kipanderson

Hi, I ordered the book a few days ago, and am looking forward to it. I am hoping there will be some tactical tips. As we speak, I just drove a battalion of T34s into a minefield set by Andreas, the humiliation of it ! Happily, I have a cunning plan . All the best, Kip.

Hi, Interesting question and thread. However, in the real world, both in WWII and in Cold War terms, i.e. post WWII, recon normally splits into two, that is ground recon. Observation, and fighting recon, really probe attacks. Militaries go through all sorts of hoops designing and training specialist Recon battalions, but when war really gets going, Recon tends to fall back on observation, or a probe attack of some kind. Under observation would come small listening patrols, four man SAS type infiltration and observation missions, a mix of stuff. Put all forms of observation mission. Really just watching and listening in some form. However, when really hard recon information is required, say just before a possible major assault, a probe attack turns out to be the only practical solution. It has been interesting reading the various Jane’s journals that I subscribe to over the last fifteen years. There have been many articles on Recon, and Recon equipment. There is an on going major debate in most armies about the usefulness of specialised Recon vehicles such as armoured cars and the like. It is well understood in most militaries, because they are professional and rational people who study AARs and history; that in the end, observation and probe attacks is what Recon normally ends up as in war. One explanation for all the effort put into the design of Recon equipment and the training of specialist Recon units is that armies tend to train a lot for meeting engagements, even though in reality there are very few of these in major wars. In major wars lines form very quickly, it is a case of “assault”, after “assault”, after “assault”…. Very like a CMBB static operation. (Which why I am such a fan of CMBB static operations. ) In WWII many specialist Recon units were simply used as just another regular battalion combat team. One example is that some, may well be the great majority, I do not know, but some Commonwealth Armoured Recon battalions in Armoured Divisions were used entirely as “line armoured battalions”, with no difference in their use. The divisional commanders were after more combat power, not Recon units. One point to remember, on those rare occasions when Recon units are involved in meeting engagements, they tend to end up spending a lot of their time fighting other Recon units. That is doing Counter-reconnaissance. All the best, Kip

Hi, was just about to post asking when we will be told what the new project is to be, then I saw this thread, anyway... here is what I was about to post "When are we likely to know what CM3 is to be? Hi, The last I heard from BFC, some months ago from Steve in fact, was that they had not yet made their minds up as to what their next project was to be. Steve did give quite a long list of the sort of features the new engine will have, and all very impressive it is too. To give an example, not just individual spotting by units, but also a radio network coded in, so units spot individually, and then can spread the word by radio, all very cunning. Add the above to a tweaked version of Extreme Fog of War and no more Borg spotting. Anyway…. The next big moment for CM fans is when BFC let us know what they have decided to go for as their first subject for the new engine. My question is, when are we likely to be told the exciting news? Some time soon, or not for many months? The guys at BFC will have been considering a lot of possibilities; I know they have been doing some early testing of some coding and possible features. Are they close to having made their minds up, and letting us know the news? Just a friendly question, I am really far too old for this sort of thing , but I find CM games just as exciting as I did wargames when I was half my age! It’s sad, but I not matured at all in last twenty years ! All the best, Kip. PS. Before someone posts to say it is slotted to be the Med, Steve said they were having a rethink, may still be the Med, but they were considering all options, of which the Med was one. PPS. The good news is that once the new engine is up and running, Steve reported it was hoped there would be a far faster follow through of new games, someone at BFC suggested it may be down to every six months. We can but dream ." With luck this will provoke a answer from Steve. I quoted him a lot above! All good fun, all the best, Kip.

Hi, Yup, the peak of my wargaming days were from 1976 to 1979, until now, and it was a case of about 2/3 time spent on WWII games, and 1/3 on Cold War games. Historically, this was also the peak of the global wargame frenzy; companies like SPI were throwing games out the door every week. Some of them were very good too. Anyway… this change from WWII to Cold War is what I miss. We would spend two or three months on a WWII phase, and then a couple of months playing Cold War games. It would be great to be able to do the same again. I do feel like a change from WWII. The problem with a “current” setting for a CM type wargame is that, happily from a real world point of view, there are no big industrial powers squaring off against each other. For now anyway. For CM type games you need industrial powers in the same “sort of ball park” equipped and ready to have a go at each other. During the Cold War this was the case. The armies really did exist. They were in place. Hence, for me any time between 1970 and 1989 would be great. Sadly, we cannot all get what we want. BFC are a small team and the output of games is thus very limited. The good news is that one of the features of the new engine will be that it can rapidly be adapted to new games. I believe the target is to be able to produce a new game every six months, as opposed to every two years. Great news for guys like us who are fans of BFC’s games. It will be fun whatever they come up with, but being human, I clearly hope my favourite of the Cold War pushed its way to the front. Ultimately, they will do whatever takes their collective imaginations most … time will tell. All the best, Kip. PS. John, you have some very "niche market" scenario likes and dislikes for game settings . I am a simple chap, the unimaginative, big item settings in terms of the "most common" settings for wargames are my favourites .

John, hi, Great to see you here. However, for me, the entire point is to put a bit of distance between WWII and the next CM. I know this may be deviant, but I would love to see a first, or maybe second generation, AT missile slowly wondering across the battlefield towards a possible victim . If they go for Cold War, then height of Cold War, 1970s/1980s would be my choice. 1970s would probably be best from a modelling point of view. But, John, you are the guy who knows, I am only guessing! When BFC do announce their next project it will be big day amongst CM fans. I may be deluding myself, but I feel I am in with a reasonable chance of getting my wish, time will tell. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Yup, I did say 1970-1980, but in fact up to late 80s would be fine. When it comes to the “range question” I am very familiar with the studies of the likely ranges at which Cold War, Fulda Gap/North German Plain, battles would have been fought. Contact distances for AFVs and infantry combat, all of it really. It is a generational thing ; I was brought up on such studies . Anyway… I can tell you there is no general “range” problem with NATO v Warsaw Pact battles. 90% of first contacts would have been at less than 1200m. Infantry ranges, normally under 200m. All very CM. Also, technology wise, we really are talking tweaked WWII in terms of modelling problems. AT missiles were direct line of site attack, not top attack, plus, no “real time” UAV streaming video or recon pictures. Not in the 70s anyway. Not at battalion level. There is no doubt about it, Cold War does tweak the adrenalin in a way another WWII game would not. Just for one CM version, then back to WWII. All the best, Kip.

Andreas, hi, Great post . It is a very good example of what life, and death, was really like on the Eastern Front. In real wars, when there is something approaching similar technology on both sides, a very good rule is “if you use it, you lose it”. The above shows this only too clearly. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Firstly, I am a fan of all things WWII and all things CMBO/CMBB. Just received my copy of the new big item David Glantz book on Leningrad, so am as interested as ever. Heavily into CMMC2, and play and think CMBB far more than is healthy . However, with CMBO having been out for a few years, and CMBB in full flow, it crossed my mind that, yes, a change from WWII, just for one version of CM, would be fun . The “big three” in war games are WWII Eastern Front, WWII North West Europe and lastly, current warfare. However, current warfare does not fit well with CM type games. I would like to see a 1970-1980 version of CM. It all very nearly happened, did happen in the Middle East and Vietnam. The important point is that in a Cold War CM one could line up armies that really did exist; and very nearly did launch themselves at each other. When I thought about it, I found the idea of a Fulda Gap type, NATO v Warsaw Pact game, more exiting then another WWII setting, just for a break of one version of CM. Then, in my view, back to NWE in WWII for CM4. All the best, Kip.

Gordon, hi, I would just like to add my thanks for all the work. In the days of CMBO I did use a lot of Mods, but not your program. A couple of days ago I did download and install CMMOS4.0 and am shocked by how well it all works. Great stuff. On last point. The only disadvantage of the Mods in CMBO was the different finfish they all had. What I like about the CMMOS Mods for CMBB is that they appear to be to a similar finish, i.e. they go together well. This is an important plus, in my view. Thanks, All the best, Kip

Terry, Sorry you are leaving China, but may be you like the thought of Australia too! Anyway, whatever happens, when you pass through London do remember to warn us sad punch of alcoholic CM fans, and we can all meet up again for a few more pints. See you at the George, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Yup, it would be very useful; KwazyDog/ Dan did say that once they have all the models in, and therefore there are unlikely to be any more changes to BMP numbers and such, that he would publish a list. I assume they must have one, or life would be a nightmare for the guys within BFC. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I have to confess, I have no idea where to go to download the mod. It’s an outstanding piece of work, and I am very keen to have it on my HD, but I am not familiar with which site is hosted by Chris. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Good to hear it, I will go and give it a read. All the best, Kip.

Tanks a Lot, hi, They look outstanding, stunned. I have say that your trees are truly stunning. The autumn foliage looks just the job. Congratulations. All the best, Kip.

Terry, I have a suspicion you are working up a relationship with the guys at BFC similar to that between journalists and politicians. If you dig up the dirt on them, will they back-mail you into not publishing by threatening to refuse to give you interviews in future if you do publish? You have got to watch these guys, they play hard ball, not cricket. All the best, Kip.

KwazyDog, Outstanding Mods. I have said it all along; it will take a lot to get me to use any other graphics than those that shipped with the game. I have now got these Modded Panthers from KwazyDog up and running in CMBB. The big question is, KwazyDog, what is the plan, will you be doing more Mods, or will all our time be taken with the new engine? I know there are a few models and such to finish off in the next one or two patches, but what then? Congratulations, on the Panthers. All the best, Kip.

Hi, news to me too! all the best, Kip.

Terry, hi, Nice surprise to see the news letter, I had for gotten about that, but they are very good and useful. Good way to keep up with what those cunning folk at BFC are up to. Plus a bunch of other stuff. Hope all are well, All the best, Kip.

Hi, I suppose it has all been said, but I cannot resist just chipping in to say that I regard the changes as a big improvement on what was already the most accurate simulation of ground combat that there is. And that includes the programs used by the military. (I own a number of them, and have read the military’s own internal reviews, in their own in-house journals, of the software they use.) The thing I notice most is the slower pace of CMBB. In CMBO it is possible to take a small village in 15-30 turns, in CMBB it is likely to take 45-60 turns even if all goes well. This is far more realistic, in my view. As all have said, the fundamental new ingredient that you have to use a lot, is covering fire, often in the form of area fire. Anyway….. For me the “fun” comes from the fact that CMBB is so realistic in its modelling. By “realistic” I mean that given the forces on both sides, given the terrain, and most important of all, given the decisions made by both sides, the outcome is that which it is likely to have been in reality. What makes CMBB such an improvement is that it is even less gamey than CMBO. You do have to do it all right to win in attack. The greater challenge, also adds to the fun, in my view. Finally, in my view, CMBB is in every way as fine a peace of serious military history as a big item David Glantz book. This is something that BFC are rarely given credit for. However, if I were giving a class in military history, and the topic was the Eastern Front, I would recommend CMBB along with two or three of the David Glantz classics. All the best, Kip. PS. I am hugely relieved to read the BFC are not at all tempted to try and desert their niche for the mass market. I live in constant fear of BFC deciding to move away from their current niche. PPS. BTW, the above does not mean I am slow in coming forward when I think they have got something wrong, when I think they have dropped the ball I say so. But this is true of many of their greatest fans, because we are also the most demanding.

Hi, Andeas wrote, “Now for Kip, he is just a 'Grog Lite'™ - Janes is really not that up to snuff when it comes to WW2, and reading a poor translation of Wehrtechnik just does not cut it at all... ” this thread is not a safe place to be…. I am running for cover! All the best, Kip.

Cpt Kernow, Fans of the CM series do not come more “grogy” than me. I read US Field Manuals for fun, subscribe to various arms industry/defense journals ….. and so on. The CM series of games are the only ones I play, due to the fact that they are such accurate simulations of ground war fare. More accurate than the software used by the worlds’ military, which I am also familiar with. However, although I may not agree with every word you wrote, I am basically on your side. Any and all should be equally welcome to use and participate in CM. As long as they have bought the games, and enjoy them, that is all that counts. Using the CM series as a good computer game, as opposed to an accurate military simulation, is equally valid. I just end with a comment in defence of some grogs, you hinted at this yourself. Do remember the CM is really all we have. There are no alternatives for true, unhinged grogs. This in turn leads to a great fear and apprehension that BFC will “sell out” to the mass market and decrease the realism of CM in order to appeal better to more customers. This fear drives a lot of grog comment. It makes all grogs very nervous of partnerships with “games companies”. My own view is that if BFC can make more money out of partnerships with game companies then they are more likely to continue to produce realistic simulations. But who knows, there is a real risk that BFC will be temped by the mass market. The more realistic modelling of infantry in CMBB is hugely celebrated by grogs, but is not popular with some computer games fans. They openly complain that it makes the game too difficult if the modelling is too realistic. So in truth, on “some issues”, it is an either/or choice. You cannot “always” keep the computer games fan and the grog happy. I hope BFC continue to go with the grogs, in the small number of issues when it is a case of “either/ or”. Currently, the CM games are not just games, but real works of military history. All the best, Kip.

Hi, For me the Big Three in wargame terms are 1)Eastern Front WWII 2)NWE WWII 3)Cold War/Current. My vote would be for Cold War next. 1970s. I also think it would sell very well. All the best, Kip.

Bone-Vulture, hi, There are a number of vehicles with shared graphics. This is jargon for saying they have the wrong graphics. The reason is simply the huge work load the BFC guys were under. 300 plus vehicles and all those landscape graphics to do. This issue is known by BFC and as new patches come out the vehicles with “shared graphics” will gradually get their own correct graphics. If you follow me. All the best, Kip

Grisha, hi, I am ninety percent certain, but not 100%, that what you are witnessing is the “shatter gap”. Early Soviet AP ammo, 41/maybe 42, was of such low quality that if the projectile was overloaded with energy when it struck the Panzers plate, it would shatter. Hence, at short ranges, against thick plate, the projectile would shatter. Once its velocity had decreased some what, its energy decreased somewhat, its penetration would increase. I know this all looks very odd, but it is historically correct. Take a careful look at the figures for the AP, APBC Large HE charge, and then APBC Small HE charge fired by the T34s from 41 to late 43 and you will see the changes as the quality goes up. You will find the same with 45mm Model 42 AT guns. All the best, Kip.

Anton, hi, Yup, I agree, CMBB is more difficult. The reason is that your virtual soldiers want to live more, MachineGuns have more suppressive effect. Also everything takes longer as a result. Because attacking infantry are more easily suppressed, the attacker has to use more area fire at possible defensive positions in order to suppress the defenders while moving the attacking infantry forward. Also, anti-tank guns are less easily spotted and destroyed than in CMBO. In my view, CMBB is a big improvement on what was already a very fine simulation. Battles now take a far more realistic length of time. In CMBO you could assault and take a village that was 500m by 700m in just 15-30 minutes. Now it will take 30-60 minutes even if things go well. Far more realistic. In attack, you have to do things more carefully. Do not rush, take your time. Attack is really very tough, in some situations anyway. All the best, Kip.