kipanderson

Hi, I am a veteran of the broad games of the 70s, remember the great operational games by SPI, and I agree with 90% of what has been said by those that do not want to see CM go RT. However, I do not agree 100%. Clearly this is all just personal opinion, but for me CM is a simulation. I mean simulation in the sense that it sets out to deliver as realistic an environment as possible and to present the player with realistic tactical problems and a realistic set of options for dealing with the problems. i.e. a modern version, set in the 1990s, “could” be used for tactical training by the military. Having seen the games the US military use I believe this to be the case. I agree that up to and including CM all computer wargames that have come close to being of acceptable standard have been turn based. However, I believe the reason for this is nothing in the inherent superiority of turn based games, it is simply a computer power question. Until very recently computers did not have the power to handle RT, realistic wargames. This is the reason why quality wargames have all been turn based, in my view, however little that may be worth. We have “just” reached the stage at which this is no longer the case. Steel Beasts does deliver a “realistic” RT wargame at a scale very similar to CM. The AI is not nearly as “full” or “complete” as in CM and there are many reasons why I can see that a RT version of CM would require vastly more processing power than SB does. If one had the “option” of the ability to give orders during the action movies, and the “option” to pre-set at the start of a game that each action movie should last, say, five minutes instead of one minute I feel CM would become more realistic. We are all agreed that “if” CM were RT it would have to be pause-able because in a realistic tactical environment one player could not cope with an entire battalion without pauses. However I agree with the military that RT does add to the “reality” of a wargame in that it does deliver semi-realistic stress that is otherwise missing. I would not wish to remove any features from CM in order to have the option of RT play. But one day when computers can handle it, I believe the option to play CM in RT would be a plus. Presently I only play CM and Steel Beasts and will be adding TacOps to that with version 4, when it comes out. CM is a stunning game as it is and for those of us that enjoy realistic wargames these are good times with or without a RT version of CM. All the best, Kip. PS. I would also like to see CMII deal with modern warfare, 1970s followed by present day, but that will not happen either. We cannot all have what we want, and that includes me!

Hi, I thought I would just add my two pence worth to what others have said. When it comes to the article on CM2 do remember all the CM fans outside North America that have no way of buying the magazine. I would happily pay my £5, $7-$8, for the magazine but have no way of doing so. It would be a shame if loyal fans outside North America were excluded from knowing as much about CM2 as those inside North America. All the best, Kip. PS. I understand the need to allow the magazine's publisher a "first go" but I hope BTS will share all they are willing to say about CM2 with all of us soon.

Hi, Yes, just the other day it crossed my mind, “wonder how Magua’s Normandy buildings are doing.” Great to hear they may be done in a week or two. As is the case with many others, I am greatly looking forward to them. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Wow! RT is not popular amongst CM fans. Strangely, as I say in my post, it is not popular with me either. The only computer games I play are CM and Steel Beasts. That is because I rate them as serious tactical simulations, and of course, they are fun. But for those that say realistic RT war games are not possible Steel Beasts shows that they are even at the scale of battalion V battalion which is how I like to play Steel Beasts. The US Army has bought 1100 copies of SB for use at West Point and a new version is on its way. I subscribe to the US Army’s own “in house” magazine Armor and in there the review of SB raves about the game for training purposes. The reason I am going on about SB so much is to reinforce the point that RT games can produce a “more realistic” environment than non-RT games, if done properly. This is certainly the view of the US Army. RT can add to the stress factor in a semi-realistic manner. In the system I advocated, and others have before me, players would have the option before each game to pre-set the length of the action moves and the length of the pauses. So if someone wished they could play the game with one-minute action moves and a maximum of one-hour pauses if that was their preference. The only difference would be that players could also give orders during the action moves. Anyway I am quite happy with CM as it is; I am as big a fan as anyone is. When the demo came out I posted my praises under the title “Hype justified”. But if CMII is to have a minimum system requirement of say, P800, and is not to be RT what will all the processor power be used for? I can think of quite a few new features and more AFVs in a game, of course. However, it seems to me there will still be spare processing power there if it does not go RT. Steve and Charles will have there plans; I am just very curious to know what they are. I will have to wait like everyone else. All the best, Kip.

