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

[JasonC]

Dave Dash - you can win every game of CMSF you play, as the US, without dismounting a single infantryman. Sure, using combined arms, which is gravy, you might be still more efficient in some situations. But success or failure does not turn on it.

Similarly, take the case of the Israelis in Lebanon. They used combined arms very poorly. But their losses were still completely trivial. The check was diplomatic and political, not military, and the IDF could readily have accepted ten times the losses and continued the mission, had the pols been serious enough about it.

The reality is, modern high tech militaries are so effective with any mix of arms, that only hypersensitivity about losses from perfectionist publics at home, limits anything they do. This was not remotely the case in WW II. Sides were physically incapable of defeating the other side, unless the right mix of weapons were used in the right way.

There is no comparison between modern "have everything" combined arms, and WW II "live or die by it" combined arms. It is like the difference between opening an envelope with a letter opener, knife, or by tearing the envelope, vs. cracking a safe or failing to do so. In one case anything will work, with minor cosmetic differences in side effects and costs. In the other case, if you don't dial perfectly, you simply cannot do it.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Chelco:

I'm a wargaming wh0re of sorts: any period has interesting twists for me. So, while I enjoy modern warfare a lot

...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.

And who couldn't avoid finding your post sophomoric and embarrassing, particularly the part about "enjoyng modern warfare a lot"? Perhaps those least able to understand Jason's points are those most likely to criticize their tone.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by 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.

"New weapon types" such as what? Grenade launchers I suppose, though rifle grenade launchers were fielded by most armies in the Second World War, as were assault rifles (by the Germans.) Body armour was in use by the British and Canadians in Northwest Europe - and I'm not certain the use of body armour today has had an appreciable change on tactics insofar as it would effect the kind of orders someone could give in a company-based simulation. So it's probably a lot closer than even you are giving it credit for.

[Chelco]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

And who couldn't avoid finding your post sophomoric and embarrassing, particularly the part about "enjoyng modern warfare a lot"? Perhaps those least able to understand Jason's points are those most likely to criticize their tone. [/QB]

I meant enjoying the setting of CMSF. What is wrong with you?

Look Dorosh, I wrote my post in a laptop while riding in a train. Sorry it failed to meet your standards of writing. I thought I was writing in an internet forum, not for a peer-reviewed journal. Can you let it go this time, Dean Dorosh?

As for Jason, my personal apologies. I didn't mean to offend him, but his post is highly debatable. We were talking about gaming preferences and his post didn't sound to me as such, but rather arriving fast to too wide conclusions about tactical warfare. There is a lifetime of research papers by Stephen Biddle regarding gaps in weapon's technology and their influence on winning/losing battles. That's all I have to say.

[Omenowl]

I don't find WW2 that much more appealing than some other areas. I don't see Tarawa or guadalcanal missions that much. Same with Iwo Jima. It seems to be a much more romantic affiliation with with WW2 than the actual tactical detail.

I don't favor tactics with a meatgrinder. That willingness to accept casualties or throw in untrained soldiers into combat does not exactly appeal to me. There wasn't that much manuever at the tactical level because the grunts were on foot.

Then we have modern combat. You have vehicles to move around. Losses of any kind are not acceptable. The room for error has diminished. When you have a squad pinned you try to do everything you can to keep them alive. Close combat is much more lethal, but I still don't lose that many more men than I did in CMBO when it got close.

I feel this is the real difference between CMBO and CMSF. I care about my people. 3 dead and 10 wounded is a failure on my part because so many were lost, but in CMBO that might be pretty good because I only lost that few. Try the ambush scenarios where you try to rescue your guys and they are low on ammo. Desperation sets in, whereas in CMBO you just hoped they layed low and would get out.

The really funny thing is if you look up losses in battles from Cannae up to now modern combat is actually less lethal...

[Thomm]

My opinion: no matter which era, it is all up to scenario design.

Re WW2:

Market Garden or The Bulge would not be too bad ..

Normandy, however ...

Best regards,

Thomm

[Cadmium77]

Yeah, I've had it with WWII, particularly the war in the west. The German Russian aspect of it could be better done though; Il2 Sturmovik has blazed the path to follow.

