kipanderson

Ted, hi, I agree that editing is hugely important.... I would love to see the ability to edit Saved games... What are the functions you are after.. ? All the best, Kip. PS... CM, be it CMX1 or CMX2, is not CMMC friendly... but as you show it is doable.. .

Hi, BTW... am planning to use Geccos, Generic Campaign Control System by a very cunning Norwegian called Pal Woje. He very generously produces free mapping and tracking software for these types of games. All the best, Kip.

Hi, John, In part.... there is a last roll of the dice just to slightly modify the final outcome by a small percentage so there is not perfect predictability. Not that there ever could be prefect predictability because there is Fog of War and all is not know about enemy units. But a final dice roll modifier is still a good idea. The basic formula used is derived from the much maligned Trevor N Dupuy who although somewhat dated with his school boy maths I still think did a reasonable job. A fuller explanation is given below. It is a very dry, very quickly knocked out explanation one night just to record my thought for my own use. Tables are not included here, not meant to be a full explanation but a taste of how I will be doing it. 76mm Agreed..... maps are the real time killer. But must be high quality to give a quality experience. Aka Hawk Again.... agreed. It is a must to take maps from real world topography. People always, often anyway, think they can “imagine... “ real world terrain. They cannot... . Maps taken from real terrain, to a real world scale... look more realistic in ways i can always spot but not always explain. Quick, late night rant on how operational combat will be resolved. All the best, Kip Operational Combat Resolution. Introduction. Most will find the partial explanation of how this is done tedious, a view I have some sympathy with but it is a means to an end. There is no need to read what follows, only recommended if really interested. Operational combat is resolved by use of methods common in the ‘70s and ‘80s to predict the outcome of such clashes. The results of such predictions are of course average outcomes based on historic data given the prevailing circumstances. Both for the sake of realism and to avoid the boredom that prefect predictability would lead to the final results are modified by chance, a die roll. But the centre point of a spread of the operational results will be historically accurate. The methods used had a good record of predicting outcomes in high-intensity warfare up the contemporary age. Say the early ‘90s. There will be three outcomes predicted for each operational clash. The distance advanced by the attacking unit, if any. The casualties of the attacking unit and the casualties of the defending unit. The final modifier applied to all three predictions. Once all three predictions have been calculated their results, call them A for average, will be modified by a final die roll to simulate the uncertainties of any single clash. Two six sided dice will be rolled and A will be modified in all three cases as given below. Die Roll Percentage Modification to A 2 0.55 3 0.60 4 0.65 5 0.75 6 0.85 7 1.00 8 1.15 9 1.25 10 1.35 11 1.40 12 1.45 Distance Advanced and Casualty Rates.. When going on to explain how Distance Advanced and Casualty Rates are calculated there will be no attempt to give all of the modifications or full detail of how this is done. To do so would mean transcribing large chunks of books. The aim is to give a flavour of how it is done and the factors taken into consideration, which are many. Both Distance Advanced and Casualty Rates for attacker and defender are given by their respective historic Standard Rates derived from many hundreds of clashes which are then modified to take into account the particular circumstances. How does it work? Let’s take the Distance Advanced after a given clash as the first example. I will then explain how the casualties for both the attacker and defender are calculated. Calculating the Distance Advanced, if any, after a clash at the operational level. The first step is to calculate the Combat Power, P, for both sides in the clash. This is the Combat Power of the units involved in the given clash modified to take account of the prevailing circumstances. This is needed not only for obvious reasons but because the Combat Power Ratio, P/P, German to US and also US to German are used in all later calculations. The basic formula for Combat Power is, P = Units Strength as given in game x Operational Status Modifier x Terrain Modifier The Operational Status Modifier and Terrain Modifier are only used when calculating the Combat Power of the defender. Let’s use an example. Assume that one German infantry battalion of Unit Strength 6 is defending against three US infantry battalions of Unit Strength 4 each. The Operational Status of the German unit is Hasty Defence, the terrain Rolling Gentle, Mixed. US Combat Power = Pus Pus = 12 (There are no Operational Status or Terrain Modifiers for the attacker.) German Combat Power = Pg Pg = 6 x 1.3 (Hasty Defence Table x 1.3 (Rolling Gentle, Mixed Table A.) Pg = 10.14 The all important Combat Power Ratios are thus Pus/Pg = 12/10.14 = 1.18 and Pg/Pus = 10.14/12 = 0.85 We will need the above later. Distance Advanced = Figure Derived from Table C x Terrain Modifier from Table D Distance Advanced = 2.5 x 0.80 = 2.0 km So 2.0 km is the historically accurate prediction for the distance advanced by the three US battalions in the above situation. But this figure must now be subject to a die roll, as described above, so as to simulate the unpredictability of any individual combat outcome. Two six sided dice are rolled resulting in a 5, which gives a 0.75 final modifier. In the game the final figure for the distance advanced by the US units is 2.0 km x 0.75 = 1.5 km. Calculating casualties for operational clashes. We will calculate the US/Attacker casualties first. Basic formula, Casualties = Standard Casualty Rate x Opposition Factor x Operational Status Modifier x Terrain Modifier for Casualties Standard Casualty Rate = Average historic casualty rate for a battalion in high-intensity combat for the period 1940 – 1990. There are two figures. One for the Attacker and one for the defender. Attacker Standard Casualty Rate = 12.7 % Defender Standard Casualty Rate = 6.8 % Opposition Factor = Taken from Table E In this case we are calculating the attacker’s casualties. So take the applicable Combat Power Ratio, P/P, is Pus/Pg = 12/10.4 = 1.18 From Table E a P/P Ratio of 1.18 = giving an Opposition Factor of 0.90 Operational Status Modifier = is derived from Table G US Casualties Operational Status Modifier = 1.00 Has no effect. (The German unit is in Hasty Defence and the US is attacking. See Table G) Terrain Modifier for Casualties is taken straight from Table F for both sides. Terrain Modifier for Casualties = Rolling Gentle, Mixed Table F = 0.75 Therefore… The US casualties are predicted to be Casualties = Attacker Standard Casualty Rate x Opposition Factor x Operational Status Modifier x Terrain Modifier for Casualties Casualties = 12.7 % x 0.90 x 1.00 x 0.75 Casualties = 8.57 % Is the historically predicated casualty rate. Roll two dice giving an 8 = 1.15 Final US/Attacker Casualty Rate = 8.75 x 1.15 = 10.06 % German Casualties. Once again… Casualties = Standard Casualty Rate x Opposition Factor x Operational Status Modifier x Terrain Modifier for Casualties But this time taking care to find the Opposition Factor using Pg/Pus = 10.14/12 = 0.85 giving an Opposition Factor from Table E 0.98 Also… the Operational Status Modifier for Casualties Table G is for a Defender in Hasty defence 0.90. The Terrain Modifier for Casualties Table F is the same for both sides.. 0.75 Therefore… Casualties = Defender Standard Casualty Rate x Opposition Factor x Operational Status Modifier x Terrain Modifier for Casualties Casualties = 6.8 % x 0.98 x 0.90 x 0.75 Casualties = 4.49 % Is the historically predicated casualty rate. Roll two dice giving another 8 = 1.15 (Went for another 8 so that we can compare the results in this example.) Final German/Defender Casualty Rate = 4.49 % x 1.15 = 5.16 % Summary for Results. Let’s remind ourselves of the example we took… Assume that one German infantry battalion of Unit Strength 6 is defending against three US infantry battalions of Unit Strength 4 each. The Operational Status of the German unit is Hasty Defence, the terrain Rolling Gentle, Mixed. Also… both sides had equal luck… with final rolls of eights on the two dice for casualties. … Results… Final Distance Advanced = 1.5 km Attackers Casualties = 10.06 % Defenders Casualties = 5.16 % Points to consider. If you ignore the final roll of the dice, or assume that in all cases the most likely number 7 was the result, the out comes would have been… Distance Advanced 2 km Attackers Casualties 8.75 % German Casualties 4.49 % If you assume that all the battalions involved had five hundred men than predicted US losses were 131 men and German losses 22 men. Close to six to one. Why? There are a number of factors. Firstly the German battalion was rated at a Unit Strength of 6, the three US at only 4 each. Secondly the US attack power was all made up of infantry, not armour and artillery. If the attacking force had been made up of one battalion of infantry, one armour plus a battalion of 105mm guns in support casualties are likely to have been around 50 for both sides. Deriving all our combat power from infantry is very costly in casualties for attackers.

Hi, BTW... also great to see the activity from CMMC4 and Onionwars. Good luck.... we can all learn from each other... the more of these the better . All the best, Kip.

Hi, Yes... just to give yet another quick, short explanation of what is normally meant by CMMC. Combat Mission Meta Campaign. Both sides are sent operational maps with their units and enemy units placed on them. Imagine a 1:50000 map with full details of your own side’s battalions and companies but only limited details of enemy battalions and companies. In forums, one or more for each side, matters are discussed and then the commanders, division or corps, issue orders to their own subordinate players. Where units are to move, what they are to do, attack this village, defend this ridge line and so on... The orders are also sent to the Games Masters/GMs/Umpires. The umpires then decide where units have ended up, given the orders, and which units are in contact with the enemy and due to fight that turn. The umpires then build the battles in CM and send them off to the battalion commanders of the units to resolve the operational turn using CM. After a given number of CM in game turns, or some other criteria, both players Save the game and send back the files to the umpires. The umpires then construct new maps reflecting the outcomes of the CM battles and send them off to each side as before to start another operational turn. The umpires also include an operational briefing with Intel reports and such. That is it.... In my version of CMMC many of the contact battles would be resolved by the umpires at the operational level also some of the “player’s games...” would be fought against the AI and some against the umpires. This would allow a smaller number of players to fight their CMMC within a larger operational environment. All very good fun indeed..... All the best, Kip.

Hi, I prefer something very close to what Jon suggested, and CMMC1 was. Real units with real OOB but in fictional situations. But not too wildly fictional. “This could have happened...” type situations. Strategically realistic but operationally fictional. All the best, Kip.

Steve, I think people are too ambitious.... they naturally try to follow the example of James Bailey who at its peak had many tens of people involved in CMMC Normandy. This is a mistake in my view. The idea I have is to resolve most of the battles at the operational level with only a minority resolved using CM. So if there is a particularly critical contact battle it may be resolved using CM but the operational game is as big a part of the overall gaming experience as playing out the CM battles. Some of the CM battles being resolved playing human v human; some playing against the umpire with the umpire setting out to deliver a certain carefully measured type of opposition. Some also player v the AI. All at the umpires discretion. Keep the game small scale which really means having enough umpires for the number of players. It is all doable but must be approached with care . All the best, Kip.

Hi, Anyone thinking of using CMBN as a way of resolving an operational game/ a CMMC style game? The great Normandy CMMC umpired by James Bailey about ten years ago was the best of the best of war-gaming. CM is underused just resolving “battles....”. As a tool within an operational game it really comes to its own as the greater context adds greatly to the fun. CMMC games are difficult to do due to the time commitment. This is always underestimated by those organising them but I like others have not entirely given up on the idea. Are there any in offing? Anyone else thinking along these lines.... ? Lots and lots of fun to come.... All the best, Kip.

LongLeftHook, hi, That is stunning..... I do have some idea how long it must have taken.... truly great work.... Congratulations... . All the best, Kip.

Hi, What is the experience of CMBB with Windows 7....? The Demo seems to work or was I just lucky... . Question is if I buy the new 1.04 patch is it likely to run OK with my new Windows 7 system...I realise there can be no guarantees... Thanks, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Just to reinforce what others have said… No Holding Back by Brian Reid is the best account of a single battle not just in Normandy… but for all of the campaign in North West Europe…. In the same way as Hell’s Gate by Douglas E Nash is the best account of a single battle from the war on the Eastern Front… (Hell’s Gate is an account of the Korsun Pocket operation of February ’44… ) All the best, Kip.

