kipanderson

David I, Outstanding… looks stunning . This is just the type of CMAK mod I have been waiting for. I would love to be able to say goodbye to CMX1 with a blast of games set in NWE but using the suppression model found in CMBB/CMAK. Stunning stuff… will follow with interest. Thanks, All the best, Kip.

Hi, interesting link, thanks All the best, kip.

Hi, When it comes to the AI, I think Steve may underrate his own product The Strategic AI does have problems, too aggressive for its own good in defence would be one example. It ambushes very well, but tries to be too cunning by counter-attacking and then just runs onto the guns of the attacker. However, the TacAI, the AI controlling the behaviour of the individual units, I think is outstanding. Given the orders units have, given the prevailing situation and given the extreme stress the real world men in the units would be under, I am constantly stunned by how realistically the virtual men behave. Remember, due to stress and confusion in the real world tragic and seemingly stupid mistakes will be quite frequent. Squads running into houses for cover when they should have run jumped into the ditch, freezing in place when they should have run into a house … and so on. It is important that there is some “random error” in the AI controlling the individual units. It’s more realistic . All the best, Kip. PS. I do agree that human v human is certainly the way to play CM. In fact the better you know someone, the more fun it is to slaughter their men

What CM is. In my view DrD, hi, I think the core of the difference between us is that when you look at CM you tend to imagine that you are primarily the battalion or company commander. You will correct me if I am wrong, but your posts, and most posts from Grogs, seem to assume the single player is primarily playing the role of force commander. Thus posts from most Grogs take the line of “as company commander I would not know what my infantry squad on the extreme left flank could see, not immediately anyway”. However, when I play CM I consider myself to be the commander of the individual infantry squad on the extreme left flank, the squad leader, thus I can see everything that the squad can see, immediately. Seeing all that the real world squad leader could see, and ordering around my squad is my primary role. Micro-managing my squad is my primary role in CM. But I am as much a fan of “realism” as any. Thus I am no fan of Borg Spotting, that is of friendly units spotting on behalf of each other as in CMX1. There is no greater fan of Relative Spotting, each individual friendly unit having to spot enemy units in their own right, than I. Also, I do wish my infantry squad to suffer from real world morale problems, and limits on its abilities relative to its training/experience. The next stage is that for reasons of “fun”, I like to play the roles of lots of squad commanders, AFV commanders, AT gun commanders, all at once But still wish the hard coding in the game to be optimised for the role of squad/AFV commander. The fact that I am now the single controlling mind/God to lots of squads does not make the game any more unrealistic, just more fun. My primary role is not company or battalion commander just because there is more than one squad to command. I do this in the full and happy knowledge that my primary role is still humble squad leader. For realism the ideal would be a different human player to command each manoeuvre unit/squad/AFV in CM. However, for reasons of “fun”, and may be coding problems, a team of four players dividing up a company of infantry between them will probably be ideal in a game of CMX2. In its second release. This is why when Steve first returned to the forum I was somewhat nervous as to what he had planned for CMX2 until he had confirmed that the focus of development is the same scale and scope as CMX1. Once I knew this, I was happy. In fact I often like to play games that are semi-operational in terms of map size and number of units. For example against Andreas… hence he knows my eccentricities;) However, I do this in the full knowledge that the game is optimised for the role of squad leader/AFV commander.. not brigade commander. I am greedy; I want the fun of being lots of squad leaders/AFV commanders all at once I want to watch a huge battlefield all at once, but each small part in the detail a squad leader would see the battlefield in. Finally, none of the above means I am not keen to see BFC design a game in which the primary role of the player is company, or battalion, or brigade, even better divisional commander. I do. But it would not be CM. Anyway… all I have heard from Steve sounds great… so I am in the fortunate position of being very relaxed about the future of my hobby of mass slaughter All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, The difference between myself and many others (amongst Grogs ) is that I am perfectly happy with the idea that I play the role of “all” the squad and AFV commanders in CM. when just the single player on one side. In fact, it is the central reason for the success of CM, and Squad Leader before it, together with their stunningly high quality of execution. In my view. BTW. A Semi command game at an operational level, manoeuvre units being battalions not squads, I think would work very well. In fact I hope BFC will give that scale a go one day. All the best , Kip.

