The Modern Era

[MPK]

Although CMAK is surely a great idea, I would really like to see a game that doesn't stop at 1945.

I would use the example of the Wargames Research Group (WRG) miniatures rules that cover 1925-1950

in one volume and 1950-2000 in the other (1950

being a useful dividing line that marks the introduction of antitank guided missiles and the helicopter).

Of course one could model specific campaigns or wars (Arab-Israeli, Korea, Falklands) but imagine

an open system (like the WRG rules) that allows

for any weapons system available across the era to be available to players (restricted in some way by realistic OOB and of course points cost; again see WRG for elegant, simple solutions), given the massive proliferation of arms after WWII.

This would make for some interesting battles,

as the recent clash of ultramodern US equipment

and 1970's Russian gear showed. Of course

there are massive changes across this post-WWII time period (one example, the role of fixed- and rotarywing air support, would require some close attention) and maybe one game couldn't cover it all, but it's definitely worth a try....

And don't worry...Egypt was still using the Panzer IV in the 1950's...and the T34....vs the Shermans and M3 halftracks of the Israelis...

Looking forward to giving those Apaches the 'Sneak and Popup' command.....

[Michael Dorosh]

wow, so with one game, you get every modern war ever fought.

How would BFC make money again?

A search on the subject on this forum should yield you some interesting reading.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by MPK:

Looking forward to giving those Apaches the 'Sneak and Popup' command.....

In that case, run don't walk to the page on this website where you can buy stuff and immediately order yourself a copy of TacOps. It is totally devoted to modern tactical warfare and has more goodies like Apaches than you can shake a stick at.

Michael

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

In that case, run don't walk to the page on this website where you can buy stuff and immediately order yourself a copy of TacOps. It is totally devoted to modern tactical warfare and has more goodies like Apaches than you can shake a stick at.

And only 2 terrain levels, no comand and control (in a game that can have regimental sized units), no moral effects to speak of, and only one speed for vehicles. It is a fine game in some regards, but not a substitute for a modern version of CM.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Marlow:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael emrys:

In that case, run don't walk to the page on this website where you can buy stuff and immediately order yourself a copy of TacOps. It is totally devoted to modern tactical warfare and has more goodies like Apaches than you can shake a stick at.

And only 2 terrain levels, no comand and control (in a game that can have regimental sized units), no moral effects to speak of, and only one speed for vehicles. It is a fine game in some regards, but not a substitute for a modern version of CM. </font>

[Capt. Toleran]

I think one reason why at least some of us don't turn to Tac Ops to satisfy our desire for a "modern" CM is that Tac Ops is pretty much a map game. Nice as it is for map excercises and somewhat high-level command simulation, it doesn't give us the visceral feel that CM does.

I like being able to zoom in and actually see my tanks and soldiers firing, hear the tracers whipping over my head depending where my POV is on the map, and admire the nice scenery. Tac Ops will never do that for me, nor was it meant to. It would be really nice if eventually (clearly not in the the next few sequels, as Steve has already stated) the game could be expanded or modded to encompass other historical periods.

For me, CM wasn't just a tac simulation, but an impetus for learning more about a historical period as well. I know far more about WWII and those participating in it than I did 3 years ago. Were CM ever to be expanded to other wars/eras, it would be a great joy to be able to combine the fun gameplaying with the historical learning process that made CM so rewarding.

[Lumbergh]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

wow, so with one game, you get every modern war ever fought.

How would BFC make money again?

A search on the subject on this forum should yield you some interesting reading.

You know, I don't necessarially buy the "put ourselves out of business" argument. Steve and Charles could make just CMBO every 2 years with updated graphics and do just fine.

I do buy the "insanely too much work to do" argument though.

[MPK]

Originally posted by Capt. Toleran:

I think one reason why at least some of us don't turn to Tac Ops to satisfy our desire for a "modern" CM is that Tac Ops is pretty much a map game. Nice as it is for map excercises and somewhat high-level command simulation, it doesn't give us the visceral feel that CM does.

I like being able to zoom in and actually see my tanks and soldiers firing, hear the tracers whipping over my head depending where my POV is on the map, and admire the nice scenery. Tac Ops will never do that for me, nor was it meant to. It would be really nice if eventually (clearly not in the the next few sequels, as Steve has already stated) the game could be expanded or modded to encompass other historical periods.

For me, CM wasn't just a tac simulation, but an impetus for learning more about a historical period as well. I know far more about WWII and those participating in it than I did 3 years ago. Were CM ever to be expanded to other wars/eras, it would be a great joy to be able to combine the fun gameplaying with the historical learning process that made CM so rewarding.

[MPK]

TacOps is really a different kind of game than CM...as is European Theatre

Really, I think that a modern-era 'extension'

of Combat Mission could be approached via some changes to the game system to allow for helicopters (essentially treated as flying vehicles), ATGM and a more complex air support/

fire support system... the rest could be done as addons perhaps...eg "Armies of the Middle East 1967-73" which would contain vehicle & troop data

as well as graphics and OOB....

(remember I dont have a clue about what goes into game making, I just play 'em)...

I think if it was approached in a gradual and modular fahion, it might not be so daunting...

I mean you could make a Korean War(1950)version

of CM without major drama...(my apologies to anyone who has already done this)

(btw please ignore reply screwup...my shaky hands)

[Nippy]

I think the major problem the BTS boys ran into was map size. Modern tank Combat is much different than in WWII. Now-a-days anything under 1000 meters is considered point-blank range. Map would have to be +3000 meters in size ot have any real tanks fights, and maps like that drag most systems down.

Also there is the killig power considerations too, like the reason 'Steal Beasts' left out air power. CM wouldn't be very fun if 2 turns into a 30 turn battle your 2 T-80 Platoons were destroyed by a single Apache.

But a work around could be reached by developing modern battles that didn't focus on modern Tanks and heavy weapons. Battles like:

Combat Mission: Seoul to the Suez - Korean War, Vietnam war, 6-day war and the Yom Kippor war.

Combat Mission: Falklands to the Fluda Gap - Falkland war, Fictional WWIII battle over Europe, and the Grenada invasion.

Combat Mission: Gaza Strip to Grozney - A look at modern "Hot Spots" around world. Afganistan, Iraq, Israel, and Chechnya.

Of course, modern wars may lead to posts like this:

"LOL! My Crack M1A1 Abrams platoon destroyed an entire Conscript Iraqi T-55 company! Am I the greatest arm chair general or what!"

Edit: At the very least, I would mind seeing CM go Oleg Maddox on us and come out as:

CM: Forgotton Battles - Winter War, Manchuria, Norway, Spain, Ethopia, and Yugoslavia.

[ May 16, 2003, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: Nippy ]

[Stalin's Organ]

Not to mention TacOps is 2D.

If you want a 2D game that covers everythign from WW2 to 2003 try one of the Steel Panthers series - I forget which but one of them offeres 50yrs of warfare IIRC - and they aren't bad for 2D games either!

Good to see WRG's WW2 rules get a mention - I haven't played them in a decade tho their Modern ones do still have a small following in these parts.

Fine rules - although difficult to master they gave a wonderful game!

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Nippy:

But a work around could be reached by developing modern battles that didn't focus on modern Tanks and heavy weapons. Battles like:

Combat Mission: Seoul to the Suez - Korean War, Vietnam war, 6-day war and the Yom Kippor war.

Combat Mission: Falklands to the Fluda Gap - Falkland war, Fictional WWIII battle over Europe, and the Grenada invasion.

The Korean War, Viet Nam War, Six Day War, and Yom Kippur War all had significant differences from each other. And while there were some similarities between the Falkland War and the Grenada operation, both were quite different from a hypothetical NATO/WARPAC confrontation. This is not to claim that it would be absolutely impossible to fit them all into some kind of game system, but it would be a HUGE undertaking and I for one would not be in a hurry to volunteer to approach BTS urging them to take it on.

I think you could squeeze the Korean War into the CMII engine...maybe. Except for differences in the air arms of the combatants, they were mostly fighting with WW II weaponry and organization. Something similar might be done for the Arab/Israeli wars of 1948 and 1956 (which you did not mention).

Viet Nam would be something else altogether and would require an entirely new game system.

The Yom Kippur War and Fulda Gap would probably be similar enough to fit within the same system, but I'm not sure the Six Day War would without modification.

A system for the Falklands and Grenada might be derived from a Viet Nam game...maybe.

So, what I'm trying to get across is that you would need at least three major game systems to handle that much diversity. Otherwise, you have to make too many compromises for it to portray its subjects with good fidelity.

Designing three game systems would be a lot of work, especially for a small company like BTS, say 10-15 years worth.

Michael

[Sergei]

Steel Panthers 2 covered the years 1950-1999 (and the new SP: Main Battle Tank covers even more, until 2005 IIRC). But the problem is, CM is not SP. Every CM unit has multiple times as much data put in as SP units ever had. In addition to that, making 3D models for hundreds and thousands of vehicles and guns is not a small undertaking. But that is not the only thing. These guys have tried to make more than just generic wargames, what they have tried is to make games that best portray that particular theater of operations. For a 50 years span of time, this would be very difficult because of all the technological advances in communications, night vision systems, missiles, CAS, range-finding, targetting mechanisms and then computers, training and doctrines, etc. I like Steel Panthers, but I hope BFC sticks to doing it their own way.

Suppose you wrote a book of the history of world. You could do it so that in the first paragraph you handle the first 3000 years BC, then you write five pages from Romans to Renaissance, the next 10 pages tell about reformation and industrialization, and then you have maybe seven pages about 20th century.

Or then you could take pains to write about everything that has even slight importance to you, like the way people lived in Pompeii, how was the kingdom of Siam founded, describe all the battles of Napoleon, try to explain Art Nouveau with pictorial examples and finally draw some conclusions of how our history will affect us in the years to come.

The last case just would never be finished. It's a choice between comprehensiveness and accuracy.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I am a huge fan of the idea of a modern era version of CM. However, my favourite would be Cold War, 1970s.

The majority of my books are WWII, and I look forward to a return to North West Europe, hopefully the Eastern Front one day, with the new engine. However, just for one game, I would like a change from WWII. It would be fun to read up on technology from a different era. By the 1970s the technology had changed enough to make it all very different. I am certainly not bored with CM in anyway. But a break from the same technology would be fun.

As one of the aims of the new engine, CMX2, is to allow more rapid development of new games, a faster through put, I am very optimistic that we will get some sort of post WWII game. At some stage.

All the best,

Kip.

[Redwolf]

I found Steel Panthers and TacOps to be anything else than comparable. The difference in playstyle and scale is more like what is between Panzer Elite and CM.

[MPK]

Heh...I really wasn't being quite as ambitious

as all that...recreating vast swathes of history

and rendering googols of new pixels....

I had in mind combat at battalion-level

and below, and the simple introduction of a

range of new vehicles and a (conceptually, at least)a simple game change that would allow for helicopters to move rather like vehicles, and

for ATGM to act rather like slow moving HEAT rounds that can miss because of dust or

smoke or because a target is only

intermittently visible.

As far as the supposed vast task of recreating

the forces and troop types involved, CMBB is already there, with its different troop classes

(conscript, elite etc) and their corresponding effectiveness, morale, and tactical options.

I'm sure the various forces fielded since WWII

can be slotted in. Since the major powers also supply training to their arms customers, tactics

tend to follow certain prescribed schools (eg

many former Soviet customers have mechanised forces that were trained in Warsaw Pact tactics,

the Iraqi Republican Guard for one)thus, there will be large groupings that different nations

at different times easily fall into.

