New concept for CM:SF setting

[Battlefront.com]

Kaaaaaaaaaaaaahn!!!!!

Steve

[Sgt Joch]

"It is better to rule in hell, than serve in heaven"

one of my favorite episode.

[LongLeftFlank]

"I've hurt you.... And I wish to go on hurting you."

Not to spoil the levity here, but Khan exemplifies a home truth in entertainment (including video games): a strongly drawn villain is as important as a strongly drawn hero.

Khan's backstory was wholly fictional but intriguing: a bioengineered superman with an outsized ego whose subsequent actions were defined by that background, and by more normal human failings (e.g. pride, haste, inexperience). He is us, under different conditions, and is therefore a tragic, sympathetic figure in a way, though evil.

Syria doesn't work at all on this level, as villain or hero. AFAICT, non-Arab gamers will be unable to identify with them as either:

(a) effective fighting force

( users of cool gear or tactics

© human personalities with compelling motivation

(d) underdogs skillfully fighting the odds

I'm not sure what my conclusion is here, since you're already doing what you gotta do, but.... (punt).

[WindyCity]

I know I am going to get flamed for this, but I will say it anyway.

1989 the cold war turns hot ,NATO forces and the Warsaw Pact clash on the Germanys western border.

[Battlefront.com]

1989 the cold war turns hot ,NATO forces and the Warsaw Pact clash on the Germanys western border.

You mean just as the Soviet Union was collapsing and Eastern Europe was liberating itself? Wouldn't be my first pick for a historical event that didn't ever happen

Steve

[jeffsmith]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />1989 the cold war turns hot ,NATO forces and the Warsaw Pact clash on the Germanys western border.

You mean just as the Soviet Union was collapsing and Eastern Europe was liberating itself? Wouldn't be my first pick for a historical event that didn't ever happen

Steve </font>

[pad152]

the cold war turns hot, NATO forces and the Warsaw Pact clash on the Germanys western border.

Today most kids don't know what the Warsaw Pact was,

and Nato was design to protect the Olympics

[WindyCity]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

NATO forces V’s Warsaw Pact would have something for everyone, who cares how fictional the concept is.

The equipment alone would be worth the price of emission.

[japinard]

Originally posted by JOCH:

Syria with Minor Backstory and Fictional Subsection sounds perfect.

It will keep the "realists" like me happy since we have a real war against Syria, plus the flexibility to explore various "what if?" scenarios to extend the lifespan of CMSF.

Perfect. You could make a statement that as US invades Syria, Russia comes in with full military force to aid Syria... something like

Syria attacks Israel, which triggers the U.S. to invade Syria, which triggers Russia to become allies with Syria and Syrian forces are thus supplmented with new Russian military tech and training.

I don't think the above scenario is too far-fetched as Russia seems to befriend and side with extreme Middle Eastern nations more and more. Personally I think Russia with its oil-rich resources is setting up a collsion of oil rich nations to try and push prices up to maximize their own income.

[luderbamsen]

Originally posted by pad152:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> the cold war turns hot, NATO forces and the Warsaw Pact clash on the Germanys western border.

Today most kids don't know what the Warsaw Pact was,

and Nato was design to protect the Olympics </font>

[birdstrike]

Yeah, it's always the good ones that have to go first.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Well, no one lobbied harder…that simply means more persistently … than I did for a Cold War setting for CMX2. For about three-four years I kept the ball in the air but sadly to no effect .

It remains my view that Cold War/NATO Central Front sometime between ’75 and ’85 would have made a far more engaging, and no less realistic, game than any Syrian-US clash. More evenly balanced, the environment more fun…and so on…anyway… not to be.

However, this thread is proof that the final setting for the first outing of CMX2 will be far more fun than may have been the case. CMSF will in many ways, certainly once the modules are out, be an OPFORs game. That means a clash of the latest toys from a number from the different counties, not just the Third World v First World of the original concept.

Having said all of the above I would have been as eager as any to get my hands on CMSF even if the original setting were still scheduled. Seeing the changes to CM and playing something different would still have been fun. But Third World v First World just does not have the legs…the replay value…. that a more balanced setting, such as the one coming our way has. In my very prejudiced view.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Kip,

That means a clash of the latest toys from a number from the different counties, not just the Third World v First World of the original concept.

Don't get your hopes up too much. We are still keeping the game based around Syria and do not plan on going nuts adding stuff to the OPFOR side.

But Third World v First World just does not have the legs…the replay value…. that a more balanced setting, such as the one coming our way has. In my very prejudiced view.

And a very prejudiced view it is I think the armor clash battles you keep thinking of that will be "balanced" will not be and will have stubbier legs than the original subject matter. That's my prejudiced view, but then again... what do I know... I'm only the guy making the game

Steve

[hellfish]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

But Third World v First World just does not have the legs…the replay value…. that a more balanced setting, such as the one coming our way has. In my very prejudiced view.