I tend to agree that the wars that are the most interesting will be present and immediate future wars.

I was profoundly disappointed with the infantile Full Spectrum Warrior. Ditto for Armed Assault which while it does have some good aspects to it is just too crude for my tastes.

I suppose Black Shark and Steel Beasts Pro PE and Shock Force are really the kind of games that appeal to me.

Is is possible to make an original WWII game that will somehow overcome this boredom with WWII? Yes, Storm of War Battle of Britain is promising us a lot. Oleg Maddox is a genius though and so he can take any genre, no matter how exhausted and blow new life into it.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Battlefront.com]

From a personal standpoint I'm looking forward to going back to WWII. Not because of the content, necessarily, but because I want to see it work with the new game engine. As I've said here in the past, I was pretty burnt out on WWII after working with it night and day for 7 years. Three years "vacation" from it did me some good, so I think I'll be happy to watch Panthers get knocked out by flank shots from Shermans again

Steve

[Paper Tiger]

Michael: ""New weapon types" such as what?"

I was thinking more of ATGM's. I should have said ATGM's

[JasonC]

Chelco - no, sorry, it really isn't highly debatable. I mean, you can spin yourself silly over your personal preference, but the reason WW II is the most popular setting for wargames - which it is, by miles - is the inherent tactical interest of the period, the variety of the fighting, the evenness of many of the battles, etc. I am not making it up.

Go look at the top 100 rated board wargames a "board game geek", for example (any grog list will yield similar results, probably more so really).

You will find 47 out of 100 are set in WW II, including the highest rated (no coincidence, it is a venerable classic very close to the original CM in theme, three guesses for the title - like you will need all three...)

The next largest category is US civil war with 12, including a 7th rated, then you have early modern with 9, or if you lump that with Napoleonics 14 including a 6th rated, ancients and fantasy half a dozen apiece with similar gameplay. Together those comprise the other eras I regard as remotely promising, with the US civil war a bit overrepresented. And they have, between them, 37 out of the 100, leaving only 1 game in 6 for everything else.

There are 6 out of 100 modern, but including one Korea, one cold war grand strategy, a Nam air game - only 3 modern tactical games, the highest rated clocking in at number 64. WW I is limited interest with half of them air games, Sci fi also limited interest, split between space setting strategy and space setting semi-naval.

Why are half of all successful wargames about one war? Why aren't wargamers "tired" of it? Why don't all the other settings, or even any single one of them, ever rise up and become bigger than all the WW II ones combined?

It isn't a fad, it isn't a personal quirk, it is the actual history of the hobby, and it is that way for a reason.

[Michael Dorosh]

To add to Jason's comment, I've done a survey of all tactical level board games that deal with 20th Century combat at the man-to-man, squad, and platoon level published from the first one in 1969 up to 2000; of the 120+ titles, the vast majority are set in the Second World War exclusively; there are some set in "modern" or for our purposes post 1945 era, but of these, as many are multi-purpose as not (meaning they portray both Second World War and "modern" rather than one or the other).

[track]

Yeah, I've had it with WWII, particularly the war in the west

Well do the early German Bliz in the west. Lot's of variety; paratroopers, airplanes, Allied have superior tanks+numbers, but Germans still manage to pull it of in a spectacular way. Oh, but it cannot be done, The Western Allies are on the losing side! (No U.S. involvement) So lets again forgot it ever happened...

[ December 15, 2007, 10:34 PM: Message edited by: track ]

[Chelco]

Point well taken Jason.

I took your first post as if you were writing about intrinsic attributes of tactical warfare through the ages. Your strong opinion regarding COF and technology is something I still find debatable.

When it comes to wargames, you are absolutely right, WWII wins as the favorite of the hobby.

[Bigduke6]

Arguing modern land war is a more interesting framework for a wargame, than the "classic" periods (particularly WW2, Napoleonic, US Civil War, and Ancient) is pretty non-sensical, unless you really depart from standard definitions of victory and defeat.

