sanman

My hat is off to those who take the time to do true historical scenarios . After designing a few fictional and Semi fictional historical operations. I started on a Historical one. After a week or two of trying to find accurate maps, translating them and building and rivers and roads into a historical map representing the pictures I found, I gave up . There were not enough options in the scenario builder to make a real historical map that made sense. Also the battle, didn't happen in the time frame of 30 mins. or even 140 mins. they took all day and continued for days. Compete non conflicting information on all the units, strengths, ammo, arty rounds, air power, etc. was not available(at least I could not find it). I now realize this is a game. The best you can do is get the area right, have the forces make sense to the area, time frame and force makeup. Have the terrain roughly match the area. The main thing is to have a good reason to (mission) capture/defend, make it interesting, fun and balanced. If you get most of it right is it historical? How do you know you are not missing units or landscape important to the scenario but lost to history. History this far away is always based on conflicting, incomplete accounts and this game is to limited to make truly accurate simulations anyway. I would bet that all scenarios labeled historical could be challenged in some way. There is just no way the CM game engine can dupicate the all the factors important to a particular battle, So I believe all scenarios are really semi-historical, what ifs . Sanman

I'll take the Sherman Jumbo with the 76mm, Just love watching shell bounce off it (except the big 88)great slug it out tank. Speed is good and it has a fast turrent. sanman

Thanks for the info yankeedog, makes my losses much more bareable. I had heard so much about tungstens ability to kill big cats from the front I was surprise to see the shells bounce off at that range. Won't try that again :eek: . Sanman

In a game I am playing I had a 76mm Sherman fire two tungsten shells(I made sure they were tungsten not AP) against a Panther (head on) at 100m. Both bounced . Is this possible? I thought a tungsten shell could go though 243mm of armor at that distants, and a Panther is only 110mm at its thickest, Am I missing something? :confused: Sanman

As someone who is getting CMBB next month I kind of agree with Dandelion. When I played the demos I found them dreary. No beautiful landscape and building to blow up , but I look forward to the large operations . As a scenario designer I think one of the few draw backs of both CMBO and CMBB are the time limits on battles and artillery. Most historical accounts of battles that I have read show them lasting for much longer than a hour or two (even small infantry op's). A lot of times the Arty lasted that long. If you are realistic about the time it takes (CMBB) to get arty support would'nt you have to also be realistic as to how long a battle usally is, though I'm not sure that is possible without making the turns longer. Operations give you a better feel of a longer battle but if you put together 5 battles to represent one day I think the amount of troop movement before each battle is unrealistic. I guess it is the one size fits all that I find doesn’t work. If there were more options in designing scenarios I think we would get much more realistic battles. Take artillery, In many defensive situations (and some offensive) Arty was well plotted out before the battle (up ten, left 25, fire) where as in other cases such as close support it was much more difficult. More options for the FO’s in scenario design would allow you to match the time it takes for arty to the historical and tactical facts of a battle. Giving the scenario designers more options would work in many other areas to allow us to build scenarios that are more realistic. Just a thought, maybe BTS is listening :eek: . Sanman

As a newer scenario designer it would be good to have some constructive feedback on my scenarios from more experienced scenario designers. You cannot do Beta versions with out it. I’ve found my CMBO operation scenarios on Scenario Depot do not get reviewed even though I know people are playing them ( I have found a few people who have played them through my own PBEM play and people who email me about them) and like them . I know most people are playing CMBB but I feel there is so much great historical stuff from the western front that has not been cover yet. I also admit that I am waiting for CMAK before doing any major historical projects. I look forward to placing some of my best work on the Proving Grounds as well as using it for a place to find people to Play. Good Work :cool: . Sanman

All reserves come when the AI thinks you need them. They come at the beginning of a battle like the reinforcements. First to come is battalion, then regimental finally Divisional. They can come separately or all at once depending on what the AI thinks you need (I have no idea how the AI figures it out). If your real good you can even win without ever getting the reserves. It really ads a lot of unpredictability to the game. You can be winning when your emery gets their reserves which can allow them to narrow the game. Arty can also do that. Sanman

Tacitrain, You need to give the attacker enough time to fight their way to the back of map, but not so much they can take their time. The only way to make sure it’s fair to both sides is to play against the AI. Somewhere between 120 and 140 turns in 5 to 7 battles is a good place to start. Reinforcements are also critical to a good game. A large reinforcement in the middle of the game and the rest coming as reserves is also a good place to start. BTU Arty really needs to be appropriate for the operation historically. Sometimes you expect a lot of Arty, sometimes you don’t. To be interesting your operations should have some historical reality. Sanman

