Sgt Eagle Posted February 13, 2001 Share Posted February 13, 2001 If CM2 is East Front, CM3 is Pacific (or so i hear), why not make CM4 a "What If" game in which the Cuban Missile Crisis resulted in WW3 and the sides are US and USSR. That would be pretty cool. ------------------ "Nuts!" -Brigadier General Anthony McAuliffe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted February 13, 2001 Share Posted February 13, 2001 Sorry Sarge, but CM3 is slated for the Med / Italian theater, while CM4 will deal with the early years (Poland, France, etc..) ------------------ "What do you know about surfing, major, you're from God damn New Jersey" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagdcarcajou Posted February 13, 2001 Share Posted February 13, 2001 Errr, CM2 is East Front, CM3 is North Africa/Italy, and CM4 is going to be the early war years (France/Poland). I hope that BTS uses their engine to do something along the lines of Operation:Flashpoint (in a realistic, sim kinda way, not the equally cool run around and shoot stuff kinda way). Fulda Gap in 1985 would make an interesting battle - M1 Abrams and Leopards vs. T-74s and T-80s. I see a whole lot of potential there. Chris ------------------ What the hell is a Jagdcarcajou? CM Recon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 13, 2001 Share Posted February 13, 2001 Originally posted by Sgt Eagle: If CM2 is East Front, CM3 is Pacific (or so i hear), why not make CM4 a "What If" game in which the Cuban Missile Crisis resulted in WW3 and the sides are US and USSR. That would be pretty cool. You could make it a part of a generic 1950s-2000 edition, much like Steel Panthers 2, or some boardgames like Firepower. Would take a lot of work simulating the different weapons and doctrine and nationalities for that period, but would probably sell. How would you simulate helicopters though, and things like that? Would take a lot of modification of the basic game engine, and qiven CM's land-locked 3D views (I've never seen a fighter bomber - is it even possible?) helicopters would be hard to incorporate. From my (uninformed) standpoint. I think there is a lot of WW II ground to cover after the Pacific and Russia though - the desert, the German offensives of 1939-1940, Italy. An Italian CM with hilly terrain etc. would be a good precursor to a Korean War game, or even better, as I say, one that wraps everything from the various WW II games (jungle from the Pacific, hills from Italy, desert from North Africa, etc.) into one large "modern" game covering the last half of the 20th Century. by then perhaps the bar will have raised on computer technology and the minimum computer standard will have raised enough to allow you to cram all that into one package. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Bates Posted February 13, 2001 Share Posted February 13, 2001 Why are you guys referring to the Far East campaign as "Pacific"? Japan had as much ambition on the Asia continent as in the Pacific. It is akin to saying "Eastern Front" which is also stoopid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 13, 2001 Share Posted February 13, 2001 Convenient verbal shorthand. Why do you use "stoopid" which isn't even a word? Does this reply make me a "fish"? Damn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted February 13, 2001 Share Posted February 13, 2001 Originally posted by M. Bates: Why are you guys referring to the Far East campaign as "Pacific"? Japan had as much ambition on the Asia continent as in the Pacific. It is akin to saying "Eastern Front" which is also stoopid. Because when people say "Pacific" you know exactly what they mean. And when people say "Eastern Front" you also know exactly what they mean. Do you have better suggestions that do not involve posting a map every time we want to talk about theaters? "I heard CM3 was going to be about those portions of Africa roughly contained in the belt extending 150-200 miles from the Mediterranean Sea, and 75-100 inland from the Atlantic Ocean, but no further south than 28 degrees south longitude, also including the land mass commonly reffered to as Sicily, in addition to much of Italy but no further north than the 34th parallel. Malta and other islands contained in the body of water sometimes refferred to as the Med might also be included." Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted February 13, 2001 Share Posted February 13, 2001 Hrm, IMO if the Cuban Missile Crisis had turned into a shooting war, there wouldn't have been much of a world to fight over for very long ------------------ Soy super bien soy super super bien soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Bates Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: Because when people say "Pacific" you know exactly what they mean. And when people say "Eastern Front" you also know exactly what they mean. Do you have better suggestions that do not involve posting a map every time we want to talk about theaters? "I heard CM3 was going to be about those portions of Africa roughly contained in the belt extending 150-200 miles from the Mediterranean Sea, and 75-100 inland from the Atlantic Ocean, but no further south than 28 degrees south longitude, also including the land mass commonly reffered to as Sicily, in addition to much of Italy but no further north than the 34th parallel. Malta and other islands contained in the body of water sometimes refferred to as the Med might also be included." Jeff Heidman When "Eastern Front" is used generally, and not specifically in relation to the German disposition, I consider it to be an unconciously racist piece of terminology. "Pacific" raises confusion in my mind. To me it procludes the Japanese move into and occupation of parts of mainland Asia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rex_Bellator Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Michael, I read a thread a short while ago regarding 'Modern' combat and BTS have simply stated that PC processing power has a long way to go before they can simulate the vast size of modern battlefields. I think they'd like to do it but not until we're all using Pentium XII's. Actually this boring little post is just an excuse for me to test my new sig... ------------------ 'You wanna be starting someTHING?" - Michael Jackson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Smith Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 M. Bates- Surely you are kidding. If using 'Eastern Front' is racist terminology, who is it racist against (i.e. what 'race' is being oppressed)? If you mean that by using the term 'Eastern Front' one is unconsciously viewing the war from a German perspective, then you are probably correct. Regardless, Michael and Jeff have a point. If not 'Eastern Front,' then what what is the alternative? Perhaps 'The Great Patriotic War,' but then 1) nobody understands what you are talking about, and 2) you are unconsciously viewing the war from a Soviet perspective, which in the long term is just as evil as viewing it from the German perspective. 'The War between Russia and Germany' is confusing ('What are you referring to? Ooh, the Eastern Front of WWII...'). steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grisha Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Originally posted by Stephen Smith: M. Bates- Surely you are kidding. If using 'Eastern Front' is racist terminology, who is it racist against (i.e. what 'race' is being oppressed)? If you mean that by using the term 'Eastern Front' one is unconsciously viewing the war from a German perspective, then you are probably correct. Regardless, Michael and Jeff have a point. If not 'Eastern Front,' then what what is the alternative? Perhaps 'The Great Patriotic War,' but then 1) nobody understands what you are talking about, and 2) you are unconsciously viewing the war from a Soviet perspective, which in the long term is just as evil as viewing it from the German perspective. 'The War between Russia and Germany' is confusing ('What are you referring to? Ooh, the Eastern Front of WWII...'). steve How about 'Russian Front'? ------------------ Best regards, Greg Leon Guerrero Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Smith Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Grisha- That sounds fine to me. But 'Russian Front' is also a 'German perspective' expression (for instance, the Russians wouldn't have referred to the theatre as the 'Russian Front'). steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tss Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Grisha wrote: How about 'Russian Front'? And leave out Poland, Ukraine, Belorussia, the Baltic states, Karelia, and lots of other non-Russian terrain that the war raged over? If we are going to be politically correct and exact, then let's be politically correct and exact. - Tommi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Originally posted by M. Bates: When "Eastern Front" is used generally, and not specifically in relation to the German disposition, I consider it to be an unconciously racist piece of terminology. Excellent! "Unconsciously racist"! We are racists, and we don't even know it!! Neat trick! Do you say the same thing about the Western Front? Do you think maybe the terms are based on (surprise, surprise) geography rather than racism? As in, the fighting in the western part of the European conflict is referred to as the West Front, and the eastern part the East Front? "Pacific" raises confusion in my mind. To me it procludes the Japanese move into and occupation of parts of mainland Asia. Really? When someone talk about the Pacific theater you actually get confused and wonder what they mean? Well, as a public service, I shall take it upon yourself to let you know what the terms means. "Pacific Theater" commonly refers to the fight against Japan. This includes the Pacific, south Pacific, India, China, the Indian Ocean, etc., etc. "Eastern Front" refers to the battle between Germany and her allies against the Soviet Union. "Western Front" refers to the battle between Germany and her allies and the United States, the UK, Canada, and France, sometimes including the initial invasion of France and the Low Countries, but not always. There, now you will no longer be confused. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Originally posted by tss: Grisha wrote: How about 'Russian Front'? And leave out Poland, Ukraine, Belorussia, the Baltic states, Karelia, and lots of other non-Russian terrain that the war raged over? If we are going to be politically correct and exact, then let's be politically correct and exact. - Tommi Exactly. Since "Eastern Front" is so clearly racist, we must come up with an alternative. I propose "The PolishUkrainianRomanianHungarianFinnishSerbianCzechBalticStatesBulgarianGreek-SomeItaliansnotinItalyBelaRussianRussianKarelianGermanEastofBerlinAustrian Front" Jeff Heidman [This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 02-14-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Jeff, you neocolonialist hegemonic patriarchal bastard, you left out the Spanish!!! Now pray to Gaia for forgiveness, and maybe you can have a nice echinacea smoothy for desert. ------------------ Soy super bien soy super super bien soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgdpzr Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 M.B., I'm a little confused, you imply that "Eastern Front" has racist overtones, yet you yourself refer to the "Pacific" campaign as the "Far East." If I follow your logic this is because "Eastern Front" assumes a geocentric perspective. Well, how is "Far East" not equally geocentric? [This message has been edited by jgdpzr (edited 02-14-2001).] [This message has been edited by jgdpzr (edited 02-14-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Bates Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Originally