CMII wish list, features and historical setting.

[kipanderson]

CMII wish list, features and historical setting.

Hi,

We all have our wish list for the new engine, CMII, once CMBB is out. This is mine, better to float some ideas early, although many have already beaten me to it. I do not claim any of that which follows is original.

Features.

1) Live team play. I believe this would greatly add to the fun of what is already a stunning simulation. It would deal with the issues of “relative spotting”, as I understand it, and “relative command”. In short, it would lead to a jump in realism and fun.

2) Operational/campaign layer. It was always my number one wish that there should be a quality computer wargame of the same scale as the Squad Leader board game. With CMBO his has now happened beyond my wildest dreams. However, to take things one step further it was also my wish to be able to play an operational game and then, at a critical point, be able to “zoom down” to play a given battle at SL/CMBO scale. With the Quick Battle generator the outlines of such a capability are already there. Of course, it would need a lot more work. I am not one of those who wish to follow a given unit through a large number of battles. However, an operational layer that at least put a given CM battle “in context” is much in demand, if my reading of other threads is correct. For me, others will differ; the number one operational game is Decisive Action, over at HPS Simulations. Something along the same lines, but on a far smaller scale, would be my greatest wish. A quality operational layer that puts an individual CM battle “in context” is what it is all about.

Historical setting.

This is a subject upon which there will always be disagreement. CMBO is such a fine game, the team behind it so competent, that we all wish they would turn their attention to our own favourite historical period. With NW Europe and now the Eastern Front covered, for the time being, we all have our second-line favourites we are desperate to have BTS turn their skills to.

For me the “big-three” in historical settings for wargames are WW2 NW Europe, the Eastern Front and lastly current OPFORs/ post WW2 time periods. Clearly, nothing original in this. If one looks at the market for wargames/simulations this is where the money is. Of course, the ACW and Napoleonic periods also get some attention from the developers.

Anyway, the point I am working my way round to is that BTS should stick to the “big-three”, NW Europe, Eastern Front and current OPFORs or maybe post-WW2 historical settings. The problem is that because BTS wish to keep everything in-house we are to be rationed as regards the number of CM type games that can be produced. Given this reality, better to stick to the “big-three”. If BTS go for the Mediterranean in WW2, for the first game using the CMII engine, I am sure they will do a great job and it will be a huge success. However, I doubt that an early period WW2 game would sell as well as, say, a 1970s/ Arab-Israeli game.

For the first game with the CMII engine the Mediterranean in WW2 may be set in concrete. However, if BTS do not wish to do a post WW2 game, then for the second game with the CMII engine I feel they should return to NW Europe or the Eastern Front.

Clearly, my own wish is that Steve, Charles and the team has a go at a post-WW2 game. The 1970s or current OPFORs would be stunning.

All the best,

Kip.

[MikeT]

Well the only way to keep all happy is some sort of CM wargame construction set. But then BTS would loose sales. Maybe some enterprising group of programmers could lease the rights to use the CM engine or create their own version.

MikeT

[Mark IV]

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

Well the only way to keep all happy is some sort of CM wargame construction set. But then BTS would loose sales.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now you're talkin'.

I don't think they would lose sales, because there is a limit to what they can produce. When this engine starts to wear, still 3-4 years out IMO, they can move on and release the Construction Set based on this one. Is there anyone here who wouldn't buy it?

Still, they have their own vision and plan which encompasses the entire ETO with the Med and the Early War on the books. I like that idea, because I would really like to get my hands on the Early War.

There is a substantial PTO/Korea lobby with built-in dollars when they're ready to have a go, but I think the construction set could address this without a major dilution of their efforts. While I agree that a post-WWII/modern version could sell BIG, it sounds like a completely separate undertaking. The beginning of that project would be the time to release the roll-your-own version of this one, to keep us off their backs for a while.

[Michael Dorosh]

Korea and the Pacific would require more than just simple plug ins to be an accurate depiction of combat in that theatre. Fighting the Japanese (or Red Chinese in Korea) was vastly different from fighting the Germans in Europe - not just because of the difference in simple weaponry, which is easily simulated - but in the different tactical approaches (ever heard of a German human-wave attack? It was not uncommon for the Chinese. Ever heard of a German battalion fighting literally to the last man? Never happened. But the Japanese did it routinely.)

