Tifosi Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 I see so many people all wanting so many things from CM2 in terms of what war we should set it in, but nobody seems to have asked "What if we make one up?" For example what about a cold war stylee thing, WarPac vs. Nato in Europe say, late 70´s or early 80´s. I know CM is all about authenticity, but I am talking about using real units, weapons, troop types etc in a fictional conflict. Most actual wars post-WWII are either unsuitable or were simply too one-sided, whereas West vs East would IMHO make for a helluva game. Cue 1,000 CM purists lining me up in their sights.... [EDIT] Bugger, posted to wrong forum (Almost asleep at the wheel here)! Any chance of moving this one guys? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwazydog Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 Moving this by request of poster...easy done Dan 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 Originally posted by Tifosi: I see so many people all wanting so many things from CM2 in terms of what war we should set it in, but nobody seems to have asked "What if we make one up?" For example what about a cold war stylee thing, WarPac vs. Nato in Europe say, late 70´s or early 80´s. I know CM is all about authenticity, but I am talking about using real units, weapons, troop types etc in a fictional conflict. Most real units that would have fought in such a confrontation likely didn't exist. Despite WW III being billed as a "come as you are" war, many of the smaller players still planned for a "normal" mobilization period out of wishful thinking, didn't they? Nailing down a "correct" order of battle would be dubious; impossible to predict who would have mobilized and how, or how soon nuclear weapons would have made an appearance. Just reread FIRST CLASH - a fictional look at the 5th Canadian Mech Brigade (IIRC) in a war with the Soviets in Germany in the 1980s. It was actually used as a military training manual. They pretty much figured on being chewed up immediately. REFORGER exercises were based on the usage of Militia augmentees from Canada in such a scenario (REinFORcements to GERmany), but I suspect the bottom of the barrel would have been struck quickly. After that, what really would have happened or how the units would have been composed - what little remained - would be anyone's guess. I was surprsied to find out that the 84mm Carl Gustav was at that time a section weapon - it is currently in the platoon weapons det. Then, every section had one. Wonder why.... Also, the .50 cal was issued, again, one per section. Today, we are phasing it out of the infantry altogether as far as I can tell. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tifosi Posted October 14, 2004 Author Share Posted October 14, 2004 All true, but then how many people enjoyed the fictional scenarios for the first 3 games? I am the first to admit that my knowledge of military history focuses more on specific battles and on the technological side as opposed to OOB´s and suchlike, but my main point that WWII has been done to death between the retail games and the modders, so why not do something a little different. Given that using any other post-WWII conflict would require a little "creativity" in making the game balanced (again, see other threads....hang on, you probably have already, eh? ) then why not go the whole hog and create a war? By "real units" I actually meant the compositions of a fighting unit (e.g tanks, infantry companies armed with a "typical" loadout for their task (recce, tank support, AT etc), not the actual OOB. It wouldn´t be to hard to put a pretty (theoretically) realistic OOB together though, if you worked on the assumption that any East v West war would be the end result of political tensions, as opposed to a totally surprise attack, thereby giving the West time to fully deploy? As for nukes, there can be any number of reasons for not using them. If the reds were after resources (north sea oil) they wouldnt want to nuke all the logistic centres, would they? Besides, it would be nice to think nobody would be daft enough to in the face of MAD, unless all was lost! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 Originally posted by Tifosi: For example what about a cold war stylee thing, WarPac vs. Nato in Europe say, late 70´s or early 80´s.Have you taken a look at TacOps? It might be just what you are looking for. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tifosi Posted October 14, 2004 Author Share Posted October 14, 2004 Actually, no I haven´t! I´m still getting my teeth round CM after a long break from PC wargaming, and if I start on anything else as well just now, I might find myself sans wife! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 Originally posted by Tifosi: As for nukes, there can be any number of reasons for not using them.True, there are a lot of reasons for not going to nukes. But it could well have happened anyway, as the chance of NATO stopping a determined push by WARPAC without them looked pretty dim. I think the American plan was to go nuclear the first day, setting off nuclear mines in the passes and other choke points where the WARPAC forces would be concentrated and hitting command and control centers. If the reds were after resources (north sea oil) they wouldnt want to nuke all the logistic centres, would they?The assumption was that WARPAC would be using chemical agents. Besides, it would be nice to think nobody would be daft enough to in the face of MAD, unless all was lost! There was thinking that use of tactical nukes might be confined to the immediate field of battle without escalating to an all-out nuclear war. Whether it would have actually worked out that way is anybody's guess. In the event, sanity prevailed and nobody put the assumptions to the test. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 I think 70ties and up would be difficult at the CM scale because the combat ranges and the maneuver room you need for essential weapons (e.g. gunship helicopters) becomes too big. The 1955-1960 phase might be good fun, though. Some thick and fast tanks linke T-55s, M-48s, but no long-range ATGMs and no helos. Throw in Israeli/Arab conflicts of the time for good measure. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoolaman Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 I was thinking the same as redwolf. Modern weapons and missiles take engagement ranges out to distances where the best scale for this time is indeed TacOps scale. I am hoping that BFC develops an engine that can be applied to all conflicts from Poland to Korea, maybe extending to Arab Israeli wars. Each installment can then be released as an expansion or something. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macphail Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 forget it. WW2, or i wont buy it. period. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 Is that a promise? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 Originally posted by Tifosi: For example what about a cold war stylee thing, WarPac vs. Nato in Europe say, late 70´s or early 80´s. I know CM is all about authenticity, but I am talking about using real units, weapons, troop types etc in a fictional conflict.So, how do you get around the fact that there are huge chunks of information that hasn't been declassified? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarkus Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 Originally posted by Redwolf: The 1955-1960 phase might be good fun, though. Some thick and fast tanks linke T-55s, M-48s, but no long-range ATGMs and no helos. Throw in Israeli/Arab conflicts of the time for good measure. Right on. I agree with that. Beside, BFC is releasing a naval combat sim that's just as fictional, and while I am sure they strive for realism, the fact that few modern naval battles occured doesn't remove its interest. Given, it is not quite the same feeling as playing battle that occured, but I for one enjoy well made fictionnal battles just as much as historic scenarios in CM. Not exactly the same but still... Cheers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 The classification is not as bad as people make it. It's not that people don't constantly bitch about about WW2 values. Just comapred the German 75mm L/48 and L/70 values in CMAK with those in CMBB to see what I mean. For modern combat, there is a tendency that in first approximation everything can kill everything, at least as far as HEAT warheads are concerned, and the few actually modern MBTs are munched forward and backwards on tank-net.org, bringing information to reasonable levels. For example, TacOps has no problem coming up with values that people bitch less about than CM values. Things might be a little more difficult for some periods in between where kinetic energy shots were predominant and the Western powers employed lots of junk. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 Originally posted by Tarkus: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Redwolf: The 1955-1960 phase might be good fun, though. Some thick and fast tanks linke T-55s, M-48s, but no long-range ATGMs and no helos. Throw in Israeli/Arab conflicts of the time for good measure. Right on. I agree with that. Beside, BFC is releasing a naval combat sim that's just as fictional, and while I am sure they strive for realism, the fact that few modern naval battles occured doesn't remove its interest. Given, it is not quite the same feeling as playing battle that occured, but I for one enjoy well made fictionnal battles just as much as historic scenarios in CM. Not exactly the same but still... Cheers </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tifosi Posted October 14, 2004 Author Share Posted October 14, 2004 Originally posted by Berlichtingen: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tifosi: For example what about a cold war stylee thing, WarPac vs. Nato in Europe say, late 70´s or early 80´s. I know CM is all about authenticity, but I am talking about using real units, weapons, troop types etc in a fictional conflict.So, how do you get around the fact that there are huge chunks of information that hasn't been declassified? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by Redwolf: The classification is not as bad as people make it.Or its much worse than you seem to realize 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarkus Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by Pzman: You have to understand the BFC is a publisher for those other games. CM on the otherhand they make.I am not sure to understand what you mean, but perhaps you know something I dont. BFC -the game designer- is committed to historic warfare while BFC -the game publisher- on warfare at large ? I disagree that WWII is overdone and hope that CMX2 is the Western Front during the 1940's, although I would not mind Korea.If I made it sound like I am tired of WWII, then my apologies. As far as I am concerned, it could be CM:WWII 'til the end of times and I would be happy and buy it. 39-45 is the military event I am most interested in, by far. All I am saying is that I would buy and surely enjoy modern day battles, fictionnal or not, should this be the direction BFC take, and that fictionnal engagements are not unrealistic by definition, although I suspect the job to make it accurate certainly isn't easier. Cheers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by Tarkus: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pzman: You have to understand the BFC is a publisher for those other games. CM on the otherhand they make.I am not sure to understand what you mean, but perhaps you know something I dont. BFC -the game designer- is committed to historic warfare while BFC -the game publisher- on warfare at large ? Cheers </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by Berlichtingen: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Redwolf: The classification is not as bad as people make it.Or its much worse than you seem to realize </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarkus Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by Pzman: [...]BFC is publishing several other games, but they themseleves are not making those games. Charles, CMs coder is only working on one game, maybe two since the CMAK Patch is still in the works along with CMX2. OK. That I already knew. But what does this business setup has to do with their choice to implement [or not] a modern CM ? The fact that they didn't code Dangerous Waters does not rule out their own option for the modern wargame genre, does it ? Or let just say it does and hope for WWII still 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 A modern one wouldn't sell enough, plain and simple. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denwad Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Wasn't the M1A1 designed for close range gunfights with soviet tanks? I mean, it isn't exactly a common occurance to have 3000m uninterrupted view distance in all directions 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarkus Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Originally posted by Redwolf: A modern one wouldn't sell enough, plain and simple. :confused: You think so ? Does this imply that anything but WWII is doomed to commercial failure ? I wonder what are the options... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Unfortunately there an be no doubt about the WW2/modern issue. If your wargame offers modern in addition to WW2, then fine, otherwise you have to live of military contracts or somesuch. Although SPMBT seems to have a surprisingly big fanbase. [ October 15, 2004, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: Redwolf ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.