Electrichka Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 Hey guys, anyone thinks that a modern battlefield could be modelled on CM engine? I'd love to see Ariettes vs. LeClercs, or M1A2s vs. T-90s. What are your thoughts? Wink-wink BTS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 I don't know if it could, but at least these guys aren't going to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronChef4 Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 The maps would have to be absolutley HUGE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
second amendment Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 hmmm there are so many cool battles the mind can conjure up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnum MGG Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 I like the idea... but don't see it as possible within this engine. Like someone else said the maps would have to be hugh, and then if you wanted realism, you would need to bombard and attack with your air units for the first 5 out of 15 turns, and with todays ammo and weapons system, everything could/would be destroyed before you actually got into viewing range. and how would you utilize radar, GPS, thermo ect ect... very difficult in this type of stragic game. but love the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrewolf Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 off map artillery from 2000 miles away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappy Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 There have always been two real BTS objections to this (if I may summarize liberally from my forum readings) 1. They really don't have the interest in modern combat that they do in WWII. It sounds fun to many of us (myself included), and would probably sell, but it just woulden't be the labor of love that CM is. 2. The vast differences (i.e. engagement size, weapons, electronics, aircraft) are really too big to bridge with anything like the CM engine. AI, armor calculations, LOS and artillery to name a few would require so much rework that it would be a different game. You can't just put bigger guns in the mix and expect things to work out. These add up to not much cance of it happening. They have said as much for the modern period and actually for Civil War and Napoleonic periods as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Harrison Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 I was thinking about this the other day, in 50 years from now, what will CM20 be? You can only cover so many front of WWII And Madmatt has already sworn off the pacific, so we can only go back to each theatre so many times. What I think is that they will continue to make CM a WWII only game. They will rewrite the engine a few times perhaps, but then that will be that. I see BFC moving onto another type of stratagey game. Not, CM going to modern times. All my own opinion though. Chad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malakovski Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 Seems like going back would be much more feasable than forward. Napoleonic, Civil War, even the more fluid battles of WWI. I can just see the argument over whether to include poison gas or not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 Slappy, you're kinda right - it would be impossible with the *current* CM engine... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antawar Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 You guys seem to forget that most statistics about today's weapons are still classified and that the numbers you see in games are at best "educated guesses". Doing a game like combat mission, with the level of detail about armor penetration would be next to impossible and would run the risk oif being totally unrealistic or even biaised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 I would like to see Combat Mission: Chosin to Ho Chi Minh covering the Korean and Vietnam wars. hehehe really, I think the curret engine, probably the re-write could be stretched to do this. modern day stuff, I don't know, and I am not as interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 I don't think they really have much interest on that, in any case. But of course, I'm not saying that they wouldn't sell a license for their engine to someone else for such a purpose. (CDV?) What makes you folks think they just keep on doing CM forever? Charles might decide to make a "like-WW2Online-but-better" after getting bored with Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARRPEEGEE Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 Modern? Nahh...Unless you want to wait for 20k maps to load...The 'typical' modern engagement range is 3400m. Seems like going back would be much more feasable than forward. Napoleonic, Civil War, even the more fluid battles of WWI.ACW stuff in 3D would be a real kicker! I'd buy it. Those Sid Meiyer games never had the realism to make them fun.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 Originally posted by mch: Modern? Nahh...Unless you want to wait for 20k maps to load...The 'typical' modern engagement range is 3400m. </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Seems like going back would be much more feasable than forward. Napoleonic, Civil War, even the more fluid battles of WWI.ACW stuff in 3D would be a real kicker! I'd buy it. Those Sid Meiyer games never had the realism to make them fun..</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
