kipanderson

Hi, The God or Borg or Single Controlling Mind issue will not be solved by any one feature alone but by a mixture of features. Equally when there is in fact just one controlling mind, one player on each side, there will always be limits to the extent to which the God effect can be reduced. Ultimately “if” there is just one controlling mind on each side those players will know all or the great majority of what each one of their units knows. If there is a single controlling mind…. there is a single controlling mind full stop. However all is not lost. The replacement of Absolute Spotting by Relative Spotting will make a huge difference. Imagine the classic Absolute Spotting situation in which a company of tanks is advancing over open ground and a single enemy AT gun opens up. Because the AI controlling each tank correctly regards the suppression of AT guns as a top priority in CMX1 all the tanks will both spot and target the enemy AT gun with in half a turn, with the current system. With Relative Spotting an AI controlled company of tanks in such a situation may only get two or three tanks, as opposed to ten plus tanks, targeted on the enemy AT gun in the first 30 seconds. Also consider the speed with which such crisis play out from the tanks point of view. The fact that the time to get, say four tanks targeting the AT gun… is doubled will often lead to twice the tank casualties. In open terrain, desert, steppe whatever, Relative Spotting will greatly act to the advantage of the defender even with all its limitations due to the speed with which these incidents play out. The human player controlling the tanks will still be able to direct all of his company to fire Area Fire at the AT gun but this is a lot slower than the tanks by themselves spotting and targeting the AT gun as is currently the case. But there is more. Remember we have Co-Op play to look forward to. Each side being controlled by two to six players or more. Imagine an example where a combined arms team of infantry and tanks advance over open terrain when unexpectedly an enemy AT gun opens fire from the flanks. Currently all the friendly infantry and tanks would spot and then target the AT gun if even one friendly infantry squad spotted the AT gun, a very likely outcome. Now imagine a situation in which the advancing force is commanded by half a dozen players. Each player only able to spot what the units he personally commands can spot. So if you command a platoon of infantry you can only spot enemy units individually spotted by units in your platoon Also remember we have Relative Spotting in this new situation. If a combined arms team of infantry and tanks were advancing over the open and an enemy AT gun opened fire from the flanks in the first 30 seconds it may be that only a couple of infantry squads spot the enemy AT gun and therefore target it. Very different from the present situation of the entire attacking force spotting the AT gun if just one of your friendly units sees the AT gun. The players controlling the tanks may note even know from which flank the AT has opened fire, they just see some of their tanks seemly randomly destroyed in the first 30 seconds. The mixture of Relative Spotting and Co-Op play could result in treble the armour casualties before the AT gun were suppressed compared with CMX1. My point being that in the situations where Absolute Spotting most distorts the outcome in CMX1 the combination of features, Relative Spotting and Co-Op play, will act together to cause the chaos we so crave. The only true way to overcome the problem of the Single Controlling Mind will be to have more than one controlling mind on each side, when you can gather together groups of CM chums. My guess is that teams will soon form. All good fun , All the best, Kip.

Hi, As CMSF is so close now, three to four months, it seems reasonable to ask what the conclusion has been to some of the requests made over the last years for CMX2. One such request was that some attention be given to the uber nature of wire and mines in CMX1. Of course CMX1 was designed to run on P200 machines and to model twenty minute battles between companies. The mines and wire in CMX1 did the job very well when one thinks of these limitations. However for longer battles and my much loved operations , there were problems. An example is that units could not follow in tank tracks if a tank made it through a minefield. There was also a general problem of a lack of means to clear obstacles. Question is has this changed for CMX2? Can units follow in tank tracks? Are there more means of clearing obstacles? I would be surprised if these matters have not been discussed and either made it in or failed to make the cut. Some months ago I remember Steve saying these changes may make it in. Hoping Steve will let us know . All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Yes… I had forgotten that one can have attackers in trenches but when building games I miss the ability to have both units fully dug in with foxholes and such. Which would be the way many battles, in fact probably most battles at this scale, will have started in the real world. Always one for self made operations, hence my ranting about the ability to edit saved games , I particularly miss the feature when building longer games and games for inclusion in operations. Where realism matters most. But of course realism always matters. All the best, Kip.

flamingknives, thanks for the heads up on this . All the best, Kip.

Hi, The lack of response from Steve no doubt means “no… you will not be able to edit saved games” . However… always the optimist with CM I still hope it is a feature that will turn up at some stage in the life of CMX2. It is the single feature most helpful to those wishing to do more with CM than just fight head to head battles. Huge fun that such battles are, CM is such a high quality simulation it seems a waste not to attempt to build round it equally high quality operational games from regiment v regiment to corps v army scale. But to do this the umpires need just a little help to lessen their workload or they get swamped. CMMC1 was the proof that it is a worthwhile endeavour. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, This is a more straight forward one than my request for the ability to edit saved games. In CMX1 we cannot use fortifications such as trenches, nor more generally have troops dug in, as the attacker. Given that in the real world many battles will have taken place with both sides starting from foxholes and trenches this is unrealistic. No doubt a small price you pay for CMX1 being a first generation game of its type. In CMX2 will we be able to start a game with both sides in foxholes and trenches? Hoping we can… All good fun , All the best, Kip. [ February 11, 2006, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: kipanderson ]

More on editable saved games. Hi, If I could just start with the concerns relating to actually editing a saved game and cheating and such. These are very valid concerns but of course, I have assumed that the designer of any game could password protect it and so only those authorised to could edit it. Michael I think the only way for me to answer your question is to briefly, well as briefly as possible , describe the outlines of how these large Command Post Exercise/CMMC/operational games work. Much of it you will have guessed anyway…. but here goes. You start with a chunk of topographic map, say 1:50,000, of the Ukraine… 60km by 60km will do very nicely. On the map you plot and move mainly battalion combat teams but also some smaller units. You have a Soviet army of roughly six divisions against a German corps of three divisions both with all supporting artillery, engineers and such. On each side you have teams of around thirty players. Army and corps commanders, divisional commanders and then battalion combat team commanders. The battalion combat team commanders fight the actual CMBB battles, the contact battles. The German corps and Soviet army commanders issue orders to their divisional commanders who then issue orders to the battalion combat team commanders. The battalion combat team commanders then write up orders for their battalions but send these orders to the game umpires. Discussion within each side is by forum. The umpires read all the orders from both sides and move the battalions combat teams in accordance on the topographical map. Often the orders will result in contact battles, one side attacking an enemy held village, combats teams from each side moving as a result of their respective orders and then bumping into each other…. and so on. When there is a battle the umpires build the CM games, protect them with passwords, and send them off to the respective players/battalion combat team commanders from each side. When the players have finished the battle they save it and send it back to the umpires. Now… this is when the ability to edit saved games would help so much. It will normally be the case that the engagement does not have a clean ending, as in the real world. That one side has simply retreated one or two km or that the attacker reinforces for another attack on the same objective. Currently it is not possible to edit saved games so the umpires have to build each battle again from scratch. If saved games could be edited the umpires could reinforce according to the new orders, tweak the map by adding a section, i.e. effectively “move the battle” over the topographical map to a slightly different centre point, and send the new battle off to the required players. The above may not sound like much given all the other features that would help, but believe me; I know form experience and the ability to edit saved games would help hugely. It would make possible what is near impossible now due to work load. It need not be in such vast operations as described above but also in smaller division v division sized games. With others I have built and umpired a few of these over gaming weekends when groups of us get together for “weekends of mass slaughter” and play out an operation in a series of face to face games . There are many features that would help, if one lists them all you would end with a larger version of CMC. The importance of the ability to edit saved games is that it would give CMX2 players the flexibility to build their own operations with the current title on any thing from the corps v army scale down to regiment v regiment. It is in many ways a “tipping point” or “tipping feature” in making such games possible. Without such a feature the time required from umpires is often overwhelming and kills the enterprise. All good fun , All the best, Kip. [ February 09, 2006, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: kipanderson ]

Hi, I am one of the lucky ones who find all the announced features for CMX2 exactly what I hoped for . But no need for me to advertise CMX2 here… . However… I want more there is one feature I am particularly after to allow CMX2 to be used to its full potential. The ability to fully edit Saved Games. This one matters, a lot… . CMX1, let alone CMX2, modelled the contact battles themselves to a standard not seen before or since. No other game out there comes even close to CMX1, six years after it first appeared. This in turn quickly led to some wishing to use CM to play full operational games modelled in turn on the way the military handle Command Post Exercises but with CM used in place of dice to decide the outcome of contact battles. CMMC1 was a huge success, way more successful than I though it would be. But the undoubted success of CMMC1 was only possible due to the willingness of the umpires to put in unsustainable numbers of hours. The excitement of CM drove the umpires on and all ended happily. However, when CMMC2 came along the hours required from umpires proved too much and things foundered, in part anyway. The single feature that would do most to reduce the number of hours required from umpires in fully modelled Command Post Exercise/operational games is the ability to fully edit Saved Games There are many features that would help, but the single most important is the ability to edit Saved games. In many ways this is the “tipping point” that would make large operational games possible where they are not possible currently with CMX1 due to the workload on umpires. CM is so good, so high in the quality of its simulation, that it is a shame the workload is so heavy, too heavy, to use CM for large scale operational games. Being able to fully edit Saved games would make doable, what is not doable currently with CM. All good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. CMC looks like a great game but will not address the problem. We need the flexibility to build our own operational games with the latest title, in our own way. The ability to edit Saved games would allow this. In my very prejudiced view .

Steve, All sounds great to me. “The new AI allows for pretty powerful AI "hints". These are things that the designer puts down on the map and instructs the AI how to go about using them.” This is particularly good news. BTW one of the problems with the otherwise great AI in CMX1 was that it tries to do too much, in my view . It tries to be too cunning and reactive in defense, to give one example. The AI ambushed very successfully but often over reacted by rushing troops to fill gaps in the line but ending by simply rushing defending troops onto the guns of the attacker. A very difficult judgment to make but better the AI does less… well, than does too much moderately. Greatly looking forward to CMSF, All the best, Kip.

Hi, I have used mods for CMBB, in fact some years ago I went through a phase of being a heavy user. However, one of the problems is that I like “all” the textures in a game to have something of the same feel to them, to look as though they shipped together. For example, to have the same saturation. This has rather limited my long-term use of mods to ones such as uniform mods where all in a game can be done to the same standard. When it comes to CMX2/CMSF I am very much hoping that the increase in the quality of the graphics plus the fewer units modelled in each title or module will mean there is no need for mods. An example would be in some future Eastern Front game where the shipped AFVs would be fully weathered “out of the box”. Look very like the best 1/35 models as shipped. There will always be those who wish for a particular camo scheme or look but for me I expect to use mods a lot less in CMX2 because the shipped units are far more likely to be fully weathered as sold. Greatly looking forward to CMX2 in all its forms , All the best, Kip.

Hi, No point me ranting on about the subject, for contemporary urban warfare “how to” try the link below, http://www.defense-update.com/ It is issue 1/2006 you are after. Outstanding site. All the best, Kip. PS. BTW this site is outstanding on all contemporary warfare technology.

Hi, Just a quick follow up. What it all depends on is the assumptions regarding the hostility of the Syrians. I have followed these things as long as any and have seen no sign that the Syrians would be anything other than extremely hostile with no welcome from any section of the Syrian population. If the above were the case then even an occupying force of 500,000 would be on a hiding to nothing. It would only be matters of how long until the US were driven out, not if it were driven out. This is why I think there is no chance of the US invading Syria… or any other hostile nation of any size with the US standing army. (All very good fun anyway… but no more realistic than my wish for a Cold War based high-intensity game … but I must not be a bad looser ) Looking forward to CMSF… All the best, Kip.

Hi, When it comes to AT weapons is it important to understand that we are talking a general leap in Syria’s case, when compared to Iraq. The standard Russian infantry AT weapons warhead since the early ‘90s has been that used on the RPG 27 and 29, also available on the RPG7 rocket launcher as the PG-7VR . It is a 105mm tandem warhead. Penetration behind ERA (Explosive Reactive Armour) is 650mm. BTW it really is 650mm behind ERA as the published results of tests on Russia’s own tanks are available . When it comes to the M1, one of these warheads penetrated both sides of the hull knocking out the tank and injuring the loader leaving a thin “knitting needle” like hole through both sides. Penetration through the front covered arc is not needed with AT weapons, would be nice, but is not needed. This was also the case in WWII. The humble Soviet 76.2mmModel ’42 gun could easily stop Panthers, assuming the gunners were a lot braver than I am … by waiting for the tanks to come close to parallel with the front line and then whacking them in the side. It could penetrate the side armour of a Panther at 1,000m and a strike angle of 45 degrees. I can give real world examples of this happening to Panther battalions. Now consider Russian ATGMs such as the Kornet with its 1,200mm of penetration. Then imagine “village Syria” with open-ish scrub/fields/desert between small villages and hamlets. Imagine a US column advancing into such terrain, on a search and destroy mission/clearing one of the hamlets. Then realise that the Kornet has a 4km range…. the supporting US AFVs would be hugely vulnerable to being picked off by ATGMs through their side armour from neighbouring hamlets and plantations. Now consider the situation in Iraq….. militarily, forget the politics that is not for this forum. The population of Iraq is 25 million, the occupying US force around 150,000. US losses are running at close to 1,000 KIA a year. If you go back to the situation in Afghanistan twenty odd years ago you will find the population of Afghanistan was 23 million, the occupying Soviet force was 105,000 strong, unrecoverable combat losses were 1,400 a year. Given the hugely better medical backup in Iraq today compared to Afghanistan in the ‘80s losses are very similar. Now consider that the Russians are not regarding Iraq as “payback time” for Afghanistan and supplying the insurgence in Iraq with even ‘90s AT weapons. (The RPG 27/29/PG-7VR used on the M1 was believed to have been stolen from Syria..) Imagine how US losses would escalate if the insurgence did have ‘90s AT weapons. US AFVs of all sorts would be picked off almost at will. This is all against a background in which more than 90% of Iraqis are at least acquiescent to US forces. This would not the case in Syria. What is often forgotten is just how low quality the Iraqi forces were, in training, manpower and equipment and above all motivation. It still remains to be seen whether the US will be driven from Iraq and suffer a strategic loss… is finely balanced and could still go either way. Anthony Cordesman himself (the David Glanz of the second war on Iraq ) believes it is still no better then 50/50. Not only do people tend to forget just how bad at war fighting of any sort the Iraqis are but they also tend to overlook the small size of US forces. The size of any force invading Syria would have to be at least 250,000, twice that which invaded Iraq. Why… because otherwise the battalion size, and under, groups of US forces would too often find themselves isolated and without any hope of ground contact with other US units. The occupying force would probably have to be twice that size, 500,000, just in order that it could “protect” itself. In short we are talking Vietnam. With the current size of US standing forces the “hostile” invasion of any semi-developed Arab country is probably a non-starter. The US public, and no doubt the British public, have been conditioned by the repeated low quality of both the Iraq manpower and equipment to believe this is the “norm” in the Arab world. By Iraq’s lack of a will to fight. After Vietnam there was a period when all seemed to assume that US enemies would be as determined as the Vietnamese were. Now all seem to assume that US opponents will always be of as low quality and acquiescent as the Iraqis. An opponent with a population of over 17 million and a genuine hostility for the invader, the terrain Syria has, plus a spread of ‘90s AT weapons would be uncontrollable by a standing army the size of the US professional army. Strangely I think even Steve seems to overlook just how challenging a hostile invasion of any semi-developed nation would be. It is not taking a given location that would be the problem, although that would be far bloodier than in Iraq. It is controlling the country after the invasion. We are talking Vietnam in a Middle-Eastern setting. Should be fun . All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, With the foreign policy decisions of the Bush administration behind us CMSF clearly does have mass market appeal, especially in the US. I think this is a very good thing, the more money BFC make the better. CMSF will no doubt be marketed as the most realistic and accurate simulation of the type of fighting we have seen in recent years in the Middle East and may see in future. As such it is bound to sell well. BFC have also done this without in anyway threatening or damaging the heart, the core features that made previous CM games so great. In my view. One of the keys to the success of CM has been its scale and scope, as with Squad Leader. This remains unchanged, with just the slightest tweak downwards in scale but nothing that really changes things. Perfect. ( However, a word of warning, tweak downwards in scale any further, and in my view, you will kill CM… it will just be another “shooter”… scale, like much else, is a very finely balanced matter.) When it comes to going Real Time, if the hardware can handle it and we still have the option of WEGO then why not? Best of both worlds. I look forward to having a go at both RT and the usual WEGO. When playing by myself I will often us RT and just pause when I wish, in head-to-head I am likely to stick to WEGO. (My only reservation is the extent to which the AI may take a hit with RT. “Commonsense”, not the best of reasons I admit, tells me the AI may struggle with RT… but time will tell.) Contemporary First World v Semi-Third World is not my favourite setting… but fun all the same . Importantly BFC want a change from WWII, so once again it is a very good thing that they have that break from WWII. With all the changes so far announced it really does seem to be a case of “being for the best, in the best of all possible worlds”. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, This may have been mentioned previously but when it comes to the 7.62mm v 5.56mm discussions it is worth remembering that Finland never deserted the heavier bullet. The reasoning being that in their heavily forested environment the heavier bullet is less easily deflected by light undergrowth. One would think that with the forests, thus all the very close quarter combat, one would expect that the smaller bullets, and more ammo, would have advantages but the Fins were never sold on the 5.56mm bullet. The heavier, slower bullet does a better job in their view. The last of the hold outs . All the best, Kip.

Hi, I agree with much of the sentiment in Rayak47’s post. I long lobbied for a Cold War setting for CMX2. The main reason is to get away from the same/usual set of WWII toys/kit. My favourite setting for wargames/CM is still WWII for all the usual reasons that would be supported by most on this forum. However, it would have been fun to play with an entirely different set of toys in a Cold War game. The armies and equipment were real and no more “fantasy” than the CMSF setting. You get a different set of toys in CMSF/contemporary settings, so why Cold War? Because in a Cold War game you would get First World v First World high-intensity warfare. This is what interests me, First World v First World high-intensity warfare. This is why I am such a fan of WWII wargames also. However, all of us have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that with five plus titles on the way using the CMX2 engine, few of us will be fans of “all of the titles/settings”. I am confident that there will be both a North West Europe and Eastern Front WWII title so I am a happy chap . I look forward to CMSF and regard it as a “bonus” title, it will be fun even thought First World v Developing World wargames do not really hit all o f the buttons for me. It is enough that BFC what a break from WWII and are more interested in their chosen setting than in a Cold War game. Sadly . All good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. I would have gone for “late” Cold War setting. ’80 to’85 would have been fun, truly fun toys .

Hi, in fact I never expected both winter and summer environments to be covered in a single “title” . My concern was that a change of climatic conditions from winter to summer would be “too big” even from a module to handle. Thus if an Eastern Front “title” were set in winter we may never see a summer setting for the Eastern Front with CMX2. If you follow my rantings . But no matter… I now believe there is a good chance of seeing both a summer and winter setting for the Eastern Front when both the title and modules are released. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Steve, “Perhaps some new terrain and weather effects, though not terribly likely for CM:SF (more for WWII and other games).” I have been a bit slow in understanding what is and is not likely to be covered by a Module….. one last straight question that goes to the heart of my concern. Would a jump from summer to winter, or visa versa, be too great for a Module in an Eastern Front setting? Only a six month leap forward or back in time from the setting in the original Eastern Front title so troop qualities and equipment would be near identical. However, the graphics would require an entire reworking. I ask this for the obvious reason, I greatly enjoy both winter and summer settings for Eastern Front games and if the title/initial Eastern Front game were set in summer, say, summer’43 I would be in mourning if it meant we would never see a winter Eastern Front module/game with CMX2 . One could not change everything with a module, but “never” seeing a winter setting for the Eastern Front would be a big blow . All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, As one of the loyalist of loyal sycophants I have to say I think the above is a great post, great cartoon . If truth be told a lot of people will cheer up when matters move onto WWII. My attitude is that CMSF is a “bonus” game, part of the learning curve for the games of mass slaughter in NWE and on the Eastern Front to come . Just relax and enjoy it while waiting for your first love which is WWII. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, “Urban settings are just being more accurately modeled.” Exactly… that is all I meant . From Steve’s posts it looks to me as those the biggest leap forward is in close in fighting due to the increase in control being offered. I meant no more . When it comes to the Eastern Front I would be truly shocked if there were no Eastern Front title. But life is full of surprises… no Eastern Front title for CMX2 would certainly be one of those surprises. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, “I think that an East Front game would be either Stalingrad (name recognition)”….I tend to agree…and from my own selfish point of view could just about live with the later, winter Stalingrad fighting as a setting . But would still prefer late war . Also, there are many big changes to CMX2 over CMX1 but in terms of game play CMX2 is clearly optimized for close in city and urban warfare. In terms of the quality of the simulation it looks to me as though the biggest leap forward will be in close quarters combat.( If only because CMX1, certainly without absolute spotting, simulated the slightly longer range fighting so well already.) Stalingrad would show this in a very flattering light. Time will tell. All the best, Kip.

Michael, Of course BFC will still have to do a lot of the work. The HPS games can be modded very easily, not the more complex CM games. The research can easily be done by amateurs. My guess is that it will be a mix of amateurs and more new staff from BFC. Plus maybe outsourced graphics and models. It would be fun to know what BFC has in mind. When it comes to Korsun and L’vov one reason I am fan is that mid/late war Eastern Front interests me far more than early war. Of course, Stalingrad could “just” fit a definition of mid war. That is the winter fighting could. Early war, including summer ’42, the Soviets were too amateurish for my tastes, to make a fun game. Also the toys, equipment, are more fun in the later war period. In my view. In all the years of CMBB I must have only played one or two early war games. They just do not take my imagination, “each to their own”. CMSF will be fun, I look forward to it. But as a general rule it is very much First World v First World warfare that interests me. Too great a difference in competence reduces the fun for me. Differences in style and equipment are good, but I prefer both parties to be good at what they do. Hence mid/late war Eastern Front is just the job for a guy with my prejudices . All the best, Kip.

Hi, Yes I too am curious about how the module system will work. Will BFC be using the HPS type methods of a dedicated team of amateurs to keep modules coming? Will there be just one or two modules per title or if a given title is particularly popular, such as NWE and Eastern Front, will the modules keep coming for a couple of years? BTW… Steve has already made clear that no title, Eastern Front to take an example, will ever end up with as much coverage as was the case in CMBB. But I too would like to see the more popular titles have a long run of modules. As we will have to pay for the modules I guess there is hope that this will be possible. I should add that I am very much sold on the idea of depth, a narrow focus, for each title. For example the greater detail in the graphics that a narrower focus will allow. If it is Stalingrad, it will look more like Stalingrad with the AFVs and uniforms more specific. (In fact for the Eastern Front title I would prefer Korsun or the L’vov operation as a title over Stalingrad, but each to their own .) All good fun , All the best, Kip.

Hi, “We would like there to be some way to know that a unit started out with x guys and only now has y, but we'll have to see how this can be done.” That would be perfect as I do enjoy biggish battles. Although I recognize that with CMX2 the smaller battles will also be hugely good fun, more so than with CMX1. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Steve posted, “Oh, the Strategic AI will be vastly superior” sounds good to me… and the more detailed explanation that we can scrip or pre-program the Strategic AI is just the job. That is really what is needed. All good stuff, All the best, Kip.