Is pause-able real-time the eventual goal? Hi, First I would like to start with my usual disclaimer that this is in no way a criticism of the CMBO. It is a stunning game in all respects and I regard myself as hugely lucky that a team of the quality of Steve and Charles, and the others, should have produced what is my “dream simulation”. For me, given my age, this means a full computer version of Squad Leader. CMBO is truly breath taking. However, if we look to the future am I correct in assuming that a pause-able real-time version of CM is the eventual goal? I am in no way interested in RTS games, not that there is anything wrong with them, just not my interest. What I am after and what CM delivers in bucket loads is a “realistic tactical simulation” of company/battalion V company/battalion level ground combat. What BTS achieve within CMBO with a minimum spec. of P200 is unbelievable and the semi-real time system they use works perfectly, for me anyway. However, also being a fan of Steel Beasts I have experienced the advantages of real-time tactical simulations. There is no denying it does add a welcome element of “stress”. I would not be interested in a real-time tactical simulation that was as realistic as CM unless it was pause-able. The reason is that in any such game one plays the role of battalion commander, company commander, platoon commander and even to some extent squad and tank commander. Clearly if the tactical environment is “realistic” then the workload is totally unmanageable in real-time unless there is the odd pause. Nothing very original in this view. Looking to the future, in the perfect world, I would like to see a version of CM that is real-time but within which there are pre-planed pauses. In effect what one would be doing is stringing together 3-5 minutes of worth of the current one-minute action movies followed by a 1-3 minute pause. Of course, with the ability to give orders during the 3-5 minute action phases. Given what I have read about real-time requiring about three times the processing power for a game of similar scale and AI of similar quality, I believe BTS “could”, if they wished, go for real-time with CMII. I should add that this is a very “unqualified” view in the sense that I know nothing about computers, the above is just a guess based on what I have read in this forum. I know this is not a new topic but we all like to “lobby” for our “number one wish” in future versions of CM. Thanks for your time, All the best, Kip.

Paul, hi, I am on the case , I will email you. All the best, Kip.

Paul, hi, you said it all, we posted at the exact same time! Good to see you are still out there. All the best, Kip.

Hi, short answer is no, they do not use the same ammunition. You guessed right, the 75L70 and the 88L71 both use a larger charge than their shorter barrelled cousins. All the best, Kip.

Hi, clever stuff. Congratulations. All the best, Kip.

Rexford, hi, all sounds great. I will be after one when it is out. All the best, Kip. [ 05-03-2001: Message edited by: kipanderson ]

Carter, MajorH, thanks for your help. All sounds great fun. The fact that most of the English speaking military, excluding the British for some reason, use it adds to the fun, one knows one is using the real thing. All the best, Kip. [ 05-02-2001: Message edited by: kipanderson ]

Major H, hi, Thanks for quick reply. Have just read the review of TacOps in May-June issue of the US Army’s magazine Armor and they are huge fans of your program, as I am sure you know. Again, I am sure this has been asked before, but I can “never” get the search engine to work properly, will version 4 have full “live internet play” rather than just live LAN play? Thanks for your help. All the best, Kip.

TacOps4, when? Polite question. I did use the search engine but with no luck. I know this will have been asked before but I am keen to now when, in a broad-brush sense, best guess, no more, TacOps4 may be out. Simply keen to know because I am a fan. All the best, Kip.

Hi, looks good, very good. Keep it up. You clearly know what you are doing. All the best, Kip.

Hi, great work. I lookforward to the final product. Must take a huge ammount of time. All the best, Kip.

Hi, in the perfect world I would vote for that. However, I cans see problems with it. Units ending up in positions they would not be in at the start of an assault. All the best, Kip.

Grisha, hi, Sorry I did not get back to you more quickly. Tank Museum, Bovington Camp, Wareham, Dorset, BH20 6JG United Kingdom. Tel. 01929 405096 You will have lead in on the international code, which I think is 44 from the States. All the best, Kip.

RPG Model 43 AT Grenade. Hi, Just a few words to confirm what others wrote about Soviet WW2 anti-tank grenades. During WW2 the Soviets used three main types of anti-tank grenade. The RGP 40, the RPG 43 and lastly the RGP 6. The RPG 40 was indeed a stick grenade with just a conventional explosive charge. As such it lacked penetrating power. The RPG 43, and later RPG 6, both had the same 76mm shaped charge and a penetration of around 76mm. Both the latter two designs were extremely clever and if you could see the illustrations I have of how they worked, you too, would conclude that they did in deed stand a reasonable chance of striking nose first. The RPG 43 was produced in very large numbers. At this point it may be appropriate to give a brief explanation of why it was that the Soviets were so behind the other major players in hand-held anti-tank weapons during WW2. The reason is that during one of Stalin’s purges the entire team responsible for designing such weapons was wiped out. No one thought to build up a new team until a year or so into the war. The problem was not with shaped charge technology, which the Soviets made widespread use of and had a sound grip on. (In CM2 you will find a lot of HEAT rounds available to Soviet artillery. Or you should do if Steve and Charles model things correctly which I am sure they will.) Just post war, in 1946, the Soviets introduced a number of bazooka type weapons. My main source for all information on WW2 Soviet weapons is a stunning document I came across in the archives of the Tank Museum in Bovington, Dorset. Record of Foreign Weapons and Equipment, Volume One, USSR. It is about one thousand pages long and was produced by British intelligence in 1947. Everything you could possibly wish to know about the subject. Makes even the best books on the subject look amateur. I approached Greenhill Books, the publisher, but they said it would be far too expensive to produce properly for the size of the market. All the best, Kip. PS.I had the entire document photocopied and sent to me by the staff at the Tank Museum. They will do the same for you, at a price. If you are interested ring and ask.

Hi, Just thought I would throw in some facts and figures to do with MG rate of fire. From the outset I should point out that I have no practical experience of the subject but my source is of the highest quality. Figures come from the diagrams, equations and data in Small Arms, General Design by DF Allsop and MA Toomey. ISBN 1 85753 250 3 Both Allsop and Toomey are lecturers at the Royal College of Military Science, Shrivenham, UK. The book is a textbook for use by students at Shrivenham. a) The maximum, average rate of fire of a single barrelled, air-cooled MG over fifteen minutes is 50 rounds a minute. The maximum, average rate of fire of a single barrelled, air-cooled MG over fifteen minutes but this time with the use of two spare barrels, i.e. as in a heavy MG42, is 75 rounds a minute. c) The maximum rate of fire of a single barrelled, air-cooled MG over just one minute i.e. at the end of this one minute the MG would be jammed, is normally around 250 rounds. The book is stuffed with equations and data and I could go on and on. What I find interesting about the data is that it illustrates so clearly just how meaningless the often-quoted cyclic rate of a given MG is. The MG 42 had a cyclic rate of fire of around 1200 rounds a minute but in the generation of MGs developed during the 1950s a figure around 600-700 was normally the case. My view is that MG firepower is not under-rated in CM. All the best, Kip. [ 04-10-2001: Message edited by: kipanderson ]

Vanir, hi, Thanks for your comments, but the point of using the AI to attack was that I knew it would use “human-wave”/1942 style tactics. Non of us, except the first few times to see what happens, are going to use “human-wave” tactics in a serious attempt to win a scenario. I was confident that the AI would attack in the style a half-trained Soviet commander of spring 1942 might have. By the way, I have since found the scenario, if you or anyone else wants it email me and I will send it by return. All the best, Kip.

Russian frontal assaults and MG fire. Hi, A few months ago I set-up a scenario in order to get some idea of how CM1 handled 1941/1942 style Soviet infantry attacks. Although I have since deleted away the scenario I remember it well both because it was hugely good fun and because of the result. The details of the scenario were roughly as follows. German infantry company defends 400m section of tree line against attacking Soviet infantry battalion. It is spring 1942 when the Soviets were at their lowest point equipment wise and so it is very nearly a case of rifles only for the attackers. The defending Germans have the full issue of equipment one may have expected. The attacking Soviets were represented by an elite US infantry battalion with all support/crewed weapons striped out with the exception of three 60mm mortars and the addition of two 81mm mortars, no spotters. You will notice that the Soviets had no machine guns. Realistically they probably should have had, say, six light machine guns and three medium machine guns in the battalion even at spring 1942 equipment levels. However, as I could not strip out the BARs from the US forces I excluded all additional machine guns. The reason for the mortars is that even during this phase of the war the Soviets did have some 50mm and 82mm mortars. The battalion had elite status in order to attempt to model the willingness to push on even after heavy causalities. A standard infantry company of nine squads represented the defending Germans. With its share of battalion HMGs it hand a total of five heavy MG42s. I also gave the company an 81mm spotter with 150 rounds and a 105mm spotter with 75 rounds. Given that each spotter only models the fire of four tubes this was not over cooking things, in my view. The map was 400m by 1000m with the northern 150m made up of woods and a small hamlet. I placed a bunch of objective flags in the hamlet to give the AI something to aim at. The terrain was largely flat with just the odd tile of scattered woods on the open ground over which the Soviets were expected to attack. I played the part of the German commander. The battle was 30 minutes long. The tactic was to open fire using the spotters at the greatest concentrations of attacking infantry, even at every long range, but I only opened machine gun and small arms fire at under two hundred metres so as not to waste too much ammunition. The Soviets did break into the tree line on the extreme left flank and I had to use my last 30 rounds of 81mm mortar fire to clear them out. By the time I had fired my last rounds the attack was over and the few live Soviets I could see were moving back. Total causalities were as follows. German 18 Soviet 329 The reason for this post is to illustrate that, in my view, CM can already handle 1941/1942 Soviet style attacks without any special tweaking. If you equip the forces as they are likely to have been equipped at the time the causality ratio will by realistically in favour of the Germans. There is no need to tweak up MG firepower. For those that are looking for an explanation of the realistic possible rates of fire of MGs can I mention a topic I posted many months ago called “MG rates of fire”. All the information was taken from textbooks written by the staff at The Royal College of Military Science so it is not my opinions that matter but the information contained therein does give an accurate account of the real world limitations on rate of fire. They are a lot, lot lower than is generally believed. All the best, Kip.

Hi, they look good. A lot more green than the others, will be happy to give them a go. All the best, Kip.

Paul,Hi, I am also a big fan of John's. The only email address I have goes back 6/12 months so it will not be a new one. As long as he is OK he is sure to be back for CM2 as he is very big on the Eastern Front. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I would just like to add my voice to those that have expressed the opinion as to just how impressive it is to see the detail that Steve and Charles have gone into. They have set new standards. About five years ago I remember sitting in a pub and commenting that it was inevitable that one day someone would produce a computer version of Squad Leader. However, I used to qualify this by adding that “of course, all the firepower/penetration data will be wrong but we will just have to live with that”. Not only have Steve and Charles produced a stunning Squad Leader scale game but all the data is correct too, I am permanently in shock over this. That does not mean I agree with ever figure in CM, we all have are own opinions on some of the finer points. What it does mean is that Steve and Charles have got as much correct as any one ever will, more than I would have. This is the thing that so impresses me with CM. I fully expected to have to play a computer game that was aimed at the same niche as Squad Leader but like Squad Leader often had the wrong data. Permanently in shock as to just how much of a true simulation, rather than just a game, CM is, in my view, however little that is worth as all my knowledge of these matters comes from books. All the best, Kip.

Franko, I know what you mean about the roads in snow terrain. There is no perfect solution, but in my view, DD's snow terrain is by far the best. Also, you cannot see the joins between the tiles with DD's mod. You can get it at the CM Outpost. All the best, Kip.