CMx2 game about Nato vs Warsaw Pact 1980's in Europe?

[TheNathan]

Is the whole Syrian vs. U.S thing that viable either, though? It seems to me all it would attract are the typical die-hards and the "blast A-RABS" types, with the latter quickly finding the cerebral nature of the CM series rather unappealing and quickly falling back to America's Army and Counterstrike:Source.

In regards to the wargamers, you'll also notice a marked interest in eras in which there was similar capability among all major players in said era. WW2, the American Civil War, and the Napoleonic Wars come to mind, with a lesser emphasis on Vietnam and Korea. There are also a few examples of the classical, medieval, and early modern period I can point to, such as the Hundred Years War and Japan's Sengoku period.

Even in hypothetical or fictional set-ups, it seems to follow a similar trend. A fair to wide variety of similarly capable factions. Nato vs. Warsaw Pact comes to mind, as does China vs. U.S. What doesn't seem to come up are scenarios which involve a juggernaut and a largely insignificant player, because these tend to emulate not so much an epic struggle as a steamroller. And no, the Winter War does not count under this category because the Finns had a response to the Soviet juggernaut, and quite a good one at that. A very minor power like Syria simply cannot offer the same kind of resistance Finland could, largely due to a very high technological and material resource disparity between the two.

Even Vietnam does not fall under this category, nor Korea due to outside resources being funneled into North Vietnam and North Korea, thus allowing them similar capability in respect to their opponents. Syria does not have this, and Battlefront has stated they will not have this, which enables the steamroller scenario as opposed to the struggle scenario so loved by wargamers.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I think you're basically correct, Nathan. At least with the Cold War you have two powerful protagonists with proud military traditions. Nobody really admires the Syrian army with its sorry history. I feel about as inspired by the notion of commanding the Syrians as I would taking the Zulus against the British. But I will say again, I think the additional units and nations in the modules, coupled with the blue on blue feature will be the saving grace for CMSF for a lot of people who are otherwise not interested in the primary setting.

[TheNathan]

Yeah but my big question is why bother with a scenario the audience is not all that enthusiastic about. If we start playing almost exclusively Blue vs. Blue matches, then it is reduced to the status of cheap RTS game in which every side is a mirror of the other. Powerful nations with similar capabilities offers both flavor to the game, and a tactical variety and playstyle for each factions which adds to originality and playability. Nato vs. Warsaw would fit this, Vietnam would fit this, Sino-American war would fit this. Tinpot dictatorship with no real military capability vs. one of the world's preeminent powers does -not- fit this.

It's not even like guerrila warfare and the like will be modeled, which would suit the Syrian-American scenario perfectly. If all these things which would enable such a scenario to be at least mildly entertaining are not being incorporated, then I wonder why not a different scenario? The Sino-American war scenario seems to ve very popular here, as well as Vietnam and Korea.

[Kwazydog]

Originally posted by TheNathan:

Yeah but my big question is why bother with a scenario the audience is not all that enthusiastic about.

I think that the problem here is that when you guys say 'audience' you are thinking of the wargaming crowd, not CM's overall audience in general. These days box art on the shelf of M1's in woodland camo driving down a forested lane is more likely to confuse potential buyers than intrigure them, and that is something that I think is important for us to consider when looking at the bigger picture. Whilst visual recognition wasnt such an issue for WW2 as most people are familiar with that era, I think that it is important for a modern wargames appeal in order to capture the wider audiences attention.

Anyways, just my 2c from a visual perspective and something that has not been considered. Note that Im not suggesting that this is why we actually chose the setting, I leave those descisions up to Steve and Charles, but just something that I think is very important to consider when discussing the topic at hand.

[ December 23, 2006, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

[TheNathan]

Which leads back into the "wargamer" and "casual A-RAB blaster" market situation, doesn't it? Just my observation, I'm probably wrong, but with my limited knowledge of the wargaming market, and associated wargames, isn't a niche audience anyway? That's what CM is, a wargame, no matter how you package it.

