kipanderson

Hi, Wow…there are some serious non-believers in good news here. I have also seen quite a few aerial photos and walked the ground the photos cover. In my experience, of say, the Ardennes/Bulge battlefield, the mixture of aerial photos and topographical maps gives an extremely accurate picture of the detail of the terrain. Given the way the site was overwhelmed I am clearly not the only one to regard this as serious good news for those with our interests and hobbies. All the best, Kip. PS. 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;)

Hi, this one is very close now, http://www.evidenceincamera.co.uk/index.htm It was first launched about a year ago but overwhelmed by the demand and taken off line. In a week or two it should be back up for good. The truly stunning news is that they also have all of the German aerial recon photos from the Eastern Front and will be making them available too... in time. All the best, Kip.

Suggestions for CMX2 v2. 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, and to track the position and current state of any battalion combat team would be a huge plus. 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 in bigger games if one could toggle on and off a terrain grid in the orders phase. 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. 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. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, My view is that the Tactical AI is the most outstanding, of a number of outstand features of the current series of games. When I first downloaded and played the demo for CMBO…as soon as it was released, the thing that struck me most was the quality of the AI controlling the manoeuvre units themselves. How they behave during the one minute movies given the orders they have, or have not received. No doubt BFC will find tweaks… but if there is a current problem with the AI I do not think it is with the individual unit tactical AI. I think the Strategic AI has most room for improvement. It will never be as cunning as a smart-ish human, but in my view, others will differ, it is currently far too aggressive for its own good in defence. I am a very slow player… I also try to take care of my virtual men… casualties matter to me;) When I attack against the AI I find the computer Strategic AI often “rushes about” in front of my men too much. Exposing the defender to my fire. The defending Strategic AI tries too hard to plug gaps too close to the front line… plus counterattacks too much. Two recommendations. The defending AI should rely more on ambush, which it does very well… Plus if it feels the need to plug to gaps, it must 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 the best, Kip.

Jim, hi, I know… The Cold War is not your favourite subject… you make me feel guilty about lobbying for it;) My guess is that there will be time for both Cold War and lots of WWII games with the new engine. I hope so anyway. Will be in touch when the London CM drinks club regroups sometime in the New Year. All the best, Kip.

flamingknives, Always good to have our support for the only rational choice of topic regarding CMX2, Cold War! However, slight difference in preferred period. My vote would be 1970-1989. I do think there is plenty of reliable information on 1980s equipment weapons data. The important thing is that the time period is such that we are playing with toys of a completely different character from WWII. For example, that fully mature ATGMs are available. Even if first generation ones. If the 1980s is too late, then the 1970s would do the trick. 1960s as the latest period would have me a bit worried. Toys are often just much improved WWII toys in character. A new set of toys to play with would be mind blowing… Fulda Gap here I come… 3rd Shock Army in the warpath:) All the best, Kip. PS. Hope to have Andreas over this side of the channel for London drinks sometime in the New Year… will be in touch.

Hi, The last thing I am interested in is another patch for CMAK. Madmatt/ Moon may not get everything correct;) but they hit the nail on the head this time:) My interest is very much in what Madmatt/Moon and co. are cooking up with the next engine. Desperate for the new engine! CM is dead, long live CMX2!!! All good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. Yes.. in the next engine we do need, my view, to be able to edit weapons data….. and morale separately from troop quality. But sadly… not everything can make it into even a new engine. (To get round the “cheating” problem with weapons data editing you have the option of using the shipped weapons data on the launch screen, seen by both players. As with the type of FOW used. If you follow me;) PPS. Did someone mention the Cold War?

Hi, Ken… yes acrid sums up the over heating very nicely:) Redwolf… thanks for all hints… you certainly do know your subject…and if I get another laptop, hopefully it is case of when, then it will have an Nvidia graphics card. The M60 Dell looks outstanding, just the job. I received the cooler yesterday and it looks very good. Also, no bigger then a thin-ish laptop. Build quality is very high. I will not know if it really works until the weekend when I will play an hour or so of CM, at normal room temperature, and report back on the results. Am optimistic… but time will tell. All the best, Kip

Hi, A lot of interesting posts…. in fact very interesting. As a result of your posts I rang Dell for a chat, from the UK, and this is an extract from an email I sent a friend reporting on the conversation with Dell. I will just copy and paste the email to save typing;) “When it comes to the Intel Centrino mobile chips I had always discounted them for gaming purposes. I had always assumed that to play games one needed a power, desktop replacement notebook. i.e. a notebook with say a 3.2 Ghz P4 chip such as I have in my notebook. Turns out I was wrong. No surprise there you may say:) I have just had a long chat with Dell sales, now based in India. The girl I ended up with passed me on to the technical support chap at dell sales. He explained to me that although Centrino chips have a far lower stated clock speed, nothing faster than 2 Ghz at present, their useable power is far greater. A 1.5Ghz Centrino chip is equal to about 2.8 Ghz P4 ratings. But, of course, the Centrino chips really are a lot cooler when built into a quality machine. When he was off the phone I checked it out in a PC mag I have on the table. The following figures come from the October issue of PC Advisor, which Vish kindly left with me. Scores in WorldBench 4, it is a straight-line relationship between the results. Toshiba TecraM2 with 1.8Ghz Centrino:137 Sony Vaio VGN A117S with 1.7Ghz Centrino:137 Mesh desktop replacement with 3.2GhzP4:112 Evesham desktop replacement with AMD 64 3400+ chip:103 Now some scores for actual desktops as opposed to "desktop replacements". Mesh desktop with AMD 64 3400+:147 Carrera desktop with AMD 64 3200+:142 ( Remember... in pure speed AMD 64 chips are currently slightly faster then Intel P4s. So a 3.4 GhzP4 would do no better than about 145 on the same scale in a desktop.) Anyway...enough of my ranting. For gaming notebooks the Centrino chips are clearly the way to go. The chap at Dell was absolutely correct, not bull****ing, a 1.5Ghz Centrino is probably equal to a 2.8 Ghz P4 installed in a desktop PC, in terms of useable power.” The Dell M60 does indeed look very good, very suitable. I did not know about it because in the UK it is marketed as a “business” machine and so is located ina different part of the website. Also, of course, great to have report from someone with an Alienware 51 laptop. The machine I bought is a Rockdirect QXT Pro 3.2 with the ATI 9700. I live in the UK, British company. The screen, 1400x1050, is outstanding. The keyboard stunning, real please to use. The ATI 9700 graphics acrid gives a great picture. But at normal, or higher than room temperature it does crash in 10-60 minutes playing games. If the room is a little cool, les than normal room temperature, it does not crash. I will see how the cooler works. But for my next laptop… I do think Centrino chips are the way. The guy at Dell quoted a huge list of gaming development companies that use the Inspiron 8600c laptop for their work. Centrino chips with ATI 9600 graphics card. No doubt very soon it will be the ATI 9700 card the 8600 will use. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Tooz, hi, Yup… I will report back on the Cooler. I just ordered one online… should have it in a couple of days. I have not ordered an Alienware machine yet. Will see how the Cooler works. I agree that it is asking a lot for a P4 powered notebook to work as well as a desktop. If the heating is not on it does not crash, but we talking an autumn day/night in the UK so this does require a temperature below normal room temperature. My machine is probably no worse than many a power notebook. In order to get a notebook that can fully handle games, with no “special measures” being used to help it along, my guess is that, sadly, one does have to throw money at the problem and get an Alienware/Voodoo machine. But I hear what you say about the Dell…good news. Will report back on whether I have solved the problem. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Thanks for your answers I appreciate it. “If it actually gets unstable when running games then it is just a bad notebook.” Yes… probably:) It is really just a badged, generic notebook out of China. It has the same spec as an Alienware machine, but at 2/3 the price. You get what you pay for:) In fairness to the machine it does not always crash in games. But to avoid crashing the room has to be at a temperature that most would find a little cool. Clicking around on the net I have found what is called an Antec Notebook Cooler. http://www.antec-inc.com/pro_details_cooling.php?ProdID=75004# According to the reviews I have read at various sites it does work. I will give it a try. All the best, Kip. PS. One day I will end up getting an Alienware or Voodoo notebook as they are cool and I believe what Tim writes that they will not overheat in games.

Hi, Recently I bought a laptop that according to the spec should be able to be used to play any PC game. As it turns out it crashes a lot, I think it is overheating. Anyway….. does anyone have a notebook that can cope with games to a standard close to that of a desktop? i.e. it does not crash when playing games. All notebooks will get a bit hot, but does anyone know of a model that can cope with the current series of CM games, and it likely to be able to cope with CMX2? Of course, quite what will be needed to cope with CMX2 no one can know for sure. Thanks for your help, All the best, Kip. PS. For example… do Alienware notebooks work as advertised? Can they really cope with games?

Hi, Very little is known so far. However, there is a completely new engine in the works, due out in 2005. New graphics engine, new everything. Some concessions have been made to those wishing for an operational layer… but how far this goes is unknown. The main point is that there are more goods on the way:) All the best, Kip. PS. As yet it goes under the title of CMX2.

Hi, Thanks for the hints on how to convert the buildings to the Bulge. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Congratulations. They look very good… I look forward to using them. The Bulge is my favourite NWE/Western Front battle, but as far as I know there is as yet no NWE, winter builds mod available…. am I correct in this assumption? All the best, Kip.

Hi, Congratulations…they look very good. Great stuff. All the best, Kip.

Hi, looks stunning. Congratulations. All the best, Kip.

Tarkus, hi Congratulations… it does look great. I was quite happy with the original, but will now be downloading yours. Once again…congratulations. All the best, Kip.

Hi, “End of August I´ll spent my vacations at Stavelot (Ardennes) and will take some digital photos of wartime buildings in Stoumont and LaGleize. So you can expect some REAL building and terrain bitmaps for the new Battle of the Bulge mod.” Sounds great:) The Bulge is my favourite Western Front battle and I greatly look forward to using your mods. Great stuff. All the best, Kip. PS. I am fortunate to have been to the Ardennes for a number of trips, hope… to be there for the sixtieth anniversary.

Gunslinger, Great to hear from you. When it comes to the mod most in demand I agree with others, a NWE mod, Ardennes mod, would be hugely appreciated by many, many CM fans. A chance to play some NWE games with the CMBB/CMAK engine would be a great way to round things off before the new engine comes along and interest finally shifts away from this engine. As with your last great masterpiece, it is really a landscape mod that would be most appreciated… in my view. All the best, Kip.

Andreas, hi, Congratulations… is does all look incredibly good…great stuff. The screen shots do look like the southern England. Astounding. All the best, Kip. PS. As I always say “Andreas knows everyone… no exaggeration ….everyone.” The way you have managed to round up such a hugely talented support crew proves the point conclusively:)

Hi, “What games are you playing beside CM?” well…the short answer is none. I do search the net constantly for new games that might take my imagination/come up to standard… but none do. I buy quite a few, but they always disappoint when compared to CM. Having said that I have played around a bit with the Panzer Campaigns/Modern Campaigns games from John Tiller. They do what they do very well. So when I do try other games it is the operational games from Tiller that I play. However… I have just re-launched on playing CMBB and it has confirmed my view that CM is simply in another stratosphere to all other games. Nothing, but nothing comes close. All very odd when you consider how long CM has now been around. Truth is that other developers just cannot meet the challenge set by CM. We even have a new engine to look forward to in not too distant future:) All the best, Kip. PS. A couple of years ago I did buy and play il2sturmovik. It too does what it does outstandingly. The problem was that once I had taught myself to fly and do ground attacks and such, I lost interest. There was no intellectual challenge. The fun of ground warfare is that every battle is different. The environment is so complex there are always a new challenges.

Hi, They look very good indeed, great stuff. It never ceases to amaze me how people manage to improve on the graphics. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Just small point…one of my original requests for CMX2 was for toggled gridlines. So that in the orders phase, when you feel you need it, you could just hit a Hot-Key or some such thing and toggle on an overlay grid. But dispense with it when you want to enjoy the full realism of the graphics. All the best, Kip.

CMX2 features. Hi, These lists have been done many times before… but in my view, are no less fun for that:) I will hold back from giving the entire list of features I hope to see, but will concentrate on one area. My very uninformed guess is that one of the really big changes will be live multi-play. Teams of say… 4-6 players on each side… all live in the same game. As all will know, and Steve has stated many times, Borg Spotting will be a thing of the past in CMX2. Units will all have to do their own spotting, with the exception of some modelling of a radio nets and such. This means that if a friendly infantry unit 100m from an enemy position spots an enemy unit, a friendly tank 800m away but in Line of Site, will not automatically be able to spot the enemy unit in question. However, in games in which there is only one player on each side it is still inevitable that there will be a certain “Borg” feel to games. What I mean is that if there is only one player on each side that one player will still be able to spot what all his units can spot. He will still have a Borg like knowledge of the battlefield. This is where multi-play, team play, comes into its own. In team play, say with four players on each side, each player will only be able to spot what the units he commands can spot, both in terms of enemy units and friendly units. So you may have one player commanding each of three infantry companies, plus a fourth commanding the few armoured vehicles and artillery spotters in the game. Combine team play with coding such that each unit has to do its own spotting, and it will truly add a new dimension to CM play… one of confusion, command friction and blue on blue fire. The Borg element will be massively reduced. But there is more… The above describes how multi-player games may be used when you take advantage of team play to have a single battalion combat team broken down into 4-6 elements. However, if one used a team play feature to play massive games, with 2-6 battalions on each side, over a huge 6km by 6km map an entirely new dimension would open up. Imagine a 6km by 6km map of a road junction in the Ardennes, Christmas ’44. There are two US battalions in defence and four German battalions closing in from slightly different directions. Each battalion is commanded by a different player. Added to all this, in each turn there are not just two US versions and four German versions of the one minute action movie produced, but also an umpire’s/game master’s version which shows all of the units on both sides. The new engine would require one more feature, the ability to launch Saved games in the Editor. Saving the Units file and Map file separately. The umpire designs the scenario, recruits the six players and the game is played live. Then after a given number of turns, or at the umpire’s discretion, the game is saved to the umpire’s machine. He then tweaks the files and re-launches the game on another occasion. This way operations, involving half a dozen players at a time, could be tracked, tweaked and edited over large, realistic maps. Anyway… enough of my dreaming… but I am very optimist something along the lines mentioned above will be possible. Time will tell:) All good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. New graphics will be fun, but in my view they are just a bonus, not the real priority. Other features are likely to be hugely more important.