kipanderson

Hi, I have to confess that I know nothing about these matters. However, my guess is that Longhorn will have to be backwardly compatible with existing programs at the time of its launch. Reasonably recent, existing programs anyway. So I would be surprised if CMX2 were not compatible. All the best, Kip. PS. I guess Longhorn will be designed for a 64 bit processor, but be able to run some 32 bit programs?

Andreas, hi, If there is room then I thought I would pop round too! As I am also very lucky to be on the beta list it is not quite a preview for me. But beer, food, and computerised mass slaughter go so well together that I cannot resist , if there is room. If it is getting a bit crowded, then I will give it a miss to make room for those who really are in deed of a preview. All good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. Good to see that the new computer make it OK.

istari, hi, I think you and I really do look at thinks in a very similar way. Just to make clear I too am “not” suffering burn out from WWII. Am currently reading A War To Be Won, a very fine operational/truly “military” history of WWII. However, as with istari, I am old enough to remember the cardboard wargame days when for a couple of weeks/months one could concentrate on WWII games, then turn to Cold War games for a few weeks. This ability to change periods was hugely refreshing and fun. For one game it would be fun to get enthusiastic about a different time period, with different technology. Then, back to WWII. But, of course, I am such a fan of CM, a hobby all of its own and in a different stratosphere to other games, in my view, that whatever the time period I will always be having close to sleepless nights waiting to get my hands on the latest version. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Istari, hi, I could well be the culprit when it comes to the posts asking for CMX2 to be Cold War. I have posted a few times lobbying for it. I will not waste every ones time by giving the full rant in favour of the Cold War but will just restate a quick few points. Firstly, there are some who are anti the idea of anything other then WWII. Their objection to the Cold War being that the balloon never did really go up, there was no WWIII and 3rd Shock Army did not storm the Fulda Gap. I understand this view. However, with the exception of just a very few engagements in the Arab Israeli wars, there have been no truly mechanised/armoured clashes, between near equals, since WWII. (I recently read up on the Arab Israelis wars in some very fine new books, and the number of armoured clashes really are very few in number and duration.) At least in the Cold War the armies did really exist on a scale equal to WWII. I should also add that my major interest is WWII; the books I am currently reading are all WWII. So I would be very keen to return to WWII, after one Cold War game. However, it would be refreshing to have a change, just for one game, then back to WWII. One major reason is that a lot of the fun of wargames, and military history in general for me, is the technology. I would love a chance to read up and study, with a purpose , the technology of the Cold War. Just how good, or bad, was the T72 against NATO, late 70s tanks? What was the hit probability of a Saggger? and so on…. Happily, all the information is out there, there really are no secrets with even 1990 equipment, let alone 1970s and 1980s which is what I am hoping for. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Apologies for not having read all of the other posts, but this is the way I prefer to play the game. First turn/setup is done in PBEM, then as some later stage, maybe turn two if both are available; convert the game to Live TCP play. In Live play no time limits on turn length but rely on individuals to push the game along. The reason for the above mix is that I feel time pressure in setup is somewhat unrealistic, and not much fun. But once the game is up and running, it is more fun to play Live. In my view. I can tell you, because not long ago I saw one of the powers that be round here post as much, that CM is primarily designed with human v human in mind. I guess because although the AI is outstanding, it is clearly not as cunning as a human player. So BFC expect most players to start with AI games, then go into human v human games. But of course, what ever you enjoy most is the real answer. All the best, Kip. PS . Yes, it is also true that the better you know someone, the more fun killing their virtual soldiers.

Jim Boggs, Great post. All the best, Kip.

Michael Dorosh, hi, Just to show how confusing these things become, what you describe I would call a “section”, as opposed to “squad” game. The lowest manoeuvre unit in CM is the squad, in the game you describe it is the section. You are splitting the squad up into smaller units which manoeuvre independently. In wargames the lowest level/role you play is the commander of the lowest level manoeuvre unit. Thus in a battalion operational game the lowest level/role you play is the battalion commander. Anyway… who cares… we are dancing on the point of a pin, we both know what we see when playing CM. I wish to continue to see all that my squads can see, at all times.Because I am in there with the squads as their commander. In my view. However, I hugely look forward to individual spotting, and most importantly, live team play. If you command the infantry, and your armour refuses to do what you wish it to, because the armour player does not want all his tanks knocked out, it will be hugely frustrating… and hugely fun. All the best, Kip.

Hi, “Nobody commands squads in CM as it is - it is already a "command level game", though you get to be the platoon, company and battalion commanders all in one. Commanding a squad means telling your MG team and rifle teams when to fire, where to move, when to go to that next bound of cover - you don't do any of that now.” I think we have been playing a different game. No matter, people do look at things very differently, and this is certainly proof of that, all adds to the fun. I thought I had been doing all of the above for the last three years. What is true is that one can only intervene at one minute intervals. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, A command game is one where you play the role, not of the manoeuvre units, but only of the commanders one, or more levels, up from the manoeuvre units. To give an example. The CM series of games would become “command games” if you played the role of platoon and company commander, but no longer squad or AFV commander. That is if you saw the battlefield as if through the eyes of the platoon commanders, not the squad and AFV commanders as you currently do in CM. Thus if a squad was out of command and control, you would no longer be able to see all that the squad in question could see. You would be playing the part/role of the platoon commander, not squad commander. Clearly, this is what some would wish for, and why not as we all have different likes and dislikes. But as will be clear from my pervious posts, I am not one of them. I wish CM to remain a wargame in which you play the role of the manoeuvre units, i.e. in this case the squad and AFV commanders. If a squad of mine can see something, then I want to be able to see it because I am the squad commander, not just the platoon commander. Currently there are some command and control restrictions. However, very roughly, the restrictions, delay times for orders and such, are for orders that would often/normally be issued by platoon commanders. But note, there are no delay times for fire orders. If a squad/AFV/ATG can see an enemy unit, the commander of the squad/AFV/ATG is free to issue an instant fire order. Added to this some of the delay times reflect the training and quality of the squad/crew itself, even if the order comes from the squad commander. This is, of course, realistic. Now, if you think this means that I am not after realism you would be wrong. I take my military history hobby as seriously as any. I read Soviet General Staff studies on WWII battles for fun, if saw how dry they are you would realise this is not normal human behaviour. I have a massive collection of Eastern Front source material. However, for me CM is about being the squad/AFV/ATG commander, not the platoon or company commander. Thus I would not wish to see the “style” of CM change. BFC are such outstanding wargames designers that we all carry around a vision of a game we would like them to produce, because we know they would produce a stunning result above the quality of others. Happily for me, CM in its current style and scale is my idea of the perfect wargame. One day they may try their hand at a command game, just for a change, but Steve is on the record as posting that CM will never become one. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Yup, I agree with Andreas and others, the map is the most important part of the equation. It all counts, but get the map to look like the real thing, photos from the Eastern Front in this case, and it is a case of the Eagle has Landed. BTW. Huge credit deserves to go to the team at BFC. The reason, in this case, is that I have found that when I build a CMBB map from a topographical map of the east, the result looks “exactly” like the many hundreds, in fact thousands, of photos I have from the Eastern Front. I have always been one of those weirdos who when looking at photos from the east is more interested in the landscape than the tanks. All the best, Kip.

Hi, “BFC has stated previously that they will not turn CM into a command level game. That's good, IMO, since I would stop playing it if they did.” I agree. The CM series, and Squad Leader before, are the greatest wargames of all time, in my view, in part because of their scale. Stop playing the part of the squad/AFV commander and most will be shocked how dull the game becomes. However, all is not lost… in CMX2 you will just have to make the full jump to realism and get a group of people together to play one team against the other, live. Do that, together with what I call individual spotting by each unit, and Borg spotting problems are thing of the past. Playing as one player on each side, or against the AI, will never be as realistic as live team play. For many reasons, you will always have far too much knowlegde of the battlefield. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Have just taken a close look, they really do look stunning. Took a very close look at the Sherman, weld marks and all. Truly remarkable. I am a huge fan of the Eastern Front... but the more I see the screen shots.. and read about the Med… the more I look forward to it. Yes, it will be fun to play with Western units again… no matter how Russophile I am, and I am very Russophile. We are lucky, beyond belief, to have the CM series to play with. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I think one has to be up front about the fact that if you are a single player, then you will have God like knowledge of the battlefield, to some degree. If you wish to maintain the fact that you play the part of the squad/AFV commander, there is no full way round this, in a single player game. There never will be… “if” you accept the above condition. I do agree that individual spotting by units will have a big effect, and go a long way to get rid of Borg spotting. However, for the full, zero Borg spotting effect, you will have to find a group of like minded people for Live Team play. Just as a real battlefield is made up of many individuals. All the best, Kip.

Hi, On this one, I think the only solution is units spotting individually, i.e. no Borg spotting, and multi play. Both of which are going to happen in CMX2. In multi play you only spot what your own units, under your command, can spot. Not what friendly units under the command of some other guy can spot. Do remember one very important point. In CM games you play the part of the battalion commander, the company commander, the platoon commander… and the squad commander. This last point matters, a lot. In CM games you are also the squad command and therefore you also see what all your squads can see. In CM games you are not playing only the role of the platoon and company commanders. In my view, the two most successful wargames ever are the Squad Leader series and the CM series. This is no coincidence. They are both identical scale. A big part of the magic… and it works so well, calling it magical is not over spinning by much…is the scale( plus.. of course.. the quality of the production). The fact that you do also play the part of the squad/AFV/ATG commander. Change this and you will get a shock at to how dull the game seems. Individual spotting by units, plus multi player games is the way to go. In my view. But not making CM into a “command game”. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I am sure that Battlefield Command will do what it sets out to do… very well. The record of those producing it is outstanding. However… it is not going to be a CM style game. It is company v company, real time, and has other features more associated with “shooters” than what I would call “wargames”. If our Russian friends wished to produce a CM style game, I am sure they would give BFC a run for their money, ( but my money would still be on BFC…anyway..) Battlefield Command is not aimed at the same niche. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Yup, I also enjoyed the live game against Andreas hugely. (Details given in Andreas’s post above.) It all felt very real, every one trying hard to stay alive. Also the map was taken from real terrain, topographical map of the Ukraine; it was 3km by 3km. The forces were also those really in the area, in the strength they fought it out. CMBB really is a massively fine game. But a big element was the lack of any artificial time pressure. Andreas was free to take the sort of time such manoeuvres may have taken in the real world. And free to call it a day when he believed a real world commander would have done. We just both hit Ceasefire. Great game. All the best, Kip. PS. Truely outstanding post from John, how does he do it . We all now actually "know" how long these things took on average. Great stuff. PPS. Try Static Operations, 60 turn battles/games.

Hi, Beautiful things SU76s… very fine vehicles. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Try static operations. In the accounts I have read battles, for even quite small objectives, would often take a quite a few hours, with pauses in between. They would be made up of a number “pushes” or assaults with pauses to reorganise in between. Each “assault” being a “battle” in static operations. I find comments such as “the battle for xxxxx went on all morning” is the norm, even when there is a happy out come. The exceptions being when indeed the artillery had flattened a position, or it turned out to be very lightly held. Normally, with in the time scale of CM games, 30-90 minutes, taking the objective with minimum casualties would be what really mattered. In my view. Anyway… do try Static Operations. All the best, kip.

Jim, hi, Well… on this I agree with you. My view is that time limits, on this scale, are unrealistic. From all the real world accounts of WWII, and other, battles it would make no difference at all if a battle for a given hill top, or village, took 35 minutes, or 55 minutes. In the real world there was often “operational” time pressure. But it would be a case of “attack at dawn, be sure you have cleared the hamlet by 10.00 hours”. Say, three or four hours later. By far the most important thing would be to clear the village at a positive casualty ratio, or at lowest possible cost. If it saved lives, but took twenty minutes longer, then that would be the way it was done. What this means is that I always set the time limit to 90 minutes in battles, 60 minutes in operations. There will have been exceptions to the above, there are always exceptions in such a huge war, but they are very few. Basic rule is there should be no time limits, the time limit being when your men are low on ammunition or have suffered too heavy casualties. In my view, but we all differ on these matters. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, I see that some find the Eastern Front depressing. What I think this is testimony to is the detail and accuracy of the environments BFC create for each of their games. Recently I came across another example that illustrates just how good BFC are at creating realistic environments. For a small Live tournament one weekend, about seven of us got together at a house where we could net work the machines, I produced a 6km by 10km map in Mapping Mission. It was based very closely on a topographical map of the Ukraine. Anyway… when we then copied and pasted from the map in Mapping Mission to the CMBB map editor, the results were outstanding. Outstanding in terms of their realism. The resulting CMBB maps really did look “exactly” like the many photos, 3,000 plus, I have of the war in the east. When you then add the sound and weather effects, I certainly felt I was watching a move clip from the Eastern Front. Build a realistic map, then have all the various graphics settings at their most realistic, scale, vegetation, player aids off, the lot, and what you see is the Soviet Union in WWII. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I agree with Andreas, in that it is not any lack of interest in CM, far from it, but more likely just that the exact form, the exact CM related project that interests people most, changes. There was a rush of websites in the early days, now many of those people are doing other CM related projects. The same goes for scenarios. Many of us have hit upon a formula for designing our own scenarios for use amongst a small group of friends. When I have time I like to build a large map in Mapping Mission, based very closely on real topographical maps of the Soviet Union, the cut out sections and play scenarios against chums. As I say, by now many have developed their own preferred “niche” in how they use CM. But new sites still come through, when they do, they are often very high quality. All the best, Kip.

Hi, It’s all too good to be true. Outstanding… lost for words. I have known for a long time that I suffer from some form of clinical addiction to the CM series of games. But I will not be going to see a man in a white coat about the problem… as I enjoy my addiction and do not want it to end. At this stage in the game development I always feel like a small child in the run up to Christmas… I suspect I am not the only one. All the best, Kip.

Rexford, hi, Very interesting stuff as always. In this case it all seems to confirm what would have been expected. There is a clear trade off between penetration and HE content. My view had always been that penetration should be the priority, which today it is of course. Having seen up close what a “partial penetration” of a Tiger1 front plate looks like, Bovington Tank Museum has a 17pdr shot round stuck in a 100mm plate, I can tell you even without the HE fill rounds coming through in the 75mm class is “very bad news”. All the best, Kip.

Hi, The graphics look great as always. Stunning stuff. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Yup, I agree. There are a number of fine wargames out there, Tacops, Steelbeasts are two such examples. But in my view, CMBB is simply in a different stratosphere to any other war game. It is both more fun… and more historically accurate than any other game. I still cannot believe my luck that BFC decided to build such a series of games. In fact it is so historically accurate that it is also a form of military history. If were taking a class in military history, studying the Eastern Front, I would recommend a bunch of the usual David Glantz books, plus “go and play with CMBB.” All good fun, All the best, Kip.