kipanderson Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 Hi, Thanks to the skills of all at Battlefront CMSF is now at full power… a joy to use and a simulation of such high quality if dealing with historical events it would be a form of military history… as CMBB and CMAK are. So… the question is what to do with this simulation? I too enjoy the shipped setting with its echoes of Iraqi and Afghanistan mixed in with conventional warfare. But like many it is the clash of mechanised armies close to being in the “same ball-park” in terms of technology that is my first love. With the stunning map/terrain provided in CMSF thanks to Dan and friends, and the equipment available in CMSF now and in the pipeline, I am coming round to the view that a NATO v Russia clash in south-eastern Ukraine may be the best setting to produce what I am after. What do others think? What inspired this is a careful examination of the equipment that is allocated under different settings in CMSF….and…. the fact that the map editor so well reproduces the Ukraine. 3rd Shock Army Advance into NATO’s flank 200km NW of Rostov. NATO held town burns in the distance. The only mods needed are faces, hands, voices for the Syrians and then buildings and lower and greener horizons. Long grass, brush some of the tree and bush types all work just fine for the South Ukraine in the summer. When it comes to the equipment if you choose Republican Guards mechanised and tank units set to the “Excellent” equipment option and then add a Special Forces AT platoon or two you do get late ‘90s developed, currently operational Russian equipment. With the coming T90 and BMP3 even more so. I constructed a “proof of concept” scenario. 2km by 2km CMSF map built from a real topographical map using tall grass, wheat/crops and a careful selection of trees/bushes/brush and buildings. A mechanized battalion on each side with lots of support. Dug in defensive positions and so on. I do not have a very powerful PC, 3.4 GHz single core Intel but with 2GB of RAM. But all worked very smoothly… no problems. A back-story could go along these lines… “Then the Ukrainian crisis erupts. Extreme Ukrainian nationalists reassured by NATO declarations made in the early ‘90s to protect their new found independence overreact to unrest amongst the ethnic Russians in south eastern Ukraine. Russia feels compelled to intervene on behalf of the Russians living in the region. In the west the cry of “Poland ’38” and “Munich” goes up and NATO, however reluctantly, feels it must intervene on behalf of the Ukrainians.” Remember… Russia of 2008 has both the technology and the money. They do not currently choose to spend it on defence… not on anything at the moment… but if they did they could be up and running militarily. Anyway…. all will get the point. I hope others here will chip in… what ideas have others got to try and produce a match-up and setting that is more OPFORs in character than CMSF currently is but, of course, using the tools that come with CMSF. Given where we are now I am surprised that Battlefront is not interested in a Yom Kippur War module… but they are not. 90% of the Syrian army units are there, the terrain is there, and I would have thought Israelis ’73 army was no more work than Brits 2008. The Yom Kippur War happened, it is the only real armoured clash on a WWII scale using then contemporary NATO/Soviet equipment. I think it would sell way more than any other module. Some would no doubt buy CMSF just for the module. I am quick to lobby, did for Fulda Gap ‘80s for years , but from where we are now I really am puzzled Battlefront are not interested in the Yom Kippur War. If they are happy to build a British Expeditionary force 2008… why not Israelis ’73? They must have their reasons… All very good fun, All the best, Kip. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 I suspect the whole political issue would be a major consideration. There would be tremendous scope for a whole heap of pro Israeli / anti Israeli posts and the job of keeping that under control would increase exponentially I suspect. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Warrior Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 I think your idea for the Ukrain 2008 is great as like you said with T-90s and BMP-3s coming out. M1A1 Tank Commander has done a very nice Russian uniform mod with Russian voices. There are a couple of Russian vehicle mod that are very good. Gorden will be releasing a very nice NATO vehicle mod this week. Check it out. Every thing is in place for such a battle or campaign. Like you, I also lobbyed for Fulda Gap in the 80s and Arib/Israeli wars. I'm also still pushing for an IDF modual. While it would be a disaster if Israel took part in the CMSF story line, the story line could be changed to where the attacks happened in major Israeli cities and Mosad tracks the ring leaders to Syria. What you think? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkmath Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 I share a same interest in a symetrical NATO/Warsaw pact warfare... Even though an armoured combined arms warfare is unlikely nowadays. The latest T72 in CMSF ,while they aren't as armored as T90, have ATGM launcher on main gun, computer aided aiming, Kontakt ERA armor, which are featured in the T72B2 aka T90. However, I don't know if the latest 125mm russian ammunition are modelled in CMSF, so it could affect munition performance. Graphically, there will be some problem with creating Eastern European villages, as only flat roof buildings are modelled in CMSF. I recommend you RommL's mod Balkan war, which includes new grass mod, European trees. I fully support anyone who would make NATO vs. Warsaw pact scenarios for CMSF. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 Darkmath, Do a little search and you should find a couple of posts about the model Soviet penetrators used for the T-72 by BTS / BFC. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinkins Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 Good thoughts Kip. I agree with everything you said. If you want to start design team on the Ukraine idea please consider my services. It would be a blast. Kevin [ February 27, 2008, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: Kevin Kinscherff ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 This is what CMSF should have been in the first place. Nato vs. Warpac.....hell, yes! Heck, Russia vs. Ukraine would be good too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 Last I checked, rivers were major obstacles in the Ukraine. Dniepr Dniestr Bug Donats Prut Kip is the fellow who tried to expound on this very forum that advanced landmine warfare would be the way of the future - until I reminded him about the Ottawa Convention. Should we now burst his bubble with the need for water crossings in his Ukraine campaign? Or did we think that 500 metre patches of steppe would somehow take on strategic importance? Oh wait, I forgot - Kip is the one who needs entire brigades on the map, so change that to a 2km x 2km map. Umm...same question. What will your forces be fighting for? Farmer's fields? Seems unlikely. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 My God you're a Buzz Killington. Yeah, sure it would be better with rivers. But last time I checked, in the last major war that involved land combat in the Ukraine, there were at least a few engagements that took place away from a river or other significant body of water. I think it sounds like fun. Obviously, you're of a different mind. So go play with your blocks on the other side of the playroom, if you prefer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinkins Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 Given the tactical scale and even medium amount of imagination a group of scenarios based on a near future premise could be made and fun to play in the "Ukraine". Although a good point, the lack of water is not a show stopper. Kevin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
21sec Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 I think a Ukraine setting is perfect. I was racking my head trying to think of a non-desert setting. You can include the Brits when their model is released. May I suggest checking into Bayonet Games upcoming release called Next Wars. It deals with a Russian invasion into the Ukraine with US and NATO coming to aid of Ukranians. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rokossovski Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 The lack of dedicated water tiles can be worked around. See, for example, the excellent "Mud 2 Muddy Waters" texture mod created by El Terrifico and available on cmmods.com. See also my scenario "Asmar Crossing" which centers on making an opposed river crossing. (I am presently designing another scenario with a similar theme.) The idea is to use some texture (modified or not) which can play the part of water, and ring those tiles with a ring of "marsh" tiles -- which are impassable in CMSF. Fording points can be created by creating constrained gaps in the wall of marsh tiles. Kipanderson could use such devices to simulate as many rivers as he likes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinkins Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 They would be just obstacles at this point with no way to cross them other than fording points as mentioned - but thats ok for now. Kevin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1A1TC Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Thanks, I spent quite a few hours replacing the corresponding correct voices of Syrians with Russian voices from CMBB. That mod is at CMMODS And since I am a Russian native speaker, I didnt use any voices with Nazi references, so dont worry, it's accurate 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rokossovski Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Originally posted by Kevin Kinscherff: They would be just obstacles at this point with no way to cross them other than fording points as mentioned - but thats ok for now. Kevin One can cross such a "river" with a "bridge" consisting of an elevated road featuring assorted doodads (such as a low walls) to help the "bridge" bear a passing resemblance to an actual bridge. It isn't pretty and it can't be destroyed like a real bridge, but it does (half) the job. Legal fine print: nothing herein is meant or should be taken to suggest that it is unnecessary for Battlefront to add proper water tiles and proper bridges as game features. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted February 28, 2008 Author Share Posted February 28, 2008 Ukraine… Hi, Thanks for all the offers of help in providing ideas and mods. I will be taking up the offers as although I realise it is easy to get carried away I think this one will run. Just to get one thing out of the way. I agree with others that Battlefront suddenly turning around and saying they will do the Yom Kippur War is unlikely and I am not holding my breath. But it is not impossible. Steve and co are more open minded than some may think. Because it is real, and is the only true, WWII type combined arms/mechanised clash in the post war period they may give it a go. But let’s put together a Ukraine mod anyway… The back story is about as credible as one can do given that happily from a real world perspective there is currently no stand off between NATO and Russia or the like. But if there were