US vs Russia in CM2.

[David Aitken]

MantaRay wrote:

> Ok now I see just how much class you have.

Really.

> Were any of my friends killed???? Well I lost 2 close friends in Mog and had a friend dragged through the street and beaten and shot, do you think that fits the bill? I also had another friend die in a training excercise, so I guess you wouldnt count that eh?

Thankyou, that is exactly what I was wondering.

> One word of warning though. Next time you ask a Veteran if they lost a buddy, use more tact, or you may find yourself in deep trouble.

What part of "Were any of your friends killed?" was tactless? I think you are more concerned with what you perceived to be the tone of my question. I was being serious (as opposed to condescending or sarcastic) and I said so.

Now, considering the loss of your friends, would you say you are emotionally removed from the scenarios concerned? If someone were to base a computer game on the circumstancial events, would you not regard it as having something to do with you? Would you not be concerned that they might trivialise the events or mislead people about the reality of the situation?

Major Tom wrote:

> If indeed the devil did side with Churchill, would you have any qualms about the British going to war against Hell after defeating Germany?

Hardly a credible analogy, but I take your point. There are no innocents in Hell. Churchill may have objected to communism or the Soviet régime, but I doubt he wished death upon Russians in general.

Jeff Heidman wrote:

> I contest the very basis of your claim. How is that morally objectionable? The very idea that fighting a conjectural battle with conjectural units base upon actual vehicles and weapons having any kind of moral relevance is preposterous.

Our difference in opinion is apparent from your choice of words. You mention vehicles and weapons, but not men. We're not just talking about some scientific study of the technical merits of the opposing forces' equipment – we're talking about simulating a war.

> Allies DID fight each other in WW2. The French fought the Brits, the Italians fought the Germans, etc., etc.

They had their reasons to fight and they did. What I object to is staging battles where the combatants had no reason to fight or chose not to.

> You are taken what is, in the end, a game designed to entertain people way, way too seriously.

Did BTS create CM completely out of their heads? No, they took a historical scenario with existing countries and sought to simulate the conflict accurately. A program designed for entertainment should ideally be entirely fictional. When you base it on actual events, you are courting moral issues.

> A hypothetical conflict between two former allies AFTER WW2 would be no different than a hypothetical conflict between the US and USSR in 1980.

I would make a distinction there. Basing a scenario in the 1980s, there are numerous political and logistical leaps necessary to bring you to the conflict. As such, the hypothetical and fictional nature of it is all too obvious. What we are discussing here is taking the situation immediately at the end of the Second World War, and saying "Right, let's say the US declared war on Russia and everyone started all over again!". You can place that scenario in an exact time and location, with the same people who in reality had just made it through the war and were hoping to rebuild their lives.

> Last I checked, CM was not modelling any real people. I think they are just lines of code, little 1s and 0s. They are morally neutral by definition.

You might as well say that a book is morally neutral because the letters that comprise it are too. Okay, I'll take the credible part – CM may not model specific people, but it does model people of particular nationalities in a particular location and historical scenario. This is quite enough to be morally accountable.

Mark IV wrote:

> Testing tactical hypotheses is valid and bloodless against any "Orange" force. This whole "more sensitive than thou" argument is hypocritical, to the extent that it draws some arbitrary distinction between battles that never occured between historical combatants, and battles that never occured between non-historical combatants.

Major Tom wrote:

> To state hypothetical situations that had a VERY good possibility of occuring is not an insult to veterans. It is just as 'insulting' in regards to your statement, to state what would happen if Japan and Germany won the war, and would they fight it out. This was also very possible and commonly thought and debated over.

Jeff Heidman wrote:

> Why is it morally objectionable to pretend to kill people in a war never fought, rather than "pretending" to kill people in a war that WAS fought?

Combat Mission simulates Second World War battles. It recreates events which occurred, or creates events which are very close to those which occurred. It models, not real people, but people who can be very closely attributed to those who took part in the war. It simulates the death of these people and the destruction of the battleground, be it a particular town or an indeterminate patch of countryside. In all these things it is morally accountable.

There is already a question mark over the morality of CM in itself. As you might imagine, I am happy with historical wargames, but there are doubtlessly many people out there who are not. I think that CM and its ilk are acceptable because they remain true, or very close, to historical events. Given any battle in CM, you can quickly sketch in the actual historical background. Why am I pretending to kill Germans? I am restaging the fight against Hitler and fascism. Why am I pretending to kill Britons? I am recreating the actions of Germans called upon to fight for their country.

Of course there is nothing wrong with saying "what if...?". But in my opinion, acting out "what if" using the aforementioned 'people who can be very closely attributed to those who took part in the war', is where you cross the line into bad taste. You enter no man's land. What now? Do we consider what might have happened in reality, if the US had declared war on Russia? No, CM can't simulate that. You can no longer place your battles in reality and history – all you can do is just simulate two historical armies killing each other for no reason.

David

[LynnL53]

For what it is worth-- I have talked to several WW2 vets and they hated the Russians and would have fought them--this does not speak for others just these few--- There was a lot of tension between the two forces very quickly and Whiting tells the tale of Brit paras killing drunk Russians-- I like the idea of CMBO and WW3 -- I do it all the time on SPWW2 and it has been brought up often on the CC boards-- so others do want it to-- doesnt mean we will or should get it just that the idea is interesting -- it is a game after all. And a good one.

[Jeff Heidman]

Well, David, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree. You are coming so far from left field I do not even think there are grounds for a discussion. It's like arguing with someone who finds light bulbs morally objectionable or something.

In the end, your argument is 100% subjective in nature. The only solution for you is to define what you find morally acceptable and play this game in a manner that you can live with. But telling everyone else that their desire to PLAY A GAME is somehow indicative of a lack of moral character is the height of hubris.

Jeff Heidman

[Mark IV]

Originally posted by David Aitken:

There is already a question mark over the morality of CM in itself. As you might imagine, I am happy with historical wargames, but there are doubtlessly many people out there who are not.

They're not here. People who don't play wargames are not relevant to this discussion. People who do, but are never "happy" with wargames, are called... grognards?

There is no more question about CM's morality than there is about any other game, or the first carved soldiers and those cast of tin or lead (and CM is more environmentally sound!).

Why am I pretending to kill Germans? I am restaging the fight against Hitler and fascism. Why am I pretending to kill Britons? I am recreating the actions of Germans called upon to fight for their country.

If such a justification is really called for, I am killing Russians to save Eastern Europe from 50 years of oppression and occupation and to prevent a nuclear war (Uncle Joe wouldn't have one until 1949 but we didn't know that).

I am killing Americans to liberate my Allies in the Great Patriotic War from the oppression of their ruling class exploiters, and to insure that Germany will never rise again and invade Mother Russia. But my T10s are no match for their Pershings (mwahaha)!

You can no longer place your battles in reality and history – all you can do is just simulate two historical armies killing each other for no reason.

Cool!

As has been noted, Steel Panthers permitted staging any two nations against one another. I suspect it sold a lot more copies than CM, not because of this feature, but it had more exposure in the general gaming community. There was no outcry against war games or SP over this, because people saw it for what it was- the digital equivalent of tin soldiers.

BTS has tastefully resisted the more ridiculous effects: fleeing civilians, Normandy cows, horses, oozing blood, and death camps (all of which have been requested here), and we are left with a pure tactical sim.

The whole bit about prolonging the war is just weird. It could be argued that the longer we waited after 1945, the less likely all-out war between US-USSR (Nato and Warsaw Pact) became, thanks to nuclear proliferation and our old friend Mutual Assured Destruction. So if modeling an east-west land war is permissible in the 80s, due to its hypothetical likelihood, it should be even more so in 1945.

Slinging ICBMs would interrupt a lot more lives than rolling the tanks to Moscow, or Paris, as the case may be. I played the hell out of Missile Command too, for that matter. And this battle might have obviated Korea and Vietnam, not to mention countless other surrogate conflicts around the world either caused or intensified by the Cold War.

The people modeled in this game are all allies now, and if we can get over a world war, I suggest we can detach ourselves from a game. The Soviet regime is in the same historical ashcan as the Third Reich so I don't think they'll be overly offended.

Our own militaries stage hypothetical games against allies for their exercise value (at least they used to). It isn't morally reprehensible to want the same from CM.

Anyway, if I played Manta Ray in a hypothetical Red Star/White Star, what harm would it do YOU? Any more than playing in view level 1 only? If you don't like it, don't do it.

[Bruno Weiss]

No doubt the American Revisionist for Sociological Wargammings Interference of Parental Entertainment Safeguards (ARSWIPES), will probably protest in front of the Supreme Rulers if not the Cosmic Council over this. All three of them.

------------------

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[Tiger]

I'm against anything that takes away from what Charles and Steve want to accomplish with CM2 the Eastern front. I'd like to see the Eastern front done properly, not get changed into CM2: the Hypothetical front.

Anything that delays the completion of CM2 featuring the Eastern front should be very secondary. That also means no changes to CMBO beyond the 1.1 patch while work on CM2 is in progress. There's just not enough people at BTS to do this. Comes a point where they're going to have to just let CMBO be, regardless of how many people complain some armor slope is off 1-2 degrees, etc etc.

-john

[This message has been edited by Tiger (edited 12-11-2000).]

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tiger:

I'm against anything that takes away from what Charles and Steve want to accomplish with CM2 the Eastern front. I'd like to see the Eastern front done properly, not get changed into CM2: the Hypothetical front.

Anything that delays the completion of CM2 featuring the Eastern front should be very secondary. That also means no changes to CMBO beyond the 1.1 patch while work on CM2 is in progress. There's just not enough people at BTS to do this. Comes a point where they're going to have to just let CMBO be, regardless of how many people complain some armor slope is off 1-2 degrees, etc etc.

-john

[This message has been edited by Tiger (edited 12-11-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that is an excellent objection to any hypothetical "Beyond the Elbe" additions to CM2.

I hope, however, that the system be designed such that it is possible for others to create those scenarios, if they desire. That would not only allow for these hypothetical conflicts, but would give designers greater flexibility in designing non-hypothetical conflicts that do not necessarily fit the standard combatants and situations.

For example, if CMBO did not arbitrarily define the "Axis" and "Allied" sides as it does now, one could create US vs. French scenarios, which actually occurred during and shortly after the Operation Anvil landings in southern France.

Of course, that would involve someone coming up with TOEs and such for non-US supported French forces, but again, it would be preferable for that to be possible.

I doubt it will happen, but ideally CM will move towards being a tactical simulator with the flexibility of allowing third partied to create battles and forces. That was the single thing that kept Steel Panthers going long after the engine and original system was long dated.

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

double post.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 12-11-2000).]

[The Commissar]

David,

As many others have made clear by now, your arguments are perposterous! Simply perposterous! (always wanted to say that)

Several of my great-grandparents died in the Second World War, but I am almost positive that when I re-enact the battle for Stalingrad or Kursk in CM2, they will not be rolling around in their graves if I happened to lose the battle.

Tiger,

Whether including the American/Brit/Western allies will take up a considerable amount of time is questionable. It depends on whether code from the original CM is compatible with that of CM2.

If this is the case, and the graphics haven't gone through a major overhaul (probobly the case, somewhat unfortunately), the inclusion of the Allies FOR MULTIPLAYER ONLY, would not be a lenghty task.

------------------

"...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..."

- Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back"

[Snoop]

I would love to have Hypothetical battles like Allies VS Russia in CM2

It would be fun as hell to create scenarios with all kinds of nationalities to model.

Can you imagine fighting German VS German or USSR VS USSR Or U.S. VS U.S. ? The sides would be so even !

[Bruno Weiss]

How about a hypothetical where Lappland and the Finns won the war, and then take on NATO. In a blinding snowstorm, they race across the pole on ski's and invade Canada and Alaska. We could have the 77th Eskimo Army defending Icebergs ahead of the Canadian Tuna Fleet which charges in to snare the Finnish ski's with their fish hooks and tow them out to sea. What a blast!

------------------

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[GreasyPig]

Geeze Dave,

I guess we all know where you stand on "Cock Fighting"

GreasyPig

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

How about a hypothetical where Lappland and the Finns won the war, and then take on NATO. In a blinding snowstorm, they race across the pole on ski's and invade Canada and Alaska. We could have the 77th Eskimo Army defending Icebergs ahead of the Canadian Tuna Fleet which charges in to snare the Finnish ski's with their fish hooks and tow them out to sea. What a blast!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROFL - Tommi, see what you have done to poor Bruno. I bet he is always prepared to jump behind cover while reading the forum, in case he comes across a post by you

Commissar - it is 'preposterous'.

------------------

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 12-11-2000).]

[Guest wwb_99]

I vote for inclusion. One of the greatest things about wargames is the ability to play with the hypothetical to your hearts content. My favorite scenario that came with SP was the one US-Soviet one they tacked on at the end.

I'd also like to encourage people to lighten up a little, after all, CM is just a game. Even if it is more addictive than crack.

And go easy on Rob/1, it ain't his fault that english class is more of an exercise in crowd control than learnting these days.

WWB

------------------

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[Guest machineman]

I always wondered myself how the US vs USSR would have panned out myself. Here's one alternate history scenario:

http://members.aol.com/dalecoz/PODMay99Web.htm#Tanks

[Steve Clark]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Come on, don't tell me you never wanted to know how the war would go if something like this happened!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And how do you propose to do this in CM2? Even if they would put in hypothetical 'wars' into the scenarios, you still wouldn't know. Again, CM2 will still be the tactical-level combat engine that we all love, as oppose to strategic/political-level that determines outcomes of wars (for the most part).

To illustrate, let's say you have an American/British contingent that can fight against Soviet units. How does this play out in the game? By taking a hill (or hills) or a bridge or a road network or a town or even a city; it still does not determine the outcome of the war. Unless BTS can increase the scale dramatically, tactical-level combat is not going to answer strategic/political-level scenarios.

[This message has been edited by Steve Clark (edited 12-11-2000).]

[Splinty]

I'd like to see the Red on Blue scenario myself as long as it dosen't delay the release of CM2

------------------

Nicht Schiessen!!

[Croda]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wwb_99:

...One of the greatest things about wargames is the ability to play with the hypothetical to your hearts content. ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think many people here agree. The problem is that CM is not the arena for the hypothetical. It goes against everything BTS has strived for and achieved thus far.

I for one have little interest in this, as I think it would have been nothing but a bloody slugfest ending in a stalemate. The U.S. lines of supply would have to reach 1/3 of the way around the globe, while the Soviets would have far less to travel. At that point in time, neither side posed an immediate threat to the other. The hostilities seemed to be more brooding on what could eventually come to pass. Neither had anything to gain, and much to lose by engaging in a conflict then and there. Besides, for a bunch of Grogs, I'd have thought that you'd learn something from history. No one can take Moscow.

------------------

This Space For Rent

[jshandorf]

Bascially I think that in the SCENARIO EDITOR you should be able to do whatever you want to do, but that is just my opinion.

Also I would just like to say to David that your as thick headed as a pull of stout. Get real.

Jeff

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Croda:

I think many people here agree. The problem is that CM is not the arena for the hypothetical. It goes against everything BTS has strived for and achieved thus far.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quotes like this are what makes having a constructive debate difficult. It polarizes the issue and tries to paint those who might have a disagreement as extremist.

