kipanderson

Hi, Just to reinforce what some others have said. It is hugely important that BFC start to make real, serious money or one day Steve and Charles will jump ship… and that would be a very bad news. The end of civilisation as I have come to know it… really… As I never tire of telling my wargame chums there is CM, and there is nothing else. Five years after CMBO was released. One of my favourite sayings is that “no one has a monopoly on genius”. I was wrong . Ok…there must be other groups out there that "could" also produce quality wargames. But the fact that no one has, to the standard of CM, means it is both very challenging and not that financially rewarding relative to the skills and effort required. So if BFC have come up with a strategy for making more money, this is a very good thing . Of course, it is easy for me to say all this as the bones thrown by Steve are all adding up to the type of CMX2 I was hoping for. On the subject of the scope of each title I can not see how CMX2 could both have a hugely improved graphics engine; terrain, men and vehicles all modelled in far greater detail, “and” still cover an entire front in each release. Even in the enlarged niche they are aiming at, they could never justify the man hours. All the best, Kip. PS. When I say no one else has produced a quality wargame to CM standards, MadMinute Games with Civil War Bull Run deserve an honourable mention… it models smoothbore combat stunningly. PPS. Just to show how people differ… I do not even know how to use the Quick Battle generator works… have no interest in it… game maps based topographical maps, plus realistic scenarios is all I play. Hence my questions on editing, the answers to which have put me at ease .

Tarkus posted, “One thing I do not fear is that if BFC decide to narrow each title's scope, it will not be done at the expense of historical accuracy. In fact, I bet the exact opposite will happen. In the battle of the Bulge, we'll see more trucks, mores buildings, more terrain elements properly made for the battle of the bulge.” Exactly… I too would bet any amount that something along the lines given above will result… I like the idea . In fact, given the views of some on this thread I must confess in having gone over the Dark Side on this subject, I think narrower focus with more releases is better, not worse. To give an example. My favourite Eastern Front battle is the Korsun Pocket, January/ February ’44. Such a subject for CMX2 would have all the major vehicles available in January-March ’44 on the Eastern Front, but modeled and weathered in far more detail than CMX1. For example… with winter weathering more along the lines of 1/35 AFV models… far more detailed than anything in CMX1. This would fit very well with the new graphics engine, the new graphics would anyway demand a more detailed modeling of AFVs or there would be little point in a more advanced graphics engine, it you follow my rantings…. More detailed modeling would mean it was impossible to include as many vehicles as in CMX1 for reasons of time per model. On the question of editing I, and all with my concerns, can now relax, Steve did answer a straight question, when it comes to battles there will be more, not less, editing freedom. Finally, the idea of keeping modules coming on an earlier WWII based game, while BFC focus on a new game in some other setting is also good stuff. I am hardened to the fact that some releases for CMX2 will not be my thing so modules keeping me occupied until the next WWII/ post-WWII game is released is only good news. All the best, Kip.

mkvi, I would like to see something long similar lines. My vote would be to see the action from the position of the AFV commander, through his viewing devices from inside the AFV. The inside of tanks being near generic for each nation. Also, from the perspective of the infantry squad commander. It you are going to lock the view to a unit, why not from the position of the unit commander rather than four feet above and behind his head. Anyway, I agree that viewing a battlefield from inside a tank would be fun . All the best, Kip.

Steve, It all sounds great to me… all I heard from your bones at he start of year, plus the latest on modules is spot on for my very strongly held hopes for CMX2 However, there is just one small-ish concern… the editing ability. You said there will not be editable operations, that is the new type of operations with what I would understand as “events”, conditional objectives and such. However, will there still be as much editing freedom in what we now know as battles? One more question… well more lobbying than anything else . My favourite way to play CMX1 is Static Operations. I am currently building operations in CMBB, and in CMAK using the new NWE mod for both Ardennes and Normandy. All from topographical maps. The reason I am such a fan is that, in my view, Static Operations very closely model real world “battles”. In the real world, from all my reading, a typical battle of CM scope and scale will often have taken 2-6 hours, or even all day. Say for a medium size village on a 3km x 3km map. Within the 2-6 hour “battle” there would be two or three pushes/assaults separated by pauses of an hour or so. During the pauses casualties would be recovered, ammunition brought up and so on. Static Operations model this outstandingly… I am addicted . Any chance at all that we will be able to simulate something along the same lines in CMX2? i.e. with pauses to bring up ammunition and recover to some degree between hour+ long assaults. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Steve, It does all sound great, The fact that ETO remains your favourite is very good news… all of it sounds good. I am very hardened to the fact that not every title will be my thing, but that I will still end up with more titles I do enjoy than was possible with CMX1. I am just very narrow minded… WII plus the now vetoed Cold War , are close-ish to the only subjects that “float my boat”… to use your phrase. Steve… just to ask, “if” you are willing to make a guess in public, what is your best guess of when we will know the settings of the first two games? You have us all very well trained in that it is “done when it is done”, but are we talking nearer September or say, July, for the release of the titles/settings for the first two games? The first game to follow at the turn of the year. More titles with narrower focus is better for sure. All sounds like fun, All the best, Kip. PS. CM series and Civil War Bull Run are the only PC games I play… I really am “very” picky … hence the above question. [ May 22, 2005, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: kipanderson ]

DavidI, Truly great stuff… shocked… it is just like having a new version of CM to play with . Thanks for all the work, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Smaller, but deeper, more specific to time period and place would be a change for the good. To give an example. I am very much hoping that when it is again the turn of the Eastern Front, in a winter time period, there will ship fully weathered, winter camo on the AFVs, and winter uniforms. The problem with mods, particularly AFV mods, is that you end up with a range of camo styles/colour saturation settings in the same game. However good the mods, and some are stunning, this looks unrealistic to me. Far more detailed modelling of the AFVs will also be possible with a smaller range in each game. Plus, as Andreas mentioned, it will allow more specific terrain graphics. All very good news. All the bones thrown by Steve have so far been hugely encouraging just what I hoped for… with just one “possible” exception. Steve did warn that we may not be able to edit whatever replaces CMBB/CMAK style operations. As someone who spends 90% of my CM time in the editor…this is a bit of a blow. CM fans do not come more hardcore…but I have only ever played a truly tiny number of the shipped scenarios and operations. I like to build my own maps, from topographical maps, then build my own scenarios or ship the map off to some other trusted scenarios designer such as Andreas. The thought of “having” to play the shipped operations, or play no operations, would be a blow. For example, I am currently building a 3km by 6km operational map in CMBB from topographical maps of the Korsun area. Deeper and more specific to place and time is very good news. But within the limits of the given time and place a loss of editing ability would be a shame. In my very predujice view . All the best, Kip.

Hi, Well I guess that is the end of that… Lucky for me that WWII is by far my favourite topic… I cannot imagine that NWE and the Eastern Front will not be done, plus either or both of Med and Pacific… more than enough to keep me occupied for years at a time. Now… there will be no Cold War… but what about my other CM related obsession… welding a fully functional operational game on to CM. So that you can play out the game to its end at the operational level, but if you wish, click down a scale to resolve any given contact battle at the CM scale… bound to happen… only rational big idea out there All good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. In my shock and horror at that sad news I missed the bone that the setting for each game will not be any bigger than in CMX1… this is very good news. Far better to have a series of smaller games with higher quality than HUGE settings for each game.

Paul, I do agree that the nearer we go to current war fighting, some hypothetical Uncle Puttin against the US and a new Germany, the bigger the problems. All this over the horizon, real-time movies and precision… but this, very happily, is all post-Cold War. At the CM scale. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Paul posted, “It is interesting, however, that the only really large scale clash of arms we have seen since WWII took place in the 1st Gulf War.” By the UK military I have seen both Gulf Wars described as “a no show” and “a live fire exercise”. It was first world v third world. Makes every difference . I would say the Arab-Israeli War of ’73 was the nearest we came to a CM type battle, i.e. high intensity, combined arms, mechanized warfare. Just throw in some T64s and better training and we are off. From all I have read on the ’73 war it was very WWII in character… just very poorly trained, and even worse commanded, on one of the sides. All good fun , All the best, Kip.

JonS posted “but Kip ≠ normal” I always thought I was the standard by which normality was judged… By the standards of this forum anyway All the best, Kip.

Hi, Guys… I think we need to be clear about time periods here, as Andreas has hinted. I am not lobbying for anything more modern than 16 years ago … when the Wall came down and any possibility of a “hot” Cold War ended. By “modern” I would say First Gulf War onwards…then things did start to change. Close to all the technologies that would cause real problems, both in terms of fun and modelling, are post-Cold War, in my view. The ATGMs of the second half of the eights were command-to-line-of-site, not fire and forget. The ATGMs of the era were also very slow, normally 250 mps to 400 mps. Tanks fire, at the forward arc of their “contemporary” opposite numbers, was often no more lethal than in WWII. M1A1s and T80Us , both introduced in ’85, could stand and blast away at each other with near impunity using late ‘80s ammunition. (Well… I would not recommend it… but it would take a few rounds to kill each other, far from first round, first kill.) Of course, quite horrible massacres would result if M60s ran into T80Us or T72s into M1A1s . When it comes to artillery, I take a somewhat controversial view. My “guess” is that the real, useable, power of artillery peaked in WWII. When considering first world v first world wars; the qualification matters . The reason I say this is that by the late ‘70s counter battery fire had reached such a level of efficiency that artillery would spend most of their time fighting artillery, or trying to avoid detection by moving rather than supporting line units. But I do not claim to “know” this, clearly just a hunch based on my reading of what gunners claimed to be able to do to enemy gunners. I imagine a frontline war being fought not unlike WWII, then artillery fighting artillery over the heads of the front line units. Someone like JonS would know far better than I what a first world v first world artillery battle would have looked like in the ‘80s. When it comes to ranges, I remember a NATO study of Northern Germany which predicted 90% of “first contacts” being between 800m and 1200m. Also, much of the fighting would have been in semi-urban, call it mixed, terrain. The 800m to 1200m is only first contact ranges. Once you get the precision, stand off weapons of the ‘90s and today it all gets far more complicated with real time recon drones and the lot. I am not that sure ‘80s warfare would feel that different from WWII, but it is clearly a case of “the glass half full or half empty”. On each individual bit of kit we would probably all agree about the tactical implications, it is just some believe the overall effect would have been massively different from WWII, some less different. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Andreas posted, “Now that BFC are publishing Dropteam. Kip should be happy ” Andreas has gone over to the Dark Side!!! All the best, Kip.

John, hi, “Although I have often heard claims that Soviet artillery was unresponsive compared to Western gunners, these times seem pretty good to me. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a lot of data available about the response times other armies might expect.” Absolutely… I had a semi-battle with Steve about this before CMBB trying to get him to lower the response times for Soviet artillery to something closer to that of the other powers. By 43. After I read it in the study I reacted exactly the same way. (Makes me laugh that we must be equally sad old men to read this stuff… ) I have not yet read the artillery section in new Glantz book Colossus Reborn, will do so over the next few days in the hope he may comment on the matter. The Soviets will certainly have known the extreme need for quick response times, and once a line was set up, there seems little reason they could not come close to matching others… time will tell. Great data… All the best, Kip.

Hi, when it comes to a Cold War game being science fiction is all depends on what you mean by “science fiction”…i.e. who much “fiction” it takes in the content to condemn all as “science fiction”. As flamingknives as pointed out, 90% of WWII CM games are hypothetical. Clearly a war between NATO and Warsaw Pact never happened. However… there is nothing fictional about much of the content such a setting for CM would have. The armies were very real, on a scale near to WWII and lined up with potentially unfriendly intent. The detail of their organisation is known and available to all who wish to find such information. (As it happens I am looking at my copy of the US Army manual FM 100-2-3 Red Army 1991 as I type this. It has enough detail on organisation to keep even Steve happy .) When it comes to data on weapon performance there is mountains of it out there. Even for 1980s equipment. The concern about whether or not it is classified is neither here nor there. In my view. The real arms race was always between arms manufacturers and they would leak information, leak the results of official tests like there was no tomorrow…and still do. Why… because if they did not they would not sell their equipment. Countries do not buy US/Soviet or British kit if they do not know, and have confirmed, much of the data on it performance. They, that is both the buyers and sellers, then leak the information to Janes and such. These leaked results can then be confirmed by running the equations used for the given piece of kit to see if it is credible, or wildly exaggerated. Remember the physics of all this is fully understood. Also, remember that the armour packages used today are not the same as in the ‘80s. The world is far more relaxed about ’80 armour packages data. Also, there is a lot of “dot-joining”, reliance on assumptions/equations in WWII simulations too. When it comes to the 1970s, even late ‘70s, there is no practical problem at all… in my view. Many may be surprised by just how open even the US is with such information, it you know where to look. One reason maybe that all the players who matter, know it all anyway because they understand what it possible and what is not. As the head of one Russian ATGM development team said at the launch of a new missile a few years a go.. “if you can read an equation… you know the performance of ATGMs”. Anyway… of course, a lot of the equipment has done battle so there are lots of practical examples with which to verify the equations… exactly how WWII simulations are done. In conclusion, the Cold War armies were real, their organisation fully recorded, and their weapons data there for the taking. But, it never happened. Happily, and this is a very good thing in the real world, all the post-WWII conflicts have been too small scale, too third world, too reliant on light infantry “search and destroy” to make very interesting CM games. In my view, others will differ. If the most mechanised and high-intensity post-WWII conflict were covered, i.e. Arab-Israeli ’73, inevitably many would wish to try the same kit crashing around in European terrain in a first world v first world environment. If there are to be six plus games in the CMX2 series my full wish list would be the three big WWII settings cover by CMX1, plus Pacific WWII, Vietnam and Cold War/Arab-Israeli ’73. But not necessarily in that order. As stated above I think Cold War and Arab-Israeli ’73 go together because given the effort in producing either one it would be a terrible waste not to cover the other. If BFC cover the Cold War it would only take a smallish amount of work to cover Arab-Israeli ’73. Thus keeping all happy. Including the “anti-science fiction” crowd . All good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. Just to give an example, for data on the second generation, Soviet explosive reactive armour I can think of five quality sources off the top of my head. The armour used on T80s from ’85 onwards.

