OBJ

Thanks for asking- Hope these haven't already been announced/are redundant Keep: 1. WEGO 2. Emphasis on realism 3. Ability to command individual units 4. Infantry and armor modeling (although if true that all tanks use the same frontal and flank silhouette to determine if/where a hit is made, it would be nice if at least different turret and hull dimensions could be modeled in addition to armor quality, angle and thickness) 5. WWII focus (at least initially) Add/Change: 1. Campaign feature - select one from a choice of historical divisions to follow a group of representative core units at co/bn level through the division's historical battles/campaigns; core units start at historic levels of unit experience and leadership quality then are impacted by battle (unit experience and leadership quality improve or decrease depending on unit and leader casualties, time to rest, refit and train between battles, quality of replacements, battle results [win, lose, casualties inflicted], national preparedness/military character); each unit and leader in the core group (including replacement units/leaders as they come in) has a randomly assigned experience/leader quality potential (not viewable by the player) less than or equal to the game allowable maximum biased by nationality and branch of service (i.e. most core units and leaders will end a campaign with something less than game maximum traits in all categories, e.g. more German infantry and armor units and leaders will have experience and leader quality potentials near or at game maximums than will Russian infantry and armor units and leaders); unit/leader experience/quality can not advance beyond its potential; allow some 'realistic' degree of unit non-doctrinal equipment/ammo augmentation over time(e.g. more BARs/sqd, more ammo per MG) and internal non-doctrinal reorganization (e.g. add two BAR teams to the plt HQ), allow portability of core units to follow-on CMX2 games 2. Artillery and CAS - planning, control, responsiveness (e.g. plot FPFs; Inf and armor Plt,Co,Bn level HQs capable of calling for situation realistic level of arty support; refined accuracy, volume of fire and delays for planned vs unplanned fires and targets based on historic national artillery branch quality) 3. Command and control - allow player set pre-battle chain of command (task organize); battle field succession (someone has to be in charge, occasionally an improvement); also 'realistic' Inf/Ar HQ control of artillery (see 2 above) 4. Infantry squad and Platoon level formations/commands - column, line, wedge, Vee, and related movement, firing and engagement impacts 5. Dismounted scouting - Infantry scouts/OPs vs half squads; dismounted TCs; leaders recon; prone stationary position

Thanks Andreas. On the Pz III's, they only had 4 vehicles per platoon in 1942? That's what they get in the scenario. As for a patch, there is a recent rumor on this forum that BTS might do one more 'final' patch.

Thanks PvK. You confirmed the issue with the Pz IIIs and PZ IVs. In the scenario editor, 1942 platoons of Pz IIIs and IVs are listed at 4 vehicles each. 1943 platoons of IIIs and IVs are listed at 5 vehicles each. Anyone think this is worth mentioning to BTS?

Thanks guys. Any more grogs out there? Anyone capable of defending the BFC OBs? or is this enough grog concurrence to go to BFC with a suggestion the OBs need to be looked at?

Hi Scarhead etal- Sorry I've been away so long. RL and my kid's soccer season has limited my BCR time. Scarhead, I did add a number of macros to make the BCR autosheet even more automatic, such things as updating experience, taking regular replacements, resetting favor, introducing replacement leaders and units, but haven't added all of them yet. I don't have a good answer for the emergency reorg question Uhu asked about, mainly because everyone's attachments are apt to be different, therefore have a different number of men to reinforce the core force with. All for now.

I notice the 42 OBs for German medium tanks (Pzs III and IVs) have 4 tanks per platoon and the 43 OBs have 5 tanks per platoon. I thought historically it was the opposite? Thanks in advance.

Anyone notice the 42 OBs for German medium tanks (Pzs III and IVs) have 4 tanks per platoon then for the same vehicle they have 5 tanks per platoon in the 43 OBs. I thought historically it was the opposite. Sorry if I missed this discussion long ago.

Scarhead, go ahead with modding the Autoparameters for BCR42v1.3. I should have you some comments today or tomorrow.

Hey guys, What's the latest rumor about a campaign feature in CMAK, or more likely, CMX2? Anybody heard anything? How about more campaign tools, like a quick operation generator? Anyone heard anything recently?

Hmmm, girlfriend decided to stay for a month... Hope she didn't bring any furniture with her, unless you wanted her to. When you get a chance, give me your edits and thoughts. I play with modifications to time between battles and may also modify the probabilities on several other parameters. I highlighted on the battle calcs tab several parameter derivations that might be modified.

Hey guys. I did a search and got scattered hits indicating a feature like this is under consideration in CMAK and CM2. Any definitive word on whether, and if so, when it will appear? :confused: I'm a campaigner in love with the CM series. My ideal campaign would be a series of operations based on the actual battles historical divisions fought. Players would pick a historical division to follow from a start to an end date. 'Core force,' 'attachments,' and equipment would represent those historically available in the division's historical battles. Operation parameters would reflect the historical conditions facing the division in the historic battle. :eek: 'Core force' units and leaders would start with historic experience/bonus award levels and have individual potentials to reach up to elite experience level and double bonus in all categories. Units would have to gain experience to advance to their experience level potential. Leaders would have to gain experience to be awarded the bonus' allowed them by their potential ratings. Only certain percentages of units would have the potential to achieve each experience and bonus type level based on historical national armed forces performance. So, any word on a quick operation generator?

Hey Scarhead. I've been out of town this past week. I didn't see any e-mail traffic back re BCR '42 auto-parameters. If you sent them, my wife may have deleted the e-mail as potential pornographic spam. She does that to pretty much everything we get from any source she doesn't know. Thanks, :confused:

Scarhead, now that you're the keeper of the BCR flame, would you be interested in looking at an Excel spreadsheet that automates most of the campaign and battle set up functions? Inspired by Max BrauHaus' effort with BCR '41, I've done something similar for BCR '42 v1.2, and also added a several sheets for setting up and tracking individual unit experience potential and actual experience, and leader bonus award levels and actual bonuses. I'd really appreciate someone taking a look at the mechanics to see if they work as the rules intend. I'm sure I've missed some things. I'm in the process of finishing the after battle rules. Let me know if you’re interested.

Thanks SuperSulo etal, I had started giving my core force units custom loadouts and was noticing the QB generator wasn't lowering them to the correct %.

Question on edited ammo load outs. Any one notice that when you edit ammo loads in the editor then import the troops with a QB map the ammo loads are unaffected by ammo level set in the QB parameters?

What if there were a 'favor' penalty if the TF casualties 'greatly' exceed the core force casualties? This way the campaign retains the admittedly unrealistic but seriously fun use of the complete variety of units in CM, but discourages the player from using the TF units to take all the casualties. The effects might require a penalty more severe than just a low favor award. Possibly the player would be threatened with no support at all in the next battle, in which case all the casualties would come from core force units. Just trying to keep the ideas rolling.

Biltong- Do you have a feel for the winter '41 effects on just Army Group South? I can imagine the Russian winter in the northern latitudes was brutal. Did you ever get my e-mailed xls file for unit and leader starting potential and tracking experience levels and leadership traits? What would you say to a favor penalty if the TF casualties significantly exceed core force casualties?

Biltong- Any luck getting my e-mail with the unit and leader trait potential systems? Regards,

Snowbart- I like your idea of starting with an experience 'buffer.' I also agree the German Army of Jun '41 was probably a lot closer to veteran than green.

Biltong- Couple, ideas to consider: 1. I'm combining two thoughts here, a series of battles like a CM operation, and APACHE’s idea of the support units coming generally from the same 'pool' e.g. reinforced battalion. Core force and support ‘pool’ unit experience updates wouldn't be calculated until after the operation was complete. The experience for the 'pool' would need to be tracked and abstract updates applied when the units weren't being used by the player. I think the increased data tracking requirements inevitably lead toward a programmed solution, either SeaHawk's biltaid, something like it, or code in the CM program itself. Of course the latter is what I want anyway, so I may be somewhat prejudiced! This way the player can't 'throw away' TF units without consequences. 2. Regarding allied campaigns in CMAK, I think it will be very challenging to take the green American troops that land in Morocco and Algiers to a successful conclusion in Tunis in May '43. The same can be said for the Brits in '41 after they send off their best units to Greece having beaten the Italians at Beda Fomm, just as Rommel and the AK show up. IMHO, there's a lot of campaign 'drama' to be had in N Africa. Regards

