Hmmmm....i wonder......

[Mad Mobeus]

Do you think that the CM engine has the capability to be used to simulate conflicts in OTHER eras? I was thinking about the Vietnam War specifically. Would the inclusion of low flying helicopters and guided missiles be beyond CMs design do you think? Just a pointless question.

Mad Mobeus

[Boris Balaban]

Originally posted by Mad Mobeus:

Do you think that the CM engine has the capability to be used to simulate conflicts in OTHER eras? I was thinking about the Vietnam War specifically. Would the inclusion of low flying helicopters and guided missiles be beyond CMs design do you think? Just a pointless question.

Mad Mobeus

I did ask a long time back about TacOps using the same engine as CMBO but MajorH said no. He at the time had not intension of changing it.

[JasonC]

Sure it can do it. It has been done. I made a scenario out of Landing Zone X-Ray (the "we were soldiers" battle), several months ago. I'll send it to you if you are interested - just email me at jasoncawley@ameritech.net

For the rocket helos, I gave the US side crack 81mm mortar FOs. The high quality produces a very rapid response time from firing order to impact. Even firing out of LOS, you get a mission down inside of 2 minutes.

Schrecks simulate RPGs. For the small arms, I just used US paras and rifle 44 infantry from the NVA, to keep the mix of automatics relatively balanced. You could also use security or VG rifle infantry.

VG rifle infantry split into half squads, in understrength platoons, makes good VC irregulars. 2 squads split plus the HQ gives 20 guys, with half the firepower of a 42 man US platoon (which is a para platoon minus 1 MMG and the mortar). Same range characteristics, basically. The split up VG are more vunerable in smaller units, of course. For the X-Ray battle, which is NVA regulars in large numbers, I just used rifle 44 infantry in full squads.

Conceptually, the rate at which each weapon is being fired varies, some BAR, some SMG or carbine, some rifle speed. I gave the US boosted ammo to reflect the higher ammo load of M-16s. What you don't want to do is give one side all automatics and the other side only half, so instead use about half automatics for both sides.

3 man MMGs simulated M-60s, rifle grenades simulate LAWs, zooks with maximum ammo simulate M-79 grenade launchers. (A bit of a role reversal there, but livable). Between fausts and schrecks, there are RPG rounds flying, though they don't wind up a terribly important part of the fighting.

Reinforcements don't have to come in at an edge, so you can simulate helo drops by reinforcements in the middle of the map. At planned times, or variable with a percentage arrival time (just not player controllable, alas). The same "pop up" ability can be used to simulate forces emerging from tunnels.

For terrain, I find even scattered trees, if used nearly continuously, form a dense enough forest. Continuous woods or pines would form dense jungle. In either case, the LOS distances are so low that the infantry combat is extremely bloody, even with the undermodeled small arms. Nothing to worry about there.

I simulated the large anthills of X-Ray with bumps of higher ground and rough. In other contexts (besides the X-Ray central highlands terrain, I mean), paddies are easy - berms of higher open ground seperating blocks of marsh.

As for guided missles, I don't think there are any that matter. I mean, later in the war there were first generation smarts used up north against targets in Hanoi, but that hardly matters for tac air support. ATGMs on the ground were rare to non-existent.

If you wanted to, you could use the FO trick with a 240mm howitzer or 8 inch gun FO with only a few rounds to put down ordinance on player-specified targets. If you are sick enough to want to simulate B-52 strikes, just provide several FOs and more ammo to each, use wide sheafs, and require the aim points to be laid out in a line.

A tougher issue might be that the fighter bombers don't have napalm, but what the heck. Fighter bombers are still fighter bombers, and not particularly pleasant on the ground. 2 500 lb bombs aren't particularly more pleasant than 2 napalm canisters.

The main thing, though, is just that the CM infantry fighting is good enough that the result is a better game than anything else I've seen, even dedicated Nam wargames. It is certainly feasible. It'd be great to get some mods to go with such scenarios, as with the North Africa set some people have made.

There is some "time compression" effect, though. Nam fights took longer in the real deal than they do in CM, because the intel and coordination and movement through tough terrain are better, etc. Somewhere between correct, and 2 to 1 time compression, at least in large fights.

[Redwolf]

This has just been discussed on the more appropriate general forum, in a thread about a 3D modern wargame.

Basically helos make it impossible. A modern helo is supposed to operate at ranges between 4000 and 8000m to stay out of AA trouble. The hellfire missle has been designed with that range to make this work.

How do you make enough space for a unit with a minimum distance of 4000m on a CM-Style map? Even if you overcome the computer problems you still have an overwhelmed player. Think of studying a map like this in enough detail for CMBO-style movement.

[JasonC]

Artillery shoots from twice as far away and causes no difficulties for CM at all. The FO system is good enough to stretch for other types of fire support as well. Also, Nam helos hardly stood off at 4 klicks firing ATGMs at non-existent NVA armor. The NVA was not the Warsaw Pact and Nam was not the Fulda Gap. Instead they made passes with MGs and rocket pods at a few hundred meters range.