cbb

I've tried giving the AI multiple TRPs with LOS to the FOs. That hasn't worked so far. (I've also tried making the FOs "elite" -- also without success).

wwb posts: "This is a fundamentally wrongheaded idea in CM. The nature of the game and the AI do not lend itself to making one battle suitable for head to head and solitaire play from both sides. In fact, I suggest one does not even attempt it. When I design battles (and I have done a few here and there) I make them to work one way--H2H, allied, axis, etc. If they happen to work other ways, great. If not, no loss." I agree with you and my scenarios are usually designed to be played as one particular side against the AI. I'm just pointing out that the inability of scenario designers to assign pre-planned artillery bombardments to the AI means that even if one wanted to attempt to design a scenario playable from both sides, this is (another) major obstacle... wwb: "Remember that the AI is generally a piss poor attacker, especially when it comes to coordination which is exactly what you are demanding. You will be better off making the battle single player as soviet or head to head." What I'm talking about is certainly nothing overly sophisticated in terms of "coordination." I'm talking about the AI bombarding a position with smoke and HE and then attacking. That's pretty basic stuff. It's certainly a shame if it's not possible to design a scenario in CMBB as simple as that. Again, the first edition of Steel Panthers (in 1995!) allowed scenario designers to assign targets for the AI. (Later versions, SPWW2 and SPMBT, expanded on this, allowing the designer to designate artillery fire over multiple turns). I would have thought that CMBB, being a much more sophisticated game than SP, would have included this... wwb: "One other trick to get the AI to prebombard bombard--try padlocking the FOs out of LOS. That has been known to work." Okay, I'll give that a try. Up till now, I've been doing just the opposite -- trying to put FOs in LOS of enemy units under the assumption that they will call for strikes only on units they can see. [ February 23, 2003, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: cbb ]

No, they're wooden. But the Russian AI has tanks which destroy them very quickly. (I still think bunkers and ATGs are WAY too easy to spot in this game, even with extreme FOW, but that's another issue). Perhaps the bunkers are being destroyed before the AI spotters can call in artillery strikes against them... My complaint is this: why does the AI have to have LOS to an enemy unit before firing artillery/smoke? A human player doesn't have the same restriction. If I'm attacking a hill with flags on it that I KNOW has enemy units, I'm quite likely going to do a pre-planned bombardment with artillery and smoke regardless of whether I can see an enemy unit or not. The AI can't do this and the scenario designer has no way of making the AI do it... About 90% of my playing time with CMBB involves designing my own (historically-based) scenarios for play against the AI. For me, this is by far the biggest flaw in the game. [ February 23, 2003, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: cbb ]

I've experienced the same -- with the result that in many scenarios the AI artillery doesn't fire at all. This means: 1) Designing a very basic scenario in which the AI side is supposed to assault a hill following a smoke/artillery bombardment simply isn't possible with CMBB's existing scenario editor; and 2) Designing a balanced scenario containing artillery in which either side can play against the AI isn't possible because the human player can utilize smoke/artillery bombardment whereas the AI cannot... This is disappointing. Allowing scenario designers to designate AI smoke/artillery bombardments has been around in games like Steel Panthers since 1995. I'm really surprised that CMBB omits such a basic feature.

So let me ask this: Has anyone been able to design a scenario in which the Russian AI launches artillery fire prior to commencing an assault on German positions (say, within the first 10 turns)? If so, how did you do it? If not, it seems to me that CMBB has a major bug/omission.

A good suggestion. I just tried it. Russian spotters have LOS to the bunkers in the orders phase of Turn 1. (They are less than 200 meters away).

In the editor I checked the LOS of the spotters and they all had LOS to enemy bunkers. </font>

In the editor I checked the LOS of the spotters and they all had LOS to enemy bunkers.

I've tried everything I can think of but I cannot get the Russian AI to fire artillery in the majority of scenarios I design... Presently I'm working on a scenario in which the Russian AI-side is assaulting. I have given it three artillery spotters, several target reference points, and placed the spotter in LOS of both the target reference points and enemy bunkers. Still no luck. Through 25 turns, the AI has yet to fire a single artillery round... I've read page 131 of the manual which talks about how long it takes for Russian artillery to fire and that "often their only useful purpose is in a pre-planned bombardment." But I know of no way for a scenario designer to designate a pre-planned bombardment for the AI side. Does that then mean that the game effectively has no artillery for the Russians when the Russians are the AI? ... Am I overlooking something here? CBB

Thanks! Very much looking forward to reading this! CBB

Definitely a good book. As for the T-26s, I suspect they were actually T-70s. CBB

Has someone done a whitewashed JS-II yet? CBB

Everyone has their own preference but I very much prefer DD's "burned" look. I think it's much more realistic (as opposed to the lush-green-lawn look of the original -- almost like a golf course!) CBB

Michael, do you recommend the Spaeter books? They are just about the only Fedorowicz publications that I do not own. I found a site that offers a discount if you buy all three and I was thinking about breaking out the credit card. CBB

I'm working on scenarios using the book "The History of Panzerregiment 'Grossdeutschland'" by Jung and have noticed the same thing. The author seems to mention the various regimental commanders only in passing, making it difficult to figure out who was in command at what time. Otherwise, the book is great -- lots of good scenario possibilities. CBB

I'm still pretty much a novice at designing CMBB scenarios but the more I experiment, the more success I have in making the AI attack reasonably well. As suggested by others, flags and cover definitely help. Placing the AI troops closer to the objective will reduce the march time. And giving the attackers a good numerical advantage together with varying attack lanes will prevent the defender from shutting down the whole attack by blocking one sector... Finally, I try to give my attacking forces some fanaticism. That seems to help them push forward. CBB [ January 29, 2003, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: cbb ]

I tried that but with no luck... I've noticed that in the "Hornet's Nest" scenario, the AI always starts with a bombardment. So there must be some way to do it.

I am attempting to design a scenario to be played with the human player as the Germans and the AI as the Russians. I would like the AI-Russians to begin the scenario with an artillery bombardment. How do I get them to do it? I've given the Russians spotters (82mm and 76mm) but through fifteen turns of play, I have yet to see any Russian artillery fire. I really need them to fire sooner (and, if possible, lob some smoke rounds as well)... Thanks.

I am attempting to design a scenario to be played with the human player as the Germans and the AI as the Russians. I would like the AI-Russians to begin the scenario with an artillery bombardment. How do I get them to do it? I've given the Russians spotters (82mm and 76mm) but through fifteen turns of play, I have yet to see any Russian artillery fire. I really need them to fire sooner (and, if possible, lob some smoke rounds as well)... Thanks.

Isn't it about time that this thread devolve into a discussion of Paul Carell? Foxbat, where are you?

Yes, the same accusations have been made against The Black March but it has long been my understanding that The Black March IS fiction. I was told that the book was first serialized in some sort of "men's magazine" in Germany in the late '50s and that many Waffen SS veterans complained about it at the time. While there may be inaccuracies in Sajer's book, they do not compare to all the wild claims in The Black March (e.g. Panthers in 1942, executing prisoners with flamethrowers etc.)... I've been collecting books containing personal accounts of the eastern front for over 20 years and I'm pretty firm in my belief that The Black March is one of the weakest.

I didn't play much CMBO but based on my understanding of tank vs. ATG combat on the eastern front, ATGs seem way too vulnerable to me. Either they are being spotted too easily or they are being hit too easily.

It looks like the English translation is still available. Check out: http://www.aberdeenbookstore.com/german_weapons.htm 54. TIGERFIBEL, THE ORIGINAL TIGER TANK MANUAL, S,O, complete translation of the original manual issued to WWII German Tiger tank crews in 1943 including all intelligence charts and original illustrations, 174 pp. $20.00

I bought an English translation of this a couple of years ago. Don't know if it's still in print. Very interesting stuff.

Oh please drop the melodrama. Granted I've only been here for half a year, but the "commonly held conventions established by this community" as they are displayed in this thread is definitively nothing you should be proud of, nor should want to hold on to. From where I'm sitting, many of the scenario designers posting in this thread are coming across as the scenario making equivalents of ballerina primadonnas. Violated the trust of members of the community did he? Who trusted him? And with what? Do you often trust unknown people posting under false (or real) names on a bulletin board? To be perfectly honest, you are not exactly coming across as the level-headed pillar of rational discussion either. He has said that he understands your point of view, but he disagrees with it. To me at least, that means that he does see your side of the issue, he just doesnt agree with it. The same thing can hardly be said about all the "he should have asked first, now he has betrayed us"-people. Weird, I think that threads like these do more harm to the community than good. I mean at least my views on a couple of things have changed.</font>