Warmonger Posted October 24, 2000 Share Posted October 24, 2000 At the 11th hour on the morning of November 11, 1918, the "war to end all wars" WWI ended. Long trenches with those glorious machine guns and hulking armour crashing through fortified trenches and they themselves becoming entangled in tank traps ! Now this is a classic and 'must do' for CM 3. Perhaps, we could start an 'Internet poll' and let the endusers have some input. In an article written by 'David Filip' with regard to an email interview with the President of BTS, 'Charles Moylan', he was quoted as stating the following: ------- The next game will take place on the Russian Front from 1941 to 1945, pitting the German Whermacht against the Soviet Red Army juggernaut. I can't wait to see masses of T-34's racing across the steppes to do thunderous battle with Tiger and Panthers. It will be tremendous [...] After that, plans are not solidified but we'll most likely visit the North African and Mediterranean theaters for Combat Mission 3, and the early-war Blitzkrieg for CM4 [...] but other periods are still possible. I think the most likely is a modern-era game pitting M1A1 Abrams tanks and modern infantry against T-80s, helicopters, wireguided missiles and more ------- One problem with the American's against anyone, no equipment can match it ! In the Iraqi war they lost zero M1A1 Abrams, although some did take some hits. Regards, Warmonger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielh Posted October 24, 2000 Share Posted October 24, 2000 But then Bataillon-level wouldn't be sufficient, since they sometimes lasted for minutes... In 1917 the french launched a bad planned and executed offensive which costed them 300'000 casualties in 3 weeks !!!! Regiment after Regiment stormed into well positioned MG-crossfire. Not very intersting if you aks me. However i've read the stories of Erwin Rommel in WWI, and those battles were exquisite ones (atleast the ones telled in the book). Unfortunately those subtleties necessary leading to such great examples of warfare cannot be build in a wargame today... Greets Daniel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col Deadmarsh Posted October 24, 2000 Share Posted October 24, 2000 If any CM installment is done on present day warfare, I won't be buying it. There's no more romance left in war nowadays. It's just get lock-on, push a button, and watch whatever's on your scope go bye-bye. How boring. I'm also not looking forward to anything done in North Africa. Having tank battles from 3000m out doesn't appeal to me. Infantry will be useless and please don't try to convince me otherwise. If Charles and Steve do decide to do this though, I may consider buying this one only for the Meditteranean scenarios which sound interesting. ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pillar Posted October 24, 2000 Share Posted October 24, 2000 Warmonger, I'm quite humble about this post, because I am by no means an expert on the Gulf War. However, the reason the USA was able to achieve perfect success was largely attributible to the ineptitude of Iraqi forces and their ignorance of how to operate the equipment they had. They couldn't maintain the weapons and most were found in horrible condition. Also, the equipment they did have was not only old, but toned down from the original. I've talked to Bullethead and Fionn on this subject, and that's where I get my information. Keep in mind line # 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted October 24, 2000 Share Posted October 24, 2000 Warmonger, I dont think the Western Front in WWI (especially after say October 1914) is an ideal location for CM. After October all possibility of manouevre left the battlefield and it boiled down to attrition at its worst. I'm not sure I'd like to play for an hour or so and at the end say "I won because I have more survivors than you". Pre October '14 Western Front, the Eastern Front, The campaigns in Palestine or Italy might be better choices than the mud of France and Flanders. ------------------ Regards, Mark:-{) Anxiously awaiting the G4 PowerBook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
virtualfreak Posted October 24, 2000 Share Posted October 24, 2000 I Just had a thread on this same subject. I too would love to see some WW1 expansion scenarios and mods. Too many people think ww1 was nothing more than suicidal human wave assults. 1914 had some Huge battles for example, the Russian campaign into east prussia had the potintial to be successfull but they were poorly lead. Do I need to mention the desisive battles on the western front of that year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted October 24, 2000 Share Posted October 24, 2000 I know this isn't a WW 1 topic,but Col Deadmarsh,Pillar I was an infantryman in the Gulf and my M16 didn't have a lock button on it and the Iraqis did fight at Medina Ridge, not well but that was because the Air Force and our Arty blew the bejesus out of their C&C but they fought hard. It was our training and equitment that won the day,not the Iraqis inferiority. This post isn't intended as a flame or to start any kind of fight,but as a vet I felt it had to be said. ------------------ Nicht Schiessen!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathman Posted October 24, 2000 Share Posted October 24, 2000 Splinty, thank you for saying what you did. Col Deadmarsh, you have the freedom to write whatever you want, but just be aware that there are sure to be plenty of veterans like Splinty and myself who take exception to your analysis of modern day warfare. Mentioning that there's no more "romance" in war nowdays reminds me of reading about the buildup to WW I when the europe was filled with "romantic" notions of war. There's nothing romantic about it, and if playing this game gives you that impression, then it's giving you the wrong impression. [This message has been edited by Nathman (edited 10-23-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Posted October 24, 2000 Share Posted October 24, 2000 Anyone here play an old SPI game named "Soldiers"? It was a WWI game which consisted of scenarios from 1914 and the other theaters of the war, where maneuver was still important. There were some interesting battles from the African campaign, and some featuring Japanese troops. The basic unit was the company, though... Nelson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted October 24, 2000 Share Posted October 24, 2000 Many tactical innovations were instigated and employed in WW1 and before anybody lays claim to the Germans as the originators of modern infantry tactics with their so-called stormtroops let me just say: bollocks! The British, French and Germans all developed similar infantry tactics at around the same time (1917). 