kipanderson

JasonC, hi, Good post, good points. I had not thought about it, but now you bring the matter up, I agree 100% that decreasing the armour quality/thickness to say, 75% would lead to real problems against the quite common 75L24 HEAT round, and other 75mm HEAT rounds. However, I believe there is a possible “fix”. Let’s say we all accept Soviet high hardness armour was less affective against APCBC rounds. So T34 armour was given say, a 75% rating to bring it into line with the penetration figures for German APCBC rounds. Lets also assume that Soviet armour generally, the thicker plates anyway, were of lower quality and therefore given ratings of say 75% -85% on other Soviet tanks too. This would indeed result in unrealistic penetration of Soviet tanks by German 75mm HEAT rounds. A possible “fix”, that would achieve “realistic battlefield results”, which is what we are all ultimately after, would be to decrease the penetration figures for some German HEAT rounds by 25%, in line with the decrease in Soviet armour quality. Let’s take an example. From memory, German 75mm HEAT rounds had an armour penetration of between 75mm and 90mm depending on the date/version. Let’s go with a 90mm penetrating round. The T34 glacis and nose plate were both 45mm plate at 60degrees, i.e. 90mm thick against HEAT. If you give the T34 armour a 75% quality rating, but also decrease all German 75mm HEAT rounds by 25%, you end up with 67.5mm for both. You will still end up with a 50/50 result; you will achieve a “realistic battlefield result”. I believe the best course of action would be to decrease Soviet armour quality to adjust for resistance to APCBC rounds, and then to “fix” the penetration figures of German HEAT rounds so as to give the most “realistic battlefield results”. It is not perfect, but would still give realistic results in terms of which rounds could defeat which tanks, which is the important thing. All the best, Kip. PS. All this makes me quite nostalgic. In the very old days, when playing Squad Leader and Advanced Squad Leader, we had to “fix” all sorts of penetration figures to take account of errors in the data that shipped with the games. Being in my early forties I do not feel that old, but I must be!

Hi, Steve wrote, “The worst period of time was late 1941 through 1943.” I have always been of the same opinion, based on general reading, and a touch of commonsense thrown in. However, in 1942 the Soviets sent the British a T34b and a KV1, with full loads of lubricants, ammunition, the lot. They were no doubt a thank you for all the obsolete British tanks being sent the other way. Anyway, as a result, the Tank Museum in Bovingdon is stuffed with 1942/43 reports on these two tanks. Every thing you can think of was analyzed, the fuels used, everything. Overall the British considered them of good quality. The sites are especially mentioned for their quality. (I did a post/thread just on the sites about six months ago.) The armour was indeed of high hardness. I agree with what Rexford says, but overall the tanks were of acceptable quality, even at this most stressed time in their production run. I have sat in the archives at Bovingdon reading this stuff, boxes full of lots of different reports, there is no escaping their conclusions. My only reservation about what Rexford says is the weight he sometimes gives to German combat reports from books such as the excellent/ stunning Jentz books. I certainly do not disregard combat reports, but on all sides, I feel it likely combat reports are biased. This is simply a difference of emphasis, no more. I have read Rexford’s great book a number of times I know he also gives great weight to lab reports and test firings. But we have had this discussion before; part of the fun is that no two people see things exactly the same way. If you are really interested in armour and armour penetration in WW2, some sad cases like me are, get the Rexford book. World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery. All the best, Kip.

Hi, My guess is that sometime BTS will return to NWE 44/45 and then the Eastern Front again. In another eighteen months time CMBO will be three years old and one full engine rewrite behind. Time for a return, it will be showing its old age. For me, the big three in terms of time periods and setting for wargames, are the Eastern Font and NWE 44/45 in WW2, plus, modern cold war/ OPFOR games. The desert will be fun, but after that, time to return to NWE 44/45. Remember, two games and three years on from now, CM will have changed a lot. Rewriting the engine every two games or so is the key. Close Combat 2 had potential, but because it was just tweaked and tweaked, rather than rewritten, it went no where. Of course, I am no computer games analyst. CM is the only computer game I play. Just my own spin on things. All the best, Kip.

Apache, hi, Yes, “when” is an important question. Happily, Steve and co are well aware of this and have quite recently answered the question.By the standards of these things.Back around the end of November, beginning December, Steve produced a long post to get us all up to speed. He did go into detail on the anticipated release date. I forget his exact phasing, but without any wishful thinking, it did translate into the second half of March. Until there is a further update I believe that is the most likely. Time will tell, as they say. All the best, Kip.

