Bullethead

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by I/O Error: Okay, this is a kind of random idea, but bare with me: Maybe if you save the game, (so you get a .cmb file) you could open it up in the scenario editor? I stress that I have NOT tested this, but if the game doesn't "tournament lock" save games, you MIGHT just be able to pull it off, with terrain and units all preserved. Any thoughts?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry, but this doesn't work. The editor cannot open saved games in progress, despite them being .cmb files just like scenarios. I believe this is an anti-cheating measure to keep players from tweaking their forces in PBEM once battle is joined. It would be nice, however, if there was a way to use the editor just to export the map, sans units, to a .cmb scenario file. Maybe in the future this will be possible. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

David Stone said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You don't even have to use zones though. "Padlock" the units down while "previewing" the map and "placing" the units.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just personal preference I guess, but I'd rather use zones to give the players the chance to put things in different places to vary the way the scenario is played each time. I try only padlock obstacle belts because the AI is horrible at placing them.

Alex- Thanks for all the comments. I'll try to hit all your points from all 4 messages: 1. Gerpanese Arty Yup, it sucks, but that's realistic. The division attacking Kohima had to leave most of its arty behind and arrived with only a few of the lightest of its guns: 70mm Type 92s and 75mm Type 94s. Further, each gun had only 100 rounds for the whole offensive. Finally, it was very difficult to coordinate this fire with the advance of units on the other side of a jungle-covered mountain so they pretty much just did prepfires before assaults instead of trying to call fire on the fly. So on the whole, due to the time compression of this scenario, I think the Gerpanese have about the right amount of the right type of ammo. 2. Brit Arty I agree, the Brit arty needs enhancing. I'll go with raising their experience in the next version. And maybe have a couple of TRPs to represent registrations later in the battle. It would be nice to restrict them to the Garrison Hill area but I don't think this is possible without completely locking them in place, which I don't want to do. And yes, the 25pdr was 88mm, so the 105s that filled the same role in other armies were about 50% more powerful per shell but had a slightly lower ROF. 3. Gerpanese-held Objectives I've also had the AI Brits waste strength trying to take these objectives so I agree, they should be removed. OTOH, this will allow the Gerpanese player to bring more force to bear on the Brit-held objectives w/out fear of losing anything in his rear. 4. Decrease Value of Jail Hill Objective This seems to be a very good idea. The AI Brits fight too hard for this, allowing them to be destroyed in widely separated chunks. AFAIK, there is no way to change the value of a flag except by making is small or large, so I guess this needs a small flag. OK, I think it's time for a new version. I will make the above changes and we'll see how that works. I will also add briefings. If it's still pretty much a walk-over for the Gerpanese, I'll then try reducing or delaying their manpower. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

OK, I'm back from the Horrordays. Hope Santa gave you all more than you deserve and that 2001 brings you all fame, glory, and the heads of your enemies on pikes in the garden Anyway, I guess Alex and Armdchair's last comments can best be summed up by this quote from Armdchair: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>At the game's end, there were still plenty of enemy troops & armor advancing on Garrison Hill, barely being held off my scraps & remnants of troops. I was only able to delay the Axis forces, not defeat them. I think that is that's probably all the British can hope to do in this scenario, but who knows? I'm not exactly a great player, AI frequently kicks my ass, so what do I know? Maybe it's fitting that some scenarios should stand as both realistic and difficult, serving as lessons in humility for CM players, and giving us all a profound respect for those who suffered through the real thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree that there is value in modeling hopeless battles for the above-stated reasons. However, that's not quite the effect I was looking for here. So, sounds like I need to tone down the Gerpanese a bit, so that it's still very challenging but not such a long shot. In the real thing, the Brits managed to hold Garrison Hill, although only just barely, and largely thanks to the battered Gerpanese not realizing they had them on the ropes and calling off their last attack. However, this Gerpanese failure in part was due to the extreme difficulty in coordinating their various formations in this terrain. This led to attacks in sequence by different units that were supposed to go in together. Taking out some MG42 teams has already been suggested and should probably be done. But is that enough? What about making some of the Gerpanese troops in each BN be reinforcements? Or have some of them start the game exhausted so it takes several turns before they can really move? That might be a good abstraction for the historical C^3I problems in that they're all supposed to be there at once but some are delayed. Any other suggestions? ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Rudelover said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I played the first battle of an op with the beta (not sure which build) and saw extremely jagged lines<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Please explain, for someone who refuses to get beta patches, what you mean by "extremely jagged" front lines. To help you in explaining, here's what I see in 1.05. Say I have a defensive line of pillboxes, wire, and mines stretching right across the map. Say in battle #1 the attackers breach the line on a flank and roll up part of that end of it, but leave about 75% of the line unscathed. When the next battle starts, all those gains are lost and the front line has all the fortified zone still under control of the defenders. Also, I would like to see ops be able to handle battles of encirclement. That is, the front line should form a loop around the defenders in the center of the map. Is this now possible with the betas? If not, it really should be. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Alex said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Well, I finished it. I had to surrender again because of a misjudgement on my part.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> After playing it twice, do you think it's still unwinnable for the Brits? Besides your arty suggestion below, is there anything else that might need tweaking? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I still think that the arty needs a little tweaking. Perhaps, instead of the TRP idea, maybe just bump the spotter's experience level up a notch or two? As it is, not only is the delay very long, but the dispersion is very wide, over 200m. I accidentally knocked out the one AT gun I manged to tow across the map like that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Upping the FO experience is a very good suggestion. I like this much better than TRPs. As to pattern size, my experiments have shown that FO experience has no effect on this--it only affects how long it takes for FFE to start. Pattern size, it seems to me, is a function solely of the following factors: whether or not there is a TRP, whether or not the FO has an LOS, and what type of weapon the FO controls (guns, mortars, or rockets). When the FO doesn't have an LOS, CM uses the same basic pattern as with an LOS. However, 2 things happen that are different. First, blind arty usually takes several more spotting rounds before FFE starts, and these spotting rounds are often way off target. This is OK with me. But second, periodically CM will kick a few rounds very wide DURING the FFE. This is patently unrealistic and hopefully will be changed in CM2. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Alex said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm still in control of Garrison Hill, with at least 2 companies of Gerpanese layed out in front of me. My forces there are dwindling a little, and suffering under arty, but still holding well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The screenshot of that area looks quite gruesome Rather like in real life, too, from what I gather. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>On the Jail Hill side, I've just pulled back and have momentarily lost contact with the enemy. Arty is dropping on them, and I expect a new attack soon. The tanks are starting down the scattered trees path, at least 3 of them, but i managed to get one of the AT guns in there in the beginning, so I'm optomistic about that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Looks like you're doing a nice withdrawal there, making the Gerpanese pay as they advance. Should be a nasty fight shaping up there. Just hope the Gerpanese don't hit you from the west ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Alex said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTW I am playing it through again from the Brit side, just finishing my setup. As to that, I would suggest setting up the troops in some sort of formation instead of squares.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What I did here was lay out the units on both sides in "parade ground" formation so the player could easily see how many companies and what type of support weapons he has. Then, knowing what his force was, he could place them as desired. I did this due to my own personal taste. In scenarios where units are pre-deployed but still free to be set up in different locations, I find it difficult to determine exactly what I have. So I always have to spend time putting everybody into "parade ground" formation like this, count noses, look at leaders' bonuses, etc, and THEN decide where I want everybody. IOW, I never leave units in default positions and find it easier to put them where I think best if they are not in default positions already. So that's how I put the units on the map here. Considering that most Brit setup areas of a given color are split into several regions of the map, and given the size of some of the Gerpanese setup areas, I thought it would be best to use the "parade ground" formation as the default position in this scenario. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

James Bailey said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I haven't had time to play Kohima Ridge yet, and was wondering what side I should play vs. AI? I generally enjoy playing against the AI when it is on the offensive (I think it handles offensive tactics in a more realistic fashion), so I was leaning towards playing as the Brits. This decision was reinforced by a quick scan of the above discussion, but I wanted to get your thoughts on it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This scenario is difficult for the AI on either side. There is no way to tell the Brit AI that Garrison Hill is the one it has to hold onto regardless, so it spreads itself out and stays too long in unimportant areas. OTOH, the complexity of the terrain gives the Gerpanese AI problems in coordinating its forces. Personally, I think it's fun from either side. As the Brits, you really have to play well to keep from being stomped. But as the Gerpanese, you get to play with all the options available, and have to play well to keep your more ambitious plans from being dislocated. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also, I thought the map looked excellent -- not as good as your Volcano, but a close second!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks That map took me about 4 full days to make. So did the volcano, but for different reasons. With the volcano, I was having to tweak it constantly to get the slopes passable for vehicles in the right places. With Kohima, I was constantly taking measurments off a map and doing scaling calculations to convert that into CM tiles. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Alex said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm up to about turn 13. This time I set up a bit differently a) knowing where the enemy was and keeping in mind the true scenerio objectives that BulletHead laid out before. I only left a small force (1 platoon with a spotter) on jail hill with the intention of bringing arty down on whatever showed itself first over there, and then retreating.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Probably a good plan. Jail Hill is a difficult objective, both to hold and to take. It's open to attack from 3 sides and there is little in the way of covered routes of withdrawal to the north. OTOH, if the Gerpanese attack it heavily, a strong stand there can throw off their timing elsewhere. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Because of what happened in my last game, I may have shifted too much of my forces to the Jail Hill side, but we'll see. The tennis courts were hit by a full battalion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> One of the main challenges facing the Brits is the number of options open to the Gerpanese as to how to use their forces. Essentially, the Brit line can be hit at any point, from any side, at any time, and in any strength. Therefore, the Brit player has to think very carefully about his setup: what he will defend, in what strength, and how he will fight the battle in terms of his own mobility. The same terrain features that allow the Gerpanese to move everywhere more or less unseen work for the Brits as well. So at the bottom line, although the Brit player needs a good plan to start out with, this plan has to be flexible enough to deal with all the possibilities. I think this will give this scenario some replay value. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I made a short stand there before pulling back up the hill, inflicting 2-1 casualties or better in most situations. I took heavy losses on the ridge at the top of Garrison hill, but have committed most of my reserves there to bolster the defense, and have pulled back just over the ridge so now the Japs are getting mowed down as they top it one and 2 squads at a time. The rest of that enemy battalion is under arty fire from 2 25pdr spotters and the 3 inch mortars. I have made better use of the guns this time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are learning what the Brits learned in this campaign: that the Japanese are not invincible in the jungle <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>On a side not, are the paths of scattered trees meant to represent paths? They always end up being used as very slow roads.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The scatter tree lanes are intended to represent very marginal trails/roads. You could get vehicles over them but not easily. Thanks for looking at this again. Hope you're enjoying it more this time ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

grunto said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>you could also keep the artillery spotters and give them TRPs. with a few of those the FOs can really get fast response time for barrages along the most likely attack routes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is something I've been considering. At the point in the battle this is supposed to be, however, there hadn't been time and/or the arty wasn't in range yet. Still, it might be worth trying. OTOH, the lead time for blind arty isn't that big a problem IMHO. You just have to think ahead and have outposts out forward to find the Gerpanese early. Also, the AI tends to attack in great depth but on a narrow front. This means that if you shell the area just behind where its troops are hitting yours, you often get its 2nd and 3rd waves. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

I agree with Jarhead (Semper Fi, bro!) as to wanting PTO/CBI mobs, but don't want to snow you under with it so am not asking for a total conversion. However, I would find the following items very useful for the Kohima scenario I'm currently working on: 1. Japanese mod for the H-39 "tank" to make it look like the TE-KE type 97. 2. Japanese uniforms for Heer troops 3. Japanese victory objective flags 4. Take the skin for the Japanese machinegun erroneously installed in the Bren Carrier and put it on the gun of HMG42 and LMG42 teams. Thanks. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Alex said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I've finished playing it out. I surrendered around turn 45. I was down to 2 platoons and a bunch of non combat effective units (spent mortars, panicked troops, 1 man squads, etc.).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ouch! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I set up a new MLR at the middle minor flag, with a little over a company in an arc anchored in the large jungle area by the road, and on the wooded slop facing the swamp. Once the AI started it's assault I managed to hold out for about 15 turns. The AI just kept throwing troops at that slope in what amounted to a bonzai charge. I was gradually forced to shift more and more troops there, but eventually weight of numbers broke my line.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is the sort of AI behavior I was designing for, because it seems to be what the Japanese did in real life here. And in real life, the initial Japanese assaults overran the whole map at heavy cost, except for Garrison Hill. And they almost got that, several assaults taking most of it but then being driven back by counterattacks. I guess what I need to do is spell out what I consider the real victory conditions in the briefings, regardless of what the points are on the AAR screen at the end. If the Brits only have Garrison Hill at the end, it's a draw (historical result). If the Brits end up holding more, they win. If they lose everything, the Japanese win. Ideally, there should only be 1 objective on the map: Garrison Hill. Maybe 2 if you toss in Kuki Piquet. Then the above would be obvious just from looking at the map. Unfortunately, you must have more flags on a map this size if you want both human and AI players to behave realistically. But this in turn skews the AAR's scoring to favor more flag-taking as opposed to hold the key terrain. So I compromised and put big flags on the historically more important hills and small flags on the other hill to give the AI something to steer by and force humans to choose what to defend. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The AI did indeed concentrate on Jail Hill first. In fact, it sent all it's troops there and then just pushed down the line of victory flags.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's very impressive AI stuff there IMHO. To accomplish this, the AI had to march 2/3 of its force all through the jungle from north to south, then turn them around and roll up the line. This implies some high-level thought going on. I've never seen it do this when I've played the Brits. For me, it usually attacks each end of the line with a battalion and then throws the middle battalion in to help either of the ends. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Some thoughts on the scenerio. Though I realize that you are trying to recreate a real battle, I think it is weighted too heavily in favor of the Gerpanese. There's at least a 3 to 1 advantage and the defender is forced to spread out over a large area. The tanks seem about right, but there's just too much infantry.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I appreciate your comments. However, I'm not entirely convinced this scenario is too biased towards the Gerpanese. After all, the Brits can win this thing, as demonstrated by Armdchair in this thread. It's not easy, but it is possible. As to the numerical balance, remember that in most major attacks, the attackers try to have at least a 3-1 numerical superiority. That is about what's in this scenario (9 Gerpanese grunt companies + "tanks" vs. 4 Brit grunt companies). So the numbers are realistic from the standpoint of the military art. They are also realistic from the historical OOB angle. This was, after all, a full regiment vs. a single battalion in real life. I guess my opinion is that attack scenarios that do not have approximately 3-1 odds in favor of the attacker are inherently unrealistic. Significantly weaker attacks just don't happen in real life, at least not at first or not intentionally. If I want more balanced numbers, I do a meeting engagement. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Perhaps this is partially a problem with using Germans for Japanese. I suspest that the Germans, even the 44 squads, have more automatic weapons and a much higher firepower than the corresonding Japanese. I would suggest either removing troops from the Gerpanese side, or perhaps using a weaker unit. Perhaps 3 or 4 to 1 odds with the Gerpanese using Volkstrum with a high level of fanaticism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree, using Germans as Japanese is the hardest part of designing scenarios in the CBI/PTO. Because of this, I thought long and hard before deciding on what German units to use. I settled on the 1944 Heer for the squads for the following reasons: 1) This squad type has the lowest percentage of automatic weapons of all German squads of any type and year (3 of 9, i.e., 2xSMG and 1xLMG). All other German squad types have at least 4 automatic weapons, the extras being mostly SMGs and assault rifles. 2) Given the short ranges of almost all firefights in this terrain, additional SMGs and ARs would have been way too advantageous for the Gerpanese. At the same time, the firepower of the LMG42 is rather low at 40m and less, so its inclusion doesn't lead to overkill in this scenario. 3) CM Germans don't have anything like the Japense "knee" mortar, which was very effective in this type of battle. So I figure having 2 SMGs per squad more or less balances out that way, with the LMG42 at such short range being a good approximation for the Japanese Nambu, which was very similar to the Bren. 4) Japanese squads were 11-12 men. However, this division had just marched 80 miles or so through essentially trackless, very mountainous, intensely disease-infested jungle, all with limited supplies. They suffered attrition en route. Thus, using squads of 9 men seems more reasonable than using bigger squads. So that's why the Gerpanese are 1944 Heer. I'm open to other suggestions but I'd like to see some justification as to why such a change would be more realistic. As to quality, I made the Gerpanese veterans with the highest possible fanaticism rating (all troops 50%). I think both these settings are justified. The division WAS veteran, having been in successful action for about 6 years at this point in time, starting in China. And if any unit was fanatic, it was this one, even by Japanese standards. Companies continued to attack even when reduced to 8 men, despite being shelled and bombed and starved for weeks. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I would also suggest removing at least some of the MG42s. As far as i know the Japanese didn't have anything close to them, and there are literally dozens (it looks like you bought the units as battalions, maybe just buy then as seperate platoons). And maybe replace the rest of them with the lighter versions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, I did buy the Gerpanese by battalion. I did this to get all the company and battalion HQs, which historically were right in the front ranks of many of the attacks here. The Japanese did have HMGs. They were closer to the US and Brit types than the HMG42, but then the MG42 was rather unique in WW2. However, because the HMG42 is all that's available for the Germans in CM, it's what I have to use here. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than nothing? Yes. And besides, the terrain severely limits the utility of HMGs on the attack anyway. This still leaves the question of how many of them the Gerpanese should have in this scenario. To be honest, I'm not sure how many HMGs per company the Japanese had in real life. Also, it wouldn't surprise me if in the real battle the Japanese left some of them at home due to the long cross-country march--my source doesn't go into such detail. So having a few less might make the scenario more realistic. If you or anyone else has more info on this subject, please let me know <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Offering the defender some fortifications might also help, but again i don't know how that fits the OOB.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In this initial stage of the Kohima battle, there were no fortifications. The Brit defenders had only just arrived and didn't have time to set anything up beyond foxholes. Later, both sides had bunkers. Unfortunately, CM doesn't allow Allied troops to have bunkers. Hence, there's no way to make the middle, stalemate phase of Kohima where it was pretty much WW1-type trench warfare. However, the long, final phase of Brit counterattack is possible by giving the Gerpanese some bunkers. I can find no reference to either mines or wire at any point in the battle, though. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>One final note, I don't know how it fits with the OOB, but I would have gladly traded all my arty for light mortars with fast response times. They're very effective against infantry, and I had a lot of trouble getting arty in the right place because the large guns, when unobserved take 6-8 turns to arrive. I was only really able to use them in the retreat from Jail Hill and once the Gerpanese were stationary for a while as they assaulted my line.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Arty is another area where some changes are probably inevitable. As it stands now, it's a compromise. Both sides have somewhat more arty than they had in real life at any one time at this point in the battle. This is because this scenario is limited to just that--a single 1-hour battle at some point on a single day. Ideally, it should be an operation representing several days, but because the CM operation engine can't handle encirclements, I have basically compressed the fighting of several days into 1 more-intense battle. The net exposure of both sides to arty is thus about the same overall and is intended to produce about the same number of arty casualties in this 1 scenario as took place over the several days in question. On the Brit side of things, there is 1 encircled battalion holding the ridge. Such a battalion had a battery of 3" mortars. I chose to represent them as an FO instead of on-map mortars because of the way CM limits on-map mortar indirect fire, although they really should be on the map. Essentially, on-map mortars are nearly useless in this type of terrain under CM's rules and would not be effective enough if placed on-map in this scenario. So besides the platoon 2" mortars, that's it for this battalion's organic fire support. However, I also gave the Brits a lot of 25pdr FOs. These units represent fire coming in from the Brit division trying to relieve Kohima from the west. This fire proved very helpful to the Brits at Kohima, although there were difficulties with it, due to the C^3I problems inherent from the nature of the situation. Thus, I think the long delay times due to mostly blind shots is appropriate. The Brit player just has to plan ahead in using his arty. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>All in all a very tense and exciting battle...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks, that's exactly the effect I'm trying for <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...it's just that it's one that I don't think I could have won even if i knew where the attack was coming from. I'm a decent player, but as it stands now, the Brits are, at least for me, a lost cause in this one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Way up above somewhere, I mentioned what I consider the true victory conditions to be. Had you known them from the beginning, do you think you would have played differently, perhaps by pulling back from some objectives earlier to beef up Garrison Hill? And do you think that would have made a difference in the final outcome? Thanks for the comments. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Stone: To follow up... Of historical scenarios, how many folks are using topographic maps? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Moi ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

curih said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...I managed to get about 8 men, plus one of the FO's out. I'm in full scale retreat, from Jail Hill, which should be completely annihilated by my artillery in about 2 minutes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This sounds good. The Japanese carried Jail Hill very early but arty slowed them up and prevented them from overrunning the whole area immediately. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have a few questions. First, why are the AT guns stuck on the side with the tennis courts? Is this where they were historically? Mine have all been taken out by infantry and artillery while all the tanks are still on the far side of the map.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The 6pdrs were in the area of Garrison Hill, the key to the whole position at least as far as use of the main road goes, which was the object of the whole battle. In the scenario, I put the guns in the white Allied set-up area. There are 3 white patches on the map: the DC's Compound (tennis court area), Garrison Hill, and the Kuki Piquet. Thus, you can put the guns anywhere you want in more or less the area where they were historically. Yes, they are essentially useless in this scenario. But then, so are the Gerpanese tanks. It's a terrain thing <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Second, are all the flags weighted equally? The AI seems to consider Jail Hill as it's main objective. As I said, It was hit by 2 companies and all the tanks, but I also saw at least another company in the woods headed that way and all the skirmishes near the tennis courts were the results of the AI trying to join those 2 platoons up with the Jail Hill attackers. Those 2 platoons actually came through behind my front line there and just waltzed through untill they tripped ouver one of my platoons. It was weird though because they went right past 2 objective flags and headed for Jail Hill.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jail Hill, Garrison Hill, and the DC's compound are all "big" flags, whereas DIS, Kuki Piquet, etc, are "small" flags. So it's not surprising the AI is making a major effort for Jail Hill, being as that's worth more points than some of the other places. Plus, there are some LOS lanes from Jail Hill that help support attacks on the other objectives later on. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

OK, has everybody played this from the "Gerpanese" side yet? In any case, I'd like some opinions. Is the 1944 Heer rifle squad the best thing to use for Japanese? I picked it because it had the highest proportion of rifles. Do you think the H-39 is a good approximation of a Japanese tank? Does either side have too much or too little arty? Stuff like that. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Still waiting for some more feedback on my Kohima Ridge "Gerpanese" project ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

There are some problems with bridges, especially bridges over lower-level roads. In this case, the AI seems to regard the tile as a 4-way intersection all on 1 level instead of being 2 separate paths divided by impassable slopes, at least in part. Here are some examples of this behavior: 1. If you plot a movement path on the lower level, the line between waypoints goes over the bridge instead of under it. 2. As the unit moves following this path, its base goes up over the bridge instead of under it, even though the unit graphic itself goes under. 3. The camera viewpoint never goes under a bridge but always pops up on top of it when moved along the lower level in view mode 1 or 2. This is true even if the view is locked to a unit whose graphic moves under the bridge. 4. If a wrecked vehicle on the lower level is pushed so as to go under the bridge, it instead pops up on top of it. Then the pushing vehicle goes under the bridge without further impediment. 5. If a vehicle on the lower level is knocked out, its bailing crew appears on top of the bridge instead of under it. 6. If during the execution of a turn the AI has to replot movement paths in an area containing a bridge over a road, it will often plot waypoints so as to make a 90^ turn in the center of the bridge and go on the other path from that which it was originally following. That is, if the unit is on the lower level, there will be a waypoint on top of the bridge and then movement along the upper path, or vice versa. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: I've changed it so that rough terrain tiles now abut so that they block vehicular traffic along shared edges. You'll see it in v1.1. Charles<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks, Charles. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Alexander said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But most of the centerpiece battles like Okinawa and Iwo Jima were dreary, vehicle-free slugfests, against a dug-in, seldom glimpsed enemy, grinding across featureless beaches or under triple canopy jungle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I beg to differ. There were tanks a-plenty on both those islands. And on Okinawa, there was some serious urban combat--that island had and has a decent-sized civilian population, you know, and they lived in large towns as well as small villages. Same was true on most of the islands. I suggest you read more on this subject before making such sweeping claims. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You get malarial chills reading Sledge's book on Guadalcanal and Tinian. Could CM do it justice? Sure. But why bother?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You might just as easily ask why bother with CM1? (NOTE: I enjoy CM1, I'm just turning your argument around to show its absurdity.) I mean, by mid-1944, the Germans were already bled white from the years fighting the Russians, gave the west lower priority for the forces they still had, and didn't have the fuel to move even those forces decisively. Plus the Allies had overwhelming superiority in air and arty, plus effectively limitless numbers of cannonfodder. So the outcome was as inevitable as the rising of the sun and getting there consisted of repetitive blasting of Germans with air and arty followed by massive assaults which, regardless of lower materiel quality, were assured of victory. In fact, for at least 1/2 the period covered by CM1, you read more reports of Germans surrendering en masse than fighting. You sure didn't get that behavior from the Japanese. So why bother with the ETO? The reason to bother, in both cases, is that while at the big picture level things might be one-sided, at the tactical level different circumstances swung the pendulum of advantage to a more neutral position, or even in favor of the Axis, at various places along the front. And CM is a tactical game, so that's all the opening it needs to make good scenarios. And BTW, there was a lot of dreary assaulting of serious fortifications manned by dug-in, rarely seen enemies in Europe as well. That whole bocage thing, the Channel ports, the Heurtgen Forest, the Siegfried Line, and most of Italy. In fact, it seems most of the ETO fighting was against prepared positions. Then once the Allies made a breakthrough, it was a quick race to the next defended line for another month or 2 of slogging. Yet this doesn't seem to have inhibited scenario designers. PeterNZ said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Anyway, lads, the reason bts won't do a Pacific CM is because they're not interested in the Pacific!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> From what I understand from BTS's earlier comments on this subject, BTS is quite aware that there is sufficient interest the a PTO/CBI version to make it worth doing. However, the main reason BTS doesn't want to do it is that they don't feel they have the knowledge of those theaters necessary to make the game up to the standards of accuracy set by CM1. I am somewhat taken aback by this position. From what I saw on this board during the year before CM1 came out, I'd be willing to bet there are plenty of people with the requisite knowledge who would gladly volunteer their services in this cause. Oh well, for now we can attempt to make CBI/PTO scenarios with what we have, and that seems to work fairly well. Meanwhile, I hope BTS changes its mind on this, or at least licenses the CM engine to somebody willing to make a CBI/PTO version. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

M. Bates said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We have already established that Combat Mission can't or won't simulate beach landings, so why bother with a Pacific game?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I continue to be amazed at the ubiquity of this misconception that the PTO was beach landings only. Just like in the ETO, the landings themselves were the least of the fighting; the real combat was inland. Thus, CM wouldn't have any problems doing the PTO on this account. So just like CM1 doesn't have the Normandy and South of France landings, and CM3(?) won't have all the Sicilian and Italian landings, a PTO CM wouldn't need island landings. Another big misconception about the PTO is that it was just an unbroken series of assaults on bunker lines. Far from it. Naturally, Japanese tactics varied according to the situation, but they knew as well as anyone else that you can't win if you remain passive, so they counterattacked when they could. The PTO also involved urban battles in many places. So basically, in the PTO, you have all the kinds of combat you had in Europe, over all kinds of terrain. The CBI theater was even more varied. In fact, in Burma, the Japanese retained the strategic initiative well into 1944, even invading India that year. I believe this was the only place in the world where the Axis was ascendant so late into the war. So here at least the war wasn't Axis forces with their backs to the wall as it was in most other places. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Gonzo said (twice ): <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>SPOILER InFO<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't mind spoiling this one because it's an experiment. I think we need to discuss this in the open so all scenario designers interested in the CBI/PTO can come to some consensus about how to use Gerpanese. That way others can make CBI/PTO scenarios that give the players something approaching the familiarity they have with ETO units. Besides, this forum doesn't get the thundering herds anyway, so the finished product should still be fresh to the masses when we get it hammered out. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am through turn 10. I am playing as the Allies. At this time I have sustain 3 crews loss two AT Guns Ko'ed, One crew Vechicle Ko'ed. I have several casualties sustained to platoon around tennis court. Huge fire fight by turn five in that area, sneaked in behind me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Historically, the Japanese had the area surrounded so were able to envelope both ends of the ridge and attack the middle from both sides eventually. So I gave the Gerpanese deployment areas allowing this <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Needles to say Area is in total control of Brits, Last seen any signs of tanks was turn 7, Infantry trying to flank My right(South Edge of Map) now retreating, after careful walking of Arty( you a red leg would have been proud)!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jail Hill is a tough objective. On one side, attackers have a lot of open ground to cross. On the other, it's very steep and offers good, covered ambush positions. OTOH, the Gerpanese tanks can support attacks up the open side, but at some risk from Brit positions further north as well as Jail Hill's defenders. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Right now I feel a little cocky but I have fall back positions, defense in depth set up and now ready to counterattack on my Left flank and retake the Tennis courts, under the cover of all organic Mortar fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sounds like you're doing good. The Gerpanese have numbers but that's about it. Except for some highly inadequate tanks, they are just infantry with minimal arty support. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think as I play if I was playing a live oppenent, I would be down to my last few platoons, but still working the arty.... AI is a little predictible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, plus the map is rather complex for the AI's tactical maneuvering logic. It has some difficulty coordinating its units on such a map when attacking. You might want to try it as the Gerpanese next. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The other thing is that AI does not use their ARTY? this is frustrating.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, this is something I find highly annoying in all scenarios. The AI tends to push its FOs way up forward where they die, or position them on the defensive where they have no LOS. Also, it only prepfires areas around VLs, ignoring better defensive positions somewhat away from the VLs, and doesn't use interdictory barrages at all. Arty is the great tactical scenario equalizer so you have to be careful with what you give each side. In this case, both sides have a bit more arty than they should have because this scenario is sort of a composite of the whole 1st 2 weeks of Kohima, due to the impossibility of making it an operation. So the Brits have arty representing that from the advancing relief force, and the Gerpanese have more than they had for any single attack in this period. Given this, if the AI does its usual thing and not use its arty to full potential, the human player will have an advantage. Of course, this advantage will be more significant for a Brit human player, becasue the Brits have more and bigger arty with more ammo per FO. But the problem is, you have to make scenarios assuming humans on both sides. In such a case, the arty might balance out. It's hard to tell vs. the AI because the AI arty doesn't get used very much. It might work better to reduce the amount of arty available to both sides. This would make the scenario almost totally an infantry schlachtfest. Comments? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Overall Scenario is fun so far, But I am still waiting for the Bonzai Charge??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I suspect you'll see a renewed attack sometime later. You don't seem to have engaged the whole Gerpanese force yet. Plus they are all veterans with max fanaticism, so you'll probably see some mauled units returning at some point. As for Banzai charges, by this point in the war, the Japanese had pretty much given them up for normal attacks like this. Besides, I don't think the German AI goes for them anyway <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Thanks for a great historical map!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My pleasure. I love making maps. This one took 4-5 days. Thanks for the report. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

109Gustav said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Wouldn't marsh work? As far as LOS and concealment goes, it isn't that far off from rough. I do agree though, tanks shouldn't be able to move through a large rough field.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sure, this would work except that in many cases it would be inappropriate to the landscape to use marsh for this purpose. For instance, you want a boulder-strewn slope. Or say the area SHOULD be an open, vehicle-proof slope but, due to the way CM handles the sloping of neighboring building and road tiles, it can't be without skewing contours in other areas of the map. A marsh in such locations would be incongruous. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Another tile tweak I'd like to see is getting rid of the gap between Woods and Tall Pines. I have managed to sneak tanks long distances through the gaps in the trees. Sure, scenario designers can use just one tree tile or the other, but that looks plain and boring.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I disagree. I use this feature a lot to make very narrow, vehicle-capable trails through forests. The only time it leads to unexpected results is if you make long, continuous bands of different types of tree tiles, so there's the gap between them for the length of their common border. In such cases, you should use like 90-95% of 1 type of tree tile with just a random scattering of other types, with maybe some open ground thrown in as well. This way you get a nice, non-uniform visual effect, plus no unwanted trails from end to end. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

I am currently working on a scenario depicting the early phase of the Kohima Ridge battle. Unfortunately, I have to use "Gerpanese" troops and CM's terrain engine will only allow the hills to be 1/3 as steep as they are in real life. However, IMHO it's not a bad scenario and it would be nice to have feedback on it so I can make it better. BTS has, sadly, defied all efforts to convince them to make a CBI/PTO version of CM, so such expedients as this will have to do for the time being. If interested, drop by the Scenario topic and see the Kohima thread there for more info. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Armdchair said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Well, I finally finished it. It was brutal & vicious and I had my ass handed to me on a plate; I got a " Allied minor victory" but a few more turns and the Axis would have left nothing of me but a greasy spot; in other words: great job, Bullethead.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wow, and that was only the 1st draft . Plus you were making the AI attack in very complex terrain, which is not its forte. I was expecting lots of suggestions for OOB tweaks, especially considering this is an experiment with "Gerpanese" troops. Of course, such comments are still welcome. The Germans I used here were just my best SWAG and I'm sure there's a better way to use them for depicting Japanese. BTW, how many firefights were there in which the grenade and bayonet did NOT play a part? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But I do think that this Kohima Ridge scenario is clear proof that the Pacific Theater warrants a CM product.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You know, I sent this scenario to Steve as part of my discussion with him on how the game handles sloping terrain around roads and bridges. Maybe he'll play it and feel the same way <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The only thing I can really say about the scenario itself is how you write the briefings may determine a great deal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, I'll have to be careful there. The Brits in real life were surprised by the strength of the Japanese attack. It would not do to tell the Brit player his scattered battalion was facing the better part of a regiment. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My only other question is what sources did you find the material for both the battle and the actual map? I suddenly feel this glaring gap in my knowledge of WWII.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I did this scenario totally from info contained in the book "BURMA: The Longest War, 1941-1945," by Louis Allen, 1984, ISBN 1-84212-260-6. It's nearly 700 pages all told, including index, bibliography, and appendices. I got my copy this past summer at the IWM's RAF Duxford bookstore, although I'm sure you can find it at Amazon or B&N. I got this book because thitherto I also had little knowledge of the CBI theater and this book was billed as being comprehensive, at least for Burma. I'm pretty well up on the PTO because I'm a Marine but the actions on mainland Asia were mostly UK/CW things. Yet what little I'd heard of Burma convinced me that it was worth studying in detail. So I had been looking for such a book as this for some time. The author was there as an intelligence officer. He uses a lot of Japanese sources, including interviews with survivors, as well as all the Brit records. The book reminds me a lot of MacDonald's "A Time for Trumpets" in the way it goes from the highest command levels to the mud of the trenches and back again, on both sides, throughout the narrative. So if you want a book on WW2 in Burma, this is the one to get, IMHO. Anyway, this book contains a detailed topo map of Kohima Ridge. This was my main source for most map features: terrain contours and locations of such features as roads, trails, buildings, building sizes, creeks, and Brit deployment areas. I put the trees on using contemporary aerial photos, also in this book, with the knowledge that they were pines from the text. The Gerpanese forces and deployment areas I gleaned from the text as well. Unfortunately, even with 5m contour intervals, CM can only make the hills about 1/3 as steep as they should be. Still, due to the way CM handles slopes, I think it's a pretty good approximation. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.