BTS, Are you considering doing a Pacific Front Theater with the CM engine?

[Major Tom]

Well, what Steve is stating that the Island Hopping tactics were very one sided. The Japanese had NO hope in defending any of the islands invaded after 1942. Would you want to play an entire game where you know the outcome? Sure, it was bloody for both sides, but, it was quick and bloody. It would be like fighting the Normandy landings over and over again. THIS would tend to get a little boring.

However, there are some Pacific War battles that would be good in CM, as I already mentioned. The Japanese invasion of Malaya, Philippines, Burma, etc... were all on very large islands, peninsulas, or the mainland. There were more tactics involved rather than just massive beach landings. These would make a good CM game, not just a bunch of Tarawas. This is not to say that these battles are boring or not worth mentioning, it is just that they aren't diverse enough to base an entire game around.

Back to the desert. There was A LOT of terrain. How could Rommel use his brilliant tactic of constantly ambushing British armour with concealed AT Guns if there was no cover? North Africa isn't flat. It is rocky, hilly, and offers a lot of cover for infantry and armour. Hellfire Pass was a very rocky and hilly area and offered the best route into Libya from Egypt. Coutless battles were fought over this pass from 1940-42. Tobruk and Bardia were all heavily fortified towns, with bunkers, tank ditches, trenches, etc... Plus, the sand itself was easily kicked up into the air with all these tanks roaring around, resulting in almost 0 visibility. Air superiority was always shifting back and forth, resulting in bloody noses from aircraft for everyone during almost every battle. The Battle for Crete could be an entire CM game in itself! An early, mainland Pacific War would be interesting, but, North Africa will still be a great CM game.

[Guest Germanboy]

Long post

Ethan,

I was not trying to put you down, I was just pointing out conflicting sources. Obviously former soldiers would have a different opinion of something thrown at them than someone doing a documentary 50 years later.

Now the following goes back to this book I mentioned earlier, and some other sources I can not remember. The book is an academic study published in a series, I think by Kansas University Press on the origins of major wars in the 20th century.

The reason the Japanese went into war was a de facto oil embargo imposed by the US secretaries of state and defense without the knowledge of Roosevelt. When the latter heard about it, he immediately ordered to scrap the embargo, but then it was September and too late. Anyone knowing about Japanese public sector decision making will know why, the rest will have to trust me . The basic problem in policy terms the Japanese had was that they came 50 years late to a party called Imperialism and did not get the message. They just wanted to have their own little empire when this was becoming a bit out of fashion.

Sure, Pearl Harbour was not nice, but a war's a war, and with being cut off from their oil supplies when they were 100% dependent on imports, while fighting a major war in China, the reasoning of the Japanese military appears to be less mad. This is not an apology or condoning what they did, but I believe there are two sides to every story, and I find this one quite plausible.

A very good book on attitudes in the Pacific war and why it was so ugly is 'War without mercy'.

Dower, John W.,- War without mercy : race and power in the Pacific war. - London : Faber, 1986. - 0571146058

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

Andreas

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 02-14-2000).]

[Hakko Ichiu]

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

Long post

Ethan,

I was not trying to put you down, I was just pointing out conflicting sources. Obviously former soldiers would have a different opinion of something thrown at them than someone doing a documentary 50 years later.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Andreas,

I didn't take it as a put down. I'm far too old and thick-skinned (not to mention thick-waisted and thick-headed) to take exception to robust factual debate.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

The reason the Japanese went into war was a de facto oil embargo imposed by the US secretaries of state and defense without the knowledge of Roosevelt. When the latter heard about it, he immediately ordered to scrap the embargo, but then it was September and too late. Anyone knowing about Japanese public sector decision making will know why, the rest will have to trust me . The basic problem in policy terms the Japanese had was that they came 50 years late to a party called Imperialism and did not get the message. They just wanted to have their own little empire when this was becoming a bit out of fashion.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The reason for the embargo you mention was, of course, U.S. nervousness and displeasure WRT Japanese actions in China/Manchuria and its threatening behaviour in other parts of the Pacific. The U.S. engaged in a stepped series of embargos from 1937 (war materiel) to July 1941 (oil) all in response to actions by the Japanese. The oil embargo, in fact, was in response to obvious Japanese preparations for an invasion of the Dutch East Indies. The Japanese were hardly forced into the war.

Also, Japanese governmental decision making was less unified then you make out, even after the takeover by Konoe clique in 1940. The Emperor himself is alleged to have resisted the move to war, although by that time, he was already a figurehead.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Sure, Pearl Harbour was not nice, but a war's a war, and with being cut off from their oil supplies when they were 100% dependent on imports, while fighting a major war in China, the reasoning of the Japanese military appears to be less mad. This is not an apology or condoning what they did, but I believe there are two sides to every story, and I find this one quite plausible.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To say "a war's a war" WRT Pearl Harbor is putting the cart before the horse. Pearl Harbor, after all, was the start of the war; and it was not a war that Japan had to start.

Ethan

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

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[Los]

<sigh>

Time for my monthly rail against those who would poo poo any CM battles except European ones as being too boring. I tried to stay out of this but I can't bite my tongue any longer. This is an argument that comes up around here time and again. I'll try not to piss anyone off…

Whenever I read someone saying this:

"<Insert your least favorite theater of operations here> is too boring to make for interesting tactical combat in CM blah blah."

What I really am hearing is this:

"I lack both the knowledge of operations in this theater, and the grasp of tactical combat as it was conducted in this theater to understand much at all about it in anything other than the most general fashion. Hence I'm missing te point that CM is capable of actually creating interesting battles in any modern historical time period since this is a function of scenario/game design, not theater."

(In fairness to Steve he pretty much admits that he doesn't know much of anything about the PAC due to his lack of interest, disheartening as that might be to those who like the Pac..)

Particularly it has arisen on this board and past discussions that both the Desert/North Africa and the Pacific fall into this catageory of "boring theater". In fact, nothing could be farther from the truth in both cases. Usually the argument goes that it's boring due to:

Monotonous terrain: (The North African theater consists of nothing but flat billiard board terrain, and the PAC is nothing but Beaches and thick impenetrable jungles)

Monotonous Combat: North Africa is nothing but boring long-range tank fights, or the Pacific is made up of nothing but frontal assaults against dug in suicidal enemies)

In fact both theaters probably have a greater variety of terrain than central/western Europe. At least they'll be a welcome diversion after two or three west front/east front modules in a row.

And I just have to address a few points made about the Pac:

"I would counter that the PTO is far more boring Just another show last night that only reinforced my opinion of the warfare in the PTO from about 1942 on. The bulk was static, suicidal combat with the Japanese being totally overmatched."

What show was this? Obviously they must have missed the see-saw battles in both New Guinea and Burma, let alone China. Sounds like we're talking central Pacific campaign here. Even then…

"One of the battles they mentioned the US killed 107,000 Japanese for a total of 7,000 friendly losses. And the US were on the offensive!!!"

And :

"cripes, if the US: Japanese casualties went UP to 1:15, I can only imagine the wonderful battles before that."

A general breakdown of US casualties of US/Japanese casualties in selected (meaning what I could find data for around the house) "Pacific" campaign shows:

Battle: Allies Japanese

Malaya 41 80,000 9800

Burma 41 14,000 4500

Philipines 41: 170,000 10,000

DutchIndies 41: 140,000 3,500

Guadalcanal 9,000 26,000

Gilberts-Tarawa 5,100 7,000

Iwo Jima: 28,000 21,000

Okinawa: 47,000 107,000

Luzon: 38,000 170,000

Leyte; 15,000+ 70,000

Papau: 12,000 3,000

And by comparison, some selected Western campaigns:

Allies Germans

Bulge: 80,000 120,000

Normandy: 210,000 400-500,000

Sicily/Italy 321,000 658,000

So. France 7,200 80,000

Nordwind 16,000 25,000

Note that there are hardly 1:15 odds anywhere here and relative casualty rates are not too far out of whack between Europe/Pac. (yes there are some variances in figs depending upon sources you use but normally no more than a few grand at most in either direction due to problems with incomplete axis sources). In general casualties themselves are very poor indicators of the closeness of battles at times since the majority of casualties usually appear during the pursuit phase of the operation when one side has packed it in.

