Afghanistan First

Rule_303

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
385
Reaction score
23
Location
San Francisco Area
And they were definitely super tough guys when it came to butchering huge numbers of innocent men women and children.

But back roughly on topic, asymetrical warfare can be just fine on the CM scale -- in fact the small size of unit actions which typically start with the ambush of a carefully selected (and unusually vulnerable) group of the stronger army by superior numbers of the weaker one -- is an excellent fit IMHO.

Except absence of hidden entrenchments, undermodeled concealment and near inability to move without being spotted all mean that the tables turn rapidly after the first few shots and the ambusher only wins with a massive numerical advantage or by starting with the enemy force already in the killsack (neither of which is much fun for the latter -- kind of like that Debacle at Korosten COI scenario that was so badly rigged in favor of the Russians in order to give their cavalry a chance not to be totally slaughtered).
 
Last edited:

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I really don't understand this from Steve, regarding why CMA models can't be in CMSF,
Modding of models has never, and will never, be allowed in CM games. It's not something we're interested in and I've discussed this to death about 100 times so a Search will answer any questions anybody might have.

Snowball owns the models, textures, etc. in the Afghanistan game. Even if we wanted to move them into Shock Force (and we do NOT) we'd have to make some sort of special arrangement with them to do this.

Again, Shock Force is set in Syria within the last few years, not Afghanistan, not Iraq, not anyplace else or any time else. Blurring the scope of the game is a very, very bad idea. Give you Mujahideen models and then you'll want the Pashtun voices, eclectic small arms, etc. In the end it's about a Module's worth of stuff

Steve
Er, haven't they said that all the air support for Red is in the NATO module, also what about the AA vehicles?

How can they get one and not the other?
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
My guess is that it isn't technical, but copyright related. I think they would have to license the models back from Snowball for any models Snowball did exclusively for CMA. I would also bet BFC negotiated the airpower and AA vehicles for use in CM Nato.
 

vulture

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
192
Reaction score
4
Location
Ossett
Country
ll
I really don't understand this from Steve, regarding why CMA models can't be in CMSF,


Er, haven't they said that all the air support for Red is in the NATO module, also what about the AA vehicles?

How can they get one and not the other?
The 3-d models and artwork created by Snowball are owned by Snowball, not BFC. But the aircraft don't need much artwork, since they are not shown (just a silhouette for the UI). The AA guns needed special coding by Charles since they are multi-barreled, which apparently the code didn't previously support. Whether that meant BFC created the models themselves for testing purposes / intending to put them in NATO as a freebie, or whether they struck a deal with snowball in exchange for the extra coding needed seems a rather moot point. And then there is the truck, which again could easily be home made or borrowed from Snowball.

I think Steve's point was more that Snowball did the work making the CMA models and own the rights to them. BFC don't automatically get the rights to the stuff. They can make deals to get the rights to put things in NATO (for example) - which they may well have done. But I think he was trying to emphasise that just because something turns up in the CMA game, it doesn't mean that they could plug everything there in to NATO without any further thought.
 

Palantir

Member #86
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
4,877
Reaction score
1,706
Location
The Heartland
Country
llUnited States
"In the end it's about a Module's worth of stuff" Steve

That part I get- so just make another module- end of story.

"Blurring the scope of the game is a very, very bad idea." Steve

How blurred can you get when you make a game based on a fictional war that skews how the battles would be really fought by the US? {We have tons of tanks, air power and boots, but lets just skip the air and tanks and use a few ground pounders.}

It's a pretend conflict so the scope can be extended anywhere you want even into the real...
(What about adding Space-Lobbsters who suddenly decide to get involved on the Syrians side?)
 

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
43
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
"In the end it's about a Module's worth of stuff" Steve

That part I get- so just make another module- end of story.

"Blurring the scope of the game is a very, very bad idea." Steve

How blurred can you get when you make a game based on a fictional war that skews how the battles would be really fought by the US? {We have tons of tanks, air power and boots, but lets just skip the air and tanks and use a few ground pounders.}

It's a pretend conflict so the scope can be extended anywhere you want even into the real...
(What about adding Space-Lobbsters who suddenly decide to get involved on the Syrians side?)
My thinking exactly. "Blurring the focus". At the same time they now *do* put in Red air. Don't get me wrong, I want Red air. But some Afghan fighters wouldn't be that much more "lore-breaking".
 

dalem

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
2,298
Reaction score
62
Location
Columbia Heights, MN
Country
llUnited States
There's just nothing wrong with saying "We'd like to add these things in or even write a new expansion module, but we don't have the resources to do that right now." Why add in the aforementioned silliness of "it wouldn't be right"?

-dale
 

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
43
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
Exactly. At some point these forced "oh it would break lore" arguments might have been entertaining but by now I don't think anybody cares.

Still, I am bouncy about the ZSU-23-4. Now that's something I wanted for freaggin years.
 

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
According to Eastern sources at BFC, this is out in Russia on 10 Sep 2010, according to Moon of BFC, the BF version will arrive shortly thereafter. Also according to BF, any delay in the afghan game is on the part of the company that made it, Snowball.

So just over a week until we see just how different CMA is from CMSF!
 

mOBIUS

Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
650
Reaction score
4
Location
Kalifornia
"Blurring the scope of the game is a very, very bad idea." Steve

How blurred can you get when you make a game based on a fictional war that skews how the battles would be really fought by the US? {We have tons of tanks, air power and boots, but lets just skip the air and tanks and use a few ground pounders.}

It's a pretend conflict so the scope can be extended anywhere you want even into the real...
(What about adding Space-Lobbsters who suddenly decide to get involved on the Syrians side?)
How long has this fictional war suppose to last? They are still bogged down dealing with the regular army and its been two years. Who planned this operation that they haven't seized Damascus yet?
 

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
How long has this fictional war suppose to last? They are still bogged down dealing with the regular army and its been two years. Who planned this operation that they haven't seized Damascus yet?
The game represents three months in 2008 and therefore all of the forces should be historical. Of course some aren't representative of what was available then, but instead what was available after. I seem to remember some Dutch guy at BF stating that the CV90 represented in CMSF was actually a total of around 3 vehicles at the time.

In sum, the war lasted 3 months, although if the other countries involved in recent conflict are anything to go by, it's still going on, in the insurgency phase.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
The game represents three months in 2008 and therefore all of the forces should be historical. Of course some aren't representative of what was available then, but instead what was available after. I seem to remember some Dutch guy at BF stating that the CV90 represented in CMSF was actually a total of around 3 vehicles at the time.

In sum, the war lasted 3 months, although if the other countries involved in recent conflict are anything to go by, it's still going on, in the insurgency phase.
The insurgency phase involving the regular Syrian army, equipped with AA tanks. :laugh:
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada

Patrocles

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
1,794
Reaction score
6
Location
Chicago, IL
According to Eastern sources at BFC, this is out in Russia on 10 Sep 2010, according to Moon of BFC, the BF version will arrive shortly thereafter. Also according to BF, any delay in the afghan game is on the part of the company that made it, Snowball.

So just over a week until we see just how different CMA is from CMSF!
nice!!
:)
 
Top