In Praise of the Cold War for CMX2… markII.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I know I have ranted on about this many times before, but this afternoon my longing for a Cold War game came flooding back . I was reading a book called Blitzkrieg to Desert Storm; The Evolution of Operational Warfare by Robert M Citino, when I found myself particularly engrossed by the chapter covering the Cold War.

Citino outlined a number of the options open to the Soviets in Germany and my imagination ran wild with the CM possibilities for scenarios. This is greatly reinforced by the hope that CMX2 will be more operationally friendly. The current engine comes close to perfection in modelling the actual battalion v battalion engagements, in my view, with the exception of Borg Spotting. I am still stunned by how lucky we have all been that BFC gave us CM. But human nature being what it is, I now want more . Specifically, the ability to more easily use CM as a tool to resolve engagements in a wider operational game covering corps and armies fighting each other.

Anyway… to make me feel better I thought I would repost on of my rants lobbying for a Cold War game. So here goes…

“OK, I admit it; I am the most unhinged fan of the idea of the Cold War as the first game with CMX2.

But I am not entirely unhinged in that, overall, WWII remains my major “hobby” interest. Just to prove the point, the books I am currently reading are the David Glantz big item version on the Battle for Leningrad, Hell’s Gate by Douglas Nash, and Accounting for War by Mark Harrison, on the Soviet war time economy… all are stunning books. However… I do like a change.

I am old enough to go back to the high water mark of war games as a mass hobby, if it ever was a mass hobby, the second half of the seventies. In those days it was all a matter of Squad Leader and the “one hex to one mile” operational games. Most were WWII games, but every now and then I and my wargame chums would turn to Cold War games. The change was hugely good fun. Change is good.

One of the most appealing aspects of a Cold War version of CM is the opportunity to become wildly nerdish, enthusiastic, about technology from a different era. I have to confess to sitting at home trying working out armour penetrations equations some twenty odd years ago, so I am not quite sane. I greatly enjoy the detail of the technology of military matters. Subscribe to Jane’s military journals in the same way some people subscribe to car magazines. But I suspect that many would join me in finding the study of T62s/T72s/T80s/M60s and M1s fun… for a while… as a change from WWII. What could a 1975 RPG7 penetrate… and what could it not penetrate… and so on. Then back to WWII for the second game in the CMX series.

One objection some have to the idea is that the Cold War never became hot. However, at least the armies on each sides of the Iron Curtain were real. The problem with a contemporary setting for a version of CM is that even the armies do not exist. In the Cold War there were WWII scale armies lined up, now the latest versions of tanks, or AFVs in general, can often be counted in tens., a few of hundreds at most. For a version of CM you need two, or more nations, lined up against each other in roughly the same ball park in military technology. At this point I should stress that Soviet technology certainly was the equal of that in the west up to the end of the Cold War.. 1989… overall. The mistake many make.. almost everyone in fact… is to compare a “1970s” model T72 to a late “1980s” western tank. If you compare the model of the T80 introduced in the same year as the 120mm gunned M1, 1985, you will find the T80 is immune all forms of ammunition used by the M1 until the end of the 1980s. And.. yes.. this was confirmed by US sources who tested one in the early 1990s. I could give many similar examples.

Of course this is really addressed to BFC as I recon they will simply produce the game that most appeals to them, most takes their imagination. I have a feeling that the guys at BFC really have achieved the ultimate goal of many… they really do spend their time doing what would be their hobbies if they were not paid for what they do. Life does not get much better… in an imperfect world.

My hope is that one or more of them may be a secret… or not so secret… Cold War fan. Was Steve not thinking of buying a T72 a while back... or is just wishful thinking on my part.”

All good fun ,

All the best,

Kip.

[stikkypixie]

You can buy a real T72? Why hasn't anyone told me!

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by stikkypixie:

You can buy a real T72? Why hasn't anyone told me!

Because your sig is so much longer than what you post, being irritatingly spaced, we decided not to tell you. Everyone else knew.

As usual, I'll throw my support in behind a cold war CMX2, being as I'm one of the second most unhinged fan of the idea.