I'm also concerned about this development, mainly due to the fact BF may be trying to break a niche product into the mainstream with a mainstream scenario, which most wargamers are none to thrilled about. Said mainstreamers will also most likely not like the gameplay that CM has to offer either, and believe me, I've tried with no less than 7 different people who are mainstream gamers. Most common response isn't graphics, it's not even how slow it can be. It's this: "Too complicated and/or realistic"

So it may just be a niche market you are looking at, although I really couldn't say for sure as you have the data, not I.

I'll also state that even mainstream gamers like sides with similar capabilities, not steamroller scenarios. What do you think most mainstream strategy games are? Identical factions, or varied factions with similar capabilities. Quite frankly, most mainstreamers may potentially find playing as the Americans too easy, and the Syrians too hard. Nevermind offending some patriotic sensibilities in the A-RAB blasters when their stryker is destroyed, adding another factor that makes the A-RAB blasters both an unappealing and an unreliable market element to rely on.

[M1A1TC]

I cant wait to play with Abrams and those wanna-be tanks-Strykers, but pitching them against a weak opponent such as Syria doesnt excite me, I have to admit.

I still love seeing the modern US forces versus moslty Russian produced weaponry. If this game based on a hypothetical scenario of US invading Syria (which never happened), why cant we have a game about a hypothetical US versus a real opponent, like China or North Korea. Now, that would make it more challenging

[Vanir Ausf B]

I'm sure the Syrians can be competitive given the right conditions. I'm just worried what happens when the conditions change. They can hold thier own defending in close terrain, but what if they are on the attack against defending US forces? Or a meeting engagement? They may have to get creative on how to define "victory".

[C'Rogers]

Yeah but my big question is why bother with a scenario the audience is not all that enthusiastic about

I think the argument sums up like this (this being one of those fairly frequent topic).

BFC wants to do modern. It is interesting to them and creates the best enviroment for developing the new engine for future games.

BFC doesn't like doing past hypothetical scearios, unlikely future scenarios, or modeling ungoing conflicts.

Syria fits the bill as the most likely realistic scenario that fits the game model (including the addition of campaign mode I think).

BFC thinks in a company level game Syria will more than provide an adequate challenge to US players who will not just steamroll the Syrian.

BFC thinks that the market for such a game is significant enough to make the game commercially succesful.

I'll also state that even mainstream gamers like sides with similar capabilities

Wargamers also used to think a good tactical game required tiles as BFC mentions from time to time about their early develpment of CM:BO.

Hope I am not wrong but that is what I remember from BFC arguments in the past. The main answer being, it is what they find interesting and disagree with the assertion that the audience is oppossed to the game.

[Kwazydog]

Originally posted by TheNathan:

Just my observation, I'm probably wrong, but with my limited knowledge of the wargaming market, and associated wargames, isn't a niche audience anyway? That's what CM is, a wargame, no matter how you package it.

Heya Nathan!

Well this is probably a much better question for Steve as I honestly don't know a details here, but I think its a pretty safe bet to say that if CM was *just* a niche product it likely wouldn't have moved pass CMBO and BFC likely wouldn't have made it in the first place . CM has a very wide audience and reaches well beyond your average wargamer, which is a large part of why it was been so popular over the years. This is because of its approach towards wargaming in my opinion.

The wargamer market on its own likely can be counted in its thousands and not all of those buy each and every wargame. Wargames based in a 3D playing field do take considerably more work to create than those in the 2D, and if we were just aiming at the hard core wargaming market with our games Id think that it would not be all that a viable prospect considering the likely response to the product.

That being said, we don't want to water down our games in any way for the mass market and we never have, we just need to make sure we reach them and hopefully spark their interest along the way! As such we do need to consider all aspects of a theatre before we invest the time needed to create it. And on that note I will add...personally I don't think that you guys should discount the Syrian military so readily. In fact we have often been surprised by some of the results we have seen whilst testing. Sure on a 1 to 1 basis the T-72 is no match for an M1A1, but how about a T-72 with kontact-5 reactive armor and AT-11's fired via a modern fire control system? For that matter how will you handle a regular old T-72M1 with your Stryker MGS when armor support isn't at call? Overall I think and hope that you guys might be surprised at the challenges faced in CMSF, especially in urban combat, as I know that we have been at times.

Dan

PS : And do understand that I am a wargamer myself who would love to play a 'Team Yankee' scenario in CM's environment! Working on this side of the curtain though I do also understand that bigger picture is important also

[ December 23, 2006, 11:11 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

[Kineas]

I have no problem with the Syrian scenario. If well researched (and it is) and well presented it will be a good basis for a game. Asymmetric, nonlinear warfare. Hopefully the Syrian side will attract enough players too. It's just that I'd want sooner a Cold War scenario than Space Lobsters. But I want Space Lobsters too /what's the chance of pinning down a Hydralisk?/

As for the wargamer niche vs mass market question...I trust in you that you can keep this product line alive (and make nice profit of it) and we'll keep getting quality wargames in 3D. But don't really count on the casual players, even Armed Assault is on the verge.

[Kwazydog]

Kineas, I hope so too and think it will, Ive found it a lot of dun in the little testing Ive had time to do thus far.

Originally posted by Kineas:

I trust in you that you can keep this product line alive (and make nice profit of it) and we'll keep getting quality wargames in 3D. But don't really count on the casual players, even Armed Assault is on the verge.

Too true, but CM and Armed Assault are two very different beasts with very different target audiences. The FPS market is extremely hard to break into these days unfortunately as it is such a saturated genre.

Dan

[TheNathan]

Hm, maybe I should redefine "wargamer" as in not so much a grog, which I would just barely be classified as, but people interested in somewhat realistic gameplay and are enthusiastic about combat sims. Opflash, Armed Assault, IL-2, RO, Infiltration Mod, and even the grand strategy types who play those wonderful Paradox games could be classified as such, with some lesser emphasis on the realism mods of the total war series, and JA2/Brigade E5 as well.

However, and this is my main point, every single one of these games offers various "sides" of a conflict with similar capabilities. Syria does not have these capabilities, especially since guerrila warfare will not be modelled. Syria is, effectively, a neutered opponent who's demise is set in stone in most engagements and all the player can do is bloody the nose of their American opponent. Somehow, this doesn't seem like it'd appeal to the mainstream/wargamer cusp market, and might only appeal to the hardcore, now that I think about it. Can you imagine your typical player gushing over an AAR that goes like this: "Yeah, he killed three quarters of my force, but I took out a M1A1 and 6 infantry!" I've got a hunch they'd instead be saying "WTF!" and then be playing blue vs. blue and red vs. red matches for then on, effectively ruining the game as the whole red vs. red and blue vs. blue thing is really a cop out.

As for wargamers and cusp gamers pretensions about similar capabilities and how it will change... I wouldn't count on it. Most stories of struggle, which is what a game is, is based upon opponents of similar capability. Not identical, perhaps not even remotely similar, but they can do the same things to their opponent and their environment, which is what makes it a struggle to begin with. Until there is a huge shift in the market and the human psyche and military snuff suddenly becomes very appealing, I highly doubt the love of epic struggle will cease.

[flamingknives]

Play a CMx1-based game with realistic force balances and what you get is a walkover for whicever side is in ascendency at the time. CMX1, like all wargames, is artificially balenced by points values, regardless of the reality on the ground at the time. In CMBB, battles regularly feature more armour than was available for the whole front at a given time.

So while the US stuff is great, it will be severely restricted by being really expensive in terms of points - elite waffenhamsters vs. conscript partisans or some such extreme analogy. So battles will be partly balanced by points, with the other part being covered by the players.

In real life, what sets the scene for the US army wiping the floor with, for example, the Iraqi army is the difference in training. The skill of the troops can be represented in a wargame by quality levels (veteran, regular etc.) but the quality of the command and control is very much in the hands of the player. It's highly likely that even the average player will be better than his real life Syrian counterpart in terms of tactics, timing and definately command and control (God's eye view) so this huge, massive, overwhelming and awesome advantage that the US has is all but nullified at a stroke.

To take it back to a WW2 analogy, how fun would it be to command a Russian company at the start of Barbarossa? Get smashed by tactical air, artillery and then overrun by the best part of a Panzer division?

Or a German unit during Bagration? Get smashed to pieces by an army's worth of rocket and tube artillery before three or four brigades of infantry and armour advance along a 2km front?

The answer is, of course, no - that wouldn't be fun unless you were playing to get an idea of the historical perspective (which people do, naming no Kips, er names). While that is the realism, it's not what people played. They played scenarios or QBs that were balanced to give an interesting game. Which is exactly how people will play CM:SF.

So balance is created by points, scenario creation and the skill of the players being more equal (or not) than their real life counterparts.

If you create a battle where the Syrian player can lose 3/4 of his force to 1 M1 and 6 men, then that would have to represent 3/4 of the US force, possibly with some objectives thrown in.

[Battlefront.com]

Welcome to Part XXVII of the ongoing "BF.C is bonkers for doing something I don't want to play" discussion

First off, people MUST remember that his own personal wants are not necessarily reflected in the market place. It doesn't even matter how many "me toos" you see when you post something here to this Forum. The Forum has never, ever been reflective of our entire base. It is but a small slice and, unfortunately, often one that must be ignored for its own good. I've used the Homer Simpson car designer episode to illustrate this over and over again. Often times we have to treat feedback from folks here like we would directions from Captain Peter Wrongway Peachfuzz of Rocky & Bullwinkle fame. If he says left, you'd better go right. If he says up, you really need to go down. So on and so forth.

Case in point. I am a wargamer. I'm even in the Grog category in many ways. I would find a Warsaw Pact vs. NATO game about as interesting as pounding a nail through my big toe. Many folks here don't agree with that, but in doing so they denny that my perspective is equally valid. Hey, who knows, I might enjoy a Cold War matchup more than I think, but I rather doubt it. On the contrary, the thought of CM:SF (even before we started coding it) was an exciting one.

The point of this statement is to throw sand in the face (in the form of concrete blocks ) that a REAL wargamer couldn't possibly want what CM:SF is and would instead give his eyeteeth to play a Cold War matchup that never happened. Sure, some of you think that way... fine, I understand that. But do not presume that because you think that way all wargamers do. Clearly they don't.

As far as a tank on tank matchup, CM:SF is weighted heavily in favor of US forces. In terms of force on force matchup, I think most of you guys playing as the US player are going to get your asses handed to you over and over again. It's more than a fair matchup. Sure, not in the sense of armor gladiators, but in the sense of getting into a battle and winning it. The Syrians have plenty going for them, even if it isn't legions of top quality armored vehicles.

I'd also like to rekindle the argument I've made in the past about the presumption that there was a point in time where the Warsaw Pact was tactically an even match for NATO forces. Flamingknives has already done a good job of that, but I'm going to go a bit further.

Personally, I think the notion that there was ever an even tactical balance between NATO and Warsaw Pact is a holdover from the Reagan era "tank gap" fear mongering in order to justify a massive increase in defense spending. Everything I know about that time period tells me that, tactically, NATO forces were vastly superior at a tactical level. The Soviets knew this too, BTW. They were relying upon numbers as they always have. In fact the T-72 was designed specifically to be an economical vehicle, not a technically superior vehicle. Why? Because the Soviets knew they couldn't match Western technology on a tank by tank, plane by plane, missile by missile, etc. basis.

Sure, a NATO force with M-60s, Challengers, and Leopards would not be such an overkill match against T-55s, T-62s, and the few T-72s fielded at the time as you will find in the CM:SF matchups. Agreed. But when you're still talking about trading off 1 tank for probably 4 in a tactical battle, does that really constitute an "evenly balanced" force? I don't think so. It is also probable that at the infantry level the Warsaw Pact countries would have been at a serious disadvantage. Artillery... again, a big plus for the NATO forces a mediocre score for the Warsaw Pact countries. Air cover? A bit more contested, but within a short period of time the Warsaw Pact countries would likey have next to none. OK... roll forward to more advanced Soviet type weapons... whoops... also roll in much more advanced NATO equipment, so the gap grows larger. OK... roll backwards into the 1960s... not much different.

