Very unoffical "Top Five" settings.

[Barrold]

You're so far outside the box you should be put in a cage.

It seems logical to presume the scope of the TITLES has to be large enough to warrant producing several MODULES. The MODULES would seemingly have to contain enough interesting material to justify a separate product and the purchase price whatever that might be.

Maybe there will be a CM: Crap Wars TITLE with a bunch of size and era connected MODULES but I would sure be interested in seeing the business justification for the development time on it.

I just wonder if the scope will be large enough to allow a devoted fan to eventually collect enough MODULES for a HYPOTHETICAL WWII GPW TITLE to essentially replace CM:BB. We'll see.

Top 5

WWII EF

WWII WF

ACW

Age of Rifles

Ancients

BDH

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by vetacon:

Apologies for daring to express an opinion. I'll know better next time.

Don't be afraid to throw pebbles and shout at Grogs, they are very nearsighted and will scatter easily.

Although the Falklands is interesting, I personally think the Yom Kippur/Ramadan War, October 1973 would be very interesting... a highly trained and motivated Israeli scratch force fielding an assortment of british, american and captured soviet tanks hold off and ultimately triumph over less well trained Egyptian and Syrian forces fielding soviet equipment.

pure tank battles, fought in ideal tank country...what else could you ask for?

[ September 22, 2005, 06:38 AM: Message edited by: JC_Hare ]

[Dillweed]

Am I the only one intrested in a modern, or semi-modern game? I've always been intrested in the hypothetical late 80s fulda gap scenario. 2000s Korea, Gulf War 1 or (dare I say it) 2 would all be pretty intresting. As for naval, well, I seem to remember Keegan saying something in FOB about how (in theory at least) pure tank tank battles would resemble naval engagments. Sorry if I butchered that, its been a while since I've read it. Seems to me that if you were to just model really big tanks withs lots of guns and a big crew, well all you'd need is a blue texture for the grass and you'd be in business.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Dillweed:

Am I the only one intrested in a modern, or semi-modern game?

Hardly. But since BFC have already confirmed that a modern CM is planned, there's not much reason for us to continue asking for one.

NATO vs. Warsaw Pact is the most often requested setting for a modern game, but it seems we're going to get something very different. I'm actually a little leerly about that, but we'll see.

[Sgt Joch]

BF has stated that a modern game will not have a cold war setting, which rules out NATO v. Warsaw pact games. If BF sticks to historical games, that leaves the following usual suspects:

1) Korean war(1950-53);

2) Vietnam war(1945-54 & 1964-75);

3) India-Pakistan (1965,1971)

4) Middle east(1956,1967,1973);

5) Falklands (1982)

6) Desert storm(1991)

This list ignores guerilla wars and third world conflicts. To me, the choice is obvious (hint: it took place in october 1973)

[ September 22, 2005, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: JC_Hare ]

[Philippe]

Aren't you forgetting '56 ? I would think that at a tactical level Suez would be a blast, especially with the British and French involved.

Come to think of it, Bay of Pigs could be fun as well. But I don't think Steve wants to do amphibious assaults right away.

[c3k]

Philippe,

I like your description of the Argentinian possibilities on page 2. Count me in for CM: Argentina vs. Everyone.

Ken

[Ivan Drago]

Originally posted by JC_Hare:

BF has stated that a modern game will not have a cold war setting, which rules out NATO v. Warsaw pact games.

Hey can you tell me which thread Steve stated this in?

I haven't seen him officially say this so I'm really interested to see what else he said.

It's a shame, really, but the Israeli wars could be a lot of fun as well. Not so sure about small time guerrilla-esque conflicts though...

[Dillweed]

Intrestingly enough, the russians do apperently have a modern on par with the abrams. The T-90 , I had never heard of it, but thats probably beause they made like 5 of them. To be fair, as I know most of those GW1 tank battles were against T-72s, not exactly state of art. Most in GW2 were T-55s.

Also, also any BFC people out there: For any future Eastern front games I quite simply DEMAND anti-tank dogs. How dare you leave this vitial weapon of the war out of CMBB. Seriously tho, as many units as that game had, I'm a little suprised they weren't in for fun, if nothing else.

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by Ivan Drago:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JC_Hare:

BF has stated that a modern game will not have a cold war setting, which rules out NATO v. Warsaw pact games.

Hey can you tell me which thread Steve stated this in?

I haven't seen him officially say this so I'm really interested to see what else he said.

It's a shame, really, but the Israeli wars could be a lot of fun as well. Not so sure about small time guerrilla-esque conflicts though... </font>

[Snow Leopard]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I find the ones that protest the loudest about potential subject areas are generally the ones that know the least about them. We've seen it time and again:

"World War One would suck because tactics weren't invented yet and everybody ran like lemmings in brigade sized lines towards automatic weapons for four years."

If you're not interested enough to do some research beforehand, it follows you won't necessarily be interested in that same topic being the subject of a game....

Give a read to a history of the war or two, perhaps a personal account - Robert Lawrence, MC wrote TUMBLEDOWN, that's a good one - then report back with your new interpretations.

Did you know who first use tactics and when? It is at battle of Verdun by Germany in on February 21 1916. They use plenty of tactics. I did reading some books about battle of Verdun that still give me shudder to think about it. It is big battle but can be divide up into some operations/battles plus some quick games. Ummmm...maybe new game will be "Battle of Verdun"

I bet there are plenty of actions in other part of world than just stay in trenches at France.

Regards

Snowleopard

[flamingknives]

Actually, the first people to use tactics in the First world war were both the British and the Germans at the first battle of Mons.

Just because they're bad, doesn't mean that they're not tactics.

[Michael Dorosh]

SnowLeopard, I am parodying those who protest what they don't know about. I agree with you in general - though I am sure "modern" infantry tactics predate even the vaunted Germans, as flamingknives suggests. It gets even more interesting in 1917-18, with stormtroops, the Canadians at Vimy going to a four-section platoon system, etc.

[ September 22, 2005, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by Snow Leopard:

Did you know who first use tactics and when?

I think the use of battlefield tactics probably predates WWI...

The Battle of Cannae in the summer of 216 BC comes to mind...

[hellfish]

I'd like German East Africa in WWI. But I think I already mentioned that somewhere.

Still, WWI wasn't all trenches and artillery. The Italian, African and Austrian campaigns were all pretty mobile, IIRC.

I just read about the Battle of Tanga in November 1914, where a small German force routed two British/Indian brigades that conducted an amphibious attack to seize a German port. Very interesting battle and would be great fun to play in CM, methinks.

[J Ruddy]

oh! Hey - I have a #6 for my list - Rome and Carthage!!! Holy crap that'd be awesome!

Modules - Rome in Europe, Rome in Africa etc...

I tried Rome - Total War - didn't like it much. Also tried Praetorians - it was ok but I guess I just don't like RTS - you know - build the thing to make soldier X so that your peasants can mine for Y - too much asset managing not enough real tactics and combat!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

I'd like German East Africa in WWI. But I think I already mentioned that somewhere.

Still, WWI wasn't all trenches and artillery. The Italian, African and Austrian campaigns were all pretty mobile, IIRC.

I just read about the Battle of Tanga in November 1914, where a small German force routed two British/Indian brigades that conducted an amphibious attack to seize a German port. Very interesting battle and would be great fun to play in CM, methinks.

Okay, but how do you code the units, if the basic unit of maneuver was the infantry company?

How do you give fire orders to 100 men at a time?

WW II and later lends itself to using squads (and now teams, in CMX2) as the basic building blocks, because the armies were actually organized that way.

Not so in 1914. In the British Army, platoons were used to divide up the rations and little else, AIUI. Attacks were still done by companies, with no subdivision along platoon or section lines. That didn't come along until much later.

So how do you simulate that in CM?

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Attacks were still done by companies, with no subdivision along platoon or section lines. That didn't come along until much later.

So how do you simulate that in CM?

Well in CMX1 they could abstract down to the Platoon or company level instead of section/squad.

CMX2? I don't know. If they are going to do any 19th century or earlier historical titles I suspect they'd better figure it out. I'd think that maybe the organizational level for orders (movement, attack, formation etc...) would have to be modelled at the company level instead of section/squad.

But CMX2 is a Company level game...? I guess it takes a lot of tactics out of the game if you only have one unit to give orders to...

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Attacks were still done by companies, with no subdivision along platoon or section lines. That didn't come along until much later.

So how do you simulate that in CM?

Well in CMX1 they could abstract down to the Platoon or company level instead of section/squad.