Hi, On this one I must agree with Andreas. I feel that CMBO handles city/town fighting very realistically. Last night I and Andreas had a TCP/IP city fight battle. I was attacking and used the same real world tactics used by all sides in attack within cities. Extreme, local concentration about sums it up. Anyway the result was very realistic. Also, a fairly cheerful one for me. (Andreas, do not mention the little matter of my two M10s and your Tiger!) My point is, the ultimate test for CMBO is “when using real world tactics, is the outcome as it was in the real world, WW2?”. The answer, in my view, is yes, when dealing with city fights and just about all other types. All the best, Kip.

Jeff, hi, All very interesting stuff. However, I do not think I can help you much. I will have a look, but do not recall coming across material on Soviet, armoured FOs. Normally when something like this comes up there is a distant bell rung in my head, I think, yup, I know where I have seen something on this subject. But not in this case. All the best, Kip.

Schrullenhaft, hi, Thanks for your reply. I excepted I could but just needed confirmation from someone that knows more than I do. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I was playing an operation when the connection went down. I now have an Autosave.cmc file in Savedgames. My question is can I rename the Autosave file, as long as I end it in .cmc? This is to prevent that Autosave from overwriting the file if I am playing another game and the line goes down. I expect I can, but am not very up on these matters and would be grateful if someone could help me out with the answer. Thanks for your time, All the best, Kip.

Skipper, hi, Yup, last I read was that first quarter 2002 was a real chance. I recon late March release, in my hands first half of April. Time will tell, All the best, Kip.

Rexford, hi, Very interesting stuff. When it comes to the Soviet ammo one will no doubt be able to select the number of AP and APBC rounds one wishes for in the editor. As one can for western rounds in CMBO. When it comes to the Panther some random chance of a low quality glacis would be realistic, and therefore deeded. Mind you, the Panther is already, in CMBO, assumed to have low quality armour. I have just dug my copy of your ballistics book out of storage, and would be very grateful for the undated slope affects regarding AP ammo. You can email me at kipanderson@clara.co.uk Thanks. All the best, Kip

Jeff, hi, Very interesting post. Reminds me how good a book Panzertaktik is. Sadly for me, most of my books are in storage, just moved house, so I cannot just go and give it a read! Anyway, I am hopeful there may be some armoured FOs in CMBB. One day they certainly will be in some later version of CM, if not CMBB. When it comes to company commanders being able to bring down called fire, there are a lot of conditions that have to be for filled. No doubt some line officers were trained for it, but as your post shows, many necessary conditions had to be in place. Fun stuff. Looking forward to when I can get at all my books again! All the best, Kip. [ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: kipanderson ]</p>

KwazyDog, It was very impressive to see how it is done. I started following CM when there were just 200 posts on the forum. What always impressed me so much was the quality of the research/military history done by Steve and Charles. I know nothing about graphics, but in your hands it is clear that the graphics will be every bit as high quality as the military history side of CMBB. Like so many, am counting the days to CMBB. All the best, Kip.

Urban Shocker, Yup, I realise you and I see things in a very similar way. I am confident that someone will give it a go, one day. But, of course, I wish for it in CMIII using the talents of BTS. For me the CM part of the game would still be the most important, by far. But a quality operational layer would still add a lot. It would be another first for BTS. All the best, Kip

Hi, Wow, some people really are thinking big scale. Strategic, different theatres and such. That is not what I have in mind. What I would like to see is definitely smaller and do-able. All I am after is a standard, operational, one hex to a mile, battalion manoeuvre units type game. Very similar to the Operational Art of War/CMMC. The game would be playable entirely at the operational scale, for those that wished to play it that way. However, “if” two players wished to they could “zoom down” to CM scale and play a given battalion/company V battalion/company battle within the operational game, at the CM scale. A piece of programming very similar to the Quick Battle generator would set up the battles but, of course, taking its QB parameters automatically from the operational game, not the players manually inputting the parameters. No doubt BTS have no plans for this sort of thing. But if they wished to, it is certainly do-able. Possibly getting someone from outside to develop the operational game, I would recommend Jim Lunsford of Decisive Action fame, but there are a lot of other good guys out there. Anyway, one day someone will combine an operational game with a CM type game using a program similar to the Quick Battle generator to take the parameters from the operational map. I sincerely hope BTS go for it. I trust them to do it right in a way I do not trust others. All the best, Kip.

Hi, As usual the fact that we do not all agree adds to the fun. For me, others will differ; one “battle” in CM is in fact no more than a single “assault” phase within a long real life battle. What I mean is that a typical battle in WW2, for say a given village, will often have lasted 2-5 hours even if things went relatively well. Of course, sometimes it was all over in half an hour. However, within each 2-5 hours battle there will often have been a number of assaults, pushes if you like. It is these real life individual assaults, that in CM, are called “battles”, and tend to last half an hour, although I like long games. For these reasons I have always thought of CM operations as potentially the most realistic way to use CM. When it comes to the question of high causalities in CM it remains my view that it is the ruthlessness of the CM players that is the problem. But, of course, some take great care not to loose men. I am one of them. Every one to their own. All the best, Kip

Hi, My view is that the reason why most games take half an hour, note, not in my games, they take more like an hour, is nothing to do with C&C or fog of war. I believe, like others, that it is due to the ruthlessness of the virtual world commanders. I feel that moral, and fog of war are well handled in CM, but “players” of CM tend to be a lot less concerned by causalities than was the case in the real world. BTW, I am hoping that in CMIII there will be multi play, team play. With each player only able to see what his own platoon or company units can see, both friendly and enemy. This would go a long way to solving the “relative spotting, relative command” problem. In fact, in my view, it is the only realistic way to deal with the “relative” problems. All the best, Kip.

Urban Shocker, hi, Yes, I agree, and could mention a few others that I know wish for something similar. Creating a high quality game on the scale of Squad Leader/CM was, in my view, the first challenge. This is now done to a quality I could never have hoped for. However, the second challenge, in my view, is to combine a quality operational game with a re-write of CM. This would be a big challenge, but someone, one day, will do it even if BTS do not. My wish is that BTS do it because I trust them to do a really fine, in fact stunning job. All the best, Kip.

danbob, hi, I have a near identical collection, basically all of the games. Will not be getting rid of it, I like the thought of keeping it all, but will probably never use it again. For me, CM is, on all counts, a thousand times better. I hoped for a computer version of ASL, and CMBO does it better than I had ever thought possible. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Just a quick point. The QB generator may not build very realistic cities. I would not know, I have never used it. However, with the use of the scenario/map editor it is possible to build some very European looking towns, no problem. When it comes to he actual fighting in cities, I think CMBO models it very well. All the best, Kip.

Karch, hi, I agree. The thought of CM taking any sort of move towards becoming a “shooter” fills me with horror. I just would not buy it. However, simply having a view from inside a given AFV, or the eyes of a given unit, rather than ten feet behind and above as is presently the case, would be fun. All the best, Kip. PS.No doubt there are all sorts of graphics problems, or they would already be doing it.

Hi, Just a quick point. I have no idea how they do the “hit probability stuff” but Charles has been very open with the formula he uses for armour penetration. Indeed I have a copy of the research paper he used, on his recommendation. Even without the paper Charles used, WW2 armour penetration equations are well understood, if you know where to look. i.e. British military text books and such. I have checked all the figures for the major AT and tank guns in CMBO and they are “very” accurate/ realistic. Charles does have a challenge coming up with Soviet APC rounds, as they had very different characteristics to the APCBC rounds used on the western front. But Charles will crack it. All the best, Kip.

Steve, Straight question, Living in the UK, will I be forced to buy my copy of CMBB from CVD, or whatever they are called? The day you release CMBB in the US I will be trying to order it over the net. The thought of a dialogue box coming up telling me I have to wait for the release from CVD would throw me into in controllable confusion. You have some very loyal fans in the UK, even if some of us enjoy a good argument on Soviet artillery matters. It would be very rough justice if we had to wait for CVD to produce it. If there will be an option for express delivery, I will also be going for that. All the best, Kip.

Iron Chef Sakai, hi, There will be many reasons why people buy and enjoy CM so much. Some buy it because it is a great computer game; such people no doubt also play other computer games. Some buy it because it is a historically accurate simulation of WW2 ground combat, because it is military history, as close as one can currently get with today’s computers. It will not surprise you to hear that I fall into the latter group. I do not play other computer games, they do not interest me. The first thing I did, when I received CMBO, was to check the armour penetration figures by running my own version of one of the established WW2 armour penetration equation. Before I even played the game. Finding some, but very few, deeded attention I wrote an equally long and “anal” thread explaining what the problem was. Charles very politely responded and altered some figures. When I receive CMBB I will be doing exactly the same. The great thing about CM is that both computer games fans, and “anal” military history fans, can equally enjoy it. All the best, Kip.