Hi, The happy news is that there are a lot of CMx2 games and modules on the way… hence they will have to abandon the older games as time moves on.. But for very cheerful reasons… all those new ones they are developing… . Lots and lots to look forward to.. All the best, Kip. PS My vote would be the Ukraine for CMSF2… most credible and fun setting… in my view.. but who knows what the powers that be have in mind..

Hi, You guys may be interested to know… if not already mentioned… that the Israelis have now fielded one of their APS/hard kill systems with operational units. http://defense-update.com/products/t/trophy_merkava.htm All sides and everyone has them close to go/ in development for years.. but I think this is the first with a “western” style combat unit. Hard Kill APS are the big change coming now… over the next couple of years in all armies due to the push they received as a result of the analysis of the ’06 Lebanon War. All interesting stuff.. Keep the great posts from guys going… interesting stuff… All the best, Kip. PS. Moon the above is not a commercial link… it is free… …

Hi, Smaragdadler you have been taking some great screenshots... Fun stuff... All the best, Kip.

Hi, When it comes to the ’06 Lebanon War it is not that the Israelis could not have won… of course they could. It is just that given the tactics they were going to have to use… near conventional head on assaults on village after village.. their casualties would have been too heavy to make it politically viable. The reason why they had to fight the war that way was in large part that in the first day or two of the war they discovered the vulnerability of their armour to the now wide spread use of the later tandem warheaded AT rounds being used against them. Thus they quickly abandoned attempts at their armoured spearhead tactics. This also explains why their overall armour losses where so low given the lethality of the AT weapons against them. It became a case of conventional, head on assaults on villages with every attempt made to minimise presenting the flanks of armour. In war many weapons achieve their aim by forcing the enemy to use tactics he would prefer no tot use. The effect of ‘90s Russian AT weapons on Israeli armour is a classic of this. In order to counter tandem HEAT warheads you need mass… not just steel these days of course… but even using the latest techniques and materials you still need mass to stop tandem HEAT rounds. Thus APCs in any form and tank sides are very vulnerable to such warheads. All interesting stuff, All the best, Kip.

Damian90, hi, Thanks for that but I am very familiar with the figures… always good to have someone post them though… Paul Lakowsky’s write up for Steel Beasts I agree is great.. Tankers Net is best source but no doubt you frequent that too… all interesting stuff.. Do remember that things change when tandem warheads are used in all sorts of strange ways with the use of layered armour.. I remember the launch of the AT14 in ’96 and the Russian head of the design bureau saying in effect that western manufacturers greatly over play the difficulty of producing high quality HEAT warheads… quote “ if you can read equation you can build them” … Of course the guy was showing off but that does not mean he was wrong… . The Russians changed over the modernised/tandem warheads for their ATGMs and shoulder launched RPGs around 1990… give or take for each model. They do the job very nicely against the side of an M1. For the fate of M1s on a real battlefield, i.e. with real opposition.. the fate of the most powerful German tank battalion of the time in its breakthrough attempt at the Korsun Pocket is a very sobering lesson. The newly reequipped Panther tank battalion of Gross Deutschland was decimated over two days when trying to force its way through village Russia as a result of the fire from interlocking villages and such. Be it M1s, Challengers, Leopard IIA6s… whatever… all very different against ‘90s warheads when compared to ‘70s warheads. The Israelis found the same in ’06. They could not force through armoured spearheads for if the tried they were destroyed by fire form the flanks. Thus they had to grind forward in something nearer and flat, frontal attack fighting for every village slowly and methodically. Thus it proved too costly…. so they throw the towel in and went home. For CMX2 so far Charles has not released the figures as in CMX1. But in all tests I have done the armour penetration figures seem fine. The glory of CM is that one can simulate all this and watch it happen… so as long as you think Charles figures reasonable… which I do… there is no need to guess… just watch it happen… . All interesting stuff and fun too.. All the best, Kip.

Hi, As no NATO armour as ever been up against contemporary Soviet/enemy armour or anti-armour weapons it would not surprise me. Even more importantly the enemies Abrams have been up against were all of shockingly low quality in terms of there man power and training. No Abrams has faced late ‘90s Russian anti-tank weapons or tanks ammunition. If they did as you can see from CMSF there would soon be many a knocked out Abrams, or many or NATO tank littering the battlefield. Remember all late ‘90s Russian infantry anti-armour and tank ammunition can penetrate with ease any NATO tank through its side armour even at a 45 degree strike angel at huge ranges. In real world battlefields without the edges CM battlefields have NATO losses would be huge. This is also true when you setup battles, on very wide maps, in CMBB and simulate realistic battles between Panthers and the lowly Soviet 76.2mm M’42 field guns. The Panthers get slaughtered as they did in real life or… they have to slow their attack to a crawl and often just abandon the assault. . It is very important to build wide maps, with objectives in the centre for attacking NATO forces if you want to simulate the full lethality of real battlefields. Be it in CMSF or CMBB . Both the wars against Iraqi were the modern equivalent of the British wars against the Sudan in the late 1800s. Very good news if you are American or British. All interesting stuff, All the best, Kip. PS Look at what happened to the Israelis in ’06 against a lightly armed militia… imagine the out come against a properly trained military with the same generation of late ‘90s Russian weapons.

Hi, I am a very cautious, very careful commander who believes every digital life matters… also very slow. I run out of time in almost all scenarios… hence I tend to go into the editor just whack on more time to a game before I even play it. I normally need twice the time allowed by the designer. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, We all have a personal take… for me the tactical realism of CM… within the limits of what is possible.. has always been the main selling point of the series and why it is the only game on my PC. However… I still enjoy the full Band of Brothers movie action of 1 : 1 so am comfortable with all I have seen… 1 : 1 is cool…. All the best, Kip. PS.. seriously… I think they have the right balance been showing the gory bits and movie realism…

Hi, Great video of the range of kit… All the best, Kip.

Hi, From Steve... "We've said all along that CMx2 was designed for parallel and outside development. We weren't joking" That is news to me and great news… why… because it means we will see even more CMX2 titles over coming years… Could not be better… ! All the best, Kip. PS. I for sure will buy the Afghan version...

Hi, Good luck with the project… . I have long been an advocate of combining CM with an operational style game. the Normandy based CMMC of eight odd years ago was the best wargaming I have come across. CM is wasted just being used for one off game/scenarios or even machine driven/pre-scripted campaigns… good as both are. BTW… there is no reason why NATO should lose in Afghanistan. Casualty rates are easily low enough to be indefinitely sustainable. No matter how appallingly tragic for the individual and their families and friends. Militaries are there too fight… we have militaries to fight in wars. The goal in Afghanistan should simply be to be one of the players… one of the tribes if you wish.. who’s aim is to prevent a takeover by a group who would be violently hostile, that is launch terrorist attacks.. against the west. I can see small number for Brits and Yanks being there for decades. It’s what we have militaries for and it is what most who join the military join for. As long as the long term numbers are low and tours therefore not too frequent NATO could be there indefinitely. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Yes… I agree with all others here… Thanks for all the great work over the years… added a lot… ! All the best for the future.. Kip.

Hi, Absolutely…. Could not agree more. Lobbied for years… truly years for a Fulda Gap CM but for some reason that eludes me the powers that be at Battlefront… do not agree… and they are the ones who count… . Contemporary is fun… glad to have it… but Cold War is more fun.. . All very good fun, lots of fun CM settings to come even without Cold War.. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Great info…. However in similar tests in the early ‘90s the same result… not surprisingly… was discovered. The results were published in Jane’s Defence Weekly in about ’92… BTW.. do not forget about the Russian Active, Hard Kill defensive aids. Defence Update… the Israelis Jane’s…. believes the Russian Arena hard kill system would have “devastated” the ‘90s generation of NATO ATGMs. Others now have the same, 15 years later… The Soviets built up what I think of as the “corporate knowledge” in these matters and have held on to it… All very interesting stuff, All the best, Kip.