ASL Veteran

If you haven't already done so you should probably post something in the tech support forum or perhaps contact the help desk.

bushes detonating tank ammunition isn't necessarily inaccurate. Even grain can cause an HE shell to detonate prematurely. We all like to make assumptions about what we think would happen, but when the actual participants comment on what actually happened many of these assumptions that we hold are shown to be questionable.

Alright, I guess I'll ask the obvious question: If you don't own Market Garden then how were you able to add a Market Garden vehicle to your scenario in the editor in the first place?

The reality is that it doesn't make any sense to have a canal bridge that is uncrossable by armor. After all, that was the entire point of the Market Garden campaign wasn't it? If capturing canal bridges didn't allow British armor to cross the canals then what was the point of the campaign? There was no reason to believe that a canal bridge was uncrossable by armor in the first place, the editor didn't say one way or another, and for whatever reason the bridge was apparently coded as a light bridge. The reasons for that decision are unfathomable to me, but that's the way it currently is and there isn't squat that I can do about it.

Nobody is more aggravated about this than I am. There were so many bridge problems with that module that they continued beyond the release of the game. The bridges themselves have no ratings shown on them in the editor and nobody who tested the scenario (at least three or four different people) made any indication that the bridge was uncrossable by armor.

Yes, you have it. The only thing I would add is that Occupy terrain objectives need to be held when scenario time expires. There are also Touch terrain objectives that award points immediately when the friendly player enters the painted zone. Touch objectives are good for when a friendly force is advancing and you don't want to force the advancing force to leave a string of troops behind sitting on occupy objectives.

There is no correlation between QB unit point values and victory condition points. As long as the side that gains occupy points for that location has uncontested control of that objective (ie, at least one friendly unit inside the painted victory zone and no enemy units of any type in the victory zone) Victory points are cumulative. Parameter victory points will be awarded in addition to occupy terrain victory points as long as the parameter is met. If the parameter is not met then no points will be awarded. I'm not sure I follow you here, but there is no differentiation between equipment and men when assigning destroy victory points. Destroy points are similar to casualty parameters with the exception that the parameter points are awarded only if the threshold is met while destroy points can be awarded in correlation with the percentage of the unit that gets destroyed. In other words the entire unit doesn't need to be destroyed in order to gain the points for that destruction. If 50% of the unit is destroyed then the player can be awarded 50% of the points. You can if you want, but I believe that you are over thinking the situation. You can assign any point values you want to to any formation that you want to. If you want an infantry battalion to be worth 100 destroy points then that's all that will be awarded if the unit is entirely destroyed. Like I mentioned, you can assign destroy points in any amount that you want to. There is absolutely no connection between QB purchase points and destroy points that you choose to assign to any given formation. You can make an entire battalion worth five points if you want to. Yes. It really just depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Creating the right victory conditions is one of the most difficult aspect of scenario design. Just a slight tweak in the victory conditions can mean the difference between one side winning and one side losing. I think when most players discuss 'balance' they are talking about the actual way the battle plays out when they fight it (win or lose), but even if the battle feels right to the players if your victory conditions aren't properly tuned you can end up with a situation that might be unbalanced in terms of final victory as opposed to the actual way the battle plays out. Exit victory conditions give destroy points to the other side for units that the friendly side fails to exit so exit victory conditions are very tricky to work with.

That might be fine if you are just making something for yourself. If you plan on putting something out there for everyone else to try you better have a thick skin if you plan on putting something like that up in the repository. Well I generally don't make any map alterations after the map is completed and since I don't place any forces on a map until after the map is completed I don't modify the terrain to affect the outcome. Nobody should confuse my mention of 'flow' of battle with scripting. What I mean be flow of battle is a mind's eye .... structure .... that I have for the battle that helps me determine map size and what it includes. That is a necessary function for when you set your victory conditions and the force size you intend to use. I guess you could think of it as a sort of outline before writing an essay. Except that the scenario designer provides the outline and the player writes the essay. Without structure it would be nearly impossible to select a historically significant piece of ground and settle on a map size because there are no map boundaries in the real world. The map boundaries are an artificial limitation that the designer imposes and if the designer doesn't have a plan before he blocks out his map then it would be almost impossible to even begin creating something. Of course this problem doesn't exist with a fictional scenario because with a fictional scenario you can pick any piece of ground. With a historical scenario you have to select a piece of ground that is within the realm of where the units actually were when the battle took place that is consistent with the size of the force you want to involve. Once you've committed to a spot it is almost impossible to switch locations unless you want to start again from scratch.

You are only just dipping your toes in the water so I can see why you might hold that view. After you have a few more under your belt though I am confident that you will come over to the 'Dark Side' and see things as I do.

Yes that's true. The fact is that points aren't currently in the scenario editor and resources would have to be applied in order to include them. How difficult it would be and whether it is worth the effort or not is for BFC to decide and up until this point they have decided not to include them. I'm simply stating that I prefer the status quo and that I don't see any need to devote any resources towards changing the status quo for all the reasons I've outlined above. In my opinion a bunch of numbers included in the editor TO&Es would just clutter my screen and I would rather not look at them if I don't have to. Right now I don't have to and that's the way I prefer it. :cool:

I think you would be better off without the points. If you decide to try your hand at a historical scenario the process, for me anyway, goes something along the lines of this Read a book Find a battle description in the book that is detailed enough that I can create something out of it. From the information available try and figure out if I can actually identify the location of the battle on a map in the real world If I have discovered the appropriate location then find out what forces opposed each other. So if the 1st Guards Tank Army attacked the 1st Panzer Division then you already have your basic force structure figured out because you know basically what the two sides will consist of. Try and determine a flow or general idea of what you are trying to depict in the scenario. This is a very important step because it is a critical element in deciding what size map you need and what areas you want your map to include. Block out the appropriate map size in Google Earth so you have your map borders. Create the map in the editor You already have an idea of what forces will be in the battle because you already know the OB, so now you place what feels like an appropriate force on the map for each side and start creating an AI plan. The process of creating the AI plan will quickly give you some idea as to whether your initial plan for the scenario will work or not. If your starting point is 'I'm going to have a Meeting Engagement with two forces that total 1000 points' then I think you are starting at the wrong spot as a scenario designer. Your starting point should be 'what am I trying to do?' or 'what situation am I trying to portray' and a focus on points inhibits that process in my opinion.

(sigh) Just because both sides forces are each valued in the game as totalling 1000 points doesn't mean that both sides have an equal chance of victory. For one thing how are the point values set or assigned by the game itself? Are they 'fair'? Second, just because someone purchases 500 points worth of M4 shermans doesn't mean that they will match up against 500 points worth of King Tigers .... surely you can agree to that? The type of terrain has a big influence on the outcome of a battle as well or is the map selection process for QBs completely irrelevant? How about environmental conditions - do you think that Heavy Fog might play out differently than clear visibility? How about Mud? The point you are missing is that for a QB the point selection process is simply a structure by which two opponents can purchase a force that they think gives them an opportunity to win a battle against an opponent under a certain set of circumstances and parameters that are typically agreed to in advance. Just tossing two random forces that are valued at 1000 points each (according to the game's criteria of assigning points) on a random map under random environmental conditions with two random players who didn't play any role in the selection process will absolutely not guarantee that both players have an identical chance of victory. Heck, even in a mirrored game both sides might not have an equal chance of victory because of the skills of the two opponents. Points are not a means to an end with regard to balance and in terms of scenario creation points don't contribute anything of value to an experienced scenario designer. In a QB the force is hand picked to match the player's tactics and method of play where in a scenario the player is forced to match their tactics and method of play to correspond with the force they are given. Thus a player who is skilled at defeating opponents with a hand picked QB force may be crushed in a scenario that has a different force of equal point value simply because the player has no control over the force composition itself. A scenario and a QB are two entirely different experiences. The key part of QBs is that the player is creating a customized force and the point system provides the structure for that to happen. Since the scenario player has no control over the composition or structure of the force they are tasked with commanding the point value of the force is functionally irrelevant. Aside from the fact that the player has no input on the force selection process why are points irrelevant? The force compositions, the map, the situation being portrayed, the victory conditions, the environmental conditions all contribute to the flow of the scenario and it is the interactions of all of those factors that must be considered when attempting to create something that hopefully someone will enjoy playing. Putting point values at the top of that list, in my opinion, would just make the scenario creation process more difficult for a designer because the points would serve more as a distraction than an aid.

I don't speak for BFC, but they do read the forums so hopefully the manual can be corrected. As noted above, this has been discussed at length and as far as I'm aware there are no plans to add points to the scenario editor. I personally don't see any need to have points in the scenario editor because 1. points are not an indicator of scenario balance. 2. A scenario maker does not need points to create a scenario if the OB is known in advance 3. If someone wants to make a custom QB by using the scenario editor, the better course to take is to ask BFC t improve the QB system such that custom scenarios for QBs are no longer necessary. 4. For a scenario designer who wants to create a historical or fictional scenario based upon a specific situation or set of circumstances no points are needed in order to complete that task. Point values are simply clutter in that situation. Only a QB player benefits from points in the editor. I realize that I just listed a bunch of things but I don't really want to rehash the issues over again since it is just a case of 'I like this' or 'I like that' and there is no correct or incorrect answer here. I only speak for myself and I like the editor the way it is now. If BFC decides to add point values to the scenario editor at some point in the future they will do so and I will have no influence on that decision. BFC does what BFC does when BFC decides to do it. At this point in time, as far as I'm aware, there are no plans to add point values to the scenario editor at any time in the future.

The manual just needs to be corrected. Thanks for bringing that to BFC's attention.

There are no points in the regular scenario editor. Points are only listed in the QB purchase screen.

For the record, the MP41 is not the Erma. The Erma was developed from the Vollmer machine pistol designed during the 1920s. The mention in Wiki about the legal action is accurate for the MP 41 however, but once again, the MP 41 is not the MP Erma. The MP Erma had a magazine that fed from the side (Sten style) although it did have a wooden stock with a vertical foregrip. The MP 41 had a magazine that fed from the bottom ala the MP 40, although it had a wooden stock as well. There are at least 11 German made Maschinenpistole type weapons used by the German army during WW2 MP18/1 MP 28/11 MP 34/1 MP 35/1 MP Erma MP 38 MP 38/40 MP 40 MP 40/11 MP 41 MP 3008 edited to add that I'm not sure where I read Erma in the post above. I must have been hallucinating or something.

Maybe you could just pronounce it 'Furry' instead of 'Fury'?

Morale is set on a scale by the scenario / campaign designer from poor to fanatic IIRC (poor, low, normal, high, and fanatic). So if you want Italians that run at the first sight of an enemy soldier just set their morale to poor in whatever scenario you want to make. So morale does play a role, it is simply controlled by the designer as opposed to an automatic across the board game added penalty that may or may not reflect reality depending upon the circumstances and situation.

Mussolini was tossed out of power by the King sometime during the battle for Sicily. A new government was formed and, because Italy was lousy with Germans, they then pledged undying allegiance to Germany. The new Italian government made secret attempts to negotiate surrender with the allies but nobody trusted each other enough to pull something off that was satisfactory to both sides. So just before the invasion of Naples (literally while the invasion force was approaching the coast) the Italians decided to surrender anyway and take their chances. So as a nation, Italy effectively was out of the war before any allied troops landed on mainland Italy. There were still some Italians who fought on with the Germans, but they were not part of the national Italian army. Eventually some Italian formations fought alongside the allies, but they generally weren't given strenuous tasks.

Not sure. Certainly they had the SP guns that you mentioned, but I'm not sure of any U304 with a PaK 40.

The German halftracks could be swapped out as well

They aren't really needed for that scenario since there aren't any German mines. However, much of the German equipment could be swapped out for the French conversion vehicles since those would be the accurate vehicles for that particular scenario.

It isn't about just one side. It is both sides and how they interact with each other. In other words, if Volksgrenadiers are added in a module to CMBN then the only opponent they can fight in any BFC produced scenarios are opponents that are either in CMBN base game (June 1944 Americans) or the module that Volksgrenadiers come in. Take your Kriegsmarines for example. You want to have a fight with Kriegsmarines and British troops in Hamburg or some German port in 1945. Guess what, you can add Kriegsmarine troops to your battle using June 1944 TO&E and change the date to May 1945 but who are they going to fight against? They aren't going to be combined with any Volksgrenadiers because the Volksgrenadiers are in a different module so too bad for that. The only British your Kriegsmarines are going to be fighting will be those included in the Market Garden module because that's what came with the Kriegsmarines. Now if you don't play any stock scenarios and you just play Quick Battles or user made scenarios then I guess there aren't any issues.

The main issue is what units are included in the base game because those are the only units that can be used in every module. If the TO&E has changed between June and October or November then you need a new base game or your module restrictions will make things tricky. Lest someone think that there aren't any TO&E changes - Volksgrenadiers? That's just one example.

You should look into the situation when Israel was first being formed as a nation. I'm going from memory here so this is going to be imprecise, but many Israelis formed collectives ... they referred to them with a specific name ..... where they deliberately tried to eliminate gender differences by having women drive tractors and men doing the housework etc. The end result was chaos where nobody was happy and eventually each gender gravitated towards what they preferred to do. It was probably these 'collectives' that caused the Soviet Union to support Israeli independence. The Soviets probably thought Israel would turn into a client state for them.