RockinHarry

Sounds like corrupted download to me. Did you try again? :confused:

..and anybody who wants to know about german briefing/orders styles, should give Michaels website a check, in particular: http://www.deutschesoldaten.com/procedures/opsorder.htm (..or purchase tons of old german field manuals for the same purpose, like I did :eek: )

Yep, in case of the modelled map location, the point in fact is not a hill and the US report mentiones the particular topographical point as "point 365" a well. It´s as found in the sceanrio down in the valley at a point where the forest road crosses the wehebach creek up the eastern slope towards the community of "Germeter". There´s no actual creek to be found on the map though (the Wehebach creek was about 15 to 20 feet wide, too small to be modelled with the 20m wide water tiles).

A happy new year as well! Looking forward to your next mod collection! :cool:

Ok, can´t get you to change threads , so here´s my final comments: The particular scenario map (still huertgen forest BETA) was exactly made after the true location as found around mentioned point 365 in the wehebach creek valley. Btw, point 365 is not a hill! It´s not meant to be "generic" hurtgen forest like terrain. I don´t have any intentions to make generic terrain since I have all necessary data of the real terrain (as found in 1944, which makes a big difference!) to my avail, both digitally and on paper maps. Converting that to any combat mission map by use of Mapping Mission/Map Converter is no major problem either. Also the briefing tells that this battle is modelled after the events that took place around point 365. The embattled pillboxes is no fiction either. The way I tried to model them can be debated, but the point is the pillboxes served as shelter only during artillery barrages and otherwise where defended from the outside (connecting trenches & squad strongpoints). Yep, the german AI sucks (using given OOB), but I´m still working on that, although there´s little that can be done. Sometimes it uses the artillery, but most oftentimes it does not, no matter how much one tries to help it (TRP, trigger units). I suspect the AI hesitates to use artillery if friendlies are close (even a sniper qualifies) and if it thinks valid targtes are not ample enough. I can´t see a working rule yet (if there´s any at all). Snipers aren´t "snipers" in the scen and you already figured their true intended role. Point is, the AI don´t really cares. The wooden bunkers, yes agree, but they are meant to serve as secondary squad outpost positions. A handful of men in a log covered trench part. The briefing actually tells that the german MLR was broken the days before and that single pillbox positions (or groups of it) still held by german units already were more or less isolated. This counts the more for the pillboxes around point 365 which at this day weren´t part of a continuous defense line anymore. From the briefing this battle is actually a mopping up battle (destroy bunkers around point 365, clear the forest trails nearby) and not a breakthrough one. At this stage of the battle (start of october), the major goals for the US was to clear the supply paths through the forest in order to get armor and supply forward for the next stage. The germans as well concentrated to deny the US these supply paths/roads, so the nature of most of the smaller battles was to reduce isolated positions that were located around the vital paths and approaches. Placement of victory flags only reflects that partly. Who tells an unimportant wooded hill that does not provide LOS or other tactical advantages needs to be strongly defended? One might better create such a scenario with the "exit map" goal actually, so "important" terrain (as the forest path is) would be much more apparently for a human player. Might try that second, but won´t bother any test player with that the next time. For play vs. AI one can´t avoid usage of victory flags entirely and placement is oftenly dictated less by what makes an important terrain part, but more by how you want the AI to react. That takes us back to the scripting issue which is nothing but a dilemma. With regard to the Stugs in this battle you´re not quite correct. In fact a local counterattack (supported by Stugs from the 3rd battery of 902. Stug brigade) took place in the vicinity, but it was the day before and about 1,5miles farther to the north just outside the area as represented by the scenario map (but still in the same valley and terrain type). The attacking infantry was from the 275. Fusilier Btl. of the 275. Infantry division. You proabably did not see them in the scenario cause most of the time the AI can not decide to get them to move at all. I had it working once or twice during test play, but that´s surely not enough to leave the setup as is. As said, I compressed both, historical events and particular battle conditions into this small Beta scenario, making it in fact "semi historically based" at best. The Sherman tanks in the US forces mix are there for the same purpose as well as the roadblocks and other stuff. Future scenarios (that you´ll probably avoid) will surely have those small tactical problems better adapted to historical events and I won´t lump them altogether in a small testing scenario again. Things that I can´t get to work at all won´t make it into any future scenario anyway, but that counts more for play vs. the AI which is currently my main focus. A H2H battle is far more easy to setup, but I won´t probably make a version of the hurtgen forest Beta which was meant for play vs AI from the beginning. A german player probably would be terribly bored, even when given totally free setup. A QB then probably offers more fun. Generally the issues you addressed when discussed from a different POV (how to get a historical battle situation modelled with the CM game engine) are undoubtly valid and I don´t see things really any different as you then. Personally I try to recreate historical battle situations first and then work on playability second. One surely could go the opposite way, but that would not be the challenge in scenario making for me personally and as we´ve already seen, every "scenario maker" approaches things a bit differently. Given the weak AI in the game, one can´t really avoid scripting, unless you don´t care for totally ahistorical outcomes (when compared to the real historical battle). However, a scenario should at least be winnable, the point is just how easy or hard it is to win, or loose with really bad play. Thanks for your comments, I respect your POV.