As I look at it, a conflict within the next few years between the US and Syria would be far more tactically challenging for the US player than a realistic Cold War scenario.

As a historian I am more interested in seeing what can happen rather than what never happened. A conflict between Syria and the US is not likely but it is probable. In fact, if Iraq had been a success I bet Syria would already have been attacked. Certainly the Neo-Cons wanted it to be so. Since we started developing CM:SF (before Iraq was attacked, keep in mind) the ability and desire to attack Syria has been greatly altered, but the matchup is still the most likely scenario in the next 5 years or so. Why not explore it and see how it would go with the Army's Stryker force that has yet to be tested in a conventional, offensive setting? That interests me FAR more than some matchup that never happened and would likely have been less interesting tactically than a battle between US and Syrian forces.

Steve

[ December 24, 2006, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[TheNathan]

Balance does not equal into similar capability. Similar capability are the Soviets, if the player really plays his hand correctly, having some chance of repelling or stalling a German assault in the opening operations of Barbarossa. I've done this, and I don't fancy myself some phenomenal CM player. In most historical matchups in CM, you stand a chance of winning against your opponent, aside from the odd number of fictional military snuff scenarios. Even the AAR’s become rather satisfying when you realize exactly what you did. I recall one Barbarossa scenario that I was playing TCP/IP with a very good friend of mine where, as the Soviets, not only did I manage to halt the assault, but I made some gains to boot. Granted, in the operational and strategic sense I would still be encircled, it was satisfying to know I beat the odds.

Can a player expect the same kind of outcome in this game? Only if the typical player as the Syrians is satisfied with a single vehicle kill and a handful of infantry kills in the face of near eradication without indefinite numerical superiority to counter-balance this. Does the Syrian player even get to play properly modeled scenarios “After the war?” Doesn’t seem so.

Am I bitter? Not really, it is just a game and it is their company and talent to do what they please. Does it seem to make sense at this point? Not in the slightest, with other fascinating conflicts available such as: Iran vs. U.S, N.Korea vs. U.S, China Vs. U.S/Coalition, Vietnam War, Korean War, Afghanistan vs. Soviet Union, or even the Chechnya Conflict. It’s not even the matter of WW2, which I really empathize with you on. It must get tiring to essentially live WW2 day in and day out. I would even go so far as to give WW2 a significant break ATM because you really have run the full course of the WTO.

I guess my main issue is that it seems like wasted talent/resources on such an insignificant and paltry conflict, when you could be working on something so much better, mainstream and wargamer interest aside. Ah well.

[Battlefront.com]

The Nathan,

Can a player expect the same kind of outcome in this game?

Absolutely.

Only if the typical player as the Syrians is satisfied with a single vehicle kill and a handful of infantry kills in the face of near eradication without indefinite numerical superiority to counter-balance this.

Poppycock As I've said many times over, I expect most of you guys to get your asses handed to you playing as the US side. Sure, you'll probably knock off more than you lose, but you will most certainly lose a LOT more than a single vehicle or a handful of infantry. At least until you learn how to fight properly. I myself shudder at the thought of having to clean out a couple of city blocks at night when the enemy contains a platoon of Syrian Special Forces. In fact, I relish the chance to play as the Syrian side to teach you cocky, presumptive, jaded, clueless wargamers a lesson in humility

Oh, and why is it so important to find a challenge fighting as the Syrians? Let's presume that they aren't fun to command (which I disagree with, of course), why does that matter? Many great games don't let you play as the other side. I'm not just talking wargames either. Ever played something like Halo or Quake? Fun and challenging, right? How challenging do you think it would be to play from the other side where you lose probably 50 creatures for every 1 time you knock the player silly? And who would care anyway?

Does the Syrian player even get to play properly modeled scenarios “After the war?” Doesn’t seem so.

Correct that we are not modeling an Insurgency setting. Totally different game and, I must say, one that I don't find very interesting from a tactical wargaming standpoint though fascinating on a number of other levels.

Am I bitter? Not really, it is just a game and it is their company and talent to do what they please. Does it seem to make sense at this point? Not in the slightest, with other fascinating conflicts available such as: Iran vs. U.S, N.Korea vs. U.S, China Vs. U.S/Coalition, Vietnam War, Korean War, Afghanistan vs. Soviet Union, or even the Chechnya Conflict.

I've already explained that a matchup between North Korea, China, and Iran are impossible for now. Total fantasy, but only a little less so than Cold War. I'm also at a loss as to how the Iran scenario would be any different, tactically, from the Syrian scenario. I think that commercially Korean War and Afghanistan (Soviet style) are about as marketable as fictitious Cold War would be. Vietnam would be an interesting topic since it hasn't ever been done well. However, I also suspect it wouldn't sell well because most people would have the same attitude as you have against the Syrian setting; "US forces go in, kill everybody they see, lose guys to boobytraps. No armor battles, no balance... total waste of time". It's odd to see you think otherwise.

It’s not even the matter of WW2, which I really empathize with you on. It must get tiring to essentially live WW2 day in and day out. I would even go so far as to give WW2 a significant break ATM because you really have run the full course of the WTO.

Feeling like we needed to do something different was a reason for not doing WWII right away, but we are anxious to get back to it and see how the new engine can deal with it.

I guess my main issue is that it seems like wasted talent/resources on such an insignificant and paltry conflict, when you could be working on something so much better, mainstream and wargamer interest aside. Ah well.

You forgot to say "in my opinion" because I don't think you could be any more wrong. Then again, I'm not completely biased against this sort of matchup and do have the benefit of being able to play the game to some extent already. But hey... what do I know

Steve

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by TheNathan:

Balance does not equal into similar capability. Similar capability are the Soviets, if the player really plays his hand correctly, having some chance of repelling or stalling a German assault in the opening operations of Barbarossa. I've done this, and I don't fancy myself some phenomenal CM player. In most historical matchups in CM, you stand a chance of winning against your opponent, aside from the odd number of fictional military snuff scenarios. Even the AAR’s become rather satisfying when you realize exactly what you did. I recall one Barbarossa scenario that I was playing TCP/IP with a very good friend of mine where, as the Soviets, not only did I manage to halt the assault, but I made some gains to boot. Granted, in the operational and strategic sense I would still be encircled, it was satisfying to know I beat the odds.

Can a player expect the same kind of outcome in this game? Only if the typical player as the Syrians is satisfied with a single vehicle kill and a handful of infantry kills in the face of near eradication without indefinite numerical superiority to counter-balance this.

On what basis do you make these claims? Neither of us have played the game (although Steve has, so his account has to carry more weight) so we are making our cases on assumptions and parallels. I believe that your assumptions and parallels are flawed, and I shall endeavour to explain why by making a counter-claim about CMX1 - specifically CMBB - that you should easily be able to refute. This counter-claim should closely match your comments on CMSF.

Here goes:

Who would want to play a wargame based on the initial stages of Operation Barbarossa? Such a game would be no fun at all for the Russian player, as he is so vastly out matched. The Germans have better tanks, better communication, better troops and better supporting artillery and tac air. A Russian player would have to content himself to being a minor speed-bump to a German advance, destroying only an armoured vehicle or so and a few infantry, in return for massive losses on his own side. This is supported historically, with the Russians losing vast numbers of men and materiel to an attacking and numerically smaller force.

Does the Syrian player even get to play properly modeled scenarios “After the war?” Doesn’t seem so.

Only if you discount the efforts of the 3rd party scenario makers, who seem to have been quite prolific and a major reason for the longevity of the CMX1 series.

Am I bitter? Not really, it is just a game and it is their company and talent to do what they please. Does it seem to make sense at this point? Not in the slightest, with other fascinating conflicts available such as: Iran vs. U.S, N.Korea vs. U.S, China Vs. U.S/Coalition, Vietnam War, Korean War, Afghanistan vs. Soviet Union, or even the Chechnya Conflict. It’s not even the matter of WW2, which I really empathize with you on. It must get tiring to essentially live WW2 day in and day out. I would even go so far as to give WW2 a significant break ATM because you really have run the full course of the WTO.

