Finalizing CM:SF's Setting

[Wodin]

Why not scrap the Middle East idea and either make the fans happy and go with WW2 or a fictional NATO vs WARSAW pact.

[PseudoSimonds]

Originally posted by Wodin:

Why not scrap the Middle East idea and either make the fans happy and go with WW2 or a fictional NATO vs WARSAW pact.

Um, because that flushes a fair bit of work they've already done down the toilet and yet further delays us getting our hands on a CMx2 game. No thanks.

[Paul AU]

Sequoia said: My two cents. I was not going to buy CMSF. Its setting was too close to todays headlines and it would have made me uncomfortable to play it.

I agree. "Bad taste" is the least I can say.

If BFC says they are locked into an America Invades the Middle East - Again, scenario, they can at least make the victim-country generic.

Quoting Sequioa again: maybe that doesn't make sense but that's how I feel.

[Cpl Steiner]

As many have already said, the back-story won't really matter a damn once we are all playing the game - it's more for the marketing of the game and the manual. That being said, it may become more important once people start to design their own scenarios to fit into the fictional back-story, as I shall attempt to explain below.

Whenever an episode of "Star Trek" was made, any new facts were carefully added to the show's "bible" - a set of notes defining all that is known about the Star Trek universe. In addition, the new script would be scanned to make sure that it did not contradict anything in a previous episode.

Now imagine what will happen when people start to add scenarios to the official CM:SF back-story. There will be a danger that contradictions will start to appear. 1st Battalion 172 Stryker brigade might end up in two widely separate places at the same time.

One way to avoid this would be for Battlefront to provide a "time-line" for the war - or at least a map like you see in military history books showing what large-scale units are where at any given time. Scenario writers would then be able to write scenarios that did not conflict with each other.

The question then is, would a real-world location and adversary make this job any easier? To my mind it probably would, because the extra detail below the surface would give scenario designers more to work with that wasn't specifically spelt out by Battlefront but which all scenario designers could agree with (because it's a real place with real units).

The more I think about this, the more I come to the conclusion that the best way to portray the game is as a simulation of a war that has already happened, as recorded in some future military history. We could all then agree that this is the official history of the conflict, and if you want to add some scenarios, they have to tie in with the accepted time-line.

[PseudoSimonds]

Originally posted by Paul AU:

Sequoia said: My two cents. I was not going to buy CMSF. Its setting was too close to todays headlines and it would have made me uncomfortable to play it.

I agree. "Bad taste" is the least I can say.

If BFC says they are locked into an America Invades the Middle East - Again, scenario, they can at least make the victim-country generic.

Quoting Sequioa again: maybe that doesn't make sense but that's how I feel.

Hey, it's just lines of text in the manual. Once you're in the campaign just pretend it's some generic Middle Eastern country you're beating the crap out of, if that somehow makes you feel better about it.

Cool, that logic works both ways!

[Bertram]

I have been following this discussion more or less (hard to keep up), and I think I would like a very short, non story introduction best. something like:

When we started US/UN vs Syria seemed a possible scenario. Now is is very improbable, but if somehow the US/UN decided to invade Syria, and managed to make the manpower available, this is what we think would happen.....

[Battlefront.com]

Cool, that logic works both ways!

That's what I've been saying

BTW, there was a report today that the supreme military commander in Afghanistan has requested 1000 ground troops and 1500 more aviation (helos mostly, I think) troops to come in and help out. Guess what? Nobody seems to have them, or so they say.

Great Brittain says they are tapped out, Germany can't proivde troops for the combat ops in the south, while Italy, France, Spain, and Turkey say that their relatively tiny contributions to the Lebanese force have them all maxed out as well. The US is also understrength in Iraq and Afghanistan according to recent reports, but there are enough problems keeping the current levels where they are at.

So... where are 200k troops supposed to come from when apparently nobody can come up with even 1/10th that amount? Obviously this could change if the other nations wanted it to, at least to a degree, but my earlier comments about the lack of interest and/or ability of deployments outside of home countries is pretty apparent. 2500 is such a tiny comittment.

Steve

[WineCape]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

The more I think about this, the more I come to the conclusion that the best way to portray the game is as a simulation of a war that has already happened, as recorded in some future military history. We could all then agree that this is the official history of the conflict, and if you want to add some scenarios, they have to tie in with the accepted time-line.

Elegant. What the man said is my view too. Much obliged Cpl Steiner for typing my thoughts too. For the 2nd time

[PseudoSimonds]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Cool, that logic works both ways!

That's what I've been saying

BTW, there was a report today that the supreme military commander in Afghanistan has requested 1000 ground troops and 1500 more aviation (helos mostly, I think) troops to come in and help out. Guess what? Nobody seems to have them, or so they say.

Great Brittain says they are tapped out, Germany can't proivde troops for the combat ops in the south, while Italy, France, Spain, and Turkey say that their relatively tiny contributions to the Lebanese force have them all maxed out as well. The US is also understrength in Iraq and Afghanistan according to recent reports, but there are enough problems keeping the current levels where they are at.

So... where are 200k troops supposed to come from when apparently nobody can come up with even 1/10th that amount? Obviously this could change if the other nations wanted it to, at least to a degree, but my earlier comments about the lack of interest and/or ability of deployments outside of home countries is pretty apparent. 2500 is such a tiny comittment.

Steve </font>

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Everybody's discussing what THEY want.

Which decision do you think would be best for BFC's overall sales? I'd hate to say it (because its certainly not my own personal choice) but maybe its the in-your-face all out "Syria slug-fest" game. Even to the point of having a highway sign reading "to Damascus" with Strykers rolling the direction of a distant burning city. Something so audacious that it would raise the hairs on the back of your neck to see it sitting on store shelves! And if the public is horrified? Well, as the old saying goes, there's no such thing as 'bad' publicity. :eek:

OK

Here's another good point.

The decision that looks like it will generate the most sales and the most profit for BFC is the one we should be talking about. IMHO

MikeyD didn't say it, but something like in the newspaper biz "If it bleeds it leads", which in this case could manifest itself into the game that generates the maximum controversy should get the maximum "free" media exposure and posibly the maxium sales. So why not go for the sensationalism as long as it is not "too close to home" as to be really unpopular?

I recall one good post in one thread sometime ago about "branding" by someone here who REALLY understood the concept and was clearly in the marketing business.

See my next post for MikeyD's comments.

-tom w

[ September 16, 2006, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[akd]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Cool, that logic works both ways!

That's what I've been saying

BTW, there was a report today that the supreme military commander in Afghanistan has requested 1000 ground troops and 1500 more aviation (helos mostly, I think) troops to come in and help out. Guess what? Nobody seems to have them, or so they say.

Great Brittain says they are tapped out, Germany can't proivde troops for the combat ops in the south, while Italy, France, Spain, and Turkey say that their relatively tiny contributions to the Lebanese force have them all maxed out as well. The US is also understrength in Iraq and Afghanistan according to recent reports, but there are enough problems keeping the current levels where they are at.

So... where are 200k troops supposed to come from when apparently nobody can come up with even 1/10th that amount? Obviously this could change if the other nations wanted it to, at least to a degree, but my earlier comments about the lack of interest and/or ability of deployments outside of home countries is pretty apparent. 2500 is such a tiny comittment.

Steve </font>

[Kong]

I'm might be confused, but I think I'm leaning towards a mix of Syria/Fictional with minimal back story.

Purely fictional would be a lot of work and even though we all know your really just a bunch of lazy bums, except for the brain in the jar, you don't need more work... or do you?!?!

On 3rd thought I say pitch the whole Middle East angle and let's go back to the good ole days and fight the Ruskies!!!

(On a side note I think BFC has made a good decision not to do WWII with CMX2, the market is past the saturation point right now with WWII themed games)

[Andrew H.]

I'm in favor of the "vague backstory" option. After all, to enjoy CMx1, we didn't need to know the causes of WWII in any real detail to play the scenarios.

I would just set the story in the near future and vaguely allude to Syrian support of a devastating terrorist attack on both the US and Europe. Perhaps prompted by President Clinton's refusal to wear a burka. And maybe include some reference to the difficulty of the overextended US to immediately reply with overwhelming force.

[aka_tom_w]

here it is

MikeyD again with gem of marketing wisdom:

To put humor aside for a second, myself:

The whole concept nowadays is "Branding", making your name recognizable and making potential customers feel like they want to be 'the kind of people' who use your product. I work in advertising (as one of the mole people slaving underground, not an executive) and my employer has clients with ugly-arse names like Vonage, Oral-B, etc. If it weren't for advertising they'd just be nonsense sounds to you.

You could say the name 'Combat Mission' has come to be branded - among those who recognize it - as a 'boutique' smaller scale gaming company who takes their end product very seriously. 'Combat Mission' is a brand. 'Shock Force' is a product associated with the brand. The name could just as well be nonsense words - "Bugle Carthage" for instance - but its association with the Combat Misson brand has already elevated it (sight unseen) to the level of serious 'boutique' wargame.

What BFC should do is leverage their Combat Mission brand, place themselves in the paths of people who imagine themselves to be the 'kind of person' who could appreciate a serious boutique tactical military sim. Y'see, its the opposite of traditional advertising. Instead of saying "This product is GREAT" they should say "We're a serious game house. It takes a particular kind of person to appreciate us. Do YOU have what it takes?" BFC's already got some mileage out of the brand. Games as diverse as Drop Team to Down in Flames want to associate themselves with CM integrity.

[BFCElvis]

You're right Tom. Conceptually MikeyD has it down pat. That being said the impression I have of SF is that BFC hopes to make it a "This product is GREAT" thing and use the "street cred" that CM gives them to separate them from the rest of the crowd. With that thought in mind something that has some basis in reality (i.e. NOT the totally made up generic Midddle Eastern country) would be needed to maintain the integrity of the CM brand name.

[Midnight Warrior]

This has been a really interesting thread and it llos to me like there has been a lot of good discussion. Just a couple of more comments (and there is nothing really new here but rather my attempt to summarize in my own words what I it seems to me what many are saying here).

I have been a wargammer for some forty odd years. And on reflecting back there are several things that keep me hooked on wargamming...and BTW, showing how brilliant of commander I am ain't one of them! These are:

1. A way to study history interactively (and not just read about it)

2. A virtual time machine to experience history albeit virtually..which ain't a bad whay to do that

3. A way to see how the mechanics of weapons systems capabilities pan out in simulated combat

4. a way to explore what if's in tactics and equipment and learn the why's thing work out the way they do,

5. to experinece the drama and excitemnet of a well crafted hard fought battle as it unfolds, and

6 (which wargame technology is perhaps just now beginning to model but perhaps not very well) to see how the human factor plays in combat.

Now a generic, representative, non historical setting perhaps will not scratch the itch for items 1 and 2 above since events all lie yet in the future (and that hopefully never happen for that matter)... but it certainly can for items 3-5.

Thus I would think these perhaps should be the areas to focus on and not in trying to pretend that the story line is historical when it in fact it is not. But the weapon systems can be modeled with a reasonble degree of fidelity. And there are all these new technologies (from ATGM to UAV's) that the wargammer has never really had (IMHO) a decent tactical simulation to date to experiement with. So I see that should be CMSF's forte introducing new weapon systems modeled with the right mix of accuracy and being a good game into the tactical wargammimng arena and not so much recreating history (since there is not history to recreate here anyway).

Now that does not mean that there should be no limits and that every futuristic weapon system in an industry/government PowerPoint briefing should be included, and thus I think a looks alot like Syria with some reasonable extras makes a lot of sense. And just a generic red and blue force will not satisfy 1 and 2 above so a generic yet indentifiable red and a realistic US blue makes sense to me.

