Modern Warfare (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

Eduardo -> Modern Warfare (3/19/2002 12:30:31 PM)

I think it was in 2000 or 1999 that there were a lot of posting about a SPWaW set in modern times (1950 - present.) Did the project get scratched?

I remember we had forum threads about battling M1A1's and Bradley's, etc.

[QUOTE]Sergeant, get me a clean shirt! - A wounded Nicaraguan general during the war of 1926 in Nicaragua[/QUOTE] :)



LeibstandartePzD -> (3/19/2002 6:03:15 PM)

Yes it was scratched and replaced by a completely new game. SPWaW basicly stretched the old SP engine as far as it could go. Additionally Matrix can't make any money off of SP so wisely they decided to work on a better, profit making game.

Correct me if I'm wrong anyone.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (3/19/2002 9:17:52 PM)

Yep Steel Panthers is done like dinner.

We can add Mega Campaigns indefinitely, we can modify it indefinitely, but the future is using lessons learned to develope the "new kid" game.

I sure hope I have the cash handy when Combat Leader is ready for sale.

And no I wont faun unduely over how I just want to support Matrix with my purchase. I am not afraid to say I will purchase a good product just because its a good product.

Steel Panthers is a great game. I have no reason to suspect Combat Leader will disappoint me.



Eduardo -> (3/20/2002 1:31:52 AM)

I see your point. I have purchased my Mega Campaings too. I think that the ones that have played SPWaW for the past 5 or 6 versions did buy Desert Fox as a sign of solidarity and to pay back for those years of great wargaming. The newer campaigns are bought as a sign of recognition to quality.

Maybe in the future Modern Warfare will see the light of day. I am a fan of the A-10's and I had this sequences in my mind of seen them plinking T-80's.

As part of an armor batallion, I heard the sweet sound of their gattling guns in the field.

Thanks for the info.



eaube -> (3/20/2002 4:12:29 AM)

If you're still inerested in a free, Steel Panthers-based modern warfare game, [URL=http://www.wargamer.com/spcammo/]SPCammo Workshop[/URL] is working on a modern Steel Panthers game entitled SP:MBT due out late this spring, I believe. I was hoping for a Matrix version as I am more familiar with SP:WAW than SP:WWII, but I'm sure it will be a fine game anyways.



Eduardo -> (3/20/2002 1:20:10 PM)

:) Thanks L of C! I have downloaded it and checking it.



Ron Saueracker -> (3/20/2002 1:55:10 PM)

Can't imagine telling a "smart bomb" to take out a school (suspected terrorist site) would be very challenging anyway. Modern warfare is boring as there are NO anywhere equal opponents to combat. What I would like to see is a sim which involves well paid cops struggling with their own inner demons as to whether bust a drug dealer and do resultant paper work or ticket 10mph speeders with seatbelt undone and perpetuate job. :p



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (3/20/2002 9:09:11 PM)

Hmmmm Ron you might be the first person that has stated about modern warfare that which I have sort of said before myself.

But I suspect we are a very small minority opinion.

Not sure about the cop thing though.



Ron Saueracker -> Captain Tangent (3/20/2002 9:39:04 PM)

Yeah, not much fun in modern warfare, except maybe when all modern weapons are expended baroque technology will be activated from reserves and museums. Yeah, right again. Oh, that cop thing...they don't call me Captain Tangent for nothing. Had a few CC and cokes before coming home...:p



Eduardo -> (3/20/2002 10:29:11 PM)

I have played Armored Fist and Tank Platoon. These games were "What If" and usually gave the enemy T-80's and BMP's with the Russian version of Hellfires, plus the ever present Hinds.
Redoing the Kuwait battlefield will most likely give better leaders to the Iraqis.
B-52's sound fun, but it is like in SPWaW when one get hold of A-26's and just blast them before ever reaching your minefield . . . it gets boring after a while.
Modern warfare will be a spread from 1950 to 1991.
A lot of artillery and machiguns in Korea; a lot of infantry in helicopter and napalm in Vietnam; tanks and artillery in the Sinai; beach assault in Grenada; there is not much for Panama; maybe have an scalated conflict in Kuwait (like North Africa with the Iraqis playing a similar role as the Italians and the Afrika Korps, maybe the Russians.)



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (3/20/2002 11:19:41 PM)

I have heard a lot of friends and other contacts "explain" how Npoloeonic and Modern era are the "same".

IE that a manuever element is a maneuver element. It doesnt matter if its horse cavalry or mechanised cavalry for instance.

But for me its the forgone nature of modern conflict that loses me. And the fact that Napoleonic just doesnt cover as much "ground" as I like. Sure he went all the way to the outskirts of Moscow. But controlling the Third Reich is a great deal different.

I "know" we can model the Gulf War. Thats not the point.

I watched the Gulf War on TV the same way I watched Sept 11 (you didnt have much choice). But while it made for intensive news watching, it did not make for much military interest value as a wargame.

Is there actually anyone here that actually thinks Saddam had a chance in hell?

I don't want to fight a game, where one side is the loser regardless. And Saddam, while still in power is a loser. He is dead meat the second someone in the US wants it that way. He lives or dies at the whim of US policy.

The Second World War was not a sure thing. It involved our whole planet. Entire nations were at risk. Great new technologies were developed. Horrible new weapons were created for the first time. The future was not set in stone.

That is what makes the 40's interesting. Asking "if I was there, could I have made a difference?" makes the game of interest.

I will say boldly, anyone on this post could have run ole Norman's job and accomplished what he accomplished.

He didnt do anything revolutionary eh. Pinned them with airpower and flanked them. Duuuhhhh.

Saddam's Mother of all battles turned out to be no more interesting than the performance of a whiney kid sister tantrum.

I am not interested in leading a column of Coalition armour just so I can pop off Iragi tanks that cant even defend themselves adequately. Not exciting at all.

Or the Grenada invasion, yawn. Tarawa is a challenge, Grenada is not.

Or the Israelis vs Arab peoples. Talk about one sided. Even when they let the Arabs go first in 73, the Israelis made it look like God truely hates the Arabs.

Korea is where I generally leave off for interest. Korea was not a sure thing. Actually technically it never ended. Both sides agreed to disagree.



eaube -> (3/21/2002 5:40:40 AM)

For me, modern warfare is all about the hypothetical 80's WWIII in Europe/Norway. I have my doubts about NATO being able to hold off a Soviet offensive on the ground, in the air and on/under the sea. This would have been one war with an uncertain outcome for either side.



Eduardo -> (3/21/2002 10:43:19 AM)

While serving with an armored batallion in Germany in the 1980's we were told that our purpose was to hold the Russians for three days until reinforcements began to arrive and they took out all of the equipment mothballed in several areas.
Now, the word hold should be interpreted as slowing down the Russians. :eek:
We new our batallion was going to last so many minutes after the initial attack. I guess the planners hoped that our bodies and the burn out hulls will clutter the highways and slow down the Russians.
Under that kind of situation, the sweet buzz of the A10's Gatling guns was a welcome sound. It meant one less tank to roll over our dead bodies.:D



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (3/21/2002 2:38:59 PM)

I still have cold war stress even today.
I was trained to sit in the Fulda gap as a speed bump too.

Never saw that happen thank god.
But Bush is doing a good job refreshing my stress unfortunately.



Eduardo -> (3/21/2002 7:48:22 PM)

The U.S. has a history of creating these monsters and then having to destroy them. Nicaragua, Panama, Iraq, Iran, and the list go on.
One thing is sure, the U.S. has learned how to fight its fights with people from other countries. The Nicaraguan contras to get rid of the communists. The Afghans to get rid of the Russians and then the Taliban.
Something that just amaze me is that the Afghans only fight at ranges of 150 meters. Operation Anaconda was designed to approach the enemy to 50 meters (were most of casualties happens.) Do you imagine SPWaW set at 150 meter hexes? A lot of noise and no killings.
Interestling enough, Hitler had this WWI thinking of trench warfare of killings at 150 meters and doomed the German infantry to those single action rifles. He felt that weapons like the Garand M1 were just a waste of the limited ammo they could produce. Yet, in Stalingrad, they learned their lesson and gave us the most widely used weapon in the world today . . . the AK47.
That Kalichnikov guy was a tank mechanic that found this weird looking weapon next to a death German soldier. He cleaned it, figured out its mechanism and made it its own.:rolleyes:
Bush is making a lot of people nervous because he is calling for the fighting to be done within the 50 meter range.:eek:
SPWaW is very versatile and modern warfare can still be fought with it. Vietnam? Japanese with grease guns and Americans with napalm. I guess gliders can play the role of helicopters with jungle clearings. Iraq? Take a Tiger, increase its speed it can be a decent M1A1.:D



Raverdave -> (3/22/2002 2:59:06 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Eduardo
[B]While serving with an armored batallion in Germany in the 1980's we were told that our purpose was to hold the Russians for three days until reinforcements began to arrive and they took out all of the equipment mothballed in several areas.
Now, the word hold should be interpreted as slowing down the Russians. :eek:
We new our batallion was going to last so many minutes after the initial attack. I guess the planners hoped that our bodies and the burn out hulls will clutter the highways and slow down the Russians.
Under that kind of situation, the sweet buzz of the A10's Gatling guns was a welcome sound. It meant one less tank to roll over our dead bodies.:D [/B][/QUOTE]

1975 to about 1982 was a missed oppertunity for the Russians...I think that NATO would have been hard pressed to stop them with out using Tac-nukes.



eaube -> (3/22/2002 5:16:50 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raverdave
[B]

1975 to about 1982 was a missed oppertunity for the Russians...I think that NATO would have been hard pressed to stop them with out using Tac-nukes. [/B][/QUOTE]

That's the one thing about any wargame about this period. I don't think there could be a winner: failure for either side would simply be an unnaceptable options. For both sides, loosing the conventional war would certainly mean an end for their respective governments and counties, probably leaving them little alternative than nuclear weapons. Tactical nukes would lead to stategic weapons, leaving NO winners. Not a very...favorable...outcome, even if it is only in a game now :eek:

Of course, that's just MY admitedly uneducated opinion on the situation that existed: I certainly do not have all the facts. I was only a kid in the 80's, so i don't know the mood and tensions of the time.



troopie -> (3/22/2002 5:36:56 AM)

Except for the fact you can't change altitude, Helos ARE in SPWAW. The .shps are still there, the unit classes are there. I made Cobra and Alouette III K-cars and Puma, Alouette III, AB-205 and Huey G-cars for modified OOBs. ATGMs and SAMs are still in the code as well. Reactive armour and cluster artillery rounds are not.

troopie



Eduardo -> (3/22/2002 12:01:56 PM)

You are right, but the Russians were busy trying to get into Afghanistan and overseen the Cubans mercenaries in Africa. The importance of Afghanistan? It is like Poland. To go from a desirable area of the eurasian landmass to another desirable one, you must go through Poland or Afghanistan.
If the Russians had it under their sphere of influence, then they had access to the Arabian Sea and all that petroleum and the warm water ports of Iran or Iraq.
The Russians tried to dominate South Yemen and their warm water ports, but failed. As you know, both Yemen merged into one country.
By the mid 1980's, it was too late for the Russian since the Abrams M1A1 had been deployed and remember those mid-range misiles . . .



Ron Saueracker -> Modern Warfare (3/22/2002 2:53:37 PM)

The only thing entertaining about modern warfare is Clint Eastwood's performance in HEARTBREAK RIDGE!:D



Ron Saueracker -> CLINT! (3/22/2002 2:55:56 PM)

"Drank more beer, pissed more blood, banged more quiff than the lot of you!":p



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (3/22/2002 9:47:00 PM)

I agree with the Clint Eastwood sentiment essentially.

I have a great wealth of war movies, and I don't own anything based off of modern settings for the most part.

Why?

Well mainly because they are also full of the modern world.

I dont really care for the modern world. Guess its not so unusual that I dont care for its warfare either.

I watch anything made that's black & white or 70's era and they don't have a lot of the modern world in them either.

Vietnam was the last military event that was passable as a wargame potential area in my opinion.

If we are to simulate Afganistan, at what point do we exclude modern information services. The US can monitor each and every individual soldier in the field. We can say with absolute surety, yes that is ours that is theirs. We can pinpoint any location and wipe it out.

If you find an enemy position, what's to stop you from radioing in to higher echelon, and just having air support "eliminate" it. And you can even have the CNN reporter get you a copy of his tape so you can let your wife know that you got your birthday card from your daughter.

Fog of War today means nothing.

As for the 80's. Sorry I will pass on simulating Warsaw Pact attacks on Western Germany. Both sides no longer exist, and the fighting never happened. The Middle East is a bore, yawn Israelis win again. African states that butcher each others civilian populations yet again, sorry not what I am looking for.

Accurate data is just to sketchy before WW2 and and after Korea the world stopped fighting large global battlefields (fortunately for our race).

But for those that just cant handle leaving out modern technology on the battlefield...ever tried playing Alpha Centauri?



eaube -> (3/23/2002 12:32:43 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
[B]
As for the 80's. Sorry I will pass on simulating Warsaw Pact attacks on Western Germany. Both sides no longer exist, and the fighting never happened.
[/B][/QUOTE]
You could use that argument on many scenarios in many wargames, such as the hypothetical USSR vs USA campaing in SP:WAW. Hypothetical scenarios are more interesting than historical ones to me: it is easier to make a well balanced game since if you do not have a historical guidline to follow to keep 'the spirit' of the battle being simulated. This is just as applicable for WWII era as present times.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
[B]
But for those that just cant handle leaving out modern technology on the battlefield...ever tried playing Alpha Centauri? [/B][/QUOTE]

Heh, more like been helplessly addicted! It doesn't help to have a roomate that likes to play, I end up in quite a few multiplayer games.



Eduardo -> (3/23/2002 2:46:01 AM)

I just imagine that Matrix had a conversation similar to ours and concluded that it was better to stick with SPWaW and continue to improve on it.

I guess when I want to do some Modern Warfare, I just dust-off my old Armored Fist CD's and do some tank driving.

I haven't learned to mess with OOB's, etc. I just do not have the time :( . . . Kids :) , work ,:rolleyes: ,wife ;) . . .

I would like to program some of the Nicaraguan battles during the 1970's. Ambushes, artillery duels, urban warfare, assaults against Spanish-colonization castles, etc. My father had three gold stars in his collar. My uncle, a fighert pilot, had three of them too. Three stars was Colonel, 4 General, 5 gold was Brigadier General (I think we only had three of these guys, including the dictator's half-brother) and 5 silver Division General (our dictator was the only one wearing them).

SPWaW would work great! The Guard used . . . Garand M1 left over from WWII. The tanks? Shermans. The planes? Mustang P-51, T-30 training jets with rocket pods, and the last days of the war . . . Push and Pull planes with rocket pods. The communists had a mix of weapons, not that many AK's, a few RPG without the tubes (saw a few burnt zealots). At the end the Guard had Israeli Galils (AK's knockouts) and M-16's.

The Contra war was American small teams tactics vs. Russian en-mass attacks, not much to program.

The Sandinistas would take 600 kids (14 yrs and up) in a batallion divided in three waves of 200 each. The Contra would control a hill (an M-60 supported by several M-16's or AK's) and the Sandinistas would send wave after wave of kids with the hope that by the third wave the Contras would have ran out of bullets or be wounded and take the hill. The usual score? 5 Contra dead, 450 innocent kids dead or maimed. This was a daily occurrence.

Just as in WWII in the Eastern Front. The military books of the German Kampfgruppen tell the same story. A hilltop with an MG34, a few single action rifles and grenades . . . Dead Russians by the hundred around them. Eventually the Germans will run out of bullets and pull back.

It has been very informative all of your comments. Until the next topic.



Brigz -> (3/23/2002 6:14:28 AM)

I have to agree to an extent with Les. Modern warfare, especially contemporary warfare, leaves little to the imagination. And I also agree about the Arab/Israeli wars (stiffling a yawn myself). A friend recently mentioned to me something about the Israeli army being the best in the world. Now I'm not about to say that the Israeli army isn't one of the best fighting forces on the planet, but, I don't think they are necessarily the "best". I mean, look at who they've been fighting. Sure, they nearly lost it in '73 and the Egyptions did a **** fine job of getting across the canals and surprising the Israelis, but with better intelligence and a little more respect for their adversaries on Isreal's part, that never would have happened.

Except for "maybe" the North Koreans and especially the North Vietnamese, there hasn't been any adversary that stood a chance against the US, Britian, Isreal or most other "NATO" armies. I single out the North Vietnamese because I haven't met a Nam Vet yet that didn't say they were generally tough and determined troops. The US beat the crap out of them in nearly every major engagement but they were still tough troops and they gave the US a very hard time. And hey, I'm not trying to brag either. I'm not about to say that the US or Britain or Isreal will always win every war it fights. That would be foolish. Nothing guarentees victory and any military organization of any nation should be taken seriously. It's just that the nature of the organization, training and philosophy of the armies is vastly different, and that difference is to the detrement of nearly all "non-western" military forces. It's not necessarily what you wage war with, but how you wage war.

Having said all that, don't get me wrong about modern era wargames. I still love to get out my old Jim Dunnigan games and try one more time to overrun West Germany with my Soviet steamroller. And I still like stopping waves of Soviet tanks with a platoon of M1's in Steel Panthers II. I guess it's just some grotesque and sadistic part of my wargaming psychi.

