kipanderson

Leland, hi, Yup, being able to export/import both ways, i.e. from the CMBB to Mapping Mission, would be outstanding. Great stuff. Still stunned any of this is do-able at all, but you have certainly cracked it! All the best, Kip.

Grisha, hi, “One helpful analogy is to use computer gaming for purposes of understanding Zitadelle. The Germans intented to play a turn-based game, but the Soviets flatly rejected this, and instead went RTS What was intended to be a methodical reduction of Soviet defenses ended up being a "wrist-twitch fest" as seemingly endless Soviet forces kept appearing on the German flanks. German units were far superior in this wide open terrain, but it was exceedingly difficult to do much more than try to keep some semblance of an advance while defending the next Soviet attack on some unexpected flank.” The above quote from you is an outstanding way of explaining how and why initiative is important in war . The effect it has on commanders at the receiving end. It is such a good way of explaining it that I intend to use the analogy in future myself, I cannot resist it ! However, I still disagree about the use of Soviet armour at Kursk. We will have to agree to disagree. Cost/price matters, and the same resources used in attacks against Uber armour could have been used to defend against it to greater effect. In my view. I am as unhinged a fan of the Soviet Operational Art as anyone free to walk the streets. Who has not been picked up by the men in white coats . But in this case, the operational/ strategic goal would have been better achieved if the Uber armour had been allowed to regroup and forced to attack Soviet forces. In my view. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Grisha, hi, As usual with you and I, if we look at the detail, there may not be that much difference between us, but still some difference no doubt. I fully agree that the Soviets showed greater operational agility than the Germans at Kursk. Given that there is unlikely to be a Soviet Uber operational gene , the consistent Soviet operational superiority during the second half of the war must be down to better training of senior officers. Anyway… at the tactical level I remain unimpressed with the Soviet use of armour at Kursk. Counter attacks against the flanks of the southern penetration were in deed the way to ago, but “meeting engagements”, for want of the better phrase, against Uber German armoured units were unwise and proved to be massively wasteful. They played into German hands. I appreciate fully the importance of operations. However, there is a very important qualification that must always be given. Tactical failure, and tactical success, can both be on such a scale as to have operational consequences. As in peace time cost/price matters, so in war price also matters. Resources matter. As in economics when there is always a highest valued alternative for gone, so in war. Attacking Uber armour with T34/76s and suffering 7 or more:1 casualty ratios was not a sensible use of resources. In my view. A twenty odd strong battalion of T34/76s could find its strength halved by just one platoon of Tiger1s, Panthers or StugIIIs without destroying a single German AFV. However, in defence the T34/76 could come close a 1:1 casualty ratio against Panthers. The same battalion of T34s that was used to attack Uber tanks, could be used to defend against them on a different access. A far more sensible use of resources. At Kursk the Soviets abandoned their usual SOP of not attacking Uber armour. Uber armour being German AFVs that could not be penetrated over the forward arc by the 76.2mm gun. The use of operational agility to attack the flanks of the penetration was fine, but the attacks should have been against infantry units, including mechanised infantry, but not against locations where Tiger1s and Panthers were expected. My view is that one reason they did ignore their own rule book and attack such units is that it may only be in retrospect that Soviet commanders understood quite how great the concentration of Tiger1s and Panthers was. When ordering attacks the Soviet commanders may have had in mind German armoured battalions of MarkIIIs and MarkIVs, supported by Marders. The standard German armoured units of the first half of 43. I have no idea. If the Soviets had been more careful and disciplined in their use of armour, they could have greatly reduced their own casualties, while increasing German casualties. The golden rule is, you do not attack Uber armour, you allow Uber armour to attack you. In 44 the Soviets were far more disciplined in applying this rule. Greatly to their own benefit. But strangely, this rule was developed to deal with StugIIIs well before Kursk. But it was not applied at Kursk. Andreas, hi, I tend to agree with you. Clear academic analysis is best and the high quality of the analysis and opinions adds its own excitement. However, the “very best” narrative accounts, such as Rick Atkinson’s An Army at Dawn also make stunningly fine reads. In my view. All good fun , All the best, Kip.

Hi, For those who are interested, there is a new book, Kursk: the German View, by Steven Newton, due this month. It is a large collation of German accounts of the battle and post Kursk battles from German officers, plus some other stuff. The conclusion is that, no, Kursk was never winnable. Steven Newton comes out of the US army education establishment as does Glantz, and both reach the same conclusion. This has always been my view, too. One only has to look at the massive Soviet offensives that followed on from Kursk, without a break, to see that any idea of the Germans having “thrown away” a potential victory is fanciful, in my view. What is true about Kursk, but not all of the post-Kursk battles, particularly from the autumn of 43 onwards, is that the Soviets suffered far heavier casualties at Kursk than did the Germans. Although strategically the Soviets were on the defensive, tactically, and operational within the western definition of operations, the Soviets often attacked at Kursk. This was a huge mistake. Post Kursk and even pre-Kursk but not “at” Kursk, the Soviets had learnt that you do not attack Uber armour. The Standard Operating Procedure when T34/76s came up against StugIIIs, and in 44 when any armour attacked Panthers, was to go over to the defensive immediately. They would out-flank the Uber armour but this does mean moving the attack some kms to the flanks. In CMBB terms, moving off the given CMBB map. At Kursk they seem to have thrown away the manual and attacked Uber armour again and again. This cost them massive casualties in armour. Contrary to some popular belief, the best form of defence is to do just that, defend. As the Soviets often found, the T34 when defending against Uber armour can be very effective. German Uber armour was really only Uber in defence. StugIIIs and Panthers both have thin side armour which is a huge problem in attack. Neither is particularly threatening in attack for the above reason. Remember, even the lowly Soviet 76.2mm gun will penetrate the side of a Panther, at a 45 degree strike angle, at 1,000m. At the tactical level the Soviets were not on their best game at Kursk. But they certainly learnt the tactical lessons. The autumn of 43 is when you see the real step change in the combat effectiveness of the Soviets. I always think of Kursk as the last of the old style Eastern Front battles. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Schrullenhaft, hi, Thanks for taking an interest. I will try to answer all your questions. Happily, Andreas, the guy against whom most of my attempted live games with Mac users have happened, has joined us on this thread. “Kip, what software/processes do you have running when you try to make a connection?” I do not think I have any running. I turn off the Firewall and Norton Antivirus 2002. The Firewall is the standard one included in Windows XP. “How do you hook up to the Internet (modem or high-bandwidth device)?” I hook up to the internet using a manual connection in Windows XP. So I just construct the connection in Windows XP myself in the usual way. Title for the connection, number to be used, user name and password… all the usual stuff as asked for by Windows when you manual make your own connection. “Have you been able to TCP/IP anyone else since attempting to play with Andreas?” Yes, with a PC user a couple of times, no problems. I turn off the Windows Firewall, I turn off Script Blocking and Email Scanning in Norton AntiVirus, I never have Auto-Protect on. As I write, I do remember that I use Go-Zilla, so I will turn that off and then try again v Andreas. Could Go-Zilla be the problem, a download utility? Andreas cannot act as host; his ISP will not allow it. Thanks again for your interest in the problem. All the best, Kip.

Hi, This is something that has gone on for a while and has now been narrowed down. My system. Windows XP, Service Pack 1, Firewall turned off. Norton AntiVirus Script Blocking, Email Scanning, Auto-Protect all turned off. I find I can host a game against another PC user, but not against Mac users. The connection is made OK, the screen says “uploading scenario details” but nothing happens. It just stays like that. Any suggestions what the problem may be? Thanks for any help that may be forthcoming. All the best, Kip.

Hi, My guess is that soon there will be an announcement of the next project in some computer games magazine that has been particularly supportive of BFC. I very much hope they announce it soon as it would be fun to know what was next in line. Playing CMBO while reading up on the Eastern Front and pondering it was a laugh. My own wish is for a Cold War game. I would like a change from WWII, just for one title. Time will tell. What is true is that on this third title not all will agree with the subject matter in the sense of it being their preferred choice. Anyway, it will be fun whatever the subject matter. All the best, Kip.

Leland, hi, “Key new features of this update are the graphic underlay (load any bitmap and display it as an underlay while you build terrain on top of it)” This is serious stuff. To the extent that any hobby is serious stuff . The ability to scan in a real topographical map, then load it in Mapping Mission and place tiles on top of it, all for a 20km by 20km area, then cut and paste areas into the CMBB Editor, is a step change in the ability of CM players to build their own operations. Outstanding stuff. Thanks for the work, All the best, Kip.

Leland, hi, “Key new features of this update are the graphic underlay (load any bitmap and display it as an underlay while you build terrain on top of it)” This is serious stuff. To the extent that any hobby is serious stuff . The ability to scan in a real topographical map, then load it in Mapping Mission and place tiles on top of it, all for a 20km by 20km area, then cut and paste areas into the CMBB Editor, is a step change in the ability of CM players to build their own operations. Outstanding stuff. Thanks for the work, All the best, Kip.

