kipanderson

Hi, “Has CM killed ASL and other board games?” Yes! I too have all the Squad Leader/ASL games and in the second half of the seventies played SL two or three times a week. However… from the early nineties I started to dream of some developer producing a computerised version of SL. Close Combat did not quite come off…. in my view, but was a noble try. Maybe the technology was not there in the mid-nineties. CM though is my dream come true… I never expected such a brilliant conversion to the PC format. Although I was a huge fan of SL/ASL, CM has so many advantages I have no interest in playing ASL again. But will always have very fond memories of trying to kill my chums cardboard men! All the best, Kip. PS. I still have all the SL/ASL games…and no plans to throw them away.

Tom, hi, It looks tremendous…stunning stuff. A full Ardennes mod is just what is needed too, in my view. Sadly… I think it will be a long wait for CMX2 and the ability to play NWE scenarios with the CMBB/CMAK engine will, I am sure, be appreciated by a huge number of people. I do not even come close to having the ability to do this sort of thing, so have to depend on others such as you. But I can indeed imagine just how vast a task it must be. I will follow the project with great interest. Looking forward to the end result. Thanks, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Congratulations…it does look very good. Much in the style of a quality, 1/35 weathered model. Great stuff. All the best, Kip.

Hi, “Allies: As many have said, Churchill because it really does look like a tank should” Agreed. Also, with its heavy armour, it did what it did, very well. Added to this, it was very reliable with low ground pressure. But, of course, still slow. All the best, Kip.

Nils, I had not realised just how complex and cunning your program is. With the programming of all those victory conditions on map, wow! It really is very clever stuff indeed. Looking forward to playing your campaign. All the best, Kip.

Eichenbaum, hi, Firstly, just to restate how stunned I am that anyone can have produced such a brilliant piece of work. Amazing…. I cannot even start to think how it was done. It never ceases to amaze my just how brilliant some on these forums are. However, I do have one concern which you may find a little eccentric. I saw that the first battle was just 25+ turns. I, and all my CM chums, play 60 turn battles, or more in “battles” as opposed to operations. The reason is that we all believe it leads to more realistic game play. In the real world battles for even very limited objectives, say a small village, happened at a far slower pace then in most CMBB games. This was due to the determination of the “players” to live. It is my experience that if you give players more turns, they do tend to revert to more realistic tactics. This should not be taken as a criticism, I and my chums are no doubt in the minority. But it there some way I can edit the operation to increase the number of turns? Or if not, could you produce a version with longer battles for those who wish to play battles with more turns? Your work is so stunning, so realistic, the research of such mind-blowing quality, it seems a shame to have to unrealistically rush the actual battles. In my view. Congratulations again, All the best, Kip. PS. Tried to edit the operation in the CMBB editor, but it did not seem to be possible. Even after copying the file to the CMBB scenarios and launching it correctly in the CMBB editor.

Hi, Congratulations… an outstanding piece of work. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I would certainly appreciate a North West Europe total conversion. Sadly, I believe it would take a huge amount of work, so I read, hence it has not happened. Normandy and parts of southern England could just about be covered by the same mod… but do not hold your breath, if it were going to happen… it probably would have by now. All the best, Kip.

Charl, hi, I agree with all you wrote, it is the essence of what BFC is all about with the CM series. However, I have just one qualification. You wrote,  “keeping the action to squad-size slices up to a max. battalion-size” But allow us to play huge games, using the program optimised for the scale as above. I am talking two-three battalions defending against half a dozen battalion combat teams, all live on one 6-10km by 6-10km map. Remember the next engine is likely to have live team play. This will often be used to add to the FOW by breaking down battalion combat teams such that each company, the armour, the commander and artillery spotters are all played by different people. But in my view it would be fascinating to have two or three battles, each around one battalion defending two attacking, all played live on the same map. An example would be the attack on St.Vith, during the Battle of the Bulge, all played to its real world scale but with each human player controlling no more than they might in a game of CMAK. If you follow my rantings. The game program would process the turn and then instead of sending out two versions, as it currently does, would send out anything up to eight versions. Added to this an umpire’s version of the turn could also be produced so that the organiser/umpire behind the game could view the action live. The umpire would be responsible for saving the game at an appropriate time, then maybe editing it and organising another round of live play at a later date. Yes… I am hoping Saved games will be editable in CMX2. I have some experience in helping to construct scenarios/umpiring weekends of live CM play. A huge operational game, as described above, would in my view lead to stunningly entertaining game play both for the players, and the umpires. A real generational leap. All the best, Kip. PS. The current explosion in wireless networking also makes such get togethers a simpler undertaking. Of course, some of the players would no doubt be at remote locations....why not.

Hi, Cold War 70s and 80s is certainly doable…if they want to. In a NATO study from the 1980s, 90% of “first” contacts in Northern Germany were expected to be at between 800m-1200m. When it comes to the technology, remember that the Cold War ended 15 years ago. The great majority of the data is known. Most its now unclassified, in the UK anyway. And even if not strictly unclassified, quite enough is know of the characteristics of the material to make an estimate which is just as likely to be correct as for most WWII equipment. Reading journals such as Jane’s you would be shocked by just how desperate the arms race is, and always was even in the Cold War, between arms manufacturers. This is the single major reason why weapons data is often leaked. Then a few years later confirmed by published tests. Anyway… I will spare you the full rant;) but I would hugely enjoy studying, and then playing with different set of toys, just for one game. All the best, Kip.

Hi, When it comes to the subject for the next game my vote is Cold War. However… I think all CM veterans, me included, have to be realistic about the fact that there may be the odd game subject that would not make for one of their first choices. WWII NWE and Eastern Front are a safe bet with 95% of wargamers, but once you move beyond those two settings peoples preferences do diverge quite a bit. Given that one of the aims of the new engine is to increase the through put of games all of us probably have to be braced for some subjects that are not our personal favourites. I doubt BFC will just go on producing NWE and Eastern Front games. My major interest is WWII, in common with many, but I would like to play with some new toys for the next game, hence my vote for Cold War, 1970-1989. Anyway…. looking forward to CMX2 whatever the subject… All the best, Kip. PS. I agree with flamingknives, my hunch is also that Charles and Steve, in fact all at BFC, like their tanks:) Hence a tanks running around in Europe, in some form, is most likely. Time will tell.

Ted, “There is something to be said about why the silence. When CMBO was first being developed long before the Alpha game came out Steve and Charles came on the forum and asked questions, explained motivations and gave examples of play. There were some great discussions. I kind of miss that camaraderie.” I “sort of” agree, before the Great Crash of 99 my member number was 400 odd;) I do remember the atmosphere. Looking forward to the next game, while enjoying the current one, is a big part of the fun. In my view. But… I always remember that the timing of many of Steve’s posts was around 0300 Eastern Time. This is clearly not sustainable, nor desirable. I doubt they have time to develop at full speed “and” field questions from the likes of you and I. Of course, the answer is to let Martin field all the questions;) I am sure he has the odd 20 hours a day free to field are very reasonable suggestions:) All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, “After 5, 6? years, CM still has no serious opposition.” Could not agree more. I constantly search the net, and buy the odd game, in the hope of finding something that comes close to the quality of CM… but sadly there is nothing out there. CM was a true generational leap forward, and strangely, is still a generation ahead of all other games. In my view. It is still the only game I play. Mind you, none of the above means I am not looking forward to the new engine with every bit the anticipation with which young children look forward to Christmas. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Looks very good, congratulations. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Yup, congratulations. It has long been my view that the CM series is a form of military history, as well as fun games. I am not surprised that those teaching military history are keen to use it as a tool. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Istari wrote “A change of pace and technology would be most welcome - and no better place to go than the Fulda Gap, circa 1985. ;>” exactly… I too would go for such a game setting as my first choice. Cold War, ETO 1970-1989 would get my vote. When it comes to the many who wish for more operational features; the good news is that Moon has said BFC have taken account of this in the new engine. Quite how, and to what extent, I do not know.. but great to hear it is in the works to some degree at least. It is worth remember that features such as the ability to build huge maps, say 10km by 10km, multi-player live games, plus the ability to edit saved games, would on their own allow CMX2 to be used as a tools to resolve operational games. It will be fascinating to see what new features BFC do have in mind. But it may still be quite wait to find out… who knows. All the best, Kip. PS. Of course the ability to simply click down through the scales, as suggested above by others, would be best of all... but it is asking a bit too much of such a small team.

Hi, I know I have ranted on about this many times before, but this afternoon my longing for a Cold War game came flooding back . I was reading a book called Blitzkrieg to Desert Storm; The Evolution of Operational Warfare by Robert M Citino, when I found myself particularly engrossed by the chapter covering the Cold War. Citino outlined a number of the options open to the Soviets in Germany and my imagination ran wild with the CM possibilities for scenarios. This is greatly reinforced by the hope that CMX2 will be more operationally friendly. The current engine comes close to perfection in modelling the actual battalion v battalion engagements, in my view, with the exception of Borg Spotting. I am still stunned by how lucky we have all been that BFC gave us CM. But human nature being what it is, I now want more . Specifically, the ability to more easily use CM as a tool to resolve engagements in a wider operational game covering corps and armies fighting each other. Anyway… to make me feel better I thought I would repost on of my rants lobbying for a Cold War game. So here goes… “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. Then back to WWII for the second game in the CMX 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 T80 introduced in the same year as the 120mm gunned M1, 1985, you will find the T80 is 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. 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. Was Steve not thinking of buying a T72 a while back... or is just wishful thinking on my part.” All good fun , All the best, Kip.

Hi, Congratulations on a very professional looking site. Sadly, I do no have time to take part in this sort of game, put follow them with interest. I see that a couple of software tools have been designed to help run the campaign. I would be hugely interested in seeing what they are. When I had time I was heavily involved in CMMC and have not lost interest in these campaign games. I am hopeful that the new engine will be more readily adaptable to campaigns. But until then, I am very keen to see how others manage campaigns with the current engine. Good luck with things. All the best, Kip.

Sanok, hi, “Why did BFC do this? Couldn't it have been corrected in any of the patches? I *really* enjoy BO over BB, though I do like the better infantry model of BB. If BFC would have corrected this flaw in BO, I'd have been an extremely happy BO gamer.” The answer is that the new suppression/morale model, in CMBB, involved a lot of work. As I understand it. It was not just matter of adjusting one parameter… the machine gun coding also had to be changed a good deal. Quite a number of factors were changed to give us the suppression model we now have. All the best, Kip.

Julian, hi, You make very reasonable points, and to some extent I sympathise with your view, having enjoyed CMBO so much. However, although CMBO was in very way a generational leap in wargaming (I still cannot believe how lucky we all were to get it) there was, in hindsight, one major flaw in the combat modelling. In CMBO our digital, virtual soldiers are too heroic. That really says it all. At this point I realise you may be thinking, “oh no they are not” or “who says so...” But the truth is that nearly all, there is bound to be the odd exception, who have witnessed real combat agree that in CMBO the digital warriors are too brave. They are not suppressed nearly easily enough. In CMBO it is too difficult to frighten them into changing their behaviour. The changes made to the suppression modelling in CMBB were very carefully tested with the help of those with real experience of how men behave in battle, under fire. What you see in CMBB is how war really is. The challenge is to try and win battles using digital soldier who are desperate to live and take a dim view to premature death. For me this is a huge improvement over CMBO and greatly adds to the fun. But not everyone agrees it makes the game more “fun”. I certainly believe the more realistic suppression coding increases the fun; but everyone to their own . All the best, Kip.

Keke, hi, Andreas can clearly more than look after himself, so I will just keep to a very few points. When it comes to the Zetterling book…. I have indeed read it, but it got culled out of my collection some time back. I did not need Newton to tell me it was poor military history; but it is great to have Newton’s very well researched figures to illustrate just how wrong Zetterling is. Any military history book should do a number of things, one of which is to leave an accurate impression of the likely reality at the time. A reader of the Zetterling book would emerge with the impression that German platoons who took part in the first five days of the assault saw their strength fall from around 30… to say 20-25 men… whatever. In fact we now know that if they started at around 30 men they will have fallen to an average of 7-8 men, amongst the German divisions actually involved in the assault. At Kursk the Soviets did suffer the loss of too many tanks. The reason is that they persisted in counter attacking German armour with their own armour. Contrary to popular belief, in most cases, the best form of defence… is just that…defence. Post Kursk the SOP of the Soviets was to go onto the defensive as soon as what we might call “Uber” German armour was encountered. i.e. they would shift their attack some kms to the flanks. This is what happened to the unfortunate, 60 strong Panther battalion at Korsun. I am lucky to have a very extensive collection of military history books, and I am sure we could all happily swap sources for hours. Luckily, volume VII covering the Kursk period, of the stunning "Germany and the Second World War" series, is due out this year… in English… may already be out in German. I have seen these books described as the finest works of military history available… who knows, we all have likes and dislikes. But if you do not already have the German version of volume VII, I suggest you get it, assuming you understand German… if not wait for the English version later this year. I am absolutely confident the authors of volume VII will take the same line as Newton… not Zetterling. (Volumes IV and VI, covering the first 21 months of the war in the east, were of breathtaking quality.) All good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. If searching in Amazon for the Germany and the Second World War series… use one of the authors… Horst Boog, to find them.

theike, hi, Congratulations on great maps…fine stuff indeed. Thanks, All the best, Kip.

Keke, hi, The source for the German Panther battalion being shot to pieces, just as described, is the account given by the Germans themselves, to be found in Hell’s Gate by Douglas Nash. From memory it goes something like, 15 Panthers lost in the first mornings attack for the loss of 13 T34s by the Soviets. By the end of the second morning only 17 Panthers still left. When it comes to Kursk do buy the Newton book, it explains all. Basically, Zetterling got it all wrong. Remember Newton used the same sources. To give just one quick example, which I think you may have eluded to. 6% losses at army level over the first five days of fighting in the north, translates into over 50% losses in the "fighting battalions of the divisions actually involved in the attack". As we all know just from CM, if a battalion of infantry has suffered 50% losses, in the rifle platoon the losses are likely to be more like 75%. That was just in the first five days. The quickest and best way to see the effect of Kursk on the respective sides, and therefore who won, is to look at where the front line was on 1st July 43, and where it was two or three months later. All the best, Kip.

Keke, hi, “If your example somehow presented a typical situation during the Kursk campaign, then how come German tank losses were so low? According to Zetterling irrevocable tank losses for the Germans, stugs included, were 280 5-20 July. Maybe they didn't just rush forward without securing their flanks after all?...” Just a few quick points in no particular order. 1) For a response to the Zetterling view of Kursk read the recent book by Steven Newton, Kursk the German View. It ends with four essays; one of which deals head on with Zetterling. In short, the Germans were bled white. Newton goes back to the same German records Zetterling used, but digs far deeper. But let’s not turn this into an argument over Kursk. 2) In my first post I was just illustrating a point, given the way most play CM. If you wish to simulate a real world battle set everything up as above… but make it a three battle, Static Operation. Each battle being 60 turns long. Attack with your Panzers in a “flattened” bell formation, not a “V” formation. Have the fifteen Panthers attack over 1,500m of front, in three platoons. The rear most Panthers, on the extreme two flanks, being about 500m-700m behind the most forward of the central platoon’s tanks. Move forward one or two tanks in each platoon at a time, in Hunt mode, just 100m or less at a time. The other tanks being in over-watch. Move infantry forward with the tanks, but well spread and just in front of the tanks. Do everything very slowly and carefully. Take your time. Do not rush. 3) The above is how it was really done. The idea being that the central tanks have as much covering fire as possible from those on the flanks. But there is no perfect solution. If losses start to get too high, say three Panthers or so… call the attack off. This is also realistic. 4) Remember, in the real world there are limits to the extent to which one can protect a flank, particularly in more open terrain. During the Korsun operation the newly reequipped, 60 strong, Panther battalion of Grossdeutschland was shot to pieces just as describe above. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, I am fortunate in having a large collection of topographical maps covering the westerner Soviet Union. Mainly the Ukraine and around Kursk. As a result I have built a number of large CMBB maps based on the real topography. In my view it is hugely important to fight over real terrain. It makes a massive difference. When I first built such a CM map, and took the time to put in the terrain detail based on the three or four thousand photos I have accumulated covering the war in the east, the results looked stunningly realistic. (This is not as many photos as it sounds; some books have 400-600 alone.) This is the ultimate complement to those at BFC who did the terrain graphics. The CM maps looked just like 3d, colour versions of all those black and white photos I have. The tactical implications are also great. Most Soviet terrain does not have the “micro-landscape” of Western Europe. What I mean is that Soviet terrain tends to come in larger “blocks” than in Western Europe. Let me explain. Take a CMBO map of 3km x 3km. Assume 20% is woods, 10% brush, 5% village or urban. In Western Europe the net result will often, but not always, be a large number of smaller landscapes within the overall map in which Line of Site is restricted to a few hundred meters. This is because the woods, brush and buildings, plus features such as hedges, will tend to be scattered throughout the 3km x 3km area in relatively small pockets, and in lines. In turn this breaks the landscape into many different pockets with limited Line of Site. Now imagine a CMBB map of similar size, with similar percentages of vegetation, urban and such. But no hedges. What you would tend to find in the Soviet Union is that the 20% that is wooded, to give one example, will be split up into just two or three larger blocks. The terrain being undulating with the majority of vegetation and buildings in the valleys. There will often be a block of woods, say 1km x1km, then 1500-3000 meters of open, gently undulating terrain with just a small village with some fencing and brush on the lower ground. The net result of all of the above is that Lines of Site tend to be far greater in the Soviet Union. This in turn means that attacking AFVs are far more vulnerable to flanking shots then is often the case in the west. The tactical implications of these long open flanks is that even the modest Soviet 76.2mm Model42/Zis3 gun can do massive damage to Uber Panzers such as the Panther, let alone lesser models such as MarkIVs and StugIIIs. The standard Soviet tactic was to allow Panzers to advance until they were parallel with Soviet gun positions, and then blast them in the sides. Remember the 76.2mmZis gun can penetrate a Panther, through the side, at 1,000m, even at a 45 degree strike angle. The point of all this ranting is, take the trouble to build a topographically accurate maps of the western Soviet Union. Make them around 3km in width. Throw a Soviet defensive position across the map. Nothing too extreme, say a slightly reduced company of infantry with 3-4 AT guns per km. Then have a German combined arms team with at its heart fifteen odd Panthers plus a company of motorised Panzergrenadiers attack. Make the Germans attack roughly the centre of the line. Remember, in the real world there is no “map-edge” to protect your flank. (Playing human v human, use a special rule that the Germans may not enter the six hundred metres on the extreme of each flank.) What you will find is that the German force attacking the Soviet company in the central km of the map will breakthrough. However… and this is the important part, the German losses are likely to way over any realistically acceptable level. You could end up with losses of six or more Panthers to flanking shots over the open terrain. 40% or more losses. This is the truly outstanding thing about CM. Take the trouble to build realistic maps, there is no substitute for using a real topographical map as a guide; throw in realistic forces in realistic deployments. The net result will be as it most often was in the real world. CM is more than a game; it is a form of military history. All the best, Kip. PS. Yes… Borg Spotting is a problem, but given that CM was first designed to run on a P200 there was always going to be some imperfection. With CMX2 it will be a thing of the past. PPS. For free maps of the Ukraine go to http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/EART/x-ussr/ukraine.html