BFC to make an Iraq War game?!?!?!

[Screeny]

I guess modern warfare would be a little hard to model in a CM kind of game. Aspecially the Battle helicopters. Now we are allready on the edge with the dive bombers and the fighter bombers. How would you want to model a Blackhawk that can fire AT rockets from a distance of 5 km's?? this chopper could be hoovering beyond the battlefield.... Same with all kinds of air to surface rockets fired from long distances....

gr

Sceeny

[BadgerDog]

Originally posted by Lou2000:

(CMOIF) Where could you actually sell it ... <snip>

Again.... the purpose isn't necessarily to use it....

As a CEO, given the nature of Battlefront's business .... I would have snapped it up simply to create the potential for a one time non-recurring revenue bump, should some company like Sony with big bucks, decide that actually wanted to build some kind of product that was appropriate to that trademarked name. If they (Sony for example) viewed the trademarked name as critical to their product development and launch, they'd probably buy rights to it or license it through a royalty stream, depending upon how much world wide revenue they expected the product line to achieve. It might be cheaper for them to do that, then go through the expensive legal process of trying to invalidate the trade marking, due to the massive public theme that it represents.

Anyway, again.... consumer companies produce revenue through many channels, not necessarily the obvious...

Regasrds,

Badger

[kipanderson]

Martin, Steve,

As one of the most unhinged, maybe the most unhinged advocate of a modern war game , it is very good news to hear it is so far up the list of the possible.

However, by “modern” I feel I need to qualify what I mean. I do not mean “current” war, but Cold War. There are two related reasons for this.

Firstly, any scenario based in even a small degree of reality, i.e. it had even a small possibility of happening/having happened, would be so one sided as to be tactically uninteresting in current war. The only way one could make it interesting is by assuming some country other than the US put into mass production weapons that are currently only produced in “tiny” numbers, normally in small batches for export. It is not that other countries do not have the technology the US has. Contrary to popular belief, they do. But they do not have it in mass production. Let me explain. When there is open competition in the arms market, no political pressure, it is rare for US weapons to win a contract. One obvious example is in tanks. The Leopard II has won all open procurement competitions over the M1 of any mark. However, if one had a CM style game in which a battalion of Leopard II A6 tanks was being used, you would not be far off having the entire world’s current supply on show. OK, I am exaggerating; but all will understand the point being made.

For me, others will differ; the advantage of the Cold War is that the armies did exist. The Soviets, and NATO, had numbers of tanks facing each other similar to those in WWII. Plus, the technology was very balanced. Happily, there never was a drive by 3rd Shock Army through the Fulda Gap, but the armies did exist and the technology was balanced.

Anyway… enough of my ranting.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

PS. Just a quick word on US technology in case I have offended anyone. US technology is certainly good enough, which is all that matters . Take tanks. On a CM type battlefield it would make no real difference whether you used a latest model Leopard II, a latest model M1, or a latest version of the Challenger 2. However, it is a fact that in open procurement competitions the Leopard II has won every time. Other basic bits of kit where US equipment is easily good enough, but probably not the best based on what others choose to buy in open procurement competitions are, assault rifles, machine guns, ICVs/APCs and artillery systems. I could also give examples from the world of precision guided weapon systems and C&C systems where other countries at least equal the US in what they have the technology for. The difference is the US has the money to equip large numbers of units, in peace time, with the latest toys before others. But if you have the dosh, other countries can and do offer/supply equally advanced kit for export. Hence they often win these tiny export contracts. 200 ICVs for Norway… that sort of contract.

[ April 11, 2003, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: kipanderson ]

[drbassie]

This is probably due more to the fact that the M1 costs about double.

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Martin, Steve,

The Leopard II has won all open procurement competitions over the M1 of any mark.

[Battlefront.com]

Hi all,

First off, I want to say that to NOT trademark a name like this would have been stupid. We make wargames, therefore we view everything (from a business perspective) with that in mind. Yeah, we have been glued to the TV and radio listening to how things have unfolded. Not just as private citizens concerned about this historic event in our lifetime, but also as military historians, military analysts, and military simulations designers. I doubt there is anybody out there who does not see something related to their own profession from a professional mindset. At least to some degree.

