CMSF II and it's modules.

[Sequoia]

I know it's way early but Steve mentioned they won't do 3 new armies in one module again as they did with NATO. I'm wondering however since a lot of the work has already been done we might see something like this (If for example it was vs the Russians):

Base Game Blue force US Army

Module One Blue Force British AND USMC

Module Two Blue Force Germans and Poles

Module Three Blue Force French and Canadians

In otherwords the Marines and British are combined and we can get new armies we haven't seen before such as the French.

I'm not familiar enough with the Modern Russian army to know how many modules it would take to get everything.

Of course if we're going Korea it would be more something like this:

Base Game: Blue US Army, Red North Koreans

Module One : Blue South Korea , Red China.

Module Two : Blue US Marines AND Japan

Module Three : Blue British and Canadians

In other words I'd like to see at least a couple NEW Blue armies.

Thoughts?

[Boche]

I want spain, about time we got into atleast 1 game...

[mjkerner]

Sorry if this has been discussed and pooh-poohed (substitute your own nasty adult phraseology here), but considerijng post-WWII modules, will there ever be a Vietnam module? Both French and American versions would be fantatstic! Not that I'll have much time to play it once CM:Normandy and the other WWII follow-ons get started.

[Sequoia]

Sorry if this has been discussed and pooh-poohed (substitute your own nasty adult phraseology here), but considerijng post-WWII modules, will there ever be a Vietnam module? Both French and American versions would be fantatstic! Not that I'll have much time to play it once CM:Normandy and the other WWII follow-ons get started.

There are no plans for Viet Nam. They haven't said they would never do it but they have so many other priorities with WWII and Modern. The best chance would be for a third party do it as Snowball did for Afghanistan.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

will there ever be a Vietnam module?

I do actually hate to nit-pick, but this is one of those few cases where it's actually confusing if nobody nit-picks.

A game or family is a new theater. So CMSF is a game, CMA is a game, CMSF2 is a game, and your request would be a game rather than a module, etc.

A module is an expansion to a game. So CMSF: Marines is a module, the stuff the OP was talking about are modules, etc.

Clear?

The reason why I feel it's important to make this distinction is that much more effort goes into a game than into a module. Modules typically come with a few fixes in a patch, but the vast majority of the module's content is new units, scenarios, and campaigns.

A game has all of that, plus any gameplay adjustments necessary for the theater (such as water in Afghanistan and Normandy) or the forces involved (such as anti-tank guns in Normandy). Games also generally are where improvements to the engine itself come about, rather than in modules.

Another reason why the distinction is important is that modules require the associated game to play. For example, a lot of people were asking if they needed CM:SF in order to play Afghanistan precisely because of this confusion between a module and a game.

Not trying to pick on you, and it's not just you. I just feel that from time to time, some reminding is needed.

Also, I would absolutely love a Vietnam game. Maybe I can pressure Steve from the inside to produce one!

[mjkerner]

Point well taken! I do know the difference, but I'm sloppy with my terminology.

[Battlefront.com]

Correct... we have no plans on doing Vietnam. As FMB said this would have to be a full Game, which involves a whole new environment (tropical/jungle) that itself would take us months to make. We don't have any plans for any game that would require that setting, so there's a huge hurdle that would have to be cleared.

We have not finalized what is going into CM:SF 2 yet. And while I said we weren't planning on doing three or more nations in one Module ever again, that was more of a general statement. We might find it more comfortable updating the current NATO content than we did making it from scratch, so it could be that NATO comes around again in one Module for CM:SF 2.

Likewise, Commonwealth for Normandy will likely have the equivalent of three nations AT LEAST in it. But in this case we have two advantages:

1. A huge chunk of equipment exists in the base game (e.g. Shermans, Stuarts, etc.). While they can't be used 100% exactly the same, it is a big help to have something to work from.

2. The Commonwealth Forces were based on a common structure with common equipment. Not 100% exactly the same, but compared to something like modern German and Canadian... they are vastly more same than different.

Steve

[Sequoia]

With WWII I'm sure it helps that the TO&E work you did for CM1 is still valid.

[Waaarg]

Well drats, my hopes for a one off game in the PTO just got more remote ah well. Given the lead time and if the tid bit released is an actual hint and instead of us hoping it was, when will the setting for SF II be set?

And does the availability of military data effect which countries are viable for the CM line? I have been reading a lot more about NK recently (RL + SF), and stumbled across this

http://www.rense.com/general37/nkorr.htm

It was very interesting for both reasons mentioned above ( thx btw for letting the NK discussion continue). IDK how much data is needed for a nation to be a candidate for modern era CM games, if there is enough floating on the net or not about Chinese or NK militaries and was curious about the process.

