What CMx2 Module would you like to see

[melb_will]

A while ago Steve said

Battlefront.com

Administrator

Member # 42

posted May 22, 2005 12:17 PM

Obviously CMx2 is no CMx1 with a more narrow focus, so I'm not even going to bother getting into Rollstoy's question. However, if someone wants to toss him a bunch of links to bones I've tossed out, I am sure he'll be happier

The concept of narrower, deeper focus is to make each game more intense and well rounded. However, you have to remember that we aren't going to take the 1 year we had spent on simulating a whole front and reinvest it into a narrow slice of the front. Instead we are going to take SOME of that time and flesh out a more focused setting and spend the rest of that saved time on doing something else entirely. Example:

Our first WWII ETO game might be just Normandy between Americans and Germans from this date to that date. You get it into your hands after only 12 months of development instead of 24. You have a blast with it... then 6 months later maybe there is a "module" that is released that offers something different... like Commonwealth in Normandy from this date to that date. Price is lower than the full game, but the full game is required. The "module" can be done by an auxillarly development team which allows us to keep going forward on the next title. So 6 months later you might have CM- Pigs In Space; The Baccon 6 Conundrum.

My question is which "modules" would you like to see.

My vote is for Combat Mission: New Guinea. CMNG has a number of things going for it.

First the major battles in PNG were mainly battalion size and smaller. In particular the battles on the track and Milne Bay usually only saw 1 battalion max in any one attack.

Second you get forces from Australia, The United States in the attacks at Buna and the Japanese

Third and prehaps a major point. The Australian Army will probably look at purchasing it thereby cutting back on the development costs.

Anyone got any other ideas, remember they can be from any of these areas that Steve suggested

WWII ETO

WWII PTO

1950s Korea

2000s Korea

WWI

Napoleonics

US Civil War

100 Years War

Medival

Ancient (European)

Ancient (Asian)

Contemporary

Cold War

Near Future

Far Future

Fantasy (D&D style)

Alien Invasion

Post Apocalyptic

But they must be module sized to count

Cheers

Will

[Wicky]

CM (Cricket Match) - The Ashes

England v Australia

11 men per side just like a platoon - goes on 5 days (we hope!) different equipment i.e bats, modes of bowling and field settings. 5 Tests make a series at different grounds with players swapped around lends itself to modularisation.

Can be modded to represent any past Ashes series. (we'll probably need to be able to replace 3D models so as to depict the real pie eaters i.e Gatting , Warne etc.

Matt I'm sure would be able to knock up some decent sledging soundbites (subcontract out to Peng and Waffle threads for contributions).

Lastly if it could ideally be released for this Thursday - so if it rains we can duly entertain ourselves.

[ July 19, 2005, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: Wicky ]

[Jaska.]

WW II: ETO = Eastern Theater of Operations. I want more of Operation Barbarossa !

[hellfish]

Korea ('50-51 or modern), any Arab-Israeli war, Suez Crisis, South African/Rhodesian bush wars, any region where the Cold War could have hypothetically gone hot (Fulda Gap, Bavaria, Norway, etc.)

[Grimthane]

I would like to see the first one. This year, if possible.

[eichenbaum]

The Great Crimean War (1854-1856) !

No wait... This one I would like to design my self

Do we have horses in CMX2?

Maybe without CMX2 then...

Nevermind!

[melb_will]

But Wicky

No-one would buy a game based on the upcoming ashes series. It would be far too easy and everyone already knows how it ends.

Australia 3 England 0, 2 draws because of rain.

cheers

Will

[dieseltaylor]

Napoleonic

Mod heaven for those inclined and virtually unlimited scenarios. And for grogs! nice to take some from their comfort zone

[juan_gigante]

I don't remember where, but I saw something about how they had narrowed the first module down to five subject areas, and WWII Pacific wasn't one of them. Steve wouldn't say exactly what the five were, except for no Pacific and no cold war. While I'm sure that Pacific in CMX2 would be pretty cracking (gotta love those beach landings), I don't feel that the theater has the incredible breadth and depth of, say cold war gone hot. At first I felt very strongly that WWII in Northwest Europe was the only way to go, but I thought about it some, and now I am a proponent of modern day tank conflict, be it in Korea or elsewhere. fytinghellfish a what I think was a totally awesome idea which should be stolen wholesale by BFC. If I may...

"CM2: Korea 2006 That will include core ROK, local US 2nd ID (Armor/Mech and Light Infantry) and NKPA forces.

