So how many different British TO&Es might we see?

I have 8 different unit types that with timeframe variations (early-mid-late) come to 18.  But how many actually get put into the game is a different answer.  When we do TO&E research we always go long and then cut back to fit resources.

So do not be surprised if there are fewer in the end.  That said the more mainstream ones like Mech Bns and Tank Regts are obviously going to be in game.

[Sequoia]

Thanks. And do I guess correctly Canadian formations were more stable in the timeframe?

[The_Capt]

17 minutes ago, Sequoia said:

Thanks. And do I guess correctly Canadian formations were more stable in the timeframe?

You do.  The Canadian Army went to a 4 CMBG structure in 1976 that pretty much endured right up until we pulled it out in ‘92.  
 

No state secrets here on what we are looking at.

[Sequoia]

Thanks again. And one last question (for now anyway ). I looked up the answer to my own question in a post upstream, and saw the Canadian Airforce contingent in Germany in the timeframe was CF-104s. Do I assume correctly their ground support capabilities were limited?

[The_Capt]

8 minutes ago, Sequoia said:

Thanks again. And one last question (for now anyway ). I looked up the answer to my own question in a post upstream, and saw the Canadian Airforce contingent in Germany in the timeframe was CF-104s. Do I assume correctly their ground support capabilities were limited?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CF-104_Starfighter

Gotta be honest but this thing never really made sense to me.  Was built for high altitude fast air to air interception but we stuck air to ground attack radar on the thing and rolled it into CAS.  For the Canadians in Germany in the time period we are talking this was about it as far as fighters went.  As to “limited” well it could carry about 4000lbs of ordinance and had the radars to target then, so not an A10 but from everything I have read a competent CAS aircraft.

Of course even back then aircraft did not necessarily follow strict national support lines.  So you could have US aircraft supporting Canadians and vice versa.  UK CAS is going to be interesting but I am not the one to unpack that one.

[Panzerpanic]

I was waiting for the two side of Germany but now that i know that i will be able to play the Canadian with the BAOR , now i am hyped! (to be fair , im pretty much hype for anything cold war that you guys do !)

Btw , did we still use Centurion back in 1976?

Edited February 2, 2023 by Panzerpanic

[Sequoia]

23 hours ago, The_Capt said:

I am very interested to see how the Canadians fair to be honest.  The Leopards came aboard in 78 (although there were smaller number integrations earlier) and before that was the Centurion Mark 11.  Game timeframe  is set 1976-1982…so some good assumptions to be made there.  As usual we aim to be as excruciatingly accurate as possible, particularly for the mainstream vehicles and weapon systems.

Apparently so.

[Simcoe]

On 2/1/2023 at 7:50 AM, The_Capt said:

Cold Warriors.

  Well it looks like Steve has already dropped the mic over on the annual update thread, so let myself, Bil H and Cpt Miller (along with a small team of unwashed heathens - two of whom are actually from the UK), be the second to announce the first CMCW Module - CMCW - British Army On the Rhine (BAOR).

We are still in development so I will only outline the broad strokes of what we are working on, and insert the caveat that we reserve the right to add/subtract - 

 - Time frame of the game is going deeper backwards into the Cold War.  We are setting the clock back to 1976, so CMCW will now encompass 1976-1982 (including some minor tweaks to the existing US orbats).  As has been noted we are less interested in the later Cold War years largely because they really do start to resemble the later CM titles and we are shooting to keep CMCW distinct in its own right.

- UK BOAR - right now we have a pretty comprehensive build planned for the UK units as they transitioned from their 1974 structures - to where they landed in 1980.  As per the picture above players should be able to become deeply engaged within the historical BAOR sector of the ETO.

- And because I just have to represent the home team, we are also doing the Canadians.  That little black box is the planned 4 CMBG AO - you will note this was right at the tail end when the brigade was still part of the BAOR, although for those that really want to play First Clash and park them down in Lahr you are fee to do so because the basic unit structures remained the same.

- We do have plans for the Soviet side, but are going to hold off on details until we zero them fully in...more to follow. 

- I will let you all speculate and discuss what new vehicles and weapon systems we are talking about but there is a not insignificant list of new ones we are planning - more as we start to get some cool screen shots.  

As noted by Steve, we are well on our way and are planning for a release this year - content and full scope remains TBA.

Thank you all very much for your support, the response to CMCW has been well beyond what we were expecting and that is entirely thanks to you guys.

To all the team working on this just to spark some discussion.

What made you choose BAOR over the other NATO factions? How will they contrast with the US forces?

Also, what's behind the choice to move the timeline back? Is there a certain dynamic that you can get in mid 1970's that you can't in 1979?

[domfluff]

17 minutes ago, Simcoe said:

How will they contrast with the US forces?

Also, what's behind the choice to move the timeline back? Is there a certain dynamic that you can get in mid 1970's that you can't in 1979?

One of the cool things about CMCW is that we'll be able to compare NATO doctrine.

The British, the West Germans and the US were all trying to solve the same problem, but did so in very different ways. Where the US were attempting to create depth through elastic defence, up-front, then rotating back, the British were more about static defence in depth and counter-attack. Where the TOW is really the centrepiece of US defence, for the British it's Chieftain, and anything armed with Swingfire is in a more supporting role. They also tend to embed recce assets down to the company level, so perhaps a pair of Scimitars in front of a mechanised company team.