[stikkypixie]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

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

You can buy a real T72? Why hasn't anyone told me!

Because your sig is so much longer than what you post, being irritatingly spaced, we decided not to tell you. Everyone else knew.

As usual, I'll throw my support in behind a cold war CMX2, being as I'm one of the second most unhinged fan of the idea. </font>

[Big Jim]

Cold War CMx2 would be quality- although we would lose the historically accurate scenarios which abound so wonderfully on the CD and download packs, gaining an operational level would be excellent.

I can almost see a turn being carried out now... oh no, there goes my T-72.

Anyone here read Tom Clancy's 'Red Storm Rising'? Might recognise the sig line...

[Alkiviadis]

MAXIMUM Bump! OH yeah...Korea goes WW3 conventional..hypothethical, but hey, why not.

[Hans]

Worst CMx2 set ups

1980 A militant fascist Luxembourg invades Andora using discarded 1960s Italian and French light armour.

1972 Canada versus Denmark over fishing rights near Greenland called the "Disco Cod war".

Ultimate gamers nightmare, a dictator takes over Ireland and the Garda invades Bermuda circa 1957.

[SgtDuke6216]

How would the CM engine handle say, 1900-2010? Covers all the bases....or is this wishful thinking....?

[istari]

"3rd most unhinged fan of Cold War scenarios" reporting for duty, Sir!

I too have fond memories of TAC AIR, MBT and other "modern" wargames. Steel Beasts for the PC is an awesome tank sim, and I think the combined arms tactics possible with attack helicopters, IFVs, FASCAM and the other goodies of modern armored warfare would make for immensely interesting battles.

I'm doubtful an engine could cover 1900-2010 with much fidelity, but I'm also getting a little tired for the moment of WWII over and over and over again. A change of pace and technology would be most welcome - and no better place to go than the Fulda Gap, circa 1985. ;>

CJ

[gibsonm]

So “all” you want to do is merge the CM series with TacOps?

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

So “all” you want to do is merge the CM series with TacOps?

And add that extra level of detail, naturally.

[gibsonm]

So we have a four level game, with an Operational level (3rd Gds Shock Army atks Fulda Gap with the Obj of Frankfurt on Main).

You click a button an you are now the Regt Commander giving orders to the lead MR Bn.

You click another button and you go to CM2 mode with the CRP of the 1st Echelon MR Bn.

You click a 4th button and you are in Steal Beasts mode in the gunner’s seat of the T-62 in the CRP?

Oh yes and if its not too much trouble you want to do this in any timeframe between 1945 and 1999?

You don’t think this might be a little ambitious ??!!

[ May 17, 2004, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: gibsonm ]

[flamingknives]

Actually, I'd settle for the CM level command option, which is slightly more detailed than TacOps.

It doesn't have to go past 1990 either, as there isn't a convincing match up after that for warfighting scenarios.

If the CMX2 engine is as flexible in creating new theatres of operations as it is intended to be, I'd like to see the following, in no particular order other than Cold war first:

Cold War: 1965-1990, ETO

Cold War: 1945-1965, ETO

Korean War

WWII: Western Allies, ETO

WWII: Eastern front

WWII: Western Allies, PTO

[Big Jim]

Yep. But he who does not ask, does not get.

[Hans]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Actually, I'd settle for the CM level command option, which is slightly more detailed than TacOps.

It doesn't have to go past 1990 either, as there isn't a convincing match up after that for warfighting scenarios.

If the CMX2 engine is as flexible in creating new theatres of operations as it is intended to be, I'd like to see the following, in no particular order other than Cold war first:

Cold War: 1965-1990, ETO

Cold War: 1945-1965, ETO

Korean War

WWII: Western Allies, ETO

WWII: Eastern front

WWII: Western Allies, PTO

If they modularize the game as I hope they will I suspect it would be:

WWII: Western Allies, ETO

WWII: Eastern front

WWII: "Cmak"

WWII: Early war

Then the various modules for other areas to include PTO, SCW etc ....hey I'm already to do scenarios for the Indo-Paki battles...