posted by jgdpzr: M.B., I'm a little confused, you imply that "Eastern Front" has racist overtones, yet you yourself refer to the "Pacific" campaign as the "Far East." If I follow your logic this is because "Eastern Front" assumes a geocentric perspective. Well, how is "Far East" not equally geocentric? [This message has been edited by jgdpzr (edited 02-14-2001).] [This message has been edited by jgdpzr (edited 02-14-2001).] I agree with you jgdpzr that "Far East" is geocentric, you have a good point there. In my defence, "Middle East" and "Far East" are regularly used. I prefer "Far East" to "Pacific Theater". Maybe "Pacific War" is best As far as the Russian-German conflict is concerned, why not use some imagination. "Eastern Front" means absolutely nothing except that it is the German perspective. "Russo-German War" IMHO is much much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marlow Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Originally posted by M. Bates: "Eastern Front" means absolutely nothing except that it is the German perspective. "Russo-German War" IMHO is much much better. Sounds like you are auditioning for Winston Smith's job. What next, "the term "World War II" is racist because it presumes that the nations actually involved in the war make up the world, and therefore are more important than those not involved"? Maybe we should call it the "United States-English-Russian-German-Italian-Japanese-Australian-French-Finnish-Etc… War" instead. Oh, but then we presume that the United States is the most important. Give me a break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Originally posted by M. Bates: I agree with you jgdpzr that "Far East" is geocentric, you have a good point there. In my defence, "Middle East" and "Far East" are regularly used. I prefer "Far East" to "Pacific Theater". Maybe "Pacific War" is best As far as the Russian-German conflict is concerned, why not use some imagination. Why? We are trying to communicate, not have a creative writing course. "Eastern Front" means absolutely nothing except that it is the German perspective. Not necessarily. It could mean, that of the fronts in question, it was the one that was to the East of the other one. Even if it was from the German perspective, that hardly make sit racist. The Germans were the common enemy, so defining them as the "middle" is logical anyway. "Russo-German War" IMHO is much much better. Except that it is also inaccurate, since it ignores the many people fighting on the "Russo" side who were not Russians, and the many people fighting in the "German" side who were not Germans. Having said that, I have no problem with anyone using Russo-German, since the point of language is simply to communicate, and if they say "Russo-German", I know exactly what they mean. Which is the point of language. To communicate. "Russo-German" might be technically inaccurate, but who cares? Same with "East Front". You can't hold one to a different standard than the other. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Have we come up with a trophy for the "stupidest statement of the day" yet? Perhaps we could call it the Russo-Germano Award. You are all aware the SOVIET UNION consisted of more than Russia, I hope, so none of you has said anything even remotely intelligent. Correction - Jeff posted at the same time as I did. [This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 02-14-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Bates Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Even if it was from the German perspective, that hardly make sit racist. The Germans were the common enemy, so defining them as the "middle" is logical anyway. The Germans were fighting a Racialist War which their troops oft called the Ostfront. I find it queer to study the war from the Russian standpoint and to have "Eastern Front" as a buzzword in my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 I think Jeff summed it up best: Why? We are trying to communicate, not have a creative writing course. Or put another way... if it ain't broke, don't fix it Each nationality has its own way of defining a conflict. We in the US call it the Civil War and others call it The War Between The American States (or some other such thing). For us it makes sense to call it the Civil War since we only had ONE and using the capitals it clearly, in the US, excludes everybody else's civil wars. BTW, we also use terms like Eastcoast and Westcoast, not Eastern Unitited States Shorline and Wesetern Unitied States Shorline The common terms from the US perspective are: Pacific Theater of Operations - this is the OFFICAL US term (then and now) for all action that happened off the western side of the USA. European Theater of Operations - again, the official US term (then and now) for all action off the eastern side of the USA. Both were subdivided into various smaller theaters, like the obvious Western and Eastern fronts of the ETO. Yes, the Western Allies did call its part of the war the Western Front and the Soviets the Eastern Front. So it is NOT just from the German perspective, but also from US, GB, etc. nations fighting in the war. Heck, they even called themselves the Western Allies. To borrow a phrase from Bates' national library of funny terms, this "debate" is all poppycock Standard terms are used for a reason. Common term for the fighting between the Third Reich, and its allies, and the Soviet Union, and its allies, is the Eastern Front. It is no less accurate than The Great Patriotic War, nor is it any better than the Russo-German War (which is also used). Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Steve, very informative and well stated post. Now will you PLEASE get the hell off the internet and go work on CM2? I swear to God, I will start posting demands for mine dogs and Russian tanks with multiple turrets individually modelled... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts