Finalizing CM:SF's Setting

[Battlefront.com]

First, some background....

When we decided that the first CMx2 game would be contemporary (that was mid 2002) our first task was to nail down the geographical region our setting would reside. We discussed several locations, such as Taiwan, North Korea, the "Stans" of central Asia, and various spots in the Middle East. We quickly decided that since all focus is on the Middle East now, and likely until the fall and/or replacement of the oil based civilizations we currently live in, we'd be fools to simulate anything but the Middle East. Talk of a war against Iraq was already in full swing soon after, verifying that we made the right regional pick.

To make a long story short, we tentatively picked Syria as the best option, with Fictional a close second. We decided to see how things went and adjust accordingly. As time went on we felt we were right to go with Syria, but we had to overhaul the storyline several times due to real world events. However, with each day that passed the basic premiss (a unified war against any significant ME country) became less and less plausible. Worse, every day that went by it became less possible. The reasons why have been discussed in other threads, but suffice to say that they have to do with Iraq in one way shape or form. This is true for US as well as European and other forces.

While the terrain and unit list is pretty much set in stone at this point, we can still change around the setting they are in. The way we see it is we have three possible choices:

Syria with Major Story

This has been our tentative choice for a few years now, though we are not wedded to it. Basically, it means coming up with a reasonable backstory that is possible for the mid 2007 timeframe. Nothing central to the story could take place any earlier than mid 2006. Meaning, a story that takes a few years to develop isn't possible because the entire story has to take place post game release. The problem with this is we no longer feel any story will work because either it isn't probable or it wouldn't be practical. For example, our original central plot revolved around a terrorist group using Syria as a safe haven. The group does something VERY bad, like dirty bombs or major biological attacks, in several major Western cities. This MIGHT be enough to get populations to support war, but due to Iraq the US is basically tapped out and the Europeans are suffering from anemic military budgets and declining enlistment. Meaning, other options would be more likely than a ground war if only because a ground war is impractical in the short term.

The benefits of this option are that players have a solid, plausible storyline to follow as they battle through the campaign. This is why we have generally favored going in this direction. Unfortunately, we think this option is a dead end for us and is "on the outs".

The big negative, beyond the problems of a plausible story that isn't trashed before we even release the game, is that once we're locked into a realistic Syria setting, we won't be introducing things that run contrary to that. Since we are not doing a contemporary game from the ground up in the near future (5 years or more), this effectively means we will never, ever put in stuff like T-80, T-90, BMP-3 Kornet, or even Chinese equipment into your hands using the CMx2 game engine.

Fictional with Minimal Story

We make up a country, make up the geography, invent the military and other forces that will be in opposition to the player's force. The story is easy to create because not much of one is needed. Just enough to give a sense of purpose, that's it. The major benefit of this is we don't have to try to predict the future, we can just put it out there for you guys to enjoy and that's that. The OPFOR (Opposing Force) units would still be almost exactly like those of Syria, however we now have the possibility of adding units into the game that for sure wouldn't be found in Syria. For example, T-80 tanks. We know for sure that a large number of players have been asking for the inclusion of such things. It also allows us a lot more freedom in future modules since we can basically include whatever we want to.

The drawbacks to this setting is we have to invent a Middle Eastern country. This is a little more difficult than it might appear to be since it means inventing names of urban areas, land features, and other terrain orientated stuff. This might not be a big hurdle with help from the Forums, but it will take a little bit more work.

Syria with Minimal Story

This is a cross between the two other choices. You get all the real world realism of the Syrian setting but with no real backstory to speak of. You're basically told "Syria did something so bad that the world magically put together a big military force and the will to use it. Don't worry about how or why, or any of that stuff, just enjoy the game". Unfortunately, as a hybrid option it carries with it all the positives and negatives of each that aren't cancelled out by the other. For example, this means we don't put in any units that the Syrians don't have, but we don't have to worry about getting into debates about the backstory because there effectively is none. It also means we don't have to create a fictitious country, flag, names of places, etc.

So there you have it... the three possible directions we can go in. I'd like to discuss them with you guys, but know this right now... we are not taking a poll/vote here. We will ultimately go with the one we feel makes the most amount of sense. 100 people could voice support for a particular option, but if one person points out something that we feel is significant enough to nix that option being "the chosen one", so be it. Therefore, it's fine to say "I would like x", however it is better to say "I would like x because of these various reasons". It's the reasons that interest us.

Thanks!

Steve

[ September 14, 2006, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[junk2drive]

Kurdish autonomy. The USA is already there, and is liked by the Kurds.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Battlefront.com]

Guess you two knuckleheads missed the part about the setting being pretty much Syria even if we don't call it Syria

Steve

[junk2drive]

Unfortunately, we think this option is a dead end for us and is "on the outs".

Guess I read too much into this.

[junk2drive]

The drawbacks to this setting is we have to invent a Middle Eastern country. This is a little more difficult than it might appear to be since it means inventing names of urban areas, land features, and other terrain orientated stuff. This might not be a big hurdle with help from the Forums, but it will take a little bit more work.

An autonomous Kurdish "nation" solves the "inventing" part. Maps are real. History is known.

IIRC Turkey is a big supplier of USA uniforms, wants to be friendly with the West, and is afraid of Kurdish unification.

It just looks like the kind of mess that the USA likes to get involved in.

[Midnight Warrior]

You ask for our vote plus (even more importantly) the reason for it.

My vote would be for a composite Middle East (that looks a lot like Syria). I think having a greater variety of equipment is more important than a story back drop or more exact TO&E's. A composite Middle East would provide the scenario designers and modders with the capability of making a wide variety of scenarios (Syria, Iran, Iraq, or even non ME). At the same time it could be narrow enough in scope to not unduly up the work required to build it.

Also, a composite ME would be a bit less political in that one isn't singling out any one country and would thus not have the David and Goliath feel such as the case of where poor Syria is being ganged up on not only by the US but Europe too! I would also extend the period to cover 2008 so that those system that might not quite make 2007 can be included but would go any further in the future because the crystal ball gets murkier the further one looks into the future.

Also, to try to predict the future with a too detailed story line is too hard to do with any confidence of being right and will in all likihood merely make the game seem dated before its time when current events take off in an unforseen direction as they are so apt to do.

What I think would be neat is to have the ability to "buy" Russian equipment based on rarity factor that reflects the price tag that the Russkies are going to sell their goodies for. That way one can build their own "force structure" to take on Uncle Sam, but one can't go hog wild and buy everything every new exoctic weapon but can maybe buy one from a shopping list. Is it better to buy BMP-3's, T-90's or Koronet's for an urban fight, for open country, for an attack, or a defense, etc? This list can also be expanded in other versions to include US options as well as additional Russian and Chinese.

I am also thinking that if urban operations is the focus there is not that much difference in one urban setting in that region over another. So maybe we have generic ME urban, generic ME desert, genric, ME rural, and generic ME rough terrian.

That's my two cents.

edit: fixed some spelling and typos.

[jeffsmith]

Syria Major is "on the outs" Fine option 1 Elimenated

Syria Minor story Limitations in scope

but as you stated this seems to be the worst of both worlds

the Positive is less work for BFC

Totally Fictionalized makes more work for BFC

BUT it offers possibilites and elimenates some of the "dead ends" that using Syria causes

by being Fictionalized you CAN introduce other hardware and options not available using the Syrian setting

While I am not in the habit of choosing things that make work for others

I see the fictionalized setting being the best option

in summary

Fictional removes the Syrian limitations

and opens up more open ended (and hardware) posibilities

I am sure there are many "learned" people who can whip up a fictional ME country rather Quickly:

and I wouldnt be surprised to find its already been done somewhere

[kgsan]

Well, my vote would be for "Fictional with Minimal Story." It seems the safest way to avoid problems (or at least to role with the punches) from unpredictable future events, would arguably increase the longevity of the title's marketability, and would allow inclusion of some additional units that many would probably want to play with. Heaven forbid that a near-term future conflagration with some country other than Syria further delay release of CM:Shockforce. We need BFC to get working on its most importent project, CMx2 WWII, as soon as possible.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[dima]

I'd pick #2 where more equipment (T-80's, BMP's, Chinese) can be added.

No need to worry about story line. Why? Because game will only ship with maybe 20 missions but there will be 100's created by users afterwards.

I'll bet you my monthly paycheck, that even if you choose #1, within weeks of game release someone will make a good mini-campaign that will be semi-historical, with different story line, maybe even set in the past in a what-if scenario (like Operation Flashpoint).

Look at CMx1 missions, how many of them are semi-historical of totally fictional. And they are all great!

Having more units (T-80, BMP) will prolong game's life as new missions will be created day after day. Look at CMx1 games.

[Moronic Max]

I gotta say that the middle option seems to be the best one. Unless you guys were planning on going the Warcraft 3 route and making the story integral to the (singleplayer) gameplay, you don't lose much (except the time lost to place names and such) and do gain much, in terms of flexibility for new units and interesting locations. Not that I think Syria lacks for the latter, but...

[hellfish]

Fictional. I like creative clean slates.

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks for the feedback guys. Very good food for thought so far.

As for our Maximum Moron's (hehe) point about Campaigns, I should remind people that we are very much positioning the CMx2 games to be played as a story based campaign. Obviously that's up to the individual player as he can easily play individual battles, make his own, or do QuickBattles. But we hope that the majority will play the campaign first.

The storyline for the setting is not that important for the campaign itself. All you need to say for the geopolitical story is "this is the problem, that's why you are here, and you need to fix it". The campaign itself will be like any real military campaign... completely unconcerned about the reasons why you're there, only concerned about getting the desired end result without getting all your guys killed in the process. Since any campaign in any of the three possible settings is a work of fiction, it takes no more effort on our part to make a campaign for one vs. another. In fact, the outline for the campaign already exists and it won't change one iota no matter what the setting is. I might have to change some names, but the battles themselves will be identical.

Steve

[rudel.dietrich]

Here is my idea and it incorporates alot of your original story.

The current Syrian goverent sees the writing on the wall.

It's current military is not capable of defending the country or being a threat to Israel.

Its economy is on the rise and it sees the joys of prosperiaty.

It begins to open the door a little and begin a long term cease fire solution with Israel.

It also begins talks with the US and EU to cease chemical weapon research and keep out of the affairs in Iraq.

This does not sit very well with certain groups in Syria nor with the people of Syria.

It also does not sit well with Iran or Russia.

So in the winter of 2006 a coup forms and the people begin to revolt against the current goverment.

By December a violent civil war has broken out.

The UN declares it will try and negotiate but will leave the matter in the hands of Syria.

The Arab states sit back and let the thing play itself out.

Russia and Iran seceratly back the coup.

By early spring the war is winding down in a crushing victory for the hardline forces.

Lead by the former Syrian special forces and Hezbollah the new regime is very hardline and much more religiously strict than the last.

It also completly cuts itself off from the rest of the world besides Lebanon, Russia and Iran.

Quickly terrorist camps open and begin to train thousands of new soldiers for a war against the west and Israel.

Israel begins a war of words and the US moves forces to the western border of Iraq to stem the flow of weapons and put a stop to border incursions.

Israel begins the first steps of mobilization and moves some forces to the Golan region.

Several bombings rock Beirut and the Syrian goverment offers to step in and 'stabilize' the country.

Special forces and some army units move in and Lebanon becomes a puppet state for the new goverment.

The UN meets and issues a resoloution economicly squeezing the new country.

A blockade is set up and all natural gas shipments are cut.

The Syrian goverment with enemies of all sides is extremly paranoid of an inpending Zionist and US invasion.

It then takes the drastic step of a first strike.

It launches SSM chemical attacks against, Tel-Aviv, Haifia and Jewish controlled Jerusalem.

A series of bombing and highjacking occur in Europe and a small nuclear device is exploding in Washington DC.

All of the attacks are traced back to Syrian sponsered terroist groups.

Condemnation is swift and fierce.

Syria has 72 hours to hand over the guilty parties, dismantle all camps and return pull out of Lebanon.

They refuse

Turkey allows Nato forces to use its border and airbases.

Israel is shattered but agrees to make limited attacks in the Golan to pin Syrian forces in place.

US Marines (for a later module) plan a daring attack to land in Lebenon and drive on Beirut.

The US military along with loyal forces of the ex Syrian goverment plan to drive in from western Iraq and link up with Nato forces from the north.

This will either drive Syrian forces towards the landing Marines or towards the Golan and onto the IDF anvil.

So there you go.

Its wild, its far fetched.

But its what I have.

It gives you real countries, a deep story, lots and lots of material and is not so far out there that its in the realm of sci-fi.

You will not lose people due to having a ficticious OPFOR and the story will provide the setting your looking for while perserving all the work that has been done.

And you have lots of ready to go follow up modules that use large chunks of what has already been done.

You have the Marines, various European nations and possibly the IDF.

So...

Comments?

(Sorry for all the spelling and grammer errors)

[PseudoSimonds]

It looks like I'll be in the minority but I'm not at all a fan of the fictional setting idea. For me it would really drop the plausability/immersion/realism that is central to CM. I played Full Spectrum Warrior which had a fictional opposition and I think it kinda killed the immersion and made it feel more like you were playing a simulator at some training centre rather than operating in a real locale with real enemies.

I dunno, it just doesn't sound like CM to me.

[A.E.B]

I'd actually go for a "all the small wars start holding hands" scenario.

Move the date to say 2009. Have the Coalition forces withdrawing from the Gulf due to problems elsewhere/job done/whatever.

Just when peace looks possible across the Middle East a previously unheard of group stages uprising in a number of ME countries with the aim of creating a new Pan-Islamic or Pan-Arab state. This new force can be backed indirectly by foreign powers (ie Russia and China).

In response small mobile units are rushed back to the region in a effort to stem the collapse of "friendly nations" and then roll back the new threat.

Throw in a oil crisis or something for flavour.

Then you can have a ME war without any existing or identifiable nations or groups taking part.

It would also allow the Blue forces to be initially highly outnumbered and on the defensive (think Early Korean War), followed by a gradual rollback of the Reds. Also allows for allied forces on both sides.

This may also avoid the perception (hard to shake) that CM:SF will be a turkey shoot (our boys beating on the insert non PC term for Syrians), or that it will become Iraqi occupation Mark II).

Unless of course CM:SF is actually a military trainer disguised as a game.

The important thing is any setting must be (a) interesting, ( have enough believability to suspend disbelief, and © appear to present a range of challenges.

The issue I have with CM:SF as previous described in the perception that basically it will be solely USA assaults against infantry in built up areas or broken terrain, simply due to the disparity in forces.

[hellfish]

Y'know, the setting really only affects the campaign. Someone can (theoretically) take a fictional CMSF the go back and edit the names in the campaign from "Country X" to "Syria" and it'd be damn near the same thing.

Having a fictional country opens up TONS of possibilities to us for single battles, operations and quickbattles. We're not restricted by Syria's current geopolitical status. This should especially appeal to all the people that whined that the game would be a walkover for the US forces. Give Country X a battalion of T-90M tanks and see how the Abrams fare.

[Fangorn]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Fictional with Minimal Story

We make up a country, make up the geography, invent the military and other forces that will be in opposition to the player's force. The story is easy to create because not much of one is needed. Just enough to give a sense of purpose, that's it. The major benefit of this is we don't have to try to predict the future, we can just put it out there for you guys to enjoy and that's that. The OPFOR (Opposing Force) units would still be almost exactly like those of Syria, however we now have the possibility of adding units into the game that for sure wouldn't be found in Syria. For example, T-80 tanks. We know for sure that a large number of players have been asking for the inclusion of such things. It also allows us a lot more freedom in future modules since we can basically include whatever we want to.

The drawbacks to this setting is we have to invent a Middle Eastern country. This is a little more difficult than it might appear to be since it means inventing names of urban areas, land features, and other terrain orientated stuff. This might not be a big hurdle with help from the Forums, but it will take a little bit more work.

Seems by the best option, IMHO. No such pesky thing as real life to interfere in the history, and the added flexibility is a substancial advantage. I for one felt the original planning was a bit too constricted, especially given the scope of the first three CM games. More room to expansion is always a good thing!

As for history and background, they are indeed easy to create. Let's say, for example, that a important ally of the USA in the middle east is facing a civil war, backed up by not so friendly nations of the middle east that are trying to replace the government of this country. USA is called to save the day, and face the rebels and maybe elite forces from those other countries that are fomenting the rebellion (pretty much the same thing originally planned for Syria forces, I think). Plenty of room for other countries to get into the fray, which would justify all kind of equipment, european, chinese, russian, etc.

Just my 2 centavos.

[Battlefront.com]

Rudel, that's pretty much the same story we have on paper now, which is a modified version of what I posted here in October of last year:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=000289

This is the same story that I think is so far fetched that we might as well say aliens helped out by cloning US troops so that they could actually fight three wars (two of which already need more troops) at the same time I'm not being insulting here, just restating the reasons why we're doubting that Syria is the way to go.

PseudoSimonds, I hear you loud and clear. It's why I've been sticking to the Syria scenario all these years, even though with each passing day it has gone more from plausible to ridiculous. So I guess it is perspective. I found the Full Spectrum Warrior game rather lame, so if it had been set in a real country I know I wouldn't have liked it any more. And I'm really not sure which is worse... a real nation set in a ridiculously unrealistic story or a fictitious nation set in a story that isn't pretending to be realistic. Up until recently I thought we could do a real nation set in a mildly impossible story, but I don't see that as possible any more.

A.E.B., that's the best counter suggestion I've heard so far Problem is we can't push the timeframe up to 2009. Technology, organizations, and just about everything else is changing so rapidly that 2009 is too far down the road. Our main goal is to have people playing with units that are recognizable and largely the same as they are today. Beyond 2007 things get really murkey. So that makes both the setting and the units in them rather divorced from today's stuff. But perhaps there is something to work with here so I'll noodle it some more.

Steve

[Schrullenhaft]

(Uh... I took too far long to write this up, so the points may have already been made).

Well, to summarize the obvious...

