"Generic" CMx2

[Peter Cairns]

Has it ever been suggested, that there could be a Generic version of CMx2 to show off the game perhaps the first module.

This would have "Blue v Red" or "Green v Grey", it would have weapons like "Bolt Action", "Semi Automatic", "SMG", "LMG" etc.

Vehicles would be "Jeep, Truck, Halftrack, Light, Medium, and Heavy Tank".

In this way we could be up and playing the game and getting used to it, without waiting months for historical scenarios, because they have to a huge amount of research.

I remember years back I used to play SPI's game "Raid", which although it only has Green and Brown counters and used a revisied version of the game system from "Firefight" was a really good game.

Actually in terms of flow and tactics etc, it was a far better game and a fraction of the price of the like s of AH's "Squad Leader".

SL, was a really well research and detailled game, brillantly reproduced with great maps and counters. But it was apoor game system and the gamescale had to be "squashed to make it work, (a bit like playing CM with all the vehicles at Maximum size).

A first launch version that was ahistorical would be a quick easy way to learn the new system, and a good option for a "Demo" as the simplified options would let it run easily on most current machines.

It could still illustrate the improved graphics etc, just cut down on the real demands by having simple uniforms and markings etc.

Peter.

[aka_tom_w]

The Board game Tactics II was much like this.

,

,

Both sides identical

Red vs Blue

similiar Map terrain for both.

Nothing fancy just some inf units and a few armoured units IIRC

It might not be a bad idea for a CMx2 module...

(or not...)

-tom w

[ September 19, 2005, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Has it ever been suggested, that there could be a Generic version of CMx2 to show off the game perhaps the first module.

This would have "Blue v Red" or "Green v Grey", it would have weapons like "Bolt Action", "Semi Automatic", "SMG", "LMG" etc.

Vehicles would be "Jeep, Truck, Halftrack, Light, Medium, and Heavy Tank".

I don't think the armour buffs are going to go for tanks in three weights when they could instead be arguing about the tactical disadvantages of losing the turret-traversing motor when the PzKw IV went from Ausf H to J, or quibbling over the ability of BR-240SP to penetrate the face-hardened plate on the front of an up-armoured PzIIIH.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

I remember years back I used to play SPI's game "Raid", which although it only has Green and Brown counters and used a revisied version of the game system from "Firefight" was a really good game.

But don't forget that "Raid!" included mostly historical scenarios -- sometimes the green and brown counters were just Force Alfa and Force Bravo, but more often they were Green Berets and NVA or Commandos and Wehrmacht or something like that. SPI tended to use generic counters for historical scenarios, as in "Tank!", "Sniper!" and "Patrol!", and all I think identifiably suffered something of the "white-bread effect" as a result. Not that they were bad games, they were IMHO some of the best ever; but when TSR re-issued Sniper/Patrol, they wisely offered distinctively national counter-mixes.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Actually in terms of flow and tactics etc, it was a far better game and a fraction of the price of the like s of AH's "Squad Leader".

Wandering madly off the point, I don't recall "Raid!" having much in common with "Firefight" apart from the sequence of play, which was widely copied ('cos it was a very good idea). "Raid!" was a classic case of a brilliant game system that didn't really work -- partly because of the refusal to model morale, which rather dooms any infantry game, and partly because it was insanely too destructive, but also because some of the scenarios were very poor indeed -- "Tragino Aqueduct" and "Son Tay" stand out in my memory as some of the worst-designed scenarios I have ever seen in hundreds of boardgames.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

SL, was a really well research and detailled game, brillantly reproduced with great maps and counters. But it was apoor game system and the gamescale had to be "squashed to make it work, (a bit like playing CM with all the vehicles at Maximum size).

The *original* SL was neither well researched nor very detailed, in John Hill's great tradition of "impressionistic" game design. The Don-Greenwood-developed SL modules and ASL attempted to add retrospective detail in a way that, IMHO, completely broke the elegant original idea. It was certainly an interesting counterpoint to "Raid!", though -- "Raid" tried to model the effects of weapons, command and control, and spotting, but ignored morale. SL modelled morale, and not a lot else. That SL was the more successful game system I think tends to confirm Napoleon's opinion about morale being three times as important as all the other factors.

