kipanderson

Runyan99, hi, Yes, the Germans did have their own ATRs during the early period of the war in the east. However, they were rather poor examples by the standards of the Soviets. At most ranges you are talking about penetrations only half that of the Soviet 14.5mm weapons. Once the most obsolete tanks, that where still around in June 41, had been destroyed, German ATRs where even more useless than Soviet ones which did have some limited use. All the best, Kip.

Pillar, Congratulations, very fine AAR. It gave a good picture of the battle. As is the case with everyone else, the waiting is the hardest part! All the best, Kip.

Andreas, hi, Great AAR, very authentic feel to it. There was a hint of the odd new feature, such as “Extreme FOW”, all sounds too good to be true. My only reservation on Extreme FOW is when it comes to AT guns and tank gun fire. In your AAR a 37 AT gun firing on a group of tanks is not spotted. There could be many reasons for this to do with the crew being buttoned up and all manor of things. All perfectly realistic. However, the WW2 guns I have seen film of firing, Shermans, 88 Flank guns, all sorts of stuff, all produced the most enormous blast and flash. In the famous “empty battlefield” they would be very difficult to miss. Blast and flash from heavy ordinance is, no doubt, much less today than was the case in WW2, relative to the calibre. It’s certainly designed to be less. You will have got the point I am making, when it comes to heavy ordinance firing be careful not to get too carried away with “Extreme FOW”. From what I have seen they would be hard to miss. Assuming someone was looking in roughly the correct direction. I agree fully that buttoned up, two man turrets would affect this sort of thing. Everything sounds even better than I expected, and I expected a lot. All the best, Kip. PS. The more AAR reports you have time and energy to feed us the better. PPS. Am I surprised you went for summer 1941? I am not the only one with a favourite Eastern Front time period!

Hi, Truly outstand! It would not be possible to heap too much praise on Dan for the ultra high quality of his work. I have no idea how he does it, but the detail and weathering on the T26 are stunning in their quality. In CMBB we are clearly going to get graphics to the quality of the very highest Mods, but with the bonus that they will all be at the same saturation and brightness. Features such as the smashed up buildings also add a huge amount. CMBB will be a big leap forward on what was anyway a game in a different stratosphere to any other. All the best, Kip.

Hi, This has been an interesting thread. However, in very long threads one always reaches the point when we all start to repeat ourselves, this point has probably been reached so I will just make a few last points in no particular order. 1)What is a command game? A command game is a game in which the most junior role you play is “above” the level of the manoeuvre units. In CM the manoeuvre units are squads and individual AFVs; so in a command game you would give up the role of squad and AFV commander and play as platoon commander and above. This would have a lot of implications that have been discussed already. Such as spotting. 2)What can this type of computer wargames do? I subscribe to a number of military journals, one of which is the in house US Army “Armor” magazine. They often review wargames, both those used by the military and commercial games. The US Army view is that wargames, such as TacOps, teach tactics in a time period, and at a cost, that no other media can match. Put two captains to playing head to head TacOps and they learn tactics almost immediately. Lecturers can also use wargames such as TacOps to illustrate and teach tactics. This is also my view. CM does not simulate C&C very well, nor is it ever likely to. But it is a stunningly realistic “tactical” simulation. So good it is a form of military history. The exact manoeuvre of squads and AFVs is what it is all about. Do not expect too much more from it. Wargames, at this scale, cannot deliver much more. 3)Remember the primary role. The primary role in CM is that of squad and AFV commander. Remove that, and much of the tactical depth and detail will go. As will much of the immersion. 4)I do not play FPS or SWAT type games. The reason I do not is that, in my view, one can only simulate a scale below CM “in the doing”. By this I mean that in order to simulate a scale below CM you have to get out there an go for a run in the woods, shoot up the range, do your battle drills, play force-on-force games with laser assisted weapons, and so…. Computers cannot model it realistically. Even the most realistic, such as Operation Flashpoint and Ghost Recon, are not realistic enough for me. CM, Steel Beasts, TacOps and Airborne Assault are the only current games that pass my test for realism. But, of course, we all have our own views on this. 5)Changes that will help Tom W and Muskin. It is worth repeating that there are changes on the way that will greatly help the aims of Tom W and Muskin, but without turning the game into a command game. a) Live team play. Each unit doing its own spotting. c) More realistic FOW. Together they will make a big difference. All good fun, have just about said all I can on this subject for now. Vanir Ausf B and I are lucky in that we have the style of game we want. As someone said, BTS may introduce a “Platoon Commander” option, along the same lines as more extreme FOW. Then Tom W and Muskin would also be happy. All the best, Kip. PS. CM does simulate moral, training, experience and troop quality very well, in my view, but not C&C. This is not a criticism as I do not believe one can model C&C very realistically in this type of game. You do need a command game for C&C modelling. From what I read about CMBB it will be close to perfect! [ April 26, 2002, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: kipanderson ]

Tom W, hi, I appreciate what you are after, and you articulate it extremely clearly. However, to me it always comes back to the same thing. You like to play the game as a platoon commander, not as a squad commander. You wrote, “Who has in C&C and who is NOT should be REALLY important in the implimentation of Simulated Relative Spotting in order to add more REALISM to the game.” This is fine, so long as you are not playing the game as a squad commander. If you are a squad commander and cannot re-act to a threat, use your initiative, because you are out of contact with your platoon commander, it is “not realistic” if you are playing the role of the squad commander. However, it “is realistic” if you are playing the game as the platoon commander, as long as the TacAI is of outstanding quality. My view remains that in wargames you play a lot of different roles. The primary role one plays is dependant on the maneuver units in the game. In games where you maneuver by platoons your primary role is that of platoon commander, but also company and battalion commander. TacOps is an example of this. However, in CM the maneuver units are squads and individual AFVs. In CM our primary role is that of squad and AFV commander. But of course, also platoon, company and battalion commander. There is really no way round this. I am 100% sure that Steve and co. could produce a very fine platoon commander game, for all I know they will. However, it would no longer be CM. At the heart of CM it the exact, tactical maneuver of squads and AFVs, within the limits of squad and crew training/ability. Hence, delay times for some orders are realistic. Factoring in delay times for a limited number of orders that can be assumed to have come through radios to Soviet tank commanders also seems reasonable, but care must be taken not to assume the Soviet tank commander is stupid. Having each maneuver unit do its own spotting, plus live team play, will help move towards the type of game you are after, while still maintaining CM as the same type/style/scale of game it is today. BTS may decide to turn CM into a platoon commander game. But from the posts that were quoted about half way through this thread I think it is unlikely, I agreed with what was quoted from Steve. Time will tell. Whenever this topic comes up I always remember a line from Steve in a similar discussion about a year ago to do with C&C in CMBB, Steve clearly stated CM will “not become a command game”. But, of course, it is all a matter of degree, at the margins anyway. From what I have read the modeling of C&C in CMBB is spot on, but still not a command game. All the best, Kip. PS. No one is after “realism” more than I am, my posts on this forum go on and on… about tweaks to add more “realism”. But I am happy to play the primary role of squad/AFV commander.We will never fully agree because we are after different things.

Cardmaster, hi, To answer your question directly, the latest estimate from BTS, given in an interview, translated to June. I forget the exact phase used by BTS, but it came down to June. I am optimistic that it will be June. There has clearly been something of a redoing of some features, but I recon they will be down to the fine tuning by now. All the best, Kip.

Hi, It’s been an interesting discussion. However, it still seems to come down to the one crucial point, do people wish to continue playing the role of squad and AFV commander or not? I am clear that I do wish to continue to play the role of the squad/AFV commander, as well as the platoon, company and battalion commander. Remove the player from the role of squad /AFV commander and a large part of the tactical detail, that makes CM such a superb simulation, would to gone. It is the detail of the “exact” positioning of squads and AFVs that is so gripping. Of course, always within the limits of the units moral and training. The TacAI is of such high quality that I do not normally intervene, especially in attack. However, when I do have a cunning plan of some kind, I certainly do wish to be able to intervene, within the limits mentioned above, moral and training. I feel there is some consensus that either you do or do not play the role of squad/AFV commander. If not then the game would really become a “platoon commander” game. This would also be a very fine game, if done by BTS, but it would be very different from CM. At the heart of the problem is the fact that we play these multiple roles in CM, not just one role, for example not just the platoon commander. Live team play, one day with very large numbers of players, will go a long way towards easing the problem. All the best, Kip.