That the red be set in the Middle East makes sense also since many of the countries there tend to have left over Soviet/Cold War equiplement and doctrines and thus there is a lot of homogeniaty in regards to the military equipment and training in that area while there is variety in the geopolitical situations (much of which is outside the scope of a tactical simulation anyway). And there is also a sense that there is a high probability that the US forces may be engaged in future conflicts there and thus may resonate with the buying public.

But now that many of these countries now have to pay hard cash for their goodies that they used to get more for for free (or atleast at a big discount)they don't have nearly so much of Russia new toys so they have to pick and choose what they buy very carefully. And this can be abstracted in a tactical game by rarity factors or used by scenario designers to weave what ever storyline that strikes their fancy.

Thus being able to augment a Syrian like TO&E with a few extras makes sense to me in that it does violate 1 and 2 above that bad but enhances 3 and 4 and even 5. Therefore, I think that a generic Middle East that looks a lot like Syria but has the flexibility to go beyond Syria is probably not a bad way to go at all.

In fact, I think I like this better than the original concept of a Syria with a major story line. Now if now a "Syria with it's major story line" was in fact actual history (or one could clearly see into the future with a cyrstal ball so that it was "future history") then I think 1 and 2 above would predominate over 3 and 4 and lead to a different answer.

edit: cleaned up some wording

[ September 16, 2006, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: Midnight Warrior ]

[dan/california]

In the absence of refocusing on Iran or Pakistan what Cpl Steiner said makes a ton of sense. I also think Steve is underestimating how beneficial it would be if Rumsfeld suddenly retired for "health reasons". Pure demonstrated incompetence is a big part of our problem right now and the man is 70 something, he could say it with a straight face. McCain as defense Secretary would produce asignificant turn around in remarkably little time.

I would not have India standing aside in a Pakistan conflict. I would have the 172 operating in support of the Indians. The possibilities are endless. Someone should have had this idea a year ago.

Their are an endless number of possibilities for terrorist atrocities using some some sort of NBC weapon to use as a basis for the backstory. NO ONE knows the difference between a Pakistani uniform and a Syrian one, no one. Just do it, it automatically answers where the cleanup and occupation troops are coming from among other issues.

[Battlefront.com]

More good thoughts, as expected

As I've said, I personally am in favor of keeping it Syria. However, I am not in favor of a backstory that will likely be proven wrogn within a few months of CM:SF's release, if not sooner. So I'm thinking the best way of going is a minimal backstory (eg. "you're at war... go and fight"), Syria, and a special bunch of units that are clearly labeled as "not realistic, though in theory possible" for everything else but the campaign. That should make pretty much everybody happy.

AKD, the though of Pakistan falling to a Taliban style government is frightening to the extreme. I would suspect Inida would be involved. Interesting sceanrio, but it scares the piss out of me

Dan, Rumsfeld retiring 3 years ago and a different President could have made a difference. Now... too late. It's like someone who drives drunk and smashes a car into a telephone pole, then hands the keys to the passenger who hasn't drunk a thing. Sure, the guy getting the keys is capable of driving safely, but since the car is crashed into the pole it's going to take a towtruck and a week at the repair shop before it can be driven again. That's the unfortunate situation the US military finds itself in at the moment. Europe, on the other hand, is like someone driving to see how far they can get before they hit Empty. Unfortunately, they happen to be driving in the middle of the Mohave Desert at the time the Low Fuel light comes on.

Cool... been too long since I used cars as an analogy.

Steve

[vetacon]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

As I've said, I personally am in favor of keeping it Syria. However, I am not in favor of a backstory that will likely be proven wrogn within a few months of CM:SF's release, if not sooner. So I'm thinking the best way of going is a minimal backstory (eg. "you're at war... go and fight"), Syria, and a special bunch of units that are clearly labeled as "not realistic, though in theory possible" for everything else but the campaign. That should make pretty much everybody happy.

Cool, we're all agreed then. When's the release date?

[aka_tom_w]

. So I'm thinking the best way of going is a minimal backstory (eg. "you're at war... go and fight"), Syria, and a special bunch of units that are clearly labeled as "not realistic, though in theory possible" for everything else but the campaign. That should make pretty much everybody happy.