'Battle Tactics on the Western Front 1916-18' Paddy Griffith ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tss Posted October 24, 2000 Share Posted October 24, 2000 virtualfreak wrote: 1914 had some Huge battles for example, the Russian campaign into east prussia had the potintial to be successfull but they were poorly lead. Hmm. To say that the Russian advance to Prussia was "poorly led" is quite similar to saying that Titanic encountered "some troubles" during its maiden voyage. I think that a more correct term would be "criminal incompetence combined with magnificent stupidity". One good book (documentary novel) describing that campaign would be Solzenytsin's "August 1914". - Tommi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted October 24, 2000 Share Posted October 24, 2000 Hi, My vote would be against WW1. My reason is that compared to WW2 it is tactically uninteresting, in my view. WW2 and modern mechanized warfare interest me most. When it comes to other wars I feel Napoleonic warfare was more interesting than ACW. Of the wars that have actually happened, ie. not modern OPFOR warfare, WW2 and the Napoleonic wars deliver the greatest tactical challenges. Also during the second half of both wars all the major players were very good at what they did, given the limitations of the technology they had available. All the best, Kip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted October 24, 2000 Share Posted October 24, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Admiral: There were some interesting battles from the African campaign, and some featuring Japanese troops. The basic unit was the company, though...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Japanese were allied with the British in WWI and sent a naval squadron to the Mediterranean. There are Japanese sailors buried in a British military cemetery on Malta, of all places. They also seized Tsingtao (along with a British regiment) from the Germans in a nice litte amphibious assault, and some no-name German-held islands, like Tarawa, Saipan, and Tinian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted October 24, 2000 Share Posted October 24, 2000 Here's how I envision plotting move and fire orders for a WWI CM variant: Have all spotters target the enemy trench. Next, select all of your infantry units and plot a single line forward to the enemy trench. Click "Go!". Oohhhh! That sounds like fun ------------------ "Instead of trying to build newer and bigger weapons of destruction, we should be thinking about getting more use out of the ones we already have." - Jack Handey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-tink- Posted October 24, 2000 Share Posted October 24, 2000 The WWI question has been answered numerous times before, ever since the days of board wargaming it has been......... boring. Sure there were isolated instances of gamable situations, but in general it was a stagnant war. If they want to convert this engine, do something like the American civil war or the Napoleonic era. And on the modern warfare question, Gary Grigsby's "Overun", which was a modern version of his "Panzer Strike" engine, which combat mission is very similar to,(in fact CM is so similar in execution as to be evolutionary, not revolutionary) Showed me that even against a hypothetical modernized and well oiled Russian war machine, the US forces kick butt bigtime! So I don't think a modern version would be all that great either. Just my two sheckels worth. -tink- ------------------ "Reality is created by the participation of the participants."- John Wheeler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanco Posted October 24, 2000 Share Posted October 24, 2000 Hmmm...there certainly are a lot of "gamey" considerations here! Don't get me wrong, I'm behind you 100%. If they're gonna go to the trouble of making a wargame, I'd rather they make one where you can maneuver your guys a little, or decide if you wanna attack from the west or the north. You know, all those decisions that make a game fun. DeanCo-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Eyes Posted October 24, 2000 Share Posted October 24, 2000 For anyone interested in feeling the frustration of WWI combat, I would recommend the board game '1914' by Avalon Hill. It's a grand op level game of the 'maneuver' period of the Western Front shortly after war was declared. The units are corps of 40,000-50,000 men and it uses a step reduction system. Movement is slow, maneuver is tedious and losses are staggering. After a few hours of this you grow weary of the carnage and limited gains. But it does portray well the agony of the period. IMHO, a WWI CM game would be an exercise in mindless carnage with little challenge. ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wwb_99 Posted October 24, 2000 Share Posted October 24, 2000 My vote would be to continue with CM-modern battles as soon as possible. But the trick is to not get too modern, i.e. place the war in the 1970s or 1980 at the latest. Before the modern western equipment came out, at least in significant numbers. WW I, while very interesting and probably historically more important than WW II (which in many ways was mere extension), is not the kind of thing one really wants to game on a tactical level. My vote for total conversion would be for the 17th century: Wallenstein, Gustavus Adolphus and Eugene of Savoy, etc. WWB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted October 24, 2000 Share Posted October 24, 2000 Before a WWI game I would prefer the Pacific theatre!!! That would be an excellent stage for CM. Nevertheless, I would also greet a WWI CM. A modern warfare CM is no must for me. [This message has been edited by Scipio (edited 10-24-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col Deadmarsh Posted October 24, 2000 Share Posted October 24, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I know this isn't a WW 1 topic,but Col Deadmarsh,Pillar I was an infantryman in the Gulf and my M16 didn't have a lock button on it and the Iraqis did fight at Medina Ridge, not well but that was because the Air Force and our Arty blew the bejesus out of their C&C but they fought hard. It was our training and equitment that won the day,not the Iraqis inferiority. This post isn't intended as a flame or to start any kind of fight,but as a vet I felt it had to be said.