kipanderson

Steve, When it comes to misidentification I have long thought it a shame that you use generic units, the grey boxes. Better just to use fully graphically represented units, say, a Mark IV for a Mark VI, but with a “?” mark over it to show the uncertainty. The problem is that generic units spoil the immersive effect. When I play CM the first play through of each movie is always with all settings at their most realistic. If needed, on second play throughs, I click away the trees, turn bases on and such. But generic units break the “Band of Brothers” spell on the first play through. If you follow my rantings. With the even better graphics of CMX2, it would be an even greater shame to use generic units. All the best, Kip.

Hi, As it happens, seconds before typing this… I was heavily engrossed in building a CMBB map of the Barrikady factory complex from the Red Barricades ASL historical module . In turn, based on aerial photos… a great resource. I go back to SL in 1977 and also have all the modules. In its day, undoubtedly the greatest of the cardboard wargames. But not even close to CM as a fun experience or a historical simulation, as military history. In my view. Now, back to building a play ground for even more mass slaughter of my chums virtual men . All good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. Keele University in the UK, has all the German wartime recon photos from the Eastern Front. And, you guessed it, they are scheduled to go online. Eventually .

Hi, Agree with Mord’s above comments. I did have my fears, well the odd apprehension, that CM may evolve in a direction that was not my preferred one. The key is to focus on the company v company scale; this seems to be exactly what CM will continue to be focused on. Perfect. Of course, I will in no time be abusing CMX2 by using it for a scale of game it was not really designed for, games that are way bigger. But whatever the size of game CMX2 is optimized for, many will which to play bigger or smaller games. My fear was that BFC would try to optimize CMX2 for too wide a range of game size. In particular, that they would try to optimize CMX2 for reinforced battalion v battalion scale games. Then they may have started to introduce some of the “command game” features some wish for. This would have been the death of CM. I am amongst the most unhinged in wishing to use CM for bigger scale games, but to do this realistically there must be a move to a quality operational layer. If you try to optimize any wargame to cover too wide a range of game sizes in any one layer, you will break the game. Happily for me, having read all Steve’s posts in the various threads over the last couple of weeks, I now know my apprehensions were groundless. All the best, Kip. PS. How people could be anti 1:1 representation is beyond me… anti 1:1 control… sure… sends a shudder down my spine just thinking about that one.

Hi, JonS posted, “Heh - that was my mental image too.” Good to have you on my side… I also agree with your points. Who is to be allowed to text whom…? And so on. When I think about it there is indeed potential for things to get complicated. But simple, easily missed, text messages are a good way to start. All the best, Kip.

Steve, “Yes, CoPlay (co-op play) eliminates all sorts of Intel problems through very hard nosed restriction of intel sharing. Unfortunately, that creates another set of challenges for us since players will need some way of sharing intel. And that is why it isn't happening for CMx2's first release ” All sounds great… you seem only too aware of the sort of matters that make me nervous that, unwittingly, the magic of CM may be lost. When it comes to communication between players in CoPlay I always took for granted it would just be text messages in a box as used in live play today. Text messages seem to me to model shouted messages, crackling radio messages, very well. “Number 1 platoon flank left of the church and attack the warehouse, ” from a company commander to platoon commander. In the excitement of the game this may not be noticed, or may be misinterpreted as in real war. Just what we are after. The company commander may then go forward to look for himself as in real war… and risk becoming a casualty. Anyway… I know this is all for the next game, so will not distract with more of my rantings on this one… All the best, Kip.

Hi, Steve posted, “Ok, so how are we going to fix gamey recon (which is just a part of the God problem)? We aren't. There is no way we can. However, by using a combo of concepts, carefully measured, we do expect to come up with a system that greatly reduces the effectiveness of acting on information that shouldn't be there in the first place. Relative Spotting is the #1 part of that plan, but of course there is a lot more to it than that.” Wow… could not agree more. I feel very lucky in that it looks as though CMX2 will be exactly the type of game I had hoped for. One thing Steve did not mention… is the importance of live team play, multi-multi play or whatever the jargon is. Units doing their own spotting plus live team play will go a huge distance, 90% of the way, in killing off most Borg effects… in my view. Live team play, with each player only able to see what his own units can see, plus relative spotting ( units doing their own spotting) and the chaos of war and C&C in war, will hit all the players between the eyes… just what we all want. Steve has made it clear live team play will not make it into the first game with CMX2, but will into the second. Imagine a game with of around company v company scale with half a dozen players on each side. True chaos. With long pauses required to sort out the chaos… as in real life. The smaller the game, the more the number of players, the more realistic the C&C chaos will be. However, some will always use gamey recon because the men are virtual, not real flesh and blood. However, no one I play against has ever used gamey tactics. For any game to truly work all have to enter into the spirit of the game. All my CM chums do just that All the best, Kip.

Hi, great link... thanks All the best, Kip.

Steve, “Given 1:1 representation, in whatever form it ultimately takes, and the addition of a more stringent set of C&C rules, will these put an effective cap on the number of units/formations that can be used in CMx2 (as opposed to CMx1, where the theoretical C&C limit is a battalion but in practice this can be exceeded many times over, albeit without upper echelon C&C)” I agree with Tom, good question from Jim. I certainly hope that there will be no upper limits coded in. I would like to see CMX2 optimized for the same scale as CMX1. I imagine this as something around one company v one company over a 1,500m by 1,500m map. But who knows what scale BFC were thinking of when CMX1 was developed. Because CMX2 will be a generational leap from CMX1 I guess most machines will not be able to cope with games much larger than the above company v company size, with all the graphics on their highest settings, at the time the first CMX2 game is released. But I expect all the CMX2 games to have a very long shelf life. Within a couple of years there will be those wishing to play games hugely larger than the “optimum” size for the engine. It is called human nature (As I have with CMBB, played a near realistic breakthrough operation game.) It would be a shame to put limits on the size of games, of any type, just include a very strongly worded warning in the manual as to the likely bottle necks people would hit with their machines, and some of the limits of the design. “At their own risk” type warnings. All the best, Kip.

Hi, “Yes, Morale separate from Experience. Already in the CMx2 design ” Well… one cannot ask for more than that… put a request in and it is already included . Thanks Steve. All the best, Kip.

Steve, Seeing that you are following this thread, and this is an item from my standard “wish list” that relates directly to individual units… here goes… any chance of this feature? “ Edit morale separately from experience levels. When units from roughly similar cultures oppose each other this is not such an issue. There is a correlation between training/skills/quality/experience and morale. So assuming that “regular” German, British and US troops had similar morale is not overly wild when also subject to Fanaticism editing. But when very different cultures oppose each other, such as on the Eastern Front, this rule no longer holds. BFC recognised and overcame this problem by giving Soviet forces in CMBB lower skill levels up until January 44, for any given experience rating. However, in my view, others will differ, this was not a success. In the majority of scenarios I have seen you still find German troops with an average experience between Regular and Veteran, Soviets with an average close to Green. The result is that in most CMBB scenarios I have seen, the Soviets have far lower morale than the Germans. This is not historical accurate. I would like to be able to edit unit morale by one level relative to its experience rating. Such that a Regular unit in experience could have morale of Veteran, Regular or Green. There would still be a correlation between experience and morale, but also some room for limited flexibility. If this feature were there one could in a future Eastern Front game have German forces with average experience ratings between Veteran and Regular, Soviet forces with an average experience rating between Regular and Green, but with both sides having equally high morale. Far more historically accurate. This would also help in many other game settings I can think off.” Do you have any sympathy with the idea ? All the best, Kip.

Tero, hi, sorry, do not mean to interfer... but Before Stalingrad... by David M Glantz is his latest Barbarossa book. In March he has a big item book out, 800 + pages, on the Red Army from 41 to 43... Colossus Reborn. All good fun, all the best, Kip.

