kipanderson

Hi, Yup, they look good. No doubt about it! I will be using the second one if it becomes available to the public. All the best, Kip

Hi, Yup, in most wargaming circles, in my experience of monitoring these things, the Big Three are, Eastern Front, NWE, and Cold War. Of course, many people have other likes and dislikes too, including me. But the above are commercially the Big Three, from what I have seen. Hence, I would like to see Cold War next, then back to NWE, then Eastern Front. And, yes, as someone else also said, the Number One setting for wargames is, in my view, Eastern Front. However, I would be surprised if BFC were on less than a five year cycle, so may be NWE the one after next. It is clear to me, that although the desert is popular with some, there is not really what I would call “mass interest”, same goes for Early War, Poland, France and such. Given that there is not mass interest, and given that we are currently rationed to one new CM game every two years, it would be a bit of a waste to go for the desert, in my very prejudice view. I have a hunch that Cold War may turn up. If not, back to Western Europe. All the best, Kip.

Hi, My vote would go for a Cold War version of CM. 1970s would just hit the spot. Fulda Gap and all that stuff. Great times…. All the best, Kip. PS. I also think there would be more money in Cold War game than the desert. But have no real idea.

Hi, I have say, that I agree that a Mod Forum would be a good idea. In the run-up to the release of a new version of CM, clearly, there is a frenzy with regard to what should be/will be in the new version. However, once a game is out, and patched a few times, it is all about Mods for me. At this stage I feel I should say that it will take a lot to get me to start changing the textures, but a few sets of winter Mods would be great. I think the shipped graphics are stunning, Dan and others have done a great job, but always open to look at what Mods are on offer. A separate Mod Forum would be very handy to help track Mod news. All the best, Kip.

kump, hi It is such a great piece of work I am really quite shocked. :eek: Stunningly useful. You deserve a medal! Thanks, will be using your resource a lot, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Yup, it is in Guildford anyway, in the Guildford branch of Game. All the best, Kip.

Lars, hi, You wrote, “You contradict yourself here. They obviously learned the lesson but either did not have the manpower to solve the problem or a high command that would let them withdraw to a defendable MLR.” I am not contacting myself by saying that in “some cases” they did do the correct thing. Nor is it a manpower problem. Of course, they were short of men, but this was not a specific manpower problem. It is a tactical /operational problem. They setup their defensive positions in too much depth. It was bad tactics, nothing more. One of the best accounts is in the Soviet General Staff Study on the L’vov Operation of July 44. You can buy it from http://www.frankcass.com . The fact that they were still making the same mistake in July 44, is a bit of a shocker. In the case of the L’vov operation it cost the Germans very highly. A number of pockets in the range 5,000-15,000 men formed as a result. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I agree absolutely with Andreas. His post illustrates two points, as well as others. One is that the Germans did not understand operations as the Soviets did then, and NATO does now. As a doctrine. To the Germans, and Western allies of the time, operations were simply gathering together your most powerful combined arms units, and pointing them at a target. The fact that the Soviets in WWII understood that there was more to operations than combined arms, is one factor that set them apart. The second point illustrated by Andreas’s post is the lack of any functioning “lessons learnt” analysis in the German High command. The best illustration of this second point, which has only came to light in the last couple of years, is the repeated tactical and operational blunders the Germans made in defending against breakthrough operations in 44. There was no perfect answer, but they could, and should have done better. At Korsun in January 44, over large sections of the front during Bagration in June 44, and over the entire front during the L’vov operation in July 44, the Germans used the same faulty tactics. What the Germans did was to use very widely dispersed company positions, in great depth, so as to avoid giving a dense target for the Soviet artillery. However, it was part of Soviet SOP to send one battalion, from every attacking division, on fighting reconnaissance the afternoon/night before the operation. The aim was to fight through the outposts to the German Main Line of Resistance, so as to be sure to have identified it correctly. What happened was that the Soviet battalions sent forward simple fought through each widely dispersed company position in turn. Then suddenly discovered they were through to the “green fields beyond”, having suffered only light casualties. The artillery barrages being cancelled and the batteries moved forward without firing. Large pockets of Germans were then formed. What the Germans were doing, by having such widely dispersed positions, in great depth, was to commit forces “piece-meal” to the defence. Hence they were destroyed “piece- meal” by just single Soviet infantry battalions. What the Germans should have done,and did on some cases, is have outposts, but still have a Main Line of Resistance but be willing to withdraw the MLR as needed. Anyway, after the first mistake, the error should not have happened again and again. Also interesting to note, that it is only with the opening of the Soviet archives that this sort of detail comes out. You will hear no mention of such errors in German accounts. All good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. One point where I differ from Andreas is, Panzer Divisions, with two Panzer battalions and four infantry battalions, were nicely balanced combined arms teams. In my view. [ October 10, 2002, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: kipanderson ]

Andreas, hi, Very interesting site. Good find. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Would just like to thank you guys for the hints on best settings. I have a Geforce3 Ti200 and have now down loaded aTuner and set AA to X4 and 8X anisotropic. Things do indeed look a lot better! All the best, Kip.

Lt Bull, It was originally the case that all doodads could be viewed at a higher camera height. However, there is a problem with this. At higher camera heights the “strings” that make up the doodads, step for example, look very unnatural. You just get a bunch of unnatural looking lines across the fields. You would not like what you saw. To take step as the example again, it only really looks good at lower camera settings. All the best, Kip.

Hi, What it all comes down to is the armour on the 42 and 43 StugIII. By mid 42 the StugIIIs went over to 80mm; face hardened armour over the front of the vehicle. The standard Soviet 76.2mm APBC round could not penetrate this armour. This is where the power of the StugIIIs in 43 comes from. Over time two things changed. One, in September 43 the Soviet 76.2mm guns start to get tungsten rounds. These can penetrate the front of StugIIIs at up to 700m. Secondly, armour quality on the StugIII declines during 44. The LateMid, and particularly the Late StugIIIs are vulnerable to even the standard APBC 76.2mm round of 44, up to 500m-700m. There is a point worth mentioning. It was Soviet SOP to call off attacks once it was discovered they were up against Uber tanks relative to their own equipment on a given day. This SOP came into effect very early as a result of experience against StugIIIs with 80mm armour and then continued throughout the rest of the war. The Soviet were only too aware that attacking German AFVs who’s front armour they could not penetrate, was pointless. I agree 100% with Mattias on this. It is also worth stressing, as others already have, that the only Uber tanks that were available in any quantity that mattered, StugIIIs in their day, and then Panthers later, have very thin side armour. Use either StugIIIs or Panthers in attack over the more open terrain of the east, apart from in towns there was not the same “man-made micro-landscapes” as in the west, and the result can be grizzly for the Uber tanks. Also, the Soviets tended to have far larger numbers of AT guns, relative to the number of attacking Panzers, than was the case in the west. All the best, Kip.

Guys, You all seem to know what you are talking about. May I just ask, should I upgrade my drivers from 28… to 30.82? I have a GeForce3 Ti200 64mb card. All seems to work OK with both CMBB and CMBO. Hence my reluctance to upgrade the drivers until I get the all clear from those who understand these matters. And, yes, it is odd that Nvidia seem to be going backwards and old faults reappearing. All the best, Kip

Hi, As others have pointed out, the guys that designed Steel Beasts have done a game as asked for. I only have time for one wargame in my life, and CM is, in my view, a more accurate simulation of ground ware. However, I have a lot of respect for the Steel Beasts team, when I do play Steel Beasts it is as a CM scale game, not tank simulator. BFC “could” do a great modern CM type game. But probably do not wish to. In fact my favourite follow on for CMBB would be 1970s ground warfare. Peak of the Cold War, Fulda Gap and all. Nostalgia for good old days! Then, later move back to WWII NWE and Eastern Front again. One can but dream. A Cold War CM would interest me more than the Mediterranean in WWII. As long as CM games keep coming, I will be happy, in fact I cannot believe my luck, but the Cold War would be fun, in my view. All the best, Kip. PS. That cunning Moon fellow “may” have all sorts of plans. I would not be surprised if all sorts of wargames came through from BFC in the years to come. Currently we are rationed to one every two years, Moon may come up with a plan to increase the through flow, partnerships, outsourcing who knows, but do not be surprised!

Hi, When it comes to the way you all feel about not being able to get your hands on the game, I understand 100% how you feel. I would be pulling my hair out. However, I have the European version on my machine, and will be continuing to use it. I look forward to seeing the long version of the manual, all printed up for me. But there is nothing second best about the actual program you will receive from CDV. I, and I am sure the rest of the CM community, knew it would be a problem if the gap between BFC releasing the game, and CDV shipping it, was too long. More than just a few days. Those of us that are keen on CM games, tend to be “very” keen on them and so understandably want the game as soon as any one else has it. Of course, others are right to point out that it is very important that BFC make as much money as possible with each game. That way they are more likely to stay in this niche, which is what we all want. Imagine if Steve, Charles and the others went off to make Star Wars games because there was not enough money in CM niche games. CDV help in keeping our favourite game company financially healthy. A very good thing for all CM fans. All the best, Kip.

Hi, The other day I was playing a game against the AI and the enemy, the Germans, had two FOs. Neither ever fired a shot. One was killed up close trying to get into position. I remember thinking at the time, “the computer does not cheat, I certainly would have had more problems if it did”. All the best, Kip.

Guys, I understand how you all feel, in that you feel you are getting an inferior product. However, it is important to remember that the European version and the BFC version are the “exact same program”. All that is different are a very small number of .bmp files and a couple of words of text. I know, because as a beta tester I was sent the European version of CMBB1.0 a few weeks ago. It really is the same game in every way. To miss out on what is, in my view, and given my familiarity with simulations used by the world’s military, the most realistic simulation of ground warfare available anywhere in the world, just because of a very small number of .bmp files and lines of text would be a shame. Buy the game from who so ever has the rights in your region, and relax and enjoy it. The European version is in everyway the real thing. All the best, Kip. PS. I live in the UK. I do have the US version on the way to me from BFC, but will still be buying the European version as well for various reasons. There really is no difference. True, CDV have no idea about what we would all call "real wargames", but the program you get is still pure BFC.

Gordon, hi, Looks very good. Outstanding stuff. My only reservation is the same as your own. I regard it as a big plus to have all vehicles with the same look, or I tend to be shocked out of my fantasy world, back into reality, when I spot a mod that is very different from the rest in a given CM game. Thanks for work, All the best, Kip. [ October 02, 2002, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: kipanderson ]

Uedel, hi, I cannot speak for BFC. However, I do know that changes to the editor are considered quite involved, according to Matt. One suggestion I made, with regard to the editor, was rated a good suggestion, but “if” it happens it will certainly have to wait a while. I am not sure to what extent BFC will want to make “changes”, or just fix bugs. Time will tell. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Thanks for the link, looks interesting, will give it a read when I have time. All the best, Kip.

Grisha, hi, Great work. I one real regret is that I never learnt Russian, in childhood knew Danish and they tried to teach my French, of course. Jeff, hi, good to see you are still around, CMBB really is a stunner. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Barrett’s Privateer wrote, “In my mind, true play balance is by definition a contest in which matched players of ANY equal skill will have a 50-50% chance to win a game.” To my mind any tactical military game that is realistic, will not pass the above test, nor should it. The reason is that often, but not always, attack is more challenging than defense. In defense it is often, but again not always the case, that you can to some extent, sit back and rely on firepower alone to win the day. In a realistic tactical game, you need to know what you are about to win when in attack. Learning these skills, having to think a lot, is all part of the fun. I can define exactly what I mean by realism in a simulation. By realism I mean that given the tactical environment, forces on each side, terrain and so on … and given the decisions taken by both players, the outcome is that which it is likely to have been in reality. For the reasons I have explained, Barrett’s Privateer’s definition of “play balance” would not pass my definition of “realism.” Take time to develop the required skills, and CMBB is balanced. The fact that it is very challenging, is a plus point, not a negative. All the best, Kip. BTW, I use the same definition of “realism” as the US Army does in similar simulations. I have read their own internal reviews of games such as TacOps and Steel Beasts and the officers that use TacOps and Steel Beasts are fans of it for identical reasons to my high opinion of CMBB.

Hi, PS. I agree with Andreas, you “have” to get your tactics right, or you will get kicked very hard as the attacker. However, like many others, I regard this as a major improvement. You have think more, and harder, than in CMBO. For someone like me this is challenging , but even more fun if it works. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I think people are talking past each other. It really comes down to whether you are after realism or a balanced strategy/action game. For me this is not a close call, realism is the priority. There have to be compromises due to the fact that one person plays the roles of battalion, company, platoon and also squad and AFV commander. I accept these compromises and would even vote for them, if asked, because the game has to be able to be played by one person. However, for me the “reason for being” of CM is to produce as realistic a simulation of WWII ground combat as technology, and factors mentioned above, will allow. CMBB is not, in my view, an action strategy game, but the most realistic simulation available, including those used by the US and other militaries. For me, the thought of dumping down CM so as to achieve greater balance between the attacker and the defender is not an option. However, of course, BTS will be the ultimate judge of that. When it comes to “balance” it is worth remember that in the real world most militaries work on the basis that 3:1, attacker to defender, is normally required to successfully attack, in terms of combat power anyway. So if the defender has 1,000 points, the attacker should normally have 3,000 points, not just 1,500. This is the way to address the balance issue without destroying what many of us value about CM. If you wish to attack successfully, build realistic scenarios. Give the attacker three times the points the defender has. Then you will have a balanced “and” a realistic game. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Desertrat1943 is very honest in saying that he is a strategy game fan. BTS will speak for themselves, but as I view the game it is the stunning, world beating realisms of the modelling, plus, the use of great graphics, sounds, interface and such, that makes CM games the hits they are. There is no doubt about it, CMBB is a great game, but also a very fine work of military history, easily on the scale of a big item David Glantz book. For me the realism of the modelling is a necessary condition for buying the game. I play no other computer games because they do not come up to standard. I own a number of games used by the US military, but they are no quite as realistic as CM, strange but true. (I have a lot of respect for TacOps and Steel Beasts.) What desertrat1943 seems to be saying is that “the grogs have taken over the asylum”. Happily for me, there are no two greater grogs than Steve and Charles, so the asylum was always owned by grogs anyway. All the best, Kip.