kipanderson

Martin, hi, I certainly agree that the presents of 1990s Russian anti-armour weapons helps hugely to even the odds. Also I will have a lot of fun using CMSF out of the box with the different victory conditions and such. But I could imagine, for fun anyway , a future scenario where the Russians did decide to supply the Syrians, their last, best friends in the Middle East, with more of their latest kit. Including the heavy stuff, thus either deterring the US or maximising the price of entry for the US. Remember the Russians have the money, second largest reserves in the world. Anyway….hoping one module will supply us with the very latest Russian toys . All good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. Lots of other good ideas from people for scenarios.

Hi, “I'd love to see a Fulda Gap module someday.” Now we are rocking and rolling . Of course the sad truth is that for many years, yes… we really are talking “years”, I was the most unhinged of advocates of a Cold War setting for CMX2 but strangely Steve said neither he nor Charles had any interest in the setting. They are very strange people . However some form of “Fulda Gap in the sand” set in 2008 or the past… would be great. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Firstly no one looks forward to CMSF more than I. CMX2 is exactly what I hoped the new CM engine would be i.e. focussed on a very similar scale and scope to that of CMX1. We all had are wish list of features for the new CM engine and CMSF has my entire list… could not be happier . However , the lack of a high-intensity warfare opponent in CMSF is a bit of a shame… if truth be told. Let me explain what I mean. For high-intensity warfare to work in a wargame there is a limit to how unbalanced the opponents can be. Otherwise once you have witnessed one massacre in the new and glorious graphics it will all become rather predictable. I can give a real life example. In Gulf War II a small force of Challenger tanks collided head on with a battle group of mainly T55s heading out of Basra. In seconds it was all over. The Iraqi force totally destroyed with not a scratch to the Brits. Now this may be fun to watch/reconstruct once but will soon become dull. What is needed is an opponent who can compete in high-intensity warfare. It need not be perfectly balanced, but there is a need for the opponents to be in the same ball-park in terms of their technology. Two possible examples would be ’73 Yom Kippur War module. Another is to give the Syrians the option of using the very latest Russian T90 tanks, BPM3s, laser guided munitions and so on…. I am not talking “fictional” AFVs but those currently produced in small numbers for the Russians themselves. (The fact that ‘90s Russian anti-tank weapons will anyway be in CMSF is by itself a huge help in making the game challenging.) None of the above means that I will not be a very heavy user of CMSF in the form it ships even without any modules. I will be . But one only has to see the great screenshots of all that heavy equipment that will ship in CMSF to realise what a terrible waste it will be not to be able to use it in a high-intensity warfare game. A module that gives more balance to high-intensity warfare than in the initial shipped version would be huge plus in terms of the longevity/replay value of CMSF. In my very prejudiced view . Greatly looking forward to CMSF regardless, All the best, Kip.

Steve, hi, thanks for getting back to me. As you say Charles must have his reasons . All good fun, all the best, Kip.

Matt, They do look great… Looking forward to CMSF… not too long now . All the best, Kip.

Hi, All looks outstanding…. the evening I get home and find CMSF is released I will immediately be downloading a copy . However… it is a shame this setting for CMX2 will be so one-sided… . I would be lying if I said anything other than that high-intensity warfare between opponents in the same “ball-park” is my first love. The Syrian kit shown in the blog was designed in the ‘60s for war against ‘70s US kit such as the M113 APCs and M60 tanks. Against that generation it would perform just fine. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, The M1132 Stryker has a mine plough, or can be fitted with one anyway. I hope they do model most of what is needed for breaching operations as they are a very large part of modern warfare. Particularly the conventional warfare which is the main focus of CMSF. The work put into modelling such features here would also help in modelling minefields/engineering in later WWII outings. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Just to update the thread and anyone who may be interested. Rune has made clear on another thread that there is hope that the engineering version of the Stryker will at some time in the future have some of its engineer features modelled. This is very good news. There is hope of breaching operations being modelled . All the best, Kip.

Rune, hi, Thanks…I am very grateful for your efforts . I know I am something of an eccentric but I feel CM is such a fine simulation it is really a form of “military history” and so is wasted simply being used for one off, or near one off, battles. Looking forward to CMSF, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Come on guys…it is a very simple straight forward question to which many will know the answer . The question is can Saved games be edited… nothing complicated there… . This may take one of two forms. Either by launching the Saved game in the editor the same way any other game could be edited…or by opening up the text file for the Saved game and digging about in there. I know Battlefront do not want to release/announce all the features now, saving some for the big launch, but editing Saved games is not a glamour feature.. other then to the weird like me . It is only me and my dog who are interested in whether Saved games can be edited. So there is no need to treat it as a state secret . Hopefully someone will take mercy on me and let me know if Saved games can be edited. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Rune, hi, I think you need to move …I would suggest Guildford in leafy Surrey here in the UK. You would love it here…. Chicago seems to have strategic advantage just a the moment . Good luck, All the best, Kip.

Hi, There has just been a new blog posted covering all the seven types of Stryker that will be modelled in CMSF. When it comes to the M1132 Engineering vehicle there is a rider added to the description “The specialized engineering capabilities of the vehicle are currently not simulated.” So I do not expect much more detail on the mine front than in CMX1. But does this mean more detailed modeling is on the list for a later module. Let’s hope so . It would be a bonus if one of the team who knows the level of current modeling, and whether there is more detail to come in later modules would break cover and post to let us all know . Sharing secrets is very therapeutic! All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Why does it matter whether Saved games can be edited in CMSF? In large part this is about what CMSF can be used for beyond its use as a battle simulation. CM is such a fine simulation, by far the world’s best wargames, that it seems a waste to use CM just for one off battles or for the rather straight forward campaigns included in CMSF. Some of us like to use CM as a tool to decide the contact battles within a far larger, high quality operational game. Along the lines of a command post exercise. This was done very successfully in some of the previous versions of CMMC, notably the second outing or France ’44 version of CMMC. This was wargaming taken to its ultimate, in my very prejudiced view . For those how do not know players take roles such as corps commander, divisional commander, corps and divisional artillery commanders and of course battalion commanders plus much more . Orders are discussed and issued using forums and email. Once the orders have been issued they are sent to the game masters/empires who build the CM games that model the contact battles based on orders/movements of the battalions. The battalion commanders then resolve any resulting contact battles using CM sending the saved end of game file back to the empires. All well and dandy but in practice the fact that Saved games cannot be edited, that game empires have to start from scratch in building every contact battle, hugely adds to the work load. This work load is already near crushing for the game empires. In fact it is so great that in practice some CMMC type games fall part as a result. The single change that would do most to make CMMC type games doable where they are not now is to be able to edit Saved games. So there it is… can Saved games be edited in CMSF? If not through the editor can one get into the text files and edit them that way? I know campaigns can be edited by getting into the text files… is this also true of the Saved battle files themselves? Thanks for your help , All the best, Kip.

Michael, Thanks for reminding me of the anti-mines convention. These things can work in the real world. There is one massively important example that is often overlooked. In WWII none of the major players used gas even though the technology was well established. So once these conventions take hold it is sometimes to the advantage of all to stick to them. However I am not sure the anti-personal mine convention has really taken hold yet because as you say many, in fact all the major players have still to accept it. But coming back to Syria a few years ago it relied a lot on mines and I guess it still would. This means that modern breaching operations, a very major part of modern warfare, should really be modelled. Added to which breaching operations would be hugely fun to play and watch unfold on your PC screen . My guess is that they are not in CMSF because there was not time. This is fare enough. But it would be a huge set back if they do not make it into a Normandy game . JaguarUSF… thanks for pointing out that “mark mines” is available as a command. This is an improvement… but I hope for more . It is the “uber” nature of mines in previous outings of CM which needs to be addressed. Hoping Battlefront will let us know what the score is on this issue. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Schrullenhaft, hi, Once again thanks for your input. You certainly do know your stuff and it helps lot. It greatly reduces the risk when buying a new system or upgrading. The “risk” being that any new system/upgrade does not work with CM. All the best, Kip.

Hi, “but what does it have to do with Syria?” Well…. as Dr. Zoidberg points out I am looking to the future, however do not forget that mines play an even bigger part in modern warfare than they did in WWII… if such a thing were possible . The Syrians go big time when it comes to mines, or they did a few years ago and I cannot believe it has changed. Any invasion of Syria would meet many a mine field so how they are modeled cannot be ignored. Having said the above let me jump to Battlefronts defense before they even defend themselves . Time will have been in very short supply for the first outing of CMX2 so I am expecting Steve or someone to post that they have not fully modeled mines in CMSF. But it would be interesting to know how they are modeled and if they are on the list for more detailed treatment in later outings of CMX2. All the best, Kip.

Hi, “Wire obstacles can spring back into place; driving a tank over them is not a guarantee that they will cease to impede the movement of infantry.” Agreed….. but the big one is that in WWII mines widely used were pressure or contact and if a tank made it through this should allow infantry and other AFVs to pass through with vastly greater safety. This is not a criticism of CMX1…it broke so much ground and set new standards… but for CMX2 it does need looking at. It matters …. once we move on to WWIII settings anyway. All the best, Kip.

Hi, CMX1 was, and remains until the release of CMSF, the worlds number one series of wargames. However it did have a few shortcomings due mainly to the fact that it had to run on a P200 and time for the developers was obviously limited. One of the imperfections was in the modelling of obstacles, mines and wire, and in how they could be cleared. Let me give an example. In CMBB if a tank makes it successfully through a minefield other AFVs and men cannot follow in the tracks. The same is true with wire. So my question is to what extent has the modelling of mines and obstacles been changed for CMSF? Are breaching operations possible? Can troops/vehicles follow in the tracks of a previously successful tank in crossing minefields? I realise that time is very limited for CMSF….so I am not holding my breath … but when we move to more high intensity warfare in Normandy I hope obstacles and engineering will get its turn in the limelight . Looking forward to CMSF, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Yes…. if a game is specifically designed for dual core I am told they fly along. But CMSF is not. However, since CMSF went into development there has been a near wholesale move to dual core by Intel. How CMSF performs on the new processors matters. Hope the news in good, All the best, Kip.

Hi, It’s a straight forward question…. Now that there has been a move to dual core processors the big question is how CMSF performs with these new processors? Does a 2.4GHz dual core processor perform as well as a 3.6GHz single core processor with CMSF? By now hopefully beta testers have tried most types of processor. Greatly looking forward to CMSF, All the best, Kip.

Schrullenhaft, hi, Thanks for all the great info…I am very grateful… all I needed to know and more . I will carefully checkout all you advise. If I remember correctly you advised me some years ago on which laptop to get and gave great advice with very happy results . BTW while I have your attention there is one other thing that puzzles me. In the last two years there has been a deluge of new Intel processor types. My question is how do the new processors compare on a classic, single core GHz scale? I am of the generation that thinks of processors for desktops in GHz such as 2.8, 3.4 and so on. With notebook processors being 2.0GHz or 2.4GHz and so on. But with notebook processors having a “useable” core speed about 50% high than the stated figure when compared to desktop processors. So a notebook processor of book speed 2.4GHz has a useable speed equal to a 3.6GHz desktop processor. But how do the dual core desktop processors compare with the old single core desktop processors speed wise? For example how does a dual core desktop processor of say 2.4GHz compare to an old style single core processor of say 3.6GHz? My only interest is in how they handle CMSF…CM being the only PC game I play. The rest is just internet browsing and Office use. Thanks for all your help, Apologies for all the questions . All the best, Kip.

Michael, “you were saying something about how easy it is to research Israeli military hardware” I am not saying anything about how easy, or difficult, it is to research any nation’s current equipment . When I used to follow these things very closely it was based on a mix of an understanding of the potential technologies that may be being used, details such as weight of an AFV and relatively rare battlefield results and test firing results. When all is put together there is a fantastic amount of knowledge out there on current kit. But ultimately it will be a matter of the assumptions being used. This will be true about the latest kit of most nations. If you take the knowledge of the guy that did the research for Steel Beasts some six years ago, add in battlefield results/test results/gossip found in many of the Jane’s journals and you are a long way down the path to making a very educated guess. All the best, Kip. PS. I feel sorry for Cornet Wales in that today’s terrorist based wars are not ideal for royals to make a career out of. Small, but more tradition wars such as the Falklands or the first Gulf War are far more doable by royals than occupation duties and terrorist wars.

Hi, I agree with both of the above posts in that playing with the latest Israeli toys would be great, plus I too would not expect Israel to fight alongside NATO for the reason given above. However…. I am a little puzzled that Battlefront seem so keen to stick to NATO countries for the modules in that I would have thought a Israeli module would sell even better than say… a British module. If there were an Israeli module it would be to use “instead of” NATO in games against Syria not alongside a NATO force. I also would be surprised if modelling the IDF took any more work than modelling the British. Given the current state of the Middle East, given last years war in the Lebanon and given the sales potential of an Israeli module I am surprised that Battlefront are not interested in modelling the IDF instead of European nations. Drop the European nations and add the Israelis and we would have more realistic scenarios to play and Battlefront better sales of modules. Win, win . All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Let me start by saying that I do not have a problem with fictional settings. For many years, five or so, I was the most ardent and persistent advocate of a NATO Central Front’70s/’80s style game. It would still be my favourite non-WWII setting. I also like the idea of having a new set of toys to play with; this is a very big attraction of a post-WWII setting for CM. Added to which with all that the US/Britain have become involved with in the Middle East over the last five years I can see the real economic/sales incentive for the CMSF setting. So a fictional setting in today’s Middle East makes sense and I am hugely looking forward to getting my hands on CMSF…. its great to have new CM to look forward to as five or six years ago… its like Christmas . However… it is a shame that there is to be no Israeli module. An Israeli module would add a layer of realism to the setting that is absent at present. As with a NATO Central Front game the new set of toys that CMSF will give us to play with, and the new setting, let alone the vast improvements in the engine all add to a great mix…. but an Israeli module would add a level of realism that is otherwise absent. And that is a shame. Israel and Syria are after all neighbours, from their respective points of view “neighbours from Hell” but neighbours all the same. Just last year they had what in part was a proxy war with very interesting outcomes. (It has long been my view that a First World army that came up against ‘90s and later Russian anti-armour weapons would find life way more difficult than most pundits predicted.) Of all the possible scenarios involving Syria a new war in part over Lebanon between Syria and Israel must be the most likely of a number of possibilities in the area. Scenarios involving Israel trying to take and then hold onto Damascus would ring true in a way other scenarios do not. Although I am from the UK…well New Zealand really , I would still prefer an Israeli module to any NATO country or US Marines. It would be biggest possible boast to the list of possible scenarios. It would add realism that is otherwise absent….. but I still look forward to CMSF even without Israelis forces . Counting the days to 27th July, All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Redwolf, hi, Thanks for your help.. Four or five years ago I trusted myself way more on this sort of stuff. But other than CM I use my PC only for internet/Word and such so am out of practice. Thanks again, All the best, Kip.