kipanderson

Hi, For me the only stretch needed is to have a back-story, in the preferred BFC/CMSF jargon , that can credibly assume the Syrians are up-for-it. i.e. certainly do “not” feel they are being “liberated”. Are very keen to fight. This in turn means you can realistically assume high Syrian moral; within the context of the game. As I have posted elsewhere I will be assuming Bush invades Syria in order to spread democracy and secure his legacy. Enough to make any Syrian wish to fight and more politically neutral than the likely official back-story. But any back-story that allows the Syrians to have high moral will do the trick. Take your pick. The context is that Syrians, with a will to fight, are certainly well armed enough to make a fight of any invasion from the US using forces of the size used in the 2nd Gulf War. The two wars against Iraq should not be seen as a likely example of what would happen against a Middle Eastern country with greater will to fight. i.e. that is on the side of its own government. But we are not talking armour v armour fights. All the best, Kip.

Hi, For those who may be interested I thought I would just post up a short reading list for CMSF. Hopefully others will add to it. Arabs at War by Kenneth Pollock. Long and quite dry, but very high quality account of the combat effectiveness of Arab armies over the last 40 odd years. If you want to know how good or how bad their performance in various wars was this is the book for you. Certain Victory by Robert Scales. Best of the bunch if it is a serious military history of the 1st Gulf War that you are after. The Iraq War by Anthony Cordesman. Not so much a narrative military history as a 500 page “after action report” on the 2nd Gulf War. If you really wish to know what worked and what did not then this is the book to go for. Useful links on contemporary military equipment Defense-Update. An Israeli site of outstanding quality. It is free but very close in quality to Jane’s which you will pay many hundreds of pounds for a year. http://www.defense-update.com/ Army Technology. Good site for quick overview of today’s toys. http://www.army-technology.com/ Just a short list to get things started. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Every one to their own… but I think it is a shame if people take the politics too seriously. It is just an excuse for a good, virtual punch-up. Given the hand BFC had to play with, finding a scenario for a contemporary war that is even reasonably credible but does not offend their home market too much, they have done very well. I have not seen anyone come up with a better back-story. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I do not think the back-story matters that much, but if it does what you need is a back-story that has the Syrians as, to some degree, the wronged party, from “their” point of view. By this I mean that the US invades them for some reason that the Syrians are not very sympathetic too, i.e. the Syrians are motivated to fight hard. Unlike the Iraqis who just wanted to go home. The back-story I will be using is that Bush, in the last few months of his presidency, invades Syria in order to spread democracy and secure his “legacy”. Politically neutral. From their respective points of view both sides would no doubt feel they had right on their side. The problem with a back-story that has the Syrians as clearly the bad guys, needing “liberating for real”, is that the Syrian forces would just walk home like the Iraqis. You need a back-story that would allow the Syrians to have high morale, even if still often low skills. Thus morally the Syrians cannot clearly be the bad guys. However…. I fully understand that wargames cannot sell in the US unless the US forces are unambiguously seen as the good guys by the US wargame buying public. It is called being human . Thus the back-story will be relentlessly “anti the Syrian government” but not the Syrian people. BFC are just being human too , as I would be in their place too why offend the people to wish to buy your game . All very good fun, All the best, Kip.

V and FAI, hi, I am glad we all think alike . I did not start of as a huge fan of a contemporary game pre the announcement. But if they are to do contemporary then going for Syria is a very smart move . Also, when Steve says that the coding for a contemporary game is far more challenging than for a WWII game I believe him. This means that BFC should indeed be able to crack out WWII games without too many problems ambushing them and slowing things down. I greatly look forward to it, All the best, Kip.

Steve, I am a big fan of the idea of the single player campaigns and how you explain they will work. The single player game needs a boast as for me, and many will differ with this, the single player game has been dead for too long. Once human v human came along I have not bothered with single player, but am keen to give it a go again. However…. even though there will not be a formal editor, allowing us to get into the text to somehow build campaigns ourselves is important, in my view. Without the flow of new campaigns their use will die very quickly. Player designed scenarios/campaigns are the life blood of CM. The concept is great, will breath life into single player CM, but do allow us to build our own campaigns even if it is “messy” . All good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. May come in a patch of course.