Thank you very much Michael Dorosh and JasonC! :cool: That now should help me to get the things straight for the US side briefings. Excellent info! Wish you a happy new year

Below is the briefing I currently use for the hurtgen forest BETA scenario, US player side. I more or less adapted it to german operations order style which I have good refernces for. Now I´d like to know how much "US stylish" it really is! I used unit designations similar to what germans used, IE using roman numbers for bataillons. I at least know that US infantry companies are not numbered with arabic numbers, but use letters from the alphabet instead. :eek: Any additinal hints you can give me or pointing at faults that I´m not aware of with regard to realistic US style briefings? <ENEMY SITUATION>: Retreating remnants of the german "III./ IR. 860" (as part of the "275.th ID") have established themselves in prepared fortified postions near Point 365 on the eastern slope of the Wehebach valley. Point 365 is guarded by at least two pillboxes (#141/32, #429) of the Siegfried line. Roadblocks and mine fields cover the most obvious approach routes. German unit quality: Mostly 2nd line, but well led and deeply entrenched; thus mostly safe from tree bursts. Well supported by artillery that is usually registered on key locations. <FRIENDLY SITUATION>: Since our starting attack two days ago, the german main line of resistance has been broken by units of the "39th" and "60th regiments". Our "I./ IR 39" (less "A" Cpy), framed by "II./ IR 39" covering left flank and "III./ IR 39" covering right flank, currently holds positions close to Point 365. "A" Cpy. already bypassed the german strongpoint at Point 365 farther to the south and is now located at the forest edge to the west of Germeter town, which is part of the Btl. objective. "II./ IR 39" tasked to attack on our left hangs back a little, leaving our left flank vulnerable to possible german counter attacks. <MISSION>: Reinforced elements of "I./ IR 39" (less "A" Cpy.) are to clear the area around Point 365 of german forces and open the main forest trail leading eastwards towards Germeter, enabling us to bring forward supply and tank support for the next days attack. As secondary objective part of the "W-Trail" in our attack sector is to be secured. <COMBAT ORGANISATION>: "I./ IR 39" (less "A" Cpy.) supported by "26 FAB", 105mm (providing 4 minutes of preplanned barrage) with further fire missions available from H+5 "1./34th FAB", 155mm (on call) (Allocated ammo for 4 Min.) At least 100m security range to forward friendly units is to be maintained for any fire mission. 2x Plt. of "15 Eng C Btl." 1x Plt. of "746th Tank Btl." (5 Sherman Tanks) arriving on H+5. Arrival point: Southern end of "W-Trail"

Well thanks Jason. You just delivered some intereseting stuff for a related topic: "What makes a good or not so good scenario playtester." #1. Post your opinions/reports at the appropiate thread. I would rather have appreciated any your detailed comments concerning the huertgen forest BETA scenario "scripting" here: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=30&t=004411&p=2 Taken out of the context and with that increasingly personal tone, your "report" is now rather useless unfortunately. See #2 #2. Warn of spoilers when reporting. Self explanatory. The additional side effect is that you claim to have found the one and only way to test play the BETA scenario, with the result that other possible test players are now discouraged to try existing alternative solutions. No wonder feedback for the BETA scenario has stopped entirely. Thank you very much! #3. Scenario designer asking about particular testing results with regard to a particular historical background. I asked just about that! I don´t need page long "how I won" style AAR´s, when some short notes AND sending the end game save file already would help most sufficiently. I also added a screenshot of the map to the ZIP containing the scenario file. Its intended purpose is to give test players a simple tool to mark some of their actions (arrows, icons ect.), instead to require them to make prolonged descriptions in AAR´s. Test players who like to write detailed AAR´s will do anyway and they´re as well highly welcome. Since this is the wrong thread, I won´t give any "excuses" or "self justifications" for what you think is too strictly applied scenario scripting or why I did setup the BETA scenario the way it is at the moment (regarding mines, RB, TRP, victory flags, briefing and other matters). Just something about what the term BETA means, with a very special regard to the Huertgen forests BETA: Various small but vital concepts are compressed into this little BETA scenario that I would have liked to receive feedback about from test players who have a particular interest in the Huertgen Forest battle. Build upon this feedback I could better evaluate whether it´s possible to build larger historical battles within the frame of what can be modelled with the CMAK game engine. How does the terrain work with regard to what you read about the battle? How´s the OOB? Do the terrain mods add to the mood sufficiently? How did the AI react and when? Did the AI use its artillery and when? Does the briefing provide credible information and how did you use it? ect. Things like that help scenario designers to make things work better for the final scenario versions. As much as I appreciate your expertise when dealing with tactical problems in the game, you did not help to improve something in any way as none of the stuff that interests me is answered. I think I understand what makes an entertaining and challenging scenario for you, but as said we speak of a scenario in BETA stage (RANT stage would fit nicely as well) and is not directly aimed at your personal playing preference (didn´t in fact know before at all). You´re interested in the Huertgen forest battle? Just let me (and others) know how you´d setup a scenario with that special topic, preferably here: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=30&t=004411&p=2 or at TPG. I´m willing to discuss every little detail you want, a practice that I already did follow during scenario design stages for other wargames the past years. Unfortunately any such offer is very seldomly received by many testers. I had excellent experiences during my time with Wild Bills Arsenal Raiders, as scenario testing within the team was pretty much standardized and appropiate feedback was always guaranteed. Not even TPG can offer this comfort (not a fault of TPG though). Wish you all a happy new year

The scrolling northwards issue is solved for me as well, but there is still map corruption somewhere in the middle of map creation. It´s a column wise corruption. Still need to test more with different delay settings before I would tell it does not work for me. :eek: Nonetheless..thanks a lot Leland! and a happy new year (..off for vacation now)

"Twin Villages" was a nice operation with a great map. Can´t recall designers name. It was available at the SD once.

Isolating any enemy units by use of smoke is highly effective. Works on tanks as well as on everything that you don´t want to shoot at you, in particular those units that you can´t really hurt with HE anyway (direct hit required or sufficient armor penetration ability). "Blenden" (blinding) was a common defensive artillery tactic employed by the germans and surely not just by germans, against enemy OP (FO´s) and overwatching heavy weapons. Requires not too dense terrain on maps and suitable weather. As already said above, recconing the enemy map side and anticpating the likely enemy overwatch points was standard doctrine to set up the defensive fire plans for artillery and heavy weapons. Those are the map spots where the defenders TRP´s are to be placed. Beside that, one never should miss the opportunity of causing tree burst on soft enemy units located in any sort of woods! It always works on the AI which is stupid enough to think woods is the best available cover to move to (missing to properly use terrain contours intstead) With this in mind in my own scenarios I would either try to avoid woods completely or place a lot of it on the map. Everything in between gives the most predictable AI infantry movements unfortunately.