I guess my main issue is that it seems like wasted talent/resources on such an insignificant and paltry conflict, when you could be working on something so much better, mainstream and wargamer interest aside. Ah well.

What it seems like is doubtless coloured by personal preferences rather than logical reasoning. Given the depth rather than breadth approach, I scarcely think that they could do a much larger conflict any more justice than a "brush war".

Personally, I am actually a huge fan of the idea Cold War era game, and feel somewhat disappointed that BFC have no interest in it. Fighting high intensity mechanised battles through terrain I am familiar with using interesting equipment is greatly appealing. However, I don't believe that BFC are wrong for going the route that they have or feel that it is my place to castigate them for going against my desires.

They'll make what they make and I'll buy it or I won't. So far I'm sold on the first two titles and al associated modules.

[Battlefront.com]

flamingknives,

Given the depth rather than breadth approach, I scarcely think that they could do a much larger conflict any more justice than a "brush war".

Yup, and that applies to WWII and all other conflicts I can think of too. I've always been stunned by people that say "I don't want to play this tactical wargame because strategically one side was sure to win". I saw that argument a ton of times when doing CMBO and especially CMBB. I've never understood what the strategic situation has to do with a tactical battle except for direct cause and effect factors. For example, poorer quality equipment, inadequate quantities of key weapons, TO&E that reflects hardships instead of optimal designs, etc. Beyond that, tactical is tactical, strategic is strategic.

As long as the level you're playing at is relatively balanced (not even tank on tank type balance), what difference does it make if the other level is not? It also has a lot to do with how the game is structured. I can easily see how a strategic level game simulating OIF's initial assault would be boring, but I can also see how someone could create a game that would be extremely interesting EVEN THOUGH the chances of failing to defeat Saddam's regime were just about nil.

I'll also point out that some people refuse to play CMBB because they have no interest in playing as the Soviets. Some refuse to play CMAK because they find desert warfare boring. There is no such thing as a single game for everybody. Each to his own.

Steve

[Canada Guy]

This I have to give this point to Steve. When I first saw the CM series I was only interested in CMBB. I love the German vs Soviet scenarios and played them exclusively. I had no interest in playing anything related to the US. (I still really only enjoy it if I am playing the Germans).

I finally bought CMAK and can say that I enjoyed it immensely. Maybe not to the extent of CMBB but it is a great game by itself. I have played "Melfa" 3 times in PBEM and loved each time.

I plan to give CMSF the same consideration. I was bummed when I first heard the topic (I was hoping for Korea) but I have lurked on this board and have to say that I am surprised that people will not at least try this without complaining (or maybe they are complaining to make sure that it fits what they think of as better and not out of malice). I am sure that Steve et al will make this game enjoyable. They want us to come back for module after module and play balance and enjoyment as well as a host of other things will be taken into account.

Even if I love it half as much as CMAK, I will still buy the modules as this is one company that has tried to cater to us, the grog wargamer. Something that C&C Generals/Act of War/Codename Panzers etc will never do.

[rudel.dietrich]

I think it is going to come down to who understands modern combat and who does not.

Destroying a single vehicle and a handful of infantry would be a victory for the Syrian player.

Mutiply this times a few hundred and over the course of a war you will have more casulties than any western nation has endured since Vietnam.

Armies are smaller and more expensive than ever so losses hurt more than ever.

You cannot play a modern wargame with a WW2 mindset and expect to have fun or know what is going on.

I expect after the beta starts and people begin to do AARs and post screenshot that people will begin to be won over.

Then one a demo comes out it will win over more people.

Some will never be won over.

But they are either closed minded or just do not enjoy the modern time scale.

Not alot can be done about those people.

And while Steve says the focus of the game is not in occupation type warfare.

If we are given a miltia TO&E we can easily create occupation scenarios to our hearts content.

I have said it before, but scenario design is going to make or break this game.

BF as always will give us an excellent foundation to work with, but scenario designers are going to be the ones who make this game either work or fail.

