A worthy foe - The difference between CMSF and CMx1's

[Combatintman]

CMBO, CMBB, CMAK, CMSF, Marines Module ... got them all. Did I enjoy them all - (once CMSFwas patched up) - yes. Do they play differently - of course they do - that's how warfare works.

I think we have to accept that it is horses for courses however I would like to know what your definition of a 'worthy' opponent means? For me it means anybody who has the gonads to take you on. So that means anybody who is up for a scrap.

So on to odds and sods - the King Tiger was effectively the Abrams of its day and the Sherman was the T-55 of its day. How many drips have we heard about overmatch in WW2 games? A lot ... I've seen them but a lot of people seem to be far more forgiving of WW2 overmatch. Ask yourself why that is ... simple its their comfort zone and there is nothing wrong with that.

So onto the CMSF experience - I wholeheartedly agree about how bad you feel when one of your blokes goes down - despite 'overmatch vs the opposition - the opposition still does things to hurt you - as somebody vaguely famous once said 'the enemy has a vote'. Is the enemy 'worthy' ... as in real life ...of course. I am glad that you feel bad about every casualty ... because despite 'overmatch' and the implied ability to strike targets at minimal risk - the bloke with sandals and an AK will (regrettably) always have his 'say'... so yes he is worthy.

[Paper Tiger]

The Syrians, a worthy foe? I guess it depends on the kind of missions you enjoy playing. If you like fighting in the cities, then yes, they are very, very capable opponents indeed. The Syrian Airborne and Special Forces in particular are extremely lethal when encountered in MOUT scenarios, or in any other scenario with very closed terrain. Hell, even low grade Reserve Syrian Infantry units can put up a seriously good fight in a MOUT mission against the US side.

I bought CM:BO and CM:BB when they first came out and up until sometime last year, I was still playing CM:BB on my laptop. I didn't play city fight stuff very often as my real 'turn on' was combat in open rural terrain, on farms with small hills and groves. Tanks and mech infantry meeting engagements. The forces in WW2 are potentially much better balanced for these kinds of missions there was nothing on either side that the other needed a fluke shot to kill. (please note that I have emboldened potentially as I know that it's easily possible to create horribly unbalanced missions with these forces as well)

US vs Syria in the open is not potentially balanced. (Again, note the bold US, I suspect people will find UK vs Syria a tad less unbalanced in Blue's favour) To make these 'open' engagements fun and challenging for Blue, you usually have to severely nerf the Blue side by taking all their air support or artillery assets away from them or by making the Blue troops Green and pitting them against Crack/Elite Syrians in T-72 TURMS/T-90s. (Nat Guard v Rep Guard)

It's obvious from my sig that I've got around this imbalance by playing Red v Red but it's not the way the game was designed to be played. While it's possible to play it this way, you miss some good stuff as the Syrians have no air support at all. Neither do they have dedicated artillery spotter/Tac Air Party voice acting. (Not that I'd be able to understand what they were saying but they could just have some Syrian guy phoning to order a kebab instead and that would keep me happy.) Once you've played the game as Blue, these little details are sorely missing from the game experience when you play it as Red. (And not to mention how l-o-n-g it takes their artillery to come in after you call it in compared to Blue.)

So, if you're happy to play MOUT missons (and OIF was pretty much all MOUT so that's not an unrealistic proposition with NATO armies fighting Arab opponents), then Syria is very capable indeed. They may even be the very best that the Arabs have to offer but I'm no expert. If you want to fight out in the open, then they're not so capable.

So why do we have it? As you said, BFC wanted to take a break from doing WW2 stuff for a while. And, they wanted to make sure that their new game engine was capable of doing Modern Era stuff as it would be much easier for them to them turn stuff off (ATGMs for example) or dumb things down (weapons lethality) for WW2 games made with the same engine. Since the v1.11 patch, this game engine is extremely capable of doing modern era combat at this level. And as the CM:Afghanistan game being developed in Russia shows, it is also capable of doing more 'fringe' stuff so it's not impossible that people will eventually get to 'do' Vietnam, Korea or Arab/Isreali war stuff in the not too distant future either.

I know that I'm very excited about playing WW2 games using this game engine but I also know that I will not abandon Shock Force after WW2 comes out as I've grown to LOVE modern era combat. In fact, I am looking forward to their Modern Era combat Title with NATO vs Russia/Chinese stuff in it even more than WW2 (well, maybe not CM:Bagration but that's still a LONG way off)

[Chad Harrison]

Thanks for all the comments everyone. Over the past nine or so years, it nice to see that even though the majority of us are new faces, we can have a nice discussion in here while keeping things civil. For anyone who has ventured into other forums, well, lets just say that's not always the case . . .

Like I said in the OP, in the right situation, Syria/Unconventional can be downright deadly and challenging to even the best Blue player. But it takes to the right situation for that to be possible. With modern conflicts, that situation is obviously a city fight; which is, as was pointed out above, very realistic to how things tend to go over there.

What I miss though is an opponent which is deadly in all situations. Attacking, defending, open, rough, wooded, village, urban and so on. Just thinking about the new hedgerows in CMx2 . . . are we there yet?

I have yet to play a human player in CM:SF for these reasons, and don't think I will get around too it. But, I have no doubt that you tricky and sneaky types would be a bear as the Red's to beat down in an urban fight. Even still, as was pointed out by Ali-Baba, those Red's are one shot wonders because once they are spotted, a hail of 5.56, 20, 40, 120 and everything else is coming in with pinpoint accuracy.

I miss the days of spending 20 minutes checking all the slopes to that MG42 making sure that my platoon will pass by with acceptable losses.

[Chad Harrison]

Leto;1142729']

Maybe it is the theatre (context of Syria), maybe it is too much competitive playability was lost in the pursuit of realism. Dunno. As much as I try to like CMSF, I find that I am always awaiting my CMBB and CMAK files with youthful enthusiasm and exuberance... while my copy of CMSF collects dust.

For me, its the theater and era for sure and not the game itself. The more I have played it, and after my realization today, I know for sure that anything I miss from the CMx1 games is only related to the drastic change in both theater and era, not to the games themselves.

CM:SF and the CMx2 engine is everything I had hoped it would be all those years ago. After patch 1.11, in my book at least, CMx2 surpassed the CMx1 games hands down. *Except* for the theater and era. I hate to keep coming back to that, but modern combat does nothing for me. Too much firepower out there. The pace is so much faster with all the instant kill weapons out there nowadays. Just look at the Marine platoon!

Again, I understand why BFC made that decision on multiple levels, but different strokes for different folks. And modern combat just isn't mine. The *only* reason that I continue to play and enjoy CM:SF is because it is CM. I love the CM formula. So its +1 point for being a CM game, +1 point for being part of the totally awesome CMx2 engine and -1 point for being a theater and era I have no interest in. So we end up positive in the end

I have the Marine module, and I will get the Brit module. I play the campaigns and all the scenarios. I honestly and immensely enjoy them all. Like I said before, my whole game of no KIA's and always playing Blue changes the game completely into something CMx1 never was: I care about each 'soldier' and take each casualty, especially a KIA, personally. Its embarrassing, but each time I see that dark brown circle on one of my US troops, I feel like I failed him and his fellow soldiers.

*BUT* . . . the entire time I play, I just keep wishing that I had a worthy foe. I will watch a turn and think to myself: 'Man, that sure will be cool once we get back to WWII and instead of some untrained kids holding that town, I will have a bunch of determined, well trained, well equipped and well led Germans to clear out!' The entire time I play CM:SF, I just keep wishing that we were back to my favorite tactical time and place: Normandy Campaign 1944.

The same place CM started.

Thanks again for all the comments.

Chad

[Battlefront.com]

This is a discussion we've had many times before. I think it comes down to personal taste and that was evident even with CMx1 games. Especially CMBB.

How many of you here liked to play predominately infantry battles as the Germans against the Soviets in fairly open battles in 1941? How many of you liked to play as the Romanians against the Soviet in 1944 in any context? Based on my experience with this Forum and other sources of info, my conclusion is "not many".

The primary reason is that the forces themselves were rather unbalanced and at least one of them was lacking something "sexy". No Panthers in 1941, for example. The second big reason is the same reason why many CMBO guys did not buy CMBB... lack of familiarity with the forces involved or, in fact, hostility towards them. More than a few people said they didn't buy CMBB because they couldn't bring themselves to play as either Germans or Soviets. They said quite bluntly that they wanted to play "as the good guys". And playing as the disgraced Romanians, Hungarians, or Italians? Fuhgeddaboutit

Those who did purchase CMBB probably spent most of their time playing fairly armor heavy battles. Again, that's what my experience with our Forums and other sources has impressed me with. Which is why playing as the Italians in 1942 or Hungarians in 1941 was just not that interesting to many people. Heck, playing 1941 or even 1942 wasn't all that interesting. Kursk and battle of the cats against hordes of pretty decent Soviet tanks... that's what got a lot of people fired up.

CMAK sold even less than CMBB and far less than CMBO. Lots of reasons for it, but the desert setting itself was likely the biggest one. The people that did buy CMAK probably mostly played Italian type scenarios using 1944/45 equipment as a sort of upgraded CMBO. Again, that's what my experience here and other sources over the years has taught me.

And in all cases people preferred fighting in rural settings, not dense urban ones. That's partly because CMx1's urban modeling wasn't very good, it's partly because it's generally not considered "fun" by most wargamers. Mostly because it neutralizes a lot of things people enjoy as stated above. Having a big, sexy King Tiger II fighting block to block isn't the same as plinking ISU-122s at 3000m distance.

So... is it any surprise that CM:SF's setting didn't set the world on fire for a lot of CMx1 players? Nope! We knew that in 2003 when we made the decision to do a modern arid setting. The thing is we wanted to explore the challenges of fighting an asymmetric MOUT heavy war with modern forces and so that's what we did.

Again, it all comes down to play style. For me, personally, I've always liked playing with underdog forces (on one or both sides) and engaging in warfare that is technically uncomfortable. I have never believed in the US's Cold War attitude that "fighting in cities should be avoided because is icky, so just drive around them". Same with the US attitude towards asymmetric warfare (until very recently, obviously). "If they shoot at us we'll crush them and they'll stop" has been pretty discarded, thankfully.

In conclusion... there's nothing "wrong" with CM:SF's setting any more than there was something "wrong" with rather large chunks of CMx1 games. What's really at the heart of this discussion is that certain CM games tend to favor a couple of different types of play, so generally speaking one could still get enjoyment out of playing x style and just forget that the game supported y and z styles. CM:SF is a more extreme setting so it has more to offer those who are interested in it and less to offer those who are not. Especially if people aren't that interested in modern warfare to begin with. It's just as much of a turn off as CMBB was for those CMBO guys who only wanted to play as Americans. Didn't matter that CMBB was a more diverse game... there were no Americans in it.

Diversity is the spice of life, so none of this bothers us. If sales weren't where we predicted they'd be, then perhaps we'd be bothered Thankfully, we hit our targets so we can make even more games.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, and I'll say that I agree with Chad too. I can't wait to get back to Normandy. As much as I like asymmetric modern urban arid warfare (and I really do), I also like "classic" matchups like that in Normandy. Now that I've had a nice, long break from it I'm quite excited to be in that environment again. Even playing around with untextured Nashorns and Stuarts in strangely Syrian like terrain is fun Well, if I had free time enough to play that is!

Steve

[silverstars]

I am also looking forward to a non-modern setting, although I like all th CMs in their own way. Normandy is still my favorite, and I am glad it was chosen as the second one in the series so it will have all the features we want. CMBB wasn't my favorite at first, but I ended up playing it more and more since it had better interface and features then CMBO. Getting addicted to IL-2 Sturmovik also helped fuel my interest in the theatre.

The one thing I think I am looking forward to most of all is Soviet SMG squads ripsawing through the fascists at close range in all of its 1:1 glory.

[Pandur]

So on to odds and sods - the King Tiger was effectively the Abrams of its day and the Sherman was the T-55 of its day. How many drips have we heard about overmatch in WW2 games? A lot ... I've seen them but a lot of people seem to be far more forgiving of WW2 overmatch. Ask yourself why that is ... simple its their comfort zone and there is nothing wrong with that.

well i think this is too much, i know this analogy gets used a lot but its totaly crap i think.

yes the KT or any big cat had an advantage in its time but its by far not like a SEP abrams vs. a T55. there are dozens of years of technology in between. not so in the sherman vs KT example. these where build more or less at teh same time when compared to the M1A2 vs. T55 example.

in "game therms", the big cats where shooting slower and didnt had any "accuracy" advantage despite their oh so big advantages and high tech gun. a smaler gun with higher rof was even better if it could do the job, as it had a better chance to hit with its higher rof.

means sometimes a duell between a KT and a sherman ended in the KT missing twice, the shermans shells bouncing and the sherman reversing out of LOS.

in the M1A2 vs T55 example the T55(s) dont even see the Abrams and are smoked with pinpoint accuracy. no chance to reverse or anything. even if the abrams doesnt see them asap, the T55s are virtualy unable to see the abrams in their lifespawn.

so the overmatch is by far not equal id say.

[Apocal]

well i think this is too much, i know this analogy gets used a lot but its totaly crap i think.

yes the KT or any big cat had an advantage in its time but its by far not like a SEP abrams vs. a T55. there are dozens of years of technology in between. not so in the sherman vs KT example. these where build more or less at teh same time when compared to the M1A2 vs. T55 example.

Age has nothing to do with it. Capability does.

[DaveDash]

I for one love CM:SF. I am glad BFC did a modern realistic war simulation game. WW2 has been done over and over and over and over.

Each to their own.

[Dietrich]

I concur with DaveDash. While I am really looking forward to the first WW2 CMx2 game (and perhaps even more so the Eastern Front CMx2 iteration to follow), I applaud and respect BFC for having the guts to create and thereafter consistently develop a game which they knew would not be met, so to speak, with unanimous cheers of elation.

[Paul AU]

Mr. Harrison, I agree entirely.

Early-on I voiced my doubts about a game where too-close-to-real life war-games are… to close to real life.

If you feel uncomfortable about “beating up some kids” in the game, imagine my Leftist view about a game that invites us to… be too close to real life.

I know that many people enjoy the military superiority that the US has. More than enjoy.

As I’ve said, it’ll be a relief when we can get back to a historical period when we are more able to pretend to a moral, but not technological, righteousness. And we can all chose which side that righteousness belongs to.

“Isn’t this a waste of time? Couldn't we better spend our time planning a war on a country that couldn’t possibly defend itself?”

“Yes, yes. We'll do that after lunch.” -The West Wing (TV series)

[Scipio]

My biggest appeal is playing PBEM. This was already the case before even CMBO was released and I played the Campaign Series game from late great Talonsoft.

I was very disappointed about CMSF when it was initially released, but not because of the modern era setting or the Syrian theatre, but because it was so flawed. That has changed after 1.08, and I guess it well get even better with 1.2 and future patches.

Playing PBEM vs real human opponents is the real deal for me. So I have no problem with the setting and theatre, because I go into battle with a completly different attitude. The opponent I have to defeat is not the USA or Syria, it's the person that's leading the other side. Beside that, I like to go into a battle which I can't eveluate in the scenario editor in all details before I start; I'm not forced to do so with normal scenarios, but I just can't resist when it's possible .

So the only thing that still drags me down is that the QB system is by far not as pleasant as it was in the CMx1 games. Not because there ain't no 'cherry-picking', but because the random troop selection produces often so odd forces that many battles are not decided by my own or my opponents abilities, but by the poor auto purchase of forces, and the very limited influence I have on it. Statistical anomalies can always happen for sure, but much to often you start with a pure ATGM force, with no transport especially as Syrian in a meeting battle (what usually turns the battle into a red attack scenario), or with a pure tank force even if a mixed force was preselected. Even if you got a good mix, it's not unlikely that the red forces are simply twice outnumbered by the blue forces. That's unpleasant, but I hope that this can and will be fixed to an acceptable degree.

[Battlefront.com]

Paul_AU,

I know that many people enjoy the military superiority that the US has. More than enjoy.

Oh, I don't think that's it at all. I think people who really enjoy CM:SF find the value in seeing how that military superiority is so delicately maintained. Go into a CM:SF game as Blue and get sloppy with your tactics and you're virtual forces will suffer casualties in that one firefight that the entire US military in Iraq wouldn't suffer in several months of the fiercest fighting. Therefore, the challenge (and therefore enjoyment) comes not from the technological advantage, but from using it correctly along with timeless tactics. People who don't understand modern warfare, of course, more often than not miss this point.

As I’ve said, it’ll be a relief when we can get back to a historical period when we are more able to pretend to a moral, but not technological, righteousness. And we can all chose which side that righteousness belongs to.

Heavy emphasis on "pretend" The setting for CM:SF is clearly a "righteous" endeavorer, equal to that of the Allies invading Europe. If you, as a player, choose to swap out our backstory (which is completely plausible) and swap in Iraq, then throw in years of unnecessary incompetence at the higher levels of leadership, you can do that. But you can do the same for WW2 if you want to as well. The Allies did plenty of things that were immoral even though their overall cause was just. The recently departed Mcnamara (who helped plan bombing raids in Germany) said it best... "if we had lost the war I would have been prosecuted as a war criminal".

Personally, I've never understood how people can split morality hairs when it comes to wargaming. Wars are about killing and being killed for goals which may, or may not, have value. Wargames are about the tactics and weapons of those wars, not morality or even politics. Sure, I believe the Allied cause in WW2 was "just", but when in a tactical situation is it "just" to get half or your men killed taking a stupid farmhouse because there's 5 minutes left on the clock and you haven't taken a flag?

"Dear Mr and Mrs Smith.

Today your son, and 20 of his buddies, died taking a shack on the edge of some town which we're not even sure what its name is. In fact, we weren't even sure where we were at the time of the attack because nobody bothered to tell us that in the briefing. But we killed the squad of Germans that were there and have a nice flag to show for it. I also get bragging rights for winning the battle against my opponent while I sat safely in my command bunker putting push pins in maps. I'm sure knowing this will bring great comfort to you in your time of sorrow.

Sincerely yours,

Captain Deluded"

If someone wants to divorce themselves from the reality around them, I can understand that. I'm sure that many people in 1944 wouldn't have wanted to play a wargame based on Normandy just as I know some don't want to play a game based on current or near future military operations. Confusing carefully crafted definitions of "moral" and "just" with meaningful definitions isn't something I personally believe in. War is dirty and nasty, no matter how far back in history it was or how cherished the cause may have been. A game that focuses purely on military tactics is in the same moral domain as any other such game in any setting at any time.

Steve

[Wengart]

Most PBEM problems arise when smaller battle sizes are chosen. The lack of the understrength platoon means the QB system must always purchase a full sized platoon. Which in smaller battles take up all the points. Resulting in pure forces when you ask for a mixed force.

[MarkEzra]

Wars are about killing and being killed for goals which may, or may not, have value. Wargames are about the tactics and weapons of those wars, not morality or even politics. Steve

The clearest explanation of why I wargame. It usually takes me about 10 minutes of tap dancing with the only result a glazed eyed look from people who wished they'd never asked me Why I waste my time on these games.

[Chad Harrison]

Oh, and I'll say that I agree with Chad too. I can't wait to get back to Normandy. As much as I like asymmetric modern urban arid warfare (and I really do), I also like "classic" matchups like that in Normandy. Now that I've had a nice, long break from it I'm quite excited to be in that environment again. Even playing around with untextured Nashorns and Stuarts in strangely Syrian like terrain is fun Well, if I had free time enough to play that is!

Steve

You see Steve, don't you feel better now that you admit to everyone what your first love really was?

Which by the way, now that Brits is about to be set loose, are we still looking good for Normandy this year? You had said in confidence a number of times that Normandy would be out this year. With Brits getting delayed, are we still looking good for Normandy in 2009? Anymore screen shots up your sleeves?

And instead of starting a new thread, I don't remember what the plan is for module and base games. Let me see if I get this right:

Base Game 1 - CM:SF - Released

Module 1 - Marines - Released

Module 2 - British - Imminent Release

Module 3 - European Union (who exactly?) - Release?

Base Game 2 - Normandy - Release? 2009?

Module 1 - British/Market Garden

Module 2 - ???

Module 3 - ???

Base Game 3 - Battle of the Bulge

Module 1 - ???

Module 2 - ???

Module 3 - ???

Base Game 4 - ???

Modules - ???

I know that there has been talk of CM:SF 2 and the inevitable return to the Eastern front, but I am not sure how they fit into the grand plans.

Thanks in advance!

Chad

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Base Game 1 - CM:SF - Released

Module 1 - Marines - Released

Module 2 - British - Imminent Release

Module 3 - European Union (who exactly?) - Release?

Have to do a nitpicky correction here-It's not EU forces, it's NATO. Canada is AFAIK going to be included, and they're definitely not EU.

[Sgt Joch]

Next CMSF module is NATO: Canada, Netherlands and Germany.

Looking forward to that one more than the Brits...