Another question is, do craters alone decrease a minefields effectiveness?? I mean craters placed by scenario designers during scenario setup and not caused by artillery later in the game! I made some strange observations while testing the huertgen Beta lately. Some minefields work (or appear to) better or worse in different terrain, which would be not surprising actually. ..and I´m quite sure, I at least noticed once that a normal (not daisy chain) AT minefield was discovered at range of 40 to 60 meters. That was in my own scenario, so I could be sure it wasn´t a daisy chain actually. At other times I could not even discover multiple stacked on top of each other AT minefields with several engineer units in closest vicinity. Misterious... :eek:

To speed up onboard mortar targeting, I select and place the spotting HQ "rotate to" box on the to be targeted map spot in LOS and then place the commanded mortars target point right on top. Oh..I forgot...before I place the "rotate to" thingy, I had first used the HQ´s line of sight tool on the desired map spot and with positive LOS not moving the mouse cursor, finally switched to "rotate to" key command, then drop the box. Nothing spectacular, but speeds up plotting of onboard mortars in command of a spotting HQ on complex maps (large maps+dense terrain+loads of units). The HQ "marks" the target point in LOS for the mortars so to say.

"Crossing the Volga" from Tom Murphy is a nice german perspective operation that I currently play PBEM. Was available at the SD once. There´s no tanks, but the map (winter 1941) is excellent and you have to build the bridgehead the hard way (bridges blown, attacker in assault boats, well supported by artillery)!

In a yet running CMAK PBEM, I have a Pz-IVJ shooting HE at an enemy machine gun settled in the 2nd story of a large building. Right between the Pz-IV and the enemy HMG there´s yet another unoccupied single story building and the Panzer had to aim slightly over the roof to hit the 2 story building right behind. The Pz-IV reperatedly failed to aim high enough (to hit the 2 story building) and several shots already hit the single story building, but I did not notice it already accumulated considerable damage from the Pz-IV the turn before. Just the same second a friendly infantry squad enters the now damaged building, the Pz-IV shoots and hits the single story building yet again and make it instantly collapse on top of this infantry squad! That actually was the infantry squad that had to attack the enemy HMG under cover fire of the Pz-IV the next turn! Result: 1 survivor of the squad left in the rubble and the resulting dust cloud blocking LOS to the enemy HMG for some precious minutes. Think I never helped my opponent any better before. :mad:

