0311 Posted February 4, 2000 Share Posted February 4, 2000 Okay, Here it goes- I love CM Demo. I would rather play the game with modern warfare weapons (M16, M60, SAW, M203 ....). I know that war gamers are taken by the WWII era, but I would rather engange in combat with accurate modern weapons in a somewhat fictional war. Say like US vs China. The setting could be in Europe or I think it would be cool to play a campaign where America is occupied. Imagine fighting in New York,Dallas, London, Paris. You could use the same CM engine and fight a war using todays weapons. I DO NOT want to turn this into some wierd Command and Conquer junk, just a hypothetical war with weapons that I actually understand. What do you think? And please be gentle I'm new here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted February 4, 2000 Share Posted February 4, 2000 Modern warfare is way too fast paced. More things happen more quickly. One man with an M16 carries so much firepower the CM engine would have to simulate everyone. ------------------ Visit my webpage! http://cm4mac.tripod.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted February 4, 2000 Share Posted February 4, 2000 Agreed; modern combat would almost demand much shorter turn lengths, which would increase the micromanagement... Additionally, the long-range killing power of modern weapons means maps would have to be 5 or 6 km on a side, with the according increase in workload. I had enough of the "you can kill anything on the map FROM anywhere on the map" thing after playing through CC3 from each side. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eridani Posted February 4, 2000 Share Posted February 4, 2000 Hehehe, if you do a search you'll find a post about this a few months back... there are a few of us who are petitioning for a patch for the game that will give a few modern tanks... M1A2, T80 ect... these would just be for fun "what if" battles... I dunno, what do you t hink? 1 M1A2 vs. 10 king Tigers? (I think the General consensous was with the Abrams... but It'd be fun to try out you have to admit ) -EridanMan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ol' Blood & Guts Posted February 4, 2000 Share Posted February 4, 2000 I've thought about this possibility, and it would be cool to see M1 Abrams tanks out there engaging T-72s and T-80s along with M2/3 Bradleys fighting BMP-2/3s, etc. Actually what I'd like to see in a future CM release IS a post-WWII era campaign. Do what SPII: Modern Battles did for SPI. For example, have the Korean War in there, along with Vietnam, Arab-Israeli conflicts, Gulf War, and some fictional conflicts. The only problem with post-WWII battles, is that Infantry's Anti-Tank capabilities increased two-fold. That's one problem that came up in SPII. Not only did you have to worry about enemy tanks, but that infantry squad equiped with RPGs. But, nonetheless, I'd like to see this MOD done in the future. Hell, they've (Battlefront.com) already got TAC-OPs. ------------------ "I want you to remember that...no bastard ever won a war...by dying for his country...He won it...by making the other poor dumb bastard...die for his country."--George S. Patton [This message has been edited by Ol' Blood & Guts (edited 02-03-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goanna Posted February 4, 2000 Share Posted February 4, 2000 If you can imagine it, it will be done. My speculation is that if CM genuinely changes the nature of wargames in the way that I suspect, there will be many other games that follow (both by BTS and others) which will satisfy your desires. The manner in which this wil be completed will depend on what the CM "engine" looks like and how it can be adapted by those who want to make other things from it. ------------------ desert rat wannabe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bannon Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 I would buy a version of CM covering the modern era (~70's on) in a flash. Where should I send my deposit? *grin* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goofy Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 I'd like to see the other direction, ACW and Napoleonics with the 3D options of CM. Of course the sheer size of the units involved and the "level" of command probably make both of these an impossibility! Still, one dreams! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 God, where did this old thread come from, it's even got my old handle of the infamous, OBG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elementalwarre Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 from prior threads on this, problems with doing current warfare include 1- range of modern guns requires allowing larger maps 2- modeling helicopters/close support aircraft. since these are much more tightly integrated now they shouldn't be the semi-random flights CM currently has 3- communications/sensors/ECM with modern weapons' firepower, IMHO relative spotting would also have to work before trying this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shipmonkey Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 I was personaly hoping for Korea, most vehicle work is already done; chaffees, HVSS shermans, and pershings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fytinghellfish Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 Originally posted by Colin: Modern warfare is way too fast paced. More things happen more quickly. One man with an M16 carries so much firepower the CM engine would have to simulate everyone. I disagree. Can the CM engine now model a whole squad of Germans with MP44s and two light MG42s if it had to? If it could, then it can model a modern US squad with M-16s and M-249s. M-203 grenade launchers could replace rifle grenades and AT-4 LAWs could replace panzerfausts. Not too tough, I don't think. The only REAL problem would be range.. but how often in CM do you see farther than 1000m? Terrain dictates visual range, of course. Weather wouldn't affect modern systems as much, but it would still affect them. But this is all pretty pointless (for lack of a better word) to talk about right now.. BTS has a while to go before they have time to even think about