George MC

Thank you

Some screens in a quick and dirty wee film from a 'Heart of the Dying Sun' Many thanks to Douglas Nash for allowing the use of the name and for help in nailing down some of the detail of this action.

The answer is there you just have to look between the lines. It would depend what corps the division was attached to and what higher level arty support they'd receive. At divisional level be unlikely you'd have Heer art support a SS unit UNLESS the Heer arty unit was subordinated to the SS division. So its all bout chain of command and unit attachments. So yes it is possible for a Heer or SS arty unit to support a SS or Heer unit BUT ONLY if they were subordinated to that unit or it was subordinated to a higher unit e.g. SS Pz Div subordinated to a Heer corps. IV SS Pz Corps had many staff officers from the Heer simply because when formed it lacked sufficiently experienced staff officers. So yeah lots of stuff with Heer and SSS unit working together would not be unusual.

Good overview of German artillery C&C https://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/artillery-command.html

Thanks for the update. Your insight and accompanying maps are really insightful thanks and help clarify what appears to have been a rather chaotic and high intensity situation for both sides! It also poses a puzzle as I’m keen to nail down what unit these KO Panthers belonged to. Its been bugging me ever since I saw the image! The next ramble monologue is more me thinking out loud than arguing a point so feel free to challenge or contradict me The Soviets attacked along the seam of the boundary between ‘Totenkopf’ and ‘Wiking’ which means armour from both divisions saw action in or around that Jasienica/Krusze/Tluszcz sector. I think the position of the armour around Krusze relates to the attack by elements from ‘Totenkopf’. On the 18 August they engaged 3 x IS-II tanks from the Soviet 62nd Guards Heavy Tank Regiment with the Soviets claiming 3 Panthers damaged. On the 19 August ‘Totenkopf’ continued attacks against the IS-II tanks from the Soviet 62nd Guards Heavy Tank Regiment, when Panthers from stabs Kompanie and I/SS-Pz-Rgt 3 with 7 Panthers from 1. Kompanie on point initiated an attack. One Panther was knocked out and another badly shot up. They launched further attacks later that day. Though no info on Panther casualties from German sources. They received some support from Panthers from ‘Wiking’ who provided support near Kozly. The Tiger-Kompanie was involved in this attack and lost 3 Tigers from 9 Kompanie (Ref ‘The History of The Totenkopf’s Panther-Abteilung’ by Ian Wood which is a direct translation of the war diary entries of the battalion). The ’Wiking’ panthers who entered the fray at Kozly were from the 5 Kompanie SS-Pz-Rgt 5 (Ref Viking Panthers by Ewald Klapold which is a narrative leaning heavily on the SS-Pz-Rgt 5 war diary). Thye claim they knocked out 5 enemy tanks but again no indication of their own losses (if any). The same source states that 8 Kompanie (after escaping from Borki) were also involved (see my earlier schematic from the 8 Guards Tank Corps). Its interesting to note that 7 Kompanie do not show up in the German accounts (taken from Wiking war diary) the following days. The next reference I can find of 7 Kompanie is the 4 September when Olin’s platoon from 7 Kompanie was tasked as a ready reserve. Olin was also involved din the breakout attempt by Fluegal’s panzergruppe on the night of the 18/19 August, so he made it out. In September 7 Kompanie start being