Lt Bull

I believe placing a limit on the number of QB points is a way of ensuring the game won't crash and be overloaded by the additional processing/RAM power required (CPU and GPU). However, I  can not think of a sensible reason for why the game does not allow players the complete freedom to just manually determine the precise number of points each side should have in a QB.
Anyway, I was somewhat inspired by your telling of how you try to use the QB battles to configure battles to play out various battles in a user run H2H campaign, and have updated/enhanced my previously released "Bull's CM QB RATIOS" table (discussed in the thread QB Battle Force Points tables/charts) to Rev2.
I have now gone the final extra few yards and have now tabulated every possible combination of QB battle that is possible from CM QBs in one consolidated table, listing the QB force points allocated to both sides, the total of those points, the resultant force ratios, and of course all the QB parameter setup information required to achieve the battle of choice (battle type, size, force modifer).  Of course you need to be able to open the file in Excel (or equivalent) to filter and sort the table as you seem fit to find the battle setup you want.  Column values are colour formatted from smallest possible (green) to largest possible (red).
eg.  Preview of top of table sorted by force ratio (note: although only the five ME battles at the top of that list precisely give both players "even points" to spend ie. force ration of 1).  However, you can see that there are other battle setups which differ in points allocation by only a few percentage (ie. ratios between 1 and 1.1 (or between 0% and 10% points differential) which players may agree to consider irrelevant in setting up an otherwise "balanced points ME", if that is what they want.

This table alone should provide anyone everything they need to know about what is and what is not possible to achieve with the CM QB parameters, and how to achieve them.

To be clear, the links to the PDF and Excel files are not PDF and Excel  versions of the screenshot (CM QB POINTS) you see in the above posts.  The PDF/Excel file is a different (yet complementary) filterable/searchable table of CM QB RATIOS that lists every possible QB attacker/defender points combos available in CM.  It is probably more useful than the CM QB POINTS chart in the screenshot. File links and screenshot preview below:
Bull's CM QB RATIOS.xlsx
Bull's CM QB RATIOS.pdf (if you don't have Excel)
Example of how to use this table when setting up a QB:
1. If a QB map has been decided upon, determine from the size/frontage of the QB map the approximate value of QB purchase points suitable fro such a map. As a guide, a US Infantry Battalion '44 cost approx 3700 pts, German Panzergrenadier Battalion '44 cost approx 2600 pts.  Estimations of what size force is realistic based on the map frontage can be found here: https://balagan.info/infantry-unit-frontages-during-ww2.
2. Once the suitable ballpark figure of appropriate QB points is determined, eg. 3500, find the closest value to that number in the possible DEFENDER QB POINTS columns.  In this example it appears to be either 3399 (LAT=large attack) or 3620 (LPR=large probe).

 
3. Filter the BATTLE TYPE column on the right to show all the possible QB points combinations possible for the other player for that type of battle.  In this example, LAT and LPR,

 
4. A list of all the possibilities of attacker:defender force size combos will be shown, listing the corresponding force ratios (ratios are colour scale from green true 1:1 parity, through yellow to red the more "unbalanced" the forces are). Determine what kind of battle you want this QB to be (the QB map selected must complement this) and what the appropriate Player1:Player2 force ratio should be . Players may decide a +15% advantage in points to one player may be acceptable (for whatever reason).  In the example, this would be a Large Attack with a -30% force modifier to the "attacker".  Note, this could still be used to setup essentially a ME type QB (even though CM calls it a "Large Attack") using a force size not prioviously evidently possible based on simply selecting ME at the QB setup screen.  Note that the columns you see in blue are the only available ME force sizes available for one player in CM.  As ME battles typically imply "balanced forces" it is now apparent that there are more ways to achieve that using non-ME battle settings.  Players should have much more flexibility in configuring their QB battles, whether they are meant to be MEs, probes, attacks or assualts.  eg. it is now possible to see that by setting up a Large Attack with -40% mod to the attacker essentially gives both players identical points to spend (3359/3399) as you might want in a  classic QB ME setup, but using a force size not available if you selected ME in the CM QB setup screen.  The closest would be 2850 or 4500 points.

 

To be clear, the links to the PDF and Excel files are not PDF and Excel  versions of the screenshot (CM QB POINTS) you see in the above posts.  The PDF/Excel file is a different (yet complementary) filterable/searchable table of CM QB RATIOS that lists every possible QB attacker/defender points combos available in CM.  It is probably more useful than the CM QB POINTS chart in the screenshot. File links and screenshot preview below:
Bull's CM QB RATIOS.xlsx
Bull's CM QB RATIOS.pdf (if you don't have Excel)
Example of how to use this table when setting up a QB:
1. If a QB map has been decided upon, determine from the size/frontage of the QB map the approximate value of QB purchase points suitable fro such a map. As a guide, a US Infantry Battalion '44 cost approx 3700 pts, German Panzergrenadier Battalion '44 cost approx 2600 pts.  Estimations of what size force is realistic based on the map frontage can be found here: https://balagan.info/infantry-unit-frontages-during-ww2.
2. Once the suitable ballpark figure of appropriate QB points is determined, eg. 3500, find the closest value to that number in the possible DEFENDER QB POINTS columns.  In this example it appears to be either 3399 (LAT=large attack) or 3620 (LPR=large probe).

 
3. Filter the BATTLE TYPE column on the right to show all the possible QB points combinations possible for the other player for that type of battle.  In this example, LAT and LPR,

 
4. A list of all the possibilities of attacker:defender force size combos will be shown, listing the corresponding force ratios (ratios are colour scale from green true 1:1 parity, through yellow to red the more "unbalanced" the forces are). Determine what kind of battle you want this QB to be (the QB map selected must complement this) and what the appropriate Player1:Player2 force ratio should be . Players may decide a +15% advantage in points to one player may be acceptable (for whatever reason).  In the example, this would be a Large Attack with a -30% force modifier to the "attacker".  Note, this could still be used to setup essentially a ME type QB (even though CM calls it a "Large Attack") using a force size not prioviously evidently possible based on simply selecting ME at the QB setup screen.  Note that the columns you see in blue are the only available ME force sizes available for one player in CM.  As ME battles typically imply "balanced forces" it is now apparent that there are more ways to achieve that using non-ME battle settings.  Players should have much more flexibility in configuring their QB battles, whether they are meant to be MEs, probes, attacks or assualts.  eg. it is now possible to see that by setting up a Large Attack with -40% mod to the attacker essentially gives both players identical points to spend (3359/3399) as you might want in a  classic QB ME setup, but using a force size not available if you selected ME in the CM QB setup screen.  The closest would be 2850 or 4500 points.

 

I can understand that navigating through and selecting the right QB settings can be a bit of a nightmare. I've had a bit of a look at all the options and found that it is easier to "find what you are looking for" by probably looking through a chart that lists all the possible player 1 and player 2 QB force points combinations and ratios.

Note: if you apply the attacker force modifer in the QB settings in CM, the resultant points you see is/might be slightly off what you would mathematically expect. The values I work with are mathematically calculated and hence can be off by +/-20 pts in some cases.

CM has a very odd way of letting players control the size of their QB battles. They arbitrarily get you to pick the battle type, then the battle size, which fixes the force size for one side (the designated "defender"). It then gives you fixed % force size adjustment modifiers to increase or decrease the points for the other side (the "attacker"). The use of the terms ME, probe, attack and assualt are pretty much meaningless and so arbitrary when all you really care about is the actual points for each side (and associated ratio).

Given the way CM determines things in QBs, it is porbably best to first start off determing the appropriate points (and hence force size) to give the defender for a given map, as these are limited in choice. Once that is determined, determine the appropriate attacker: defender points force ratio is appropriate for the map. Note that the ratio table does not feature "attacker:defender" ratios of less than 1, even though CM QBs literally can allow the "attacker" to have less points than the "defender". To fully utilise all force size posibilities in a QB, it is more important to get the side1:side2 force ratio correct (and overall points for each side) regardless of what the game considers the "attacker" and the "defender" and then do what you need to do to make sure the QB/QB map sets up the right players in the right deployment zones etc.

For example if you think that maybe a force size of around 3500 points for one side defending on a map is suitable, we can go to the chart of ratios and search for a "defender" force size close to 3500. There is 3399 (large attack) and 3620 (large probe). You can then filter the chart (if you have Excel) on the attackers side for LAT and LPR. A bunch of "attacker" force size ration posibilities are shown.

PS: Manually download the chart above as a JPG to better read the numbers as this thread does not show image at 100%.
Bull's CM QB RATIOS.pdf Bull's CM QB RATIOS.xlsx

I can understand that navigating through and selecting the right QB settings can be a bit of a nightmare. I've had a bit of a look at all the options and found that it is easier to "find what you are looking for" by probably looking through a chart that lists all the possible player 1 and player 2 QB force points combinations and ratios.

Note: if you apply the attacker force modifer in the QB settings in CM, the resultant points you see is/might be slightly off what you would mathematically expect. The values I work with are mathematically calculated and hence can be off by +/-20 pts in some cases.

CM has a very odd way of letting players control the size of their QB battles. They arbitrarily get you to pick the battle type, then the battle size, which fixes the force size for one side (the designated "defender"). It then gives you fixed % force size adjustment modifiers to increase or decrease the points for the other side (the "attacker"). The use of the terms ME, probe, attack and assualt are pretty much meaningless and so arbitrary when all you really care about is the actual points for each side (and associated ratio).

Given the way CM determines things in QBs, it is porbably best to first start off determing the appropriate points (and hence force size) to give the defender for a given map, as these are limited in choice. Once that is determined, determine the appropriate attacker: defender points force ratio is appropriate for the map. Note that the ratio table does not feature "attacker:defender" ratios of less than 1, even though CM QBs literally can allow the "attacker" to have less points than the "defender". To fully utilise all force size posibilities in a QB, it is more important to get the side1:side2 force ratio correct (and overall points for each side) regardless of what the game considers the "attacker" and the "defender" and then do what you need to do to make sure the QB/QB map sets up the right players in the right deployment zones etc.

For example if you think that maybe a force size of around 3500 points for one side defending on a map is suitable, we can go to the chart of ratios and search for a "defender" force size close to 3500. There is 3399 (large attack) and 3620 (large probe). You can then filter the chart (if you have Excel) on the attackers side for LAT and LPR. A bunch of "attacker" force size ration posibilities are shown.

PS: Manually download the chart above as a JPG to better read the numbers as this thread does not show image at 100%.
Bull's CM QB RATIOS.pdf Bull's CM QB RATIOS.xlsx

I can understand that navigating through and selecting the right QB settings can be a bit of a nightmare. I've had a bit of a look at all the options and found that it is easier to "find what you are looking for" by probably looking through a chart that lists all the possible player 1 and player 2 QB force points combinations and ratios.

Note: if you apply the attacker force modifer in the QB settings in CM, the resultant points you see is/might be slightly off what you would mathematically expect. The values I work with are mathematically calculated and hence can be off by +/-20 pts in some cases.

CM has a very odd way of letting players control the size of their QB battles. They arbitrarily get you to pick the battle type, then the battle size, which fixes the force size for one side (the designated "defender"). It then gives you fixed % force size adjustment modifiers to increase or decrease the points for the other side (the "attacker"). The use of the terms ME, probe, attack and assualt are pretty much meaningless and so arbitrary when all you really care about is the actual points for each side (and associated ratio).

Given the way CM determines things in QBs, it is porbably best to first start off determing the appropriate points (and hence force size) to give the defender for a given map, as these are limited in choice. Once that is determined, determine the appropriate attacker: defender points force ratio is appropriate for the map. Note that the ratio table does not feature "attacker:defender" ratios of less than 1, even though CM QBs literally can allow the "attacker" to have less points than the "defender". To fully utilise all force size posibilities in a QB, it is more important to get the side1:side2 force ratio correct (and overall points for each side) regardless of what the game considers the "attacker" and the "defender" and then do what you need to do to make sure the QB/QB map sets up the right players in the right deployment zones etc.

For example if you think that maybe a force size of around 3500 points for one side defending on a map is suitable, we can go to the chart of ratios and search for a "defender" force size close to 3500. There is 3399 (large attack) and 3620 (large probe). You can then filter the chart (if you have Excel) on the attackers side for LAT and LPR. A bunch of "attacker" force size ration posibilities are shown.

PS: Manually download the chart above as a JPG to better read the numbers as this thread does not show image at 100%.
Bull's CM QB RATIOS.pdf Bull's CM QB RATIOS.xlsx

I can understand that navigating through and selecting the right QB settings can be a bit of a nightmare. I've had a bit of a look at all the options and found that it is easier to "find what you are looking for" by probably looking through a chart that lists all the possible player 1 and player 2 QB force points combinations and ratios.

Note: if you apply the attacker force modifer in the QB settings in CM, the resultant points you see is/might be slightly off what you would mathematically expect. The values I work with are mathematically calculated and hence can be off by +/-20 pts in some cases.

CM has a very odd way of letting players control the size of their QB battles. They arbitrarily get you to pick the battle type, then the battle size, which fixes the force size for one side (the designated "defender"). It then gives you fixed % force size adjustment modifiers to increase or decrease the points for the other side (the "attacker"). The use of the terms ME, probe, attack and assualt are pretty much meaningless and so arbitrary when all you really care about is the actual points for each side (and associated ratio).

Given the way CM determines things in QBs, it is porbably best to first start off determing the appropriate points (and hence force size) to give the defender for a given map, as these are limited in choice. Once that is determined, determine the appropriate attacker: defender points force ratio is appropriate for the map. Note that the ratio table does not feature "attacker:defender" ratios of less than 1, even though CM QBs literally can allow the "attacker" to have less points than the "defender". To fully utilise all force size posibilities in a QB, it is more important to get the side1:side2 force ratio correct (and overall points for each side) regardless of what the game considers the "attacker" and the "defender" and then do what you need to do to make sure the QB/QB map sets up the right players in the right deployment zones etc.

For example if you think that maybe a force size of around 3500 points for one side defending on a map is suitable, we can go to the chart of ratios and search for a "defender" force size close to 3500. There is 3399 (large attack) and 3620 (large probe). You can then filter the chart (if you have Excel) on the attackers side for LAT and LPR. A bunch of "attacker" force size ration posibilities are shown.

PS: Manually download the chart above as a JPG to better read the numbers as this thread does not show image at 100%.
Bull's CM QB RATIOS.pdf Bull's CM QB RATIOS.xlsx

I can understand that navigating through and selecting the right QB settings can be a bit of a nightmare. I've had a bit of a look at all the options and found that it is easier to "find what you are looking for" by probably looking through a chart that lists all the possible player 1 and player 2 QB force points combinations and ratios.

Note: if you apply the attacker force modifer in the QB settings in CM, the resultant points you see is/might be slightly off what you would mathematically expect. The values I work with are mathematically calculated and hence can be off by +/-20 pts in some cases.

CM has a very odd way of letting players control the size of their QB battles. They arbitrarily get you to pick the battle type, then the battle size, which fixes the force size for one side (the designated "defender"). It then gives you fixed % force size adjustment modifiers to increase or decrease the points for the other side (the "attacker"). The use of the terms ME, probe, attack and assualt are pretty much meaningless and so arbitrary when all you really care about is the actual points for each side (and associated ratio).

Given the way CM determines things in QBs, it is porbably best to first start off determing the appropriate points (and hence force size) to give the defender for a given map, as these are limited in choice. Once that is determined, determine the appropriate attacker: defender points force ratio is appropriate for the map. Note that the ratio table does not feature "attacker:defender" ratios of less than 1, even though CM QBs literally can allow the "attacker" to have less points than the "defender". To fully utilise all force size posibilities in a QB, it is more important to get the side1:side2 force ratio correct (and overall points for each side) regardless of what the game considers the "attacker" and the "defender" and then do what you need to do to make sure the QB/QB map sets up the right players in the right deployment zones etc.

For example if you think that maybe a force size of around 3500 points for one side defending on a map is suitable, we can go to the chart of ratios and search for a "defender" force size close to 3500. There is 3399 (large attack) and 3620 (large probe). You can then filter the chart (if you have Excel) on the attackers side for LAT and LPR. A bunch of "attacker" force size ration posibilities are shown.

PS: Manually download the chart above as a JPG to better read the numbers as this thread does not show image at 100%.
Bull's CM QB RATIOS.pdf Bull's CM QB RATIOS.xlsx

I can understand that navigating through and selecting the right QB settings can be a bit of a nightmare. I've had a bit of a look at all the options and found that it is easier to "find what you are looking for" by probably looking through a chart that lists all the possible player 1 and player 2 QB force points combinations and ratios.

Note: if you apply the attacker force modifer in the QB settings in CM, the resultant points you see is/might be slightly off what you would mathematically expect. The values I work with are mathematically calculated and hence can be off by +/-20 pts in some cases.

CM has a very odd way of letting players control the size of their QB battles. They arbitrarily get you to pick the battle type, then the battle size, which fixes the force size for one side (the designated "defender"). It then gives you fixed % force size adjustment modifiers to increase or decrease the points for the other side (the "attacker"). The use of the terms ME, probe, attack and assualt are pretty much meaningless and so arbitrary when all you really care about is the actual points for each side (and associated ratio).

Given the way CM determines things in QBs, it is porbably best to first start off determing the appropriate points (and hence force size) to give the defender for a given map, as these are limited in choice. Once that is determined, determine the appropriate attacker: defender points force ratio is appropriate for the map. Note that the ratio table does not feature "attacker:defender" ratios of less than 1, even though CM QBs literally can allow the "attacker" to have less points than the "defender". To fully utilise all force size posibilities in a QB, it is more important to get the side1:side2 force ratio correct (and overall points for each side) regardless of what the game considers the "attacker" and the "defender" and then do what you need to do to make sure the QB/QB map sets up the right players in the right deployment zones etc.

For example if you think that maybe a force size of around 3500 points for one side defending on a map is suitable, we can go to the chart of ratios and search for a "defender" force size close to 3500. There is 3399 (large attack) and 3620 (large probe). You can then filter the chart (if you have Excel) on the attackers side for LAT and LPR. A bunch of "attacker" force size ration posibilities are shown.

PS: Manually download the chart above as a JPG to better read the numbers as this thread does not show image at 100%.
Bull's CM QB RATIOS.pdf Bull's CM QB RATIOS.xlsx

**********SCENARIO SPOILERS INCLUDED BELOW IN AAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*******************
 
 
 
 
Hey Fuser,
I've returned to CM after a bit of a hiatus, and this scenario was the first SP scenario I've chosen to play. Just happens however that in my first PBEM back in another scenario, I thought I noticed in it what may have been the "evade towards enemy" bug that has been discussed.  Turns out, after a forum post discussion and an interrogation of the scenario file parameters, I discovered that the Allied (and Axis) Friendly Direction scenario parameter was incorrectly set to be West and East rather than North and South which explained why I was noticing my US infantry tending to evade west (rather than north).  I knew such a setting must have been defined somehow in scenario files but up until this investigation I had no idea how or where so it was all kind of new to me. The scenario designer apparently wasn't even aware the parameter existed.
Anyway, when I was at the setup of his scenario, with the US setup in the south attacking north, I just happened to notice one US platoon was curiously facing east. Now that I know (from experimentation) that the facing of units when placed on a map is determined by the respective Friendly Direction setting of the scenario, and given my recent experience of playing a scenario where the Friendly Direction setting was not correctly set,  for good measure and a level of curiosity, I thought I should quit the scenario and just check with the Scenario Editor before starting that the Friendly Direction setting was as I would think it should be for this scenario, Allied south, German north.....just in case!
Well, lucky I did, because I couldn't believe it when I saw the Allied setting was in fact set to north and the Axis to south! I of course changed it, saved and played the game without issue, which I will talk about below.  Before I do, I just have to say that unless it has been discussed elsewhere , I am absolutely surprised that I may be the first to have picked up on the fact that the Allied and Axis Friendly Direction settings were 180deg out of whack, and I had not even played one turn. I can only image how this reversed setting would have led to all sorts of odd/inexplicable evade/rout/retreat behaviour in all the games others have played. I am just curious to know if you were cognisant of this setting? Two random scenarios, two times this setting was not set correctly.  Is this a setting many scenario designers are not even aware of?
TBH, I was already suspecting and have been trying to confirm just how many of the other reported instances of the "evade towards enemy" issue were actually probably more related to the Allied and Axis Friendly Direction parameter of the .btt file being played. This discovery just deepens my suspicions.
Anyway, back to your scenario and my AAR. I don't know if it was bad luck on my behalf or just good predictive design on your behalf (probably the latter) but it seemed like my units were drawn like magnets to your hidden mines! Especially on the right flank along the train line and on the outer forward edges of those two wooded rises, I think those mines "saved the day" for the Germans. Even though I had discovered and taken out the ambushing Panther lurking in the wooded rise with an easy flanking shot from tanks nosing forward from the wooded train line, and had detected (and decided to completely avoid) the PAK gun and Stug on the far left German flank, and had discovered that 75mm PAK on the rear edge of the  wooded rise overlooking the approaches to the town which I knew had to be taken out,  I thought the the single infantry platoon that had taken only light casualties up to that point that I had sent that way supported by 2 tanks and HT was plenty enough to neutralise the two wooded rises as the rest of he force pushed in to the town.
When I discovered this PAK gun, i dashed a jeep loaded with infantry up to the forward crest of the wooded rise tasked to advance on to neutralise the PAK gun, only to discover they were  taking some fire from enemy infantry firing from the adjacent wood rise where the Panther had been hiding.  I didn't realise at the time, but my end waypoint for the jeep  happened to be exactly over the top of a minefield, immobilising the jeep, and killing/shaking a bunch of the passengers, something I thought was being caused by the infantry fire coming from the adjacent rise. Even though I knew I could have ignored them the infantry in that wooded rise (and probably should of) I thought maybe I needed the kill points so I sent an tank up to the jeep for support to fire on the infantry while sending an infantry team up from the train line to the woods in the hope of easy kills on enemy infantry suppressed by the tank. My infantry get to the woods line and discover mines taking casualties.  They also lost the subsequent shoot out with what i thought was enemy infantry suppressed by my tanks area fire. The jeep passenger/crew survivors made their way through the woods to the PAK gun which now was now under constant area fire from a MMG located at range just centre right of town. Despite being pinned down by MMG fire and under close range rifle/carbine fire and several bazooka rounds, this PAK (and friends) just would not break. I decided to use my last full squad, mounted in the HT to once and for all neutralise this last nuisance PAK gun. As I sent the HT through the treeline at the train lines, it hits a mine and aborted its move.  The infantry disembark and suffer 25% casualties in the ensuing debacle.  I had to waste a few more turns waiting for my HT and infinity squad to recover before i remounted the inf in the HT and try another passage through the woods.  Again they hit mines, this time immobilising the HT, disembark and suffer the consonances.  My once full strength squad is now down to about 65% strength and again shaken.  More wasted time, when they recover I route them on foot through another path and this time they make it.  As I still hadn't noticed the mines that took out the jeep/infantry originally, I gave this reinforcing infantry squad a move waypoint near the jeep and once again fall victim to their third minefield.  I think all game there were about 6 separate minefield incidents.
At this stage it was getting late for me and I was losing patience, and rather than take a break, save and return to it, I went looking for a quick and easy way to just finish up and win the game but it didn't happen.  I ended up taking more risks and paid the price falling in to some excellent ambushes.  Here is what happens when you get impatient and a little to sure:
)
It looks like you really spent some time setting up the defence. You really did a great job with this. Totally recommend this scenario (remember to update Friendly Direction settings and re-release!)
Do you have any others?
Bull

Hi,
I am back playing CM (PBEM) after taking a bit of a break from it. Reasons for the break was a culmination of the gerneral disatisfction and disillousionment with BS "official" responses (or lack of any real response) to several gameplay mechanics issues and suggestions for improvment (spotting, LOS, movement etc) that I either had experienced myself games I had played myself and/or read about in the forums.  I was hoping that with all the patches and upgrades that have been released, perhaps the kind and frequency of "this makes no sense, what the hell is going on" kind of moments I saw in games that had worn thin on me and predicatd my need to just walk away from the game would have perhaps be addressed to a point where the likelihood of experiencing those off-putting moments in game had diminished.
Well first PBEM back, latest patch, upgrade etc.about 20 turns in but only about 10 moves in from encoutering the enemy, I have had one of those same "something seems wrong with the mechanics" moments that kills/had killed my trust in the game.    And no it's not the "retreat towards enemy" issue that many have posted about (hope it wont be an issue in my games).
The issue relates to an instance during the last minute of action where the LOS mechanics has been (once again) broght in to question, reinforcing doubts I wish I never had about this aspect of the game.
Do I need to bash my head explaining exactly what happened/justifyign my reasons for concern in a forum post here or is there someone at/with BF who can just review the replay file(s) and spare me the effort? I did go to support but they just seem to deal with the general tech issues.
Happy to provide PBEM files of course (will ask opponnet as well).
Regards
Bull

Here is a link to some screenshots of my upcoming mini campaign The Last Bridge depicting  urban fighting in Berlin near the Spree River in the last days of the Battle of Berlin. Hopefully it will be finished up soon and for those who like brutal city fighting this one is for you. The screenies are depicted in my usual artistic flair.
https://imgur.com/a/xVrfI
Hope you will enjoy.
Michael

So maybe I am not wasting my time posting here.  If this had been done before I am sure I would have seen it/heard about it by now.
I guess I feel compelled now to reveal my newly discovered competitive advantage to the rest of the CM world. Damn!
In a nutshell, create a single image of the entire map area as displayed within the Scenario Editor/Map/Elevation screen (zoom level 3), stitching together multiple screenshots as will most likely be the case.  Use an image manipulation program to select all the elevation numbers (a one click process) which will then allow for the creation/transformation in to a simple two tone image.  Import image in to an OCR program to convert to a data file, import this in to a spreadsheet program that can create 2D surface plots.  Depending on the size of the map and if you know what you are doing this whole process can take maybe 5-20 min.
Adding the buildings, trees and roads is an additional step but it is all 100% accurate and again quite simple.
I am happy to take requests and create these maps for any scenario out there as further proof of just how easy and effective the process can be.
I'm not sure what you are talking about there.  If BFC want to remain secretive/funny about what they are planning, fine, the rest of us will go on what we do know. If a user goes searching the forums, they will find that there seems to be no evidence of plans for BFC to ever consider/implement some kind of topographical/contour line map/overlay.  Maybe after seeing how easy it was to generate what I did from what they already have in the game, and how effective/useful these maps are they may re-evaluate their position.
I certainly hope they realise that if they are incapable of implementing something directly in to the game, then perhaps they can do something to facilitate the process I outlined above which allows players to externally generate the kinds of topographical/contour line maps I have been able to create.  Specifically a delimited text file EXPORT function of the tile elevations within the Scenario Editor that could then be easily imported in to a spreadsheet program to then generate 2D surface plots.  That would eliminate the screenshot taking/stitching/manipulation and OCR steps completely and save players 80% of the time needed to create these maps. In fact, if they were ever going down that path, they may as well also implement an IMPORT text file function to generate maps from text files.  A simple EXPORT/IMPORT functionality like that would be an incredibly useful addition to the game for both players and scenario designers alike.

Hi
I recently started another huge PBEM QB on a very large map.  Apart from the challenge of coordinating/battle planning a large force size (it was 7209 points), the main issue I was faced was just being able to get a feel for the maps topography.  Without an understanding of it, you really can't develop a battleplan (well you can but I am sure it will be flawed).  Yes you can navigate around the map with the camera but we a all know this is a time consuming and poor substitute for a simple topographical map. For me topographical maps are the bread and butter of battlefield commanders (at least modern ones) and I doubt much could be accomplished without access to one.  It is such a pleasure to play a game like ArmA and access the awesome in game topographical maps that come packaged with the game.  You can mark them up and draw up all kinds of plans.
The suggestion of the game featuring contour lines to assist in this ends has been thrown around probably since CMx1 days and it is a shame to find that there seems no plans for BFC  to ever consider/implement such a thing. That seems odd because I believe much of the information to generate one is already in the game.  It is also odd that all that information is also available to the player yet I do not believe it has been properly realised (at least a forum search didn't reveal anything).
Having only recently started playing around with the editor in more depth, I realised that it was relatively quite easy to create quite effective topographical maps of any CM map (OK it's not exactly a plain contour map, but it achieves the same thing).  I hope I am not posting something that has already be done before but a search of the forums reveals that the kind of map I created hasn't been done before (well, not mentioned of in these forums) which again was quite surprising.  Surely this has been done before.
The map I converted was WynnterGreen's Three Towns QB map (3800x1800m) which has featured in at least one AAR on these forums. I have posted up a downsized version of the full res map so it fits on the screen. The map is a 100% accurate conversion of the actual CM map.  It's incredible the difference having a map like this has made to being able to generate both strategic and tactical battle plans.  You realise just how much you are missing out on playing the game without it and how much a game like this really could benefit from it. I can see how it could benefit both player and scenario designer alike.

Hi
I recently started another huge PBEM QB on a very large map.  Apart from the challenge of coordinating/battle planning a large force size (it was 7209 points), the main issue I was faced was just being able to get a feel for the maps topography.  Without an understanding of it, you really can't develop a battleplan (well you can but I am sure it will be flawed).  Yes you can navigate around the map with the camera but we a all know this is a time consuming and poor substitute for a simple topographical map. For me topographical maps are the bread and butter of battlefield commanders (at least modern ones) and I doubt much could be accomplished without access to one.  It is such a pleasure to play a game like ArmA and access the awesome in game topographical maps that come packaged with the game.  You can mark them up and draw up all kinds of plans.
The suggestion of the game featuring contour lines to assist in this ends has been thrown around probably since CMx1 days and it is a shame to find that there seems no plans for BFC  to ever consider/implement such a thing. That seems odd because I believe much of the information to generate one is already in the game.  It is also odd that all that information is also available to the player yet I do not believe it has been properly realised (at least a forum search didn't reveal anything).
Having only recently started playing around with the editor in more depth, I realised that it was relatively quite easy to create quite effective topographical maps of any CM map (OK it's not exactly a plain contour map, but it achieves the same thing).  I hope I am not posting something that has already be done before but a search of the forums reveals that the kind of map I created hasn't been done before (well, not mentioned of in these forums) which again was quite surprising.  Surely this has been done before.
The map I converted was WynnterGreen's Three Towns QB map (3800x1800m) which has featured in at least one AAR on these forums. I have posted up a downsized version of the full res map so it fits on the screen. The map is a 100% accurate conversion of the actual CM map.  It's incredible the difference having a map like this has made to being able to generate both strategic and tactical battle plans.  You realise just how much you are missing out on playing the game without it and how much a game like this really could benefit from it. I can see how it could benefit both player and scenario designer alike.

Nice touch how the tracks/wheels sit slightly buried in snow!

It's important to consider that the more variety you have with how Objectives work, the more intriguing/compelling/interesting/dynamic things can become for a human player whereas it gets increasingly difficult for an/to get an  AI (scripted or otherwise) to deal with them intelligently.
This has implications on scenario design.  I am not sure what percentage of scenarios are designed exclusively/primarily for H2H play but I could see scenario designers limiting their creativity when it comes to Objectives based simply on the challenges/impracticalities they present when considering/scripting the AI to be an intelligent opponent.
Unlike human players, the CPU opponent and any scenario AI scripting in CM literally is incapable of making the kind of dynamic/educated/strategic decisions based on ever changing battlefield intelligence that human players do as a matter of course.  CM AI (if can call it that) is like a blind highly inflexible and opponent made to follow very simple rigid predetermined actions that may or may not be triggered by very simple human opponent induced actions.
As a consequence increasing "the complexity" of things like scenario objectives in a "vs AI" scenario is likely going to result in situations where the human players advantage of being flexible and intelligent when assessing multiple possibilities/options becomes even more of an advantage when playing against any "CPU opponent" for which scripting even a decent battle pla.  It just "wouldn't be fair".
I could see this being a reason why BFC might not want to have more types of objectives available because of issues reconciling them with respect to scripting AI opponents.
I appreciate the effort and time some scenario designers put in to scripting complex AI opponent behaviours, though I do not rate this aspect of scenario design too highly because most of my CM gameplay is (where possible) against human opponents.  I do however enjoy playing operations and "AI only" scenarios which you hope have been "optimised" to be more of a challenging "vs AI" experience for the player.
In many ways I think that the evaluation of scenarios should be split in to it's evaluation as a H2H scenario (if it is intended to be played like that) and as a "vs AI" scenario (if AI has been considered).  In theory a terrible "vs AI" scenario (extreme example being.one with no AI scripting in it), could be an awesome H2H scenario.
I think the potential to make the best and compelling scenarios lies with open creativity designing scenarios exclusively for H2H play.

Col_Deadmarsh,
 
I would recommend sticking with an Nvidia chipset.  Do not get anything less than a GTX 750.  They are relatively affordable and nothing really over the top for anyone building a system and expecting to have decent grunt to play CM and many other games.  CM is the least of you worries when it comes to finding a suitable gfx card  CM is not really the kind of game that plays better even with the latest gfx cards.  Gameplay performance in CM seems to be capped by other factors, which I think are inherent to the game and the way it is coded.

Kind of confused as to what you are suggesting here.  For a start I thought the normal procedure for non-inner sanctum BFC posters who believe there may be an issue with the game is to first post it up here at the forums for "peer review" so that they can at least establish that "it is not just them" and the problem can be duplicated by other players (hence the posting of saved files with instructions on how to test and requests for feedback).   The issue then seems to have to pass the scrutiny/filter of one of the never really too impressed BFC inner sanctum members who seem to be more interested in denying here is a problem than actually wanting to know if there is a problem.  If it can't get past them within the context of open discussion in a public forum, how can you expect the issue to be taken seriously by the helpdesk?  Only after it seems the discussion has snowballed/escalated/generated more interest/views/weeks-months pass (I really don't know what it is) will the inner sanctum appear to reluctantly "cave" and suggest a helpdesk ticket be formally raised.  Is that not the normally accepted process?  If not, please advise what is.
 
It also is quite courteous and informative to keep fellow gamers informed of any potential issues with the game by posting any issues here initially.  Isn't that part of the reason why we have these forums?  I certainly don't come here to read just how awesome and fun and perfect CM is.  Stick to normal light conditions.
 
 
Tried and results are essentially as you say. Can you please now do the same and let me know if you get the same results with the "blue lien creep" and random max visibility? (see post #64)
 
PS: Could make it easier for people to run the test by issuing all the move orders to the 16 drivers and saving the game as a "save as" rather than a fresh scenario so that all they need to do is load and process the turn with exactly the same orders.
 
 
Yes that would be good.  There is clearly something at least massively misunderstood about LOS mechanics in at last degraded visibility/low light conditions in this game. Certainly having no real documentation to reference/check against is a key contributing factor. At worst there is something not working as expected.
   
Have you read post #64?  Have you tried reloading the same night/fog scenario a few times and checked the (if it can be trusted) max visibility range by using the Fire "LOS tool"?  Up to 1000m difference each time.  And what about "blue line creep"?
 
 
Yeah, now try imagining ordering a company/battalion to engage the enemy in similar conditions.  Could you imagine if you were driving a tank instead in combat?  How would you even know where you are going? Seriously, why are we even bothering to consider validating CM LOS mechanics (let alone combat) under the context of the most extremely degraded visibility/light conditions?  It's ridiculous to even think CM comes anything close to doing even a reasonable job of simulating combat engagements (not that they probably even happened!) under these conditions as it does in the more normal/standard day/clear visibility conditions. 
 
 
Incredible. The inappropriateness of this comment has already been well explained by the poster it was directed towards.  What are you trying to say?
 
I would be happy if BFC just came out and said that they are removing all extreme low light/visibility conditions from the scenario editor and instead focused their attention on improving the LOS mechanics in the more normal light/visibility conditions.  Judging by how light/time/conditions can be defined in the Scenario Editor, it just seems that BFC have tried to model LOS and visibility in a way that incorporates quite a few variables that best work and function under normal light conditions.  It seems the accuracy/function of the modelling seems to dramatically fail and have unusual results the further the light/visibility conditions degrade.
 
FWIW, there are so many things the CM engine DOESN'T even do that are KEY to even getting close to providing a realistic experience of WW2 night combat.  Without modelling the range of illumination sources that you would find under realistic low light/night conditions the whole exercise becomes kind of farcical.  eg. light from burning vehicles structures, illumination flares.  Not to mention how these sources of light can actually further impair vision depending on the position and facing of a unit relative to the light source.  It really is just too complex, why bother.  If you are going to do something, do it right and do it well. It seems the current LOS engine comes no where near to what it needs to be. Save ourselves the trouble of caring, and let BFC focus on more important stuff.

Wow, nice intriguing thread and nice testing.  C2 in CM has always been a grey area for me to understand.  This concept of "spot and report back" via establishment of C2 is new to me.  I had no idea that there was even C2 horizontally between two battalions that don't even share the same on map "boss" HQ.  So how exactly do you know that in the example you have give, that the 2nC unit of 1st Bn you sent over to 4th Bn "was communicating" to 4th Bn the report of the Marder?  There is no C2 indicator except with it's own HQ boss right?
 
I also never knew C2 ceased (at least with infantry units) when they moved?!!?  I thought I would have  picked up on this a long time ago.
 
PS:  I had actually started doing some C2 tests some time ago because I realised that, for any situation, C2 may or may not exist depending on whether the game is played in "Iron" mode or "Elite" mode at least (ie.  In Iron mode C2 is more likely not to exist).  This is something that I have definitely not seen really mentioned as common knowledge.  The implications of this literally mean that the same scenario played in Iron mode may not play out the same in Elite mode.  A scenario played in Iron mode will typically mean more units will be out of C2 than if played in Elite mode (or lower).
 
May be worth asking what Skill level you are testing at.

Kind of confused as to what you are suggesting here.  For a start I thought the normal procedure for non-inner sanctum BFC posters who believe there may be an issue with the game is to first post it up here at the forums for "peer review" so that they can at least establish that "it is not just them" and the problem can be duplicated by other players (hence the posting of saved files with instructions on how to test and requests for feedback).   The issue then seems to have to pass the scrutiny/filter of one of the never really too impressed BFC inner sanctum members who seem to be more interested in denying here is a problem than actually wanting to know if there is a problem.  If it can't get past them within the context of open discussion in a public forum, how can you expect the issue to be taken seriously by the helpdesk?  Only after it seems the discussion has snowballed/escalated/generated more interest/views/weeks-months pass (I really don't know what it is) will the inner sanctum appear to reluctantly "cave" and suggest a helpdesk ticket be formally raised.  Is that not the normally accepted process?  If not, please advise what is.
 
It also is quite courteous and informative to keep fellow gamers informed of any potential issues with the game by posting any issues here initially.  Isn't that part of the reason why we have these forums?  I certainly don't come here to read just how awesome and fun and perfect CM is.  Stick to normal light conditions.
 
 
Tried and results are essentially as you say. Can you please now do the same and let me know if you get the same results with the "blue lien creep" and random max visibility? (see post #64)
 
PS: Could make it easier for people to run the test by issuing all the move orders to the 16 drivers and saving the game as a "save as" rather than a fresh scenario so that all they need to do is load and process the turn with exactly the same orders.
 
 
Yes that would be good.  There is clearly something at least massively misunderstood about LOS mechanics in at last degraded visibility/low light conditions in this game. Certainly having no real documentation to reference/check against is a key contributing factor. At worst there is something not working as expected.
   
Have you read post #64?  Have you tried reloading the same night/fog scenario a few times and checked the (if it can be trusted) max visibility range by using the Fire "LOS tool"?  Up to 1000m difference each time.  And what about "blue line creep"?
 
 
Yeah, now try imagining ordering a company/battalion to engage the enemy in similar conditions.  Could you imagine if you were driving a tank instead in combat?  How would you even know where you are going? Seriously, why are we even bothering to consider validating CM LOS mechanics (let alone combat) under the context of the most extremely degraded visibility/light conditions?  It's ridiculous to even think CM comes anything close to doing even a reasonable job of simulating combat engagements (not that they probably even happened!) under these conditions as it does in the more normal/standard day/clear visibility conditions. 
 
 
Incredible. The inappropriateness of this comment has already been well explained by the poster it was directed towards.  What are you trying to say?
 
I would be happy if BFC just came out and said that they are removing all extreme low light/visibility conditions from the scenario editor and instead focused their attention on improving the LOS mechanics in the more normal light/visibility conditions.  Judging by how light/time/conditions can be defined in the Scenario Editor, it just seems that BFC have tried to model LOS and visibility in a way that incorporates quite a few variables that best work and function under normal light conditions.  It seems the accuracy/function of the modelling seems to dramatically fail and have unusual results the further the light/visibility conditions degrade.
 
FWIW, there are so many things the CM engine DOESN'T even do that are KEY to even getting close to providing a realistic experience of WW2 night combat.  Without modelling the range of illumination sources that you would find under realistic low light/night conditions the whole exercise becomes kind of farcical.  eg. light from burning vehicles structures, illumination flares.  Not to mention how these sources of light can actually further impair vision depending on the position and facing of a unit relative to the light source.  It really is just too complex, why bother.  If you are going to do something, do it right and do it well. It seems the current LOS engine comes no where near to what it needs to be. Save ourselves the trouble of caring, and let BFC focus on more important stuff.

More testing has reveal more oddities.
I thought I was going loony (excuse this other pun).
 
Two things going on here:
 
Load up the following scenario file either as a battle playing as Germans or in the Scenario Editor/"Deploy Axis Units".
 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0d6ub5j8wg2v7mn/NIGHT%20LOS%20CHECK.btt?dl=0
 
Select the single man sniper team at the end of the map.
Drag a LOS line away from him along the map until it changes to the dark blue/pink line (indicating No Line of Sight).
Note the maximum range at which this line is light blue (has clear LOS)
Drag the line no just a few meters beyond this maximum range so that it shows the dark blue/pink line (indicating No Line of Sight).
Wait a few seconds.
This line will soon turn blue indicating LOS
Repeat and it will be possible to have the game report clear LOS to spots anywhere on the map which originally indicated no LOS.
This is the "blue line creep" I observed occurring.
 
Close and reload the scenario.
Repeat the LOS test and note the initial maximum LOS range without trying to get the blue line to creep.
This initial maximum range may be significantly different from when you originally loaded the scenario.  eg.  2925m, 2145m, 3107m,  2854m etc.
Close and reload the scenario to check again if no difference was detected. It seems to be somewhat random each time you load the map after closing it down.
 
Are these intended features of the game?

I finally got around to extracting this battle from the campaign file.  I certainly have learnt a bit more about this battle/map and the effect of weather/night conditions  and their effect on visibility as a consequence by opening it up in the Scenario Editor and doing some tests.
 
Much to my surprise, it appears that this battle was designed with scenario parameter conditions that effectively result in units not being able to spot each other unless they physically occupy the same AS (ie, are touching each other) or are able to trace unblocked LOS to an AS occupied by a unit which is firing it's weapon within the "apparent" maximum visibility range of 40m.
 
In other words, non combat visibility is actually reduced to effectively 0 m!
 
For those of you who have not played around with the Scenario Editor before or are not fully aware of all the parameters that contribute to visibility behavior in a CM battle (I wasn't), here are the full range of setting for this battle:
 
 

 
The main factors here affecting visibility appear to be the time of day (of course), the date/year (I think I recall someone mentioning CM actually does simulate moon phases/sunset/sunrise cycles) and the weather. Given all these factors somehow probably interact and most likely determine the actual turn-by-turn LOS mechanics, I would really like to know if the affect of each of these weather conditions on visibility at any given date at any given time is even fully quantifiably understood by BFC, let alone players.  Nothing of the sort is mentioned in the manual.
 
I would never have thought a CM scenario would have ever been created to have these incredibly extreme in game conditions.  For many reasons I shouldn't have to point out, unless somehow certain death was the other option, I can't think of any other circumstances that would compel any combat unit to be mobile and engage the enemy when effective visibility has been reduced to zero.  If anyone else can provide any examples to the contrary, I would be interested to hear them (no illumination assistance at all).  If indeed a pitch black battle is what one really does want to simulate in CM, I would say that doing so would result int he most unrealistic simulation of battle you could get in CM and that is not even considering combat LOS issues like ones mentioned in this thread.
 
It seems that perhaps what is more unrealistic and more to the point here is the fact that we are assessing a scenario/situation where units are trying to engage each other in what I would consider unrealistic conditions.
 
Because I try to avoid these kind of night time battles for the reasons mentioned, I never was sure if the graphical night time illumination effects from burning wrecks actually affected the LOS/illumination/spotting of other units around it or whether it was just cosmetic.  As I kind of expected, I have now confirmed to myself that it is indeed just cosmetic. I understand how complex it would be to model otherwise. CM has a long way to go if it ever wants to seriously model low visibility/dark combat.  My suggestion, don't bother.

You were discussing things in what seemed to be more subjective and general terms without revealing further insight in to the situation.  When using the LOS tool, it was established that 40m appeared to be the max visibility range, which, despite being considerably low and "extreme" compared to a dawn/day battle, is still not as extreme as a 30m, 20m, 10m or even 0m night battle.. Yes, technically the 40m max visibility range for that scenario was correct, but it was only later revealed that it was only for spotting units that are firing their weapons. Never was this rather important bit of information ever mentioned anywhere.  Neither was the fact that indeed the effective non-combat spotting range was actually 0m (or close enough to it).
 
I get what you were trying to say, I hope you understand why it was making no sense without shedding more light (excuse the pun) on what actually was going on with that scenario.
 
PS: I must add that in the above scenario in question, spotting range to non-firing infantry was also 0m.
 
This discussion definitely has revealed a little bit more about how the CM LOS mechanics must work, how the scenario parameters can affect things and to the fact that it all is rather very poorly documented and understood by players at least.
 
I have already mentioned my surprise at the variety of weather conditions that can be selected for a battle.  There are 13 for CMRT and CMBN, and 17 for CMFI (it has 4 extra relating to snow conditions).
 
Now one can imagine that somehow, each one of these conditions could have their own unique way of affecting the LOS/spotting mechanics in the game.  Perhaps there are more than one parameter relating to each condition (eg. max range spotting moving infantry, max range spotting infantry firing etc).  At this stage here, only an exhaustive test would be able to reveal quantitatively how each one of these conditions may affect the LOS/spotting mechanics.  Either way, the more conditions and the more parameters associated to each condition there are, the more complex things get, especially when these all then need to interact with the time of day/date conditions.
 
It seems clear that the game treats firing and non-firing units differently as far as maximum spotting range goes.  According to this scenarios conditions, the maximum spotting range as reported by the LOS tool seemed to be only applicable to units that were firing.  Only when actually playing the scenario would a player ever know the range at which they could actually spot a non-firing unit, which really makes no sense/is totally unhelpful from a scenario designing point of view.  To save us all from further exhaustive testing, it would be good to know from BFC under what conditions the LOS tool can be used to indicate maximum spotting range of no-firing units as opposed to firing units.  I think all/most of us thought it was for non-firing units.
 
We also know that the game treats moving and non-moving units differently as far as spotting, as well as the different types (sizes etc) of units.  However in this scenario under these conditions none of those things seemed to matter.  Spotting range of moving non-firing units of all types was 0m.
 
I can be certain of this: given all the condition variables and possible combinations of these with the time of day/date settings, it is not surprising that some of the more "exotic"/less common combinations result in bizarre/unexpected/undesirable LOS/spotting behavior, which is what might still be happening here (if in fact IanL says a bug of some kind might have been discovered).
 
Has anyone done any of the exhaustive LOS/spotting testing needed to fully understand what difference each of the 17 weather variables has on say the maximum range to which the light blue firing line extends out along flat open ground during midday of say 1st May 1944 in Sicily?  Or the average time it takes to spot a Sherman tank in open ground at this maximum range? etc???
 
PS:  I have just noticed that under the Description tab in the Scenario Editor, there is a field that can be manually selected called "Daylight" with options Day, Night, Dusk, Dawn.  I think however that these are independent to the actually Year/Month/Day/Hour/ Minute settings under the Data tab.  Ideally the "Daylight" parameter should be driven by the time of day in the Data tab and not be independent, otherwise it is possible to make a scenario that may be described as a Night battle when in fact it is a day battle.

Some of the responses here have been as dumbfounding as the actual issue posted!