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Okay, obviously when I'm talking about "lock-on", I am not referring to infantry. If you re-read my post I am defending the use and importance of infantry. What I was griping about was that technology has taken all the fun out of re-creating these wars in a game. Fighting nowadays in terms of armor is done from long ranges and I don't think this translates well to a game. As far as training goes today, I never said that soldiers today don't train as hard or whatever. My post was just to point out that having these long-range "technology" battles would be boring. ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted October 24, 2000 Share Posted October 24, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: If any CM installment is done on present day warfare, I won't be buying it. There's no more romance left in war nowadays. It's just get lock-on, push a button, and watch whatever's on your scope go bye-bye. How boring. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Obviously not familure with real world military equipment. Come fight with me from a M3 Bradley and see how good 'ol ranging, guessing and bracketing are used! Cav ------------------ "Maneuverists have a bad case of what may be called, to borrow from a sister social science, 'Wehrmact penis envy.'"--D. Bolger Co-Chairman of the CM Jihad Brigade "AS far as Steve and BTS (mostly Steve) are concerned, you are either a CM die-hard supporter, or you are dirt. If you question the game, implementation, or data models they used, you are some kind of neo-Nazi wanna-be, and become an open target for CavScout, SlippySlapDragon, and all the other sycophants who hang on Steves every word."-- Jeff Heidman [comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical] [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 10-24-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted October 24, 2000 Share Posted October 24, 2000 Good one, Cav. Another one is to come along with me on an M1 and use the "Football" field or Flash-to-Bang method of range finding. The media overhypes the technology on the modern battlefield IMHO. It's there, but it's not nearly as visible as the news would have you believe... ------------------ "Instead of trying to build newer and bigger weapons of destruction, we should be thinking about getting more use out of the ones we already have." - Jack Handey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamstersss Posted October 24, 2000 Share Posted October 24, 2000 I'd love to see BTS tackle naval and air operations with the same innovation that they've brought to land operations. I have no idea how they'd do it but if they can produce a CM:Beyond Midway that let's me see the naval and air battles that take place there (Without having to fly or steer the steenking things) I'd kiss 'em full on the lips. Otherwise, I'd love to see modern actions because, as there have been so few full scale modern actions, we stand a good chance of developing innovative and useful tactics that haven't been seen before. All I need is for BTS to properly model the troops and vehicles. Finally, I think BTS should, right after CM12 or so, create a "Movie Engine" of sorts, where you grab your beer and pretzels and just watch as troops clash and war is waged. Sit back, pipe it into the entertainment system and just watch as the battle progresses. This, I think, would be best for those wars that would be no fun or unrealistic (We have a better grasp of tactics than a lot of those generals did) to play, such as many think WWI is. And then I'd appreciate it if they'd model my E-Type so I could drive it down a virtual battlefield. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted October 24, 2000 Share Posted October 24, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: Okay, obviously when I'm talking about "lock-on", I am not referring to infantry. If you re-read my post I am defending the use and importance of infantry. What I was griping about was that technology has taken all the fun out of re-creating these wars in a game. Fighting nowadays in terms of armor is done from long ranges and I don't think this translates well to a game. As far as training goes today, I never said that soldiers today don't train as hard or whatever. My post was just to point out that having these long-range "technology" battles would be boring.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What is this, "Jump on the Colonel" day? OK, count me in! Col (and others who may have not served in a "modern" army), modern warfare may seem boring on the surface, but some of the most intense FUN I've ever had was during 4 training rotations at the NTC (National Training Center in Ft. Irwin, California) from '91-'94. One would think that the battles would all be standoff affairs with both sides killing one another at 2km+ ranges, but it's not so. Even with the near total lack of vegetation and urban development (it's a desert, after all) the battles often turn into knife fights with dismounted infantry playing a vital role. True, 3-4km engagement ranges are what made the news in Desert Storm, but the terrain in Iraq/Kuwait/Saudi Arabia is something of a special case. I think some of the Army brass suffered from gadget envy and wanted to show everyone that the Air Force wasn't the only service with cool toys. ------------------ Cats aren't clean, they're covered with cat spit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted October 24, 2000 Share Posted October 24, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker: Good one, Cav. Another one is to come along with me on an M1 and use the "Football" field or Flash-to-Bang method of range finding. The media overhypes the technology on the modern battlefield IMHO. It's there, but it's not nearly as visible as the news would have you believe... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Of course anyone who thinks an M1 can't miss just needs to see one Table VIII and count how many tankers "bolo"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts