RockinHarry

Sorry, probably a thousand times discussed in he past. Did a keyword search through my german PDF game manual with no result. So how do overruns (AFV vs. infantry and gun type units) work "officially" in the game? :confused: I set up a test scenario with various defending units (infantry, HMG, mortar, IG and PAK) either in foxholes or trenches and have some T-34 + KV move on top of these positions in "fast" mode. To achieve halfway clear results I removed all ammo from all units (if possible). Defenders were "hiding" and had minimum range fire arcs. Same for the AFV´s which were all buttoned up and had turrets set to 6 o´clock position (fire arc set opposite to movement direction). Defenders were tested with "regular" and "veteran" quality. A HQ with "morale+2" had them all in control range. Results: As soon as the AFV´s entered the defenders tile (range about 10-20m), infantry started to evade sidewards. Mortars stayed in "hide" mode, while the guns more or less were destroyed at once. At least at one occasion a particular PAK (75mm PAK40) was only destroyed when the AFV (a KV1) moved on top of its position. At another occasion the same PAK was already destroyed when the AFV was 10-20m away. Looks like a random factor. The foxholes did little for the defenders (all were running and mowed down by the AFV´s MGs), while trenches offered more protection, as at least infantry type units could evade moving in the trenches. Results for mortars and guns were, the mortar succesfully hid in the trench while the AFV moved on top and the guns were destroyed as noted above. It also appears that small infantry type units (HQ´s + HMG) are less liekely to evade when postioned in a trench an beeing overrun by armor. Any more findings you can tell about?

Interesting topic. :cool: Did you thought out all that by yourself (details about alternative landing at Pas de Calais), or did you have a particular source (book ect.) as example? :confused:

Scenario designers should be aware that TRP´s are an integral part of any halfway realistic prepared assault/defense CM battle. Same goes for adding an appropiate (non hollywood crap) briefing, as well as enough time to make at least some basic combat reccon. In case of the germans and a reinforced infantry bataillon to be assumed, there would be a defensive "fire plan" to be worked out for the heavy weapons (HMG´s, mortars and infantry howitzers) first and then coordinated with any supporting artillery assets. Those kind of fire plans are nicely simulated with TRP´s in Combat Mission, as any stationary (non moving since start of battle) unit has an improved to hit chance on enemy units moving on or close to those TRP´s. As noted further above, that not just counts for artillery units, that counts for all units and heavy weapons surely benefit from them most. Usually germans (example) evaluated terrain by fields of fire (before cover for defender!) and tank proofness and then tried to anticipate the probable enemy point of main effort (Schwerpunkt). Usually these sectors received a higher unit density (more defenders) and more attention with regard to heavy weapon support, as well as TRP´s. From studying my sources (HDV 200/6, 130/9 and more) it appears that under normal conditions (available time sufficient) at least 1-2 registered target areas (TRP´s) would be set up for each supporting artillery battery, mainly in view of the "Beobachtungsstelle" (observation post) of each battery. Unobserved "registered" areas could be available as well, dependent upon time (duration of some sort of static frontline condition), ammunition availability and other factors, but are less likely. Now add few TRP´s for the infantry bataillons heavy weapons assets and you would have available about 5-6 TRP´s overall for a typical reinforced german infantry bataillon in defense.

Beside that the german AT Rifle grenades are available 1 year early (1941 instead of 1942) and handled like an automatic grenade launcher (rate of fire!), I´d say that just the standard 30 type rifle grenade is modelled. At least my testing in CMBB revealed this. T34/41 side armor wasn´t fully penetrated, while M4A2 (lend lease) was, indicating a penetration of at least ~40mm vertical armor. The vertical side hull armor of a KV1 (75mm) and KV1S (60mm) wasn´t penetrated in any way. CMAK: Sherman Side hull armor can be penetrated, while Churchill side armor can not, indicating same overall penetration ability of about 40-50mm at best. What sort of HEAT grenade is modelled here actually? AFAIK the first version 30 HEAT Rifle grenade could penetrate maybe 20-30mm at best, while the later (late 42 introduced) "Grosse" (="Large" warhead) version could penetrate about 70-80mm!? Only the GGP40 could penetrate about 40-45mm, but this was distributed to Luftwaffe units only. Interestingly this was already available in 1940/41. Looks like BFC made some compromise here, means there´s only one generic version available (GGP40) for all war years and for all infantry unit types. That surely has been discussed and discovered earlier.... ..now I know too. US HEAT Rifle Grenade easily penetrates the side armor of a Panther G (40 LH, 50/30° UH) in CMAK. Did not test upper limit. Personally I can live with this "generic" version for the germans. Some of the more interesting net sources regarding german RG´s: http://www.inert-ord.net/ger03a/gerrg2/index.html

For an improved playing experience check out the command map as well (Paintshop Pro required) http://the-proving-grounds.com/scenario_details.html?command=search&db=scenarios.db&eqskudatarq=962

39 (..yet)

Thanks, that should get me started on some CMAK maps made from real topo maps soon!

Sorry, not directly related to CM:C, but is it possible to make a CMBB map by use of "Mapping Mission" and then convert it to CMAK with "MAP Converter"? :confused:

You can also try checking this scenario with a command map available here: http://the-proving-grounds.com/scenario_details.html?command=search&db=scenarios.db&eqskudatarq=962

Here´s an excellent article from M.Dorosh´s website that describes what it´s all good for: http://www.deutschesoldaten.com/procedures/opsorder.htm Just speaking of the "command map", I developed something that is created and maintained in Paintshop Pro (other paint application may work just as well). Basically I make map screenshots in either "8" or "9" zoom out view and then paste the stuff together. The Basic map layer would be just the map with flags, units ect. disabled (ALT-Q, SHIFT-F, ect.), while the second layer would be a specific grey scale contour map that is created from a barren version (all grassy) of the same map. The original map would be loaded in the CM editor and every terrain feature erased with "grass". "Height" keeps untouched as the various shades of the grass terrain are needed to make a "contour map" in PSP (with a tool called "Topography" from "Artistic Effects" sub menu). The finished "Contour" map then can be combined with the basic map layer in various ways, but the most useful are "Normal", "Overlay" or "Hard Light" (Layer blend mode). Now any additional layers can be added on top that may contain anything that you might find useful for your game. Personally I add a layer that contains the Victory Flags with point value added, the initial frontline (usually only friendly is known) and map text like names of locations and terrain features (river, hill..). I usually add another layer that I include info from the briefings (if one is added from the scenario maker). Now further things become optional: A layer that contains attack/defense plans (mark with arrows, symbols ect.), boundary lines for Cpy. or Plt. sized units, observable or non observable areas, tank proof country and more. Last but not least I add friendly and (spotted) enemy units and maintain their locations on seperate layers for each game turn. I also include movement vectors for any moving units. Now it´s a matter of taste (and time) if you mark units on the map with simple map text (in example I like to use differently colored "*" for infantry ect.) or use specialized military symbols. The latter makes more sense if you just want to "fix" the bigger picture (Plt. size units and up). Off course this is a whole lot of stuff and maintaining a single layer can take more time than playing the particular CM game turn that is "captured". However, I find it quite useful when testing scenarios and to keep track of multiple ongoing PBEM games. It also reveals you much about your enemies tactics, both human and AI. Example command map and screenshots can be requested at: harizan@web.de (add CMBB to topic or email will be filtered out) EDIT: or downloaded from TPG here: http://the-proving-grounds.com/scenario_details.html?command=search&db=scenarios.db&eqskudatarq=962 [ November 07, 2005, 07:44 AM: Message edited by: RockinHarry ]

I usually make my screenshots either in "9" or "8" zoom out view, dependent upon map size. Once loaded and set up as command map in Paintshop Pro, I set the "Grid Properties" for a 100m spacing as follows: For "9" zoom out screenshots: Units=Pixel and Horizontal/Vertical spacing=26 For "8" zoom out screenshots: Units=Pixel and Horizontal/Vertical spacing=65 Now only "Display Grid" needs to be enabled and you have a nice (in this case) 100m Grid that always adapts nicely for each zoom level in PSP. These are figures for a 800x600 screen resolution, when doing the screen capture from within CM. Related stuff also included in my command map: A simple Compass Rose. Hopefully any future CMx application will have stuff like that included. :cool:

Started this a german vs. AI. Took me a while to find the AI (or it finding me), but action has started now. Map is great as always from George. :cool: Anybody who wants to try that as german player (either PBEM pr vs AI), I can share a command map with you. It´s Paintshop Pro V7 format stuff. If you´re interested, droop me mal.

Anybody interested in a more detailed description how to make those command maps and how to make best use of them? :confused:

Thanks for the info so far.

Looking for a couple of WW2 period military field manuals possibly available in the net in E-book (PDF, HTML, Word, ect.) form. Already found US FM 100-5 (Operations, 1941) at CSI: http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/fm100_5_1941/fm100.asp From US looking for: FM 17-36 (Employment of Tanks with Infantry) FM 7-20 (Rifle Battalion) FM 6-20 (Field Artillery Tactics and Techniques) more that I don´t know of yet, related to USAGF in WW2. also of interest: FUSAG "Battle Experiences" series Army Ground Forces Observer Board, European Theater of Operations, Reports of the Army Ground Forces Board, European Theater of Operations. (I already have the "Lessons learned" series from MHI Digital Library) ____________________ Anything related to Soviet Army in WW2, preferably translated to english or german (although I could use a russian-english translation application if necessary) I already know the stuff from the excellent Red Army Studies website: http://www.redarmystudies.net/index.htm and some from http://www.battlefield.ru/ ____________________ Anything from WW2 Brits/CW I already have a PDF version of "Military Training Pamphlet No.41 - The tactical handling of the Armored Division and its components, part2 - the Armored regiment, 1943". ____________________ WW2 Germany: I already have a good collection of original FM and tactics manuals in paper form, but more is better! For an overview of what germany released prior and during WW2: http://www.superborg.de/ (german language website) Some interesting technical manuals is available for free at: http://www.panzermuseum.com/records/rec_manuals/rec_manuals.htm ___________________ Looking forward to anything that you could share:)

Cool! :cool: Do all "solid" (brick, masonry,..) buildings have the basement option, independent from size? Many farmbuildings in europe had solid basements that made for excellent fortified cover position. The Brits "complained" a lot about these during the "Veritable" operation, but there´s surely numerous other examples where fortified farm buildings offered protection like a bunker or dugout! Oh...while at the topic, will there be another option for a building to be a fortified strongpoint? Something like a building showing extra sandbag reinforcements, locked main doors ect where a player needs some more efforts to make his way in and root occupants out! More a job for engineers so to say....hehe Can rubbled/destroyed buildings block neighboring roads? If not, maybe a terrain type "rubble" could be invented that at least lets scenario designers place that stuff where appropiate? Guess churches/steeples are now much more realistic with new # of possible stories available? Smoke stacks? The generally intended level of abstraction sounds quite ok to me. Don´t go overboard! If there would be a choice between "industry standard" graphics or an improved AI/Gameplay, I would vote for the latter. No matter what the final release version of CMx2 will include, it´s already on my purchase list.

Wow! Now that sounds promising! I see all basic stuff included for now so I keep waiting till there is something playable before I start asking for more (if ever). Now another related question: Will the tac AI make use of the extra terrain contours with regard of what it considers "cover"? The problem in CM1 was that the Tac AI (in particular for AIP´s) more or less ignored "cover" as given by terrain contours. IE if there was patches of woods AND a seperate small valley (leading towards the enemy frontline, providing cover against direct fire and observation) the Tac AI always chooses for moving from those patches of woods to another, instead of using the small valley for its movements. That made the AIP movements almost 100% predictable. Even AIP minefields placed in those patches of woods did not hinder the TacAI much to move its troops from and into those (mined) woods. So with regard to the new 1x1m terrain meshes, will the TacAI make use of say 2x1m ditches (IE along roads) for his movements? For maximum protection a human would creep along the bottom of this ditch, so will CMx2 troopers do the same? I would rather prefer this feature before adding more terrain types per 8x8m ground tile if there would be the choice! Beeing a non programmer I could imagine that the map, once created (by human or auto generation routine) could undergoe an internal evaluation ONCE with regard to possible cover postions that are provided by terrain contours (terrain folds, ditches, hills, valleys ect.) and then is stored into something like a "cover map" that the Tac AI can always refer to when in need to plan movements (or deploy forces for any other reason). A human commander with a map of the battle area would do the same: Evaluate terrain with regard to cover, concealment, traversability, commanding positions ect. and then base any battle plan upon this information. ( In real life a (german) low level commander (below divisional) would do this job on in the terrain, oftenly without help of a map) Another question: Will there be underground stuff, like dug-outs, tunnels ect.? My imagination would be that these serve only as abstracted cover/protection (a sub class of "entrenchment" maybe) or for movement. These don´t need necessarily modelled with 3D geometry and can be handled abstractly like "sewer movement" in CM1 was, or possibly the new "basements" in CMx2?

Keep: 1. Easy to use interface 2. Moddability 3. FOW system. 4. Keep WW2 period topic 5. PBEM Add/Change: 1. Briefing map in briefing screen, based on real CMx2 battle map. (Should give a 2D topography of the battle area, complete with contour lines, feature names, current frontlines, recconed enemy positions ect. ) Off course this one should as well be accessible during game play! 2. Campaign system that enables to lead a core group through # number of battles. ( spiced up with some RPG stuff, like adding medals, additional perks for units (leaders) ect.) 3. More realistic and fun victory conditions (going away from that silly capture the flag stuff) where victory conditions could be different for both opponents and possibly unknown to the opposing player. 4. A good AIP that knows to use the terrain better and possibly reflect national combat doctrines (optional difficulty setting) 5. A more lifelike formation order movement system , incl. setting of particular formations for tank units (wedge, column ect.) and infantry (well...line and column). Something like move to #landmark (a particular hill, town ect.), follow road ect. Thta should remove much of unnecessary micromanaging of units and speeds up game play.

Yep..all good points and apply to SPWAW scenarios as well. Knowing the game and its limitations is the first step when it comes to making good and enjoyble scenarios. Well..at last one always entertains oneselfs when making a scenario, even if it´s not well received by the majority of the community.

yes..some sort of branching campaign would be great! I´ve seen some good stuff at the proving grounds, but failed to give any feedback due to lack of time.

pack them into the same ZIP that contains the scenario file maybe? :confused:

thanks, will check the mentioned scenarios out. Think I´ve downloaded them already some time ago. All good ideas, that´s what counts!

thanks, in fact this one sounds much more easy to make and does not require to task switch out of CM at all. :cool: Unfortunately this method includes some sort of spoiling, as you already give away that something is to be expected on turn 8....until you fake of course and the next page infact is...empty. For a past SPWAW scenario I already used the Zip file messages and included fake empty ZIP files as well. In fact none actually needs to contain anything if you prefer so. CM game engine has the advantage (before SPWAW) that you normally do not know that any reinforcements (or messages) come in later during the game,..until you mention it in the briefing off course. However...with some creativty...lots of interesting stuff can be made for scenarios, although I doubt that most gain a considerable popularity! At least that´s my experience as SPWAW scenario maker.

thanks, I always seem to forget the obvious, make a plain and simply google search! this one is also good for the basics, although it lacks the required info on "guiding" the AI: http://users.pandora.be/aneric/tipsindex.htm also had some very good link to a site with great info on making maps. Lost it, but have the info saved anyways.

yeah..using the same nick in every board. Helps finding old and new friends. :cool: well..it´s still some time before I´ll spill out some CM scenarios though! Still lots of work to finish (for SPWAW and Panzer Elite Mods). :eek: Also before I can´t ascertain some quality in making a CM scen, I won´t bother you grogs with any crap work. Still lots to learn, as I mostly "program" for play vs. AI, which is different and more difficult as in other games due to the limited control on CM AI. Wished there would be something like mentioned "god mode" (Steel Panthers) or some scripting language (Panzer Elite). Maybe CM2? :cool: