Peter Cairns

Well The new format of Modules might not be as comprehensice as CMBO,BB or AK, but over the years I've had more than my moneys worth. Since I switched to OSX I haven't played CM much at all, but I bought Halo and BF42, and lost interest in both within a fortnight, as once you are through the scenarios and have played on line a bit ( if you can stand the fact that no one gets tired , you find ammo everywhere, can cure yourself, and very one bounces about like kangaroos), the excitment wares off. The ability to create an endless number of variations on a theme will still be there, and that's where the richness of the game lies. Playing CMBB you had a huge range of vehicles to choose from , but my average sceanrio was PzIV's v T-34's, with basic infantry. Sure I used the obscure stuff and occationally used enough russian rockets to tilt the earth off it's axis, but by and large it was common or garden units in run of the mill terrain, and it remained ( and still does) challenging and enjoyable. I honestly know of no other game where you can set basically the same game parameters time and again and get a new experience every time. I for one am looking forward to doing that in a modern setting. Peter.

Well I've been on a good couple of hours now and i've seen as much positive comment as negative, and as much again in between. Peter.

No there will be Abrams, Steve has said that in some scenarios there will be limited armour support. Peter.

Whether you think Syria is right or wrong, or there is a problem with the actaul background scenario, I think what the game is actually about is letting you face the kind of things that in real live soilders are currently having to face, and are training to face. That will make it a "Challenge" and therefore for me something worth trying and buying. It also opens the door for a whole series of "Peacemaker" modules, covering everything from Africa to the Collapse of Beloruss. As to the US just blowing them away, well that might depend on how close they were, and what you were allowed to use. Sure you can whistle up an airstrike but if they attack you you might have a ten minute wait and as we all know from CM1 waiting ten rounds for the top cover to arrive can make them three or four late. Also depending on how they do victory conditions casualties could be a big factor. If you put the VP's at 25 to 1, then you could lose if in blowing away an opposition company one of your squads got wasted. One big difference between now and WW2 is the political and public attitude to casualties, these days in a very real sense, "It's not how hard you hit, but how much you can take". Rightly or wrongly a lot of people see the US as a heavyweight with a glass jaw, remember the First headline suicide bombing was in the Lebanon twenty years ago, and that a bit like BHD in Somalia undermined the whole operation. Some of you might not like having to fight with your attention always on minimising casualties over killing the enemy, but if you want a realistic simulation of modern warfare you need to have it. Today commanders on the ground can quite literally withdraw from an inferior force, if it looks determined to cause casualties regardless of loss to itself. Sounds mad, but thats what happens when you go to war at the behest of "Risk Averse" politicians. Peter.

You can't have it both ways people, If BF do what we have been asking, produce a real quality game that simulates modern Company level combat accurately ( be it 44-45 or 04-05), then people who try to teach soilders for a living are going to take a look. Whats the answer, stay away from anything current, or make the game deliberately unrealistic. I think a Syria based game is a pretty good starting point for a simulation of modern combat, though I doubt that US involvement in stabalisation , let alone Nation Building, is likely again in this decade. I think a more likely scenario for a form of limited involvement in Syria would rely on the US giving support to a Proxy, who would do most of the fighting, as with the Northern Alliance, in Afghanistan, or the Kurds during the invasion of Iraq. Still it may be that some kind of local Proxy force with Soviet weapons and of questionable quality may well be one of the troop choices you get in CM:SF, You may even need to use them in some of the scenarios, with the US element a minor part of your force. There is also the Grenada option of having to secure and protect a compound or instalation. Peter.

Given all the political difficulties that potential israeli military involvement, and the lack of Turkish support had on the run up to the war in Iraq, I would have expected them in. They may not be seen as big players to many, but regionally they are extremely important, and what happens in Syria is sure as hell important to them as it's on their doorstep. Still you can't have it all in on Day One. Even without Civilians Flattening a village may well be frowned upon, so will "Collateral Damage" be part of the victory conditions, or will there be no penalty for "destroying the village in order to save it". When it comes to the Map editor any more details yet, don't suppose there is any chance of it being compatable with digital data like the late versions of bryce, so that you can download real terrain. Being able to use google maps would be nice too. Peter.

Sorry double post people, while I am on, What about Civilians.... Peter.

Put this in on "Who's dissappointed" but I'll add it here Firstly I am not, and secondly What about Turkey and Israel, both Neighbours with there own interests and potentially able to be involved on either side. Also. om urban warfare, in syria as most of the Med countries, what you get a lot of is Brush, waste ground that is overgrown with grass and various weeds , often to about 2m high. Add to that drainage ditches, irrigation and humps bumps and dips, and what looks flat in a photo or from a few miles away becomes an infantry nightmare, where you can't actually see more than a couple of dozen yards when you are on the gound. Oh and at the risk of being accused of being a PYro again, fire in this terrain is easily started and can change everything, and you can expect to meet people with SHMEL.... Peter.

Put this in on "Who's dissappointed" but I'll add it here Firstly I am not, and secondly What about Turkey and Israel, both Neighbours with there own interests and potentially able to be involved on either side. Also. om urban warfare, in syria as most of the Med countries, what you get a lot of is Brush, waste ground that is overgrown with grass and various weeds , often to about 2m high. Add to that drainage ditches, irrigation and humps bumps and dips, and what looks flat in a photo or from a few miles away becomes an infantry nightmare, where you can't actually see more than a couple of dozen yards when you are on the gound. Oh and at the risk of being accused of being a PYro again, fire in this terrain is easily started and can change everything, and you can expect to meet people with SHMEL.... Peter.

I'll buy it when it makes the Mac,as i don't have a PC. I think Modern will be ideal for the new game system, as borg spotting made modern far to lethal for a modern game. I will also put it a guess that Uncle Sam will follow the austrailia army, at buy a truck load of copies for training purposes ( unfotunately so will every militant group in the middle east). Now for the Questions, to the South there is Israel, and to the North Turkey 1) Will both or either nation be included. 2) Will they be limited to being on the good side. Peter.

I was wrong about QinetiQ, sure enough it is DSTL, here's the article. "New Age Electric Armour - Tough enough to face modern threats Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs) are the most prolific ground launched threat to British and Allied armoured fighting vehicles world-wide. To combat this very real and dangerous threat the Defence Science & Technology Laboratory, Dstl, has developed an 'Electric Armour' that reduces the effect of impacts by such projectiles to almost zero, and will ultimately save the lives of soldiers. To get an idea of the damage an RPG can cause, it should be realised that upon impact its 'shaped charge' explosive warhead shoots a rapier-like jet of hot copper into the target at several miles per second. Such jets can penetrate anything upwards of a foot (30cm) of solid steel armour. The effect almost invariably results in loss of life and can destroy a modern armoured infantry combat vehicle or tank costing millions. There is currently no armoured personnel carrier, and few tanks, that could practicably carry the weight of armour needed reliably to resist such impacts from any direction. In recent years intensive research has been conducted at Dstl to find a highly effective, yet lightweight, armour system to address this threat. Dstl scientists have developed a revolutionary Electric Armour system which can resist attack by RPGs or other shaped charge weapons whilst remaining of a practical weight and size for armoured vehicles to carry. A recently demonstrated system, consisting of bulletproof metal plating, insulation, power distribution lines, and storage capacitors weighs a mere couple of tonnes, but has a protective effect equal to carrying an extra 10-20 tonnes of steel armour. Commenting on this latest invention Dstl’s Professor John Brown says: “RPG’s can be easily picked up from street stalls for as little as $10 in most of the world’s trouble spots. It only takes one individual on, say, a rooftop in a village to press the trigger to cause major damage to passing armoured vehicles. The Dstl Electric Armour system is an exciting advance which has generated a lot of interest in both UK and US defence circles. I am confident that our system is the way forward for lightweight defence of military vehicles. It is being strongly supported by the Army and Ministry of Defence to reduce the threat from this highly dangerous class of weapon .” Dstl scientists have recently demonstrated an armoured troop carrier protected by Electric Armour, in which, when danger threatens, an outer skin of metal plates can rapidly be electrified to several thousand volts. When hit by a RPG or other shaped charge warhead, the incoming copper jet has to pass through the electrified layers, where it has to endure the passage of many thousands of amperes of current. Professor Brown explains: “As is well known, a current of just thirteen amps is sufficient to 'blow' and disintegrate the fuse of a household electrical appliance. Similarly, the high speed copper jet from a shaped charge anti-tank warhead is virtually instantaneously dispersed by the high temperatures and powerful fields generated by the so-called 'Pulsed Power' System carried by the vehicle. Any residual debris is absorbed by the vehicle’s ordinary armoured hull.” Electric Armour The system is powered entirely by the normal electrical supply of the vehicle. The electrical load imposed by stopping an RPG attack is no more arduous than for example starting the engine on a cold morning. In the Demonstration to high level British Army and Ministry of Defence (MOD) Customers and invited US witnesses in the Spring of 2002, the target vehicle was subjected to repeated attacks. Post-shot examinations showed it to have sustained no internal damage whatsoever. The target was then driven away under its own power, scarcely the worse for an experience sufficient to destroy other vehicles many times over. The MOD has tasked Dstl to reduce the weight and bulk of armoured vehicles, making them 70% lighter and 50% smaller over the coming two decades. Dstl Dstl (the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory) is the centre of scientific excellence for the Ministry of Defence, housing one of the largest groups of scientists and engineers in public service in the country. Its 3,000 strong workforce at sites all over the UK includes some of the nation’s most talented and creative scientists with the brief to ensure that the UK Armed Forces and Government are supported in house by world class scientific advice. Dstl delivers defence research, specialist technical services and the ability to track global technological developments. Its capabilities compare with the best in the world, supporting procurement decisions, defence policy making and operations. Peter.

As we are talking now about Anti ATGW defences, does anyone know how QineticQ, are getting on with "electric" armour. The last I read about it was about a year ago. In essense you put it in an APC and it charges the outer hull for an instant to a high voltage. This causes the "Plasma" from a shaped charge, to disperse and loose focus effectively spreading over the outside of the hull rather than penetrate, Last I heard the system weighted over two tonnes but the target was to get it down to under one as part of the UK's future Land vehicle programme, I think DARPA were at least involved if not partners. On another subject, what happens to the US v Chinese scenario if we set it in 2015, after the US economy has imploded due to the deficit, and China has overtaken the US to be the worlds No one economy, enabling it to incorporate technologies from the economicly struggling but helpful EU. Peter.

This is a rouge post put there by my son Thomas, I disown it completel,y and have cut his pocket money in revenge. Peter.

Do a huge multiplayer internet campaign going on for 5-6 years, cronicling the full refight of WWII. Thoughts?

Another possibility is "Proxi" scenarios, where the US is invoved but not as a principle combatant. Afghanistan is a case in point, as is the UK in sierra leon. Then there are situations like Somalia. As to Steve comment on the ability of the Chinese or Russians to have air superiority, at least in part that depends on the theatre. As we saw in the Gulf, allies can often be reluctant to let their territory or airspace be used, If we were talking about the former Southern Soviet Republics or even Mongolia, even carrier airpower or Air to air refuelled aircraft would be limited. Politically I think it would be hard for the US to muster the will to act anywhere it couldn't guarentee air superiority, so that makes any "deep" engagement unlikely. Another factor is that China in particular is moving up on the inside as a major armes exporter. It's current export Tanks are getting much better, It's just announced it's own indigenous attack helicopter, and the Type 98 assalt rifle is very highly regarded. Politically it is out there making alliances with anyone with Oil or Gas ( including the Canadians, now Reds to the North is a wild Scenario). For Russia, it is moving it's entire Armaments industry to exports with the likes of Mig now virtually a design house for hire, see the new Iranian fighter ( I think it's the Shagaq?), Kazan who make Mi-17's have just announced at the moscow airshow, a new light attck helicopter designed for export. One way to get all these in a Game would be a sort of "Peacekeepers" game where you had options to play forces from Major Allied Armies (US, UK , France, Austrailia, Canada) but were pig in the middle between factions or forces equiped with a range of stuff from around the world. Somalia, Darfur, Bosnia, East Timor, Congo, Iraq, Afghanistan, it's not as if we are short of theatres of operation. Peter.

YankeeDog What you say about the effect of smoke and the speed it moves at could be the best way to go, with even small fires forcing people to abandon buildings fairly quickly. That way the dynamics of fire spread needed by as detailed or as processor demanding, because by the time it started to spread , almost all units would have moved on. Peter.

So the M-1 outclasses the T-72, I think the Panther is more than a match for thr T-34/76. Does that make CMBB a bad game. Having a few M-1's against current Chinese ( I think it's T-90 but don't quote me), would be good, War in Tiawan maybe. Equally having to advance US armour in close terrain like woodland and villages, would still be pretty deadly if ranges were under 500m. Oh and if you drive an M-1 over a culvert with about 100kg of semtex in it, armour or no armour the blast will flip it like a pancake ( all 70 tonnes of it). Peter.

What we don't have at the moment, but the new morale system might give us, is the AT crew seeing the other 18 tanks in the squadron, and buggering off without fireing a shot.... "**** and Shift" seems as valid an option as "Shoot and Scoop" in some circumstance, particularly for green or shaken units. Peter.

I tend to go with MikeyD in a way. I was never interested in the Hundred Years war or the like, but then about 25 years ago I played the SPI game Wartzburg ( I think it was called that and it came with the magazine) and the game got me reading about it, as the mag was full of articles. Another one that did the same, ( though It wasn't as good a game) was Constantinople which covered the siege of the city in 14 something. Not a period I would have touched with a bargepole, without the game. so If this is the home of superior wargames, I think that an eduvational element is a part of it. I bet a lot of highschool lids would learn to appreciate history and take more of an interest if they played at being at waterloo instead of just being lectured about it, or told to right an essay. Given most "boys" interest these days maybe game based history might well have a role to play in future education. Peter.

Absolutely none, not one iota. However as for every great soilder their is a complete F**K up, the benefit of military experience will always be mixed. Military accounts are full of people who thought they were winning when they weren't, or weren't where they thought they were. look at Kerry, ( I am not being political here so don't start up, OK). One mans hero was another mans fraud... Don't get me wrong, I am always interested in first hand accounts, but being first hand that doesn't make them accurate or right.... Peter.

No I meant maybe my name is Nieve, and not Peter at all. (or i could just admit I can't spell). Peter.

In CM1 when abuilding filled a full box, fire was either on or off and worked ok. But now we are talking about buildings and parts of buildings less than 25 ft across, exactly where the fire is and how it spreads will be more significant. It could be a key factor if you are dealing with buildings of four or five stories. When that HE shell hit and started a fire, was it the floor above or the one below. We've been told that doors windows and stairs will be modelled, so where in the building a fire is could have a real effect. Then there is smoke. it tends to spread internally first, then out windows and then up. This could effect LOS high on one side of a building but not low on the other. In some respects smoke and it's effects may well be more important than fire, because of it's effect on LOS, although how the new morale system deals with mans greatest fear, will be another issue. Because I think that 1:1 represntation and a more detailed grid will make close combat a more intense and rewarding experience, I think how building (and indeed woodland) fire is simulated could become a big issue, which is why I started this thread. Obviously from the few responses not many others seem to see it as a big issue. I think it is, and maybe i am nieve, but I believe that BF actually takes on board what we put in.

Having read most of the arguements here at least once, I think Steve and the boys are pretty much on the right track. What people seem to be wanting is an unrealistic control of units so that they have a method of precise control over how units react to unknown terrain, without having to put some thought in to avoiding it. Occasionally units do do daft and frustraiting things, but as Steve pointed out, thats as much to do with the orders they are given as the AI or way point system. My rule of thumb is K.I.S.S. Keep It Simple Stupid. If you don't go giving units, long term intricate orders that send them long distances by complex routes, you won't really have problems. If you do insist on doing it then you get what you deserve. Going back twenty odd years to when I played board wargames there were two types of players, those who moved units took the rough with the smooth and had a good time, and those who agonised over every hex, challenged every line of sight and criticised every rule. The "Go with the flow guys", like me had fun, the moaners were never happy. As it is the system they are outlining will have a balance between orders given and how units below Co level interpret them, which will improve on an already pretty decent system. In the past when my units have stalled on on Flank because of hedges or the like, I've not turned my wrath on the waypoint system or the AI, I've said, "Well, Pete, you made a complete mess of that didn't you". Peter.

Steve, You are talking about changes to the way delays and orders are treated in release two or perhaps three. Are we talikng about modules or theatres here, and what kind of time scale. If it's modules then it could be within a year of first release, but if it is actual versions then we could be waiting two or even three years for the definitive system. Peter.

But is it realistic to set a way point for them to go through a gate on the other side of za hill you've never been over. Two ways to interpret it. 1) The delay for waypoints simulates them looking about, seeing the gate and moving towards it, or 2)When they ignore it and climb through the hedge, then someone though, I think there is a chance theirs a trip wire or an MG42 just lined up waiting for some sucker to walk through that gate. The systems not perfect and I quite like the fact that the longer and further you send people from their start point, the more difficult it gets. It's not perfect but it works. If you don't like delays or difficulties caused by distance or terrain, try chess. peter.