kipanderson

Steve, I do not worry about where the doors are ahead of time.. I just get on with it like any one else. The problem comes when I “do have to enter” a building…. run across a road to a building or some such thing…. but very often I cannot see where the doors are. I… and I am sure many people, tend to view the battlefield from camera position 3 or 4 looking down from behind my own lines. This means I often cannot spot the doors, very often in fact. I then have to stop the game just to go down with the camera to check out where the doors are. Then when I know I order my troop in.. It’s a shame because it take so long… if you don’t do that you risk your troops being slaughtered simply because the door was in an unfortunate position . If I were watching you play CMSF… fighting through some of the excellent villages that are turning up you too would have to stop the game to check where the doors are…. or get slaughtered . You have to micromanage… that is what the game is… or you will for sure get massacred . All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Steve, Yes... I am talking about 1.03 for the Bradley firing on the BMP2. About 800m...just went on and on firing HE. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Like many I have now played quite a lot of CMSF and there is a disconnect between some of the detail and the scope and scale of most battles. Most, but not all, seem keen on battles fought at the scale company v company and often near battalion v battalion. At that scale you tend to manoeuvre squads as squads… many of them at a time and of course your many AFVs. Even using pause this has to be done at some speed. However some of the detail in CMSF it more appropriate to a game where you command no more than a platoon…or less. I do not mean 1:1… which is a very good thing…. but let me give an example I have used before of what I do mean. The position of doors matters hugely because short of blast it is the only way to get in and out of houses. But before ordering your troops into a house you have to know the position of the door. If you do not and just order your troops into a building the door may turnout to be on the enemy’s side of the building. Your troops will run round the building looking for the door and get slaughtered. But looking down on the battlefield at 45 degrees from your own lines you will often not be able to spot the doors. Particularly in villages with mixed buildings. You have to spend a long-time just looking for the doors location… while not watching the battlefield . You will have got the point… this is a level of detail that does not work in battles of the scale most… but not all… wish to play. There just is not the time to identify where all the doors are before ordering your troops about. 1:1 is great… but better a system close to CMBB/CMX1 when it comes to entering and exiting buildings. This sort of thing matters… because it destroys the immersions of the game. Great game… but as a fan of CMSF I hope BFC will be realistic about the scale and scope of the game and what fits best with battles of that scale. Looking forward to many more CMX2 battles , All the best, Kip.

Hi, The only problem is that Bradley fired 25mmm HE does not kill the BMP2s… All the best, Kip

Hi, You will also find that Bradleys are using HE where they should be using APFSDS rounds against BMP2s. Clearly something in the medium canon ammunition coding. Or I guess it is anyway.. . All the best, Kip.

Hi, Kevin… Ctrl-Click on a side will change the door and window layout for that floor. It will click through a number of alternatives. You do this in 3d Preview while looking at the actual 3d map in the editor. The depth of the editor is outstanding… shocking in fact . All the best, Kip.

Hi, Life is lot easer for player and the AI/ path-finding if you put a door on every side of every building. The fact that both the human player and the AI/path finding struggle to find doors to buildings means the game flows a lot faster… and is more fun… if you place a door on every side of every building. All the best, Kip.

Yes... All the best, Kip.

Hi, OK there is solution to all this… have a door on each side of the ground floor of every building…problem solved . If you go to page 128 of the manual it explains how do this. If I have got this right… I am shocked that the editor is so powerful… it can even take away interior walls. Stunned… problem gone… All the best, Kip.

Hi, "Personally I think Israel's Spike is the only superior system out there," Exactly so . But the British would not buy it because of its origins. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Not only does the US “not” have the best equipment in the world in almost every class… the Javelin is not the best in its class… but if other developed nations bothered to spend as much in percentage of GDP they would be just as lavishly equipped. There is nothing in building military technology that a long list of countries round the world cannot do.. and do.. in small numbers. The US does not have the best in pistols, assault rifles, machine guns, motors, towed and self propelled artillery, MBT, IFVs, ATGMs…. . Just look at what nations buy when there is a genuinely “open” competition. But US equipment is good enough… which is all that matters . All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, I agree it is a stunning map and scenario in every way. All three of your scenarios that I have seen have a very realistic feel to them… I like the OPFORs atmosphere they have. Congratulations… All the best, Kip.

Hi, OK this really is very hard work . In some scenarios I can spend half my time looking for doors. In village scenarios, with some of the most realistic maps, in fact some stunning maps, where there is no particular pattern to the buildings… looking for door is a nightmare of wasted time. If I just order my troops into a house without first having identified where the door is I risk total slaughter. They may run round to the enemy side of the house to enter the door if that is the only door. What is needed is a wall system like CMBB… with most being such that we can move through but with some needing the now more detailed and fun beaching/blast command. Remember one normally sees the battlefield from only one direction. So how is one expected to identify where all the doors are when looking at the battlefield from 45 degrees form just one direction… it is non starter . Great game….love it… but doors are nightmare . A detail too far . All the best, Kip. PS. I really do try to play with minimum causalities… as realistically as possible so I have know where the doors are… the TacAI is not as bright as real squad leader remember that … you cannot rely on him to use his initiative to the same degree as real soldiers.

Hi, Will download now… looking forward to it.. Thanks, All the best, Kip.

Hi, “1) Is each U.S. rifle squad intrinsically equipped to fire 2 AT4s without "acquiring" anything from vehicle? (the icons seem to show this).” Yes… they are in the habit of just carrying them around. Just in case. “2)If your engineer squad has demo charges how precisely do you order them to use these to attack eg a nearby tank etc.” They are for breaching walls… moving through walls in buildings…you use the Blast command…I think . All the best, Kip.

Hi, BTW…. I agree that any Third World or poorer country that feels threatened by the US and NATO would do well to put its money into the most advanced shoulder launched AT and air-defence weapons it can. But Saddam’s Iraqi was nation with other priorities than preparing for war against the west. All the best, Kip.

Jason, The AT14 can do anything the Javelin can do to any tank for way less. Also the mix of AT14 and shoulder launched “dumb” weapons such as RPG29 and RPG7s with the 105mm tandem warhead may make for a cheaper and more flexible AT defence than Javelin. As stated before we live in an artificial world in which MBT defences have not been updated/modernised as they would have been in a world in which high intensity warfare between countries in the same technology ball park was deemed possible. Once the hard and soft kill systems become standard…very soon now, large numbers of cheap, dumb AT weapons such as RPG29 may make for the best solution. Time will tell… but small numbers of very expensive system would be very risky. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I am a huge fan of 1:1 and the more detailed model, with one exception… doors . Having to be careful to find the doors on behalf of ones troops is too time consuming and spoils the flow of the game, the immersion. If you do not first find or identify the doors for your troops you risk them being wiped out as they go for a door you have not spotted first… by running round a building for example, and then getting mowed down. This is all too time consuming. If troops moved through opaque walls as in CMX1, but not solid walls…these being blocked walls you have to breach… the game would speed up a lot. The system for entering and leaving building should be the same as in CMBB with some being block and having to be breached in CMX2. Particularly with RT… game should flow…. troops only being able to use doors stops this flow as you struggle to identify each door before giving your orders to move or risk mass slaughter of your troops if the door is not where you hoped it would be. Great game though, All the best, Kip.

Adam, hi, I know… what I have in mind… given the time… is a very different beast to your idea. Good luck with it. All the best, Kip.

Michael, I do not think there is any argument developing here… we are likely to end up in different games. If I have the time to play in any operational CMSF game at all. For me CMMC is the model because done well…. and that is no easy thing… it produces the best results. The most rewarding operational and tactical game. All the best, Kip.

Hi, The sort of thing I would be interested in is an operational game along the lines of CMMC. The 2nd CMMC… or first depending on if you count the training version…. that is the Normandy version with the 43rd Wessex division amongst others…was a huge success. Wargaming does not exist that is better . For a CMSF version the following elements would be necessary… in my very prejudiced view. In no particular order. 1) Use real OOB for both sides but assume that the Russians had seen the confrontation coming and decided to support their old friends with resources. Thrown some $20 billion of their $405 billion reserves at the problem over a 9-12 months period. 2) Assume Russia had supplied a large number of their current model air-defence systems that are believed by defence journals such as Jane’s to be as effective against the latest western aircraft as their AT systems are against the latest western tanks. Then assume that for political reasons the US decides not to use their aircraft much for close support so as to keep their losses down to a politically tolerable level. 3) Also assume that Russia supplied Syria with a very large number of their current/’90s AT weapons. This means that in the editor you always use Excellent as the equipment setting for the Syrians. 4) Assume the US invasion force is quite stretched, small due to over stretch caused by Iraqi. 5) Use real Syrian terrain. Model maps from high quality topographical maps of Syria. Of course, you have to decide the region of Syria the fighting will be in first . 6) You must have enough game empires/ game masters recruited to ensure the game will run with tolerable/sustainable levels of commitment from the empires and GMs. This is just a quick list… clearly there would be much else to consider in additions. Time allowing could be fun… All the best, Kip.