Vehicles (models/data)could be added gradually,

and remember that with many of these conflicts, there is really not a huge range of equipment

deployed. The major arms exporters- USA,UK,

France, Soviet Union/Russia, and Brazil and China I guess- pretty much supplied everyone with often similar gear. As well, poorer nations tend to hold on to their hardware for a lot longer.

As far as new technology goes, I would treat

it game-wise the same way real armies do:

you add the stuff (night vision, better night vision, thermalimaging, gun stabilisation,

Digital Fire Control,applique armour, reactive armour, ATGM decoys, etc etc etc) to your

vehicles (and sometimes men).It gives them a certain kind of edge, or bonus...it doesn't

change the world.

Just like the Panzer IV SERIES....the latest gun, side skirts,that fancy newfangled zimmeritt....

Note that most nations upgrade their AFVs several times before they introduce a new replacement design, so again, we're looking at longevity

for vehicles, and their constant appearance

in one country's arsenal or anothers.

As far as maps having to be enormous because

the latest generation of tank guns can score first round kills at 3000m (while moving, even....under certain conditions, that is:)) I would think that most terrain doesn't give uninterrupted

LOS to that distance without some maneuvering on the part of the vehicle (rendering it vulnerable to ambush as it does so).

Oh, and attack helos like the Apache are VERY

vulnerable to ground fire, or a simple shoulder launched missile, and use cover & surprise (and countermeasures like flares and IR jamming) to survive.

The reason I gamed mechanised warfare with

1/285th scale miniatures as opposed to on a

hexmap was to recreate a 3D battlefield.

LOS could be adjudicated (ha!) with the aid

of a ruler.Cotton wool made burning tanks look pretty good.But then came Combat Mission,

which not only gives you 3D, but does the

burning tanks real good, does the LOS, does

the morale,and all the other stuff that had

to be done 'by hand' at the wargames table,

leaving the playerfree to plan, counterplan, command and screwup.

CM's emphasis is on realism - on morale and command & control. On that framework can be

hung any kind of modern warfare, since the fundamentals don't change that much, IMHO.

[Dan Robertson]

I think you could almost certainly move CM in to the post war scenarios.

Korea was fought with WWII eqipment, and could probably be done very easily as an add on too CMBB.

The North Koreans used essentially Soviet equipment and formation including T34/85 tanks.

The Americans used the same personal weapons and mostly used MAE8 tanks. The only totally new equipement you would need to add is The Centurion Mk3 tank and the M46.

I recon you could go up to about 1973 with the Yom Kippur war. Once you start getting past this point the weapon system range become too great for example you start seeing weapon like TOW's being fired from ranges of 3700m.

Helicopters would also present a problem, to effectively cover Vietnam you would have to include them, however it would be very hard to effectively controll them using turn based system.

Helicopters are persistant so couldn't be modeled as an airstrike, they can loiter above the battle field or off it, what is more because they can move at ~130mph they can move in and out of the battlefield in one turn.

I suspect the only way you could have them would be to make them entirely computer controlled, they would would move about the battlefield autonomous straffing targets. The player could then designate specific targets that the helicopters may or may not attack, and also call fro helicopters to resupply, drop men and take out wounded.

Once you get into the modern era, you also start running into some truely awsome weapons like MLRS, ICM and precision strike weapons.

An MLRS strike would probably take out about 50% of the infantry in a single CM style engagement and about 70% of the armour. Essentially the game would be about whether or not you have said weapons in your forces.

In real combat these weapons are limited in their power because the attacking force will generally not know where the enemy intends to mass and fight. So they cannot be fire until a signficant enemy force is found. In a CM engagement you know there is a substantial enemy force in each game or it would be a boring game.

I think modern stuff is best represented either in a small level simulation like Steel Beasts, or in a higher level game like Tac Opps.

However until the 1970's most of the worlds forces were opperating equipment and docterins that were essentially WWII in origin just with more advanced weaponry.