"suicidal static defense and suicide charges are what cost the US more lives as the war went on, not better tactics, training, and leadership. In fact, so far as I know all of the latter became worse and worse as well as their weapons going downhill in terms of quality. Even Italian WWII small arms are worth more than Japanese ones ."

Well let's just take Iwo Jima and Okinawa. By mid '44 Japanese commanders everywhere were putting the cabash on Banzai Charges as ineffectual and self-indulgent. (And Banzai charges never really inflicted heavy serious casualties on US troops, though they were scary as hell.) In both battles the Japanese conducted highly skilled defenses. They were well built, well sighted, and away from the beaches. The Japanese troops were well led, and the defenses properly executed. Likewise on the US side, with overwhelming firepower and veteran troops, using tactics honed over years of fighting the going was tough. Two well matched opponents each with strengths and weaknesses. Both campaigns had periods of maneuver and stalemate, just like Normandy. In fact even in earlier struggles like in the Marianas there was plenty of good small unit actions to game, even some small tank battles. And there were some pretty daring early war victories for the Japanese too, (i.e. 1000 Japanese take Corrigidor from 15,000 US.)

"Pardon my admitted ignorance about the details of PTO fighting, but tell me... how many major US led attacks on Japanese islands ended with anything but an overwhelming US victory? "

I guess this depends on what you consider an "overwhelming" US victory. Sure Tarawa and Iwo Jima were secured, but Overwhelming? It took us five weeks to take Iwo, five times longer than we thought at Horrendous casualties far above the wildest predictions. And Tarawa? A win, yes, a great one? Well for the rep of the Corps. At the time when the news was released it was considered a disaster spawning congressional investigations despite the positive spin put on it.

"My meager understanding is that while it was a tough go for the individual soldier, at CM level and higher it was pretty much a sure bet that the Japanese would lose in any open engagement much sooner than later and therefore fall back to bunkers to await being flamed/blown out."

This couldn't be farther from the truth. (BTW everything seems to be focused on Island hopping action while this made up only part of the War in the Pacific.) Operationally and strategically in hindsight the the outcome seemed guaranteed, but individual actions were won or lost all the time, even by battalions and companies, Marine or otherwise. Plenty of Marine units failed, were pulled out of the line and replaced by others. Heck, Sugar Loaf hill was an Operation (In CM terms) that went many days before finally succeeding with many Marine units failing in their tasks.

"Honestly, I can't take your comments about the desert and the rest of the Med. Theater seriously. Okinawa more tactically interesting than Crete? Tarawa more tactically exciting than Kasserine?"

And:

"I'm not saying that the PTO is boring from a narrative and/or historical standpoint, but it can't hold a candle to the battles in the ETO in terms of tactical, forces, and terrain matchups."

Not that I will say anything bad about your examples, being a Crete "freak" myself, but tactical excitement is what you make of it. Any scenario, well-designed and imaginative, can catch a players attention, and porvide a challenge. Just a few months ago many were carrying on about how pointless an Omaha beach scenario would be, but that turned out to be not quite true. And why is fighting through hedgrows any more or less exciting than fighting through rolling fields and gullys of kunai grass interspersed with sands of bamboo or bana orchards. In fact it's kind of amuzing that slogging across Tarawa or Saipan under heavy fire is somehow more or less boring than slogging through endless well-defended hedgrows day after day, each one 100 meters after the next in monotonous attritional warfare. (Just an example of how somoeone could possibly categorize all Normandy fighting in such a manner.)

