Am I the only guy here who is sick of WW2?

['Card]

I keep seeing comments all over this forum about how much everyone seems to be looking forward to CMx2, the WW2 version. So much so, that I kind of started wondering if I'm the only guy here who thinks WW2 has pretty much been done to death. I mean... cool war and everything, and some great games have been based on it, but do we really need anymore?

Give me hypothetical stuff. Near-future US versus China. Mid-80's NATO versus the Warsaw Pact in the Fulda Gap. Israel versus Egypt. The European Union versus Microsoft's evil corporate goons, for all I care. Just anything other than another WW2 simulation. Hell, let's figure out a way to let the Brits slug it out with the French or something.

I know, I know... WW2, big war, lots of theaters and combinations of forces, equipment that was equal enough to make for interesting tactics... I understand all the pro-WW2 arguments, but none of that changes the fact that I'm sick of it. I've been playing wargames at home since I bought my first Commodore 64 in the late-80's, and I've had enough WW2 to last me for awhile. CM:SF was originally interesting to me primarily because it's different, and I really wish we could keep that trend going for awhile before we re-hash THE WAR. Again.

[Vikkelä]

No you're probably not the only one here who "is sick of ww2". Me again, I'm sick of the modern warfare/futuristic games.

[DaveDash]

Yeah I'm well over WW2. More modern stuff please.

[mazex]

Originally posted by 'Card:

Give me hypothetical stuff. Near-future US versus China. Mid-80's NATO versus the Warsaw Pact in the Fulda Gap. Israel versus Egypt. The European Union versus Microsoft's evil corporate goons, for all I care. Just anything other than another WW2 simulation. Hell, let's figure out a way to let the Brits slug it out with the French or something.

Go the other way instead of modern, lets say a thousand years for fun. To keep the force balance of US vs Syria - how about a "Hordes of mushroom loaded Vikings vs. small and peaceful fisherman village in France" setting? Reminds me of that olde viking war game? What was it called? Stamford bridge?

OK, I'm bored waiting for the patch

/Mazex

[Field Marshal Blücher]

I don't care what period wargames are in as long as they're as true to the real thing as they can possibly be. If they are, I'll play them. I'm not really sick of WW2 games because while there are a ton of them out there, I don't play most of them.

Honestly, I'd like to see a realistic depiction of pre-gunpowder warfare. Something that actually lets me command tens of thousands of troops like Take Command: Second Manassas and HistWar: Les Grognards lets you do for the ACW and Napoleonic Wars. I don't care if it has good graphics, but I want something realistic.

[Cuirassier]

WWII. I can't get enough of it, particularly eastern front. It is deffinately my favorite setting for a wargame. However, I would love to see an Israel vs Egypt/Syria CM.

[Nidan1]

Post 1990's weapon's systems are just too lethal, a company-sized battle under those circumstances are settled more by firepower than by small unit tactics and manuever. Its not a lot of fun in a wargame setting, IMO.

[Hawk66]

I'm sick of WW2 too. There are so many alternatives:

Korea,Vietnam,Falkland, hypothetical NATO-WarsawPact and so on.

[thelmia]

I was into WW2 before it was cool. I'm tired of it. War, even modern war, has been going on a long time. Please something else.

I know the market seems to be WW2 happy, but I don't think I'm alone in being tired of it.

I'm glad CMSF wasn't WW2. I don't understand why people seem more interested in a war that's been over for 62 years than the one we're in now! It's not just games- movies, books, TV, everything. I don't get it. I get that WW2 was a much 'closer' war, but at the tactical level who cares?

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Nidan1:

Post 1990's weapon's systems are just too lethal, a company-sized battle under those circumstances are settled more by firepower than by small unit tactics and manuever. Its not a lot of fun in a wargame setting, IMO.

My thoughts exactly.

[benpark]

Sick of modern conflict myself. Back to WWII or pre.

[DaveDash]

Originally posted by Nidan1:

Post 1990's weapon's systems are just too lethal, a company-sized battle under those circumstances are settled more by firepower than by small unit tactics and manuever. Its not a lot of fun in a wargame setting, IMO.

Weapons are more lethal, but counter-measures are also more lethal. Besides, reading a lot of modern U.S. FM's small unit tactics and maneuver is highly stressed. They don't say "Sit tight and wait for airpower".

In MOUT scenarios or assaulting dug in defenders there is still A LOT of tactical manouvering to be done, and I'd argue it's MORE tactical since surpressive fires and cover are even more important while moving guys around the battlefield in a lethal enviroment.

I just don't think you've played the right kind of scenarios yet. A lot of scenarios are out in the open - which will be settled with firepower mostly. However try taking out a Syrian company on reverse slope defensive positions, overwatched by machine guns, with just firepower alone.

Part of the issue with CM:SF is the lethality of small arms in my opinion is somewhat over-modelled, especially at longer ranges. I've seen a M240 gunner take out a bunker filled with Sryians using short bursts at 800m. Infantry isn't good at preserving itself in the game yet, but hopefully this will be addressed in future patches.

Anyway, some of the most fun wargames I have played have been modern. Peoples General, Operation Flashpoint, etc. It has nothing to do with the lethality of weapons, more what you're into.

I could argue that WW2 is no fun compared to Medieval because of the lethality of weapons based on your argument.

[ December 14, 2007, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: DaveDash ]

[JasonC]

The tactical combined arms problem of WW II is simply superior to the periods before and after, in tactical interest.

After, tech dominates to such an extent that the higher tech side has n ways of doing anything necessary. It is not necessary to have the proper weapon for a task or to employ it carefully - everything can do nearly everything and pretty effortlessly. That can cut into both forces (meaning, loss attrition on both sides is possible), but it never requires deep thought, or hinges on matched commander wits. A war that was won in a lab 2000 miles from the front a decade earlier, is devoid of tactical interest.

Before WW II, e.g. the WW I period, there is some tactical interest, but inherently less than in WW II. Because the armor is missing, half the fight in missing, and defense dominance is the norm.

In the 19th century, rifle infantry is so dominant tactics are uninteresting vanilla affairs.

The next prior period of inherent tactical interest is the Napoleonic period - not coincidentally, another long running grog favorite - though these days, largely devoid of interest for anyone else.

Pre Napoleonic warfare is pretty uninteresting until you get back to the pre gunpowder era. Before Napoleon, artillery (other than in seiges) was undeveloped etc. Even in pre gunpowder times, there are periods that lack inherent tactical interest because of single arm dominance (longbows, or horse archers, or mailed cavalry) - but it is another period that has been successful in wargaming (e.g. the Total War series).

What the inherently interesting cases all have in common is a tactical game of paper scissors and rock. Undifferentiated combat power fighting, in contrast, is boring. Single dominant arm combat, is boring. Single dominant side, tech-dominance combat, is boring. Everything can kill everything combat, in which the only difference is what it looks like when unit A kills unit B, is boring.

The eastern front WW II tactics (below division level), Napoleonic grand tactics, and pre gunpowder battlefield combined arms, are not boring, and it doesn't matter how many times they have been done, they will remain lively.

[DaveDash]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The tactical combined arms problem of WW II is simply superior to the periods before and after, in tactical interest.

After, tech dominates to such an extent that the higher tech side has n ways of doing anything necessary. It is not necessary to have the proper weapon for a task or to employ it carefully - everything can do nearly everything and pretty effortlessly. That can cut into both forces (meaning, loss attrition on both sides is possible), but it never requires deep thought, or hinges on matched commander wits. A war that was won in a lab 2000 miles from the front a decade earlier, is devoid of tactical interest.

Sorry, have to disagree majorly. If this was the case, the U.S. could have just stormed into Iraq with tanks alone and left all the grunts at home.

Look at the most recent conflict in Lebanon. A high tech extremely well trained army can't just waltz into enemy territory with their high tech gadjets and walk all over the enemy.

On the strategic level, yes, Modern Armies will have a huge advantage, but on the tactical level, especially with Infantry Companies for example, much of the same tactics that were used in WW2 still remain extremely valid.

Go back and read the manual. What it says is very true. An AK-47 kills just as well under the right circumstances as a M4.

I just watched a very powerful documentary on Afghanistan that followed a U.S. platoon in a mountian valley. No tanks or IFVs for support, airpower is limited, can't use massive artillery on the place due to civilian concerns. It was back to basics.

Not all modern combat is in the open desert where airpower, drones, and tanks destroy everything from afar.

[ December 14, 2007, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: DaveDash ]

[Paper Tiger]

'Card:

"Give me hypothetical stuff. Near-future US versus China. Mid-80's NATO versus the Warsaw Pact in the Fulda Gap. Israel versus Egypt. The European Union versus Microsoft's evil corporate goons, for all I care. Just anything other than another WW2 simulation. Hell, let's figure out a way to let the Brits slug it out with the French or something."

However, the US and British casualty figures from both Gulf Wars (NOT the ensuing 'peace") speak volumes about the challenge of realistic combat in the Middle East between these two groups. Yeah, Syria would be a better opponent than the Iraqi's but they're not THAT good.

I too, would love to see these options. However, battlefront have been fairly clear that they're not going to expand CMSF in this way. It's Syria v US, Brit, possibly Canada and Germany too, if we're lucky.

Syria just doesn't have enough to keep this interesting. Russia, China? Woo Hoo, bring it on man!

The US and British casualty figures from the active periods in the two Gulf wars speak volumes about the challenge that Middle Eastern opponents present to Western armies. I have no doubt that the Syrians would be better than the Iraqi's but they're not THAT good.

Conventional open is more to my taste and WW2 does it better. Especially Russian Front stuff. All the major participants in WW2 have their unique strengths

[Paper Tiger]

Oops, hit the wrong key and my post got sent early...

Conventional open is more to my taste and WW2 does it better. Especially Russian Front stuff. All the major participants in WW2 have their unique strengths and weaknesses. It's very easy to create balanced, interesting and exciting scenarios in EVERY flavour, open, closed, MOUT, whatever. Not to mention being able to play as those Uber Finns!

[DaveDash]

The Iraqi army in the gulf war was plagued a lot by C&C issues, mass desertion, and lack of airpower more than anything. They were let down by poor tactics and lack of any decent leadership.

In wargames the U.S. blue forces ran into a lot of trouble vs willy U.S. OPFOR commanders opposing them.

People in CM:SF like to mimic what happened in Iraq, but I prefer to design scenarios of hypothetic situations where the Syrian leadership is extremely competent to give the player a much greater challange.

Lebanon/Hez vs Israel is a better indication of what a determined defender can do in modern times.

Whoever vs Russia/China would require map sizes out of the scope of the CM:SF engine I imagine, and MUCH larger equipment tables. Part of the reason middle east conflicts work is because the MOUT situations etc have shorter engagement ranges due to force disparity.

[ December 14, 2007, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: DaveDash ]

[Paper Tiger]

Hi Dave

no arguments with ANY of that. I just don't see that Syria would be THAT much better. They won't ever have any air/helicopter or REAL artillery support in any future conflict with Western conventional forces because the big boys will take it ALL away from them before anybody crooses the borders.

I'm pretty sure we'll never see Israel in the CMSF series. I'd like to see them but I think that there's a LOT of resistance to their inclusion.

Conventional Open style combat with China or Russia would require huge maps. I can run 1.5x 1km maps without any problems on my rig as long as their reasonably open (ie desert), so that's another reason why it probably won't happen.

I don't think CMSF has as much longevity as CMx1 if it's all street fights with insurgents and second world armies. My opinion only.

[DaveDash]

Nah you're probably right. WW2 does have the greater variety of situations that require tactical consideration, that much is for sure.

[MikeyD]

The 'problem' with putting Israel into the series is they'd never be able to get it "right" (in quotes). There'd be howls of protest that each item was modeled too *something*. If before last summer BFC had put out an Israel/Lebanon wargame that showed Hezbollah irregulars stopping an Israeli armored force in their tracks BFC would've been skinned alive. Heck, a game that has China invading Taiwan would be less of a hot potato to handle!

About WWII, CMSF is a nice break. Grognards will be an even nicer break when that game comes out. But by the time CM:WWII shows up I'll be greeting that theatre like a long-lost friend.

[DaveDash]

Whether Israel is in the game or not is a moot point.

I bought up the example to show that a 'superior' technological force is not nessesarily going to win.

What would have happened if U.S. commanders were in charge of the Iraqi force and Iraqi commanders were in charge of the U.S. forces in Gulf War 1, for example. Heck Iraq was superior to Iran and "on paper" should have definately won that war.

Way out of the scope of the game, before OIF a U.S. marine commander sunk the U.S. CVG fleet using some rather unorthodox tactics from memory in the pre-invasion wargaming.

[orwell]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Heck, a game that has China invading Taiwan would be less of a hot potato to handle!

I like the sound of that scenario, but one I wonder why it hasn't been broached is Chechnya? From what I've read on the subject this is a perfect scenario in reasonably modern times.

As far as being sick of WWII, yeah, it's old, it's been done, but it'll keep BEING DONE, because since when beyond it have we had the powers of the world contesting one another? Everything since has been, generally, the big guy picking on the small guy, who's only advantage is terrain and hiding behind civilians.

[Paper Tiger]

It's funny but I feel that WW2 IS modern combat. Apart from new weapon types, body armour and high tech equipment, it's all there. Some of the gadgets were fun to play around with, personal favourites being Infantry Guns and light armour facing AT Rifles.

Apart from the restraints of my current kit, there's no reason, in my opinion, why we can't do modern conventional open between the big boys. It would be necessary because there would be no MOUT if the countryside wasn't captured first. It's a necessary precondition to MOUT operations. The Russian forces in the 80's were trained for that and I'm sure they're training for that now. And, for that matter, are the Chinese.

I think a lot of us really like the modern setting but would like to have a more 'worthy' opponent for the US than the Syrians.

[Chelco]

I'm a wargaming wh0re of sorts: any period has interesting twists for me. So, while I enjoy modern warfare a lot, I wouldn't mind any of the other interesting scenarios mentioned here.

Originally posted by JasonC:

After, tech dominates to such an extent that the higher tech side has n ways of doing anything necessary. It is not necessary to have the proper weapon for a task or to employ it carefully - everything can do nearly everything and pretty effortlessly. That can cut into both forces (meaning, loss attrition on both sides is possible), but it never requires deep thought, or hinges on matched commander wits. A war that was won in a lab 2000 miles from the front a decade earlier, is devoid of tactical interest.

Jason,

While I respect your opinion and tastes for wargaming, I couldn't avoid finding your post too pretentious. Stephen Biddle would have a ball reading the previous snippet.

[Le Tondu]

Sorry, but I won't wargame any period later than WW2. (SciFi not included in that.)

I can't wait to get back to gaming with Combat Mission.

So, just when is the WW2 CMx2 game going to be released?

I seem to remember that it was mentioned in the past that a time frame of six months after Shockforce was released. Has there been anything mentioned in forums?

[ December 15, 2007, 08:55 AM: Message edited by: Le Tondu ]