If such a "construction set" is indeed possible then I am with you fellows, but I don't want to see CM diluted into some generic type wargame where individual nationalities are mixed up together and little attention is paid to detail. The fact that Canadians and Poles and Free French are given equal time in CM, or that dozens of different squad makeups for German infantry are listed, is what makes it great.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

If I really come clean, my number one wish would be for the first game with the new CMII engine to be 1970s/ Arab Israeli Wars followed by the second game with the new engine, being a current OPFORs game. I believe they would, indeed, sell well.

At this stage I would like to add that I have great sympathy with those that have very “niche” market wishes for the new engine. I would include the Early War in that definition. Strangely, it looks at though that one will happen, unless there is a change of plan. I too, have a very “niche” market wish, for a Napoleonic Wars game. It will not happen so I have excluded it.

Having done NW Europe, soon the Eastern Front, the next logical step is post WW2. After that, back to NW Europe and the Eastern Front.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. 1970s warfare, even current OPFORs warfare, is still very similar to WW2. In the case of current OPFOR warfare it is true that there are sensor packages that change things. However, a team of the competence of BTS could handle that standing on their heads. I am not talking about a game that attempts to predict 2015 warfare. Read the latest versions of US Army Field Manuals and the content could come straight out of WW2 Soviet Combat Regulations.

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Kip Said: 2) Operational/campaign layer. It was always my number one wish that there should be a quality computer wargame of the same scale as the Squad Leader board game. With CMBO his has now happened beyond my wildest dreams. However, to take things one step further it was also my wish to be able to play an operational game and then, at a critical point, be able to “zoom down” to play a given battle at SL/CMBO scale. With the Quick Battle generator the outlines of such a capability are already there. Of course, it would need a lot more work. I am not one of those who wish to follow a given unit through a large number of battles. However, an operational layer that at least put a given CM battle “in context” is much in demand, if my reading of other threads is correct. For me, others will differ; the number one operational game is Decisive Action, over at HPS Simulations. Something along the same lines, but on a far smaller scale, would be my greatest wish. A quality operational layer that puts an individual CM battle “in context” is what it is all about.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would love to see something like this implemented into a tactical level wargame.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Hi,

PS. 1970s warfare, even current OPFORs warfare, is still very similar to WW2. In the case of current OPFOR warfare it is true that there are sensor packages that change things. However, a team of the competence of BTS could handle that standing on their heads. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I doubt this very much. Even the smallest details like the use of smoke grenades by infantry (universal now, apparently uncommon in WW II) make for a very different game engine. Factor in stuff like helicopters, advanced communication between infantry and tanks (again, non-existent for much of WW II, until some models of US tanks actually had telephones installed on the rear of the hull to allow infantry to talk to the tank commanders), you have a very different tactical picture, even if they still advanced to contact in the same arrowhead they used in WW II. Even so, APCs were the norm for the 1970s, they were a very, very rare exception to WW II soldiers, most of whom never rode in one.

[Specterx]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I doubt this very much. Even the smallest details like the use of smoke grenades by infantry (universal now, apparently uncommon in WW II) make for a very different game engine. Factor in stuff like helicopters, advanced communication between infantry and tanks (again, non-existent for much of WW II, until some models of US tanks actually had telephones installed on the rear of the hull to allow infantry to talk to the tank commanders), you have a very different tactical picture, even if they still advanced to contact in the same arrowhead they used in WW II. Even so, APCs were the norm for the 1970s, they were a very, very rare exception to WW II soldiers, most of whom never rode in one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that the differences between WWII and modern armies, as well as "national" differences that were mentioned in a previous post would be quite easy to implement in the existing CM codebase. As to the national morale and "fighting spirit" stuff (willingness to fight to the last man, human wave attacks), both of these are already going to be in CMBB. Fighting to the last man is already simulated by the "fanatic" unit trait. Fanatic units don't break, rout etc. and always fight to the last man. BTS could simply adjust the proportion of fanatic to non-fanatic units of a given nation (for example 85% of all Japanese units will be fanatic).

As I recall the Human Wave order is going to be one of the new tactics available in CMBB, I believe the Russians will have that instead of the Assault command.

Smoke grenades? Easy, just add a "smoke" order for infantry, and modify the AI so smoke grenades are used in the same way that tanks use smoke dischargers. Simulating advanced communications is also quite easy. In fact, it could be argued that CMBO already simulates this, as the player's "godlike" view of the battlefield and ability to see everything that's happening gives us a definate edge over real-life commanders. Adjusting the comms delays will be good enough.

Helicopters would require some creative thinking, although I see nothing wrong with simulating them like CMBO currently simulates planes. Adding a "forward air observer" unit that functions similarly to the arty FO's would take into account improved communications between troops and support aircraft.

Increased use of APC's? Just lower the cost of the APC's (10-20 pts instead of 30-50).

Really the only major advancements since WWII have been related to the increased use and effectiveness of computers. Since computers don't effect much at the battalion level, beyond better communications, the experience for the player would remain much the same. There have been advancements in certain weapons technology that doesn't involve computers (especially in AT weapons), but this only means that ATGM teams will replace Zooks/Shrecks and ATG's, and the AT weapons that are given to infantry squads will be deadlier (LAW/Carl Gustav/RPG series instead of rifle grenade/faust).

[Mark IV]

You want niche? I continue to be obsessed with the Russo-Japanese War. Waiting for someone to model it specifically (AoR did throw in a scenario or two, bless their hearts) will take me well into this century, I fear. I would also be very interested in Korea and will pre-order now.

Some first-hand Allied observers did describe the German troops in the Bulge as using "human wave" tactics, but I doubt they had any Ostfront experience.

Arab-Israeli Wars (my all-time favorite AH title) could be the same platform for 1960-1980 western Europe combat, and the whole Fulda Gap/REFORGER scenario.

I agree about models not being in place, yet, for a fully functional modern construction set. I think more has changed than computers... the effective ranges of modern tanks, physics of ATGMs, and especially the whole helicopter paradigm just aren't there yet. Thermal sights and IR ("ir" is the Russian word for "aim here", isn't it?). And the 2000+ battlefield needs a whole slug of EW abstractions to work.

Pre-WWII, there are the damned horses. Breech-loading vs. muzzle-loading (and vulnerability of crews, modeling skipping cannon balls, smoke obscuration). Observation balloons. Dispatch riders (the antithesis of the Borg). Edged and pointy weapons, for gawd's sake. Pikes! Poison gas! Gas masks!

The Construction Set is premature, but a lofty goal. It would free up BTS for the Ultimate Goal:

...ultimately, strategic-global-Risk level conflict subdivided into France 1940-scale maps, divided into Corps level sims, ultimately resolved at the CM scale... no doubt, some will want FPS resolution of those... a military gaming empire with BTSoft at the pinnacle of an integrated gaming empire! Mwahahahaha!

I need to lie down.

[The Commissar]

When dealing with modern combat, one mustn't forget that much of it deals at ranges that are currently deemed ineffective in CMBO. Currently, I can have a good chance of destroying a German Panzer IV with a zook team at 50 metres and below. In modern war, an ATGM team can have a good chance of KO'ing an enemy AFV at over 1000 metres and beyond, depending on the weapon used and the skill of the operators.

While in CMBO, it is fairly realistic to see tank duels being effective at ranges of under 500 metres (1000 metres usually being the max, with tanks firing at each other with low chances of hitting), in modern war, a 2000m duel is nothing out of the ordinary. Maximum ranges are far beyond even that.

While in WW2, we need to wait several minutes before and arty barrage gets under way, and even then it isn't very accurate, in modern war we have a multitude of ways to deliver the payload. Jets, helicopters, and missiles not only do the job much faster, but also with deadly accuracy.

The infantry has changed as well. While in WW2, they would be fighting on foot, in modern war, much of the fighting is done in APC's while on the move. At least that's the way it would have been done had the USSR turned the Cold War temperture up a few million degrees. While the effective range of a Mauser/Springfield/Nagat (sp?) is limited to a 100-200 metres or so, modern weapons can probably surpass that with ease. Snipers have likewise advanced.

I don't think any of us would like to see conflicts like the Gulf War modeled, where the combatants are so mismatched, its difficult to lose a battle. So we must rely on hypothetical scenarios to get our modern war fix. That means going back a decade or two when the Soviets were still at large.

So, my point is, WW2 is very different from modern war

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

[QB]Korea and the Pacific would require more than just simple plug ins to be an accurate depiction of combat in that theatre. Fighting the Japanese (or Red Chinese in Korea) was vastly different from fighting the Germans in Europe - not just because of the difference in simple weaponry, which is easily simulated - but in the different tactical approaches (ever heard of a German human-wave attack? It was not uncommon for the Chinese. Ever heard of a German battalion fighting literally to the last man? Never happened. But the Japanese did it routinely.)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These are merely (if I can use such a dimunitive word) matters of doctrine and morale - they are not anything to do with weapons. Indeed, as I noted in another thread, if a mid-war version of CM was to appear, basically everything that was required for the Pacific would be there, as far as equipment was concerned. Ditto with a late war version which covered both east and west fronts for Korea.

Beyond that, its merely (there's that word again) a matter of changing the parameters of the units which are to represent Japanese/PLA/NK units. As an example, I'd make the Japanese fanatics, until about 1945, when the should be downgraded to veteran, as far as morale goes. For the NK/PLA, I'd make them fanatic in the attack and perhaps veteran in defence.

As far as adopting tactics like a Banzai or Human Wave attack, that would need some tweaking of the TacAI or the human player (although it should be noted that neither were necessarily the only way in which either force conducted their tactics).

Personally, I'd welcome an early-war or SW Pacific game. I grew tired of King Tigers and M-26's a long time ago, over 20 years ago. I find the earlier periods much more interesting, simply because they didn't have super-tanks and it was still very much a case of a "close run thing", particular in the Western Desert.

[Michael Dorosh]

Commissar - good points, but I would take exception to:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar:

While the effective range of a Mauser/Springfield/Nagat (sp?) is limited to a 100-200 metres or so, modern weapons can probably surpass that with ease. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would tend to doubt that the 5.56 round would be any better than a WW II rifle at any range, or capable of firing farther than a .303, 30-06 or 7.92 round. Unless I'm being dense and aren't grasping what you are saying. The real advantage to modern weapons is rate of fire, not extended range. You would still find battle ranges limited to the same ranges as in WW II, don't you think?

[Diceman]

It'll be interesting to see how CM2 handles long range engagements. Right now CM doesn't do it well, nore was it designed to. The CM engine was built with 800 meter or less engagements in mind. Now as far as CMII goes: I would like to see burning tanks and burning buildings have an impact on night visibility.

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I would tend to doubt that the 5.56 round would be any better than a WW II rifle at any range, or capable of firing farther than a .303, 30-06 or 7.92 round.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Any of those "old" WWII rounds would have greater retained energy at long range than 5.56mm.

The 7.62mm NATO is really a nice choice for an MG or a hunting rifle, but 7.62 Soviet is darned near ideal for an all-battlefield infantry cartridge. With interchangeability as a parameter, I think we missed the boat here.

Back to the point: with darned near guaranteed tank lethality on first shots at 2500+m, modern war takes a much bigger map as the norm than CMBO. And no model exists for the attack helo, with aircraft capabilities but the ability to remain in the battle area and use terrain.

[mg42 gunner]

In COMBAT MISSION 2 I would wish for machine guns that actualley hit targets !!! How will germans supress human wave attck if mgs cant hit crap !!! also mpp44 damage uped

[tss]

Michael Dorosh wrote:

ever heard of a German human-wave attack?

Yes.

Some of the early-Barbarossa Waffen-SS attacks can only be characterized as human-wave.

My sources are at home so I can't give you now places and dates.

- Tommi