IMO one would be selling CM short if they think great interesting, challenging scenarios cannot be made in ANY campaign or period (yes I'm directing my comment at those who have carried on about the unfeasibility of interesting Korea, Vietnam or Modern CM battles too.)

Anyway I could go on but won't. The Pacific and the desert campaigns will make fine additions to the CM pantheon, providing they're not slam dunked based on incomplete knowledge of the events. And if BTS never makes a Pac, no big deal. I'm sure someone like CoolJ can come along and whip up a few new textures and models. The CM editor, that great tool, will do the rest.

Cheers…

Los

<A student/fan of all theaters>

[This message has been edited by Los (edited 02-15-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Los (edited 02-15-2000).]

[Bullethead]

Los-

Thanks for putting that up. You sure saved me a lot of trouble

I might add that the Japanese maintained the strategic initiative in Burma until 1944. This is the ONLY place in the whole war where the Axis wasn't in strategic retreat from 1942 on. There the Japanese used bold maneuvers through seriously difficult terrain to destroy entire Chinese armies sent to help the Brits, as well as beat the Brits up numerous times. If the Japanese were so ill-equipped and poorly led, how did they manage to do this? And don't forget the Chindit raids. Then the Brits finally outmaneuvered the Japanese in 1945. Definitely different from the Central Pacific.

You analogy of hedgerow fighting with, say, Tarawa is quite apt. The entire Heurtgen Forest campaign is also in this category. Was there ever any doubt in either case that the Allies would win if they threw enough bodies and bullets at the Germans? I understand both of these campaigns will be in CM1, so I just don't understand Steve's problem with island hopping. Especially since most of the Italian campaign was the same sort of bloody grind combined with amphibious ops.

I guess the main reason I'd prefer to see the PTO/CBI before North Africa and Italy (besides wanting Marines in CM) is that the latter 2 theaters seem just more of the same stuff as in CM1. Especially Italy. Looks to me you could do pretty much all of Italy with CM1. Maybe tweak the terrain textures if you felt like it, but that would about do it. I'd rather have something completely different

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

-Bullethead

jtweller@delphi.com

WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Japanese had NO hope in defending any of the islands invaded after 1942. Would you want to play an entire game where you know the outcome?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

By that logic, what would be the point of any scenario set on the East Front after 1942, or West Front 1944 and beyond?

[Bullethead]

Major Tom said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Back to the desert. There was A LOT of terrain. How could Rommel use his brilliant tactic of constantly ambushing British armour with concealed AT Guns if there was no cover?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Having been surprised several times by Iraqis in another desert, I see no problem with this at all. The haze, dust, and mirage effect work wonders hiding low things like 50mm PaKs. You wouldn't see it until you were right on it. For taller things like 88s, just dig them in a little so they don't break the flat horizon so much, put some camo nets over them to break up the outline, and voila, invisible ATGs in plain view.

Approaching tanks, OTOH, are too tall, loud, and dust-producing to hide like this. So the ATGs could see the tanks and had the performance to kill them long before the tanks could see the ATGs. Thus, the "ambushes" reported by the Brits.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> North Africa isn't flat. It is rocky, hilly, and offers a lot of cover for infantry and armour. Hellfire Pass was a very rocky and hilly area and offered the best route into Libya from Egypt.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I understand it, there are 3 or 4 widely scattered places between Tripoli and Alexandria where big terrain features come down to near the sea and make good natural defensive positions. But in between, it's all flat sand with the occasional small rock outcrop. Or so I've read and been told--never been there myself. But when you look at photos from the war over there, how many of them have any type of terrain feature visible at all? Sure looks like Saudi/Kuwait to me, and that was FLAT.

The west end of North Africa, however, I think has much more varied terrain.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Plus, the sand itself was easily kicked up into the air with all these tanks roaring around, resulting in almost 0 visibility.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's something not in CM1 that I miss from PITS and TOP. Hopefully BTS would add this feature for this theater.

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

-Bullethead

jtweller@delphi.com

WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

[Guest Big Time Software]

Well, I figured Los would come on and spank me for being anti-PTO And that is exactly WHY we shouldn't make a PTO game. The reason why CM is what it is comes down to three things:

1. Charles and I are VERY knowledgeable about ETO.

2. We have lots of resources at our fingertips to cover more than the basics of ETO.

3. We WANT to spend endless hours doing the ETO.

Because we are handicapped, if you will, in all three areas in respect to the PTO, it is last on our list. And even if we DO in fact make a PTO game, it will be the last. There is no way that it is going to come before any of the games we have planned right now (CM1-4).

Sorry if people don't understand that our time and energy are limited, and therefore we must first focus on what we not only know, but what we love first. PTO isn't necessarily something we couldn't LEARN to love, but if we give it a shot it will certainly be after we are through with our own announce lineup first.

Steve

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hakko Ichiu:

Also, Japanese governmental decision making was less unified then you make out, even after the takeover by Konoe clique in 1940. The Emperor himself is alleged to have resisted the move to war, although by that time, he was already a figurehead.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ethan,

I think we both agree here. I am also of the opinion that Japanese decision-making was a very difficult affair, which is exactly the reason why lifting the embargo in September was too late. By that time a compromise had been reached and it was not possible to unravel it anymore. If it had been a unified decision, there would not have been much of a problem in postponing the attack.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To say "a war's a war" WRT Pearl Harbor is putting the cart before the horse. Pearl Harbor, after all, was the start of the war; and it was not a war that Japan had to start.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the Japanese right-wing leaders of the time (and a sizeable number of fruitcakes in Japan now) would disagree. They thought they were involved in a just struggle against anarchy in China, in the process carving out their very own Asian empire. And why not in their mind. What they did in China was no different than what the European powers did during the boxer rebellion - just 30 years later. The US was not only trying to deny them vital supplies, they were also more or less openly supporting their enemies. For the Japanese leadership Pearl Habour was part of the larger struggle that went on since the 1920s at least. So I guess you can make a pretty good case for them being forced into the war - especially if you don't underestimate people's ability to delude themselves.

On the actual topic here, I think Steve is right not to want to go down the route of doing PTO, unless CM1-3 bring in so much money that they could pay for the historical consultants needed to make it as accurate and good as CM1 will be.

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

Andreas

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 02-15-2000).]

[Wesy]

Los - great reply Typically, Banzai charges were not used until the situation was hopeless. The Japanese would evacuate/strategic withdrawal if the situation warranted or if it was possible (nothing past mid 43). Two of the best disappearing acts of the war - Kiska, imagine that scenario in the CM Model - Cold,Snow, mountainous terrain, US military forces vs. a couple of Akitas! Woof Woof! or the evacuation of Guadalcanal early 43. Oh well, you took Whispering Death away from me too! Oh well I guess I'll have to pick up Talonsoft Rising Sun and await the remake of Pacwar . BTW, Hakko Ichiu great name! for those of you who don't know what it means - 8 corners of the world under the sun...My mom used to hear it all the time in Japan before and during the war.

[Guest Germanboy]

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

BTW, Hakko Ichiu great name! for those of you who don't know what it means - 8 corners of the world under the sun...My mom used to hear it all the time in Japan before and during the war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh, I was wondering where that one came from. Damn rusty Japanese, must get brain to speed.

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

Andreas

[Hakko Ichiu]

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

Ahh, I was wondering where that one came from. Damn rusty Japanese, must get brain to speed.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't worry, it's an obscure bit of reki****eki yoogo (historical jargon) if you haven't studied the period.