-Steve

That suits me fine.

Perhaps there should be a new thread to see who would complain about that suggestion. (Or NOT, just go with it!)

It will do JUST fine.

I like the suggestion of the historical retrospective as well, with the backstory of the telling of the unfolding of history (the back story and battles and campaigns of CM:SF) as if it has already happened. That one is fine with me as well.

-tom w

[dan/california]

The ones that scare the bleep out of you are the ones you fight over, ready or not. :eek:

I repeat, no one who is going to buy this game knows the difference between Pakistani and Syrian uniforms. The people who do know have either won't really care or have no money. And yes, I know you are not going to go that way. I just think it is a plausible story. On 9-10 2001 9-11 was an implausible story, it happened.

Just to make it a little more likely the U.S. and India are actually getting closer right now. And a Taliban run Pakistan would set off every bell in both capitals. I would volunteer to help write it but I don't have the time to write this post.

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Hoolaman,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />While the realism of the simulation might not be any different, the "realism" or suspension-of-disbelief of the campaign could be seriously effected.

Exactly why I don't want to do Syria with an attempt at a realistic backstory. My suspension of disbelief will be shattered if I'm told that the US and its Allies managed to mass 200k soldiers on the border of Syria in 2007 (or anytime for that matter).</font>

[Battlefront.com]

Dan,

n 9-10 2001 9-11 was an implausible story, it happened.

As I've said earlier, there is a difference between plausible and possible. It was never considered plausible for the US to be operating in Afghanistan before 9/11/01, but it was certainly possible in theory. Events that would basically compell US and/or European military action against Syia in the near future is also plausible. However, a large scale ground war is simply not possible. At least not nearly as possible as alternatives that I've already discussed.

Hoolaman,

It does seem to almost be equally silly to say there are 200k soldiers massed on the Syrian Border 'cause we said so and there are 200k soldiers on the border to unseat Assad based on some elaborate political backstory.

Which might possibly be why I've been suggesting a fictional setting is the best way to go?

Think of it another way. If someone told you one of the following, which would you have the least suspension of disbelief?:

1. The world is gong to end on the 3rd of October at 10:40 AM, Eastern Standard Time. It will come in the form of a meteor the size of a moon that has previously gone undetected by world astronomers. When it hits, all higher forms of life on Earth will cease to exist within 6 months. What will you do with your time?

2. The world is going to effectively end in October. You will have only 6 months to live after. The reason is not important, the only thing that matters is how you react to it. What will you do with your time?

3. In October you get news that you are going to die in 6 months, along with everybody else. What will you do with your time?

The same basic scenario and question is asked of you in each of the three scenarios. One has a high level of detail, one a low level of detail, and the third is purely hypothetical. The answer you give should be identical no matter which scenario you are presented with, but you might have a harder time taking one of them more seriously than the other. I know I'd have a hard time taking #1 seriously and (as you yourself pointed out) #2 is really no better. #3 is far "bullet proof" from a logic standpoint.

That being said, I'm favoring the presentation style of #2 right now for CM:SF. It is basically as unrealistic as #1, but the less details given the harder it is to find fault with it.

And as you say, this is only relevant for the Campaign since all other options are completely and utterly independent of the story no matter what it is. Heck, you can even rename units in CM:SF, so if you want to call a Syrian Rifle Company "Headhunters of Hubba-Hubba" you can. As the game's creator it's no sweat off my nose

Steve

[konstantine]

I vote for the "fictional with minimal story". More units=more fun, especially with the red on red, blue on blue option.

[JT Fox]

Fictional with Minimal Story

If you have a large equipment data base which can be expanded, then you can take CMx2 engine to any location.

A few visual mods and you would soon be fighting in Cold War Europe in the 1980's for example.

I have have not been around CM for very long but one thing that stands out is the way in which the game community can bend the CMx1 engine to do almost any campaign. With "Fictional with Minimal Story" you keep all options open.

Cheers JT Fox