Modules could then look like:

Korea: Stryker Brigade! which will add all the various Stryker models from the US-based 3rd Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division, which would likely reinforce the Peninsula in war. Adds a whole bunch of missions to the game and maybe some of the older NKPA stuff (KOKSAM 170mm howitzer support, T-34/85s, BTR-152), older ROK stuff (M-48A3/A5s) and maybe a Seoul Terrain Tile Set.

Korea: Semper Fi! which will add a complete OOB of the USMC (1st and 3rd Marine Divisions) so we'll have AAVs, AAAVs, various LAVs, marine infantry, naval gunfire support, Harrier and Cobra air support, etc. Maybe an ]operation about a modern amphibious landing at Inchon or Hamhung (first battle is coordinating a MEU amphib assault - two companies in AAVs and a heliborne company against a NKPA costal defense force with some tank support, second battle is holding against counterattack, etc.).

and finally

Korea: Red Tide! which will add the Chinese People's Liberation Army - Type 98 MBTs, Type 63A amphibious tanks, etc. "

Unfortunately, Korea might hold a little less appeal for non-US peeps because, unless BFC adds UN troops, there will only be US, Korean and Chinese forces involved. Still, that idea is now far and away my favorite.

[M1A1TC]

Thats an excelent idea. I love it. I was stationed with 2nd ID in South Korea, and would really enjoy playing that. Plus, it is a plausible modern day conflict, that is set somewhere besides Middle East (tired of sand)

Nato forces could be present, including Brits, Germans, Italians, Canadians, Australians, etc

The Russians could be on the North Korean side, plus Chinese.

Awesome!!

[juan_gigante]

Yeah, it's pretty much endlessly expandable, would include cool tank warfare, and would all sorts of awesome toys to play with. You could have the M1A1s fighting Chinese tanks in open fields, or Crack and Elite Spec Ops guys with HEAVY air support raiding some place, or whatever. I just go crazy thinking about all the units and nationalities that could be involved. And, because it isn't historical, I wouldn't have to research stuff to make a reasonable scenario(yes!). I hope BFC is listening...

[RMC]

Crescendo of Doom with überfinns.

[hellfish]

Aw... someone does pay attention to me around here. :cool:

[hellfish]

Another reason I'd like to advocate a modern day module is that with the proliferation of detailed maps and satellite imagery, it's very possible to make detailed battlefields based on real world locations.

With the proper models and textures, it would be very easy to make nearly any Korean village to scale and nearly perfect fidelity. If there was a Seoul terrain pack with specific landmarks and some generic buildings released to support a modern Korea game, then you could literally model areas downtown Seoul and have it look almost exactly like a photograph of the same neighborhood.

I'd pay an arm and a leg for that, and it'd be much easier (IMHO) to make a mission and a corresponding map if I had a map and satellite images in front of me that were taken 1-5 years ago, as opposed to hunting through archives to find how a town in northern France was laid out in 1944.

[hellfish]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

Y And, because it isn't historical, I wouldn't have to research stuff to make a reasonable scenario(yes!). I hope BFC is listening...

Sorry about posting so much (I'm gonna turn into Dorosh someday)but I had to expound on this - I remember one argument tossed around against a modern day CMx2 game was that the battles would all be hypothetical.

Just last night I played a few quick battles in CMBB and CMAK and it dawned on me that at least half of the missions that shipped with those games were labelled semi-historical or fictional - probably several more were ahistorical as well, but just not labelled.

Fact of the matter is that even if the US and NKPA haven't fought each other for years, the potential for them to fight a good battle within a CM game engine is very much there. The fact that the battles would be fictional is irrelevant, given the past history of the CM scenarios.

And as for those of you who say that fighting in M-1A2 tanks wouldn't be fun because they totally outclass anything else, I would argue that fighting in Panthers against M5 light tanks isn't fun either, but ADMIT IT, WE HAVE ALL DONE IT.

The ultimate responsibility of a fun game lies with the scenario designers, not the location or forces available.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

Fact of the matter is that even if the US and NKPA haven't fought each other for years, the potential for them to fight a good battle within a CM game engine is very much there. The fact that the battles would be fictional is irrelevant, given the past history of the CM scenarios.