Michael, “What I am saying, and all that I am saying, is what I started out with, namely WW III games are science fiction. If you enjoy playing them, fine. But don't think they have much to do with reality or possible reality, because nobody really knows what all that would have looked like. The progress and outcome of the Arab/Israeli war of '73 surprised a lot of people on both sides of the Iron Curtain, and led to a lot of recalculation. But mostly it showed how uncertain that whole business is.” We do not really disagree on that much, my spin would just be a little different . With one exception…WMD . No one can know, but the US using nukes to save Bonn, and thereby sign the death warrants of millions of US citizens, maybe the end of most large US cities, does not seem credible to me. The problem with the nuclear threat, when dealing with other nations with nuclear weapons, has always been that it is far better to suffer the loss of a conventional war than face nuclear strikes on all ones major cities. All the Soviet Union would have to say is “you nuke us…we nuke you” and those around Reagan never would have let it happen. In my view. Far better the Soviets reach the channel than Chicago disappears. Anyway… even the senior players at the time would not have been able to predict what happens… BTW do not ignore the Europeans in all this, not keen on nukes being thrown around… but no one knows. One reason for this speculation is the lack of bones from BFC. Once they have announced the first two titles all minds, including the mine, will turn to those subjects. All the best, Kip. PS. BTW there certainly have been Cold War wargames. Operation Flashpoint and a number of games produced by John Tiller, Modern Campaigns, ae examples. Plus there is a huge semi-Cold War game on the way..read it over at Wargamer.com. Uncle Puttin invades Germany... all the late Cold War kit in a very CM looking environment. But, of course, more Operation Flashpoint then CM.

Tarkus, hi, For sure Steve posted six odd plus games. I am always a bit nervous of quoting as I may get the exact words wrong, so tend to paraphrase. But no doubt about it… of course this will only be the “plan”. Exact words where “five to eight games”… I think . Steve has also posted that it may be as low as six months between games. I would put my money on nine months for safety. Worth pointing out that a major goal of the new engine is speed of development between each version of the game. All fans of CM have a huge amount of fun to look forward to once BFC start cranking out games from CMX2. When it comes to nukes, and chemical, we can all only guess if they would have been used. My guess is not. I think the risk of war was real, now and then.. on and off, but WMD was bluff all round, even if the players did not know it. I can only guess, but no leader would wish to swap Gorky for London, or Moscow for New York. Of course, all had to train and plan for WMD as before WWII chemical weapons. Plus, as pointed out above, logistics, airpower in part, are all to some degree ignored or overlooked in CMX1. CMX2 will not try to model “everything” as CMX1 does not try to. I see no practical reason why NATO Central Front could not be done. If it takes the imagination of the guys at BFC it will happen. The problem with all the real world post-WWII wars is that, happily, they were all very small in scale when compared to WWII. I very good thing in the real world. In the CM world we are discussing the biggest in terms of mechanisation was by far the Arab-Israeli war of ’73. But having re-read up on it recently looking for possible historical CMX2 scenario, the pickings a very thin indeed. Thus… even if Arab-Israeli ’73 were modelled by BFC in no time most players would have to turn to hypothetical, fictional scenarios anyway. (Also, many of the historical battle of ’73 were very one sided….) “If” T55s/T62s/T72s/M60s are going to be crashing around on our PCs, it would be a terrible waste not to model NATO Central Front, in my very prejudiced view . All the best, Kip.

