kipanderson

Moon, hi, One thing I would add is a recommended reading list. Just to allow those who are not knowledgeable on the Eastern Front, but get hooked by the game, to learn more. You know the sort of thing. All the Glantz books and such. I would also have a book section on this website with a click through to Amazon. But you will already have thought of that one and rejected it for some reason. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I came to CMBO with no computer games experience. i.e. I came to it cold, computer games wise. However, with just a very brief reading of the odd “how to” section and I was away. The manual told me all I needed to know. I am puzzled by criticism of the manual. All the best, Kip.

Hi, killmore wrote, “As far as I am aware some AT rifles at extremely short ( suicidal) ranges could penetrate up to 50mm. You have to remember that this was against armours which didn't benefit from an utrageously high T/D ratio. OTOH were shots at this range common and did penetrations at these ranges result in the knocking out of the offending tank. No and no. An ATR doesn't do enough damage to really knock out tanks reliably. About the best you can hope for from an ATR is to have the projectile pass through a crewman or, possibly, touch off a round in the turret.” When it comes to the penetration figures the only one I know it the commonly circulated one, including in British reports from the time, of 25mm at 500m. In my view, impressive in its self. However, given that it was such a small round I agree its penetration would greatly increase at closer range. The extent to which penetration increases and decrease, with changes in range, it directly proportional to the size of the round. To give an example, the massive 122mm round from the Soviet L43 gun hardly decreases in penetration over 500m. 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 the best, Kip.

Hi, yup, very impressive! All the best, Kip.

Hi, Madmatt wrote, "#17B5 In CMBB there is now a hot key toggle that will disable all game aid graphics which include targeting lines, the compass rose, padlocked unit outlines, TRP's and spotted markers in the action playback mode. Flags and bases can be turned off normally." Great, it is my lucky day. Just about a week ago I posted requesting that one should be able to get rid of TRP and the like for an "all natural" look. As I say I am in luck. All the best, Kip.

Hi, YankeeDog wrote, “I also don't see why targeting orders, for example, shouldn't have a command delay. Maybe not as long a delay as a movement order, but someone's got to get the message to the unit that is supposed to be firing at a specific target. Of course, the unit might fire on the unit of its own accord anyway.” As I see it, the last line above really explains all. A point that is often forgotten is that CM is “not” a command game alone. In CM you play the role of the battalion commander, the company commander and the platoon commander. If that were all then some sort of command delay for targeting/firing “may” be in order. However, it is important to remember that in CM you also play the role of the squad/AFV commander. When you order a unit, by which I mean a squad or AFV, to fire you are doing so as the unit commander not just as the platoon or company commander. I believe units must be free to target/fire as if commanded to do so by the squad/AFV commander. Hence very little delay. If a unit can see a threat it must be free to fire on the threat on its own initiative. i.e. with very little or no delay. None of the above should be taken to mean that I wish for any “unrealistic” features. Nor do I often micro-manage, the TacAI is so good I often do not need to. However, I do not wish to give up the ability to play the role of the squad/AFV commander “if” or “when” I wish to. If CM became a command game and one no longer played the role of the squad or AFV commander, it would be a very different game. It may still be a fine game, if it came from BTS it would be a fine game, but it would no longer be CM. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Yup, about three months ago I read every computer magazine there is going in the UK and all agreed that, for the game player, the AMD XP chips are number one. The fact that they are cheaper is just a bonus. Strangely, I ended up with a P4 because I wanted to buy a Dell. But I am just a bit odd. If Dell had offered an AMD chip I would have gone for it. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Yup, about three months ago I read every computer magazine there is going in the UK and all agreed that, for the game player, the AMD XP chips are number one. The fact that they are cheaper is just a bonus. Strangely, I ended up with a P4 because I wanted to buy a Dell. But I am just a bit odd. If Dell had offered an AMD chip I would have gone for it. All the best, Kip.

Hi, CMplayer and I are clearly the same generation. I agree with almost all he wrote. I will just add that I am not a computer game player. I play CM because it is so realistically modelled it is a true simulation. It is really a form of military history. When the next version of CM comes out the best way for people to study the war on the Eastern Front will be to play CMBB. Combine that with a few of the David Glantz books and the odd German memoir and you will know more than almost anyone. All the best, Kip. PS. Of course, it is also hugely good fun!

Hi, Now I have read most of the posts on this thread it is still my view that some people are forgetting that CM is not a command game. The ability to micro-manage squads and individual AFVs is a large part of the game. In CM you play the role of the battalion, company, platoon and importantly the squad/AFV commander. The exact location of an anti-tank gun/missile system is of great importance. A narrow view/line of site, say between two buildings, will often have been much sort after. With a narrow line of site, again say between two buildings, and then out over a field, you can sometimes pick-off one target after the other while still protected against the attackers covering fire. There is nothing unrealistic about such modelling. There are times when it is the total volume of fire that you wish to use. In such cases you may line up your units just inside the edge of a wood overlooking some open ground. However, if you are greatly out numbered then the exact location of each unit, again, using narrow fields of fire, may be your favoured strategy. Once more, there is nothing unrealistic about this. Having said all of the above I must admit that I do not normally micro-manage. The TacAI is so good I often play as the platoon commander rather than the squad/AFV commander. However, I would hate to lose the option of micro-management if I wished to use it. In CMBB there will be times when Soviet units cannot be micro-managed quite as effortlessly as the Germans. As long as this is due to real world short comings in Soviet training and equipment, during that particular period of the war, that is fine by me. What I would not be a fan of is the idea of giving up the role of squad/AFV commander. All the best, Kip. PS. In my view the terrain is not yet complex enough, due to the limitations of current computers. For example the addition of more terrain features in CMBB, fences and grave stones, I see as a plus.

Hi, Directive#21 wrote, “Ultimately, WW2 was won and lost on the logistics level. (i.e. availability and allocation of resources, supply chains, development of experienced units and officer corps etc…) Despite Allied bombing, German industry was producing more tanks and planes at the end of 1944 than during any other period of the war. However, the German High Command was unable to project their industrial success into military victory because of a lack of fuel, experienced personnel etc. All of these aspects can be provided through the effective implementation of a campaign system.” I too am very keen on the idea of a campaign layer, but not quite what the above seems to imply. The above seems to me to represent a strategic layer, not a good match-up with the CM scale. What I am hoping for is an “operational” layer. The Soviets define operations as “two battles separated by time and space, but where the outcome in one battle affects the outcome in the other”. Given that the Soviets were the masters of the Operational Art it is no surprise that they use such an elegant definition. What this really means is that operations is all about moving around battalion combat teams, when in CM the maneuver units are squads and individual AFVs. As of yesterday BTS have a very high quality operational wargame team in-house, Panther Games. I would like to see an operational layer similar to Airborne Assault but with the ability to zoom down a scale to CM in order to resolve any given contact battle at the lower scale, if one wished. The operational game would export a file into CM where a program very similar to the Quick Battle Generator would construct the battle. The result of the CM clash could then be re-exported back to the operational game. From reading this forum I believe there is real demand for such a feature. CM was an enormous leap forward in terms of the realism of the modeling, i.e. it is a real simulation, in my view. However, allowing two separate games to match-up, one a quality operational game the other a version of CM, would also be a great leap forward. Some one will do it one day, I hope it is BTS, I trust them to get it right. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Yup, now I have had time to read the website another time I am even more impressed. The truly impressive feature is the list of factors that one can adjust for. All the issues seem to have been covered. Guys, when can we expect the game? To release all this information without any news on “when” is a bit hard on all us would be fans. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Sounds great, outstanding. There is without doubt a gap in the market for a quality operational game system; it looks as though this will fill the gap. Some twenty odd years ago I played a lot of operational war games and it looks to me as though all the issues and wish lists of demands have been met. I am certainly up for it and will be ordering a game. Now lets see an Eastern Front version; may as well get the lobbying started straight away! Variable speed and pause-able real time is also perfect for this scale. BTS, go for it in getting these guys to design an operational layer for CM that could be bought as an add-on. There is demand for it. It is one of the rational next steps in the development of CM to have a quality operational layer. In my view the scales at which wargames work best are the Squad Leader/CM scale where the individual manoeuvre units are individual tanks and infantry squads plus the operational scale where battalions/companies are the manoeuvre units. Bringing to two together is an obvious target to aim at. All the best, Kip. [ March 27, 2002, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: kipanderson ]

Hi, From all the options in CMBO to use the keyboard to eliminate all the features such as text, objective flags and so on… it seems to me that BTS took the decision to allow players to have the landscape free from artificial objects. i.e. things that would not be there in reality. The one exception to this is the TRPs. I have all the settings at their most realistic, and then find a large, artificial TRP sitting on the hillside. Spoils the effect, breaks the spell that one is watching a movie. Given that the Russian artillery system is likely to make use of a lot of TRPs, it would be a shame if one could not turn them off the same way one currently can objective flags and place names. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Yup, when you take into account that in CM one of the roles one plays is the AFV commander and the squad leader/commander then micro-management is a must. It is a big part of the fun for many players. The fact that one can adjust for the exact line of site and such is important. I should add that realism is what I am after, so I would not ask for anything that I did not feel was realistic. Of course, we all have different views on this. Having said that I often just play as the platoon commander and allow the excellent TacAI do the work for me. Especially in attack. Absolute and relative spotting will in large part be dealt with by the introduction of team play after the engine re-write, whenever that happens. I am not against a “command game”, but it would not be CM. All the best, Kip.

Skipper, hi, All I have read is what I repeated above. I do not remember where I read it but the most likely sources are a Glantz or Prof. Erickson book or article. About as good a source as a non Russian reader can get. Or, may have been one of the Frank Cass books. Grisha has clearly heard something along the same lines. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Great site, thanks for the effort. Look forward to using it a lot in the future. All the best, Kip.

Hi, ASL Veteran, yup, I agree with all that you say, penetration for the RPG 43 will, in effect, have been a lot less than the official figure of 76mm due to the strike angle. BTS will have to model the strike angle, one way or another. However, remember it will normally have been striking roof armour of 10mm-15mm and often side armour of 30mm-50mm. JasonC, sure, of course I meant the RPG 2 as the one that lead to the RPG 7. When it comes to the immediate post-war, quote from Record of Foreign Weapons and Equipment, volume 1, USSR, ( 1947, 500 page British intelligence report on all Soviet ground warfare weapons, by far the best such report I have ever seen, ) “there is some evidence to suggest that the weapon has a calibre of 82mm, fires a hollow charge warhead with an effective range of 150m, and is capable of penetrating 210mm.” The above refers to what one might call a bazooka like weapon. It would be surprising if the Soviets had not made use of their experience of bazookas and German weapons. Everyone copies everyone else, did then no doubt, certainly do today. All the best, Kip.

M. Bates, hi, I must confess I agree with those whom have pointed out that what you do not like sounds to me like the features that make CM so realistic. Including the way infantry in a heavy building tend to deal with attacking troops at close range. With the exception of always having to leave one building to enter another next door, all the features you mention add to the realism of the modelling, in my view. All the best, Kip. PS. For me one of the great things about CM is that you play the role of the battalion, company and platoon commanders, but importantly also the AFV and squad leader. I do not normaly micro manage a lot, but like the fact that I can if I wish to. [ March 24, 2002, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: kipanderson ]

Hi, This is only a relatively trivial point, but important to me. When I watch the one minute movie in CM I always watch it with all the settings adjusted to their most “realistic”. That is “detailed armour hits” are off, the unit scale is realistic, and so on… So everything looks like a movie, there is nothing on the screen to break the immersion. When in the orders phase I then use all sorts of aids to help me quickly take in all that I need to know. Anyway, as I understand things there is no way to turn off TRPs, i.e. so as not to be able to see them sitting there on the terrain. For me, they spoil the realistic look of the terrain. My request is that in CMBB we have a ****-z, or some such command, to turn the TRPs off and on. I do not mean to turn their “effect” off and on, but just to make them disappear from the visuals if one does not wish to see them. Like detailed armour hits. When watching the one minute movie I dislike anything being visible that would not be in reality. With all the mods the visuals are so high quality, and with Dan’s work in CMBB will be so stunning and realistic, it seems a shame not to be able to make the TRPs disappear. This is especially the case in CMBB as I understand there may sometimes be a lot of TRPs around due to the way Soviet artillery is to be modelled. All the best, Kip.

Hi, No game will ever get a better write-up than this. CMBO deserves all the praise it gets. I always knew someone would have a go at a Squad Leader type game, but I never expected anything as good as CM. We are all very lucky BTS are as unhinged about wargames as many of us are! Just think, Steve and Charles may have wanted to produce a space wars game! All the best, Kip.

Hi, Guys, do not get too over excited, I agree that the RPG 43 was “only a grenade”. However, in a report I have seen at the Bovingdon Tank Museum on Soviet weapons the RPG 43 gets the thumbs up from the British. I agree it only had a range of 20 metres. I disagree that the CM modelling of moral cannot handle close quarter combat. I think it does it very well in the use of German infantry anti-tank weapons in CMBO, to give just one example. I am certainly not suggesting the RPG 43 was sophisticated, nor is the AK 47, I am suggesting that it was a sound design that did what it was designed to do, no more. However, once the enemy infantry had been taken care of, which one has to assume with a range of 20 metres, the idea that soldiers could not copy with using anti-tank grenades is not a view I share. After the first few months/year of the war, infantry on all sides often, but certainly not always, knew very well how vulnerable AFVs were without supporting infantry to protect them. BTW there is a reason why the Soviets had no infantry anti-tank launchers in WW2, it is not that they did not feel the need for them. Just pre-war, by chance, the “entire” team working on infantry anti-tank weapons was purged. By 45 they did produce a launcher along the lines of the bazooka, and very soon after the series of weapons that evolved into the RPG 7 appeared. All the best, Kip.

Hi, The RPG 43 was very common and worked well. By which I mean it was designed to strike nose first. The design worked by having two lengths of cloth emerge from the handle when it was thrown. All the best, Kip.

Hi, The RPG 43 was very common. It was a standard piece of kit, similar to any other standard item. I have read accounts of every soldier being armed with one. The RPG 43 was the really big breakthrough. It was a very simple, yet clever design that worked well. It was fairly compact, but it could be relied on to strike the target nose first. The source I have also gives 20m as the range. It is the sort thing CM could model very realistically. I am sure they will. If the Soviet could separate German armour from their infantry they did have the means of destroying it at close quarters. Remember grenades, such as the RPG 43, would most often strike roof and side armour. All the best, Kip. PS. The RPG43 looked very like a German stick grenade, but with a HEAT warhead. You pulled the pin out and when you throw it the handle came apart and two lengths of cloth emerged, forcing the grenade to fly nose first.

Hi, Best detailing I have ever seen. Colour is a too light for me, but detailing is stunning. All the best, Kip.