[Sequoia]

You see Steve, don't you feel better now that you admit to everyone what your first love really was?

And instead of starting a new thread, I don't remember what the plan is for module and base games. Let me see if I get this right:

Base Game 1 - CM:SF - Released

Module 1 - Marines - Released

Module 2 - British - Imminent Release

Module 3 - European Union (who exactly?) - Release?

Base Game 2 - Normandy - Release? 2009?

Module 1 - British/Market Garden

Module 2 - ???

Module 3 - ???

Base Game 3 - Battle of the Bulge

Module 1 - ???

Module 2 - ???

Module 3 - ???

Base Game 4 - ???

Modules - ???

I know that there has been talk of CM:SF 2 and the inevitable return to the Eastern front, but I am not sure how they fit into the grand plans.

Chad

The plan as I understand it right now and is still subject to change is:

Base Game 1 - CM:SF - Released

Module 1 - Marines - Released

Module 2 - British - Imminent Release

Module 3 - European Union (Germans,Canadians and Dutch) - Release?

Base Game 2 - France Summer '44 - (Germans and US) release? 2009?

Module 1 - British and Canadians. (Maybe SS will wait till this)

Module 2 - Market Garden (Airborne forces of all nations)

Module 3 - Rarer vehicles of all sides

Base Game 3 - Battle of the Bulge (actually winter '44/'45 Germans and US)

Module 1 - British and Canadians.

Module 2/3 forces of all sides up till May '05

Base Game 4 - CMSF II modern day in a temperate setting (US and Russia)

Modules - ??? British,Germans,Chinese and or North Koreans.

Base Game 5 -Bagration- East Front summer '44.

modules will include Finns.

Base Game A by third party Soviets in Afganistan.

Am I close?

[Chad Harrison]

Have to do a nitpicky correction here-It's not EU forces, it's NATO. Canada is AFAIK going to be included, and they're definitely not EU.

Us Americans and our ignorance

[Pvt. Ryan]

I thought Canada was part of the US.

[Chad Harrison]

The plan as I understand it right now and is still subject to change is:

Base Game 1 - CM:SF - Released

Module 1 - Marines - Released

Module 2 - British - Imminent Release

Module 3 - European Union (Germans,Canadians and Dutch) - Release?

Base Game 2 - France Summer '44 - (Germans and US) release? 2009?

Module 1 - British and Canadians. (Maybe SS will wait till this)

Module 2 - Market Garden (Airborne forces of all nations)

Module 3 - Rarer vehicles of all sides

Base Game 3 - Battle of the Bulge (actually winter '44/'45 Germans and US)

Module 1 - British and Canadians.

Module 2/3 forces of all sides up till May '05

Base Game 4 - CMSF II modern day in a temperate setting (US and Russia)

Modules - ??? British,Germans,Chinese and or North Koreans.

Base Game 5 -Bagration- East Front summer '44.

modules will include Finns.

Base Game A by third party Soviets in Afganistan.

Am I close?

Couple things of interest that I had not picked up yet:

1. So US Airborne troops wont be in Normandy? That is news to me. So the entire Airborne TO&E for both Brits and US will wait for the second module?

2. I am totally ignorant on this, but how much equipment is common between the remaining NATO nations? I really have no idea what Germany, Canada or the Dutch field these days, but is it all unique from the Brit and US TO&E? Or are there some similarities?

3. I can figure out the campaigns for Normandy, Brits and Market Garden, but who will be the aggressor for the last Base Game 2 module?

4. CM:SF 2 sounds cool! I would feel much better about my opponent in that one. So are we talking Europe? Korea? Taiwan? Steve, any details on this yet?

Steve, Matt, Dan, Martin, Charles: Any details on this would be appreciated. Obviously some of these are a ways down the road, and heavily subject to change, but your current thoughts would be great to hear! Actually, a sticky with a list similar to this would probably save a lot of the same questions being asked again and again. Not to mention and Normandy forum . . . (hint hint).

Thanks again for all the hard work BFC. Lots to look forward too.

Chad

[Sequoia]

My post is only my understanding of the way things will break down based on what I have read, and should not be taken as official Battlefront statements, but the list is not pure guess work either.

[dan/california]

Chad, Steve has put out the current best guess of the list you are looking for some time in the recent past, and there is an excellent compilation thread as well. There is also this handy little search function on the forum.....