kipanderson

Hi, Steve posted, “Kip, map sizes and troop density are probably going to start out being a tad bit smaller than what CMAK was capable of. It will likely increase over time, just as it did for the CMx1 family of games.” I am not surprised; clearly the hardware will be under hugely greater strain with CMX2. I was just hoping that the limits on map size could be set well above “current” hardware limitations to take into account machines of two or three years time. But I realize this could have resulted in endless complaints from customers that their current machines crash when using bigger maps. No problem . All the best, Kip.

Steve, As usual all sounds great. Just a few quick points. 1)Allow us to build “huge” maps. I know there will be server limits on what any current PC could handle in a game, but technology moves on . In short-hand I am such a fan of CM because it is “almost” optimised for platoon v company play, yet I am still able to play near operational, brigade v brigade battles . Thus the wish for the freedom to build vast maps. I have read all your comments on CMX2, but I do expect to still be playing versions of CMX2 that particularly appeal many years after their release. (And enjoy new modules as they come along.) 2)Try to find time to take a look at the Uber nature of some obstacles; mines, wire and such. Yes, this does relate to my wish to play huge/operational games . I am also a big fan of games with 90 odd turns, thus giving time for realistic breaching operations and such. Fully understand that the first version of CMX2 will just concentrate on getting the basics in place. But if Uber obstacles were “on the list” to be looked at in later versions, I would be happy chap . Fun stuff, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Hate to sound like a cheerleader but all sounds great. My major concern was always that the changes to CM would some how kill the “magic” of CMX1. Battlefront are clearly very aware of this danger and have the matter covered. All good fun , All the best, Kip. PS. CMX1 already does so much that in my mind “how we can use CMX2” is almost as important as the what features are included in CMX2. If you follow me. Thus my interest in features that will allow CMX2 to be used more easily as a means to resolve CMMC type operational games.

Hi, What I do not want to change. 1)Keep the basic scope and scale of CMX1. By this I mean the basic manoeuvre units being squads/individual AFVs/ATGs and such…same as in CMX1. Game optimised for company to battalion clashes over 2km by 2km map. 2)Still be able to see all that my units can see. Still play the role of squad/AFV commander, not just company/platoon commanders, hence being able to see all squad leaders can see. But, of course, only be able to see what my units could see in the real world. Each unit does his own spotting. What I would like to change. All relate to the wish to use CMX2 as a means to resolve operational/campaign games such as CMMC. 1)Be able to track units over a large/campaign type map. 2)Ability to fully edit Saved games. i.e. move units from one Saved game to another new map. Then edit on the new map. 3)Universal map file type. In CMX1 terms, the ability to use battle game maps in operations. 4)Be allowed to built huge maps/battles, way over the size current computers could use in a game. I am talking 30km by 30km maps one can cut and paste from. 5)The end to “uber” mines, wire and obstacles. More realistic engineering features, breaching operations. Great to hear things are still on track . All good fun , All the best, Kip.

Hi, Great link, thanks for letting us know about it. All the best, Kip.

Matt, Sorry not to have got back to you sooner. What happens is that I double click on the T72 setup file and it seems to extract OK. But when I then click on the Play demo button, the purple one, there is a noise like a cash register being closed, the program window disappears, and nothing happens… that is the end of it. For sure it is the Play demo, and no the delete demo button that I press. I have a very normal Dell system, Mobile 725 processor, Nvidiago 5200 64MB graphics card, XP2SP2…. all very normal. Guess I am missing some component. These things happen . All the best, Kip.

Matt, I am afraid that the demo will not install. IntelMobile 725 processor, XPSP2, Nvidia Go5200 64MB card. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I agree with those who say that CM still has no real competitors. I almost desperately search the net, and throw my money at any game that may turn out to be a real wargame, as opposed to a PC game in a war setting, and nothing has yet equalled CMX1. I also track all the up and coming games and am not holding my breath. My guess is they will all turn out to be “PC games in a war setting”, as opposed to real wargames that could be used to illustrate real world tactics. Having said all of the above, Civil War Bull Run is a very fine wargame and models muzzle loaders to a standard in the same ballpark to that which CM reaches with WWII. Highway to the Reich is also a fine operational game with potential. Apart from the graphics it is interesting to note how other games struggle to meet the standards of the current, five year old, CMX1 engine. For real tactical, WWII wargames that could be used as a form of military history it is still CM or nothing, sadly, as BFC may get over confident if someone does not soon challenge them . Now where is that Quicktime movie clip illustrating all the new features in CMX2 . All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, I agree with those who say this game has massive potential. Ultimately a WWII version would be my wish. The far shorter ranges would help a good deal. I would also anticipate that a WWII version would sell like wild fire. Pull in some of the PC gamer crowd. All the best, Kip.