Hi, This is just a short note on the traps waiting for those modelling C&C in CMBB. I am in favour of different treatment for some Soviet units but great care is needed. I am not against penalties for Soviet AFVs that do not have radios. However, there is a need to be careful as to “which” commands are penalised for lack of a radio. i.e. It is reasonable to add a delay for a movement order that would have come from the platoon commander by radio. However, it would not be reasonable to add a delay to a fire order that would normally come from the AFV commander.(Of course, the lay out of Soviet two man turrets would result in delays, but that is a different topic.) Also, bear in mind that the German army in WW2 fought largely without radios, at the CM level. Panzer units had them, but infantry units did not use radios for internal C&C. A German infantry battalion had four radios, if fully equipped. One for communication with division, one with regimental HQ and one each for communication with the units on the flanks. Importantly, “none” was for internal communications. In CMBB care will have to taken not to penalise the Soviets for lack of radios, when in reality the Germans did not have them either. Views will differ on this, but in my experience the number one trap awaiting all Eastern Front games is to imagine differences between the Soviets and the Germans, that in reality, did not exist. To give just one example that was much discussed three or four months ago. The difference in the delay times for called artillery fire between the Soviets and the Germans, from the summer of 43 onwards, were often only a couple of minutes. I do not wish to reopen the artillery debate, we have had that one and Steve outlined a number of features that sounded just the job. The important point is that when dealing with the Soviets care is needed not to penalise them more harshly than the Germans for inadequacies that were equally great on both sides. For example, lack of radios for communication within infantry battalions. From what I read on this forum, the way different levels of training are to be modelled in CMBB hits the nail on the head. The way human wave and assault are to be modelled is an example of this. So delay times due to the Soviet squads and crews being less proficient in their battle drills are to be welcomed. Mainly during the first half of the war. But be careful not to get carried away. It would be an easy mistake to end up indirectly assuming German infantry companies and platoons had radios, when the Soviets did not, to give one example. Hugely looking forward to CMBB, All the best, Kip.

James Crowley, hi, I understand your frustration, and your ideas is a very good ones, but I would still be against it for the reason you are familiar with. I have no objection to a command game in principal, but it would no longer be CM. If BTS developed a command game it would be a very fine game and I am sure I would buy it, but in “addition” to future versions of CM, hopefully not as a replacement for future versions of CM. In CM you play the role of the battalion commander, the company commander, the platoon commander, and importantly also the squad and AFV commander. Hence there is no avoiding being able to see what all your units can see. At present, and I am told to an even greater extent in CMBB, you do not have perfect control over your units, but this is very different from what you wish for. There are two main reasons why you sometimes do not have control over your units, both of which I agree with. They are moral and training limitations. When it comes to moral considerations it is clear that in the real world a squad would sometimes ignore its commander due to the extreme stress of the situation. I am 100% in favour of this being modelled as it is in CM. Units should panic and become pinned and so on…. This is realistic. The second reason for lack of control, training limitations, is also realistic. The limited battle-drills of less well trained units would not allow orders to carried out at the speed of the more experienced and highly trained units. Again, this is all as it should be, in my view. This is not a limitation on “me” as the player, but a realistic limitation on the skills of my men. From what I have read about the way these matters are handled in CMBB the guys at BTS have hit the “nail on the head” with their modelling of training/experience limitations. My own view is that there is only one satisfactory way to deal with relative spotting. But of course, new ideas may come along. That is through multi-pay; live team play. You only see what your own units see, both in terms of enemy and friendly units. I am sure this will come in the re-write. Plus BTS may have some other ideas in addition. I will end with two disclaimers. I do not normally micro-manage, I like to play as the platoon commander and due to the stunningly high quality of the TacAI I can normally get away with this. Secondly, I do not play in a gamey style. CM is the only computer game I play. I play it because, in my view, it is a true simulation of WW2 combat. It is the military history aspect of it that draws me in, in common with many of its fans. I repeat that I understand your frustration because what you wish for is what I would call a “platoon commander” game. I will finish by saying that for me the “scale and style” of CM is perfect. I really do mean what I say, perfect. Of course, later versions will make big improvements, from what I hear about CMBB it will be much better in a straight comparison to CMBO. However, the “scale and style” of CM, which is identical to Squad Leader, is in my view, by far the best there is for tactical wargames/ simulations. It is both immersive, and allows you to model real tactical problems. Go down in scale to individual soldiers and it becomes hopelessly unrealistic, go up in scale to platoons as the manoeuvre units and some of the tactical detail is missing. A big part of this is the fact that you play the role of the squad and AFV commander. Before BTS remove the player from the role of squad and AFV commander they must think things out very carefully or they could lose the “magic formula” that is CM, and was Squad Leader in its day. All the best, Kip.