referenced but the German account only mentions 4 Panthers. So whose are these Panthers? Wiking never received any more panther replacements after April 1944 (Ref Fire Brigades by Kamen Nevenkin). So their II Battalion went into action and remained in action with the Panthers they had on strength by end of April 1944. They went into action in June with 77 Panthers on strength plus 1 in short term repair. By the 1 August 1944 they’d 42 operational plus 24 in short term repair (total 66 Panthers) so assume 12 panthers totally written off. By 1 September 1944 they’d 19 operational with 13 on short term repair (Total 32 Panthers) so assume 34 written off. So they suffered their heaviest losses between 1/8/44 and 1/9/44 which is no surprise given what they faced and the intensity of fighting they were engaged in. Still its no answering the question of the KOd 9 panthers at Jasienica. So how many Panthers did 7 Kompanie have? Given the unit started at nearly full strength then we can assume 7 Kompanie went into action in June with a full complement of 17 panthers. BUT mechanicals and action would quickly reduce this. Dennis Oliver in his book ‘Viking Summer’ shows 7 Kompanie having 9 Panthers confirmed by photo evidence (not to say they had more i.e. 17 just they were never photographed?). Re the Panther 811. I wonder if that was a tank SS-Obersturmführer Karl Nicolussi-Leck was using? Fluegal had a company commanders briefing so all the company Cos (6, 7 and 8 companies) were in and around his tank when it all kicked off big style. Nicolussi-Leck was wounded with shrapnel in his hip and ended up being taken on board Fluegal’s tank. Which makes you think what happened to his tank? Fluegal does mention his command (stab and 7 Kompanie plus CO Grossrock 6th Pz Kompanie) was subject to aerial ground attack and states “we took some losses” (Viking Panzers page 337) but he does not mention what losses. Crew? Panthers? The first KOd Panther was when “we heard a detonation in the direction where my non-operational tank had been located…” I assume this was a 7 Kompanie Panther given they were the main combat strength. Then they lost Alfred Grossrock’s Panther hit by an AT gun at the embankment/railway tunnel. Then they lost another Panther (battalion adjutant) when it drove into a bomb crater; another hit an AT mine; and one blown up by Soviet infantry tank hunters. So makes five Panthers confirmed going ‘boom’ one way or another (sorry can’t count my earlier post said four…). Plus we have mention of losses earlier to “aerial ground attack” using “parachute bombs” (Viking Panzers mentions these were most likely sea mines converted as an aerial bomb and dropped by parachute so reckon they’d mess up a Panther no problem!). Interestingly I found an AAR from the 76th Guards Rifle Division which given was typed my scan translation is rather poor but this is what is says “flogging at 18.00 eight opposing tanks broke through into the area of the railway doors. porska vop.Yasenitsa, and neti in the area of op - ortilleria and minaust. Facrem's guns opened fire with direct fire, rasstroliroli them at point-blank range. in five minutes a choter of 1941 Machines burned on the field, and the rest stuck together in the forest…” So in that verbal garbage appears to be an attack by 8 enemy tanks which were ambushed by Soviet AT(?) guns and all were knocked out. It confirms the embankment and the rest stuck together in the forest (which correlates with Fluegal’s account of them remaining in the Debina woods). This is the link – you