Hi, When it comes to the question of the possible of dominance of air power, had there been a Hot War in the ‘70s or ‘80s… the answer will surprise many. When the Cold War ended in the early 90s the “west” suddenly had its hands on a couple of squadrons of Mig 29s. In the former East Germany. All the major western players sent teams over to asses them. The results were a major shock and “the” talking point through the early and mid 90s in military journals such as Jane’s and Monche’s Military Technology. I will not leave you in suspense, as most will have guessed what is coming next. In a series of mock combats and dogfights F15s and F16s were shot out of the skies. It was a massacre. The Mig 29s had a bigger flight envelope, their engines a higher power to weight ratio, “and” their missiles were way ahead. You can imagine the shock this caused. It was assumed that in the most hi-tech of all military equipment the west would have the edge. There were endless articles on the subject in all the Jane’s journals for two or three years. In around ’96 I found myself having lunch, at one of the EDS sites in the UK , with a recently retired senior RAF officer. Of course, I asked him if the Soviet aircraft were really as good as the hype in the arms trade journals. It turned out that this guy had headed up the RAF team sent to Germany. Yes… they did perform as advertised, way head of their western counter parts. I then asked him about reliability. His answer was that they were designed for a short life, major overhauls were way more frequent than in western aircraft. Major engine rebuild every 600 hours as opposed to 6000 hours…. that sort of thing. However, within their designed, wartime, life cycles, as opposed to western peacetime life cycles , they were reliable enough. There is more. About 4 months ago, over central India, SU30s and F15s took part in a series of simulated dogfights… you guessed it again… 9:1 in favour of the SU30s. I even read a defence from the US commander that the fight was not “fair” as the SU30s still have more advanced air-air missiles than the US. Note, by now, more than a decade later, most of the parts under the skin of both F15s and SU30s differ from their F15 and SU27 predecessors. Coming back to the Cold War, the Soviets did also have the most extensive air defence systems and network. Add it all together and the most likely result is very heavy, and very early, losses of aircraft on both sides. With air assets spending the great majority of their time just trying to survive against the enemy’s air defence assets. The dominance of air that you saw in the small wars of the ‘90s is due to the one sided nature of the wars. Largely 1970s air defences against aircraft with 1990s EW aids and such. Very like the land warfare in these small wars, “1970s” T70s against 1990s western tanks. From the point of view of the US and Britain this was all very good news. But it is not an indication of how a Cold War in the 70s or 80s would have gone. The Soviets called the models they sold to countries other than Warsaw Pact members, “monkey models”. i.e. they tended to sell them without the more cunning bit attached. BTW. flamingknives and I agree about most things, share the same enthusiasm for the Cold War.. but I disagree that not enough is known about 1980s equipment but we will leave that argument for another day… One thing that is very much on my wish list is a weapons data editor. BFC have done a great job with CMX1, but currently one has to launch long campaigns to get weapons data changed in patches. This is a shame. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Wow… the pictures from Gpig do look great. I was not really bothered about the graphics and such, but when the potential of what may await us is shown it certainly does look like fun. Glad to hear it will be 1:1 representation and not control. The scale of CM is a big part of the magic. i.e. squad not individual soldier. In my view. All the best, Kip.

Tom, guys, Take a look at Flashpoint Germany at Matrix games for an example of a company game. http://www.matrixgames.com/ It may or may not be good game, I have no idea yet… but integrate such a game as a layer with CM and you may have something. But at any onetime, you would be in one game or the other, not both. All the best, Kip.

Tom, It is just a general nervousness that some seem to feel that micromanagement is “bad” or “unrealistic”. To which I would answer.. “this is a micromanagement scale, the squad sale ”. In CM what seems to happen is that we all, well most including me, play a game that is really optimised for company v company games with way more pieces than, in a sense we “should”. i.e. CM is optimised, and the fun comes from, the micromanagement of individual squads/AT guns/AFVs. Thus if one is to get the most out of all the features in CMX1 a dozen- 16 odd fighting units, with some support units, is probably all most can manage and click along at a reasonable pace in human v human play. Say over a 1,500m by 1,500m map. In fact, I and many others, just cannot “resist” playing games of reinforced battalions, 4-6 companies v 4-6 companies over 3,000m by 3,000m maps. Now one hits problems. The next instinct is to try and optimise CM for 4-6 companies v 4-6 companies. This means adding features which take control away from the squad/AFV commander. This is when the trouble starts, you stop playing the role of the squad/AFV commander, only platoon, company, battalion commanders and such. You are throwing away the baby with the bathwater Hence my view that the best way to do this, in fact it may be the only real way; is to integrate two completely different games. My favoured one would be a genuine, fully playable battalion operational game from which if the players wished, they could agree to resolve a given contact battle at the CM level. The operational game is frozen, you fight the contact battle in a CM game, then the results of the CM contact battle are applied to the operational game. The above methodology, or principles, could be used for any scale above a squad game/CM scale. It could be companies that you manoeuvre on a topographical map, and then freeze the company game and click down to the CM level when you wish. Importantly, at any time one would be either playing a company game “or” a CM game. But not both at the same time. Each game being optimised for its scale, with features that are not interchangeable. Some are trying to introduce features that are better suited to a company or battalion game, but not suitable for a squad game. You just end up with a poorer squad game, and poorer company game, than would be the case if you kept them separate. But no one is keener than I on integrating, welding together CM the squad game, with higher scales. This would indeed by hugely more realistic. In my view. This is why I have posted that with CMX1 being so good already, thought should be given by BFC to “how we can use CM” as much as changes to CM itself. But do not get me wrong, I will enjoy the changes in CMX2 as much as any. We know that the first release will be aimed at optimising CMX2 at the same scale, scope as CMX1. Great, I am all for it. But then lets all think about how CMX2 could be used to integrate it with higher scales. Hope you follow my weird rantings All good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. I have used CMBB to fight a more or less realistically scaled break-through operation. One German infantry battalion in defence, mines and wire but scaled to take account of fortifications uber nature in CMBB. Two Soviet infantry battalions, one full tank regiment, plus twenty-three Soviet artillery spotters. Total of 2,500 rounds of artillery in 60 turn game. I have witnessed 600 rockets fired in one go Makes a very big bag. However, I did this in full knowledge that CMBB is not optimised to this scale, nor should it be. You would break the CM squad game. Integrate CM the squad game with an operational game, as above, and we really have take off, but do not mix them up within each scale.

Tom, You agreed with me I had you down as one of the leaders of the unhinged Command Game fans I feel quite shame faced in having assumed you were working your way up to a full Command Game, just subtly.. by stages. All the best, Kip.

Hoolaman, hi, I tend to agree with much that you have posted…. However you have now crossed the line… You posted, “Also, if you wanted a unit to target a specific enemy unit there would be a command delay.” This would be a killer… game over for most, and I would be willing to bet it is “most” CM players. It’s been tried in Point of Attack 2 and it bombed. Horrible experience. I can only say again that in CM your primary role is as squad and AFV commander. Company and battalion commander are secondary roles. At this scale. What you are describing is not a squad game, but a platoon or company game, but you wish to watch the platoon or company game play itself out in Band of Brothers movie detail. But it is still a platoon or company game, no longer a squad game that you are describing. No one is more after realism than I am, and have been for twenty years of wargaming. I would love to see CM, the squad game, integrated with higher scales, battalion is my favoured option.. but platoon and company.. why not. It would be fun. However, the different scales of game would be played out at different “levels”. On different maps, with different time scales. Command delays due to lower quality of troops, they do not know their battle drills well and such, works very well. CMBB did introduce a number of elements that added somewhat to this and it worked very well. But fire orders are near instant in CMBB. For very good reasons. Of course, with options, the world is your oyster But a few months after release my guess is “very” few would use such options. I could argue all day about what “realism” is, in fact we would probably all agree. I will end with usual refrain… different scales, squad, platoon, battalion, require different features to maximize the realism. They are not interchangeable. In my experience. All the best , Kip.

Hi, Ok, any excuse will do A chance to post my standard Cold War rant! “OK, I admit it; I am the most unhinged fan of the idea of the Cold War as the first game with CMX2. But I am not entirely unhinged in that, overall, WWII remains my major “hobby” interest. Just to prove the point, the books I am currently reading are the David Glantz big item version on the Battle for Leningrad, Hell’s Gate by Douglas Nash, and Accounting for War by Mark Harrison, on the Soviet war time economy… all are stunning books. However… I do like a change. I am old enough to go back to the high water mark of war games as a mass hobby, if it ever was a mass hobby, the second half of the seventies. In those days it was all a matter of Squad Leader and the “one hex to one mile” operational games. Most were WWII games, but every now and then I and my wargame chums would turn to Cold War games. The change was hugely good fun. Change is good. One of the most appealing aspects of a Cold War version of CM is the opportunity to become wildly nerdish, enthusiastic, about technology from a different era. I have to confess to sitting at home trying working out armour penetrations equations some twenty odd years ago, so I am not quite sane. I greatly enjoy the detail of the technology of military matters. Subscribe to Jane’s military journals in the same way some people subscribe to car magazines. But I suspect that many would join me in finding the study of T62s/T72s/T80s/M60s and M1s fun… for a while… as a change from WWII. What could a 1975 RPG7 penetrate… and what could it not penetrate… and so on. And the tactical implications. Then back to WWII for the second game in the CMX2 series. One objection some have to the idea is that the Cold War never became hot. However, at least the armies on each sides of the Iron Curtain were real. The problem with a contemporary setting for a version of CM is that even the armies do not exist. In the Cold War there were WWII scale armies lined up, now the latest versions of tanks, or AFVs in general, can often be counted in tens., a few of hundreds at most. For a version of CM you need two, or more nations, lined up against each other in roughly the same ball park in military technology. At this point I should stress that Soviet technology certainly was the equal of that in the west up to the end of the Cold War.. 1989… overall. The mistake many make.. almost everyone in fact… is to compare a “1970s” model T72 to a late “1980s” western tank. If you compare the model of the T80U introduced in the same year as the 120mm gunned M1, 1985, you will find the T80U is near immune all forms of ammunition used by the M1 until the end of the 1980s. Over the forward arc. And.. yes.. this was confirmed by US sources who tested one in the early 1990s. I could give many similar examples. Of course this is really addressed to BFC as I recon they will simply produce the game that most appeals to them, most takes their imagination. I have a feeling that the guys at BFC really have achieved the ultimate goal of many… they really do spend their time doing what would be their hobbies if they were not paid for what they do. Life does not get much better… in an imperfect world. My hope is that one or more of them may be a secret… or not so secret… Cold War fan. ” All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Steve posted, “When you read about epic battles you can get the feeling that it was all just one long string of combat engagements. But look at the times mentioned in these descriptions and more often than not you will see that there are often hours inbetween relatively small engagements. Not always, of course, but in general. This is something that CMx1 was never quite able to simulate to our liking, so we are focusing some of our efforts on improving this for CMx2.” Steve, I think you underestimate your own game Static Operations as they are now do this very well. You clearly have better plans for CMX2, but it is my view that Static Operations make a fine job of modeling real world battles. In the real world, as you point out, “battles” were often made up of a number of assaults/ pushes, over many hours, for say a given village. That is why Static Operations are my favourite way to play CMX1. This is not a “do not change things” post. It would not be possible to have my prejudices regarding CM and not be wildly happy with your plans for CMX2. You clearly wish to model what I like about Static Operations even more realistically, but differently. Sounds great. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I also have the book. Agreed, it is very good book. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Hoolaman makes such a good job of making the points I support that I have largely retired from the thread to watch. Hoolaman posted, “The way I see it, artificial uncertainty in spotting makes CM a command-style game, and as such is a bad idea. Your squads are your "eyes" as the omniscient guiding hand player. It is fair enough if the squads themselves do not accurately spot something, but to limit what they have really spotted seems very artificial. What rank does the player take on in a scenario where the map and positions are uncertain? Is he Major, or merely Captain? To limit spotting in such a way, a mid level leader would have much better and quicker response than a high level leader. Which shoes do you want to put yourself in? I think you should always see what your "eyes" see depicted on the map as they see it. Any restriction of the information flow must be in the way the player can make orders come into effect. Squads must always be able to see and react immediately to split second changes, but the further you get up the chain of command, the less able the leader is to immediately react to changes.” In fact your primary role in CM is as squad/individual AFV commander. Not company or battalion commander. The battalion and company commanders add to the squad game. I am very keen, unhinged, in my enthusiasm to mix another scale of wargame with CM, namely an operational game in which the manoeuvre units are battalions, as opposed to squads in CM. There would be a fully playable operational game from which, if the players agreed, one could click down to the CM scale to resolve any particular contact battles. The results from the CM battle then being applied to the operational game. However, as any time the players would either be in the operational game, or the CM game, but not a mix of the two. Also, when the operational game was played out at the operational level, contact battles being resolved at the operational level as opposed to the CM level, the method of resolution the operational game would use fully operational methods. i.e. computerised Combat Results Battles and such. It would not fight an AI control CM battle to resolve the operational combats. All this matters. In cardboard I have years of experience in designing/modifying wargames of different scales, as quite a few here do. What works in one scale, does not work in another. A platoon game, platoons manoeuvring on a 1: 10,000 topographical map from which one could click down a scale to resolve a given combat could better meet the needs some here wishing for “some” move towards a command game. In my view. All the best, Kip.

Hi, The posts from Steve over the last 24 hours have been hugely reassuring. Those like myself who are at heart quite happy with CM and therefore nervous of some fundamental change in direction…. clearly have nothing at all to worry about. CMX2 is even being specifically coded with multi-player features in mind for some future version. Even the type of multi-play most likely, simply handing out the platoons and companies, is my preferred model. At the sharp end it would give the best game play, and the most realistic in chaos terms, at the sharp end. In my view. But no matter on the type of multi-play now. I will not go on for long… have got the information, bones I hoped for from Steve.. and more… but I do think some here are trying to do with CM, hoping to do, things that are best done at another scale. As Steve has also said. Best done in a game where the manoeuvre units are, say, platoons played over a 1:10,000 topographical map. All the best, Kip.

Steve, “I am not underestimating the desire to have multi-multi-player as an option. It is, as you say, HIGHLY desirable. One of the big things I am looking forward to doing. And because so many of you have misunderstood this point I think I will need to try again” Now I do understand what you meant, and agree 100%... not that whether I agree or not matters My reaction to your first post is called panic I thought “ Oh dear… no multi-play… if you do not ask you do not get.. lobby like crazy.” I apologies for spreading/adding to the panic on the issue! No need for the medication now All the best, Kip.

Tom, I am in no way suggesting a true either or. I am sure that CMX2 will be agreat game with or without multi-player feature. I had just always taken for granted that multi-player features would be there. If you take the classic three infantry platoons and one tank platoon clearing a village, all commanded by different players, the leap in both fun and realism on the chaos front would be huge. Think of the near perfect timing we can currently arrange in the covering fire tanks but down as infantry advance on buildings. Hugely more challenging if the tanks were commanded by different players to the infantry… also far more realism. No… all I am saying is do not sacrifice multi-player features for other features in CMX2. It is a matter of priorities that is all. Wargames of this scale are particularly well suited to the multi-player features because of the added chaos they would cause. Lead to a strategic leap in fun All the best, Kip.

Hi, Yup…. I agree with others that is does sound as if Steve is saying that BFC can either optimise the game for the single player… or introduce multi-player features, but not both. My prejudice is that some sacrifice of the ultimate that would be possible for the single player is worth it, if it allows multi-player features. My reasoning is this… not really reasoning at all… just justification of the prejudice CMBB already does single player v single player so well that if the narrow definition of Borg Spotting were dealt with, all units spotting in their own right as opposed to on each others behalf, the focus of evolution of CM should really be in terms of “how we can use CM” as opposed to just features within CM. The “how we can use CM” does mean some form of cooperative play. At the operational level I realise a genuine operational level in the form of a near operational game from which we can click down a level to resolve contact battle in CM is years away. For very understandable reasons. Massive amount of work. On this front my oft given request for the ability to fully edit Saved games would be huge help by itself. The CM community can do the rest. At the tactical level, yes, a multi-player feature would be massive fun, even if we rarely had the time to use it. Two teams playing each other in live CM games would be a huge leap in fun and realism on the Borg Effect front. After all we would still be able to play CM games single player, just not quite optimised for single player as much as you currently plan. If both fully edited Saved games and a multi-player feature were introduced both meta campaigns and live team play would near become a standard way to play. In my view. Simply a leap in the fun ratings from single player games. It is a complement to you guys… CMBB is already so good at single player games that no matter how good CMX2 is, the leap would not be as great as to some form of cooperative play. All very good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. Meta campaigns are rare today because those organising them know only too well that the work load is near undoable. Make them doable.. and watch how they will take off. As for teams of friend wishing to commit live, mass slaughter of other teams of friends… the blood would flow in rivers