CMX2? I don't know. If they are going to do any 19th century or earlier historical titles I suspect they'd better figure it out. I'd think that maybe the organizational level for orders (movement, attack, formation etc...) would have to be modelled at the company level instead of section/squad.

But CMX2 is a Company level game...? I guess it takes a lot of tactics out of the game if you only have one unit to give orders to... </font>

[hellfish]

Not quite, Dorosh. IIRC in Rommel's "Infantry Attacks" he describes several battles in the Italian campaign that had actions on the company level. I haven't read that book since high school, though, so I might be wrong.

In the battle of Tanga, while you wouldn't want to simulate two brigades against roughly a battalion at a time, you could have scenarios involving the 13th Feldkompagnie's counterattack on the 101st Grenadiers or the 7th Feldkompagnie's house to house fights against the Loyal North Lancashires. Feldkompagnie consisted of an HQ element, three rifle platoons and an MG section led by Germans and manned by Askaris.

Don't be so narrow minded.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

Not quite, Dorosh. IIRC in Rommel's "Infantry Attacks" he describes several battles in the Italian campaign that had actions on the company level. I haven't read that book since high school, though, so I might be wrong.

In the battle of Tanga, while you wouldn't want to simulate two brigades against roughly a battalion at a time, you could have scenarios involving the 13th Feldkompagnie's counterattack on the 101st Grenadiers or the 7th Feldkompagnie's house to house fights against the Loyal North Lancashires. Feldkompagnie consisted of an HQ element, three rifle platoons and an MG section led by Germans and manned by Askaris.

Don't be so narrow minded.

Were these administrative entities or actual tactical entities? And how did the platoons break down? Were there seperate rifle sections under independent command? If so, then it is CM applicable.

The British at that time were not so well organized, at least in France. My own regiment in April 1915, along with the rest of the First Canadian Division, were still organized into companies and were commanded as such. We went into Kitcheners Wood at Second Ypres in company waves. Napoleon would have been proud. No way to simulate that in CM, except maybe the Human Wave command from CMBB.

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

Not quite, Dorosh. IIRC in Rommel's "Infantry Attacks" he describes several battles in the Italian campaign that had actions on the company level.

Although huge in size, I think the orders still might have filtered down to the platoon commander level. In an era before 'platoons' or 'sections' existed, orders would have gone directly from the company commander (or his 2IC) or even higher directly to the men. (Front Rank Ready... Fire! Second Rank Ready... Fire... etc...)

[hellfish]

They were actual tactical entities. Each Feldkompagnie was pretty much independent. There was no formal higher command, save Von Lettow-Vorbeck himself. For the Battle at Tanga, only one Feldkompagnie and one Schutzkompagnie were based there orginially. Once the British intentions were realized, the local commander notified vLV, who then called in reinforcement FKs stationed throughout the country and along the British East African border. They were able to reinforce rapidly via the use of the East German railway.

Also interestingly, the FK's along the BEA border also detached a platoon to remain on the border, and so moved and fought as less than company level entities.

It was this tactical flexibility and decentralized leadership that allowed the Germans to take on and smack a vastly larger British (and Belgian, Portuguese and South African) force.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

They were actual tactical entities. Each Feldkompagnie was pretty much independent. There was no formal higher command, save Von Lettow-Vorbeck himself. For the Battle at Tanga, only one Feldkompagnie and one Schutzkompagnie were based there orginially. Once the British intentions were realized, the local commander notified vLV, who then called in reinforcement FKs stationed throughout the country and along the British East African border. They were able to reinforce rapidly via the use of the East German railway.

Also interestingly, the FK's along the BEA border also detached a platoon to remain on the border, and so moved and fought as less than company level entities.

It was this tactical flexibility and decentralized leadership that allowed the Germans to take on and smack a vastly larger British (and Belgian, Portuguese and South African) force.

So when we play this game, you're going to make me take the British aren't you. :mad: And I get exactly one unit to command?

Oh, wait, I forgot - 99.873% of CMers play against the AI...

[Dillweed]

Were getting off topic here, remember the focus: getting steve to put in anti-tank dogs. In fact why limit ourseleves to the eastern front. Why not put in any form of anti-armor animal. I can see it now. Cyborg llamas being trained to run under the space lobster tanks.