Nyeshostakavich Posted January 23, 2002 Share Posted January 23, 2002 Is it going to be possible to adjust the overall strategic picture or be stuck with the as it was timeline? That is will I be brilliant tactically enough to fight my way into a trap based on the timeline? "It was that way when I found it!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted January 23, 2002 Share Posted January 23, 2002 Not quite sure what you mean by overall strategic picture...are you asking for Maus tanks on 6/22/41? You can always custom design scenarios to suit your taste, i.e. uber-experienced Nazi's in '45 (as if any were still alive) versus raw Russian recruits. Alternately, go for the scenario with Elite Russians with no limits on leadership or communications back in 6/41 and see what happens. Of course, your question may be whether the scenario builder in CMBB will let you build such improbabilities in the first place. Good question actually, I'm glad you brought it up. My guess is yes, we should be able to mess around with such factors in the finished game, but then again I could be wrong. Any CMBB beta testers or BTS types care to comment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyeshostakavich Posted January 23, 2002 Author Share Posted January 23, 2002 Actually I was thinking of little things like; A seperate peace agreement between the U.K. and the Reich Japan choosing to invade and cutoff Siberia from Moscow U.S. choosing to remain neutral and how those little things could add up nicely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 23, 2002 Share Posted January 23, 2002 Combat Mission is a TACTICAL simulation of the Eastern Front. Rule number one of wargame design is to keep things focused. The things you mention are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out there Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted January 23, 2002 Share Posted January 23, 2002 Wow that is pretty far out. Have you actually played CMBO yet? It's not sci-fi, you know. :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 23, 2002 Share Posted January 23, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Nyeshostakavich: and how those little things could add up nicely.<hr></blockquote> None of this would affect game play of CMBB - which represents anything from a platoon to a brigade in combat for between 10 and 90 minutes (or a few days, if playing an Operation.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacheldraht Posted January 23, 2002 Share Posted January 23, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>None of this would affect game play of CMBB <hr></blockquote> Not necessarily: consider the presence or absence of lend-lease equipment. For that matter, a renewed Japanese threat in the East (after their first dust-ups in '38 and '39) would have siphoned off troops that otherwise headed West, iirc. Ergo, different overall force strengths, which might or might not have an effect on CM-scale battles. Who knows what it would do to the TOEs? [ 01-23-2002: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence Posted January 23, 2002 Share Posted January 23, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Stacheldraht: Who knows what it would do to the TOEs? [ 01-23-2002: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]<hr></blockquote> Exactly. There's no way to know. It could drive game designers mad Maad MAAAAAD, trying to figure it out. Best, I think, to stick with the actual belligerants and their real equipment, and let What If scenarios be based on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barticus Posted January 23, 2002 Share Posted January 23, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Terence: Exactly. There's no way to know. It could drive game designers mad Maad MAAAAAD, trying to figure it out. Best, I think, to stick with the actual belligerants and their real equipment, and let What If scenarios be based on that.<hr></blockquote> Best leave that to Matt, then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted January 23, 2002 Share Posted January 23, 2002 I believe CMBB is going to be even more of a stickler for historical accuracy than CMBO, and CMBO is a stickler! So that means no lend-lease 76mm gun HVSS Shermans vs Czech light tanks in 41. But the 'real thing' is going to be on such a vast scale that you should be able to find to your liking. PzIIs vs KV-IIs for example, maybe italian tanks vs lend-lease Churchills? Hmmmm.... looks like the Desert war folks may get to do a bit of playing with the scenario editor! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abn_Ranger87 Posted January 23, 2002 Share Posted January 23, 2002 What about how quickly the Sovs were able to shift their best formations East after the fall of Berlin and conduct a spectacularly successfull attack on the Japanese held territorys... Ah, nevermind Barbossa to Berlin doesn't exactly cover that period of time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacheldraht Posted January 23, 2002 Share Posted January 23, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Exactly. There's no way to know. It could drive game designers mad Maad MAAAAAD, trying to figure it out. Best, I think, to stick with the actual belligerants and their real equipment, and let What If scenarios be based on that.<hr></blockquote> Oh, I agree. I just wanted to point out that, at least if you were going to play "what if" on a larger scale than just individual engagements, those weren't irrelevant issues that the original poster raised. [ 01-23-2002: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrullenhaft Posted January 23, 2002 Share Posted January 23, 2002 Actually the implications that are being hinted at here are how strongly does CMBB stick to the historical record; how strongly will CMBB be tied to history and what kind of limitations does that impose ? Will the Romanians always switch over to the Soviet side in August 1944 ? Will the Italians stay in the East 'til 1945 ? Would the Finns turn against the Germans before '44 ? All ahistorical situations that won't be simulated in a QB, but could possibly be done in a scenario. The direct examples mentioned however are hardly related to what is represented in CMBB since there are no Japanese or other forces intervening in the war outside of the six major combatants. The intent, as already been mentioned, is to promote the historicity of CMBB beyond even what CMBO achieved. To the extent that is reasonable, following the historical course of the war and coupling it with rarity factors will attempt to duplicate what was actually feasible at any point during the war. Strategic 'what if's' aren't really provided for (or intentionally modelled. However you can do a bit of 'time travelling' and tweak other features to non-historical possibilities by hand-creating scenarios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Johnson-- Posted January 23, 2002 Share Posted January 23, 2002 BTS are a bunch of historical pruds!!! Its true. I want Waffen SS vs. Herr, but they won't give it to me! And they never will. EA of all game companies broke down and gave Shogun Total War:Mongol Invasion mongol vs. mongol multyplayer, why can't BTS give us this abiltity too? You don't have to play mongol vs. mongol, you can