Combat Mission new for 2024

[Elvis]

Can someone remind me what the planned new CMBS module was going to cover?  Something specifically based on current real world situation?  Just curious why CMBS main module and CMBS battle pack continues to be sold if company doesn't feel right about releasing new add-ons or even running tournaments with the released content.  Completely understand the sensitivity, just confused about the difference.

I dont remember the new contend details either.

The problem is that a new DLC, with whatever kind of contend, comes usually with a big marketing campaign, a sale, Let's plays on Twitch and YT and what not, tournaments also attract attention.

while letting CMBS just simmer gently in the myriads of games at Steam doesn't hurt.

if some hater stumbles upon it, and read relased long before the actual war he will realize there is no material for the social media outcry he want to generate.   

You've summed it up perfectly. Passively continuing to sell a game that has been out for years is one thing. Being seen as trying to capitalize on the war is another. And from the conversations that I had internally and with my counterparts in England and Italy, beyond what our thoughts were about how it might be viewed by the public, everyone felt it would be........distasteful. It felt wrong.

[Old TImer]

Can someone remind me what the planned new CMBS module was going to cover?  Something specifically based on current real world situation?  Just curious why CMBS main module and CMBS battle pack continues to be sold if company doesn't feel right about releasing new add-ons or even running tournaments with the released content.  Completely understand the sensitivity, just confused about the difference.

I dont remember the new contend details either.

The problem is that a new DLC, with whatever kind of contend, comes usually with a big marketing campaign, a sale, Let's plays on Twitch and YT and what not, tournaments also attract attention.

while letting CMBS just simmer gently in the myriads of games at Steam doesn't hurt.

if some hater stumbles upon it, and read relased long before the actual war he will realize there is no material for the social media outcry he want to generate.   

You've summed it up perfectly. Passively continuing to sell a game that has been out for years is one thing. Being seen as trying to capitali on the war is another. And from the conversations that I had internally and with my counterparts in England and Italy, beyond what our thoughts were about how it might be viewed by the public, everyone felt it would be........distasteful. It felt wrong.

I support BF 1000% with this decision.

[Destraex]

Can someone remind me what the planned new CMBS module was going to cover?  Something specifically based on current real world situation?  Just curious why CMBS main module and CMBS battle pack continues to be sold if company doesn't feel right about releasing new add-ons or even running tournaments with the released content.  Completely understand the sensitivity, just confused about the difference.

I dont remember the new contend details either.

The problem is that a new DLC, with whatever kind of contend, comes usually with a big marketing campaign, a sale, Let's plays on Twitch and YT and what not, tournaments also attract attention.

while letting CMBS just simmer gently in the myriads of games at Steam doesn't hurt.

if some hater stumbles upon it, and read relased long before the actual war he will realize there is no material for the social media outcry he want to generate.   

You've summed it up perfectly. Passively continuing to sell a game that has been out for years is one thing. Being seen as trying to capitalize on the war is another. And from the conversations that I had internally and with my counterparts in England and Italy, beyond what our thoughts were about how it might be viewed by the public, everyone felt it would be........distasteful. It felt wrong.

It certainly is a conundrum, I think you guys made the right decision. It would feel wrong.
A little like the Hunger Games is wrong to make gladiators out of innocent people simply for the rich to be entertained.

I wonder if the future though could hold a niche for wargamers where wargamers work on problems real time by running simulations a little like the SETI project does or did.... to help. But then their are all sorts of other moral questions that arise.

Personally I hope that future wars are robotic affairs where the humans role is simply to try to stay out of the way.

[Jarhead0331]

The issue isn't primarily a moral or ethical one for me. I don't really look at these games as chiefly a source of entertainment. For me, they are more of an educational or academic tool. Strategic sandboxes to test theories, techniques and doctrine. In fact, I really don't view these titles as games, per se, at all. I like to think the main developers of these titles view the games in much the same light and that although they are certainly running for profit businesses, financial enrichment is not why they are mainly in the industry. If it was, they would probably be making mobile games or twitch shooters.  The educational value of these games is enhanced when the actual outcome of the conflict remains uncertain.

With that being said, I think the war in Ukraine is an extremely difficult conflict to model. Little that was theorized for several decades proved to be valid. The incompetence of the Russian military and its many great failures defied most prevailing expectations. For this reason, I now find it very difficult to run any wargame that depicts modern Russian assets as a major conventional threat when confronting western assets of comparable strength. I find that I really have to suspend my disbelief.  I also think it would be very challenging to model the current state of the Russian military authentically given the rapid change it has faced in terms of man power and equipment in a relatively short period of time. This problem is compounded by a lack of information coming from the Russian sources. Regardless, to present realistic challenging scenarios to the player, I think in some regard, certain orders of battle and TO&Es would need to be artificially limited or restricted, while others would need to be strengthened. I'm hard pressed to imagine that these issues did not at least factor in some way to the decision making process here.

So to sum up, gaming the war in Ukraine presents a lot of challenges due to a lot of factors and complexities. I think someday, when we have more information, it may be worthwhile and some "what-if" scenarios could also be very informative and interesting. Ultimately, though, I will game any conflict any time and its proximity in time to actual events is not really a factor for me. I think if developers feel strongly about the war and are sensitive to ongoing suffering, rather than avoiding the source material altogether, instead donate a portion of the proceeds from sales to those who have been impacted by the conflict. This would seem to be the most beneficial and positive approach to dealing with these concerns.

[Tripoli]

Like Jarhead, I play wargames almost entirely for educational and academic purposes.  I believe that, when combined with  "book learning" and professional experience, wargames give tremendous insight into a conflict and, when done by decision-makers can help them better achieve objectives at lower human cost.  As such, wargaming a current conflict doesn't present a moral dilemma.  Rather, they can be a positive good. 

[CaptainKoloth]

I agree with both of these comments. Like the actual planning done by military staff, wargaming can be an educational and illuminating method of study and forecasting- which is, indeed, why many actual militaries run "wargaming" sessions (though of course those tend to be basically group role playing activities as opposed to wargaming in the sense we mean here).

The performance of the Russian military in Ukraine is an excellent example of this phenomenon. The fact that the real-world experience of the Russians lagged their "wargame performance" so drastically I think is an extremely valuable insight and forces the question of what the causes of that differntial were. Clearly, there fundamental aspects of its makeup beyond just quantitiative mass and headline-level technology - e.g. logistics, training, secure comms, inter-formation cooperation, doctrine, intelligence accuracy, EW, SEAD capabilities (the list could go on for pages and pages) that caused the Russian armed forces to be far less effectivein real-world combat than they were understood to be by both sides pre-invasion. Wargaming throws these contrasts into stark relief and thus I think highlights extremely important real-world lessons and takeaways that become impossible to ignore with regard to military capabilities and which will likely influence the planning of both sides in future conflicts. I would argue in fact for this reason that there is no better (simulated) learning tool for military affairs.

[Tripoli]

I agree with both of these comments. Like the actual planning done by military staff, wargaming can be an educational and illuminating method of study and forecasting- which is, indeed, why many actual militaries run "wargaming" sessions (though of course those tend to be basically group role playing activities as opposed to wargaming in the sense we mean here).

The performance of the Russian military in Ukraine is an excellent example of this phenomenon. The fact that the real-world experience of the Russians lagged their "wargame performance" so drastically I think is an extremely valuable insight and forces the question of what the causes of that differntial were. Clearly, there fundamental aspects of its makeup beyond just quantitiative mass and headline-level technology - e.g. logistics, training, secure comms, inter-formation cooperation, doctrine, intelligence accuracy, EW, SEAD capabilities (the list could go on for pages and pages) that caused the Russian armed forces to be far less effectivein real-world combat than they were understood to be by both sides pre-invasion. Wargaming throws these contrasts into stark relief and thus I think highlights extremely important real-world lessons and takeaways that become impossible to ignore with regard to military capabilities and which will likely influence the planning of both sides in future conflicts. I would argue in fact for this reason that there is no better (simulated) learning tool for military affairs.

With professional-level wargaming, I think you need to do a couple of things: 1) validate your games through real world exercises, and similarly, inform your gaming assumptions with those real world exercises.  2) as a corollary, conduct realistic "real world" exercises and be honest about the results so that the wargaming conforms as accurately as possible to reality; 3) In the wargame, state your assumptions up front and clearly.  If you do these things, then professional-level gaming can provide insights.

NOTICE: THE FOLLOWING IS A THREAD HIJACK:

If the concept of professional level gaming is of interest to you, consider joining USA Fight Club (https://www.usafight.club/) or UK Fight Club or one of our international affilates.
 (https://www.fightclubinternational.org/)  The mission of the club is " to improve members' thinking, decision-making, and warfighting abilities through gaming experiences that are realistic, challenging, and fun.  The Club will provide a network and resources for a diverse body of civilian, government, academic and military professionals to explore and experiment with all types of games to educate, compete, train, and analyze the full spectrum of conflict warfare, to illuminate methods, concepts and capabilities that would be useful to ally and partner governments and militaries. The Club will advocate for wargaming in professional environments."  Right now, we are finishing up our Flashpoint Campaign Southern Storm tournament, where we are doing the evaluations based on the plan and lessons learned from the scenario, instead of simply based on the game scores.

NOTICE: THE THEAD HIJACK HAS BEEN TERMINATED.  THE MODERATORS HAVE REGAINED CONTROL OF THE THREAD.      

[Jarhead0331]

We have a professional wargaming subforum. Please post this this there in its own topic so it does not get lost. It is down in the Game Forge Section.

Thanks!

[Father Ted]

I have read of one example where wargaming (as we know it) was used contemporaneously to solve a real-world tactical problem.  This was in the Battle of the Atlantic, when Royal Navy backroom staff constructed a wargame, complete with miniatures, in order to work out and defeat the tactics of the U-Boat wolfpacks.  Destroyer captains on shore leave were  ordered to play the game in order to learn coordinated manouevres - and it worked.