Traditionally, battles in war and the popular wargames are won by killing or otherwise incapacitating more of the other guy's soldiers, and destroying more of his equipment, than you lose yourself. Certainly there is variance in unit quality, but the definition of victory remains the same: your force physically defeated the enemy force.

That definition has held true pretty much since cavemen.

Not all wars are particularly interesting to replicate as wargames, because you need something approximating a fair fight for a good wargame.

Certainly, fair fights are not the only way battles take place in wars. In WW2 from summer 1944 onward Soviet deliberate attacks of any scale are pretty much no fun to wargame, as where's the fun of replicating a Red Army massive combat power advantage flattening the German opposition?

By that same token, a bunch of invulnerable Tigers on a ridge cancelling out dozens of Shermans or T-34s likewise is a dumb wargame.

(Although there are more people out there than you think that believe a good computer wargame is a progam that allows you to watch the forces you happen to like - be they an S.S. Panther Abteilung or a U.S. M1A1 company - kick butt on you computer screen. But that is not so much a wargame as mental masturbation, and it's not easy to find opponents willing to play against a person so he can act out such fantasies.)

WW2 was so big in scope, that you can replicate plenty of actions where commander skill was, the determining factor in achieving victory, and again the definition of victory is, basically, killed and wounded more enemy and his equipment than the other way around. This paradigm holds true for all the "classic" wargaming periods. The force mix may vary, and the unit quality may vary, but the definition of victory and the key factors in achieving it - commander skill and by implication his ability to apply combined arms - remains the same.

In modern warfare, the definitions of victory are different. After all, by the classic standards, the modern high tech commander to kill and otherwise defeat the enemy needs not skill, but permission to use enough force.

Worse, victory for him often has little to do with the classic definition of victory. Capturing ground, killing and wounding the enemy, very often takes a back seat to preventing collateral damage, avoiding friendly casualties, and (even) avoiding enemy casualties, because they can be misconstrued as dead civilians.

Certainly, it can be a mental challenge for a modern high-tech commander to try and do what he is told to do - clear that village, take that ridge, etc. - given the generally political constraints on him. But it is not a fair fight and the decisive battle is not the one between the two commanders, but rather between the field commander and higher command assigning firepower and the right to use it. These are parameters set ahead of the wargame battle, and so not influenced by the player. It is usually not fun to play a wargame where you can't influence the action, witness CMSF before the patches came out.

And on the other side, the main thing the hapless Arab force is concerned about is, how much force will the enemy be allowed to use against me? He can deploy his troopies and set up his clever ambushes to his heart's content, but classic victory has nothing to do with his brains. Rather, it all has to do with a political decision made in a foreign country.

Combat in a straight-jacket is almost always not the basis of a good wargame, and combat where one side hugely outclasses the other is even worse. There are mental challenges in a battle like that, and thinking can be needed to get to certain objectives. But in any case, the objectives cannot be classic battlefield victory, as that will be decided not by commander skill, but by the degree the high-tech side is allowed to use force.

The more battlefield results are unclear in the case of unlimited force, and where there are plenty of interesting "toys" for the wargamer to play with, the more likely you have the basis for a good wargame. There is post-WW2 stuff out there, for instance Taiwan-China, Pakistan-India, and Yom Kippur. But modern Middle Eastern warfare, which includes pretty much any action the US would be involved in in the foreseeable future, by definition these days is asymetrical. Not much fun in that.

It is no accident that most of the classic wargaming periods historically were periods of massive multi-national conflict lasting at least a decade, and sometimes closer to a century. That is where variety in force mixes comes in, where adaptation to new tactics and weapons comes in, and where, throughout it all, commander skill in handling the force mix, determines battlefield success, with that military success defined in classical terms.

As Jason and Mr. Dorosh correctly point out, the opinion of the hobby market is unequivocal. Modern war just doesn't hold a candle to the classic periods, it is too narrow, and too unbalanced.

To each his own.

[Chelco]

Jason, what's your take on this?

The Franco-Prussian War showed the world far more tactical innovations than the American Civil War. Yet ACW games outnumber the former by a long run.

I would argue that our hobby does not fairly represent many of the most significant segments in the history of tactical warfare.