CDIC, hi, Yup, I do seem to be on a roll. However, these things can not last. My next suggestion will most likely be rejected out of hand! Hope all is well. All the best, Kip. PS. Longer battles within operations really is good news. An operation with, say, three 50 minutes battles to take a given objective, is in my view the most realistic way to model your “average” WW2 contact battle. Not that there is such a thing as an “average” battle.

Moon, hi, It’s all too good to be true! Cannot wait. All the best, Kip.

Moon, hi, It all gets better and better, thanks, it was a long standing wish of mine for longer battle in operations. The reason for this is that, in my opinion, CM operations are potentially the most realistic way to model what , in a context other than CM, one may call a “battle” for a given objective or village. This relates to what SWE is saying, I think. In my view a CM “operation”, say to take a given village in three CM “battles” is in fact what others, outside the CM community, would call one battle within which three individual assaults or attempt to take the village are launched. As SWE points out, objectives were often not taken in one assault or attempt; hence operations are potentially the more realistic simulation. They model the pause to re-supply and reorganise before launching another attempt to seize the objective. Now just the waiting for CMBB! Life can be very cruel! All the best, Kip. PS. The other longstanding wish I had was for the ability to be able to toggle or away all “artificial” or un-natural features in CM action movies. So everything looked as realistic as possible. Even TRPs gone. I now learn that this will also be possible in CMBB, no more TRPs with the most realistic settings. It’s all too good to be true!

Hi, I am still hopeful that the maximum length of battles, within operations, will be increased over the current 30 turn limit. I do understand the argument about the AI tending to fight to the death in longer battles. However, in human V human games it is my experience that if one explains in the briefing the need to minimize casualties human players can handle longer, and more realistic, battles than just 30 turns. Thirty minutes is, in my view, a little too short for most battles. My wish in CMBB is to be able to string together battles of 40-50 minutes in operations. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Yes, my take on the RPG 7 and ATRs issue is that the RPG is a hugely more effective weapon, it is not a close call. An RPG can destroy a T55 at 250m or lob rounds against infantry at ranges up to 400m. If I was a guerrilla fighter it would not be close call. Also, ATRs are much heavier. In the seventies and eighties APCs/ IFVs were designed specifically to keep the Soviet 14.5mm machine gun round out over the frontal arc. It is considered a threat. For armour in the 20mm class Soviet ATRs will, in my view, have been something of a nightmare. Given that the designers will no doubt have had 20mm armour as one of their specific targets, this should be no surprise to anyone. In the same way the PAK 40 was designed specifically to deal with T34s, it is no surprise that it can cope with them very effectively. Given the accuracy, rate of fire and penetration of Soviet ATRs, halftracks will have had a very tough time. To be used to transport but not assault. A 14.5mm round penetrating into the engine compartment, plus a small flash of incendiary such as phosphorus, would be very bad news. In my view. When CMBB is launched it will be having fun running test shoots to see how ATRs are modelled. As I say, all good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. Remember the Germans went to the expense of adding extra plates to their MarkIIIs and MarkIVs and StugIIIs so as to deal with ATRs at a time when they were desperately short of resources. They must have been some threat even against 30mm plate.

M. Hofbauer, hi, There was also a hardened steel round. It weighed the same as the tungsten rounds, 63.6 grams to 64 grams. Both the hardened steel and the tungsten cores were to the full width of the round, within the thin steel sleeves in which they sat. The reason they weight the same, given that tungsten has a density 50% greater than steel, is that the steel core was 50% longer than the tungsten core. It was also “tailed” rather than flat based. This may explain why one only ever sees one penetration figure. They both will have delivered the same energy, over the same surface area, thus resulting in very similar penetration against most armour. Both had the same incendiary fill in the nose. The great thing about CM is that when we get he game we will be able to run out own private test shoots against half tracks at 500m and see if the results are reasonable. No one should be surprised that half tracks are given a hard time by ATRs. Half tracks have the type of armoured protection these rifles were designed to overcome. All the best, Kip.

M. Hofbauer, hi, BTW, the reason why vehicles such as those for the new US Army Medium Brigades are not to be 14.5mm proof is weight. To build an APC that is proof against 14.5mm rounds at a base, excluding add on armour, weights about 22/23 tons. The limit the US Army is after is closer to 15 tins so as to be easily C130 transportable. The second problem is that over wet ground a wheeled vehicles, I am assuming eight wheels, has great problems if over twenty tons even with deflated tires. I have seen the graphs and test results in Jane’s Defence Weekly. Ground pressure is the problem. Tracked APCs and IFVs of the 1970s, the ones that followed the M113, were specifically designed to keep the Soviet 14.5mm machine gun rounds out, over the frontal arc. Hence they weighed about 23 tons. Also, no one would bother with ATRs once the RPG 7 was available. By 1945 the Soviet had their own HEAT firing weapon I could give you the details of, so they very sensibly preferred to stop using ATRs. A bazooka would have been far better than an ATR, even a 14.5mm Soviet one. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

M. Hofbauer, hi, I wrote, “This would give about 40mm at 100m and 15mm at 1000m.” Note the word “about”. I have been doing the same sort of work as Rexford for about fifteen years, so in common with many, including yourself no doubt, I do understand the detail of how they work. all a good laugh, All the best, Kip.

Facts on Soviet ATRs. Hi, A few brief facts and figures on Soviet ATRs. All that which follows refers to the 14.5mm Degtyarev Model 1941 “PRTD” ATR. The semi-auto weapon that was also produced had identical ballistics. Source, Record of Foreign Weapons and Equipment, volume 1, USSR. A five hundred page, 1947, British intelligence report on all Soviet WW2 land warfare equipment. Total weight; 38bls. Overall length; 79ins. Operation; bolt locked by hand, unlocked by recoil, i.e. self ejecting. Feed; single loader. Practical rate of fire; 8-10rpm. Ammunition; rimless AP incendiary. Penetration; 25mm at 550 yards. Muzzle velocity; 3320 fps. Ammuntion. AP/I tungsten carbide core. BS-41. Flat-based, steel envelope, gliding metal, coated and varnished. With lead sleeve, tungsten carbide core and incendiary composition in the nose. All the best, Kip. PS. The tungsten core does fill the entire width of the round. Also note the practical rate of fire and the incendiary nature of the round.

John, hi, Very useful figures to know, good stuff. My real concern is that in CMBB ATRs will be penetrating half-tracks over the forward arc and having no effects. I am confident that BTS will have got the penetration figures correct. The one I am confident of is the 25mm at 500m figure. I have seen this in British post war reports that are unlikely to be wrong. This would give about 40mm at 100m and 15mm at 1000m. Anyway, back to half tracks. Penetrating into the crew compartment is one thing, but into the engine compartment is quite another. I have seen photos of German half track engine compartments and they are certainly not as full as modern car engine compartments. However, if an engine compartment was penetrated by a ATR it still seems to me to be highly unlikely that the half track would be a runner. The residual energy of the rounds, at 500m, would still be able to penetrate 5mm plus of armour, i.e. destroy any part or engine it struck. One small point about Soviet 14.5mm ATR rounds. When you talk about the proportion of the round that was tungsten being about one third of the diameter I agree this is the usual formula for such rounds. However, in the case of the 14.5mm ATR it has always been my belief that it was close to solid tungsten. The reason I reached this view is its muzzle velocity of 3,360 fps combined with its penetration figure of 25mm at 500m. To still have such a high penetration figure at 500m, given its muzzle velocity, such a small round would need to have more than one third its diameter as the core tungsten penetrator. Or velocity, and therefore penetration would drop off more quickly. BTW. The reason why tungsten rounds are not the full diameter of the gun is that the tungsten is so dense that it would blow the chamber if that were the case, with a full charge the chamber pressures would be too great. Assuming one still wished for high velocity so as to take advantage of tungsten’s penetrating power. The smaller the calibre of the weapon the less this applies. Chamber pressures and calibre of the gun having an exponential relationship as the calibre increases. I may pop down to Bovington to look inside their German half track. I feel the “general rule” should be that even small penetrations of engine compartments are vehicle kills, on all vehicles. All good fun, All the best, Kip. PS in order to allow a tungsten round to take on the rifling, steel bands would have to be added to the round.

