kipanderson

Hi, Although I agree that there are unlikely to be any improvements in CMAK on the scale of CMBB, the engine “matured” with CMBB, in my view, I will still almost exclusively play CMAK. I think! Although the Eastern Front is probably my favourite, I have a tendency to go for the latest version, even if the improvements are only very slight this time round. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I think it all comes down to a wish to set CM games in context. BFC may enjoy taking six months out to build an Operational game that could be married to the next generation CM games. It may be fun for them to have a go at something on a different scale. I do not know. However, I am as confident as one can be without actually “knowing” that the Units file will be able to be Saved separately and therefore launched separately in the Editor. This alone would be a massive step towards being able to build quality operations/campaigns easily. My guess is that the Map file will also be separate as this would allow the use of the same maps in all sorts of games/operations. It would be rational to separate out the Units and Maps files and be able to launch them in the Editor; hence my guess is it will happen. Time will tell. But one way or another I believe it will be a lot easier to construct campaigns/operations with the new engine. Remember, BFC are out to keep us all happy. If small changes like separate Units and Map files would help, they will not exclude the features just to annoy us. All the best, Kip.

Hi, MikeyD posted, “CMMB left bocage hedges out of the game because bocage hedges didn't exist in Russia. Instead they used the tile for something more appropriate to the place. So why would they put bocage hedges into Sicily? Wouldn't you prefer they use those tiles for something more appropriate for the Sicilian campaign? If you want to turn CMAK into a CMBO expansion pack why stop there? Why not demand they include post-war armor so you could construct battles between Qadaffi's Lybia and Sadat's Egypt?” Yup, there is no doubt about it, MikeyD and I are on the same wave length. It was always going to be the case that once BFC moved to the third game in the series the subject matter would not be the “first choice” of a large number of people, if you follow me. With the first game set in North West Europe, and the second on the Eastern Front, BFC could not go wrong; both subjects would be welcomed by 90% of wargame fans. The two subjects would make it into the top three choices of 90% of wargame fans. However, the third CM game was always likely to be a subject that was a little more niche market. The first game in with the new engine may also have a slightly more niche market subject, I do not know. Every game cannot be NWE or Eastern Front. I am sure they will return to NWE with the new engine eventually. Until then I think we all have to learn to live with the odd game that is not our first choice. In my case the Eastern Front, NWE and modern war/Cold War would be my first choices for subjects. But I am more then happy with the Med. For all I know the first game with the new engine may be Early War, which really is not on my list at all. In my view, all the graphics that ship with the game should be Med graphics. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I have to say that I am with MikeyD on this one. I regard CMAK as a bonus game. We are lucky to be getting it at all. The reason I say this is that an entire new engine will be coming along just nine odd months behind. In time there will be a North West Europe game again, with the new engine. This is to be Med game, so Med it should be. I would not bother with any equipment that was not there historically. I do not like fantasy games . However, there is no reason for BFC to “wilfully” exclude the possibility of people Modding the game to NWE. By this I mean that BFC may as well include slots/graphics numbers for winter Mods, and a slot for Bocage. They could call it all sorts of things, “thicket hedge”, whatever. But all graphics should be Med graphics. I think this does illustrate one point I have always known. The Eastern Front and North West Europe are the big two commercially. If BFC do an Early War game with the first version of the new engine, the forum will be full of demands for 44-45 equipment to be included. Also, commercially, contemporary/modern is also a big winner if you look at the games that sell. All the best, Kip. PS. Of course, BFC would never “wilfully” do anything to annoy their customers. All I mean is that leaving slots for winter Mods, is probably a reasonable compromise, nod in the direction of all those wishing to fight NWE battles with the new CMBB engine version. Me, I am happy to relax and accept this is a Med game. [ April 14, 2003, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: kipanderson ]

Hi, This is indeed a very old debate. I have not read the old posts again, but Steve has been clear about some of the ways Borg spotting will be handled. What it comes down to is that each unit will do its own spotting, as in the real world. So if a friendly infantryman, 100m from an enemy unit spots it, a friendly tank 400m from the enemy unit does not “automatically” spot it. Secondly there will be a radio net coded in for those units who had them. Added to the above, I agree with one of the previous posts, having teams in each side, with each player only seeing what the platoon or company he commands can see/spot, will also be a big plus. My guess is this will happen as live team games are a logical next step for the new engine. One of the above posts seems to imply getting rid of Borg Spotting would be a bad thing, I cannot think why? No one has ever seen a post from me ranting on about the problem; I think we are very lucky to have CM as it is. However, getting rid of Borg spotting in the next engine can only be a good thing. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, As a “sleeping” member of DerKessel I would also like to thank Mensch/Greg for his work. He is clearly a natural at website building. The site always looked stunning. As for CMBB and lack of interest, there is certainly no lack of interest in CMBB. However, it is true that many of us, certainly myself, may have taken on more potential involvement in CMBB projects than we have ended up having time for. I think this is the reason. I have found that one can end up involved in so many projects that there is no time to actually play CMBB! Always doing bits and pieces related to CMBB, but not actually playing it a lot. Such a tragic situation cannot be allowed to last! My interest in CM games deepens with each new version, CMBB being a huge leap in realism from CMBO, in my view, not that I was anything other than in awe of CMBO. But I have learnt to slow down in getting involved in CM type projects that may make too many demands on my time. Thanks to all those who made DerKessel happen. Particularly all the people who have done work “behind the scenes”. All the best, Kip.

Richard, hi, “I was being facetious” I certainly fell for that one! Did think it a bit odd from the chap I know from the London CMBB Beer Drinkers Club. Clearly my brain is too small! “My own preference would be for a CM Fulda gap Nato vs Warsaw Pact game set in the 70's and 80's.” In my view it is not possible to be more on side than that. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Volker, “Well I just talked to my dad, he said as long as Battlefront is making it, he would play it. Modern or not, so, their ya have it. I take back what I said.” Your father is clearly a man of sound judgment! All the best, Kip.

Richard, hi, Yup, I am sure that the campaign in Iraqi could be made into a very fine game, along the lines you mentioned. However, it would not be a wargame. If you like it would be Diplomacy with wargame elements thrown into it. In my view. For me, the CM series is about only one thing, as close a simulation of mechanised, combined arms warfare as is possible within the limits of allowing one individual to play multiple roles. I have to add the qualification because I agree with those who say that if in CM one only played the role of say, company commander, then it would be possible to develop a game that was a more realistic simulation of a company commander’s role than CM is. However, the magic of CM, or part of it anyway, is that one plays the role of the squad commander, the AFV commander, the platoon commander, the company commander and the battalion commander. In my view. I am after a pure wargame. Richard, I sympathies with you in that we all have subjects we would love to see BFC doing. The CM series are of such high quality that there is a feeling that BFC could produce a fine game of any type they wished to. This is probably true. But for me, hard core, pure wargames are my only interest. Resolving contact battles at something around the battalion combat team v the battalion combat team level, give or take quite bit, is what I am after. Tactical combat at the CM/Squad Leader scale. Happily for me, exactly the type of games the CM series are. I would not be surprised if at some time in the future they did try their hand at something slightly different. But I hope they will forever be dipping in and out of CM type/scale wargames. Now I have the CM games there, life without a new CM game to look forward to every year or two would be a shock I may not survive ! All the best, Kip.

Vanir Ausf B, hi, “Kip, I assume you mean external reactive armor (Kontak 5, ect.). Otherwise, very informative post, as usual.” Thanks for the kind words. When it comes to Kontak 5 armour I used the phrase “internal reactive armour” deliberately. It is true that it can be retro fitted as an add-on layer to existing tanks, in that since it is external. However, the “reactive” part of the armour sits behind quite a thick layer of outer armour plate, it you take into account the 70 degrees angle it is designed to be fitted at. Nor does it explode off the surface in the manner of the first generation Israeli and Soviet explosive reactive armour. The smart stuff all happens out of site behind armour plate, i.e. internally in that sense. But, yes, technically it is indeed external reactive armour. I just thought it more descriptive to call it internal. Steve, “There could be another reason why countries go with the Leo II vs. the M1A2... location, location, location I don't think it hurts that Germany is adjacent or within spitting distance of the countries buying these vehicles. Support of the vehicle would be much easier, and probably cheaper. I would be surprised if this wasn't a factor for some nations.” There “may” be something in this. But against that many of the countries who have bought the Leopard II are far more pro-American than they are pro-German. It is worth remembering that what ever the impression the political elite in Western Europe may give in the US, national sensitivities run as deep as ever in most European countries. When Greeks, and even Poles, consider German tank technology it certainly is not because the Germans have any political head start. I am sure America is regarded as a more reliable supplier than the Germans. One increasing disadvantaged the Germans have it that they are so “politically correct” that they have for a long time been considered rather risky suppliers. For politically correct reason, they could suddenly stop supplying a given country. “Also, are these nations hot for the older diesel design because it offers better performance/reliability, or because it is less expensive to maintain? Just curious because I don't know but would suspect the Abrams engine isn't as easy or cheap to keep in good working order.” Yup, you hit the nail on the head. The turbine tank engines have the advantage of giving a faster 0-30mph acceleration. However, turbine engines use far more fuel and are less reliable, and more expensive, a lot more expensive, to maintain. When both the US and Soviets went for turbine engines in the 1980s I thought it would just be a matter of time before all followed. However, now all bar the US, agree that diesels are the way to go. 25 hp per ton is considered more than enough with a good gear box. So the trend is for diesel engines still with 1500 hp, but smaller, more compact, more fuel efficient and more reliable. The up and coming US Marines Assault vehicle has a version of the new German AFV diesel engine in it. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, I would love to get into a discussion on Cold War and modern technology but will hold off until, if, a modern game is ever developed by BFC. This is one reason why I would like to see a Cold War game. I am a huge fan of WWII, currently reading An Army at Dawn by Rick Atkinson, and Kursk the German View by Steven Newton. However, it would be fun to spend a period nerdishly reading up about some period other than WWII. i.e. sometime far enough into the Cold War to mean different equipment was being used. Change is good! CMAK, followed by a Cold War game with CMX2, then back to WWII, would be my dream combination. But like most here, I feel lucky to have CM games to pay with at all. I play no other computer games. I do monitor a few other games in development to see if they will come up to standard, but so far they never have. BFC are in a class of their own. All the best, Kip. PS. How anyone could make an interesting game out of the Iraqi campaign is beyond me. But if Steve claims he could, I will take his word for it based on his record so far I could do no other. PPS. Ok, I cannot resist a short rant on Cold War/ modern technology. Firstly none of what follows are “my views” but come straight from Jane’s Defence Weekly, Jane’s International Defence Review and various Jane’s year books on armour and artillery. When it comes to the cost of current types of tank you have to look at the detail of the figures published when contracts are signed. You have to separate the support package from the cost of the actual tank itself. It you compare like with like you will find the latest export models of the Challenger 2, the Leopard II and the M1A2SEP all cost the same, $4,500,000 each. In the CM game all would have near identical characteristics/performance. The reason why countries always go for the Leopard II is that they still prefer the diesel engine in the Leopard II, even the “old” model diesel engine, plus the German tank now comes with a gun with greater growth potential. By this I mean that the gun in the A6 Leopard will be able to take ammunition with higher pressure and a flatter pressure curve than the older gun in the US tank. Even if you zoom in and look at the thermal imager in the M1, you find it is not the best around. The GENII, or is it GENIII model, I forget, currently half way through being retro fitted to all US AFVs can distinguish the individual wheels on an enemy tank at 10km. So it is more than good enough. However, the latest British model is even more powerful. I have seen the same slice of coast line pictured through the latest US model, and the lasted British model and it is not a close contest. Let’s now go back to 1985 when the first version of the M1A1 was introduced, the first 120mm gunned M1. Also in 1985 the Soviets put the T80U into series production. The U standing for Improved in Russian, so I am told. Anyway… the T80U carries heavy, internal reactive armour that is not only effective again HEAT rounds but also KE long rod penetrator, modern AP rounds. The T80U being immune, over the forward arc, to the versions of the DU M829 rounds available to M1A1 up until around 1990/1991. And, yes, I have seen the write up of US’s own test that confirmed that this was the case. I will leave you all alone now, but this is why in my earlier post I was careful to talk of procurement competitions where there was no particular political pressure to buy from any single country. US equipment is good stuff, but is not better than that of a number of other countries. Just to finish it off, the Russians now have second generation, heavy internal reactive armour that is designed to be immune from the forth coming segmented DU M829A3 round the US will have any day now. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Martin, Steve, As one of the most unhinged, maybe the most unhinged advocate of a modern war game , it is very good news to hear it is so far up the list of the possible. However, by “modern” I feel I need to qualify what I mean. I do not mean “current” war, but Cold War. There are two related reasons for this. Firstly, any scenario based in even a small degree of reality, i.e. it had even a small possibility of happening/having happened, would be so one sided as to be tactically uninteresting in current war. The only way one could make it interesting is by assuming some country other than the US put into mass production weapons that are currently only produced in “tiny” numbers, normally in small batches for export. It is not that other countries do not have the technology the US has. Contrary to popular belief, they do. But they do not have it in mass production. Let me explain. When there is open competition in the arms market, no political pressure, it is rare for US weapons to win a contract. One obvious example is in tanks. The Leopard II has won all open procurement competitions over the M1 of any mark. However, if one had a CM style game in which a battalion of Leopard II A6 tanks was being used, you would not be far off having the entire world’s current supply on show. OK, I am exaggerating; but all will understand the point being made. For me, others will differ; the advantage of the Cold War is that the armies did exist. The Soviets, and NATO, had numbers of tanks facing each other similar to those in WWII. Plus, the technology was very balanced. Happily, there never was a drive by 3rd Shock Army through the Fulda Gap, but the armies did exist and the technology was balanced. Anyway… enough of my ranting. All good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. Just a quick word on US technology in case I have offended anyone. US technology is certainly good enough, which is all that matters . Take tanks. On a CM type battlefield it would make no real difference whether you used a latest model Leopard II, a latest model M1, or a latest version of the Challenger 2. However, it is a fact that in open procurement competitions the Leopard II has won every time. Other basic bits of kit where US equipment is easily good enough, but probably not the best based on what others choose to buy in open procurement competitions are, assault rifles, machine guns, ICVs/APCs and artillery systems. I could also give examples from the world of precision guided weapon systems and C&C systems where other countries at least equal the US in what they have the technology for. The difference is the US has the money to equip large numbers of units, in peace time, with the latest toys before others. But if you have the dosh, other countries can and do offer/supply equally advanced kit for export. Hence they often win these tiny export contracts. 200 ICVs for Norway… that sort of contract. [ April 11, 2003, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: kipanderson ]

Hi, I have long been a fan of the idea of, not a campaign, but a proper operational layer. What I mean is this. As things currently stand I believe Static Operations are a hugely realistic way to play CMBB, the most realistic way in what is more than a wargame, but in my view, is a simulation. In all the reading I have done over the years it has repeatedly been the case that even successful battles to seize, say a small village, often lasted 3-4 hours. More tricky battles for villages would last all day, even successful ones. Within each 3-4 hour battle for a village there would be 2 or 3 assaults, or pushes in an attempt to make headway. Static Operations model these “battles” for objectives such as villages very well. Each “assault” being an individual battle within a Static Operation. I believe Operations in CMBB do what they do, very well. However, in addition to Operations as currently modelled in CMBB, this is what I would like to see. I would like to see a full feature operational game, the usual thing, 1km/1 mile per hex, manoeuvre units being battalion combat teams, in which one could zoom down a scale and play any one contact battle as a CM battle. It would work like this. The operational game would be a genuine, playable, simultaneous resolution operational game that could be played entirely at the operational level if one wished. However, if two players agreed, for any individual contact battle within the operational game, say the battle for e crucial bridge, one could choose to play it at the CM level and then apply the results, export the results, back to the operational game. There would be a program very like the Quick Battle Generator but with the parameters for the Quick Battle taken from the operational game. If you follow me. Operations as presently handled in CMBB, do what they do very well, but there is a lack of context, a demand to be able to set CM battles in some larger frame work. I would not like to replace Operations as they are now, but to supplement them as described above. One day, my guess is that this will happen. I am optimistic. My reason for being optimistic is that the logic, and the clear demand for some greater context in which to place CM games, is so great that BFC will in some way get round to it. Maybe cooperate with some operational game designer, who knows. Having said that it may happen one day, it is worth remembering that BFC are very small company and thus have to focus their work. With CMAK and a new engine version due over the coming 18 months they are already covering a lot of ground. But maybe some time later they will produce/out source an operational layer. Lastly, with the use of Mapping Mission, where you can build 20km by 20km CM maps, plus just one small added feature in the next engine, one could very quickly build ones own operational layer. The added feature that is needed in the next engine is the ability to Save and then Edit units, in Saved Games. If one could Save the unit files from a game separately, and then launch them in the Editor, this alone would enable CM fans to construct operational or campaign games very easily. In my view. All the best, Kip. PS. Currently, there is also the very fine CMMC series of games as devised by James Bailey. But I understand that people wish to be able to play operational/campaign games just against one opponent or by themselves. PPS. Do remember that in Operations in CMBB you can set each battle to last 60 turns, which is what I do.

Hi, Referring to the difficulty of attacking with infantry, JonS wrote, “Instead of asking for wholesale code-rewrites you could, of course, try out the actual solution(s) that was developed during the war ...” I could not agree more. I think the CMBB engine models the problems of attacking with infantry very well. One solution, in part, is take it slowly. Anyway… on a more general point. Given that BFC are developing the new engine, CMX2, concurrently with CMAK I think it would be unreasonable to ask for more than the odd minor tweak in the coding when comparing CMAK to CMBB. My view is that we are very lucky that BFC have found the time to give us one more version with the current engine, with the new engine version only about six to nine months behind CMAK. Of course, it means bucket-loads more dosh for BFC , but also what I regard as a bonus game for us fans of CM . All the best, Kip.

Andreas, hi, Great set of Desert War images. Worth noting that by the second half of 42 when 6 pdrs were around in numbers, Panzers had a real problem. The 50mm Face Hardened armour of 1942 Panzers was wildly over matched by the 6 pdr. All the best, Kip.

Hi, “We are planning to release local versions in retail in Europe as well. So if you prefer that, you'll get it. But even when this happens, we will allow Europeans to order from our website. That was a big beef with CMBB with many of our fans, so we listened.” I think BFC deserve credit for this change of policy. There is no doubt that many felt “excluded” by being forced to buy a slightly different version from the home grown BFC version of CMBB. In fact I had the European version on my Hard Drive for quite a while and was very happy using it. But many clearly did not feel anything other than the BFC version was the real thing. Allowing Europeans to buy the BFC version of CMAK must cause the odd problem with future European distributors, but Moon has clearly beaten them into submission to the advantage of all . All the best, Kip.

Hi, The books mentioned above are very fine ones. However, the best book on tactics, at the CM battle level, is Closing With the Enemy by Michael D. Doubler. In my view. You will not be disappointed. It is based on the tactical development of the US forces in North West Europe, but the lessons are universal. In many ways a “how to” book of CM tactics. i.e. a “how to” book of WWII tactics. What were the real world city fighting tactics? What were the company attack tactics?… and so on. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Congratulations, a beautifully weathered Mod. Has the same “look” as high quality 1/35 AFV model. Great stuff. However, there is a reason why I avoid using Mods, other than the mass produced ones dealing with Winter White AFVs. The reason is that I feel it is important that all the graphics in a given game, fit together. Have a similar look. All the AFVs in CMBB done to the same “look” would be great. But that is too much work for any one. All the best, Kip. PS. A group of German and Soviet AFVs from the same period in the war, would be great. Even if only quite a small number. So one could use them in the same game. Still asking a lot I know.

Leland, hi, As usual, stunning stuff. Really does make a huge difference to those who wish to play campaigns. And much else as well. Thanks again. All the best, Kip.

Hi, When it comes to the theme for the CM3 it was always going to be the case that many will be disappointed. We will not be disappointed by the engine and what it does, but the theme will not be the first choice of many. In the case of CMBO and CMBB few could argue with the subject of the games. North West Europe 44/45 followed by the Eastern Front would be in the top three choices of most wargamers. But, of course, not all. However, when it comes to a third choice, there was always going to be a very wide range of preferences. My choice would be Cold War, preferably 1970s. Fulda Gap and all. I am a little bored with WWII. Overall WWII is my favourite period for all the usual reasons, but just for one game, I would like a change. It would be fun to study up on technology from a slightly different period. The technology in these games being a big part of the fun, in my view. Saggers snaking their way across the map would be fun. The early period of WWII does not greatly interest me. I am a North West Europe 44/45 or post-Kursk man in WWII terms. However, as I say, we cannot all expect to get our preferred choice for the next game. And that applies to me as well. Happily, unless there is some major change in heart from BFC, it is likely that once the new engine is completed, the through put of new games will accelerate. I read a comment from either Steve or Moon/Martin to the effect that the new engine will be designed with rapid adaptation to new games in mind. I believe the aim is every six months. Even if we get e new game every year that would be great. We would be being spoilt! All the best, Kip. [ March 20, 2003, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: kipanderson ]

Hi, thanks, all these things help a lot! All the best, Kip.

Hi, Just like to add that I could not be in more agreement with the philosophy of BFC on patches. The reverse slope AT gun problem does look like a bug to me, and yes, potentially a show stopper. However, once that is sorted out, lets move on to the new version of CM. With such a small company as BFC it is neither reasonable, nor practical, to ask for a constant stream of patches. Now, what was that about a Cold War version of CM , Fulda Gap here I come ! All the best, Kip. [ March 10, 2003, 08:42 AM: Message edited by: kipanderson ]

Hi, As it happens, this morning I just downloaded them. They are excellent, in my view. Far more realistic. The art work on the original is stunning, but they just needed a spot of de-saturation. I am not a huge fan of DD’s grass, but have just de-saturated the original. Using DD’s terrain mad, plus the grass that shipped de-saturated by -17, and you have a stunning set of graphics. DD’s winter landscapes are unbelievably realistic looking. You can all most feel the icy winds! All the best, Kip.

Fionn, hi, “The Soviets have never been shy of sacrificing men and material in order to attain the overall objective (even if said sacrifices may seem like wholesale squandering to one's opponents). Soviet and Russian history is replete with "lost battles" which won the war . There is a great lesson in there for military historians and grognards en etudant.” You and Grisha/Greg clearly look at things the same way. I am very sympathetic to the operational arguments. However, cost/price “always” matters. Everything is relative to its highest valued alternative forgone. There are no exceptions to this. In some cases such as the Normandy Landings it is true that vast casualties would have been a price worth paying in order to get a foot hold on continental Europe. However, even here there would have been limits, in any one location. There always are. In the case of Kursk the exact same resource could have slowed their Uber armoured enemy more effectively if the Soviets had used them in defense. If the same Tank Brigades had been used defensively, in the path of the attacking Tigers and Panthers, the Germans could have been slowed more effectively and at lower cost. Thus the Soviets would have more easily attained their goals. It remains my view that tactically, even operational, in the use of armour, the Soviets were not on their best form at Kursk. That is why I always think of Kursk as the last of the Old Style battles on the Eastern Front. On such a big subject we were never all going to agree . That adds to the fun . (PS. A book to look out for, that is due sometime in the next year, is Glantz’s book on the Red Army in 43. To say it will be interesting is an understatement. BTW. The next House/Glantz book is on Stalingrad.) When it comes to argument about Kursk being a battle the Germans could have won, as I explained above, I am firmly of the view that Kursk was far from a close call. There was never any hope of Germany winning and they did not come close. In my view. All good fun, All the best, Kip PS. I find Glantz stunningly exciting . But I am after all the information and opinions he gives.

Martin, Sounds great. I cannot say I am that surprised. When you compare TacOps with the ultra dry Field Manuals, one certainly enhances the other. Although, of course, they do different things. All the best, Kip.