Why the ETO-only holdouts?

[MikeyD]

A philosophical question.

Why are some SO steadfast in demanding a CMx2 WWII game when there are literally centuries worth of other mlitary theatres to choose from? And its not just WWII - its ETO specific. I still recall the anguished cries when CMBB (Eastern Front) was first announced! So, what is it about those 10 months between June 44 and April 45 that demands the battles be relived over and over? Is is simple familiarity? We 'know' Villers Bocage but Goose Green gets blank stares.

[Moronic Max]

I'm in the 'in BFC wants to simulate it, I want to play it' camp.

But maybe that's just my fanboy heart shining through.

[UTexGrad]

For what it's worth, here are my musings on your questions.

Being an American, I'm much more interested in battles that the United States forces took part in as opposed to battles fought centuries ago or even on the Eastern Front. I still play CMBB, but not for the same reasons I play CMBO. CMBB is more of an historical exercise in strategy, tactics and large battles whereas I play CMBO because it's American troops fighting and it holds more of a visceral and emotional appeal.

I would imagine gamers from the U.S. are in the majority on this site and that's why there always seems to be an emphasis on getting back to WWII no matter how many times we've battled on the ETO front.

I'm sure some on this board will find my reasons narrow-minded, and I can't say I disagree with that assessment. But WWII and its entire milieu has been an interest of mine for as long as I can remember.

[UTexGrad]

BTW, I Googled the Battle of Goose Green expecting it to be a military engangement from the midieval time period. Imagine my surprise when I saw 1982 instead of 1182. haha.

I'm such a historical lout.....

[PSY]

I'm sure I'll buy CM:SF sooner or later, probably sooner. However, I find the topic matter to be rather depressing given the current daily news from Iraq.

I'm sure it will still be interesting from an intellectual standpoint. But from a fun standpoint, I really don't need or want more reminders that we've got troops getting killed out in the Middle East.

I'd be up for Goose Green though

[Smoke]

I'm basically with PSY. I'd prefer WWII but really any other modern conflict (from say the Spanish Civil War forward), aside from the current Middle East setting, would be great. I'll buy the game as soon as it's released but I'm still a bit disappointed with the subject matter of CM:SF. Just a little too immediate.

[Battlefront.com]

UTexGrad,

You might be surprised to find out that your thoughts are probably similar to the bulk of our US customers.

Steve

[Cpl Steiner]

I think the reason for this is that U.S. players, who make up the majority of BFC's customers, are nostalgic for the "moral certainty" of the "Overlord" campaign of 1944-45 as well as the "worthy opponent" that was the German Wehrmacht.

There was "moral certainty" because the German Nazi regime was so utterly evil that no-one can possibly argue that the war was wrong.

There was a "worthy opponent" in the sense that the Wehrmacht had well trained and equipped troops capable of dealing out as good as they took.

The Pacific theatre of WWII has less appeal because it was effectively a "sideshow", i.e. Pearl Harbour got the U.S. into WWII but Roosevelt made sure that from the outset, Europe would be where the U.S. put its maximum effort.

[Homo ferricus]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

The Pacific theatre of WWII has less appeal because it was effectively a "sideshow", i.e. Pearl Harbour got the U.S. into WWII but Roosevelt made sure that from the outset, Europe would be where the U.S. put its maximum effort.

actually, when the US entered the war, the allies decided Germany would be dealt with first and foremost, but it seemed the US was more focused on Japan, a lot more than any other allied nation anyway (excluding China). I guess it was just a little more personal when it came to Japan.

[teeps]

Here's another person who'd love to see a Goose Green scenario one day.

[Rick]

Cpl Steiner, absolutely agree with all points except the PTO as sideshow. Personally my main area of interest is naval aviation, so I'm definitely interested in the PTO.

However, Steve might very well be right in the bit that CM in the Pacific might not be that exciting.

The moral certainty and worthy opponent issues are huge though.

[Steiner14]

There was "moral certainty" because the German Nazi regime was so utterly evil that no-one can possibly argue that the war was wrong.

[/QB]

And the war against Iraq had to be led because of weapons of mass destruction, right?

There are definately a lot of desinformed propaganda believers, but i've played quite some US-players, with quite some realistic and objective political knowledge about the reasons why the USA entered the war and they nevertheless prefer to play the US, because it is their country and their soldiers. Right or wrong, my country.

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

There are definately a lot of desinformed propaganda believers, but i've played quite some US-players, with quite some realistic and objective political knowledge about the reasons why the USA entered the war and they nevertheless prefer to play the US, because it is their country and their soldiers. Right or wrong, my country.

If you take this view then you are obviously not in the "ETO only" camp. Neither am I. All I was doing was attempting to understand those who are.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Homo ferricus:

I guess it was just a little more personal when it came to Japan.

Or, until the invasion of Europe got ahead there was little to be done there except air war and protecting shipping lanes, while the Japanese still weren't totally out of steam in 1942.

But the numbers of US Army servicemen compared to Navy & Marines give a clear sign of where the focus was. 11 million served in the Army during the war, while 4 million were in the Navy and 700,000 were Marines. wikisource

[Dschugaschwili]

A few reasons for taking WWII as the setting for a game:

</font>

• The equipment of the time is well understood, with most of it existing in (theoretically) working condition</font>
• Most of today's weapon categories are already present, all of them seem useful, none overpowered</font>
• no guaranteed-kill weapons</font>
• combined arms tactics are essential</font>
• Different nations have different equipment with a noticable difference, but no one has any huge technological advantage</font>
• WWII is close enough to the present to still have a few survivors around who can share their experience</font>

"moral certainty" or not, WWII just seems to deliver what an interesting game needs.

Dschugaschwili

[Splinty]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

There was "moral certainty" because the German Nazi regime was so utterly evil that no-one can possibly argue that the war was wrong.

And the war against Iraq had to be led because of weapons of mass destruction, right?

There are definately a lot of desinformed propaganda believers, but i've played quite some US-players, with quite some realistic and objective political knowledge about the reasons why the USA entered the war and they nevertheless prefer to play the US, because it is their country and their soldiers. Right or wrong, my country. [/QB]</font>

[Tarkus]

I think Dschugaschwili hits right on as far as I'm concerned. The whole WWII tactical picture is just plain interesting, and the sheer magnitude of the conflict seems to allow for endless combinations of small unit actions.

Mind you, I certainly don't want to downplay any other settings, and I'll gladly give a try to anything BFC come up with, but WWII still have my vote for all those reasons Dschugaschwili lists, plus, as a professional historian, a certain amount of admiration for this particular era.

As a side note, I've said it earlier, I'll say it again, but Falklands gets my vote, too.

[ May 03, 2007, 04:49 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

[Sergei]

Was Pacific theater a mere sideshow? For Japan, China and Australia it wasn't (from the Chinese POV WW2 was a sideshow...). For Brits and Soviets it was. For the US it may have appeared to be more important, for the reason that USA had a direct presence in the Pacific which was threatened, even though economic ties to Europe were important as well. But it must have been quite clear from Midway on that Japan was a minor player in comparison to Germany but a build-up of land army and bomber fleet needed in Europe would be faster than the build-up of naval fleet needed in Pacific. So for the US it was just as important, but easier and therefore somewhat on the backburner.

Think of it in comparison to Italy in Europe: the campaign in Italy was clearly a sideshow, as after German capitulation Fascist Italy would have had no way to continue fighting. But Germany and Japan were independent on eachother, and so both had to be fought.

[rangerj]

Not that I want to get invovled in this argument, but I really don't think the Marines and sailors would believe that the PTO was a "sideshow". I refuse to believe that as well.

Anyway, I like the idea of moving into modern combat with CM - there are so many interesting possiblities. If BF is going to move back to WWII, then I would suggest avoiding ETO and switching to PTO. This are gets little attention and I think it could be a dynamic game. Besides, the ETO is so overplayed - which is the reason why I didn't purchase TOW.

I'm very excited for CM:SF. Hope to see it in June.

[rangerj]

Oh, and to claim that it was easier to fight the Japanese is ludicrous.

[MikeyD]

The Nazi regime turned out to be 'evil' in retrospect. From 1933 on the Americans hard-right had found a comfortable home among the fascists. The American Nazi party held a rally that FILLED Madison Square Garden (? at least I think that's where it was held). Henry Ford was particularly outspoken and Charles Lindbergh particularly admiring. If England hadn't been threatened and if Japan hadn't joined the Axis powers I honestly don't know what the U.S. would've done about Hitler. When we seriously got into the war the old 'nun-raping Hun' propaganda machine from WWI went back into motion. It seems people were genuinely shocked to find the Nazis were worse than the boilerplate wartime propaganda was making them out! It makes you wonder how many crusading G.I.s in France had actually been card-carrying American Nazi party members back in 1938.

