Bannon DC

The winter scenarios are rough on my eyes as well. I generally avoid them.

Regarding fanatacism -- lately I have be useing 25% for regular for both sides. If both sides are supposed to be battle tested forces, this seems to make sense and overcomes some of the weaknesses in the battle system.

1) I give infantry more ammo, especially late war with SMG's. The German SMG's can go to low ammo in a single turn of heavy fighting. Thus I usually give them more ammo than the standard allottment I generally ALWAYS give the infantry max ammo (except for certain units like Russian Pioneers which can carry up to 80 or close to it). I've seen infantry go through 15 points in one round. In 30+ turn scenarios, I'd like to see the infantry be combat-able throughout the scenario. With their default ammo load, many infantry units can only engage in one firefight. I want them to be able to engage in two over a longer scenario (break through the first line of defense and fight on to another objective). 3) I tweak the experience - if I pick regulars I might make 1 guy veteran and 1 guy green, put some variety in there Ehehehe... you must have seen the running debate on this at TPG. I will also "mix it up" depending in the situation. Early war periods, I would mostly keep platoons with similar experience levels. Or if the action depicted an experienced unit's action. With certain nations, this seems more acceptable... the American replacement system was horrible (not going into detail). A mix of green, regular and vets seems believable with the Americans. 4) I make the leadership values match the squad - if a leader is veteran or crack, I will make the values "2" or "1" for everything. If the leader is green (I try not to have conscript leaders, for some reason that doesn't sound right to me) I will make it mostly "0" and maybe a "1" Lately, I have made an effort not to "over clock" the HQs. Sure, a "crack" platoon HQ can have at least one and 2 over every attribute. For vets leaders, I set a maximum of 5 points (to be divided among the leader attributes), regular get 3 points, etc. 5) I increase the # of AT weapons - especially for tank hunters and for squads, they might have 1 I will move this to 2-3 and maybe 4 if it is 1945 For me, it depends on the situation. If it is an "assualt," I will load the squads up. The thinking is that they would be prepared and stockpiles would be made available to them. From what I can tell, in CMAK, infantry seems more willing to use their AT rounds against other infantry. The Americans seem to go wild firing their rifle grenades. For infantry assaults against enemy infantry, I load them up with rifle grenades... good fun. For tank hunters, yes... I generally load them up. Their life expectance is so short. With more ammo, they are more likely to actually get a shot off. 6) for vehicles, I change the mix of ammo - since we like to use cannister (it is COOL in the game with the "blast" of shotgun) I usually raise the # of cannister shells and reduce something else Here, here! Cannister is also good fun. Give the people what they want! 7) for the 2 inch mortar, I give them 30 shells, and I give the 50mm mortar maybe 35-40 shells I also max them out. Historically, the default ammo loads are accurate. However, one of these light mortar squads can go through 30 rounds in two turns. That does not really serve their purpose in the game. Therefore, I always max them out. The American 60mm might be an exception since it is a superior weapon to its counterparts and max it out might be overkill. 12) if terrain is open, I might add an onboard mortar with just smoke shells Sometimes, I will intentionally take away smoke assets in such a situation. eheheh. Smoke was not always available and the commander's order was still 'take the objective.' 13) sometimes I go "out of period" to pick something like assault boats and then I will retroactively change the date (the axis don't have assault boats or planes in a lot of the months, for example) Ditto. In late war scenarios, I sometimes go back and bring in obsolete equipement like the 50mm mortar. This would represent going into the warehouses in a desperate attempt to equip and field units. Any additional tip I have to offer would be concerning artillery spotters. In a scenario designed to be played against the AI, if the AI has artillery, I always make the spotter "elite." This cuts down the time delay for the AI to actually fire it's artillery. Some many times I have wondered why the AI does not use its artillery. I've noticed that it does actually plot targets, but it constantly changes the targets from turn to turn. With an elite spotter, the artillery actually gets used (sometimes). Good stuff, Carl. Bannon

Hello MPK -- Yes, the AI version is designed to be played by the Russians. If playing H2H, the Russian side is far more challenging. (Be sure to get the H2H version if playing against a "yuman." It is at TPG, but not the same version as in the link above.) Good luck! Let me know if you start it. Since it is a small map, it can play quickly. Bannon

