kipanderson

Hi “So far I find it easier to make two scenarios from the same map. 1 to be played from the Red side and the other from Blue.” Exactly… one reason, or my reason, is that the AI in defense works best from ambush. Not in counter attack. Set all those T72s and BMPs up behind builds and such ready to ambush M1s as they come into view. Let the defending AI do what it does best. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I agree that the depth of the editor is amazing. Dan and the others that did the graphics also deserve applause for their fantastic work . In fact when I got my hard copy on Saturday was the first time I bothered to read the manual…. and the depth of CMSF in general is stunning. There is a huge amount to this game/CMX2 engine that will emerge more and more as the layer of bugs is systematically removed by BFC. There is vocal minority that will never accept the dropping of any features that went with the change to CMX2. Also. some…quite few… just do not like the setting much… but this engine polished up to CMBB standards and then set in Normandy will have nearly all wild with delight again . Including the reviewers . In fact even as a big fan of CMSF I can’t wait for the Normandy game! All the best, Kip

Hi, Great pictures… Congratulations… All the best, Kip.

Hi, Congratulations… great little, in fact not so “little” … townscape… Could be a clip from a news-item on the TV… a credit to both yourself and the guys at BFC that did the graphics. Thanks. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Well…even I, a totally unhinged fan of CMX2 would not argue with such a review. On the face of it anyway… CMSF was sent out the door unfinished and it is the job of reviewers to keep developers “feet to the fire”. No matter how great the potential reviewers have to take a hard line when games are released as CMSF was. However, what I find quite bizarre is that any fan of CMX1 cannot see that CMX2 is a far superior wargame engine. That de-bugged CMSF will be by a wide margin the finest tactical wargame yet. Nothing else comes close . I still think of CMX1 as ultra-Squad Leader and CMX2 does the same job even better. I got my hard copy yesterday and have now been reading the manual. The depth in CMSF is awe inspiring. BFC have taken a huge knock for releasing CMSF in the state they did… but happily the future could not be brighter for lovers of tactical wargames. Syria is not everyone’s favourite setting… but very soon all but a tiny minority will see that CMX2 is a very worthy successor to CMX1. My money is on some of the reviewers going back to CMSF in a couple of months and then they will report to all that CMSF has become everything we all hoped for. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Thanks for sending the map… It really it stunning… I can only imagine the time it took to build All the best, Kip.

Hi, Great article…congratulations… All the best, Kip.

Hi, something along those lines will be fun.... I will try it. All the best, Kip.

Hi, “Wouldn't it be better if dead soldiers stayed on the list, but as red weapon icons?2 Yes…. I agree… . All the best, Kip.

Hi, Yup… I have had the same happen. Assaulted from one building to the next and my US infantry ran across the road at about ten feet . All the best, Kip.

Hi, Congratulations… great map.. I would certainly like to have it… am very grateful. kip@su76.com Thanks, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Steve posted… “but if we do it will probably coincide with having CoPlay (multiplayer team play). That's where the big bang for the buck is in terms of whacking the God aspect upside the head.” Exactly… the problem with all the other fixes to the God problem is that they tend to be very distorted, very artificial. The only real way to recreate the chaos of war or some of it anyway, is to have more people in the one game. If you had a US infantry battalion with three different company commanders each only able to see what their own troops could see perfect coordination will never happen . All the best, Kip.

Hi, “I’m really convinced that we have a gem in this game engine and the game breakers are ironed out as days go by.” Exactly…could not agree more . Do sympathize with those who seem to dislike the CMX2 engine in that their hobby has taken a big knock, but I do not “understand their dislike of the engine”. When it comes to RT which some seem to dislike so much… when playing the computer just use Pause as often as you wish, every 30 seconds it you want. When it comes to RT in live human v human play Steve has said some form of Pause/Timeout feature will be added. Anyway…each to their own . I got my hard copy of the manual today… Wow… this game has depth… once the bugs are gone and not hitting people in the face anymore they will come to notice the huge improvements in CMX2 over CMX1. All great stuff, All the best, Kip.

Steve, Sounds great to me… LOS, path finding and stuck units were the big issues for me, so I could not be happier. Because of the above issues I have been spending most of my time playing with the editor. Now I look forward to sustained mass slaughter . All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Why do people go on, and on, and on…. with negative posts and threads. We all know that CMSF was sent out the door too early. Steve does not hide the fact. I have read nothing new for the last ten days… no fault that was not known just a few days after release. CMSF is awash with bugs and unpolished TacAI, pathfinding, movement code too if you wish, and much more. But all this was known two weeks ago… and by BFC before release. Some, in fact quite a few… seem to take a delight in negative threads and posts that does them no credit. I have no doubt that in a few months CMX2 will have been polished into a wargames engine far superior to CMX1, that I was as great a fan of as any . If some do not like the underlying CMX2 engine… fine… but go away and spend your time more profitably on some other hobby. Life is too short . All the best, Kip.

flamingknives, hi, thanks for the heads-up… no I had not seen the above quoted post. Good news . All the best, Kip.

rudel.dietrich, hi, You and your chums have done a great job on the Syrians. That is for sure. I would also like to reinforce how much I enjoy CMSF. CMX2, when fully debugged, will be away better than CMX1 and exactly what I thought it would be… and what I wished for. To me CM of all types is really ultra-Squad Leader… and CMX2 is just a far more detailed simulation than CMX1 but filling the same niche perfectly . However, CMBB lasted me three years of top quality replay value until one day I could not cope with Absolute Spotting and never played CMX1 again. CMSF will not have the same replay value due to the fact that I can think of no scenarios to play other than variations on US forces attacking Syrian light infantry of some type… unless I want to what Syrian armour in a one-sided slaughter. My reason for posting is to try and persuade BFC to “breakout of the straightjacket” of modeling Syrian forces as they really are. Give us the option to model them as OPFORs with fully mature current Russian kit and CMSF gets way longer legs in terms of its replay value. After playing many a Syrian scenario as currently modeled many would migrate to trying some OPFORs/NTC type games. Watch mechanized forces clash on a more equal footing. All very good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, RT... but pause whenever needed. Maybe more than every 60 seconds in some stages of a battle. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I am hoping that as BFC “grow” the NATO options with added modules they will take mercy on us and grow the Syrian side by adding a Republican Guards option with OPFORs equipment. T90 with late ‘90s ammunition, BMP 3 and the RPG29 and AT14 already in the game and we have takeoff . I think it will happen… but then I thought there would one day be a Fulda Gap game… so what do I know . All the best, Kip.

Hi, I hope those of you who are not keen on CMX2 get what you wish for. I think CMX2 a way better engine but each “to their own”. When it comes to CMX1/CMBB the thing I would like to see, and would pay good money for, it a version that addresses the Absolute Spotting issue. This is what killed CMX1 for me. I did not notice it for many years, and then suddenly, when playing CMBB, I could not cope with the lack of realism of it anymore. A version of CMX1 with something approaching Relative Spotting I would hugely enjoy alongside CMX2 games. My view is that CMSF is currently the number one wargame. But because CMX1 was such a hugely leap in realism; however you wish to define it, and much else… CMX1 will probably go down as the number one wargame of all time…. for now anyway . All good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. Michael, it would also be far more feasible to aim at just one tweak, such as Relative Spotting, to update CMX1.

Hi, Of course the T90 is a modernised T72… no surprises there . When people slang off Russian equipment it always brings a smile to my face . To give an example. In the mid ‘90s a T72 which had been fitted with kontakt-5 reactive armour was tested by the US over its forward arc and found to be impregnable against the 120mm M1 gun firing the then model of the M829 long-rod penetrator. The T72 with K-5 armour performed exactly as the Russians had claimed it would. Equally in ’96 when the AT14 was unveiled to the public the Russian designers said it could cope with western 4th generation tanks and as the Israelis found out it can. In the mid ‘90s I had lunch with the RAF officers who headed up their team inspecting the Mig 29s the East Germans brought with them and he confirmed what the military press had been full of… that both the Mig 29, and especially its missiles, were far superior to US F16s and F15s “of the time”. Another example of Russian technology that some here may call “crap” is the Arena active defence system. Shoots down incoming ATGMs. This was demonstrated to the Germans in ’97 and… you guessed it …. worked as advertised. The Israeli version of Jane’s, Defence Update which is edited by the ex-head of the Israelis tank development program, recons Arena would have devastated the Hell Fire, TOW, Hot generations of ‘90s NATO ATGMs. So do not take my word for it. If you go back and read the defence journals from the ‘90s you will find all of the above is uncontroversial. Also, one of us on the forum, John Kettle I think his name is, will confirm that amongst US military analysts it has always been known that when you compare like with like, that is same generation equipment, Russian AFVs tend to hold their own, sometimes better western tanks. Because we are all so accustomed to seeing western armies fight Arab armies equipped with obsolete/ “monkey model” versions of Soviet kit, in the hands of very poorly trained personal, a myth has grown up that the US in particular has a huge technology advantage over all others. This is not the case. There are probably twenty nations that could produce, and often in small numbers do produce, equipment of all sorts that is very much the equal of US equipment. It is worth remembering that US designed equipment is not the worlds best in pistols, assault rifles, machine guns, mortars, towed and self-propelled artillery, tanks, APCs/IFVs and ATGMs. In each category some other nation produces what most would give the prize to as the “best”. But no matter…. US equipment is “good enough”… but so is that of other nations. RT North Dakota…. I understand your point; I know what combined arms means and what combined arms warfare is. I know I am misusing the term. I use the term only to highlight there is an alternative to only modelling the US attacking Syrian infantry of some type… or just watching Syrian AFVs slaughtered. All very good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. Defence journals such as Jane’s are also of the view that current generation Russian air-defence systems would be just as effective against current western aircraft as their AT weapons are against current western tanks. There no magic to all this, all the major player know how to do this stuff .

Hi, I think it is a very reasonable review. But of course I am one of those who think the game is great, all I could have wished for… but sent out the door too early and unfinished. I agree with KNac. Certainly amongst the reviewers who give the game the thumbs down it was mainly because of the bugs. They quite reasonably take the view the games should never be sent out the door in such a state, and if they are, should be dealt with harshly. One reason I am such a fan is probably that I know the bugs will be fixed and the TacAI and pathfinding improved so am not put off the game. I can see the stunning simulation behind the bugs. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, I have an Nvidia 6800 series card and all runs perfectly. But I certainly sympathies with those who have had the bad luck to have a card with a problem. All the best, Kip.

Hi, CMSF has the scale, scope and features I had hope for. It also has a fun setting. However the setting does have its limitations, even Steve would have to admit that . There are very few viable scenarios one can build other than ones that involve the US attacking Syrian infantry of one type or another supported by their excellent Russian AT weapons. When it comes to combined arms warfare the limitations of the Syrian armour mean you watch a one sided slaughter. The good news is that it need not be like that . If BFC were to give us the T90A tank, and the 3BM-46/48 long-rod projectile ammunition, combined arms warfare would become feasible. This is why. Modern tank guns. If you take the standard US and NATO smoothbore 120mm gun to have a muzzle energy of around 10 million joules then the Russian 125mm has around 11 million joules and the 140mm gun developed by all players in the early ‘90s, even the Swiss, has a muzzle energy of round 18 million joules. In the mid ‘90s the Swiss did a major series of tests to see what the long-term potential of the 120mm gun was. Their conclusion was that the 120mm gun, in its standard form, would never be able to penetrate more than 750mm of RHA/steel plate at 2000m. The 140mm gun, or any gun with a muzzle energy of 18 million joules, would be able to penetrate 1000mm of RHA at 2000m. The Swiss therefore conclude, and lobbied others of this need, that a new 140mm gun was needed. That NATO should field the 140mm guns. The reason is that tank armour over the forward arc was moving beyond an equivalent 750mm of RHA. This is the back ground to what follows. M1 SEP firing at a T90A. Charles is likely to have modelled the M1 firing the M829A3 projectile/round. This is the latest standard round in use by the US. It has a penetration of around 830mm of RHA at the muzzle, 800mm at 1000m and 760mm at 2000m. This is straight on, at zero degree/ninety degrees. The T90A is estimated to have armour equivalent to around 830mm on both the hull and turret front. Clearly, if the relative figures here are correct, the T90A does least have a fighting chance of some hits not penetrating. Remember that many hits in the real world, and therefore in CMSF, would not be at zero degrees/ninety degrees but would be at 30 degrees or more increasing the effectiveness of the armour. T90A firing at the M1 SEP. The T90A would be firing either the 3BM-46/48 projectile or the 3BM-42/44 projectile. Both date from the ‘90s. Penetration fro both projectiles is believed to be around 710mm at point blank, 680mm at 1000m and 650mm at 2000m. The M1 SEP has front turret armour in the 900mm-1000mm class, but both the upper an lower front hull armour are believed to be no more than 600mm in effectiveness. Clearly a strike from a Russian 3bM-46/48 or 42/44 projectile would have reasonable, sometimes even good chance of penetrating. Added to this, the T90A would be armed with the latest “M” model of 125mm ATGM for longer range combat. All those who are interested in these matters will have noticed that no side has an absolute advantage. At normal combat ranges out to 2000m either side may penetrate or often fail to penetrate the other. But we would very much have game on your hands. Combined arms warfare would be back . There are a number of qualifications. One is that I do no know what figures Charles is using, the above figures are relative. Also remember that US Javelins could kill T90As at will, and Syrian AT14s kill M1s at will. But the armour v armour battle would take on a completely different character. Would be way more evenly balanced. When you match Russian armour of the “same” generation against US/Western armour this tends to be case. With Russian armour often having had the advantage. Both the T90A and the projectiles it would use have been around since the ‘90s and are not concepts. Hoping BFC will give us the latest Russian toys, from the late ‘90s, so we can build battles with more of a OPFORs feel to them. Once again enjoy watching armour clash . All very good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Dealing with the crash and run issues some have had with dual core processors and some video cards, then more debugging ( LOS issues is an example of that). In the long run improved TacAI and path finding which takes along time, All the best, Kip.