Pak40

It would be nice to have a copy/paste feature for the maps. Just select an area with box selection and copy then paste it into another map. This would save a lot of headache with map creation and this would also allow us to copy/paste battle maps into operation maps, which is currently impossible.

Hmm, maybe it's possible to save the QB before you pick your OOB. If so, then all you would have to do is load the save game and switch sides. I can't believe BTS or the testers didn't think of this while in testing.

"If e.g. there are five battles, are the units put on respective exit ends and the AI leaves them there to you to move subject to the new battle lines, (same as opertaions supplied in CM). But what is the point of choosing various sizes on individual battle maps if, (by choice) they are all smaller than the original scenario map? Where does the AI focus each smaller map?" Another thing I just thought of that might affect this is the "Attacker Comes From" setting. Example: suppose you choose a map size of 1200 x 3000 (3000 from east to west)and set the battle map size to 1200x1200, then set the Attacking side to East; The 1st battle will start on the easternmost side of the entire map. The defenders will be pushed back to the west as the operation evolves. Each battle after battle #1 will center around wherever CM decides to make no mans land (the front line). Unfortunately, CM likes to redraw the front line in a straight line instead of keeping units where they were at the end of the previous battle. This means that defending units that worked hard to defend a farm house will be pushed back in the setup phase of the next battle, losing the ground that they worked so hard to defend. BILL, Have you talked with BTS about the topic above? I and many others feel that it's just plain unrealistic that the defending side gets pushed back after every battle. It happens even if no mans land is set to zero.

Bill, "Look at the wording and you'll see they are now subsequent battle slots. To my knowledge, you can't have reinforcements in an operation, just battles, one after the other." Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, Bill, but there are 5 reinforcement slots in the OOB screen and you can select which battle that they arrive on as well as the probability of their arrival.

"I assume the reinforcements are keyed in at the beginning of each new battle turn, always at 100%(?)If true that's not exactly defined as such in my manual." I'm not sure what you mean by "keyed in" but I'll give you an example of how it works: lets say Reinforcement Slot #2 has three tanks and a platoon of infantry. The slot is set to arrive on battle 4, 50% of the time-- This means that ALL of the units in slot #2 have a 50% chance to arrive in battle 4. They will enter the battle in the setup phase of the battle, not during the battle itself. "If you have an original operations map e.g. 2000X2000, and e.g. battle one has a map size of say 750X750, which part of the original operations map does it key onto? There is no such information in my manual." Well, I havn't experimented too much with this but I assume CM tries to position the first battle where ever units from both sides exist. You may need to do some experimentation with where you place units. try spreading the defending unit's out and see where the first battle is placed. (BTW, there's lots of experimenting in making these operations-you're right, the manual is lacking in this area) "In the opertaions scenario format you can also add "Reserves" in addition to Reinforcements? But to add a reserve takes a reinforcement slot? Doesn't say as much in my manual." I havnt messed around with reserves but I assume they take a reinforcement slot. "But thanks for your input but please be a little more patient/kind with us beginners." Sorry, I didn't mean to sound impatient.

Faust, First, I recommend you read the manual. It tells you how to make an operation and it's fairly simple to understand. Second, I think your conception of the the operation making process is not correct. You do not make each individual battle. The second battle starts where the first battle left off (with some shifting of the front lines). Here's a basic run down of the steps to create an operation: 1. click start new operation 2. make map 3. make OOB(select units including reinforcements) 4. set operation parameters (battle lengths, # of battles, visable map size, attacking side, etc., etc.) 5. Place units of battle #1 on map using the 3D preview. 6. save and play. [This message has been edited by Pak40 (edited 10-04-2000).]

"On more thing, I have noticed that the more beat up a squad is the less additional casualties it takes when the house blows up. For example.. If you have a healthy 12 man squad it will take like 5-8 casualties when the house blows up, BUT if the squad is already down to like 3 guys it will maybe take 1 if any casualties." I don't think this is the case. I've had squads down to 2 or three men be wiped out by a collapsing building...several times. But, I have noticed that squads on the second story tend to take very high casualties when the building collapses. This seems realistic to me. "Also I find it a little gamey on my part when I find myself holding back my men until a certain house blows up since the rubble is just about as good cover and it doesn't explode" this is not gamey at all. I use this tactic in games also. The soldiers, in real life, themselves would recognize that a pile of rubble is safer than a building that's about to collapse. It would be nice to throw a randomizing factor that would make some rubble areas collapse even further if fired upon. This would make it more risky for infantry to occupy a rubble area.

