xerxes

If the scenario is a complete combined arms full scale battalion assault on a prepared position then 30 turns would probably be on the low side. I'd be thinking this type of engagement would be in the 45-60 turn range.

I tend to disagree about using the number of turns as a balancing mechanism (in most cases). I personally find it frustrating to have a battle end just at the "good part." A good turn length to me is one in which the attacker has sufficient time to pretty much fully expend their resources (ammo, men, afvs). A good turn length also means the attacker doesn't have to "rush" things so much that they get butchered. When I'm trying to figure out # turns I rely on a number of factors BUT I assume (and indicate in the briefing) that the attacker is going to move forward from Turn 1 working to gain position and intel. If a player wants to send out numerous patrols to recon they won't have enough time. Turn length really depends on the situation the designer wants to create. If it's a tight turn limit there absolutely should be a reason (and it should be clear in the briefing). If it's a extra long turn limit it should be clarified why this is. For example, the briefing should state that enemy disposition is almost completely unknown and you should start with extensive recon. As a rule of thumb, for shorter scenarios (20-30 turns), the attacker should start in the jump-off position within 1-2 turns of being engaged by at least the forward defensive screen. One exception is that when designing for tournament play I use a somewhat tighter turn length due to the need to get games completed in a timely manner. But it's always interesting to hear all the different points of view on this very important scenario design issue.

The CM portion of a simulated battle is generally not the entire length of time of the battle. Sometimes scenarios are too short, but that's a question of design and playtesting. In accounts I've read of many small actions the commander did not have carte blanche for the time to capture an objective. Most CM battles are part of a larger action, thus the objectives need to be achieved in a certain time frame. But, most important of all, most players don't like to sit in their foxholes while the attacker sneaks for the first 40 turns. This is a game after all. Scenarios where in playtesting, you find that the scenario is ending while the forces are still heavily engaged probably have too short a turn limit.

Low ammo triggers the auto ceasefire.

Tow the 150s into covered positions with just barely LOS to the edge of cover you're sure he's going to need to use. Once your forward units detect enemy sound or visual contact use area fire with the 150s. I'd embark and get them out of there next turn before the onboard mortars can move to get LOS to them. The trick is to keep the 150s far enough away that the enemy will have a difficult times spotting them. Once the position of the 150s has been identified a good opponent will kill the guns soon afterwards.

It sounds like a complaint against night/fog games. That's fine if it's not you cup of CM tea but it certainly doesn't (by itself) make a scenario bad.

Given that crew losses cost double the victory points, I think the artificial handicapping of crews is way overdone. I've seen plenty of account of mortar crews picking up their rifles to fend off an assault that threatens to overrun their position. I think a reduced ammo load (15?)makes sense. Keeping the crews with poor spotting makes sense to avoid the gamey crew recon effect.

You had multiple FOs (3 of them I'd guess). Were you targetting all of your FOs at the same time? 3 82mm FOs firing for a full minute will disrupt foxholed troops quite well. If the enemy are in trenches you'd need heavier arty.

All the famous ones have to attacked/stalked/slandered by someone at least once. Consider it a rite of passage.

For defensive purposes, onboard mortars and TRPs allow you to target totally obscured areas with extremely accurate fast response firepower. Any mortar that doesn't move can fire on any TRP without LOS to the TRP. Ideally the most effective location of onboard mortars is lateral to expected enemy line of advance. Firing "sideways" allows the spread of the mortar rounds to hit multiple enemy squads. If you combine this with wire, well, no enemy infantry is going to make it across until you run out of mortar shells.

I've had planes target my infantry that was deep (3 tiles) into woods (full foliage). Sorry, there is no way in real life that could possibly happen. I was rather stunned when it happened.

Airpower seems to operate on a keep looking until you find something and then bomb that principle. Airpower seems to be able to find hidden infantry if that's all that's available. I really think this is a bug in the airpower spotting routines. It unfortunetly brings out the gamey but necessary technique of leaving something of low value out in the open for the airpower to hit.

The British in north africa in the early going against the AK thought that "tank rushes" were the tactic. Engage and destroy the panzers. The Germans didn't cooperate and almost always used an AT gun screen. The AT guns (50Ls early on) made mincemeat of the Brit armor repeatedly. The Brits did learn and moved to better combined arms after a number of painful lessons. Tanks shouldn't attack alone. Almost any terrain has depressions/low ridges that can hide you from parts (though often not all parts) of the battlefield. Limiting what can hit you is critical to being able to advance. You should not leave your infantry at home. Use every scrap of terrain. If a squad gets pinned, hide them until they can recover. Don't run, use move, or Move To Contact w/ Hide. Take your time and you can often advance into spotting range.

I've read accounts of the Soviet building an underwater bridge by driving T34s into the water (submerged) and then putting planks on top of them. It certainly surprised the Germans who didn't think there is was a fordable location. It's described in Raus's book "Panzers on the Eastern Front". A shallow ford would certainly simulate that quite well.

Your men will only close assault when they feel it's a good opportunity. That sometimes means they'll sit within close assault range for a minute or two without doing anything. Sometimes they'll start close assaulting as soon as the tank gets in range. Troop quality, suppression, etc. all seem to make a difference. Frustrating, but you can't simply order your soldiers to close assault a tank. Rather historical since most soldiers wanted to stay away from enemy tanks.

Even with EFOW CMBB is far too nice to gamers, the accuracy of IDing is far too high. The ability to pinpoint infantry is ridiculously high. Greater EFOW for CMAK please.

In a battle you can't embark the 88. You can debark but the setup is like 6-8 minutes. In an operation, if you have a tractor during the setup for a new battle you can embark the 88. Then you can tow the 88 to a new location and set it up. In fact, this is the ONLY way to reposition an 88 during an operation. You have to embark the 88. If you've lost the prime mover for the 88 in an op, you're stuck and can't reposition the bad boy.

When your 1918 75mm gun (no AP early war) fires round after round of HE into a lumbering KV1 and finally gun damages it you'll be happy that your gun was "wasting" HE. In my case the gun-damaged KV then rolled over and crushed my 1918 gun. Revenge was had as my 37mm doorknocker promptly blew the treads off the same KV (which then abandoned). A KV killed by a 1918 gun and a doorknocker, wonder of wonders. Hitting enemy tanks with any shells is a good thing.

If for some reason you want to design a scenario with a 4 tank T34 platoon you could just copy and rename "royal opponent" and then edit all the other stuff. :0

CMBO infantry rule. A battalion of volks + 81mm FO (smoke) would simply overrun you.

Troops won't stay in a flaming area very long. Yes, being in woods that are catching fire is scary, but I doubt that it's as scary as staring down the barrel of a T34 packing cansister. CMBO was flawed in it's modelling of things catching fire and having the entire tile/house burst into flames instantly. CMBB specifically fixed that problem.

Sharpshooters won't fight at that range. At low ammo Squad weapons do make a large difference. (smgs are much better) Low ammo is not "out of ammo", the Firepower is reduced and the tacai won't fire at longer ranges with low ammo.

It is frustrating when you lose the area target. . . but, if BTS makes area targeting stickier it will generate screams of displeasure when that gun DOESN'T switch from area fire when a threat appears and calmly proceeds to knock out the area firing gun. The tools are already available. If you want to keep the area target focused use a narrow covered arc. In doing so you risk getting pounded by something outside the arc but that's the gamble you take. You can't have it both ways. The one thing I would like to see is a "memory" for area targeting so if the firing units gets distracted it will return to continue area targeting after the problem is dispatched.

First, the ai doesn't have an advantage, the same thing will happen in a head to head. From my view, this is really a problem with how the operations draw the start lines. It's much better than in CMBO, but I still don't like it. To be evicted from a key position by the front line being "Redrawn" is ridiculous. Some players on the offensive will use the "Redraw" to take a difficult position by just bypassing the position and letting the new battle setup lines evict the defender. p.s. glad you're enjoying gamblers, sounds like one heck of a tough fight going on there!

Even the lowly 37mm doorknocker can knock the treads off a KV2. You must have side shots to do it and you need a fair number of shots. Whatever the technique, KVs in '41 are hard to handle. If you're doing player pick in '41 they almost always arrive.