Hi, I am happy. The Syrians are a tough bunch, very different from the Iraqis of the last ten years. As I have often told those wishing to listen down the pub , “Syria would be very different from Iraq.” Forget the official back-story or background BFC come up with. For me it will be a case of Bush wishing to spread democracy as part of his “legacy” and invading Syria in the last few months of his Presidency. But the Syrians not being all that keen on the idea and therefore “up-for-it”. Will do for me. That is the beauty of it, we can all come up with whatever back-story we feel is most credible to produce an environment that would motivate the Syrians in a way the Iraq’s were not motivated… initially anyway. The fact that the Syrians have certain modern bits of kit, such as late ‘90s, as opposed to 70s, anti-tank weapons all makes for a far more challenging environment. The ability to use CMSF as a form of OPFORs trainer due to the Blue v Blue and Red v Red option also adds a lot. It is a feature I will be taking full advantage of. Will be fun , All the best, Kip.

Hi, Just to add to the above, try this. http://www.defense-update.com/products/r/rpg.htm The general rule is that contemporary Russian anti-armour weapons will penetrate, with ease, the side armour of even the heaviest US armour. That is mid and late ‘90s weapons. Very different from the ‘70s designs normally encountered by US forces. The launcher, and RPG 7 tube for example, may be the same, but the latest tandem warheads are very different. In fact have a very good search around in defense-update.com. Of the free sources it is by far the best on most/all contemporary defence equipment matters. Note, it is Israeli, so if it is polite about Russian equipment it is because it does in fact work as advertised, there is no pro-Russian bias. All the best, Kip.

Hi, As I happens, if we are to play the role of any Third World/developing nation… the Syrians have always been my favourites. The reason I am a fan of the Syrians is that they have a consistent record as a stubborn, tough bunch. Their special forces are very competent and can/have given all comers a run for their money. When it comes to weaponry they do have the latest/contemporary generation Russian anti-armour weapons such as Kornet ATGMs and RPG27/29 which use a devastatingly effective tandem, 105mm warhead. These weapons alone make it all a far more challenging than was the case against Iraq, an entirely different matter. Whenever such an encounter looked likely the Russians would send small numbers of their latest kit to battle test it, prove it in combat for advertising purposes if nothing else. “You too can have the missiles that knocked out the US M1s…” that sort of thing. In Iraq this may already have happened with one indecent of an M1 being penetrated straight through both sides of the hull leaving a knitting needle like hole. The belief is that it was a smuggle RPG 27/29 from Syria. That was one theory anyway… Syrians are about the only Middle Eastern nation I could get into playing the role of… so greatly look forward to CMSF. When you think Syrians, do not think Iraqis. (They also happen to be more secular than most Middle Eastern nations.) “The” book in the subject, but sadly a very dry book , is Arabs at War by Kenneth Pollack. I think of CMSF as a form of supper realistic OPFORs game. Fought over real Middle Eastern terrain, against a huge range of possible OPFORs. Even those with NATO/US equipment… great The best link for the weaponry, or one of the best, is http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ Greatly looking for ward to CMSF, All the best, Kip.

Hi, The new campaign system does sound good. Greater context for the battles you fight must be the aim of any campaign system. Also, the single player game did need attention if it was to be a made an experience to come close to human v human. Two quick questions on “future” campaigns. 1) In a feature release is it likely to be possible to build, edit campaigns? 2) In a future release will it be possible to play campaign battles human v human? By this I mean more the individual battles within the campaign than the entire campaign. I understand that games/scenarios can sometimes be a bit slow for one side. However, I and those I play against are in fact quite happy with slow, but tense/challenging scenarios in which not much may be happening at any particular point in time. As others have alluded to it is important to remember that with a contemporary setting being done first, it means we get live team play, Cooperative play, in the NWE game as this is scheduled to be the main add-on feature for the second version of CMX2. Additionally, the Eastern Front version of CMX2 will be along at a time when CMX2 has been truly perfected and the hardware has moved on a fair bit. Both very good things for those like me who rather unimaginatively regard the Eastern Front as “the” setting for wargames. No doubt to be the third or fourth game in the series. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I agree ARABS AT WAR by Kenneth Pollack. Is "the" book on the subject. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Come to think about it… the Blue on Blue option, plus the ability ot build my own individual scenarios as usual… and I really do have everything I could have wished for… real OPFOR stuff with NATO v NATO. Stunning… All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Well I could not be happier…. all sounds good to me. When it comes to the specifics of the Syrian game there is even an option for Blue on Blue..i.e. First World v First World . Great stuff…. All very exciting stuff . All the best, Kip. PS. Yes… it is as I expects, but just the other way round… but just as much fun for that.A module covering some other NATO country so we could have US v Other NATO and we are talking "the best of all possible worlds" .

Steve, “Yup, I am saying that Space Lobsters is a more realistic setting that German vs. France 2015 ” You are probably right about that… but who knows . All the best, Kip.

Hi, Quick add on. Link to Defense-Update http://www.defense-update.com/ The link either come sup very quickly, or not at all, have no idea why. Also… I too enjoy infantry heavy, slow, tense games. But in the best of all possible worlds, still 1st World v 1st World . All the best, Kip.

Steve, When it comes to Arena and Hellfire, TOW and such the reason it matters is because it illustrates very clearly that hard-kill defensive aids can work very well when you match up like generations. As is the case when one matches up various marks of M1 against same generation tanks from other nations. The current generation of hard-kill systems are not just 360 degrees, but also diving attack optimized to deal with Javelin and other diving attack missiles. Diving attack missiles did have their window of opportunity from ’96 to a few years ago. But not surprisingly all, including the US, are now on to them with defensive aids packages which are specifically designed for dealing with such missiles. The situation is very similar to the dominance of HEAT weapons in the ‘70s before the widespread use of Chobham, reactive armour and such. The Defence-Update site is very strong on hard and soft kill defensive aids. Will give the full rant. (Also, do remember that the Defence-Update site is Israelis so in no way pro-Soviet. But they are very strong on the current generation of hard and soft kill defensive aids too.) Steve posted in relation to settings for a modern or contemporary CMX2, “Yes, but none of them with fantasy matchups, I'm sorry to say.” This is quite a bone in that it does restrict the possibilities a fair bit. I hugely look forward to any CMX2 wargame, and will no doubt enjoy the third world, infantry heavy contemporary game likely to come our way. But it will never quite hook me the way First World v First World, high-intensity warfare will. Everyone to their own . I am confident their will be enough WWII high-intensity warfare to keep me more than happy for five years, the modules are a great idea… so am a happy chap . All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, For those with an interest…. From Defence Update…an Isrealis publications, “Russian Active Protection Systems were matured much earlier than the west's, as they were designed to counter the threat from the west's anti-tank systems such as TOW, Hellfire and HOT missiles fired from ground and helicopter platforms, as well as airborne launched anti-tank missiles (such as the Maverick). Although the Russian systems were much heavier than their current Western counterparts, they provided the countermeasures that could decimate the western threat. These heavy countermeasure systems were designed to protect the most important elements in the heavy armored divisions - and were applied to platforms such as the T-55, T-72, T-80, T-90 tanks and BMP-3 APCs. The Drozd systems entered full scale development when as Russia was no longer planning to confront NATO, but was deeply engaged in a war of attrition in Afghanistan and later - in Chechnya, where defensive these countermeasures were required to protect much older T-55 tanks against Russian made RPGs and AT missiles. The Russian APS systems introduced innovative and proven defeat mechanisms against CE and KE threats. First was the Drozd, which protected the tank's forward arc. This system was later followed by the Arena-E system, which introduced 360 degrees protection from side, front and partially top attacks.” All very good fun , All the best, Kip.