second amendment Posted October 3, 2002 Share Posted October 3, 2002 Seems like going back would be much more feasable than forward. Napoleonic, Civil War, even the more fluid battles of WWI.ACW stuff in 3D would be a real kicker! I'd buy it. Those Sid Meiyer games never had the realism to make them fun..[/QB] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrcar Posted October 3, 2002 Share Posted October 3, 2002 I reckon it would be great, and probably quite possible in the next engine rewrite. With regard to armour and ammunition stats TACOPS has some good numbers in it already and STEELBEASTS has also done a good job. A modern CM would fit nicely bwteen STEELBEASTS (Tank Sim to Company level) and TACOPS (Battalion-Brigade level). A nice company to battalion level game is currently not available, certainly not in 3D. I would like to see more emphasis on infantry and combined arms than what STEELBEASTS has done. Plus with the money the US is spending on wargames (ie America's Army) it should be lucrative, and MajorH (Author of TACOPS) should be able to help with the marketing to the military after successfully doing it to the US, Candian, NZ and Australian armed forces... So all in all quite possible, and possibly quite lucrative. Here's hoping. Cheers Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrichka Posted October 3, 2002 Author Share Posted October 3, 2002 Well, i did not expect so many emotions. i did not necessarily mean the current game engine, i apologize for misphrasing my thought. What i had in mind was a modern battlefield game, BASED ON CM CONCEPT, and of course on simplified terms. As you see numerously in CMBO & CMBB manuals: "this is not covered by the game's scope (i.e. carpet bombings, and actual parachute drops)." Same idea could be applied in CM:Kandagar to Kabul 1979-1989 , where some things will be simplified to fit the game engine. As far as statistics go: Games like Talonsoft's Divided ground & The Operational Art of War 2 have extensive database for over a 1000 of vehicles and all sorts of things, ranging from our beloved ww2 units to the 5th generation fighter planes. However even those stats are a little bit biased Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 3, 2002 Share Posted October 3, 2002 Originally posted by Sergei: What makes you folks think they just keep on doing CM forever?Indeed. In fact, what makes people think Charles and Steve et al will keep making computer war games forever? Maybe after CM is finished they will figure that part of their lives is done and will retire to their mink ranches to play with their MG42s for the rest of their lives. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunsmithcat Posted October 3, 2002 Share Posted October 3, 2002 I know it's not land-based, but I could see a wicked WWII Naval Series using this engine. Sure scale might need to be tweaked a bit...but I would think it has all the controls and capability otherwise. Visible aircraft is perhaps the biggest problem I can think of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zukkov Posted October 3, 2002 Share Posted October 3, 2002 well i have faith in the future for gaming. if charles, steve, and the boys decide to call it quits, then somebody out there will pick up where they left off and continue the great tradition of wargaming. there's just too many of us to ignore! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted October 3, 2002 Share Posted October 3, 2002 You guys saying that BFC has little interest in modern warfare are wrong. Steve has said they would like to do one or more modern warfare CMs at some point. He specifically mentioned a hypothetical NATO vs. Warsaw Pact ~1980 conflict as a possible future CM. Typical modern engagement ranges vary greatly depending on terrain. 3000+ meters may be the norm in southern Iraq, but I guarentee it wouldn't be in most parts of Europe. As Moon pointed out, saying the current engine couldn't handle it is correct but irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted October 3, 2002 Share Posted October 3, 2002 Originally posted by Michael emrys: In fact, what makes people think Charles and Steve et al will keep making computer war games forever?The realization that they might not want to get killed by rabid crowds of fans yelling "Apostata!"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Da Beginna Posted October 3, 2002 Share Posted October 3, 2002 I really like the CM "we go" system. I keep wondering why other developers do not adopt it. It seems that BTF will stick to the WW2 scebario and that's fine. I would also like to play WW1 or even Alexanders battles against the Persians... we will see what the future holds... By the way, is their any future or current product of WW1 battles worth playing (so I exclude the "Great war", by Jowood)? Thanks for your replies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybertanker Posted October 4, 2002 Share Posted October 4, 2002 It would be nice for someone, Battlefront or anyone else, to develop a good turn based PBEM capable contemporary wargame using the wego concept and some decent 3d models. Understood the map would have to be bigger and the unit icons smaller, but it could be done and I believe there is quit a market for a game like that. Here's hoping Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts