George MC

I saw that. It only appears to affect the first scenario. I think it's some issue with the txt file. Its on my 'to fix' list (which is very small but has some fiddly stuff like that). I'm thinking though with this first scenario I might just amend the winning conditions to be a bit more positive!

Hi H Yup you got your stuff spotted hence the high score (you don't lose points for units being KOd - only spotted). Losing stuff as i highlighted above to Aragorn eventually bites you in the bum further down the line. The trick is to try and minimise the attrition. I think its hard to do but doable... Thanks for giving it a spin - good luck

That's still good going. You don't lose points for losing stuff but them getting spotted. Losing stuff though does start to work against you long term in this so you do need to be careful, well, as best you can... Still you are good for the next scenario. I must admit I find I lose more tanks than panzer grenadiers playing this as I tend to get the tanks to do the heavy lifting. Not always the best plan! Thanks for playing it. Hope all good with you?

Hi @GhostRider3/3 Aye one thing this campaign illustrates is what a high casualty rate these SPW panzergrenadier units had. This campaign is partly an exercise in conserving your men's lives - but making decisions about when and how its worth it to risk a few... Pleased you are enjoying the briefing and the scene setting. I was aiming for creating an attachment to the characters and unit leaders. Best of luck with the next mission. All the best to my American friends on Memorial Day.

Define "huge"? Lot's of long range large armour brawls in CMRT.

Hi @GhostRider3/3 Thanks for the update. Re the "Draw" you are all good to go still. You are just on a slightly different timeline. If it all goes well next action you are back on track. You are correct - that was the intent you can go in stealthy but it'll cost you guys; or go in hard and show your hand and risk having your whole unit spotted.

Cool - played this before be great to see what you've done to update it. Cheery!

What he said

I'm using a PC and just updated to the 328.22 driver with Nivida on Windows 10. No issues with any CM games (from CMFB right through to Shock Force). QBs, scenarios and editor all work fine.

Totally agree. Thanks for posting this version though. I've seen the footage but not with this degree of detail, background or remastered footage. Thanks for posting.

Its whatever version is on the TSDIII - that's the latest.

Its not a campaign. Its a scenario/single mission. Its version 1 on TSDIII.

Hi @Silentotto41 Aye that third mission is a tough one. It is pivotal for the rest of the campaign.I've just finished Mission 3 myself. I must admit I spent nearly an hour and bit recceing my approaches, all the while trying to unmask the Soviet positions. I will also admit to a few save and reloads when I screwed it up! The fighting went to the wire on this with some of the fiercest fighting in RAKOW itself. Having such a lot of artillery helps when doing the unmasking! With the third mission there are multiple attack lines, all have their pros and cons TBH and I don't think any one is easier than any other. My top tip for anyone playing this is take your time and be patient. Thanks for the comments and feedback - glad you enjoyed it and found it a challenge. Cheery! George

I think the clip of the Sherman firing was edited. Watch the smoke - there is a wee blip between shots as though the smoke resets. No way could the loader clear the breech, reload and the gunner fire that quick in what is a few seconds. A link to another discussion regarding main gun loading times in tanks: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=128444 Excerpts from this discussion: "Based on my own experience, loading and/or firing many 105/120mm tank rounds. With larger caliber guns, it is not the speed of loading or the loader that primarily determines your rate of fire , it is the gunner's ability to acquire/reacquire the target(s) through the sight picture and the gun-laying system of the tank to steady the gun after the blast and recoil of firing a previous round. For modern 100mm+ AT guns(4"), and probably several of the very high velocity 75+mm WWII AT guns,(3"), you cannot usually crank off an aimed round, at about more than 1 round every 4 seconds, for single pieced cased ammo. " And from US WWII report about the Panther: Ready ammunition rack setup in rear of gunner permitshigh cyclic rate of fire.If necessary the gunnercan load himself in onesweeping motion. Rackscan be filled from sideammo compartments asrequired. Permits 15rounds per minute.

TBH @womble I'm not sure I'm assuming given the technology of the time it might not be as exact as modern tanks? Then you have the quality of optics - guess it's not just the gunner stamping his foot on the firing plate whilst the loader hoofs rounds in as quick as the gunner can fire em. Perhaps someone more in the know can chip in? I would assume (rightly or wrongly!) given the noise and concussion of the round being fired, is it reasonable to expect the gunner to take a short while to refocus and reaquire the target? Add to the dust etc then you have a pause whilst the commander checks for the fall of shot (assuming we have a four/five man crew) issues corrections to gunner who then has to fire again. Also the loader has to find and select rounds. TBH I don't see there being an issue and I play lot's of armoured actions. For sure crew experience is a major factor. Veteran and above seem to do just fine. Regular and below and I notice slower times for spotting targets, often more rounds to hit the target, slower reload.

Wee film you might be interested in: If you go to around 7:56 you'll see the amount of smoke generated after the Sherman fires it's 75mm gun. That and dust temporarily obscure vision. In addition the gunner after the recoil of the gun etc will have to reset his aim. Hence the delay after firing the first round. I'm sure others will weigh in with their own take. That's my rational for it!

No offence taken Its worth giving the editor a go. Start small and work up. I'd just use an existing map and take it from there. QB maps are a good starting source - just mind and remove all AI Plans and objectives before you begin!

Hi @[MyIS] Buffpuff Cool - hope you are not to combat weary after the Road to Montebourg, it's pretty intense! So helpful hints for von Schroif, without giving too much away... OK first off read the briefings - the PDF in the zip file makes that easier. If you don't like reading the scenario briefings the OP Maps give you the key info re victory conditions and tac map the overall situation. Whilst you have a lot of vehicles and tanks you don't have many dismounts - so look after em like your children! You'll need em further down the line so don't throw em away in needless attacks. The name of the game is combined arms so use the firepower you have to blast your way to victory. If you are using boots to clear ground make sure tracked stuff with splodey guns are paving the way. Oh and you'll need luck, the more the better! Cheery! George

Hi @Redmarkus I appreciate you taking the time to expand on your views regarding scenario design. However, before I answer the point you make, here is a fundamental truth about stuff I design. Be warned I'm babbling back! I first and foremost I design scenarios etc based on situations and events that I want to play myself, in my own time. If others want to play it, and enjoy playing it then brilliant. But I don’t design to order and I do this first and foremost as a hobby. There are no rewards in this over and above the feedback I get, but again back to my first point I do this out of purely selfish reasons to play scenarios I like to play. Now a few, a very tiny, few, even give up their free time to help playtest my stuff. For that I am truly grateful and IMO they are the ones how are doing this for entirely altruistic reasons. For that I am truly grateful. What you are looking for out of scenarios for yourself is great. But TBH you want scenarios that truly address what you want out of a scenario, exactly, to suit your play style and methodology – you need to design them yourself. In doing so you’ll find other players who like your style and will play your creations. TBH that was how I got into this game in the first place. I was frustrated with what was around, wanted to play particular types of scenarios, so hey, I started designing my own. Re your military service. Your experience and views I truly appreciate, and have real respect for, your real world take on this. However I'm not sure what about the campaign does not address the points you make though? Ok sounds like from your previous post you got kicked about on the second mission. But just to be clear there is no finely balanced point scoring here. The second mission is a “simple” suppress and close, you can choose where and how you attack and with what – you take heavy losses in men and machines then you’ll get to manage complexity next mission as your unit is attrited and the morale of your surviving troops goes down… So how do you get to that? Just to be clear. The first mission is an advance to contact (you’re the advance guard for the main effort – no recce boys as yet cos they are all still on the trains stuck somewhere back in Poland – that happened). However failing to eliminate enemy outposts and/or being spotted by them means the enemy knows your avenue of attack and what force is at the tip of the spear. The next campaign step, regardless if you win or lose mission 1, are two alternate timelines – the first – if you win, sees you press onto the next mission catching the enemy unawares (no proper intel you bounce em hard). If you don’t win, then you get to go onto the next mission with the enemy a bit more aware. By that they have a slightly greater amount of time to attempt to ambush/block your advance. I refute the view that success in mission 1 hinges on finely tuned point scoring systems nor is it a chess like challenge. Its simples. You get ALL your unit spotted by the enemy there are consequences next mission. You don’t lose too many guys and vehicles then great you are in a strong position next mission regardless. If you totally make a hash of the first mission and lost men and machines then come the next mission you start to encounter that complexity you talk about. The campaign script takes that into account, plus losing more men and machines means you will start to suffer complexity on subsequent missions. That’s what campaigns, and this one in particular, offer. As I’ve said I don’t believe any of the missions in this campaign are “chess-like” problems (in fact I am no fan of such scenarios and yeah OK I'll admit that touches a nerve!). The missions are based on real life actions; the Soviet defence is based on Soviet doctrine; the OOBs of both sides are realistic and again based on RL OOBs. The player just needs to apply tactics. All the missions have multiple options as to how the player might play it. However you will need to press on with subsequent missions. But as I said it might well be the case this type of campaign with these types of units with these types of missions may not be your thing. That’s fine, no problem. However if you want to propose design philosophy then you really will need to step up to the plate and start designing your own – and please take that in the best possible way. I’m not all that interested in “design philosophies” personally. I just create stuff I want to play on maps I like to play on with OOBs I rather fancy playing with in missions I think might be interesting. As I said this is a hobby for me, not a job or a calling and whilst I appreciate feedback (and occasionally have been known to act on it) I’ll still design stuff, well, I’m sure you get my drift by now. I think if you carry on with this campaign you’ll get what you are looking for out this campaign. If you don’t well, thanks for at least giving it a shot. Mind it is only a game and all the best with your future scenario designing. Cheery! George

Aye it is tough. Slowly, slowly does it. ? Get through this though and the road ahead is nice and clear. For a while.

Sorry to hear that ? Aye it does get tougher....

Maybe... Or...? Best of luck anyways

Hi @Redmarkus I'd push on TBH - you took very few casualties (none that will make any odds) - so all is good in that regard. If you check out the PDF (in the zipped campaign folder) you'll see a flowchart that shows you where you will end up. In your case your timeline slips and the Soviets know you are coming. But you are still slightly in their decision cycle, so they won't be all that prepared, so all is still good - for now.

Simples Don't get spotted... Or at least not everything. Jesting aside that was excellent going with your losses. However to 'win' this you do need to grab everything and have as few of your units ID'd as you can. In saying that I would not be downhearted as technically you 'win' this you go onto a slightly different timeline - and more importantly you have your force pretty much intact. The thing that will start to hurt as this goes on are panzergrenadier losses. So watch them and use they wisely. You can easily get back on track via the next mission (assuming you win it). SPOILERS (highlight to see) Looking at what you ko'd you missed two armoured cars - they follow an AI Plan that puts them in good observation points. So could be they spotted all your units hence the Soviets get a larger score. The challenge with this one is KO'd the Soviet units, capture the objectives and avoiding being spotted - or more precisely the majority of your unit being spotted. This is stated in the brief and in the OP Map - "avoid German units being spotted by Soviet units". It's a toughie but doable. I lead with the same units - so they get spotted - but they do the heavy lifting. Everyone else hangs back and supports by fire. You have two scout teams and sniper team. I'd advance with them, everyone else back, spot units, try to pin em (artillery fire does the job) then take em out. Hope the above helps. In anycase glad you enjoyed the first mission and hope you enjoy the others as well. Cheery!

He! Thanks