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks CandaGuy! I think that sums it up very nicely from a firsthand, CMx1 perspective. Plus, I like hearing from Canadians, though not as much as I once did. Sorry, the exchange rate has a lot to do with my feelings towards my neighbors to the north

Rudel,

I have said it before, but scenario design is going to make or break this game.

Exactly. And thanks for reminding me about this. If we kept the CMx1 game system, intact and without changes except for units (and related effects), we'd have a piss poor modern simulation. Since modern warfare is not as much about brute force to capture/hold a location on a map, if that's all CM:SF did in its scenarios the game would be DOA (dead on arrival). Which is why the new CM game system has a VAST amount of differences in how the game plays. Most specifically, in this case, how Objectives are handled.

Suffice to say that people will have to experience the difference first hand before really comprehending the importance of this. We don't mind this at all

Steve

[Cpl Steiner]

In another thread I posted a link to the following article: -

Victory Misunderstood

The article predates Gulf War II but I don't think that matters too much. The premise of the article is that the crushing defeat inflicted on Iraq then has been wrongly attributed to US technological supremacy when in fact it had more to do with Iraqi military blunders. The article acknowledges that technology plays a role but suggests that the effect is one of magnifying enemy mistakes more than anything else. The conclusion of the article is that a future enemy that does not make the same mistakes will fare much better than Iraq despite the technological disadvantages.

Of course, since the article, we had the invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation. It would have been nice if the same auther or someone else had written an article comparing the two conflicts. For instance, to what extent did the Iraqis learn the lesson of Gulf War I? Did they make any fewer blunders for the US to exploit?

I found this article very interesting and relish the chance to test it out using CM:SF.

[luderbamsen]

Time for me to chime in, I suppose.

As a child of the Cold War (teenager in the 80's) I'd love to see a CMx2: Fulda Gap. Of couse, it will never happen because it will never be able to turn a profit. No matter how well the next CM game is made, it will (sadly) never be a success with the huge mainstream market, and the subject matter simply has to be something that will pull in as many customers as possible. Unless of course we're all willing to pay hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars for our copy of CMx2...

We shouldn't forget that the fate of CM games relies entirely on the interest and passion of the good people at BFC. If they aren't passionate about it, it ain't gonna be in a CM game. There is no way anyone would do the work they do if they didn't love the subject matter with a passion.

Nobody should worry about the lack of an insurgency campaign. The game might not support it, but I'm absolutely certain that in no time you'll see scenarios with US "occupation forces" being ambushed by Syrian "rebels" (even if they're just re-skinned regular infantry).

As for mainstream appeal, the blue vs. blue/red vs. red option is important: Some people just don't care that much for "ultra realism", but want something where they can match their skills against an opponent on exactly equal terms. I'm certainly not one of them, but they exist in large numbers nonetheless.

I for one has played many a self-made CMBB scenario with German panzers charging Stalingrad - in 1945. I'm a sucker for WW2 late-war "goodies" and I'd love to get to play with all the delightful prototypes developed at the end of the war. But again, unless I could finance such a module myself, it will never happen.

And yes, everything hinges on the quality of missions and campaigns. This is one of CM's biggest strengths and I don't see that changing. I don't care what you feel about a modern scenario. You all damn well know you'll buy CMx2, and you'll love it.

Respecfully

luderbamsen

PS: That said, I do recommend that BFC consider the possibility of a "CMx2 Sandbox Edition" at some point (after the release of some or all modules): If possible, pile all the content into a single database and let the player make up his own force: Syrian infantry riding in Strykers, supported by....Challenger 2's? Then the more creative spirits among us can run amok without "contaminating" the original game.

[MikeyD]

People keep talking about one-sided play in CMSF. This must mean that memory of Israel's recent incursion into Lebanon is fading. Remember? Back a few months ago this board was looking at the prospect of attacking into Syria as equivalent to driving into a brick wall! Ah, how soon we forget.

My one dim hope of seeing a CM NATO war would be that after the CM-ETO title and its modules have been released BFC would/could/might drop a quick European Landscape module for us to fight CMSF red/blue battles on. Like I said, its only a dim hope.