Can someone explain to me exactly what it is that BTS has strived for and achieved so far such that allowing the GAME to have a Sherman shooting at a T-34 as opposed to a PzIV would be some kind of heinous crime?

Since when did CM become religion?

Jeff Heidman

[Tiger]

Ok here's how the US vs Soviet Union plays out right after WWII: US drops several atomic bombs on the Motherland. Now they just have to find a way to include this in a tactical game. Maybe they could model the A-bomb as a purchasable artillery unit?? That would be so much hypothetical fun.

The East front is not even done yet and nobody seems to be looking forward to it. I certainly am. People can not see the forest because of the trees in the way.

-john

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tiger:

The East front is not even done yet and nobody seems to be looking forward to it. I certainly am. People can not see the forest because of the trees in the way.

-john<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tiger, I think people are very much looking forward to it, but since it is inevitably a year or so away, you have to grumble, gripe, whine, and complain about something. We've already covered why CM2 is going to kick ass!

This happens to be the subject for the moment...

Jeff Heidman

[Croda]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Quotes like this are what makes having a constructive debate difficult. It polarizes the issue and tries to paint those who might have a disagreement as extremist.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeff, I, and I think the majority of the players on this forum, enjoy and plan on continuing to enjoy CM for it's incredibly realistic portrayal of squad-level combat in the European Theater of WWII. It is the realism of the game that separates it from others. A real conflict fought using real equipment backed by real physics. If you take out any part of that equation, then the 'reality' is gone.

People have suggested that you be able to select any nation, so that if I want to have Guatemala invade Sri Lanka, I can do so. I fail to see the merit in this.

Any developer understands that a project must have a well-defined scope, and when that scope is vague trouble sets in. BTS' scope ends with reality. To include a subset of this, namely pseudo-reality, entreats scope-creep of massive proportions.

If A can fight B and B can fight C, why can't A fight C? and D? and E? and so on. These types of open-ended requirements always end up with one outcome - a lousy product. I highly doubt that any of us here would stick around if the product was poor.

BTS has set the limit of their product's scope at real combatants. Major combatants. I, for one, would like to keep it this way, instead of having a game that pondered what would have happened had Isreal invaded Fiji. If that is too polarized for you, I appologize. My argument is that the debate shouldn't exist given BTS' scope and intentions for the games. That is a pretty straightforward viewpoint, and is by default very polar. You can argue that "it would be neat if..." My return is "I could take it or leave it." The fact is that the developers have expressed no interest in it, and I don't think that is likely to change.

This is all of course simply my own ultra-humble opinion.

------------------

Coming soon, a sig from PeterNZer.

[M. Bates]

The armed forces of the United States will not be appearing in Combat Mission 2, so just get over it.

Any messing around with CM2 would be tacky and in bad taste.

Instead of trying to turn Combat Mission into the Big Mac and Fries of wargamming, let's all concentrate on the participants of the Eastern Front - wacky as it may seem, these were Germany and her allies against the Soviet Union.

[Jeff Heidman]

More good reasons for why there would not be an "Across the Elbe" aspect to CM2. The fact that the US is not one of the participants is important (to say the very least).

All the other crap about "reality" is just that. Crap. CM is realistic because it models the weapons and physics, not because it models Side A can only fight with Side B/C or E. but not D. The realism of CM comes fom the engine, not from the scenario. I can easily, today, desing a completely a-historical scenario for CM. That ahrdly makes the game less realistic.

There are already numerous "hypothetical" scenarios. In fact, one could argue that ALL of them are hypothetical, since they surely do not have every detail correct.

Again, I think there are very good reasons for why we will not, and should not, see the particular hypothetical under question in CM2. But those are reasons of practicality, i.e. CM2 will not include the combatabnts necessary for the hypothetical in question.

I have no idea where Croda go the idea of Fiji or whatever. I am pretty certain that there was never a question of adding nationailites outside the scope of the game. Another example of how using fallacies makes meaningful debate difficult.

Jeff Heidman