DONT change the price of the .50 Jeep, here's why: It may be cheap but it's life is short lived when compared to the leg .50 cal. - the .50 Jeep is easily knocked out and when it is knocked out the gun is useless. The leg .50, on the other hand can withstand lots of fire and mortar barages and still survive to fight . DO change the speed of light wheeled vehicles such as jeeps and trucks (but not armored cars) when moving across open ground. They presently move too fast. There is a big difference between traveling on a flat road and on open ground. Slowing down the Jeep on open ground will help justify keeping the price where it is now. It won't be as valuable as a 'gamey' recon technique.

"I learned the hard way that Shermans don't kill King tiger's straight on." OK, I don't want to sound like a 'know it all' or some sort of jerk, but did you truly have to learn this the hard way? This is common knowledge even among the less experienced wargamers.

The AI, just like a human, can do anything it wants with the units that it has on the map. The only static units are the pillboxes and bunkers and dug in vehicles. The trick is to not give the AI all of his units at once. Two methods to do this that I know of are: 1)Use the reinforcement slots to bring them onto the map at later battles. But you're only limited to 5 slots. 2)Only show part of the map in any one battle. You can set the map size shown in the parameter screen. Example: if your map is 1000 meters by 4000 meters long and you expect the attacking force to advance 1000 meters or less during the first battle, then make the map size 1000 meters. This way the players will only see the first 1000 meters in the first battle. Any defending units in the next 3000 meters will not show and therefore the AI will not be able to move them during the first battle. Experiment with the deployment zones (including the nuetral zone) and padlocking; I'm not sure how these effect the setup of units that will not be on the map during the first battle. From what your situation sounds like is that you need to mainly do #2. hope I helped

definitely the Panzer Mk III. This was still used in 1944 a fair amount. Heck, the Germans put anything they could find into service: french tanks, czhek tanks, bicylcles

It's now available at the CMHQ site in the Scenario Depot: combathq.thegamers.net I'm also looking for a PBEM oppenent to play this with - I'll be either side. any takers?

It's now available at the CMHQ site in the Scenario Depot: combathq.thegamers.net I'm also looking for a PBEM oppenent to play this with - I'll be either side. any takers?

The biggest gripe I have about the Victory Flags at this point is that there arn't any in operations. This sometimes leaves the computer AI dumbfounded as to where to attack. The AI only "attacks" to the opposite side of the map, it does't know to attack an objective such as a bridge or hilltop or town. Victory flags in operations will help scenario designers specify which areas of the map are most important for the computer AI.

What sources are you using to get your information? If you don't already have Ambrose's "D-Day June 6, 1944" then get it. "The longest day" was also a book, I think. Do you have that source?

Teamski, I have no concrete proof but, after I read it a few years ago I was totally blown away with it's realism...except for the Hollywoodish ending and the fact that the book doesn't have any information about the author. These two things always bugged me for some reason. One day I stumbled upon an ametuer review which stated that the book was fiction. This review had no proof that it was fiction but it made sense. Here is one of the reader reviews I found on Amazon.com (obviously this guy isn't the final say so about the book's fictional status but he does raise some doubts about whether it is non-fiction or not.) Reviewer: david.mahoney@tipd.analog.com from New Hampshire This book is a fraud. Purportedly the memoirs of a young officer of the 5th SS Wiking (Viking) Division, it is actually a completely fictional novel produced by a European pulp magazine writer. This popular fake went through several printings and was even reviewed in the New York Times. Nonetheless, "The Black March" is actually a powerful piece of writing and an effective war novel. The author creates a strong protagonist who comes to life as he tells his adventures of Nazi indoctrination and combat on the Russian front. The book loses some power because of its pulp elements, such as the hero's love affair with a Jewish girl. Still, the book is well worth a few dollars for a used paperback copy or a check out from the library.

Teamski, "The Black March" is a great book, very well written but it's fiction and not an autobiography. Doctor, Donald Burgett's books are great! "Seven Roads to hell" is insanely detailed, especially since it was just published last year. Curahee is great, and I'm just now reading his last book which I think will be awesome too. Panzer Commander is good but from a batallion commander's point of view. Very well written with some increadible historical moments. "Company Commander" by Charles B. MacDonald should be bought by everyone. Ambrose's books are increadibly well researched: D-Day June 6 1944 Citizen Soldiers Band of Brothers

McAuliffe, And I've seen dense European cities depicted as sparse midwestern USA towns laid out in a grid pattern. Puke!

"I lock units into place because I, myself, hate having to sort out a battalion's worth of troops dumped haphazardly on a map." It's pointless to lock units only because you dont want to sort out a haphazard setup. Each unit's default placement is kept when you start a scenario, no matter if you choose "unit lock" or not. Unit lock only keeps the player from moving the unit in the setup. Since the default placement is always kept then just place the units where you want them in the scenario editor. Therefore if you or anyone else wants to experiment with different setups, then it will be possible. I personally hate the "unit lock". It leaves room for little variation in the replay value for most scenarios. There's no ability for expirimentation of tactics. I also disagree in part that "troops had little choice about the where, when, how, why of combat assignments". If a captain or major was ordered to defend an area or town, then he placed his units in the best place he could. He had full control of the locality of his own troops. Since CM's scope is on the company/batallion level, the player -in an abstract way- is assuming this role. Therefore we should be given the CHOICE of setting the units where we want to (within friendly territory, of coarse). If a player wants to play a scenario the exact way a designer has laid it out then all he has to do is accept the default setup, otherwise he can move his troops anyhere withing the 3 possible setup zones. This allows for the greatest possible replayiblity of a scenario and makes it most enjoyable for all. The only time I would consider "unit locks" is if I'm making a strictly historical battle where my intent is force the player to try and outperform the historical results with the same setup that actually happened.

Originally posted by BeWary: "Did you hold all of the victory flags? Maybe the Allies had a number of objectives and achieved one or two of them?" Victory Flags don't exist in Operations, only battles. Operations come in 3 varieties, all of which are explained in the operation scenario design section of the manual. Unfortunately, none of the 3 varieties seem to explain why you lost this operation.

Bill, How about making the "no man's land" setting smaller? In operations I've noticed that between battles the defensive side is the side that is pushed back (not the offensive side like it should be) and that the "no man's land" setting seems to dictate how far they are pushed back. Jeff

The allied OOB is correct from what I've read. The British had reached the bridge but there was not any armor or British infantry around at the time of the attack. However, a British truck loaded with ammo was shot up and ignited while trying to cross the bridge. The US glider troops had to defend with bazookas and a 57mm AT gun. They were aided by the fact that only a few of the Panthers from Panzer brigade 107 could attack at one time due to the limited access to the bridge. Also, darkness had set in after a while and aided in the confusion of the battle for the Germans.

Thank you very much for the map complements, The single player version will be an operation as well so I can't but objective flags in the game. I will make the map much smaller so that the germans will have much more contact with the British (hopefully) Unfortunately, if I choose to make a battle or series of battles(as opposed to an operation) then I wont be able to simply copy the operation map into a battle map. I'll have to recreate the entire map from scratch. Therefore I wont want to or need to remake the entire map. The west approach is largely irrelevent to the battle for the bridge, therefore I will not remake it.

You can't rotate a map but you can do what I did on one of mine: use the landmark feature to label each edge of the map North, South, East, West. It's only a visual thing for the player and has no effect on the game setup. also you cannot copy a map from an operation to a battle or the other way around.

Ironcross, Unfortunately, there is not much I can do about how much the computer AI attacks the British. The real problem lies in the scenario editor: battles have objective flags but operations do not (I HOPE YOU'RE LISTENING, STEVE). The German AI doesn't know to attack towards the bridge because I can't put an Objective Flag on it. The German AI is only concered with moving south(towards the river) and once units hit the river, they basically don't move any more. I found all of this out by playing the opertaion with the fog of war off. BTW, no mans land is already set to 0 meters. Another fault of CM system is that the defender usually gets pushed back or his front lines get straigtened out between battles. Usually you will see a white set up zone with no units in it - another fault of the system. There's nothing I can do unless BTS fixes these problems. This version may end up being a multi-player version only and I may make a totally newer version with a smaller map for the single person play.