DrD, hi, “But is is a realism issue. To me, realism means that what happens in CM is what would happen in real life. so in real life, if a squad cresting a hill suddenly saw an enemy tank in defilade, and that enemy tank shot them all up, would the friendly tanks suddenly come over the hill to extract revenge? Well, maybe, if they heard a shot, but more likely a few minutes would go by and somone would say, hey, what happened to third squad? Send a runner over there and see.” DrD.. it is not a realism issue “if” you are playing the role of “all” the squad and AFV commanders… which in a game in which there is only one player on each side… you are I am as keen as any to play live team CM, CoPlay. In your example the tanks some way behind the infantry squad would be commanded by a different human player in CoPlay. Given that in CoPlay each player can only see what the units he personally commands can see, the supporting tanks would not know the grim fate of the infantry squad. So would not be able to come to their rescue. CoPlay is a far more realistic way to play CM. I agree. But… when there is only “one” human player on each side…. when that is the reality in a given game…. there is nothing unrealistic about being able to see all that each of your units can see. In my view. The greater the number of human players on each side, the smaller the number of units each human player commands, the more realistic the game will be. Agreed. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Just to show that there is a wide range of views on the Borg and God/single controlling mind issues. Even amongst those who may sometimes be described as Grogs. Relative Spotting sounds great, units doing there own spotting as opposed to spotting on behalf of each other as in Absolute Spotting/CMX1. When it comes to the God/single controlling mind issue I do not consider it a problem, because in my view it is not a “realism” issue. My view is that in CM you play the roles of battalion commander, company commander, platoon commander and squad/AFV commanders. Most posts by Grogs seem to assume that the most important roles are the most senior. I disagree. In CM your primary role is that of squad/AFV commander, not company or battalion commander. CM is a micro-management game. The exact positioning and timing in the manoeuvre of your units is what CM is all about. Within the limits of what their morale and training will allow. That is why the units you play with are squads/AFV and not single units representing platoons/companies. The answer to the issue of the single controlling mind is CoPlay, in my view. I hugely look forward to it. You can realistically overcome the problem of the single controlling mind by having two/three or four minds on each side, which CMX2 will have in its second version. Anyway… all I have heard from Steve sounds great, so I am a happy chap. But not all Grogs wish to reduce the “problem” of a single controlling mind, when there is reality only one controlling mind on each side All good fun , All the best, Kip.

Hi, Steve commenting on my lobbying for a Cold War based game, “You're a an optimist if I ever saw one ” Of course. Surely all sane people dream of 3rd Shock Army crashing through the Fulda Gap… light snow conditions, wind hollowing, light fading as T72s manoeuvre and Saggers snake across the fields. (Men in white coats crash through the door and start of drag me away… ) All the best, Kip.

Steve, Quick question. I am correct in saying that in the Orders Phase you will only be able to see enemy units for one selected friendly unit as a time. i.e. no Force or HQ based spotting in the Orders Phase? Would prefer HQ or force based spotting in the Orders Phase, as well as in Play Back, but can happily live without it in the Orders Phase if that is the way it must be. No problem. Also… just because a player goes for the Force or HQ based Play Back option please do not dumb down the individual spotting for each friendly unit, if you follow me. i.e. for each friendly unit I would like their chances of spotting an enemy unit to be as realistic as possible. I am no fan of Borg Spotting… just unconcerned about the God or single controlling mind issue. If you follow me. Greatly looking forward to the game. Did anyone mention the Cold War no…. I have not lost all hope on the subject All the best, Kip.

Hi, Steve posted. “So.... how about this? 1. Relative Playback (Unit Based) 2. Relative Playback (HQ Based) 3. Relative Playback (Force Based)” Perfect… something for everyone. I will be using 3. Relative Playback (Force Based.) most of the time. With games of anything over platoon+ v company I think it is the only practical option. Certainly when playing human v human, my favourite method of play. Strangely… most, including Steve, seem to feel that option 3. is less realistic than the others. I disagree;) With one player on each side, or solo play, you are the single controlling mind; you do play the role of all the squad and AFV commanders, so why pretend otherwise Everyone to their own though. I will also enjoy the other options in small games. Steve, When it comes to CoPlay I think it is hugely important that each player can only see what the units he personally commands can see. From my point of view, it is as close to a “must have feature” as one can get. Really is the point of CoPlay, to realistically create chaos. But of course, the more options the better. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Steve, hi, Ok, just to check I have got this right…. am not being too thick, just normally thick “Jon, of course when you select no friendly units you won't see any enemies. I'm not sure how it could be done otherwise since spotting is always relative to the selected unit. No selection, nothing to be relative to ” The above is in the Orders Phase… yes? Then during the live movie phase, if the player wished, he could see all, that “all” of his units can see. But enemy units will only be identified to the extent that one of his units can identify a given enemy unit in its own right. If I have got it right, then all sounds great It is interesting how different people have very different ideas about realism. For my part I am very happy with the idea that in CM one plays the role of all the squad and individual AFV commanders. For me, that is what CM is. Hence one can see all that the squad and individual AFV commanders can see. My view is that the “only” realistic way to play a game of this scale is in live team play, CoPlay. The more players on each side, the smaller the number of units each player commands, the more realistic the game. I can tell from the above posts that this view is far from universal. When playing as one player on each side.. you are playing God, so just relax and enjoy it But I am still a huge fan of Relative Spotting, each unit doing its own spotting for Targeting and such. No matter… all adds to the fun. We are all different. All the best, Kip. PS. CM is a squad game, no point in pretending otherwise, in my view. But if BFC wished to develop a platoon or company game… even better a game in which the manoeuvre units are battalions, then go for it. Change is good. But I will always hope that now and then there is a return to the current CM/squad scale… as it is my number one favourite. The fact that Squad Leader, and even more so CM, are the number one wargames of all time is in part, due to scale, in my view. And, of course, the stunning quality of execution.

Hi, Great links… If you are in to topographical maps, for free, try these two links. http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/EART/topo.html#U plus, for the Ukraine, http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/EART/x-ussr/ukraine.html All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Tom, We clearly are of the same CM generation… quite few more sad, old hands here too All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, I agree 100% with Steve on Dupuy. I have a big bunch of books by him. Plus, a Hero “full” addition of TM 30-430, Handbook on USSR Military Forces November 1945. (Only full addition I have come across.) However, one must take account of his limited resources, especially with regard to the Soviets. He just did not have the figures for Soviets. Very interesting books but use them alongside with other sources. In my view. All the best, Kip.

The Triple Digit Club I had a number in the 400s, but Steve brutally vaporized me in the Great Crash of ’99. (Tried to post when the system was down.) I have never recovered for the trauma of the sudden loss of status. All the best, Kip.

Hi, When it comes to artillery stopping unexpectedly, counter battery fire could also force an artillery unit to go into emergency bug-out mode. (There is a piece of jargon for it… but I forget what it is ) The threat of counter battery fire could even be in as a design tool. A sort of random event, but within a realistic context. No matter… just a bit of trivia.. All the best, Kip.

Hi, When it comes to assets being ripped out of a battle unexpectedly I agree it could be fun , if used wisely by the designer. The asset that may have been most vulnerable in a real world setting is artillery. Simply because this is an asset that can sometimes be most rapidly “moved”, fire being assigned to other sectors. Or the “process” of reassigning artillery may be one of the first things to happen in an expected emergency. “Cancel all fire missions immediately… we are going to need the ammo elsewhere.” Yes… the idea gets my vote… would be fun to visualise the shock and horror on players faces as their much loved artillery assets are unexpectedly ripped from them . All great stuff, All the best, Kip.

Martin, Good to see other theatres considered, clearly lots of potential. ( Do not forget NATO central front ) BTW. I know I am being thick… but by “structure editor” do you mean map editor as in CM? All the best, Kip.