Hi, As posted above there will always be quite a few who are not taken by a Cold War game. This will be true of all settings other than WWII NWE and Eastern Front. In fact, in common with many, I view the Eastern Front as the mother of all wargame settings for a long list of reasons. One of which it that the German ground forces suffered 76% of their total casualties in WWII fighting the Soviet Union up to the end of March 45, i.e. excluding the round-up of the last six weeks. The entire NWE campaign accounted for just 14% of German ground forces casualties. Anyway… in the hope that there will be other settings for CM the question is which settings. If BFC went for Arab-Israeli Wars in no time there would be a demand to play with the same equipment in a first world v first world setting in other than desert terrain. The nearest this ever came to happening, so far, is NATO v Warsaw Pact. It would be far easier to mod from a NATO-Warsaw Pact game, to an Arab-Israeli game, than the other way round. Steve has posted to the effect that not all will like the setting for all the games with CMX2 but if they dislike one release they will hopefully enjoy the next in line. He has also stated that the aim is to get through six plus games with the CMX2 engine. I remain of the view that one of the games with CMX2 will be post-WWII mechanised warfare. BFC are “almost” inevitably, I clearly do not “know” this, going to want to have a go at modelling some form of more modern, mechanised warfare. NATO Central Front seems the more likely choice to me, but I would not die of shock if an Arab-Israelis game got the honour of the post-WWII slot . All the best, Kip.

David I, sounds great, thanks for all the work. All the best, Kip.

Hi, There is another point I think needs making. Once you get away from WWII, in fact once you get away from NWE and the Eastern Front, you are into settings for CM that have a far smaller following in their own right. The great majority of wargamers, and military history nuts, are enthusiastic for quality simulations of the campaign in NWE and on the Eastern Front. When it comes to the Med many will have bought CMAK because it is a great wargame and they have such good experience of CMBO and CMBB, but will not have been huge fans of the Med as a setting. But bought the game anyway because they trust BFC. The attitude towards a Med game will be repeated when BFC turn to the Pacific or the Cold War, or some pre-WWII game. All fans of CM need to harden themselves to the fact that some titles will not be amongst their favourite settings for CM. If BFC are to do any games other than ones set in NWE, or on the Eastern Front, quite a few fans will be disappointed by the time period and theatre of operations. This is inevitable. However, even accepting that I too will not be a fan of all the time periods and settings BFC go for, change is good . My personal preference would be three WWII games followed a Cold War game. If you enjoy mechanised, combined arms warfare I see no other way to go. But others will disagree. Anyway… we must all harden ourselves to the prospect of the odd setting for CMX2 that would not have been our choice. But of course, I in common with most on this forum, will buy any wargame BFC produce. All the best, Kip. PS. Yes…Fulda Gap is the one…

Hi, In fact until recently I was accustomed to posting that CM was the only PC game I played because it was the only wargame that came up to the required standard. With the release of MadMinute’s Civil War Bull Run that changed. In my view Bull Run does for muzzle loaders what CMX1 does for WWII. So recently I have been able to enjoy some change from WWII. In military history/wargames I would only rank the American Civil War as coming fourth in terms of my interests. Behind WWII, Cold War and the Napoleonic wars. Yet still it was hugely good fun to play with a simulation of a standard close to CMX1, yet other than WWII. I would also be happy to see BFC produce an operational level wargame. Again, change is good. But my wish for an operational game still does not mean that the current CM, and Squad Leader, scale is anything other than my favourite. The current CM scale with squads as the manoeuvre units, over battlefields around the 2km by 2km size is ideal. In my view. But not every time I play a wargame. Anyway… lobbying for your favourite settings for future games is very much one of things BFC forums are for, its in part why they have forums. In the end all depends on what sort of wargames take the imagination of BFC. I cannot see the guys from BFC spending months working on games that would be of no interest to them in terms of the setting. I am very optimistic that I will see a Cold War game one day. I know Charles is hugely into the technology, the toys. I also know Steve is a big fan of the T72. With luck both, and other members of BFC, will wish to see such tanks manoeuvre in their games. All the best, Kip. PS. The up and coming major mod to convert CMAK to NWE will also be great. Rounding off CMX1 by fighting some Bulge and Normandy battles with the CMBB suppression model will be a fun way to put CMX1 to bed.

“How many times are you planning to waste bandwidth by saying this?” Until it happens All the best, Kip.

