Modern version of Combat Mission

[Imperial Grunt]

Another great version of the game would be a modern day edition. It could cover the entire ground US arsenal from Grenada to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Hypothetical scenarios such as North Korea, Taiwan, conflict in Europe, Syria, etc.. could also be added. As a recent veteran with the 2nd Battalion, 23rd Marines of the 1st Marine Division in Iraq, I observed that there are many aspects of modern warfare that have not changed since WWII. Especially the "fog of war." A modern day simulation would be a great game and provide an added dimension.

[GJK]

This has come up a number of times, I agree, it would be interesting to play, but I think the biggest opponent of it will tell you that because of the vastly extended ranges of armored units, the maps would need to increase in size as well and today's computers just wouldn't be able to handle it.

It would be good to do some small units action though, without the armored support but perhaps some LAV's/BMP's or the like.

[Imperial Grunt]

I understand the dilemna, but the increased range of modern day forces can only be truely realized on completely open terrain. During OIF, all of our engagements were at about 500 meters or less.

Adding terrian to ensure that there are no open areas beyond 1000 meters would make a playable game.

I would also recommend the scenarios be kept to a reinforced BN or less. A Marine Expeditionary Unit, SF, or airborne task force would be great units to use.

[Publius Cornelius Patton]

Originally posted by Maj West:

Another great version of the game would be a modern day edition. It could cover the entire ground US arsenal from Grenada to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Hypothetical scenarios such as North Korea, Taiwan, conflict in Europe, Syria, etc.. could also be added. As a recent veteran with the 2nd Battalion, 23rd Marines of the 1st Marine Division in Iraq, I observed that there are many aspects of modern warfare that have not changed since WWII. Especially the "fog of war." A modern day simulation would be a great game and provide an added dimension.

I agree. Isn't TacOps something like that, but in 2D. I've thought about this idea, and the only problem I see game-wise is Helicopters- how are you going to simulate them?

It would also be good if the version let you have completed-but-never-in-combat vehicles, such as the M8 AGS light "tank."

God bless,

"P. Cornelius Patton"

[Imperial Grunt]

Attack helicopters could be simulated in the game in the same manner as airstrikes, but with a longer available time. They would be more vulnerable to AAA, at least during daylight, depending on the weapon system used. Helo's attacking with hellfire missiles should be considered at least 2-3k out or more and thus only vulnerable to SAM's. Attack helo's using rockets and guns are much more vulnerable. A helo doing a gun/rocket run should be depicted as flying toward the target..firing..then egressing. At any point it may be knocked down.

Transport helicopters would be available for initial inserts, maybe LZ's selected during set up. It would be a cool game aspect to see them land and unload troops..especially under fire. If LZ prep fires are going to be conducted, then the troop inserts would have to land on turn 2.

The actual flight of the aircraft would be computer driven, with LZ selection, targeting, and possibly a general direction of attack (ie..from the east) given by the player.

Future weapons such as the M8 AGS, MV-22, AAAV, would be ideal.

[flamingknives]

Helos using ATGMs are about 2-3km from the target. Nonwithstanding that some AAA systems have a range of 3-4km, any AAA assets in between the target and the Helo will be able to play.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Maj West:

Another great version of the game would be a modern day edition. It could cover the entire ground US arsenal from Grenada to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Hypothetical scenarios such as North Korea, Taiwan, conflict in Europe, Syria, etc.. could also be added. As a recent veteran with the 2nd Battalion, 23rd Marines of the 1st Marine Division in Iraq, I observed that there are many aspects of modern warfare that have not changed since WWII. Especially the "fog of war." A modern day simulation would be a great game and provide an added dimension.

Modelling the US arsenal is a problem. But whoever plays the Iraqis wants traffic jams, cutthroats, crowds as cover, suicide bombers and to set the VLs outside the map.

Then please tell me who would agree on a (realistic) PBEM scenario including US combat troops after 1990? I would agree, but only if a single killed GI would ensure victory, no matter the flag cost or own losses.

Sorry to bring this up, but this is the way the real world is. Avoid the front, go for the rear areas.

For fictitional scenarios, there would be too many grogs discussing it without any available data.

Nice idea, but I guess BFC won't do it.

Gruß

Joachim

[flamingknives]

A hypothetical Fulda gap, however....

[Imperial Grunt]

The scale of operations for a modern game should be small, as most US actions since Vietnam have been. The political aspects of US operations would definitely be part of victory conditions. Missions would not always be combat related, but present the player with dilemnas: how to protect several non-government agencies and an embassy, capture a port or airfield, etc..

The non-US player should definitely have access to irregular forces, terrorists, suicide bombers, crowds, etc.. as well as to some convention forces such as N Korea and Syria. Even an Iraq scenario would be great, particulary the urban operations. Obvioulsy there is no point in simulating tank battles in the open desert.

Speaking of Vietnam, that would be a great simulation as well, especially I Corps, which saw alot of conventional fighting.

[Ed B.]

Up-dating the game format...

Perhaps an easy one maybe the Korea Conflict. Simple put, most 'technology' would be WW2 vintage. To bring the gaming standards or attributes up to now or/ today's standards (IE Gulf War 2 or even Gulf War 1), would require far larger mapping scales then the current games are set at...Sure one could do the 'small-scale' ops, but for a serious and 'realistic' gaming environment, latter day military operations I think are out; Especially given the range and operational environment of 'today's' weapons systems. Personally, I would like to see, within the current 'gaming enviroment', both for CMBO and CMBB, hardware which somehow didn't get included and 'units', which were forgotten. Plus, the total lack of a Pacific War Campaign, which somehow didn't seem to be important enough, to be included in either game release.

I don't know about you...But the European Campaign was IMPORTANT. As was the Pacific Campaign...Which the game-designer's somehow forgot - totally about.

[i for one, would pay for, an 'add-on' which included the Pacific Campaign...What about, you???]

No doubt, someone could do some serious 'writing', to include 'modern day conflicts'. However, did the "hard-coding" ever get released to the modders???

That's the "64 dollar question".

Food for thought, huh...

[Los]

"but I think the biggest opponent of it will tell you that because of the vastly extended ranges of armored units, the maps would need to increase in size as well and today's computers just wouldn't be able to handle it"

In CMAK you can already play scenarios covering 24 square kilometers. (6KMx4KM) The "Descent on Maleme" scenario is 3+Km by 2.5KM and covered with tons of terrain and eventaully ends up with multiple battalions fighting it out. It runs perfectly smooth on my 2.4 Ghz 128mb card 512M RAM system. One can only imagine that when CMX comes out how easily large scenarios will be handled. It won't be a limitation of the PC of the time.

The notion that somehow modern battles won't be doable or as interesting or challenging as WW2 battles is as absurd as are claims that somehow pacific battles are not suited to Combat Mission. That points to lack of understanding of modern combat operations, I believe. The final outcome of the campaign is irrelevant in selecting combat mission scenarios (or else why even lay ww2 battles) It's the small scale actions and how you could do better or worse that matter. Just because something appears to look easy to the untrained eye on the 5 o'clock news does not mean it was so in reality.

There are many great areas for combat mission scale scenarios. Look at the Falkalnds. There were some desperate battles rife for good tactical decision making, at places like Goose Green or in the final assaults of the hills surrounding Port Stanley.

There is great fodder for combat mission type battles in Chechnya (Part one and two) with heavy city fighting between forces in Grosny and Komsomolskoye, playing either the Russians or the Chechens.

In Afghanistan pitched battles aaginst the Mujahideen with the Russians at Zhawar (The FSMO has many great detailed small unit actions from that conflict)or the US vs Taliban in OP Anaconda for instance.

The Gulf particularly part two had many good tough fought actions. then there are some smaller lesser known areas. Eritrea and Ethiopia fought many actions over the years including the latest scrape in 98, including tanks battles. Having spent a fair amount of time over there I can tell you the terrain is infantry heaven. Iran and Iraq fought a major conventional war in the eighties with everything from pitched tank battles to human wave assaults.

There's the whole "what if" of Korea.

For that matter if you want desperate picthed battles go spend a few weeks at the NTC or JRTC. Those would make great "training scenarios or Ops".

Not to mention any one of a number of Arab- Israeli conflicts.

No. there would be no shortage of good scenarios or ops every bit as challenging as WW2 to fill a modern combat mission CD. Unless of course all us scenario designers suddenly get lobotomies.

Los

[Mad Russian]

Not to mention a complete 10 year series of small scale battles in Vietnam.

Panther Commander

[Publius Cornelius Patton]

Yeah, Vietnam and the Arab-Israeli conflicts (as well as all those others) would make good (if not great) scenarios.

No to mention a future US-China conflict over Taiwan (Me, I'd love to see US troops taking down the People's Liberation Army. )

God bless,

Publius Cornelius Patton

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Maj West:

Another great version of the game would be a modern day edition.

Why not just call it science fiction? Many of the capabilities of weapon systems is still classified, so you really can't do an accurate simulation

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

QUOTE]Why not just call it science fiction? Many of the capabilities of weapon systems is still classified, so you really can't do an accurate simulation

The weapons of Vietnam and the earlier Arab Israeli Wars aren't classified or confidential. A lot of us are quite familiar with them.

Panther Commander

[Los]

"Why not just call it science fiction? Many of the capabilities of weapon systems is still classified, so you really can't do an accurate simulation."

What's really amusing is that this same argument, turned around ever so slightly, was used by DOD military simulations designers as to why morale rules can't be incorporated into their sims. (In fact the Major used this argument in Tacops.)

Combat mission is not a completely accurate simulation either. But it gets close enough to be enjoyable and believeable. The same can be done with modern sims since, as it applies to the tactical level, most of the weapons systems except some of the very latest, have good data on them.

Los

[Cpl Steiner]

I don't see why maps would need to be huge if only one side, namely the US, has the long range weapon systems. Don't think tank versus tank or helo versus tank, think RPG versus truck! You can't use a long range weapon if you don't know where the target is until he starts firing RPGs out of the second floor window of a block of flats!

A feature I'd like in a modern CM game would be the ability to create a squad by specifying all the weapons it carries and naming it. This would allow players to design scenarios to simulate conficts that haven't even happened yet, but may be happening once the game is out.

[V]

I think a version of Combat Mission up till about 1990 would be very interesting an could be done.

Hell, I would even settle for just CMVC

[Imperial Grunt]

Scenarios for a modern day version are endless. The Marine Corps Gazette features tactical decision games every month which are often very good. The CM system would work for battles ranging from small SF teams to entire brigades easily.

Jane's provides alot of unclassified details about modern weaponry, which will easily suffice for the purposes of the game. The point would be the tactical gameplay, not a debate over the actual range of a Hellfire missle. Besides, terrain, WX, and target ID, often bring the actual effective range of modern day weapons back down to 2000m or less. For the US player, firing a tank at a target that turned out to be a schoolbus full of children might cause the loss of the scenario, or the battle. In an operation it could mean that the US player has fewer forces to work with, as the politians have ordered a withdrawal.

There are so many options to accomplish a good game, and a balanced fight. Had the Iraqis shown the strength that the VC and NVA did in Vietnam, there is no way Baghdad would have fallen so quickly. Look at what the Chechen rebels did to the first Russian task force, equipped with T-72 tanks,BMP-2's, and Hind gunships, when they first pushed into Grozny. Superior firepower does not always mean automatic victory.

As a point, here is a passage from the book "Phase Line Green" by Nicholas Warr. It is about the authors experience as a Marine rifle platoon commander at the battle for Hue. He describes an airstike by a couple of F-4's on a particular stone tower that dominated the inner palace. "The NVA AK-47 and .30 caliber machinegun rounds ripped upward, directing their light green and white tracer rounds at the invading Phantoms. The enemy's constant and defiant small-arms fire was only momentarily interrupted exactly when the napalm burst into a whooshing roar of flame and smoke and exactly when the high explosives burst their gut-wrenching concussive power on the tower. Immedietaly after, the NVA gunners stuck their crazy heads back up and started shooting again at the flame spewing dual exhausts of the departing Phantom's jets. The Phantoms made pass after disciplined pass, dropping no more than two bombs at a time, but the determined NVA gunners survived all of them and always had the last word in the deadly duel. One Phantom even took a couple of hits up one of his tailpipes and had to limp back to Da Nang without dropping all his ordnance on the tower." Two days later, a company of Marines took the tower, only to be driven off in a counterattack the next day. The company countattacked four times, and on the fifth day for the battle for the tower, it was finally seized. This scenario could easily be played in CM.

The sky is the limit.

And a Pacific version of CM should also be made!