[Gryphonne]

Well drats, my hopes for a one off game in the PTO just got more remote ah well. Given the lead time and if the tid bit released is an actual hint and instead of us hoping it was, when will the setting for SF II be set?

And does the availability of military data effect which countries are viable for the CM line? I have been reading a lot more about NK recently (RL + SF), and stumbled across this

http://www.rense.com/general37/nkorr.htm

It was very interesting for both reasons mentioned above ( thx btw for letting the NK discussion continue). IDK how much data is needed for a nation to be a candidate for modern era CM games, if there is enough floating on the net or not about Chinese or NK militaries and was curious about the process.

Needless to say, that link is absolutely filled with nonsensical data. I just had to laugh when I reached both the tanks & air combat part. While interesting, it vastly - and I mean by several orders of magnitude - overstates the military and military-organisational capabilities of the NK army. I'd be really surprised it was anywhere near reality.

[ChrisND]

Someone needs to check their sources a bit more carefully. http://www.rense.com is home to a nut job. Just perusing the top of the page shows such sterling links as "How to Build Muscle in a Coma", "Can You See the Human Aura?", and an entire panel on the dangers of cell phone radiation.

Needless to say, that link is absolutely filled with nonsensical data. I just had to laugh when I reached both the tanks & air combat part. While interesting, it vastly - and I mean by several orders of magnitude - overstates the military and military-organisational capabilities of the NK army. I'd be really surprised it was anywhere near reality.

Wow, that was good for a laugh! You know you are in for a ride when the very first paragraph starts with bad quote-mining. My favorite bit out of that trash was that he continually spelled blitzkrieg as "Blitz Klieg". It's almost satirical.

[ChrisND]

Hey, he's got a WWII section! It makes for fun reading.

http://www.rense.com/Datapages/ww2data.htm

[Gryphonne]

Someone needs to check their sources a bit more carefully. http://www.rense.com is home to a nut job. Just perusing the top of the page shows such sterling links as "How to Build Muscle in a Coma", "Can You See the Human Aura?", and an entire panel on the dangers of cell phone radiation.

Wow, that was good for a laugh! You know you are in for a ride when the very first paragraph starts with bad quote-mining. My favorite bit out of that trash was that he continually spelled blitzkrieg as "Blitz Klieg". It's almost satirical.

The part where he wrote that the NK T-62s have 155mm main guns and 700mm armor was equally good I really wonder whether this is some official document or just some sort of teenage sympathizer's wet dream. At times it's just too absurd to be real.

Having said that, in the case of a full conventional war, isn't it so that Seoul would pretty much disappear instantly and in response most of NKs military leadership? I don't think we'd be looking at a prolonged conventional campaign in any case. Maybe fanatical units from NK would wage a guerrila war but I don't see masses of NK tanks driving into South Korea. Thus, this raises the questionability for a Korean themed CMSF II.

[roadiemullet]

If/when cmsfx2 comes out with its subsequent modules, I'd hate to think they would IMO waste a whole module slot on US marines.

I mean I dont wanna put them down or anything (not that a single US marine on the face of the planet gives a **** about what I think about them), and Im sure most Americans think they're just great, but to have US marines taking up the slot/BFC's valuable time would leave me well and truly dismayed. To foreigners like me one USA module would suffice to give way to other NATO/Western allied countries that have far more range in terms of interesting equipment. Another variant on the US army is something that is great for Americans, but sort of pointless for everyone else. Why not simply have the US marines as the default US forces in the first place?

I think what makes CM so cool is the range of all these different nations' forces that can be jumbled up and mixed and matched. India has some cool stuff Ive never played with, and so do a few other countries Im sure.

I know that BFC is American, and their number one market is bound to be America, but why not let another 3rd party concentrate on expanding US forces if there is that much demand?

Just a thought .....

[Waaarg]

Doh! I skimmed from production to artillary, and the breakdown looked really promising. I am more disappointed that it's bogus data more than posting a bad source to be honest. I accept wiki now-a-days as a valid reference for forum chatter. I was looking forward to reading it tonight.

Still I think Korea is good back drop as it gives a viable premise for Chinese in SF. Anyone have a good source on current NK military capabilities? Apart from that one site, which is apparently the same as asking my 6 year old instead, I haven't found anything beyond rough estimates, and general info.

[Lethaface]

I guess NK would be a tough nut, apart from their inferior material. They have a lot of troops on the ground, which are probably quite indoctrinated and thus fanatical troops. Apart from that they supposedly have a lot of guns ready to fire at Seoul, so the only viable option would be a lot of tactical nukes dropped on military positions, apart from the usual electronic warfare and termination of HQ and C2 structures.