[Nippy]

However until the 1970's most of the worlds forces were opperating equipment and docterins that were essentially WWII in origin just with more advanced weaponry.

Very true, and that's why I too think that the CM engine could be used to do more modern engagments.

As you mentioned the Tom Kippor war, don't forget that the Israelies still had the M51 Super Sherman and the French AMX tank that mounted an exact clone of the Panther's main gun. The Arab forces had T-55s which mounted the D-10 100mm gun from the SU-100 and the were still some JS-3s in service them too.

If you could get helocopters to work, I still say you could do a few up-to-date battles like Afganistan, West Bank, and Chechnya. In these battles you deal more with small scale infantry fights, and the large civilian populations in the area would negate/force the non-use of the modern heavy arty like ICM and Cluster munitions.

As for people worried about haveing to model 500+ different peices of equipment. Just remember. If you model the T-55, the AK-47, the BMP-1, and the RPG-7. You can now simulate the military of every third world nation on earth.

I guess that's my one of my few gripes with the CM series. You can't MOD it like you do other games like Operation Flashpoint or Rainbow Six.

[Redwolf]

But in Korea the US already had improved command and control. A Korea CM would face the same problem of C&C modeling as Germans and Soviets pose in CMBB, only worse.

Computer control for Helicopters is out of question given the intelligence and realism level of computer decisions in CMBB. However, I think you could make it work with SOPs (overall, I think the SOPs are one of the best TacOps features missing in CM and sure enough they are important in a modern WEGO wargame).

Another problem is that the range of weapons and transports greatly increases after WW2. A CM would have to cover a much larger map, and that is a problem both from a computational standpoint and from a player navigation/user interface standpoint.

As for the gazillions of equipment, I think any game trying to do CM-style 3D and CM-style equipment completeness would have to open the game to allow people to load their own 3D models. I'm sure the modders will pick it up in no time.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Do not think there is any need for concern on the “could BFC produce a modern era game” front.

Steve has said it could not be done with the current engine, but as CMAK will be the last game with this engine, it is not a problem. With CMX2 I am sure BFC could produce a modern game. I see no reason why ranges of 4km would be a problem. Remember 3 GHz machines are already the standard £1,000/$1,000 commodity item. In two years time we will be talking 8 GHz machines, with 512MB graphics cards, for the same price.

All the best,

Kip.

[Mud]

Hm. If memory serves, BFC already stated that the engine rewrite would be designed in such a way (more modular?) to facilitate using at least part of the same code for a variety of games; while AI, units et al would have to be reworked for different types, other elements might be more consistent. LOS checking or terrain modeling code might not be impacted too much by era.

[flamingknives]

Because no-one else has brought it up:

Weapon ranges might be longer, but the sight lines are what is important. Having a gun that can fire 5000m, or and ATGM that can fire 3750m compared to weapons with 1000m range is irrelevant if you can only see 1000m or less.

In desert areas you'll reach max range, but almost anywhere in Europe, or most of the Mid East would leave you limited by terrain.

It would be a bit more brutal though - first round kills happening most of the time :eek:

[Andreas]

flamingknives is quite correct on the range thing. Even the famed north-German plains are not exactly long LOS areas. I grew up in them, and to get LOS ranges up to 1,000m you will usually struggle. There are a lot of copses, small villages, gentle undulations, and some fairly big forests as well. Once you move to the areas e.g. north of the Fulda Gap, around Hersfeld, then north to Kassel, Goettingen, Braunschweig, you are in quite claustrophobic country cut through with rivers, steep hills, dense forests. So I would not worry too much about map sizes.

[SgtMuhammed]

And let's not even mention the wrinckled, wooded terrain of Bavaria.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

And let's not even mention the wrinckled, wooded terrain of Bavaria.

Yeah, let's not mention that. Please!

The forest running on the border between the Czech Republic and Bavaria is actually the last bit of primeordial forest (Urwald) in Germany, or so I have been told many years back.