might be able to translate though guess depends if you can understand Cyrillic script? This is the link? If you can translate into polish it might give a cleaner translation than my crappy AI scan/translate app! https://pamyat-naroda.ru/documents/view/?id=136935411&static_hash=e8c57da717b3ee11d585c15980f3ebfbv1 Thanks for sharing the info you have – its helping clearing up the image of the KOd Panthers and how they met their fate. Dziękuję za aktualizację. Twoje spostrzeżenia i towarzyszące mapy są naprawdę wnikliwe dzięki i pomagają wyjaśnić, co wydaje się być dość chaotyczną i intensywną sytuacją dla obu stron! Stanowi to również zagadkę, ponieważ chcę ustalić, do jakiej jednostki należały te KO Panthers. Wkurza mnie odkąd zobaczyłem ten obraz! Następny chaotyczny monolog to bardziej głośne myślenie niż kłótnia, więc możesz rzucić mi wyzwanie lub mi się sprzeciwić Sowieci zaatakowali na styku granicy między „Totenkopf” i „Wiking”, co oznacza, że opancerzenie obu dywizji brało udział w lub wokół tego odcinka Jasienica/Krusze/Tłuszcz. Myślę, że położenie pancerza wokół Kruszy odnosi się do ataku przez elementy z „Totenkopf”. 18 sierpnia walczyli z 3 czołgami IS-II z radzieckiego 62. pułku czołgów ciężkich gwardii, a Sowieci twierdzili, że 3 Pantery zostały uszkodzone. 19 sierpnia „Totenkopf” kontynuował ataki na czołgi IS-II z sowieckiego 62 Pułku Czołgów Ciężkich Gwardii, kiedy to Pantery ze szpicy Kompanie i I/SS-Pz-Rgt 3 z 7 Panterami z 1. Kompania rozpoczęły atak . Jedna Pantera została znokautowana, a inna poważnie postrzelona. Później tego samego dnia rozpoczęli kolejne ataki. Chociaż brak informacji o ofiarach Panther ze źródeł niemieckich. Otrzymywali pewne wsparcie od Panter z „Wiking”, które udzieliły wsparcia w pobliżu Kozly. Tygrys-Kompanie był zaangażowany w ten atak i stracił 3 Tygrysy z 9 Kompanii (Ref. „The History of The Totenkopf’s Panther-Abteilung” autorstwa Iana Wooda, który jest bezpośrednim tłumaczeniem zapisów z dziennika wojennego batalionu). Pantery „Wiking”, które weszły do walki w Kozlych, pochodziły z 5 Kompani SS-Pz-Rgt 5 (Ref Viking Panthers autorstwa Ewalda Klapolda, który jest narracją mocno opartą na dzienniku wojennym SS-Pz-Rgt 5). Twierdzą, że znokautowali 5 czołgów wroga, ale znowu nic nie wskazuje na ich własne straty (jeśli w ogóle). To samo źródło podaje, że w grę wchodziło również 8 Kompani (po ucieczce z Borek) (patrz mój wcześniejszy schemat z 8 Korpusu Pancernego Gwardii). Warto zauważyć, że 7 Kompanie nie pojawia się w niemieckich rachunkach (zaczerpniętych z dziennika wojennego Wiking) w następnych dniach. Kolejna wzmianka o 7 Kompanie, jaką udało mi się znaleźć, to 4 września, kiedy pluton Olina z 7 Kompani otrzymał zadanie jako gotowa rezerwa. Olin był również zaangażowany w próbę ucieczki z panzergruppe Fluegal w nocy z 18 na 19 sierpnia, więc udało mu się. 7 września pojawia się wzmianka o Kompanie, ale w niemieckiej relacji są tylko 4 Pantery. Więc kim są te Pantery? Wiking nigdy nie otrzymał już żadnych zamienników panter po kwietniu 1944 (Ref Fire Brigades by Kamen Nevenkin). Tak więc ich II batalion wkroczył do akcji i pozostał w akcji z Panterami, które posiadali pod koniec kwietnia 1944 roku. Do akcji weszli w czerwcu z 77 czołgami Panther w sile plus 1 w krótkim czasie naprawy. Do 1 sierpnia 1944 r. były już 42 sprawne i 24 w naprawie krótkoterminowej (w sumie 66 Panter), więc załóżmy, że 12 panter zostało całkowicie spisanych na straty. Do 1 września 1944 roku było ich 19, a 13 na krótkoterminowej naprawie (łącznie 32 Pantery), więc załóżmy, że 34 skreślono. Tak więc ponieśli najcięższe straty między 1.08.44 a 1.09.44, co nie jest zaskoczeniem, biorąc pod uwagę to, z czym się zmierzyli i intensywność walk, w które byli zaangażowani. Nadal nie ma odpowiedzi na pytanie o pantery KOd 9 w Jasienicy. Ile więc Panter miało 7 Kompanie? Biorąc pod uwagę, że jednostka wystartowała w niemal pełnej sile, można założyć, że w czerwcu do akcji weszło 7 Kompani z kompletem 17 panter. ALE mechanika i działanie szybko to zredukowałyby. Dennis Oliver w swojej książce „Viking Summer” pokazuje, że 7 Kompani ma 9 Panter potwierdzonych dowodami fotograficznymi (by nie powiedzieć, że mieli ich więcej, bo 17 tylko nigdy ich nie sfotografowano?). Re Panther 811. Ciekawe, czy był to czołg, którego używał SS-Obersturmführer Karl Nicolussi-Leck? Fluegal miał odprawę dowódców kompanii, więc cała kompania Cos (6, 7 i 8 kompanii) znajdowała się w jego czołgu i wokół niego, kiedy wszystko zaczęło się w wielkim stylu. Nicolussi-Leck został ranny odłamkiem w biodro i został zabrany na pokład czołgu Fluegal. Co sprawia, że myślisz, co się stało z jego czołgiem? Fluegal wspomina, że jego dowództwo (dźganie i 7 kompanii plus dowódca Grossrock 6 Pz Kompanie) był przedmiotem ataku naziemnego z powietrza i stwierdza, że „ponieśliśmy pewne straty” (Viking Panzers strona 337), ale nie wspomina, jakie straty. Załoga? Pantery? Pierwszy KOd Panther miał miejsce, gdy „usłyszeliśmy detonację w kierunku, w którym znajdował się mój niedziałający czołg…” Zakładam, że była to 7-kompaniowa Pantera, biorąc pod uwagę, że stanowili główną siłę bojową. Potem stracili Panterę Alfreda Grossrocka trafioną działkiem przeciwpancernym na nasypie / tunelu kolejowym. Potem stracili kolejną Panterę (adiutant batalionu), gdy wjechała w lej po bombie; inny trafił w minę przeciwpancerną; i jeden wysadzony w powietrze przez radzieckich łowców czołgów piechoty. Tak więc pięć Panter potwierdziło, że „boom” w taki czy inny sposób (przepraszam, nie mogę liczyć mojego wcześniejszego postu, który mówił cztery…). Dodatkowo wspomnieliśmy o stratach wcześniej spowodowanych „atakiem naziemnym” przy użyciu „bomb spadochronowych” (Viking Panzers wspomina, że były to najprawdopodobniej miny morskie przekształcone w bombę lotniczą i zrzucone ze spadochronu, więc uważaj, że zepsułyby Panterę, nie ma problemu!) . Co ciekawe, znalazłem AAR z 76. Dywizji Strzelców Gwardii, który został wpisany, moje tłumaczenie skanu jest raczej kiepskie, ale tak mówi „chłosta o 18.00 osiem czołgów przeciwnych przebiło się w rejon drzwi kolejowych. porska vop.Yasenitsa i neti w rejonie op - ortilleria i minaust. Pistolety Facrema otworzyły ogień ogniem bezpośrednim, rasstroliroli je z bliskiej odległości. w pięć minut ćwierkanie 1941 r. Maszyny spłonęły na polu, a reszta skleiła się w lesie…” Więc w tym słownym śmietniku wydaje się być atak 8 czołgów wroga, które zostały zaatakowane przez radzieckie działa AT(?) i wszystkie zostały znokautowane. Potwierdza nasyp i resztę sklejoną w lesie (co koreluje z relacją Fluegal o ich pozostaniu w lasach dębińskich). To jest link – możesz być w stanie przetłumaczyć, ale zgadywanie zależy od tego, czy rozumiesz cyrylicę? To jest link? Jeśli potrafisz przetłumaczyć na polski, może to dać czystsze tłumaczenie niż moja kiepska aplikacja do skanowania/tłumaczenia AI! https://pamyat-naroda.ru/documents/view/?id=136935411&static_hash=e8c57da717b3ee11d585c15980f3ebfbv1 Dziękujemy za udostępnienie informacji, które posiadasz – pomaga to poprawić wizerunek KOd Panthers i sposób, w jaki spotkał ich los. Cheery! George

"Hey, as far as I know, Jasienica was defended on August 18 by the 7th and 8th companies of the Wiking armored division. During the retreat towards the city of Tłuszcz, the panthers of these companies were ambushed and lost 9 panthers while passing under the viaduct, they lost another 5 in the morning also in Jasienica. Hard name for your panther sales company. Joke. In the fields and in the river, there are common elements after these tanks." George Mc replied: Apologies I don’t speak polish so ran this through a translator – hope it makes sense? I have the German AAR re the actions of the Wiking Panthers and also the Soviet AARs from the 8 Guards Tank Corps. They’re hand written AARs so scanning and translating the documents throws up some ‘odd’ translations. The AARs do have schematics of the German actions. One from the 59th Guards Tank Brigade Scheme 18 Aug 1944 shows what I think are attacks by 7 and 8 companies II/SS-Pz-Rgt-5. The AAR scheme from the 8 Guards Tank Corps (I’ve annotated what I think are the German units involved based on German reports) shows a wider view of the actions on the 18 and 19 August. One thing I’ve been unable to square are the German losses. The Germans lost Panthers no doubt about it. There are initial small, localised counterattacks by Wiking tanks (and a SPW company) in the initial stages of the attack – these were aimed at stopping the first Soviet echelon attacking Jasienica. 7 company (approx. 8 Panthers) and the battalion HQ tanks (3 Panthers) so 11 Panthers at most, with at the first stages an SPW company from III/Germania were east of Jasienica and 8 Company around Borki based on German reports. This ties in with the Soviet AARs. It does appear 7 company pulled back in the morning (though TBH German accounts are really vague re this) into the Dobina woods east of Jasienica and holed up there. Their attempts to then breakthough/attack westwards saw them being engaged at the embankment/railway tunnel and lost Alfred Grossrock’s Panther hit by an AT gun. One Panther (battalion adjutant) drove into a bomb crater; another hit an AT mine; and one blown up by Soviet infantry tank hunters. So three in total plus one lost in combat earlier in the day 9though Fleugal in his account suggest the crew below it up after they became surrounded by Soviet infantry). So 4 Panthers in total. 8 Company, was positioned in and around Borki and was under the temporary command of SS-Hauptscharführer Eugen Faas after SS-Obersturmführer Karl Nicolussi-Leck had been severely wounded by shrapnel found itself with six operational Panther tanks and managed to hold its position around Borki till midnight, destroying five T-34s and seven anti-tank guns before managing to retire the new German lines around Kol. I’m unclear as to how many panthers it started out with but would be no more than 14 Panthers. If so then it lost up to 8 Panthers but as I say unclear as to how many it started out with. Przepraszam, nie mówię po polsku, więc przepuściłem to przez tłumacza – mam nadzieję, że to ma sens? Posiadam niemiecki AAR dotyczący działań Wikingów Panter, a także radzieckie AAR z 8 Korpusu Pancernego Gwardii. Są to ręcznie pisane AAR, więc skanowanie i tłumaczenie dokumentów powoduje pojawienie się „dziwnych” tłumaczeń. AARs mają schematy działań Niemców. Jeden z 59. Schematu Brygady Pancernej Gwardii 18 sierpnia 1944 r. pokazuje, co uważam za ataki 7 i 8 kompanii II/SS-Pz-Rgt-5. Schemat AAR z 8 Korpusu Pancernego Gwardii (na podstawie niemieckich raportów sporządziłem adnotację o zaangażowanych jednostkach niemieckich) pokazuje szerszy obraz działań z 18 i 19 sierpnia. Jedyną rzeczą, której nie udało mi się wyrównać, są straty niemieckie. Nie ma co do tego wątpliwości, że Niemcy stracili Pantery. W początkowej fazie ataku występują niewielkie, lokalne kontrataki czołgów Wiking (i kompanii SPW) – miały one na celu zatrzymanie pierwszego sowieckiego rzutu atakującego Jasienicę. 7 kompanii (ok. 8 Panter) i dowództwo batalionu czołgów (3 Pantery) czyli co najwyżej 11 Panter, przy czym w pierwszych etapach na wschód od Jasienicy znajdowała się kompania SPW z III/Niemcy, a 8 kompanii wokół Borek na podstawie niemieckich raportów. Wiąże się to z radzieckimi AAR. Wygląda na to, że 7 kompanii wycofało się rano (choć niemieckie rachunki TBH są naprawdę niejasne) do lasu Dobina na wschód od Jasienicy i tam się zaszyły. Ich próby przełamania się / ataku na zachód spowodowały, że zostali zaatakowani przy nasypie / tunelu kolejowym i stracili Panterę Alfreda Grossrocka trafioną działkiem przeciwpancernym. Jedna Pantera (adiutant batalionu) wjechała w lej po bombie; inny trafił w minę przeciwpancerną; i jeden wysadzony w powietrze przez radzieckich łowców czołgów piechoty. Tak więc łącznie trzy plus jeden przegrany w walce wcześniej tego dnia 9chociaż Fleugal na jego koncie sugeruje, że załoga znajduje się na dole po tym, jak zostali otoczeni przez sowiecką piechotę). W sumie 4 Pantery. 8 kompanii, rozmieszczonej w Borkach i wokół nich i pod tymczasowym dowództwem SS-Hauptscharführera Eugena Faasa po tym, jak SS-Obersturmführer Karl Nicolussi-Leck został ciężko ranny odłamkami, znalazł się z sześcioma sprawnymi czołgami Panther i zdołał utrzymać pozycję wokół Borków do północy, niszcząc pięć T-34 i siedem dział przeciwpancernych, zanim zdołał wycofać nowe niemieckie linie wokół Kol. Nie wiem, od ilu panter się zaczęło, ale nie byłoby więcej niż 14 panter. Jeśli tak, to straciło do 8 panter, ale jak mówię, nie jest jasne, od ilu zaczęło.

Ah brilliant - thanks for sharing these I managed to access similar photos via the NCAP website https://ncap.org.uk/frame/24-1-2-379-363 Re the KOd Panthers did you find any info about what unit they belonged to? I must admit this was one aspect of the action on the 18 August 1944 i was struggling to reconcile as German accounts whilst noting some losses did not mention near a whole company of panthers KOd. BUT Fluegal's unit did lose several and were in position whilst Soviet infantry advanced past them. I did wonder if the image's showing the Panthers was actually photos of Fluegal's unit laying 'possum' till they made good their escape later that night.

I daresay you are trying the same approach I am trying in my own playtest

Been mucking about with video stuff.

Does depend on how you fire them. Direct LOS fire is more accurate and for that mounted IMO is as good as dismounted but has advantage mortar team protected better from incoming fire and can quickly displace if needs be i.e. drive the SPW off and away. Indirect fire not noticed any difference but then idirect fire via a spotted does depend on experience etc of the person calling in the fire so might take longer to get rounds on target accurately if spotter bit rubbish. Obvious advantage of SPW mounted mortar is it quickly can come into action where needed(no set-up time etc); its lightly armoured so gives some protection against incoming small arms fire/shell splinters .

Aye thought that might be the case. Re core units if you recreate the core unit file EXACTLY ie ToE, OOB and unit names - it should overwrite the existing ones in each scenario when you import the core units file into each scenario mission thus saving you having to redo the 3D setup in the editor. Not sure how easy that is to do. If designer used bog standard units with no fancy names it would be ‘easy’. But you’d have to go through each mission snd ID the core units. Again designer may have bought ‘one off units’ for a specific scenario mission so you’d have to differentiate between core units and sacrificial ‘red shirts’!

Away from PC so apologies for brevity. Core unit file is mentioned in the manual. It’s the scenario file that contains all the units used in the campaign. No way to copy/paste units. Soft factors are experience, morale, etc. Im not sure there is any east way to create a core units file for the campaign unless that is one of the unpacked scenarios. As said I’ve no experience of unpacking campaigns so not sure what is extracted.

Core units file. You need to change the soft factors in the core units file then re sync every mission file ie import the core units into every mission before you recompile. You’ll also need the core units file when you recompile - that's what you start with when creating the campaign. Not sure how the recompile software works and whether it extracts the core units file. Without the core units file synced to every mission a recompile won't work

Yup - Green; -2 would do the job Player could go the whole hog and drop their morale levels in combat they’ll most like bail before they spot or nail anything!

Testing the AI plan continues. Made a few tweaks to the Soviet OOB and associated AI plan. Its getting there. Takes a while to test the thing though. Some close ups from the Soviet side. From the German side I decided to recreate Fleugal's counter-attack, supported by a SPW company from III./ "Germania" at Jasienica. An unhorsed Panther crew picked up by an SPW get in on the action! Not so good for one unlucky Soviet defender/attacker...

oops... the score for Mission 2B should be 160 points for BLUEFOR dismounts but due to my fat climber fingers I typed in 8160.... You wuz robbed @Rinaldi that CPT did weel to keep his gob shut. he knew it! I've attached the tweaked version. I'll let @BFCElvisknow. NTC 1982 Training In The Desert_v2.cam

@IICptMillerII yer a class act sir

Yeah.... No. Don't confuse the current war in Ukraine with the Red Army in the SWW.

Cheers ta. Aye creating a plausible AI attack is a challenge. I'm not sure I have all the answers and at the end of the day have to work within the confines of the game engine editor and associated tools. I accept the AI in the current CM with the AI plan tools available will never react to changes in circumstances like a human. Though in saying that in PBEMs I have seen and done some daft crap that would shame the AI if it did the same thing so... Specifically with this scenario. I know how the Soviet attack went in as have the Soviet primary source and German AARs that corroborate it. So the intent was to create a plausible Soviet attack by the AI. Not fancy or clever or be able to react to the players every move but to make the player think - "Yikes! this is what it was like?!" Then attempt to do their best. In this case if the German player screws up the timings by timely action then its a good thing. It buys em time. Thats what the Germans attempted to do for real. What I test the plan for initially is basic timings. i.e. ensure without any hindrance from the other side the AI attack will progress. I'm especially looking that if the player does nothing they will lose. So the basic AI should work. This involves testing in phases to ensure each part of the plan works as intended. Its time consuming and real detail work but pays off. Note the most AI units don't have loads of orders. most units in this only have 16 orders, many less. Micromanaging stuff is where the issues arise. i trsut the AI generally to do the best thing. testing seeks out the times it does weird stuff. Oh aye bookkeeping. I sue Ecel spreadsheet paper printouts (update with pencil) as I find that sueful for quickly noting stuff down and rubbing out. Overall plan though i keep track off by using windows whiteboard: Once I have the bare bones, co-ordinated attack running well i.e.evrything works like clockwork I then play against it. here I'm seeing how the human player might check the plan. I smooth out obvious AI issues like units stopping in full view etc, co-ordinate fires etc. Once that is done I'll start to add triggers and now use some units as reaction forces. Again i can't account for every player action but I can attempt broad brush strokes to counter most approaches (terrain plays a large part here - once you check out the terrain the player might have limited options to 'do stuff'). This is all in the realms of art really and lots of replaying over and over. No short cuts. Even then some player or other will come up with a novel approach. Playtesters come in at this stage. From playtests I can find what novel ways player tackle the scenario and if they come up with effective novel ways I might see how I can tweak the AI plan to make that novel approach more problematic. At the end of the day players always find appraoches i'd never envisage or the AI plan can counter. good on them. As an aside I did the AI plans for the NTC campaign and its being insightful seeing how players tackle these. Many 9the successful ones0 used novel approaches I'd never consider ( in some early playetsing we'd to make some mountain terrain more impassable as someone managed tod rive AFvs pretty high up the mountains...). So aye good playtesters are worth their weight ten fold. So aye the challenges you outline I have to work my way around also and I use some or all of the AI editor options available. But in large scenarios (this one uses two attacking Soviet tank brigades and two rifle regiments (all under strength so around a battalion plus tanks and battalion of infantry spread across a large map) so to make it work the plan and timings had to be kept simple as). In smaller scenarios I'll use more of the available tools. The irony is small scenarios are harder to do AI plans for than large scenarios! Hope this helps? Cheery!

Interesting when running these historical actions via CM. I've worked out a good position to KO advancing Soviet armour without taking much return fire. Possible this was same position taken up by 7 Kompanie when they KOd 12 enemy tanks? One Panther not so lucky but boit further forward (see right background)... One of the things in this action was the Soviets used their aircraft in CAS - this was noted by the Germans as being a new thing. Top tip for CM - keep your AA assets close! AI Plan after this playthrough required tweaking. Mainly because of what you can see in the above screenshot. I've also added some triggers for the Soviet AI to counter most likely German COA. Now to see if they work!

Wow! Excellent AAR Love your work

Brilliant work @Rinaldi looking forward to the next instalment:)

Oops tell a lie. i designed the original version and its AI plan but it was updated for CMSF2. i didn't update it. Just checking the AI Plan the designer who updated it has had the attacking AI units area fire at the more obvious would be ambush spots... So the AI is not spotting your units but using recon by fire on the more obvious ambush points - which if you keep the Blue Team in the default set-up positions is where they will be.... The intent of the original training scenario was for the player to play both sides and have a feel for how to use the units. it was neverd esigned to be tactically challenging or a puzzle - just a means to explore how the game engine works with core units. I've gone into the editor and removed the area fire commands. See how it plays out now? Hopefully I got them all! Ambush Tutorial SF2 GMc edit.btt

Nope. There is nothing you do in the editor that will enhance the ability to spot - least nothing you can dot hat a player can also do. Spotting is a game engine thing.

I'm the designer of that training scenario and can confirm there is nothing in that re game engine or design that involves em spotting your guys. However, spotting and buildings and guys inside are 'depends' functions with lots of variables as @womble has outlined. So whatever is going on its not a scenario design issue. The AI has no hidden bonus. It spots/shoots/reacts same as player TAC AI pixeltruppen do.