I truly wonder what would happen with NK moral when the great leader is rising to heaven (read: HELL) on top of a small mushroom cloud.

--

Reckon there will be some interesting material regarding SK/NK in the wikileaks cablegate. US seems to be in for a hard time anyway now.

[roadiemullet]

nah tbh I think NK would get battered with just conventional warfare. Yeah they might have a million men but chances are they arent going to be the types you see on the border stations. Those ones will have been hand picked and well fed, probably the most fanatical. Your average Joe (or Jong) will be underfed and likely under equipped. Crusty old Ak's and emaciated faces methinks.... just like the rest of NK. No doubt the country will have more than its fair share of units set to 'Fanatic' in the mission editor after all NK is THE place you would expect to find it, but if anything does kick off in the next few days/weeks/months/etc the main threat will be from possible Chinese intervention and the complete wreckage of SK's infrastructure. I dont think the US or S Koreans will have to resort to Nuclear strikes somehow. South Korea would never allow it anyway and the ENTIRE planet would condemn such action. Nobody *repeat* nobody wants Nuclear bombs going off. Yes they could be useful for wiping out large portions of the enemy but there is a global stigma attached to the use of Nukes. Remember the Cold War?

[Battlefront.com]

With WWII I'm sure it helps that the TO&E work you did for CM1 is still valid.

Unfortunately, the CMx1 TO&E wasn't very helpful at all. In fact, I haven't looked at it since the first week or so when I discovered how useless it is. Why? Well, the best way I can put it is this. If you're going to do an in-depth report on a very famous book, basing your report on "cliff notes" or a 1950s movie adaptation isn't really going to go over well.

CMx1 had very good TO&E for what the game was capable of, but there were shortcuts and compromises made in order to get things to work with that system. It was also very incomplete as we didn't pay attention to things like rank, amount of ammo, who carries what stuff, etc.

The Normandy TO&E is a massive body of work. Still imperfect, still with compromises to work with game limitations, but vastly more accurate and detailed than CMBO.

Steve

[Waaarg]

Based on the response from those who read far more than I did, I was prepared to accept I found the one crazy who would take the time to make up a bunch of tedious figures. But I think we have to separate out crazy blame after reading Normal Dudes post again.

1. Han Ho Suk, Director for Korean Affairs - is the Author and not the domain.

2. T he guy who owns the domain and posted Han Ho Suk's article is Jeff Rense Jeff Rense is bat$%$T crazy

Gotta separate out the two before reading the piece. You also have to give a bit of slack to grammatical errors on a document either translated from Korean post-release.

Ot doing so, was a huge knock on it and one reason I was going to pass. But I did a bit of searching on the Author, and the article, and enough people picked, a few analyzed it (The one by a Korean War Vet Pilot). That gave it enough legs, for me at least, and I was looking forward to reading it.

Now filtering out his personal rhetoric editorials and analysis, and there is enough data in there to warrant an in depth read. There were quite a few things I recognized off the top of my head as spot on or close enough to be in the ball game. That along with the amount of spots picked this up, and its reportedly in a legit publication is enoug,h for me.

Saved for later had to cut short for tonight.

[Gryphonne]

Based on the response from those who read far more than I did, I was prepared to accept I found the one crazy who would take the time to make up a bunch of tedious figures. But I think we have to separate out crazy blame after reading Normal Dudes post again.

1. Han Ho Suk, Director for Korean Affairs - is the Author and not the domain.

2. T he guy who owns the domain and posted Han Ho Suk's article is Jeff Rense Jeff Rense is bat$%$T crazy

Gotta separate out the two before reading the piece. You also have to give a bit of slack to grammatical errors on a document either translated from Korean post-release.

Ot doing so, was a huge knock on it and one reason I was going to pass. But I did a bit of searching on the Author, and the article, and enough people picked, a few analyzed it (The one by a Korean War Vet Pilot). That gave it enough legs, for me at least, and I was looking forward to reading it.

Now filtering out his personal rhetoric editorials and analysis, and there is enough data in there to warrant an in depth read. There were quite a few things I recognized off the top of my head as spot on or close enough to be in the ball game. That along with the amount of spots picked this up, and its reportedly in a legit publication is enoug,h for me.

Saved for later had to cut short for tonight.

Well, I don't know why anyone would go through the trouble of making up these figures, but the point is that a lot of them probably are, a few certainly so and in addition, some figures are just nonsensical to compare.

I mean, comparing aircraft gun calibers? this isn't WW2 anymore. Not only that it severely overstates the projected air power of the NKs as well as the capability of their individual fighters. Comparing service ceilings? again, this is not WW2. By the time any modern fighter reaches its service ceiling it will have burnt up a good portion of its fuel and in a theatre this small it won't have time to anywhere near reach it. Not to mention it can't avoid missiles at those altitudes anyway.

Comparing Soviet-era MiGs and Sus to the latest F-16s and F-15s is indeed like comparing apples and oranges, especially when you take fighter pilot training into account. Furthermore, the guy still mentions the use of USN F-14s, I don't know what year this article is from, but these have been phased for some years now.

Also in terms of fighter pilot training, obviously the guy that wrote this doesn't know a thing, a modern fighter pilot is trained as much in BVR combat as he is in dogfighting. On top of that, conmparing flight training hours between NK and NATO fighter pilots it's hard to believe that the NK pilots will excell in anything.

Honestly, I don't think the article is worth it, and the author - whoever that may be - has a hard on for fantasy figures. Of course I'm not sure about the other sections in the report, but judging from the ones I am knowledgeable about, I don't think there's a whole lot quality left in the rest.

[Lanzfeld]

The Normandy TO&E is a massive body of work. Still imperfect, still with compromises to work with game limitations, but vastly more accurate and detailed than CMBO.

Steve

There you have it! It's called "The Normandy"!

[Battlefront.com]

Heh... reminds me of a certain guy who was on a tear about the whole Stryker concept. I wouldn't go so far as to call him batpoop crazy, but he certainly had an axe to grind and wasn't afraid to make up, selectively distort, selectively include, and selectively exclude facts to make his case. And if you have to make stuff up, selectively distort, selectively include, and selectively exclude facts then it's a pretty good indication that the case is fairly weak.

I haven't read the article so I don't know what to think of it. Just saying

Steve

[BlackMoria]

In regards to the NK article, I have that all before during the cold war about Warsaw Pact capabilities.

Everyone was scared $h!tless of the Warsaw Pact. The canadian commander of the 4 CMBG at Lahr described his brigade as a 'fire and forget' brigade and that it would be destroyed after one battle with the Warsaw Pact. The soviet soldier was 10 feet high it seemed and like Braveheart, consumed the enemy with lightning fired out his ass. The fear of the Soviet juggernaut drove weapon design and acquisition.

Sound familiar? Same tune, different fiddler.

What we do know, after the fall of the Warsaw Pact. The average recruit in a front line unit fired maybe a rifle magazine in weapon qualification in a training year. The average tank gunner fired maybe 10 rounds from the tank gun. Track miles for vehicle drivers was less an 250 km a year. Vehicles were disable by draining the fluids out to distill alcohol to drink. Soldiers sold equipment and ammunition on the black market because they went long periods of time without pay sometimes.

The image of a soviet super soldier was a Western construct build by our collective fears. The average soviet soldier was, in reality, poorly trained, was poorly motivated, and was poorly lead. Corruption and incompetence was the norm, not the exception at all command levels.

Thus, the nightmare scenario of a Warsaw Pact sweep of Europe was not a quaranteed outcome in a real invasion. Yes, quantity has a quality all of its own but the two superpowers didn't come to blows except in proxy wars like the Arab-Israeli conflict and Afganhistan. And we know how those proxy wars turned out for the nations using soviet tactics and training.

What is the bottom line. Nations learn the fight the next war from the past war. The soviet 'warsaw pact' era tactics focused on massing equipment, men and artillery and driving hard at the enemy. Notice the similarity with the Soviet tactics of the later part of WW2. The equipment change but not the mindset.

So, in regards to NK, it the much the same. I have no doubt given the impoverishment of NK, the NK soldier is most likely poorly trained, poorly lead (like the Warsaw Pact, promotion is more along being political loyality than military merit), etc.

And NK has no more military geniuses than any other military, so NK will fight the next war like they fought the last war, until circumstances forces changes in doctrine and tactics. How quickly they adapt is the question but NK doesn't reward innovative thinkers and military mavericks. It rewards political 'purity' and slavish adherence to the established order of things, not the sort of leadership that adapts to change when it is called for.

That is why Rense's article is pure hokem, a throwback to the mindset during the cold war. I heard all the same arguments about the Soviets during the cold war. That 'fiction' wasn't true then and it isn't true now.

[dan/california]

The real question is not about the eventual destruction of North Korea's army and regime in the event of war. It is about the massive damage to Seoul that would happen every minute and hour it took to silence the massive, and massively fortified gun batteries just north of the DMZ. Smart bombs would get them eventually, but the bill would be extreme for every minute the guns remain in operation. The guns crews and ammo are unfortunately quite real, and it doesn't take much of a crew to aim a permanently em-placed gun at a multi square mile target that they have had 50 or 60 years to crunch the numbers on.

[dan/california]

I am starting to believe that both history and Truman's ghost owe MacArthur an apology by the way.