kipanderson

Yes, all the best, Kip.

Hi,, “Call that brand "OPFOR" and put new goodies” Exactly…. we are not going to get Fulda Gap… but many will happily make do with OPFOR games in arid terrain…. no problem All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Who doesn’t want a Fulda Gap module … but it is not going to happen. If you want modern combined arms warfare your best chance/only chance is to support the lobbying for the T90 in a module. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Now now guys….. you are letting BFC of the hook… . As of now other thing matter more, but in time we should be able to see the data used including for armour. The tradition in modern armour is to give a figure for protection against kinetic energy rounds and on for protection against HEAT rounds. With brief explanations of the effects assumed for tandem rounds and such. Or as in Steel Beasts one of the team could write document explaining the assumptions used with some of the data. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Steve, Yes… please go give us some form of timeout or pause in live play. I am very happy with RT, better than turn based, but some form of pause or timeout is needed in all but the smallest of scenarios. Thanks, All the best, Kip.

Hi, To be clear… The T80 will be the T80U…. which was introduced in 1985 …. Its scrap metal… . The tank that is needed is the T90A or Vladimir T90 introduced in 1999…. That is eight years ago so it is hardly fictional or fantasy. It has updated/second generation Kontakt-5 armour and a welded turret. Just the standard/only Russian tank of the last eight years. Then we will have current generation v current generation. All good fun, All the best, Kip. PS Please do give us a modern Russian tank . The T80 went out of production in the mid ‘90s.

John, Hi, Great that there will be new AFVs in the coming module…. however, it “has” to be the T90…. the T80 is just another ‘80s and early ‘90s tank. In CMSF we see the use of the latest/ “current” M1 tanks. If you set them up against anything other than the latest/ “current” T90s you get a very dull and predicable massacre. In terms of a combined arms game. For BFC to go to the trouble of producing new Syrian AFVs, yet for them to be the T80 from the ‘80s/ early ’90s would almost be eye watering it would be such a shame . CMSF is a great game, but as a “combined arms” simulator it has extreme limitations due to the setting. The technology exists, is in production now in Russia, which over the forward arc could make a game of it against the M1. We need the latest model T90s not more out of date ‘80s/’90s Russian armour. T80s stand no more chance against an M1SEP than T72M1Vs already in CMSF. They do not have any heavier armour. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Each to their own…but I am continually puzzled that anyone who was a fan of CMX1 is not a fan of CMX2. I was and am such a fan of CMX1 that I was one of those that wished for CMX2 to maintain the same scale and scope/feel as CMX1, for CMX2 to be a more detailed, closely modelled CMX1 and to me it is just that. (Confusingly though… even Steve seems to think it is completely different…weird ) Anyway… you have to look beneath the layer of bugs… CMSF was released prematurely for reasons Steve has explained. It has taken a huge knock from reviewers as a result. But de-bugged and with the new Hotkey/ Function key arrangement is for me just a hugely improved/better CMX1… Strangely I think many reviewers are more open minded than some of the critics here…. However they are less tolerant of the all the bugs. Polished to the standard we all expect from BFC… CMSF will be by far the best wargame out there… in my view. (The only other game in town is the Panzer Command series from Matrix… but it is several clicks behind CM and does not pretend anything else.. but taken to maturity will be fun too…) Now…where are those latest model T90s and BMP3s…. . All the best, Kip.

Hi, As I have long lobbied for, well as long as the CMSF forum has been up and running , it would be great to have the option of using the latest/current models of T90s and BMP3s. One of the assumptions I use in all my CMSF games is that there was a build up of tension over the preceding year or so and that Russia decided to support Syria with the latest kit. These days Russia has not just the technology to take on NATO, always did have that, but also the funds should they wish to in Syria or anywhere else. But there is a need for the contemporary models of T90 to the M1SEP to be used. The models currently in low rate production. Not early ‘90s T80s. Note from late ‘90s onwards the T90 uses a more advanced version of Kontakt-5 armour that is designed to deal with segmented/ more power long rod penetrators. ( Kontakt-5 is the mid-‘80s design heavy internal reactive armour.) When Republican Guards units are set to Excellent in weapons they should have the latest of all things Russian. Including the latest APFSDS long rod penetrators. The Russians have very good tungsten and DU rounds. The entire scenario is a fantasy anyway… so why not give the option of some Syrian units having the latest Russian kit. I am sure many would enjoy the OPFORs style of armour v armour/ cpmbined arms battles that would follow . All very good fun, End of lobbying… for today any;), All the best, Kip.

Hi, Just a quick word on the quality issue. Syrian Special Forces are good… by any standards. There is book, one of these relatively recent 800 page volumes that is the standard work on Arab armies and written by some guy in the CIA ( my books are in storage so forgive for not quoting the name)…. Anyway he systematically goes through all the forces of all the major Arab armies and makes clear that Syrian Special Forces are a match for any. Including Israelis Special Forces. Being Special Forces you can also think of them as the ultimate light infantry. At this sort of attack they should be a match for any and have a clear advantage over any “line” infantry…US or UK. As we cannot see the fire power figures CMSF is using for different weapons narrowing down the problem is difficult. However, just from the graphics of the firing it is clear that in Assault US forces pour out hugely more, many times more fire. Also remember in the editor we are free to set our own “quality”/experience levels. Set to the same experience levels the difference in fire while assaulting should not be as great. So far my conclusions are that 1) Syrians of all types should fire more in Assault. (Once again. if you wish to set them as low quality just give them low experience in the editor.) 2) Protection levels for trenches need to increase. 3) US infantry in Assault need to be less lethal, probably fire less. Currently US infantry inflicts “ten times” the casualties similar numbers of Syrian Special Forces do when attacking infantry in trenches. This is not an accurate reflection of reality. In my very prejudiced view . All good fun, All the best, Kip. PS I wrote a twenty page training manual on how Soviet infantry should attack over the open against German infantry using CMBB. I have watched these attacks happen, and the suppression that goes with them, dozens of times. If CMBB more or less got it right, when it comes to suppression and such, there is something odd going on with US infantry. They are too brave and too good.

Hi, Yes… I apologise… the Syrians do have Assault . I was playing all scenarios as the defender and allowing the AI to attack. This is in many ways more worrying. As thewood posted above, it means the US forces really do have true Superman coding…. very strange …. no idea what is going on. Well I do know in fact, by watching anyway. The Syrians just do not fire near as much as, not a fraction as much or as effectively as the US forces when assaulting. A Syrian Special Forces company should out-perform a standard US infantry company at this sort of attack but are hopeless in comparison. The firepower delivered by Syrians when using Assault needs to increase, that delivered by US forces decrease. For example. A Republican Guard squad should deliver similar firepower to a US squad, closer than at present anyway. Remember we can always tweak to taste in the editor. There is something odd going on…. but this particular problem really is what one must expect this short a time after release. As we cannot see the individual firepower figures for each weapon and squad we can only guess what the problem is. That is what troublesome customers like us are here for . All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Infantry attack test. Hi, I now have my full results in from three different tests. In all cases the defending force was the same, a platoon of Syrian mechanised infantry less all of their AFVs. In trenches close to a village. This force was setup in the trenches in Hide mode, being given the un-Hide command (just click Hide again..) when the attackers were about 200-250m away. I just sat back and let the AI fight it out. 1) Attacked by a company of US Stryker infantry less all their AFVs. Syrians wiped-out, 35 casualties, US suffered just 15 casualties. 2) Attacked by a company of Red mechanised infantry less all their AFVs. Syrians in trenches stopped attack dead. Attacking Red infantry suppressed and suffered huge casualties. Defenders almost no casualties. 3) Attacked by a company of Red Special Forces. Same result as 2) above. Attackers stopped dead for almost no defending casualties. There is something wrong here . Syrian Special Forces are likely to be both of higher quality man for man and in terms of their training than “line” US infantry. (No insult to US troops… this would also be true when compared to British “line” infantry . ) The problem is that Syrians do not fire when in attack, they must be using Move, Hunt, Quick…. and so on but have no version of Assault which the US were very obviously using, and the US is putting out huge firepower. When it comes to doctrine it is not credible that Syrian /Russian /Soviet infantry are not trained to put down fire/ suppressive fire as they attack. I have a Soviet Lessons Learnt document from December ’41 that talks of nothing but the need for firing when infantry attack. The final Soviet infantry company manual of WWII, November ’42, also makes clear the importance of suppressive fire when in the attack. Soviet post-war infantry will be trained to fire when in attack. They may not use the same routines and method of leap-frogging as the US, but be trained to fire when in attack they certainly will be. In time Syrian infantry need to given their own from of Assault command, maybe call it Attack, where they fire, advance, and fire and so on. Maybe not with the squad split but still fire and movement going on. One can always set the experience lower for lower quality Syrian troops. But some form of command along those lines is needed. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, “Somewhere beyond all this angst on the board is a great tactical game.” Exactly… that is what I have been saying from the start . CMX2 is all hoped for. The problem is that it was sent out the door unfinished. Steve has explained why and BFC have taken a huge knock as a result. But the future for CM and tactical wargame lovers is bright, very bright…. . All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Trenched do seem to offer very little protection. This probably still needs to be looked at. Will try more tests. All the best, Kip.

