Vergeltungswaffe

Some more thoughts about Green & Conscript troops for realism.
Accepting the observation that assigning G&C Experience ratings to our pixeltruppen, then as a scenario designer I also need to substantially increase the length of scenarios. The historical events that I have recreated in my various scenarios all took place over MUCH long periods of time than the scenarios. So if we make the troops in our scenarios behave more realistically then more time will be required to effect the result.
I believe that most gamers want to play a game that yields results in a reasonable amount of time. What is reasonable will vary from one person to another but it is usually not four or five or eight hours. Looking at it that way, I would like to offer up the idea the Battlefront got it right. By making Regular and higher rated troops 'supermen' (on both sides mind you) it allows scenarios to complete in a shorter amount of time.
Summary: For realism make troops G&C AND increase scenario time by two to five times. If you want a reasonable length of 'game', use Battlefront's ratings. Choose your flavour.
 
 

So, back @home and returning with CM-Work 😎
Sometimes, a little break from creating/testing AI-plans is very helpful to get new motivation and to avoid the „Combat-Mission Designer‘s Burnout“ - a serious mental disease, well known to everyone who ever has created a Campaign 😉
Regards 
Mr.X
 

@Andrew6850 recently shared to me a great map for Afrika. Alam El Halfa. She's a nice, big girl of a map. Thank you Andrew.
Starting this weekend I will play a Medium ME QB using it versus a buddy out in Scotland. He wanted the ME and he picked British mixed. I rolled a die and got Italians (also mixed). I will not do an intense DAR but will plop a few screenshots and comments here. It uses Pitbull's Italian uniforms and the sunhelmet mod I did back a ways.
Since it is a Meeting Engagement, I took license to add a center area oasis/well/mosque as the fictional objective...

 

There are security issues that Win7 just isn't prepared for.  Especially CPU level.  And consumers are the absolute biggest problem in cybersecurity.  Most big malware and ransomware attacks are done from consumer PCs that the owner doesn't even know are compromised.  Win7 absolutely cannot begin to know how to protect itself from those chip-level attacks.  That has to be done  at the chip level in conjunction with the OS.  No third-party AV software or self-help site will fix that.  Cyber-criminals drool over unprotected thermostats and Win7 PCs still connected to the internet.
Thats not even talking about GPU driver support completely going away and the lack of Win7 support for DX11 and DX12.

So what is slitherine obviously trying? Because I don't get it. 😅 
 
Artwork is for advertising or representation of ideas where the journey is or could be going. 
 
Misleading are those cheap little mobile games that sell you prerendered videos for actual gameplay. But as soon as you download it you see that it has nothing to do with it entirely. 
 
Back in the CD/DVD era every games cover had an eye catching artwork or at least very altered or cineastic screenshot on it. That games that didn't usually got sold less. Humans are pretty much visually triggered, so nothing new to that. 
But once you turn the cover there should be pics of actual gameplay. And that's what the Steampage is now. 
 
So if one got mislead to buy a game by some simple artworks well then you are either too young, new to the game industry or... very naive/dumb. (no offense) 

For what it's worth, I've always found that motivation is at least as important as experience level.
Any units above normal will become superpixeltruppen and wade into fire they really shouldn't.
Normal, low, and poor troops suppress and break more realistically, imho.

It's just artwork - most advertising has it.

Updated to 1.2
Changelog:
-Made C7 and C8 furniture more green after receiving feedback.
-Added dusty grenade launcher for C8
 

Windows 11 is a brand spanking new OS, so hasn't had the bugs ironed out yet. Given another year or so to mature and I'm sure it'll be fine.
That's different to relying on a 14 year old OS which has been abandoned by the people that created it. Windows 10 on the other hand is actively supported.
Also, that guy wanted to play the game today, and not to wait an indefinite period of time for a bugfix to be released.

One of my clients is a large manufacturer.  A number of its factory systems are legacy Win7-based.  Win7 makes up 8% of its total PC inventory.  But Win7 makes up 40% of its security incidents.  They had a recent ransomeware attack that started on a Win7 system that couldn't get a security update that all Win11 machines got.  They are now finally replacing all of those systems.  Corporations react to risk and cost.  Its driving the final death of corporate Win7.
As more games move to DX11 and DX 12, Win7 will get left further and further behind.  CM and older games might be the last games to support DX9.  Even Steel Beasts is planning on updating to DX11+.

https://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5201/~/support-plan-for-windows-7-and-windows-8%2F8.1
The sun is setting on Win7.  AMD is heading the same way.  Large corps are all on the move of wiping out old Win7-based systems for security reasons.  That'll be the true death knell.  MS only maintained limited support for Win7 because of corporate buying. 
So bite the bullet now or move to Linux.  I have been on Win10/11 for years and have no issues.  Upgrade was easy and painless from 7 to 8.1 to 10 to 11.

If you know anything about me, you know that I will never argue with someone harping on the value of the wise use of terrain. 

Nice analysis Bil, and the reason why I agreed with @IanL that the best thing he said was:
"Fifty percent of tactics is dirt. Your techniques are meaningless if you choose poor ground"

Nice analysis Bil, and the reason why I agreed with @IanL that the best thing he said was:
"Fifty percent of tactics is dirt. Your techniques are meaningless if you choose poor ground"

Nice analysis Bil, and the reason why I agreed with @IanL that the best thing he said was:
"Fifty percent of tactics is dirt. Your techniques are meaningless if you choose poor ground"

Finally was able to read through this.. luckily for me, this is in line with what I do for a living so its billable.   I do have some feedback however:
I found it interesting that he defined "Fire & Movement" as what the assault squad is doing, where the standard historical definition is for an attack consisting of two elements, a Support Element providing suppressive fire, and an Assault Element closing with and destroying the enemy. True, the Assault Squad could be conducting a Squad level Fire and Movement Battle Drill during its Assault movement, so maybe it's right? Seems odd to me though. Platoon level assaults versus a 3 or 4 man position seemed excessive to me, but that is the American way of war! I would expect a Squad to be able to deal with an enemy of that size alone, without the rest of the Platoon. I am surprised that there seemed to be little to no reconnaissance to find the enemy, you know, the first F in the Four Fs (Find him, Fix him, Flank him, Finish him)... The assault was launched before the enemy was located, this led to more casualties than necessary. This premature launching of an assault is the one thing I preach against over and over on my blog... you must find the enemy before you decide how you are going to deal with him. In several of the runs the assault squad was caught by surprise, or suppressed in the open. Neither of these would have happened if a scout team (or three) had been sent forward to recon and locate the enemy... only THEN deciding how to deal with them. The Support element seemed to be really a separate part of the action, where to increase effectiveness they needed to be working as a team, and they needed to be mutually supporting, not something I thought was happening as I read through the AARs. All in all a very interesting series of posts, appreciate you linking it @MHW, but I can't help but think that I am left underwhelmed by this, and that I could have provided guidance that would have helped them close with the enemy with zero (or close to it) failed assaults, based on the forces involved and the support provided.
Bil

Having used it for the last several years, it's pretty darn good.
What does windows 7 do that windows 10 doesn't?

Thanks for the heads up... haven't seen this and its now on my reading list... I can't help but think that he could have saved some time if he'd read my blog.   
Seriously, a study like this just hammers home how accurate and realistic this game can be. I wonder is the good LTC (retired) works at Quantico. I might have to reach out to him.
Bil

The below was taken from the above linked Tactical Notebook Substack. 
The empty phrases reffered to below ring very true.  Many times reading US Army and USMC manuals I've come across sentences like these and thought ...................... but how does that translate into the best course of action for this problem I'm dealing with?    
he manual focuses on static definitions and control measures, not useful procedures. When it doesn’t know what to say, it reverts to empty phrases that tell the squad leader nothing. “The assault is launched aggressively…” How? “Assault fire is characterized by violence, volume, and accuracy…” When? “[Marines] put themselves in a position of advantage…” Where?
 
Some more interesting information taken from the article. 
For fire and movement, the standard should be “close to within grenade range (20 meters) of the enemy position without getting shot.” Performance steps should include “suppress until there is no return fire,” “move only when suppression is firing,” “select and move from one covered position to another,” and “avoid moving outside mutual support (behind a building or over a crest).” 
 
A well-trained enemy is dangerous at all ranges, but when his fighting position is visible, it can be continually suppressed by well-coordinated fire and movement—two fire teams shooting while one moves. The priorities are (1) find the enemy, (2) smother with suppressive fire, and then (3) move forward using covered terrain.
 
Don't be in a hurry to die.........☠️
four assaults with six or more casualties were impatient, rushing to poor positions without suppression.
 
When on defense Target Arcs plus the Hide command.   
The biggest advantage of a long assault was that the enemy usually fired early and confirmed their position, weapons, and numbers to the assaulting squad. Most casualties inside 50 meters occurred when the enemy position was not known—or had moved—and the assaulting squad was surprised.

If you do a quick battle, you will only be able to put units in the areas that were designated for that on the quick battle map.
If you go into the scenario editor and load that particular map, you can place the units for both sides anywhere you'd like since it will be a scenario, rather than a quick battle.

If you enjoy the eastern front at all, adding Fire and Rubble is well worth all the additional hours of CM goodness you'll get.

Yes, I forgot to mention the battle pack is a must have too.

If you enjoy the eastern front at all, adding Fire and Rubble is well worth all the additional hours of CM goodness you'll get.

Exactly, despite the AFV losses, your actual casualties were quite low compared to the Germans.
It would have been a very plausible real life result, imho.