I'm not too enchanted by the idea of an unflavoured red vs. blue version of CM -- do you think SL would have taken off the way it did if those 6-2-8s were just generic 6-2-8s, instead of Red Guards avtomatchiks?

All the best,

John.

[aka_tom_w]

I like the idea of CMx2 Tactics II !

I mean for a module in a future release or something

NOT a title but a module because in this case the "whole generic" concept is JUST about units and numbers and specs in and equal database of units for each side.

As a module it could be offered for those who might enjoy that sort of thing. And yes I agree it might not be their best selling module.

-tom w

[Barrold]

LOL...I remember that game the first time it came out as "The Perfect General"

BDH

[RMC]

I remember avoiding The Perfect General precisely because it was generic. I finally relented and had a great time with it.

[Abbott]

You guys are nuts! I want more Combat Mission in my Combat Mission X 2!

[Wicky]

Combat Mission Lite

*Yuck*

Sound like a concept for those folk with limited attention spans and inability/unwillingness to read the thoughtfully provided manual.

[aka_tom_w]

OK Ok ok.....

LOL

I fondly remember learning wargames starting with Tactics II

(it was not that hard to learn and it was sort of fun to play mostly because we did not fight over the rules all the time ! )

So if CMBO was "like" squad leader (sort of) then maybe a module of CMx2 would have Tactics II "like" units in it on both sides....

Or not...

(I will concede it might not sell all that well at all so there may not be much incentive for a venture like that or risking time to code it up EVEN it was just a module after the title was released.)

-tom w

[PseudoSimonds]

*shakes head*

Will it ever end?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

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

Has it ever been suggested, that there could be a Generic version of CMx2 to show off the game perhaps the first module.

This would have "Blue v Red" or "Green v Grey", it would have weapons like "Bolt Action", "Semi Automatic", "SMG", "LMG" etc.

Vehicles would be "Jeep, Truck, Halftrack, Light, Medium, and Heavy Tank".

I don't think the armour buffs are going to go for tanks in three weights when they could instead be arguing about the tactical disadvantages of losing the turret-traversing motor when the PzKw IV went from Ausf H to J, or quibbling over the ability of BR-240SP to penetrate the face-hardened plate on the front of an up-armoured PzIIIH.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

I remember years back I used to play SPI's game "Raid", which although it only has Green and Brown counters and used a revisied version of the game system from "Firefight" was a really good game.

But don't forget that "Raid!" included mostly historical scenarios -- sometimes the green and brown counters were just Force Alfa and Force Bravo, but more often they were Green Berets and NVA or Commandos and Wehrmacht or something like that. SPI tended to use generic counters for historical scenarios, as in "Tank!", "Sniper!" and "Patrol!", and all I think identifiably suffered something of the "white-bread effect" as a result. Not that they were bad games, they were IMHO some of the best ever; but when TSR re-issued Sniper/Patrol, they wisely offered distinctively national counter-mixes.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Actually in terms of flow and tactics etc, it was a far better game and a fraction of the price of the like s of AH's "Squad Leader".

Wandering madly off the point, I don't recall "Raid!" having much in common with "Firefight" apart from the sequence of play, which was widely copied ('cos it was a very good idea). "Raid!" was a classic case of a brilliant game system that didn't really work -- partly because of the refusal to model morale, which rather dooms any infantry game, and partly because it was insanely too destructive, but also because some of the scenarios were very poor indeed -- "Tragino Aqueduct" and "Son Tay" stand out in my memory as some of the worst-designed scenarios I have ever seen in hundreds of boardgames.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

SL, was a really well research and detailled game, brillantly reproduced with great maps and counters. But it was apoor game system and the gamescale had to be "squashed to make it work, (a bit like playing CM with all the vehicles at Maximum size).

