Even more ranting in praise of the Cold War for CMX2 :)

[junk2drive]

If you are bored at work, go to the CM archives and search for "cold war"

People have been asking since BO.

[flamingknives]

I know.

[Andreas]

If you don't want to hurtle down the Fulda Gap in your T72 into the teeth of an M1 Squadron, you are not a normal wargamer.

[JonS]

Hang on a sec. Kip wants to "hurtle down the Fulda Gap in your T72 into the teeth of an M1 Squadron", but Kip ≠ normal

[jacobs_ladder2]

Hello

I see no reason not to make a game based on cold war or more modern weapon systems and warfare. Granted, making a game that would be a faithful predictor of the possible outcomes of a Fulda Gap scenario would be a little on the difficult side, but hell, why not try?

The challenge would be to come up with an engine that would be able to model modern weapon systems to a somewhat realistic degree. Any engine capable of doing so would be able to handle WWII scenarios without even breaking a sweat.

Something to the scale of CM would be woefully inadequate. Modern AFVs and helicopters are capable of some pretty high speeds (not to mention the ranges of even modest infantry weapons). The battlefields would have to be much larger. I'm thinking something in the order of 100s of square kilometres, depending on a number of factors.

Airpower and offmap artillery can hit the battlefield in much the same way as it does in CM. These weapons would never be more than abstracted, but they can be made to be a part of the battle in a loosely realistic manner.

Modern additions to the battlefield become increasingly difficult to model at the tactical level. Bombers, fighters and the like are light years beyond WWII era platforms. Nukes and chemical munitions are a mixed bag that can be a whole topic unto themselves. Lasers and EW are extremely unpredictable depending on any number of conditions. Extremely long-range weapons, pilotless reconnaissance craft, laser quided munitions, satellites, etc. would play a huge role on the modern battlefield, but would be extremely difficult to model at the ground level.

My point is that it could be done, but that you would have to simplify and abstract so many aspects of modern warfare that it would no longer be a game based on modern warfare.The 50s and 60s, even Vietnam and a bit later, sure, but modern warfare in all its glory is a tall order.

Micheal Emrys's point about it not just being a question of "WWII at longer ranges" is accurate. If you want a game that is basically CM with more advanced toys, I say go for it. But it would be pure fantasy (which is cool if that's your bag). If you wanted to do for modern warfare what games like CM did for WWII era warfare, you would have to make a quantum leap in game design.

Think about how a small change in tactics and equipment produced an entirely unpredictable state of affairs in WWII. Now consider another 60 years of technology at an unprecedented rate. Modern conflict is as far from WWII as the latter was from the 19th century (maybe even farther).

Cheers

Paul

[flamingknives]

The usual points, and some others.

Ranges are constrained by terrain much more than weapons system between WWII and the 1980's Only attack helos are a significant step forward in mobility. The M18 is faster than most modern tracked vehicles.

NBC stuff need only be treated as strategic weapons in CM - outside the scope or as a battlefield effect. Fricking 'laser' beams and UAVs are extremely recent, or not in service, in reverse order, and any attempt to make a very modern scenario would be an exercise in futility as you simply can't get the data on the equipment.

Satellites are strategic tools, far removed from the tactical battlefield, while precision munitions have only recently become a CAS tool. Prior to that these were strategic, with dedicated spotter units tasked with the destruction with specific targets.

While modern fighter bombers are fantastically more advanced, so are ground based air defences, so attacks are more fleeting. It only becomes significantly different when you model asymmetric warfare, which is very tricky.

[Andreas]

I like the point about ranges. So, modern tanks can kill each other at 4km and infantry weapons reach further.

Can anyone show me some places with 4km LOS and cover for the ambush in northern and central Germany? I lived in both those areas, and I don't think there are many.

I do not recall that the MG3 has much more range than the MG42. Or the G3 much more effective range than the K98. Or the M2 having a longer range than the M2.

[jacobs_ladder2]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

The usual points, and some others.

So, the usual argument then? What was my point? I believe I said that a tactical level wargame based on modern warfare would be quite possible, but that it would be difficult to accurately include the vast majority of modern advancements in a realistic way on a tactical scale. Extremely difficult, but not impossible.

Basically what I was describing was the isolated battlefield, which we also see in CM, on a modern scale. Perfectly acceptable as a game. However, a perfectly acceptable game that becomes more and more insufficient as you get closer and closer to modern weapon systems. In order to capture the finer points of modern warfare, something new would be required (that would not necessarily exclude WWII scenarios).

Ranges are constrained by terrain much more than weapons system between WWII and the 1980's Only attack helos are a significant step forward in mobility. The M18 is faster than most modern tracked vehicles.

Not sure I understand your point about the constraints of terrain, but helos are a giant leap, period. Not just attack helos.

As far as the M18 is concerned, speed is nothing. How long would the M18 last in 1980? Modern AFVs are faster, over longer ranges, under more diverse conditions than their WWII counterparts. They are certainly much more reliable (not to mention deadly).

NBC stuff need only be treated as strategic weapons in CM - outside the scope or as a battlefield effect.

I wouldn't be so fast to write these weapons off as simply strategic in nature. Many are distinctly tactical in nature. If we acknowledge the vastly increased size of the modern battlefield, we must also acknowledge there is sufficient room for smaller warheads to effect only a part of the battlefield. In fact, it would not be a stretch at all to have the firing platform launch a warhead at another part of the map and be completely uneffected by its own weapon.

Fricking 'laser' beams and UAVs are extremely recent, or not in service, in reverse order, and any attempt to make a very modern scenario would be an exercise in futility as you simply can't get the data on the equipment.

I was referring to laser guided weapons. Also, I should have said that the flow of information to the troops on the ground now comes from many more places and in a more timely fashion than in WWII. The UAV is a very modern occurrence, true enough, but the modern battlefield is heavily influenced by information gleaned from platforms deployed many hundreds or thousands of kilometres away. Simply put, the isolation which was possible to argue as credible in WWII is much more dificult to defend in the modern era.

Also, no matter how you view this, civilians have often been able to come up with amazingly close "guesses". I would think information of this type could be obtained or construed.

Satellites are strategic tools, far removed from the tactical battlefield, while precision munitions have only recently become a CAS tool. Prior to that these were strategic, with dedicated spotter units tasked with the destruction with specific targets.

Satellites are definitely strategic in nature but are capable of being used in a tactical nature. Nevertheless, generally speaking, I agree with you.

Modern artillery could be ported to a CM style game in a fairly realistic way (including precision ammunitions). Agreed. I do not see modern artillery as being any kind of a hindrance to a modern era CM style game.

While modern fighter bombers are fantastically more advanced, so are ground based air defences, so attacks are more fleeting. It only becomes significantly different when you model asymmetric warfare, which is very tricky.

Significantly different from what?

Just to be safe I will sum up my arguments.

A CM style game set in the modern era would require much larger battlefields that are not nearly as isolated as their WWII couterparts. I see this as possible, but with the chief problem being the inclusion of modern weapon systems and their effects on tactical engagements. Any attempt to isolate the small-scale tactical battle would become increasingly ludicrous over time.

However, if you were able to come up with a decent enough system that maintained terrain details at both large and small scales, it could easily handle even a large WWII engagement(and what a game it would be!).

Cheers

Paul

[jacobs_ladder2]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I like the point about ranges. So, modern tanks can kill each other at 4km and infantry weapons reach further.

Can anyone show me some places with 4km LOS and cover for the ambush in northern and central Germany? I lived in both those areas, and I don't think there are many.

I do not recall that the MG3 has much more range than the MG42. Or the G3 much more effective range than the K98. Or the M2 having a longer range than the M2.

Lots of them. Put me in something with rotors or wings and I will show you limitless places in Germany (or anywhere else) where I don't care if I have cover or not and can zap an enemy tank that will never know I was there until it is debris.

Missiles are the really nasty part of modern warfare. They are much faster than rounds, can penetrate any armour, hit accurately at any point within their range and be quided to their target by any number of means.

In CM terms, the role of airpower in a modern engagement can be an ATGM fired from behind a hill several kilometres from the edge of the map, guided to the target by infantry or another aircraft (even farther from the edge of the map) vapourizing your tank without you ever having a chance to fight against it.

What about my own helos? What about SAMs? What about countermeasures? What about fighters? True enough you do have several options open to you, but the battle is now fought and won by forces not even on your map. The fate of your ground troops is now determined by the clash of much more powerful platforms fighting at tens or hundreds of kilometres.

Cheers

Paul

[Pzman]

In CM terms, the role of airpower in a modern engagement can be an ATGM fired from behind a hill several kilometres from the edge of the map, guided to the target by infantry or another aircraft (even farther from the edge of the map) vapourizing your tank without you ever having a chance to fight against it.

Oh that sounds like fun, we must have a game with this. This may be the modern battlefield, but it doesn't sounds like much fun for any kind of multiplayer game. Its like, who can shoot off their ATGMs first, and kill all the enemy tanks and infantry. At least in WWII you had a chance, which makes it a lot more interesting for most wargamers IMO.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by jacobs_ladder2:

In CM terms, the role of airpower in a modern engagement can be an ATGM fired from behind a hill several kilometres from the edge of the map, guided to the target by infantry or another aircraft (even farther from the edge of the map) vapourizing your tank without you ever having a chance to fight against it.

And those were introduced when? ISTR that by the end of the cold war missiles were just turning to fire and forget, while in the 1970s you had wire-guided as standard ATGW. Milan has a range fo 2km - further than standard engagement range in WW2 but not radically outside CM's limits. HOT has 4,000m, but you still needed to guide it by LOS from the launcher in the 1980s. Not healthy, not outside what CM can do on the battlefield.

There are lots of places where you can operate at long range with your helo anywhere in the world. I explicitly talked about tanks and infantry weapons though.

Your point about countermeasures applies to CM already - counter-battery affected artillery support. AA and fighter screens affected air support, in WW2. It is up to the scenario designer to decide what made it through to the battlefield.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Guys… I think we need to be clear about time periods here, as Andreas has hinted.

I am not lobbying for anything more modern than 16 years ago … when the Wall came down and any possibility of a “hot” Cold War ended. By “modern” I would say First Gulf War onwards…then things did start to change.

Close to all the technologies that would cause real problems, both in terms of fun and modelling, are post-Cold War, in my view.

The ATGMs of the second half of the eights were command-to-line-of-site, not fire and forget. The ATGMs of the era were also very slow, normally 250 mps to 400 mps. Tanks fire, at the forward arc of their “contemporary” opposite numbers, was often no more lethal than in WWII. M1A1s and T80Us , both introduced in ’85, could stand and blast away at each other with near impunity using late ‘80s ammunition. (Well… I would not recommend it… but it would take a few rounds to kill each other, far from first round, first kill.) Of course, quite horrible massacres would result if M60s ran into T80Us or T72s into M1A1s .

When it comes to artillery, I take a somewhat controversial view. My “guess” is that the real, useable, power of artillery peaked in WWII. When considering first world v first world wars; the qualification matters . The reason I say this is that by the late ‘70s counter battery fire had reached such a level of efficiency that artillery would spend most of their time fighting artillery, or trying to avoid detection by moving rather than supporting line units. But I do not claim to “know” this, clearly just a hunch based on my reading of what gunners claimed to be able to do to enemy gunners. I imagine a frontline war being fought not unlike WWII, then artillery fighting artillery over the heads of the front line units. Someone like JonS would know far better than I what a first world v first world artillery battle would have looked like in the ‘80s.

When it comes to ranges, I remember a NATO study of Northern Germany which predicted 90% of “first contacts” being between 800m and 1200m. Also, much of the fighting would have been in semi-urban, call it mixed, terrain. The 800m to 1200m is only first contact ranges.

Once you get the precision, stand off weapons of the ‘90s and today it all gets far more complicated with real time recon drones and the lot.

I am not that sure ‘80s warfare would feel that different from WWII, but it is clearly a case of “the glass half full or half empty”. On each individual bit of kit we would probably all agree about the tactical implications, it is just some believe the overall effect would have been massively different from WWII, some less different.

All the best,

Kip.

[junk2drive]

Meanwhile... WinSPMBT should be ready in a week or so...

[Sergei]

Good Lord, thanks for the heads up, Junky!

[flamingknives]

jacobs_ladder2:

By 'the usual points' I meant the problems typically mentioned when discussing modern warfare simulation, range being the most common.

Regarding Helos, I don't regard transport helicopters being of much significance in full scale tactical warfare, the front line is simply too lethal.

Speaking of lethality, NBC, especially the N part are far too powerful to be considered as tactical. Not to mention that their use would almost inevitably lead to a strategic exchange. CM doesn't suffer too much for the lack of heavy bombers, but these were used in tactical battles. I fail to see how leaving NBC out of direct combat would be at all problematic for CM:ColdWar.

If you can point me in the direction of a tactical missile that travels in excess of 3600 km/hr, I'd be interested to hear of it.

Cold War era ATGMs, as stated, are generally SACLOS at best. The only one I can think of offhand that could be guided from a remote location is the British Swingfire. The same goes for precision artillery. GPS Guided artillery has only recently been introduced, and laser guided shells were expensive and difficult to use, and as such have fallen out of favour, the exception being the Soviet Krasnopol, a mid-late 90's development.

Keeping within the Cold War timeframe you limit to the point of insignificance battlespace intelligence. From the point of view of the Battalion commander, you really don't have that much more intel than your WWII counterpart. The only difference is the prevalence of radios providing more justification for the 'god's eye view'

[kipanderson]

JonS posted

“but Kip ≠ normal”

I always thought I was the standard by which normality was judged…

By the standards of this forum anyway

All the best,

Kip.

[junk2drive]

The Aussie's bought CMx1

The USMC brought Atomic back from the dead with CC:FTF.

US Army has their game.

Maybe the Canadians will commission CMx2 Cold War.

BFC has connections don't they?

[jacobs_ladder2]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

jacobs_ladder2:

By 'the usual points' I meant the problems typically mentioned when discussing modern warfare simulation, range being the most common.

That's what I thought.

Regarding Helos, I don't regard transport helicopters being of much significance in full scale tactical warfare, the front line is simply too lethal.

Sure. Why not.

Speaking of lethality, NBC, especially the N part are far too powerful to be considered as tactical. Not to mention that their use would almost inevitably lead to a strategic exchange. CM doesn't suffer too much for the lack of heavy bombers, but these were used in tactical battles. I fail to see how leaving NBC out of direct combat would be at all problematic for CM:ColdWar.

OK.

If you can point me in the direction of a tactical missile that travels in excess of 3600 km/hr, I'd be interested to hear of it.

Cold War era ATGMs, as stated, are generally SACLOS at best. The only one I can think of offhand that could be guided from a remote location is the British Swingfire. The same goes for precision artillery. GPS Guided artillery has only recently been introduced, and laser guided shells were expensive and difficult to use, and as such have fallen out of favour, the exception being the Soviet Krasnopol, a mid-late 90's development.

Fascinating.

Keeping within the Cold War timeframe you limit to the point of insignificance battlespace intelligence. From the point of view of the Battalion commander, you really don't have that much more intel than your WWII counterpart. The only difference is the prevalence of radios providing more justification for the 'god's eye view'

OK.

Well, you know your stuff. So essentially what you're saying is that all of these factors can be safely ommitted from a game without limiting overmuch the realism of the engine. In the end, you would still have a pretty good tactical level wargame with a few simplified larger theatre features. I agree. In fact, I never said any different. If you were less intent upon arguing with someone you would have noticed that.

What I said, twice, was that you could do so and it would be fantastic, but that you would find the engine less and less adequate for your needs as time goes on.

Or rather, the engine which is sufficient for modelling WWII tactical warfare would not require major changes to effectively make the jump into the 50s or 60s, but that it would start to be fairly silly when you get into the modern era.

Now, the game that you are describing is fairly limited in scope and does not really tap into any of the things that make modern warfare what it is, but it would be more than adequate for smaller unit actions. Coolio. If that's your bag.

Do you disagree with this?

Cheers

Paul

[jacobs_ladder2]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jacobs_ladder2:

In CM terms, the role of airpower in a modern engagement can be an ATGM fired from behind a hill several kilometres from the edge of the map, guided to the target by infantry or another aircraft (even farther from the edge of the map) vapourizing your tank without you ever having a chance to fight against it.

And those were introduced when? ISTR that by the end of the cold war missiles were just turning to fire and forget, while in the 1970s you had wire-guided as standard ATGW. Milan has a range fo 2km - further than standard engagement range in WW2 but not radically outside CM's limits. HOT has 4,000m, but you still needed to guide it by LOS from the launcher in the 1980s. Not healthy, not outside what CM can do on the battlefield.

There are lots of places where you can operate at long range with your helo anywhere in the world. I explicitly talked about tanks and infantry weapons though.

Your point about countermeasures applies to CM already - counter-battery affected artillery support. AA and fighter screens affected air support, in WW2. It is up to the scenario designer to decide what made it through to the battlefield. </font>

[Cameroon]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

If we're gonna go for that sci-fi crap (like WARPAC/NATO for instance), I vote for a game based on Frank Herbert's Dune. Now that would rock. And the crunchies would still have a major role to play. (And oh those lovely sand worms!)

Michael

God, that would rule.

Mmmmm.... geez, now you're making me want a game that likely won't ever exist.

Of course, I also would drool over a tactical 'Mech game by BFC. And crunchies can definitely play a role unless you only play the current set of MechWarrior titles. If you ever read the books, crunchies were often involved and not just to squish.

To throw my voice into the whole Cold War thing... I'd definitely be interested, but I'd rather have the western European setting first.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by jacobs_ladder2:

What I'm saying is that this game would entirely miss the nature of modern warfare. The real battle (the battles which really determine the fate of the smaller units) would take place all around the individual soldier and he/she would have no say in the matter.