Giving the OPFOR T-80's, BMP-3's, etc. is a very tempting option with the Fictional with Minimal Story. The potentially more competitive forces that can be employed in this version could give the game more appeal. I believe that players will often end up inventing their own backstories with something they find more entertaining (not that a Syrian invasion is necessarily going to be "boring") and offering the non-Syrian hardware can further their efforts. Of course what would be even better is TOEs from various Middle Eastern countries, but that is obviously out of the question here.

But the Fictional with Minimal Story option obviously has its glaring fault in the "fictional Middle Eastern country" that is somehow well equipped, trained and enough of a threat that US/NATO/EU forces would be fully committed with large scale combat forces. This fictional setting gives the game a bit of a "me too" quality with other games on the market that have taken a simliar tack. It also goes a bit against BFC/BTS convention in using a highly fictional setting (well, DropTeam excluded). So with this option you would be giving in to the idea that any Middle Eastern scenario probably couldn't have a fully plausible basis and still be "interesting".

Another option would be to go the Syria with Minimal Story with a few changes. You could provide the completely accurate (as far as sources indicate) TOE, but offer some "options" that allow the inclusion of more up-to-date hardware. Such as a "Russian Lend Lease" option that makes some of the newer hardware available. Considering that the backstory can be fairly open (and the time frame could possibly be a bit later than 2007), some "what ifs" could plausibly be included. This gives a little more variability to the scenarios that could be created.

[A.E.B]

A.E.B., that's the best counter suggestion I've heard so far Problem is we can't push the timeframe up to 2009. Technology, organizations, and just about everything else is changing so rapidly that 2009 is too far down the road.

Steve

But you do plan to launch the game by 2007 right? So you simply wind up using 2007 OOBs and tech in 2009.

After all - a year or so after CM:SF is released many of the same things will have changed anyway.

[Battlefront.com]

fishy wrote:

Y'know, the setting really only affects the campaign. Someone can (theoretically) take a fictional CMSF the go back and edit the names in the campaign from "Country X" to "Syria" and it'd be damn near the same thing.

This is a point that can not be emphasized enough. Unlike Full Spectrum Warrior, CM is playable in more ways than just a campaign. Don't want to play the fictional setting? Want to instead play the battle for Damascus? Easy... get some maps of said city, make some scenarios, and bingo... it's Syrian Republican Guard vs. Stryker Brigade. That's because the OPFOR TO&E will be based on Rudel's excellent research on Syrian forces, not something plucked out of thin air. That's what we're going with no matter what it is called. Just don't put in the T-80s into your battle of you want it to be realistically Syrian

As someone else said, no matter what we claim the OPFOR nation is (Syria or The Republic of Earwaxistan), people will make their own scenarios using their own names and places. I bet we'll see a ton of Iranian and Iraqi scenarios coming out from people. Someone will likely make a Syrian campaign too. So it really doesn't matter what we use as the backstory since people will do with it what they will, though with forces that are pretty much based on Syria's forces.

Hmmm... now someone will have to remind me why I ever thought the backstory was important at all

Steve

[rudel.dietrich]

Why are you luring people towards the fictional side of promises of T-90s and BMP-3s and then in the other thread bitching about us asking for the moon and stating you wanted to to narrow the scope of this CM.

THEN we find in this thread people asking for months of extra art and modeling.

You are just trying to expand the scope of the game by possibly including the entire ME

You then say the US invading Syria is far fetched but are willing to make up a entirely fake story involving fake nations and stories.

It really hard ot ask what we want when I cant get any sort of consistency on what the game is trying to do.

And I think your damned if you do and damned if you dont.

If you fictionalize it then you are going to turn some people off like myself who have zero interest in ordering around regiments of T-90 tanks that cost as much as some entire yearly GNPs of some ME countries.

You would also be opening up the game to questions like

'If the game is fictional, why can't I have every nation and platform in the world represented'

On the other hand if you go with a plausible story and one single nation you will have those who cannot get their heads around the concept of what actual armies field and why they cannot have every fantasy weapon in exsistence.

You are going to have people dislike the game either way.

I really see no point in wasting some of the work done already or opening up the game to what you in a thread not 24 hours ago said you did not want to do which was have a broad focus.

So when you finally reach some sort of agreement on where exactly you want to take the game please let us know.

Your confusing the hell out of at least one person here!

Sorry if that sounds harsh, im not trying to be and I understand limitations and wanting to get the game right.

But its really hard to give out sugesstions when we don't know the rules of what you guys are trying to accomplish.

[Battlefront.com]

Schrullenhaft,

I had thought about the Syria with Minmal Backstory and Options. It is a possibility worth thinking about some more.

Steve