Therefore, it was logical for us to snap the name up before someone else did. And yup, someone else would. I bet there are already a few companies finding out the bad news that the name is already taken. You snooze, you lose... that is the way it works in the world of business.

Plus, would you guys rather have Sony make a "wargame" based on Operation Iraqi Freedom or us? Who do you think would honor the reality of this war better? Who would NOT shamelessly pimp the game based on the title and flashbang graphics? The truth is that if we decided to do a game based on the liberation of Iraq, we would do it no matter what the name turned out to be. So on that score the name is irrelevant. However, if we did a game JUST based on this conflict, it would obviously be beneficial and accurate to use the Operation's real name. We could just call it "Combat Mission - Operation Iraqi Freedom" no matter who had the rights to the name. All we did was just buy ourselves some flexibility.

I also disagree that this war would be dull to simulate. Within the current framework of Combat Mission, sure... yeah, I can see it not working at all. But do you guys really think we are going to spend 2 years rewriting the game engine to make the same exact game? Silly customers, leave the driving to us

You should know us well enough to understand that we like to keep our options open and not get stuck in the rut of thinking something is impossible before we actually give it a shot. I can not state strongly enough that we have made NO decision to create a game based on Iraq, either as the first product of CMX2 or even a follow up. But *if* we do something like this, it will rock. Of that I am certain

Kip, we have no plans to do anything "modern" or "contemporary". I also am of the opinion that things were not "balanced" in the 1980s. I think the NATO forces already had a distinct technological advantage. Not nearly as pronounced as it is today, but it existed. Still, it would have been a tough fight regardless.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

drbassie

This is probably due more to the fact that the M1 costs about double.

Very valid point. Procurement is absolutely no way to judge the battlefield performance of anything. It is more a judge of which item has the better bang for the buck in the specific eyes of those offering the contract. If the country is looking for 1000 tanks and only has x amount of money to spend, they will buy what fits their budget, not necessarily what is best. Countries are still purchasing ex-Soviet or Chinese style equipment even though two wars have demonstrated that against Western forces... they don't stand much of a chance. But these nations don't have a lot of money so they have to buy what the can afford.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I also disagree that this war would be dull to simulate. Within the current framework of Combat Mission, sure... yeah, I can see it not working at all. But do you guys really think we are going to spend 2 years rewriting the game engine to make the same exact game? Silly customers, leave the driving to us

Hmmm. Does this suggest CMX2 may not be a company to battalion level tactical game? Regardless of what kind of game it is, I would be very impressed indeed if anyone could make a game based on Gulf War II that was competative playing either side while maintaining strict adherence to accuracy.

I also am of the opinion that things were not "balanced" in the 1980s. I think the NATO forces already had a distinct technological advantage. Not nearly as pronounced as it is today, but it existed. Still, it would have been a tough fight regardless.

Mid-late 80s, yes, but before M1, Apache, Bradley, MLRS, ect. came online things were much closer, IMO. I would say roughly 1970-83 would have been a fair match.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

drbassie

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />This is probably due more to the fact that the M1 costs about double.

Very valid point. Procurement is absolutely no way to judge the battlefield performance of anything. </font>

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I would love to get into a discussion on Cold War and modern technology but will hold off until, if, a modern game is ever developed by BFC.

This is one reason why I would like to see a Cold War game. I am a huge fan of WWII, currently reading An Army at Dawn by Rick Atkinson, and Kursk the German View by Steven Newton. However, it would be fun to spend a period nerdishly reading up about some period other than WWII. i.e. sometime far enough into the Cold War to mean different equipment was being used. Change is good!

CMAK, followed by a Cold War game with CMX2, then back to WWII, would be my dream combination. But like most here, I feel lucky to have CM games to pay with at all. I play no other computer games. I do monitor a few other games in development to see if they will come up to standard, but so far they never have. BFC are in a class of their own.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. How anyone could make an interesting game out of the Iraqi campaign is beyond me. But if Steve claims he could, I will take his word for it based on his record so far I could do no other.