[JasonC]

Chelco - I agree Franco Prussia showed more *innovation*, but people don't play a wargame because they want to see innovation. Franco Prussian was a pretty uninteresting war. It was lopsided and fast, the Germans won deterministically. The early fights were all quite bloody but with losses remarkably even for the winning and losing side, until the big battles the Germans won lopsidedly, mostly by hauling up enough artillery and slaughtered a French force deprived of room to maneuver out of the shelling, by prior infantry positioning.

There was skill in that certainly. There were innovations in weapons, and at the start of the war the sides really didn't understand the combined arms relationships that actually existed (I mean, they tried to still use Napoleonic era columns at times, despite the presence of essentially modern artillery. Needless to say it didn't work).

As for why the US civil war is overrepresented, and I agree it is, at least three reasons. One, it killed a lot of Americans... I mean the local historical angle. (Another possible factor in that is that US southern states send far more than their share of men to the military to this day).

Two, it was close at times (the battles anyway) and long running. Unlike Franco Prussian for example.

The third reason I consider something of a game design accident - Terrible Swift Sword set the standard for grand tactical games, and spawned one of the longest running successful game systems in the history of the hobby. It is still the basis of the Campaign series, which followed the Battleground series etc.

Fundamentally that was an adaptation of miniature rules to board wargaming, and it worked for Napoleonics as well. Napoleonics is inherently a more interesting subject, in tactical detail. (All three arms matter, and infantry fights formed or skirmish - whereas the US civil war is infantry and arty only, pretty much, and the infantry dominate and pretty uniform).

It is a fair question, why haven't Napoleonics captured more interest than the US civil war? With some grogs it has. But a large market finds US CW grand tactics complex enough, but not too complex, and enjoys variations on a successful system.

I think part of it has to be put down to US market ignorance of the Napoleonic period, just as history.

Personally I love Napoleonics. Not quite as much as WW II combined arms, but a close second. It definitely has the paper scissors rock quality of local coordination, move and counter.

I think a lot of dull Napoleonic games got made early, though. I am thinking of the typical SPI games with a single combat factor and a movement allowance, a "mostly push" CRT with 1d6 rolls and odds columns, where the only difference between infantry and cavalry is the cavalry has one or two extra movement points but usually a lower combat strength, etc. I mean, those games could be just frightfully uninteresting. Later ones like Wellington's Victory were every bit the equal of TSS - maybe a bit less playable though.

I agree with BigDuke's comments about what players want from a wargame - they want it to be matched commander's wits and to turn on physically beating the enemy. The sides can be asymmetric in force mix or timing, but that needs to be a local or stance thing, or temporary. (I'm defending this time, so...) Fundamentally players want about even chances, with skill decisive, and outright battlefield victory the goal.

A useful discussion BTW, and a fair question about ACW...

[Runyan99]

Speaking of the ACW, I wonder if BFC should have chosen an ACW setting for CMx2 instead of modern. Wouldn't linear tactics have been much easier to simulate 1-1 than modern combat? I mean, each individual soldier in linear tactics is only loading, firing, marching, or standing, and isn't expected to do anything particularly brilliant as an individual. Unlike modern combat.

Of couse the downside is that you would have to put 60,000 guys on the map at once, and maybe that isn't do-able with modern hardware. I don't know.

And of course an ACW game would need horses, and we all know that BFC does not know how to do horses, and no horse has yet appeared in a Combat Mission game.

[track]

It is not the setting alone. It is the scenario and campaign design that matter the most.

If you come up with interesting challenges that can be overcome by using realistic tactics of the era pretty much any setting can be made interesting. Afterall you are not playing grand strategy, but tactical engagements with CM series.

[OneShot]

Originally posted by track:

It is not the setting alone. It is the scenario and campaign design that matter the most.

If you come up with interesting challenges that can be overcome by using realistic tactics of the era pretty much any setting can be made interesting. Afterall you are not playing grand strategy, but tactical engagements with CM series.

Amen to that.