On the topic of not representing recent/current conflicts in wargames, I think it's just a common human reaction.  There's no rational argument against it, but it seems to be a tacit agreement, and I have no problem with BF not wishing to appear to be disrespectful by swimming against the tide of public sentiment.

[Old TImer]

It's weird.  I have no problem simulating the current conflict in the Red Sea with Command Modern Operations.  Yet I support BF's position regarding CMBS.  Maybe air and naval simulation is inherently different from an unprovoked land invasion, with all the destruction and suffering resulting.  Totally get and agree with JH's assessment.   Same holds true for me regarding the use of these "games" as sort of intellectual investigation.

[Skoop]

Thumbs up to JH, I was thinking the same thing on all points.

I also get where's he's coming from with the donate the proceeds to Ukraine humanitarian aid.  I mean if bf is going to take the moral high ground, why not go the full measure and remove it from sale, or donate the proceeds to humanitarian aid. Thus the slippery slope.  Tbh, I would have supported BF either way they play it, at least they took it into consideration.

[Michael Dorosh]

As one of the people that was actually a participent in the discussions about this, both internally and discussions directly with Slitherine, I can tell you that the reason given is 100% the reason. No one internally felt it was right and Slitherine felt exactly the same. Right now, we aren't even entertaining the idea of running any tournaments with the already released Black Sea.

At the end of the day, it was an easy decision, despite the significant financial and time investment that had already been made.

Good answer, thank you. That Zulu96 guy could learn a thing or two about civil discussions from you. ;-)

[Michael Dorosh]

The issue isn't primarily a moral or ethical one for me. I don't really look at these games as chiefly a source of entertainment. For me, they are more of an educational or academic tool. Strategic sandboxes to test theories, techniques and doctrine. In fact, I really don't view these titles as games, per se, at all. I like to think the main developers of these titles view the games in much the same light and that although they are certainly running for profit businesses, financial enrichment is not why they are mainly in the industry. If it was, they would probably be making mobile games or twitch shooters.  The educational value of these games is enhanced when the actual outcome of the conflict remains uncertain.

Well said.

With that being said, I think the war in Ukraine is an extremely difficult conflict to model. Little that was theorized for several decades proved to be valid. The incompetence of the Russian military and its many great failures defied most prevailing expectations. For this reason, I now find it very difficult to run any wargame that depicts modern Russian assets as a major conventional threat when confronting western assets of comparable strength. I find that I really have to suspend my disbelief.  I also think it would be very challenging to model the current state of the Russian military authentically given the rapid change it has faced in terms of man power and equipment in a relatively short period of time. This problem is compounded by a lack of information coming from the Russian sources. Regardless, to present realistic challenging scenarios to the player, I think in some regard, certain orders of battle and TO&Es would need to be artificially limited or restricted, while others would need to be strengthened. I'm hard pressed to imagine that these issues did not at least factor in some way to the decision making process here.

So to sum up, gaming the war in Ukraine presents a lot of challenges due to a lot of factors and complexities. I think someday, when we have more information, it may be worthwhile and some "what-if" scenarios could also be very informative and interesting. Ultimately, though, I will game any conflict any time and its proximity in time to actual events is not really a factor for me.

This is kind of what I was trying to get at as far as BFC's ability to 'accurately' portray this ongoing conflict. Add to what you stated, I don't think people know half as much as what they think they are learning from TikTok videos of tanks going through minefields. Russia and Ukraine are both master propagandists. Russia wants to promote an image of power and invincibility and Ukraine wants to as well at the same time appealling for more money, which is counter to the first aim of looking like they don't need it. So I'm dubious (sorry - cynical, per Zulu007) about any claims to accuracy since I have a feeling we'll be learning new things about what actually happened on the battlefields for decades.

Canada finally released their official history of the war in Afghanistan just a couple of months ago, almost 10 years to the day the last troops left. Who knows when the war in Ukraine will even end, and given the tensions that will probably prevail there, who knows how long it will take to see accurate reporting of the war. The Soviet archives remained sealed for decades due to the Cold War and (understandable) unwillingness to share historical info. However the war in Ukraine ends, I have to believe Russia will feel the same way.

[Zulu1966]

As one of the people that was actually a participent in the discussions about this, both internally and discussions directly with Slitherine, I can tell you that the reason given is 100% the reason. No one internally felt it was right and Slitherine felt exactly the same. Right now, we aren't even entertaining the idea of running any tournaments with the already released Black Sea.

At the end of the day, it was an easy decision, despite the significant financial and time investment that had already been made.

Good answer, thank you. That Zulu96 guy could learn a thing or two about civil discussions from you. ;-)

LOL. In relation to Jarheads post about the old Wargamer forum it seems you haven't changed in all that time.

I have though and have not the inclination, energy or interest in engaging.

[Grim.Reaper]

Just a heads up...at Matrix, all Combat Mission games 50% off through January 22nd.  Might be a good time to pick some things up if you don't already own.