doing a modern CM, though they have said in the past that they are interested in doing one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Commissar Posted February 18, 2001 Share Posted February 18, 2001 M1's vs. T-70's/80's? Where's the fun in that? At least use modern Russian tanks like the T-90's or their newest invention (its classified, they had a test of it in 97' with some Western experts attending) both of which stand a good chance against the Abrams. I think the biggest problem with using modern equipment is that half of it is classified! How would you know the exact specs of a T-90? Also, modern conflict is more technology-based then WW2. You see more laser-guided missiles, carpet bombing, engage-the-enemy-from-10-miles-off sort of combat. For some people, this is fun. For others, its a bore. Kind of like playing an F-22 sim versus one set in the skies above war-torn Europe in WW1/WW2. I find the later much more interesting because its in your face and exciting to play. In futuristic sims, you see a bleep on your radar, you press a button, and rack up a kill. *ZZZZZZ...* All IMHO. EDIT: Found some more info on that new tank: It's called Chernie Orel (Black Eagle) and its hull is a modified T-80. The turret is heavily modified, and the tank is extremely well sloped, with a although the exact details are scetchy about its equipment. Here's a few links for those interested: 1) Some basic info http://knox-www.army.mil/center/threat/blkeagle.htm 2)Some photos http://www.rbs.ru/vttv/99/polygon/e/orel.htm 3) More info... http://www.armscontrol.ru/atmtc/Arms_systems/Land/Tanks/Cherny_Orel/Cherny_Orel_MBT.htm 4) Info about where the Chernie Orel will be used! http://members.dencity.com/fofanov/Tanks/MBT/b_eagle.html ------------------ "...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..." - Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back" [This message has been edited by The Commissar (edited 02-17-2001).] [This message has been edited by The Commissar (edited 02-17-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunsmithcat Posted February 18, 2001 Share Posted February 18, 2001 Guys, did you all forget the interviews with BTS early on? The response given in more than one circumstance to the question of where else they would take the evolved CM engine to was modern cold war era, circa 1980's war in Europe. I think it would be great idea personally... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Five Posted February 18, 2001 Share Posted February 18, 2001 Having a more modern CM would be great. Yes in a large open environment it could get a little dull watching your M1A2s pop T-80s at 3500 meters. However, the power of modern tanks is greatly curtailed in MOUT environments. My greatest area of interest is combat in urban environments. Therefore the standoff of modern weapons would not be such a factor. In addition, a company of panthers might actually pop a few modern tanks on an urban battlefield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Space Thing Posted February 18, 2001 Share Posted February 18, 2001 Will all due respect to all who want a modern CM, I would not buy it. I too prefer the direction that Goofy advocates. At the CM level, the enhanced lethality of modern weapons would make for a very quick and boring (IMHO) game indeed. Now, Napoleonics & the ACW would be perfect. If someone took a game like Empire V and applied it to a 3D computer environment like CM, I'd be in heaven. The main criticism of Empire V was that there was too much to keep track of. The computer doing it for you would be the right ticket. I don't understand BTS. They really do have something here (with CM) that simply outshines EVERYONE else by light-years and they (by their own choice), remain a tiny company. I respect their decision. I just hope that it doesn't lead to their being surpassed by another software company. A very quick take-off from the starting blocks deserves to followed up an equally strong performance down the stretch. I don't know about anyone else, but I judge every wargame by CM's standards. Maybe after CM2, (with enough $backing$) they will be able to grow enough to take over the entire wargaming world by expanding (with a very tight control being exercised) into different periods. At least, I pray that they do. Hope springs eternal.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted February 18, 2001 Share Posted February 18, 2001 Originally posted by Space Thing: Now, Napoleonics & the ACW would be perfect. If someone took a game like Empire V and applied it to a 3D computer environment like CM, I'd be in heaven. Modern might be nice, but I'm with you ST! Jumbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medlinke Posted February 18, 2001 Share Posted February 18, 2001 Here's my deal with Modern CM... The 3d Aspect of the game... I thought that there was going to be a new 3d engine for CM 3 & 4. Don't know if that's the case, but if it is, there is a possibility to pull the camera out another 2-3 "steps" so air could be modified. Map Size vs. Hardware After all the CMs are done computer Hardware should be blazing fast. I would suspect nothing less than 2.5 Ghz computers with 128 RAM video cards, etc... So simulating something that big, with that much computation wouldn't be as big a deal....The programming on the otherhand would be a pain.. Turn length... I agree, 30-45 second bursts would be best. I'm not sure how fast a T-80 can get it's turrett around, but I know it can't take too long and if you have a tank engaging multiple targets (or at least the opportunity) from all sides of the tank...then there needs to be the opportunity for the opposing player to react. So I think it would further abstract the turns. Range.... Problem....To account for that a few things would have to happen...More accentuated terrain models, smaller scale on the units, or a few other things that would balance out the game for this, but it would definately be a problem. Verdict... I am more interested in the Med and Desert versions of CM, and I'd rather see a Pacific land version before a Modern. My 3 cents....I get an extra one for no good reason... Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts