’73 Arab Israelis War module?

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I realise that this has probably been lobbied for already, and no doubt given the thumbs down , but here goes anyway .

I am a huge fan of the coming Shock Force and given BFC’s aim of as feasible/realistic a contemporary war setting as possible Syria is a great choice. A far harder nut to crack than Iraq under Saddam was ever going to be.

However, given all the work that will have been done on the setting, graphics, weapons and such, I think it would be a shame if no ’73 Arab Israelis war module followed. Such a module would be “dumbing down” by BFC’s standards after the work required for CMSF and therefore simple to do. Just covering the Syrian front would do the trick.

It would be a shame not to give all the fans of high-intensity, armour heavy v armour heavy warfare their fix in the sands of the Middle-East when the 90% of the work has already been done.

A ’73 Arab Israelis War setting would be way more popular/sell better than more NATO troops going into Syria… in my very biased view .

All very good fun whatever happens ,

All the best,

Kip.

[Valera]

Acquiesce with kipandersen

[aka_tom_w]

agreed

I suspect it might have to be a NEW title

Perhaps there third title release after WWII ETO CMx2 #2 release.

My understanding of the "module" concept is that they mostly just offer us new units, like for instance US Marines in CM:SF with the SAME game engine just new units and maybe new terrain "tiles" or new land forms of some kind or something.

I would humbly suggest the ’73 Arab Israelis war would need to be released as a new title after the CMx2 game engine was tweaked once again for that period, has it is truly NOT a modern high tech, all digital battle like the future scenario in Syria 2007 of CM:SF

(but thats just my opinion)

thanks

-tom w

[ October 18, 2005, 07:29 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I would humbly suggest the ’73 Arab Israelis war would need to be released as a new title after the CMx2 game engine was tweaked once again for that period, has it is truly NOT a modern high te, all digital battle like the future scenario in Syria 2007 of CM:SF

(but thats just my opinion)

It's one that I happen to agree with. I'd very much like to see this happen as it is a conflict that I have found very interesting ever since it occurred. But it will have to wait.

Michael

[Hertston]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I suspect it might have to be a NEW title

Agreed... certainly if justice is done to the subject matter.

Hoping that 'The Star and the Crescent' (which has just started shipping, finally) will fill that niche for a while, but a CM game is one I would like to see after a couple of WW2 releases, as I would a Cold War Europe game.

I don't see any reason to restrict it to '73. As part of the point of CMSF seems to be as a testbed for stuff needed for all periods, why shouldn't it include everything (or at least the potential to design scenarios for everything) from 1948 to the present? At the very least, 1967 should be included, too.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I think BFC has said that modules will all be in the same time period as the game they are based on, so I think it's unlikely we'll see a jump 35 years into the past. I want the same type of game you do, kip, but I think we'll be better off hoping for French and British 2007 armies in the modules for some hot blue-on-blue action (sounds vaguely sexual, does it not?)

[Kurtz]

Make it 67 so we can have the Syrian Panzer IVs

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I agree that we will have to wait and see what is meant by “module”.

However, remember that for a ’73 Arab Israelis Wars game the Syrians would be no more than a restricted subset within the Syrians of 2007. The Israelis of ’73 would require no more work than a module covering Commonwealth Forces added to a US based NWE game.

For the Syrians T55s, T62s, BMP1s, plus one of the eight wheeled APCs would do the trick. Most, if not all of which, will already be in CMSF. The infantry would require earlier model ATGMs and RPGs. That is about it. Very little new for the Syrians; just a restricted subset from CMSF.

The Israelis of ’73 would be all new, but so will Commonwealth Forces in a NWE based game.

The Syrian Front in ’73 would give many the more balanced, high-intensity, toy (armour) heavy type of game they seem to crave.

Bound to sell well too . BFC will be able to say of CMSF, “contemporary warfare taken to a level of realism never simulated before”… which it will be. Of a ’73 based module they would be able to say, “Arab Israelis Wars taken to a level of realism never simulated before”. Would sell like hot cakes…. .

Time will tell,

Maybe if it is a non-starter Steve will tell us, he normally does these days .

All the best,

Kip.

[76mm]

This would definitely be more interesting to me, especially if the '67 war were included.

[junk2drive]

Hertston

I dl'd the demo for TSATC but didn't find it user friendly. I've never played this type of game before.

Any tips?

[Battlefront.com]

Well, I've actually been quite clear and specific about what is a Title and what is a Module, but for those that missed it...

A Title is a major shift in subject matter. The degree of shift depends on the conflict. WWII ETO would basically be broken up into Fronts. Meaning, one Title for Western Europe 1944-1945, one Title for Italy, another for France and the Low Countries in 1940, and yet another for something like the Balkans and Greece 1941-1945. The Eastern Front would likely be a single Title as well.

However, the subject matter covered by the Title itself would be fairly narrow for any of these fronts. For example, the Eastern Front Title might only contain combat centering in one particular area for a particular region and slice of time (say Kursk or Stalingrad or AG Center in Bagration, etc.) between German and Soviet forces. The Western Europe 1944-1945 title might just be US forces in Normandy June-August 1944. Etc.

The reasoning is that terrain, weather, TO&E, models, textures, and the mechanics of warfare (C&C, weapons technology, etc) need to be logically grouped if we are to avoid being bogged down like we were with CMx1 development. Concentrate on one fairly specific topic, simulate it very well, then release it. Depth vs. Breadth. That's our new concept.

For Breadth we have Modules. These allow us to expand upon the setting already established in the Title. For example, doing up the battle of Arnhem as a Module for the WWII Western Europe Title or the battles of Army Group South in the 1941 offensive for the the Eastern Front Title. That sort of thing.

Modules will not deviate significantly from the timeframe and theater of the main Title. To do so would mean having to redo the aspects that give the game Depth, and that means investing as much time as it would be to create a Title. And that means it isn't a Module any more but instead a Title.

What that means is that there will be no 1973 conflict Module for CM:SF. The only thing similar between that setting and CM:SF is some of the Soviet hardware and the terrain. Otherwise, everything else is different. Absolutely not Module material. It is unlikely we will ever do it as a Title either since we have many other things that are on our list that would appeal to the greater wargaming audience and to ourselves as well.

So what kinds of Modules would be applicable to CM:SF? Adding NATO forces and the US Marines to the same exact setting is what we're planning on doing. Which ones and who goes first? We've yet to decide. The NATO forces will not be done all in one Module, that is for sure. What we probably will do is release them grouped by equipment. For example, the Dutch and Danes use a mix of US and German equipment for the most part. If we added the Bundeswehr we could get the Danes and Dutch in with little difficulty since most of their needs would already be met (US stuff in the Title release, German stuff along with the Bundeswehr). But adding the Bundeswehr and the British in one Module is not likely since they both have totally different equipment. But again, it all comes down to how much work it would take for us to put this stuff in.

Think of it this way... we are planning on a Module taking a couple of months of intensive work by at least 3-4 people. If we think we can put in x, y, and z in within those parameters, we will. If we think we can only handle x or a combo y and z, then we will choose which is likely to be the most popular and put out either x *or* y/z. Then for another Module we can do whatever we didn't do for the previous one.

Hopefully this furthers everybody's understanding of what our new strategy is like!

Steve

[Nicdain]

Steve, do you plan to add also Italians as NATO in some module?

regards

Niccolò

[Battlefront.com]

Herston,

I don't see any reason to restrict it to '73. As part of the point of CMSF seems to be as a testbed for stuff needed for all periods, why shouldn't it include everything (or at least the potential to design scenarios for everything) from 1948 to the present?

Because it would take us years do do all of that Remember, CM isn't like other wargames. We can't just recolor some 2D chits, change a couple of variables, redo a few pieces of other artwork and call things done. The most obvious reason are graphics. It takes probably a week to do a single tank model with a single variation of equipment options. Variations are, of course, much easier to do. Hours or days depending. Each soldier, weapon, and equipment needs to be graphically modeled as well. This also takes considerable time, and less for similar modifications of the same uniformed soldier. And that is just the visual stuff!

Behind the scenes each and everything needs to work realistically. We are just starting to code up vehicles right now and a single Stryker variant has something like 80 separate things that need to be simulated, some of which in turn require several sub elements to function. Some of these things are generally applicable to vehicles of a similar type (like wheels or tracks), most are fairly specific to that nation and timeframe. Meaning, a Soviet BDRM might look similar to a Stryker, and handle similarly from a tactical point of view, but it might only have 40 of the same elements in common with the Stryker. A BMP might only have 20 in common with a Stryker though 40 in common with a BDRM. Shift back even 10 years in time and the systems coded up for an Abrams might only share 80% of what we coded up for CM:SF. Shift back another 20 years and the Abrams doesn't even exist, and so perhaps only 10% of the stuff we made for the tanks in CM:SF will be applicable to the 1970s or earlier. However, perhaps only 50% of the stuff in the 1970s is reusable for the 1950s. So on and so forth.

To put this into perspective, it took Charles more than a week to code up the Javelin ATGM. One week for a single weapon system. While other ATGMs will benefit from a lot of this work, there isn't 100% overlap. So perhaps TOW2 and AT-4 combined will suck up another week. We haven't even done the graphics for it either This isn't because Charles is slow, but because of the level of detail we're putting into the game. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some in the Department of Defense accuse us of using classified information, just like they accused Tom Clancy of doing

This is the difference between a game in depth and a game in breadth. You can't have both. Even CMx1, which tried very hard, couldn't do more than one front at a time. This despite the fact that everything was simulated in less detail, especially graphically, compared to CM:SF. The only way we could offer the type of wide ranging 1948-present wargame like you outlined is to go back to 2D, ditch a ton of stuff that we feel is important, and undersimulate everything that we keep. That's not what we're going to do, so obviously a broad game like that is completely out of the question.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Nicdain,

We have made no decisions and won't make any announcements until after CM:SF is released. Personally, I would love to simulate the modern Italian Army. I think it would be extremely interesting for me to do and would be well received by gamers.

Now, some people would be ashamed to say they can not be bribed, but I am not one of those people. If a package arrives on my doorstep containing current issue Italian digital Desert and Temperate camouflage uniforms I'll put my vote (which carries a tiny bit of weight ) for putting the Italians into the first Module. A set of m/05 Finnish camouflage uniforms would also heavily favor the Finns inclusion in the first Module. So in that train of thought...

If I receive the correct packages I can foresee the first CM:SF Module looking like this:

Italian Army

Canadian Army

Finnish Army

Estonian Army

All it takes is the correct current issue uniforms and some stamps

Actually, in all seriousness... we need to get a hold of actual uniforms to do the modeling textures in the best way possible.

Steve

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I am not surprised that there will be no ’73 module; it was always a long shot .

I am one of those who are quite happy with CMSF for reasons rehearsed a number of times.

I very much look forward to the blue on blue/red on red feature. Using CMSF as a OPFORs trainer will be great. In this context I hope the extra NATO player added will not be the minor players but the Brits or Germans as they will make for way more interesting Blue on Blue OPFOR opponents.

We all need to remember that BFC want to do a contemporary setting because they feel it would be fun , make a good change. Also all the complex work done on CMSF will make the modelling of WWII way easier. So for both of the above reasons we will all get far better, far sooner, high-intensity warfare games in the future with CMSF having come first. (Also, we get live team, Cooperative play for the NWE game which would not be the case if NWE had come first . )

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

BTW I should add that I am a huge fan of the modular system. I am very keen on greater depth, with fewer but better weathered AFVs to give just one minor example of the benefits.

The modular system will also add more excitement in that there will be more releases to look forward too …. add a bit more childish fun… never a bad thing no matter how old one is .

All the best,

Kip.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

I very much look forward to the blue on blue/red on red feature. Using CMSF as a OPFORs trainer will be great. In this context I hope the extra NATO player added will not be the minor players but the Brits or Germans as they will make for way more interesting Blue on Blue OPFOR opponents.

The French. We've got to get the French in at some point. Lots of reasons why, but the biggest is that US vs. France games will be VERY popular.

[ozi_digger]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Now, some people would be ashamed to say they can not be bribed, but I am not one of those people. If a package arrives on my doorstep containing current issue ... Desert and Temperate camouflage uniforms I'll put my vote (which carries a tiny bit of weight ) for putting ... into the first Module.

[snip]

Actually, in all seriousness... we need to get a hold of actual uniforms to do the modeling textures in the best way possible.

Steve

Following this logic, if I were to put some current, Australian-issue desert cams in a box and post it to you, we might see the Aussies in the first module?

I'd imagine the LAV wouldn't be hard to model... and we are acquiring the M1 tank... so thats our force contribution covered.

So whats yer postal address?

[Battlefront.com]

Following this logic, if I were to put some current, Australian-issue desert cams in a box and post it to you, we might see the Aussies in the first module?

If you can get me a MK1 or MK2 set, you bet! I've already got a nice MK3 set, so that won't buy much favortism from me Oh, and if you have the crazy colored OPFOR version I'll even make sure we put in one vehicle of your choice that we otherwise wouldn't. Even the current OPFOR uniform, which is made out of US 3 Color Desert in AUSCAM uniform style, would get you something extra. Of course I can say this safely because your chances of finding me one of those is very, very small.

I'd imagine the LAV wouldn't be hard to model... and we are acquiring the M1 tank... so thats our force contribution covered.

Correct. I don't think it would impact the game mechanics nearly as much compared to adding the Bundeswehr or British Army.

So whats yer postal address?

Check out the Order Page for Mail Orders

Steve

[Nicdain]

Thanks for the reply, Steve. It would be great to have Italian Army in the first module! If you just need the desert and temperate camo scheme, I'll run to the nearest military surplus, get some combat uniforms and send you!

Or you need the digital photos instead?

P.S.

BTW, San Marco Battalion, the equivalent of US Marine Corps, uses a completely different scheme

regards

Niccolò

[SSgt Viljuri]

Hm, Would a Finnish combat cap (m/98 summer, officer) do? Cost is only 3.2 e...

Hm, how come the replacement price was a bit more when I lost one just recently...

The whole individual clothing set (either m/91 or the new m/05) costs well over thousand euros, a bit too much I fear...

I'm kidding of course.

[Dillweed]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Personally, I would love to simulate the modern Italian Army.

So what is the deal with the modern Italian Army?

I know nothing about them. I hope they have improved over the past 60 years. My guess is they have a really kick-ass Special Forces but a fairly so-so regular army. Its been my observation (to make a huge generalization) that they are very good at making nice flashy stuff but not so much at regular mundane things (think high fashion vs a working postal system)

[Nicdain]

So what is the deal with the modern Italian Army?

I know nothing about them.

Dillweed, surely Italian Army cannot compete with US or British firepower and deployment capabilities, but in small scale it has some very prepared elite corps ("Folgore" paras, "San Marco" Marines, "Alpini" mountain troops, just to mention a few), which can rely on fairly good equipment and technologies.

At present Italy has committed nearly 3000 men in Iraq and more than 4000 in the Balcan area, plus 2200 men in Afghanistan where, IIRC, Italy has the command of the international contingent.

If you want to know more about Italian Army (Esercito Italiano - E.I.):

E.I. main site (also in English, but the Italian version is the most complete) http://www.esercito.difesa.it/

[Battlefront.com]

Nicdain,

I need the uniforms and I need the new digital ones. You aren't likely to find them in a local shop for a while. If they were that easy to get I'd already have two

If you don't see it pictured here, I already have it (excuse the typos and mistakes, this is only a rough draft and I don't have the time to fix it):

http://www.battlefront.com/resources/poc/europe_south/europe_south_italy.html

SSgt Viljuri,

Well... of course I want only the best items for my collection, which is why I am so interested in m/05 However, a good condition m/62 and m/91 set might help keep my interest in Finland going I have both sets already, but they aren't in very good condition.

Steve

[WineCape]

And I thought wine was getting me some places. Cheapskate.