What ever they come up with I'm sure it'll be good considering one main point MUST be saleability and CMBO covered the most saleable period which I suspect will be again covered first.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Istari wrote

“A change of pace and technology would be most welcome - and no better place to go than the Fulda Gap, circa 1985. ;>”

exactly… I too would go for such a game setting as my first choice. Cold War, ETO 1970-1989 would get my vote.

When it comes to the many who wish for more operational features; the good news is that Moon has said BFC have taken account of this in the new engine. Quite how, and to what extent, I do not know.. but great to hear it is in the works to some degree at least.

It is worth remember that features such as the ability to build huge maps, say 10km by 10km, multi-player live games, plus the ability to edit saved games, would on their own allow CMX2 to be used as a tools to resolve operational games.

It will be fascinating to see what new features BFC do have in mind. But it may still be quite wait to find out… who knows.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. Of course the ability to simply click down through the scales, as suggested above by others, would be best of all... but it is asking a bit too much of such a small team.

[Cpl Steiner]

I used to play some of the "Third World War" tactical wargames back in the late seventies and early eighties. One I remember quite well allowed you to simulate an attack on a US company by a Soviet tank regiment. Not sure of the title of the game now though.

In fact, this game was quite interesting in that it used hidden setups and you didn't know how much you had to do to win. As the Soviets, if the random force mix gave you a material advantage, you had to achieve more than if the forces were more balanced, but you didn't find out until the end of the game what the forces for each side were. This would be an interesting feature to implement in CMX2, if anyone could figure out how.

I have no objection to a "Third World War" version of CM set in the eighties, but people would have to appreciate that this would be nothing like a WWII armour battle. The technology presents you with totally different problems.

Here's one: Wire guided missiles. In the eighties, weapons such as TOW had long ranges and could be fired from suitably equipped APCs as well as tanks. However, their flight times were longer than a shell's, and their guidance systems could be affected by trees in the line of fire. Thus, a good defence against TOW was to hide in scattered trees and hope the missile's command wire would get snagged in the branches.

Another difference from WWII is artillery. On the modern battlefield, artillery can be deadly against armoured vehicles - more so than in WWII. One of the artillery shells you can use is designed to explode in the air above a tank and direct a jet of hot gas and molten metal into it's weak upper armour.

Helicopters are also a crucially important feature of the modern battlefield - as are fixed wing ground attack aircraft such as the A10. Air attack was such a concern for the Soviets that they developed armoured anti-aircraft vehicles to counter the threat. Your force mix would have to include these to be realistic.

What I am basically trying to say is that you couldn't take CM and just add T72s. You'd have to make the battlefield "feel" modern - and that means airpower and very deadly weapons.

[Salkin]

First of all :

Hi mom !

And secondly:

I say keep it in WW2 .

I want to see some classic WW2 combat with a brand spankin' new engine .

And with a Campaign generator and multiplay .

//Salkin

Once again gets to greet his mom

with bad grammar

[flamingknives]

Here's one: Wire guided missiles. In the eighties, weapons such as TOW had long ranges and could be fired from suitably equipped APCs as well as tanks. However, their flight times were longer than a shell's, and their guidance systems could be affected by trees in the line of fire. Thus, a good defence against TOW was to hide in scattered trees and hope the missile's command wire would get snagged in the branches.

Equally, a good tactic is to strut about on the far side of some low hanging electricity wires. The control wires hit the wire and fry the missile, the gunner or both.

Going back a bit, though it would work on later missiles, would be to spot the lauch point and scrag the gunner

[Big Jim]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

What I am basically trying to say is that you couldn't take CM and just add T72s. You'd have to make the battlefield "feel" modern - and that means airpower and very deadly weapons.

Agreed. But hopefully with BFCs experience with TacOps, creating this environment should be possible- they've done such a great job with WWII, now it's time for some cold (or should I say hot?) war action...

[-Havermeyer-]

No posts from anybody that would know anything.

I'll skulk away till something good comes out from somebody that knows something about this next big thing.