kipanderson

CMII wish list, features and historical setting. Hi, We all have our wish list for the new engine, CMII, once CMBB is out. This is mine, better to float some ideas early, although many have already beaten me to it. I do not claim any of that which follows is original. Features. 1) Live team play. I believe this would greatly add to the fun of what is already a stunning simulation. It would deal with the issues of “relative spotting”, as I understand it, and “relative command”. In short, it would lead to a jump in realism and fun. 2) Operational/campaign layer. It was always my number one wish that there should be a quality computer wargame of the same scale as the Squad Leader board game. With CMBO his has now happened beyond my wildest dreams. However, to take things one step further it was also my wish to be able to play an operational game and then, at a critical point, be able to “zoom down” to play a given battle at SL/CMBO scale. With the Quick Battle generator the outlines of such a capability are already there. Of course, it would need a lot more work. I am not one of those who wish to follow a given unit through a large number of battles. However, an operational layer that at least put a given CM battle “in context” is much in demand, if my reading of other threads is correct. For me, others will differ; the number one operational game is Decisive Action, over at HPS Simulations. Something along the same lines, but on a far smaller scale, would be my greatest wish. A quality operational layer that puts an individual CM battle “in context” is what it is all about. Historical setting. This is a subject upon which there will always be disagreement. CMBO is such a fine game, the team behind it so competent, that we all wish they would turn their attention to our own favourite historical period. With NW Europe and now the Eastern Front covered, for the time being, we all have our second-line favourites we are desperate to have BTS turn their skills to. For me the “big-three” in historical settings for wargames are WW2 NW Europe, the Eastern Front and lastly current OPFORs/ post WW2 time periods. Clearly, nothing original in this. If one looks at the market for wargames/simulations this is where the money is. Of course, the ACW and Napoleonic periods also get some attention from the developers. Anyway, the point I am working my way round to is that BTS should stick to the “big-three”, NW Europe, Eastern Front and current OPFORs or maybe post-WW2 historical settings. The problem is that because BTS wish to keep everything in-house we are to be rationed as regards the number of CM type games that can be produced. Given this reality, better to stick to the “big-three”. If BTS go for the Mediterranean in WW2, for the first game using the CMII engine, I am sure they will do a great job and it will be a huge success. However, I doubt that an early period WW2 game would sell as well as, say, a 1970s/ Arab-Israeli game. For the first game with the CMII engine the Mediterranean in WW2 may be set in concrete. However, if BTS do not wish to do a post WW2 game, then for the second game with the CMII engine I feel they should return to NW Europe or the Eastern Front. Clearly, my own wish is that Steve, Charles and the team has a go at a post-WW2 game. The 1970s or current OPFORs would be stunning. All the best, Kip.

Jeff, hi, For me “the big one” when it comes to Soviet WW2 infantry AT weapons is the RPG43. It was only a hand thrown grenade; however, it did do the job within its limitations. It was a very clever design, simple, yet tended to hit its target front first. Penetration 75mm. Even at a 60-degree strike angle that is more than enough to deal with any German tank through is top armour. Produced in vast numbers. “If” one can separate German armour from its accompanying Panzergrenadiers then all German tanks are vulnerable. All the best, Kip. PS. One strange thing,I very rarely hear about the RGP43. I have come across it only about three or four times in twenty years of reading all sorts of sources. Just not sexy enough, I suppose.

Hi, Thanks for going to the effort of tidying the WEG up. I have been using it for sometime, and yes, it did have a lot of updates. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I agree that team play would be a big step forward, not that it is not already a great, stunning game. I also believe that relative spotting is only really solved by having team play. Each player only sees what his units see of the battlefield. In my view, others will differ; this is the only realistic way of dealing with relative spotting. All the best, Kip. PS. My other wish for CMII is an operational layer.

Hi, The only computer games I have ever played, stuck at anyway, are CMBO and Steel Beasts. I will be going for TacOps 4 when it is out. No live internet play in version 3. Because I lack imagination computer games have to be realistic. My priorities are realism, realism and realism. Armored Task Force is another one to lookout for this autumn. Basically, all the games I go for are either used by the military, such as Steel Beasts, or would be if set in the current era. On that score, my hope for CMII is that it is set in the current era. The “big three” in terms of settings for wargames, are, in my view, Eastern Front and NW Europe in WW2, plus current day OPFOR games. If Combat Mission is to be rationed, as it is due to the small team, then I feel it would be a waste to set a game in an era outside of the “big three”. Of course, others will differ with this view. We all have our favourites, the “big three” just happen to be mine. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I must start by being honest and saying I will not have time to take part. However, it does sound like an attractive idea and concept. I do take part in CMMC as a divisional artillery officer, and it is very good fun, but I have no more time to spare. What all this does show is the hunger for an “operational”/campaign layer in CMII. I am so old that I go back to the original peak in wargaming interest in the latter half of the seventies. The two scales I enjoyed most were Squad Leader and then battalion level, one hex to a square mile/kilometre, operational games. We now have SL in the form of the stunningly realistic CMBO, which will only get better with CMBB. However, for the new engine in CMII my wish list would be headed up by live team play, this would deal with “relative spotting” and such, and secondly a quality operational layer. It has always been my wish to play an operational game and then “zoom down” to fight a particularly important engagement at SL/CM scale. Your project sounds like fun, good luck, but I do not have the time to take part. All the best, Kip.

Hi, My vote would go to the grass on the website. All the best, Kip

Hi, Yes, the more I think about it the more I feel that the idea of mini Fireplans would be a very accurate way of modelling Soviet artillery. Of course, they did have “spotters” operating the same way other nations had, but less often. The ability to pre-set the location, timing and duration of artillery strikes during the set-up phase would, in my view, accurately model how the Soviets often used artillery. Having preliminary bombardments modelled by allowing artillery to open up from turn one is also a very simple and elegant way of giving the artillery model more realism. Next step, Fireplans. “A small step for Charles, a big step for the realism of the Soviet artillery model.” All the best, Kip.

Hi, Looks good. The new grass looks somewhat “rougher” than others do; it is a very realistic affect. Will give it a go. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I could not agree more with what Charles has written. If WW2 armour penetration is of interest to you then the Rexford book is a “must have” buy. Covers the subject in a manner no other book does. There are two factors that set it apart. The first is the amount of information, test results and such, that have been gathered in one place. The second is the clear way the test results are all analysed and compared. As I say, a “must have” buy if this stuff interests you. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Grouping them by date and type would be a good idea, in my view. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I would be very grateful if someone could help. Where is the Combat Mission Resource area? I know I am being thick, but could someone give a bit more of a hint as to where to get the movies. Its not April the 1st, is it? All the best, Kip.

John, hi, Yes, the QBs should be good, and realistic. Clearly my hope is that one or two, of the four features I mentioned above, “might” make it for selection. But I am not too optimistic. Will be fun either way. Olandt, hi, Thanks for the up-date on how things stand on some of the artillery features to be included. When it comes to the mine roller I agree that it would clearly take a bit of work. The other three features in my wish list should take very little work. Question is, do Steve and his chums feels they are realistic and worth the effort? I would be very surprised if they all made it through the selection process. But one or two “may”. They will have thought of most , if not all of them, before. Most likely a long time ago. All the best, Kip.

Grisha, Yes, we are in agreement. I too like longer battles because one can then go through the “entire spectrum” of combat operations. Not just the “action bits”. In fact if I remember correctly you and I often do agree, but of course, not always. I think it fun that people on this forum do disagree. Of course, I always hope Steve and Charles will come down on my side, but they often do not. All the best, Kip. I agree with your specific point about reconnaissance too. One reason is that “fighting reconnaissance” preceded major assaults.

“Typical” 1944 battle not possible in CMBB? Hi, In case the title to this post sounds too negative, let me start by saying that I am one of those that would have been more than happy with a straight Eastern Front version of CMBO. No tweaks, just Soviet troops and equipment replacing British and American. However, given that CMBB is to be a heavily tweaked version, I like everyone else, have my “priority tweaks”, my wish list. So what follows is just a straight lobbying exercise, like many that have gone before. With or without any of my wish list tweaks being included, I will be at the front of the queue for my copy of CMBB. I will always be in near shock that a team of the quality of BTS should have taken to producing what are my “dream war games”. However, back to point of the post, lobbying. I will start be giving just a brief outline of what I consider to have been the single most common type of battle on the Eastern Front in 44/45. I could have gone for a number of types of battle, but the one that follows was certainly amongst the most frequent, for reasons that will be obvious. When it comes to artillery I am not asking for massive preliminary bombardments. I am assuming the use of the current “four-tube” artillery engine. Just with one very minor tweak. Given the above, what follows is not a massive break-through battle. If it were, far more mines and bunkers would be required on the German side, and far more artillery on the Soviet. It is just a typical, Eastern Front, Soviet assault of 44/45. I have no narrative skills, so I will do no more than list the outline of the battle and leave the rest to your imaginations. There will be four features included in the outline battle that were not present in CMBO. I will end by go into a bit more detail, lobbying, with regard to each feature. The outline of a typical 44/45 battle on the Eastern Front goes something like this. Map. 2km by 2km. Terrain, undulating, but not flat. Mainly open ground but with a reasonable amount of woods and vegetation. The woods and vegetation, and what ever buildings there are, tend to be in the lower lying regions. The surface of the terrain is cut by dry bottomed gullies. In about 50% of cases the sides of these gullies are too steep to allow the passage of AFVs. Forces. The Germans defend with three reduced companies. Two of the companies are in “company positions” on the reverse slope of their respective undulation or low-lying hill. One company occupies the only settlement on the map. Most of the units of that company are inside buildings, on the ground floor of which there are foxholes/trenches, that is within the buildings. The Germans have 50 tiles of anti-tank mines and 50 tiles of anti-personnel mines available. The German artillery support is one spotter of 81mm mortars with 150 rounds and one spotter of 105mm artillery with 80 rounds. The Germans also have a small number of anti-tank guns and assault-guns in support. The Soviets have 20 AFVs and a battalion of infantry/motor rifle troops. The AFVs are, 4 PT34 mine-rollers, 12 T34s and 4 Joseph Stalin tanks or assault guns. They AFVs advance in the order given above. For artillery support the Soviets have one 82mm mortar spotter and one 76.2mm gun spotter, each with 150 rounds. They do their spotting, from positions over looking a sector of the battle-field, by field-phone. However, there is more. The Soviets also have three 122mm howitzer spotters with 100 rounds each, of a new type. These spotters cannot be used “during” the battles but only during the set-up phase. The location, timing (turn) and number of rounds fired must be pre-selected within the set-up phase. What you are doing is constructing a small scale Fireplan. Exactly as the Soviets often did. Game length. Operation of 3 battles each 60 minutes long. Its not meant to be a “fair” fight. The aim of the Germans would be to inflict as many causalities as possible while retreating as a coherent fighting force. The aim of the Soviets would be to clear a route through with as few casualties as possible. This is not the sort of battle that would appeal to all. However, it is typical, hundreds of similar, but of course slightly different battles, will have occurred. There are four features that need to be included in CMBB, which were not in CMBO. Mine rollers. In Soviet accounts of the second half of the war you will find comments such as “engineering tanks were used in the assault”. What they are referring to is mine rollers. What I consider to be the number one source on Soviet tactics in the second half of the war, other than Soviet Combat Regulations, is The Hand Book on USSR Military Forces, TM 30-430, November 1945. It was put together using the material supplied by General Reinhard Gehlen and his staff. All of who, together with their archives, fell into American hands during the collapse at the end of the war. The long section on tactics makes clear, on a number of pages, that the use of mine rollers was every bit part of the Soviet SOP. I have also come across numerous pictures of them, not surprisingly. It would be a shame to leave them out. If the were included I am sure they would become a popular feature, they would be a lot of fun. Foxholes within buildings. If troops decided to defend from within buildings it was routine, on all fronts, to have the floorboards up, if there were any, and dig foxholes and trenches. Loopholes would then be made in the walls. This is not the same as fortifying a building, that required more. This was just part of the normal routine. Again it would be great to see it in CMBB. “If” it does happen I would not go too overboard with the additional cover it gives above whichever is the higher, the foxhole or the building. It would just make town/city fighting that little bit more realistic. In my view, however little that may be worth. Soviet Fireplans. I am not asking for anything that uses a new artillery engine. I am assuming the use of the existing “four tube” engine, and similar quantities of artillery to those already used by many in CMBO. However, it would greatly add to the realism if the Soviets had a type of spotter that could only be used to direct fire by pre-setting the location, timing (turn) and duration of artillery attacks. This would mean the use of a type of artillery that cannot “spot” during a game. All has to be pre-planned during the set-up. Maximum length of battles within operations. It has long been my wish to be able to have battles, within operation, of more than 30 turns, the current limit. In my view, others will disagree; operations are potentially the most realistic form of engagement. My reading of history is that, on all fronts, most “battles”, say for a village, were made up of 2 or more assaults. Each assault being a separate “battle” in CM operations. However, these separate assaults will normally have lasted for longer than 30 minutes. I understand the point about the AI tending to fight to the last man in battles over 30 turns in length. Generous reinforcements in each new battle, for the AI controlled side, can help to overcome this problem. It would be nice to see the maximum battle length in operations increased beyond 30 turns for those of us that would like longer battles. That’s my wish list. One item that would have been at the top of my list is to include, what in the UK we call, skirmishing. In the States to call it assault, and it is already scheduled to be in CMBB. The way, for the Soviets, human wave changes to assault with more experienced troops is very cunning. In retrospect it seems obvious, but I did not think of it quite like that. Only goes to show what I already new, if the team at BTS put their mind to dealing with a particular feature they come up with something stunning. My hope is they will be interested in some of the features I listed above. Probably not. But this life. Greatly looking forward to CMBB, no matter what, All the best, Kip.

Grego, hi, Never crossed my mind that anyone on the forum was from Edmonton. Not that there is anything wrong with Edmonton. If I was allowed to, I would be living there now, or in Whitehorse. What you are after is a book that is large format, about landscapes of Eastern Europe and produced by the US military. It is full of a mixture of photos and topographical maps of Europe. Will no doubt be in the geography department, may be travel. All the best, Kip.

Moon, hi, If you are going to provide some topographical maps of around 1:20,000 covering Russia and Ukraine I am “very” impressed. I look forward to taking advantage of the service. I also understand fully the sort of “real-world” problems you may be facing in providing such maps. Good luck, All the best, Kip.

Andreas, hi, I have had a crack at this problem before, and failed to find a solution. The latest word from Stanford’s, Britain’s number one map shop, is that the best they can get hold of is the very inadequate, 1:300,000 for the Ukraine and 1:500,000 for Russia. Both series of maps are “shaded” rather then “contour” maps. The 1:50,000/1:25,000 topographical maps we all want, and use for Western Europe, are not available. May be worth trying Poland, for later war stuff. It is possible to get satellite photos of Poland, and “may be” Ukraine. All the best, Kip. PS. The US Military “do” have the maps you are after. I know because I have seen a sample of them. Twenty years ago I came across a book of them in the Edmonton, Alberta, library. They would make your eyes water, “exactly” what we are all after. Whether you can persuade the US Military to share their maps with you I do not know. But they certainly have them. Another potential source are the maps and books produced by David Glantz. The place to get them is the Russian Military Zone. If you go to the David Glantz section you will be “spoilt for choice” as to which maps you want. Sadly, they are not free. http://history.vif2.ru/shop/glantz1.html All the best, Kip.

Hi, We all have our preferences as regards settings for war games. For me the “big three”, in terms of environments for versions of CM are, in no particular order, 1) North West Europe 44/45 2) Eastern Front 3) Current OPFOR. Due to the fact the BTS want to keep everything “in-house” we are to be rationed as to the number of games they can turn out. I feel it would be a shame to devote an entire 18 months developing a game set outside of the “big-three” I have listed above. As for CMII, I my priorities would be a) a live multi-player option, team play, a quality operational layer from which it would be possible to “zoom-down” to play a given engagement at the current CM scale. Very like the CMMC system. Of course, we all have a different “wish list” of things we would like to see BTS devote their time to. For my part, I realise I am not likely to get my wishes fore-filled. No matter. I am 100% confident that whatever they come up with will be stunning. If BTS do not wish to do an OPFOR game my vote would for a return to NW Europe 44/45 in CMII. All the best, Kip.

Hi, looks good, All the best, Kip.

Hi, looks good, Kip.

German face-hardened armour, when did they stop using it? Hi, Just a short question. From reading the stunning Jentz books, and other sources, is seems to me that the peak year, for the use of face-hardened armour, was 1942. It was never the case that all German armour was face-hardened, but more plates were during 1942 than at any other time. It is also my impression that during 1943 the use of such armour gradually faded out. For example, only the first few hundred Panthers used some face-hardened plates. Is this impression correct? All the best, Kip.

Hi, great little post. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I think the gun flash looks OK. However, I confess I am not very “artistic” so am not a good judge. All the best, Kip.

Lorrin, hi, Once again, very, very interesting stuff. As I know you have realised I just absorb information on the WW2 Eastern Front like a sponge. And all matters on military technology. From a careful look at the figures you have published on this forum it looks to me as though two APBC rounds, one Soviet one German, of “identical” diameter, identical mass and identical velocity would be of equal quality but at different angles. What I mean is that the German round would out perform the Soviet round against vertical plate by about the same margin that the Soviet round would out perform the German at 60 degrees. Have I got this “roughly” correct? All the best, Kip. PS. Common-sense, and playing CMBO, indicate to me that there will have been “many” strikes at between 30 degrees and 70 degrees against the thinner side armour of Panthers and MarkIVs/StugIIIs. The Soviet way is not quite as eccentric as it may seem. PPS. I have contacted your friend in France and pre-ordered. I know you must be asked all the time, but when do you think your book will be available? You must be bored with answering the question, sorry.