Hi, Michael Dorosh posted, “So why did the Afghans win? And why haven't the Americans won yet?” Because the Afghans were willing to accept losses of around 1,000,000 to the Soviet 14,000- 20,000. (Depending on whether you take combat or total losses. ) The Russians saw no sane reason to be there… so got out. And, no… playing the part of low quality Third World troops does not do anything for me. But everyone to there own. I look at CM as a form of military history, maybe in the “future” history for some of CMX2. (If I am an enthusiast for any particular side in CMX1 it is the Red Army… must interesting player in WWII… in my view.) fytinghellfish, Defense-Update… a type of Israelis Jane’s, described the Arena first generation active hard –kill Soviet defense systems as able to “decimate” the contemporary US generation of ATGMs. To closely paraphrase “Arena would have decimated the TOW and Hellfire generation of ATGMs in the mid 90s”. The Germans also were given a full demonstration of Arena and confirmed it does all it was advertised to. Of course… we are now talking diving attack ATGMs, but all also have systems a click on from Arena. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Steve posted, “A couple of US Infantry Platoons on the defensive, without any other support than Javelin, have a good shot at wiping out a company of the best tanks Russia and China have to offer.” Well…no not quite true..Steve is forgetting the active, hard-kill systems both Russian and Chinese latest generation tanks would be using today…. not tomorrow, but today, in a war against any 1st World nation. All the major players now have mature, active, hard-kill defensive systems. The Russians have had a mature system since the early ‘90s. Steve also posted… “What does this mean? You guys need to stop thinking in terms of ARMOR and in terms of PARITY cuz we aren't ” hmmm… worrying stuff… we are most likely talking small groups of Islamist, low quality light-infantry being hunted by fully equipped US, 1st World professional forces. If truth be told, probably not my cup of tea But I am always posting that all of us, including myself, must harden ourselves for some of the settings in CMX2 not being on our individual favorites list. I will of course buy any such game and no doubt enjoy it for a while. But Third World v 1st World just does not do the trick for me, as a general rule If we have to go this route, my vote would be for Vietnam. My reasons for not being a fan of Third World v 1st World are largely two fold. One is indeed the lack of balance over lapping with a lack of toys In CM the equipment, the tanks, the toys, matter Secondly… historically the great majorities of Third World Armies have been, and are, of a very poor quality. The Vietnamese being an honorable exception. Even the Afghans of the ‘80s were in fact of a very low quality with causality ratios in infantry clashes often between twenty and forty to one. Very similar to the US forces in Iraq today. Related to the second point is the fact that I will find it very difficult to empathize with any such Third World force. At least when playing the Germans in WWII I find can tell myself “they were at least very good at what they did”… not the case with Third World forces other than Vietnamese. Even for a contemporary setting my vote would be for near future with Germans and French v Anglo Saxons… lots of great toys…1st World v 1st World But I am clearly not going to get what I wish for Anyway…. an Islamist style light-infantry game will pull in the crowds and make BFC lots of money which I regard as a very good thing. The more money they make.. the more games I get to play All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Michael, Thanks…. makes it nice and easy choosing a new PC when the time comes.. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Agree with those who think the obvious will be the route followed by BFC. My money is on NWE, Normandy or Bulge. With a module to follow no doubt both will be done. The two really big subjects in wargames have always been NWE and Eastern Front, I would be shocked if one or both are not in the first two games to be announced. ( BTW… I certainly do “not” mean the Winter War or Finnish front. Far too niche market to make a splash… does not interest me for a start ) All the best, Kip. PS. In CMX2 the three big games will be NWE, Eastern Front and a contemporary/modern setting… that is my bet… )

Hi, This is really one for Steve, Will CMX2 be coded to take advantage of dual-core processors? I believe threaded is the right jargon for such coding. My intension is to struggle through with my current machine for the next year, using minimum graphics settings in CMX2, and then buy a new rig when Longhorn/Vista is out. The big question for me is whether a 64MB graphics card will hit the minimum spec for CMX2… it may not, in which case I will have to upgrade in the next few months. I have a laptop, a very good one that I am happy with, but the lack of an ability to upgrade the graphics card may drive me to a desktop next time. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I am very boring…. very conventional The two that interest me most, now that Borg Spotting/Absolute Spotting is dead, will be played over and over again for years, are NWE and Eastern Front games. Give me a NWE and Eastern Front version of CMX2, plus a couple of modules for each, and I will be a happy chap for the next five plus years. I will no doubt enjoy a few months playing each new version of CMX2. Outside of the two listed above the modern/contemporary setting Steve has hinted is likely to come along interests me also. But for modern/contemporary settings the detail of the setting matters. I enjoy “high intensity” warfare on my PC, hunting small gangs of irregular infantry in Iraqi would not hold my interest for long. A modern game would be fun; I love the thought of playing with a new set of toys But I remain a little worried as to the exact setting BFC will use. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Thought I would just chip in with my usual rant in support of keeping CM optimized for the same scale as was the case with CMX1. There is no one who is more a fan of big games, with my love of Soviet breakthrough operations, but I would still be horrified if CMX2 were optimized for any scale other than platoon/company v company games. It is the fact that CM is optimized for such small games that produces the fun. It is the mix of a big game, but with the detail one would expect in a small game, that produces the near magical effect CM comes up with. I greatly look forward to being able to play big games with CMX2 when the hardware can cope. But those who wish for CMX2 to be optimized for a different scale of battle would I am sure get a nasty shock if such a thing happened. All the best, Kip.

Hi, When it comes to armour, clearly two changes will help a lot to reduce the ease of there use from CMX1. Relative Spotting will mean that all your armour in an open field will not automatically spot any/all previously “spotted” enemy unit. Plus, in a second or third CMX2, CoPlay, live team play, will add confusion if it means we end up with different players controlling the armour and infantry units in game. All the best, Kip.