kipanderson

Hi, Clearly the length of battles in operations is not a problem with most players; or there would have been more response to my post. Obviously a minority issue. There are two reasons why I still have some hope that the powers that be will take mercy on me and implement the change I have requested. The first is that common sense tells me that it requires very little work; by the standards of these things. I know everyone at BTS does long hours and already has more than enough to do but having seen the way Charles can get through coding problems it must be a relatively small job. At least hopefully it is. Secondly, there is no adverse side effect to such a change. If you change the way a certain command works, say “sneak”, there will be those that liked it the way it was and those that requested a different change. By increasing the maximum length of battles in operations you offend no one, but greatly please some. I did not request the change six months ago because I took it for granted that many others would lobby for an adjustment and it would happen anyway. I got that wrong. Still hopeful of an adjustment before CM1 is put to bed. All the best, Kip.

Hi, If I remember correctly, about eighteen months ago there was a lot of discussion about the extent to which mine clearing should be included in CM. Steve’s view was that removing mines was not within the time scale of CM and therefor should not be included. After some discussion Steve showed he was open-minded enough to change the official view and mine clearing was included. I think it works very well. However, it is not what I would call “full feature mine warfare”; to the extent that say anti-tank guns are modelled in CM. Currently the only way to remove dug-in mines is with explosive changes. For full feature mine warfare it would be necessary to add the following methods of clearing mines, 1) crawling forward and lifting them, 2) the use of mine rollers, 3) the use of artillery to reduce minefields. This brings me to CM2. On the Eastern Front mines played a very large part in many, possibly most, major engagements. Imagine Kursk without mines. During the second half of the campaign the Soviet PT34 mine roller was a common site on the battlefields of the east. However, the most common method of clearing/reducing minefields was by artillery bombardment. It would be great to see “full feature mine warfare” in CM2. CM2 will be a stunning simulation with or without it, but something will be missing if it is not there. I am sure that one of the objections to including it will be that it is not within the time scale of CM. I disagree. CM is good enough to be called a true simulation and I see no deed to “artificially” limit the time scale by excluding breaching operations. I feel it is well within the scope of CM to model a 100-turn game in which the first half is spent breaching a minefield and the second assaulting an enemy position. A company of engineers makes the breach and then a combined arms team pass through and assault. I.e. model everything as it really was at the time. This type of battle will not be of interest to all; I respect the fact that a majority prefer shorter battles. To the minority that is interested in longer, at times slower moving battles, it would be a huge plus. I fully understand that CM2 is to be a “tweaked” version of CM1 rather than a fully new engine. I also understand that not all the features everyone wants can be or should be included. I hope “full feature mine warfare” is one of those requests that makes it through the filtering process. All the best, Kip.

Hi, One of a long list of factors that sets CM apart from the rest is the lack of any “artificial” restrictions on play. Part of this is the lack of gamey rules. CM is a true simulation of the tactical problems faced by soldiers in WW2. However, there is one place in which there is still an “artificial” restrictions that forces gamers to play to the clock in an unrealistic way. That is the restriction on the length on battles in operations. I have found that the “natural” rhythm of battle is about 30-50 turns. Of course, others will differ, this is pure personal opinion. The problem is that the maximum battle length in operations is only 30 turns. This means that all/most of my battles are “artificially” truncated when playing operations. I find my self watching the clock in a way that is unrealistic. I am not saying that in the real world there was not often time pressure. Just not in quite this way. My wish is that in operations I could string together a series of “full” battles using the same forces. Not “truncated” battles, as is the case presently. Over all I prefer operations, potentially they are more realistic, but could the maximum battle length be increased? Thanks for your time, All the best, Kip.

Tiger, they look stunning! Let us know as soon as you have found a home for them. thanks for the work, all the best, Kip.

Hi, My main request is the same as that of PeterNZ, although I would call it skirmishing. There deeds to be a command for infantry where they move forward cautiously, as in sneak, but are looking for targets. Very roughly, this is the way in which all infantry were “meant” to fight in WW2, including Soviet infantry. Their November 42 combat regulations for infantry companies and below are pure skirmishing, they used the same combat regulations to the end of the war. So a hunt/skirmish command for infantry would be a perfect. Another small point is that I also think it a bit strange that FO cannot spot from their half-tracks, or whatever. I have seen large numbers of pictures of Germans do just that, or so the captions claimed. All the best, Kip.

Steve, hi, Thanks for the quick and full response. My post may have sounded a little too critical before MC2 is even launched. In fact I am so happy with CM1 that if the same approach is used for CM2 I cannot wait. Your point about conscript squads taking longer to organise, and get themselves together, is a very good one. I feel reassured. The reason for my post was that my experience of all previous Eastern Front games is not a happy one. Against that yes, I certainly do trust the team at BTS. The proof is that, in my view, and given technology as it is today, CM1 is “perfect”. All the best to everyone at BTS for Christmas, Cheers, Kip. PS.I still cannot believe how good CM1 turned out to be! [This message has been edited by kipanderson (edited 12-22-2000).]

Steve, It’s great to hear that we will not have to wait too long for CM2. I go 100% with the view that a heavily tweaked CM1 is better than a full new engine, at this stage. I also think the graphics are great. DD’s terrain and Magua’s buildings go superbly together. I could not be happier with the entire set up and so do not feel a new engine is required. However, one or two things you have said about CM2 do worry me a little. We are not quite talking sleepless nights, but I can see the potential for a stunningly realistic simulation being turned into something less impressive. What worries me is that you are planning to tweak the Command and Control. Plus the fact that some time ago you wrote words to the effect that “ Soviet units will not be running around the battlefield like NATO units on exercise”. Fine, as long as the same applies to the Germans. For me, others will differ; CM is all about tactics, tactics and more tactics, plus of course great graphics, fun and so on…. . What it is not about is realistic Command and Control. In my view this cannot be realistically modelled without live, team play. Live team play would solve two problems. One would only see enemy units that, for example, your own platoon could see; and more realistic Command and Control restrictions could be added. If there is not going to be live team play in CM2 then a very “light touch” is required in modelling C&C. In CM you do not only play the role of company commander, but also platoon and, this is important, squad leader/vehicle commander. My great fear is that you will introduce “artificial” restrictions on Soviet units. I could imagine a situation in which a Soviet squad has to wait 30 seconds to react to one of your own commands when a German squad would take just 12 seconds. In my view this would greatly detract from the game. BTS would have fallen into the same trap as all other Eastern Front games I have come across. A Soviet squad, yelled at from 20 metres by a platoon commander, would react just as quickly, or slowly, as a German squad. Also remember “you” the CM player are also playing the part of the squad leader. If CM went down this route you would be putting artficail restrictions on “yourself”. As squad leader of a Soviet unit you would be a forced to think more slowly simply because you are “Soviet”. A related matter is that the latest research indicates that Soviet combat effectiveness, post-Kursk, was marginally higher than that of the western allies and very close to that of the Germans. This was true even at the company level. There is more to this than just a reworking of Trevor N Dupuy’s equations using the force ratios and causality figures as we now know them to have been; although this is a part of it. It will take a very long post for me to justify this claim, and at some time in the future I will post all the evidence. All I ask is that all at BTS keep an open mind as to just how good the Soviets were, even at the tactical level, by the end of 43. It is now known that during the second half of the war Soviet forces were a lot smaller in number, and there causalities lighter, than was believed only ten years ago. Anyway enough of my ranting. I only hope that any C&C changes will be applied with the above mentioned “light touch” until such time as it can be done properly with live, team play. All the best, Kip. [This message has been edited by kipanderson (edited 12-21-2000).]

Hi, I have both BT and ClaraNet. I am about to drop BT and only use ClaraNet. Their connection is far more reliable. Now the live internet version of CM is here one cannot afford to fool around! All the best, Kip.

DD,hi, great to hear the "extra bits" are just around the corner. I was thinking the same as David. Particularly keen to have your version of hedge and bocage to go with your terrain set. thanks for all the work, all the best, Kip.

Hi, I am 43, but have exactly the same interests I had when 16. I am clearly backward. Having said that, I see by some of other names that are 40 or over that I am in good company. CM is the only computer game I play. I really do feel too old for other computer games but then I was fairly old even when computer games started. TOAW and WF/EF from Talonsoft sound quite good but I am 100% happy with CM so am not curious enough to give them a go. All the best, Kip. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I use my own grass. Well, to be honest it is the original that shipped with CM that I then "desaturated" by about 10% or 10 points using Corel's Photo-Paint. I am 100% lacking in any artist skill and had never used Photo-Paint before but found the entire process very straight forward. Some one posted that the "saturation" of the colour was the key, and they were correct. I am about to desaturate it a little more to try it with the new Panzertruppen buildings but will continue to use Magua's buildings most of the time. All the best, Kip.

