JediJobu Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 My search did not reveal that this has been talked about so I will ask. How come we cannot do a quick battle where you could "hypothetically" fight with 2 sides of the same like Axis forces Vs. Axis or US vs. US or vs. British and so on. Obiously this is completely historically inaccurate but you could think of it as crushing a renegade outfit or fighting of a coupe attempt - would be more admissible to German forces I would think but since its just in the interest of fun... why not?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 This has in fact been up before. Apparently it would conflict with the "historical accuracy" or something. Blah, blah, blah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 The better question is not why can't the Allies fight the Allies, it is why is it desireable to hard-code the sides to begin with? This will become more important as the CM game expands to encompass more of WW2, and the definitions of "Allies" and "Axis" start to get a little more blurry. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt Canuck Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Actually, go to Feldgrau.com and read up about one of the SS Divisions. Cannot exactly remember which one, well anyway, I think if I remember correctly. I'll tell you the outline... A unit from this SS Division refused to surrender, their leader was fanatical. I'm pretty sure they were about Company strength in size and holding a woods in Germany and refused to lay down their weapons. They fought back. Well, about a day later, astonished Americans watched as German Heer attacked the SS held woods, and overran the positions. Interesting, I'll try to get more information on this subject matter for you. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Space Thing Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Originally posted by JediJobu: How come we cannot do a quick battle where you could "hypothetically" fight with 2 sides of the same like Axis forces Vs. Axis or US vs. US or vs. British and so on. As Capt Canuck pointed out, this sort of thing isn't so unhistorical. If only that bomb in the Wolf's Lair had been on the other side of the desk leg, we would have seen a lot of Heer vs. SS battles. Guaranteed. Now, that is as far as I would go. US troops vs. UK troops? Nope. There wasn't even a chance. Essentially, the US already occupied England. Why would they ever fight? They simply wouldn't. The US supplied and actually liked the French. Poles? The UK liked them too and the US had no reason to fight them either. For what if scenarios, I ask for the ability to pit the Heer against the SS. Not only was there a very high possibility of it happening, it apparently did happen. It is obvious that QBs are already abused by the lack of attention to rarity (by the players -of course ). Having the ability to simulate a Heer vs. SS QB wouldn't hurt things a bit IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa Smurf Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Well I personally would love the chance to shoot some Yanks. Neil ------------------ I don't sing. I don't dance. I ain't blue. Anything else you need to know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goofy Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Let's not even look at "historical hypothetical" and consider that this is a game, not a historical document. I have played against opponents who in no way had historical unit mix in their TO&E. I would like to be able to play any nation vs any nation (including itself) also. How many times has the argument come up among gaming circles that "If we had really equal forces I'd have mopped the map up with you!" I've seen many threads on this forum concerning Allied and Axis unit point costs and how it puts one side or the other at a disadvantage. As Jeff Heidman brought up on the idea of hard coding the sides, it may be just an impossibility but IS there any way of moving unit data to create a "blue team" and a "red team" setup? This seems to be just another way of increasing the fun in the game. ------------------ Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordfluffers Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Originally posted by Papa Smurf: Well I personally would love the chance to shoot some Yanks. Neil Well play as the Germans then. A discussion about 'allies vs. allies' is about as sensical and relevent IMO as asking for hpothetical situations involving the Swiss attacking Germany, or the Irish invading Britain. Its absolutely absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roborat Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Why can't we pretend that it is just a training exercise, practicing tactics or something. Armies do it all the time, with one side being the enemy force. ------------------ "With cat-like tread, Upon our prey we steal; In silence dread, Our cautious way we feel." -G&S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Originally posted by Lordfluffers: Well play as the Germans then. A discussion about 'allies vs. allies' is about as sensical and relevent IMO as asking for hpothetical situations involving the Swiss attacking Germany, or the Irish invading Britain. Its absolutely absurd. I think you are missing the point. The issue of sides will have to be addressed by BTS at some point. There are numerous examples of forces who were once allied fighting each other. Finland and Germany, Italy and Germany, France and GB, the US and France, etc., etc. The current system of defining forces as either "Allied" or "Axis" works fine for CMBO since the sides are very well defined. *Some* people like to fight hypothetical engagements for a variety of reasons. While that desire is probably not great enough to justify the work of allowing it in CMBO, the next games will have to address the sides issue anyway. A good way to solve that problem *and* allow those who would like to fight hypothetical battles with historic forces would be to not have "sides" defined for a given force. So when you set up a scenario you select side A and side B, and if side A is the US and side B is France, then that is fine, and if side A is Germany and side B is France, that is fine also. This is how just about every generalized wargame is set up. Right now CM is not really generalized, but it soon will be. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mayer Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 For what it's worth, I'd have to agree with Jeff here, if for no other reason than I'd like to try some training battles, theoretical laboratory stuff, with exactly equal forces. And from a theoretical perpspective, it makes more sense to define the sides by their role (A fighting B, B attacking A, etc.) than by their nationality (A is always countries 1, 2 and 3; B is always countries 4, 5, and 6). I don't lose much sleep over it, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa Smurf Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Originally posted by Lordfluffers: Well play as the Germans then. A discussion about 'allies vs. allies' is about as sensical and relevent IMO as asking for hpothetical situations involving the Swiss attacking Germany, or the Irish invading Britain. Its absolutely absurd. You are completely missing the point - as a Brit I'd love to kill some Yanks (no offence to all our American cousins ). And what's wrong with hypothetical situations - it is a GAME after all (isn't it?). Neil ------------------ I don't sing. I don't dance. I ain't blue. Anything else you need to know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Originally posted by Lordfluffers: Well play as the Germans then. A discussion about 'allies vs. allies' is about as sensical and relevent IMO as asking for hpothetical situations involving the Swiss attacking Germany, or the Irish invading Britain. Its absolutely absurd. The "same side" vs "same side" would be the only way to truly have a "fair" fight. With the recent hubbub about point allocations for Allies and Germans, this is the only way to have the "equal" games those folks were looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gremlin Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Another vote here for same-side battles and creating forces that use both Axis and Allied units simultaneously. ------------------ When men are inhuman, take care not to feel towards them as they do towards other humans. --Marcus Aurelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gun Dog Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 When CMII comes out, I'd be curious to play a 1945/46 Americans vs. Russian scenario. That would not be so far fetched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 JediJobu wrote: > My search did not reveal that this has been talked about so I will ask. A simple search on the word "hypothetical" would have presented you with the very obviously appropriate thread US vs Russia in CM2. Everyone please read this thread before continuing the discussion here, as it's very likely to go down the same road. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Bates Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 This is a bloody awful idea. Even if former enemies become Allies (Poles and Russians), the time in months and years between the change of circumstances make this 'idea' of Allies vs Allies really tacky and bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Originally posted by M. Bates: This is a bloody awful idea. Even if former enemies become Allies (Poles and Russians), the time in months and years between the change of circumstances make this 'idea' of Allies vs Allies really tacky and bad. Italy and Germany went from firm Allies to enemies literally overnight. Same with Finland and Germany, and Romania and Germany. The Britd and French were shooting at each other just months after they were shooting at the Germans together. "Tacky" is a matter of perspective. One mans interesting scenario is another mans bad taste. Why enforce one persons idea of good taste on everyone else? Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Bates Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: "Tacky" is a matter of perspective. One mans interesting scenario is another mans bad taste. Why enforce one persons idea of good taste on everyone else? Jeff Heidman Isn't the greatest battle ever fought interesting enough for people who support this goulish and ridiculous idea?? What matters is whether BTS think that these imaginary conflicts are bad taste or not. Effectively theirs is the only opinion which really counts. ------------------ Rugged Defense England Team Website: http://combatmission.portland.co.uk For all our AARs (not those which have been lost) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Originally posted by M. Bates: Isn't the greatest battle ever fought interesting enough for people who support this goulish and ridiculous idea?? Is it really necessary to cast those who disagree with you in such a negative light? Can't they just disagree with what they find enjoyable or worthwhile without it being a reflection on their moral standing? I have played MANY wargames, from many periods, and find that there are many interesting hypothetical scenarios. I am pretty sure I am neither "ghoulish" or ridiculous. What matters is whether BTS think that these imaginary conflicts are bad taste or not. Effectively theirs is the only opinion which really counts. Sort of, although as a business they are driven by the desire to provide what their customers want, to some extent. Since there is a need to provide additional felxibility in side selection anyway, it makes sense to kill two birds with one stone. Providing the ability to create hypothetical match ups does no harm to those who have no desire to engage in them, not does BTS have to create any of those scenarios themselves if they think their efforts are better served in other areas. I will refrain from commenting on the perceived moral implications, since I do not think there are any involved in playing wargames. Certainly I was never wracked with guilt playing the rather excellent Red Storm campaign in the original Steel Panthers. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HGA Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 This is a feature that I would like to see in CM2. The reason is that I like to play hypothetical battles from time to time. Just voicing my opinion. HGA ------------------ "Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!" BLACK KNIGHT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Originally posted by M. Bates: Isn't the greatest battle ever fought interesting enough for people who support this goulish and ridiculous idea?? Are you saying that it is acceptable then to enforce your defintion of good taste on others? Or what is "interesting"? Even if that definition is largely in the minority among the target audience? Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dumbo2 Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Given the already high amount of crettins who seem to enjoy bashing fellow members of the english speaking world one way or another I think this would be a terrible idea. I shudder even to think of the lame scenarios that would come out of it. What is even worse is that WW2 is actually an example of just how when the chips are down democracies actually rose to the challenge (bad jokes about France do not gel with the facts incidentally). The last thing we need is such a noble endavour clouded by some silly theoretical nationalist fantasy. just my 0.02c _dumbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 The last thread on this topic ended with BTS saying that they had more than enough on their plate getting the historical part done, much less the hypothetical. Good response. What is their position on *allowing* the user base to design hypothetical scenarios where it takes no extra effort from BTS? How is BTS going to re-vamp the scenario creation screen to allow the vastly greater number of nationalities in CM2? For that matter, is CM2 going to add on to CM1, or is it going to be a seperate executable? Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 I can see this as being the mother of all coding challenges for Charles. Not that I doubt he could do it, I'm sure he can, It's just the fact that we are asking for the computer to accept two units as allies in one scenario, and with a few mouse clicks it's suppose to treat the same units as enemys in another. Consider... I could be wrong on this, but I believe that CM recognizes sides but not nationalities. What I mean by that is a 12 man U.S. rifle squad functions the exact same way as a 12 man French rifle squad. A Firefly is a Firefly, whether it be British, Canadian or Polish. Sure, you get different voices, uniforms, etc...but strip all that away and you have the same unit. Now we are asking for the ability to create a scenario with a few mouse clicks that has a Polish Firefly shooting at a Canadian 'fly (remember they are really just the same unit), now we exit that scenario, fire up another, this time we want that Polish 'fly to accept another 'fly as his friend. Imagine the bugs that pop up from all that. Nevertheless, it has to be done. As Jeff pointed out, countries were switching sides throughout the war, and nowhere more so than the Eastern front, so it has to be modeled. All I can say is Good luck Charles ------------------ "I do like to see the arms and legs fly" [This message has been edited by Kingfish (edited 01-25-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts