Why WW2?

[Sergei]

Yes, why should any future CM-type game be about WW2? Are there any good reasons for that?

Well okay, so it was the biggest armed conflict ever in the history of mankind.

It was also The Event that defined international politics in 20th century more than anything else.

You can hardly feel totally indifferent about what happened in that war. More people saw WW2 in its first performance than have seen Jackson's LOTR. There were more endings in WW2, though.

Especially at the turning point of 1942-43 the outcome of the war was still unclear to most.

It was fought on three continents (if you don't count some islands like Aleutians) and by hundreds of millions of people from all over the world. Casualties were in dozens of millions.

The war raged for five years, during which campaigns were fought in all kinds of locations, from Norway to North Africa, from France to Guadalcanal, and radically different doctrines and technologies were developed in different countries during the war, and these changes affected all armed branches.

WW2 is still the landmark of ground warfare due to the size and complexity of the conflict and the bigger and smaller battles. From a game design point of view, we have mountains of declassified information about the equipment, TO&E's, operations etc.

But apart from those, I see no point in sticking to WW2. Do you?

[s3333cr333tz]

One reason I can see sticking to WW2 is that, imho it was a war fought with manpower. Modern war is fought with technology. I know its a broad sweeping generalization, and that is usually a bad thing. However we've really yet to see two modern adversaries knock heads. It always seems to be one modern world power or coalition fighting against an overmatched regional trouble maker, that is by and large using outdated tactics, or antiquated equipment. Look no further than Iraq 1. I don't know what killed more Iraqi soldiers, b-52's or bulldozers driving down the length of trenches burying the poor buggers alive...

Iraqi's blow the whistle, go over the top and surrender to the first official looking vehicle. Be it a bottomed out Humvee, or a CNN news crew.

[Joachim]

The biggest issue here on the forum regarding scenarios is play balance.

After WW2, I can see no really balanced conflict - except those fought with WW2 weaponry by "minor" nations. They are usually less well documented as WW2. WW2 offers a wider choice of nations, so it appeals to more people.

Would anyone like to play a PBEM US vs Iraq in 1990 as the Iraqi side? I would only play it if I were to chose the location and the part of the US forces I'm gonna attack. Or play exit scenarios on huge maps with small US forces.

Technology is just one issue - motivation, training and methods is another.

WW1 is balanced and well-documented, but it was a bloody slaughter with arty and human waves, little maneuver. A meeting was rare, attacks or assaults need a huge advantage in points. No (or limited) armor offers less choices. Rarity for armor is excessive.

The size of the conflict allows for many people getting involved due to "national flavor".

Pre-WW1 there is balance, but any war was limited in scale (except maybe 7-years war from Canada to India). If the module is playable for many conflicts in the 18c till 19c, there might be lots of balanced conflicts plus many possible nations. No armor, but cavalry and DF arty might play a role..

Gruß

Joachim

[Malakovski]

The game engine was designed for WWII, and despite all improvements, it's potential for realizing WWII has not reached its limit. If/once that happens, I would expect them to move on to other things (probably prior things, due to the balance issues mentioned above).

However, until CM becomes the ultimate scenario design tool and WWII sim, with every vehicle from every theather included (plus the ability to add custom vehicles) with every OOB from every nation (plus the ability to customize) with user-definiable building shapes, and the ability to add custom skins to each individual vehicle, unit, and building in the game, THEN I'll say it's time to move on, because BFC's job regarding WWII will be complete, and the scenario designers will have years of work ahead of them. Then, I'll be happy for them to move on to the Napoleonic wars, Korea, or whatever else they have a fancy to do. Until then, I'm still holding out hope that what I described above will come to pass, and I'm happy to see more WWII games come down the pipe.

[s3333cr333tz]

Modern warfare is too heavily influenced by airpower to be much fun in my opinion. WW2 and Korea both really fit the most enjoyable timeframe for games such as this.

I don't doubt people wouldnt enjoy games set in the Napoleonic era, or even the modern era. I just think that WW2 is the best fit, there are literally hundreds of reasons put out about just this thing on these forums put forth as well as I could hope to so I won't feel the need to rehash them all out...That and im lazy ;p

[Londoner]

Be careful not to over estimate the importance of modern airpower. Iraq just makes the most of it. The Serb managed to keep the bulk of the armour. Ok they didn't deploy it but still......

[gibsonm]

How about the fact that Steve and the guys just have an interest in the Second World War?

Its their time, money, intellectual property and risk. If they want to focus on only one timeframe, surely its their call.

Maybe when they have grown to the size of SPI or TAHGC they can diversify if they want, but maybe they are happy to remain a boutique operation.

