JohnCalvin Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 I guess I can see why they chose a modern conflict. They probably had a been there done that feel given CM1 CMBB CMAK. But I wonder how much staying power an imaginary conflict has for this crowd? Let's face it, most of us here will read WW2 history for the rest of our lives and never grow tired of it. So part of the joy about CMBB etc was exploring the capabilities and characteristics of WW2 weapons in a setting we also love (from an historical standpoint). Plus, there are gads of real scenarios to refight with armies closely matched in ability and weaponry. CMSF is interesting given current events, but I don't think most in the crowd here are passionate about it like WW2. Just MHO. Despite all the bugs and unrest seen in the posts, who wouldn't shell out some $$$ tomorrow if BF "shocked" us with a WW2 CM2 tomorrow? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jomni Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 There are too many WW2-themed games already. Even Call of Duty is going Modern with fictional wars. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmightyTH Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Agreed. For a ME game, we need an Israeli army, an Egyptian Army, a Jordanian army, Hezbollah, a Lebanese Army, etc.(!!!) more than a Marines module! And put equipment from the 40ies through the 2ks. The only good ideas I have is to make scenarios between Israel and its neighbours played with Syrian and American equipment... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 I believe Steve has stated in the past that part of the reason for not doing WWII with the new engine first is because they felt that once they hashed out all the requirements for modern conflict such as communications and artillery support it would be easier to go back and then do WWII. Looking at some of the problems they are currently having it's looking like a good choice. The new engine should be much more refined for the Crème de la Crème of Western Front WWII. I think a lot of people wanted them to revisit the Western Front with the CMAK engine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Originally posted by AlmightyTH: For a ME game, we need an Israeli army, an Egyptian Army, a Jordanian army, Hezbollah, a Lebanese Army, etc.(!!!) more than a Marines module!Bite your tongue. Of course, we needed a Marine base game more'n an Army one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-E Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 You never want any game company to do your favorite first. You want it to be at least the second and more refined release, using lessons learned. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnCalvin Posted August 2, 2007 Author Share Posted August 2, 2007 1967 or 73 war in Israel would be interesting. I was commenting on the staying power of this title. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelmia Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Well, you can actually simulate a lot of different wars with this game. You have the Iraq War, Desert Storm, the '91 Shia rebellion, Afghanistan (American invasion, 2001 AND Russian invasion 1979-1989), the Chechnya revolt, all manner of African wars, a hypothetical Third World War, and so on. If you're creative with the editor and use a little imagination you can do a lot. I've been telling people for years that CM needed to go modern. This is my dream game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt. Toleran Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 First, take a nice look at the past 5 days worth of posts. Then, just think if they had tested the new engine on WWII, instead of some fictional war for a smaller niche audience that would like a simulator of contemporary combat of the sort we are currently engaged in. Imagine the howling, complaints, claims of treachery, so forth. I think right now they look pretty smart for letting this title iron out the bugs, so that for the next one (with the same engine, but with everyone else having progressively upgraded their PCs) they can present WWII on a level that folks here are accustomed too, and that much more bug-free BFC are clever folks, and this was a good strategy. Could you expect anything less from folks who bring us these great strategic/tactical products? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieme(ITA) Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Originally posted by AlmightyTH: Agreed. For a ME game, we need an Israeli army, an Egyptian Army, a Jordanian army, Hezbollah, a Lebanese Army, etc.(!!!) more than a Marines module! And put equipment from the 40ies through the 2ks. The only good ideas I have is to make scenarios between Israel and its neighbours played with Syrian and American equipment... AMEN BROTHER I've been thinking this very same thing. Arab-Israeli wars along with unconventional warfare. Just think about the great vehicle park you could choose from! Israeli arsenal of tanks, AFVs, IFVs etc. is extremely large! Also you could go from Super Shermans to Merkava MK-IIIs! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utchoud Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 I don't know any game that has surpassed the age-old Steel Panthers: MBT in simulating modern warfare at this level so far. CMSF has a great potential to make it, so I'd love to see additional countries and new battlefields - Israel, NATO, USSR/Russia etc - with the possibility to create balanced conventional battles. There already are loads of WWII games around, and I am happy with the good old CMBB/CMAK here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melnibone Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Originally posted by -E: You never want any game company to do your favorite first. You want it to be at least the second and more refined release, using lessons learned. Exactly! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkmath Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Another thing I think why they choose ME modern theatre instead of, say a NATO/OPFOR (China/USSR) warfare, is for the sake of diversity : you can play BOTH conventionnal ( and if you think T72 is too weak, you always can play Blue vs. Blue engagement, and I don't think there is a lot of difference between modern MBTs nowadays ) and guerilla warfare. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor 2101 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 go back to WW2, passionate about WeaponSystems of WW2... sorry i'am bored about this timephase. Weaponssystems are simple (ok some of the actual systems are simple too..) and Mistakes (in a strategic way) are not beetend that hard as today... a modern warfare szenario, if both sides are equal equipted, is imho much more difficult than in a WW2 szenario, 'cause the extremly firepower of one unit and the increased "speed" of informations. If one unit fails the first hit it get realy "interesting" specialy if the oposing force archive local airpower... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utchoud Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Originally posted by Darkmath: if you think T72 is too weak, you always can play Blue vs. Blue engagement, and I don't think there is a lot of difference between modern MBTs nowadays I expected that someone would come up with this Blue vs blue and red vs red engagements are - simply put - boring in the long run. There are differences between modern MBTs, such as were between WWII tanks, it is only a matter of how much you know about it. More importantly, MBT don't play as important a role in modern warfare as they did in WWII. They are expensive and more or less single-purpose machines, vulnerable to aircraft and ATGMs. Today, the side with a bigger tank doesn't necessarily win. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieme(ITA) Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 I agree with Utchoud, I like to play with T-72 against M1A2 Abrams. The only thing I need and ask is to get more tactical solutions and a balanced starting. Consider this: Obviously if you put a T-72 vs an M1 in open ground you don't have any chance for sure. But if you got some shaped ground with wadis, hills etc. and a big map you can outflank the enemy, get closer etc. etc. Obviously 4 M1s vs 4 T-72 is not equal. Soviet doctrine considered this as a major fact and this is why there was a very high ratio in favour of soviets when talking about numbers. So the soviet way of playing would consider tactics and numbers as the mainframe of their action... Just think like a US tank commander in WW2 would have needed to think about german Tigers... and you'll have russian way of fight. [ August 02, 2007, 04:46 AM: Message edited by: Kieme(ITA) ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieme(ITA) Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 I've also to say that WW2 tank fights might be much more interesting... -ranges were much lower (few hundred meters against 1.500/2.000 -and more- meters engagments of Desert Storm) -optics were much less accurate, this mean you can assist at a WW2 tank battle for many minutes before someone hits something, while modern tank warfare consider 100% chance of success of first hit as a priority. -armor vs gun was -with some exceptions- more balanced than today, actually similar tanks fighting each other could end the fight itself at the first shot, maybe the first one to shot would be the winner. So, modern tank warfare is really nice if playied even in Desert Storm way or in much more balanced way (let's talk about T-80Us against M1s... or NATO vs NATO tanks), BUT old fashioned WW2 tank fight is for sure much more "interesting"... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Originally posted by Utchoud: Today, the side with a bigger tank doesn't necessarily win. Uh... the side with the biggest tank didn't win in WW2 either 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utchoud Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Originally posted by Berlichtingen: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Utchoud: Today, the side with a bigger tank doesn't necessarily win. Uh... the side with the biggest tank didn't win in WW2 either </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor 2101 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Originally posted by Utchoud: I don't think T-72's weakness (or better, obsolescence) is Syria's biggest problem in CMSF - I believe it's the fragility of their command & communication links. That's why you can't make balanced conventional battles against the USA. [/QB]100% aggre with that. If the Syrians would had the same "intelligenc infrastructure" the szenario would be more balanced than now and a fight T72 vs M1A1 (including infantrie and so on) on a mixed terain wouldn't be such dewasting like now... (depending on the strategie and taktik ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.