But back on topic. WWII ETO did have the advantage of a start point with a catchy name (Overlord) and an end point linked to a public holiday (VE Day). It had chartable progress, a rolling front, and readily accessible documentation. BUT taking the war down to Company and Squad level I don't think individual engagements are any more 'playable' from a wargaming standpoint than individual engagements in any other war on any other battlefield.

[Homo ferricus]

Originally posted by Sergei:

But it must have been quite clear from Midway on that Japan was a minor player in comparison to Germany

well, obviously, considering that Japan held out longer that Germany, and took two atomic bombs to finally defeat, after losing 27,909 fighting at Iwo Jima alone, and then over 70,000 more in Okinawa, the US obviously can give a hoot less about the PTO. And don't forget the battle of the Philippines, and lets not forget guadalcanal. Or the shootouts over the Solomons and Marshall Islands. Uncountable engagements between US and Japanese air and sea power.

btw, plenty of those Army units were in the PTO, heres a list i found on wikipedia for the units present at Guadalcanal in 1943.

* 27th Infantry Regiment

* 35th Infantry Regiment

* 161st Infantry Regiment

* 8th Field Artillery Battalion

* 64th Field Artillery Battaltion

* 89th Field Artillery Battalion

* 90th Field Artillery Battalion

* 65th Engineer Combat Battalion

* 132nd Infantry Regiment

* 164th Infantry Regiment

* 182nd Infantry Regiment

* 221st Field Artillery Battalion

* 245th Field Artillery Battalion

* 246th Field Artillery Battalion

* 247th Field Artillery Battalion

* 57th Engineer Combat Battalion

* 147th Independent Infantry Regiment3

* 97th Field Artillery Battalion

* 214th Coast Artillery Regiment

* 244th Coast Artillery Regiment

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Homo ferricus:

considering that Japan held out longer that Germany

Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, capitulated in May 1945. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in December 1941, capitulated in August 1945. Germany held out longer than Japan. Which anyway is totally irrelevant when the topic is US priorities, as USA wasn't fighting them alone.

Anyway, so your opinion is - apparently - that Roosevelt and his staff saw Japan as the bigger long term threat than Germany. Hey, you're entitled to that view. But I think you're wrong.

Or if your opinion is that war in the Pacific was cruel and bloody - was I claiming that it wasn't? But it took the efforts of all Allied armies to defeat Germany, while it is clear that USA could have defeated Japan by herself.

[ May 02, 2007, 08:52 AM: Message edited by: Sergei ]

[Cpl Steiner]

Regarding PTO being a sideshow, I studied this subject at college many moons ago and this was the conclusion we as students were taught at that time for the following reasons.

At the outbreak of WWII, America was coming out of the Great Depression and still had bad memories of WWI. There was no mood for war amongst the general American public. Europe was regarded as the "Old World", with outdated concepts such as Colonialism, which was contrary to American interests. The fact that Americans stood by and watched London being bombed for night after night without coming to Britain's aid is staggering today but perfectly understandable given the mood of the time.

FDR went against the trend of the time and wanted to help Britain but he was opposed by Congress and the Senate. Pearl Harbour changed all that. The American people wanted revenge against Japan, but FDR was adamant from the start that the defeat of Nazi Germany was of greater importance. This was agreed at a conference between all the Allies shortly after Pearl Harbour (Casablanca?, not sure). When Germany and Italy actually declared war on the US later that year it was a gift to FDR who could push ahead with his plans to defeat Germany.

So, I'm not saying that PTO isn't deserving of study historically or for wargaming but it should be seen in the context of a foreign policy that saw the defeat of Germany as paramount.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

BUT taking the war down to Company and Squad level I don't think individual engagements are any more 'playable' from a wargaming standpoint than individual engagements in any other war on any other battlefield.

Incidentally, I think that's another reason why I like XXe century stuff better. Probably because of the technology involved. Most previous periods has something of a rigidity that I found unappealing. no doubt mainly due to limited technologies. Of course, that's an impression many out there don't share for a number of very valid reasons, but it's like comparing a naval warfare simulation of ancient greeks and the Pacific theater. I think I prefer the later because of the pace.

[ May 02, 2007, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]