[flamingknives]

It's only recently that airpower has become truly all weather. Plus the notable use of airpower in recent warfare has been in a massively asymmetric situation where the opposition has not fielded a remotely comparable airforce.

I'd wager that air power wouldn't be as significant if one was to deploy significant CAP and SAM/AAA support. Or not use the US, of course.

If one takes 'modern' to mean 'post-WW2', there's really a huge variation in theatre and force symmetry.

[Lawyer]

WWII had great and varied locations worldwide (that make excellent vacations today), balanced forces, technology that was still controlled by humans, good guys, bad guys, strategy, tactics, and WE WON! But the other side could have won, so the stakes were high. When have we seen that since then in military combat?

Where is the motivation for tactical warfare victories where there is no final victory in the total war? Tom Clancy games try it with completing individual missions, and it comes up empty compared to CM immersion where you feel you are fighting for a side. We play a specific country in CM to WIN the battle because it could mean WINNING the war for our side.

There hasn't even been an official "war" in the US since WWII, although we've spent thousands of lives and billions of $$$ fighting the forces of ill-defined evil. In WWII, everybody knew why they were fighting and pitched in, so it was total war where total victory was the goal.

So let's stay with WWII, please. I even like Glenn Miller music. If I want to make war by computer chip, I'll try to program all the functions on a VCR...

I'm looking forward to playing the whole Western Front in the next CM.

[Speedy]

Originally posted by Sergei:

The war raged for five years,

Was actually 2 weeks shy of 6 years.

[Ant]

Another good reason for keeping to WW2 is to keep your fan base. I would assume that everybody here is interested in WW2 otherwise we wouldn't be here. Taking the CM series in to another war or time frame might lose a lot of customers and not necessarily gain any new ones.

I for one would not buy CMX2 if it portrayed the ACW and maybe not if it portrayed Korea or vietnam either. I definitely would buy it if it was Napoleonic but then many other people wouldn't.

Stick to what the majority of CM fans like, and that is WW2.

[K_Tiger]

Where is the fun in modern battles?? Always to see the "Target-Chance-Indikator" between 98-100%

Who wants to play with the mighty USA against third world Country`s equipet with second world material?

Same with ultra modern stuff... its like to play with extra ordinary komplete Fog of War.... against " We know what you have eat yesterday...."

[flamingknives]

As I said, you don't have to go back too far for the hit chance to drop dramatically. "modern" is a pretty broad brush and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand because of the accuracy of the latest equipment.

It doesn't help that most later conflicts were mostly high quality troops fighting what were practically conscripts.

[Sergei]

I don't think modern conflicts would be as interesting as WW2 unless you had a hypothetical WW3 setting, like in Operation Flashpoint 1985. Then you'd have all the major players, like USA, Soviet Union, Germany, Britain and Finland involved. There are things like the Indo-Pakistani wars, but none of those are really comparable to the World Wars in their scale.

But this isn't the 'Why not modern?' thread, this is the 'Why WW2?' thread.

[dangerousdave]

Yes, and why do they play football with a football?

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Originally posted by Sergei:

I don't think modern conflicts would be as interesting as WW2 unless you had a hypothetical WW3 setting, like in Operation Flashpoint 1985. Then you'd have all the major players, like USA, Soviet Union, Germany, Britain and Finland involved. There are things like the Indo-Pakistani wars, but none of those are really comparable to the World Wars in their scale.

But this isn't the 'Why not modern?' thread, this is the 'Why WW2?' thread.

Finland would be a "major" player in a WW III setting? Sounds a bit far fetched to me.

Regards

Jim R.

[MikeyD]

Post-WWII (semi-modern) games would be interesting if your engine could better accomodate asymetric warfare. Guerilla warfare in population centers for instance (with a dozen examples to choose from since 1945). But how could a wargame like CM produce a 'clean' urban warfare game without turning it into either a sanitized farce or a civilian bloodbath? The major problem in producing wargames seems to be that you're trying to turn warfare into entertaiment while still keeping it accurate. But war - even 'sanitized' desert war without large population centers - is hell.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

Finland would be a "major" player in a WW setting? Sounds a bit far fetched to me.

That's what they all said in 1939. A few years later Finland had brought both Soviet Union (twice) and Germany to their knees and kept the Commonwealth at bay (twice). USA didn't even dare to declare a war, the harmless pussies they were.

[Michael Emrys]

People seem to be forgetting the Arab-Israeli wars. Four big ones fought between 1948 and 1973. In the first, the Israelis were completely outclassed in terms of numbers and quality of equipment, yet managed to deal their enemies a series of stunning defeats. After that, the equipment gap closed and then gradually reopened in favor of the Israelis, but they never had the numbers.

