Time for a change from WWII, CM3 Cold War?

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Firstly, I am a fan of all things WWII and all things CMBO/CMBB. Just received my copy of the new big item David Glantz book on Leningrad, so am as interested as ever. Heavily into CMMC2, and play and think CMBB far more than is healthy .

However, with CMBO having been out for a few years, and CMBB in full flow, it crossed my mind that, yes, a change from WWII, just for one version of CM, would be fun . The “big three” in war games are WWII Eastern Front, WWII North West Europe and lastly, current warfare. However, current warfare does not fit well with CM type games. I would like to see a 1970-1980 version of CM. It all very nearly happened, did happen in the Middle East and Vietnam. The important point is that in a Cold War CM one could line up armies that really did exist; and very nearly did launch themselves at each other.

When I thought about it, I found the idea of a Fulda Gap type, NATO v Warsaw Pact game, more exiting then another WWII setting, just for a break of one version of CM. Then, in my view, back to NWE in WWII for CM4.

All the best,

Kip.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

When I thought about it, I found the idea of a Fulda Gap type, NATO v Warsaw Pact game, more exiting then another WWII setting

I second that emotion. Fortunately Steve has said that BFC is interested in doing just such a game at some point. Let's hope they don't take too long.

[Agua]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

However, with CMBO having been out for a few years, and CMBB in full flow, it crossed my mind that, yes, a change from WWII, just for one version of CM, would be fun

Except for the fact that it would likely deprive us of a new CM WW2 title for probably at least three years, maybe four. Personally, my interest in non-ww2 warfare is not so strong as to forego the the latest and greatest CM product for that long of a time period.

[Terrapin]

Modern wars are so reliant on airpower and long distance precision bombing that the actual tactical infantry/armor stuff might be kind of secondary, and that's CM's forte.

[jmbunnelle]

I agree, unless you do something set in Vietnam or Korea I don't think it would work as a tactics game. But then again, my military interest begins and ends with WW2 so I'm not the best person to ask.

[Silvio Manuel]

If it was to be an infantry/armor focus, the ranges that the later armor units could engage at would kind of dwarf infantry ranges-? I suppose you could scale it down. Maybe they would make a Cold War game Company level-inf. and Platoon level-armor to accomodate that. Or is that just TacOps in a nutshell???

[ December 10, 2002, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: Silvio Manuel ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

You guys are forgetting that he said 1970-80, not 2002. Big difference.

[MikeyD]

I'd kill ('virtually' kill, of course) for a CM Fulda Gap 1946-1995 game. A speculative WWIII game with accurate equipment/firepower? Sweet! You think Stukas are a headache, imagine A-10 Warthog attacks!

BFC is going to be coming out with a whole new game engine. The question they've got to be asking themselves is what theater would best showcase their new product.

[ December 10, 2002, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Hertston]

Cold war would be OK, Korea would be better. Depending on the engine (the current one wouldn't do it well) Vietnam would be good too.

I certainly agree a move away from WW2 would be excellent, but BFC will always have to ask themselves what will sell best - which is usually WW2 (and why you never see Korea games )

[MasterGoodale]

I swear to my little TNT-Encrusted Buhda I would strangle my mother, kick my father in the nads, and cut off my testicles if BF would make a modern war game using the same style as CMBB!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Panzer Leader]

Three words:

Red Storm Rising

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

[snips]

The “big three” in war games are WWII Eastern Front, WWII North West Europe and lastly, current warfare.

That depends on what your wargaming background is, I think. I would have put the Desert War in the top two, indeed, for the UK in the top one.

Originally posted by kipanderson:

However, current warfare does not fit well with CM type games. I would like to see a 1970-1980 version of CM. It all very nearly happened, did happen in the Middle East and Vietnam.

I would much prefer an MTO release next, if the Grant guns problem can be cracked. Most of the AFV types have already been done one way or another, but apart from the Lee and Grant the Crusader, A13, A10, A9 and Deacon would be new. AIUI the 3-D models are a great time-consumer, so insh'Allah the ability to re-use lots of these from CM:BB would be a big saver of development time.

I suspect that not much new in the way of game mechanics would be needed, apart from the Grant problem already mentioned and the need to allow for anti-tank guns shooting while mounted on portees. It might be thought sensible to make some effort at simulating crest restrictions for artillery.

The variety of troops available, especially once one gets to the Italian Campaign, would be colossal. I'd love to be able to choose from Australians, Brazilians, Canadians, Goumiers, Gurkhas, Jats, Maoris, New Zealanders, Poles, Rajputs, Sikhs or South Africans. I hope irregular warriors would be included, too, such as Cretan Arditi, Yugoslav Partisans and, my favourite irregulars, Roy Farran's "Battaglione McGinty". SAS and PPA armed jeeps would permit historical jeep-rushes; and as there would be historical scenarios possible for battles such as Termoli and Commachio, there would be absolutely no excuse for leaving out the Royal Marine Commandos this time.

Still, if people are thinking of a post-WW2 period for a CM version, I would prefer something a bit earlier that 1970-80, so that it could cover the Arab-Israeli wars of 1947-48, 1956 and 1967, the India-Pakistan and India-China wars of 1962, and the Korean War. If one picked a time period of 1948 to 1967, I think you could more or less avoid needing ATGWs or helicopters (used at Suez and in Algeria) and rely largely on WW2-vintage kit for which reliable performance figures are available. Newer MBTs would, I think, be largely covered by the M47-48, Centurion and T-55, and in a pinch it would even be possible to do without HESH ammunition.

Historical scenarios that ought to make good games would include Latrun police fort, Sharon at the Mitla Pass, street-fighting in Suez (British and French paras against Egyptian SU-100s), Pork Chop Hill, Chosin Reservoir and Imjin River.

All the best,

John.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Yup, I did say 1970-1980, but in fact up to late 80s would be fine.

When it comes to the “range question” I am very familiar with the studies of the likely ranges at which Cold War, Fulda Gap/North German Plain, battles would have been fought. Contact distances for AFVs and infantry combat, all of it really. It is a generational thing ; I was brought up on such studies . Anyway… I can tell you there is no general “range” problem with NATO v Warsaw Pact battles.

90% of first contacts would have been at less than 1200m. Infantry ranges, normally under 200m. All very CM.

Also, technology wise, we really are talking tweaked WWII in terms of modelling problems. AT missiles were direct line of site attack, not top attack, plus, no “real time” UAV streaming video or recon pictures. Not in the 70s anyway. Not at battalion level.

There is no doubt about it, Cold War does tweak the adrenalin in a way another WWII game would not. Just for one CM version, then back to WWII.

All the best,

Kip.

[Treeburst155]

Yeah, Fulda Gap 1975! T62s (72s too?) against M60s and M60A1s, limited ATGM capabilities....hmmm....could be real fun.

Treeburst155 out.

[flamingknives]

I'd love to see CM doing a Cold war game.

I can almost picture the hordes of BMPs crashing against Western defensive lines...

It could get embarrassing in a late 80s game though - British troops would be the only infantry squad affected by "jam"

[Terrapin]

I'd go for a Civil War treatment way ahead of Cold War.

It would be guaranteed to sell ten times better too, because nothing brings out the TRUE grogs like the Civil War!!

[kipanderson]

John, hi,

Great to see you here.

However, for me, the entire point is to put a bit of distance between WWII and the next CM. I know this may be deviant, but I would love to see a first, or maybe second generation, AT missile slowly wondering across the battlefield towards a possible victim .

If they go for Cold War, then height of Cold War, 1970s/1980s would be my choice. 1970s would probably be best from a modelling point of view. But, John, you are the guy who knows, I am only guessing!

When BFC do announce their next project it will be big day amongst CM fans.

I may be deluding myself, but I feel I am in with a reasonable chance of getting my wish, time will tell.

All the best,

Kip.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

That depends on what your wargaming background is, I think.

Bingo. It's all subjective.

I would have put the Desert War in the top two, indeed, for the UK in the top one.

In truth I would also prefer to see the Mediterranean next... THEN modern.

Still, if people are thinking of a post-WW2 period for a CM version, I would prefer something a bit earlier that 1970-80, so that it could cover the Arab-Israeli wars of 1947-48, 1956 and 1967, the India-Pakistan and India-China wars of 1962, and the Korean War.

Of those, I think only Korea would be feasible from a commercial standpoint. In the current political climate Arab-Israeli would be too controversial. India vs. anybody is too obscure.

Kipanderson:

90% of first contacts would have been at less than 1200m. Infantry ranges, normally under 200m. All very CM.

Also, technology wise, we really are talking tweaked WWII in terms of modelling problems. AT missiles were direct line of site attack, not top attack, plus, no “real time” UAV streaming video or recon pictures. Not in the 70s anyway. Not at battalion level.

That was my impression as well, but it's nice to hear it from someone with professional background in the subject.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

[snips] Anyway… I can tell you there is no general “range” problem with NATO v Warsaw Pact battles.

Inded I think the idea of "bastion defence" floated at one time rather depended on the fact that there was almost nowhere the Red Hordes could drive across Germany without being shot in the sides by Milans in built-up areas from 1000m or so.

Originally posted by kipanderson:

90% of first contacts would have been at less than 1200m. Infantry ranges, normally under 200m. All very CM.

Not perhaps entirely unexpected, as the expected LOS in NW Europe hasn't changed much since WW2 (and if it has changed, it's got less because of more building).

Originally posted by kipanderson:

no “real time” UAV streaming video or recon pictures. Not in the 70s anyway. Not at battalion level.

No "real time" streaming video in big people's war in the 90s, either, and I suspect not in the 00s at battalion if you want your C4I bandwidth to be used for anything other than low-quality cinematography.