CM: Cold War sounds like it could be pretty decent for taking tiny "snapshots" from the battlefields of Europe, but would be hopelessly inadequate for simulating modern warfare.

And this would be different to CMX1 how?

In fact, what do you term 'modern warfare'? A Cold war game would, by definition, end before the second Gulf war (the one where Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait) In all likelihood, it would only cover up to the early '80s.

Either of the later gulf wars are really bad for using as an example of contemporary conflict between the leading powers, as they typically feature such extreme overmatch that one airforce doesn't even bother turning up. Nonetheless, most AFV kills were scored by Allied AFVs.

What I said, twice, was that you could do so and it would be fantastic, but that you would find the engine less and less adequate for your needs as time goes on.

I know. My counter-argument was, each time, that until you reach the late '80s (and note, I would not expect it to go any further than that), it would be more than adequate, easily as good for the Cold War as CMX1 was for WWII.

I don't disagree that you could do tactical battles very well. I disagree that it would be rendered useless by omitting or abstracting certain operational and strategic concerns, anymore than CMX1 was a failure.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Paul posted,

“It is interesting, however, that the only really large scale clash of arms we have seen since WWII took place in the 1st Gulf War.”

By the UK military I have seen both Gulf Wars described as “a no show” and “a live fire exercise”. It was first world v third world. Makes every difference .

I would say the Arab-Israeli War of ’73 was the nearest we came to a CM type battle, i.e. high intensity, combined arms, mechanized warfare. Just throw in some T64s and better training and we are off.

From all I have read on the ’73 war it was very WWII in character… just very poorly trained, and even worse commanded, on one of the sides.

All good fun ,

All the best,

Kip.

[kipanderson]

Paul,

I do agree that the nearer we go to current war fighting, some hypothetical Uncle Puttin against the US and a new Germany, the bigger the problems. All this over the horizon, real-time movies and precision… but this, very happily, is all post-Cold War. At the CM scale.

All the best,

Kip.

[jacobs_ladder2]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

And this would be different to CMX1 how?

In fact, what do you term 'modern warfare'? A Cold war game would, by definition, end before the second Gulf war (the one where Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait) In all likelihood, it would only cover up to the early '80s.

It's not different from CMx1. I don't need to define modern warfare. I don't care where the line is.

Either of the later gulf wars are really bad for using as an example of contemporary conflict between the leading powers, as they typically feature such extreme overmatch that one airforce doesn't even bother turning up. Nonetheless, most AFV kills were scored by Allied AFVs.

Awesome.

I know. My counter-argument was, each time, that until you reach the late '80s (and note, I would not expect it to go any further than that), it would be more than adequate, easily as good for the Cold War as CMX1 was for WWII.

I don't disagree that you could do tactical battles very well. I disagree that it would be rendered useless by omitting or abstracting certain operational and strategic concerns, anymore than CMX1 was a failure.

A counter-argument requires an argument first be presented. I am not disagreeing with you. You are firing away at me and I, for the life of me, don't know why.

What I am saying, for the last time, is that the game would be as good and as bad as CM was at representing warfare in its time. CM was a very good stab at small unit tactical actions in WWII as CM: Cold War would be for its era. Unfortunately, at the tactical scale, you miss out on so many aspects of war that you are left with only small snapshots of a much bigger picture.

If that is what you want than great. I personally would like to see the scope of the game widened somewhat as I found the CM battlefield to be far too isolated.

Summing up, CM: Cold War is not a bad idea. I see no problem with it except that it should, I believe, have a much larger battlefield.

Cheers

Paul

[ May 18, 2005, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: jacobs_ladder2 ]

[jacobs_ladder2]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Paul,

I do agree that the nearer we go to current war fighting, some hypothetical Uncle Puttin against the US and a new Germany, the bigger the problems. All this over the horizon, real-time movies and precision… but this, very happily, is all post-Cold War. At the CM scale.

All the best,

Kip.

Right. I should have thought of that. The Arab-Isaeli wars are something I don't know nearly enough about.

I don't know. CM is cool, but it is too small. I wish the boys at BFC would get around to making something on a larger scale that would take into account some of the other things happening in war. I think CM was fine for WWII because a lot of the "other stuff" was still fairly cursory to the real show (the ground troops). I don't think that would be as true when you start getting into the 70s and later.

I guess it depends on what aspects of the whole thing interest you the most.

Have you played any other games like Point of Attack II, Armored Task Force or Flashpoint: Germany? They are definitely worth a look. PoA II has a hyper-realistic engine that can cover everything from B2s to terrorist cells.

Cheers

Paul