Finalizing CM:SF's Setting

[PseudoSimonds]

Why fictionalize the country? Why not fictionalize the geopolitical situation such that Syria ends up with the fancy equipment that some people want in the modules? Either way you're seriously messing with reality but I think the latter would be preferable since it would retain some of that real-world immersion.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by PseudoSimonds:

Why fictionalize the country? Why not fictionalize the geopolitical situation such that Syria ends up with the fancy equipment that some people want in the modules? Either way you're seriously messing with reality but I think the latter would be preferable since it would retain some of that real-world immersion.

Then you might as well toss TO&E and realism out the window.

Sure the platforms, armour values etc will all be realistic but alot of the realism comes from realistic force values and a realistic picture of what that force would actualy look like if a war did indeed happen.

[Battlefront.com]

Rudel is correct. If we go with a strictly "realistic" setting then we need to be consistent. Which is one of the reasons I've suggested that going with a strict "realistic" setting is perhaps not the best way to go.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Rudel,

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.

I think you have misunderstood. I'm talking about the full life of CM:SF, which includes (hopefully at least) three follow up Modules. We will want to have some new stuff introduced for each one. At present time we have been thinking of holding back on a few Syrian elements, such as BMP-3s but NOT adding stuff that makes the Syrian setting unrealistic. That means no T-80s or Chinese stuff in any Module ever. So my arguments against putting in too many things in CM:SF's initial release are not being changed one bit here. What is being changed is the range of options for Modules. We'd probably put the T-80 into the initial release, however something else would be pushed out to a future Module to make room for it.

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

Not at all. As I have repeatedly said, the OPFOR will be Syria's armed forces and some projected terrorist types no matter what choice of story we go with. If we go fictional it simply means we can swap some a limited amount of weapons around spread out over the full life of the game.

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.

I've already explained myself several times here. The storyline for the Syria story is so unbelievable that it is no more real than a completely fictional setting, save the names of the places that the players fight over.

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

I'm being extremely consistent. Note that I have dismissed several suggestions here because they are inconsistent.

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

We knew that back in 2002 when we decided to not do the past but to do the future instead. That part hasn't changed at all either.

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.

Who says you have to?

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'

We will get that anyway. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

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.

I've said several times now that we wouldn't do that. You even asked me who would stop it from happening, and I said we will. It won't happen.

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

Riiiiiight... so why are you putting up such a fuss?

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.

I've already said, a dozen times or more, that we aren't going to change anything that is in the game already. We will waste nothing by going with a fictitious scenario because we won't change anything.

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.

I've tried to make the parameters very clear, but I see from your post that you are still not seeing that. Hopefully my answers above will fix that.

Steve

[rudel.dietrich]

That did clear some things up

[hellfish]

Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

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'

For what it's worth, Algeria just bought ~300 T-90 tanks and something like a similar number of BMP-3s and a couple dozen MiG-29s and/or SU-30s.

With a fictional CAMPAIGN setting for CMSF you can still fight the Syrians. But you'd also be able to fight the Algerians, Libyans, Iraqis, Iranians, Saudis (M1A2s vs M1A2s!) or whomever else you want to. Hell - you could probably even do a good job of simulating the Toyota Wars.

[Capt. Toleran]

Personally, I would like whatever option allows scenario developers (and I'm not one) the greatest flexibility to generate content with maximum equipment choices. As the game industry has shown, there is an ocean of free fan content that just needs to be tapped with the right toolset. I am getting newfound enjoyment out of CMBB and CMAK years after purchase due to the folks down at the Proving Grounds -- they make em, I have fun testing them.

I see your role as the one who enables the playing field, and provides some demo "teams" for us to then reshape. I don't see you in the story-telling role, as that is not your company's forte, nor something I think development time should be spent excessively on, since plenty of armchair historians will fill in the story for free. Something that allows for great flexibility in renaming troop types, names, and TOEs with a range of equipment would give me the best buy for my dollar IMHO.

This all points in the "fictional scenario with easily relabeled core elements" direction.

[dalem]

Steve, I am not that jazzed by a modern setting so I don't really consider myself to have much of a dog in this cake mix, but...

I think the most important driving factor is that no matter what you do or where you set it, a very vocal group (minority? majority?) will be screaming for their T-80s and the like. You know it. I know it. They know it.

So try a Taliban-ruled Syria that has deposed Assad the Chinless and has as its elite force a regiment of Russians and all their top equipment who have gone 100% mercenary. You can have a storyline involving irregulars, regulars, fedayyin-like nutbags riding explosive-laden motorcycles at armor columns, and platoons of T-80s.

Seems reasonable to me.

-dale

[hellfish]

A fictionalized setting would still let you do that. But it'd also let me, theoretically, fight the Algerians.

[Jaska.]

I would like #2 because of these various reasons :

Originally posted by dima:

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

I don't find the story or background for the game itself to be very interesting. With the scenario/operation briefings you get the info you need, IMO. How would I explain this... OK, for a RTS-type of game, which has campaigns that people mostly play, the background is important. You want to have the epic story of a good VS evil fight.

In Combat Mission, you mostly play single scenarios, not campaigns. The storyline isn't important. For my own part I'd settle for a page or two introduction in the manual that I'd read through once or twice before starting to learn what's different in CMx2.

The storyline doesn't matter. The scenarios, the way the game plays etc matter more.

If you go the route #2, the fictional one, you are free to add all sorts of stuff later on. This is something that started to interest me. You could add things that are not in the Syrian inventory. BMP-3, T-80, T-90, British stuff, German stuff, other Russian stuff, Chinese stuff etc. Whatever you fancy.

You know this is what we, the players want. We want to fiddle with as many toys as possible. If you're not planning to create another contemporary game from ground up within the next 5 years, having a fictional setting would atleast allow you to have a flexible base from which to add new stuff/modules. I'm sure that would hold an interest to more and more people, there aren't a lot of proper contemporary tactical wargames around.

And, with a larger base of equipment to choose from, the users are able to create a variety of scenarios... Say, Taiwan (US kit VS Chinese kit), Chechnya (Russian kit VS rebels/insurgents), fictional Fulda Gap (US kit VS Russian kit) etc... There are lots of possibilities.

With a strictly Syrian setting you would only be restricted to what Syria has. OK, if you add a Marine module or so, but the more interest atleast for me lays in getting more and interesting equipment for the red side. New OPFOR equipment would also allow for a more variety of scenarios. Adding just Marines wouldn't do much.

I hope I made any sense here.

[Battlefront.com]

Rudel,

That did clear some things up

I'm glad. You've done so much research on the Syrian stuff already that I want to make sure you understand that it is going into the game. Maybe a little bit extra depending on what options we go with, but the heart and soul of the TO&E will be Syrian no matter what.

Now, while it is true that you might be able to cobble together an Algeria vs. US scenario, the bulk of the TO&E will be Syrian. This is the same if we go with Options 1, 2, or 3. This means if the Algerians are armed with Austrian AUGs in 20 man squads, you won't be able to do that with CM:SF because there will be no TO&E for it.

This gets us back to the fundamental point that CM:SF is not an open ended toobox wargame. You guys can make anything you want, call it anything you want, and play it with any tactics you want... but it will have to be with the Syrian centric TO&E.

Steve

[PSY]

You might be better off checking with some mainstream gamers to see what they prefer rather than talking to grogs. We all are probably going to buy CM:SF no matter what, IMO the real people you should be concerned with is the casual gamers. Maybe you could try posting on more mainstream gaming boards or teaming up with someone like Gamespot for a vote.

[Battlefront.com]

The answer to that is fictional. We could make a fictional country and name it Dumbassistan and they'd probably think it was a real country somewhere near the country of Europe

Steve

[A.E.B]

The thing I find funny is that we are already talking a fictional scenario, whether it is based in Syria or no.

So how much fiction is too fictional?

Try as I might I can't get excited in the Scenario as initally presented, nor can I interest many of those I played CMBB/AK against?

This of course isn't an issue if BF.C has another target market in mind.

Basically the whole thing is too limited - ignoring the potential flak regarding the politics/religious conetations of the setting.

Basically the Red Forces are way too lacking. Given we are talking the war-fighting period of a Syrian invasion, all the firepower available to the US forces will be available to the Blues in CM:SF - by which I mean the Syrian TO&E will have been dramatically reduced by the non-liberal application of firepower within the first few days.

So it seems inevitable that battles will devolve into - BLUE forces need to clear/capture/secure a village/town/rough terrain from RED forces that are light infantry equipped with small arms/RPGs/ATGMs and maybe mortars.

All the expansions I have heard mentioned involve adding new BLUE forces - Marines, Brits, etc - but given the scenario you won't have any new RED forces.

I am sure the Scenario designers will come up with some interesting variants, but CM:SF's problem is that it is like playing CMBB where BLUE is the Germans and RED is a very limited subset of Russian infantry.

CM:SF to me seems to be a play once, wait for the next module expansion game. I really, really hope to be proven wrong, but I can't see much replay value given the limited tool kit in CM:SF.

1. Play campaign.

2. Play a couple of variant scenarios of hunt the RPG team in the village.

3. Play a RED vs RED battle.

4. Play a BLUE vs BLUE battle.

5. Congratulations, you have now exhusted the possiblitities of CM:SF. Please wait for the next game.

Sadly I think that BF.C has ruined us by giving us games with such infinite possibilities and years of replay value in the past. I fear that CM:SF will seem short and small by comparison.

Just my opinion.

[Michael Emrys]

I find myself in the strange position of voting with the majority. I think a fictional game is likely to be the best way to go in spite of some drawbacks. The reasons have already been stated pretty well by others, so there is little point in my recapitulating them, except to say that this way, no matter how events turn in the ME, you are much less likely to get caught out in a "missed by a mile" situation. The fact that you are still pegged to a Syrian TO&E is worrisome in this regard, but if you are free to introduce non-Syrian units in future modules, this may not be so much of a problem as it now looks. Given the fluidity of the current world situation, I'd say that flexibility and adaptability are GOOD.

Michael

[Mord]

I am to the point where I don't give a crap if it's the U.S. vs Ass Monkeys, I just wanna see some screen shots and get my grubby hands on the demo....everything else will come out in the wash...as long as Emrysssss isn't using TIDE that is.

Mord.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Mord:

I am...Mord.

Have we met somewhere before? I get the feeling I was supposed to do something especially vicious to you.

Michael

[Mord]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Have we met somewhere before? I get the feeling I was supposed to do something especially vicious to you.

Michael

Probably something involving starch and my undies knowing your penchant for laundry evil...

Bring on the Ass Monkeys and give us a demo and I'll see if I can't keep EMRYSSS at bay.

Mord.

[Michael Emrys]

Tide's in,

Dirt's out,

T-I-D-E Tide!

Michael

[Thomm]

My humble opinion:

</font>

• (1) No fictional country, please! I want a game that I can take "serious"! I want to go to Google maps and to find that the CM:SF maps are super-realistic.</font>
• I think it is a good idea to sell some of the mentioned hardware (T-80, T-90, BMP-3, ...) as an add-on module *without* delaying the game further. May create some extra revenue, may give us the game earlier, may prolong shelf-life.</font>
• As for the game being not of CM1 scope: Personally, I am grateful for that because I hardly have time to play PC games any more and thus I want a game that I can "finish" in a reasonable timeframe. With CM1 I could not even finish all of the included scenarios. Guess that real-time will help *a lot* in this respect, also.</font>

Best regards,

Thomm

[Mr Shirt]

It feels almost rude of me to say anything at all, but, if it's about Syria, why not call it Syria?

This basically comes down to whether or not it's possible to do a story or not; if it is, I think you should do one, otherwise, if totally fictional is the only option, then it's the only option. I wouldn't consider being able to add T-90's or BMP-3's a reasonable argument for an artificial country.