Hi, The RPG29 is a mid ‘90s weapon and it is therefore likely to have “soft launch”… or something approaching that. i.e. be able to launch from a more enclosed space than earlier weapons. This is normally done by having a very low initial launch speed, just to get it out the tube, then it quickly accelerates off. My books are currently in storage as I have just moved house so I cannot confirm… but it is fairly likely. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Looks great… congratulations… All the best, Kip.

Hi, Well I took the advise and did a Red v Red. Very different result… you guys were correct . The attacking force was easily stopped. The difference is that the US forces Assault… fire a lot while they leap-frog forward. The Syrians when they attack fire hugely less. Thus do not suppress the defenders, thus suffer more casualties. Firing while in the attack is what matters. Happy endings. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Red v Red is a good idea... will try it. All the best, Kip.

KNac, In CMSF we cannot check the firepower figures as in CMX1… so hard to tell. But BFC will be able to. Defensive fire, suppression looked less than in CMBB, more like CMBO. Anyway… should be easily checked by BFC. All the best, Kip.

Yes

Not some major crash issue, but tweaks needed. Hi, I built a training scenario to test my infantry skills. Syrian mechanised platoon, less their AFVs, in trenches defending against US Stryker company less their AFVs. Near open terrain. Frontal assault. I played the Syrians and simply un-Hid them when the US infantry were about 250m away. Result: Syrians wiped out with 35 odd casualties, US forces 16 casualties and took the trenches. In CMBB the defenders would have been able hold off the attackers until they ran out of ammunition. I know, I trained for CMBB on many such scenarios. The problem is two fold. Trenches do not offer enough protection, and probably most importantly, infantry in the open are not suppressed easily enough. When compared to CMBB. The attacking infantry manoeuvred and fired very well, great to watch. But should have more often been forced to hit the ground and been pinned. At three to one, over open ground, an infantry attack should have been stalled. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Just to add… the RPG29 and the late ‘90s RPG7 rounds use the same 105mm tandem warhead. The are extremely powerful. The same technology is used in the ‘90s rounds for the AT systems such the AT4. Hence if the scenario designer has Syrian equipment set to Good or Excellent more often than not anything and everything can penetrate all but the front of an M1. The front of a late model M1 can normally only be penetrated by the AT14…maybe AT13. All the best, Kip.

Michael, Yes… you remember correctly, I have no interest in what I would call a “company commanders game”. I like to see the battlefield from the perspective of the squad leader/AFV commander and have the option of all the micromanagement that goes with that. But because I am greedy, and think it fun, I then like to play operational scale battles in that detail . Break-Through Operations with CMBB… they do work expect for the engineer modelling which was a problem . The Mother of All Squad Leader battles. And I am in heaven! BTW… RT is fine, but I do need to be able to pause… Helge, Great to hear from you… I saw your post on the scenarios forum. We really do think alike on CMSF… like exactly the same sort of near OPFORs type games. I would be hugely interested in seeing any maps/scenarios you comes up with. Waaaay back in the mists of time you were the first to use the potential of the CMBO map editor to its full in your great series of early Normandy maps… I immediately copied your methods . All good stuff, All the best, Kip.

Hi, I second the DesertFox… stunning maps and games. I also like the OPFORs feel of them. Congratulations . All the best, Kip.

Hi, Michael Dorosh posted, “That's just it, dalem. The fanbase has been shifted from guys like us, to kids like "Angryson" (see his responses in the Uncanny Valley thread, then look at his profile). Like Steve, there's no reason to have anger, just sudden realization that the business model has changed, and so has the design philosophy. You asked why there are no more "grog" discussions on the forum. They're not the target anymore. The solo players who don't expect much from the AI and don't interact with others are the target.” That made me laugh … as Grogs go I doubt any here could equal me… including Michael. I was working out armour penetration equations twenty years ago and getting them right… I know the archives of Tank Museum better than their curator . And can do the same for any era of armour. Have a collection of over five thousand photos from the Eastern Front and hundreds of books/manuals on the subject. But no matter…. And I love the game… CMSF is all I wished for . A more detailed CMX1…perfect! However, it was released prematurely… there are too many bugs. But Steve has now been upfront about that and why it happened. It will be fixed. CMX1 will go down as the greatest series of wargames ever, because they were so ground breaking. But happily fro me… CMX2 is a far better engine. All good fun, All the best, Kip.