Release Date?

[Kana]

I was thumbing through a recent issue of Armchair General, and they had a section on Warfare orient video games. One that was listed was CM:SF. It stated that this was slated for a Fall 06 release. Is this still on track?

[hellfish]

Current estimates are winter, I believe. But release dates are subject to constant change.

[MikeyD]

The release date's been a moving target starting with 'Spring 2006'! :mad: On the bright side the 'Do Not Resuscitate' sign has been removed from this forum's bedside, the paddles have been applied t0 restart its heart, and we're now back talking enthusiastically about the game's eventual release!

[ July 24, 2006, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[M1A1TC]

I hope this game comes out before US military actually invades Syria for real

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

I hope this game comes out before US military actually invades Syria for real

...Which might transform it from science fiction to historical simulation. Or not.

Michael

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

The release date's been a moving target starting with 'Spring 2006'!

Actually, Moon said at the end of 2004 that CMX2 was originally set for release in late 2005.

[dan/california]

The interesting question is which side will find it a more useful training tool. I can potentially foresee a large order to be mailed to a certain post office box with diplomatic privileges. :eek:

There is a very real risk of being able to compare the game to reality in almost real time.

[Homo ferricus]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

I hope this game comes out before US military actually invades Syria for real

...Which might transform it from science fiction to historical simulation. Or not.

Michael </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Iron_man:

Why wait a half century after the conflict to make a game about it?

Because it normally takes that long and longer for all the important information about a conflict to be turned up, sifted through, and evaluated. It was almost 30 years after the end of WW II before Ultra was publicized, and its true proportions in relation to the whole war are still being argued. Or to take another case from the same war, the Russians finally allowing access to their archives by Western historians has profoundly changed our whole perspective on the German-Soviet war.

You might get a big charge out of playing an OIF game right now, but to a historian, that game would almost inevitably be laughable.

Michael

[Homo ferricus]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Iron_man:

Why wait a half century after the conflict to make a game about it?

Because it normally takes that long and longer for all the important information about a conflict to be turned up, sifted through, and evaluated.

Michael </font>

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Iron_man:

Not in the age of information, my friend. This is not the Cold War where information was withheld because of the East-West rivalry.

No, this is the age where nations & militaries will continue to withhold information about their capabilities, weapons-systems, and actions because that is what nations and militaries do.

Nor does anything you say invalidate the fact that secrets will, often for years, remain secret, that NO nation wants to publicize the details of a serious screw-up, and that the reasons a brilliantly carried out operation were so brilliant may involve factors that will never be known.

Originally posted by Iron_man:

This is the age where someone can fly from San Francisco to Hong Kong in 10 hours, where an MEU invasion force can be on the shores of your country within 48 hours, instead of the 3 years it took to plan and equip for Operation Overlord.

Events will move faster, but analysis still takes time. History isn't written by bloggers, even if they chronicle the events. The pace of analysis might quicken given the ability to move information around more quickly, but wading through lies, misinformation, secrecy, misunderstanding, and just plain BS will continue to take time.

In the wake of a battle, a weapons system may be widely trumpeted as 'the deciding factor'. 10 years later, analysis of the incredible tonnage of information that your 'information age' deluged the world with may prove that the system in question was flawed at best, and a complete waste of time at worst, and that other factors, unrealized at the time, are what led to victory.

What Emrys said is not invalidated by the belief that access to instant information produces instant truths, because arriving at the Truth will remain a time consuming, laborious, and difficult process.

[Homo ferricus]

"No, this is the age where nations & militaries will continue to withhold information about their capabilities, weapons-systems, and actions because that is what nations and militaries do"

they might want to, and of course some will have a stroke of success, but i was just pointing out that there were no American reporters in Russia during the war, so it obviously would take a long time for westerners to figure out what actually happened there, as opposed to a modern middle-eastern war, in which the media scrutinizes a nations arsenal during combat (i.e. media coverage on US using napalm in Falluja, Israel using Phosphorus weapons in Lebanon), where there are dozens of international journalists informing the public on every single sortie and every single skirmish. The age of information makes the flow of knowledge a lot quicker, almost instant, but not to say that your wrong, you have a point, nations will hide everything that they don't want seen, and sometimes it will be very hard to find the truth (we still don't know whats going on with Hussein's supposed WMD stockpile, still unconfirmed if they ever existed) but when it comes to simulating a recent war in a video game, in terms of the equipment used and how and when battles where fought, these things are not hard to find nowadays. the truth of the outcome of a historical battle doesn't matter, since in the game you would be coming up with your own outcome.

"Nor does anything you say invalidate the fact that secrets will, often for years, remain secret, that NO nation wants to publicize the details of a serious screw-up, and that the reasons a brilliantly carried out operation were so brilliant may involve factors that will never be known."

see above. Definetly agree with you.

"Events will move faster, but analysis still takes time. History isn't written by bloggers, even if they chronicle the events. The pace of analysis might quicken given the ability to move information around more quickly, but wading through lies, misinformation, secrecy, misunderstanding, and just plain BS will continue to take time."

thats also true, im beginning to think that my sarcastic exaggeration wasn't noticed. I didn't mean to say that a game based on a conflict can be made a day after it starts... well, i did, but not to worry, i was exaggerting, its kinda hard to get that kinda stuff over the internet, anyway, of course its impossible to do that, but it would be a lot quicker, i'd say, within 3-5 years of a conflict.

"In the wake of a battle, a weapons system may be widely trumpeted as 'the deciding factor'. 10 years later, analysis of the incredible tonnage of information that your 'information age' deluged the world with may prove that the system in question was flawed at best, and a complete waste of time at worst, and that other factors, unrealized at the time, are what led to victory."

id doesn't matter whether a certain weapon was praised or denounced, as long as you accurately model it in a game, you can see how effective it was by yourself. Im not talking about making your mind up on what won the war, just modelling the war accurately.

"What Emrys said is not invalidated by the belief that access to instant information produces instant truths, because arriving at the Truth will remain a time consuming, laborious, and difficult process."

of course, the truth remains elusive, forever probably. But im confused now, are we talking about knowing what equipment was used in a war, the participants, and conditions? Or are we arguing on whether it is harder to get the truth than it was 50 years ago? In any case, i agree that getting to the truth will never be easy as far as my human predictions go.

[Michael Emrys]

War games are models of events, extremely complex events. Trying to get accurate information on just the physical characteristics of the weapons is often a great deal harder than you imagine. And that's the easy part, because that kind of information is at least readily quantifiable. But as ever, the really crucial aspects of those events are human factors, and those are extremely difficult to even approximate.

You can have all your data and formulae in place, and your model still might not work to produce a credible outcome. That's why wargame design is still more an art than a science. That's why there is play testing and tweaking until it sorta looks like "most of the time" it will produce somebody's idea of a credible outcome.

This is vastly easier to do decades after the event when several levels of researchers have had time to sift through each other's findings, debate, and arrive at some tentative conclusions about what the hell happened and maybe why. This is a process that is never complete, but unless it is well along your conclusions and your models are little more than mere fantasy. If playing fantasy games is your bag—and there's nothing wrong with that, you understand—then you might as well play Drop Team and be happy. But you should be honest enough to realize that that has only the vaguest, most distant relationship to history or even real current events, which remain shrouded in obfuscation both intended and unintended.

Michael

[WineCape]

No, this is the age where nations & militaries will continue to withhold information about their capabilities, weapons-systems, and actions because that is what nations and militaries do.

"It may affront the military-minded person to suggest a regime that does not maintain any military secrets." - Albert Einstein

[BigCat]

To come back to the thread title, and seeing that CMx2 will be a "Near Future" US vs Syria in 2007, BFC HAS TO release it before the end of the year. I can see it arriving nicely in time for XMas. I have already written to the old bearded guy to reserve me a copy )

[Holman]

I shudder to think of what a wargame based only on internet information would be like...

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Martyr:

I shudder to think of what a wargame based only on internet information would be like...

Well, clearly, Martyr, you are not Donald Rumsfeld...

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Martyr:

I shudder to think of what a wargame based only on internet information would be like...

Well, clearly, Martyr, you are not Donald Rumsfeld... </font>

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

But could he be Condy Rice?

Michael

Depends. Is he willing to whore any intelligence, ability, or knowledge he's ever possessed in the service of a bad master for a mention in the history books as the person who did the political and diplomatic equivalent of a stately waltz on the deck of the Titanic?

[Tagwyn]

Edgar Snow was a reporter in USSR during WWII.

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Iron_man:

...but i was just pointing out that there were no American reporters in Russia during the war, so it obviously would take a long time for westerners to figure out what actually happened there, as opposed to a modern middle-eastern war, in which the media scrutinizes a nations arsenal during combat (i.e. media coverage on US using napalm in Falluja, Israel using Phosphorus weapons in Lebanon), where there are dozens of international journalists informing the public on every single sortie and every single skirmish.

Now, it's important that I'm up front with you, Iron_man. I do not, actually, dislike you personally. I may come to dislike you personally, but I am not starting out from there. But I am going to mock you. It is what I do. I intend to mock you quite thoroughly. Possibly, in fact, unfairly. If it makes you feel better, you can call me horrible names, up to and even beyond what is considered acceptable in the Forum. If you get banned, I will speak for you. I will forgive you. I want you to grow up to be happy, knowledgeable, and self-confident.

I just don't want you to grow up believing a whole lot of ****e that has absolutely no basis in reality. I'm not too familiar with reality itself, but I do know idiocy when I encounter it. Idiocy and I even exchange Christmas cards.

So, let me begin by saying that your belief that 'The Media', and 'Reporters' are actually in a position to tell you anything significant evinces innocence that would be touching, if it didn't indicate a level of naivete so half-witted as to be almost 'magical'.

Reporters? The Media? One Thousand Monkeys hitting keys and drinking at the bar closest to Army HQ waiting for the daily hand-out flyer detailing the Military's PR flacks' analysis of 'What Happened in the War Today!'

The Military completely controls the show, and the flow. If you think reporters are in a position to simply run off into a war zone, gleefully recording every detail for posterity, then you need to consider whether you should ever, for any purpose, be allowed to operate any form of heavy equipment. Such as, for example, a stapler.

Any event large enough to register as the news equivalent of a nuclear strike may get analyzed and exposed enough to cause a stir. Occasionally a monkey gets lucky enough to turn out a single scene from Shakespeare. These are the revelations, such as the use of WP or napalm that you characterize as 'reportage'.

In almost every case, lately, revelations like these have been either the result of merest accident, or someone in the Military Bureaucracy has gotten fed up, ashamed, or afraid enough to do the military equivalent of whistle-blowing.

As for the International Media reporting every single sortie and skirmish...

Lad, you need to move further away from Disneyland. It's not like there's a fire-fight and the intrepid heroes of the International Media Brigade get flashed the 'Bat Signal'. Unless they're lucky enough (given the number of the poor sods that have been killed, it's odd to call it that) to be along for the ride when the hammer comes down, the vast majority of them know less about what's going on in 'the War' than they do about what the barmaid at the local press habituated bar is wearing.

The interesting thing about reporting combat in a war zone is that there are often quite large numbers of men around, with guns, and the right to QUESTION EVERY SINGLE THING ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE DOING around in almost every situation.

In a war involving American troops, of course, you're attempting to report events while surrounded by soldiers who have been repeatedly told that the American Media is a nest of traitors and liberals who despise you and everything you and your buddies have suffered to achieve.

And if you're a foreign journalist, you're just as bad, or worse, and you're not even a goddamn American, fer chrissake!. Chances are pretty good that, given the multi-lingual capabilities of the average American, you could get shot even if you're an Israeli journalist.

Next, as regards your statement: "in which the media scrutinizes a nation's arsenal during combat"

So what? 'Scrutinize', as you use it, has absolutely nothing to do with 'Analyze'. The Press, quite frankly, aren't there to correctly judge and understand the effectiveness, limits and strengths of weapon systems. Remember the 'Patriot' missiles? Widely praised, to the point of idiocy, during the First Gulf War. WWF wrestlers named their muscles after them. America basked in the knowledge that our weapons systems were supreme.

Post war analysis, on the other hand, indicated that they may have performed FAR less ably than reported. That many of their successes, in fact, may actually have been attributable to the significant failings of the enemy missile systems.

Reportage on that fact took years, was hotly denied, then ignored, then swept under the rug. Yet at the time of the First Gulf War, people were breaking down in bars and weeping while praising God for the Patriot Missile.

So, how does that bit of 'Immediate Reportage' get modeled in a game in a way that isn't fecking stupid?

Originally posted by Iron_man:

The age of information makes the flow of knowledge a lot quicker, almost instant, but not to say that your wrong, you have a point, nations will hide everything that they don't want seen, and sometimes it will be very hard to find the truth

Instant flow of information is not the same as 'instant flow of knowledge', which almost invariably does NOT flow instantly and neither of them, as I said to you before, even remotely begins to equate to 'instant flow of truth'.

I can instantly post to you from the Syrian front that Syrian forces have destroyed 3 troop helicopters carrying 2 platoons of US troops. That is instant flow of information. Two days later, I can tell you that the helicopters were not shot down by Syrian troops. That is instant flow of knowledge. Four months later, a story can turn up that perhaps the helicopters were shot down by Hezbollah irregulars. The Pentagon denies it. That is informational complication.

Four years after the war, it can turn out that the fecking helicopters were poorly designed for use in a dry, dust ridden environment. They were designed for a major combat role on the chance that the American Army would ever invade Washington State. Two years of denials by the manufacturer follow. Their statements are issued by former military officers who previously served on the Acquisitions Board of the US Army before assuming a six-figure consulting position with the company accused of delivering defective weapons systems.

A Congressional Investigation takes place. Republican and Democrat Senators with heavy ties to the defense industry produce a report showing the incredible efficacy of the questioned helicopters in combat, based on a study done during a hot, dry day in Biloxi, Mississippi.

Two years following, the revelations of a Congressional Aide indicate that every member of the investigative committee was provided with unlimited access to teenage Filipino whores and dinners at Red Lobster in exchange for a positive finding on the capabilities of the 'Use Only During Wet, Cool Weather' Helicopter system.

Now, Iron_man. Michael Emrys, may he never grow any wiser, made a comment on 'a game system based on Science Fiction'. You very glibly (and, I realize, somewhat jokingly), told him that the, as you put it, 'Information Age' would trivialize and negate his comment.

I maintain, and continue to maintain, and am MORE than willing to maintain at even GREATER length, that you were wrong.

Completely wrong. So, so wrong. Wrong to the point of being put on medication in an attempt to 'keep you breathing correctly, keep you from pissing yourself, and keep you alert enough to feed yourself' wrong.

Really, really wrong.

Originally posted by Iron_man:

(we still don't know whats going on with Hussein's supposed WMD stockpile, still unconfirmed if they ever existed)

A great example of why your take on all this is so completely wrong. As time goes by, we're increasingly finding that there were no WMDs. What we're finding is that the war carried out by George H.W. Bush (as opposed to his son who has been shown repeatedly to either be really, really, almost incredibly and insanely wrong to the point where you wonder how he can go to the bathroom by himself without pissing all over his shoes; or a great big lying freak), basically crippled Hussein's ability to acquire WMDs. It took another war by either American history's premier halfwit, or its biggest liar, to prove that America had already completely derailed Saddam Hussein's ability to acquire WMDs.

So, how would BFC produce a game that was anything other than Sci-Fi if they went by the flow of 'Information Age' information about Iraqi capabilities?

Originally posted by Iron_man:

but when it comes to simulating a recent war in a video game, in terms of the equipment used and how and when battles where fought, these things are not hard to find nowadays. the truth of the outcome of a historical battle doesn't matter, since in the game you would be coming up with your own outcome.

They aren't hard to find out? What, are you on some sort of Supernatural Wire Service? As I keep saying to you, as others have said to you, this is actually EXTREMELY difficult to find out.

And if the 'truth of the outcome of a historical battle doesn't matter', then I have to figure you agree that the game produced is simply Science Fiction.

Jesus, Iron_man, even I'm getting confused. What the hell exactly is it that you're arguing?

Originally posted by Iron_man:

I' m beginning to think that my sarcastic exaggeration wasn't noticed.

Lad, never think that I don't notice a sarcastic exaggeration. I noticed it. I simply didn't think it was significant enough, either in terms of your intent to exaggerate, or your ability at sarcasm, to make it actually significant.

Originally posted by Iron_man:

I didn't mean to say that a game based on a conflict can be made a day after it starts... well, i did, but not to worry, i was exaggerting, its kinda hard to get that kinda stuff over the internet, anyway, of course its impossible to do that, but it would be a lot quicker, i'd say, within 3-5 years of a conflict.

A game entirely based on a war that hasn't been fought, with data that hasn't been proven, with forces that haven't faced each other, with weapons systems that haven't been matched against each other, with information that can't be reliably verified, and in which you're now saying that only 3-5 years after the hypothetical war on which game is based occurs can any remotely realistic conclusions be drawn...

Oh, hell. I can now see why we're foolishly arguing about the Science Fiction element of Combat Mission: Shock Force.

IT'S BECAUSE YOU THINK THAT 5 YEARS IN THE FUTURE THE HALF-ASSED, SPECULATIVE ****E RANGING FROM POLITICS TO STRATEGY TO WEAPONS SYSTEMS INVOLVED WITH PRODUCING A GAME OF OPPONENTS THAT HAVE NEVER, EVER EVEN REMOTELY FACED EACH OTHER MIGHT SOMEHOW BE PROVEN TO...

Look, Iron_man. Emrys said the entire endeavour was an exercise in Science Fiction. That's exactly what it is. Your attempts to depict it otherwise are...'wrong-headed'.

Originally posted by Iron_man:

[QBid doesn't matter whether a certain weapon was praised or denounced, as long as you accurately model it in a game, you can see how effective it was by yourself. Im not talking about making your mind up on what won the war, just modelling the war accurately. [/QB]

And you continue to beg, beggar, and make the entire fecking question get down on the ground and bark like a Pekinese, don't you just, though?

HOW THE FECK DO YOU ACCURATELY 'MODEL' A WEAPON SYSTEM THAT HASN'T BEEN USED, EXTENSIVELY ANALYZED, AND 'PROVEN' IN COMBAT?!

"You can see how effective it was by yourself"? Sixty years later they're still debating the effectiveness of WWII guns and weapons systems. And yet, for you, the efficacy of current weapons systems are all a given. Jesus wept.

Originally posted by Iron_man:

of course, the truth remains elusive, forever probably. But im confused now, are we talking about knowing what equipment was used in a war, the participants, and conditions? Or are we arguing on whether it is harder to get the truth than it was 50 years ago? In any case, i agree that getting to the truth will never be easy as far as my human predictions go.

Ah. In this paragraph you redeem yourself from any charges of idiocy. Here, you acknowledge the highest truth achieved by the Christian bible, by the Roman, Pontius Pilate.

He asks Jesus: What is Truth?

What we have been arguing about all this time, is not what equipment, participants and conditions will be involved in a Science Fiction game involving combat between the US and Syria.

What we've been arguing about is the whether the assumptions made in that game will be anything more than 'near-future' Science Fiction.

You argued 'Not', and made all sorts of perfectly dreadful excuses and assumptions based on a supposed 'Ultimate Super Truth Information Age' argument that a cat would have pissed on.

I simply stepped in on your 'exaggeratedly sarcastic' argument with that bastard Emrys, and pointed out that your 'exaggeratedly sarcastic' argument was too daft to avoid lying in its own waste products.

Oh, and I abused you a lot in the process. I suppose I'm sorry about that, in a relative way. But so many of your statements were simply...what's the nice word that doesn't involve the word 'idiotic'?

That word. Also, I'm up way too late, a lot.

[Michael Emrys]

Ah, Seanachai. I couldn't have put it any better myself. I know that this will come as no surprise to you, but I am reminded that even a broken clock is right twice a day. I eagerly await your second sterling post of the day.

Michael

[Homo ferricus]

i guess i forgive you, since any rebuttel will be met mercillesly with another condescending essay which i will not be able to adaquately respond to because i dont have a darn ounce of credibility to my name.

I take comfort in my bottle of Grey Goose, and the fact that statistically you will die sooner than me.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Iron_man:

I take comfort in my bottle of Grey Goose, and the fact that statistically you will die sooner than me.

Not if our search program succeeds in tracking down your address. San Bruno, eh? Well, that's a start...

Michael

[Homo ferricus]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Iron_man:

I take comfort in my bottle of Grey Goose, and the fact that statistically you will die sooner than me.

Not if our search program succeeds in tracking down your address. San Bruno, eh? Well, that's a start...

Michael </font>