Broadsword56

I posted the map to the Repository a few hours ago, so it should be available to all in the near future.

thanks for the link !

It's pointless and unnecessary to fully detail a home-made master map, since you never know in the beginning which places on it you'll be fighting.
Select the battle area first, then add details.
 
 

Maybe you could grab a chunk and fill it in, just like @Broadsword56 intended? 

heh heh yeah as in - "But it’s not detailed with objects, trees and vegetation or buildings. The idea is that you first cut out the area you want to use, then detail just the actual area of your battle. Still way faster than a map from scratch. "  I do have a version I am working on filling it in, but it is something I only peck at once in a while.
Keep in mind Broadsword was working on that map back before we had overlays etc.  It takes a while for that map to load and detailing it bit by bit is a really long endeavor.  I am in the same place with Sadr City.  No way am I going to detail it with flavor items.  I'll be amazed if I can get it to load just being prepopulated with buildings.

There’s a master map of nearly the entire XIX Corps area for the June 1944 push to Saint-Lo that I made years ago. It’s still widely available on the download site that replaced the BFC Repository. It’s fully accurate from satellite terrain and period photos. But it’s not detailed with objects, trees and vegetation or buildings. The idea is that you first cut out the area you want to use, then detail just the actual area of your battle. Still way faster than a map from scratch.
 

I can see how creating a dynamic lighting model just for night-time flares could be a time sink however perhaps BFC could figure out some kind of "fudge" using the already present UAV mechanics?
The only things flares would really help you see at night is vehicles & moving infantry so using some simple rules like that would bypass the need for dynamic, light-based spotting*.
 
 
Personally, I think the easiest thing that BFC could do to improve the game is to start moving their special effects into a more realistic direction.
The engine four update added all manner of new tracers & I'm not the only one suspicious that they call their explosion "explosion a"... so presumably BFC are planning to move in this direction at some point.
 
 
*The actual glow of the "flare" would just be a visual effect.

Back in 2016, sburke and I were using BCS Last Blitzkrieg to run a KG Peiper campaign with CM2 4.0. 
We’ve found the battles at 3:1 odds are not the ones you necessarily want to set up in CM. But we’ve often found that in the course of a campaign, lots of other, less-certain, oddball engagements happen that make thrilling CM setups. In the Bulge, a single US engineer company holding a bridge vs. A panzer battalion for longer than expected is a huge deal and can cause huge problems for the Germans. Often, we find engagements that look one-sided on paper turn out to be much more interesting and closely fought due to terrain factors, weather (reducing visibility, for example), and localised fog of war. In one battle, I had a US cavalry unit trying to fight a screening/delaying action against Peiper’s spearhead. My nimble little armored cars were able to perform surprisingly well as they shot and scooted from good cover in a village. So my advice is, play the board game and just watch for the interesting and unexpected things to happen. If it’s one of the better-designed games (BCS series certainly qualifies), the game will tell you when a CM-worthy situation appears.

Back in 2016, sburke and I were using BCS Last Blitzkrieg to run a KG Peiper campaign with CM2 4.0. 
We’ve found the battles at 3:1 odds are not the ones you necessarily want to set up in CM. But we’ve often found that in the course of a campaign, lots of other, less-certain, oddball engagements happen that make thrilling CM setups. In the Bulge, a single US engineer company holding a bridge vs. A panzer battalion for longer than expected is a huge deal and can cause huge problems for the Germans. Often, we find engagements that look one-sided on paper turn out to be much more interesting and closely fought due to terrain factors, weather (reducing visibility, for example), and localised fog of war. In one battle, I had a US cavalry unit trying to fight a screening/delaying action against Peiper’s spearhead. My nimble little armored cars were able to perform surprisingly well as they shot and scooted from good cover in a village. So my advice is, play the board game and just watch for the interesting and unexpected things to happen. If it’s one of the better-designed games (BCS series certainly qualifies), the game will tell you when a CM-worthy situation appears.

Steve, can I please ask about how are we (royal) on track for the WWII V4 patches releases?  Tanks in advance!

That IS genuinely good news, Steve!
A Merry Christmas to all, and I look forward to peering through the pixelsmoke of war-torn France, Russia, Italy and Holland again in the new year. 

Hi Bulletpoint! If you are referring to the attached list in terms of scope creep, then no I don't believe that is the case. Most things on that list is a unit characteristic that impacts game algorithms in different ways. While game mechanics have evolved, the core scope of the game has been the same since I made this announcement. Much of what is seen on the forum are deep explanations on many of the different game concepts and characteristics.
You ask if I have considered a simple version to push units around? No that is not under consideration for a variety of different reasons. I am using Vassal to create the mock-up images for the test scenario, but I have not set it up to have any deeper functionality than to generate pictures. Vassal may be of some use to you, and do some or all of what you are talking about. BFC has long told me that their market analysis tells them that the demand for a campaign layer to their CM games is not high enough to justify the risk and the cost of producing one. My recent experience backs up what they were telling me, so it is best to create something that can reach a wider market in hopes of making something close to sustainable. That is why my goal has been to create a standalone operational level game that has features built in to allow flexibility for playing out tactical battles. In other words if I can appeal to multiple niche markets then we have a chance.

Simple, just swap out Alfred's "doody hat"  for a powdered wig and Bob's yer uncle.
I may blow the dust off my le Carillon work. It will keep me out of mischief here, to the relief of not a few.
I tried to day trip from Paris out to the battlefield last June, but... "action contre l'industrie" stopped the trains to St Lô. Worse than Jabos.

whew Broadsword it worked!  All that BS I typed finally got him to revisit this map from way back in early CMBN

It’s been awhile since I have updated this forum, and a lot has happened. We have formed a company called BBG with 3 programmers (2 part time and 1 full time lead programmer) along with various other volunteers, and we have been working on a small project for a publisher to cut our teeth before fully getting in to Theater of Operations. Indie projects are a house of cards, and this is no different. Our lead programmer left due to other obligations and we are basically in a holding pattern until we find a new lead programmer(s). If you or someone you know would be interested in helping out then please send me a message through this forum or email me at choppinlt@gmail.com Experience with Unity is a big plus.

Quick refresher on what this project is about: Theater of Operations (ToO) will be an operational level game designed to allow players to play out battles using Combat Mission. Call it a battle generator, operational layer, a campaign system, or whatever you like. Come over to our forum to learn lots more about this project: http://dogsofwarvu.com/forum/index.php/board,36.0.html  
Matt

After reading up on night battles during Bagration, and trying to create them in CMRT, I think we are in desperate need of illumination missions.
My carefully planned ambushes of tank columns turn into slugging matches at less than 100m as there is no way to light up the enemy when they enter the kill zone besides leaving my prepared positions and wading in.
The quality of night combat in CMBS thanks to NV just illustrates how badly a way to fight at night is needed for the other titles.

And in at least one WWII campaign -- Operation Market Garden -- a chain-link fence played an important role. It was a high one that lined part of the British main route from their drop zone to Arnhem. It channeled movement and trapped some British paras when the Germans counterattacked.

Ahhh, that' s nothin. I remember when we PC gamers routinely had to manually add lines of code to our config.sys and autoexec.bat system files, just to be able to boot up a game and have it run with the limited memory that existed on machines of 25+ years ago... 

Ahhh, that' s nothin. I remember when we PC gamers routinely had to manually add lines of code to our config.sys and autoexec.bat system files, just to be able to boot up a game and have it run with the limited memory that existed on machines of 25+ years ago... 

Ahhh, that' s nothin. I remember when we PC gamers routinely had to manually add lines of code to our config.sys and autoexec.bat system files, just to be able to boot up a game and have it run with the limited memory that existed on machines of 25+ years ago... 

I havn't gone backwards to 3.0 but I fully agree with Hilts on "the fleeing of troops from buildings and fortifications when a HE round lands anywhere near them!".Please correct that in 2018.Other than that I love 4.0.

This is great Steve but when can we expect some kind of a patch to correct the problem that was introduced with version 4.0? I am referring of course to the fleeing of troops from buildings and fortifications when a HE round lands anywhere near them! We have been waiting over a year now and many of us have had to revert all our games back to version 3.0 to get a decent game. 

I started some tests to look at this because there have been a few posts like yours around. There must be more going on here though because I did *not* see the behaviour you saw in my first try. I built a small map with a building complex and a single stand alone building in 3.12. Then I ran the test in both 3.12 and 4.00. Basically a US squad vs a German Platoon. Two teams are in the font building of a complex one on the first floor and one on the second floor. The third team is in the single story stand alone building near by. The Platoon HQ is in the back attached building nice and safe so everyone is in C2.
The bottom line is: running this in 3.12 it takes about 6 minutes before all the US teams have withdrawn. In engine 4.00 it takes around 4 minutes. So the 4.00 engine does seems to have guys getting out of dodge earlier than previous versions. I have not run this enough to comment on casulties or how reproducible those numbers are.
As for withdrawal routes there is no significant difference. I gave the guys in the building complex exits to the rear attached buildings (the best choice), out into the side yard protected by bocage (the second best choice) and wide open lawn on the other side (the sucky choice). They consistently choose the best choice and mostly crawled and sometimes ran in to the attached safe building. The guys in the single story house had no good choices just open spaces. They hold their position longer than the guys with the good withdrawl routes. When they decide to go they chose to exit out the back door (better than the front) and keep the building between them and the enemy (they cannot block all the incoming fire so they are going to die if they stay there). In the 4.0 engine they often make a break across the open space to the building complex. Which I think is actually the very best choice for those guys since they have to be in the open they might as well make a try for safety.
Can you share a save game or two or the map you are using? PM me to work out details on sharing.

it is covered

Lots more work to do on this, but...
Sneak Peek: