kipanderson

Steve, “We're making CM:SF for you guys, but the overlap with military training (not just US based, believe me!) is so blatantly obvious.” So it is farms/ranches the size of a county for each of you at BFC… All the best, Kip.

Hi, Steve wrote, “There is no Campaign Editor for CM:SF at all. Not even for us. We're going with text files, so the plan is to document how they are assembled and allow people to make their own.” This one matters..a lot.. Being a huge fan of all things operational and of mixing up operational /campaign games and live CM play the fact that we will be able to play around in the text files controlling campaigns is a big plus. All sounds great, All the best, Kip.

Steve, “Syria with Minor Back story and Fictional Subsection” Gets my vote for sure…. Just the job . I am one who would be happy to fight OPFORs games but still have problems with fictional terrain so am happy all the terrain features will be closely modeled on one real world location. The “real world” location could have been the NTC… but Syria is better… more interesting . All good fun, All the best, Kip.

birdstrike, Having just read your post it is interesting how views can differ. Realistic terrain does not bother you… it certainly does bother me . One reason is the impact terrain has on the outcome of battles. The best example of this is the Eastern Front. I am fortunate to have a large collection of topographical maps of western Russia/ Soviet Union plus a collection of well over 5,000 photos from WWII on the Eastern Front. Using both sources to build “realistic” terrain, say in the Ukraine for a Dec’43 battle, than using realistic force ratios and mix and you end up with CMBB battles that far more closely match the outcomes you read about in the histories. An example is if you give the Soviets an AT regiment of the humble M’42 76.2mm Field Gun against a combined arms battle group of Panthers. If the Soviet player uses his brain you will soon see the Panthers destroyed/stopped. But importantly the fact that the terrain has a number of characteristics that are specific to/typical of Western Soviet Union greatly affects the out come of such engagements. Having historically accurate terrain matters… a lot . Anyway… enough of my rantings… the entire Syrian campaign will of course not be historical. But for what might be realistic out comes you will still need realistic terrain. I will be getting some topographical maps of Syria. All the best, Kip. PS. Do not get me wrong… I enjoy the “toys” too… but used over real world terrain .

Steve, My vote.. not that we have democracy going here of course … is certainly for Syria with a few fictional elements thrown in. i.e. some of the latest Russian designed toys that so far have only been deployed in small numbers in Russia and a few of the big budget developing nations… India for example. By “unrealistic terrain” what I worried about was that you would abandoned Syria and use a fictional nation “with a mix of terrain features not all of which exist in Syria”. This would have badly hit the ease with which I could immerse myself in CMSF. I look forward to the settings being more time and place specific in CMX2. That goes for Syria too . The back story does not really concern me anyway… it is terrain features and the unit and OOB mix that interests me. As it happens I have just returned from a Weekend of Mass Slaughter which is when a house is taken over and devoted to beer, curry and wargames for a weekend. Interestingly John Salt put together a very fine command staff exercise/game… very like the Orders Phase in CMMC but in real-time… product having to be produced in a couple of hours with half a dozen players in different roles. The ambition is to combine such a real-time staff game with the outcome of the combats being decided by head-to- head play of CMX2. All going on simultaneously. (Not all the contact battles will be decide by live play…most will be decide by the umpires for obvious reasons..) Anyway… given the above ambition you will understand why I am keen for as much flexibility in the editor, in terms map size and such, as possible. We have done similar games before, but hope in future to take the “staff game” to a new level while maintaining the fun of some battles being resolved using CM in real time. One can use CM for much more than just one off, 30 minute shoot-ups . All very good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Another quick add on. The need for “real terrain” is close to paramount… if you can be “close to paramount” . The thought of the full horror of being expected to play over fictional terrain is sinking in and is not a very happy one. My imagination cannot make the leap. I “always” build from real terrain when do scenarios. I lack the imagination gene… have mercy on me.. a fictional landscape I cannot cope with. As others said…call Syria…. Syria… and be done with it. Use Syria as a base and add fictional elements. All the best, Kip. PS. Steve seems to be going that way anyway so I am optimistic.

Hi, Just a quick follow on.. BTW…I “realistically” think the US would find Syria a lot harder than Steve or most others seems to imagine. I will be trying for a CMMC type game with CMSF assumptions will be along the following lines.. in no particular order. 1)US can not introduce conscription/the draft for internal political reasons. Must fight the war against Syria with the standing army only. 2)The US can only put together a force of 200,000 due to commitments elsewhere. 3)Replacements will be few are far between due to the need to recruit volunteers. For campaign purposes the US gets no replacements. 4)This is not a raid, the US is hoping to “democratise” Syria, hold the country after defeating its armed forces. 5)Syria has more volunteers, from Syria itself and the Islamic world, than it knows what to do with. 6)Iran allows Syria to use it as a safe haven in which to train and equip forces. In a very short time Syria has more than one million volunteers, from all over the Islamic world, in training in Iran. 7)Russia and China have a summit at which they announce that the attack on secular Syria was unjustified and that they will support Syria with equipment and advisors. It was a step too far by the US. 8)Russia and China also announce that they are “ring fencing” the crisis over Syria and will continue to cooperate with the US over other issues on a case by case basis. This is not to be a new Cold War. But the US cannot have a blank cheque. They continue to support the war on terror…of which the invasion of Syria forms no part. Famously the US and Syrian intelligence services have cooperated in the interrogation of terror suspects. 9)The war takes a form very similar to the Vietnam War. With a mix of gorilla and conventional battles with US supply lines and support unit sunder constant attack. Iran playing the part of North Vietnam. All very good fun , All the best, Kip.

Steve, hi, BTW…I have not yet read the other posts so as to come to it fresh…. after posting this will read what others wrote… I would go for Syria Minimal Story… this is why… Syria is a real country and so is it far easier to imagine a war there than would be the case with a fictional country. A fictional country is more suited for “PC games set in a war setting” not for more serious, although still fun, real wargames or simulations. It is true that the real hard core… i.e. those like myself … could cope with just an OPFORs types game but this does not apply to most. For most my guess is “fictional” equals dumbed down RTS games. So let’s stick to a real country. The story line does not matter much because no story line will be credible for long anyway. Events will ambush you whatever the story line you go for, no matter how realistic you try to make it… so do not try too hard on the story line anyway as you are headed for a beating on that one . However… starting with a real country, Syria…, you have a base from which to work with equipment, OOB and such. All you then have to do is assume that the new Russia decides it is “payback time for Afghanistan” i.e. fully opens the war chest for Syria. Russia has not done so with other American crisis in the Middle East because Russia too is anti-Islamic fundamentalism but a conventional attack on their Number One friend, secular friend no less… in the Middle East could easily provoke them so use the Syrians to put Bush’s America “back in its box”. You could ship with the Syrians’ equipped as they are today put with even more RPG29s and Kornet ATGMs… most likely they are in the air to Syria right now anyway… then in a module add some of the latest heavy Russian/OPFORs toys. In summary…. ship with Syrians as they are realistically likely to be in late 2007 but then in a module add some latest OPFORs toys and British heavy equipment. No solution will be perfect… but way better than fully fictional country for a serous, but still fun, simulations. In my view. All the best, Kip.

Steve, “I believe in your homeland the correct term for you is nutter” I cannot deny it.. Big games in both time and size are good games . Talking of which… when modeling Soviet Breakthrough Operations in “sort of” realistic scale one of the biggest problems was the Ubber nature of obstacles in CMX1. Their indestructibility. An example is that in the case of neither mines nor wire could infantry follow in the tracks of AFVs that had passed safely through the hazards. I am hoping that slowly, title by title, engineering will develop so that by the time the Eastern Front turns up mines and wire will be less indestructible. But for now am keen to see CMSF with whatever features made the cut. Clearly lots to look forward to with CMX2, All the best, Kip.

Steve, “We'll have to see. Remember that we are highlighting Stryker units and not specifically trying to simulate breaches of heavily fortified positions. The latter often takes hours to accomplish, which puts them out of bounds of the time scale of a scenario.” Not in scenarios I build… In CMX1 you consistently underestimated what your own game could model. I know that CMX1 was built with 20-30 minute company v reinforced platoon in mind. But in fact it could handle way more realistic time scales and battle sizes. Real battles, even for smallish hamlets, often take hours. I enjoy the slow, every life counts style of play. It is way more realistic than the crash, bang 20 minute games. Therefore more fun too . In my very prejudiced view . You may choose to ship with short, sharp scenarios but I hope you will give us the flexibility to build long, I would say more realistic, scenarios in the editor. Sixty minutes I regard as a minimum for any scenario. Ninety minutes better. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Looks good to me… the more the better . All the best, Kip.

Steve, It sounds like a lot of the features I hope for will be there so cannot ask for much more. I too am keen not to delay CMSF by having a never ending list of features to be added. I look at CMX2 as a work in progress as was CMX1. New titles will add more features. Hopefully by the time an Eastern Front version appears engineering/ mine clearing will have had its time in the sun and may have been tweaked up from CMSF. The priority now is to get CMSF out with the features you decided upon so we can all get stuck in to some CM fun as of old . Thanks, All the best, Kip.

Steve, I know that engineering operations have been discussed before, many times, but as CMX2 nears completion you are in a better position to confirm what is in or out of CMSF. So… question is to what extent will it be possible to model breaching operations in CMX2? By this I mean the classic smoke coming down, plough tanks leading the way through minefields, tanks and other vehicles following in the path of the lead tanks and mine clearing tanks… and so on… you know the sort of thing… as outlined in the Field Manuals. Of course, I also hope that many of these features will be available for an Eastern Front version of CMX2 and my much loved Breakthrough Operations . Thanks , All the best, Kip.

Hi, I agree with others that it is likely the later, tandem warhead ATGMs had a far higher success rate than the overall figures, as supplied by Israel remember, suggest. I remember when the Kornet was first unveiled to the press in the latter half of the ‘90s and the chief Russian designer was asked about whether it really could destroy fourth generation western tanks. His reply was that “anyone who can read equations will know it can, the equations are know by all and advanced shaped charge/HEAT warheads are not nearly as difficult to build as some western manufactures will have you believe”. That is not to say that a Kornet could necessarily penetrate a fourth generation western tank over a narrow forward arc. But through the sides for sure. To stop ’90s designed tandem warheads you need both mass and modern designs of armour. You need a good thickness and weight of latest generation armour. This is not possible other than over the forward arc of tanks. Remember tanks now have the extra need for greater roof armour to deal with artillery bomblets, as a minimum, so limiting how much extra weight can be given over to side armour. From a game play point of view it is extremely good news that ‘90s Russian infantry AT weapons have been demonstrated to be effective against the latest armour. Remember this is also true of the more plentiful shoulder fired RPG7/RPG29 weapons with the 105mm tandem warheads. The careful coordination of small arms fire and infantry AT weapons, plus mines of various types, will be the way for the Syrians to win the scenarios. Says he… clearly not having played one yet… . Will be fun for sure , All the best, Kip.

Steve, Thanks for the update… sounds good to me… just the job. The single feature that did eventually get to me and largely kill CMX1 for me.. after many happy years of play … was Absolute Spotting. Suddenly about two years or eighteen months ago I found it too intrusive and unrealistic. Particularly in more open terrain such as desert and the Eastern Front. The new spotting would by itself have me glued to me PC when CMSF is launched. All the best, Kip.

Steve, hi, Just to confirm something you mentioned on an earlier thread but could not promise was included at the time of writing. AFVs/tanks and such will block LOF both for ordinance and small arms? In an earlier thread you said your best guess at the time of writing was that tanks would block LOF but not LOS. Thanks, Looking forward to CMSF, All the best, Kip.

Hi, When it comes to ATGMs, and HEAT AT ammunition in general, life will be far more interesting in CMSF than many would have predicted a few years ago. Not many years ago it was close to conventional wisdom that the new, advanced types of light weight armour would be able to defeat most types of HEAT warhead. It turns out that this is not the case. The view was that light-weight active armour as used on many an APC/IFV and maybe tank side armour would be able to cope with most types of HEAT warhead. It is true that the single warhead RPG7s of ‘70s design can be defeated by such new types of armour. However, the now commodity item, mid-90s, fully mature tandem warheads have proven far more troublesome than many believed they might. In order to stop warheads of the tandem type, perfected in the early ‘90s, you need bulk. You need a heavy weight of armour. It does not have to be steel alone but a mix of ceramics, glass fibre, heavy metals and steel. But all in quantities that add up to very great weight. Modern tanks with frontal armour equal in weight to 400mm of steel can withstand the most of latest tandem HEAT warheads. However, APCs/IFVs and tanks side armour cannot not. One famous such example is the clean penetration, through both sides, of a M1 in Iraq by what was believed to be a shoulder fired 105mm tandem warhead as used on most ’90s Russian infantry anti-armour weapons. Including RPG7s. Imagine the ease with which the heavier Russian tandem ATGMs would penetrate the side armour of M1s and any APC/IFV. One important consideration in CMSF will be to build realistic terrain . By this I do not only mean the correct mix of houses, orchards and such, but realistically wide battlefields on which to fight the battles. In the real world the battlefield does not suddenly end 500m either side of the small hamlet or village a US company combat team is tasked to attack. The battlefield goes on far beyond. This means that a Syrian AT team armed with a Russian Kornet ATGM some 1,500 to one flank of a village being attack by a US force may be presented with numerous, easy targets all of whom would be penetrated successfully by the Kornet . The situation may be very similar to that on the Eastern Front in ‘43/’44. The Panther cannot be penetrated by the standard Model’42 76.2mm Soviet field gun/AT gun over its forward arc. However, the same gun can penetrate the Panther’s side armour, even at a 45 degree strike angle, at great distance. Thus if you build artificially narrow battlefields in CMBB you can get the impression that Panthers were unstoppable by such Soviet field artillery. However, build more realistic, wide and often open terrain and the humble Model’42 76.2mm gun becomes lethal against the mighty Panther. Ambushed again and again with long-range shots at its sides. Build realistic Syrian terrain, including making the battlefields 2000m plus wide, and the cheap and cheerful Russian ATGMs of the mid’90s suddenly become far more deadly. Thus the games far more realistic and more balanced and fun . Whether in CMBB or CMSF wide maps and battlefields matter. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Steve, All sounds great… just the job. I hate to sound like a mindless fan… but I am Very good news to hear that once a WWII title is released modules are likely to continue after you guys move on to another subject with new titles. Thanks, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Steve posted, “In short, although we are not offering you guys as many things per Title, each thing within the Title is sooooo much more detailed. This is the depth vs. breadth strategy I've discussed before. It isn't possible (time, energy, finances, etc.) to have both.” I very much look forward to more detail. This is strange coming form me in that I am one of those least interested in graphics quality. Do not get me wrong, very high quality graphics will be fin, and if they are to be there anyway I too will appreciate them. However… having more time and place specific graphics and modeling, even if it were to have been with CMX1 graphics, will be a huge plus. By this I mean that if it is to be a Korsun Pocket Feb’44 game or module I look forward to all the graphics being consistent with each other. For example the weathering on all the AFVs and guns being consistent with each other and the time and place. As long as there is still to be a scenario editor, even if not a campaign editor, then more specific games and modules is a very good thing . One qualification, well more wish than a qualification , is that once a WWII title is produced BFC go on producing modules for it even after they have moved on to another title. The reason is that I fear quite a number of their titles will not be on my wish list. I will no doubt buy all of them to see what BFC are up to… but with titles other than WWII, and to some extent contemporary, my heart will not really be in it. Once a WWII North West Europe and then an Eastern Front game are out I will be keeping my figures crossed that there will be the odd module for both for years to come . All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Matt, “Part of my QA processes though is to stress test this game so I will see just how far it can be pushed and let you know what I find.” Thanks for getting back to me. Sounds good. I realize that real-time games will struggle more with bigger games than the old WEGO engine of CMX1. I guess this must also be true of CMX2. All the best, Kip.

Hi, As weapons data cannot be edited, only some scenario data can be, it is important that ToW ships with the correct penetration figures and ranges. To many, me included, a large part of the fun comes from “realism”. As the maps in ToW will be of the usual CM size, 2km by 2km, there is no need to compress penetration figures/ranges. If you have 2km by 2km maps the answer is to build realistic terrain and have realistic penetration figures/ranges. It need not all be open terrain in every battle. Historically the average range in WWII for tank v tanks combat was 700m-1000m, well within the map size. I realise that ToW is not meant to be CMX1 plus, but something different. That is fine, but compressed ranges are a very big hit on the realism front. If in the real world a Panther, when no more than a dot on the horizon, could destroy a Sherman than that is how it needs to be in ToW. Why? So as to present real world tactical problems. Without real world tactical problems what you have is a strategy game that happens to be in a WWII setting…. not a wargame. Looking forward to ToW , All the best, Kip.

Hi, From the screen shots I have seen it is clear that the weapons data has been compressed, OK at 100m but then the penetration one would expect at 2,000m is the figure for 500m with ToW. Equally clearly this will have to change now that Battlefront is in on the act. A 2,000m by 2,000m map is fine, even with most clear lines of site being 500m, but weapons data must be correct. However, I am relaxed about all this . Battlefront have made clear that one of their jobs is to help to make ToW a little more realistic and I am sure most of points we mention are already on their list. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Two more quick questions . 1) Will it be possible to edit the weapons data? I know a lot of text data will be editable, but will the weapons data be editable? 2) Also, an unrelated question, how many units will be there be on each side? The map area is about 2km by 2km, standard CM size, but what will the maximum be on the number of units on each side? I doubt that one will be able to push up to CM sizes with reinforced battalions as standard size games… but what do you currently envisage as the maximum size battles for ToW? Thanks, All the best, Kip.

Martin, hi, “One thing is sure - it's bound to get more realistic rather then less realistic now that we're involved ” Sounds great to me . I respect the guys at 1C for what they did in the past, flight simulators are not my thing, but I know quality when I see it. The same attention to detail in a land warfare game and the result will be stunning. But I guessed a bit of restraint on the “infantrymen jumping into tanks” front will be needed. You can have a great simulator/game and then have something happen that is so wildly unrealistic it kills the game. All the best, Kip.

Matt, “And we agree with you Kip which is why we have said that a Mission Editor of some type is something we are working on providing, but if it can be ready in time for the initial release is still up in the air.” That’s great news… I knew you guys would be on the case editor wise . Initial release is not required, if it is coming a patch that’s fine. No problem. Once people know it is on the way that does the job. If the text files can be played with that will keep the deranged like myself going. All the best, Kip.