Martin, hi, Yup… as much power to the editors as possible. This matters. In CM I must spend 85% of my time in the editor, 15% playing. We all have our own ideas of what a realistic scenario is. Entire thing sounds great though… looking forward to it. All the best, Kip.

Hi, All sounds good to me, lots of fun to come. Good to have all the bones in one place. It is easy for me as I was not one of those who were unhappy about any of the bones and hints thrown by Steve before he started this thread. Once it was clear, on about the second day Steve started posting, that the focus and scale of CMX2 was going to be the same as CMX1 I was a happy chap . As for big ideas… one day a full feature, fully functional operational game welded together with a game of the same scale and scope as CMX1/CMX2. Each of which can be played and resolved separately or one can move from one to the other. Each optimised for its own scale. But I have already ranted on about this enough on other threads… so will not bore people any more now . All the best, Kip.

Hi, I agree with flamingknives on just about all matters, but one . I do think that there is enough information on weapon systems of the ‘80s, including the second half of the ‘80s, to build a great CMX2 game covering that period. Thus I would like to see a Cold War game from 1970-1989. It would be a shame not to cover the first mature generation of laminated/ceramic armour. Toys as far from WWII as possible for the greatest change. The only way I could really illustrate my point would be to launch into a “huge” rant on the subject, giving example after example and why the figures can be trusted in each case, which I do not wish to do. It would be massive waste of time and energy. We fans of a Cold War game must not fight amongst ourselves . Fulda Gap here I come . All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, I agree with flamingknives on just about all matters, but one . I do think that there is enough information on weapon systems of the ‘80s, including the second half of the ‘80s, to build a great CMX2 game covering that period. Thus I would like to see a Cold War game from 1970-1989. It would be a shame not to cover the first mature generation of laminated/ceramic armour. Toys as far from WWII as possible for the greatest change. The only way I could really illustrate my point would be to launch into a “huge” rant on the subject, giving example after example and why the figures can be trusted in each case, which I do not wish to do. It would be massive waste of time and energy. We fans of a Cold War game must not fight amongst ourselves . Fulda Gap here I come . All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Posted by Yeknodathaon above, “... and with each layer the map would zoom in or out to a company, battalion or division scale to reflect the time/game scale... I think I'm going to dribble.” Exactly With the results from one layer, applied to the other layer/layers. The key is not to try and mix scales within each layer. Game features that are suitable for operational games with battalions as maneuver units are not suitable for games in which the maneuver units are squads and individual AFVs. Not hard coded, as options no matter. Steve may be laughing at this…. but I remain confident that one day it will come. CM has to evolve slowly, but sometime in the future I believe that the logic of taking this path is overwhelming. ( Ok Steve… you can stop laughing now ) All the best, Kip.

Hi, When it comes to time, nearly all CM scenarios have too few turns, I agree. I always play at least 60 turns per battle. However, the reason most games are so short, is that the men are virtual, and thus the players far more brutal and indifferent to casualties. In all simulations, no matter how realistic the coding, casualties tend to be higher then in the real world, and battles shorter. The way to over come many of the problems with time is to use layers for different time scales/game scales. If there were an operational layer, the time scale there could be four hours per turn. From the operational layer one could click down the to CM scale where it was still one minute per turn. However, each layer/game must be focused on just one game scale. Or you will damage the overall game. So with CMX2 the focus should be narrowed to the company v company scale. ( Which I believe… roughly… is happening, same sale as CMX1.) One day when a genuine operational layer is introduced the operational layer should be focused on that scale, say, with battalion as opposed to squad manoeuvre units. And so on. With the use of different layers one day it will no doubt be possible to play CM over a longer time period with a more realistic feel to the passing of time. All the best, Kip.

Hi, LOL… great story. As a driver and fan of the car my only concern was that the designer may try to design a new car aimed at a different niche market. If I am a driving of a high power : weight ratio, two seater sports car my concern was that the designer may try to build a car that is half sports car, half people mover. Happily, my concerns were unfounded . The designer is optimising the design for the same niche market. ( i.e. game scale.. roughly… company + v company +.) So all is well. I would encourage the designer to go for it . All good fun, All the best, Kip.