LongLeftFlank

But when you're a scenario designer setting up a fortified position, or a player deploying forces in a setup zone, it would be very useful, even if it's too calc intensive to be usable during play.

It and the subsequent comments are comic dialogue from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". Not relevant to the OP - just banter.

Yeah, you're right, I was just thinking that I overstated it but you beat me to the edit -- there is some difference. I am CM-less these days so I can't run your test, but I would still recommend even more muffling effect in soft ground and water.

I'll say it again -- it really isn't the accuracy of mortars that's the problem, it's their hideously lethal effects on infantry who are (a) artificially clustered around Action Spots ( don't hit the dirt and stay there when their RL counterparts would have.

Figure out what the main potential enemy advance routes will be, and estimate how long it will take a cautious or a reckless player to arrive in force at the place along each route you want to hit him (the "kill zones"). Divide the PC controlled forces into two groups: static and mobile if you're defending and fixing and flanking if you're attacking. In both cases, the first group's job is to make sure most of the player's force doesn't leave the kill zone(s) for a lengthy period and ideally, has to commit his reserves by engaging him there.....ambush, obstacles, ranged weapons, artillery. The second (mobile) group is deployed in hiding at one of the lateral ends of the map or appears as reinforcement. It commences a big sweep across the enemy direction of the advance, so that it hits one killzone after another in sequence from a covered flank. For this force, you want to use units which have the best close-range firepower and resilience (make sure the infantry dismounts from their transports before going in harms way). The idea is to get close and maul units that the enemy would have preferred to stand off with. And if the enemy has divided his forces, he risks defeat in detail unless he redirects his main effort away from the terrain objectives. Even if it doesn't work, you're giving the player his money's worth with some great "oh sh*t!" moments. In my experience, TacAI controlled units will react nicely and give as good as they get once they get close in; it's when they get caught at range during their timed moves that they get mowed down like zombies. Anyway, that's how I cope with AI units that only move on the clock.

Nicely done countryside. You've clearly spent time in Northern France. Tres bien! P.S. It is a good Shrubbery Farm. I like the laurels particularly.....

Click on the formation in the editor, select the desired Experience and Morale setting (or ammo or whatever) and voila! all subordinate units have that same setting. Easy enough -- 3 clicks or sumfink. The only thing you can't change is the "Equipment Quality" (e.g. setting it to Poor). You need to delete and rebuy the formation in that case.

Well done. My only thought would be to keep your review succinct and avoid wading into the "he said- she said BS". Otherwise the casual reader will just go "WTF"? and skip it. Stick to "3 sentences that explain why I gave it an 8-9" and "1-2 that explain why it didn't get a 10."

I can live with the existing LOS tool while playing, but I would just love to have some kind of tool -- shademap or not -- to use while scenario building. Right now it's a total PITA to set up defensive positions and establish fields of fire. Not least because the Target tool frequently shows LOS blocked to locations when in reality an enemy unit moving into the location (unless it's crawling on the ground) will be perfectly visible. The fix might be as "simple" as making friendly units Targetable during unit setup mode only, so you can put out test "surveyor" units. Or at least making their floating icons light up while in the editor (as enemy unit icons do while playing the game in Elite+ mode) to show they're in LOS of the selected unit.

Agreed! When I playtested my CMBN Makin scenario, I was very pleased to find that the first wave company (Green) consistently secured the beach, but was then basically a spent force. Even though casualties were not "high" by CMBN standards (10% -- one man down per squad avg, although this is of course textbook "decimation"). The Rattled / Broken squads were useless for anything but covering fire. The push into the jungle had to be undertaken by fresh forces, which is basically what you'd expect, and why RL high risk operations like beach landings were carried out in "waves" to begin with. As Andrew notes, you need to husband these troops carefully, advance under suppressing fire, and worry about things like being in command and Fatigue levels. Otherwise, you run out of willing shooters and your men begin Panicking and dying like flies if you keep pushing them. Even when you have vastly greater numbers and firepower than the enemy (also Green, but Fanatic and in good cover).

...against opponents who were increasingly undertrained kids.

My CM PC is dead at the moment, but here's a screenie I had on my laptop showing my own special workarounds to turn bocage from "100% impenetrable wall" if it doesn't have a gap to "crossable in some spot(s), but with difficulty". 1. I want Low Bocage to be crossable by infantry fairly readily but by vehicles with difficulty and bogging risk. So I put a Hedge segment in, together with a Mud tile. As one playtester found out, you don't want to do this with jeeps or ACs more than once or twice. Tanks do a little better. 2. I want High Bocage to be totally uncrossable by non-cutter vehicles but crossable by infantry with a (risky) delay.... a surrogate for hacking a gap through a thin patch in the hedge then scrambling over. Creating a chevron-shaped gap (which also can't be viewed through from a distance) as shown between the "Y" and "bent" bocage segments placed in 2 adjacent Marsh tiles (infantry worms its way around a single tile) takes a 3 man Scout section about 15 seconds to get across. I'd rather this delay was longer but hey, better than nothing. This workaround is more important in Recon scenarios like the one I am about to publish, where you have small detachments working their way through fields trying to get eyes on the enemy. Less so when you're designing an Assault -- you aren't going to push an entire rifle company one by one over a tiny gap in the bushes. You blast or bulldoze a bigger gap. FWIW. No new terrain segments needed.

I dunno, after putting at least a couple hundred hours of research, design and testing into my PTO Makin map and scenario, I'm pretty disheartened by getting only 50 DLs in 2 weeks when throw together ETO scenarios seem to get twice as many. I can't really say how many is the magic number that makes it all worth it, but I'm wondering if I shouldn't maybe just make scenarios for myself and screw the testing, tweaking briefings and AI work.

With respect, I disagree; I'd say that, sunken road or not, that's a fairly typical hedgerow and that it's a rarity to find a long wall of vegetation that is 100% opening-free along its entire length like a topiary maze. In sections, sure, but remember these things were grown as windbreaks and cattle fences, not some kind of fortification, and didn't need to be that carefully maintained, except where the hole might get large enough for livestock to escape.

Agreed. I just realized that with my CM PC hors de combat, I have inherited the Kettler stream-of-consciousness kibitzing mantle. Sorry about that; I'll try to self-censor more until I can get up and running again.

The screenshots thread is still Ok, and maybe the mockumentary one serves a marketing purpose, but the others seem a bit stale to me. A very minor nit, sure, but....

Never thrown a hand grenade or seen one detonated, but I always wondered whether one was really powerful enough to sever a track link or disable a road wheel. It's fairly clear that it isn't the fragmentation that does that; is it a thermal or blast effect or what?

Ah another of those lofty moralists who would have died of tick typhus and starvation in a KZ had the Nazis won. Hindsight makes everything crystal clear.

'Course you're assuming the very first notice the Sherman crew had was the shell whistling by. But that said, most folks here generally agree that tanks are preternaturally aware of their surroundings.

Not a bad idea if it's indeed simple. Although I rather doubt it would materially boost sales.

Go visit Normandy in Google Maps sometime and drag the little person icon onto one of the back roads. They've ripped down most of the bocage, but there's still enough of it around and it hasn't changed much since '44. In the foreground, you can readily see what I mean. Portions of this section are impenetrable, but move a few yards and you can find a spot to wheel a tank up a bank and poke a gun through. Believe me, that's typical. You will rarely get more than 20 yards without some kind of gap. Don't get me wrong; I'm be all in favour of more varied terrain, but I'd vote for a dense LOS-blocking thicket of young trees -- a ubiquitous and sorely needed feature -- before I added another flavour of bocage.

First, remember that not all High Bocage is in fact 6-8 foot earthen mounds topped with a solid wall of impenetrable hedge, like some kind of maze. It's vegetation and there are gaps and irregularities aplenty; stuff dies or gets damaged by shells. Note that doesn't contradict any of the accounts of the hedgerow fighting -- even an imperfect wall makes it bloody difficult for units to cross or fight through. The holes that exist are known and covered. Yes, the game engine might be a little simplistic; you'd expect that even if there was a gap, the field of fire of a tank gun poking through would be pretty poor (e.g. gray target line?). But if BFC needs to choose between "no LOS at all" and a little too much, I prefer the latter. One man's opinion

But not both... Uhh, at least she looked 18, but really, how can you tell, you know? I mean, I swear to you, I thought the schoolgirl uniform was just for show! (beads of sweat appear)

Whose Sophia-Loren-in-a-bustier mod are you using?

If I recall my Cajus Bekker correctly (season to taste), there was a communications failure at multiple levels -- the two waves of bombers were supposed to have been called off. That said, the centre of Rotterdam was very much a legitimate military target by the standards of the day, with active port facilities and key road and rail bridges. The fact that it had been isolated by the advance of German ground forces and that was now militarily untenable wasn't necessarily readily evident. The notoriety of the bombing was because it was the first time Western Europe had seen a city severely bombed, although Warsaw and Guernica had put everyone on alert for that. What everyone was really worried about was poison gas, of course. Seem to recall a few Whitleys dumped some bombs into the center of Freiburg during the sitzkrieg period and Goebbels made a lot of froth about the "murdered children", swore revenge, etc. So the stage was set.