Next Combat Mission game

[Panzer Leader]

Originally posted by Wildman:

1946 Stalwart American, British, and Canadian heros against the evil,deluded USSR.

A no hold barred, leave your nukes at home grudge match.

Yeah baby!

[energy76]

Originally posted by Hans:

Seriously I think after they do the engine rewrite they should do a 1939-1945 World War II, they have the East, 44+ in the West just need to add in the early war and Med.

Hmmm. Well, I could be wrong(and quite likely am) , but as I understand it the data structure will be different in the new engine, so BTS may not be able to just reuse old models.

Personally, I'm not interested in France 1940. What's the point? Most of the battles would be something like this: Germans attack. French put up fierce resistance but are outgunned and isolated. French surrender or flee.

I'd much rather have a even sided theatre where both sides had the advantage at least once. North Africa provides exactly that. It was a crucial theatre, as victory for the axis would've meant control of the Suez canal and control of the middle eastern oil fields. Also, there was the possibility of launching a offensive into the south of Russia once the mid-east was taken. Fortunately, that never came to pass...

I'm a little disappointed that BTS has no interest in the Pacific, but North Africa will be great, if that is indeed what they're planning on doing next.

Of course, I can't imagine trying to use CMBB's infantry model in all that open ground. Just imagine El Alamein: the sappers(they led the British assualt) are trying to cut through The Devil's Gardens(vast mine fields constructed by the Afrika Corps), but the German's open fire with their machine guns... "AHHH!! Sir! They're shooting at us!!" *all soldiers then hit the dirt and then crawl back through the open ground until exhausted and lie vulnerable in the desert sand* No, that wouldn't work at all. Anyway...

North Africa is ideal for combat mission because the balance switched several times, because of Rommel(what self-respecting CM-er wouldn't want to try fighting as an officer of the Afrika Korps?), and because it was a completely motorised war; the tank rained supreme. And I as I said earlier, it wasn't an unimportant theater. It was crucial to victory, for both sides.

[Col Deadmarsh]

Battles in Africa...I can see it now.

"Sir, is that a Tiger in the distance or a mirage?"

Tank battles galore with infantry playing zero part in your success. How fun!

And what's with CM4--The Early War? I mean, we now have the entire Eastern Front in one game. Going back to do just the early years of the Western Front doesn't make sense. Do the whole thing--especially since you have half the unit data now for both sides.

[ November 11, 2002, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]

[energy76]

Originally posted by Scipio:

[QB]The Pacific war (1942+) has a problem, it is always the same. No terraine variations, Japanese with unbreakable moral, but always bad equipment - especially tanks, and US with endless heavy support and equipment.

No terrain variations?! Where did you get that idea? I mean, come on. It's not like the Pacific islands were nothing but pure, flat jungle. I think you'd have as much terrain variation as anywhere else. I'm no grog, but I'm pretty sure that there were a lot of different facets to jungle hopping.

Two things about the U.S. having endless heavy support:

1)How would that be different from any other theater the U.S. was involved in in?

2) Most of the weaponry went to Europe. It's my impression(not well informed) that the Marines in the Pacific weren't nearly as well armed as the Army grunts in Europe. In my reading, the equipment wasn't available in endless streams...also, tanks weren't as large of a factor because of the restraints of the jungle. However, they were used, so that tells you something, eh? I bet there was more open space on these islands than people imaginge...

Actually, I thought that in the early years of teh war, the Japanese had endless amounts of artillery.

And also, what would be the problem with the Japanese having unbreakable morale? It would be realistic, after all.

And, finally, I agree with you. A new engine is far more important.

[ November 11, 2002, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: energy76 ]

[Sarge77]

CM: Fulda Gap.

Cold war turned hot.

Would be cool.

[Kirill S.]

Why not Korea or Vietnam?

Or how about a fictional USSR vs NATO in the 1985?

Or the Gulf War?

I'd surely love to see a T80 kill an Abrams in CM2

[Pak_40_Gunner[11b]]

good luck with that chief, a Abrams would wax a platoon of T-80's. Lets do a restore hope mod, 10th mountain division in the wilds of Somalia, then moving into the citys to lay a whooping on the ill eqipped Somali militia.

[BuzzBomb]

Originally posted by Voxman:

Pacific Theatre is not being considered as the the owners do not feel comfortable with their knowledge level about this Theatre of operations.

Yea, I could see that. I guess it would be hard to statisticaly create all those giant imvading space insects and lizards that the japs had to fight off on occation.

[KG_SSpoom]

Italy/Afrika sounds cool to me. :cool:

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by energy76:

Personally, I'm not interested in France 1940. What's the point? Most of the battles would be something like this: Germans attack. French put up fierce resistance but are outgunned and isolated. French surrender or flee.

Much like say Russia in 1941, or Germany in 1945?

