Armdchair Posted October 29, 2000 Share Posted October 29, 2000 If anyone's interested I will be posting a Vietnam scenario at the CMHQ depot tonight. Title: Nam Mission Type: Attack (Fictional) Date: 1967 Location: South Vietnam Weather: Heavy Fog Length: 35 turns This is a crude attempt to replicate small unit combat in Vietnam. Crude because so much is missing: no helicopters, no air support, no tunnel or bunker complexes, no confusion of combatant/ non-combatant; elements that more or less defined infantry combat in Vietnam. I have had to make many substitutions and adaptations: pine trees for palm trees; marsh for paddies; small houses for thatched huts. Communist forces are represented by Axis forces: the Volkssturm as the Viet Cong; Volksgrenadiers as main force NVA units. I've used paratroopers to represent US infantry. Although the 101st, 173rd, and 82nd Airborne did fight in Vietnam, the use of paratroopers in this scenario is not an effort to portray one of their actual firefights but simply to try to give US infantry maximum firepower (there are no M-16s, no M-60 MGs, no grenade launchers, no AK-47s, etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Wilder Posted October 31, 2000 Share Posted October 31, 2000 Something that might be easier would be a French-Viet Minh or even a Korean scenario since the weapons would be mainly WW2 weapons, but even then you would have to use your imagination a bit. Nice innovation, though, I gotta give you credit for that, Armdchair! ------------------ Wild Bill Lead Tester Scenario Design Team Combat Mission-Beyond Overlord billw@matrixgames.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disaster@work Posted October 31, 2000 Share Posted October 31, 2000 I agree with Wild Bill. Come to think of it, Korea wouldn't be bad also. Those were fairly large scale battles, the tanks were largely the same (except for the Chinese) and if you can ignore the jets and helicopters, everything would be peachy. ------------------ ---- To download my scenarios: go to http://www3.telus.net/pop_n_fresh/combatmiss/index.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armdchair Posted October 31, 2000 Author Share Posted October 31, 2000 Thanks, Wild Bill, Disaster for the feedback. Trying to do a different era scenario using CM 1944-45 Western Europe features is definitely an uphill struggle. I just thought it would be interesting to try after seeing all the comments on Mord's "CM Vietnamers Unite" thread. While I'm not holding my breath waiting for a CM Vietnam game I must admit some disappointment that the Pacific theater of WWII is going to be overlooked. If a CM Pacific version was ever released, it would be fairly similar to the experience of certain aspects of Vietnam combat,i.e., GIs, Marines battling amid enemy bunker complexes and tunnel systems in heavy jungle. More or less the same tactics were used. What's intriguing to me is the idea of having to move in dense jungle not knowing when or where the enemy might strike, either via ambush or by opening up at close range from well-camouflaged bunkers, pinning US forces down. This is also what appeals to me in the coming CM2 Eastern Front, participating in the claustrophobic, close-quarters combat of city fighting. I am hoping that BTS will find a way to model tunnels, bunkers, trenches, sewers, etc. Anyway - thanks again for the interest. [This message has been edited by Armdchair (edited 10-31-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disaster@work Posted October 31, 2000 Share Posted October 31, 2000 Certain aspects of the Pacific theatre could be done now without major changes to the engine. The jungle fighting you speak of that took place in the interior of the island campaigns and also Burma, Malaya could be accomplished now. However, the major battles that are best known to the public were the island invasions such as Guadalcanal. To do that properly you must have a more serious naval game model. Sure, you can stick with the artillery strikes from off the map, but you also need the landing craft (not the weird assault boats in CM) and the AI will need to know how to use the boats. Also, I suspect that a lot of the battles will be grinding away affairs that wouldn't be as dynamic as the European battles. My own personal opinion is that the lack of features such as towns, bridges, rivers that marked the European campaign would make the Pacific battles seem a bit sparse. Now, I know that the terrain in the Pacific islands can be quite extreme and varied, but having to move troops through patrols, slow advances, and footslogging through rainforests is not *my* idea of fun. Outright battles like Guadalcanal were also battles of attrition rather than of maneuver. ------------------ ---- To download my scenarios: go to http://www3.telus.net/pop_n_fresh/combatmiss/index.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disaster@work Posted October 31, 2000 Share Posted October 31, 2000 I should also say that modelling tunnel and bunker complexes would be difficult unless the scale is about the same as you get with the 'house to house' fighting of the present CM engine. I can see how they can have an 'underground' opaque view of the units meeting each other and so on, but imagine charting LOS and fog of war for underground as well as above ground. It could be a nightmare as I don't imagine CM would model every twist and turn of a tunnel. I am not a big fan of the house to house fighting in CM right now. The maps that I've downloaded that have intense urban fighting (heavy buildings stacked next to each other), I've found quite boring and not very tactically dynamic. I don't really have any expectations of a 'fun' Stalingrad map. Maybe with very large factory squares. ------------------ ---- To download my scenarios: go to http://www3.telus.net/pop_n_fresh/combatmiss/index.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armdchair Posted October 31, 2000 Author Share Posted October 31, 2000 Tastes vary. Tank battles in the desert don't appeal to me at all but other players, I'm sure, are jumping up and down at the prospect. Scenario design varies and also the intent varies. Some scenarios are designed more with "fun" in mind ( for instance, WBW's Ramelle-SPR, which I thought was a blast); some are designed with exacting historical accuracy in mind (McAuliffe's Bulge scenarios, for instance); some are hypothethical( an American assault on Berlin); I happen to find the idea of street fighting and jungle fighting interesting because I hope to gain a better appreciation of the real-life skill and courage needed to face these actual battlefield hazards. But like I said, tastes vary. Hopefully, CM will grow to encompass most of our tastes. The great thing about being able to create our own scenarios is that we can all try to build our own vision of what we'd like to see in CM. It's a truly amazing game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts