Stephen Smith

yes. I too think it's vaporware. Steve

How will fuel be displayed tactically? Perhaps as a vapor-much like this software. Steve

"If CMx2 is going to have 1:1 representation (as opposed to 1:1 control, iniitially) that's going to pretty thoroughly fill the map with soldiers! I'm assuming instead of the current 3-man '12 man squad' there are going to be 12 little guys all dancing across the terrain. Running twelve men into a light building might be something of a 'Chinese fire drill' (excuse the offensive old phrase) to watch!" Exactly. This is one thing that I am concerned with, and I suspect the scope of the game is being brought down, from company/Battalion level to platoon/company level. In the most convenient viewing angle (I think its 4-its when it feels like you are in a balloon looking over the battlefield), 3 guys represented as a squad look pretty good. They are unrealistically large, of course, but looking over the battlefield, you can understand what is going on, and can see roughly a company's worth of battlespace (I don't know, maybe roughly 1km or slightly less of front). With 12 realistically sized soldiers in the same screen space that currently holds 3 oversized soldiers, you are going to have to do one of two things: either shrink the soldiers down (i.e. draw them with fewer pixels), or reduce the quantity of frontage that can be covered in one screen shot (i.e. the soldiers use the same number of pixels as they do now. So, the twelve figured squad will occupy roughly the same screen space as four three-figured squads do now). Each solution has problems. Shrinking soldiers down (drawing them with fewer pixels) will make them so small that they won't be very attractive. Thus, its probably not going to happen. But drawing the soldiers the same size will reduce the total frontage viewable in one given screen shot. In other words (very roughly) the screen space occupied by one platoon now will be occupied by one squad in CMx2. Which means that the total screen space will cover roughly 1/3 or 1/4 of the total frontage that the current system covers-or roughly a platoon+ (if we are assuming the current method covers a company+). The convenient viewing angle, which now shows about 1 km of frontage, will in the future show maybe 300 m of frontage, with the soldiers realistically drawn (and realistically sized). Note that this ties into comments by Battlefront when they say that the 'standard' size of a scenario will be shrunk down, and that larger scenarios will be more inconvenient to play then previously. You know how, right now, when you play a company scenario, things are pretty convenient, but when you are up to a battalion level game (Say, 2 km frontage), things are just a bit more difficult? Its a bit more difficult to move around the map, its a bit more difficult to 'see' the big picture, you end up having to memorize terrain and locations more because more of the map is off-screen. Based on the changes to the scale, those difficulties in CMx2 will probably apply to a company+ scenario-anything over about 700 meters of frontage will begin to require alot more scrolling over the map, and so on. As I've said before, I realize its not my decision. But I would have preferred that CM evolve in the opposite direction-to more of a big picture game (perhaps using AI to control squads, and the player becomes more of a Brigade or even Division commander). Rather than better modelling individual soldier behavior, I would have wanted better modelling of organizational behavior (resupply, communications delays between Brigade and Battalion staff, and so on). But it doesn't appear that that is the game we are getting. Ah, well. Steve

Wow- I never REALLY thought you'd go to 1:1 representation in CM. Even though, as reprinted below, I made the prediction in May 2003... ""This is my prediction for the future of CM. In the not too distant future (in fact, probably, today) it will be technically feasible to 'draw' all soldiers in a squad (Rather than represent squads by 3 soldiers, teams by 2 soldiers, leader groups by 1 soldier, etc). This will be done-after all, why not? Its realistic (why represent 12 soldiers by 3, if you can actually draw the 12?), it looks cool, etc etc. However, there will be problems. The computer AI will screw little things up: when you want to line a squad up behind a wall, the computer will occasionally accidentally set individuals on the wrong side of the wall. Sometimes it will place soldiers outside of a building, or outside of foxholes, etc. To fix this, the software will have to be tweaked to allow the player to manually move individual soldiers. After all, its not realistic for one soldier of a squad occupying a bunch of foxholes to be lying on the ground next to a perfectly good foxhole, is it? Tied to this will be occasional errors in the casualties caused: perhaps you have the machine gunner behind a corner, and the squad takes casualties from the street, but the computer randomly 'kills' the machine gunner rather than the individual in the street. Utterly unrealistic! So, the software will be rewritten so that fire is targetted on individual soldier icons rather than the 'squad' icon. (and similarly, individual soldiers, rather than 'squads' fire at the enemy as well). Then, you will realize that sometimes you want your soldiers to lie down-perhaps in a foxhole, perhaps behind a wall, etc. Again, realism dictates that it be done, the software is an easy tweak to add 'lay down/stand' orders, so why not? Then, some people realize that moving individual soldiers gives you certain advantages. For instance, if you move two soldiers to the edge of a wood, but leave the mass of the squad deep in it, you can see out without committing the whole squad (i.e. set up an LP/OP). Perhaps you want to put a machine gunner at one part of a wall and the riflemen at another. Perhaps you want to be able to cover a long hedgeline with one squad, so you spread the guys out more than the computer would. It becomes apparent that moving individual guys is no longer an option; it is a necessity. Both to do exactly what you want to do, and to avoid allowing the computer to set you up in screwy positions, you find yourself moving individual soldiers rather than squads. Everything is realistic, everything is logical. Every little change 'improved' upon a problem identified in CMBO/CMBB. But now, you are maneuvering individual soldiers in smaller and smaller time increments. The scenarios will get smaller; the time represented will get smaller; the action performed by each command will get smaller; and the game will have essentially evolved into a squad simulator that can be used to move a platoon, company, or battalion, for anyone masochistic enough to force himself through it."" In essence, I'm worried. The prediction above has one very specific concern: How do you have 1:1 representation without 1:1 control? I don't think you can (for the reasons mentioned above). And if you have 1:1 control, you have a vastly different game-perhaps a sophisticated Close Combat. I like my company/battalion level Combat Mission. I'm not so sure I will like a platoon level Combat Mission 2. But we'll see, I suppose. Steve

Interesting Discussion- Ultimately, I guess, it comes down to a completely subjective judgement of 'how much detail is enough?' There's no right answer, there's no realistic answer-its just a matter of personal preference-what exactly do you want to spend your time doing while playing a game? In my own case, with CM,I basically spent the overwhelming majority of my time simply moving guys; I rarely gave them specific targets (I let the AI do that-though not artillery, of course), I rarely used 'sneak' or 'crawl', or even 'run'. I never really experienced squads being able to run up to machine guns unscathed, but I never really tried to do that, either. Pretty clearly, I was interested in the 'big picture' of a CM scenario (setting up lines of defense, or attacking them), and was perfectly willing to allow the computer to take care of the details (i.e. exactly how does a unit move across the field? exactly who does a unit shoot at? exactly where is the turret of a tank oriented at?). In SL/ASL, my own preference was roughly at the Cross of Iron level. Squad Leader did have some annoying little little problems that COI fixed (like rather generic tanks), and COD/GI:AoV/ASL seemed to add meaningless detail (swimming? scaling cliffs?). Interestingly, the game Third Reich is going through a similar evolution. There have been about 4 versions of it up to now, with the latest being Advanced Third Reich. Far more complicated than the original, each one has added a bit more detail. Some time this year, another version will be released, A World at War - which is Third Reich in a global game. It will have 2-3000 counters, a 200 page rulebook, and cost $175 dollars. At present, they expect to sell about 700 copies. I wonder if any game has ever evolved without becoming more and more complicated? steve

Frankly, I haven't played much CMBB. I played few times, found it tedious, and ever since then, whenever I call up a scenario, I load it, look at the screen, and realize I just don't want to go through with it. However, when I did play those few times, I do have to admit that I enjoyed playing defense-for exactly the reasons you mentioned. I think the covered arc command is really good. re: mortars. to be honest with you, I've never figured out how to use them! I have read that its possible to get them to fire when they don't have a LOS (and a leader/spotter does), but I've never been able to get it to work!

SFJaykey-- I think you are about right. The difference in emphasis between Squad Leader and Panzerblitz is pretty close to the difference in emphasis between what people who like CMBB and people who prefer CMBO are looking for. Where I disagree with you is that (as my above post suggests), I think alot of the steps taken in CMBB (and as I predict in CMII) take the system 'below' the squad level. For example, moving a tank to a certain place is at the 'squad' level. Moving a tank to a certain place, and having to manually set the turret direction, is at the 'team' or even 'individual crewman' level. And I have used this analogy in the past, but: moving a squad across a field (as was done in CMBO) is a 'squad' level command. Moving a squad across a field, but having to worry about the most appropriate time for that squad to walk/run/sneak/rush/etc is below the 'squad' level-its more like the team leader-level. CMBO made me feel like a company or perhaps battalion commander. CMBB makes me feel like 25 team leaders. steve