Regardless of what sentiments one holds regarding the political situation, the military aspects are downright fascinating, and would lend themselves better to a CM type game than any other scenarios mentioned in this thread aside from Korea and India-Pakistan.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

Finland would be a "major" player in a WW setting? Sounds a bit far fetched to me.

That's what they all said in 1939. A few years later Finland had brought both Soviet Union (twice) and Germany to their knees and kept the Commonwealth at bay (twice). USA didn't even dare to declare a war, the harmless pussies they were. </font>

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Ahem. Yet more Finnish chest pounding?

I only have facts, Michael. Try to accept it.

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

The Soviet army in 1939 was, with the major exception of the Asian contingent that handed the Japanese their heads, pretty much incapable of fighting my Aunt Sue, let alone an organized military.

Which proves my point.

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

In 1941 they were still in the midst of getting their act together as well as somewhat preoccupied with the Germans, as I recall.

Yet once again in 1944 Stalin was militarily so humiliated that he had to sue for peace. See a pattern?

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

The Germans in 1944 were defeated and in the act of withdrawing to Norway anyway. The Finns merely helped them on their way.

Bah, excuses. They damn well knew that they had to withdraw, or face the wrath of the Finnish Army. The naval invasion to Tornio (in northmost point of the Gulf of Bothnia) by Finnish troops was something that puts D-Day to shame, and this was at a time when Finnish Army was at peace time strength.

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

What's this silliness about keeping the Commonwealth at bay? When did the CW even seriously attempt to try matters with arms?

In 1940 Britain was about to invade Scandinavia, but only Finnish military persuaded the Brits to abandon such adventurous policy.

Again on the Independence Day (that's 6th of December for ya) in 1941 all the Commonwealth nations declared a war on Finland, but those cowards never dared to face Finns apart from trying to bomb some fishing boats in Petsamo.

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

As for the Americans, they didn't regard Finnland as worthy of notice.

That's just because they didn't know where it was on their maps and because it would have been too far to send gunboats to.

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

It's worth noting that Finnland only engaged German troops because the Soviets made it a condition for armistice. After the war, the Sovs kept troops based on Finnish soil for decades and Finnland did not dare to do anything in foreign affairs without Soviet approval. Talk about pussies! Ha!

No! Porkkala was given back in 1955. That's just a bit over a decade. And we'd still have beaten them and NATO any time! After all, Finland has never lost a war. Well, except the Civil War, but even then only the other half lost.

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Michael

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Lawyer]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

People seem to be forgetting the Arab-Israeli wars. Four big ones fought between 1948 and 1973. In the first, the Israelis were completely outclassed in terms of numbers and quality of equipment, yet managed to deal their enemies a series of stunning defeats. After that, the equipment gap closed and then gradually reopened in favor of the Israelis, but they never had the numbers.

Regardless of what sentiments one holds regarding the political situation, the military aspects are downright fascinating, and would lend themselves better to a CM type game than any other scenarios mentioned in this thread aside from Korea and India-Pakistan.

Michael

Well, I surely was hoping to play CM as Apu, but if you want me to play Habib, I'll get a new name put on my work shirt.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Sergei:

I only have facts, Michael.

Humbug. You only have hallucinations induced by eating overripe reindeer meat and standing under the Northern Lights too long with your head uncovered.

Michael

[cool breeze]

Sergei said

"I don't think modern conflicts would be as interesting as WW2 unless you had a hypothetical WW3 setting, like in Operation Flashpoint 1985. Then you'd have all the major players, like USA, Soviet Union, Germany, Britain and Finland involved. There are things like the Indo-Pakistani wars, but none of those are really comparable to the World Wars in their scale."

I agree.

And Operation Flashpoint is a Awesome game.

[Midnight Warrior]

I'm reading a very good book on the Korean War, The Forgotten War By Clay Blair. It looks to me that the fighting in Korea was just as intense as it was in WWII (at least in '50) only not to the same scale. I think the Korea war would lend itself quite well to an CM adaptation. The tactics and equipment and scales are not that different from WWII. What would be different is is pitting T-34's against US tanks. Also, it would be cool to have Pershing and Patton tanks. The HPS squad battles Korean game is fun to play but just whets my appetite for a CM version. Thus, I would vote for a Korean war version of CM at some time. Korea also has relevance in that we are still sitting there 50 years later and it is one of the most heavily armed spots in the world.

Both sides get to be on the offensive and defensives. Both sides get tanks and have tank superiority at different times. The play balance should be pretty good since from a historical (it ended in a stalemate. You have everything from mobile war to trench warfare. Human waves and tank, river crossings, winter and summer scenarios, seesaw warfare, and even amphibious operations and even some helo's. Thus there is a lot of variety in the combat. Plus it involves troops from many nations.