Glad to see someone started a thread dedicated to this topic. The other thread got a bit off topic on this tangent (Who's still playing operations? in the CMAK forum). Regarding the "Play Where They Lay" rules that I developed (not saying I invented the concept), they were designed for a small operation that was set to take place over one day. In my brief, I stated that the period between battles was very limited -- 15 to 30 minutes or so, and the battlefield was under enemy observation. Given that situation, it makes sense to keep your units where they are. (Assume runners are moving up ammo and relaying orders). Many good cases have come up in discussion where the rules I made should be bent or don't apply (night battles for example). Regarding the movement of the FO "anywhere" between battles -- I made this exception so as not to limit the "fun" factor. I didn't make a distinction between for "radios" or no radios. The FO is such a powerful unit and essential to the operation, I felt limiting its placement between battles was too picky and would interfer with the planning of the next battle. Theoretically, I think with all the men on the battlefield, a couple of guys could be tasked to help the FOs with running a spool of wire across a street. The premise of PWTL is to consider what is realistically possible. You would need to have an idea of how much time there is between battles. Even if a couple of hours between daylight battles, could you move a company of infantry across an open field without an enemy response (MGs opening up, mortars being called in, etc.)? Also, the idea is to earn the ground you take. Instead of the computer deciding you can advance 300m on part of the map simply because there are no enemy forces in the vicinity (you may not have actually known this), now you have to take the risk and actually move into that area not knowing if you are advancing into an ambush. Since some operations can include over a hundred units, it would get tedious to move all that stuff during a battle. Place reinforcements where realistically possible to move forward without an enemy response. Also, in games where it would limit the players' ability to actually accomplish objectives over sticking to PWTL rules (for example 15 minute battles), playing the game and having fun takes precedence over the rules. PWTL adds another level of challenge. If the rules do not make sense to the operation you are playing, you need to amend them. Since this is all done on the honor system, you need to work out the rules with your opponent before hand. Hopefully he won't be a stickler if a situation arises during the op where the rules need to be bent. BTW -- the operation I developed these rules for was called "Bleeding and Mopping Up" for CMBB. I recently release an AI version of it which needs a playtester. Here's a link link over to The Proving Grounds. I'm interested to hear other thoughts on the subject. Bannon

Could also be the unit was "over supplied." I just checked something in the manual (I have the original printed manual... looking on page 111). The unit may have been considered to be in a prepared defensive position (but actually started in the HT at the beginning of the scenario). When units leave these defensive positions, they can only carry the amount of ammo they normally could carry and therefore they leave the rest of the ammo behind.

Bluestreak -- I checked with a few other people who have DL'ed the scenario, including one person who I know has the non-U.S. version -- all report no problems. Sorry, must be something local on your computer. I'm out of ideas -- maybe someone in the Tech Support forum can help. On that note -- Still seeking a playtester or two for this battle. thanks, Bannon

Dream on. Just as I have always dreamed of horse teams and cavalry. heheheheh.

I think I hear the sound of a snickering Fin.

Hello No One Lost track of this thread, but came across it again. My PWTL rules leave out many of your very good questions. The operation I designed takes place in one day with no night battles. Since my map was very small (only 800 x 800 playable area), many of the situations you raise don't occure. My battle had a canal that needed to be crossed which was one of the primary challenges on the map. Plus, supply was a real issue (it became more of a challenge than I thought it would for the attackers who had a good supply level). PWTL makes sense when you are moving up a fresh company across an open field. If the enemy has some HMGs 700 to 1000m away, they may be able to force your men to take cover, disrupt the cohesion of the unit and cause a few casualties as well. But, as you mention, this won't happen at night or in bad weather, etc. Since the game does not code PWTL, the rules will always be open to interpretation so they must be flexible. On the basic level, I would say play it as it makes realistic sense -- and it must not take the fun out of the game!! In a realistic situation, if you could walk your company down a road or cross a field with only a slight probability of getting shot at -- then go ahead and place the unit forward. If you have 20 new units as reinforcements and don't want to give orders to march them 1,000 meters -- then place them closer. Also -- if the battles are short (15 to 20 turns), I would not want to waste too much time bringing up reinforcements. Here's how I would approach your cases: 1)Support units that get dragged along. Nothing you can do about that. If they are near enough to the front line, place them in good cover and fight from there. I would keep them in more or less the same section of the map.. ie., right flank, center, left flank. If they are far back... place them in a location that could be approached out of enemy LOS and move them up from there. 2) For moving up units into breaches or catching up with the front line. This is a basic problem in any battle. If on the attack, you need to get the force to the striking point; if on defense, you need to get reinforcements to fill holes. If the battle takes place over "days" - you could easily get units to the right place and into the front line. If it takes place over "hours" (parts of a day), you may be subject to enemy action as you move... here I would say you would not be able to place immediately in the front line but in an area out of enemy LOS -- maybe 200 meters back. 3) Night battles. Definately more flexibility to move without enemy interdiction. Reinforcements can start much closer. If you are playing the AI -- use whatever works for you without making it tedious. It is just another level of challenge. If playing H2H -- use whatever variations both players agree to. Bannon

Bluesteak -- I DL'ed from TPG and tested on my machine. Worked fine. I emailed you the file to the address in your profile. Let me know if you have any trouble. I don't think anything with the scenario would cause a crash. The map is not too big, but does have a fair number of buildings. No mods used. Usually the only time I crash CMAK is when I have the CMBB disc in the drive by mistake! ehehe. Good luck if you decide to take command. Bannon

Great! Still open for other testers.

