sanman

My hat is off to those who take the time to do true historical scenarios . After designing a few fictional and Semi fictional historical operations. I started on a Historical one. After a week or two of trying to find accurate maps, translating them and building and rivers and roads into a historical map representing the pictures I found, I gave up . There were not enough options in the scenario builder to make a real historical map that made sense. Also the battle, didn't happen in the time frame of 30 mins. or even 140 mins. they took all day and continued for days. Compete non conflicting information on all the units, strengths, ammo, arty rounds, air power, etc. was not available(at least I could not find it). I now realize this is a game. The best you can do is get the area right, have the forces make sense to the area, time frame and force makeup. Have the terrain roughly match the area. The main thing is to have a good reason to (mission) capture/defend, make it interesting, fun and balanced. If you get most of it right is it historical? How do you know you are not missing units or landscape important to the scenario but lost to history. History this far away is always based on conflicting, incomplete accounts and this game is to limited to make truly accurate simulations anyway. I would bet that all scenarios labeled historical could be challenged in some way. There is just no way the CM game engine can dupicate the all the factors important to a particular battle, So I believe all scenarios are really semi-historical, what ifs . Sanman

I'll take the Sherman Jumbo with the 76mm, Just love watching shell bounce off it (except the big 88)great slug it out tank. Speed is good and it has a fast turrent. sanman

Thanks for the info yankeedog, makes my losses much more bareable. I had heard so much about tungstens ability to kill big cats from the front I was surprise to see the shells bounce off at that range. Won't try that again :eek: . Sanman

In a game I am playing I had a 76mm Sherman fire two tungsten shells(I made sure they were tungsten not AP) against a Panther (head on) at 100m. Both bounced . Is this possible? I thought a tungsten shell could go though 243mm of armor at that distants, and a Panther is only 110mm at its thickest, Am I missing something? :confused: Sanman

As someone who is getting CMBB next month I kind of agree with Dandelion. When I played the demos I found them dreary. No beautiful landscape and building to blow up , but I look forward to the large operations . As a scenario designer I think one of the few draw backs of both CMBO and CMBB are the time limits on battles and artillery. Most historical accounts of battles that I have read show them lasting for much longer than a hour or two (even small infantry op's). A lot of times the Arty lasted that long. If you are realistic about the time it takes (CMBB) to get arty support would'nt you have to also be realistic as to how long a battle usally is, though I'm not sure that is possible without making the turns longer. Operations give you a better feel of a longer battle but if you put together 5 battles to represent one day I think the amount of troop movement before each battle is unrealistic. I guess it is the one size fits all that I find doesn’t work. If there were more options in designing scenarios I think we would get much more realistic battles. Take artillery, In many defensive situations (and some offensive) Arty was well plotted out before the battle (up ten, left 25, fire) where as in other cases such as close support it was much more difficult. More options for the FO’s in scenario design would allow you to match the time it takes for arty to the historical and tactical facts of a battle. Giving the scenario designers more options would work in many other areas to allow us to build scenarios that are more realistic. Just a thought, maybe BTS is listening :eek: . Sanman

As a newer scenario designer it would be good to have some constructive feedback on my scenarios from more experienced scenario designers. You cannot do Beta versions with out it. I’ve found my CMBO operation scenarios on Scenario Depot do not get reviewed even though I know people are playing them ( I have found a few people who have played them through my own PBEM play and people who email me about them) and like them . I know most people are playing CMBB but I feel there is so much great historical stuff from the western front that has not been cover yet. I also admit that I am waiting for CMAK before doing any major historical projects. I look forward to placing some of my best work on the Proving Grounds as well as using it for a place to find people to Play. Good Work :cool: . Sanman

All reserves come when the AI thinks you need them. They come at the beginning of a battle like the reinforcements. First to come is battalion, then regimental finally Divisional. They can come separately or all at once depending on what the AI thinks you need (I have no idea how the AI figures it out). If your real good you can even win without ever getting the reserves. It really ads a lot of unpredictability to the game. You can be winning when your emery gets their reserves which can allow them to narrow the game. Arty can also do that. Sanman

Tacitrain, You need to give the attacker enough time to fight their way to the back of map, but not so much they can take their time. The only way to make sure it’s fair to both sides is to play against the AI. Somewhere between 120 and 140 turns in 5 to 7 battles is a good place to start. Reinforcements are also critical to a good game. A large reinforcement in the middle of the game and the rest coming as reserves is also a good place to start. BTU Arty really needs to be appropriate for the operation historically. Sometimes you expect a lot of Arty, sometimes you don’t. To be interesting your operations should have some historical reality. Sanman

Very good observations Dandelion. We do need more huge scenario designers as well as players . I have used Artillery a lot in my scenarios on both sides. I give each spotter the max amount so in the first battle they have tons which goes down dramatically in re-supply. I only give a couple reinforcement spotters later in the operation. Since these are large pre planned assaults by the Allies on fortified Axis positions I think its accurate. I have read that the Allies would pound Axis positions before attacking (11,000 rounds in a hour for a regimental assault). We don't have the time to do that. I do agree that the timing of the Allied fire is to short and indirect fire to accurate in CMBO, but feel that the killing of a spotter eliminating a whole battery makes up for the cut wire line. Artillery is also is a great equalizer when one side is losing badly but a lot depends on the weather. In the PBEM I'm playing the artillery has kept us both on or toes. You should see the battlefield after 3, 25 turn battles. Looks like a 11,000 round barrage :cool: . Sanman

Tacutrain, you can only have so many units in the scenario (256 or something for each side) . It doesn’t matter if it is a tank or Zook. I have built scenarios with over 16,000 points per side by editing ammo, and experience after choosing forces. Build your infantry first (at Battalion level) to the max level. Then trade things you don’t need in the battle for things you do. For the attack side you might want to get rid of some 60mm mortars, Zooks and extra Platoon HQ’s for more tanks, spotters, etc.. For the defender up grade your guns, trade MG’s for concrete Pillboxes, mortars for artillery etc. If you want to check out my Scenario’s they are at the scenario depot under new CMBO operations (Hells Hole, Hells Lake) Sanman

I have found the AI Free To Set Up works better if you are the defender. It gives at least some amount of surprise. The problem is the AI always starts attacking from far back on the map. This is OK if there is a limited amount of LOS due to weather, trees, hills etc. otherwise you see them coming. Al is not real good at sneaking troops around. It doesn’t work as well if the AI is the defender because the AI has no defensive strategy. Flags might help in CMBB, but I haven’t seen much difference in CMBO battles with flags in free set up. I am currently playing my scenarios PBEM for the first time. What a difference. It is much more difficult unpredictable and intense than a Battle or QB. Strategy becomes so much more important. It does take awhile but has never become boring. The battlefield looks great (after 3 of 5 25 turn battles) littered with dead tanks, lots of craters, blown up bridges etc. We have gone from rain to clear to night with huge battles, small actions, Artillery duels, etc. and I love it :cool: . Sanford

I should have said that my operations are CMBO. If CMBB has flags in operations then that is one problem that is solved as long as some troop will actually stay and defend the flag. I have found that no matter what you do, when action starts happening in one area of the map the defending AI will send troops to that area no matter if they are hidden, paddocked or even put in ambush in setup. Anything that will move comes out of their defensive positions eventually and attacks you . It is almost imposible to set up a layered defence You start a small action on one side of the map and pick off the AI as they move, then you attack on the other side of the map and watch them move back. I have slaughtered huge AI forces this way. You are attacking from a defensive position. A human will not move his defensive forces unless he absolutely has to and then will move them to good defensive positions of his choosing. As far as FO’s goes in CMBO they will leave their setup position if they have no LOS on where the fighting is. The AI loses most of it FO’s in the first battles where as a human player knows those FO’s are going to be needed in the next battle. Also the AI lets it’s FO’s get overrun while a human player will retreat them (along with forces that run out of ammo). I agree with Nippy that some sort of operational command system would be a great advance in the game. Just to be clear, I really love this game and am just offering some observations on CMBO which may have been cleared up in CMBB. Sanman

Having designed a number of huge operation scenarios (see at scenariodepot) I really hope the following problems will be fixed in CMAK operations. 1. Allow flags to be used in operations and make it so the troops defend the flags, not chase after every shot that is fired. 2. A way to make the defending troops stay put and defend instead of attack. 3. Default scenario means the AI does not move any of the troops. 4. Area set up of reinforcements using flags like in a battle. The troops can only be set up with in a certain distance from the flag decided in scenario builder. 5. Better use of FO’s and artillery by AI. 6. If a Fighter-bomber unit cannot attack in a battle due to weather they will be able to attack in the next battle with good weather. 7. Give the scenario designer some options on how the AI forces will attack/defend (send patrols first, stay hidden until contact, etc.,) If BTS would change fix these problem I think operations would be played much more than they are now. I’m one of those people who happens to like operations better than battles as I think they are more interesting, intense, and challenging. PLEASE help us out. Sanman

Redrobin was the first to play one of my operations with me and I learned a lot from him about PBEM play, both with this operation and in general . Like real battle things go wrong (troops don’t get orders) and it can be the small mistakes that come back to haunt you. Luck is also important, Redrobin had some bad luck in the tank duels in the first battle. I hope this goes to the next battle were I can see how he fights at night with a fresh battalion, armor, artillery and a few battles of experience :eek: ....It ain’t over till it’s over. Sanman

Dandelion, Mahalo means thank you in Hawaiian which is were I'm from :cool: . Good luck attacking those Huns Imc1947, Read the briefings as there is some good advice in them and don't give up if it gets bad.