Experimental Design - CM1 Operations in CM2 (Video)

[Ithikial_AU]

5 hours ago, BletchleyGeek said:

Anybody interested in taking up this as a QB? I would gladly play either side, in either modality.

Are you going to post further directions @Ithikial_AU? Like what are the force restrictions etc.?

Not really but I think the map itself sort of lends itself to being an infantry heavy affair. If you want to try and push a full mechanised force through some dense hedgerows and forests be my guest.   The campaign eventually will be heavily infantry based as you command the 2/137IR of the 35 US ID with some minor armour support. Be curious to see a how a Commonwealth force pushes up the hill against some dug in German defenders but that's only a curiosity, obviously not part of the campaign.

2 hours ago, benpark said:

That was an excellent, descriptive video of what it takes to make a map that is engaging to play on. Placing little narrative devices around the map makes the difference between a sterile game board and something that feels like a place that is engaging both to play on, and to simply explore.

I've placed all kinds of weird things around map that I have narratives about. The cross in the woods behind the baker's house, the ruins in the forest...

Thanks benpark. Don't worry I've noticed some over time while fighting over your maps.

[BletchleyGeek]

3 minutes ago, Ithikial_AU said:

Not really but I think the map itself sort of lends itself to being an infantry heavy affair. If you want to try and push a full mechanised force through some dense hedgerows and forests be my guest.   The campaign eventually will be heavily infantry based as you command the 2/137IR of the 35 US ID with some minor armour support. Be curious to see a how a Commonwealth force pushes up the hill against some dug in German defenders but that's only a curiosity, obviously not part of the campaign.

I was actually thinking of a US Army vs. GE FJ match up - as that would be quite historical, and both are very cool OOBs. Substantial engineering support should be readily available.

A CW Bn would be quite interesting too, but that would be an operation about TOTALIZE right? This has quite the flair of a US show... let's not steal the show from them

[Ithikial_AU]

2 hours ago, BletchleyGeek said:

I was actually thinking of a US Army vs. GE FJ match up - as that would be quite historical, and both are very cool OOBs. Substantial engineering support should be readily available.

A CW Bn would be quite interesting too, but that would be an operation about TOTALIZE right? This has quite the flair of a US show... let's not steal the show from them

I'll have to check my maps when I get home but the FJ around St Lo were operating to the east of this action. The Germans in this vicinity were from the 352 ID, which in reality by this stage was a division in name only. The 352 ID was a series of KG's that had been cobbled together from surviving troops from multiple shattered divisions that had been in engaged since June 6th, as well as reinforcements from the divisions rushed over from Britanny to build up the resemblence of a fighting force. The KG holding this strongpoint was actually from the 266 ID.

Totalize was more traditional open ground affair wasn't it? Also occuredfew weeks later than when this engagement is set.

[BletchleyGeek]

Good points both

It's not TOTALIZE I was thinking of what the I British Corps was doing on the right flank around Villiers-Bocage and Caumont... I can't remember the name of that one.

Quote

The Germans in this vicinity were from the 352 ID, which in reality by this stage was a division in name only. The 352 ID was a series of KG's that had been cobbled together from surviving troops from multiple shattered divisions that had been in engaged since June 6th, as well as reinforcements from the divisions rushed over from Britanny to build up the resemblence of a fighting force. The KG holding this strongpoint was actually from the 266 ID.

You have obviously done your research well, @Ithikial_AU - Heer will be fine too. Any idea of what was the size of that KG in terms of Company equivalents?

[Warts 'n' all]

I think that you are getting a bit muddled, Bletch. I Corps were on the left flank, North of Caen, initially comprising 3rd Canadian, 3rd British, and 6th Airborne. Those three would later be joined by others, and would become part of 1st Canadian Army.

[BletchleyGeek]

Muddled my mind is after this gruelling week

[Ithikial_AU]

8 hours ago, BletchleyGeek said:

You have obviously done your research well, @Ithikial_AU - Heer will be fine too. Any idea of what was the size of that KG in terms of Company equivalents?

Sources are mixed on this one by this point. Not exactly a lot of time for record keeping during the Battle of St Lo. However the KG was about 1,800 men spread over two battalions with some support weapons. No armour to speak of. There will be a video blog on it soon.

[Ithikial_AU]

Two new videos in the blog series. SPOILER ALERT - Talking about my thinking around unit selection, so if you want to one day go into this one blind then suggest not taking a look.

Enjoy and hopefully a few ideas around things to think about for others wanting to take the plunge into the editor.

The US Army (the player's forces) is up first.

 

And the German Heer.

 

[Glubokii Boy]

With regards to the germans...Have you considdered  mixing in some straggler units on the defender side ?

Or do you feel that the germans managed to reinforce this formation up to full strenth both headcountvise  and also up to full organic TOEs with regards to equipment...?

An option could perhaps be to make one company more of a straggler formation...or maybe mix in some straggler-squads with the regular platoons acroos the whole formation or something ....

 

 

[Ithikial_AU]

On 05/05/2018 at 2:05 AM, RepsolCBR said:

With regards to the germans...Have you considdered  mixing in some straggler units on the defender side ?

Or do you feel that the germans managed to reinforce this formation up to full strenth both headcountvise  and also up to full organic TOEs with regards to equipment...?

An option could perhaps be to make one company more of a straggler formation...or maybe mix in some straggler-squads with the regular platoons acroos the whole formation or something ....

 

 

There will probably be the odd team that will be added for individual scenarios seperate to the core unit file. I think I've mentioned the bunker issue before on one of the forums or in one of the videos before so that's a good example. However I don't want to get caught up relying on these 'once off units' too much. The player has to feel they are making a difference as they push forward up the hill. Being able to push in and eliminate the Germans from three lines of hedgerows in a single battle, only for the next battle to see those lines manned with fresh forces would just be a slap in the face to the player. If you have a nasty fight that leaves one of your companies severely bloodied but you know the enemy got just the same treatment, you should feel safe in knowing that overall it was probably worth it. (And rotate your forces around for the next engagement- giving time for the weakened company to recover).

I don't mind the player winning the campaign (in fact I want them to!). The best result would be once the end of campaign screen comes up they sit back and feel they had a challenge but one that was never felt insumountable and a frustration to continue. Purely my own personal opinion -> Even some of the stock scenarios/campaigns have probably fallen more into the frustration basket. Campaigns where your forces are whittled down to being a shell of their former selves and you simply can't progress during the next scenario. You hit the ceasefire button and see you have a dug in battalion in front of you. Ok a bit of an exageration but the player should never get to that point where the follow on sceanrio they enter is simply unwinnable. That's not fun and this design encourages players to just give up or begin save scumming to play through a campaign.

[Ithikial_AU]

300 foxholes plus other assorted fortifications placed. Plenty of places for the German defenders to hide. I think that about covers it.

[Bulletpoint]

On 4/29/2018 at 4:58 AM, Ithikial_AU said:

Two new videos in the blog series. SPOILER ALERT - Talking about my thinking around unit selection, so if you want to one day go into this one blind then suggest not taking a look.

Enjoy and hopefully a few ideas around things to think about for others wanting to take the plunge into the editor.

The US Army (the player's forces) is up first.

 

I think you misunderstand a bit how the game works. You go through adjusting the experience level of the various leaders, but in fact this has no impact on the subordinate units.

Also, I think the "typical" dropdown setting on the left is only for unit equipment quality? Not for the experience level.

[Ithikial_AU]

10 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I think you misunderstand a bit how the game works. You go through adjusting the experience level of the various leaders, but in fact this has no impact on the subordinate units.

Also, I think the "typical" dropdown setting on the left is only for unit equipment quality? Not for the experience level.

From the manual:

Typical Setting - For all of the above settings except Vehicle Status, the option “Typical” is also available. This choice randomly sets the value to be a typical (historical) value for the selected formation and the selected timeframe. Typical is the default setting for all options and is a good way for the scenario designer to get some variety for his scenario without having to adjust each and every unit individually.

 

As for leadership soft factor for the leaders, my understanding was the speed of the information transfer was still affected?

[domfluff]

Typical definitely includes Experience levels - check out CMBS US FO's versus, say, CMFI Italians.

[Bulletpoint]

On 10/15/2018 at 6:26 AM, Ithikial_AU said:

Typical Setting - For all of the above settings except Vehicle Status, the option “Typical” is also available. This choice randomly sets the value to be a typical (historical) value for the selected formation and the selected timeframe. Typical is the default setting for all options and is a good way for the scenario designer to get some variety for his scenario without having to adjust each and every unit individually.

Maybe it's very dependent on the type of formation and the exact year/month. I tried to purchase a couple of formations and comparing the best/worst settings. Couldn't really see any difference in experience levels. But it was just some very quick testing.