Originally posted by kipanderson:

There is no doubt about it, Cold War does tweak the adrenalin in a way another WWII game would not.

I find there is a certain attraction to the 1978-82 timeframe, because that would have been the war I was training for, and CM would enable me to try stopping 3rd Guards Shock Army with a bunch of Green infanteers with a couple of 66mm rockets between the whole battalion and no Wombat ammo.

Even so, I can't agree that it begets adrenalin as much as the Desert and Italy. Think of the scenarios --

Beda Fomm, "I have six acres of prisoners";

Matilda, Queen of the Desert, at Nbeiwa;

The Rats of Tobruk and the Bush Artillery;

25-pounders shoot it out with 15 Pz Div in the open desert (Target, Panzer Division, One thousand rounds gun fire, go on");

The last stand at 150 Brigade Box;

Outpost Snipe, the Riflemen stop the Panzers with 6-pounders;

The 5th Hampshires' last stand with 155 battery at Sidi Nsir;

The big anti-tank shoot at Hunt's Gap;

The Big Red One bouncing back after Frenedall gets his head handed to him at Kasserine;

The Jocks clearing Longstop Hill "The only way it could be cleared, by men going in yelling with the bayonet";

The Gurkhas attacking on Hangman's Hill below Monte Cassino, the Kiwis attacking into the town;

The Texas Division on Snakeshead Ridge;

The "Canadian Stalingrad" at Ortona;

First Special Service Force scaling the cliffs of Monte La Difensa;

I don't know about you, but that little lot make me fill up with adrenalin until it overflows out of my ears and stains the carpet.

All the best,

John.

[PeterX]

Kipanderson posted:

When I thought about it, I found the idea of a Fulda Gap type, NATO v Warsaw Pact game, more exiting then another WWII setting, just for a break of one version of CM.

BFC didn't see fit to include horses in CMBO or CMBB largely because of the extra programming hassle. What makes you think they'd be keen to take on helicopters, an essential component of modern warefare, post Korea? Picture a squadron of those gunships, rotors spinning, over Khe Sanh and try to imagine the system drain on your PC.

[Sgt. Steiner]

Well, BFC have said a while back that the third game would be North Africa/Italy/Greece(?), and that the fourth game would be early western front, i.e. 1939/40. I would imagine anything more modern would have to be after that.

I hope they at least do Italy & North Africa before leaving WW2 behind. France/Low Countries/Norway would be OK I suppose, but doesn't interest me nearly as much. Looking forward to Tobruk, El Alamein, Anzio, Monte Cassino, etc...

[PeterX]

Looking forward to Tobruk, El Alamein, Anzio, Monte Cassino, etc...

The desert war was a thing apart from the rest of WW2. There were unique condtions present. You wonder if BFC wouldn't be better off simply concentrating on North Africa rather than trying to simulate the whole period.

[Ken Talley]

I would definitely enjoy a 65-85 time frame CM. I suspect the helicopters would be the real challenge. I think the rest would not be as difficult as CMBB. The selection of vehicles is actually less. Most countries only had one or two or three main tanks, one or two APC's and maybe a couple of types of AC's. The Russians seem to have the greatest variety of vehicle types. Standardization was pretty common although the various evolution of models add more types. You would need the ATGM. Would also need the skyscrapers for West Germany. I think the map size now would handle the typical ranges in West Germany. A modern CM would definitely be nice.

I find North Africa fascinating history. But I have reservations about how much fun it would be in CM. The terrain reminds me too much of steppe country. Flat and little or no cover. CM needs a variety of terrain to be fun.

[ December 10, 2002, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: Ken Talley ]

[Hans]

Perhaps the solution will be the engine re-write and a WWII game that covers the whole spread of environments?

I must have the tools to recreate the Grand Chaco war!

However a Cold war one with outshoots to the 67 and other wars would be very interesting - at least this would eliminate the problem to model horses!

[istari]

This topic has come up before, but everytime it reappears I try to put a vote in for

"CM: Fulda Gap".

I think we can ignore the modelling problems of ATGM and helicopters within the current engine, since there's no way you could shoehorn anything post-Korea into the existing engine. Besides, BTS seems pretty set on the Med for CM3, and the engine rewrite will appear either before or after that title.

So in other words, what we are debating is CM4 or 5, based on the CM II engine.

Right now, I believe CM4 is scheduled to be "Blitzkrieg: 1939-40". Interesting, but I think after 3 straight games of European WWII combat, I'm going to be getting a little tired.

Thus I hope that we can convince the Powers That Be to consider a modern CM after the Mediterranean (which seems to be a done deal for CM3, fellas).

Some of my fondest wargaming memories are still playing "MBT" (the Avalon Hill boardgame), or the Germany 1980 campaign in "Steel Panthers 2", deploying the brand-new M1 Abrams (along with some tired old M60s and M113s) against the T-72s and Mi-24s of the Red Army.

I suspect we have a long time to wait, but let's keep begging... ;>