kipanderson

Hi, “Since this is 1:1 representation, you will see smaller platoon as KIA drop. No more abstract 3 men platoon” But if one started with, say, nine squads at different strengths it is very difficult, often impossible, to tell “exactly” when casualties start to go down and in which squads. This is why at a glance there is a need to be able to spot which squads have suffered casualties in the current game. WIA and KIA in the current game need to be marked in the squad info box. In my very prejudiced view . All the best, Kip.

Steve, You posted, “Serious WIAs and KIAs are dropped out of the display of the parent unit.” My concern is this…. will we be able to see at a glance if the squad has suffered causalities in the “current game/battle”? Let me explain. You may remember that with CMX1 there was a problem with being able to spot the casualties in operations, there were suffered in any given battle. In CMX1 previously suffered casualties, from “previous battles” in an operation, are shown to the right of the + sign. This makes it very difficult to spot exactly when your units start to take casualties in a current, second or third battle, in an operation. What all this incomprehensible ranting comes down to is….. we need to be able to spot, at a glance, the casualties suffered in the “current” battle as opposed to just being able to spot the strength of a given unit. So as to be able to spot when casualties start being taken. And which units are taking them. If you follow my rantings . All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, There is no doubt that a full WWII version of TacOps would be fun. But I am not holding my breath… . All the best, Kip.

Hi, Referring to the AI in CMSF Steve posted, “The point, I think, is that from a practical standpoint the TacAI will be better and that's all that really matters.” Well… in my view the TacAI in CMX1 was the most outstanding of many outstanding features. So if it will be even better in CMX2 games all is well that ends well . Steve, Can I ask, has what I know as the Strategic AI been improved in CMX2? The TacAI, the control of the units, given their orders, during the one minute movies was outstanding, but the Strategic AI did struggle a bit . To give an example. In defense it ambushed very well, could be very deadly opening fire at the correct time for the weapons system. However… it insisted on counter attacking way too much, and generally rushing around under the guns of the attacker… in my view. Will this be better in CMX2? My view of the Strategic AI is that it should be less ambitious, stick to what it does best. i.e. in defense stick more to ambushing and positioning units in the set up. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, When playing a single player game I can imagine that RT, using the pause feature, may well end up as my preferred option. When you are playing God anyway, which you are in single player games, why not stay flexible. Tweak your orders when you feel like it, when required. For human v human or CoPlay WEGO will no doubt be the way I will “normally play”. I say "normally", because I can imagine that in very small human v human games, say two-three squads v a couple of platoons or less, RT without pauses may be fun. Also in CoPlay with each player only controlling “very few” units RT may also be fun. I was never one who was anti-RT, so as long as I can still play WEGO when I want, having RT and all the options it gives is a big plus. I am very lucky because all I hear about the CMX2 engine is just the sort of thing I wished for. The focus of development has been exactly where I hoped it would be . All the best, Kip. PS. CMSF will even ship with what I call an OPFORs trainer, Red on Red or Blue on Blue feature .

Hi, Without sounding too much like a mindless fan… which I suppose I am , it does all sounds great. I was not sure what Steve had in mind when saying that the urban, closing fighting will be greatly enhanced, but now I do understand. For those who are truly WWII nuts this must also be good news. Imagine how these changes will impact on the modelling of fighting in the hedgerows of Normandy or streets of some Soviet city or village. Stunning ! Greatly looking forward to CMSF. All the best, Kip. PS. I can also see why Steve said that most of us will wish to keep the games fairly small with new system. (But come CoPlay and huge games will be much in demand from me… there is always one .)

Steve, It all sounds good to me… but it makes me laugh . Some years ago I posted that it was inevitable that CM would go RT when the computers were powerful enough. You posted back that “CM will never go RT…” and the phrasing was very forceful . You seem to have changed your mind . But it suites me. Steve, one question. One of your reasons,in fact it was “the” reason for saying that CM would never go RT was that the AI could “never” be as powerful in a RT game. Just not enough thinking time for the computer in a complex game. You pointed out that RTS games have by our standards tiny numbers of manoeuvre units, tiny maps… and so on… Well how have you over come this… is it not still the case that RTS games tend to have far fewer units and smaller maps than we would all wish for? Do you not still take a hit in AI but just at a higher level as all PCs are now more powerful? All good fun , All the best, Kip.

Hi, Great to see WWII covered. I would like to reinforce the above comments. As a WWII platoon game TacOps has huge potential. There has been a gap in the market for platoon games for a while. In cardboard they were very popular back in the mists of time . The ability to make your own maps and play WWII games has also brought me back to the fold. How much of WWII can currently be modelled? The WWII mods seem to cover just up to late ’42… is that correct or can one model ’44 battles also? All the best, Kip.

Hi, Thanks for posting the link. All the best, Kip.

Hi, When it comes to Stalingrad… I let rip that I though it was a “bit dull”. By this I really mean the city fighting, the part most film makers would think of when it some to Stalingrad. But I am more open minded than readers my think . I have built in CMBB a very large, very accurate map of Stalingrad based directly on a series of aerial photos I came across. It was fun. But once you have fought a couple of city battles on the maps, you have done all that can be done. Of course, one of the main features of CMX2 is the way more accurate modelling of urban warfare… so I expect that such battles will be far more fun in future. But the fighting “around” Stalingrad would be more fun, in the long run, battle after battle, than the city fighting. In my view. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I am certainly a big fan of the Eastern Front. In my very prejudiced view when it comes to wargames there is the Eastern Front… and then the rest . From a military history/wargaming view point the Eastern Front is by far the most interesting… if there ever was a “war to end all wars”… the Eastern Front is it. However… when it comes to the setting for an Eastern Front game my vote would go to Korsun Pocket Feb.’44 or the L’vov Operation July ’44. Why.. because the both the Germans and the Soviets were pretty much at the top of their game. Plus late war toys/AFVs are more fun than early war toys. One example on the toy front is that by Feb. ’44, even more so by July ’44, the Germans had more powerful infantry anti-tank weapons. Adds to the fun. When it comes to the Germans being on top of their game it is the case that the German army of summer ’44 was both fully trained, manned and equipped. Some may object to this idea, think things piqued in the summer ’42 for the Germans. However, in Soviet Blitzkrieg by Walter S Dunn there is a very detailed explanation of how the German army of early summer ’44 was trained, manned and equipped, taken from the German army’s own records. The excuse sometimes put about by the some that the German army of summer ’44 was already exhausted just does not wash. The intake of November ’43 had been fully trained, manning levels were mostly at full establishment as were equipment levels. You only have to look at the German forces in Normandy to see this. Anyway…. both Korsun and L’vov would have the Germans and Soviets clashing with mobile warfare, plus positional if you wish, at the highest levels it reached in WWII. It does not get any better than that… Stalingrad was a bit dull … horrific sure… but a bit uninteresting militarily. In my view. All the best, Kip.

Hi, My oft repeated thoughts on the back-story are two fold. Firstly, I do not think it matters that much, it is all just an excuse it for a good punch-up using the very latest US units. There is really no more to it than that . Secondly, if there is to be a back-story I think it matters that one is used that has the Syrians highly motivated to fight. i.e. from their perspective being invaded by an overly aggressive and interfering US. This is so that Syrian forces in CMSF can be modelled with high morale. It is import to remember that one of the central reasons for the walkover that both Gulf War 1 and 2 against Iraq were is that 90% plus of Iraqis forces did not wish to risk their lives for Saddam. Syria with its ‘90s Russian AT weapons, and motivated to fight, would be a very different matter. In fact the 140,000 man army that invaded Iraq in Gulf War 2 would stand no chance, in my view. Nor in the real world would any western force try with much less than a 500,000-750,000 man army. An army somewhat larger than the Gulf War 1 force would be needed. Assuming the Syrians really did “not” think they were being “liberated”. Remember taking, and then holding open towns and cities, that have a will to resist, is a very numbers intensive matter in the real world. You have to be able to put an infantry squad on every street corner. As the US forces in Iraq found to their cost even with so little resistance. The backstory I will be using is that in the closing months of his presidency Bush invades Syria in order to spread democracy and secure his legacy. But anything that motivates the Syrians to resist will do the trick . All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, My oft repeated thoughts on the back-story are two fold. Firstly, I do not think it matters that much, it is all just an excuse it for a good punch-up using the very latest US units. There is really no more to it than that . Secondly, if there is to be a back-story I think it matters that one is used that has the Syrians highly motivated to fight. i.e. from their perspective being invaded by an overly aggressive and interfering US. This is so that Syrian forces in CMSF can be modelled with high morale. It is import to remember that one of the central reasons for the walkover that both Gulf War 1 and 2 against Iraq were is that 90% plus of Iraqis forces did not wish to risk their lives for Saddam. Syria with its ‘90s Russian AT weapons, and motivated to fight, would be a very different matter. In fact the 140,000 man army that invaded Iraq in Gulf War 2 would stand no chance, in my view. Nor in the real world would any western force try with much less than a 500,000-750,000 man army. An army somewhat larger than the Gulf War 1 force would be needed. Assuming the Syrians really did “not” think they were being “liberated”. Remember taking, and then holding open towns and cities, that have a will to resist, is a very numbers intensive matter in the real world. You have to be able to put an infantry squad on every street corner. As the US forces in Iraq found to their cost even with so little resistance. The backstory I will be using is that in the closing months of his presidency Bush invades Syria in order to spread democracy and secure his legacy. But anything that motivates the Syrians to resist will do the trick . All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, My oft repeated thoughts on the back-story are two fold. Firstly, I do not think it matters that much, it is all just an excuse it for a good punch-up using the very latest US units. There is really no more to it than that . Secondly, if there is to be a back-story I think it matters that one is used that has the Syrians highly motivated to fight. i.e. from their perspective being invaded by an overly aggressive and interfering US. This is so that Syrian forces in CMSF can be modelled with high morale. It is import to remember that one of the central reasons for the walkover that both Gulf War 1 and 2 against Iraq were is that 90% plus of Iraqis forces did not wish to risk their lives for Saddam. Syria with its ‘90s Russian AT weapons, and motivated to fight, would be a very different matter. In fact the 140,000 man army that invaded Iraq in Gulf War 2 would stand no chance, in my view. Nor in the real world would any western force try with much less than a 500,000-750,000 man army. An army somewhat larger than the Gulf War 1 force would be needed. Assuming the Syrians really did “not” think they were being “liberated”. Remember taking, and then holding open towns and cities, that have a will to resist, is a very numbers intensive matter in the real world. You have to be able to put an infantry squad on every street corner. As the US forces in Iraq found to their cost even with so little resistance. The backstory I will be using is that in the closing months of his presidency Bush invades Syria in order to spread democracy and secure his legacy. But anything that motivates the Syrians to resist will do the trick . All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Steve posted, “Normandy and Ardennes would have to be part of two different Modules within a common Title” great . In my original post I now realize I was using the wrong jargon, and jargon matters . My fear was that a move from Normandy to Ardennes would most likely mean two different “Titles”. If such a move can be done within a single Title by the use of a new module then I am a very happy chap. If you follow my rantings. The implication is that we are in with a very good chance of seeing both Normandy and the Ardennes over the next eighteen months or so. But no guarantees…. of course . Also, when the time comes for the Eastern Front we are in with a very good chance of seeing both summer and winter modules. Great . Thanks, All the best, Kip.

Hi, This was also the experience of the British as recorded in their “after action” report on the Second Gulf War. The report of the death of heavy armour is premature . In any “real” war, by which I mean a high-intensity war between developed or semi-developed nations, you would immediately witness heavy tanks fielded with 140mm high pressure guns and hard and soft kill defensive aids for protection against diving/over flight attack ATGMs. All the best, Kip. PS. When I describe high-intensity warfare as “real” wars this is not meant as an insult to those fighting low-intensity wars. If people are try to kill you or your chums it is all only too real.

Hi, Just to be clear, so those who are a bit slow like myself can know what we are able to look forward to . Ok… even I understand that a module might be a move from a US based Normandy game to Arnhem by adding Commonwealth Forces and changing 10% odd of the terrain tiles. Doable by a dedicated team of semi-professionals over six odd months. Maybe in the style in which the John Tiller games are produced. However, my question is would a change to another season, requiring an entire change to the terrain still count as a module? i.e. From a Normandy game to the Ardennes? Or would this require another new “game” nine months later. I am sure I speak for many in saying that Normandy and the Ardennes are my two favourite settings for NWE, am very keen to see both appear over the coming eighteen months. Is this possible? But no promises of course. Added to the above is the even more important question of the Eastern Front . For me wargaming/military history really are about the Eastern Front, with everything else coming second. I know, I am not sane . Anyway… when attention does turn to the Eastern Front I am hugely keen to see both summer and winter warfare covered. Without making any promises, is this likely, is it on the list? If you start with a summer “game” will there be a module set at some other time of year? Or would it be too much work. None of the above is an attack on the greater depth/module system. I am a fan of it. But for any given front, the different seasons add a lot to the fun. Modules set at different times of year would be great. But I realise it may require too much work to come under the definition of modules. No problem. I still remain a fan of modules as they add to the excitement. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

flamingknives, Thanks for the links… great stuff . All the best, Kip.

Hi, If you are interested in building maps for CMC you will find life a lot easier if you use Mapping Mission. I have been responsible for building a number of 12km by 12km CMBB campaign maps from which individual CMBB battle maps were then copied and pasted for use in tournaments. Mapping Mission is ideal for this. You can build a 12km by 12km, or any size, map in Mapping Mission and then copy and paste any section into the CMBB editor to use to build an individual battle. Perfect for CMC. You could build up a library of maps in Mapping Mission from which you could then very quickly produce maps for CMC when it is released. It really is as easy as it sounds, there is no catch . All the best, Kip. PS. I do not know from where you currently download Mapping Mission, but it will be out there somewhere .

Hi, BTW I should add that I am a huge fan of the modular system. I am very keen on greater depth, with fewer but better weathered AFVs to give just one minor example of the benefits. The modular system will also add more excitement in that there will be more releases to look forward too …. add a bit more childish fun… never a bad thing no matter how old one is . All the best, Kip.

Hi, I am not surprised that there will be no ’73 module; it was always a long shot . I am one of those who are quite happy with CMSF for reasons rehearsed a number of times. I very much look forward to the blue on blue/red on red feature. Using CMSF as a OPFORs trainer will be great. In this context I hope the extra NATO player added will not be the minor players but the Brits or Germans as they will make for way more interesting Blue on Blue OPFOR opponents. We all need to remember that BFC want to do a contemporary setting because they feel it would be fun , make a good change. Also all the complex work done on CMSF will make the modelling of WWII way easier. So for both of the above reasons we will all get far better, far sooner, high-intensity warfare games in the future with CMSF having come first. (Also, we get live team, Cooperative play for the NWE game which would not be the case if NWE had come first . ) All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, I agree that we will have to wait and see what is meant by “module”. However, remember that for a ’73 Arab Israelis Wars game the Syrians would be no more than a restricted subset within the Syrians of 2007. The Israelis of ’73 would require no more work than a module covering Commonwealth Forces added to a US based NWE game. For the Syrians T55s, T62s, BMP1s, plus one of the eight wheeled APCs would do the trick. Most, if not all of which, will already be in CMSF. The infantry would require earlier model ATGMs and RPGs. That is about it. Very little new for the Syrians; just a restricted subset from CMSF. The Israelis of ’73 would be all new, but so will Commonwealth Forces in a NWE based game. The Syrian Front in ’73 would give many the more balanced, high-intensity, toy (armour) heavy type of game they seem to crave. Bound to sell well too . BFC will be able to say of CMSF, “contemporary warfare taken to a level of realism never simulated before”… which it will be. Of a ’73 based module they would be able to say, “Arab Israelis Wars taken to a level of realism never simulated before”. Would sell like hot cakes…. . Time will tell, Maybe if it is a non-starter Steve will tell us, he normally does these days . All the best, Kip.

Hi, I realise that this has probably been lobbied for already, and no doubt given the thumbs down , but here goes anyway . I am a huge fan of the coming Shock Force and given BFC’s aim of as feasible/realistic a contemporary war setting as possible Syria is a great choice. A far harder nut to crack than Iraq under Saddam was ever going to be. However, given all the work that will have been done on the setting, graphics, weapons and such, I think it would be a shame if no ’73 Arab Israelis war module followed. Such a module would be “dumbing down” by BFC’s standards after the work required for CMSF and therefore simple to do. Just covering the Syrian front would do the trick. It would be a shame not to give all the fans of high-intensity, armour heavy v armour heavy warfare their fix in the sands of the Middle-East when the 90% of the work has already been done. A ’73 Arab Israelis War setting would be way more popular/sell better than more NATO troops going into Syria… in my very biased view . All very good fun whatever happens , All the best, Kip.

Hi, Thanks for the effort . These FAQs type threads are very useful when a new game is in line. I would recommend making this a “sticky”. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Runyan99 posted, “By the way that Anthony Cordesman looks like the David Glantz of modern middle east conflict.” A very good way of putting it… . All the best, Kip.