Of course it has plenty of scope - I read somewhere (here proly!) that loss ratios for the French (& allies) went up the more forces weer involved - so a small number of rench anks or infantry could easily take on similar numbers of Germans and expect to win, but the more troops weer involved the moer C^3 mattered and the better the germans performed in comparison to their foes. Ie A company of French might well defeat a company of Germans, but a Regiment/Brigade would almsot certainly lose badly.

At CM's scale the campaigns would be just as intersting as those we have alerady IMO. Have a look at some of the early war scenarios for eth Stel Panthers range - there's plenty of playable games there - usually with the Germans attacking of course!! lol

Besides - you get to use Char 2's and Matilda 1's vs 88's - what more could you really ask for?!

[karch]

I'm really looking forward to Africa/Med/Italy/Balkans for CM3 with the new engine.

I hope after that they release CM4 with, either the whole Western Front from 1939 to 1945. There will obviously be a large gap in time where no fighting will take place.

The research is already done primarily for D-Day- end of war. From what I seem to recall reading, the research to build the game is a very large part of their development. Models would either have to be tweaked, or created from scratch.. but hey, you could get your M16 Meatgrinders on the western front this time!!

Then CM5 to be a revisit to the Eastern Front....

I'd LOVE for CM4 to actually be 1939-45 Eastern and Western fronts.

[energy76]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

Tank battles galore with infantry playing zero part in your success. How fun!

Well, Colonel, to some extent you're right. The tank did rain supreme in desert warfare. OTOH, how different is that from CM now?

Actually, though, many of the North African battles that I've read about relied on infantry to spearhead the assaults. Two such off the top of my head: El Alamein and also the first battle for Tobruk(Desert Rats against Italian army). Also, here is a quote of war correspondent Alan Moorehead I found, speaking of the battle for control of Sidi Rezegh(during Operation Crusader):

"...the hard, armored coating of both armies was destroyed. The softer, slower infantry was...left to decide the battle."

So, in short, infantry in North Africa was a major factor.

I'd also like to make it clear the the desert in North Africa was not just a flat expanse. Featureless, yes, but not flat.

[JonS]

More gems from some of the stars of our forum:

Originally posted by Scipio:

The Pacific war (1942+) has a problem, it is always the same. No terrain variations, Japanese with unbreakable moral, but always bad equipment - especially tanks, and US with endless heavy support and equipment.

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

Battles in Africa...I can see it now.

"Sir, is that a Tiger in the distance or a mirage?"

Tank battles galore with infantry playing zero part in your success. How fun!

Originally posted by energy76:

Personally, I'm not interested in France 1940. What's the point? Most of the battles would be something like this: Germans attack. French put up fierce resistance but are outgunned and isolated. French surrender or flee.

I'm holding out for CM:BI (Combat Mission: Beyond Ignorance), in which the players manfully resist the urge to make pointless, inane, ill-informed, and incorrect statements about anything they don't happen to agree with, or which doesn't fit their pre-concieved notions.

I think I'll be waiting a while.

Regards

JonS

[ November 11, 2002, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Pvt. Ryan]

Oh come on, Jon. I've done very well so far in my life making pointless, inane, ill-informed, and incorrect statements about anything I don't happen to agree with, or which doesn't fit my pre-concieved notions.

[JonS]

You probably won't like CM:BI then

[energy76]

But Jon! I love my preconceived notions. They allow me to stand, look life in the eye, and march forward, feeling secure in my knowledge of the world...

But seriously...yer right, I know absolutely nothing about the German occupation of France. Only that it ended up being a lopsided conflict that was won with suprising efficiency. So, anyway, I guess I'll shut my big mouth now...

CM:BI Forever!

[ November 11, 2002, 08:23 PM: Message edited by: energy76 ]

[Loki]

Here is an old post from 99 on this subject (its amazing what a search will find).

Link

[Tripps]

Originally posted by JonS:

More gems from some of the stars of our forum:

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

The Pacific war (1942+) has a problem, it is always the same. No terrain variations, Japanese with unbreakable moral, but always bad equipment - especially tanks, and US with endless heavy support and equipment.

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

Battles in Africa...I can see it now.

"Sir, is that a Tiger in the distance or a mirage?"

Tank battles galore with infantry playing zero part in your success. How fun!

Originally posted by energy76:

Personally, I'm not interested in France 1940. What's the point? Most of the battles would be something like this: Germans attack. French put up fierce resistance but are outgunned and isolated. French surrender or flee.

I'm holding out for CM:BI (Combat Mission: Beyond Ignorance), in which the players manfully resist the urge to make pointless, inane, ill-informed, and incorrect statements about anything they don't happen to agree with, or which doesn't fit their pre-concieved notions.

I think I'll be waiting a while.

Regards

JonS</font>

[JonS]

Tripps:

Yeah but they all have an element of truth in them

An element of truth, and a whole big heaping helping of stereotypical nonsense.

And besides, these are not people saying "this is what I think happened, This is how it should be done" etc etc, its just suggestions and wish lists!