PPS. Ok, I cannot resist a short rant on Cold War/ modern technology. Firstly none of what follows are “my views” but come straight from Jane’s Defence Weekly, Jane’s International Defence Review and various Jane’s year books on armour and artillery. When it comes to the cost of current types of tank you have to look at the detail of the figures published when contracts are signed. You have to separate the support package from the cost of the actual tank itself. It you compare like with like you will find the latest export models of the Challenger 2, the Leopard II and the M1A2SEP all cost the same, $4,500,000 each. In the CM game all would have near identical characteristics/performance. The reason why countries always go for the Leopard II is that they still prefer the diesel engine in the Leopard II, even the “old” model diesel engine, plus the German tank now comes with a gun with greater growth potential. By this I mean that the gun in the A6 Leopard will be able to take ammunition with higher pressure and a flatter pressure curve than the older gun in the US tank. Even if you zoom in and look at the thermal imager in the M1, you find it is not the best around. The GENII, or is it GENIII model, I forget, currently half way through being retro fitted to all US AFVs can distinguish the individual wheels on an enemy tank at 10km. So it is more than good enough. However, the latest British model is even more powerful. I have seen the same slice of coast line pictured through the latest US model, and the lasted British model and it is not a close contest. Let’s now go back to 1985 when the first version of the M1A1 was introduced, the first 120mm gunned M1. Also in 1985 the Soviets put the T80U into series production. The U standing for Improved in Russian, so I am told. Anyway… the T80U carries heavy, internal reactive armour that is not only effective again HEAT rounds but also KE long rod penetrator, modern AP rounds. The T80U being immune, over the forward arc, to the versions of the DU M829 rounds available to M1A1 up until around 1990/1991. And, yes, I have seen the write up of US’s own test that confirmed that this was the case. I will leave you all alone now, but this is why in my earlier post I was careful to talk of procurement competitions where there was no particular political pressure to buy from any single country. US equipment is good stuff, but is not better than that of a number of other countries. Just to finish it off, the Russians now have second generation, heavy internal reactive armour that is designed to be immune from the forth coming segmented DU M829A3 round the US will have any day now.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Kip, I assume you mean external reactive armor (Kontak 5, ect.). Otherwise, very informative post, as usual.

[Battlefront.com]

Kip,

There could be another reason why countries go with the Leo II vs. the M1A2... location, location, location I don't think it hurts that Germany is adjacent or within spitting distance of the countries buying these vehicles. Support of the vehicle would be much easier, and probably cheaper. I would be surprised if this wasn't a factor for some nations.

Also, are these nations hot for the older diesel design because it offers better performance/reliability, or because it is less expensive to maintain? Just curious because I don't know but would suspect the Abrams engine isn't as easy or cheap to keep in good working order.

Steve

[Volker]

Oh no.....Right now I feel like that guy in that commercial with his face in his computer monitor screaming...no....no...no.....NOOOOO!!!

Battlefront your really scaring me, I have these high hopes of CMX2 being the Greastest WWII Game ever, and your starting to scare me.

The only way your gonna have Blanced Modern War, is if you make it up. Some kind of Fantasy War. But getting my dad to play anything thats not WWII, I dont think so, he made it clear to me he has no interest in any other type of game....other than sports. If CMX2 aint about WWII, I wont be getting it.

[ April 12, 2003, 03:13 AM: Message edited by: Volker ]

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Don't worry Volker, I think it will be safe to assume that anything non-WWII will be an "And" rather than an "Or". Kind of like CMAK being a cool surprise.

CMnext will be WWII, first and foremost. Bet on it.

[kipanderson]

Vanir Ausf B, hi,

“Kip, I assume you mean external reactive armor (Kontak 5, ect.). Otherwise, very informative post, as usual.”

Thanks for the kind words. When it comes to Kontak 5 armour I used the phrase “internal reactive armour” deliberately. It is true that it can be retro fitted as an add-on layer to existing tanks, in that since it is external. However, the “reactive” part of the armour sits behind quite a thick layer of outer armour plate, it you take into account the 70 degrees angle it is designed to be fitted at. Nor does it explode off the surface in the manner of the first generation Israeli and Soviet explosive reactive armour. The smart stuff all happens out of site behind armour plate, i.e. internally in that sense. But, yes, technically it is indeed external reactive armour. I just thought it more descriptive to call it internal.

Steve,

“There could be another reason why countries go with the Leo II vs. the M1A2... location, location, location I don't think it hurts that Germany is adjacent or within spitting distance of the countries buying these vehicles. Support of the vehicle would be much easier, and probably cheaper. I would be surprised if this wasn't a factor for some nations.”

There “may” be something in this. But against that many of the countries who have bought the Leopard II are far more pro-American than they are pro-German. It is worth remembering that what ever the impression the political elite in Western Europe may give in the US, national sensitivities run as deep as ever in most European countries. When Greeks, and even Poles, consider German tank technology it certainly is not because the Germans have any political head start. I am sure America is regarded as a more reliable supplier than the Germans. One increasing disadvantaged the Germans have it that they are so “politically correct” that they have for a long time been considered rather risky suppliers. For politically correct reason, they could suddenly stop supplying a given country.

“Also, are these nations hot for the older diesel design because it offers better performance/reliability, or because it is less expensive to maintain? Just curious because I don't know but would suspect the Abrams engine isn't as easy or cheap to keep in good working order.”

Yup, you hit the nail on the head. The turbine tank engines have the advantage of giving a faster 0-30mph acceleration. However, turbine engines use far more fuel and are less reliable, and more expensive, a lot more expensive, to maintain. When both the US and Soviets went for turbine engines in the 1980s I thought it would just be a matter of time before all followed. However, now all bar the US, agree that diesels are the way to go. 25 hp per ton is considered more than enough with a good gear box. So the trend is for diesel engines still with 1500 hp, but smaller, more compact, more fuel efficient and more reliable. The up and coming US Marines Assault vehicle has a version of the new German AFV diesel engine in it.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[Richard Morgan]

Kip,

I beg to differ: operation Iraqi Freedom could be turned into a very good game. However, there would have to be a good deal of cynicism involved. Remember an old (and brilliant) board game called "Junta"? The players each took the part of the head of a leading family in an un-named banana republic. The game involved coups, double dealing and assasination and the winner was the person who stashed the most foreign aid money away in his Swiss bank account.

"Iraqi Freedom" would have to be in that vein and would involve propaganda (on both sides), the "Not in my name/Starbuck Strategist" mob, Gung-ho Generals, peace marches, a left wing BBC with an option for the Americans to bomb Broadcasting House, friendly fire and a rescue mission for a telegenic blonde U.S. soldier thrown in for good measure.

However, I doubt if the new engine could cope with all. Maybe the administrator could comment?

Yours in despair

Richard.

[PeterX]

Apropos of the the Left Wing BBC:

'Angry' Ark Royal crew switch off BBC

The BBC has been axed from the nation's flagship naval vessel following claims of pro-Iraqi bias.

The Navy says it has switched off News 24 aboard HMS Ark Royal after complaints by the crew.

It is one of a handful of task force ships which receives live TV direct from Britain.

Rolling news plus two entertainment channels are beamed into the warship.

A BBC correspondent has been on board but the crew say they have no gripe with his reports.

However they were annoyed by the comments of presenters and commentators reporting on the carrier's Sea King tragedy a fortnight ago.

The BBC suggested poor levels of maintenance played a hand in the deaths of seven fliers.

Sailors also believe the news organisation places more faith in Iraqi reports than information coming from British or Allied sources.

One senior rating said: "The BBC always takes the Iraqis' side. It reports what they say as gospel but when it comes to us it questions and doubts everything the British and Americans are reporting. A lot of people on board are very unhappy."

[CMplayer]

If I was thinking of doing a game I'd copyright the term 'Thunder Run' if it isn't already taken.

[kipanderson]

Richard, hi,

Yup, I am sure that the campaign in Iraqi could be made into a very fine game, along the lines you mentioned. However, it would not be a wargame. If you like it would be Diplomacy with wargame elements thrown into it. In my view.

For me, the CM series is about only one thing, as close a simulation of mechanised, combined arms warfare as is possible within the limits of allowing one individual to play multiple roles. I have to add the qualification because I agree with those who say that if in CM one only played the role of say, company commander, then it would be possible to develop a game that was a more realistic simulation of a company commander’s role than CM is. However, the magic of CM, or part of it anyway, is that one plays the role of the squad commander, the AFV commander, the platoon commander, the company commander and the battalion commander. In my view. I am after a pure wargame.

Richard, I sympathies with you in that we all have subjects we would love to see BFC doing. The CM series are of such high quality that there is a feeling that BFC could produce a fine game of any type they wished to. This is probably true. But for me, hard core, pure wargames are my only interest. Resolving contact battles at something around the battalion combat team v the battalion combat team level, give or take quite bit, is what I am after. Tactical combat at the CM/Squad Leader scale. Happily for me, exactly the type of games the CM series are.

I would not be surprised if at some time in the future they did try their hand at something slightly different. But I hope they will forever be dipping in and out of CM type/scale wargames. Now I have the CM games there, life without a new CM game to look forward to every year or two would be a shock I may not survive !

All the best,

Kip.

[Volker]

Well I just talked to my dad, he said as long as Battlefront is making it, he would play it. Modern or not, so, their ya have it. I take back what I said.

[kipanderson]

Volker,

“Well I just talked to my dad, he said as long as Battlefront is making it, he would play it. Modern or not, so, their ya have it. I take back what I said.”

Your father is clearly a man of sound judgment!

All the best,

Kip.

[Richard Morgan]

Kip,

I was being facetious However, let's examine the subject with a little more seriousness. In a plain wargame, Coalition vs Iraqi forces would be every bit as one sided as the real life events turned out to be. (For anyone who wants to try this at home, I would recommend playing Steel Panthers 2 and Steel Panthers 3).

What might make it more interesting would be the victory conditions. Coalition would have to be penalized heavily for any collateral damage or civilian losses. This would mean that they would be severely restricted with regard to the vast firepower at their disposal. They would also have to pay a disproportionate penalty in points for any friendly losses. Conversely,the low tech, poory trained Iraqis would not be penalised much for friendly losses and would only have to take out the odd enemy unit to win.

Whether or not the new engine could cope with civvies or collateral damage is anyone's guess. My own preference would be for a CM Fulda gap Nato vs Warsaw Pact game set in the 70's and 80's. Alternately, a CM Arab Israeli Wars game would surely prove very interesting indeed and could lean on CMAK with regard to terrain, dust etc.

Hey guys... it is just a thought... what does anybody think!!!

All the best,

Richard

[akdavis]

Since nearly 10% of our battlefield KIAs have come from suicide bombings, could you justify not including suicide bombers?

[kipanderson]

Richard, hi,

“I was being facetious”

I certainly fell for that one! Did think it a bit odd from the chap I know from the London CMBB Beer Drinkers Club. Clearly my brain is too small!

“My own preference would be for a CM Fulda gap Nato vs Warsaw Pact game set in the 70's and 80's.”

In my view it is not possible to be more on side than that.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[MjoLniR]

Not the current Iraq war, would probably be very boring and one-sided battle. And as coaltion side you would actually have to shoot your own to have any significant losses.

But I would like to have that card game... Are they to release a deck of cards for the coalition-side too? :cool:

[tracer]

A future game soumds good, but what about a game based on older historical wars like in the time of the roman legions, or the civil war, that would be nice to, but Iraqi war?? it would be awfully short. What kind of battles?? sounds kinda dull. I mean look at the Iraqi armored vehicles, T34/72s and 4 wheel drive toyota's?? I think if a company is going to make a game like that, they might as well go for the death blow and make a game based on something like the operation in Panama or the falkan islands or something really dull like that. Or hell just make a new version of "Pac Man" or something.