Tom W, Yup, I think we have mutual admiration society in that I also think your list is a very fine one. I was just trying to list the top priority features, no more. flamingknives, I am sure problems such as the one you mention will be tweaked. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Jukka-Pekka, Yup, I think we are more or less in agreement. It is worth noting that “official” German documents from the war are often hopelessly wrong on the figures regarding armour penetration and such. Range at which enemy tanks can be destroyed, range at which Panzers were vulnerable to threat tanks; that sort of thing. (I could give quite few examples of this.) My own reasoning on this is that the official reports were often put together by the equivalent of “civil servants” in the German government departments. Individuals with little understanding of the subject, through no fault of their own. I have spent many hours in the archives of the Tank Museum in Bovington and learnt long ago that a range of documents have to be taken together to get a full picture. My view is that these sorts of reports were often put together by civil servants reporting to civilian officials. Neither those putting the reports together, nor those receiving the reports, really understood the subject. Of course, this does not apply to all such reports, far from it. 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, I hope ; 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. 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, FOW. 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 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.

Jukka-Pekka, Good questions, in part I may be able to help, put not fully. In no particular order. If one looks at the photographs of the inside of a Panther mantlet you will find that most of it does not overlap with the turret armour itself. Only the edges of the mantlet overlap with the turret armour itself. I am in fact fortunate to have crawled around inside a Panther on a couple of occasions . I believe CMBB models the turret front as one piece of armour. The Panther mantlet was only 100mm in thickness. This means that in the centre of the vertical access it could indeed be penetrated by quite a few different rounds. Say the 30% middle portion of the mantlet. There is a recorded incident of a Tungsten round from a lowly 45mm AT gun penetrating the front of a Panther mantlet. It is in one of those stunning Thomas Jentz books. (As it happens, I had the same occur in a game of CMBB. The range was about 100m-150m. The 45mm AT gun had just taken a side shot at the Panther, and to my horror, missed. The Panther commander spotted the threat, and turned the Panther to face the 45mm AT gun immediately. To my amazement the 45mm AT gun then put what must have been a tungsten round through the mantlet. The 45mm AT gun just kept blasting away and after about another 8-10 ricochets, the Panther crew lost their never and bailed out.) When moving on to the 85mm Soviet gun, it will indeed have been able to penetrate the mantlet of the Panther, if it struck it in the centre region of the vertical access. Remember it could penetrate the 100mm hull armour of a Tiger1 at ranges over 1200m. It is also worth remembering that the APBC round used by the 85mm gun from the spring of 44 onwards, was optimised for penetration of sloped armour. Thus would not be adversely effected by the “curve” on the mantlet to same degree as western rounds of the period. Hope I have helped, All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Leland, hi, Sounds great. As you know I am a big fan of your add on for CMBB. I think the ability to make huge maps, 20km by 20km , and then copy and paste particular sections into the CMBB editor makes a massive difference for those of us who wish to string games together in mini operations and such. All the best, Kip.

Greg, hi, As always, great work. Thanks for all the effort, greatly appreciated. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Steven Newton has a new book, Kursk: the German View, due in March. Should be very good stuff. Steven Newton comes out of the US Military education establishment and as such, like David Glantz, is a very good source. He is very open minded and rational. All the best, Kip.

Hi, When talking about casualty ratios, force ratios and combat effectiveness there are a few points that need to be remembered, and have no doubt already been mentioned by some above, but I missed them. In no particular order. 1) As the force ratio increases, so the attackers casualties will increase until a force ratio of around 7 : 1 is reached. What I mean is this. As the number of attackers increase, relative to the number of defenders, the “aggregate” casualties of the attacker will also increase, but in percentage terms decrease, until the number of attackers becomes so overwhelming that even in “aggregate” terms the attackers casualties decrease as the defender is totally overwhelmed. This point is reached at a force ratio of around 7 : 1. 2) Historically the average force ratio, from the beginning of July 43 to the end of March 45 was 2.7 : 1 , Soviet to German, note this is very much only an average. If the Germans had been attacked by a force that was in every way clones of itself, equipment, training, every thing, but at the historical force ratio of 2.7 : 1, the casualty ratio one would have expected is 1.4 : 1, attacker to defender. The actual, historical casualty ratio was 1.64 : 1 Soviet to German for the period described. This tells us that the combat effectiveness of the Soviet was around 1.17 : 1, Soviet to German, the lower the figure the better. To put this in perspective, the combat effectiveness of both the Commonwealth forces and the US forces was 1.2 : 1, Allies to Germans. That is right, you guessed it, the Soviet combat effectiveness was just as high as that of the British of US forces, and yes, all the figures for all the major players are “very” close by the second half of the war. Of course, in retrospect, this is not a surprise. By the second half of the war all the major players, particularly the British and Soviets, had massive experience and had reached solutions to similar problems that were just as viable as the German solutions to those same problems. It’s called evolution. By the second half of the war, all knew what they were about. All the best, Kip. PS. The above calculations do assume massive local concentration, they are for 15,000 defenders and 40,500 attackers, with 6-10 : 1 in some local tactical engagements.

Hi, The causality ratio, German to Soviet, from the start of July 34 to the end of March 45 was 1 : 1.64. The German casualty figures come the German High Commands own record of its losses. Also note, they are to the end of March 45, they do not include the round up of the last six weeks of war. The lose ratio for the first half of the war was close to 1 : 4.5, 1 : 6 during the first year of the war. CMBB models this very well. Do note that in a CMBB human v human game representing the first half of the war it is unlikely the difference in skill levels is likely to be as great as it is was in reality. Thus, if the respective manoeuvre units on each side are modelled with their historically accurate fire power, it will be very difficult for German players to achieve similar results to that achieved historically. Unless you want CMBB to “fix the result” by artificially lower the firepower of the individual Soviet manoeuvre units, in human v human games set in the first half of the war, it is unavoidable that the German player will have great challenges in trying to achieve historical results. All the best, Kip.

Hi, (First an apology, I have not had time to properly read all the above posts, very short of time as usual, so may be repeating comments others have already made. Sorry. ) I think the list that started this thread is a very good one, I would be happy to second it. However, there are two additions that I would place in the top four priority list, after the end to Borg Spotting and some form of Toggled Grid/Contour feature to spot undulations more easily/realistically. They are Live Team Play, and the ability to Save Forces from Battles of any type. By Live Team Play I mean what all have no doubt already realized, 2-4 players on each side in a CM battle. This would be fun, and also add to the confusion of war. If there were four players on each side, then one may play the battalion commander and also control the artillery spotters. The other three could take a company each… something along the above lines. Each player only being able to see what the units he individually commands can see. The ability to Save Forces from Battles, i. e. after a battle was over one could Save the Forces on each side and then use them again, or edit them and use them again in another subsequent CM battle. Importantly, this would allow individuals to construct their own operations with great ease. Combine this feature with the stunning Mapping Mission add-on, from Leland, for CMBB allowing one to build 20km by 20km CMBB maps and then copy and paste any section you wish into the CMBB editor and small groups of CM chums could very easily construct high quality operations. BTW, as I believe someone above suggested, in the perfect world, the ability to play a genuine Operational Game, manoeuvre units being battalions and such, one mile to the hex and all, then zoom down a scale to fight any given contact battle as a CM battle, would be stunning. I have suggested the above to both Steve of BFC and Dave of Panther Games; however, neither is very keen. They both say they would be willing to consider it, but there was not much chance, do not hold your breath. Remember BFC is a very small organisations, just five of them, so a new and even more stunning CM engine is all that can reasonably be asked for , in my view. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I think people too easily forget that BFC is a very small outfit. There is just one programmer. The CM series of games model company/battalion v company /battalion battles at the level of the individual squad and AFV as the manoeuvre unit. That is it. “Operations” in CMBB, in my view, really just model the continuation of one single “battle”. They do this very well, again, in my view. In the real world a battle for a given village would often take 2-4 hours even if it went well. Static operations model this very realistically, but not perfectly. However, BFC make no claim to model what many would call “operations”. That is engagements that are separated in both time, and space from one anther, but where the outcome in one engagement affects the outcome in the other. To use the real world Soviet definition of operations. As it happens I am one of those who would very much enjoy the marriage of a true operational game, as given by the Soviet definition of these things, and a CM game. However, it is unreasonable to expect the guys at BFC to build such a game as well as a new version of CM. Happily, all is not lost. What I am after, and what others seem to hanker for, is the ability to place individual CM battles in context. From the geographical point of view the new Mapping Mission from Leland makes this possible. It is now possible to construct 20km by 20km CMBB maps, and copy and paste into the CMBB editor the portion you wish to use in any individual CMBB contact battle. So true Operations can be tracked quite easily. If in the new engine BFC add the feature to be able to Save your forces from any given CM battle, combine this with the use of a new version of Mapping Mission to go with the next CM engine, and you have your true Operational game to go with CM. The same forces tracked over a large geographical area from engagement to engagement. I take the view that I am unbelievably lucky that BFC wish to build exactly the type of tactical simulations that most appeal to me. i.e. the same scale, niche as Squad Leader games. They do this to truly unimagined quality. Yes, in the prefect world I would wish to see the marriage, welding together of a quality operational game and the next version of CM. However, I realise it is totally unreasonable to expect such a small team to both develop a completely new version of CM, and build a true operational game to go with it. The use of a new version of the Mapping Mission to go with the new CM engine, if Leland it able and willing to find the time , plus the ability to Save ones forces from a given CM battle, will more than do the job. Its then up to those who wish for operational games, to put the two together. Not really asking very much. All the best, Kip.

Terry, As always, congratulations. You really do have the paper down to a fine art. So, next time round we are talking an interview with Steve Grammont himself. This could well be the blockbuster announcement . They will have been playing with parts of the new engine for about a year by then; Steve may well be ready to spill the beans on what the subject will be for the next version of CM. I am bursting at the seems to know . Either way, I recon he will have a lot of interesting stuff for us. Good luck with move, do remember to let us know when you visit London again, all the best, Kip.

Hi, If you line up ten T34/76s and ten MarkIIIs with 70mm armour at any range over 200m, the T34s will win. I am talking the M43 model T34 that was around when the MarkIIIs with the 70mm armour roamed the world. The only way the German 50mm Lang gun can penetrate the T34 is if it hits the centre section of the turret mantel. Neither the standard APCBC round, nor the Tungsten round, can penetrate the sloped, frontal armour of the T34. Including the more sloped parts of the front turret of the T34. The early Soviet 76.2mm APBC rounds, with the large HE fill, that were around until about mid 43, cannot penetrate the 70mm front armour of the MarkIII. However, the MarkIII has one fatal flaw, 50mm lower front hull armour. This can be penetrated by the 76.2mm gun at any range. It will take time, and it is no massacre, but line up ten T34s opposite ten MarkIIIs, and the outcome is not in doubt. After two minutes blasting away at each other, 2-4 T34s will have been lost, and 4-7 MarkIIIs. If you mix the forces as they actually operated during the first six months of 43 it is a very even battle. Take eight MarkIIIs with long 50mm gun and 70mm armour, four MarkIVs with L43 gun, and four MarderIIIs on the German side. On the Soviet side have sixteen T34s. You will find the battle could go either way. Very evenly matched. Remember, the StugIIIs did not tend to operate with Panzer divisions at this time. Later in the war when they did, the Soviets had tungsten rounds for the 76.2mm guns that could penetrate the StugIIIs at up to 500m plus. Also, of course, vehicles such as the SU85 coming through. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Lots of good suggestions. Just to add support to one of them Ken posted, “The ability to save units/formations from one game and import them into another, with access to the editor in-between. (This would enable long-term operations to track the same units as desired.)” This is a very smart and simple idea. One element that is missing from CM is the ability to set CM battles in their context. This is in no way a criticism of Operations as they are in CMBB. I feel Static Operations are a very realistic way to model many, one could say most, WWII battles. However, the ability to construct a system more along lines of the more common definition of Operations, stringing battles together over different locations and times, would be fun. Add the above feature to the new add on from Leland, the Mapping Mission, in which one will eventually be able to scan in 20km by 20km topographical maps and then “place” CMBB tiles on top of the scanned map, and you have your very own historically accurate operation. All the best, Kip.

Belaja smert, Thanks for the support, always helps in these matters. There are some grid grass Mods out there, but one cannot toggle them away in the action movie. For me, it is a must, that in the action movie, all looks as realistic as possible. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Lots of good stuff has been mentioned. May number one vote, after the end to Borg Spotting which is scheduled anyway, is a terrain grid that can be toggled on and off. The major problem in terms of the perception of the real world that one gets in CMBO/ CMBB is the ability to spot undulations in the terrain. There is a huge gap between the ability to do this in CMBB, and in the real world. I do not wish for any changes that would spoil the look of the game in movie mode. I watch all the movies, first time round, with all the settings at their most realistic. However, if there was a grid that could be toggled on and off, then in the orders phase, I would use it to judge the undulations in the terrain. In terms of the human to computer interface, for my, this is the one missing element. It is currently unrealistically difficult to spot undulations. This is not the fault of the graphics; it is just that the human eye, when observing the real world, is so good at judging such matters, that we need some form of artificial help/aid to replicate that ability. In my view. All the best, Kip.