c3k

Minute 31-30
AOA 1
My tanks can offer a lot of HE support and suppression.  I will pepper the buildings ahead with HE and charge! This time, the tank riders will be going in on the tanks but not under fire. 
The JS-IIs advance and stop to provide support fire while the Company and Regiment HQ T34s both load up an infantry squad each. The inset shows the action at the map edge to the left.

 RU148
As the men board the tanks, sporadic enemy rifle and HMG fire hits the front of the tanks. The Company HQ T34 fires at the spotted HMG. A Marder is also detected but none of the Russian tanks have LOS. 

 RU149
One JS-II advances, maneuvering to get LOS on the Marder. The German vehicle gets the first shot, which bounces off the thick armour. 

 RU150
The JS-II spots its attacker and returns fire but misses. Smoke and dust break then LOS for both from one another.

 RU151
The spotted HMG and infantry contacts come under fire as well. The enemy is no longer putting out any fire at all at the advancing armour and infantry. One HMG unit takes heavy casualties and breaks. 

 RU152
The infantry in the house behind moves out behind it, not willing to take direct fire any longer. 

 RU153
There is no question I’m pushing him back and disrupting his defences. I have a big open field in front of me that I need to cross but once that’s done I’m actually in the town - the objective itself.
What’s going in at AoA2 is in the upcoming post.

Given the length of time I’ve not touched this it may seem absurd, but it’s been driving me crazy that this isn’t done. On top of that, my computer is dying and I’m not sure I can find installation files for this much older version of CMRT, which is required for compatibility with the turn files. So, I’m giving this AAR another go. I spent a full day working on the graphics for just one turn’s action. Trouble is, that was in a weekend and weeknights I have a lot less time. I hope the fits of starting and stopping every few days won’t kill the enjoyment for anyone trying to follow this. 

The wooden ones I assume ... 😉

Now let's go to playing the game:

10) It would be great if there could be a cellar to some of them. This would be useful in scenarios where one party's defense line goes through, or very close to, those houses. If the attacker would use a lot of artillery, especially just before an assault of tanks and/or infantry, the defender could rush his troops into those cellars for shelter. There weren't always bunkers or pillboxes in hastily arranged defense lines during WW2, so cellars would be useful. And as bunkers and pillboxes are so easily spotted in the games, defenders inside cellars could hopefully be more of a surprise for the attacker.

11) Another thing about buildings. If the buildings wheren't only one large box with one or more floors but instead one large box divided into different sections on each floor, the destruction of buildings being shot at would have a more proper look and the floors would be more functional for the defending troops inside a building if the building was being destroyed section by section. The result of this would be that the ruined buildings could still be used for defending although some sections were in ruins. Another good reason for this could be that the house to house fighting could become more challenging for the attacker as each floor would have two or more sections (rooms) to clear of enemies.

12) If we could position AT-guns inside large enough buildings and barns, with parts of the walls missing so they can shoot from inside them, the fighting in the game would be more like in WW2 times. The Germans and Russians, and probably the Brits and Americans too, used this way of positioning AT-guns. They seem to often having had the doors to the barns not completely closed or the holes in the walls covered a bit to conceale the AT-guns.
13) Another thing that would be great would be to be able to hide AT-guns and tanks behind ruined buildings so they can be positioned on the side of the building facing away from the enemy, see the enemy through the holes of ruined building, and shoot at the enemy with the shells going through the holes of the ruined building.
The way it works now the inside of buildings is a blocking entity with some kind of invisible wall so the direct fire line gets blocked as soon as it enters the inside of a building even though there are large holes in the walls.
14) To protect the infantry much better, the games would preferably get the kind of shelters which were built into the soil and covered with logs and dirt for some protection against artillery shells. These kind of shelters, and pillboxes, would hopefully not only offer more protection to the defenders but also be harder to spot.
15) It is also a bit silly that 75mm light infantry guns and different AT-guns are so slow to move around. From watching documentary WW2 footage it is obvious that the repositioning of them should go much quicker than they do in the games. The speed in which the crew is able to reposition an AT-gun or a 75mm light infantry gun could often make or break a defensive situation in a scenario.
Below is a test of moving different guns forward 40 meters on a flat and grassy surface. When comparing those minutes of movement to what is shown in the video clip above it's obvious that the crew should be able to use at least quick movement when repositioning their guns. The dash movement should most likely be possible to use too, at least for the 75mm light infantry guns.
  Moving Guns 40 meters
German 75mm light infantry gun IeiG18           2.30 minutes
German 75mm light infantry gun IeiG37           3.15 minutes
German 50mm AT-gun Pak 38                       4.00 minutes
German 75mm AT-gun Pak 40                       4.20 minutes
German 76mm AT-gun Pak 36                       5.00 minutes
German 150mm heavy infantry gun SiG33    5.00 minutes
US     57mm AT-gun M1                                 3.30 minutes
US     76mm AT-gun M5                                4.20 minutes

16) One of the most annoying things in this game, and something that removes the fun of playing it, is the sometimes stupidly bad line of sight function.
Many times a team of infantry, or an armoured vehicle, can be positioned two rows of trees deep into a forest and not see the enemy which is standing, or rolling around, just in front of them and many times a team of infantry or an armoured vehicle can be positioned behind a dense forest with bushes, corners of houses, telephone poles and other things between the other side of that dense forest and the enemy with thats unit being able to see the enemy and even shoot at them.
If you're standing in a part of a forest which is for example two or three trees distance away from the beginning of the forest, you are able to see what's standing or rolling outside of it.
And as far as I know a dense forest gets darker the deeper you look into it from a position outside of the forest. All the things between a forest and a person or a vehicle standing far away from the forest are also making it near impossible to single them out among the blend of different colours and shadows.
So to have a unit being able to see through a dense forest and all the things between the forest and the enemy seems a bit strange, especially if it is part of a game which some people call a good simulation of the reality.
17) A similar notice can be given to windows in houses and how easy it often is for a force to see what is inside the house even from a quite good distance away without using a binocula. From inside a house one can easily see what is happening outside the window as long as it isn't too far away. But if one is standing on a field or a road, even quite close to a house, it isn't always easy to see who or what is standing or sitting inside a house unless they are standing close to the window or the lights are turned on in the evening. Unfortunately the game's line of sight function doesn't show this.

The picture above is showing US soldiers rushing forward in an attack. The house to the left is on fire and so is the ground in front of it. I read somewhere that houses and ground on fire used to be part of the earlier versions of these games and it would be great if that function came back.
18) To have the ground and houses, and maybe even trees, sometimes being able to start burning if they have been hit by a bunch of high explosive rounds or if a vehicle has been hit close by would make the game more fun to play.
If BFC is worried that some players would exploit this function I'm sure there will be some H2H player rules about this. BFC could also make changes to programming the AI-groups and make it possible for the scenario designers to move the AI-forces out of an area if there would be a fire in the woods. I read somewhere that both the Soviets and the Germans put woods on fire especially to force the enemy to leave those areas. So to exploit this function in a game should maybe not be frowned upon too much.

19) Trenches and foxholes that are more correct. Trenches could be a bit deeper so the troops have to stand up to shoot and don't have to crawl to avoid being shot at. If there was an animation which have the troops moving while slightly bending over, they would be able to walk in those deeper trenches to avoid being shot in the head or chest.
To have trenches more correct would also make trench fighting with the troops more fun and interesting while they carefully move along the trench line and clear corners where enemies might lay in wait.
Foxholes could preferably be deeper, single ones and more spread out instead of being shallow and in close groups of four as they are now.
20) It shouldn't be so easy to spot trenches and foxholes. If foxholes and trenches were made different than they are, moving your troops towards or beside them and being shot at would be an unpleasant surprise and not something you expect.
21) If a heavy machinegun-team is wiped out of their pixel life and a squad or a team of other soldiers are close by or are moving into the area where the hmg is standing it would be great if one or two of the men in this squad or team could move to the hmg and use it instead of having the hmg being viewed as abandoned.

22) When talking about machine gun teams I'd like them, and all other troops as well, to be able to move backwards a short distance instead of having them turn around immediately before they move to another position behind them. If you for example have an MG-team that you want to move back a bit to a better position, the team could be able to move to that position backwards instead of having them first turn around 180° and then move. To have troops being able to move backwards a bit would way avoid having them get shot in the back.
Infantry that are tactically retreating doesn't always have to do that by immediately turning their back towards the enemy but could also move backwards a few meters while on the ready to shoot while doing so before they turn and move away.
In a book about the German army during WW2 is mentioned the words "We went on long marches, carrying all our gear... We even had to practise retreating in a series of backward leaps — a skill which might always come in handy". I get it that those backward leaps were exactly the movement backwards during a tactical retreat while keeping their eyes open for attacking enemy soldiers.
23) It would be great if the armoured vehicles, like for example halftracks, could reverse a bit slower. Just as lorries, armoured vehicles and tanks can go forward in four different speeds it could be useful to have them reverse in different speeds. To reverse a halftrack slower could be useful if the crew want to use their machine gun when they are doing a tactical retreat and that way support the infantry which is falling back with them.
24) And to have tanks and other vehicles being able to reverse without shooting out smoke grenades every time would be great too.

25) Infantry units that are using the slow movement (crawling) are often not aware or their surroundings but only aware of what is on the ground. I have read on the forum that units see what the animated troops look at. As the troops who are crawling always look down and thus have their eyes on the ground just below them, they often miss to notice enemy vehicles and troops being fairly close.
26) I wish vehicles wouldn't get stuck in a splash of mud as easily as they do now when the weather isn't soaking wet. Dry weather, damp weather and cold weather would most likely not have the mud sticky and deep enough to cause them to get stuck, especially not if the splash of mud, which is one mud tile, is by the road and there is only one or two mud tiles where the vehicle is going. Mud on the fields on a day with very wet and rainy weather or after a long period of rain would more likely be more treacherous and cause vehicles to get stuck and immobilised. This would especially be true if the vehicle has went over more than two mud tiles as it takes some time for the mud to build up under a vehicle.
If an AI-tank with AI-tankriders would get bogged down and immobilised the result is that the AI-tankriders sit on that AI-tank throughout the scenario. It would be preferable if AI-tankriders could jump off a tank by themselves if it has become immobilised, or been standing still for too long, and later on follow their AI-groups movement orders to make the battles more enjoyable.
It isn't fun to have a look at the map after a battle is over and see a large bunch of soldiers sitting on vehicles that have got stuck in a splash of mud in the beginning of the battle.
27) Armoured vehicles could determine better when to use HE and when to use the MG. It happens sometimes that one single enemy soldier who is running away or popping up from a foxhole for a look is being shot at with HE when it would have been enough to use the MG. A bit stupid to waste HE on that.
28) It would be useful if the different gun crews were be able to abandon their gun and later on man it again. It sometimes happen that a gun crew is being attacked which makes them run for cover just to have the threat gone and them unfortunately not being able to return to and use a fully functional gun.
That's it for my list of changes.

OK, I see what you mean. Cannon Battery is a name. The piece, for example the US 155mm Long Tom in CMBN, is a gun, as opposed to a howitzer. A gun has a higher velocity, lower trajectory than a howitzer. Both are cannons. As a newly commissioned officer, you would attend "Field Artillery Officer Basic Course" and then "Cannon Battery Officer Course"  Cannon is an encompassing term.
In the game, using CMBN to check, a US 155mm howitzer battery when Personnel is specified, fires a mix of airbursts and ground bursts together, and so does the 155mm Long Tom, which is a gun. US 105mm, and 75mm pak howitzers will also give you the same mix of air bursts and ground bursts if you specify Personnel.
If General is specified for the target, then you'll get ground bursts (Point Detonating). 
The way this is done is similar to reality. The FO specifies the target - "infantry company in the open", "infantry in trenches", and the FDC picks the fusing. VT fuses were valuable and even in the Cold War era we didn't have a ton of them - maybe 25% of our load. The majority was PD or Time (for calculate airbursts as opposed to VT which goes off when the round reaches a height). A Time fuse is calculated to go off 7 meters in the air at a point where the trajectory crosses over the target. Takes a little extra time to calculate because you have to figure the target hit firing data, then adjust that to be higher and calculate the time of flight to the target point on the new higher trajectory. VT you don't calculate time - just the new trajectory.
For mortars, there were no reliable VT fuses until 1983. Since mortar shells are coming down at extreme angles, having a fuse that is precise enough to detonate the round 3-7 meters off the ground was quite a technical challenge and mortar VT fuses didn't enter production and distribution until then. 
In general VT fuses in WW2 were used for AA guns long before they were used for field artillery. Less chance of the secrets falling into enemy hands from unexploded rounds.
Time fuses for mortars don't work well. The time increments are 0.1 seconds and with an almost vertical trajectory that 0.1 seconds is a huge margin of error. Same with howitzers firing high angle - you can hit the same point by elevating the howitzer below 45deg and above 45deg. Guns can't do that. But for the same reason as mortars, it's not recommended to use VT or Time fuses in a high angle mission. Trajectory is too high for it to work the way it's supposed to.
Dave

This issue is a bloody mess TBH.....It  made scripting missions for CM:HE absolutely miserable for me as I use fairly strict C2 when testing and developing my designs.
@Battlefront.com  @IanL  @BFCElvis  Is there any chance this will be looked at in the near term.....It's making CM:SF2 a lot less than it should be! 
PS:  PS - If you are going to patch, please, please, please add Breach Teams to the Combatant and Fighter TOE.....Proper urban fighting without them is impossible and we've (mostly) learned how to make the AI use them! 

After months in the making, I have finally completed my campaign Valleys of Death. It turned our to be quite an ambitious project, with 11 missions!
The campaign revolves around a US Army light infantry company, manning a remote combat outpost in an Afghanistan inspired terrain.
Unlike classic CMSF, which highly favors shock and awe and maneuver warfare, Valleys of Death deals with the issues of small units operating in a clearly defined AO. This means that, like in real life, you will conduct operations on the same map many times, with each mission focusing on different areas and objectives. By the end you will come to know the area very well, and this knowledge is key to defeat the enemy.
Features:
    11 missions     A large 2X2 km map and 2 additional maps     Modern counter-insurgency infantry combat     Heavily inspired by Afghanistan related media (Restrepo, Taking Fire, etc.)     Base game, no modules needed



 
Download from Dropbox
Please let me know ASAP if this link doesn't work! I'm not exactly a Dropbox wizz  

I went to play CMCW this morning and it wouldn't load. In fact, none of my CM games would work. Hadn't touched a thing from last night, but I did notice my computer had rebooted.
 
So I'd click on the CMCW shortcut and the main menu screen would flash up on the screen but then it would go back to the desktop. I knew Microsoft must have pushed an update to Windows 10 last night. Sure enough, they had. Three in fact.
 
So I fixed this in two different ways:
 
1) I ran the game in compatibility mode for Windows 8. Loaded right up. 

2) Uninstalled the latest windows update (Security Update for Microsoft Windows (KB5005031) to be exact).  Everything started working again.
Hope this helps! And if anyone has an idea on why this broke the games, please let me know. 

By request I uploaded a tutorial of a Moire reduction method to my website. It is still the same thing as I described two years ago, in this topic. It has a preview image of the in-game view before and after the modification, photoshop files and a photoshop action.
It can be found here:
http://www.gb-homepage.nl/index.htm
Select the Combat Mission section in the left navigation pane there.
Hope it is clear enough, and that it may give people a compromise that is more pleasant to look at.

For anyone playing CMFB who has been seeing the awful mess the moire patterns make, I've come across a mod made
by "Worghern" which removes it. I reccomend that you first fire up "Battle For Chaumant Part 1" before trying the mod out in CMFB to get an
idea of just how awful the moire effect was in that particular scenario.
  The download for the mod can be found here:
http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/cm-mod-warehouse/combat-mission-final-blitzkrieg/cmfb-scenery/worghern-blitzkrieg-environment-cmfb/
  Once downloaded and unzipped, it'll make a "Z" folder with everything contained in the mod within that. I renamed the resultant "Z" folder
to "ZZ_Warghorn CMFB" and just placed it into my main CMFB installation folder within  the DATA\Z subfolders and it works
very nicely.
Regards, Odd
  

Well, it took me 6 episodes to achieve what you made in 38 years😁

/////////////////////POSSIBLE SPOILER/////////////////////////////
 
///////////////////////EDITOR MAP DISPLAYED ///////////////////////////////////////////////
 
 
 
The No-Go terrain, marsh tiles, are placed at an angle running along the stream.  This allows for the placement of waypoints on passable terrain.  But vehicles must go around to reach the far side of the stream since the marsh tiles are connected in the corner.
I've never experienced this before that I can recall.  This situation is confusing and frustrating.  Map design can have some unexpected consequences sometimes.    
 

In my first attempts at vehicle modding back in 2014 I didn't do this step and I covered over much of the rich detail created by the initial artists. 
I opened the turret bmp and used the eye dropper of select by color. I picked off a dark detail and then it created the "marching ants" effect. I messed around with the settings but I think the default is ok. 

Then with that selection still active I filled it with my black foreground FG color. and pasted it into a new transparent background layer...
Here is the detail I grabbed. All the rivets and recesses...

5 – Campaign Briefing and Narrative (Making Me Care)

“Words are how we think; stories are how we link.”

Christina Baldwin


Campaign briefings are a unique part of a designer’s arsenal to provide additional information and narrative to the player. Campaigns are fundamentally larger affairs either in units, terrain and/or time. There should as a result be more information to impart to the player to provide them with context, purpose and information.

The only physical difference between a campaign briefing and regular scenario briefings is that a campaign briefing will always be viewed first and can be accessed throughout a campaign by a player to go back and reference information.

I’m structuring this part of the series similar to a normal briefing itself to explain what I feel needs to go into each section. Of all the sections of this write up, this is certainly the most subjective. A briefing’s design and content can be as simple or as detailed as you want, and as we’ve seen from the community over the years, they can range from official military writeups through to personal first-person accounts. It’s a narrative. What I’m trying to say here is it is largely up to you.

For Tukums, I was in a little bit of a bind because the overall commander of the forces involved is actually on the field for most of the campaign. Therefore, writing a briefing that was very formal, like it was a well thought out and planned operation seemed to be a bit off. For a little while I was actually considering a first person briefing for this campaign from the perspective of Strachwitz, however opted against this eventually given it would be part of a stock release.

Situation

I believe this part of the briefing is the most important, particularly for a campaign where the broader state of affairs around the battle is likely going to play an influence on the player’s experience.



