Alek Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I wish to ask one question on the future game on the engine of СМ2 I do not know - discussed here such question, therefore I set here. Why not to make game not on the basis of Normandy - and on the basis of fight on Pacific ocean - New Guinea, Burma, Pilipinas and so on. I have seen recently two excellent films - "Letters from Iwo Jima" and "Flags of Our Fathers". Mine opinion- engine CM2 very well would be made for such small arms battles in jungle, mountains, beaches. The sample for the massed battles in Europe with participation of many tanks and an infantry in great number (after all such big scenarios as Cry Havoc, Guardian far Flank not so quickly go by average computers on SMSF engine). The TOE for the countries very much - the USA, China, Japan, Great Britain and etc, is a lot of technics and arms for each party. Besides as a matter of fact - war on Pacific ocean theatre is no math realised in games. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Field Marshal Blücher Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 This proposition has been made before, but BFC has rejected doing a Pacific Theater title. Maybe some point long in the future, but the next games that are going to be coming out are all going to be set in the European Theater or modern warfare. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 My impression was that they've put such time and effort into coding the armor behavior that they'd naturally prefer theatres of operation that highlighted armored warfare. So the Pacific (jungle/infantry/amphibious ops) would be ruled out. But they're increasingly happy these days with their infantry behavior. CM:Afghanistan, for example, will probably deemphasize armor, I'd expect (after all, no Mujahideen T90s to fight). A Pacific title (perhaps farmed out to another design house?) might all be up to Charles and how much effort he's willing to put into coding extra-fancy water capabilities. He might not be in the mood to spend weeks coding a 'feature' that may not get utilized for another four titles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 It's possible to do, of course, but with so much other stuff on our plates (which we think will sell better), I don't see a PTO game happening. Unfortunately, it can't be easily passed onto a 3rd party like other stuff can. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 ...they'd naturally prefer theatres of operation that highlighted armored warfare. So the Pacific (jungle/infantry/amphibious ops) would be ruled out. While there were no huge tank vs. tank battles like Kursk, for instance, there were plenty of battles where armor played an important and sometimes decisive role. To start with, Khalkin Gol had quite a bit of early armor involved. Malaya showed that the Japanese could use tanks to good advantage. There were lots of tanks in Burma, albeit almost entirely Allied. Even the island campaigns featured lots of tanks, mostly US. And then there was the massive attack by the Soviets overrunning Manchuria at the end of the war. I think they might have even employed a few JS IIs there. So lack of armor is not the reason BFC declines to take on the Asia/Pacific theaters. As Steve explains, at present they are not convinced that the size of the market would justify the effort involved. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Khalkhin Gol is in Pacific in the same way as Kursk is in western Europe. The only common denominator is the Axis party, ie. Japanese and Germans respectively. But if wargaming is a niche and each theater is a niche within niche, then the Japanese-Soviet wars would be a niche within niche within niche. From a TO&E point it'd be a bit more economical if there first were a game featuring either Japanese or Soviet units for ca. 1939, but I think it's going to be a long wait until we see a BT-5 (or Ha-Go) in CM. Also, it'd be quite difficult to do any justice to Khalkhin Gol without modelling horse cavalry, and you know just how eager BFC is to model them... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Khalkhin Gol is in Pacific in the same way as Kursk is in western Europe. The only common denominator is the Axis party, ie. Japanese and Germans respectively. And the Soviets. They were in both places. ...I think it's going to be a long wait until we see a BT-5 (or Ha-Go) in CM. I think you're right. Also, it'd be quite difficult to do any justice to Khalkhin Gol without modelling horse cavalry, and you know just how eager BFC is to model them... Another good point. Bottom line is no matter how interested some of us would be to have an Asia/Pacific game, it ain't coming from BFC, so there ain't no point in begging. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.