Why the ETO-only holdouts?

[MikeyD]

"Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, capitulated in May 1945."

Oooooh... that brings up a whole 'nother can of worms! When did WWII begin? Many place it at Nazi occupation of the free city of Danzig in April 39 (remember that old movie "The Tin Drum"?) but the rape of Nanking took place the end of '37. Is it Eurocentric of us to place a European event at the start of WWII? After all that first W stands for 'World'.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Is it Eurocentric of us to place a European event at the start of WWII? After all that first W stands for 'World'.

In which way would the Sino-Japanese war be a world war, then? Seems limited to western China between two nations, while the European affair started off the bat as a multi-national conflict that pretty soon splashed to North Africa.

And of course it is Eurocentrism. Otherwise we'd call the big colonial wars as world wars, too.

[Sixxkiller]

Serg,

But Japan was fighting in China before Germany invaded Poland.

Originally posted by Sergei:

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

[MikeyD]

"...while the European affair started off the bat as a multi-national conflict..."

That reminds me of a commonly expressed sentiment among historians lately that the last 600 years of European conflict has been one continuous 'civil war' among groups that simply couldn't see how similar to eachother they were or how interrelated! Is Italians vs Hungarians any less absure than Sunnis vs Kurds?

[Sergei]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

That reminds me of a commonly expressed sentiment among historians lately that the last 600 years of European conflict has been one continuous 'civil war' among groups that simply couldn't see how similar to eachother they were or how interrelated! Is Italians vs Hungarians any less absure than Sunnis vs Kurds?

Since when have there been wars that aren't absurd? But no, I think such definitions take a huge poetic license and are very inaccurate. Can't we just call all war ever as one continuous civil war of global scale? Yes we can, but let's not!

[Capt. Toleran]

I've pretty much gotten my fill of WWII in general over these past few years (though I am very much looking forward to the WWII modules BFC will put out under the CMx2 engine), and I'm glad about the modern setting.

However, WWII ETO fans and the like should be glad the first module for CMx2 is modern, as it literally provides thousands of "testers" to help iron out the bugs in the game (issues always come up after launch), making the WWII modules that will follow CMSF all the more perfect. So just think, they used SF as the test case, and saved their best for WWII

[Aacooper]

For a CM-style game, the disadvantage of PTO is that it was relatively one-sided and there are fewer tanks.

In each land battle from Guadacanal on*, the US caused more casualties than they took. There were very few places where the Japanese took territory once held by US forces (i.e. no back-and-forth battles). Each battle and campaign was a grind-it-out affair. While it was very deadly for those involved, it doesn't lead to great wargaming.

* The exception is Iwo Jima, where the Marines took more casualties (WIA + KIA) than the Japanese. Of course, CM-style battles on Iwo are not likely to be very interesting.

A Korean War CM would rectify some of those disadvantages.

[Sequoia]

World War II Western front June 44 to May 45 is coolest campaign ever to most Battlefront customers because (and some of these points have already been mentioned):

-Most Combat Mission sales were from the US, UK, and Canada all three of which participated in the campaign. People identify with their own countries.

-It was as Studs Terkel put it “The Good War” with clear good guys and nasty bad guys.

-Best selection of cool toys ever. A wide variety of armored vehicles on both sides. The German tanks seem to be especially cool to many people. Nice selection of uniforms too, especially for the bad guys.

-Tactics used were interesting. No line up and walk to the slaughter as WWI is perceived. Here we get combined Arms and fire and movement.

-Eastern Front had cool toys too, but the general conception is that the Soviets won by overwhelming the Germans with numbers and not by tactics. After all didn't Enemy at the Gates have the Russians attacking with a mob of which only one in two had a rifle?

-Lots of people feel that Stalins’ USSR was little better than Nazi Germany and can’t identify with the East Front.

-Pacific Front tank battles were rare and Japanese tanks were not a match for the best Allied tanks.

Terrain was interesting and could be identified with by North Americans as well as Europeans of course.

Wide variety of action. Normandy, race across France, Market Garden, Huertgen, Bulge, crossing the Rhine. Everybody gets to be attacker and defender.

[PanzerMike]

I agree with you Sequoia. Very well put. I also prefer ETO to any other theater (CMBO blew me away).

Eastern Front is interesting too, but more so on a strategic scale IMO (still played a lot of CMBB).

I would love to see ETO 1939-1940! Keeping the Germans out of my country (Netherlands) will prove quite a challenge

[Fly Pusher]

Originally posted by PanzerMike:

I would love to see ETO 1939-1940! Keeping the Germans out of my country (Netherlands) will prove quite a challenge

Sequoia summed it up well.

