Bimmer

Now things are starting to heat up a bit...

A nice monitor certainly makes a difference in overall enjoyment.

I didn't give you 90 minutes because it was going to be easy...

I'm liking the two turn interval between videos - enough for some continuity and easy to follow, but still maintaining some suspense. Hopefully your opponent will start posting his videos soon so we can get the other side of this little skirmish.

Great to see the first few turns played out. Too bad about that false gap in the hedge - it's always annoying when that happens. FWIW, I try to mark all the gaps with a different type of ground tile (I think I used a mud tile on this map, or maybe something similar; whatever it is, it's different), so perhaps that will help you pick them out more easily. Also, based on your comments in the video, you may not have noticed that some of your tanks are Rhinos, which are able to breach hedgerows on their own.

Great stuff, Bootie. Really interesting to see how players going into a scenario for the first time assess and approach it. I checked on the anomalous instances of Phase Line Raven. They are just the result of some errant last-minute editing, but since those are Touch objectives, it will not have any effect on scoring. Sorry about that. I noticed that you've got the trees turned off. Hopefully you checked out the map with them on as well, as they may impact your sight lines. Good luck! Looking forward to the next installment.

You know, my initial response to your offer came across a bit more abrupt than I intended. Sorry about that.

I used maps from the French government mapping site: http://www.geoportail.gouv.fr/accueil

Thanks but no thanks. I'm perfectly capable of doing AI plans and making single-player scenarios when I choose to; this one is (as most of my scenarios are) intended for H2H play. If and when I decide to modify it for single-player use, I'll handle it.

OK, the players have been contacted and the scenario file sent, so the Bootie vs. Rinaldi battle will commence once the particulars have been worked out. Good luck, guys, and thanks again.

Rinaldi, please check PMs and get back to me.

I have sent PMs to those who have indicated an interest either here or via PM. Once I have two players I will send the file and they can get started. Thanks to all who have shown an interest. I look forward to seeing how the game plays out.

More info: the map is 720x448, with the advance taking place along the long axis.

I probably should have explained in a bit more detail. It's a H2H only battle. I rated it Large, primarily due to force size/density rather than map size. I think it's fairly balanced, with both sides having a number of tactical challenges to contend with; neither side has it easy. The map has been created from the 1947 aerial survey photos cross-referenced to Google Street View, so it's about as accurate as I could manage. I can't be positive about the forces, but I checked multiple references and tried to build them so they are at least fairly representative of the formations involved.

I've got a fully developed semi-historical scenario ready to go, but rather than just dump it online, I figured it might be useful to build some interest first. So, I'm looking for two experienced players with full installs of CMBN (all additional packs and updates required) who are willing to do turn-by-turn DARs here. The battle depicts the 90th Division's attack on Saint Jores in early July 1944. You can see some archival footage here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpiEvTZnOFc A few screens from the scenario: If you're interested, PM me. Preference will be given to established forum members.

Nice little scenario. I'm not entirely certain how the points break down, but I ended up with a Total Victory despite significant losses (though I did hold my objective) and some enemy forces still active on the field. I did find a good spot for the 50mm; I thought a decent spot for the Stummel was harder to find, though both performed well before buying it. Looking forward to the campaign.

FWIW, the German briefing is quite explicit when it comes to the futility of trying to hold the line against the American advance: "Your force is not strong enough to oppose them in a straight fight...." If the German player tries to hold in place and wait for reinforcements, they are going to lose. Conducting an effective tactical withdrawal is not an easy thing to do, but if you do it right you can attrit the Americans heavily enough to stop them cold.

Nicely done. You certainly had some luck in catching a couple of the StuGs on the move, and I think the fact that you won the early battles and were able to get across the river without too much trouble allowed you to bring the reinforcements into play effectively. I have to go back and see how I allocated points; I think I tended to undervalue the casualties against objectives, at least compared to what I've done in later scenarios. With losses like those, your force would be relatively combat ineffective by the end, in spite of capturing the objectives. In any case, thanks for the feedback and the video AAR. It's helpful and very much appreciated.

Well, so much for that experimental idea. It's a shame, in the sense that I am genuinely curious to see if there's a causal relationship between paid content and feedback. Of course, the greater shame is that so many users are so lazy/ungrateful/entitled/whatever that they can't be bothered to take few moments to offer feedback on hours and hours of work provided to them free of charge.

I haven't been very active around here lately, but since this thread has resurfaced I figured I'd poke my nose out of my hole to throw out an idea. I've got a scenario built and essentially ready to go. Historical map (right down to using the 1947 French aerial survey maps), semi-historical circumstances (correct date and units, at least in a broad sense), tested and balanced for H2H. Mixed forces on both sides, attacker in reinforced battalion strength. Now that the vehicle pack is out I may add a smattering of new units just for fun (nothing to fundamentally change things). What I'm wondering, purely for experimental purposes, is if people would pay a nominal sum (like $0.99) to download it. The reason is not to get rich quick (obviously) but to see if people feel more invested in it if they've, well, invested in it. Over and over I've read comments about users downloading scenarios and forgetting about them, thus making them less likely to provide feedback - maybe a token pay-to-play system would change this. People certainly seem willing to complain on these forums when they don't like some aspect of CM, and many also offer positive comments as well (though the ratio favors the former, it would seem). I can't help but wonder if paying for the product contributes to this, and, if so, if such responsiveness would carry over to paid-for scenarios.

FWIW, I built a couple of really tiny scenarios at one point. In testing they proved to be a little tricky to play if you employ typical CM approaches; the small size of the force means that every single casualty matters a lot, and as such casualty avoidance becomes paramount. What I found this required was extending the times far longer than you might think necessary such that players could take the time required to wait for sound contacts or plot circuitous routes. Best for patient, methodical players - those who rush forward will likely be frustrated quickly. Personally, I enjoy them, but they do require a different approach.

This was not in any way directed at you personally - I hope you didn't take it that way. I don't remember who submitted and who didn't; hell, I don't even remember who won the thing. I hope your health issues have been resolved. That said, I really had no expectation of AARs from people who lost a round; after all, there's absolutely zero incentive to write one at that point. If I'd enforced the rules requiring them for winning players to advance, however, I think the whole tournament would have collapsed quickly due to so many victorious players failing to submit. It's really two different things. At least in a tournament you have some ability to control things. When it comes to scenarios made public, however, there's not a damn thing you can do. And as usual, relying on people to do anything without offering them a positive reward for doing so (and sometimes not even then) is bound to result in utter disappointment, if not downright disgust.

I tried to institute the same AAR requirement when I put together and ran "The Farm" mini-tournament. It didn't work. There were a few really well-done AARs, a few perfunctory ones, and a whole lot of nothing from everyone else. Since it was an elimination tournament, I really should have instituted a strict "no AAR, no advancement" rule, but I had too much else to do just trying to run the thing. There are a whole lot of suggestions one could make, but ultimately it comes down to the players having to actually take some initiative and do some damn work. And from what I've seen, most would rather just be lazy sods and benefit from the labors of others without reciprocating in the slightest. Of course, they'll spend countless hours complaining that the rivets on some tank model are too large, or that they think the game includes the wrong subspecies of grass for a given theater, but take a minute to offer a couple comments on a free community-provided download? That's clearly asking too much.

I sympathize, but I also believe - based on the pathetic amount of feedback on my own scenarios - that it's a lost cause no matter what you do to make it easier. You give people something for free, they have no motivation to do anything once they have it. Hell, I even tried to incentivize it: a while back I offered to upload a new scenario once I got three reviews on a newly-released one. Know what happened? I still, probably a year after the fact, haven't hit the magic three. What it comes down to is this: I build scenarios because I like to. I build them the way I want, and if I feel like it, on occasion I release them. When I get feedback (good, bad or indifferent - I'm not just trolling for praise), I'm more inclined to release my work. Not surprisingly, I'm sitting on a bunch of tested and ready-to-go scenarios right now. For those who complain about a lack of new scenarios, well, consider that - given the numbers of complainers versus the number of reviewers - you're probably not exactly helping the situation.