Like I said, Les definitly has a point here about modern warfare. Maybe that's why the only board game I play any more is Advanced Squad Leader. Seems to capture everything in one
game.



Raverdave -> (3/23/2002 4:14:34 PM)

Modern Warfare boring??????? Have any of you guys played SP2 or even Harpoon?????? And you find the modern age boring??????:eek:



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (3/23/2002 7:50:14 PM)

Yep I find modern war boring guys.

Hmmm lets see I also find absolutely perfect blonde beach babes boring too. Perfection and ideal isnt always appealling.

I dont play any of the shooters or the RTS games, why, cause they all look the same. Mega guns with god like ammo loads and no rhyme or reason.

I have found a few of the Matrix forum crowd a bit anal on technical accuracies, but some of those guys have given me one heck of an accurate game in SPWaW.

But around the time of the Berlin wall falling down, the Soviets becoming just the Russians, the Warsaw Pact becoming just something to read about in a history book I rapidly sold all my WW3 wargames (board game types). Boy that was a close call too. A couple of years later they had no shelf value at all.
Then I noticed how all new wargames (board games) that were hiting the shelf were (no surprise) increasingly WW2 designs.

Even the Post Apocalyse theme in movies has become boring.

Dont get me wrong, I am sure there is a market for guys wanting to play fictional never happened WW3 games (however puny). But if I designed wargames and was interested in making a buck, you wouldnt have my companies attention at all. Not enough money in it guys.

I bought Operational Art of War Volume Two just cause i wanted completeness. But I reeeeeally only care to play Volume One.
I have SP3. I could care less if it is ever fully updated software wise. I would like to be able to play it easier and with better graphics of course. But I am not fretting over it much.



troopie -> (3/24/2002 11:31:11 AM)

Imagine this, Les. You have a group of high quality infantry armed with assault rifles, light machine guns and rocket launchers. Mounted on armoured lorries armed with MMGs, and three improvised armoured cars you are to move in complete secrecy across a border, attack and destroy a camp full of highly trained and partially trained infantry, T-34/85 tanks, medium artillery and mortars, and anti aircraft guns. There are about 3000 men in the camp. You have eighty-two. You will have NO air support. If the country you are entering discovers what you are doing 1: They will move large numbers of men to stop you. 2: You will embarrass your government. 3: The target will be alerted and you will fail. This means you must keep the tightest march security. You must destroy beyond recognition any of your vehicles that are immobilised or destroyed in combat. You must leave NO men behidn, living or dead.

I have just described a flying column raid by the Selous scouts in the Bush War. How can that be boring?

SADF externals were similar.

troopie



Raverdave -> (3/24/2002 12:25:01 PM)

Fighting a delaying action in the Fulder gap, with a target rich enviroment.............man it does not get better than that!



Brigz -> (3/25/2002 12:23:41 AM)

How about this scenario. I'm the Iragi's defending a well fortified position essential for the Allies to breach. On turn one the Allies call in a B-52 strike on my position. On turn two the Buff's arrive and drop thousands of antipersonnel bombs on my position wiping it out. The Allies roll over my mutilated troops and fortifications and on to the next objective. Game over. This is how modern warfare is fought by the US and most modern western armies. Quick, fast, and deadly, leaving little to the imagination. And it's going to get worse (or better depending on how you see it). They're even developing "smart bullets" that can seek out and kill individual soldiers. What's that going to be like? I'm not saying it's wrong to develope better and more leathal weapons, as a matter of fact, I'm glad. I'm just saying that the technology of modern war takes some of the (dare I say it) "fun" out of simulating warfare. Just like I was reading in the newspaper this morning. A big challenge in modern warfare is whether or not you punch in the GPS settings on your hand held targeting device correctly.

This is certainly an interesting thread and I find myself agreeing with both sides on this one and I have to admit being a little "simplistic" with my above scenario description. Troopie and Raverdave describe some interesting scenarios that I would probably find interesting to play, especially defending the Fulda Gap (I'd be more interested and challenged playing the Soviets trying to breach the Gap). Heck, I'm even thinking of adapting GDW's game "The Third World War, Battle for Germany" to use with VASSAL.

But, I still have to agree with Les to an extent. Modern, and especially contemporary, warfare just doesn't have the same appeal. I get out the modern era games and play them occasionally but always find myself going back to my WWII and pre WWII games. They just seem more historically rich and interesting. Maybe because time ferments things and makes them more digestable. And fun too.

Good thread guys!



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.7832031