to be one some form of clash over an ex-Soviet republic is my best bet. As I explained above Russia also has the technology and money. It is also all far more evenly matched than some may believe. But to truly see this you have to build geographically realistic terrain and setup scenarios that use this terrain realistically. Although, of course, realism is in the eye of the beholder . Let me illustrate what I mean. You need a map some 3km by 3km as a near minimum. The objective, say for a NATO attack, is set right in the middle. You need such a big map so that there are no “safe flanks”. Remember in the real world there is no safe map edge to hug. If you then select Republican Guards with equipment set to Excellent you would be shocked just how difficult any NATO attack would find things. There is a lesson from history in this. Go back 64 years to February ’44. The newly formed Panther battalion from Gross Deutschland, 60 Panthers strong… was used to try and force a gap in the Soviet ring around the Korsun Pocket. On the first morning of the attack 15 Panthers were lost in exchange for 14 T34s. They tried again on the next morning by the end of which there were only 15 Panthers left. This is as reported by the germens themselves. Why such a poor result? They were attacking into “village Russia” over the undulating hills of the Ukraine. The humble Soviet Model ’42 76.2mm gun can penetrate the side armour of a Panther at over 1000m even with a 45 degree strike. If you imagine such terrain, where in the real world there is no “map edge” you will understand how difficult and how slow the progress of the German attack must have been. Set up a Model ’42 gun behind a building in one village and it can have a near perfect view of a Panther’s flank as a lead Panther comes into view attacking a neighbouring settlement say some 1000m -1500m away. I modelled this with CMBB and there was a perfect match up with history. A credit to Battlefront. Now imagine not Model ’42 guns but AT14, AT13 and AT4C Russian ATGMs in a similar setting. All will get the picture . The match off between late model T72s/T90s and M1s is very similar to Panthers v T34/85s. Also… lots of artillery on both sides. We are really talking the German summer ’42 operation into the Ukraine but with US, Brits and Ukrainians, yes… Red v Red too… on one side the Russians on the other. The scenario potentials huge…. a modern Stalingrad… say in Rostov… a series of scenarios taking NATO further east to Rostov through the blazing southern Ukraine summer… This is going to be fun… . Will be in contact with those who offered to help… All good fun, All the best, Kip. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammelman Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Why not base one on Kosovo breaking from Serbia? The Russians have half heartedly threated military action. Imagine if it really happened? I know there was some tension in the forum last week as a result of it, but who knows? Any thoughts? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Personally I’d prefer a “clean” conventional Ops one. Kosovo I’m sure would be full of militias (“uncons“ if you will), etc. which I think would bring us back to something pretty close to what you have now but with green vehicles instead of sand coloured ones. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
21sec Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 I would love to help out too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_mike_the_wino2 Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: snipped a bunch of crap that was a factual, well argued point against the proposed idea but wasn't what I wanted to hear. So I choose to ignore it.Personally, getting out of the desert would make me so freakin' pleased. Between CMAK and CMSF, I have sand coming out of my cd drive. Time, forces, action, back story are all lower on my priority list than terrain. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Warrior Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 Originally posted by mike_the_wino2: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: snipped a bunch of crap that was a factual, well argued point against the proposed idea but wasn't what I wanted to hear. So I choose to ignore it.Personally, getting out of the desert would make me so freakin' pleased. Between CMAK and CMSF, I have sand coming out of my cd drive. Time, forces, action, back story are all lower on my priority list than terrain. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Warrior Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Last I checked, rivers were major obstacles in the Ukraine. Dniepr Dniestr Bug Donats Prut Kip is the fellow who tried to expound on this very forum that advanced landmine warfare would be the way of the future - until I reminded him about the Ottawa Convention. Should we now burst his bubble with the need for water crossings in his Ukraine campaign? Or did we think that 500 metre patches of steppe would somehow take on strategic importance? Oh wait, I forgot - Kip is the one who needs entire brigades on the map, so change that to a 2km x 2km map. Umm...same question. What will your forces be fighting for? Farmer's fields? Seems unlikely. Well, you know there is a water tile mod and with a little work you can do major river crossings. I think this is an interesting idea so don't rain on this guys parade. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted February 29, 2008 Author Share Posted February 29, 2008 Kevin Kinscherff, hi, Got a bounce back when I emailed you on the address you have in your profile… email me on kip@su76.com if you wish. All the best, Kip. 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.