Matt, Do not hold back on pay-to-download options . Not just add-ons but the full games too. BFC have games in a completely different league to Matrix Games. However their full range of delivery options, pay-to-download, pay-to-download followed by the posted boxed game, and thirdly just the mailing of the boxed game is the way to go. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Steve wrote, “As I said earlier... we are not going to do "Combat Mission Field Medic - A WIA/KIA Simulator", but we are going to do our best to have some realistic ramifications for suffering WIA/KIAs.” I agree, this is the best approach. Troops were meant to keep going anyway. Some sort of basic compromise would be best. Bit of hesitation them off the squad go leaving WIA. But I do agree that with 1:1 representation KIA and WIA cannot just disappear. As someone said above that might break the spell and return players to reality. But there is no need for too much blood and mess either . All the best, Kip.

Hi, GJK thanks for the link to VASSAL, very useful to know of all the options for tracking units at the operational level. I too have Panzer Command, must be an age thing . Anyway… if BFC do not come up with some aids for this type of operational game then VASSAL looks a real possibility. I also agree with JasonC that there is no perfect solution to the slice one uses in operational games. During the planning for CMMC2 I did suggest that there may be some need for “scaling down” certain games to fit CM. At the operational level so many units may be concentrated in one 2km by 2km area that the game would be unplayable. Just as importantly all wargames are optimised for a certain size of battle. CMX1 was, and CMX2 will be, optimised for “roughly” company v two companies over a map less than 2km by 2km. Of course many of us use CM for way bigger games, for near operational scale games. But this too comes up against problems, with the Uber nature of obstacles in CM for example, mines. The solution is to have Games Masters/umpires who really know their stuff both historically but also in CM terms. Umpires who can scale down a battle with a full understanding of the subtleties of the CM system and the tactical implications of the way they scale down a game. Simply dividing the number of units by two and halving the map area is not normally the way to do things. For example Soviet AT guns rely on flanking shots to do their damage both in CM and as they did in the real world, if you read their WWII manuals. Thus if one scaled down the number of units in a game by halving them, then reduced the width of the CM map to halve you could end with a disproportional effect on the Soviet side. Way less potential for flanking shots if the map width is halved. When it comes to my preferred slice for operational games it is the standard 1:50,000/1 hex: 1 mile map with battalion combat teams as the basic manoeuvre units. Nothing very original there. High quality umpires with flexibility to use their initiative is the answer. All the best, Kip.

Hi, These things are interesting to know. It does fit with Steve’s announcement that a contemporary setting for CMX2 is on the current list of five possible future games. A couple of years ago Steve did admit they had registered Operation Iraqi Freedom. My real concern with the above settings is that I cannot see how one could build a wargame set in Iraq. The entire thing is far too one sided, in the real world a very good thing if you happen to be British or American, but a very bad thing if you are trying to build an interesting, challenging wargame. This is why I was such a fan of the Cold War as a setting for CM. New set of toys to play with, plus, very even technology all the way up to 1989. Assuming one sets the same generation of Soviet kit against its western equal. i.e. not “1970s” model T72s against M1A1s, but T80Us against M1A1s. Of course BFC will be aware of this but in order to tempt in more of the FPS type gamers they may still go for an Iraqi setting. I am a huge fan of the idea of a contemporary setting for CMX2. I would love to play with new toys. But am worried about the setting they may go for. T55s being slaughtered by M1A1s and Challenger 2s just does not do the trick for me. The Anglo-Saxons and New Europe against Old Europe would be fun . My bet is it would sell well to . All the best, Kip.

Hi, “What is HistWar?” http://www.histwar.com/ All the best, Kip.

Hi, Moon posted, “I know, but it would be even more cruel to tell you more, THEN leave you hanging... For example, if I tell you that it's CM (not HistWar, not CMX2), does that make it better or worse? See! Told ya so... Martin” Wow… I am confused; Moon has thrown me into confusion Ok, if it is not specific to CMX2 then my money is on a standalone program for us operational nuts to track units and generate parameters for games… bit like the one produced by Pal for CMMC. Of course, I am now really at a total loss… but whatever it is it will be fun for sure . All the best, Kip.

Hi, I agree that it will not be a fully functional operational game. Far too big a feature for the first release of CMX2. My guess, assuming it is CMX2 that Moon was referring to, goes like this. An operational map, some variant on a 1;50,000 map, with units and such on it. You fight preordained battles which depending on the outcome trigger “events”. Your battalion combat team is ordered into reserve and then to such and such a location… and so on. You track your battalion through a campaign with the next action dependant on the results of the last. All preordained within parameters set by the operational designers. In the case of the first release of CMX2 this would mean BFC. While you fight your battles, you can watch the overall campaign develop around you on the operational map. It would be a big improvement on CMX1, way more context for your battles. (Although I am still a fan of Static operations ) Will be fun to see what happens. Moon you cannot leave us hanging in the air like this… it would be cruel All the best, Kip.

Hi, Moon posted, “Personally I am hoping more for a WW2 title after BOF.” I agree. Normally, by which I mean for games in the CM scale, I am a huge fan of settings remote enough from WWII to have a completely new set of toys to play with. However, for a tank sim I too think WWII would be the best setting. The shorter ranges would have real advantages. Looking forward to giving BOF a go , all the best, Kip.

Hi, I agree with others on this thread that the biggest gain from setting CM battles in greater context is the greater need for force preservation that can result. No matter what the points system in a “one off” game of CM the temptation to fight to the last man is near overwhelming. It is common to most, if not all simulations, that for understandable reasons the players are far more ruthless with their virtual men than would be the case with real lives. Even if morale is realistically modelled the temptation to demand Stalingrad type sacrifices from ones virtual soldiers is near irresistible. Casualties tend to be far higher than in most real world clashes. By setting CM games in great context, making it clear that any given battalion combat team is likely to have to fight over and over again without reinforcements, concentrates the mind like no points system in a one off game can. The bigger the picture one can show the players, the greater the context a battle can be set in, the more realistic the play is like to be. For me this was the biggest lesson of CMMC1. Having said all of the above, I do think Static Operations are fun way to play CMX1. But an operational system that not only carries casualties forward, but shows a far bigger picture will be even better. When it comes to operations, as with other aspects of CMX2, things are rapidly moving in the right direction . All the best, Kip.

Moon posted, “The program would be very like the Quick Battle Generator but taking its parameters for forces, weather and so on… from the operational map/game. Is all this likely to happen any time soon… if ever, no. You sure? Martin” Wow…this is a huge bone… I realize I must be careful and not overreact, it will not be all I wish for, but even some movement in the above indicated direction is massively encouraging . The welding of an operational game/layer to CM has always been my long-term big idea for CM. As I said above those of us wishing for such a layer must not get too carried away. My guess is we will still be unable to maneuver the operational units. But some interaction between an operational layer and CM, with the results from CM battles applied to the operational layer… or something along those lines… is truly great news. When it comes to the reason for my wish for an operational layer there are really two related reasons. One is to do what Jason does not wish to do. To play an entire operational level game of, say the Bulge, with the option of resolving the contact battles at the CM level if players wish. To play an entire CMMC campaign. The second reason is to set each CM battle in greater context. My guess is that Moon’s bone means we are well on the way to achieving the goal of greater context. Great stuff . All the best, Kip. PS. The reason for a lack of true CMMC type games using CMAK, and the slow progress of CMMC2 using CMBB, is the massive work load for empires/games masters with the current file format in CM. CMMC1 was a huge success but required an unsustainable number of hours by the empires. We are using CMX1 for something it was not designed to do .

Urban Shocker, hi, “Too much to ask?” probably I have long lobbied for a full feature, full function operational game to be welded onto CM. Such that one could resolve the game at the operational level, or at the CM level. That is play out the game at the operational level with the manoeuvre units being mainly battalion combat teams, but then click down a scale to resolve any given contact battle at the CM level if the two players agreed. Say the battle for a given cross roads that was particularly important to the overall campaign. A CMMC game welded to CM. The program would be very like the Quick Battle Generator but taking its parameters for forces, weather and so on… from the operational map/game. Is all this likely to happen any time soon… if ever, no. It is not my job to defend BFC, and Steve will post to do just that if he gets the whim to, but the amount of work required would be huge. Steve has already made clear that the first game with CMX2 will be concentrating on getting the new graphics engine, Relative Spotting, one to one representation and such all sorted. The second game will introduce cooperative play/live team play. There will be a new operational layer, but not one in which we can manoeuvre units to the extent that you and I, and no doubt Jason, Paul and Ken, would wish for. The importance of an operational level is in large part to set each CM contact battles in greater context. This has been taken on by BFC and in CMX2 the new operational level will set greater context for each CM level game. So BFC are moving in the direction we hope for. But not nearly as far as we wish for. I was heavily involved in CMMC1 and am very keen to use CMX2 as a means of resolving contact battles in a great operational campaign. But we are likely to have to use similar methods to CMMC1. One feature that would help hugely is if Saved games could be full edited in CMX2. But I am not holding my breath. BFC are a very small company, perfecting CMX2 for its chosen scale of roughly company v battalion is work enough for such a small team. Having said all of the above I remain optimistic that one day, some team or another will weld a full feature operational game to a Squad Leader/CM scale game. Hopefully BFC will as I do not really trust others to make a quality job of it. But sadly I think it will be a very long wait I have long lobbied for it and Steve has never hinted at any reason for hope. We are lucky to have CM at all when you look at other wargames . All the best, Kip.

Hi, Yup… I agree that NWE is due again, Normandy or Bulge. A NWE game to introduce CMX2 then an Eastern Front game to add live team play, cooperative play I think Steve calls it. Once a couple of classic wargame settings are out of the way, with modules following, BFC will have the peace to get on with some of the stuff they really want to do. Probably the first two games will be classic wargame settings. Really get the money in, then some odd-ball stuff, Space Lobsters of Doom, then contemporary wargame. Anyway… out of a possible five plus “games” with CMX2 if there are two-three titles that interest my, plus the related couple of modules per game, I will be happy for years to come. NWE is due, and it would be unthinkable not to do Eastern Front some where in CMX2, so I am optimistic . All the best, Kip.

Hi, Steve posted.. “Kinda similar to those who go on and on and on and on and on and on about some sort of big campaign system... we haven't made one, yet years later these same people are still here and obviously playing the non-meta campaign games we made Stand up guys and take a bow... you know we love ya!” Oh noooo… first all hope of a Cold War game is brutally wrenched from me, now no hope of a full feature operational game welded to CM…. I need trauma counseling In fact… as it happens I am still one of the hard core CM fans who could not be happier about all the bones thrown by Steve. Explained why in the “ranting Cold War” thread so will not repeat all the reasons here. (Even the possible settings for CMX2 sound perfect, likely to be NWE, Eastern Front and contemporary… with modules thrown in will happily keep me occupied for 5 years plus… no problem.) All good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. Based on the principle that I never give up…still optimistic of a file format allowing Saved games to be edited… would make meta-campaigns doable in a way they are not really practical now. The workload needed for real meta-campaigns is just too much without the above feature.

Hi, Steve posted.. “Kinda similar to those who go on and on and on and on and on and on about some sort of big campaign system... we haven't made one, yet years later these same people are still here and obviously playing the non-meta campaign games we made Stand up guys and take a bow... you know we love ya!” Oh noooo… first all hope of a Cold War game is brutally wrenched from me, now no hope of a full feature operational game welded to CM…. I need trauma counseling In fact… as it happens I am still one of the hard core CM fans who could not be happier about all the bones thrown by Steve. Explained why in the “ranting Cold War” thread so will not repeat all the reasons here. (Even the possible settings for CMX2 sound perfect, likely to be NWE, Eastern Front and contemporary… with modules thrown in will happily keep me occupied for 5 years plus… no problem.) All good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. Based on the principle that I never give up…still optimistic of a file format allowing Saved games to be edited… would make meta-campaigns doable in a way they are not really practical now. The workload needed for real meta-campaigns is just too much without the above feature.

Hi, We all have to harden are selves to the fact that some of the settings for future games will not be to our individual tastes. Once you get away from WWII NWE and Eastern Front the numbers who are wildly enthusiastic about the setting decreases fast. But Steve knows all this. He made clear that Charles and himself are feeling somewhat burnt out on WWII, but in the long-run WWII is still their favourite single setting for wargames. My money is on one of the classic WWII NWE or Eastern Front settings for the first game with CMX2. That would be by far the safest bet for them. Also, I would bet on around 50% of the settings for new games being WWII over the entire CMX2. Of course, remember that one very positive aspect of modules is that while Steve and Charles work on Space Lobsters others will be releasing WWII modules to keep us hard-core WWII fans happy. Contemporary/current does appeal to me in terms of the toys to play with… but I cannot think of a real world setting that would be credible. But you can be sure BFC have thought of that too… so they must have come up with a fun setting of some sort . (I know there is Iraq, but that is more “shooter” or FPS territory… it is all so wildly one sided I am not sure it would make for a “wargame”, in my view. But it will be fun to see what they come up with even if they do go for Iraq.) Lots to look forward to , All the best, Kip.

Steve, “Kip, it isn't so much about the money as it is the creative burnout and frustration levels.” Yup..I understand. There was even more good news for me in your post when talking about the possible titles of future games, “I'll at least go so far as to say that contemporary (i.e. current/near future) combat is on there” It may not be Cold War, but I will get a new set of toys to play with the technology is a big part of the fun for me. (But true science fiction I cannot cope with… do not have the imagination gene..) All sounds great, All the best, Kip.