kipanderson

Hi, Do not think there is any need for concern on the “could BFC produce a modern era game” front. Steve has said it could not be done with the current engine, but as CMAK will be the last game with this engine, it is not a problem. With CMX2 I am sure BFC could produce a modern game. I see no reason why ranges of 4km would be a problem. Remember 3 GHz machines are already the standard £1,000/$1,000 commodity item. In two years time we will be talking 8 GHz machines, with 512MB graphics cards, for the same price. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I am a huge fan of the idea of a modern era version of CM. However, my favourite would be Cold War, 1970s. The majority of my books are WWII, and I look forward to a return to North West Europe, hopefully the Eastern Front one day, with the new engine. However, just for one game, I would like a change from WWII. It would be fun to read up on technology from a different era. By the 1970s the technology had changed enough to make it all very different. I am certainly not bored with CM in anyway. But a break from the same technology would be fun. As one of the aims of the new engine, CMX2, is to allow more rapid development of new games, a faster through put, I am very optimistic that we will get some sort of post WWII game. At some stage. All the best, Kip.

John, hi, “And are you going to share this information with us in exchange for vague promises of beer in the Chandos, or are we going to have to beat it out of you?” Firstly it is the British Library, secondly some dusty warehouse in Tolworth, strange but true . Apparently the British military have their biggest store of maps in Tolworth. Now and then they have a sort-out and send the older more interesting stuff to the British Library. All good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. That will indeed be a pint of Sams at the Chandos

Jon, hi, Interesting stuff. My only experience of German WWII maps was at the British Library where I went to take a closer look at some of Russia. They were of a very high quality, to look at anyway. Clearly, I had no way of judging their accuracy. Some, but not all, looked very similar to modern/contemporary topographical maps. In fact the German maps were just reprints of Soviet maps. The Germans obtained an entire series in the thirties. I know some German WWII maps of Russia did not have contour lines, elevation marked, just roads and urban areas. However, most of the ones I saw had the same detail level of modern topographical maps. BTW. A quick thanks to US taxpayers. I live in the UK but was given a list of locations where I could find German WWII maps, in the UK, by a very helpful chap on the staff of the Library of Congress. He spent quite some time helping me, although I was a UK citizen living in the UK. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Yes, I do think people are asking a bit much, more like CMX2 than CMAK. BFC have been quite open about the fact that there will be very few changes in CMAK, not as many or as fundamental as the move from CMBO to CMBB. I think of CMAK as a last “bonus” game with the old engine. Having said that, here is my wish for a new feature in CMAK. It is taken from a wish list I have for the new engine/CMX2, most of the items on the list standing no chance of making it into CMAK. However, the following “may” be simple to code, I do not know. It would be a huge help in a desert war where often, but not always, we are talking very flat terrain with undulations of just 1.25m to 2.5m making all the difference. (The strange thing about a Med game is that it will include both the flattest, and the most mountainous terrain, we have come across in CM.) “Toggled Elevation Grid. For me, others will differ; the one big human-to-computer interface problem is the lack of an ability to spot elevation/undulation changes realistically. Using the 1.25m elevation settings there is a greater change in colour for any given change in elevation, but even so, the real life ability to spot elevation change, undulations, is far greater then in CMBB. Computer screens just cannot handle it the way the human eye can in the real world. Thus the ability to toggle a grid on and off in the orders phase of the game so as to better spot undulations, would be a big plus.” Spotting undulations of just 1.25m -5m can be quite time consuming. A bit like hard work. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Yes, is as an interesting read. It was particularly interesting to see what was said about CMX2. It really will be very different. Also, if it is still two years away, I think the leap in technology will be great. The minimum spec may be well above many current computers, mine included. I know from comments Steve has made, that BFC are hoping to be able to produce new games at a far greater rate once the new engine is up and running. I feel very fortunate that CMAK is on the way; regard it as a bonus game to feed my addition, but if the new engine really does allow for a production cycle of , say, nine months, that would be stunning. If that does happen, then I guess we will see a Pacific version of the game. They will be able to work their way through far more topics. My favourite would be a Cold War game, 1970s. I am an unhinged WWII fan, but working myself into a frenzy over technology from a different era would be fun, just for a change. Then back to WWII. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Sounds like cunning stuff to me. I am always amazed by the mass of ideas people come up with, all adds to the fun. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Thanks for the link. All the best, Kip.

John, hi, Good to see you are still lurking out there keeping us all to our metal! I should have realised that use of the “R” word would draw you out. Jim, hi, yes, you and I have rather a different spin on Borg Spotting and Command Games. But at least, as I explained above, at times when you get a bunch of us together for a Live Team game you will be able to play what in effect would be a Command Game as you wish. In my view, it is hard to understate how much fun Live Team play will be. Just having one guy commanding the infantry, and one the armour, will cause all sorts of fun problems. All the best, Kip.

Matt, hi, I certainly agree with you. My priorities are realism, realism, and more realism. However, with one important qualification. That we continue to play the roles of battalion commander, company commander, and squad/AFV commander. A large part of the magic is in playing the role of squad/AFV commander. The good news is that in the new engine with each unit doing its own spotting (Relative Spotting), perfected Extreme Fog of War, and live team play (multi, multi, play) you will be able to play a game with many of the features of a “command game” depending on the forces you command in a team game. If you follow me. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Jon, Yup, very interesting stuff. Always good to read this sort of thing. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Yup, I agree that live TCP play is “the” way to play the CMBB. It is hugely good fun even on a normal 56k dial up connection, which is all I have. I do not use any time limits, but I find all my opponents know to try and push things along. However, now and then, there is a need for quite long periods of reorganisation; hence I do not like time limits. Happily for me I am scheduled to move over to ADSL tomorrow, if all goes well. Hence I look forward to slightly larger games, with data transfer a lot quicker than currently. My experience is that a total of 2,500 points, both sides added together, on a 2km by 2km map, works fine even with 56k dial up. With broadband I am hoping a total of 3,500 points will still result in a faster flowing game than currently with 2,500 on a 56k connection. For live games, regardless of connection speed, I think 2,500-3,500 points, both sides added together, is big enough. But, of course, we will all differ on these matters. All the best, Kip.

John, hi, Well, when it comes to sources it depends which bit you we are talking about. For the general point to do with high combat morale for low combat skills I am sure I could dig up lots of passages from those famous US, 1950s pamphlets based on accounts from German officers. German accounts do not normally hold back on giving credit to the Soviets for a willingness to fight on after heavy losses. Almost any German account of the war in the east will do that. When it comes to harshness of upbringing, harshness of training, and harshness of discipline helping to build combat morale, this comes from a number of articles and bits of articles over the years in Jane’s Defence Weekly and Jane’s International Defence Review. I can give you one very specific example, that I am “likely” to have got from one of the above but cannot remember for sure. Happily, I would not be surprised if you too are famialr with this example. I have seen it quoted to justify the above view. After the Korean War there was a study done of mental effects of the conflict on the troops, one particularly on the effects of being held prisoner by the North Koreans. The study concluded that the Turkish UN troops were most unmoved by their experiences in the war. This being put down to harsh conditions in Turkey itself. Another example that comes from one of the Jane’s journals is that under current Human Rights Law in the EU it is “impossible” to train conscripts for high intensity war. It is not possible to take, what Jane’s call “combat inoculation”, to the real world, required level that a high intensity war would demand. This was quoted as one reason why there is a move towards professional armies throughout Europe. They quoted examples such as what I think the Paras call “milling”, when troops are thrown into a boxing ring and “ordered” to beat the hell out of other troopers. Strictly speaking, this may be illegal under human right law. This brings me on to another qualification. When you get to professional troops, particularly Special Forces, they are considered of such high quality that they are “self motivating”. This works in two ways. In terms of the raw material you are dealing with they would make high quality soldiers even without a lot of the harshness lower quality troops would require to harden them. Secondly, professional soldiers are far less likely to take a case to the Human Rights courts because it would mean the end of their careers. They want to prove they are tough, so do not get legalistic about what they are ordered to do. There are a mass of other qualifications. One that brings a smile to my face is what I read one British officer discovered in a New Zealand unit during WWII. Enlisted men and officers were calling each other by there first names. I think we are talking trauma from the British officer present. The New Zealand unit broke all the rules, but still, on the battlefield, had high morale. Finally, and very recently, I found a book in Waterstones in Guildford that claimed to be the definitive work on stress in combat. They all claim that I know. So I simply stood there for fifteen minuets and read the final chapter. The conclusion was that yes, even taking into account better diagnosis and a positive will to find cases today, modern troops from first world nations do suffer from more stress disorders than their grandfathers in similar situations. The reason being that modern life is softer and does not temper individuals as in past. The mixture of high standards of living, modern schooling methods, and the constant emphasis on “rights” means that even when individuals wish to, they often cannot withstand as much stress as past generations. What I was saying is “all things being equal”, harshness in up-bring, training and discipline lead to higher combat morale. But there are mass of qualifications. To give one more example. Cultural differences matter. The Vietnamese were not just highly nationalistic communists, if there is such a thing. But in Vietnam the warrior has always been highly valued, thus both consciously and subconsciously the Vietnamese where particularly highly motivated. I agree that we could all go on all day about this, yes, cohesion of the primary unit and so on…. all matter, the list of factors that effect morale, and the qualifications, would cover pages. I could also spend hours actually digging up quotes from books on the eastern front, the odd article and paragraph in old copies of Jane’s in the library at the War Museum in London, and even books on the shelves in Waterstones book shops. But I suspect in the end we would both reach the same conclusions anyway. From what I have read, again and again in various versions, what I said was totally uncontroversial. At this point you have to try and take off your Mr.Pickie hat as I would probably agree with any points you mentioned anyway. All good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. To give one example. Bullying is bad for morale. Harsh discipline yes, but it must be even handed, the rules of the game must be evenly applied.

Hi, I also think that receiving the 2nd edition for free, simply because I bought the 1st edition, is very impressive. All the best, Kip.

Hi, One more quick point. I came across a report in the archives of the Tank Museum in Bovington that made clear the British view that Soviet 76.2mm APBC ammuntion, in case the 1942 versions, were effective against Face Hardened armour in the same manner as western APCBC were. This would have great implications for the StugIII. It would mean the Face Hardened armour was more vulnerable, not less vulnerable than homogenous armour. All the best, Kip.

Richard, hi, Yes, the RPG43 was around in far greater numbers than CMBB would indicate. I have come across a German references to “very Soviet infantryman seeming to be clutching an RPG”. But as Richard points out this is a problem very simply remedied by giving the Soviet side some free Tank Hunters with RPGs. “My understanding is that 76.2mm sub-caliber wasn't available during April 1943, yet the instructions act like it was plentiful during spring '43 when references indicate it was around for the first time during the fall of '43 or late summer at the earliest.” John, I saw an interview about Kursk not so long ago when a Soviet tank commander was going on about the sub-caliber rounds they had there. I did try to persuade BFC that they were around earlier then September but got the thumps down. All the best, Kip.

Hi, This one is really one of my wishes for the new engine CMX2, but in the perfect world, also for CMAK. In a desert setting it would help a lot. “Toggled Elevation Grid. For me, others will differ; the one big human-to-computer interface problem is the lack of an ability to spot elevation/undulation changes realistically. Using the 1.25m elevation settings there is a greater change in colour for any given change in elevation, but even so, the real life ability to spot elevation change, undulations, is far greater then in CMBB. Computer screens just cannot handle it the way the human eye can in the real world. Thus the ability to toggle a grid on and off in the orders phase of the game so as to better spot undulations, would be a big plus.” A simple grid of black squares on a pink/transparent back ground that could be toggled on and off would be a huge help in a desert game. Without it, spotting all those 1m-3m undulations will be very hard work indeed in a Med version of CM. If it is not possible, no problem. I am more than happy to have a Med version of CMBB, I think of it as a bonus game . To be honest I do not really expect any changes from CMBB. All the best, Kip.

tom-w do not give up all hope of a simple Toggled Grid for CMAK. I agree that it is less than 50/50 but a simple grid, black squares on a “pink/transparent” back ground that could be toggles on and off, is a possible. On the face of it a lot less challenging than some changes for CMAK. Also, without it, in desert warfare, it will be a real struggle to spot 2m-3m undulations. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, I know everyone is turning these lists out, so I thought I would just throw in my wish-list of features for the new engine. One reason why there is no harm in producing these things is that I know BFC are keen to hear what we are all after. At this stage it is not too late to lobby for new features, so here goes. And, no, there is nothing very original in my list; also, I have purposely restricted it to my top five priority features. In no particular order. An end to Borg Spotting. This is very much already in the works, Steve has said there will be individual spotting, plus a radio net modelled where appropriate, in the next engine. So Borg Spotting will be a thing of the past. But I do not wish to give up the role of squad/AFV commander. I do not wish for a command game. Live Team Play. The ability to play live with 2-4 players on each side. Each player only being able to spot what the units he actually commands can spot. i.e. not what units belonging to another friendly company, but commanded by another human player, can spot. Would be fun, and add to Fog Of War. Toggled Elevation Grid. For me, others will differ; the one big human-to-computer interface problem is the lack of an ability to spot elevation/undulation changes realistically. Using the 1.25m elevation settings there is a greater change in colour for any given change in elevation, but even so, the real life ability to spot elevation change, undulations, is far greater then in CMBB. Computer screens just cannot handle it the way the human eye can in the real world. Thus the ability to toggle a grid on and off in the orders phase of the game so as to better spot undulations, would be a big plus. The ability to Save Forces from any game. I am one of those who would like to see an operational layer to CM. However, I realise that BFC are only a small company and so I am more than grateful to have a continuing flow of new versions of CM coming through. To expect such a small company to also add a genuine operational layer is both unrealistic and unreasonable. In my view. However, if one could Save Forces from any CM game, at any time, then launch them into the Editor later; a huge leap towards the ability to build genuine operations will have been taken. The ability to Edit Saved games in general, would help greatly. Edit Morale independently of Unit Experience. In CMBB we have the ability to set different Fanatics ratings for forces. This is clearly a form of morale setting. However, in my view, others will differ; it is a shame that one cannot Edit the actual Morale setting itself independently of the Unit Experience level settings. I agree with those who would say that care is needed in this field. I would suggest only being able to change/Edit the Morale setting by “one level”, no more. What I mean is that if one wished it would be useful to able to give forces one level higher Morale then there Experience Level setting. So one could give a force of 60/40 Green and Regular Soviets, the same Morale as a force of 60/40 Regular and Veteran Germans. To set this in context it is worth noting that it is well understood why some less well trained troops often have combat morale as high, or higher, then better trained opposition forces. There have been many studies of the subject over the last twenty years. It turns out that the harsher the upbringing, the harsher the training, the harsher the discipline, the higher the true combat morale of the troops. There are a huge number of qualifications to this, and, yes, there is still a close correlation between quality of training and combat morale. However, it is now recognised that harsh upbringing, harsh training, and harsh discipline do indeed lead to higher combat morale. All the factors a WW1 sergeant major would have listed as leading to high combat morale have turned out to be correct. (The context of these studies, as reported in various Jane’s journals over the years, is to try and explain why the troops of poorer countries sometimes have higher combat morale than the better trained troops of western countries. BTW, combat morale is defined as the ability to continue to generate combat power after suffering casualties. The willingness of survivors to fight on.) There are circumstances in which troops from different nations, and different units within the same armies, have different combat morale even though they have the same combat skills. The ability to shift the Morale level, “one level” relative to the Unit Experience rating, would be a big plus. In my view. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

tom w, hi, yes, I do feel very lucky. When I read Steve’s comments on his vision of what CM is/should be I do find myself thing “yup, that is also my idea of a perfect wargame”. Given that CMBO was designed to play on a P200, it was indeed my vision of a perfect wargame. CMBB then improved things greatly with the slower pace and non hero modelling. With Borg Spotting dealt with, within the limits of still playing the role of squad /AFV commander, plus say AFVs blocking LOS where a appropriate and perfecting Extreme FOW, plus the usual list of other things, we are once again talking my idea of the perfect wargame on a 2 GHz machine. I would add one more thing about CMBB which is sometimes over looked. In my view it is also a work of serious military history of the order of a major David Glantz book. It did not set out to be that, but it is. If I were teaching military history I would recommend two or three David Glantz books, plus CMBB, when it comes to the Eastern Front. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Jim posted, “Always good to see the opposing viewpoint. We can discuss this at length at the Chandos tomorrow night (if you get there before me, mines a guiness) I can introduce you to my 6'6", 20 st friend, who supports my viewpoint. Perhaps reasoned argument can persuade you to our way of thinking; alternatively........” Jim, great hear that you will there, adds to the fun. I never forget a face, but am terrible with names, so forgive me if I did not recognize your name. See you there. And, yes, on this thread I am outnumbered. It is the nature of the subject. This thread is bound to be for those who are most upset by Borg Spotting, and there is clearly a large overlap between such people and those who tend towards CM becoming a “platoon commanders” game. The argument tends to be along the lines of “in real life a platoon commander would not be able to instantly order this and this… or would not know this and this instantly”. At the heart of my view is the idea that “you are the squad command” therefore it follows that you can see what the squad can see, and so on. However, overall I am very optimistic. The mixture of perfected Extreme FOW, units doing their own spotting, plus Live Team play will lead to a very realistic mix. In my view. Where I differ with others here is in the extent to wish Borg Spotting can be dealt with in games with just one player on each side. Unless you give up the role of squad/AFV commander, which am not in favor of. All good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. In fact I normally play at the platoon level, and am an unhinged fan of greater realism. I play no other computer games, and come at this from the military history stand point. I just do not wish to give up the role of squad/AFV commander.

Hi, Jim posted, “I really believe we need to alter our thinking on this whole issue. The middle ground that CM treads at the moment, around command control, time delays etc is better than most. The only way it will be improved is if we can accept that we cannot control every single unit, all of the time. Units out of C&C should be like units that are panicked or broken; they will do their own thing and, most of the time that will be little other than defending themselves, until leadership is re-established in one form or another. That is the reality of a WW11 battlefield, like it or lump it.” Problem is, whatever else one may call it; it would not be a CM game you would be playing any more. It would be a form of Command Game. We all carry around in our heads visions of the perfect wargame, and, of course these differ. The above is an example of changing CM to a game in which one no longer plays the role of the squad/AFV commander. For me the magic of CM, and previously Squad Leader/Advanced Squad Leader, is that one does play the role of squad/AFV commander as well as platoon, company and battalion commander. It has long been my view that the only way to deal fully with Borg Spotting related problems is for every unit to do its own spotting, plus live team play. In live team play you only “see”/spot what the individual units you personally command can see. I think this will happen. However, in games played by just one player on each side, or one player against the AI, one has to accept that the single player has near God like knowledge of the battlefield and can control all his units to a similar extent as is currently the case. If you wish still to be playing a CM type game. Some do wish for a command game, but I am not one of them. This thread is in large part about the constant struggle to fully deal with Borg Spotting without the need to play team, multi-multi player CM. To fully deal with the Borg Spotting problem while the CM game in question is only being played by one human on each side or against the AI. To deal with the Borg Spotting problem in full, with just one player on each side, is not possible, in my view. You will never come up with a formula that fully works. All the solutions you come up with have massive draw backs. Take delays to area fire. In the great majority of cases when I use Area Fire, and now in CMBB I use it a lot due to the non hero modeling, I am not using it in a situation that one may call “cheating”. I am using it to suppress places in which I think there may be a so far unspotted enemy unit just at the moment when I advance. I am sure CMX2 will go a long way in solving the problem of Borg Spotting even when there is only one player. Each unit doing its own spotting, with or without delays to area fire, will be a big step in that direction. But to truly deal with Borg Spotting, my guess is you will have to gather together some like minded chums for “team” or multi-multi player CM. All good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. I read a post of Steve’s in which he was explaining his view that there is a big difference between targeted and area fire in the context of one of these Borg type questions. The “spin” on his comments was that simply no longer being able to fully target a spotted unit, in itself, made a big enough difference. Time will tell what he meant, but I have seen him post the CM will “never” become a Command Game, so I am relaxed.

Hi, What these threads always seem to come down to is that some wish CM to become more of a command game. What I mean is that some wish CM players to give up the role of Squad/AFV commander. No one could be after realism more than I am, and yes, I could define exactly what I mean by realism, but there is one very important qualification to my wish for realism. I want maximum realism within the limits that are possible when one still plays the roles of battalion commander, company commander, platoon commander, and Squad/AFV commander. If we are still to play the roles of Squad/AFV commander then this greatly limits the number of restrictions that can be placed on the commands one is free to give Squads/AFVs. All this will come out in play testing so I am sure BFC will get the balance right. However, from the comments I have read from Steve over the years; do not hold your breath in expecting CM to become more of a platoon commanders “command game”. However, all is not lost. Yes, there certainly will be Relative Spotting. Which I understand to mean that units spot all enemy units for themselves. There will be a command and radio net modelled. On this I think all are agreed. On the specific issue of Area Fire orders to units that have not Spotted the enemy in question, one comment from Steve I read implied one will be able to give such orders without delay. But I am sure this will be massively tested by BFC. Do remember that the argument is not all one way. There are a mass of occasions when I use Area Fire, particularly in the CMBB “non hero” modelling we now have, and a delay to such orders has huge negatives for realism. There are many occasions when Area Fire is instantly needed for reasons other than spotted AT guns. Do remember that if one is playing the role of battalion commander, company commander, platoon commander and Squad/AFV commander one will always have far greater flexibility than any real world platoon or company commander. It is the micro management of squads and AFVs that adds a lot of the fun. There is likely to be one addition to CMX2 that will greatly help the Area Fire issue. It is likely that there will be live team play in CMX2. This means that each individual player will only be able to Spot what the units he actually commands can Spot. So if you only command the 1st Platoon you will only be able to spot what the 1st Platoon units can spot, and so on….. Clearly, add Relative Spotting to live team play and things are getting very much more realistic. Lastly, for me the two greatest wargames by far have been Squad Leader/Advanced Squad Leader and the CM series. In my view, others will differ; a lot of this is down to the scale. The individual manoeuvre units being infantry squads and individual AFVs plus the fact that one of the roles you play is squad/AFV commander. This in turn means that micromanagement of squads and AFVs is possible. The exact positioning of tanks and the timing of their fire. Plus the out standing Tactical AI in the CM series. Move much further than we already have towards CM becoming a Platoon Commanders game and I think many would be surprised by the way the magic drains away from CM. Anyway… we all carry around slightly different visions of the perfect wargame so all will have their own views. Happily for me, from all the comments I have read from Steve when now and then he lets fly, BFC have a very similar vision of the “best compromise” to my vision of the perfect wargame. I am a very lucky chap. So I am as confident as can be that I will love the new engine when it is released. All the best, Kip.

Rexford, hi, Very interesting stuff. Correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying that until late 43 a slight reduction in penetration against Homogenous armour is the order of the day. However, and this is the important bit for me, against Face Hardened armour we are talking a net increase over the current figures in CMBB? Currently, in CMBB a Soviet APBC round that will penetrate 80mm of Homogenous armour will only penetrate around 70mm of Face Hardened armour. You are saying that the new figures would mean that a Soviet APBC round that will penetrate 80mm of Homogeneous armour, will in fact penetrate slightly more Face Hardened armour at around 84mm? Have I understood what you are saying? If I have this does fit with a report I read in the archives of the Tank Museum in Bovington. It indicated that the in the view of the British the Soviet 76.2mm APBC rounds would have “some” anti-Face Hardened affect along the lines of Western APCBC rounds. In fact I have previously tried to persuade Charles that the Soviet rounds should be given “some” credit for anti-Face Hardened abilities. BTW. The British view was based on 42 APBC rounds that shipped with the now famous T34/42 and KV1 that the Soviet sent to the British in 42. Very interesting stuff. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Fernando, yes there is a name that rings a bell. I remember in CMBO I was always on the lookout for Mods by Fernando…. I think I used all his Mods as my standards in CMBO. CMAK is clearly in safe hands. Congratulations. All the best, Kip.