Hi, No doubt others have mentioned this… but do remember that hard-kill defensive systems have been available, and certainly could have been available some years ago. Because for the last fifteen years no First World nations have been squared off against each other… end of the Cold War and such… many of the upgrades that heavy armour would have undergone were put on hold. One of these is the deployment of missile defence systems that destroy incoming ATGMs. Have click round here.. http://www.defense-update.com/ As early a ’97 the Russian Arena system was demonstrated internationally and found to work as advertised. These systems are not science fiction and if the Cold War had continued would have been deployed some years ago. They would have taken the sting out of the Javelin and the AT14. BTW… you do not need the ultra expensive Javelin. As the RPG29 and its 105mm tandem warhead illustrate if you have a shoulder launched system that can penetrate the side armour of any MBT, and it has a range in the 500m class, attacking armour are anyway in a very vulnerable position. The Javelin does not achieve anything that far cheaper systems cannot do just as well. But of course, it is a very fine weapon…as is the Israelis Spike… but over priced. Set the Syrian Republican Guards units to Excellent equipment in the unit editor, give them a few Special Forces AT platoons with their AT14s, and the anti-armour defence is easily good enough at a fraction of the cost of Javelin equipped troops. All interesting stuff, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Flamingknives, “Kip, how many vehicles designed for carrying infantry in any full-scale war have been remotely capable of stopping direct-fire anti-tank weapons?” That is my point… there have not been any, JonS point accepted, because until the ‘90s no one was wealthy enough in real terms to afford them. It is all down to money…real wealth. Nations are now wealthy enough to afford them. What you see in NATO armies is legacy infantry vehicles designed in the late ‘70s or medium wheeled vehicles designed in the late’90s for war against Third World armies. The reason you do not see the US and UK with heavy infantry vehicles is exactly the same reason their tanks do not have guns in 18 million joules class but still, thirty years later… in the 10 million joules class. Note the Israelis, the Germans, the Russians and the Chinese have never kidded themselves that the future is medium weight. But that the heavy MBT is here to stay but with the electronics and defensive systems of a Stryker/FCS bolted on. The US is also coming round to that view. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Well time for a shortened rant on the history of APCs/IFVs and importantly why the type that were produced happened . As we all know first there were open-topped battlefield taxis, no more than bullet proof on a good day . Then there came the battlefield taxis of the ‘50s and ‘60s which were often, but not always, tracked and enclosed. Followed by real firepower being added with turrets fitted with medium armament. In the ‘80s we got heavier IFVs with reasonable protection against the medium armament of other IFVs. Why did we get this order of development and these types of infantry vehicles? The reason is money… which in turn is dependent on the rate of economic development. No one will ever have been in any doubt that in high-intensity warfare, i.e. war against another first or semi-first world nation, infantry vehicles with the same level of protection as MBT would be way better in every way. But until now no one could afford them… until the last twenty odd years anyway. Israel in the late ‘80s and ‘90s went over to infantry vehicles with the same level of protection as MBTs because this was now affordable and had huge and obvious advantages over lighter weight vehicles. It is worth noting that land warfare equipment in general, MBTs are an example of this, are today cheaper in real terms than in WWII. You will often find that people compare costs of tanks from WWII with today’s models by index-linking them to take account of inflation. When they do this modern MBTs turn out to be more expensive than in WWII. Or sometimes do anyway. But this is not the true cost. The true cost of anything is the highest valued alternative forgone. i.e. the percentage of GDP that a batch of say 5000 M1A2s would cost compared to the percentage of GDP a batch of 5000 Shermans in ’43 cost. Measured this, the correct way to measure the true cost, MBTs today are cheaper than they were in WWII, and getting cheaper. If the Cold War had not ended or there had been some other squaring off between developed or near developed nations over the last ten years then in the ‘90s all the major players would have moved to infantry vehicles with the same protection levels as MBTs. Not just Israel. You would also find that tanks from all the major players, in fact even the Swiss, Swedes and Koreans… would have moved to 140mm guns, or smaller guns with the energy as 140mm guns.. plus active hard kill defensive system that shoot down ATGM/RPGs and such. Sorry to be so long-winded but I thought it necessary to illustrate the point that all the current generation of infantry vehicles, and the current generation of tanks un-retro fitted with more powerful guns and hard-kill defensive systems are very much designed for war against Third World nations. By wilful neglect. I am sure the Stryker is a very fine battlefield taxis but no one will be fooling themselves that it is fit for anything other than warfare against Third World opponents. It is the equivalent of some of the kit the British produced in the ‘20s and ‘30s for war in the colonies as opposed to against other developed nations. Heavy armour, equipped with hard-kill systems, is very much the future. Not the medium systems that have been, still are in some circles… so fashionable in recent years. All good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. Have click around on this site for some latest news in armour and hard-kill systems. http://www.defense-update.com/ Lots of interesting news on armour .

Hi The Stryker is a vehicle for wars against Third World nations… colonial wars if you wish. In a high intensity war against any nation with even semi-first world military technology they would be slaughtered.. mobile coffins…as CMSF demonstrates very well . The trend is now back to heavy armour… in most nations this trend never went away. The US is thinking of abandoning the FCS for heavy armour but with the electronics, including Hard-Kill defensive systems, bolted on to the heavy platforms. There are very real and unambiguous reasons why Israel has even moved its infantry to tank based, heavy carriers. But if most of your wars ae to be Third World... then why not a Stryker force. But no one should be in any doubt about their limitations against all but very backward/poor nations. All good fun, All the best, Kip.