Very good observations Dandelion. We do need more huge scenario designers as well as players . I have used Artillery a lot in my scenarios on both sides. I give each spotter the max amount so in the first battle they have tons which goes down dramatically in re-supply. I only give a couple reinforcement spotters later in the operation. Since these are large pre planned assaults by the Allies on fortified Axis positions I think its accurate. I have read that the Allies would pound Axis positions before attacking (11,000 rounds in a hour for a regimental assault). We don't have the time to do that. I do agree that the timing of the Allied fire is to short and indirect fire to accurate in CMBO, but feel that the killing of a spotter eliminating a whole battery makes up for the cut wire line. Artillery is also is a great equalizer when one side is losing badly but a lot depends on the weather. In the PBEM I'm playing the artillery has kept us both on or toes. You should see the battlefield after 3, 25 turn battles. Looks like a 11,000 round barrage :cool: . Sanman

Tacutrain, you can only have so many units in the scenario (256 or something for each side) . It doesn’t matter if it is a tank or Zook. I have built scenarios with over 16,000 points per side by editing ammo, and experience after choosing forces. Build your infantry first (at Battalion level) to the max level. Then trade things you don’t need in the battle for things you do. For the attack side you might want to get rid of some 60mm mortars, Zooks and extra Platoon HQ’s for more tanks, spotters, etc.. For the defender up grade your guns, trade MG’s for concrete Pillboxes, mortars for artillery etc. If you want to check out my Scenario’s they are at the scenario depot under new CMBO operations (Hells Hole, Hells Lake) Sanman

I have found the AI Free To Set Up works better if you are the defender. It gives at least some amount of surprise. The problem is the AI always starts attacking from far back on the map. This is OK if there is a limited amount of LOS due to weather, trees, hills etc. otherwise you see them coming. Al is not real good at sneaking troops around. It doesn’t work as well if the AI is the defender because the AI has no defensive strategy. Flags might help in CMBB, but I haven’t seen much difference in CMBO battles with flags in free set up. I am currently playing my scenarios PBEM for the first time. What a difference. It is much more difficult unpredictable and intense than a Battle or QB. Strategy becomes so much more important. It does take awhile but has never become boring. The battlefield looks great (after 3 of 5 25 turn battles) littered with dead tanks, lots of craters, blown up bridges etc. We have gone from rain to clear to night with huge battles, small actions, Artillery duels, etc. and I love it :cool: . Sanford

I should have said that my operations are CMBO. If CMBB has flags in operations then that is one problem that is solved as long as some troop will actually stay and defend the flag. I have found that no matter what you do, when action starts happening in one area of the map the defending AI will send troops to that area no matter if they are hidden, paddocked or even put in ambush in setup. Anything that will move comes out of their defensive positions eventually and attacks you . It is almost imposible to set up a layered defence You start a small action on one side of the map and pick off the AI as they move, then you attack on the other side of the map and watch them move back. I have slaughtered huge AI forces this way. You are attacking from a defensive position. A human will not move his defensive forces unless he absolutely has to and then will move them to good defensive positions of his choosing. As far as FO’s goes in CMBO they will leave their setup position if they have no LOS on where the fighting is. The AI loses most of it FO’s in the first battles where as a human player knows those FO’s are going to be needed in the next battle. Also the AI lets it’s FO’s get overrun while a human player will retreat them (along with forces that run out of ammo). I agree with Nippy that some sort of operational command system would be a great advance in the game. Just to be clear, I really love this game and am just offering some observations on CMBO which may have been cleared up in CMBB. Sanman

Having designed a number of huge operation scenarios (see at scenariodepot) I really hope the following problems will be fixed in CMAK operations. 1. Allow flags to be used in operations and make it so the troops defend the flags, not chase after every shot that is fired. 2. A way to make the defending troops stay put and defend instead of attack. 3. Default scenario means the AI does not move any of the troops. 4. Area set up of reinforcements using flags like in a battle. The troops can only be set up with in a certain distance from the flag decided in scenario builder. 5. Better use of FO’s and artillery by AI. 6. If a Fighter-bomber unit cannot attack in a battle due to weather they will be able to attack in the next battle with good weather. 7. Give the scenario designer some options on how the AI forces will attack/defend (send patrols first, stay hidden until contact, etc.,) If BTS would change fix these problem I think operations would be played much more than they are now. I’m one of those people who happens to like operations better than battles as I think they are more interesting, intense, and challenging. PLEASE help us out. Sanman

Redrobin was the first to play one of my operations with me and I learned a lot from him about PBEM play, both with this operation and in general . Like real battle things go wrong (troops don’t get orders) and it can be the small mistakes that come back to haunt you. Luck is also important, Redrobin had some bad luck in the tank duels in the first battle. I hope this goes to the next battle were I can see how he fights at night with a fresh battalion, armor, artillery and a few battles of experience :eek: ....It ain’t over till it’s over. Sanman

Dandelion, Mahalo means thank you in Hawaiian which is were I'm from :cool: . Good luck attacking those Huns Imc1947, Read the briefings as there is some good advice in them and don't give up if it gets bad.

Icm 1947 To be honest I really don’t know if it will get worst. I know things like smoke really use up the ram. And you really need lots of smoke to succeed from the allied side. Try playing against the AI and take the axis side, the AI is not always smart enough to use a lot of smoke. Please let me know how it goes, your computer type, speed and ram. You can email me at sanman@maui.net or review it at the scenariodepot.com so others will know if they can play it on their computer. Mahalo Sanman

Thanks for all the interesting comments . When I design a game I try give the players a reason for the operation, something to fight for besides flags. So far I have found that missions in semi historical setting work best(Capture a V2 rocket hideout, 5th Panzer Army HQ, etc.). I would really like to do Historical missions but they are just to much work to get them right, I just don’t have that kind of time(I have to work for a living) . Also missions are easier to make fair scenarios for 2 person play. Although CMBO has many things that could be fixed to make it a better game (some of it was taken care of in CMBB), it is still the strongest strategic simulation out there. The best thing about CM is it allows you to put yourself in the shoes of everyone from the squad leader to the operation commander in one operation. You can see how they relate to each other (“for the want of a nail the battle was lost’). I will admit that it is harder to do that, that’s the idea. These are some of the most complex and difficult scenarios you will find and not everyone’s cup of tea. In my missions you will never usually have more than a battalion of infantry to command at one time. In the beginning you will have a large force with plenty of ammo and artillery. Reinforcements come in the middle of the operation and reserves come if your getting your butt kicked so it ain't over till it's over. Because of the size of the map you are usually fighting around three separate company or less battles that are very different from each other but also affect each other and the game. Usually there are a lot of casualties because the forces are fairly evenly matched. The out come depends on your skill, good large scale and small scale tactics, luck, and being persistent. These scenarios will also give you a good game against the AI (add 25% to the enemy if your real good) which is a good way to learn operation tactics. Thanks ICM 1947 for the help. If people who down load and play scenarios from the Scenario Depot would review them (constructively) it would really help all the designers :cool: .

Tweety thanks for the support . I try to design operations where you will be down to very little forces by the end of a battle so every squad counts.. In a current operation I am playing PBEM we are at the end of our second battle (of 5), He has loss most of his forces a I am down to my last tank and a few very beat up squads trying to push him back as far as possible before he ( and I) gets a large reinforcement just before a night battle. I hope you will try one my operations and let me know what you think. I would love to play one with you as you have experience with huge operations and could probably teach me a thing or two. I can be reached at sanman@maui.net

Ok that makes sense. Computers without enough power to handle the larger games . I really try to make the operations so that only a portion of the forces are in battle at the same time. Some are operations are better than others. Reinforcements come at later battles to replace the causalties which are usally heavy. For what it is worth the biggest PBEM file I have had so far is 780KB with most below 500kb. I would think 750 processor would not have a problem, the ram might be though. 128mb would be good, but I really don't know. What I need is people to try the scenarios against the AI with different computers to find out what works. Maybe I should try a poll to find out what type of computers people are using. I far as playing the games, It takes a little longer but the games are more interesting and challenging. It does take commitment over a long time. If you average 1 move a day a 120 move game would take 3 months. It is like playing 5 25 turn games with the same person. There are many good qualities that make it worth while. The game is more realistic. It ebbs and flows and changes. The maps are huge and allow manuvers. You encounter many different types of forces and weapons in the same operation. Time limits work differently, Battles are part of a operation so you have time to develope plans. It is also much more violent when the large forces collide. There are just so many more possiblities. Anyway maybe some of you could download the operations from the scenariodepot.com (HELLS HOLE & HEllS LAKE) and let me know how they work on your computers. I would love some feedback to find out how they work so I can make them better or stop making them.

Having followed a number of treads from IMC1947 I realize that there are a number a very experienced CMBO players giving good advice and opinions on CMBO, it’s tactics and the war in Europe in general :cool: . Since I am interested in playing (and designing) huge operations and using CMBO to it’s limit I am wondering why there is so little interest in these types of scenarios. I would think it would allow players, especially the more experienced ones, to test their skills and tactics in a new way. Is it because they are more complicated and take more time both per turn and scenario? Or maybe people just like winning at something they are good at. There have been a couple brave souls who are testing my scenarios with me and I think they would agree that they are more difficult than QB or scenarios under 5000 point. These are good players but there is a learning curve especially if you have not played large or huge operations much. You have all the problems of a large battle which must be fought within the context of a huge operation. Also you have to control and coordinate large forces of armor, infantry and artillery plus reinforcements and reserves. Maybe this is to much for people whose main experience is playing smaller op.’s? Whatever the reason I would like to know because these scenarios are REALLY hard to design and test. I am just finishing a huge battle (16,000 plus points per side, 75 turns, ME) but it will be my last if there is no interest. I am not complaining just want to know :confused: .

The problem with QB is it is completely unrealistic. The Maps are crazy. Roads that go nowhere, Houses and building in the places where they would never be etc. With 30 turns, a 5,000 point limit and no real room or time to maneuver it gets very gamey and predictable . My solution is to design Huge scenarios that give each player plenty of forces, time and objectives in a way that is realistic to combat in this area and time but fair to each side. So far I have done 2 huge (over 16,000 points per side) operations. I have just started playing them PBEM (max. PBEM file size so far is under 800kb) and found it brutal chaotic fun. With so many variables gamey strategies go out the window. The only thing I don’t like is you can’t use flags to mark the objectives you are fighting over. So I am just finishing my first Hugh battle. A ME on the largest map I could make with 75 turns and over 16,000 points per side. It is snowy, forested land with few roads like so many places in Germany. The main objective ( were most of the Big Flags are) is a vital cross roads village in the middle of the map. There are 12 flags over a large area equally easy or hard for each side to get to. Hopefully the battle will seesaw back and forth with fighting still happening on the last turn with total victory for one side being very difficult. Troop movement is critical. Reinforcements come throughout the battle with equal chance. Through there is tons of infantry, armor and artillery on each side but the forces are different in skill and size. The German force are veteran or crack SS, Fallschirmjager, Stumgruppe, and Gebirgsjager with Tigers and Panthers. The Allied is regular with Pershings, Jacksons and Jumbos and a 25% size advantage. Playing this against the AI is useless as it cannot effectively maneuver this size force so I am looking for a few brave players to test this game out with to see if a battle this size works. Any Ideas or comments? Can anyone else who has experimented with scenarios this size give me any advice? I can be reached at sanman@maui.net

If your ready for a real challenge, not some wimpy quick battle let me know. I've got a few operations that will test your skills. sanman@maui.net

NFR I finished the battle. The PBEM files got smaller as the battle went on. I never got a 900kb or even a 800kb file. Mostly around 500kb to 700kb. So if you would like to play one of these scenarios PBEM I would really enjoy playing against a opponent that thinks . You can email me at sanman@maui.net and we can work out the details. Da Sanman

NFR Last night I took your advice and played one of my scenarios with PBEM. I did 10 turns including some big ones (lots of smoke, infantry, tanks, artillery etc.). Most of the PBEM files were about 250kb with the largest being 923kb. I could reduce it to 624kb using ZIP file. My guess is the largest PBEM file in the game would be 1.5megs (I could be wrong). These games were designed so that elements come in over time to replace casualties and a good game should have lots of them. Also most assaults get bogged down due to fortification or artillery so not all element on map are moving at the same time. I will continue this battle tonight but so fat this seems workable to me, what do you think. Da Sanman

NFR Last night I took your advice and played one of my scenarios with PBEM. I did 10 turns including some big ones (lots of smoke, infantry, tanks, artillery etc.). Most of the PBEM files were about 250kb with the largest being 923kb. I could reduce it to 624kb using ZIP file. My guess is the largest PBEM file in the game would be 1.5megs (I could be wrong). These games were designed so that elements come in over time to replace casualties and a good game should have lots of them. Also most assaults get bogged down due to fortification or artillery so not all element on map are moving at the same time. I will continue this battle tonight but so fat this seems workable to me, what do you think. Da Sanman