The *original* SL was neither well researched nor very detailed, in John Hill's great tradition of "impressionistic" game design. The Don-Greenwood-developed SL modules and ASL attempted to add retrospective detail in a way that, IMHO, completely broke the elegant original idea. It was certainly an interesting counterpoint to "Raid!", though -- "Raid" tried to model the effects of weapons, command and control, and spotting, but ignored morale. SL modelled morale, and not a lot else. That SL was the more successful game system I think tends to confirm Napoleon's opinion about morale being three times as important as all the other factors.

I'm not too enchanted by the idea of an unflavoured red vs. blue version of CM -- do you think SL would have taken off the way it did if those 6-2-8s were just generic 6-2-8s, instead of Red Guards avtomatchiks?

All the best,

John. </font>

[rune]

To go to a "generic" version would require all the research to be stopped, and Kwazy to stop making models, and most likely delay the game. So....

Rune

[MikeyD]

I recall waaaaay back during the CMBB Beta, while waiting for Russian infantry and armor skins to arrive placeholder fourescent color ships were substituted. After having canary yellow, flame red and cobalt blue soldiers running around the board it was a bit of a letdown when they at last got dressed in drab green colors!

[flamingknives]

The clown cars! They were great! Watching a half dozen harlequin Stuarts rampage across the map at the CMBB sneak peek was truely a sight to behold.

[Michael Dorosh]

It will be too easy to mod them into red and blue for those that really want to do this. I did something similar with mine; just used Photoshop to tin all the Germans blue like in the comic books, all the Americans in CMAK green, and all the CW brown. Makes identification a snap.

[Barrold]

BAH!! Beat me to it

BDH

[RMC]

I thought the point was not blue vs red, but rather identical troop types so that new players were not overwhelmed with the historical depth of the regular CM games.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by RMC:

I thought the point was not blue vs red, but rather identical troop types so that new players were not overwhelmed with the historical depth of the regular CM games.

The original post said nothing of the sort.

[aka_tom_w]

This would have "Blue v Red" or "Green v Grey", it would have weapons like "Bolt Action", "Semi Automatic", "SMG", "LMG" etc.

Vehicles would be "Jeep, Truck, Halftrack, Light, Medium, and Heavy Tank".

well my understanding from that was that both sides would have identical generic units like Tactics II

But what do I know

maybe I did in fact confuse the author's intent?

-tom w

[Peter Cairns]

You wouldn't need Ideantical sides but I think games like SPI's "Sniper" and "patrol" did effectively do so, and despite, the graphics there is hardly alot of historical accuracy in games like Battlefield 1942.

A simplified game to develope tactics and get the feel for game play, could have identical or dissimilar forces.

Peter.

[roqf77]

i think the point is that whilst sides could have different play balances.

The generic game would remove the realistic time line of units and progression of tactics, forces would be arranged with one universal set list i assume?

Simplfying tactics learning curve, but still allowing deep tactical play?

I assume this is the point.......

But this could be done in say drop team style no reason this has to be generic per say.

[gunnergoz]

I think this is describing what Governor Arnold would call a "girly men's" Combat Mission. Give me my grog fest and let the newbies earn their spurs figuring out the difference between a 75mm gun on a Sherman and a 75mm gun on a Panther, or better yet, between HVAP and APDS.

[Peter Cairns]

I yhought the idea might appeal to people as a quick way to learn the basics of the game, like testing tactics and finding out what does and doesn't work.

In much the same way most armies start training "against themselves" , ie units of the same army equiped with the same weapons, later they go on to train against different tactics and units with or simulating different weapons.

the follow on from dissimilar training, is specific training against forces emulating the tactics and weapons of a specific and often imminent threat or opponent.

I suppose we could have a compromise ( yhough some posters seem to think thats a dirty word), of a "Green on Green" scenario, where you started off say in a demo with an Episode One "Band of Brothers" style training excercise, against your own troops.

Peter.

[aka_tom_w]

It sounded like a good idea to me

as an optional module

But if the module would not sell there would be no incentive to spend time and money developing it.

I like the idea but I am not sure I would commit to buying the module. (unless it featured english speaking units that I could use in a title release like CMBB that was devoid of english speakers. )

-tom w