Modern Period Version

[LuckyJim1010]

Hi all,

Apologies if this has been hashed already.

Would anyone else like to see this series in a modern, WW3 type scenario ?

I used to play a lot of the SPI WW3 type games and am thinking of something like
Nato Division Commander.

Dream come true to see that in a Command Ops engine.

[Pergite!]

I did last year attempt to create a 1980´s estab of a potential cold war conflict. I created bn sized forces for each side and then started to playtest it in order to get the balance right so that it felt realistic. I excluded any moderna weapon classes like ATGMs and tried to stick to the most basic weapon systems. My biggest problem was however to abstract the supply function to get the game to work as it is intended. With realistic amounts of ammunition and modern day rates of fire it did not take many minutes for a company to run dry. The engagements also tended to be very quick and a bit too deadly. I somehow needed to abstract the ammo count but was to preoccupied with real life to get it sorted properly.

My point is that its very much possible to mod the existing game to create a more modern setting. As long as you stay away from hi-tech ordnance and C3i then there are no real limitations.

[nate25]

Hi-Tech weapons and today's C3i are too integral in our modern armed forces to ignore, IMHO.

Even in the late 70's/early 80's.

Thanks,
Nate

[wodin]

I hoenstly feel that really the game at the moment could only handle upto the Vietnam War. Even then you wont be really able to replicate helicopter drops and plus the scale would have to be lowered to platoon. So I'd go as far as saying only Korea.

[Pergite!]

I somewhat disagree with both of you. IMO its fully capable to mod this game to handle more modern engagements with some restrictions.

Optics and night vision equipment can be handled with a slightly increased recon value where applicable. Better C3I in general will also wheigh in on the recon value, since information could be shared more easily since radios are more widespread than during WW2. The command rating/levels should also be increased due to better communications. All these values are already abstracted and would not affect the gameplay in any negative way. As long as the focus remains on fire and manoeuvre there has not happened that much since ww2. Everything of course moves faster, hits better and shoots better, but those factors are easily handled.

I feel that the biggest hurdle comes with modern mechanized doctrines (maybe that it because I don't fully understand how halftracks/dismounts/support are handled in the current version). Helicopters could be avoided by not doing any Vietnam or Afghanistan scenarios. Besides those two there have been very few practical uses of helicopters in the operational setting.
Building scenarios from the 1982 Falklands war should for example be doable. There are also a couple of conflicts in Africa that could be suitable.
My personal test scenario had a cold war(1980)setting where a Swedish infantry brigade (could be increased to division) races to defends against a Soviet airborne invasion. My experience says that all the tools are in the game to be able to make it happen. I only lack the time to get the balance right.

[JeffroK]

The French in Indo China would be interesting, Dien Bien Phu, Avenue of Tears etc.

[nate25]

How could you avoid ATGMs in '73 Sinai, for example?They were a big shock to the IDF and caused many losses.

I think you would be limited to brushfire conflicts and sideshows where weaponry was still basically '40s-'50s type stuff.

"War on the Periphery - Local Conflicts 1945-1970", you could call it.

Thanks,
Nate

[LuckyJim1010]

Have to agree with Nate.

You cannot avoid things like ATGM's, C3I, Counter Battery Fire, Shoot and Scoot orders for Artillery, NBC attacks (especially at the Corp/Divsion/Brigade level this game is pitched at), Sabot, Heat, APFSDS etc etc types of Ammo, UAV's, ECM and ECCM.....

The list goes on and on.

On second thoughts perhaps it is not an easy venture.

But I can still dream

[nate25]

Jim,

It's a good concept. Don't get me wrong. I would love the variety it would provide. It's just got to be within the confines of the system, and some of the stuff we're talking about here, if deleted out of the game, would make the scenarios pretty hokey.

Go for it, man! Rhodesia, Poland right after WWII, early Indochina, the list goes on.

Thanks,
Nate

[LuckyJim1010]

Just had a thought - probably be a lot easier to do a WW3 type scenario based on Ivan invading the West in 1946 or so.

Not sure how many would be interested but I would....

[nate25]

Jim,

Now THAT'S an idea! Very cool.

Nate

[nate25]

Jim,

I would think OOBs wouldn't be too hard to come up with for both sides. Both had just been involved in pretty high-profile campaigns. . .

Pershings vs. IS-3s on the Seelow Heights. . . (After Patton has driven the Communist hordes out of Berlin proper, of course). . . [:D]

Thanks,
Nate

[Pergite!]

ORIGINAL: LuckyJim1010

Have to agree with Nate.

You cannot avoid things like ATGM's, C3I, Counter Battery Fire, Shoot and Scoot orders for Artillery, NBC attacks (especially at the Corp/Divsion/Brigade level this game is pitched at), Sabot, Heat, APFSDS etc etc types of Ammo, UAV's, ECM and ECCM.....

The list goes on and on.

Counter battery fire existed during WW2 and is handled in the game manually (if not the AI assigns fire missions to your liking). C3I are already there, its just about tweaking the values. CBRN could be left out because its so rare. Different ammo rounds for weapons AP/HE are already in the game. UAVs ECM and ECCM are included in the C3I and their equivalents already abstracted but in the WW2 setting.

The problem I encountered when including ATGMs was not that it couldn't be done. It was how the system handles how different weapons in a unit are used doctrine wise. ATGMs in every other wargame I can think of is not really handled in any different way than any other ordnance. It has a range, effectiveness and some kind of penetration value. Some systems gives the target a extra chance to avoid the missile, others just factor in the difficulty to hit the target due to cover or movement values.

If we look at Command Ops as an operational level wargame then it really doesn't matter if an ATGM or a SABOT takes out a target. The result is the same. However behaviour wise (doctrine) I experienced that units behaved rather strange and the missiles where either too efficient or not having an impact at all. I chose to exclude them early due to this to be able to focus more on getting the other weapons balanced.

I think it all comes down to the end is how much importance one puts in ultra realism vs accepting abstraction, if the end results always are the same anyway. Without insight in exactly the formulas behind the weapon data are handled in this game a lot comes down to trial and error.

When I have more spare time I will probably start up the estab editor again and try to continue where I left of.

[nate25]

Pergite!,

I can only speak for myself, and I tend to want my OOBs and TO&Es as accurate as possible. I do like historical what-ifs, but within reason.

That being said, try it! I felt I was being asked for an opinion, and I gave it. Who knows, maybe you can change the minds of some of us "gotta be just like it was/is" types.

I know myself well. If you put it out there, on this engine, I'm gonna try it. Iwon't be able to help it.[;)]

Thanks,
Nate

[wodin]

No harm in trying it. I just have serious doubts.

[Pergite!]

ORIGINAL: nate25

Pergite!,

I can only speak for myself, and I tend to want my OOBs and TO&Es as accurate as possible.

Then I hope you have tried Point of Attack 2 (POA2), totally realistic and nearly totally unplayable [;)]

POA2 is the only game that comes to my mind. I really like the idea, but I sadly loath the execution of it. The best feature it offers that I would like to see in more wargames are friendly fog of war. You give your orders and then your units executes them. The problem you have is that you do not know exactly where your forces are until they report in (with heavy enemy jamming this could take a while). This makes the "painfully realistic" setting of command ops look like pretty soft.

Anyway, I will try to put my money where my mouth is and cough up a scenario soon enough so you can try it out. [:)]

[nate25]

Pergite!,

Excellent! I'm looking forward to it. You never know.

Thanks,
Nate

[LuckyJim1010]

Pergite - I too tried POA2. Figured it would have been more fun joining the real army.
Well done on the attempt for the modern scenario. Looking forward to seeing it if you get time to finish it.