kipanderson

Hi, Just to add….. with or without an editor I would buy the game but after about a couple of hours I would be thinking “well… what now…” if there is no editor. Real wargames do have at least a mission editor . All the best, Kip.

Martin, hi, I should start by saying that I am hugely on your side and when you said there would be really “big” WWII news you were right, this is huge news for addicts like myself. However… the mission editor is a big one. There is no way round that . I have only played about 20% of the scenarios that shipped with the CMX1 games… I spend nearly 90% of my time on the editors and the rest playing very specific games designed for me by chums such as Andreas. For a great game you need both a great shipped product and a stunningly designed scenario. There is no way round this. I am not asking for a map editor, it would nice, but I am real world about this, but a mission editor is a must have feature for any real wargame. When I get a new wargame the first thing I do is go into the editor and design what I regard as a realistic scenario for the scale and type of game. Realism is in the eye of the beholder… that is why editors matter so much. The developer’s idea of a realistic scenario, and my idea of a realistic scenario, is unlikely to be the same. Not because the developers are wrong, but because when it comes to realism in scenarios we all have different ideas. Only a minority use the editors, but they do form the heart of the community that collects around the best wargames. They give a wargame legs. My guess is that you will have known this question was coming and are as I type lobbying C1 to ship with at least a mission editor . All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, I think this is great news, it means that Theatre of War has passed a very high quality test and will no doubt be better for it. Also… I am one of those who believe there is no finite limit to the number of high quality; realistic, tactical wargames there can be at any one time. So the more the better. I for sure will be buying both ToW and all the CMX2 releases… excepting any science fiction CMX2 games . However…. I do have a concern. Each to their own when it comes to what we like to see in a wargame, and what we like to be left out. For me realism is hugely important because it is the realism that generates the fun. Any way… lets not get into a long rant on the finer points of what is meant be realism, I can do these rants if need be… but who cares. The point I am leading to is that the “inclusion” of some features can badly hit realism so killing the game. The answer is to have options to turn off features that may be popular in “shooters” but not in real “wargames”. An example is giving the virtual, digital soldiers too much freedom to use captured weapons, allow infantrymen to jump into tanks and drive off…. and so forth. I am not trying to exclude such features from ToW… but am lobbying for the option to be able to turn off the above listed type of feature. Realism does demand realistic limits on what can and cannot be done by the virtual soldiers. The freedom virtual soldiers have in “shooters” would kill ToW unless there was an option to turn some of these freedoms off. Greatly looking forward to both ToW and CMX2, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Andreas is right that we must all try not to get too over excited . However , it did also cross my mind that Moon would not hype a WWII game quite so much if it truly were not "big" news, maybe a WWII version of CMX2 as Jim suggested. We should know soon. In terms of games to really get my teeth into there here has been a very long drought. But once CMX2 is launched I realise there is hope of a welcome flood of great games. Very much looking forward to CMX2, All the best, Kip. PS. CMX2 really is the one that matters. Others produce fine games too… but CMX2 is “the” big one.

Martin, “You should check out Dropteam though - it runs on OSX as well as the new Intel Macs, and we'll be announcing a WW2 mod for it soon, too.” Now that is news … Dropteam does nothing for me due to the setting, I have no imagination… science fiction is waaay beyond my imagination… but WWII version may well be fun. Will give it a go for sure… All the best, Kip.

Jim, hi, “And if I say BIG, I mean unbelievable freaking huge news. If all goes well, we’ll spill the beans already this month. Only so much: it’s WW2.” Does sound very good, thanks for keeping us on the ball… I missed it for one. But when was this posted by Moon? Are you saying there may be an announcement this month of something big? All the best, Kip.

KwazyDog, hi, I am stunned… they look truly amazing . The 105mm tandem round is extremely effective and can do the business on near any AFV through the side armour. Could relate the devastating effect it has on M1 tanks in Iraq but will save that for another day . I hugely look forward to CMSF as if you assume, realistically in my view, that the Syrians would have good quantities of Russian ‘90s anti-armour weapons the picture is entirely different from what you saw in Iraq. Commodity item, Russian ‘90s anti-armour weapons can penetrate the side armour of M1 tanks with ease. Now imagine relatively open terrain with clusters of buildings and orchards in small hamlets set in the otherwise open landscape. The potential for flanking shots on attacking US armour is near limitless. All in all it will be fun… way more challenging than I suspect most imagine. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, "UN declares no more computer games on WWII. CMx2 will be set during the Cold War" Now we are rocking and rolling . flamingknives... Pop over to Matrix games and lobby hard for a Cold War version of Panzer Commander. It would be perfect for it. You can edit all the data. I am about to start my lobbying over at Matrix; they do not know what is coming . All the best, Kip.

Hi, I must confess to being a fan of the huge, mega CM game. We all have our addictions . I can confirm that it is possible to play near real world, Soviet Breakthrough Operations with CMBB. I have played in games with around 3,000 rounds of artillery/rocket fire support. I have watched 600 rockets fired in one barrage… the beauty of it all . (PS CMX1 handles massive artillery fire on quite ordinary machines. If you feel like using huge amounts of artillery, do not hold back.) Sadly for me, but happily for lovers of smaller games, in CMSF I believe small scenarios will be the rule. Steve has made clear that most scenarios will be back to the scale/size of the original scale of CMX1. i.e. something along the company combat team scale for the allies. However, Steve made this clear quite a time ago, maybe as much as nine months ago and a lot may have changed by now. I regard it as inevitable that CMSF will be challenging for current machines and therefore battle/map sizes limited. However as time goes on machines will become more powerful and in a couple of years I hope to be once again playing Soviet Breakthrough Operations but with CMX2 and the live team play/Co-Op play that will go with it. I have dream… All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, As it turns out Panzer Command is a very fine game. It is different from CMBB… but along with CM it is the best tactical wargame out there. In my view . On other forums, Matrix to name one, I constantly refer to CM as the greatest wargame of all time so I hope the powers that be will in return tolerate my quick plug for PzC here. If you are a fan of CM, and open-minded, then you are likely to also enjoy PzC. But each to there own . I too, of course, am near desperate for CMX2… but a few months to go on that one… will be fun though. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Yup… for those of us of a paranoid nature it is a relief to hear that things move on as usual and soon the excitement of old will be back. The aim of having narrower titles with more in-depth modelling for the specific place and time followed by modules I am greatly in favour of. It will be fun with more regular launches of CM items even if some are modules. If this does lead to a new title every year or so, with a module every six months or so, the long wait for the first release of CMX2 will have been worth it . Greatly looking forward to CMSF, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Things clearly have gone quiet…. but we unhinged fans of CM must not get paranoid about this meaning that CMX2 has hit major trouble. I think CM turning real-time for its underlying engine is a good thing; it will be fun to play real-time for the some very small scenarios in human v human and maybe against AI now and then. If we still have WEGO as an option who could complain. My only concern is that “all” the real-time wargames I have seen are of a scale and level of detail far below CMX1. Thus it is only natural that I am a little apprehensive that CMX2 may not be able to cope with battles of a size which will interest many CMX1 fans. But Battlefront will have been only too aware of this and are likely to have the problem covered. So I too must not be paranoid about the “battle-size” implications of real-time . No doubt all is well…. Hugely looking forward to a new version of CM to play, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Yup… I agree. What is needed is the ability to copy and paste from map to map and place to place on a larger map. There is no doubt that “tweaking” an existing map is hugely easier and quicker than building from scratch. I have a number of very larger maps from which I edit and tweak to form new maps in CMBB. In 10% of the time it takes to build from scratch I can entirely transform a map such that it is unrecognisable. Of course, the real High God of all mapping tools is Mapping Mission. You can build huge 20km by 20km maps and then copy and paste into the CMBB editor to tweak a given section for a given scenario you are building. Stunning . Any Mapping Mission like features that could come with CMX2 would make a huge difference. Mapping Mission also helps for my beloved operations . One can track units over genuinely operational areas and then copy and paste sections into the editor as needed for a given battle . All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, I have some sympathy with Knaust’s request to know more. The previous thread is nine months old, a long time in a games development. For me the real landmark was about a month ago when Steve announced that the editor was finished. This means that knocking out scenarios to test must be hugely easier. Battlefront must soon be reaching the stage when they have more than an informed guess as to which systems work best, which do not quite cut it and so on… Remember for many of their most devoted fans the fact that PCs can run CM well is a core requirement not just a bonus add on. What makes it more complicated is that there is now a plethora of new chips out there. Single core 64 bit, dual core 64 bit, dual core “mobile” low voltage laptop chips and the usual spilt between AMD and Intel. When Battlefront do know more it would be great to spread the word. But I appreciate that they can not do everything at once… including answering all our pleadings for more info . Looking forward to CMSF, All the best, Kip.

Steve, I agree 100% that it will be a mixture of factors coming together to create the chaos and confusion we all wish for and that real war is seemingly full to overflowing with. One you did not list, no doubt because it will only make it into the second title, is Co-Op/live team play. My guess is that the mixture of Relative Spotting and Co-Op play, with maybe four or more on each side, will combine to create a far more realistic Fog Of War effect than was possible with CMX1. In saying this I am assuming that in Co-Op play one will only be able to see/spot what the units one individually commands can see/spot. So if there are four players on your side, and you command a company, you will only be able to see/spot what units in your company can spot. “If” such a thing is possible it will be a huge help in modelling FOW realistically. BTW… when there is only one player on each side there will always be a major Borg or God effect unless you move far towards making a command game which you have repeatedly said is not going to happen. Happily . Having said all of the above by now you have no doubt have actually played some real scenarios ( given that the editor was finished a few weeks ago ) so I am guessing and you must “know” what the overall effect of the changes you listed are. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Steve, MadMinute Games http://www.madminutegames.com/ ,with their Civil War series, do something similar very successfully. One can lock the camera to stay within 100m, 200m or whatever from a given commander/unit/character on the battlefield. Equally one can also set the camera to stay within 10m or 20m height from the given character. It is a very simple but very effect way of modelling the chaos of battle. It makes the battlefield far more dangerous in that one is reacting to events rather than controlling them… or seemingly so. On a modern or WWII battlefield, when playing small games, locking the camera to within 10m height and 100m distance from a platoon commander, when combined with real-time rather than WEGO, would add a very new and exciting way to play. This one devise of restricting the travel of the camera adds hugely, and realisticly, to the chaos of war which is what we are all after. The option to restrict where the camera could move from a given unit “may” be quite a simple feature to add. If that is the case do not hold back in Bull Run it works superbly. Looking forward to CMSF, All the best, Kip. PS. For those who do not know… try Bull Run by Madminute Games http://www.madminutegames.com/ … does for the American Civil War what CMX1 did for WWII. Next to Battlefront; MadMinute are the best wargames company out there… in my very prejudice view .

Hi, Yup… 1: 1 will be fun… happily we do not command at 1: 1 only watch the action at that scale having given orders to squads and sections. The graphics cards will certainly have a hard job in CMX2, as they should. The first game in a new series was always going to demand a huge leap in system requirements. As others have said above, in a couple of years time the system requirements will look far less demanding. The close in modelling will be more detailed but remember that in the second release we will get Co-Op play. So even in big games the individual may only command a smallish force. I should add that I feel myself very lucky in that all the features announced for CMX2 where on the top of my wish list. CMX2 will be exactly the type of game I hoped it would be. But I hope someone from Battlefront will post to let us know what type of system is likely to support what size of game in CMSF. Be the news good or bad I am sure we will all cope All good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. "I'm just saying that I think you should not be concerned as long as you are still willing to play in the WEGO style." I hope you are correct… you may well be as I make no claim to really understand these things. In CMX1 one can play huge games. I have successfully played with Soviet forces of 3x infantry battalions, 1x SMG battalion, 60 T34s and over 3,000 rounds of artillery and rocket ammunition in support. All against a reinforced German infantry battalion with mines, wire AT guns and such. A breakthrough operation over a 3km by 3km map . PPS. That reminds… I hope the Ubber nature of mines and wire in CMX1 is tweaked CMX2 .

SteveP, hi, Do remember that even with the WEGO option on the underlying engine will still be real-time in CMX2. All that is happening is that every minute the real-time game pauses to take on new orders. But even with the WEGO option the turn is not calculated first as in CMX1. In CMX2 when both players have hit the Go button the real-time engine just kicks in and off it goes based on the orders given during the pause but processing as it travels through the minute to the next enforced pause. . Cpl Steiner… I agree with much of what you say but not completely. CMX1 was optimised for platoon plus v company battles…. just as CMX2 is. I would have it no other way . This is because at the heart of CM, and before it in cardboard Squad Leader, is the manoeuvre and control of individual squads. You see the battlefield from the point of view of the individual squad, machine gun, AT gun, tank and such. Only for reasons of “fun” many of us wish to play with lots of squads, machine guns, AT guns and tanks all at once… we are greedy . When Steve announced CMX2 back in the autumn my first concern was that CMX2 be optimised for the same scale and scope as CMX1… the answer from Steve was a much repeated Yes… it is optimised for the same scope and scale of battle. So the fact that CMX2 is optimised for the smaller company scale battles I regard as a very good thing. However… it is still the case that for any given level of complexity of modelling and simulation, with a given number of units, real-time is more challenging for PCs to deal with than a genuine turn based system such as CMX1. Added to this, PC processing power no longer advances at the rate it did three or more years ago. There has been a major one off jump due to dual core, as long as the program is threaded, but advances in core processing power have greatly slowed compared with some years ago. Charles will have come up with all sorts of cunning ways to lessen the hit taken by the move to real-time. Also… as I explained earlier I will enjoy the option to play CMX2 in full real-time. Added to this I imagine playing smaller games in CMSF due to the setting. But when we move on to WWII I am keeping my fingers crossed that battalion scale battles will still be possible. WWII was a true high-intensity war and as such the density of units in real WWII battles was often, mostly in my view, such that battles of a scale of one battalion in defence attacked by two battalions +, over a 2km by 2km map, makes for a more realistic and fun way to break up WWII operations than company level. But each to their own. Looking forward to CMX2 come what may, All the best, Kip.

Hi, When it comes to the difference between real-time and turn based engines you only have to look at the scale of battles to see the difference. CM and the Madminute.com Civil War games are the only PC games I play because they are only two to pass the quality threshold, in my view, so you will be more familiar with other games than I am. Having said that I do carefully follow sites such as wargamer.com http://www.wargamer.com/ in the hope of finding a new game that is up to scratch. On wargamer.com there is a clear trend for real-time games to have far smaller battlefields, levels or whatever they call them, than CM even with far higher recommended system specs. Steve has already admitted in a previous discussion that the move to a real-time underlying engine does mean that the AI will not be quite as good as it could be with a turn based system. The AI in CMX2 will still be better than in CMX1 but not as good as it could be if CMX2 were turn based. According to Steve. You only have to see the length of time it takes to process a turn in a very large game of CM to see that in real-time the system would be over matched. In very large games it can take more than a minute to calculate a one minute turn. This is not wishful thinking on my part in that I very much hope Battlefront will post to reassure me that one battalion v two battalions over 2km by 2km maps will still be possible. But having read the reviews on other real-time games I remain nervous that the maximum game size may be a lot, as opposed to just slightly, smaller than in CMX1. Time will tell… Steve and his chums should know by now as I guess they have started playing full games. All the best, Kip. PS. Anyway… as I understand it “real-time” games are in fact “turn- based” but with each turn being just a second or so… so I read somewhere

Cpl Steiner, We agree about the benefits of real-time it is “only” the potential reduction in maximum game size that is a worry to me. The basic rule is that systems struggle far more with real-time than with true turn based engines. This is why CMX1 has such huge battlefields, or can have such huge battlefields, compared to real-time games. If the hit in maximum game size is as great as I fear it maybe… better to know now. All the best, Kip.

GunzUp, “I'm old, and a hagging cough is developing.” Seeing that you have just joined the forum we do not want you leaving just yet . But… yes… I agree that a bit of news would be fun. I editor was finished a few weeks ago and so it is reasonable to guess that Steve and his chums have been going flat-out building and playing/testing real games rather than bits of code. Any news would be good. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I am not one of those with any concern about the use of a real-time engine, as opposed to a turn based system, for CMX2. Well not in terms of the game play anyway. I expect still to use the WEGO option in most games but when playing very small games, say commanding a platoon V a company against the AI, it will be fun to use real-time . It will make a change. Also, once we get Co-Op play in the second title real-time may also be refreshing when each player only commands a very small force. Once again, say each player in a team commanding a platoon. However there is still one aspect of the move to a real-time engine that may ambush me. That is the reduction in maximum size of battle that will result from the replacement of a turn based engine by a real-time engine. Over the years it has long been the accepted wisdom on this forum that one of the hits you take when moving from a turn based engine to real-time is a “massive” decrease in game size. For a given processor power this reduction may be as much as from a game of one battalion v two reinforced battalions over a 2km by 2km map with CMX1 down to one company v two companies over a 500m by 500m map. The current set of new real-time wargames, Red Orchestra http://www.redorchestragame.com/ is an example, reinforces this view. You will find the fact that armour v armour battles can occur at 800m impresses their fan base. Of course, to CM fans 800m is not very impressive. A 1,000m by 1,000m map would not be enough. The average CM map is 2km by 2km…. and often more. I am reconciled to the fact that the huge battles enjoyed with CMX1, brigades v reinforced battalions over 3km by 3km plus maps are gone for good. The greater detail of the close-in modelling and the fun of being able to play real-time in very small games compensates for this loss. Just . However, I am nervous that the move to a real-time engine will mean that even battles of a scale of one reduced battalion v two battalions over a 2km by 2km map may be impossible. No one is more of a fan of CM than I, but if such battles do become impossible the price for the move to real-time may have been too high. The problem with smaller battles than the current typical size is that you loose context. Context matters. I know the new form of operation is modelled specifically to increase context but if the end result is still just a series of company V reinforced company sized battles something will have been lost. In my very prejudiced view . I know from Steve’s posts that a few weeks ago the editor was finished and thus that real sized games are now been played and tested. Not just bits of unconnected code. I would be very keen to know what the teams experience has been with different powered systems and different sized games in CMSF. If the news is bad better to know now than ambush us with the news later . CMSF will still be by far the best of the wargames out there even with much smaller battles. But keeping my fingers crossed that the typical CMX1 game of one battalion v two battalions over 2km by 2km maps will still be possible… with latest systems anyway . Looking forward to CMSF come what may, All the best, Kip.

Hi, In CMX1 there is a stage when enemy units approach that they show up as generic, unknown units. The AFVs are modelled to look like no specific unit but are generalised, box like units. This is a shame. I always view the first play through of each turn with all graphics settings at their most realistic, scale realistic and all player aids turned off. Even in CMX1 the graphics are so good that the immersive affect it great. Like watching a version of Band of Brothers in which one can affect the outcome and issue orders… tremendous… just what wargames are all about . However… when a generic, box like enemy unit shows up the magic spell is broken and I find myself back in the real world . The request is that generic units be dropped from CMX2. Unknown enemy units showing up as the “best” guess enemy units but when selected having a “?” mark over them to indicate their unknown status. I would like to see the generic phase of identifying enemy units dropped. It is a shame to go to all that trouble to achieve as realistic and immersive graphics as possible only to be shocked back into the real world by obviously unrealistic generic units. Even in CMX1 the graphics deserve better than generic units, this will be even more the case with the improved CMX2 graphics. (But I do understand why generic units are used but the cost to the overall look of the game is too great…. in my very prejudiced view .) Hugely looking forward to CMSF, All the best, Kip.

Hi, When it comes to titles for CMX2 I am always a little embarrassed to admit just how unimaginative I am . WWII Eastern Front, North West Europe ‘44/’45, the Mediterranean and lastly the Pacific theatre would me my choices in that order. A contemporary setting such as CMSF will be fun but I really regard it as a “bonus” game. The fact that we are about to get the “bonus” game first is fine as it will give Battlefront a chance to perfect their art. The first release with any new engine will never be as good as the second. Think back to the jump between the first and second releases of CMX1. (I did lobby for a Cold War setting as a title release as my first love is high-intensity warfare between nations in the same ball-park… but it was no to be .) Looking forward to CMSF, All the best, Kip.

Peter, hi, You posted, “I am looking forward to a five player team sort of game, with three infantry platoon players, a company commander with support and artillery spotters, and a fifth player controlling an attached armour platoon.” I agree… the above is “the” way to split forces to most realistically simulate the chaos of battle. You end with armour and infantry commanders blaming each other for not taking enough risks just as you indicated . Relative Spotting plus live team play/Co-Op Play will do the job very nicely . Looking forward to it, All the best, Kip.