CM:NK Freedom from the North.

[Peter Cairns]

Heres my idea for a future follow on module for CM:SF.

Set in 2009 it involves a future conflict on the Korean peninsula.

After five more years of internal stagnation and famine, and unstable North Korea, still close to developing nuclear weapons and with an even greater percentage of it's forces concentrated against the DMZ, is deamed to be close to collapse.

On April 1st 2009 and force of over 400,000 troops of the PLA. launch and offensive into North Korea with the intent of driving 150miles south to liberate the North korean people from Tyranny and starvation and to prevent this dangerous and unstable regeme from deploying nuclear weapons.

The Scenario has the player taking the part of the PLA as it moves rapidly to consolidate control of the bulk of the country including key nuclear instalations before the immobile south forces can respond and react.

Reasons for this scenario as a module.

1) It's different from the normal NK scenario.

2) Given Tibet it's not entirely out of the Box.

3) As China already has the second largest number of Internet users in the world, it is a huge market for a good game where China aren't the bad guys. We're talking up to a billion users.

4) It allows you with CN:SF to play Blue on Red(yellow) with creating a game where china is the bad guy. China again is a good market for BF to break in to.

5) In may ways the two side are actually better matched than in CM:SF.

6) It lest you play US v NK as well, though I doubt BF will loose sleep over the loss of the NK market.

7) I think it would be a good game.

OKay you guys fire away as I've said before, being Scots I've a hide like a Rhino. (yeh yeh and a brain like one too.)

Peter.

[Sergei]

A follow-on module would be just an addition to CM:SF. What you're talking about would be a separate title.

[Peter Cairns]

Okay It's a separate title, smarty pants.

Peter.

[RSColonel_131st]

China isn't a market for software. Piracy is rampant there.

You end up with a game that holds no market value to western users, and won't make any money from the chinese either because they'll see $5 copies at every corner shop.

[Dillweed]

I think Grigsby (or one of the other old school bigshots) actually made an operational level game only slightly less absurd than this.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Dillweed:

I think Grigsby (or one of the other old school bigshots) actually made an operational level game only slightly less absurd than this.

Did M1 Tank Platoon II (the sequel to the original) have a Korean campaign in it? ISTR one of the older games had one...

[Dillweed]

Don't think it was actually Grigsby, but some like him. Definetly an operational lvl invation of the north.

[Bigduke6]

Well, CMBB apparently did pretty well, and Russia is not exactly a shining example of inviolability of copyrights.

You want to attract the China market for real, here's a scenario: the U.S. decides N Korea is about nuclear and makes another prevenative war. China intervenes, carnage ensues. If that sounds like Chosin Reservoir, well, Americans and Chinese did kill each other there after all.

Of course to do it right, BFC would have to include U.S. Marines. Include the Marines and you could probably sell a game about toy soldiers in a kindergarten sandbox. Marines are like Tiger tanks - they sell games.

There are plenty of Chinese happy to see the Americans as the new Soviets. Besides, a PRC-USA fight is the real next big one, no one talks about it but it's the only one that has the generals really worried.

Even if one if fifty copies was sold legit, the game would make a mint in China, I bet. And Taiwan too, hehehehehe.

Originally posted by RSColonel_131st:

China isn't a market for software. Piracy is rampant there.

You end up with a game that holds no market value to western users, and won't make any money from the chinese either because they'll see $5 copies at every corner shop.

[juan_gigante]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

2) Given Tibet it's not entirely out of the Box.

Can you please explain what this means?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

2) Given Tibet it's not entirely out of the Box.

Can you please explain what this means? </font>

[juan_gigante]

Yeah, it get that, but what does Tibet have to do with North Korea? The "Given TIbet" is what I don't understand.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Even if one if fifty copies was sold legit, the game would make a mint in China, I bet. And Taiwan too, hehehehehe.

What about South Korea? Just name it Combat Mission: StarCraft and it'll sell dozens of millions there. Have KwazyDog draw a nude teen girl to the box cover, and it'll do well in Japan, too.

[Yeknodathon]

May be it needs something else for the Tibetan market? Sherpa?

[rai kitsune]

i must say thats a very good conecpt and as you said different from the usual ideas! props to you for being original!

[Peter Cairns]

For those of you who don't know it China occupies Tibet and has for years, Oh and it also invaded Vietnam in retaliation for it toppling Pol Pot in Kampuchia (and got it's ass kicked), so it has a history so to speak.

Peter.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by RSColonel_131st:

China isn't a market for software. Piracy is rampant there.

Damn. If Battlefront isn't going to cater to the pirate market segment, does that mean I can kiss goodbye to my dream of "CM: Pirates versus Ninjas"?

All the best,

John.

[flamingknives]

That at least explains why China isn't subject to the Kyoto accord. The amount of pirates they have must do alot to offset the effects of global warming.

[juan_gigante]

Oh, yes, I know that China occupies Tibet, but I fail to see how that has anything at all to do with the invasion of a nuclear North Korea.

Are you saying that the Chinese occupation of Tibet is an example of low-intensity operations one might encounter in-game? Firstly, I don't think there are that many RPG-armed insurgents in Tibet, and I think that a game set in the invasion of North Korea would feature little of that sort of low-intensity conflict.

I'm not trying to be a prick or something. I just am perplexed why Chinese occupation of Tibet has anything to do with invading nuclear North Korea.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Yeknodathon:

May be it needs something else for the Tibetan market? Sherpa?

Each copy of the game comes with a yak butter tea kit.

Michael

[M1A1TC]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Even if one if fifty copies was sold legit, the game would make a mint in China, I bet. And Taiwan too, hehehehehe.

What about South Korea? Just name it Combat Mission: StarCraft and it'll sell dozens of millions there. Have KwazyDog draw a nude teen girl to the box cover, and it'll do well in Japan, too. </font>

[lucero1148]

Pirated copies in Asia are usually under $2.00 for games.

The concept for a NK vs US/S. Korea /UN force would be pretty good especially if China comes in on the side of NK. There would be plenty of interested buyers in Asia as a whole for original copies of the game I would think especially the Chinese military.

[M1A1TC]

When I was stationed in South Korea I bought over 100 games (PC and playstation) that cost 2-5$ each. It was great

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, we aren't interested in doing another contemporary game for some time. CM:SF, and it's follow up Modules (all with Syria as a setting), will be it for a while. Lots of other stuff to do!

Steve

[Peter Cairns]

The comment on Tibet wasn't that there was a direct similiarity but rather that like other one party states be they Iraq with Kuwait or the USSR with Afghanistan, have far fewer concerns about using the military option.

We in the west however (particularly europe) tend to see force and particularly invasion as a last resort, sometimes as in Yugoslavia you could argue we actually leave it too late.

The most common NK scenario has the North flooding across the border, like a Nato WP conflict in europe, but as the doctrine NK is following is similiar, ie "We will crush you on the battlefield if you dare to attack us", them attacking us isn't seen as a high probability.

They would almost certainly lose so it has to be seen as an option of last resort.

As to a SK/US move north, well that would take a real crisis little short of potential nuclear attack and even then it would be far more likely to be air attack against nuclear facilities, missiles and nuclear capable artillery ( a real option given HK's depolyment), followed by sitting and waiting for the ground retaliation and feeding them in to the grinder.

So we'd have to attack them first to start it off and again that is a very high risk low probability scenario.

By and large, like it or not, I think we'd rather watch the hornets nest hoping they don't swarm, that start poking it with a stick.

So The Chinese option is though not "likely" at least as plausible as the other too.

If you look at the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the "advicers" in the country effectively allowed the Soviets to cease the Afghans entire ammo supplies before the invasion began.

I suspect given there level of "support" to HK the chinese could probably take out most of the comm and nuclear stuff in the first few hours.

Peter

[Peter Cairns]

Soory I should preview my posts, I hit H instead of K twice, and it should be siezed not ceased.

I'll go stand in the corner of the class.

Steve,

Fair enough you have enough on your plate, it was just an idea.

Peter.