On a sidenote, personally I prefer the modern setting, from the Vietnam time onward - I'm just not into WW2. So, yep I like CMSF, I prefer Dangerous Waters over SH3 (or SH4 for that matter), I don't play CFS3 but have F4AF and Janes FA-18 installed.

The books are written on WW2 ... lets do some lessons learned and carry on. Besides, each new conflict has its own problems with which to deal.

[SgtMuhammed]

I think Jason's market comment hits close to the point of why different games are more popular than others. The U.S. is the biggest computer game consumer and so has the most influence. Americans like to see Americans doing things, not just in wargames but in any mass media. One reason I believe that modern warfare is not as popular as WWII is that people have been told that every war since WWII was evil (and now there is an increasing drive to lable WWII as such). That has an effect, people generally don't like to see themselves as the bad guys.

Grogs may like to play games for the tactical considerations but your general audience wants to see the good guys blast them darn Nazis, Commies, Ragheads, Chinks, North Koreans, Japs, you get the point. For the pop audience there is little question of whether or not a game will remain popular because it won't. Tactically rich games or pure fantasy will last about the same as the herd moves on to new things. What is left are the grogs who will keep a game alive within the nitch of the hobby if it is worthy of continued study. Grog interest may be enough to keep a game alive after the initial interest has worn out but it isn't enough to make a company invest time and effort in new titles if there is no popular interest. So even though the serious wargamer might want the tactical possibilities of different eras and nationalities he doesn't represent enough of a market to generate good games that don't appeal to a mass audience.

My personal favorite era of military history is the High Middle Ages and there are no realistic games based on that because they are all based on the Hollywood version of medieval combat.

[DaveDash]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Dave Dash - you can win every game of CMSF you play, as the US, without dismounting a single infantryman. Sure, using combined arms, which is gravy, you might be still more efficient in some situations. But success or failure does not turn on it.

Ive designed some scenarios that I'd love to see you try and win without dismounting a single infantryman.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

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

Exactly so… I do not always agree with JasonC but certainly agree with the above statement. Says it all. The only other period that even comes close, but is not quite equal in my view, is Napoleonic warfare.

In both WWII and Napoleonic warfare the “offense and the defense” were in balance in a way they are not in, to give an example…. WWI or the American Civil War. In both WWII and Napoleonic warfare there was also extreme tactical complexity which adds the fun from a gamers point of view.

I still enjoy modern warfare though… nothing like a bit Cold War when in the mood. Fulda Gap here I come .

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[Secondbrooks]

CMSF's problem is campaign and setting. I don't like that after campaign casuality ratings were for me about 100 and for enemy several thousands. And 100 lost men is because i grew tired to manage my firepower and optimal movement routes in MOUT during last 1/3 of the campaign! That is not good. Syria just can't fight back.

With US i can win pretty much all stock scenarios even if i do some pretty bad mistakes. Only casuality rate is which gets bigger, but not compromising success of mission. Strykers vs Republic Guard mech is only thing which can cause me slight worrying... But hey i still have Javelins!

With Syria i have to do things almost perfectly and still i have to have plenty of luck! (in Allah's Fist-scenario forexample) And yet i suffer severe casulities and my unit most likely have lost all it's MBTs = unit will not fight back again.

In MOUT things are different. But overall MOUT aspect just doesn't fit into game (that is my oppinion). I'm not into micromanagering squads or fireteams if i'm leading company or bigger unit.

I like modern era and CMSF's simulationsystem altough i happen to think that it's bit too much consentrated to high tech and vehicle warfare, ignoring some pretty important and traditional infantry survival things. Problem is with setting: US hits hard and with sufficent numbers + with superior equipment, firepower and training almost everywhere and anyway... What if US would have LOST the war in Syria or started to pull back in middle of offence while Syria side would started it's counter offencive... Man, that would have spiced things up!

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

From a personal standpoint I'm looking forward to going back to WWII. Not because of the content, necessarily, but because I want to see it work with the new game engine. As I've said here in the past, I was pretty burnt out on WWII after working with it night and day for 7 years. Three years "vacation" from it did me some good, so I think I'll be happy to watch Panthers get knocked out by flank shots from Shermans again

Steve

Thanks for saying that Steve.