kipanderson

Hi, All sounds good to me.. Boring answer, but true This is not an issue that has ever truly excited me, but no longer being able to cram a platoon of tanks down a narrow road and have them “all” engage “any” enemy target is great. That is the bit that really matters. The only factor that finally got the better of me in CMX1, i.e. in the end hit my enjoyment, is Absolute Spotting. As this is now dead, replaced by Relative Spotting, I am a happy chap . All the best, Kip.

John, “I know that donkey-wallopers of the Fuller/Liddel-Hart/Tal school hate the idea of armour acting in support of infantry, but it really is an important part of its job.” I too agree with your views on Mesh and the us eof tanks. It I interesting that if one reads the MODs own after action report on Gulf War 2 they also make clear that heavy armour is a useful today as it has ever been. So do the US after action reports. Combines arms, including armour with big guns, is still the way to go. Armoured cars running around with stand-off missiles has its place, but not as a replacement for tanks . All the best, Kip.

Andreas, hi, “Yeah, but you are clearly unhinged. And you owe me a TCP game.” I would not argue with either statement . The “unhinged” bit I can do nothing about , but the TCP game we will have work on when your coming big event is over . All the best, Kip.

Steve, “The 6:1 ratio thing is a joke Nobody plays like that. In fact, I think most people probably play games closer to 2:1 or even 1.5:1. 3:1 was a rule of thumb for Western forces to be "assured" victory. 5 or 6:1 for Soviets, along with CRUDLOADS of artillery. Since nobody plays things that way on a regular basis in any great numbers, why is this relevant to the discussion? Oh wait... I just answered my own question... it isn't ” In CMBB I have played a Soviet breakthrough type operation to very close to real world scale. . We are talking 2km by 3km map, reinforced German infantry battalion in defence, trenches, mines, wire, (mines and wire adjusted for their Uber nature in CMBB). In attack two Soviet infantry battalions, one tank regiment, plus over 3,000 rounds of artillery/rockets. 1,900 rounds of which were 152mm. I have witnessed 600 rockets fired at once. Believe it or not, but all worked extremely well. Truly massive artillery strikes take surprisingly little resolving, I was amazed. It all had a surprisingly real world feel to it, the simulation worked far better than I thought it would. Played human v human across the pond. (As the guy I played against said, there we where 3,000 miles apart playing a very reasonable representation of a Soviet breakthrough operation, live… technology is a wonderful thing ). Anyway… only real problems were Absolute Spotting and Uber obstacles related. But, as I am always the first to say, I still wish for CMX2 to be optimized for platoon v company size battles, and am happy to wait for the day the hardware can cope with breakthrough operations in CMX2 . All very good fun, All the best, Kip.

roqf77, I agree that the L30 gun does all the tricks, but the reason for the likely move to a version of the L55 gun is to make it compatible with everyone else’s 120mm ammo. Whether we produce some ammo types, and then buy in some other types, there will be huge savings due to far greater production runs if all can use everyone else’s ammo. The MOD believe that the re-gunning of Challenger 2s with the L55 will save money over the life of the guns. The savings in ammo would be so great. The motivation is financial. Get an equally capable gun, for less over its life time costs. All the best, Kip.

Hi, All sounds fine to me… . When it comes to LOS and LOF with AFVs it is of course the LOF that did the damage in CMX1. A mix of infantry and tanks blasting their way down a narrow road, with all tanks able to engage any enemy target was the problem. The Gamey tactic of jamming together an entire platoon of tanks down a narrow road will be gone in CMX2… great . All good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. I never split squads anyway…

John, hi, good to hear from you as always Hope things go well. All the best, Kip.

Undead reindeer cavalry, hi, “if i am not mistaken, DM-53 shot from A4's L44 gun should penetrate over 700mm from 2000 meters. as the front hull of A6 offers just some 600mm worth of protection, it seems to me that DM-53 should penetrate A6 armor even in frontal engagements at 2000 meters.” Spot on… in fact… I would just put the penetration of the L44 gun with DM53 at 650mm, with L55 gun at 720mm. But yes, we agree. The discussion between us is a very good example of how people, who in terms of facts agree, can end up on opposite sides due the different “spin” they put on their posts . Just a small point, as we speak, the Germans and other users of the L55 gun are introducing the first ammo that is “not” backwardly combatable with the L44 gun. It wa sin Jane’s a few months back. It will be the first operational round to fully take advantage of the far greater “down the barrel” pressure capabilities of the L55 gun. All the best, Kip. PS. Note the L55 gun can produce 13.5 megajoules, the basic, early ‘90s 140mm gun, 18 megajoules of muzzle energy. With the technology used in the L55 gun ported to the 140mm gun, its muzzle energy would be nearer 24 megqjuoles . In a real war, all would adopt the 140mm guns.

Hi, Just a quick add on… the A5/A6 also has armour designed to withstand repeated hits, the A4 armour being earlier Chobham/laminated armour is not designed to withstand repeated hits. Suffers as face-hardened plate did in WWII. But “withstanding repeated hits” in all relative . BTW. The Germans did get the armour for the early Leopard 2s from the UK; it is in indeed Chobham armour. This is a famous example of the Yanks getting very angry with the UK for sharing technology with Europe. The US put a lot on pressure on the UK “not” to share the technology with Europe, but only with the US. All the best, Kip.

Andreas, “and the A5 is early 90s, so a ten year gap, if we are generous.” Andreas, you are confusing the very long development of the A5/A6 with when they were finalized/type classified. But no matter. I have no interest in bun fights over Leopard 2s Enough to say that the A5/A6 weighs 4.5 tons more than the A4, has a different gun with a third greater muzzle energy, different optics, different electronic gun control, more and different armour, and now a different engine too. “Sorry, is there a typo somewhere, or are you trying to say that the L44 will have trouble with the front armour of the A4? At what ranges?” No, no typo…. the L44 gun cannot cope with the frontal armour of the A5/A6, the L55 gun can “just” cope with the frontal armour of the A4 tank. Note, modern tanks tend to have armour that over matches the current generation kinetic projectiles. For example, the L55 gun of the A6 cannot penetrate the frontal armour of the A6…. if you follow me. This is a “very” odd discussion . My guess is that I am up against an emotional attachment to the A4 by those who may have come across it in their time in the military . All good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. I use Chobham armour as short hand for laminated because eit may ring more bells with some. Can do a wildly nerdish rant on armour if you wish, but am not interested . PPS. Andreas, to answer your specific question on the A4, an A4 would indeed struggle when trying to penetrate an A4. The front turret of the A4 has protection equivalent to 700mm odd of RHA, the latest L44 gun ammo around 650mm penetration at 1,000m. However… it now gets very complicated . It depends on the exact type of laminated armour, the latest segmented long rod penetrators are optimized for use against internal reactive armour, not German style ‘70s/’80s laminated armour. The rant could get very long and send all to sleep . Masses of qualifications . Depleted uranium or tungsten also matters, but as much as it did twenty years ago.

Hi, Whether you are the squad or platoon commander does not really matter. But I understand your point. What matters is that in any wargame there tends to be primary manoeuvre element, a primary playing piece if you wish; in CM it is the squad and individual AFV/AT gun and such. Hence they also spot for you. You see the battlefield for the perspective of your primary playing pieces. This is what generates the fun/magic of CM . In my view. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Undead reindeer cavalry posted, “Leopard 2A6 isn't that much different from Leopard 2A4, both can KO the other one just fine.” In fact they are hugely different . Have both different armour and different guns. Different optics, weight different amounts and so on… They come with the same “metal box”, but that is about it. The latest versions of the A6 have different an engine to the A4 as well . Do not be confused by the fact that both are called Leopard 2s. They are the result of technology that matured twenty years apart, and it shows. In the same way the Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 are very different in terms of their capabilities. When you say they “can KO each other just fine”…depends what you mean. It is true that the muzzle energy from a L44 gun, about 9.5 m/joules by the way, is so great that any tank may have systems fail as a result of a strike. However, the L44 gun on the A4 cannot penetrate the front armour of an A6. The L55 gun on the A6 can “just” penetrate the front armour of the A4. The L55 gun having a muzzle energy of 13.5 m/joules. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Jim, Just to reinforce something I ranted about earlier. With CoPlay it is near inevitable that you will get some form of “command game” features you always hankered for. If you imagine that there are four players on one side, three company commanders and one battalion commander, with each player only able to see/spot what the units he “directly” commands can see/spot, then you have in large degree the game you always wished for. The battalion commander would not be able to see what squads in the rifle companies could see. Only what battalion assets such as mortar, artillery, AT guns could see. As soon as you have any form of “vertical command structure” it may work to isolate the most senior commanders. What I believe you are after. The most junior level of commanders see/spot all that their own units can spot. So company commanders can see all that any of the units in their companies can see. But battalion commanders can only see what their own icon, plus battalion assets and special attached units can see. They have to communicate with company commanders by text message. Jim, as you can see I am as enthusiastic about this form of “command game” you would be. CoPlay can bring together the sort of game you wish for, and maintain CM as the near magical experience it was with CMX1. The company commanders still playing the type of CM I enjoy so much, while those playing the more senior commanders play the type of command game you wish for. Live team play, as tend to think of CoPlay, brings a new dimension to CM in many exciting ways . All the best, Kip.

Hi, Andreas posted, “But good news from Steve.” I agree 100%, and I am a huge fan of big games . Although I am such a fan of huge, semi-operational games I still would not change the fact that CM is optimized for platoon v company games. It is the fact that CM is optimized for such small games that makes it the truly absorbing, immersive game it is. It is the “exact” location of that MG team, that AT gun, that creates the excitement as you try to ambush troops commanded by one of your chums. Seeing the battlefield through the eyes of your squad and tank commanders is where the fun comes from. But everyone to their own. CMX1 could/did produce great games right up to brigade level, in my view. In CM you play many roles, battalion commander, company commander, platoon commander but also squad commander. In fact your primary role is that of squad/AFV commander. Hence you see the battlefield from the point of view of the squad commander, not the company and battalion commanders. One way to think of CM is that you are playing the role of squad commander and platoon commander, but from reasons of fun, and greed , enjoy simultaneously playing the roles of lots of squad and platoon commanders. But even when you have a reinforced battalion to commander, your primary role is still that of squad and AFV commander. Just lots of them at once . But as I posted earlier, and Steve reinforced, when CoPlay and more powerful hardware arrive I am confident I will be enjoying semi-operational games more than ever. The thought of four odd battalions on a 4km by 4km map with half a dozen players on each side will take CM to new levels of excitement. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Just to clear things up, if they have not already been cleared up by those above. The Leopard 2A4 is the late ‘70s model with first generation Chobham armour. Resistance against kinetic energy rounds, long-rod penetrators, is around 600-700mm. With the shorter L44 gun. The Leopard 2A5 is the up-armoured, mid ‘90s armour, version. Resistance to long-rod penetrators said to be around 900-1000mm. But same L44 gun as the A4 model. The Leopard 2A6 is the A5 as above but with the newer, long, higher pressure L55 gun. The higher pressure is not achieved by having a higher peak chamber pressure. It is achieved by having the maximum, initial higher chamber pressure maintained further down the barrel. So in the L55 gun the pressure near the breach is the same as in the L44 gun, but three-quarters of the way down the barrel the pressure in the L55 gun is still far closer to the peak pressure than in the L44 gun where it will have greatly declined. The Challenger 2 is the equal of the Leopard 2A6, and would indeed wipe the floor when up against Leopard 2A4s. The Challenger 1 is the contemporary of the Leopard 2A4. All very good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. The US M1A2 has armour in the same ball park as the Challenger 2 and Leopard 2A5/A6, but still only the lower pressure L44 gun. All sides have in fact taken 140mm high pressure guns to maturity, did so over ten years ago, but feel no need to deploy them in the current environment. If there was ever any threat of war against a fully industrialised nation, all would re-equip with the 140mm guns. The Chinese and Russians both have new, big gun, tanks in development.

Hi, I know this will not be at the top of the list, but especially with a contemporary game on the list, the problems with mines, wire and engineering in general in CMX1 need a look at, in my view. Firstly, this should not be seen as a criticism of CMX1. I know it was designed with company v company battles lasting some twenty minutes in mind. In that light mines and wire do what they do very well in CMX1. But in longer games, say one hour, plus the modelling of breaching operation in any contemporary game, (can one have a contemporary game without breaching operations ), mines and wire do need a look at, in my view . One example is that if a tank makes it through a minefield in CMX1following tanks and infantry cannot take advantage by following in its tracks. Battlefront knows their own game better than I do, so will not list all the problems with engineering in CMX1, but I hope engineering/obstacles will make it onto the list of matters to be looked at maybe in game three of CMX2. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Depending on how CoOp play is modelled, could well be help for those like Michael who appear to wish for something a little closer to a “command game”. In a CoOp game one may be able to set the battalion commander to only directly control, say, the artillery assets. Thus he would only be able to see/spot what his own icon could see and what his artillery spotters could see. Communication with company commanders being by text message. Would give a very real feel to things. Time will tell… All the best, Kip.

Hi, As a huge fan of the big battle scenario, yes, regiments and brigades are good I thought I would just chip in to reinforce what some others have said. Firstly, I enjoy big battles because I find it hugely good fun to see every part of a vast battle in the detail my nearest squad or AFV commander can see it in. Hence my dislike of the idea of “command games”….. but everyone to their own . Now this does not mean that I do not recognise the problems with big battles in CMX1. Happily the two main problems are easily dealt with; well potentially they are easily dealt with anyway. The first is the “single controlling mind”, or Borg related problem. In all size games of CM the single controlling mind on each side is a real problem in that it makes coordination so simple compared to the real world. Steve has said there will be far more C & C challenges in CMX2 which will help, but the real answer lies in live team play, CoOp play. The only way round the problem of the single controlling mind is to have more than one mind controlling on each side . For maximum realism it is still the case that smaller games, but with say half a dozen players on each side, will most realistically model the true chaos of real world battles. If you envisage a battle with a reinforced company in defence and a battalion in attack, each side with 5-6 players then the potential for misunderstanding and chaos will be at it most realistic. (I am assuming that each player can only see/spot what the units he directly commands can see/spot.) However, clearly CoOp play will also help greatly in removing one of the major problems with big games. If you envisage a reinforced battalion in defence against an attacking brigade, with 5-6 players on each side, the problem of the single controlling mind will be far less than in a current smallish CMX1 battle. A slightly different type of chaos to that in small CoOp games…. but chaos all the same . The second problem with semi-operational battles is much referred to above by others; they must be set in a true operational environment where force preservation matters. There is a need for a mind-set that can only really be generated if the players know they will have to use their current forces again and again in some form of CMMC style game. Some players still never really get it, and sacrifice all for one small objective, but on the other hand, some players do very rapidly understand the need for force preservation. The third problem, far down the list in importance from the two above but still real, is more attention to the Uber mature of obstacles such as mines and wire. Engineering in general needs attention to enable bigger battles to have a more realistic feel. There is a need to be able to model more realistic breaching operations, and such matters. I am very optimistic that all three problems with big battles in CMX1 will be addressed in CMX2. Clearly CoOp play is right up there top of the list for the second or third game in the series. But I am optimistic there will, in time, be some help in dealing with problems two and three as well. Operations/CMMC style games are bound to make it onto a list at sometime, plus, it can only be a “matter of time” before Battlefront gives some attention to more detailed modelling of engineering/obstacles and such. Maybe in game three after CoOp play in game two. Who knows… All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, The fact that CMX2 is optimised for a similar scope and scale to CMX1 was one of my major wishes; scope and scale are a part of the “magic” of CMX1. So back in January when Steve made clear this was the case my mind was put at rest . The fact that CMX2 simulates matters in more detail than CMX1 and therefore players are likely to enjoy the smaller battles more is great. The way I normally express my wishes is for CM to be “optimised for platoon v company scale, but then to use it to fight bigger battles” . With the first release of CMX2 it is worth remembering that there will not be live team lay, CoOp play I think Steve calls it. Therefore with the greater detail shown in CMX2 even I, someone who loves the bigger battles as well as the small, will feel no need for the near operational block busters. However…. when CoOp play is introduces, in the second or third game, it would be a shame not to allow us to play as big games as the hardware could optimistically handle. I look forward to live games in which four to six players each have farces close to those they may have in a one on one game. CoOp play will be used by some, me included, to model in far greater detail smaller battles with the Borg elements well and truly smashed. ( Live CoOp play being the “only” real way to truly deal with the Borg, in my view.) However, CoOp play also has huge potential for semi-operational games. But I fully understand that the generational leap in hardware requirements means it will be sometime before I will be able to play live, near operational scale games with CMX2. The hardware can only do what it can do. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I agree with flammingknives; it is a very close comparison between face-hardened plate of WWII and the first generation of Chobham amour as used in the 80s and early 90s. When it comes to “reactive” amour it is important to distinguish it from “active hard kill” defensive aids systems. These are now fully mature, if not fully deployed, by all the more players. Hard kill, defensive aids shoot down/disrupt incoming ATGMs by firing directional grenades, almost flying claymore mines, into the path of the ATGMs. The system that really started all this off, the first to be taken to full maturity and work, was the Russian Arena system of the early and mid 90s. It was demonstrated to the Germans in ’97 and caused something of a panic. According to the Israeli versions of Jane’s, Defence Update, it would have “devastated” the Hellfire and TOW generation of western ATGMs. Anyway… every, or almost every issue of Jane’s Defence Review and Defence Weekly, are now full of information on such hard kill systems from all major countries. If ever there were a war between industrialised nations, from the off, all sides would deploy them as standard. It is a very good example of systems that are fully developed by all countries “just in case” there is a major war, but are not really needed in wars against Third World nations. It is also a good example of how the tank just will not roll over die. Tandem, top-attack ATGMs were meant to be the end of the tank as we know it, but as long ago as the mid 90s there were answers to the threat they posed. I know what follows is one of my standard rants but never confuse what we have all seen in both Gulf Wars with what would have happened if First World nations, including the Russians, had gone had gone up against each other. All the major players have land warfare technology, taken to maturity, in the same ball park as the US. It is just that because there is no immediate threat nations tend not to deploy/series produce the kit. Nations tend to take these systems to maturity and then leave then sitting on the shelf until needed. Sometimes produced in small numbers for export. All very good fun, Very much hoping any contemporary very version of CMX2 will allow us to fight First World v First World battles shame not to All the best, Kip.

Hi, In fact roqf77 has a very good point. The first thing to say is that CM has “by far” the most advanced armour penetration modelling out there. I mind blowing piece of work by Charles supported by Rexford and others. However…. when it comes to armour cracking, and therefore weakening, roqf77 has a very valid point. Face-hardened armour works by shattering the penetrating projectile due to the extreme hardness of the front 5mm odd of armour plate. But in shattering the penetrating projectile, the face-hardening also tends to self destruct, i.e. cracks up. If the same area of armour is then struck a second or third time there is a greatly increased risk of catastrophic failure. In CMX1 this is modelled by there being a small risk of catastrophic failure with every strike against face-hardened armour. What this does not model or account for is the effect of weakened armour on veteran or frequently struck face-hardened plate. In the real world a German MarkIII with 50mm face-hardened amour that had been frequently struck by Commonwealth 2 pounder or Soviet 45mm anti-tank rounds would be living very dangerously. A Soviet 45mm anti-tank gun pouring rounds at a face-hardened German tank would have a far higher chance of a kill than currently modelling in CMX1. This is the reason why if you dig around in the archives at Bovington Tank Museum you will find that the contemporary tank warfare experts had a very low opinion of face-hardened armour. Even in the early days of the war in the North Africa they considered the Germans foolish to use face-hardened plate. I am hoping that the damage model in CMX2 will record the location of individual strikes, thus be able to model not just the advantages of face-hardened armour, but also its drawbacks if struck frequently. Each AFV will have its own memory. All good fun , All the best, Kip.

Hi, My usual rant on this subject is that we must all harden ourselves to the fact that not “every” release of CMX2 will do the trick for every fan of CM. This is the inevitable downside to so many releases, but more is of course still better than less. I will buy all of them, no point denying it, but a few months later some will no doubt be gathering dust on my hard drive. For my part if there is a game set in NWE, plus one on the Eastern Front with a module or two for each, then I will be more than happy over the coming five years Also, maybe foolishly, I would be very surprised if the two above mentioned settings were not covered at sometime in the life of CMX2 as they are the most popular. But may not make the first two titles. There is also likely to be a modern setting in the cooker, which will also be fun. Great to have a new set of toys to play with. The technology matters to me, big part of the fun. All in all the increase in titles will greatly add to the fun, but as stated above, inevitably some of the settings would not have made it on to my list. Lots to look forward to . All the best, Kip. PS. Massive potential in a modern setting for making Battlefront lots of dosh. If they get a modern setting right they could attract large numbers of more casual gamers. Their $50 is worth just as much at that of Battlefront’s more hard-core fans such as us .

Steve posted, “The only downside, besides the more involved scenario making, is that there will be a bit of a generic feel to the buildings from a graphical standpoint.” Is this not where the advantages of the more focused, narrower setting for each game will kick in. i.e. the buildings for a Normandy game will look very different, have very different skins on them, when compared to the buildings for an Ardennes game. That is what I am hoping anyway. I was not much interested in graphical changes, but am now a full convert to the idea of far more focused settings for each game, but also more games/modules to give variety. One of the downsides to CMX1 was that the graphics, buildings and such, had an identical look to them for all of NWE or Eastern Front. With the modular system I am hoping that, say, an Eastern Front game set around Kharkov will have a different look to one set in East Prussia. Similarly, greatly looking forward to more heavily weathered AFVs to suite the climatic conditions of a given module. All good stuff, All the best, Kip. PS. More games/modules each with different graphics does give us more toys to look forward to .

Steve, You seem to have every box ticked I fully understand that with the leap in detail, will come a leap in the time required to take advantage of all the possibilities in designing urban environments. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Steve, This is not strictly on topic, however, is there any chance of the attacker being able to have foxholes and such? I ask here because this thread is in great part about starting setups. In many/most real world battles on a 2km by 2km scale both sides will start the clash from foxholes or semi fortified positions. This is a feature I particularly missed in CMBB with the frequent and often generous use of direct fire artillery. The Soviets bringing guns such as the 76.2mm/45mm up to overlook enemy positions the night before an attack, then giving over-watch fire from dug-in positions. Anyway… the ability to use foxholes and trenches on both sides would be more realistic in a large range of situations. Thanks, All the best, Kip.