Idea for new game

[doomonyou13]

I think Battlefront should develop a new modern military strategy game along the lines of the Combat Mission games. No one has ever made a realistic modern military strategy game. Being set in the present day would allow for many new tactics. Forces could include the conventional U.S., British,Iraq, and the unconventional terrorists types. This might sound like C and C Generals, but that game wont be realistic. Using the full power of todays U.S. Army would be awsome.

[Redwolf]

Er, you say TacOps is less realistic than Combat Mission?

[lucero1148]

You should tyake a look at Tac Ops 3.0 it's exactly what you're requesting. The only problem with it is the lack of graphics. It's the equivalent of playing on a 2 D map with unit symbols. Other than that it's a modern version of CMBO with terrain factors, morale etc.]

Patrick

[Auggy]

To me tacops seems alot more complicated, lacks the eye candy thats in CM and is at a larger level of control than in CM. IMO

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Sir Augustus:

To me tacops seems alot more complicated, lacks the eye candy thats in CM and is at a larger level of control than in CM. IMO

Hm, I actually find it is easier from a game and unit control standpoint. But modern units add some mess, especially the modeling of directed air support (and following that full air defense) and helicopters.

Unit-wise Tacops is only at a larger level than CM in that you can (don't have to) control several vehicles with one marker, and you don't have to look for hulldown positions (or cover for infantry) yourself. The map scale on the other hand is a lot bigger, the extended range of modern weapons requires this. This means that e.g. houses are not modeled individually.

[doomonyou13]

Hm, I actually find it is easier from a game and unit control standpoint. But modern units add some mess, especially the modeling of directed air support (and following that full air defense) and helicopters.

Unit-wise Tacops is only at a larger level than CM in that you can (don't have to) control several vehicles with one marker, and you don't have to look for hulldown positions (or cover for infantry) yourself. The map scale on the other hand is a lot bigger, the extended range of modern weapons requires this. This means that e.g. houses are not modeled individually.

____________________________________________

I have never played tac ops, but I understand what you are saying. Maybe it would be nice to have a game that combines the two forms of strategy. The Tacops style to move large units, deal with supply, build bases, have the extended range, and take some of the micro-managing out. Yet when two large units get close and a battle brakes out it could turn into the the Combat Mission style of strategy so you could have the eye candy and the control of the battle.

[Redwolf]

Hi, please quote so that people recignize what I and whay you wrote. Thanks.

Originally posted by doomonyou13:

I have never played tac ops, but I understand what you are saying. Maybe it would be nice to have a game that combines the two forms of strategy. The Tacops style to move large units, deal with supply, build bases, have the extended range, and take some of the micro-managing out. Yet when two large units get close and a battle brakes out it could turn into the the Combat Mission style of strategy so you could have the eye candy and the control of the battle.

There aint no large units or building bases in TacOps. There is supply but only for the ammo you run out in a 60-minutes battle.

I doubt you can make a modern wargame with proper ranges in the current 3D technology and with the CM interface. Think of a CM battlefield three times as wide and three times as deep. How would you navigate, CMBO-style?