Hi, If you put just three facts together, you do end up with a very bleak picture for half-tracks. 1)Taking into account the share from the regiment, there were eighteen ATRs in each Soviet infantry battalion. 2)Penetration at 500m was 25mm. 3)German half-tracks had frontal armour of 18mm, taking into account the effect of the slope. Of course, although we all like to use them in CM, there were in fact quite few half tracks in use. Only one Panzergenadier battalion per Panzer division. Some in reconnaissance units also. But add the fact that only about one in ten German divisions were Panzer, and overall they were quite rare. All the best, Kip.

ATRs2. Martin, hi, thanks for the answer. Sounds like fun. May have a slightly different spin than you on the likely effects of a penetration, but as I always say, the fact that we do not all agree adds to the fun! One more thing I hugely look forward to giving a good workout when the game is launched. When it comes to half tracks and such I believe ATR did indeed make life very dangerous. A 14.5mm ATR is going to be vastly more lethal against half track than a .50 machine gun. In my view. Firstly, its penetration is a little under to three times as much. Secondly they were indeed so accurate they could be used as snipers rifles. Lastly, “if” they did penetrate they would be likely to do far more damage than some believe. Again, in my view. This is something I posted on the other ATR thread regarding damage. It is important to understand what does happen when a round penetrated through armour, even a small one. “One point I do disagree on is the likelihood of knocking out the tank, “if” an ATR did penetrate. Having examined a number of penetrations at the Bovington Tank Museum I can confirm that even small rounds produce a lot of spalding/ shrapnel as they move through armour. Even if you take the case of a 14.5mm round penetrating through 25mm of armour a fair number of chunks of shrapnel would travel through with the projectile into the tank. When a projectile penetrates a tank the armour it penetrates through is “pushed ahead of the projectile” into the tank. The armour that is pushed ahead of the projectile also tends to fracture into a number of smaller pieces of shrapnel. All very unhealthy even with a small round. A 14.5mm penetration would do great damage within an engine compartment. Historically when a tank is penetrated, of a crew of five, one would be killed and one injured. But of course sometimes no one was injured and sometimes all were killed. Of course, the 14.5m round would be at the lower end of the spectrum in terms of effects. But still very unhealthy. It is not just the round itself that it the problem.” All good fun, All the best, Kip PS. I agree 100% that bazookas would be better, no one would disagree with that. But the 14.5mm Soviet ATRs were not useless. I have seen the SOP of the Soviets for city fighting and ATRs were very much part of the team, always right there in every assault team. The reason was for use against enemy in buildings and bunkers. Also remember, Soviet ATRs were in a different class to German and British ones.

Hi, What you describe above may make a fine game, it will in Airborne Assault I am sure. However, Airborne Assault “is a command game”, an operational game. CM is “not and command game”. In CM one plays the roles of the battalion commander, the company commander, the platoon commander, and importantly, also the squad/AFV commander. Micro management is a big part of CM. However, one should only be able to micro manage within the limits of the training of the squad or AFV crew. Therefore in CMBO some squads react more slowly than others. Also in CMBB some commands, that are assumed to come from platoon commanders, will take far longer in tanks that lack radios. This is all how it should be, in my view. I am not against a command game at squad level, but as an addition to CM not as a replacement. That would be a great shame, in my view. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Seeing as ATRs are currently being discussed on the forum I thought I would take the bull by the horns and ask a few straight questions. Given that ATRs were so numerous in the east and given that they are new to CM I am very curious to know how they are modelled in CMBB. I would be hugely grateful to know, 1)are they modelled as AT guns are or as the .50 machine gun? 2)What are the assumptions about how they target the various different types of AFV at different ranges? By this I mean that in the case of halftracks they may just go for penetrating the armour in the usual way. Aim for the centre of the vehicle. However, in the case of a MarkIV, over the frontal arc, do they aim at the tracks or the vision slits/sights? What is the likelihood of a mobility kill on a MarkIV track at say 200m? That sort of thing. 3)Do you model their use against bunkers and building? This was very common. Anyway, if any of the guys at BTS are willing to discus this subject it would be fun to know. Hugely looking forward to CMBB, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Yup, JonS and CDIC make good points. I spend hugely more on books than on games from BTS. Some form of in-house bookshop, partnership with another organisation would be great. Within your niche I recon you would shift the books. Very like RZM publishing. Moon is clearly on the case, even more money for BTS! All the best, Kip. [ April 11, 2002, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: kipanderson ]