Charles, Thanks for taking time away from your TCP/IP coding to deal with my post. I am one of those greatly looking forward to “live” CM play against friends. When it comes to the Milne-de-Marre formula I agree 100% with what you wrote. However I was very careful not to over tax the formula. I was not using it to calculate penetration in the “raw”. I was taking your penetration figures as my constant and given one of your figures calculating the penetration figure for a “similar” diameter projectile. The figures I got for the 75L70 gun and the 88L71 gun are very similar to yours and well within the margin of error one would expect from two different formulas. For the limited purpose of testing the “consistent basis” penetration figures of similar diameter projectiles Milne-de- Marre does the job very well, in my view. As with everything else in CM you have set new standards in the accuracy of your penetration figures. This is clearly illustrated by the thought you have given to the figures for the US 76 gun. I willingly bow to your greater knowledge of the problems experienced with that particular projectile and am happy to accept that your figure of 97mm at 100m against plate at 30 degrees as correct. However as you imply in your post, and as the figures in CM illustrate, you have tarred British projectiles with the same brush. The US 76 gun had a muzzle velocity of 793meteres per second and you have downgraded its penetration by about 10% from that which it would have been using a German quality projectile. The British Mark V 6pdr had a muzzle velocity of 823 meters per second and you have also downgraded its penetration by about 10% from that which it would have been using a German quality projectile. The British 17pdr had a muzzle velocity of 884 meters per second and you have downgraded its penetration by 18% from that which it would have been with a German quality projectile. I feel that all Allied projectiles should be “innocent until proven guilty”. By this I mean that unless there is consistent evidence that a given projectile, say the 17pdr, was of lower quality than German ammunition the assumption should be that it was of equal quality. The burden of proof should be with those who believe “German was better”. The decrease in armour penetration, due to increased propensity to shatter as velocity increased, of about 18% at a velocity of around 900 meters per second seems very harsh. As to what the quality of British projectiles was, relative to US projectiles, this is a difficult question. One way to shine some light on the issue, even if only a little, is to look at how the various authorities in the US and Britain rated the “relative” penetration of different Allied projectiles. For the official British view I have turned to a table of data in the “official” British history of WW2. History of The Second World War, Victory in The West volume 1 by LF Ellis. This is one of a series of books that are the equivalent of the excellent US “green books” official histories of WW2; the British books are also of an equally high standard. In the notes it is made clear that the penetration data comes from the Ordnance Board centre at Bovington, no surprises there. In the data US APC and British APCBC projectiles are listed separately. (The US APC round was of course a form of APCBC round.) The following penetration figures are against homogenous plate at 30 degrees at 100 yards. 75mmAPC/APCBC—--74mm 6pdrAPCBC-------93mm 90mmAPC---------123mm 17pdrAPCBC------149mm Against homogenous plate at 30 degrees at 500 yards they give the following penetration figures. 75mmAPC/APCBC----68mm 57mmAPC----------81mm 6pdrAPCBC--------87mm In the data it is specifically stated that the penetration figures for the US APC and British APCBC 75mm projectiles are the same. For the official US view of the penetrating power of their own guns I have turned to the classic Catalog of Standard Ordnance Items December 1944. This is a document produced by the US military for their own, internal use. The penetration figures are against homogenous plate at 20 degrees at 500 yards. 57mmAPC----------84mm 75mmAPC----------74mm 90mmAPC----------130mm Finally here is the penetration data from R Hunnicutt’s book on the Sherman tank, a highly respected source. It is against homogenous plate at 30 degrees at 500 yards. 75mmAPC----------66mm 6pdrAPCBC--------81mm 17pdrAPCBC-------140mm 90mmAPCearly-----120mm 90mmAPClate------129mm I apologise for including so much data in this post, but there is method in the madness. The reason I have included so much data is that there is no “correct” conclusion to be reached, only an opinion as to what the data “might” mean for the relative penetrating power of the above-mentioned guns. So, far better that I give all of the relevant data and people can reach their own conclusions rather than having to rely on my conclusions alone. Anyway here are my conclusions, however little they may be worth. Looking at the data is seems to me that there is a question as to weather or not Charles has indeed been too harsh on both the 6pdr and the US version, the 57mm gun. Lets deal with the US gun first and compare the penetration of the 57mm gun to that of the US 75mm gun. In CM Charles has a penetration figure of 77 millimetres against 30 degree plate at 100 meters for the 57mm gun and 76 millimetres for the US 75mm gun. Yet in the above data the difference between the two guns is never less than 10 millimetres of penetration, the 57mm gun being the more powerful. It is also worth remembering that on a “consistent basis” the 57mm gun should have a penetration about 10 millimetres greater than the 75mm gun. (See the start of this thread.) If you take into account all of the above and give due weight to the quality of the above sources, my view is that the “likely reality at the time” was that the 57mm gun did have a greater penetration than the 75mm gun. In CM I would increase the penetration of the 57mm gun from 77 millimetres to something above 82 millimetres. When it comes to the question of the quality of British projectiles and the penetration of the 6pdr and 17pdr I also feel that Charles should increase their respective penetration figures in CM. If you look at the relative penetration figures for the 17pdr and the US 90mm gun you will see that the sources that mention both guns give the 17pdr considerably greater penetration than the US 90mm gun, far more than Charles does. There is also some suggestion from the data that the 6pdr did have a slightly greater penetration than its US cousin the 57mm gun. (See the second set of data above, the British figures for both guns at 500 yards.) Taking into account all of the above I believe the British projectiles should be given the penetration they would have had if the figures in CM had been calculated on a strictly “consistent basis”. That is if the British projectiles had been assumed to be of the same quality as German projectiles. Remember, as Paul points out above, the Germans also had quality problems. This would mean a penetration of 139 millimetres for the 17pdr and 85 millimetres for the 6pdr against 30 degree plate at 100 meters. Based on the very limited evidence I have I believe this to have been the “most likely reality at the time”. Which is what we are all after. All the best, Kip. PS. Do take a moment to look at the data and reach your own conclusions. [This message has been edited by kipanderson (edited 11-28-2000).]

John, hi again, I agree that the 30% increase is likely to be speculation of a sort, i.e. examination of a number of small samples of ammunition and calculation of penetration using the formula that was current at the time. There are notes on ammunition quality and they only state that HVAP ammunition was of lower quality. They are very specific about aerodynamic shape being poor and leading to lower penetration at long ranges for the HVAP projectile. I am happy to accept that the US 76 had greater penetration but in my view probably only by a little. Remember the guys in the Ordnance Board new a thing or two about their subject and their opinions should be given reasonable weight. Dan, I do use the de Marre formula but not in quite the same form it is used by Charles in CM. You have produced a very full and interesting post, great work. A post that I think would interest you, and gives a very full account of my views on the penetration figures in CM, is titled “German armour penetration over stated?”. In the search engine it is normally listed under someone else’s name but is in fact one of mine. I know it is a drag to have to use the search engine but I think the post will interest you. You and I have been doing very similar work and a full account of mine is given there. Also Charles would be interested in your view of the penetration figures for the British guns. Over there he has asked that any interested parties give their opinion. All the best, Kip.

John, hi, The penetration figures you give are the “official” Soviet penetration figures from the war. However the problem is that the Soviets and the Americans did not calculate penetration on a consistent basis. You cannot compare the US and Soviet figures. At the time of writing I am looking at the section dealing with the 85mm gun in a 700 page, 1947 British Ordnance Board report. It quotes the same “official” Soviet figures but then gives this “health warning”, “It is know that the Russians calculate their penetration of armour figures by a more pessimistic formula than that used by other powers. This results in the figures being lower than expected for the ballistics of the gun and ammunition.” They then go on to give their own figures that are some 30% higher than the Soviet figures. It is worth remembering that you yourself were kind enough to post the results of a German test of the Soviet 76.2mm gun firing the BR350A APC projectile that show its penetration to be the same as that which one would expect from German quality ammunition. My view is that the British were a little generous with their figures. For the 85mm gun against plate at 30 degrees, at a range of 500 meters, I would go for a figure of about 105mm of penetration using the standard APC projectile. Using the HVAP tungsten core projectile I would go for a figure of 140mm of penetration against plate at 30 degrees at 500 meters range. (These are consistent basis figures using as my starting point the figures you give in your post for the US 76 gun and then assuming Soviet ammunition was of lower quality than US ammunition.) There is no perfect answer to this question and Charles will have give it careful thought for CM2, which I am sure he will. All the best, Kip.

Kump, hi, thanks for the advice. It sounds good, I will give it a go! All the best, Kip. PS. that is if the "3dfx bug" does not strike. I have a Voodoo3 3000 16MB and am thinking of changing to a Geforce2 MX 32MB, should do the job.

Kump, hi, Congratulations on a great and ever improving site, I visit it often. My I take the opportunity to ask you a question, which shows my ignorance of computers, but I hope you will be able to help. I have downloaded and installed your very realistic sky mod, however CM refuses to use your mods but is using the other smaller sky files. For example your summer overcast sky file, 1401, is 762KB and is the one I want to use. But whenever I set things up for a summer overcast sky CM seems to be using the smaller 192KB file, 1431. What have I done wrong? Sorry to take your time up but this seemed the correct place to ask. All the best, Kip.

Guys, thanks for your help, just what I needed to know! All the best, Kip.

Hi, I would also be very grateful if someone has the information on the rubble graphics. I want to return to using the original rubble graphics without re-installing the entire original graphics and then re-installing all the Mods I use. All the best, Kip.

Hi, sounds great. I will be off to download it and give it a go. Thanks for the work, Kip.

Hi, the entire thing sounds great. I never thought I would ever again be cracking under the strain of waiting for a program/patch to be released the way I was for CM1. Just thinking about sending my friends Panzers up in flames, live on the net, has me jobbing out of my seat. And I thought I was a mature middle aged man that had seen it all and never got excited by anything! Not when it comes to CM. All the best, Kip.

Hi, my feeling is the opposite, HE is not effective enough against infantry. I have done no fixed statistical survey but I seem to have to use a vast number of rounds of HE to deal with dug in infantry. Even at a rage of 300-400 meters and after one or two ranging shots the infantry seem to take a lot of killing. Only an impression. All the best, Kip.

Kump, hi, great work on all counts. Hard to believe you are new to all this stuff, clearly you are a natural. All the best, Kip. PS. your autumn colours are stunningly real.

Tiger, hi, My I add my congratulations for the stunning quality of the “weathered” look of all your vehicle mods. I first realised just how real the effect of weathered models can be a few years ago on a visit to the Bovington Tank Museum. I was standing between a real Mark IV and a 1/35 model of a Mark IV in a glass case. To my surprise it suddenly struck me that the 1/35 model looked more real than the actual tank the other side of me. The actual tank looked like a mock-up for a film set, while the weathered 1/35 model looked like the “real thing” only seen from a helicopter 150 feet above. The key to it all was the weathering. Although when one looked at the weathering in detail it was not an exact representation of reality the overall effect was more “real” than the actual thing. Since then I have started a collection of 1/35 tanks constructed by one of the top men in the field. Your weathered AFVs have exactly the same appeal. Great stuff, I look forward to many more. Now for my request. This is that you make models such as your latest, and stunning, STG III available without foliage for those such as myself who prefer them that way. For me, others will differ, it is not possible to do foliage to the same standard of realism as it is possible to do the tank, this is also true in regard to 1/35 models. I am not sure what the reason is, it maybe something to do with the fact that the tank is man made and the foliage, of course, is not. Anyway, top of my wish list is that all your great vehicles, and guns, should be available without foliage. Thanks for your time, All the best, Kip.

Hi, my vote goes for subdued. The only aspect I feel is a little too "subdued" in the Realism Mod is the grass. Slightly less subdued grass but otherwise the "toned down" look is the one to go for, in my opinion. All the best, Kip.

Kump, hi, truly great stuff. It has long been my view that the one "gap" in the market regarding mods was the autumn tree cover. I was too polite to post making a request but it has always been my view that the autumn tree colours available, before your mods, were just not realistic. You have hit the nail on the head, can not thank you enough for your efforts. All the best, Kip.