MikeyD

I've lost count of the number of times (over the past decade) that I made a decent scenario out of something I just threw together. You could call it 'no pressure scenario making'. My scenario won't be graded as homework by anyone, it isn't a submission for a PhD in military history. Its just me chillin' after supper when there nothing to watch on TV. Some landmarks get thrown down on a map, some terrain curves, some building clusters and water and roads, then drop in some opposing forces. If the map feels too small make it bigger, if it feels too big make it smaller. Go into the AI, make one platoon scamper into nearby trees, make another scamper behind some buildings. There, you've got a working scenario! Anything you do beyond that is gravy.

A lot of the community's past biggest content creators got gobbled-up by the BFC Beta Borg collective. They're still creating content but now its for the hive. You see their work in new titles. So in a weird way, being too good at creating 3rd party content will reduce the amount of 3rd party content available as scenario makers get kidnapped and enslaved by BFC.

Lack of feedback can be a positive thing at times. It means you can throw together any scenario you want just for fun and not need to worry about circling history grogs coming down on you like a ton of bricks for failing to be historically faithful in all details. I recently posted an alpha scenario for (redacted) on the beta board and told the guys to NOT give me feedback! Just have fun with it! They gave me feedback anyway
 

Here's a thought. If you're playing against the AI (and nobody is watching) you can always consider it a 'win' if you've done a good job tactically and completed objectives to your satisfaction regardless of the points total! We've all had those games where the final tally tells us we've won a major victory but we don't feel like it, or the final tally tells us we had a major defeat when we though we had won handily.

When I assign points in my own scenarios I most often tend go heavily on the unit destroy objectives rather than terrain objectives. Most importantly armor, then vehicles, officers, specialists, infantry, then terrain objectives at the bottom. You can sometimes earn more points killing enemy officers than sitting on a terrain objective.

Here's a thought. If you're playing against the AI (and nobody is watching) you can always consider it a 'win' if you've done a good job tactically and completed objectives to your satisfaction regardless of the points total! We've all had those games where the final tally tells us we've won a major victory but we don't feel like it, or the final tally tells us we had a major defeat when we though we had won handily.

Eh, yeh that is a bug. The hatch is rotating on the wrong axis. I'll post a bug report but I don't know when its going to be addressed.

Eh, yeh that is a bug. The hatch is rotating on the wrong axis. I'll post a bug report but I don't know when its going to be addressed.

I just ran a quick mini test for both AI retreat and AI face.
For retreat the vehicles popped smoke, backed away and stopped at the designated spot facing the enemy. For AI face, the units proceeded to their destination, stopped and rotated about to face to spot their suppose to face.
Are you putting you retreat spots in the correct place? I initially was confused by that, myself. Also, if you haven't properly timed your AI orders the AI will immediately begin to implement the next orders. So there needs to be some time between your retreat order finishing and your next advance 'begin at' order.

Ah yes, in a scenario I recall I once used a 'retreat in place' AI command - The pink retreat square with no painted movement order. When it hit the time they faced the square, popped smoke, but didn't alter their positions,

There is the AI 'area fire' command that you assign a start and end time to, and can be used with on-map mortar teams (but not off-map artillery). Just recently I tried an AI 'area fire in place' command for mortars in a scenario I'm working on. A timed AI order with a painted 'area fire' location but without a painted movement order so the mortars won't pack up and move. I'm 75% sure it works but I need to run additional tests.

I just ran a quick mini test for both AI retreat and AI face.
For retreat the vehicles popped smoke, backed away and stopped at the designated spot facing the enemy. For AI face, the units proceeded to their destination, stopped and rotated about to face to spot their suppose to face.
Are you putting you retreat spots in the correct place? I initially was confused by that, myself. Also, if you haven't properly timed your AI orders the AI will immediately begin to implement the next orders. So there needs to be some time between your retreat order finishing and your next advance 'begin at' order.

I just ran a quick mini test for both AI retreat and AI face.
For retreat the vehicles popped smoke, backed away and stopped at the designated spot facing the enemy. For AI face, the units proceeded to their destination, stopped and rotated about to face to spot their suppose to face.
Are you putting you retreat spots in the correct place? I initially was confused by that, myself. Also, if you haven't properly timed your AI orders the AI will immediately begin to implement the next orders. So there needs to be some time between your retreat order finishing and your next advance 'begin at' order.

The good news is there is no 'wrong answer', unless someone tells you 'Pick a theater you have no interest in because its got more content'. If you prefer ISU-152s over Churchill tanks or Sherman Jumbos or T-72s or Italian tankettes the answer is self-evident. More good news: there are a lot of demos to download and try out, play and practice on.

Its human nature to most want the thing that's just beyond our grasp. If BFC came out tomorrow with a '41 Barbarossa title it would be followed by poster demands for a '45 Berlin battles title. If they released a '43 Kursk title there would be demands for '42 Stalingrad. If they released an 80s Cold War title posters would want a 70s or 60s Cold War title instead (I'd personally love to play M47s vs T55s in the mid-1950s, myself). That's because the product you've got in your hand in a known quantity. The product not in your hands yet is made of dreams and fairy dust.

To understand Germany's current attitude toward the military it should be remembered WWII was literally the worst man-made catastrophe in the history of the world. 3% of the entire world population perished violently in the space of just a few years.  The depopulation of the Americas after Columbus was more catastrophic but that had unfolded over a century and in absolute numbers WWII still surpasses it in sheer number of people slain. And Germany was at the epicenter of that catastrophe. Both Germany and Japan swore off 'foreign adventures' in the years following the war as a moral obligation and an act of atonement. The US has since wheedled and cajoled both Germany and Japan into  participating in 'foreign adventures' in recent decades but their respective populations remain dead set against it. Why Germany felt obliged to send military forces all the way to Afghanistan is beyond me.

Timed movement orders don't apply to the *last orders* in the chain because there's nothing to be done after. That means in order to get the 'Wait for' movement times selections there has to be another order after the one you're working on. You'll get your 'Wait for' options on all the movement orders except the last.

To save multiple tag names in the txt file I just do a return after each word. Couldn't be simpler.
rubble
trash
snow
mainland

As for orders maps, in the editor if you go to Mission (Axis) for example you will see four tabs marked 'Strategic' 'Operational' 'Tactical' and 'Text'. The map tabs give you the preferred art size in pixels: 224 x 224, 702 x 224, and 952 x 350. The preferred art format is .bmp.
This is your own scenario so you can put anything you want into those orders map locations. Screenshots of the 2-D map, hand-scribbled art, art from ASL, Calvin and Hobbes cartoon panels. Put as much or as little work into it as you want.
Since you're not selling your scenario for profit I think you're probably safe from ASL's wrath

I've been too pokey, I've got to get my Turkish army mod uploaded to contribute to the project.

Yup, its been like that since day 1. Mortars and artillery both. There was an explanation given for smoke disappearing awhile ago that (I think) had more to do with game engine mechanics than real world artillery practices. All I recall is its a known thing and isn't on their short list of 'things to fix'.

This is the first time I can recall someone trying to make wire and mines a 'unit objective'. I would imagine (not based on any testing) that wire and mines are inert, incapable of being suppressed/killed/captured. They may be purchased and placed like living units but they aren't... I would imagine.

Terrain is often dotted with hard and rocky ground. This is an important feature during damp and muddy conditions because the chance of bogging drops greatly on hard and rocky terrain. Try hopping from hard patch to hard patch while moving. Soft ground in muddy conditions during a heavy rainstorm may just be one of those times armor ought to be kept back from the front entirely.
Interesting tidbit about Panther. France fielded about 49 Panthers after the war to compliment their post-war Sherman tank force. Generally they gave Panther low marks, thought Panther's negatives far outweighed its positives. Panther only stayed active in the French army for about 5 years, which admittedly is 2 years longer than Germany had fielded them.

The best real world advice I've gleaned has usually come from platoon-level tactical combat manuals for both tanks and infantry. How to approach a suspicious cluster of buildings, etc. Higher up the manual pecking order tend to focus more on march formations, logistics chains and such things.
Here's a randomly picked example:
https://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/amd-us-archive/FM17-33C1(59).pdf

Politico tends to post 'opinion pieces' by authors with an axe to grind so caviat emptor.
It should be noted before Putin decided to single-handedly restart the Cold War for his own domestic purposes Germany had no enemies on its borders and no credible existential threats to defend against. Why keep up a million man army? All that changed after 2014. It has been reported that Donbas 'rebels' field a larger operational tank army than the Bundeswehr. On top of that the US abruptly turned into the world's most unreliable ally. This article out of Brussels is no doubt part of a public relations campaign to create support for rearming and re-configuring NATO defense structure to be more self-reliant.