Hi, This was set off by someone musing on the most likely setting for the first game with CMX2. Steve has posted that when CMX2 is officially announced the first two titles in the series will be made public. My guess is that both will be WWII. North West Europe plus one other; maybe Pacific; with Eastern Front to follow later in the series. Who knows, only employees of BFC could give us an answer and they probably will reasonably soon. All of the above sounds great to me. The mix of the suppression model from CMBB, Absolute Spotting replaced by Relative Spotting, a new graphics engine plus one:one representation of men is enough to lead to near sleepless nights waiting for Christmas . Any high-intensity, combined arms setting with CMX2 will be more fun than any of us deserve. Certainly than I deserve. However… it would be fun to move to a setting where there was a completely new set of toys to play with. If the first two titles with CMX2 do turnout to be WWII, that will be five games in a row set in WWII. i.e. with the same vintage of toys to play with. The same technology. Now do not get me wrong, there is no sane, bigger fan of WWII as a setting for military history to study and wargames to play than I. As with many who frequent these forums I have hundreds of military history books, the great majority on WWII. In fact nine out of ten are WWII. When I last ranted on this subject I was reading David Glantz’s big item book on Leningrad, currently I am reading his outstanding new book on the Red Army 1941-1943. I would be very sorry if the majority of CMX2 games are not set in WWII. But none of the above means that “every” CM game should be set in WWII. The technology, and the tactical implications and problems arising there from, are a big part of the appeal of CM/military history for me, and no doubt a number of others. (But… no… I am not claiming a “majority” of CM fans are as fascinated by the technology as I am… just quite a few.) Equally, it is high-intensity, combined arms, conventional war that interests me most. Given the above, an interest in the technology of war and in a high-intensity, combined arms war fighting environment, post-WWII is the way to go. In a post-WWII game that is also high-intensity, combined arms warfare there is only one place to go, the big one, the one that never happened, NATO’s Central Front . To get the most out of a game set other than in WWII one wants to move far enough away from WWII that even second line troops are using different toys from those used in WWII. If you go for a change, go for a real change, why set a post-WWII game in an era when WWII tanks were still widely used. Thus we are talking around 1970 onwards. The other huge advantage of the early ‘70s onwards is the wide spread availability of mature anti-tank, guided missiles, ATGMs. A “must have” feature or why bother to leave WWII behind. There is the ’73 Arab-Israeli War but reading up on it again recently reminded me of just how small, and short a war it was. In the real world, of course, this is a very good thing. But from a CM point of view there really are a very small number of non-fictional battles to model. Just a small number, mostly lasting for one morning. Those who are accustomed to having all of the Eastern Front or NWE campaigns to choose from to model historical battles would be shocked by how thin the pickings are in the war of ’73. This brings me back to NATO’s Central Front , the big one that never happened. I know some are put off by the fact that the Cold War never became “hot”. That it never happened. But high-intensity, combined arms war never has happened since WWII. Korea, Vietnam and all the contemporary wars were/are really infantry wars. There was armour in Korea and Vietnam but very much in a supporting role. Both of the Gulf Wars, as opposed to any following occupation, were indeed high-intensity, combined arms. But both were such a miss match that I have seen them described by the British military as “no-shows” on behalf of the Iraqis, or “live-fire” exercises. A good thing if you are British or American, but not a suitable or interesting setting for CM. If post-WWII versions of CM are to be few and far between then it would be a waste not to take on the really big one, NATO’s Central Front 1970-1989 . In my view. The mix of toys on both sides is truly fascinating, also very evenly balanced. Even in the second half of the ‘80s. The model of 120mm gunned M1 that entered service in 1985, using the ammunition available up to 1989, is far more evenly matched by the model of T80 that entered service the same year than many assume. I could real off example after example of the even and interesting match of Soviet technology to western technology all the way to the end of the Cold War. In the ’70s M60s, Chieftains, Leopard 1s matched off against T55s, T62s, T64s and T72s. In the ‘80s early model M1s, and still a lot of M60s, against T80s… and so on. With Milan, Tow, Sagger and Spandrel ATGMs snaking across the battlefield in the half light of a winters evening… It would be a big job, but any group of individuals that pulled off CMBB to the stunning quality BFC did could do it… Even if the Cold War is not a subject of the first two titles with CMX2… do not hold back in later titles . All very good fun, All the best, Kip.

DavidI, Looks great. This mod is just what is needed to round off CMX1. NWE with the CMBB suppression model . Thanks. All the best, Kip.

Zimorodok, They look great. They have 1/35 “Verlinden” military model look about them. Stunning . All the best, Kip.