Steve, hi, Sorry to get back to you, but really a last post on this one. First great to hear that you will do what you can on fireplans, but I realise it will not be “full feature” fireplans. On delays I am not worried about them being there in some circumstances. The problem was that the Madmatt interview “implied” that Soviet delays would, across the board, be vast. Remember I have not seen the game; I could only go on what I read. Secondly, Moon then “seemed” to confirm my fears by writing that against TRPs expect 4-7 minutes and against other targets 8-10 minutes. Truly final conclusion, Steve says delay for divisional guns will be the lower end of the Kursk figures; this is exactly what I am after. So I am a lot more relaxed. That means they will be historically accurate. Steve also says he will do his best to have as much of the functionality of fireplans in CMBB, but it will not be the full feature fireplans. I could not ask for much more so am quite relaxed about that as well, life is not perfect. That just leaves the Army and Front artillery guns. I believe, historically, their delay times are likely to have been represented by the upper end of the Kursk figures I gave. “When” used for called fire. This I will not be getting. Delay times will be somewhat greater. Life is not perfect. The fact that people disagree adds to the fun. All the best, Kip. PS. JasonC, I understand fully what you say. But, no, long delay times and fireplans are not the same. But again, of course long delay times do force you to think ahead. If there is a ten minute delay, one can wait till turn twelve and plan for a barrage in turn twenty two. But that is not the same as setting a number of strikes to come in at given fixed times, say, turn 16 with one, then turn 27 with another and so on.., all set in turn one. Simulating the fact that they were pre-planned before the battle started.

Steve, hi, I will try not to be too long as I will be repeating myself too much. It has all been said. I will leave you alone after this one. Above I wrote In a scenario, say a fairly average 43/44 assault, the scenario designer may give the player, for example, three 122mm spotters, with a given number of rounds each. All set their barrages in set up or turn one, and then disappear. Go on Steve, Charles really could do that standing on his head drinking a bottle of beer. It would be a huge step towards fireplans and realistic modeling of Soviet artillery. to which Steve responded “It would be a step towards simulating more or less operational fireplans, true. But as I have said, that should not be the emphasis on changes since they are largely outside of CM's scope. Also, such a change to the code is not as trivial as you think and is in fact not the be-all-end-all simulation of fireplans.” When it comes to Steve saying it is not a trivial matter to change the code, I am, of course, happy to go with what he says. I know nothing about programming. However, when it comes to the bit about “operational fireplans” I do not agree. This is a bit of a standard defence mechanism for Steve. (Do not worry we all have them, me included!) The Soviet definition of “operational” is, “two battles, separated by time and distance, where the outcome of one affects the outcome of the other.” Another way to look at it is that operational means that the maneuver units are battalion combat teams or larger. Tactics, or tactical, refers to the “conduct of the contact battle”. This is CM scale. Now there can be big, and there can be small, contact battles. However, throughout WW2, and on all sides, Fireplans where used in battalion V battalion sized contact battles within individual “assault phases”, i.e. 20 minutes to 60 minutes, over 2km by 2km areas. One example of a typical CM battle. When it comes to the question of the delays, I asked Steve, Will the delays for Soviet Divisional artillery be in line with the lower end of the Kursk range of figures? (Kursk figures, against TRPs 1.5-3 minutes, against other 4-7 minutes.) to which Steve responded, “From what I have seen... yes, this is exactly how it works now.” This is very good news. It remains my view that “when” the Soviets did use FOs their delays times, from the summer of 43 onwards, will have been similar or better than at Kursk because they will have been using the same or better SOPs. I have considered all that has been said above but still do not consider it likely that the Soviets took a backwards step post-Kursk, whatever the operational environment. Sometimes people just do not agree on a given issue. Final point. I am not saying you have done this, but do be careful that you are not “setting the bar higher” for Soviet delay times than for German delay times. That you judge them equally, given equally reliable sources. If you go off and setup a Kursk scenario the delay times should be similar to those given above. Thanks for your time, greatly looking forward to CMBB, with or without fireplans, All the best, Kip.