But I would certainly love to play a western europe (and Norway) 1939-40 based game.

But since the US was still sitting on its hands only the Brits, ANZACS and Canadians would be allowed to play as the Allies

[Sequoia]

I too would love France and the Low Countries 1940. My summary did not necessarily reflect my own opinions. I would love East Front too, but I recognize were in the minority there.

[luderbamsen]

To each man his tastes, fair enough. But if your only area of interest is WW2 ETO, I do belive you need to get a life.

I like the ETO a lot, but if the game is good, I'll even play the Space Lobster scenario, and enjoy it. And I suspect some of those who "definately won't buy this non-ETO/Eastern Front/Modern Warfare/WW1/Boer War e.c.t. game" will be first in line on release day.

[Baron von Beergut]

CM is a tactical game. WWII has the most varied weapons and environments and so is the most appealing for a tactical game. I couldn't see playing Napoleonic or Civil War or even WWI at a level below company size unit icons and more likely battalion or regt. CM scale is excellent for infantry and armor of the 1930's to present.

Personally while ETO is nice, I prefer both east front and north africa for tactical balance. ETO 44/45 is mostly allied air superiority and primarily allied attacking. The current CMSF in Syria does not appeal at all to me. Some folks have said it hits too close to home with whats going on in Iraq. That might be part of my reason. But I'd just rather see something historical and with a potential for wider variety of situations. Goose Green was mentioned. That and 'Nam are fine for infantry actions. But if you want armor and somewhat modern then you would want either vs Warsaw Pact 1950's through 1980's or Israel/MidEast up to the 1980's. I wouldn't mind seeing the Korean War at this level. But most battlefront customers are more WWII interested. PTO seems to get ruled out due to the limited number of armor actions but should still be considered. The only reason I can see for CMSF is as a training tool for current military but for us gamers only by being the new thing out more than what it covers.

[MikeyD]

"But I'd just rather see something historical and with a potential for wider variety of situations."

Well, we will get a scenario editor and (hopefully) red-on-red play. That implies recreating (reasonably well) practically every 3rd world engagement over the last 40 years from Congo to Cairo to Cuba!

[rangerj]

PTO seems to get ruled out due to the limited number of armor actions but should still be considered - Baron

Personally, I prefer infantry combat to armor. In fact, when I create my own CM scenarios there is slim to none in terms of tanks. I guess that's just the grunt coming out in me, but I would like to see the infantry heavy PTO get a chance. I think it is hard for us to judge whether it would be worthwhile if the theater hasn't been implemented properly in a game. (I know there is a mod for it, but I want a real company like BF to give it a go).

RANGERS LEAD THE WAY!

[ May 03, 2007, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: rangerj ]

[Speedy]

Originally posted by Sequoia:

World War II Western front June 44 to May 45 is coolest campaign ever to most Battlefront customers because (and some of these points have already been mentioned):

-Most Combat Mission sales were from the US, UK, and Canada all three of which participated in the campaign. People identify with their own countries.

-It was as Studs Terkel put it “The Good War” with clear good guys and nasty bad guys.

-Best selection of cool toys ever. A wide variety of armored vehicles on both sides. The German tanks seem to be especially cool to many people. Nice selection of uniforms too, especially for the bad guys.

-Tactics used were interesting. No line up and walk to the slaughter as WWI is perceived. Here we get combined Arms and fire and movement.

-Eastern Front had cool toys too, but the general conception is that the Soviets won by overwhelming the Germans with numbers and not by tactics. After all didn't Enemy at the Gates have the Russians attacking with a mob of which only one in two had a rifle?

-Lots of people feel that Stalins’ USSR was little better than Nazi Germany and can’t identify with the East Front.

-Pacific Front tank battles were rare and Japanese tanks were not a match for the best Allied tanks.

Terrain was interesting and could be identified with by North Americans as well as Europeans of course.

Wide variety of action. Normandy, race across France, Market Garden, Huertgen, Bulge, crossing the Rhine. Everybody gets to be attacker and defender.

Don't forget all the ss fanboys.

[luderbamsen]

Now, I fully understand if someone feels that the US vs. Syria scenario hits too close to home. Personally, I don't give a hoot, but that's just me.

Of course we all have our personal preferances and pet peeves. I'm a sucker for German armour, especially the later stuff, and especially when used against T-34's.

However, this doesn't mean that I only play games featuring Tiger tanks. I generally dislike science fiction themes, not the least because they're usually rather daft. But "UFO: Enemy Unknown" (a.k.a. X-COM 1) is one of my favorite games of all times, despite having a particularly silly design and artwork. Simply because it's a good game.