stick with japanese vs. mongol, but it sure is a nice option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>EA of all game companies broke down and gave Shogun Total War:Mongol Invasion mongol vs. mongol multyplayer, why can't BTS give us this abiltity too? <hr></blockquote> Because the entire game engine would have to be rewritten Many fundamental elements that make the game what it is are hardcoded as "Allied" or "Axis". Folks, we are not in the business of making a WWII version of Fantasy Football. While it might be nice to play once and a while, it is a slippery slope which knows no bounds. This is a slope we want to stay FAR away from, now and in the future. It is a distraction we simply do not care to have since we already have enough The only reasonable request I can see being valid is to allow any force to be pitched against any force. Not that there is an ounce of realism worth mentioning, but because it allows two players to play against each other in a perfectly mirrored scenario. Then only luck and skill factor into who wins or not. But as I said, this is an impossibility for CMBB, but possible for when we rewrite the game engine. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 Like I said, BTS is an old-fashioned groggy stick in the mud. I'm waiting for the BTS team to do their hi-res 3-d version of "Waffen Panty Raiders meet the Amazons." Who needs historical detail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 Screw reality! I want '45 pattern USMC squads to go head to head with SS Hamsters! I want Mongols vs Finns! I want M16 riding Samurai to clash with HMG-running Zulus! Weeee! Where are my meds???? Gyrene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 What about real historical events like former partners turning on each other ? Barbarossa is the obvious one of course but I mean Rumanian, Hungarian, Bulgarian and Finnish troops fighting against the Germans later in the war. And I do not mean in the Red Army OOB but on their own. [ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: tero ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 Hmmm, I don't know about Axis units changing sides to Allied units, but I'd bet my box lunch that the Hungarians and Italians will magically diapppear from the forces list at the appropriate dates. That's not something BTS would overlook. One complaint about 'switching sides' in CMBO has been the inability to purchase "Cuckoo" Panthers to be used by the Brits. Pubic statements about CMBB indicate captured Russian tanks should be available to German troops... Though I rather doubt you'll be able to purchase a Nazi IS-III! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munter Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero: Barbarossa is the obvious one of course but I mean Rumanian, Hungarian, Bulgarian and Finnish troops fighting against the Germans later in the war. And I do not mean in the Red Army OOB but on their own. [ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: tero ]<hr></blockquote> Err..., I don't know. The idea of being disloyal against your brothers-in-arms makes me puke. The only good thing with the Finns fighting Germans was that it wasn't decisive and there weren't much casualties worth the name (few hundred in 6 months). A shameful era in the Finnish history if you ask me, necessary or not. Now, don't tell me I take it too personally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 Where historically forces switched sides, CMBB will reflect that. So yes, you will see Romanians fighting Germans in August 1944 on, no you will not see Hungarians fighting Germans. Finns vs. Germans... I think we are going to allow this, although the fighting was so minor (compared to everything else) that it might not make it in since Charles has to do some special coding for it to work. Yes, forces will be available/unavailable according to strict dates. Think of it like vehicles and troop types. You will not have an option of purchasing a Tiger in 1941 any more than being able to purchase a 1944 pattern Romanian Infantry Division in 1941. However, in the Editor you can do these sorts of things just like you can in CMBO. The availability of captured equipment is limited to a handful of AFVs and some small arms. This means that the Germans can use something like a T34/85 but IIRC not something like an ISU-152. Again, the list is VERY short and is based on stuff that was used in significant numbers by that force (all nations, not just Germany and SU). Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacheldraht Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Err..., I don't know. The idea of being disloyal against your brothers-in-arms makes me puke. The only good thing with the Finns fighting Germans was that it wasn't decisive and there weren't much casualties worth the name (few hundred in 6 months). A shameful era in the Finnish history if you ask me, necessary or not.<hr></blockquote> ? I think most of the civilized world would say that fighting the Germans wasn't a bad thing in the end, turncoat or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software: The availability of captured equipment is limited to a handful of AFVs and some small arms. This means that the Germans can use something like a T34/85 but IIRC not something like an ISU-152. Again, the list is VERY short and is based on stuff that was used in significant numbers by that force (all nations, not just Germany and SU). Steve<hr></blockquote> Steve - I am working on a Zis truck for the modelling contest and was considering putting it in Russian colours but German markings. WE both know softskin vehicles were commonly captured and used by the other side - but I also realize that in game terms, there won't be any difference between a German truck and a Russian truck - so what I am asking, is will there be skins made for captured softskins, or does the design team feel this not to be worth the effort? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacheldraht Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 Talk of Beutepanzer reminds me, has any info been released on what lend-lease tanks the Soviets will get in CMBB? It will be both interesting and depressing to see Shermans and Churchills and whatnot again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted January 25, 2002 Share Posted January 25, 2002 Originally posted by Munter: The idea of being disloyal against your brothers-in-arms makes me puke. Be my guest, puke your guts out. I quess you are also of the opinion that it was a gross oversight and mismanagement of forces when our troops did not take part in the siege of Leningrad and did not cut the Murmask rail link. The only good thing with the Finns fighting Germans was that it wasn't decisive and there weren't much casualties worth the name (few hundred in 6 months). Well, it did start out as an orchestrated "Spring manouver" but since the Soviets would have none of it some shooting had to occur. Failure to do so would have incurred untold casualties. A shameful era in the Finnish history if you ask me, necessary or not. Where was the disloyalty and shame exactly ? Now, don't tell me I take it too personally Beats me. Are you taking it too personally ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts