Lt Bull

And you know this...how ?
The attention to details when it comes to OOBs, TOEs and such things are indeed impressive. What is far from equally impressive by todays standards are the performance of the AI and the design of the scenario editor.
A game can have very impressive unit modeling and LOS/LOF calculations etc but if the AI is not able to provide a somewhat realistic (thinking/reacting) enemy...The game looses some of its appeal imo. No matter how good the OOBs and TOEs are.
The limited amount of community created scenarios in recent years ought to be an indication of the fact that the scenario editor is somewhat clunky to work with. Some improvements might be in order.
The AI and the scenario editor have seen VERY limited upgrades in the last ten years (atleast) and by the sound of it is not in the pipeline for any future improvements anytime soon...Unless the 2024-bone part 2 will state othervise.
 
 

Preorder  completed. First chance to play with Comets and Pershings again since CMBO can't wait.

I hope they do.
Your testing shows something is different with that section of bocage and my hat off to you for actually backing up your comments with actual research.
If they need more Beta Testers I suggest you sign up...
I just watched another video of my game with Barkmann and I have seen several times the cycle of firing (don't actually fire) aim and Firing (don't actually fire) issue which is another bug bear.
There is nothing else on the market that beats it, but the frustration when you see these niggles are deeply annoying...
The joys of CM.
 

More like "such is CM" 😬
Not sure if you actually played around with the save file...but I definitely know something is not right here.  Something wrong will be discovered.
I went in to the Scenario Editor and deleted all features that could be complicating things ie. made all terrain standard grass, deleted some hedgerows, the fence...as plain as possible.  I have left the elevation as it is for now.
I then placed four unbuttoned Panthers up against the offending hedgerow.  All four Panthers can not trace a blue targeting line even directly perpendicular out through the hedgerow for some reason.  They can only trace a grey targeting line.
I experimented with the location of the Sherman and even made it move back and forth in front of the Panthers at a range of just 50m and the Panthers still can not target the Sherman.

Save file here to see for yourself!
I am not ruling out that something is peculiar about the Panther tank for some reason: Possibly the crew not properly seeing out of the tank when adjacent to the hedgerow?
My next step is to replace the Panthers with other tanks and see what happens (I had earlier did a hasty check by placing a Sherman where the Panthers are and it seemed to have had no issue spotting/firing through the hedgerow where the Panthers are, though I will confirm).
I will also totally "flatten' the terrain to be all the same elevation.  Even though there is some  minimal variation as seen in this screenshot of elevations, it may be affecting the LOS/LOF mechanics in some odd unexpected way.

Locked in a basement? My dear sweet summer child. All the old timers here know Steve keeps Charles head in a jar.

CMBN Original Historical Master Maps

WO Teufelsberg MM

WO Amfreville & La Fiere MM

WO Hauts Vents & Pont Hebert MM

WO Hill 30 MM

WO Villiers le Sec MM

WO Buron Environs MM


 
CMBN other Author’s Maps/Scenarios Modified/Overhauled

WO Bloody Buron Overhaul MM (original by Yurievic, a.k.a. Rokko)


 
CMBN Original Scenarios

Listed by file name and not by scenario name


 
WO 82N01 Boots on the Ground SP.btt
WO 82N02 The 505th Assault La Fiere Manor SP.btt

WO 82N03 Levy at Cauquigny.btt

WO 82N04a Timmes Digs in SP.btt

WO 82N04b Timmes Digs in H2H.btt

WO 82N04c Timmes Digs in H2H Swz.btt

WO 82N05a Angriff der Grenadiere SPGE.btt

WO 82N05b Angriff der Grenadiere SPUS.btt

WO 82N05c Angriff der Grenadier H2H.btt

WO 82N06a No Better Place to Die SPGE.btt

WO 82N06b No Better Place to Die H2H.btt

WO 82 N07 Millet Breaks Out H2H.btt

WO 82N08 A Night Crossing H2H.btt

WO 82N09 A Night to Forget H2H.btt

WO 82N10a Shaul’s Run H2H.btt

WO 82N10b Shaul’s Run SPUS.btt

WO 82N11a Shanley on Hill 30 H2H.btt (June 7th)

WO 82N11b Shanley on Hill 30 H2H.btt (June 8th)

WO 82N11c Lt. Millsap on Hill 30 H2H.btt (June 9th)

