Pete Wenman

Ahhh, the internet. Here's a 🍻 for you, Freyberg. And the developers, betatesters,  modders and scenario designers.

I know I post pointless things like this too often, but I just can't get over the incredible wealth of fun I get out of the Combat Mission games.
I've been playing Commonwealth and minor Allies in CMFI so long - with huge enjoyment - that now I've started a few QBs with US forces they seem brand new. Meanwhile, I carved off a few slices of the gorgeous CMFR master maps, quickly threw together some QB maps and started playing them - late '44, early '45 - which are a terrific challenge and hugely enjoyable. The AI does such a good job with a good map that you can put together your own fun QB map on your own chosen terrain with relative ease, without any idea of how the battle will unfold.
And I'm still scratching the surface of CMCW, which offers a whole new unfamiliar world of units, vehicles and capabilities which are engrossing and offer a whole new historical learning curve. Plus of course I still dip into the other titles (I've still to properly explore CMBS and CMFB - and after all these years with different versions, I still love the extended versions of CMSF and CMBN).
Through all kinds of ups and downs in life, Combat Mission has been my 'happy place' for nearly 20 years!! 20 years FFS!! That's beyond unique for a computer game.
Sorry - I'm a bit drunk, but I just had to say wax rhapsodic...

I've made QB maps in CMCW out of the master maps, which was my first time doing that (since the QB maps are all far too small).

Despite what the manual says, you don't need AI plans to make a valid QB map.

To make a QB map you need to have some objectives (which will all become occupy objectives), and setup zones for both sides, but that's it. I assume they need to be given VP values, but the whole process is set up to be as braindead as possible - you can basically make any map into a QB map and it will sort-of work.


What I suspect is happening is the map data. Under the data tab you need to specify whether this is a Meeting Engagement, Attack, etc., and then this will appear in the list of possible maps when you start a QB of that type. If you have it listed as an "attack" and you start a meeting engagement, you won't see it. I think this is the problem.


Other things worth knowing for Quick Battles:
 
Attacker Force Ratios
Meeting Engagement: 1 : 1
Probe: 1.5 : 1
Attack: 1.65 : 1
Assault: 1.8 : 1
Terrain/Casualties VP
Meeting Engagement: 400/600
Probe: 500/500
Attack: 650/350
Assault: 750/250

The map will assign VP based on relative points on offer. If you set up a map with two objectives, and gave them values of 2 VP and 3 VP, they would be worth 200 VP and 300 VP in a Probe Quick Battle. The same thing would apply if they were 400 VP and 600 VP, they would still be worth 200 and 300 respectively.

@Combatintman  😉
 
 

Never had the decency to say publicly 'thanks Combatintman for the realistic map of Imber Village and scenario based on the map that you kindly made for us' though.

FM 100-2-2 gives details of Soviet river crossings
https://irp.fas.org/doddir/army/fm100-2-2.pdf
 
and has this to say
Tank unit crossings are more complicated than motorized rifle assaults. Although tanks may be attached to support motorized rifle assault crossings,a tank battalion usually crosses in the second echelon. However, a tank battalion could cross in the first echelon in a weakly defended sector. A tank battalion crosses a river by fording, by going over bridges, by being transported aboard ferries or on tactical pontoon bridging, or by snorkeling. Although Soviet tank crews receive periodic underwater training, snorkeling is the least-preferred option. Some elements snorkel across at one site while others cross elsewhere by other means. Sealing arras arc [areas are] selected near concealed routes about 3 to 5 kilometers from the  river. Snorkels are installed about 1 to 2 kilometers from the water barrier. Some tanks provide fire support for the crossing, and artillery is used for both direct and indirect fire. The far bank must be secured before tank snorkeling starts. Efficient traffic control is essential. If the traffic controller permits tank formations to mass, they become a lucrative target for enemy aviation and artillery. Tanks cross underwater in column formation at approximately 30 meter intervals. They cross at low speeds without shifting gears or halting. The tank must be halted to remove waterproofing before the turret can traverse and the main gun can fire.
I suspect the process remains much the same for the Russians
with that confirmed pretty much here
https://community.apan.org/cfs-file/__key/docpreview-s/00-00-13-80-40/2019_2D00_12_2D00_04-Russian-Deliberate-River-Crossings-_2800_Grau_2900_.pdf
Russian Deliberate River Crossings: Choreographing a Water Ballet
from 2019
P
 

FM 100-2-2 gives details of Soviet river crossings
https://irp.fas.org/doddir/army/fm100-2-2.pdf
 
and has this to say
Tank unit crossings are more complicated than motorized rifle assaults. Although tanks may be attached to support motorized rifle assault crossings,a tank battalion usually crosses in the second echelon. However, a tank battalion could cross in the first echelon in a weakly defended sector. A tank battalion crosses a river by fording, by going over bridges, by being transported aboard ferries or on tactical pontoon bridging, or by snorkeling. Although Soviet tank crews receive periodic underwater training, snorkeling is the least-preferred option. Some elements snorkel across at one site while others cross elsewhere by other means. Sealing arras arc [areas are] selected near concealed routes about 3 to 5 kilometers from the  river. Snorkels are installed about 1 to 2 kilometers from the water barrier. Some tanks provide fire support for the crossing, and artillery is used for both direct and indirect fire. The far bank must be secured before tank snorkeling starts. Efficient traffic control is essential. If the traffic controller permits tank formations to mass, they become a lucrative target for enemy aviation and artillery. Tanks cross underwater in column formation at approximately 30 meter intervals. They cross at low speeds without shifting gears or halting. The tank must be halted to remove waterproofing before the turret can traverse and the main gun can fire.
I suspect the process remains much the same for the Russians
with that confirmed pretty much here
https://community.apan.org/cfs-file/__key/docpreview-s/00-00-13-80-40/2019_2D00_12_2D00_04-Russian-Deliberate-River-Crossings-_2800_Grau_2900_.pdf
Russian Deliberate River Crossings: Choreographing a Water Ballet
from 2019
P
 

FM 100-2-2 gives details of Soviet river crossings
https://irp.fas.org/doddir/army/fm100-2-2.pdf
 
and has this to say
Tank unit crossings are more complicated than motorized rifle assaults. Although tanks may be attached to support motorized rifle assault crossings,a tank battalion usually crosses in the second echelon. However, a tank battalion could cross in the first echelon in a weakly defended sector. A tank battalion crosses a river by fording, by going over bridges, by being transported aboard ferries or on tactical pontoon bridging, or by snorkeling. Although Soviet tank crews receive periodic underwater training, snorkeling is the least-preferred option. Some elements snorkel across at one site while others cross elsewhere by other means. Sealing arras arc [areas are] selected near concealed routes about 3 to 5 kilometers from the  river. Snorkels are installed about 1 to 2 kilometers from the water barrier. Some tanks provide fire support for the crossing, and artillery is used for both direct and indirect fire. The far bank must be secured before tank snorkeling starts. Efficient traffic control is essential. If the traffic controller permits tank formations to mass, they become a lucrative target for enemy aviation and artillery. Tanks cross underwater in column formation at approximately 30 meter intervals. They cross at low speeds without shifting gears or halting. The tank must be halted to remove waterproofing before the turret can traverse and the main gun can fire.
I suspect the process remains much the same for the Russians
with that confirmed pretty much here
https://community.apan.org/cfs-file/__key/docpreview-s/00-00-13-80-40/2019_2D00_12_2D00_04-Russian-Deliberate-River-Crossings-_2800_Grau_2900_.pdf
Russian Deliberate River Crossings: Choreographing a Water Ballet
from 2019
P
 

A couple of random piccies 

P
 
  
 
P

FYI
 

FYI
 

Seems like everyone has to play CMBS before playing CMCW  Specifically RUS vs US or at least UKR vs RUS.

SPOILERS!!!
PS CMCW is pure gold! Kudos to the team - arguably the best release ever!

Recently, in the FI forum, some of us were sharing our experience of programming the AI when designing QB maps.
This is an interesting topic that I think should be immortalised in its own thread 😛
I've put my own meagre experimentation first (because it was first in that particular thread chronologically), but @kohlenklau has observed the behaviour of the AI much more scientifically; and I know there are others on the forum (including experienced designers like @benpark) who have also carefully observed how the AI allocates AI groups to forces.
I'm much lazier, I just playtest them, and if I have fun I give it a tick (also too lazy to search the forum for previous discussions of this topic, although I know it has cropped up in various contexts over years).
I'm really interested in what some of you more analytical designers have learnt, so I can apply it to my own maps
  
 
 
 
 
 

Enjoying it?  it was crazy good fun.  I cease-fired w about 20 minutes left, there was no more significant movement happening by red team.  I only got a tactical victory despite putting quite a hurt on them.  They got the two phase lines but not even close to the road junctions.  I knocked out 11 tanks and 33 APCs and caused ~65% casualties.  That MRB aint gonna bother anyone else in this war.  Only succeeded because I set up flank ambushes and didn't try to have long distance shoot out -- I learned that lesson a while back (those damn saggers and 125mm guns). 
I am starting to feel the attrition -- my infantry were shorthanded and short of dragons.

I think I collected the bill on the soviets.  I replayed Valley of Ashes, though having only gone partway through first time so didn't know complete soviet deployment and paths of advance.  Now knowing that I needed my M60s to engage at shorter range, I used woods & smoke to get them into good kill zones.  nearly all units spent much of the first 20+ minutes hiding in the woods w much of my force due to soviet air attacks.  I had my stinger teams out and did knock out multiple aircraft. 
Got into an excellent flanking position on the left, lost 2 of 3 tanks in heavy fighting but 3rd one had 10 kills total, including sneaking behind 3 tanks that were overwatch.  On the right side had one tank in woods that the enemy just couldn't hit and he had 11 kills.  Total victory at cost of 6 tanks and multiple APCs, plus 40+ casualties.  Not bad. 
GREAT battle, thanks to The_Capt et al

The SdKfz 251/3 Engineer half track comes to mind. Just a cost-ineffective way to transport a lot less men than in the 251/1 variant, but it’s in the game nonetheless because it fits real life TO&E. I buy them because I want to have a realistic feel to my formations. 

Correct - also the abundance of sand is not particularly reminiscent of northern Europe.  Nonetheless that is how they set up.  I was in the British Army during the Cold War and we would set up in very much a similar fashion.  The trick was to try and find an empty factory or a big enough farm with plenty of barns to set up in.

You make maps? ... everyday's a school day 😏

I have it. PM me with e-mail adress and I'll send it.

Yep it's the time. Check out the compass rose when in a scenario  - it contains a 24hr clock.
P

Uiii!!! You are right! Thanks!
 
I'm starting to think that I need reading glasses ...
 
Topic is finished!

Yep it's the time. Check out the compass rose when in a scenario  - it contains a 24hr clock.
P

HOLY **** IT WORKED! Finally I can play the demo at least of this game. I have learned a new lesson today, that OEM drivers are garbage. I now regret not trying this sooner. Thank you so much for everyone who's helped over the last few months.

And lo, mine eyes are open'd by your flawless rebuttal of my chains of thought.