The first thing I do is provide the narrative for how we got the starting point of this campaign. Why is the player and his forces being asked to undertake this mission? For historical scenarios like the Tukums work it’s pretty easy since history is your guide. For Tukums, it’s to break through the Soviet lines and reconnect a land bridge with the cut off Army Group North. For a fictional scenario, in particular the modern era titles, it’s a touch more difficult but imagination is a great tool. Don’t be scared to create a little but plausible story to get the player invested.
Given the slightly larger scale of most campaigns and the type of content that needs to be conveyed I’ve always tended towards writing campaign briefings from the one command level higher than the units going into battle. So, for example if the focus of the campaign is the operations of a battalion, then write the campaign briefing from the perspective of the regiment/brigade level headquarters providing a briefing to the battalion commander (ie. the player). If the focus of the campaign is at the company level, the battalion headquarters is giving the orders. This does mean reducing the scope of the situation to suit the audience. A company commander is only going to need to know what the rest of his battalion is doing and where his force fits into their goals. A company commander doesn’t need to know every detail of Ike’s plan for crossing the Rhine. A battalion commander likely knows what his regiment/brigade is tasked with undertaking and perhaps a dabble in the Division’s overall plans if it’s a prepared operation.

The graphics should help visualise the overall objectives of the Campaign. Help position where the player’s force fits into the wider picture. Some general level intelligence on the enemy and high-level formations the player has at their command.


All stock scenarios and campaigns follow the same graphical design with the Operational graphic (the middle sized one) outlining broad unit movements and support elements available. This also makes it clear to the player which units are perhaps more important to keep alive given they carry across to more scenarios.



A campaign briefing doesn’t have access to a Tactical Map.

Mission

With the narrative set up in the Situation part of the briefing, the Mission part can then be used to provide overall goals of the campaign. Outline the end goal of the campaign, what will be different after all battles are completed successfully. It’s very easy to slip into the trap of expanding more details that should be outlined in the Situation part of the briefing.

Campaign end points may not always be designed to end in a state as intended at the start of the campaign. The multiple path dilemma. The “ideal outcome” or the “planned” outcome is usually what needs to be presented at this early point in the campaign. If a planned out campaign has multiple phases, or a briefing via a “step by step” approach may be warranted. This will give the player an idea about how much of the heavy lifting specific forces of the player is expected to carry out.

As an example, the Tukums campaign briefing Mission part is provided below and in full. Keep it short, keep it sweet, keep it clear.

It has just gone 08:30 hours. Your mission is to occur in two phases over the course of the morning:

Phase one - move your panzer and panzergrenadier force north to capture and occupy the town of Tukums, including the rail station to the west of the town.

Phase two - pivot part of your force back to the east and progress towards Riga to affect a linkup with Army Group North. The remainder of your force is to remain behind and hold Tukums.

Soviet opposition should be dealt with quickly and efficiently when encountered. You are operating largely on your own with little in the way of other friendly forces close by in most directions. Most importantly is to deal with any armour that is encountered. The 52nd Security Division is following in trail to hold the ground taken; however, it lacks any significant heavy weapons of its own to fend off any Soviet armour that may move into the area.

This coupled with the strategic map (as above) demonstrates to the player what his forces are intended to do across the whole campaign.

Friendly Units

A campaign briefing will be available to players throughout the campaign (via the menu) so it’s good to take this opportunity to provide them with a detailed run down of all forces, especially Core Units, in a tidy format that can be used as a ready reference. Also take some time to present some recent unit history to help explain why the force is the way it is. Has it just come out of another battle and 70% strength? Are the leaders particularly good/bad? Provide some context to the player so they are not surprised when they enter the first battle and are still missing half the story about what they are commanding.

For Tukums, my research had provided a pretty good understanding where most of the force had come from before forming only the day before the start of the operation around the area of Saldus in Latvia. The briefing will provide some of this information and some of the relative strengths and weaknesses to look out for as a player.

For displaying the Order of Battle itself, you are limited by the game only allowing raw text files to be imported so will need to be a little creative with keystrokes to make it easy organise. I’ve used different asterisk symbols to help distinguish the levels of the player’s order of battle.

This is how it will appear in the briefing for Tukums (excluding the surrounding briefing text):

Legend

**** Parent Unit (Higher headquarters not present on map)

** Battalion / formation level command (or equivalent)

- Element under the command of higher battalion/formation


 
East Bank Force

As is his style, Generalmajor Graf von Strachwitz has decided to lead the assault on the east bank personally.

** Heer Panzerverbande Headquarters Company

- Adhoc Panzer Company – 10 x Pz IV

- Armoured recon elements (attached from Waffen SS Brigade Gross)

**** Heer Panzer Brigade 101

** 2101st Panzer Battalion

- Headquarter element, including mobile flak (4 x Möbelwagons)

- 3 x Panzer Companies (11 x Panther Ausf G each)

Note: The planned delivery of a fourth company consisting of JzPzIV(V) as initially promised has not arrived from Germany.

** 2101st Panzergrenadier Battalion (armoured)

- 2 x Panzergrenadier Companies (armoured)

- 1 x Heavy Company (armoured)

- 1 x Pioneer Company (armoured)

** Waffen SS Ersatz Battalion [-] [dismounted] (detached from Panzer Brigade Gross)

- 1 x Rifle Company (dismounted)

- 1 x Heavy Company (dismounted)


 
West Bank Force

SS-Sturmbannführer der Waffen-SS Martin Gross commands this adhoc force from the mixed Panzer Company.

****Waffen SS Panzer Brigade Gross

** SS-Panzer-Abteilung "Gross"

- Adhoc mix of outdated Panzer III and Panzer IV variants and a single Panther Ausf D

- 1 x Tiger I. A detached company from Schwere SS-Panzer Abteilung 103 was scheduled to join the Brigade with its seven Tiger I’s, however as of this morning they only have one running vehicle, which has been delayed. The Tiger will also join SS-Panzer-Abteilung “Gross” once it arrives in the area of operations.

** SS Ersatz Infantry Battalion [-] [dismounted] (elements detached to east bank force)

- 2 x Rifle Companies (dismounted)

** SS-Panzer-Aufklärungs-Abteilung "Gross"

- Equivalent of two platoons of armoured cars. (Some elements detached to Panzer Brigade 101).

** SS-Sturmgeschütz-Abteilung

- 1 x StuG Company (12 x StuG III)


 
Though not an issue for Tukums, keep in mind other Core Units that may show up half way through the campaign. Depending on the overall narrative, as a designer you will need to determine if it’s best to inform the player in the Campaign Briefing about these units or not. Core units that arrive later or unplanned is something a commander isn’t necessarily going to know about before they set off on their planned operation. Again, this is why I personally like to imagine campaign briefings are the equivalent of a pre-planned meeting taking place with the player’s higher command.

The campaign briefing…


Enemy Units

Narrative will heavily drive this part of the briefing. What works in one campaign will be different for every other campaign. Below is only some broad level advice given the sheer range of possibilities.

For historical campaigns your research should outline what one side knows about the other’s dispositions prior to launching an assault. Campaign focused research should help you considerably here as many historians will outline what one side knows about the other at key points in a campaign. Though it maybe tempting to mention things like King Tigers being a part of the enemy force, dig deeper early in your research to find out if the forces your player commands actually knew about their presence at the time the operation kicks off. Knowing who knew what when is a great way of determining what should go into a campaign briefing.

If you need to fill in the gaps, a formation that has manned the line for weeks will know at the least what enemy division(s) is in front of them from general patrolling and intelligence gathering. This may provide a general sense of factors such as armour being in the area but won’t include a lot of specifics. General high-level statements like that. A more rushed campaign without planning would be another matter.

A fictional campaign will allow a lot of freedom with how much information you give the player but all I can provide in advice is to keep it realistic. A modern military launching an operation against a non-conventional force, (such as what is possible in CMSF2) isn’t going to go in completely blind not know estimates of numbers and equipment of the enemy.

Plans

How the player should ideally go about hitting all objectives. Not going to try and touch this one at all. Will vary across every campaign. The historical direction/outcomes of the campaign you’re a designing or the intended direction of the same historical campaign are likely the best places to get an idea about where to start. Just don’t get carried away and provide all the answers to the player.

Notes and Final Tips (Make Me Care)

A Campaign Briefing doesn’t negate the need for individual scenario briefings. Keep in mind the first thing the player is going to see once they hit continue (besides a loading screen) is another whole briefing detailing the first mission. This second briefing is the last chance you as a designer will have to know exactly where and in what situation the player will be in. Once they hit the big red button the range of possibilities starts growing. What units the player of your campaign will use, lose and what branching pathways they go down will be up to them (and the game) and outside of your hands.

As a result, with every individual briefing you will have to provide some information but be a touch more general than if creating a single self-contained scenario. For example, under the Friendly Forces section you can’t outline ever unit that the player will command in that battle since you as a designer will not know what has survived and what hasn’t when the player reaches each point. Focus on more general statements for scenario briefings such as names of high-level formations that are taking part rather than details. Remember the campaign briefing is always available for the player throughout the campaign via the menu screen so the detailed information is best included in that briefing to provide ongoing information throughout the play through.

If you’ve read this far then as a wargamer you’ll probably read a longer briefing. So as a final piece of advice: Make me care! As a designer you’ve likely poured many hours, days and weeks into this piece of work and you are asking your players to do the same. Having them open up a campaign ten scenarios in length and the campaign briefing is all on one page, there’s no briefing graphics and a lack of content about why the operation is taking place they are likely not going to commit. (I haven’t in the past). The Campaign Briefing is your main narrative tool to set the scene and tell the player why the battles they are about to play are important. Telling a player to go take that hill, then move to the village and then win is not inspiring for what could be weeks of commitment on a player’s part to play through your work. If you’ve done your research and planning (especially for historical battles) then writing up the briefings should be straight forward.

Next up… campaign scripting.

For the first time I caught such a bug, when the AI of tank cannot choose its target to defeat. Perhaps this is a rare bug. 
CMBS v 2.15
save file
 
 

I find that, when leading my men, if I have a low-cost victory and all (or most) survive, I have a cold beer and look back at what happened.
When my men die and suffer needless casualties and fail, I have a cold beer and look back at what happened.
 

 
 

A quick and dirty summary of the tanks present in the various divisions of the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany, I compiled this from the data available on the excellent Cold War Soviet Army OoB site by Michael Holm. These are only ballpark figures (and some smaller units are missing, namely a few independent tank regiments) but this should be useful to get the overall picture.

I don't have anything in the current period of the game (1979-1982). But I found a wonderful document giving the OOBs of the Warsaw Pact forces in Europe in June 1989: http://i.4pcdn.org/tg/1377961541351.pdf
As of 1989 it seems all formations are equipped either with T80s or T64Bs. I wasn't quite satisfied with this and wanted to know what type of T80 each unit had (who had T80Us and who had T80BVs), and got this answer on Quora: https://www.quora.com/Where-were-the-Soviet-T80Us-stationed-in-1989-What-kind-of-T80s-were-stationed-in-East-Germany-in-1989?q=t80u
The relevant excerpt:
"Divisions of 8th guards army: 27th: T80U, 57th: T80?, 79th: T80?, 39th: mixed, one regiment of T80BV (1987), and two regiments of T80U (1989).
Divisions of 1st guards tank army: 9th: T80BV, 11th: T80BV *, 20th: T80BV.
Divisions of 3rd shock tank army: 7th: T80U, 10th: T80?, 12th: T80?, 47th: T80?.
Divisions of 2nd guards tank army:
16th: T80?,
21st: T80U (1991, differs with your OOB),
207th: T80? (1991, differs with your OOB),
94th: T64B (1991, differs with your OOB).
There are also 20th guards army (presented in your OOB but omitted in your list):
6th separate motorized rifle brigade: T64B (omitted in your OOB),
25th tank division (disbanded in 1989): T64B,
32nd guards tank division: T64B,
35th motorized rifle division: T64B,
90th guards tank division : T80? (1990, differs with your OOB)."
Again, unfortunately this information applies to 1989, which is currently outside of the scope of the game (although could be useful in designing scenarios in Armored Brigade, which is what I initially wanted the information for since CMCW hadn't even been announced at the time). Anyway, still no T72s in Germany (plenty waiting back in the USSR though, and I'm sure it wouldn't take long for them to join the fighting).

I had included T72s in my Fahrbahns scenario because I imagined they might never show up in a scenario otherwise. Because why would anyone pick T72 when you can play with T64s and T80s? I guess i underestimated the nostalgic appeal of T72.

Excellent "!first ever!" post.
Here's an upvote, and kudos for sussing out something that will be in the patch.

Hello,

Welcome to my !first ever! battlefront community post.
Question: Why is there no option for Infantry only for the soviets in the Quick Battle setup?
I wanna play some infantry only tactics but...

Excellent. It is by far the most serious bug I've encountered in CMx2 for the last couple years. While you are running this up the flagpole, I figure I will mention a few other multiplayer bugs I've encountered in Cold War, but they are not limited to Cold War.
1) Sometimes weapons get duplicated for the Client player. I used to think this was a result of reloading, but I have noticed it happen without reloading the game. I'm not sure what gameplay effect this has, but it producing some interesting visuals. Heavy weapons teams are most common, like double Dragon men, but I've seen men with extra LMGs or rifles. It seems pretty random.

https://i.imgur.com/TSPnXGg.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/nwhTjwP.jpg
 
In the first 2 images, you can see Double Dragon men. At no point did either man have an opportunity to pick up the extra dragon, nor should they even if the opportunity presents itself. The last one is from Italy, which is a little off topic, but it's the same deal. Men with extra weapons for no reason. In the Dragon examples above, they lose their small arms.
2) If the Client player is defending and places mines, the mines will sometimes not have a game effect or be present for the Host player unless the game is reloaded. This one seems random and related to map size, with larger maps being more likely to have this happen. Other fortifications don't seem to have this problem. Save/Reload fixes this. I've reloaded the game to find large chunks of my force inside a minefield, which is painful. We now have a policy to save/reload after the first turn is played if a defending player has brought any mines.
3) If the Host player is the defender and places any fortifications, like mines, trenches, barbed wire, or anything of the sort, the Client player cannot see them but they do have a game effect (units struggle to pass trenches and drive around obstacles.) Mines however do not have an effect until the game is reloaded. The video below shows this. Saving and reloading seems to correct this.
4) You can also see in the video above that during turn playback a player (Host or Client) is able to cheat by grabbing and moving waypoints, when players are not supposed to be able to issue orders. This can be solved with a gentleman's agreement, but it should not be possible.
5) Bunkers placed by the Client player seem to have random elevation issues when the game is started. The Client player places a bunker, and it looks normal, but when the game starts after deployment phase suddenly the bunker has sunk into the earth.

https://i.imgur.com/3UQJEmv.jpg
Not as bad as when Trenches would fly or sink to hell but it can be frustrating after spending 45 minutes in a deployment to hit the start button and see your bunker sink to the point that it no longer has line of sight to the ground just in front.
6) Hills-Rough (1200 x 1424) 101 Attack.btt suffers from the same texture bug it had when Black Sea first launched. Many buildings are missing sides. Not only are textures missing, but you can see right through them.

7) Bridges with central supports seem to be impassible by vehicles in multiplayer turn based mode. An example of these bridges from Town-Water (1504 x 1008) 152 Attack.btt can illustrate.
 
 
In singleplayer, this bridge is not a problem. No obstacles were placed on the bridge.
8 This one is not multiplayer specific, but if you play singleplayer realtime or multiplayer turnbased you'll notice that possible contacts bouncing and blinking, an effect that does not seem to happen during a WEGO singleplayer game.
 
It's not game breaking, but it can be distracting.
 
9) During Map Preview, in turn-based multiplayer, the Client player is bombarded with the game Pause sound from realtime mode if he and the Host player are both using Map Preview. Not a game buster, but it is loud and annoying and forces the player to turn off sound until game start. The sounds then play aggressively for several seconds as if they've been queued up, but then they go away. 
 
10) This one is more of an AI issue, but I have noticed repeatedly that when the Dragon AT guy is tasked as part of an assault team entering a building, he will enter the building with the Dragon in hand. I admire his willingness to try and use the Dragon for room to room fighting, but I think he'd be better off with his M16.
11) Despite being unsupported, you can set reinforce groups for Quickbattle units in the quickbattle setup screen using the 1-5 keys. They all appear at the 5 minute mark but are not bound by quickbattle setup zones, so they can appear in some pretty exciting places.
Again, the simple solution to this would be to just not do it, but it shouldn't be doable.
12) This one I can't replicate and only happened once, but we had a Client player with a Strela team spawn without ammunition. Not sure why that would be. Other teams on the map had their ammo.
13) If a Dragon attempts to fire at a tank while it is charging the Dragon's position, the team will fire the missile even if the tank is only a few meters away, and the missile will wrap around the turret of the tank and fly off into the ground somewhere. I don't think this one is multiplayer specific, but I have only really played multiplayer. I would expect that if a tank enters minimum range the team would not fire at the tank. Maybe this is expected behaviour and the way it is shown is just funky? I didn't get a video of this one unfortunately.
I've been meaning to write this up for a while, myself and several of my friends have played an absurd amount of CMx2 multiplayer through the pandemic, and Cold War is the best yet, so it has finally convinced me to get off my ass and do it. The save/load crash bug is by far the most important, as most of these other ones can be worked around or laughed off, but it would be nice for some of these bugs to see some care and attention.
If you need any elaboration or save games I can probably provide.
Despite these issues, CMCW kicks a lot of ass.

Maybe something like the Patria Nemo 120mm on a Stryker chassis. It can fire both directly and indirectly, so it can also be used as a sort of assault gun against bunkers, fortified positions etc. While it may miss the anti-vehicle capacity then, the variants armed with javelins will compensate that.
 

I find that, when leading my men, if I have a low-cost victory and all (or most) survive, I have a cold beer and look back at what happened.
When my men die and suffer needless casualties and fail, I have a cold beer and look back at what happened.
 

 
 

Hello, this is probably not the best way to start off in a forum/community and at the risk of upsetting the more grog minded, I wondered if a sci-fi or future war type setting had ever been considered for CM games?
I can answer the question myself in that the CM USP is about simulation/realism, anathema to fictional settings. Lots of the player base (like me!) are presumably drawn to the vicarious fantasy of historical armchair generaldom.
On the other hand, I've been playing a mod of Hearts of Iron 4 set in the Fallout universe (Old World Blues) and I've been having a blast with the combination of setting, mechanics and a mix of familiar and unfamiliar technologies. It got me thinking how a CM game would play in the Fallout universe, power armour platoons mixed with robots, regular infantry, irregulars and AFVs. Also, the notion of walkers etc like AT-ATs (for want of a better example) or others (and setting aside how silly they might be e.g. does this thing have a hull down mode?).
Anyway, I'm sure its more likely the realm of a mod given possible licensing restrictions and I totally see it as a different direction for the CM brand, so most unlikely. Nonetheless, I'd be interested in the challenge of a more fictional setting with wilder units. Any thoughts?