Great! Still open for other testers.

Wow... what horror stories. I haven't tried this one since I upgraded my graphics card. But with other maps where I had this issue, all problems disappeared once I upgraded. My rig is about 5 years old at this point, so the card I had was obsolete. Same computer, but new card... marvelous! Things that helped get me through bigger maps where, turning trees off, etc. Basically slim down everything the computer has to draw... roofs, smoke, three-man squads. Turning vehicles off when I had to scroll around helped a lot. Between turns, I was also have the camera or view down to level 1... or better yet, looking off the map where there was nothing to draw. It would be unfortunate to have to edit out the craters... not to mention tedious. The craters do provide cover which could be critical. If you go in the editor, you will see the enemy set up.

I am seeking a few playtesters for a scenario I designed. Heights - To the Top!. Overview -- Americans assault Germans in hilly city terrain. Germans hold superior position overlooking Americans who must advance out of the lowlands, cross a minor river, and battle their way to the top of The Heights. Americans will rely on their artillery strength. Map size is about 800m x 1200m (not big at all considering the forces involved). Forces are mix of infantry with armor support. About 5,000 points of artillery/air combined. (YEAH! )Play as American. I've playtested this all the way through myself and had a good fight. Made some minor changes here and there. Good fun advancing block by block, taking on strongholds, hunting snipers, stalking tanks, tripping nasty surprises, and tearing down entire neighborhoods. This is the last of three battles I've created featuring variations of this map. By the time I was testing this one, I was more than happy to blow this city to smithereens. :eek: I'd prefer to get two testers to give it a run through against the AI before officially releasing it. Naming rights are still available! As I did on other scenarios with this map, I'll name one of the churches or other landmarks after the playtesters. Be the first CM player on your block to have a smoking pile of rubble named after you! Download from The Proving Grounds (Heights - To the Top!) . If you don't want to register at TPG -- leave me a message here and I will email the file to you. Thanks, Bannon

Bumping Still seeking a playtest for this operation. The game does play quickly given the small map. Available at TPG. www.the-proving-grounds.com. Thanks, Bannon

Bumping Still seeking a playtest for this operation. The game does play quickly given the small map. Available at TPG. www.the-proving-grounds.com. Thanks, Bannon

Could be, I guess we will find out pretty soon </font>

I've never heard a plane crash or fall down. But... I'm mostly used to CMBB. Does that happen with CMAK? Best way to know if the plane has been shot down... or chased off... is to keep an eye on the number of passes it makes. If the plane only makes one or two passes, good chance you shot it down or chased it off. A few planes can only make two or three passes... most seem to be around 5 or 6... some can go to as many as 8 I think. But, as stated, the only way to know for sure if you actually killed a plane is to see the stats in the post-game screen.

With the game set to no FOW -- the AI is aware of all of your units, just as you are aware of all of the AIs. FOW set to "none" is not(!!!!) a good playtesting tool. The computer will behave entirely differently. The best playtesting tool is the "surrender" button. If you want to see what the AI is doing, surrender often. Save before you surrender of course. If my design is further along, and I am having a good game, I will save every other turn or so. I'll go back later and surrender to get an idea of what the computer did from point to point. Check out the Design Tips section at The Proving Grounds for more tactics on dealing with the funky AI. Bannon [ June 15, 2005, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: Bannon DC ]

No One -- I invented my own "Play as they Lay" rules sometime back for an operation I designed ("Bleeding and Mopping Up" - available at TPG). While I am positive I did not invent the concept... and maybe not the term... here are the rules as I posted in a The Proving Grounds (TPG)thread. Keep in mind, that these rules were written for a specific operation... but the general idea should hold. Night battles (of which there were none in my operation) and large maps (mine was actually small) would have special considerations. I'm plunking down these rules unedited... I don't feel like parsing through them... you get the jist. I'm not aware of another posted set up rules... but I'm sure someone can elighten us. == == == == SPECIAL BATTLE RULES: PLAY WHERE THEY LAY You should think of this operation as one continuous action with small breaks in order to replenish ammunition and plan the next assault. Between battles, you should play your units where they lay from the last battle. The reasoning behind this is that the battlefield is under constant enemy observation and only a small amount of time goes by. It would not be possible to sneak a company of soldiers across a bridge without getting shot at. Another reason is you have to earn the territory. This is equally advantageous/disadvantageous to the attacker and defender. Plan your battles for the long-term. A few exceptions to the rule: · Artillery spotters can set up ANYWHERE between battles. · Anti-tank guns and armor can relocate within 100m of their previous location. You should NOT cross bridges between battles. (Otherwise, you will need to walk or tow them to better locations during battle.) · Warning – between battles, units that ended in the second level of buildings will be placed on the ground. You can place units back into the second level and move your units back to where they were before… or very close by. The general rule is to keep your infantry units very close to the same area and only place units in territory you actually fought for and earned. · Russian reinforcements should only be set up in their original set up zone. On the map, this is the first block across the south edge of the map that contains “Heroes’ Park.” You will then need to advance these units from there. · Locked down units (units that ended battle in close proximity to enemy units) – sometimes the computer will move these units between battles. You should leave them where they are. Exceptions can be made for units that the computer places in roads or otherwise completely exposed positions. You can move these units back to your own set up area as near as possible to their original location. (For example, your unit may end the battle in the good cover of a "woods" tile -- but the computer moves this unit between battles to an "open" or "road" tile. That is ridiculous. Since you can not move that "locked" unit near where it currently is -- the only choice is to move it back to your own territory.) · Suggest you consult with your opponent to work out any questions regarding these rules prior to play. * These rules are enforced through the "honor system." Be a good sport.

I'm about 85% done with a map of a portion of Washington, DC... my hometown! This features the Kalorama Heights neighborhood... also known as "Embassy Row." Rock Creek parkway cuts the map lenght-wise. This just happens to be my rush hour commute! From the National Zoo in the north down to just above Dupont Circle. From the National Naval Observatory in the west over to Adams Morgan in the east. Three heavy bridges (as long as 600 meters!) cross the park. A really beautiful area of the city. I plan to make this a German attack featuring late war equipment. Sadly, no King Tigers in CMAK. The Americans will defend... of course!

I recently posted the "AI" version of an operation I designed. The "H2H" version was a lot of fun in playtests. I'm looking for someone who is interested in giving the AI version a run through. I need an independent test before I officially release it. I promise you this is not going to be a buggy - half-finished scenario. It is at The Proving Grounds now. Bleeding and Mopping Up, AI Version Map is small by any standard. About 800m x 800m of playable area. Urban setting. Mostly infantry. Dynamic operation, 5 battles, 20+ turns each. Play as Russians vs. the AI. I call this a "Champs vs. Chumps" match up. The Russians are low quality troops... but you have plenty of them. The Germans are experienced troops. If you are experienced at handling raw troops, go ahead and give the AI an experience bonus. Overview: Russian battalion has been tasked with mopping up a German pocket in an urban fight. This force has been replenished with raw troops who will gain their combat experience by being "bleed." Difficult terrain obstacle and fanatical resistance will be encountered as Germans fight with their backs to the river with no hope of escape. Take a look and let me know if you decide to play it. Drop me a reply in this thread or in the discussion area on TPG. Ideally would like to get two independent tests... but I'll be happy with any feedback. [ June 18, 2005, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: Bannon DC ]

I recently posted the "AI" version of an operation I designed. The "H2H" version was a lot of fun in playtests. I'm looking for someone who is interested in giving the AI version a run through. I need an independent test before I officially release it. I promise you this is not going to be a buggy - half-finished scenario. It is at The Proving Grounds now. Bleeding and Mopping Up, AI Version Map is small by any standard. About 800m x 800m of playable area. Urban setting. Mostly infantry. Dynamic operation, 5 battles, 20+ turns each. Play as Russians vs. the AI. I call this a "Champs vs. Chumps" match up. The Russians are low quality troops... but you have plenty of them. The Germans are experienced troops. If you are experienced at handling raw troops, go ahead and give the AI an experience bonus. Overview: Russian battalion has been tasked with mopping up a German pocket in an urban fight. This force has been replenished with raw troops who will gain their combat experience by being "bleed." Difficult terrain obstacle and fanatical resistance will be encountered as Germans fight with their backs to the river with no hope of escape. Take a look and let me know if you decide to play it. Drop me a reply in this thread or in the discussion area on TPG. Ideally would like to get two independent tests... but I'll be happy with any feedback. [ June 18, 2005, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: Bannon DC ]

Teleporting units is ridiculous. Plain and simple. Maps are full of pit falls. Terrain features, lack of roads, mud, choke points, etc. Logistics is as much a part of the battle as the fighting. To just ignore all of these would be missing part of the challenge. Granted -- some ops can be tremendously huge and moving one hundred units forward over a large map is tedious. But still, it would be worse to just plunk a couple of companies in the line without making them risk an artillery barrage as they move forward... or being seen by the enemey and tipping off an intention to attack.