George MC

Last comp was excellent fun. I've never really been one for comps but this previous Warrior comp was such a blast. Played some top notch nice guys, won some, lost some, and made some new PBEM friends. The missions were short and sharp and packed a punch for their small size and short duration. Touch of the "Kobayashi maru" about some i.e. no way you were going to win and nae chance of fiddling with the programme. So suck it up and go out fighting! Being a Scot I loved that hopeless situation! Well worth joining in as @slysniperruns a tight ship so the comp goes like clockwork.

From The Realm of a Dying Sun Volume 1 superb detailed insight into the workings of a corps staff plus solid operational account of combat in Poland follow on volumes (2 just published) chart the operational history of IV SS Pz.Kps https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/From_the_Realm_of_a_Dying_Sun_Volume_1.html?id=OF3JDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y

As when playing H2H if you can ensure the player is channelled (often easier said than done but good terrain recce!) into kill sack, gets pinned and then AI will spot the 'live' targets and pound em! The AI appears to be a bit tight at using heavier stuff in this regard (maybe because no-one stands round for long enough?) but most mortars and arty up to 75/76 seem used quickly and effectively by the AI on live targets.

The Ai is generally pretty good at using mortars - they have fast response times compared to heavier artillery. It also helps if AI has TRPs (though would depend on context of action if appropriate) and experienced FOs. Also helps if everyone is in good C2. The AI won't do speculative fire - for that you'd need to use the AI Plan i.e. planned fires. In an ideal world be useful to have AI arty fire also being triggered by player units moving into an area, but for now we have to use workarounds.

It can be either poor design, or as often happens, players are way more aggressive than the designer, or playtesters (assuming it was tested) could foresee. Its more prone to happen on small maps. I use a reinforcements slot to warn the player of approaching enemy units, but players often miss this. As an anecdote. In the very, very early days of CMSF (where there were significant map size limitations) i did a scenario which involved a Stryker ATGM unit holding off an attacking Syrian armoured unit. Now everyone who play tested this, and myself, played cautiously and tended to stick to 'our' side of the map (the briefing gave strong intel to 'hold the line'. However one player, when the game was released played way more aggressively and basically assaulted the Syrian rear lines with their Stryker platoon. They ended up right at the back of the Syrian side of the map, just about the time the Syrian main body arrived on the map...

https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/cm-shock-force-2/cm-shock-force/nato-tv-98-5-steelers/ Its one of mine @akd that is the link to the original version done under CMSF (orginal). But I think Erwin might have been playing the updated versions I was working on in CMSF2 (which have not been released) and you can find them at this DB link: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1eab57wmyvu38zh/AABoJkWKgVZ8nvJjaSnIOfkRa?dl=0 I'm not sure the spotting issue would matter as both versions use the same base forces. The changes I made were mainly AI plan and map stuff to take advantage of new features in both these aspects in CMSF2.

Interesting discussion. I've played around a fair bit with 'EXIT' options. However, I've found as soon as you allocate 'destroy' unit objectives where their side has an 'EXIT' objective it means any units that don't exit of the map will count as 'destroyed' at the end. Now you can allocate a bonus the affected to off-set this but it can make scoring problematic. Using 'spot' unit objectives avoids this and you can account for stuff going 'boom' using the parameters e.g. enemy casualties 30% etc (though they are binary i.e. its all or nothing to get the points). I've found using 'EXIT' objectives and 'terrain' objectives combined with 'spot' unit objectives can allow some flexibility which changes the game play dynamic from blowing stuff up to capturing terrain whilst avoiding having your stuff spotted (you can still use parameters to account for overall damage inflicted on the enemy and sustained by yourself). This has the potential to encourage the player to be more conservative with their force (to avoid giving points away by being spotted) and eliminating enemy units is the way to achieve your terrain objectives. If you think it ain't working i..e your opponent is giving you a kicking then you can conduct a tactical withdrawal and exit the map without any cost. It's not prefect as you don't neccessarily get rewarded for making stuff going 'boom' unless you make more of your enemy's stuff go 'boom' than yours then you can pick up points from the parameters. The key drawback is I've found players often don't 'get' what 'spot' unit objectives mean. So having all your stuff spotted (the enemy thus getting points) but killing enemy units (but being below the % parameter so you don't get any points) could still mean you lose which can be counter intuitive... Cheery!

I’ll let you off Yup it’s abstracted. My recollection is it was discussed in the early days but most likely not implemented die to various issues.

I have a vague memory (don't quote me!) that the crew of the AFV will always have the appropriate round loaded and ready to fire (except smoke) i..e if they turn a corner and its a tank they'll fire AP, if infantry HE. So you could argue 9assming my recall is accurate) that the crew always make the best choice what to have loaded! As I said smoke not being a default option though - least I've never noticed a AFV fire smoke rounds when making contact with enemy unless told to do so by the player.

Not tried it in a QB, bus as said used it in a few scenarios (not saying which ones...). As an aside I've also started using (in some case) a victory objective around the area where the mines are (can be marked as 'known to player' or 'unknown') as either gives the player fair warning there are mines, and b/ as you can't count mines and other obstacles as victory conditions at least I can have the area they are in count.

What @MOS:96B2Psaid

Not anti-tank. Wire. you can’t blow AT obstacles with engineers in CM but you can blow wire. Two ways of getting through wire. Blow by engineers or run over with vehicle. Whilst physical damage might be light it also introduces uncertainty about not the players mind. Might be wary next time in blowing wire.

Thank you @MOS:96B2P appreciate the kind comment re @Vacilllator’s opening post. Assume you mean the AI plans i.e. strategic AI and how the AI controlled side coordinates it’s efforts? The tacAI i.e. how individual AI sub units react like vehicles and men is the same across the game engine. How the strat AI works in CMRT game engine wise is the same as in it’s the CMBN except older scenarios may not use additions to the AI plan process that became available to designers latterly - triggers, area fire etc. Then it’s how the designer uses the tools in the actual mission and plans how the AI co-ordinates it’s units. CMRT did see more people take up designing so they may also have been learning how to use the AI plan. This is a long winded way of saying how the AI controlled side reacts in CMRT is down to the designer and, for the older scenarios, limited AI plan tools to assist the AI player in coordinating its efforts. Cheery!

I've booby trapped obstacles (barbed wire) with AT mines in scenarios. Engineers come along - try to blow the wire and whole thing goes 'boom'! Sometimes it takes out a few engineers, not often though, nor will it reliably take out all the mines.

Aye I enjoy the logitics side as well - one reason I enjoy large scenarios. You have to factor in way more 'higher' level stuff. I've not long finished up a PBEM and the greatest challenge - as well as my opponent throwing a spanner in at what felt like every turn, was co-ordinating a large force to force a crossing over several defended crossing sites. With the key the one I could cross (that was not under as much fire as the others) was a muddy ford... I'd Tigers also but did not dare risk em crossing the mud, so they had to wait till i managed to seize a heavy bridge so they could cross. Making that decision in itself was a brill part of the mission! My oppo did a good job though of reducing my traffic management issues by winnowing down my force...

Aye RL is a pain!

Yes you can plot points from kilometers away to check if you can cross. Think of it as route reconnaissance. You can also do the same with water features, all terrain really, to check if it is navigable by your herd of Elefants or packs of Panthers (hhmm...do Panthers hunt in packs, I don't think so...?).

IIRC you'll receive feedback in-game when you try to plot a move over it. Anything wide and stony should be OK for your large stuff. Wooden less so. IIRC lighter tanks like T-34s/PzIVs and panthers are Ok on wood. Tigers upwards in weight less so.

The numbers are the number of meters in length the bridge is. R = rail (but just to confuse when you come to wooden ones the R does not mean that). F = footbridge W = wide FYI Panzer IVs will cross any bridge but once you get into larger tanks you'll have issues. From memory the wee narrow stone bridges (Stone 16 etc) are problematic for wide heavy tanks are as the light bridges. I often mark the bridges in missions as to what they can take.

Excellent!

Excellent - thanks glad you enjoyed them.

In modern stuff I like the Shilka - its a beats when it opens up! I like BMPs - nice and fast but tin cans. In WWII I've a fixation with German 251 half tracks or the 250. Love em! Its border line obsession...

Good job! I played this as PBEM a while back and err faired less well. My oppo just seemed to keep popping up Shermans to nail my Tigers in their flanks. We'd also a close range armoured knife fight going on in in St Aignan which was costly to my forces. Glad you enjoyed it

When I started doing the OOB and placing the British units I had decided to have the crews bailed out of the tanks initially. Then I found, very quickly, you couldn't do this as a/ the crews would not stay bailed out and b/ its really difficult to work out which crew goes into which tank and c/ the AI can't do remounting. So the concept lasted until first contact with the 3d editor. The main challenge with replicating such ambush type situations is the player being ambushed knows they are about to be ambushed. In RL these guys had no idea a Tiger unit was a few hundred meters away or that it was going to attack them until it did. If the player tries tackling this like Wittmann did for real against either a human or AI opponent it often does not end well for his tank, although TBH in RL Wittmann's Tiger soon was knocked out taking him out of the rest of the action in fairly quick time. IIRC Schneider in Tigers in Combat (himself an ex Bundeswehr armour officer) is pretty dismissive of Wittmann's tactical acumen. And the bit that is often overlooked is that whilst Wittmann's unit achieved some local surprise the unit lost more Tigers than it could afford. Its an interesting action to analysis as there is more to it than the 30 minutes of Wittmann's charge. Anyways playing with house rules like you did will go some way to levelling the initial playing field. Hope and trust you enjoyed it? Cheery!

I used to play RT regularly. I really enjoyed the pace and ability to intervene. now though I play all WEGO. Mainly cos AI plan testing so I fast forward just to see the plan unfold. Also I like rewatching these glorious and/or WTF!? moments that occur. Like when you blow stuff up or your stuff goes boom!