Most obviously directed at me! ...hehe #1 Deep Mud + Steep Hills + Weakened units. Beside that it was the true terrain and unit conditions during a particular battle, this was also set up to balance out the particularly weak high pines terrain in CMAK. If you want to recreate certain terrain conditions typically found during certain NWETO battles, then you need to try beeing a little more creative! Can´t change the difficulty level of high pines terrain in CMAK, so the only available choice to model the "effect" on troops is...limiting their physical abilities by changing the fitness level. Fact is the huertgen forest battle conditions is anything but perfect maneuver ground for standard movement schemes and such. I´ve seen scenarios labeled "huertgen.." this or that, but resemble little to nothing what the huertgen forest battles really were. Why should I go the same way and throw away all my available research material and accurate terrain data? I could rather create a "human assisted Quick battle" and call it "historical" or "semi historical" scenario as some scenario designers do. Now do it 3-5 times a month and you can call yourself a top notch scenario designer. #2 Playable only by one side + supposedly impressive items. Lets see if I got that right. If it was just for the "impressive items", I would have released the mods 1 year ago, as these were already finished at that time. Well, I needed that stuff to check if one could recreate a particular NWETO battle in CMAK with appropiate looks and "effects"! Thus the Mods were made to support the scenario and not vice versa! There´s very very few rocks terrain to be found on NWE battlefields and thus this terrain type is more or less useless. I´ve seen a lot of scenarios where scenario makers placed lots of rocks terrain in their CMAK NWE scenarios. Suffice to mention, none of these scenario makers live anywhere in europe. Instead of wasting an otherwise very useful terrain type, one can mod it to something different, even if usefulness still is quite limited. Same for the sandbag stuff in the Beta scenario. Don´t think a minute a concrete pillbox position of the Siegfried line looks anything like this (modded sandbags)! Since we don´t have pillboxes that can be entered/occupied with infantry in CM, one at least can model (or fake) the "effect" of such a "position" by combining multiple game units and terrain types into one that "works" and "looks right". Large parts of the huertgen forest battle included these features (pillboxes, devastated forests ect.) and without trying to model the stuff in a halfway credible manner, the "you are there" illusion would be destroyed instantly, with the overall playing experience not much more than a QB (set generated map with lots of hills, forests, battle damage and pull that off). That´s NOT my personal goal for the oncoming "huertgen forest battle series". RE playable by one side only. Yep, as "the why" is explained in the briefing. A scenario maker has the option to make multiple optimized versions for play versus either side. A "one fits all" scenario is hardly possible to make in CM, the more if a special battle situation is to be recreated. Play vs the AI needs most care in this regard. H2H battles need different considerations. So the scenario makers options would be either to focus on a particular battle setup and get it working as good as possible, or if the same battle "theoretically" offers an interesting view from the opposing side, optimize this one as well, but release it as a seperate scenario version. If a scenario can´t get to work for a particular side playing the AI, then just scrap it and tell it in the briefing! If anybody tries anyway, well then don´t blame the scenario maker if it´s not fun! As said, I´m speaking of more complex scenario situations that can hardly get to work for the AI player. There is certainly scenarios that can be played vs the AI from either side and as well offer fun for H2H play. RE John_D´s list above: Some comments from my experience of playing a large number of user made scenarios: RE #1: That is a realism vs. playability thing IMO. Sometimes (??) there where those battle conditions with mentioned ground conditions in effect and fact is that neither deep mud nor deep snow prevented battles not to occur in every case. If a scenario maker wants to portray just those sorts of battles, well then so be it. A warning note in the briefing should tell players about particular scenario settings in effect so a player can decide himself to give it a try or not. RE #2: Actually agree, if the maps size only purpose is beeing just large. IMO a reasonable purpose would be If a scenario maker wants to give some room to make at least the most necessary battle reconnaissance, in particular for battles with mechanized forces. If the scenario has non mechanized forces, then the extra space might be used to portray outpost lines that were put to some distance in front of the actual main line of resistance when appropiate. I can not remember many scenarios that made use of, or give appropiate room to place outpost lines, nor can that kind of info be found in many scenario briefings. If a defending player is free to place his units, then extra space in front of what the scenario maker thinks would be the best MLR should be given, so the player could decide himself to give his defense some depth or not. Most scenarios I know pit the players main forces against the enemies main forces with nothing in between. RE #3: Time. If a scenario maker plays his scenario through at least 2-3 times at a given time limit, he should add at least another 10-20 minutes to reflect that he knows where all enemy units/obstacles are located. If proper pre battle recconaissance is given little consideration in the briefing, then give more time to let the player do the most necessary battle reconnaissance himself. If a particular historical battle is known for improperly applied reccon (for whatever reason) or none at all, one could at least mention the fact in the briefing. Beside that IMO time limts work better for H2H games and less for play vs. the AI, which needs usually more, in particular when on the attack. RE #4: Things like that shouldn´t happen if the scenario maker plays his own scenario through at least once. Beside that a scenario maker should tell the player in the briefing about the whereabouts of the so called reinforcements. It is the rule that at the modeled level of command in CM (Btl. and Rgt. or below) the force commander knows quite exactly what the reinforcements are and where they would come from! Usually it´s the commander himself (the player) who decided for a particular unit to be held back as reinforcement and under what circumstances it is to be deployed. Reinforcements from higher commands (divisional or corps level) aren´t that mysthically pulled out of the bag units either, unless the commanders name is "Copperfield"! A force commander usually knows BEFORE the battle what he could expect from his superior, when he could expect it and where! That´s called a battle plan and a Btl/BG. or Rgt. commander is just one of the small components to execute it! A briefing thus should include the estimated arrival time as well as map entry point, unless the reinforcements in fact is units from units not belonging to the same parent unit as the player ones and communications are assumed to be compeletely broken! Off course that happens, but the majority of battles will have reinforcements coming from the same parent unit as the player ones. Assuming you´re the commander of a Rgt. with attack mission. You start the battle with 2 Btl. up front and know that the 3rd Btl (assuming triangular unit organisation) is held in reserve. This Btl. or parts of it would usually be the so called "reinforcements" and this info should be included in the briefing. If not it looks like the Rgt. commander has amnesia and simply does not recall where he ordered the 3rd Btl. before the battle. No matter what the final "reinforcements" are in detail, the commander (the player) knows what is available and when it could be committed. As said I speak of the rule and not the many exceptions that existed as well. The key point is to give the player realistic info in the briefing and not let him totally in the dark about otherwise known facts! RE history seminars in briefings: IMO those stuff should be packaged into external documents of a format that supports larger fonts, as well as pics and other stuff. The internal CM briefing simply offers to little comfort to serve for this purpose. Not all of us scenario makers are good writers and oftenly it is better to link to a good website dealing with the scenario topic instead. Enemy intel in briefings: If one aims for a more historical style scenario, then IMHO better give too much than too little, even if the info is faulty! Assault/Attack style scenarios surely should contain the most info, no matter if accurate or not and even meeting engagements is not always forces bumping into each other completely unexpected. If not for any other reason, ample enemy intel adds to the historical flavor of a scenario. "no armor is expected" like messages. Not expected maybe, but usually "heard" at longer distances, before the battle starts. Maybe the corps commander sitting 20 miles behind the front lines does not expect enemy armor, but you the frontline commander usually knows better! Depends also on size of battle and map, combined with particular weather settings. Armor surely could pop up unexpectedly when the weather is rain or fog, when noise is dampened more. Prolonged artillery preparations might mask armor engine/track noises as well, but then the map should contain some battle damage...which brings me to another point: Battle Damage on maps: I´ve seen "historic" rated scenario maps that look like golf courses, perfectly clean, not a single crater or damaged building in sight...ALTHOUGH...even from the briefing is known that the battleground was already contested before! Surely is fun to create his own devastation, but... Artillery: Learn about the various "command levels" and assign appropiate amounts to the players force! For nations that have both "radio" and "wire" options, as a rule of thumb assign mostly (if not even exclusively) radio equipped FO´s to an attacking player and mostly wire equipped to defending ones! FO´s that stay mostly stationary on a good observation point from the start of the game can be of the wire type mostly (can be attacking OR defending player). From my experience little known fact is that parts of the available german 75 and 150mm FO´s in fact is the indirect firing guns from the infantry gun company, that is part of the german infantry regiment and other units (recon Btl.) A pair of 75mm should always be available to a german commander commanding an infantry Btl. or larger force. The "Schwerpunkt" (main effort) Btl. oftenly could even rely on the available pair of 150mm IG33. Unlike popular belief the german infantry guns were mostly deployed in indirect fire role. CM offers both options (either onbord/direct or offboard/FO) with the indirect setup beeing the most common case. Infantry AT weapons: Don´t overload attacking infantry with them! Germans always had the grenade bundle to their avail, but usually not more than 1 or 2 a squad! Rifle grenades were common from 1942 onwards and ammo should always be ample (historically 5 AT and 10 HE were carried per squad, while CM only allows 4 overall) Attacking infantry should rarely carry any molotov cocktails IMO! That surely is more of a defense weapon, unless you want to simulate a riot in the Gaza sector. In particular germans running around with them at late war looks very odd. Panzerfausts were ample at that time. TRP´s: At least every attack/defend scenario should have "some" as it can be assumed that there was sufficient time to at least register 1 or 2 per available Battery FO. With some thought and research one can always decide for a credible amount for each individual scenario. The more "hasty" an attack is, the less TRP´s would probably be available, ect. Even a defender that has lots of time to prepare his defenses, but has little artillery to his avail, could historically have many TRP´s registered! TRP´s usually represent ALL heavy weapons (HMG, mortars, infantry guns) of a Btl. size unit registered on particular points in the to be defended terrain. That´s called the "defensive fire plan". Added to it is any available artillery. All IMO! Hopefully I can remember all this when I get back to my own scenario designs.. Hehe :eek: Happy holidays

Now available at TPG: http://www.the-proving-grounds.com/scenario_details_link.html?sku=1004

Here´s yet another intereseting web source telling about independent german artillery units: http://orbat.com/site/sturmvogel/artillery.html A keyword search ("parachute") on the website lets you find 1-2 more artillery units assigned to I. Parachute Corps in italy.

Oh..just take time! I appreciate everything you could tell and that could improve the Death Factory Beta, no matter how long it takes! As said this Beta is just for testing various concepts that I intend to use for the big scenarios to come. Some sort of battle analysis based on what you can do with the CM game engine, in particular the heavy forest fighting and related problems in the campaign. Later battles will include the fight for vossenack, Huertgen, maybe Schmidt and more. The map are all more or less well reearched and based on 1944 topographical maps, as well as unit combat sketches/reports. Average players will hate the stuff, but players who are more interested in the battle itself, will probably have more fun and maybe some education (at least I have). :cool:

"The Huertgen Forest, as the entire area became known, embraced a thickly wooded section of Germany approximately 50 square miles in size. The forest consisted primarily of fir trees, planted so closely together that a man often had to crawl to get through them. Sunlight had a tough time penetrating through the trees and observers described the area as " dark and forbidding." As units advanced in the forest, the separation and isolation of individual soldiers was significant. In some areas it was possible to see only the man to your immediate front or flank. Navigation was difficult to impossible for many units. Numerous ravines, some quite large, such as the Kall River Gorge, cut the ground and blocked almost all movement. Roads and trails, the few that existed, were deep in mud. Moving supplies forward over these paths proved to be a major challenge. There were few battles in the ETO in which terrain had such an overwhelming physical and psychological effects on soldiers and units as did the Huertgen Forest." Source: Operational Performance of the U.S. 28TH INFANTRY DIVISION, Sep-Dec 1944 A thesis presented to the Faculty of the U. S. Army Command and General Staff College by Major Jeffrey P. Holt I know the terrain from repeated personal inspections during past 25 years and although nowadays most part of the forest is pretty tidied up by wood workers, there´s still lots of forest parts that are not and give a good impression how the woods looked by fall/winter 1944/45. A simple walk off the trails and fire breaks is very straining and I don´t need much imagination how much more straining it is when carrying the usual loads of equipment the average US or german soldier had to carry. I did my travels mostly during summer and/or good weather, but remember a day in late fall (a November day in late 90ies IIRC) when we were surprised by a wheather change from overcast to sleet and snow. We did not had quite the appropiate waterproof clothes for such a tour this day and when we broke off it was too late and the bad weather caught us quite near the area where the "Wild Boar" mine fields was located during wartime. When we reached the car about 15-20 minutes later we were almost wet to the bones and cold. It would be plain silly to compare that with what our fathers or grandfathers had to endure, but I had at least a little "impression" of what had happened in that area now 60 years ago. Well, I can imagine that it takes just very few days for a soldier to become "weakened" under those conditions, maybe also dependent upon whether you are a trained sportsman or untrained office worker ect. I don´t see any relation that the "weakened" (or "exhausted") fitness level in CMAK is tied to a particular month. In case of the 9. US ID it was burned out after approx. two weeks of fighting in the forest and that was in mid-end october! :eek: However....the High Pines terrain in CMAK does not quite represent the forests as decribed above and as it is not possible to have more difficult terrain in CMAK with high pines look, I modelled the "effect" by limiting the infantry fitness level to "weakened". From my test play the deep mud ground setting only has some limited effect on units on dirt roads and clear terrain, but as good as none for units in woods, which makes most of the terrain in the Beta scenario. :eek: As said, I´m looking for people who read some good books/accounts about the Huertgen forest campaign and are willing to compare with what can be played in the Beta scenario.

Deep mud actually should affect armor more than it obviously does. If infantry options suffer too much I´ll turn it back to mud or wet just for the sake of better playability. See also my other posting below.

Yep, on my todo list for early next year already.

Yep, in fact I´m more aiming at a sort of case study and less mainstream like scenario. Does the deep mud matter much? There ain´t really getting stuck many units with this setting and the other settings are more to balance the terrain conditions, in particular making the high pines terrain more difficult as it currently is in CMAK. What can be considered the right fitness setting after 2 days figthing through difficult terrain anyway? I even experimented with exhausted, but that was more to counter the AI´s tendency to rush through everything! Just had to brake it somehow. Thanks for reporting though. :cool: An end game save file would help much as well.

A good online source dealing with canadian units and actions in WW2 is: http://www.dnd.ca/hr/dhh//history_archives/engraph/cmhq_e.asp?cat=4 Check out REPORT NO. 169 An interesting source on a particular well known battle: http://www.wargamer.com/articles/death_battle_group/wrthfrc1.asp

The broken trees (high pines) and rough terrain can be used for all non snow weather conditions when theather is set to italy/Grass. Just the tree bases (the ground terrain tiles) change from between 1943 and 1944, but I´d consider this a minor issue only.