I certainly would like BFC doing a WW2 ETO module for CMx2, probably more so than any other WW2 TO. But if BFC choose to do a "US invading Cuba 1962" scenario, I'll play that as well. Because I know it will be a great game.

[PSY]

Originally posted by rangerj:

Personally, I prefer infantry combat to armor. ... I guess that's just the grunt coming out in me, but I would like to see the infantry heavy PTO get a chance.

I agree. A scenario doesn't need armor to be fun. I think a PTO CM could be a lot of fun. I definitely would buy it.

[dalem]

WWII appeals to me partly because killing Nazis is always fun, partly because the sides were relatively evenly matched, and mostly because of the overall context of the campaigns and the units that fought in them as I understand them. I "get" Army -> Corps -> Division -> Regiment -> Battalion -> Company -> Platoon -> Squad -> Rifleman. I "get" holding a village or taking a crossroads.

I think that the above is why I'd also enjoy a hypothetical "The Rooskies are comin'!" WWIII fantasy/alternate history game.

50 years from now maybe I'll enjoy smooshing the fuzzy-wuzzies just as much, but right now it's "ho-hum" to me.

-dale

[Durruti]

Originally posted by Smoke:

I'm basically with PSY. I'd prefer WWII but really any other modern conflict (from say the Spanish Civil War forward)

Oooh, now that would be something wouldn't it? The SCW. Not that it there's much chance of it making it into a released game (I can only recall games such as "Luftwaffe Commander" and one of the "Blitzkrieg" anthology having a couple of SCW scenarios though there's been some good mods for the likes of CC3, IL-2 FB and MOH).

Shame because, despite the "civil war" moniker, you have the opportunity to fight as Americans (Abe Lincoln Battalion), Canadian (The Mac Paps), British, Irish, French, Italian, German, Russian, etc...plus er, Spanish.

Sorry, but the subject matter of CM:SF holds zero interest for me though I'm sure it will be a well made product with a ready audience in the USA.

[Lee]

MikeyD: People in the U.S. that were supporters of the nazis in the 1930's were not "hard-right Americans", they were hard left-wingers. The nazis were left-wing socialists, like the communists, just a different flavor of socialism than the communists. And right-wingers (usually referred to as conservatives in the U.S. and Europe) despise socialism, whether it be the communist or nazi variety. Let's keep our facts straight.

I agree that WWII, particularly the European theater, is the ultimate subject for CMII. It has a delicious variety of armies and equipment, with very competent fighting forces on all sides. I can't wait to play CMII: WWII.

[Sergei]

Someone has been indoctrinated well...

[MikeyD]

"nazis were left-wing socialists"

No. Don't confuse Hitler's use of the term 'National Socialism' with anything written by Carl Marx. I'll admit Communists and Fascists DO share common traits, but they're just what ALL despotic regimes share in common. Both aim to bend the will of the common man to suit their ideological ends. Both place the needs of the state over the needs of the individual. Both saw glory in heavy industrialism while romantacizing their supposed bucholic past. The big difference between the two is that for communists its the ruthless state alone that owns the means of production and controls the working class, while for the Fascist right its a combination of ruthless politicians and their equally ruthless industrialist oligarch patrons who own the means of production and control the working class. It was as much of a fantasy to say that the 'worker' was free under communism as that the 'citizen' was free under the fascists.

About right-wingers despising Socialism. Well, from my observation the Right seems to despise anything that threatens to remove the church-state-undustrial boot from the necks of free-thinking individuals.

[Durruti]

Originally posted by Lee:

MikeyD: People in the U.S. that were supporters of the nazis in the 1930's were not "hard-right Americans", they were hard left-wingers. The nazis were left-wing socialists, like the communists, just a different flavor of socialism than the communists. And right-wingers (usually referred to as conservatives in the U.S. and Europe) despise socialism, whether it be the communist or nazi variety. Let's keep our facts straight.

Well this risks reverting to the type of discussion on the old "World Events" forum but suffice to so I don't believe the simple "left vs right" model works - your statements being a prime example why. Still prefer the Political Compass model:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

http://www.politicalcompass.org/extremeright

[Sergei]

This has the risk of becoming a political science discussion. But I'll just add that Nazis leaned heavily to the right. Moderate right wing parties didn't love them, but nevertheless cooperated with them rather than with Social Democrats. (Communists wouldn't cooperate with anyone, least of all with the Social Democrat class traitors, due to directives from Kremlin.)

But right, left, center, liberal, conservative all are dependent on context, yet people react to them as if they were universal truths. The Nazis, being a radical populist party, were a mismatch of opposing ideals. You have there schauvinists and feminists (yes, there was a feminist wing in NSDAP), christians and atheists, liberals and conservatives, bound together by one charismatic leader.