Ah, but that's where you're wrong. Scipio declared the Pacific is always the same, Deadmarsh stated that infantry had no role in NA, and Energy avowed that the French were little more than cheese-eating surrender monkeys.

Opinions are one thing, but the three quotes I had were made as statements of fact. And they were wrong.

Anyhoo

Pacific war was heavy in ship and planes, so I dont quite see how they could include that.

There was also a little place called Burma. Not many ships there, nor many planes, and the terrain was rather varied. Same in New Guinea. And the Phillipines for that matter (after the landings). In fact, the same in virtually all places - from Tarawa to Okiniwa - after the initial landings.

Actually - one could use exactly the same argument to write off the whole campaign in NW Europe. And you know what ... BFC did - the first CM is called Beyond Overlord for a good reason, but it seems to work.

Afrika, maybe not enough variation in terrain/to small a scale? I guess you can include the hills of Tunisia near the end of the war there, but for the most part, N.Afrika was a coastal road, with some fertile areas there, rolling sand dunes on the other side, places like the Quattra depression, flats, waterholes, and a few cities.

You can pretty much re-create that kind of terrain in CMBB anyways, just dont have the matilda's and stuff

Good grief!

Too small a scale? CM is centred around company-to-battalion level.

As for your romantic notions of the terrain in North Africa, to take but one example, rolling sand dunes were very few and far between. (BTW, CMBB does include Matildas)

Med. Well, could be part of Afrika, have to be really, way to small a scale.

Balkans. What was it, 3-4 months? If you start from when the Italians attacked.

The Balkans are in the Med, so it would seem to make sense to combine them. And Crete, and the actions in the Greek Islands. And North Africa, Italy, South France, ... etc. If done to the same standard as CM:BO and CM:BB then CM:DD would have far more units and vehicles than both the earlier two combined. Quite large enough for my tastes thanks.

Low Countries. Should be an add-on pack for CMBO.

An add on?!? Nearly everything - from personal weapons to bombers, squad organisation to force sizes - had changed between 1939/40 and 1944/45. That would be some add on. The campaign in France may only have lasted a few months, but if BFC were to include the campaigns in Poland and Norway, it would make for quite a reasonably 'sized' game.

Regards

JonS

[ November 11, 2002, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Bruceov]

They dont really need a new engine to do N africa and Italy.

[Schoerner]

Back to the Western Front with landing-operations, naval support.

Can't imagine you US-guys wouldn't be keen on (with an enhanced operation-system) to build up a bridgehead and try to expand it.

Italy and the Alps would be interessting, too.

Africa?

All battles with same terrain?

No, thanks.

[energy76]

Originally posted by Bruceov:

They dont really need a new engine to do N africa and Italy.

They don't really need a new engine to do anything. Trying to read between the lines, I think that the point of rebuilding the engine is to make it more easily expandable(or "flexible")and more detailed in the modelling system; some specific examples I've heard mentioned: no more universal turret sizes, and individual tracking of the load of every infantryman. Those are just two things I've noticed MadMatt mention.

A new engine would not be for the purpose of adding in new types of units or weapons, or different types of terrain. In fact, when the new engine comes out, people may be surprised at how little change has occured...all speculation, of course.

Originally posted by Schoerner:

Africa?

All battles with same terrain?

No, thanks.[/QB]

Wouldn't be a whole lot different from fighting in the Russian steppe. Except the infantry in North Africa could actually take it. And of course Tunisia wasn't desert.

And also, if you discovered that really don't like desert warfare, then you'll be able to play the Sicily and Italy scenarios.

[ November 11, 2002, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: energy76 ]

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

Originally posted by Hans:

Seriously I think after they do the engine rewrite they should do a 1939-1945 World War II, they have the East, 44+ in the West just need to add in the early war and Med.

Small add ins for the Spanish civil war and the winter war too

Here, here. They've done a lot of the research already! I vote for: Combat Mission: The Second World War

[Tripps]

Originally posted by JonS:

[QB] </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Tripps:

Yeah but they all have an element of truth in them

An element of truth, and a whole big heaping helping of stereotypical nonsense. </font>

[akdavis]

Originally posted by Bruceov:

They dont really need a new engine to do N africa and Italy.

I would think the graphics engine would need to be improved to do justice to battles in the steep, rough terrain of Italy (or to keep N. Africa from being incredibly bland, for that matter). I think the current engine is beautiful, but I don't think it handles mountainous terrain very well. Those polygonal cliffs with random boulders pasted on them could look a lot better. I for one hope the new engine will include more variety of terrain, as well as more objects on the terrain (i.e. objects handled the way hedges and walls are, that is they are location specific, not generalized to the tile). I'd like to see destroyed vehicles, small gullies and streams (20m wide streams can be kinda silly) and ocean shoreline terrain. 3-D entrenchments and less abstracted minefields would be nice also(can you imagine a Tobruk map with all those silly minefield signs and flat trenches?).