WO 82N16 507 Makes a Good Drop H2H.btt

WO Bloody Buron Overhaul.btt

WO Gruppe Bohm to Le Rocher H2H.btt

WO Gruppe Bohm to Le Rocher SP.btt

WO Teufelsberg v6a H2H.btt

WO Teufelsberg v6a SP.btt

WO Teufelsberg v6b H2H.btt

WO Teufelsberg v6b SP.btt

WO Villiers-le-Sec.btt


 
CMBN Scenario Conversions from ASL

ASL LC Driver Advance.btt

ASL11 Defiance on Hill 30.btt

ASL14 Silence That Gun.btt

ASL94 Hill ‘112’.btt

ASL95 Attempt to Exploit.btt

ASL301 The Clearing.btt

ASL302 Stand Fast (Sm).btt

ASLAP31 Cristot (Sm).btt

ASLAP37 Apples to Apples.btt

ASLCH Le Port Filiolet.btt

ASlT10 Devil’s Hill.btt

DASL18 Haut Vents.btt


 
CMBN Original Mods

Mines Signs German

Mines Signs Allied

Buildings Independent Houses Holland

Buildings Modular Haut Vents Normandy

Command and control – stoplight style

Icons Floating – SS v1 black and white

Icons Floating – SS v2 camo

Ions Ranks – Panzer Lehr

Suppression Meter & Warning

Tactical Symbols for BAD 7 to original vehicles

Tactical Symbols for BAD 11 to original vehicles


 
CMBN other Authors’ Mods Modified

GO button by Juju – added text

Icons attributes by Juju – recoloured and made more prominent

Icons command and control by Juju – added stoplight style colours

Floating HQ by Juju – added Juju portraits to floating icons

Icons HQ by Juju – reconfigured by combining portraits with flags and mod tagging

Portraits by Juju – Added divisional tactical patches

Silhouettes by Juju – Added Marco Bergman style penetration colour bars

Portraits by Mord – added location and season specific backgrounds to divisional portraits


 
CMBN Stuff I have mod-tagged in my personal collection

ALL scenarios in my collection (unable to tag campaign files)

Mines mods

Uniform mods

Vehicle mods

Holland building mods

Haut Vents building mods

Portrait mods

Floating Icons

HQ Icons

Ranks

Hello all,
i have been wargaming for a few years now, but only have recently stumbled across Combat Mission.
Never thought that this game series is such a positive surprise for me. All the years i have searched for a PC wargaming experience which gives me this immersive feeling to live through a authentic, tactical battle situation in a historical context. As a history and WW2 buff, i really like to read detailed through all the excellent historical briefings before a mission/campaign. 
Also despite Combat Mission has not absolute AAA graphics, it´s the only wargame which for me delievers this authentic, desperate and gritty battle atmosphere i also get from series/movies like Band of Brothers or Fury. I can really imagine the fear of the american soldiers in their foxholes, when they hear a german tiger approaching...
Finally i cannot praise the community enough for making all the high quality mods and historical scenarios/campaigns. Iam like a child in the candy store in browsing through all the user content and cannot decide what to play next...
Iam really looking forward what the future brings to this series, for now i have a huge backlog of scenarios and campaigns which i need to play through the next months.
So just wanted to say "Thank you" to the devs and all the passionate content creators of the community for giving me this absolutely great and unique wargaming experience.
 

AND IN JUST A FEW MOMENTS AFTER I POSTED THAT, the incredible self-help potential of our community has raised up to solve it. @Jace11 is way smarter than I am and has evidently better attention to detail than I do. 😞  He spotted something named incorrectly in the model.  🙂
"muzzle"
changed to 
"weapon muzzle"
seems to fix them, effects come out the barrels now instead of the top of the bunkers.
Here is a dropbox link to the fix for CMFB. I think it should also work for the other titles but will need tested.
CMRT seems fine with this fix.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/9cx82qz6c3txsjk/AACf0xdsEYJYEr3xOyOxjYg4a?dl=0
 

Hi everyone! I've put out a new video where I compare a combat mission scenario to both the historical events that are portrayed and the actual real-life location. I thought I'd post this on the General Discussion board as it's also kind of about Combat Mission scenario design and research in general.
As it's about a Market Garden scenario, I've slept a quite few hours less the past few nights in order to get this video done in time for Operation Market Garden's 78th anniversary on saturday the 17th of september. I hope you'll find it interesting; spending the day basicly giving myself a battlefield tour and filming the locations of the scenario that I just played was amazing. Geeky, for sure, but amazing 😁.
Props to @Pete Wenman who is the author of this scenario for his excellent research and scenario design.
 
 

The only time I adjust for wind is when I decide to break some in front of people I don't want to speak to anymore. 😂😂😂

And no, the spread won't be shifted in the wind direction, because you're simulating humans firing the thing. Each round is fired individually, and wind speed is taken into account. The adjustment won't be perfect, but that's the reason why windage adjustment exists:



(US 60mm M2 mortar)

The lever/spring assembly here allows you to tilt it left and right to adjust.

I think this link will work for now.
I'll leave it up for a few months.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qepchnhtl943pp0/DKC - CMBN Campaigns wMods (Update1).7z?dl=0

Okay, I've finally finished this mod project...it's been going on in some form or another for years but the present vision was started last July or August, then I took a winter hiatus and being stuck at home has given me time to finally finish.
This mod started, as most of my mod work has, with my beloved CW troops.  I have nearly driven myself to madness in the past with my completionist obsession for modding the entire 21st Army Group but I deliberately avoided that problem this time by only focusing on the CW units actually represented in CMBN scenarios and campaigns.  I have modded the uniforms and vehicles for each CW unit that appears in CMBN (no small feat but better than my original obsession 😉), which led me to an exhaustive examination of all of the scenarios and campaigns I could find (reading notes, briefings and digging through the OOBs).  At this point, I decided that I wanted to make it easy to use the mod, so that meant looking into ModTags.  All of the unit graphics have had ModTags applied to them.
I identified 175 scenarios and 22 campaigns that would lend themselves to specific units being represented (CW, US & German); then, I extensively ModTagged all 175 of these scenarios.  For the 22 campaigns, since I couldn't add ModTags to the individual missions, I created campaign-specific mod .BRZ files, which will accomplish the same goal.  Along the way I have made a few changes to the CW armour models in a few of the scenarios and campaigns for greater unit historical accuracy but they are mostly unchanged by me.
Not being an SME on American or German vehicles/uniforms, I have personally ModTagged many of the community mods that I use and I have also included them in a couple of separate .BRZ files that can be used or not, depending on your preference (the beauty of this system is that if you prefer other mods, just tag them yourself using the ModTags I've added to the scenarios and you can get whatever mix you like).
Anyway, its all ready to go, I just need to put it up somewhere if people are interested.
 
Darknight
PS - If any scenario or campaign authors would like a particular CW formation that I haven't included (because they don't appear in CMBN yet), then drop me a line and I should be able to easily provide it, and I can advise on the ModTag structure and layering too, if needed.

So I did go trawling through the "How Hot Is Ukraine Gonna Get" thread  (for the first time) and (not too surprisingly) I can confirm it has indeed already been noted, and by none other than Steve himself, though it is buried deep within the 272 page (at last count) thread.
Still, was surprised it didn't have it's own thread as I think it deserves it, as it is quite a remarkably accurate "prediction" from at least 8 years ago of how things might play out if Russian forces invaded Ukraine on their way to Kyiv.
Kudos to the scenario designer!

I tried putting the Operation Undergo mod up in a dropbox for Bootie but never heard whether he posted it.
If you have a dropbox, I can send it to you.
I will take a look at the new campaign over the next couple of days and see about modding it.

Hi all,
Just wanted to formally announce my next campaign release titled 'First into Antwerp'. Ironically this was actually the first campaign I designed but the second I've released.
Command the British 3rd Royal Tank Regiment and the 4th Battalion Kings Shropshire Light Infantry as they advance from Boom to capture the port city of Antwerp, Belgium, and later attempt to establish a bridgehead over the Albert Canal.
This campaign consists of 8 battles and is historical. To be played as PLAYER vs AXIS AI.
Be aware in order to play this campaign you MUST have both Commonwealth and Market Garden Modules.
Battle sizes are varied. It is strongly recommended that the player reads the README in the attached zip-file.
The Zipfile will contain the following:
2 Campaign folders.
1 Campaign file within each folder.
49 page Campaign Design booklet including Campaign Progression Tables and Order of Battle. (You know, for some 'light' reading )
Campaign has been tested and should be compatible with patch 4.03.
Total battle duration of the campaign totals roughly 8 hours.
Annnnddd here's some pictures:

 

 

 

Download link CM CW: First into Antwerp (thefewgoodmen.com)
 

@WimO's work is amazing, the cards are superb and amazing realism
The small details sometimes let me think that he is lying and that he is not a Dutchman living in Canada but a resident of Saint Lô or Cherbourg with a fine knowledge of his territory.
La fière

watched  her masteur map on Pont hebert, she's crazy !
Pont Hebert  under heavy bombardment seen from Le Coquet

The map is so precise that I made a scenario where the goal for these 2 paras( @JM Stuffmod)  is to find a farm for a meeting with the resistance, that without compass, it is broken (see top right) using the stars and aerial photo!!!

well done and thank you Kandu for your great work 👏

Generally I've mostly had positive experiences when picking opponents that I think sound reasonable on forums.
I recommend https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/

So they mean that the previous 20 years we've been playing unprofessional version for amateurs?

News from the front !
New module news allies wrecks only << axis on work >>  both soon available !
 

Combat Mission Final Blitzkrieg was the first CM2 game that I have purchased. I remember playing the KG Peiper campaign and giving up halfway through cause i was a CM noob and the AI kept kicking my ass.
Couple years forward, I am now a semi-competent at the game, own all of the CM2 titles and finished most of the campaigns. 
I thought to myself, hey, you never got around completing the Peiper one, so lets do it!
The first 4mission went well, I could keep my losses to a minimum. Then comes mission 5, Stoumount..
OH MY GOD.
Contrary to what the briefing states ("you can approach the city unnoticed"), the 0 visibility is a real hinderance and and an incredibly deadly phenomenon (you practically have to bump into a tank to spot it). This, combined with the uneven terrain (the enemy is in oftentimes in defilades, and once in the city you cant really cover your inf when entering buildings), makes this map into a bloodbath. Oh and lets not forget that the force ratio is almost 1:1.
I was so frustrated that I started savescumming, sg. that I never do in CM. (I have just finished CMRT Broken Shield and the "long" Soviet campaign and had no issue achieving total victory without reloading once).
All in all, how do you tackle this scenario?? I took the southern approach, did some artillery preparation, entered the city, used suppressing fire, then killed anything that popped up with the panthers/whirebelwind/20mm. This approach ceased to be effective when you reach the "cathedral" and start meeting the enemy armor tucked away in the nooks and crannies of the city proper.
 

couple of things that are likely not going to get work in that module. I hope for some "surprises" though.
 

Hi, bit late to this, but if you are still looking check here at the RAF photo archive, they have aerial photos of pretty much all of western europe in WW2:
NCAP - National Collection of Aerial Photography | NCAP - National Collection of Aerial Photography
edit: type "Malmedy" in the search bar and 3 photos are listed, all taken on december 24, 1944.

I really like this line of discussion going on in this thread.  Lots of good points have been raised and provoke thought. I would say discussions like this don't happen enough, let alone is something the majority of players even think about.  I am sure some scenario designers also might not think too much about it either. I have many thoughts on the concept of what it means to make single player scenarios for games like CM where a "CPU opponent" needs to be emulated....somehow.
There are lots of things that have been said that I want to expand on, and there are things that haven't been said that I want to say to invite further discussion.  I might be off on some tangents, but in no particular order....
1) 
I appreciate the potential value of a "must pass a test" concept that could be used by scenario designers as a "minimum requirement" benchmark to asses whether the scenario and associated AI plans they have coded are "up to scratch".  The test as you describe it would have merit but only be relevant to a small set of possible scenarios (let alone SP scenarios). Specifically:
single player (SP) scenarios where the human player against defends against an attacking AI human defender is NOT allowed to alter anything about the starting locations of ANY of his units.  2)
I want to clearly state a thought I have (and why I think it) on the whole concept of designing CM scenarios by any scenario designer. It actually applies to any other game (typically wargames) like CM that pits "one side against another" where either:
a) one side is controlled by a human player and the other by an "AI",  referred to as the "single player (SP) experience"
OR
b) both sides are controlled by human players, referred to as a "multiplayer (MP) experience"
NOTE: I actually object to using the term "AI" as I have as it implies an "intelligence" is involved, and all the connotations we as humans associate with the concept of intelligence eg. reasoning, common sense, awareness, memory etc. I think "CPU opponent" is a better all-encompassing phrase to use as it says nothing about the actual "intelligence", and just describes what it really is trying to be, regardless of how it is being achieved.  However, I have no issue with using the terms "TacAI" and "StratAI" typically used by Battlefront to distinguish between a) the TacAI: what essentially is the hard coded local situational "survival behaviour" that applies to all units in the game (and where Battlefronts "investment in AI" really exists) and b) the StratAI: the realm of what all scenario designers get involved with when they use the Scenario Editor to develop "AI plans" limited to whatever tools Battlefront have given them in the Scenario Editor.
As far as I am concerned, there is a MASSIVE difference between trying to design/create a fun/challenging CM scenario that is:
a) designed to be played as MP
OR
b) designed to be played as SP
OR (even more challenging for the designer)
c) designed to be played both as MP or SP
One of these tasks COMPLETELY ignores and is INDEPENDANT to any knowledge or understanding of an aspect of scenario design that needs to be addressed by the other tasks: that aspect being the utilisation of Scenario Editor tools to create the "AI plans" (essentially "coding the Strat AI" for the scenario) for the SP experience.  For example, requests like the following have no bearing/relevance whatsoever on a scenario designers ability to make the best MP CM scenario:
Having highlighted this fundamental difference between making SP and MP scenarios, this thread probably would be more accurately titled as "A new test for SP scenario designers?".
3)
When you think about it, it certainly is interesting to consider that the ENTIRE evaluation of the "CPU opponent" in any CM "SP experience" is essentially a reflection of how good or bad a scenario designer was at being able to utilise and apply the fixed/limited set of "AI plan" creation tools Battlefront has made available in the Scenario Editor to "emulate" a credible and worthy "CPU opponent" for a particular scenario.  You could say that the TacAI also contributes somewhat to the totality of the opposition of what a player playing a SP scenario is up against, but of course this ubiquitous TacAI (common to all units on both sides)functions completely independently to whatever the scenario objectives may be.
I kind of think of the very much understated task of "coding the CPU opponent" for SP in any "one side against another" computer game like CM to be tantamount to trying to both understand something as complex as how humans would think, behave and respond to certain situations and then trying to emulate and express that via a digital representation of those situations using a bunch of computer code and algorithms, that creates a kind of believable virtual "ghost in the machine" spirit that somehow "takes control of the SP controls" and "thinks, behaves and responds" sufficiently enough to make it "human like".
Broadly speaking, involving oneself in anything that has to do with the actual CODING of the "AI code" component that forms part of the "CPU Opponent" in a SP game (typically involving an in-depth practical understanding of a complex and detailed variety of boolean logic, mathematical algorithms as well as the coding language being used) has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with and is completely divorced from say a CM scenario designer (or for that matter even a game developer) from making  a brilliant scenario (or game) that is designed to be played by two human players heat to head.  I understand that a scenario (or game like CM) purely designed to be played head-to-head MP would still require aspects of "AI coding" (and all that it entails) to have been done to create the "TacAI".  But again, this "TacAI" is fundamentally different to (and serves a different function to) the kind of higher level "StratAI" which is essentially responsible for being the "substitute human player" at the controls of co-ordinating a collection of units to meet a specific scenario (or game) goal/objective, acting as the CPU opponent in a SP scenario (or game).
Consider a CM scenario designer who just wants to make a MP scenario based on some historical battle. Most would already possess a strong enough knowledge of the battle, the map and the OOBs to easily know where to access the resources they need before they jump in to the Scenario Editor. This is where their true passion and drive to create the scenario in the first place stems from.  Many would feel like they are "in their element" getting in to the research and details of the battle because they are naturally interested in the subject matter and can spend countless hours on map and OOB tweaks to get things just right.  This is evident in many scenarios (specifically the maps) I have seen which really is good to see.  If they can get some pre-release playtesting and feedback done (which I know many struggle to get) all well and good, but once the map is done, the OOBs settled and other scenario parameters decided upon (objectives, parameters etc), their work is done.  All it takes now is for two willing CM players to face off against each other on this virtual battlefield that was created.  The scenario designer "threw the party", and the two players "made it happen".
Now consider if the CM scenario designer instead wants to make it a SP scenario.  They would have to essentially do all the things I have explained above (being comfortable and well within their element to do so), but then reach a point where they would need to start "coding the CPU opponent" (for at least one side, if not both) to make the scenario playable as a SP scenario.  This task is not only so different and unrelated to anything they have had to do up till then, but is also a task which is probably the most difficult and challenging to "get right".  They literally are now involving themselves in a very specialised task that not even some dedicated wargame game developers can get right...coding the CPU opponent to "take the wheel" of one to react and behave in a worthwhile, logical and challenging way side so a human can play against it in SP.
I would hope scenario designers definitely know where their real strengths and interests lie before deciding on whether to make SP scenarios, as opposed MP only scenarios.  If they are not interested in learning and dealing with all the shortcomings of what are a very rudimentary and basic set of tools made available to them in the Scenario Editor to create AI plans so that players can have a credible/challenging SP experience against a CPU opponent, there certainly is no shame in just designing the scenario to be played MP, and not SP.
For those scenario designers who do take take on the challenge of designing SP scenarios despite the extra work and extra skillset needed, I definitely hope that Battlefront pay attention to the suggestions for enhancements/improvements in the suite AI plan creation tools in the Scenario Editor.