[Pete Wenman]

Long time no post, but this one stirs the loins.

Go with a fictional background, but realistic TO&E. I don't want to be able to navigate around Syria because I've endlessly played CM-SF, but I do want realistic terrain at the tactical level the game plays at. Lets be honest nearly all the CM scenarioes have been fictional in some way or other, if nothing else due to game restrictions.

Back story - Force 1 vs Force 2 is good enough for me provided the game challenge, by this I mean TO&E, terrain, tactical problems and AI, gives me a run for my money. OP Flashpoint pretty much nails it

[ September 15, 2006, 01:30 AM: Message edited by: Pete Wenman ]

[Wisbech_lad]

If the ToE is Syrian, stick with Syria. But a minimalist back story, heck throw in T80’s/ BMP3 etc anyway in the editor, just keep them out of the campaign

Not as if we had or needed a complex backstory in CMBO…

[Winnie]

Hmm, i think you guys at BFC should be carefull not to stray too far from your original idea of what CM:SF should be. I would much prefer to be told 'the forces are there because they are there, now go fight', then for the game to become even more fictional with unrealistic TO&E or fictional countries etc. Stick with Syria for sure.

I mean its a 'what if' game anyway. What if the US and Syria went to war in modern day with current realistic TO&E? Doesnt matter how it came to be, just that its there and we get to have fun playing it out and seeing the different possible outcomes playing as both sides etc. To consider making the whole thing even more fictional (For what sake, doesnt make it more plausible?) is going to take away from the game in a big way. CM to me is about realism of units and realistic TO&E pitted against each other, not made up countries with unrealistic TO&E incorporated so the minority of the "If you get a big tank i want one too" whiners can be satisfied. Am i the only one looking forward to playing the Syrians and seeing the dent i can put in the US army of big guns with moderatly basic stuff? The balance is going to be perfect already IMO.

Giving the Syrians T-80's or higher etc is going to seriously take away from this game charm, not to mention probably set its release back another while (unless you were going to add it in later versions).

If you want to add these things for the sake of people who want to play around and create their own fictional scenarios then its fine, but perhaps leave it till the next release and stick with your original idea which IMO was Gold!

[ol_mouse]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the invitation to discuss this.

I believe the completely fictional setting has a heck of a lot going for it:

Stability: No longer will the work you do on back-story get overtaken by events.

Flexibility, on many fronts: Flexible in that players will see in the story not so much the pretend country portrayed, but whatever country is in the forefront of their minds at the time (Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, whatever). Sure, the TO&E will be Syrian, but the intersection of the set of people who are knowledgeable enough about that to notice with the set of those bothered by it is likely to be vanishingly small (see this board for the proud few… ).

Further, flexible in that, with a fictional setting, future modules won’t be constrained in any way by the story. You can invent additional fictional story to support whatever fun and interesting features you are offering with the new module. I think this last point is particularly important. CMSF has taken years of planning and work, and you’ve thought of a million more things than any of your readers, but there will be some surprises. There will be some details or tactics or units or a feature that particularly strike players' fancy that you may want to take advantage of and expand upon, at least in part, in some future module. A fictional setting, by not tying you down to a real country, gives you the freest hand to take advantage of those opportunities later.

Shelf Life: As you mentioned in another thread, one of the striking things about CMBO has been its incredibly long shelf life. Should CMSF be similarly blessed, a completely fictional setting (if written with this in mind) will age the best.

No Problem with Marketing: It's not "Combat Mission: Shock Force -- Invasion Syria", it's "Combat Mission: Shock Force -- Middle East War!" Everybody can identify with the later just fine.

We Won’t Miss Much Anyway: As you’ve already said, whatever setting you choose, folks still will make scenarios with Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, and so forth. We'll still have custom scenarios both realistic and fictional. The technology, units, tactics, and terrain will all be plenty realistic. For the back-story and place names just make something up -- give yourself the most flexible canvas on which to paint.

ol-mouse