On the topic, I understand S & C's stance WRT a Pacific War campaign, but I think it's a shame. Maybe they would consent to release the game engine to somebody who would do the requisite research .

Ethan

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

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[Major Tom]

Japan's Military advances into China and the South Pacific can be related much to the Manifiest Destiny, or Monroe Doctrine fever that swept America in the 19th Century. Japan felt it had the sole right to govern/decide policy for Asia and the South Pacific in much the same manner America felt it had the right to throw it's influence around in North, South, and Central America. The main reason that America put these embargo's on Japan was that if they managed to conquer all of China then America would have to go through the Japanese for trade in the overly large Chinese market. The occupation of Indo-China in 1940 was a multiple threat. It gave a large base for operations against Southern China, and possibly Southeast Asia.

America issuing embargo's was the only way in which it could protest Japan's expansion. Japan, a nation without many resources, felt that it needed and deserved (for being the only powerful native Pacific power) these resources in China and in the South East. It was a war mostly based on economics over that of freedom even though, many of these nations were to recieve independence soon after the war, either through a planned release (India, Philippines) or through rebellion (Dutch East Indies). If Japan was left in control of these Islands, there would probably be no doubt that they would still command them today.

[tss]

Bullethead wrote:

I might add that the Japanese maintained the strategic initiative in Burma until 1944. This is the ONLY place in the whole war where the Axis wasn't in strategic retreat from 1942 on.

Just nitpicking here... The Finnish army stayed where it had advanced until Summer '44 (well, a couple of extended strongpoints were lost to Soviets but the main battle line stayed put). Even then, at Rukajärvi sector (and I think at Uhtua but I'm not sure) the front line stayed where it was until the armistice.

Of course, Rukajärvi was a sideshow of a sideshow but Soviets performed two large-scale attacks in '43 and '44.

- Tommi

[Ron]

Pragmatic: "It's dead."

NeverDie: (grunting) "If I beat it, it'll live."

Pragmatic: "It's dead."

NeverDie: (eyes gleaming) "I know! I'll get my friends and they'll get their friends, and we'll beat it like it's never been beaten before. Then it will live!"

Pragmatic: (amused) "No, I think it's really dead."

NeverDie: "Never!"

[CoolColJ]

Errr...

I just like to add, I was born in Papue New Guinea, lived in Rabaul for 12 years, before moving down to Australia Nice place Rabaul, plenty of war wreakage, bunkers, tunnel complexes etc

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

CCJ

aka BLITZ_Force

My Hompage ----> http://www.geocities.com/coolcolj

Double your immersion with my Tweaked Textures and Saving Private Ryan sound set mods for CM!! Check out my new Textures V2.0 photo Gallery and my music while your there!

[Wesy]

Hey what the heck, it might be futile, but I can have my own "Bonsai" Charge if I want to! I'm grabbing my garden clippers now!

[JeffRaider]

To hell with the PTO. KOREA!!!!!!!! Now THAT would kick ass. You want see-saw battles? There you go.

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

--

Jeff Fraser

VIVA LOS ZAPATISTAS

[Zamo]

I am really disapointed in BTS decisions on this. I am firmly of the oppinion that a properly done PTO game would be far better than anything European. At least as much as squad level combat goes, and I had always thought of CM as being more or less a squad level game.

I won't reiterate Los's post, but I think anyone who would call the PTO "boring" really doesn't know jack about it. In that regard, it is best that BTS leave it alone and stick with what they know best. Somebody will make it, especially after everyone sees how far the bar has been reached with CM. There are going to be spin-off clones coming out of the woodwork for a few years as everybody trys for a slice of the pie. Big dollar companies will move back into the genre and drive the little guys right out of business. I wonder if there will be time for BTS to make a CM3 or CM4? It won't take long for somebody to realize the Pacific is being neglected (again...) and then I'll simply spend my money somewhere where it is wanted. I have no desire to spend money on a North African/Italian campaign nor another East Front game. Wanna talk about boring? If you play the AXIS your just BEAT...Period. I've played games against waves of T-34's and KV-1's before and they just aren't fun. Same with the Desert. Desert warfare in the Steel Panthers series was tedious at best. I'm eager for a wargame that HASN'T been done before, hence my optimism for CM. It is unlike anything done before. Now take that and put it in a theater of operations which hasn't been well modeled and you can clearly see the potential.