A.E.B.- I like your idea. At least the support units wouldn't be sacrificed until the 'last' battle with them. If there were a way to interject uncertainty as to whether any battle were the support unit's last, then the player might never 'throw them away.' I also think the multiple battles with the same support units makes the series of battles closer to an operation, which IMHO comes closer to replicating the stop start nature of 'real' battles. Biltong- I'm combining two ideas here, the idea of a series of battles like a CM operation, and APACHE’s idea of the support units coming generally from the same 'pool.' In this case one thought is to generate a formula with some random elements that assigns changed experience to the units in the support 'pool' that aren't directly engaged in the player's current series of battles/operation. This could be tied to the results of the player's battles/operation assuming the player's outcome reflects a larger whole and that other units engaged in the same larger battle experience the same general result the player's units do, from total victory to total defeat. Core force and support ‘pool’ unit experience updates wouldn't be calculated until after the operation was complete. I think the increased data tracking requirements A.E.B's idea suggests, or the tracking of experience for units in a support ‘pool’, inevitably lead toward a programmed solution, either Seahawk's biltaid, something like it, or code in the CM program itself. Of course the latter is what I want anyway, so I may be somewhat prejudiced! Regarding allied campaigns in CMAK, I think it will be very challenging to take the green American troops that land in Morocco and Algiers to a successful conclusion in Tunis in May '43. The same can be said for the Brits in '41 after they send off their best units to Greece having beaten the Italians at Beda Fomm, just as Rommel and the AK show up. IMHO, there's a lot of campaign 'drama' to be had in N Africa.

Madmatt- Dismount BUG in 103c? I had a plt of Pz 38 (t)s each carrying a 50mm Mort team moving fast over steppe terrain. I ordered all tanks to pause 10 seconds and the Mort teams to dismount right along side the tanks then move to separate positions. Next turn the Mort tms dismount immediately and move off to their new positions after 19-20 seconds. The tanks however, remain paused for the entire turn? Should any transported unit dismount immediately? Because they're Mort, I can't see the command delay, only the set up time shows. Why would the tanks sit idle for the turn? I tried eliminating the pause. The tanks sit without moving for 50-52 seconds? I tried eliminating the existing orders for the tanks and issuing new orders, without a pause. The tanks sit without moving for 50-52 seconds? Is this a BUG? HQs, MGs, 81mm Mort, Arty spotters all seem to dismount immediately from HTs, trucks, and kubelwagon at the vehicle end points (red square at the end point). The HQs, MGs, 81mm Mort, Arty spotters all also seem to move almost immediately even though all their waypoints are in white? This dismounting behavior seemed to be the same whether the HT, truck or Kubelwagon had or did not have other movement orders beyond the last current order (way point marker in red). The immediate dismount makes sense, but I’d have expected some ‘command pause’ given the dismounting units way points were still all shown in white? Also in the same game I saw suppressed infantry sneaking directly toward the nearest cover, which was also directly toward the enemy, which had several squads spotted in the cover the friendly suppressed units were sneaking toward. This quite naturally resulted in the friendly infantry being eliminated. I know infantry retreating toward the enemy was a problem before, perhaps it still is when the nearest cover is toward the enemy. The weather was thick fog with visibility limited to 83m. I'd have thought the natural instinct would be to retreat away from the enemy back into the fog?

Snowbart- I also hope there's a campaign feature in CMX2. I'm not holding out much hope it'll be in CMAK. I'm definitely a BCR player. I use excel and a tool another BCR fan developed, 'Biltong_ Parameters_41South,' which greatly speeds up set up and after-battle assessment. I'd recommend it highly if you have excel. What are your thoughts on a campaign feature that matches the 'realism' BTS has built into the 'battle simulation?' One of the things that seems pretty far from reality is the Task Force or auxiliary forces approach. Your company might get paired with armor or other infantry units in a series of operations, but it wouldn't be in the second rank every battle. It seems to me one way around this is to give the player a reinforced Battalion and have him play each battle with different parts of the same battalion, with a much smaller number of 'auxiliary units.' That way every battle the majority of units would be the players, he/she wouldn't have the option of letting some poor old auxiliary unit he/she will never see again, soak up all the casualties, committing his/her 'core force' to reap all the experience points. I think APACHE already does this with an SS Panzer Grenadier Bn. I might try it myself. The question is how do you ‘realistically/historically’ allow the player to sample a wide range of units? Any ideas?

Thanks Snowbart- Judging from the downloads of BCR there are at least 500 of us. No telling how many others might appreciate the feature if it were programmed as part of the CMX2 package. I do wonder what everyone's best ideas are for a realistic AND fun campaign. I agree BCR is great and getting even better. I'm on my 13th battle in a '41 campaign, and just added the armor and vehicle transport from '42 rules to my core force. I think the people that like campaigns are 'builders.' They like the challenge of overcoming adverse conditions while developing an organization to it's peak potential. This last is a rub with the 'realists'. Not every German panzer grenadier company ended the war at full strength, elite in their combat capability, with matching supporting Tiger II and Jagdpanther platoons. If fact, I think the companies in even the 'elite' German formations ended the war in pretty sad shape, the 'regular' formations were even worse off.

Thanks Schoerner. Actually I was hoping to reinforce the issue by adding a new thread and expand the discussion about types of campaigns and campaign features. Oh well. I read and contributed to the other thread.