kipanderson

Steve, Your last posts on the old thread, plus what you have posted here do sound great. And very reassuring. That the focus has to be narrowed to the exact scale you deicide to go for, and that what works for one scale, will not for others, is very true. In my teens, just with cardboard and the good old CRTs, Combat Results Tables, I and my chums used to modify all the wargames we played. What works for the operational level, battalions as the manoeuvre units, and what works for the CM level are very different. “The level and scope of CM's combat environment requires many commanders in order to be more realistic than it is right now. But players by and large don't want this. “ This may be an example of the narrowing of focus, “if” it means that there will be no multi-player feature in CMX2. If it does mean that it may be that the C&C system you have developed, to optimise play for a single player, is just unworkable for multi-player games. If this is the case I can well understand it. However, on the narrow point of multi-player games not being wanted by most players, I do think you are wrong It is not at the top of my wish list, but I had always taken for granted the feature would be there. One reason why this puzzles me is that, in my view, it is the single biggest feature change to reduce the Borg Effect, God like view of the battlefield. However, another thing I have got wrong Steve, If it is the case that there will not be a multi-player feature, I have noticed that you may generally have underestimated the demand amongst CM fans to use CMX2 for some form of cooperative play. Large numbers of us have by now known each other, whether over net, or down the pub and such, for some years. We tend to congeal… like nagging groups of bugs and plan to use CM for more than just single human v human play. CMBB was already such a fine simulation, it already does single human v single human so well, it’s a form of military history. In many ways CM is already a done deal in single human v human play. Whether in the form of a meta campaign, or at the tactical level three or four players on each side in a live game, I think I speak for more people than you seem to imagine in hoping for cooperative play. Who knows You need to leave your snow hole.. join us down the pub here in London and we will soon put some beers down your neck and sort you out on what should be in CMX2 All the best, Kip. PS. You knew you would not get away without being nagged over features… and you were right [ January 17, 2005, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: kipanderson ]

Hoolaman, I agree close to absolutely with your most recent post. It would be hard to separate my views from yours. A point you have just mentioned has long been on my mind. That is the distinction between orders that are more likely to come from the squad leader, or say, a platoon leader. There are two possible types of delay. One for orders from within the squad, the squad leader, the second orders from outside, the platoon leader. In the case of orders from the squad leader the delay may be for reasons of training and troop quality. Lower quality troops will not be as quick off the mark with their battle drills as some higher quality troops. But more often than not orders from squad leaders should be acted on quickly regardless of whether a unit is in C&C to some higher commander. In the of second case, orders which more often than not come from platoon leaders, not being in C&C should indeed cause some greater delay. This could be very well illustrated by the delays to non-radio AFVs. Orders to fire would normally come from within the AFV and should be near instant. Orders to turn off route, outside the covered arc, may more often come from platoon commanders and thus have delays if no radios. And so on…. Anyway… regardless of my examples… I indeed agree with your above post. In my mind it all comes down to the fact that playing the role of the squad leader and AFV commander, sniper and such, is in fact our most common role in CM. It is the role as battalion commanders that is secondary at this scale, not the other way around. At this scale. My guess is that the only way to do this would be simply list the tyes of orders that most often come from NCOs, or platoon commanders. Clearly no prefect answer. To some extent this is already done with Fire orders being near instant now. All the best, Kip.

tom, I certainly agree that there will be a number of things, that coming together, are bound to reduce the Borg Effect. I guess is that if you are playing as part of a company combat team, three platoons of infantry, one tank platoon and some artillery support, then live team play, by itself, really will massively reduce the Borg Effect. Three infantry platoon commanders, with one guy as tank platoon commander and artillery spotter…all just able to see what their own units can see…. and you will have the near chaos you wish for. And I wish for. Including some realistic blue on blue firing. Far more chaos, in a far more enjoyable form, than more realism, than loss of control of units would offer. But, yes, is will be a game for special occasions in that not everyday will you be able to get together a team to play along side you. But teams of chums will soon form to take each other on. When it comes to the tank crews, crawling around in some ditch having jumped from their burning Panther… I think you will find they are already very differently coded from other units. Even if health and unshocked. Others will correct me if I am wrong, but it is already the case that different types of units, even if all health, have very different spotting abilities. An artillery spotter with his binoculars being at the top of the tree, tanks crews and such at the bottom. What happens to “leftovers” is not real problem anyway. It is how BFC will code the standard, healthy units. All the best, Kip.

Jasper 2x, Tom, from my standard wish list. "5) Toggled map grid overlay. Through no fault of BFC….. it is very difficult to spot undulations. I know the graphics engine will change but I still think it would help if one could toggle on and off a terrain grid in the orders phase. Save a huge amount of time just trying to spot small dips in the terrain." A case of great minds think alike! All the best, Kip.

Hi, Firstly thanks to Steve for all bones thrown our way in the last few days… there is no way round the fact that it hugely adds to the fun.. dreaming about the way I will be able to use features in future versions of CM is fun. A lot of fun. The biggest bone so far has been on the campaign system and it does sound like exciting stuff. I look forward to it. When it comes to the question of Borg Spotting I always get nervous. I, as much as anyone, am keen to get rid of Borg Spotting, but am far more relaxed about the overall Borg Effect, when CM is played by “one player”. Just to be clear, by “Borg Spotting” I mean that if an enemy unit 100m away is spotted by a friendly infantry unit, a friendly tank unit 600m away, but in LOS, can also spot the enemy unit. By the “Borg Effect” I mean that one player can see everything that all/any of his units can see. In laymen’s terms I would be happy if each unit did its own spotting, as opposed to units spotting on behalf of other friendly units as in Borg Spotting. In the above example the friendly tank 600m from the enemy unit would have to spot the enemy unit in its own right. That would just about do the trick for me on the Borg Spotting front. My fear with trying to do away with the “Borg Effect”, I think tom called it Borg Swarming resulting from a near God like view of the overall battlefield, is that there is a great danger of throwing out the “baby with the bath water”. The fact that Steve says BFC tends to agree with the below statement from Holman, reassures me hugely, “Anything that stops me from clicking on an individual unit and making it do something - no matter how smart or stupid - is counter to the purpose of the game as far as I am concerned.” But as Steve does seem to be taking the time to read this thread I will just, very quickly, give an example of how BFC could very easily break CM by trying to do too much on the overall Borg Effect front as opposed to Borg Spotting as defined above. I will be as quick as possible. About a year ago Andreas, who Steve and many of you know, and I played a game of CMBB simulating an action from the Korsun Pocket campaign. I built a large CMBB map from topographical maps of the region and Andreas attacked with a combined arms force against my infantry, and a few AT guns, force of Soviets. (BTW… the map looked “exactly” like a coloured version of all those black and white photos I have of the area… a huge credit to BFC… particularly their graphics guys Anyway… one of my main tactics was to use my snipers in a screen to slow and break up Andreas’s attack. Leading to piecemeal attacks. When the game was over both of us agreed it was one of, if not the most, realistic and fun CM game we had played. (I had read an account of how the Soviets often did this, so gave it a go.) My point is that in order for this game, with a very realistic feel, to work I “had” to be able to see/spot all that my snipers could see/spot, and micro-manage them over a 60 odd turn game. A necessary condition for my realist defense to work was my control over units that “realistically” were way out of any C&C in a real battle. Just out on their own with no communication with anyone. I was playing the role of the snipers. The two greatest wargames of all time, by a very clear margin, in my view, are Squad Leader and CM, in there respective eras. It is no coincidence that both are same scale. The stunning quality of production plus the scale being the two most important factors. Squads, individual AFVs, snipers, AT guns being the lowest credible scale for a wargame to remain realistic. In my view. When it all comes together as in CM it leads to near magical effect. If you are set on taking away more control from players than in CMX1, which you are, extreme care is needed that you do not go over the tipping point. My guess is that the tipping point in breaking the near magical effect of playing CM is exactly what tom and Jim wish to see. A reduction in the flow of information from the maneuver units up the chain of command to the player. Explicitly, a delay in information from an otherwise health maneuver unit in what it can see. So, say, a health friendly infantry squad can see, and may be being fired on, by an enemy unit, you as the player will not be allowed to see the enemy unit until some delay it played out. My guess is such a feature would break the magic of CM. I have played such a game; it is called Point of Attack 2. I am not going to launch into an attack on it, I respect the makers and in future, a much tweaked version may be a fine game. But in the version I have played it is a total failure in large part because of features some here lobby for in CMX2. No one is more for realism than I am. I only play CM because at the moment it is the only wargame I know of that is realistic enough, a form of military history. But “realism features” that are suitable for operational games are not necessarily suitable for this small a scale. I would love to see BFC take a break from CM and one day do an operational game that would for sure end up being more realistic than CM. But as scale increases it is easier to model realism and maintain the fun of the game, relative to its scale. Taking control away from the player and maintaining the magic of CM is very fine line All good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. The suppression model in CMBB made the maneuver units behave more realistically. I could not be more in favour of that. Have never played CMBO since I got my hands on CMBB. Also, modeling lower tactical abilities is great. This is not what I mean by taking away control as lobbied for by some

tom, hi, yup… I realise I have Steve to fall back on when it comes to this issue. BTW.. for the Borg element in near all its forms I do think live team play will help massively. In addition to any specific anti-Borg coding that will be there. If you have two battalion combat teams fighting it out and each has three company commanders and a guy playing the role of all the artillery spotters and AFV commanders, there will be an entirely new dimension to the anti-Borg feel of the game. Each player only being able to spot what the units he commands can see, including other friendly units under the command of someone else. Just one of the features that is not much discussed, I guess because people take it for granted, but which I am sure will have a huge effect on the feel of the game. Just spotted your new post, When it comes to "Borg Swarming Response problem" it is not that I do not have problem with it, it is more that I except that when there is just one player on each side there are very great limits on the anti-Borg effects one can have. CMX2 played with one player on each side will not, and my guess is never can be, as Borg resistant as with, say, four or five players on each side. So individual unit spotting goes some of the way, but for the true anti-Borg effect you will need to get as many of your chums in the game as possible to cause that FOW effect you are looking for. To date, I have not seen a suggestion for anti-Borg features that would prevent Borg Swarming and not move CM quite a way towards becoming a command game, with one player on each side. It may be do-able… but I doubt it. I wish CM to go on becoming more and more realistic too, but because real life battlefields are made up of lots of different commander, CM will never come as close as it might when just one player is on each side. The greater the number of players on each side, the greater the anti-Borg feel of the game. One day, why not a dozen on each side. A real chaos and anti-Borg feel then. All the best, Kip.

tom, hi, “OK so hand up .... "Who here does NOT want to see Borg Spotting (AKA Absolute Spotting) reduced or eliminated until is it is NOT such a gamey factor in the game play that it allows every friendly unit to see and KNOW exactly everything about the enemy force compostion and location that any single, lone, isolated (out of C & C) friendly unit knows? (that is a pretty standard definition of Borg Spotting I think generally agreed upon by most, yes?)” Well… as it happens… this depends greatly on the exact definitions I will be upfront about my caution on this one. What I do not want, is for CM to move towards becoming a “Command Game”. My standard reply is that in CM you play the role of the battalion commander, the company commander, the platoon commander, but also, and this matters a lot, the squad commander/AFV commander. Thus I do wish to be able to see everything that all my squad and AFV commanders can see. Some seem to wish to drop the role of squad and AFV commander thus moving towards CM becoming a Command Game. I am no mind reader… but I know from experience, that hiding out there in the ether, are those who do wish to turn CM into a Command Game…. I shudder just think of it Jim is one of them just to name names You are also now on the “watch list” All good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. The way round Borg Spotting, and I too wish to see the end of it, is what I call “individual spotting”. Each one of your units does all its own spotting such that an infantry unit 100m from an enemy unit cannot spot on behalf a HMG 600m away. Live multi play will also help a lot.

Hi, Steve posted, “I think the best way to visualize the new campaign system is to imagine playing CMAK with a guy who has designed a complete campaign made up of individual scenarios. The scenarios are already "in the can" before you start to play. When you finish one battle the campaign dude chooses which scenario to give you next (based on a plan of some sort), tweaks the forces a bit to reflect previous losses/reinforcements, adjusts some global parameters to track your progress, then sends you the stand alone scenario file complete with tweaks. This repeats until complete.” Yup…even I can imagine what it meant…it does sound like a lot of fun. Setting battles in greater context is the name of the game. As was the case for Jim, I too had no idea what a story driven campaign meant. CM really is the only PC game I play and when new jargon is used from other types of game… I am lost until someone takes mercy on me and explains:) When it comes to uber campaigns, one day, some years down the line, I still of course think it would be fun. Why? Because a true uber campaign is the ultimate way of setting a given battle in context. It has all the advantages of a story driven campaign but is just a long way further down the same path. One day, in some years time, when hopefully an operational game from which one can resolve the contact battles using CMX2/CMX3 is available as part of CMX2/CMX3, then I doubt anyone will ever look back. Even very small uber campaigns, setting just a two or three contact battles in context, will in my view, become the standard way of doing things. Because it will set the battles in context better than anything else I can think of. Who knows? Dreaming again…. All the best, Kip.

Richie, hi, I will look forward to giving it a go. First I intend to dig up and install all available North West Europe/Ardennes type winter mods for CMAK. It would be a shame to play such a game with everything looking like Tuscany Thanks, All the best, Kip. PS, I was there, for real, three weeks ago for the 60th. The weather was the same as December 44 too. In CM terms, light snow and between +2C and -2C. Sherman tanks rolling down Bastogne High Street do look very good!

Hi, Hate to sound just like a fan sitting on the sidelines, but both JonS and John Salt have hit it on the head. Snipe is, in my view, others will differ, the true classic of a single battalion having a near strategic effect. At its height, around 70 heavy German AFVs were out of action, 48 total losses, as a result of the actions of one infantry battalion and one battery of 6prds. Another, off topic point, is that at Snipe and elsewhere post-Alamein, the Germans had very similar problems to Commonwealth forces when attacking AT-guns with real penetrating power. Over open desert. All the best, Kip.

Jon and Paul, Thanks for the hints on games that were, are going to be WEGO. I suppose most of us here find it odd that other niche market wargame companies have not jumped on the WEGO turn sequence after the success of CM. I am astonished that HPS..or whatever they are called, have just gone on, and on, turning out games that are so far behind CM without even an attempt to close the gap. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Michael Dorosh wrote, in reference to one of my posts, “Wow, I can't figure out if that is meant to be condescension on the order of a John D. Salt post, or merely condescension on the level of a friendly pat on the head.” That made me laugh… Michael…I think you have become more cynical than is good for you You are too quick to see negatives… you should be in the “rebuttal” department of some political party in an election campaign I could not be condescending because I know only too well that I could not program my way out of a wet paper bag! BFC is a very small company so evolution must be the way. But we all like to see CM evolve in the direction we have a particular liking for. All the best, Kip.

Steve, “Instead the campaign will be somewhere inbetween a meta-campaign and CMx1's Operations. It will also be more focused and far more "story" oriented (i.e. giving meaning to the battles you fight instead of just fighting). More on this at a later date. Just didn't want you guys having your imagining going wild and then being disappointed when we outline how it works.” No problem… as it happens I had just returned to my PC in order to post along the lines of “ I know BFC are only a small company so I do not expect too much in one jump… certainly not my ultimate goal of a dream for a wargame.” Also, I have nearly always included in my operational rantings that “setting each battle in greater context” is a big part of the aim. Just what you seem to plan. All good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. Steve… "if" it is possible, and I realize it is a very complicated matter, but the ability to fully edit Saved games would in one jump make CMX2 massively more “meta campaign” friendly. Believe me, you would be 90% of the way there in one jump. I realize this is a very big request, "one day" will do, if possible.

Steve, “Kip, there will be a much more involved campaign system. I won't say more than that, but the focus of the game is far more campaign oriented than Quick Battle or stand alone scenario (those options are of course still available). This is part of the evolution aspect of CM. We spent so much time getting the battle stuff right in CMx1 that we had to economize the campaign design. This time 'round we don't have to.” Words like “perfect” spring to mind Of course, the downside of your comments are that they make the waiting even more painful But the wait will certainly be worth it. “This is part of the evolution aspect of CM.” This is particularly good, long-term news… for me anyway, as this is exactly what I was hoping for. Hugely good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. You might be interested to know that, Glantz, David M. Colossus Reborn: The Red Army at War, 1941–1943 is due out in March. In May a Companion to Colossus Reborn is also due. Not nearly as much fun as CMX2, but fun all the same. Not that you will have time to read them!!

hi, yes..happy birthday... All the best, Kip.

Folbec, Thanks for the link…I too have been keeping an eye on Battlefields/Combined Arms… lets hope that it does eventually land for real:) Of course, my real dream, but I realise it is only a dream, runs like this. A quality, but fairly conventional operational game that can be played out and resolved entirely at the operational level; if the players wish. Manoeuvre units are battalion combat teams, one mile or km per hex, but CM type turn sequence/simultaneous resolution. However, with the option for any contact battle within the operational game to be resolved at the CM level if the players agreed. The ability to halt the operational game and click down a scale to fight a given battle, say for a town, as a CM game with the results then applied to the operational game. A program along the lines of the Quick Battle generator would take the parameters for the CM type battle from the operational game. The map type details, the forces and so on. (In fact I would always wish to import human made maps as computer generated ones just are not as good… in my view.) For me, this is the long term ultimate goal. To fully integrate a future version of a CM scale game and a quality operational game. With the advent of broadband, multi-player programming and domestic networking such a concept could produce an unequalled gaming experience. In my very prejudiced view;) All the best, Kip. PS. If BFC can just see their way to allowing Saved games to be fully edited, I and my chums can track the battalions in stand alone programs.Keeping my fingers crossed!!

Hi, Steve can clearly sense that the frenzy of anticipation for CMX2 is on the rise. In my case I have tired to put it to the back of my mind and concentrate on other aspects of my hobbies;)… but it is no good…I have cracked!! It is a real bonus to know that when the title of the first game is released, the second will also be announced. It does greatly add to the fun to know what is coming next. When it comes to the competition I too am stunned, that to date, there is no competition. It is all very odd… I constantly trawl the net looking for possible wargames of a quality close to CM, but there is nothing there. Five years after CM landed! I have thrown my money at a long list of wargames in the forlorn hope that one will “hit the spot”… but no. One of the oddest things is the slowness of other developers to use the simultaneous resolution turn sequence used by CM. In my view, it is “ideal” for wargames of almost any scale and type. One example would be operational games, the standard one mile/km per hex type with manoeuvre units being battalion combat teams. John Tiller, or whatever he is called, produces his series of Panzer Campaigns games but stubbornly sticks to I-GO-YOU-GO. Strange. His games would “hugely” benefit from simultaneous resolution. Perfect for his operational scale and type of games. He and the rest of the wargames world are missing a trick. Maybe an orders phase followed by simultaneous resolution is a lot more difficult to program than I imagine. Maybe, for some reason, real-time is quicker and easier to program. I have no idea but am very puzzled. ( Yes… I do understand why FPS use real-time but that is not the market I am thinking of.) If BFC get the urge, fancy something different, there is a gap in the market for a quality operational game. There is nothing at the operational level to equal what CM has done for the tactical level. Cracking under the strain of waiting for CMX2!!! Stunning stuff, All the best, Kip. PS. A Russian development team are producing a game called Alpha Team, or some such thing, which will be using a CM turn sequence. Rather too small a scale for my taste, in the perfect world, but I will be giving it a go. For competition, keep an eye on those cunning Russian chaps… if competition does ever appear… my hunch is that is where it will come from. Who knows.

Hi, Yup…thanks for the maps. As others have said…cannot have too many of them! All the best, Kip.

Hi, It all seems to be very good news… As I expected not all of the likely forthcoming titles will do the trick for me. I am strictly, no exceptions, a hardcore wargames fan. I am a fully paid up member of the BFC Fan Club only because CM was/is so far head of all other wargames. CMBB, the best in the series, in my view, is as much a form of military history as a big item David Glantz book. Hence I am as much a fan of the CM games, as I am of David Glantz books. For me what CM does so well, and what is most fun in a wargame, is high-intensity, combines arms, conventional warfare. It is the near intoxicating mix of solving tactical problems, using real world toys and weapons. Squad Leader, in its day, had a very similar effect. The scale, manoeuvre units being squads and individual tanks, is a big part of the magic. In my view, it is the smallest scale at which wargames work. Others will differ, each to their own. Anyway… for the future, in CMX2 wargames, along side all the usual wish list stuff, it is the nature of any truly operational features that most interests me. Being able to use CMX2 as a tool to resolve the contact battles within a larger operational game. As was the case with CMMC. Setting each individual CMX2 “battle” in greater context. CM can be used for this, as it is in CMMC, but it is a hugely labour intensive business. Almost, overwhelmingly labour intensive business. The single most important feature change to help make CMX2 more operationally friendly, is the ability to Edit any Saved game. Universal unit files, and map files, would help massively. Such that any game can be Saved, the units then re-launched in the editor and used on any other map. With the exception of Borg Spotting, the simulation of the actual contact battles was just about cracked with CMBB, unequalled:) but of course, we could all think of the odd tweaks. My great hope is that with,say, a North West Europe version of CMX2 it will be possible to play out the entire Ardennes Offensive, using CMX2 to resolve the contact battles. Better still, in a future Eastern Front version re-fight the entire Korsun Pocket offensive Tracking the battalion combat teams within CMX2 is not necessary, but far less labour intensive building of “battles” by the umpires is needed. i.e. the full editing of Saved games;) All very good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Bogdon wrote, “World War 2 era is still, in my opinion, one of the best period to depict in wargames: variety of engagements, materiels, theaters, etc.” I agree; in fact I would go further and state that WWII is by far the most attractive era, with the most potential, for wargames. However…. to “always” set CMX in WWII would be shame, in my very prejudice view. After five years with the same WWII toys a change would be fun. With the exception of the various Arab/Israelis wars it is only the standoff between the Warsaw Pact and NATO that had the potential for combined arms warfare of a scale large enough to be of interest. (PS. The problem with the Arab/Israelis wars is that most of the action took place in just a few hours one afternoon or morning, there is a limit to how often one can re-fight the Chinese Farm!!) In fact a large part of the appeal of CMX2, and any setting chosen therefore, comes from the enhanced operational features we have been promised in the new engine. As a simulation of WWII combined arms warfare the current CM is in a stratosphere far above all other wargames. But there is a need, in my view, to set each battle in greater context, to be able to give each battle a greater significance. This is at the heart of the appeal of operational add-ons for CM such as CMMC. My dream is to play a CMMC version of the Cold War…Third Shock Army crashing through the Fulda Gap…!!! Anyway, with the new features CMX2 is bound to have any setting will be fun. If it is to be the Pacific Theatre then I hope Burma will be covered as it is probable the only realistic setting for a land based operational game, of any scale, in which to set CMX2. Greatly looking forward to whatever BFC have planned for us, and yes, I too think it is time they throw us a bone;) All very good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. Ace Pilot… for me when the potential for the Cold War to go hot was gone, the Cold War itself was over. But I know what you mean… in my experience Americans tend to use 1991 as the stop date, Brits like me the end of the ‘80s. Everyone to there own.

Hi, When it comes to settings for CM type games my three favourites are Eastern Front, North West Europe ‘44/’45 and Cold War ’70-’89. As the Cold War has not yet been covered, no one will be surprised if I lobby for it as the first game with the new engine. What all three have in common is the dominance of combined arms warfare. The skill in mixing the use of armour, infantry and artillery to fit the tactical situation. This is where the real fun comes from….for me anyway. 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 working out armour penetrations equations long before CM was even a flicker in the eye of Steve and Charles, so I am not quite sane! The quality and type of toys being played with in CM matters to me…. they are a very big part of the fun. I suspect that many would join me in finding the study of T64s/T72s/T80s/M60s/ M1s /Leopards and Chieftains/Challengers fun… for a while… as a change from WWII. Then back to WWII for the second game in the CMX series. What would the outcome have been if late ‘70s T72s mixed it with late ‘70s M60s? Just how dominant would the fully mature, second generation ATGMs really have been in a European environment? And so on….. One objection some have to the Cold War in CMX 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., couple of hundred 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 T72s to a late “1980s” western tanks. If you compare the model of the T80 introduced in the same year as the 120mm gunned M1, 1985, you will find the T80 is near immune all forms of ammunition used by the M1 until the end of the 1980s. And.. yes.. this was confirmed by US sources who tested one in the early 1990s. I could give many similar examples. Compare like generations of equipment from East and West and it is a very close run thing, even in the last five years of the Cold War. Massive gaming potential. Of course, Moon/Martin has made clear that one of the stated aims of the new engine is that it will enable a quicker turn round of new games. Thus, until I hear otherwise, I am optimistic that nearly all the more mainstream topics will eventually be covered. My guess is that eventually there will be both a Pacific Theatre and Cold War setting with the new engine, time will tell. One small downside of the increased production of games will be that not all the topics chosen will be popular with all CM fans. But it is still the case of “the more the merrier”. If you assume that BFC produce new games at the rate of one a year over the next four to five years my hope is that they cover Eastern Front, North West Europe ‘44/’45, Cold War and Pacific theatres. But not in that order. If others were asked to list not just one setting for CMX but four or five….what would they go for? All the best, Kip.

Hi, Just to reinforce what some others have already mentioned. In my view David Glantz is by far the number one master of the Eastern Front. The depth and quality of his knowledge is unrivalled in all the many dozens of books I have on the subject. I would recommend the two books he co-wrote with Jonathan House as a good starting point, When Titans Clashed and The Battle of Kursk. I would also like to reinforce the views expressed above by Alkiviadis, if I may, I will just quote from his contribution, “Hell's Gate" by Douglas E. Nash (MZM Imports) is an incredible history of the battle of the Korsun Pocket, many interviews of participants from both sides, lots of detailed small unit actions as well as the big picture, great maps & photos...truly harrowing; it's right up there at the top (again by an US Army officer).” Exactly…. If you are looking for a book covering a single Eastern Front battle or campaign then Hell’s Gate is unequalled. The mix of quality text, the layout and pictures is such that it is so far unequalled by any other such books. Outstanding. All good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. Of course, the books that have at sometime been published by Fedorowicz tend to be wildly pro-German because of their authors backgrounds… including the Will Fey book. But they can still be a good read as long as one does not take the personal recollections therein as anything more than a very one-sided personal account.In my view.

Hi, my wish list. 1) Borg Spotting ended. Speaks for itself. 2) Multiplayer feature. Would not only add to the fun, especially with the more widespread use of domestic networking, but help with Fog Of War. 3) Operational features. I am a huge fan of Static Operations. But in my view they model a series of individual assaults, within a single “battle”; as opposed to operations in there normal meaning, manoeuvring battalions. Some features to allow the setting of “battles” in greater context, to track the position and current state of battalion combat teams. For example, the ability to track a group of battalions through a part of the Ardennes offensive. Unit files saved/edited separately would greatly help. 4) Universal map file format/Mapping Mission features. Such that any map file could be imported into the editor and used in any type of game. 5) Toggled map grid overlay. Through no fault of BFC… it is very difficult to spot undulations. I know the graphics engine will change but I still think it would help if one could toggle on and off a terrain grid in the orders phase. Save a huge amount of time just trying to spot small dips in the terrain. 6) Unit firepower/data editor. One feature that I have always had in mind, but simply assumed was a non starter, is a basic unit/firepower data editor. Now with the new engine all is up for grabs, so here goes. Firstly, one objection that has been made is that it would cause confusion if players were able to edit units’ firepower. However, all it would take is an option to use “default” unit data in the games launch/options screen. Thus ladder players, or those who disagree about any unit tweaks, or do not trust their opponents, could always ensure they play with the shipped values. The reason I think a unit editor, a basic one, would be a huge plus, is that it would add a massive dose of fun, plus act as an anti-frustration kit. When you get two or three military history nuts in the same room you will get half a dozen different opinions on any given subject. This all adds greatly to the fun. However, it does mean many will not agree with “every” firepower/penetration figure in CM. This does not mean that BFC got it wrong, on many matters it is not a case of right and wrong, just a difference of opinion on a topic for which there can be no definitive answer. 7) Reduced units and situational awareness. All units to start with zero casualties. Currently… when units start a battle with reduced strengths they start with their casualties recorded to the right of the + sign on the unit information bar. Be this as a result of enemy action in a previous battle in an ongoing operation, or as a result of editing by the scenario designer. The problem is that when your units first start to take incoming fire it is very difficult to spot which units have taken casualties in the current battle. You are attacking with a company of infantry, there is scattered enemy long range MG fire, and large numbers of your units hit the deck. It is near impossible to spot which of your units have taken casualties as a result of the fire if they nearly all started the current battle at reduced strength. Because nearly all will already have “casualties” marked up to the right of the + sign in the information bar. I suggest all units start every battle with zero casualties, even if at reduced strength. So an infantry squad starting a battle at a reduced strength of seven men, as opposed to it full strength ten men, would start the battle with a strength of seven… but with no casualties recorded to the right of the + sign. 8) 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. 9) Less movement from Strategic defending AI. The defending AI should rely more on ambush, which it does very well, plus if it feels the need plug to gaps, it should send units round behind cover, under cover, to plug the gaps. Not move them in the open in front of the attackers units. This includes less counterattacking. A cunning initial placement, plus ambush, can in itself produce a fine AI control defence. Overall, less movement by the defending AI would be better. But of course, there is no perfect solution. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Yes… Merry Christmas everyone… and Happy New Year. All the best, Kip. PS. I find it almost unnerving, but with CM five years old, and CMX2 round the corner, CM is “still” in a stratosphere far above all other wargames… weird but very good fun!!!

Hi, As it happens I have just returned from spending two days and three nights in the Ardennes… last night I was standing in the high street of Bastogne, snow falling, and a Sherman M4A1 slowly crawling by...for real… not that I want to make anyone jealous;) All the best, Kip.