kipanderson

Hi, Lots of good ideas and work on operational layers. I do recommend people go off to the COO forum via the initial post and take a look. More info about what is proposed day by day. If it happens will be a great, quality game. All the best, Kip.

Broadsword56, Interesting to read that “all....” your gaming is happily done using the various board game conversion aids. Tank Hunter is doing a great job with Vassal. I must put in the time to study them more closely. All the best, Kip. mjkerner... good spot... .

Tank Hunter, hi, I am amazed that you are able to do all this within Vassal. You must be taking it to the limit and in fact beyond. Looking forward to the next instalment . All interesting stuff, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Do remember that the operational game itself in PzC is very dated, and in my view not very good. It is turn based with all that “fire..” combat which has no place in an operational game. As a resource the maps, the units and the flexibility of the editor, you can edit during a turn and such, plus the number of settings make PzC a great resource. But if you look at the start of this thread and reread the list of features planned for COO it is in a different stratosphere to PzCs . COO would be the ideal companion game. Not surprisingly either as it would be designed from scratch to be just that . All good stuff, All the best, Kip.

Hi, When I first saw “App...” I did assume it would be PC friendly. Then got the impression that it was not to be PC friendly. Whether app or PC program I care not as long as it runs on my PC ; ) . If it’s to be an app that can run on a PC the problem is gone before it even existed! But jumping from device to device did not interest me. All sounds good to me, Steve made clear years ago he was no great fan of the idea.. in fact even before CMC, All the best, Kip.

Hi, That gets my vote too . Broadsword56... I agree about broad games but only to point . If I had a play room, were the game could be setup for long periods of time, then yes. But I do not. That is where PzC comes in. With the flexibility of its editor, the maps and units you can use it as a computerised broad game. Of course, that is what PzC is, it’s computerised SPI games . BTW. Why John Tiller uses defence and attacker fire instead of just operational level combat, assault in PzC jargon, I know not. Apart from for artillery/air there is no need for fire combat at all. All the best, Kip.

Hi, The above combined with a WEGO operational game would be superb. Exactly what is needed . However, the COO does have to be a PC game. This is a show stopper. The quote from Matt above illustrates why. You need to be able to jump from one to the other while sitting at your PC. Imagine an add-on for a tablet game that was in PC format . It chances of working would be zero. Tablets are not the future. They are a different thing, a different object. The keyboard and mouse are going nowhere for serious work output or, as in this case, for serious fun output. As of now they have so much surplus horse power they do not have to be replaced nearly as often as was once the case. But for serious anything PCs will be with us indefinitely into the future. All very encouraging, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Each to their own . But CC is a massively dumbed down game when compared to CM and/or any operational game worth playing. I am hoping for something a lot more sophisticated. All the best, Kip.

Matt, hi, I am in... . BTW. Those criticizing COO for not “automatically....” setting up battles need to remember that this is a trick still far beyond CMX2 in any form even in the hands of BFC. Quick Battles have pre-programmed/built maps and AI and still have a very limited ability. Those wishing for a fully automated interaction between an operational game and CM need to be aware that the CM battles resulting would very low quality. Even if the game were taken on by BFC and CMX2 heavily tweaked to enable this. If you wish for a quality CM battle some form of editing/setup by a player or game umpire is unavoidable. An operational game as described in Key Game Features would transform CM . Good luck will follow with interest, All the best, Kip.

Tank Hunter, hi, Yes... very intriguing stuff. I look forward to see this develop over time. If you do produce a manual one day I will be first in the queue . Look forward to the game becoming available. All the best, Kip.

Tank Hunter, Congratulations... as with others, great to see this . Off to work now but look forward to a good read this evening.... Good to see all the interest in operations by Tank Hunter and others... All the best, Kip.

Tank Hunter, hi, That is huge.... . This is how I intend to use an operational layer. With “wing units/formations...” fighting it out at the operational level and a few of the most interesting contacts resolved at the CM level. Looking forward to the release.....! All the best, Kip.

Tank Hunter, hi, Just to encourage you in your efforts. There certainly is interest in this project. You and Noob, and others, all help in working through to the best way to model an operational level with bookkeeping and tracking. Do keep your fans up to date . All the best, Kip.

Noob, hi, Always interesting to see how others do this stuff. I too use PzC but not as tightly as you do. It is more the editor that I am after. Interesting read.... thanks. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Will make an interesting read.... Thanks . All the best, Kip.

Mad Mike, hi, Great, am very grateful . I have been looking forward to this. I have been pondering whether to post just to encourage you that there is demand for your work. But thought it would look like nagging so held back . Very, I mean very cunning stuff, Thanks again, Kip.

Hi, As I understand it the “five eyes...” UK, US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia listen to the rest of the world, and have done for years anyway. Sharing the info between them. The true inner circle in the spook world has been ever since WWII, without a break, the western allies from WWII and remains so today. I do not understand what the “news...” element of the recent revelations is. The fact that different technology is now used is neither here nor there . The French and Germans have complained about it for years. I mean years and years. Nothing new. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, if this download works for you guys you will get the US Army view of the '06 Lebanon War. http://carl.army.mil/download/csipubs/matthewsOP26.pdf Not something the US Army would wish to repeat on ten times the scale . All the best, Kip.

Hi, First apologies for not having read all of the preceding posts... Do remember that the Gulf War one and two prove nothing. They were a “no shows...” on the part of the Iraqis. And armed with obsolete Soviet kit. The closest comparison, and it is very close, is the 2006 Lebanon War/Second Lebanon War. The Israelis were whacked by what they describe as an infantry brigade of 3,000 men. The Israelis threw the tool in because in order to “win..” casualties would have been far too high. All here have seen the casually rates that can result when US forces attack Syrians armies with the 1990s Soviet kit... massively high. Well that is what would happen in a war against Russia. NATOs professional arms would not even exist six months after its start. You could expect casualty rates of around 100% for front line battalions after three to six months tours. If the Red forces are “up for the fight...” which the Iraqis never were, and armed with 1990s onwards Russian kit that can, and as the Lebanon war proved do inflict heavy enough casualties to hold their own against any NATO force. The attrition rate would be WWII standard which professional armies cannot accept. The Gulf Wars have, or did until Lebanon ’06, give false lessons. BTW... it gets worse, think NATO air assets would be immune from WWII attrition rates...think again . If you read what the Israelis think of current Russian ground to air systems you would not wish to be in NATO air forces. They also work.... even against F35s. All interesting stuff, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Exactly... context and more context adds hugely to the fun. That is why I rate the CMMC Normandy game headed up by James Bailey some ten – twelve years ago as the greatest wargame of all time. Never even played a CM game within it. Was in a staff role. But setting up the clashes and waiting for the results to roll in was great. To me these games are firstly operational, secondly CM. But we are very lucky to have CM to use to resolve them at all. All the best, Kip.

Tank Hunter, hi, This is a superb idea, a more focused tracker that also does the bookkeeping all in one place . I too have developed ways of doing this, using the very flexible editor in Panzer Campaigns games. But your effort looks so good because of the closer focus on CM. I wish you all the luck with this and will be following very closely. BTW one can always resolve some of the clashes at the operational level using one’s own system of choice. For example the formulas in the Dupuy books. Then only resolve some battles by using CM. You are developing what looks like a great tool however people using it.... !! All the best, Kip.

Hi, Remember in CM you play the role of the AFV commander and for that matter squad leader. You may also play the role of platoon, company and even battalion commander. But most of the time you play the role of the AFV/squad leader. So you can’t really put a restriction on yourself... . As Mikey pointed out with his quote from Steve. It is all part of the single controlling mind issue. There is just the one player on each side. All the best, Kip.

Hi, You mustn’t expect too much.. Band of Brothers and The Pacific may turn out to be near once in life time films/series. The Stalingrad movie looks to be about as good as it gets... we are not the average audience for war movies . Un-tweaked up near recreations of the real WWII probably has too small and audience for its costs. Sadly... . All the best, Kip.

Hi, If you play very cautiously, very, and very slowly... casualties can often be brought right down to more historically accurate or normal levels. People tend to play far more brutally, ruthlessly than real human commanders would. Historically battles for even small hamlets would often take two or three hours because of the careful, ultra cautious way the attack would take place. Trying at all times to minimise risk. I tend to play that way... I go into the editor and often extend games from say... one hour to two hours. Also... play human v human live over two and half hour games. Flashes by as if just half an hour. Is very tense and exciting... but for long periods very little happens due to cautious play on both sides. The casualties are not a result of the coding error, more the ruthlessness of us the players.. . All very good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Yes... shocked that Fuser likes that sort of game in anyway.. . But ... each their own . But if Battlefront even tacked slightly in that direction I would have to try and find another addiction...! Lucky to have CM at all... All the best, Kip.