I'm not intending to bash BTS or those of you that are looking forward to CM2 through whatever, just stating my honest oppinion and disappointment.

Zamo

[Fionn]

LOL. "Long live the King, let's kill him for not doing exactly what we want" .

Funny how the worm turns eh?

So is BTS BAD now they won't make a Pacific Front game?

I mean cop onto yourselves... Steve and Charles have said they don't KNOW all that much about the Pacific Theatre. I'd rather see them concentrate on theatres they DO know well and wait till someone who KNOWS the pacific inside out decides to tackle it.

FWIW I think that the fighting in the Pacific was a little more varied than people generally imagine and that much of it could be interesting BUT if Steve and Charles don't want to make a game about the pacific because it isn't an area of interest and expertise of theirs then who the hell is anyone to give them ABUSE (which is what some of this is) simply because of that?

It's like hurling abuse at Porsche because they don't want to make an off-road jeep when what they are GOOD at is making Porsches (the best in the world at what they do).

BTW Zamo, I don't want to insult you but your comments about the Eastern Front show how little about it you know.

Other games (including SP) have given VERY poor portrayals of the reality of conflict on the Eastern Front. "Waves of Russian tanks" were the exception to the rule there. I've played SP and it's representation of a Bn-sized battle in the East is pathetically false. Hell, it doesn't even let you go hull-down for christ's sake.

People who say the desert featured only flat, featureless terrain are missing the kernel of truth that MOST of the fighting took place at the few places which were NOT flat, featureless desert. Most fighting occured at the wadis and ridges and towns along the coast road and VERY little occured in the hundred miles between each ridgeline or town.

Then you have Tunisia etc and quite varied and mountainous terrain. The terrain in which the fighting occured was varied.

In the same vein the fact that Steve mentioned Banzai charges etc etc is a sign that he doesn't know about all the variations possible in the PTO. My point is I'd RATHER have him and Charles working on a theatre they know VERY WELL (such a NA which some of you only find disinteresting because you don't fully KNOW the character of the fighting there) than working on a theatre they DON'T know very well.

In short this whole discussion is illusory insofar as it seems NONE of you have given a thought to how good a PTO game by Steve and Charles would be and how easy it would be to do.

I'm QUITE sure that any PTO version would take at LEAST one year more than an NA version simply because of their need to research. Also all of the insane attention to detail and HUGE amounts of knowledge brought to bear on CM1, 2, 3 and 4 would NOT be present in CM PTO simply because Steve and Charles do NOT know the PTO as inside out as they do the other theatres.

In short you need to all take a step back, THINK about this some more and wait until a company with the ability AND DESIRE to do the PTO rises to make a PTO game.

BTS has the ability but NOT the desire. It's insane to think that PRESSURE is going to get either Steve or Charles to devote TWO YEARS of their lives to a PTO version they do NOT WANT TO DO.

So, you can either KEEP pressurising them or you can show maturity and class and realise that due to a variety of factors it IS best they don't do a "CM PTO" and that by pressurising them as they work on CM1 you are being counter-productive.

Finally I'll point out a thing called opportunity cost. If Steve and Charles ARE interested in covering modern wars (which have usually been BADLY covered) then the opportunity cost of "CM PTO" could be "CM : Decision in Korea" (the first installment of a modern-war CM series).

They haven't committed to a modern war series but I know that I personally would love them to progress through the decades from WW2.