Did you ever get tired of taking King Tigers against Shermans or Stuarts? Panthers against Cromwells? Panzer IIs against KV-2s? Elite Fallschirmjaegers against Soviet conscripts?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Elite Fallschirmjaegers against Soviet conscripts? Holy cow, you need to find some different opponents I never saw a KT in any of my games (amoung my crowd they were considered not worth their cost).

As usual I agree with everything kip says. He's a very wise man. CMSF is going to be an infantry game. Not a bad thing per se, but I like a little armor with my crunchies. I have no idea why anyone thinks M60A1 vs. T-64 and T-72 would be lopsided. Anyone who's played TacOps knows it's not.

Don't get your hopes up too much. We are still keeping the game based around Syria and do not plan on going nuts adding stuff to the OPFOR side.

I'd like you to go stark raving mad adding stuff to the OPFOR side. I'm not sure why we'd get 36 flavors of NATO and 1 OPFOR. We're going to end up playing UK vs. Germany for some variety :cool:

[Battlefront.com]

I have no idea why anyone thinks M60A1 vs. T-64 and T-72 would be lopsided. Anyone who's played TacOps knows it's not.

Yeah, but we've already rulled that matchup out 110%, so the matchup is still going to be between Abrams and Russian (possibly Chinese) stuff. As good as the T-80 and T-90s look, I don't think they'd fair very well against a M1A2 SEP. And any US Rifle Squad can take out at least 1-2 of anything the Russians and Chinese can field in the near future. But we've been over this time and time again so people can do a SEARCH if they want to see more

BTW, one of the big differences in modern armored warfare, at lesat in a realistic setting, is that the chances of missing are sooooooo much less than in WWII. Firing on the move, fast RoF, precision targeting systems, etc. mean that if you get a shot off you're likely to score hit, and if you get shot at you're likely to take a hit. In WWII you had a pretty darned good chance of having 2nd, 3rd, and so on chances within the scenario. Even if you got hit there was a decent chance that it wouldn't do any real damage. Not so today. If you get tagged bay a 120 DU round out of an Abrams you're not likely to shake it off and come back for more.

Steve

[rudel.dietrich]

Has a decision been reached yet?

I have done a bit more research and would like to know if it will be of use before I proceed any further.

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, yes for sure. The setting described on the first page of this thread is a go for sure. Syria with minimal backstory.

One note though... we might bump up the date to early 2008 timeframe. Gives more time before release and when the fictional date for the opperation. There aren't many systems due to go online in 2008 that I am aware of, so moving the date shouldn't mess anything up. Most of the stuff planned for 2007 will just be hitting its stride in 2008 anyway.

Steve

[dan/california]

Precision guided mortar muntion, please. Don't make me beg.

link

http://www.atk.com/AdvancedWeaponSystems/advanceweaponsystems_pgmm.asp

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Oh, yes for sure. The setting described on the first page of this thread is a go for sure. Syria with minimal backstory.

One note though... we might bump up the date to early 2008 timeframe. Gives more time before release and when the fictional date for the opperation. There aren't many systems due to go online in 2008 that I am aware of, so moving the date shouldn't mess anything up. Most of the stuff planned for 2007 will just be hitting its stride in 2008 anyway.

Steve

what about this one?

Syria with Minor Backstory and Fictional Subsection

Everything that I said above with "Syria with Minor Backstory" is included here. However, we create a new type of OPFOR force, called a Branch in CMx2 speak, to represent units that are not realistic for Syria. Let's say we call it the "Ahistoric Branch". It would sit right next to other Branches such as Syrian Army, Syrian Special Forces, Irregulars, etc. (we aren't quite sure how we're dividing stuff up yet). This is pretty similar to how we did things in CMx1 and it means that the player knows for sure that he is using unrealistic stuff. Scenario Designers that want to make a strictly realistic scenario set in Syria can therefore know not to include anything from the Ahistoric Branch and everything will be fine. When making Campaign battles we would not use anything from the Ahistoric Branch either, obviously. We could also make it a toggle option for QuickBattles so you could for sure only play with legitimate Syrian forces only or play with "unrealistic" cool stuff.

[Battlefront.com]

Tom, that's what I am talking about

Steve

[John Kettler]

dan/california,

That was interesting; the rest of the site even more so! I especially liked the 60 mile range 5 inch shell. That could prove quite a shock to some.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

As usual I agree with everything kip says. He's a very wise man.

You obviously don't know him. He is actually quite seriously deranged.

Just like me, but worse.

All the best

Andreas

[DaffyDuck]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

One note though... we might bump up the date to early 2008 timeframe.

I was waiting for this. I was beginning to wonder if by the time we got to see a demo, 2007 would be a historical scenario.

[japinard]

Originally posted by DaffyDuck:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

One note though... we might bump up the date to early 2008 timeframe.

I was waiting for this. I was beginning to wonder if by the time we got to see a demo, 2007 would be a historical scenario. </font>