Apples and oranges. We know how well the troops performed in various tactical situations during WW2 and thus can judge how realistic the simulation of warfare or a specific scenario are. But in the case of modern war, we just make ourselves believe that T-80 is effective against M1 Abrams to xyz metres, or that the US and Soviet doctrines would likely have resulted in such and such battles. We have no measure stick for estimating how realistic the results actually are.

[hellfish]

So many other games have filled in the "classified" blanks. Why can't CM? Besides that, US troops have been engaged in combat for over three years now - we've got a very good idea of how'll they'll fight. We've got a good idea of how the hardware performs in combat (yes, even low intensity combat is relevant).

Edit: And not only that, but several games that have filled in classified blanks have done so enough to please the most interested customers of all - the US Army and USMC. TacOps did it. VBS1 did it. They're info and estimations may not be 100% perfect, but even if they're only 95% perfect, they're still good enough for the troopers to train with.

It'll be a cold day in hell before someone makes a game that completely satisfies grogs. Sometimes "good enough" is really good enough.

The T-80 isn't exactly a new piece of hardware either, I'm sure there's lots of information about it out there, though I don't know that one ever saw combat. Maybe Chechnya?

And what does doctrine have anything to do with the CM scale? The Soviet idea of operational maneuver groups and the US idea of the Airland Battle somehow will affect the battles at a company level so you can point to a mission (e.g. a US infantry company vs. a Soviet tank platoon) and say "That could never happen because doctrine X and doctrine Y tell us that such a battle could never happen"?

Come on... I think you're making excuses.

[ July 19, 2005, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: fytinghellfish ]

[juan_gigante]

See, I think hypothetical battles are cool, becasue it becomes easier to create scenarios. There's no existing "canon" for you to go against, so you can do whatever you think would be balanced and fun. Was there this particular tank battalion at this point for this time? Never happened, so do what you want! I think that (especially for inexperienced scenario designers like myself) this removes the burden of historical accuracy so it becomes easier to create a scenario. And think of the campaigns that a prolific designer or a group could come up with! Say, if Boots & Tracks decided to make all the battles in a campaign about a division's push toward Pyongyang, they could make all these cool, intricate, interlocking battles, and couldn't contradict any historical facts. I'm starting to babble, but the point remains; I feel that not having a historical canon gives designers a much freer rein and would lead to way more cool scenarios. And fytinghellfish, mad props on the modules for Korea. You even came up with little names and stuff! If they stole your idea exactly, I would be very happy.

[hellfish]

I would be too, Juan.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Apples and oranges.

Are both fruit

We know how well the troops performed in various tactical situations during WW2 and thus can judge how realistic the simulation of warfare or a specific scenario are.

We can, but how many do? There are modern scenarios that allow verification, the others are fictional.

But in the case of modern war, we just make ourselves believe that T-80 is effective against M1 Abrams to xyz metres,

How are the government tests of WWII any more reliable than the government tests of today? Armour and ammunition testing is quite comprehensive. The difficulty lies in getting hold of the recent data, as much will be classified.

or that the US and Soviet doctrines would likely have resulted in such and such battles.

What has doctrine got to do with it? I suppose that doctrine could decide what sort of units made contact, but beyond that, no-one follows doctrine in CMX1. Successive wars have shown that nearly anything can happen, so scenario designers will have a great deal of latitude.

We have no measure stick for estimating how realistic the results actually are.

Maybe not. Is it that vital?

[hellfish]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was trying to say, flamingknives.

[flamingknives]

I have much practice with that argument.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> But in the case of modern war, we just make ourselves believe that T-80 is effective against M1 Abrams to xyz metres,

How are the government tests of WWII any more reliable than the government tests of today?</font>

[Sergei]

Another thing is that for a fictional WW3 there's no such an exciting background plot known by all of us like there is for WW2 - if I told you lot about my new scenario of the Battle of Hamburg 1984, you couldn't tell what's so different about that and my earlier Battle of Frankfurt 1983 scenario. While if those were scenarios set in Stalingrad 1943 and Arnhem 1944, you'd be much better informed of what to expect.

Of course one might opt for historical modern conflicts, but they hardly compare with WW2 in any sort of way.

[hellfish]

Isn't that what scenario briefings are for?

I mean seriously, how many people know the background of Operation Mars? Or the Commonwealth fighting in Ethiopia?

How should the background of a scenario or operation I make in Korea 2006 be any different?

And nobody's trying to compare anything with WWII (except you), but we're getting tired of WWII and would like a change of scenery for one or two games. Then we can go back to the Bulge or Normandy.