CM 5 Korea

CM 6 Israel 1949 to 1999

CM 7 Warsaw Pact vs Western Europe 1945 to 70

CM 8 Warsaw Pact in Europe 1970 to 1990

Anyways I think that moving through the decades allows them to "read ahead" PLUS it will give us cool CM games on wars which aren't often covered.

I VERY much would prefer a modern CM to a PTO CM (even though I'd be interested in that somewhat). Now, since we're looking at an either or I suggest we mostly realise we'd ALL prefer a modern CM.

Lastly. You are NOT gonna get a PTO CM. They do not WANT to make one. Shouting at them and otherwise applying pressure now is both uncouth and counter-productive. I suggest everyone takes no and simply accepts it with good grace.

[Guest JonS]

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

It's like hurling abuse at Porsche because they don't want to make an off-road jeep when what they are GOOD at is making Porsches (the best in the world at what they do)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

... IIRC Porsche did make an off road vehicle. A pretty good one too - raced in the Paris-Dakar 10 or so years ago. Part of the development of the 959 I think.

Jon

(desperately trying to calm the waters by going wildly OT. Although, Dakar IS in the desert, so maybe not so far OT ... )

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

Ubique

[Hakko Ichiu]

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

They haven't committed to a modern war series but I know that I personally would love them to progress through the decades from WW2.

CM 5 Korea

CM 6 Israel 1949 to 1999

CM 7 Warsaw Pact vs Western Europe 1945 to 70

CM 8 Warsaw Pact in Europe 1970 to 1990

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Damn, I guess that means that CM 8 - Abused Pregnant Children of Incestuous Lesbian Moms is off the cards.

This thread is an object lesson in the saying "No good deed goes unpunished".

Ethan (putting away his katana and divine wind head band for now)

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

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[This message has been edited by Hakko Ichiu (edited 02-15-2000).]

[Los]

It's certainly not worth getting wrapped around the axle about a PAC CM that wouldn't have come out for 3-4 years ANYWAY even if it was on the schedule. But that doesn't mean it's not an interesting discussion.

Even with CM1 the powerful mission editor will be perfectly capable of near replicating any Pac battle except for some graphics and a few other things so if someone is really jonesing for PAC it won't take too much to crank out a user mod.

And by the way for Ron's remark about "Pragmatic" vs "Never Die", there are a number of enhancements and other key features that you and others will be enjoying in CM1 that came about in just that fashion...umm...we can call it intelligent perserverence. Not that I'll elaborate, but BTS is never one to turn down well reasoned suggestions and discussions. But then again you guys will see soon enough.

Cheers

Los

P.S. For the record I'm not really a PAC freak, though I am a student of many nooks and crannys of WW2 history among other things.

Cheers...

Los

[JeffRaider]

I'd love to see an Israel CM. That would be awesome, too.

Are any of you "I have no interest in EF/NA so I won't buy those games" people serious? Do you hear yourselves? Have you gone nuts? Do you really think Steve and Charles are ignorant and stupid? Do you think they'd just pop out a piece of **** boring-ass version of CM? I think not. I'd buy any version of CM, sight unseen. I don't have much interest in EF/NA now, but I'm sure I will by the time CM2/3 come out. I know that those games WILL be interesting, WILL be playable, WILL be fun and WILL be exhaustively accurate. 'Nuff said.

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

--

Jeff Fraser

VIVA LOS ZAPATISTAS

[Bullethead]

Steve said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sorry if people don't understand that our time and energy are limited, and therefore we must first focus on what we not only know, but what we love first. PTO isn't necessarily something we couldn't LEARN to love, but if we give it a shot it will certainly be after we are through with our own announce lineup first.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, this is perfectly understandable. I didn't realize you had the practical problems with making a PTO/CBI version of the same depth and quality as ETO versions, I thought you just weren't interested.

I agree--if you can't do PTO/CBI to the same detail and quality as the other versions, then don't do it. But please keep these theaters in mind for the far future

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

-Bullethead

jtweller@delphi.com

WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm