76mm

That's the "old" way, although it works. See if your game directory has a file called "pcsub.exe", and if so, open it and it allows you to create submaps very easily.

Actually, you can create your own sub-maps from the full campaign map, at least with the demo (so you should be able to with the full game. Another thing I just realized is that the scenario editor allows you to use summer maps in winter, etc., by changing the ground conditions in the editor (with the map art changing automatically). You can build your own scenarios with the scenario editor, you can change quite a bit. I'm just playing around with the demo for now, but it is pretty cool.

Denis, sorry, didn't see your pm until you mentioned it...

Another question: how can the Axis player tell that the Allied player attacked Bray rather than just moved next to it? (I guess he will have played the CM battle, but still if there were several battles it could be hard to remember which PzC hexes involved a CM battle?

Aaaargh, I wanted to see how you plan to handle retreats in CM battles on the PzC maps.

****************** Just to mention that the master Allied OOB can be used as a casualty tracker, so when the CM battle at Bray is over, the Allied player can load the master Allied OOB into the scenario editor and apply the combat effects to his fought units, as well as doing likewise in the PzC OOB editor for the CM units equivalent operational icons. ****************** Noob, sorry, I have not played much with campaign units in CMBN, how do you do this? That is, how do you "apply the combat effects to the fought units"? You do this manually?

I'm still not sure that I understand how moving the counters around will work; you seem to describe when a unit retreats before a CM battle, but what if it retreats after a CM battle, will it make any difference? I still haven't played PzC yet, so don't know how the turn phasing works. I understand your reasons for turning off PzC combat, but will be curious to see how quickly your PzC turns will progress, since it seems like you'll have to finish all of the CM battles before moving to the next PzC turn? I like your idea about farming out the CM battles to the community, and will be interested to see if people will pick them up quickly (since they might be lopsided, etc.). Your description of how the battle could unfold sounds awesome, but I don't understand how you'll coordinate the movement in PzC with combat in CM. For instance, it seems like in theory you could have the first player to move attack before the second player had a chance to move, with the second player simply deciding which PzC units to feed into the CM battle as reinforcements. But how would these reinforcements be moved around on the PzC map. Is there some kind of reaction/assault phase in PzC that would allow units to move in this manner?

Actually I used my own campaign manager. But thanks for pointing out that site, I thought that CMMODs had folded long ago!

I've tried to use pre-made maps but generally found that while the quality was high, the maps did not quite work--roads, rivers, etc were in the wrong place. That said, this approach would probably work fine for "generic" countryside. In any event, given the time involved in creating CMx2 maps, this is probably the only feasible way to go. I like to track more data than you can in PzC, including unit kills (and their effect on unit experience), leader casualties (and promotions), etc., although I like to play longer meta-campaigns spanning months of combat in a fictional environment, and all of this would not be necessary in shorter meta-campaigns. Also, with your system, PzC itself tracks many of the necessary features, including weather and objectives. Anyway, if you have any interest, pm me your e-mail address and I'll send you the draft manual that I created for CMBB so that you can see what it looked like. I thought I'd seen in your previous posts that you could use PzC to resolve some battles, which would be a huge boon, but in a subsequent post I thought you said that you'd decided to do all battles in CMx2--why is that? Also, while I see that you can edit the OOB for saved games in the scenario editor, how do you actually move the units to show a retreat or advance occuring as a result of a CMx2 battle?

Noob, I'm following your efforts with great interest, and last night downloaded the PzC Mius Demo (I'm more of an East Front guy). I am really curious how you plan to create all of the necessary CMBN maps, it sounds like a huge time-sink? For CMBB I programmed kind of a meta-campaign data tracker, basically a database for tracking units casualties, kills, morale, leaders, etc. I am thinking about trying to do the same for CMx2, let me know if this might be helpful.

Dear JK, I've played some games vs human opponents, but the problem with doing this in a metacampaign is that many of the scenarios were not balanced, it is just what came up during the campaign. Really fun for me because of the context, but for another human might have been kind of ho-hum. The main reason for the relative lack of Sov victories was that when possible, I tended to play Germany vs the Sov AI, which obviously skewed the results; also in the metacampaign the German force had interior lines and could generally bring superior forces to bear. Mord, I'm well aware of CMx2 development, but can't say that I have gotten into it yet; hated CMSF, am totally bored by Normandy, and find myself constantly irritated by various weird issues with the new engine. That said, I want to get to know the new engine better, and hopefully Italy will be interesting enough while we wait for real action in the East!

I've finally decided that it's time to stop playing CMBB... This morning I finished a meta-campaign I've been playing against myself for several years, and decided it would be a good time to move on to something else, although I'm not sure what (looking at PCO, APOS, Conflict of Heroes, CMBN, HistWar, etc. etc.). I had a great time with the meta-campaign; it lasted for almost a year in-game, with 6 hour turns. During that time, 119 battles, with the Sovs winning only 44 of them (I often played the Germans vs the Sov AI). All units started as Green, and on the German side only two units got to Veteran status, on the Sov side none did (units gained experience with each battle and for each kill, but all replacements were green). I really came to like certain units and commanders, even while most of them were untried, unknown, and unloved. Anyway, just wanted to say thanks for the great gaming experience, and that I hope to find something equally engrossing.

I wouldn't say it is exactly as it should be; IRL, if you assign covered arcs (as is frequently done), you can be assured that the relevant unit will be focusing their attention on that sector, with the knowledge that other units will be doing the same for other sectors. The result being that if something appears in the designated sector, it is more likely to be spotted quickly. The order to fire/hold fire is a obviously a completely separate issue, even if they are treated as the same in the game.

These packs sound like a great idea, just be sure to include a "meta-campaign" pack on your list, which will allow people to modify save-game files, or import/export game data, etc.!

Actually, it doesn't imply it, it explicitly states it. If the only benefit is that "the unit would face into the arc", a covered arc is really no benefit at all for a stationary unit, as you could just rotate it and get the same effect. This topic was discussed rather extensively in a thread on the CMBN forum that I started several months ago, and IIRC the conclusion was the same as Baneman's.

I miss this as well; seems like a simple fix???

This is great news and super cool. I hope that you'll eventually follow it through to its logical conclusion and let us share units and maps between Normandy, Italy, EF, and that will be the absolute coolest!

I can't speak about PzC in particular, since I don't play it either, but for many Matrix games their forum is not the most active forum, in fact it can be totally dead while the forum of the developer or some other forum might be very active. So I don't think you can necessarily judge the popularity of this feature by checking Matrix' forum.

Yeah, this is a key question, and frankly I think an important one if they want to maximize playability of this series. Personally I don't care much about historical maps/scenarios, but do want maps that are well-made.

I was following CMC development quite closely, and don't think that is correct; the game was very much focused on importing/exporting data to/from CMBB, so I don't see how it could have been sold separately, or it is was, why anyone would buy it.

for those of you creating meta-campaigns or even large scenarios, how do you plan to create all of the necessary maps? the process was tedious enough in CMx1, and while i haven't tried yet with CMx2, i understand it is much more time consuming. Maybe no big deal for the little maps used for normandy, but i think creating larger maps for east front games will be a real chore. just so you understand, i created more than 100 3x3 km maps for a cmbb meta campaign, which would clearly be impracticable for CMx2. so a couple of questions: 1) i assume there is not much hope of the devs creating more/better map-building tools? 2) at least are map-makers sharing by posting their work to the respository, etc.? 3) wonder if there would be any sense in developing some kind of amp template that would make it easier to share maps? i kind of doubt it but i'm rather desparate to think up something...

i didnt care much for carrell's stuff, a bit too propaganda-ish for me. it's disappointing how few east front books are available for kindle, not easy to find good ones.

+1 for hell's gate, great book. Raus' book is also quite good, at least at first, before he gets promoted too high. i am reading kershaw's "war without garlands" now; not really operational, kind of a mix of tactical anedotes and home front issues, but so far quite interesting. i've read, or tried to read a couple of glantz' books, they are just too boring. buy them if you are researching an operational scenario, otherwise I would pass. you might want to check out "bloody triangle" by kamenir for a sov account of early tank battles. the topic is quite interesting, although the book is not well written. i read craig's "enemy at the gates" re stalingrad many years ago, thought it was great.

I dont know if the AI is cheating, but i am certainly not having much success in the couple of scenarios I've tried. my pz iv's cannot seem to hit stationary shermans at less than 300 meters, and if they do hit, the round bounces off. meanwhile, the shermans have absolutely no problem hitting or killing my tanks. I've tried a couple of different approaches without success, not sure what to try next...

damn, I hate being out-trolled. touche!