Thanks- Actually, I'm an engineer. But I read alot. RANT MODE OFF: This is my prediction for the future of CM. In the not too distant future (in fact, probably, today) it will be technically feasible to 'draw' all soldiers in a squad (Rather than represent squads by 3 soldiers, teams by 2 soldiers, leader groups by 1 soldier, etc). This will be done-after all, why not? Its realistic (why represent 12 soldiers by 3, if you can actually draw the 12?), it looks cool, etc etc. However, there will be problems. The computer AI will screw little things up: when you want to line a squad up behind a wall, the computer will occasionally accidentally set individuals on the wrong side of the wall. Sometimes it will place soldiers outside of a building, or outside of foxholes, etc. To fix this, the software will have to be tweaked to allow the player to manually move individual soldiers. After all, its not realistic for one soldier of a squad occupying a bunch of foxholes to be lying on the ground next to a perfectly good foxhole, is it? Tied to this will be occasional errors in the casualties caused: perhaps you have the machine gunner behind a corner, and the squad takes casualties from the street, but the computer randomly 'kills' the machine gunner rather than the individual in the street. Utterly unrealistic! So, the software will be rewritten so that fire is targetted on individual soldier icons rather than the 'squad' icon. (and similarly, individual soldiers, rather than 'squads' fire at the enemy as well). Then, you will realize that sometimes you want your soldiers to lie down-perhaps in a foxhole, perhaps behind a wall, etc. Again, realism dictates that it be done, the software is an easy tweak to add 'lay down/stand' orders, so why not? Then, some people realize that moving individual soldiers gives you certain advantages. For instance, if you move two soldiers to the edge of a wood, but leave the mass of the squad deep in it, you can see out without committing the whole squad (i.e. set up an LP/OP). Perhaps you want to put a machine gunner at one part of a wall and the riflemen at another. Perhaps you want to be able to cover a long hedgeline with one squad, so you spread the guys out more than the computer would. It becomes apparent that moving individual guys is no longer an option; it is a necessity. Both to do exactly what you want to do, and to avoid allowing the computer to set you up in screwy positions, you find yourself moving individual soldiers rather than squads. Everything is realistic, everything is logical. Every little change 'improved' upon a problem identified in CMBO/CMBB. But now, you are maneuvering individual soldiers in smaller and smaller time increments. The scenarios will get smaller; the time represented will get smaller; the action performed by each command will get smaller; and the game will have essentially evolved into a squad simulator that can be used to move a platoon, company, or battalion, for anyone masochistic enough to force himself through it.

CMAK will require you to manually tie each soldier's boots. 1/3 of all soldiers will then have to be manually made to take a piss, and all soldiers will then be manually made to load a round in their rifles. Some 'arcade players' will complain that having to micromanage such minutaie is no longer 'fun.' They will immediately be publically flogged on this board: "real soldiers had to tie their boots, why shouldn't these?" "Go play Doom if you don't like realism, loser!" To the obvious complaint that added detail isn't necessarily more realistic; its simply more detailed, Battlefront will issue a statement saying that their goal is to make the most realistic combat simulator available, and if research suggests that boot tying existed in North Africa in 1942, then by God our games will make the player tie shoes in 2003! The natural progression: Combat Mission: I could conduct a river crossing, fight my way through forest, and engage in a battle thereby capturing a town in 45 turns (see the scenario L'elle River Crossing for a perfect example of what made CM great). Utterly unrealistic. Utterly fun. Combat Mission: Battle to Berlin: I can conduct a river crossing in 45 turns, but only if I micromanage the behavior of every squad every 10 meters (walk, then run, no wait: walk, then crawl, then run, no wait: walk, then crawl, then sneak, then walk again, then run). Not necessarily more realistic, but definitely more detailed. The fight through the forest will require an additional 45 minutes. The fight for the town will require an additional 45 minutes. To do the same thing that was done in CM will require 135 turns. Less fun Combat Mission: AFrica Corps: I can get my troops into position to begin a river crossing in 45 turns: assemblying them into position: hit the 'load weapon' key for every soldier in my command, then the 'take a piss' key for every third soldier in my command (note; actually only 40% of soldiers actually comply with their orders to take a piss; the rest immediately crawl away from the sounds of battle, route, and are combat ineffective for the remainder of the scenario), hit 'conduct roll call' for every leader unit, hit 'get gas' for every vehicle (1/10 of all vehicles are found to be non-mission capable in order to model historically accurate rates of flat tires, broken parts, and intentional sabotage on the parts of the crews). At the end of 45 turns, I am ready to begin the river crossing; however, the scenario has now ended. To perform the river crossing, an historically accurate 6 hours, or 360 turns, is required. In Combat Mission II, each turn will represent 1 second, you will have separate icons for each soldier, each limb of each soldier will have to be moved separately, and each scenario will require 48 hours of preparation followed by 6 hours of hiding under an artillery barrage followed by 30 minutes of shooting blindly in the general direction of the enemy. All of this is 'realistic' and those who complain about such things as not wanting to micromanage the position of each soldier's shin will be derided as fantasy-loving illiterates.

...and its my own damn fault! I agree with alot of posters; infantry breaks too easily. I also agree with their detractors, though; this is entirely realistic. After having played about 5 games of CMBB, I have come to the realization that I don't want realism, I want the idealized impression of being a battalion/company commander. I'm getting the realistic impression of being a battalion/company commander, and its not as fun. CMBB has done an excellent job of increasing the realism over CMBO. I have no doubt that managing a company is closer to the 'real thing' in CMBB than it is in CMBO. What does that mean though? That simply getting your guys to run in a straight line without running away or shooting each other is a full time job. Unfortunately, that's not what I now realize that I really want. What I want is a 'movie'(or 'Squad Leader') version of being a commander, in which the maneuver of squads, leapfrogging from cover to cover forward, and the coordination of firepower and maneuver will allow me to win. We had that in CMBO. We rightly pointed out that it wasn't realistic. We no longer have that in CMBB. The harsh reality is that it's just not as fun. I have played about 5 games of CMBB: the two on the demo, Cemetary Hill, 'bridge' something (Germans defend a bridge adjacent to a large lake at night). In each one, the attacks are roughly similar to those in Yelnia stare: every attacker can see every defender (and vice-versa), so there is really no reason for maneuver. The attacker fires with some of his force, and runs forward with part of his force. Repeat for 15 turns, as your moving units quickly rotate between suppressed, panicked, ok, moving, routed, firing, running. See if you've reached the objective by the end of the scenario. In the 'bridge' scenario as the defending Germans, I literally 1) moved my tanks towards the Russian tanks, and 2) hit 'go' 21 times until the scenario ended. All my guys were firing, so there was no reason to maneuver anybody (and if I tried, they would have broken/panicked between buildings anyway, so why bother?). I bet playing the defending Germans in Yelnia Stare would be similar; just hit 'go' and allow your guys to automatically fire at the oncoming horde until the game is over. I feel like CM has gone through the same evolution that Squad Leader did. SL was a fun, balanced, reasonably realistic game. Playing it, you 'felt' like a battalion/company commander, firing and maneuvering to victory. Squads had 3 status's; ok, broken, and dead. At the battalion commander level, that's all you need. It was rightly pointed out that this wasn't realistic; squads could have lots of status's; cowering, squatting behind a wall rather than standing behind a wall; pinned, but not broken; half dead; dead; ok, etc etc etc. So rules were created to make the game 'more realistic.' Playing the gamettes (and, I imagine, ASL), one no longer felt like a company/battalion commander; one felt like 30 squad leaders, micromanaging the particular mood (pinned, broken, cowering, etc), the particular location (kneeling behind a wall, in the building in the hex, outside of the building within the same hex, etc etc). It became (at least for me) a tedious game of micromanagement. And I feel the same way with CMBB. Too much micromanagement of individual squad mood, those squads are just too fickle! In CMBO, I 'felt' like I was giving orders to a squad to "rush forward to that woodline and set up a hasty defense. If you make it, the other two squads will follow." In CMBB, the squad will simply panic too quickly, unless I micromanage the suppressive fire of each overwatching squad; unless I micromanage the squad to 'advance for 50 yards, then crawl for 30, then human wave for the final 60" or whatever. Because I don't have the interest in doing that, I end up doing alot of 'mass attacks'. And so, apparently, does the AI. In each scenario I've played thus far, because 1) infantry breaks so easily and 2) all defenders can see and fire on all attackers, there is no reason for any maneuver. Pick a spot, set half your force (usually machine guns and tanks) to 'fire', set half your force (infantry) to move, and move forward toward the flag. Hit go 15 times and see whether you win. Yelnia Stare was like that, Cemetary Hill was like that the 'bridge' scenario was like that, even the demo tank battle was essentially 'Germans drive forward until the scenario is over). I find it interesting that in CMBO I enjoyed the basic fire and maneuver of the game so much, I essentially played quick battles all the time-I still haven't played over half the scenarios on the CD (though several that I have played; Elsdorf, the Operation Varsity paratroop attack, the Mortain operation- are phenomenal!). In CMBB, I don't enjoy the simple process of fire and maneuver enough to want to play a quick battle; I keep hoping an included scenario will be 'it.' I'll finally 'get' it and start to enjoy the actual process of playing the game. So far it hasn't happened. I would still rather play a generic 'capture the village' quick battle in CMBO than replay any of the scenarios I've played in CMBB. Admittedly, I haven't played alot, but I have the sneaking suspicion that won't change. Why is it? Like I said, its my own damn fault!!! I was one of those people that thought the game was imbalanced because a typical attacker to defender ratio was only 1.5:1 or so (realistically should be 3:1). I was one of those people who thought the Russian hordes had to have their own rules (simulating them with low morale conscripts wouldn't be 'realistic'). I got exactly what I asked for. Now, playing Russians is about as tedious as being an actual Russian company commander (mass with machine guns on one side, mass with infantry on the other, human wave for 15 turns). It's impossible to maneuver against a machine gun without overwhelming firepower (which means one machine gun slows an attack down to a snail-like pace; 3 turn the scenario into tedium). Realistically, it would be quite an accomplishment to get a platoon across an open field into an occupied woodline beyond in 20 minutes. We now have realistic. Oh joy. My sense from some of the posts here is that at least some people agree with me. The whole 'is infantry too brittle' argument isn't really a question of 'is infantry unrealistically brittle?'. Rather, its 'is infantry too brittle to be fun to play with?' I'll keep playing the CMBB scenarios. Maybe I don't 'get' it yet, maybe the maps are too open and flat (thus making it hard to maneuver, hard to isolate part of the battlefield, whatever), maybe there's something else that's causing all this debate. But I have the sneaking suspicion that once the 'newness' of CMBB wears off, and T-34s are as passe as sherman tanks, the simple (though more unrealistic) fire and maneuver of CMBO will 'win out' over the realistic molasses of CMBB. Steve p.s. I haven't read much of Quick battles in CMBB. Is anyone playing them?

These are the two most significant problems with CM that should be fixed in CM:BB (though I'm not sure that they will be). 1) Problem: Inaccurate modelling of defensive benefits. If one squad starts the scenario in position in a woodline, and an enemy squad moves into a facing woodline 100m away, within 10 seconds they are 'equal' in terms of situational awareness, sighting ability, firing ability, etc. All the intangibles related to being the defender are not modelled (better understanding of terrain, better cover and concealment, firing plan incorporated into terrain, such as sector sketches, firing sticks, range estimation, prepositioned ammunition, morale benefits of defense, etc etc). The moving squad can see the stationary squad just as well as the stationary squad can see the moving squad. Thus, the benefits of defense are not accurately modelled. As a result, the defense is not as strong as it should be (and you have strength ratios of 1.2:1 rather than the traditional 3:1). Solution: Have tiered levels of firing ability/morale/sighting ability. Lowest for each is a unit moving. Second lowest is a unit that has been in place for, say, 2 minutes (2 turns). 3rd lowest is a unit that has been in place for 5, or 10 minutes. Highest is the unit that has been in place for 60 minutes (i.e. who started the scenario in place). Note that these benefits are independent of the benefit of being in foxholes/fortifications-they relate to sighting ability, effectiveness of fires, and morale (I assume foxholes affect morale and defensive ability). 2) Problem: No strategic map/jump map. This will be more of a problem with the bigger (3x3 km) maps in CM:BB, but nevertheless is a difficulty in CM:BO. The magnification ranges of the cameras in the game don't lend themselves to seeing the big picture of a battle. One of the main difficulties in playing big battles is simply keeping track of one's army and its location on the map! Furthermore, with a bigger strategic/jump map, it would be easier to play larger more mobile battles; to game not just the assault part of a battle, but the maneuver part of the battle as well. Ex. I would like to play a scenario with a mobile battalion choosing one of three axes of advance, probing with scouts, looking for weaknesses in the defense, and maneuvering on those weaknesses. With the current camera magnification choices, such a game is difficult because its hard to see the whole map, hard to keep track of where on that map friendly and enemy forces are, etc (even in the map editor, one can scroll for a long time to get from one side of a large map to the other-and in the time I've done so, I've forgotten exactly what was on the screen at the other end of the map). Solution: Add a jump map option. Hit a button and the screen is replaced by a jump map of the entire map, with significant terrain features (woods, houses, roads and rivers as a minimum) and friendly/enemy units in blue/red dots. If I click on a portion of the map, I jump to that part of the map at the last set camera magnification. Really, this second one is practically a no brainer. Steve

I'm in the middle of When Titans Clashed right now, and my observations are similar to several others. Strangely, when reading it, I feel like I'm reading the summary of a book rather than a complete book. Its almost like Glantz puts in enough operational detail to give a rough background, but not enough operational detail to really understand what's going on. And it shares a flaw with several military histories-it references places that are not on any map. For the reader, its essentially meaningles to learn that '16th Panzer division was thrown back to Lvov' without any knowledge of where Lvov is, for instance. I have long thought that military histories should be obligated to refer in text only to places that are identified on an included map. Thus far, I feel that the book is probably a reasonable overview of the Russian front, and suggests that after about winter 1942/maybe summer 1943, the Germans were both outmanned and outfought. So its interesting to see the Russian perspective on the war. But it really is so quick, it merely gives a taste of the conflict- I will probably go to the Erickson books in the future to see more. Incidently, my favorite military historian is Carlo D'este- see his books on Normandy, Anzio, Sicily, and Patton to really enjoy and understand a battle). steve

BTS_ I don't quite understand the waypoint system, so I'll ask: as I understand it, better commanded units will be able to create a more complex waypoint path, or create it and suffer fewer delays in execution, than worse-commanded units. The longer or more elaborate the waypoint path, the greater the delays. But is it possible to avoid those delays by simply not plotting long, elaborate paths, and instead plot short, simple paths? In other words, if I as a Russian player can plot a complicated waypoint path stretching over 6 turns, and suffer lots of command penalties, could I avoid the penalties by plotting a new single waypoint path each turn? And if so, how is that a penalty? I as the Russian would simply plot the same complicated path, but plot it in six smaller turn-sized chunks, and avoid any command disadvantage. Or is there something else (perhaps a substantial '1st waypoint delay' that makes this unprofitable?)? steve

I have another question about hull down. Is a tank either hull down or not (i.e. on or off, 0 or 1), or is a tank either hull down or not RELATIVE TO A LOCATION ON THE MAP? For example: imagine a tank being hull down behind a rise in the ground, that is overlooking a valley in front of it. That tank may be hull down relative to opponents down in the valley, but NOT hull down relative to opponents on the slope on the opposite side of the valley-they may even be higher than that tank, and be able to get 'top' shots! My guess is that in CM a tank is checked to see if it is right behind a high point in the terrain (rise in the ground, wall, etc), and is thus either hull down or not (0 or 1), and is considered hull down for the purposes of any firer from its frontal arc (which is incorrect, of course). But I've always wondered how the game actually does it. steve

Hmmm- The whole idea of relative spotting has never really bothered me. I actually think the biggest problem with CM for the defense is that there is not enough of a benefit for being the defender. In other words, if I as the defender start out in a woodline, and the attacker moves to a facing woodline and begins firing at me, we are essentially 'equal' in terms of combat power, morale, combat effectiveness, etc (assuming they are equivalent squads). The whole idea of "if I see you, you see me" and the fact that one terrain type has one terrain effect (ex. woods) no matter how long you have been there, means that many of the intangible benefits of defending (knowledge of the terrain, more extensive knowledge of blind spots, prepositioned ammunition, more extensive establishment of fields of fire and interlocking fires between individuals or teams, sheer morale bonus of knowing that you are staying put, while the attacker has to come across that open field to get you, and so on) are not simulated. Thus, defense, which theoretically requires 3x the attacking force to overcome, is in game terms equal. A few solutions: Add Improved Positions (like foxholes): after 15 turns (15 minutes) or in setup positions at the beginning of a scenario, units are in Improved Positions. This doesn't represent any digging in-it represents some minimal amount of planning on the part of the squad and platoon leaders. It yields some defensive benefit AND A MORALE BENEFIT, and it makes the IP squad harder to spot. Thus, in the situation where two squads facing each other in woodlines across a field, all else being equal, the squad that has been there longer will break less easily, will be harder to spot, and will suffer fewer casualties. Add more morale benefit for being in foxholes, for the same reason. steve

I had meant to mention this in my earlier post, but forgot. I thought that shooting on the move would be difficult for two reasons 1) alterations in terrain would jiggle the aim point off target, and 2) it would be hard for the gunner to remain oriented (and reorient, once he's off) on a target in a moving, bouncing tank. What I forgot to say, is these two effects would be affected differently by range. The further the range, the more alterations in terrain will jiggle the aim point off target (thus, .15 degree bumps will alter the aim point by a small distance at 100 m, but a huge distance at 1500 m)- perhaps at very close ranges, small alterations in terrain wouldn't even jiggle the aim point enough to move it off target (say, 50 cm from the center of a tank is still hitting the tank). But the other effect (the gunner remaining oriented) will be worse at close ranges than at far ranges (imagine looking at something through a toilet paper tube while running. Imagine its a mountain top in the distance-its probably possible to keep 'on target' and to restore your view of it when your hand shakes and you end up 'seeing' the sky through the tube. Now imagine trying to stay 'on target' to the headlight of a car across the street while running-it'd be practically impossible!). So no matter what, you're screwed. At far ranges, you can still see the target but are more likely to miss it. At near ranges, its harder to remain 'seeing the target' through the scope. steve

I would guess everybody is getting tired of this discussion, but I would have to say that the book reference quoted by Charles and Steve don't put the argument to rest-in fact, it doesn't even address the argument. I mentioned quite a while ago that modern tanks on firing ranges fire while 'on the move' but 'on the move' really means driving about 15 mph along a gravel road-a unique and unnaturally flat surface. This is not what is intended by firing 'on the move' in CM, and it is not what is modelled (unless the moving tank happens to be moving along a flat section of a road!). The quote in the book simply verifies what I and others have said all along-that you CAN hit when you are going very slowly on unnnaturally flat surfaces (as another comparison, modern M1's moving slightly off-center from the target should expect 90% accuracy at targets 1600 meters away! modern tanker's scores on tests- 'tank tables'- depend on better than 90% accuracy). I still find it hard to believe that anyone could hit while driving much faster than that, on any rough terrain (and by rough, I mean any natural field, ANY alteration in terrain, which would include everything except gravel roads, paved roads, and possibly-only possibly- dry farmer's fields). I think it would be hard to hit when moving faster for two reasons-one was mentioned above-every little alteration in the ground will cause the gun to move up and down (even as little as 1.5 degrees, I think, from the mentioned example), but also, because the gunner will have a tough time both staying steady enough to look through the site, and will have a tough time keeping oriented with the site while moving (try to run while looking through a toilet paper tube, looking at a car down the street. Once you shake and are no longer 'aimed' at the car, try to figure out what direction to move it to correct back to the car). So, if the book quote is the 'source' for firing on the move statistics, then I believe that information was misapplied. All the book says (which is what skeptics have been saying all along) is that on an artificially flat surface, on a firing range, at slow speeds, it is possible to hit a target while moving. One group I would like to hear from are any Bradley gunners? The bradley has a 20mm 'gun' (practically a really big machine gun) that is very light and nimble, and turret mounted with a sight. We have heard from several M1 tank gunners, who are skeptical. But I wonder if the Bradley's smaller, quicker rotating turret IS more 'aimable' on the move-that would suggest that perhaps early war tanks, with small nimble guns and turrets, may be more aimable as well. steve

I don't think I'll be contradicting myself when I say that there is an important difference between modern tanks and early war tanks that may impact the 'firing on the move' debate-and that is the difference in shell size. On a modern M1, the 120 mm shell weighs about 45 lbs, and is 1 1/2 to 2 feet long. It is large enough and unwieldy enough that it is difficult to even load (the loader has to practice a very specific movement to release the round from storage, where it is stored pointed backwards, lower it into his lap, shift the weight forward and aim the round forward, and lift it up again and load it into the gun tube-it was so difficult, it was common practice in a platoon to use the best loader to load for all four platoon tanks as they went downrange one after the other-not everybody is good at manhandling 45 pounds). M1s carry about 40 rounds, only half of them immediately accessible by the loader. So firing off 'suppressive' rounds isn't really feasible (1 shot 1 kill was ALWAYS the goal). On early war tanks (thus, early war British and Russian-who we are talking about), the rounds, I'm sure, are MUCH MUCH smaller: 37 mm, 50 mm-I bet a loader could pick one up with one hand, and load it in. I am guessing a tank could store far more rounds (I bet even a 75 mm round is much lighter, much shorter, and much easier to handle). Thus, it is feasible to fire alot of rounds from an advancing company of Russian tanks into a woodline, hoping to keep the heads down and maybe occasionally get lucky and hit something. As to whether they would actually hit anything, I am skeptical. But the entire concept of 'suppressive' fire would be different from such an easily handled round than it would be with a 45 pound round in modern vehicles. steve

This may have been mentioned-I don't want to search the 100,000 threads to find out. But I read the CRC post lower down, and think there is a problem with the whole attempt to implement any type of relative spotting (whether it resembles CRC or not). The complaint now is that it is unrealistic for every unit on the map to know what every other unit on the map knows, instantly-best example, two tanks, one can see and shoot at an AT gun, the other can't-but in CM, they both do react to its presence. The solution is to institute some kind of relative spotting-so that the second tank doesn't 'know' and thus doesn't 'react' to the presence of the at gun when it couldn't actually see it. This is supposedly more realistic. However, the problem is that I, the player, and overall commander, know about the AT gun. I can react to it in the next orders phase, by giving the second tank appropriate orders to react to the AT gun, even though that tank can't actually 'know' about it. And if I can do so, then there is very little realism improvement by simply delaying what the AI does (react to an unseen enemy) by 0-60 seconds (until the end of the execution phase) and allowing the human commander to do the same thing. Every unit on the map having instantaneous knowledge is no more or less realistic than every unit on the map having knowledge with a 0-60 second delay-its just a different form of unrealism. A solution to this would be to bar the human player from moving/reacting that second tank-but then you have the impossible task of distinguishing between 'legitimate' orders (i.e. I want to move my tanks over that hill) from 'unacceptable' orders (I want that tank to move because I-and not the tank- can see the AT gun over that hill): thus, its not a real solution. I suppose you could say that its more realistic because at least you are forcing a delay of 0-60 seconds between an AT gun being sited by one tank and the reaction of all other friendly forces, but I'm not sure that small increase in realism is really that valuable, nor worth the programming effort. Steve

As a real-world comparison- modern M1A1 tanks have essentially 'gyrostabilizers' on them. In training, we fired 'on the move', but 'on the move' meant 'driving approximately 15 mph along a straight gravel road. It did NOT mean driving cross country (even in a field!) or driving in any environment where there is much up and down motion, nor driving very fast. I don't believe it would be possible to fire modern M1A1s while 'on the move' in any but these very limited circumstances (i.e. relatively flat terrain, relatively low speed), for two reasons 1) it would be hard to keep the cross hairs on the target, and 2) it would be hard for the crew to keep themselves still enough to even look through the optics well enough to aim (the gunner would be thrown around the inside of the vehicle too much). And unless 1940's technology was much better than 1990's technology, I suspect the ability to fire on the move under any but very rare circumstances, even with a highly trained crew and a gyrostabilizer, is grossly overrated. And- I just read a book on Kursk which quoted a german gunner as saying the ideal range for engagements was about 800 meters. So what ranges should we expect in CM2? I would think about the same as in CMBO. While the optics and penetration of main guns may have allowed extremely high ranges (2000, 3000 meters in incredibly rare, extreme cases), I suspect that due to real-world terrain, actual engagements were probably conducted, 95% of the time, 0-1000 meters or so. Steve

I hope to inspire some talk and planning for new features that we would like to see in CM2. While it would be nice to simply have CM:BO with Russian units and Russian tanks, I would prefer some improvements to the game system as well. I suspect if we have any suggestions, now is the time to be making them-a few months before publication will be too late. I have two: 1) Multiplayer ability. I would like to see multiple players per side, and the situation where I can only see what my own (not my whole side's) units can see. If I have a company, and have a friendly player with a different company, I would hope to only see my own company's units, and the enemy (as well as other friendly) units that my own units can see-I don't want to see every friendly unit on the battlefield, but be limited to controlling only my own company for example. 2) Larger maps-and, by extension, more forces. However, I have played around with the operations editor, and feel that for larger maps, a different camera angle would be necessary. On a 3x5 km map, as I scrolled around on the highest camera angle, the map was large enough that I got 'lost': I forgot how far back my last friendly units were, I forgot how far back the last ridgeline was, etc-it was very difficult to set up forces and plan a battle on even this size map: on a larger map (someone else mentioned a 10km mapsize) this would be exceedingly difficult. Thus, a different camera angle: perhaps a top down 'topomap'-like angle, which showed friendly forces as blue dots, would help. Perhaps the ability to add gridlines (every 500 meters, or every 1000 meters) would help to orient. Perhaps the ability to add friendly graphics (even simple ones-lines separating company operating areas, for instance) and then toggle them on and off during battle (i.e. have them on during setup, and on occasionally during the battle to check progress, but off during most of the movement and execution) would help. As a model or example, the maps used on the MDMP website look great, and for a larger CM map, something similar would be absolutely indispensible. I am sure there are other 'game system' improvements that we would like to see, and those 'game system' improvements really need to be addressed now. Steve

Forever Babra- "Das kind........war tot."?

I have a question for the more experienced out there. I haven't played much, but in my own limited experience, I find that the defence may be underrated. Typically, military odds of 3:1 are considered required to successfully overcome a defensive position. In the playing that I have done, 3:1 is really enough to guarantee a win. If I attack with 3:1, I can pretty much count on rolling over the enemy. If I defend at 3:1, even against the AI, I find it is just an inevitable steamroller, that no matter what I do, the end is coming. Furthermore, in many scenarios, you find yourself attacking at much less than 3:1 odds (I just played Wiltz last night), with the expectation that I MAY win. I suspect, that if this is correct (i.e. that defenses are underrated), it may be because there is not enough benefit to being stationary, to being 'setup' or 'dug in' that would actually exist. For instance, in a real defensive position, the defenders have been there a while, know their way around, know dead space and fire zones, etc. Furthermore, the defender would be more difficult to see-maybe there is not enough of a penalty for moving. In the game, there is the sense that 'if I can see you, you can see me' which is not really the case (this would account for the low survivability of at guns-they are probably harder to see than CM portrays them). In the game, there is no difference between 'attacker moving towards the enemy' and 'defender withdrawing from the front line', so it is almost impossible to withdraw from a position. When one sets up in a position and waits for the attacker to come, once that attacker is close enough for the firefight, there is no defensive difference between the attacker and the defender (i.e. assume there is a defensive position along a woodline, and the attackers reach a facing woodline and engage in a firefight. There is no difference in the defensive benefit of either woodline-no foxholes, no sense of having sighted weapons, no camouflage benefit, so it devolves into a simple mathematical firefight in which whoever has the most firepower wins-even though the defender has presumably occupied the woodline for a while, and the attacker just occupied the facing woodline one minute previously!). As I said, I haven't played a GREAT deal, so this is more of a question than a statement of fact-but based on the few games I have played, it seems that it is difficult to even do what would be wise in the defense-to withdraw to alternate positions, to enjoy the defensive benefit of not having moved for ten minutes, an hour, or a day, etc. And this problem is reflected in typical results and scenario design-attack/defense battles tend to be between roughly equal forces, if a 3:1 advantage is established (as it has been in quick battles a few times) that almost guarantees a win for the attacker, and tank/anti tank duels don't really yield much defensive benefit-you could pretty much predict success (though not always) by counting gun tubes. steve

Grisha- That sounds fine to me. But 'Russian Front' is also a 'German perspective' expression (for instance, the Russians wouldn't have referred to the theatre as the 'Russian Front'). steve

M. Bates- Surely you are kidding. If using 'Eastern Front' is racist terminology, who is it racist against (i.e. what 'race' is being oppressed)? If you mean that by using the term 'Eastern Front' one is unconsciously viewing the war from a German perspective, then you are probably correct. Regardless, Michael and Jeff have a point. If not 'Eastern Front,' then what what is the alternative? Perhaps 'The Great Patriotic War,' but then 1) nobody understands what you are talking about, and 2) you are unconsciously viewing the war from a Soviet perspective, which in the long term is just as evil as viewing it from the German perspective. 'The War between Russia and Germany' is confusing ('What are you referring to? Ooh, the Eastern Front of WWII...'). steve