Emar

It looks like the problem may be my fault. It would appear that if you adjust the troop balance and select free to place units the computer will move troops out of different color setup zones to the far end of the map(free to place units without a force balance modifier works fine). It will however allow you to adjust the troop balance and maintain current positions if default setup is chosen.

Once I caught it the first time I let the computer setup several times and it as often as not moved all the troops out of the forward white and blue setup zones to the red ones at the end of the map, even deserting the defense of central map large flags in the process. I am currently experimenting with this problem with other operations.

Was working on a tweak for my Gebirgsjager pack battles and came accross a situation I had not expected. Was trying to figure out why sometimes the computer defends great and sometimes offers no resistance at all and set up the scenario without fog of war, lo and behold even though the map has 3 different color set up zones to create a layered defense the computer took all the troops from the blue and white zones and crammed them into the red zone leaving the forward defenses barren! Is this normal? I had always assumed that when selecting free to place units the computer was only free to place them within their respective setup zones, not free to change setup zones as it pleased. Needless to say I will change the setup advice on all 5 scenarios to use default and I apologize to those who have had a cakewalk at the computers whim.

Seem to recall reading that the Soviets built a few below the water bridges in order to launch a surprise attack into the Crimea in 44.

Thanks to everyone who has taken time to review these scenarios.I must admit I am feeling very much out of my league after seeing some of the names on those reveiws. So far it looks like a continuation of this series when I get my grubby little hands on CMAK would meet with approval. Thanks again to everyone.

Hey Stoffel!, good to see you are still out there. whats new with you?. any good scenarios lately? [ August 03, 2003, 11:41 PM: Message edited by: Emar ]

Anyone try these as 2 player yet?

Does changing play balance in an operation only affect the troop numbers in the first battle of that op? Was playing a 3 battle operation with a 50% enemy troop bonus and noticed at the end that the tanks which arrived in battle 2 and 3(8 tanks in 2 and 6 in 3) were the same amount as they would have been without a bonus, (I designed the op). Did not undertake to count the number of men but was curious about that too.

Wow Panzerman you play fast, I just posted those operations this afternoon :eek: . Thank you for your kind review, praise from you is praise indeed.

New Gebirgsjager pack is now available at the Depot . The Gebirgstruppe were elite units, mostly hand picked from the Alpine districts, whose high morale and tenacious combat ability carried them through to the last day of the war on all fronts. These 5 scenarios, one for each year of the war on the Eastern front and each with a unique tactical and terrain situation are designed for multiplayer play. The scenarios are all medium in size in order to facilitate older machines and to create a managable 2 player experiance. The scenarios are balanced for 2 player but in some instances the historical situation may stack the odds toward one side or the other. If played solitaire the player should add a 25% or even 50% enemy troop bonus if you are proficient against the AI. Any and all feedback is appreciated either here or at the Depot so they can be tweaked if need be. If the scenarios prove to be popular I will continue the series with the release of CMAK (Gothic line, Metaxas line, Battle of the peaks in Tunisia, 5th Mountain in Kreta, Anti partisan in the Balkans, etc.) Enjoy! [ July 30, 2003, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Emar ]

Another thing to consider is that many CMBB and CMBO battles and maps are on a small enough scale that even if a platoon of tanks was assigned to an area it would not be fully portrayed. It would therefore not be unreasonable to see only one or two of those vehicles on the battle map while the rest of the platoon operated unseen in an imaginary adjacent battlefield area.

Thanks a lot, that is exactly what I needed to know. Now I can finish this op up and send it out

Anyone? Is there a something about this in the players guide? :confused:

Thanks for the info scarhead. I just want to make sure we are on the same page as what you are describing sounds a lot like the head count feature used when purchasing units to simulate previous casualties. I am speaking of the "attacker casualty point factor" setting which is on the parameter page for static operations and which allows settings from 10% to 1000%. I had assumed this was a feature to give a point bonus to an attacker to compensate for the greater blood loss sustained by attackers over that sustained by entrenched defenders. Am I still not getting it? :confused: [ July 22, 2003, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: Emar ]

Designing a couple of operations and cant quite figure this one out. Search turned up nothing and the manual is kinda vague about whether more points help the attacker or defender. What I want to know is do you increase the points to help the attacker or decrease them? In other words does setting it on say 70% give the attacker a bonus or setting it on 150%.

Thomas Jentz's Panther book has several pictures of the device mounted on the commanders cupola of a captured Panther. I can scan the page but I don't know how to host it.

I am in the process of designing some operations and noticed a little problem with unit set up. I select my units for both sides and then go to the map preview to set them up. I can click on all of the German units as a group and move them to the general area I want to place them but the Soviet units only allow themselves to be moved one at a time. Not such a big deal in a small battle but dragging an entire battalion one unit at a time from the wrong side of a large map where the game deposits them and then reseperating them and setting them up one at a time gets a bit tedious. It is even worse for me as I often redo forces during playtesting of a scenario and have to go back to square one again. Am I doing something wrong or is this truly a glitch in the game?

Try my Gotterdammerung 2(improved version of the first Gotterdammerung) scenario at the depot. Large map with forces battling in the streets of Cologne

Have to agree that having only 30 turns in Our Backs to the Volga is tough. I did not even beat the AI . But having more time can indeed be an equalizer for the attacker. My CMBO Blut Und Ehre scenario gives a 5000 point advantage (16000 vs 21000 pts) to the defender! But I have had several people grab a total victory by the 5th or 6th battle. Scenario difficulty is hard to judge while designing, especially when the AI and human opponents success level can vary wildly (not to mention the luck factor).

Der Pionier Kessel, November 9th 1942, 4 battles 20+ turns each, Semi-historical. At the Scenario Depot Grasping at straws to tip the scales of victory in his favor, Hitler commits 5 battalions of his elite "shock Troops" to conquer the last bit of contested soil in Stalingrad. My first op for CMBB. Any feedback would be appreciated [ June 25, 2003, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: Emar ]

double post [ April 11, 2003, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: Emar ]

If CMAK is based directly on the CMBB engine and it has a new vehicle generated dust feature, is there any chance of us getting dust in a CMBB patch? (does not seem like it would take much time or effort) Would be nice for all those Russian summer scenarios

Aragorn. Please feel free to use the map from Blut Und Ehre. Just a couple of points though. The map for this operation is mostly westward of the area of 21st Panzers counter attack as it focuses more on the Canadian front(although you could crop off the western side of the map and extend it eastward). Also the distances on my map have been scaled down to between one half and one third their real life counterparts. Also you indicated you wanted to do a battle and this is an operation map. There is also an operation at the depot depicting the 21st counterattack which I have not personally played but which has received good reviews which you might want to check out. Anyway use the map as you wish and if I can be of any further help let me know.

One thing you can do is go to your map editor page, take a screen shot and print it out. If it is a large map print out each section and tape them all together. This will give you a template of terrain and elevations to work off of which you can look at and use to remake your map on the computer as an operation.

As the scenario designer I thought I could shine a little light on this issue. Although listed as semi historical I did some thorough research on these initial battles for Caen and Carpiquet. In fact it is only because the map is one half scale and the OOB has been downsized that I list it as S-H as the units and armour involved are correct including the Allied Naval presence. The 14 inch naval salvos in this scenario are indeed devastating as you mentioned.However as Mr Kernow suggested in his post they are also entirely realistic. A single Salvo from the supporting battleships and cruisers offshore could send over ten tons of high explosive hurtling towards a single target miles away. Unfortunately for 12th SS Hitlerjugend these barrages became a part of daily life for the entire Normandy campaign. Such devastation tossed 46 ton tanks around like childs toys in a playroom. In fact their commander Fritz Witt was killed on June 14th when his command post was obliterated by one of these salvos forcing the promotion of Kurt Meyer to divisional commander. These naval barrages were used against the 21st panzers counterattack on the 6th and repeatedly against HJ on the 7th and 8th to slow their momentum. This was the Allies saving grace as HJ threw itself into the fray on the 7th with a fanatical fury unseen before in this century. In fact at the risk of starting a debate on this forum I believe that without these barrages and the Allied domination of the skies over Normandy HJ would have decimated its opponents in short order and put the invasion front in a shambles. Not to include these Allied assets in this scenario would have been rewriting history and would have signifigantly changed the balance in the Axis's favor. This is why I suggested in the briefing for 2 player that the experianced commander play as the Germans. That does not mean that the scenario can not be won as the Axis but it is tough. Against the AI it is fairly easy to avoid this problem as the AI will usually only target grouped up units with the 14 inchers(I learned this the hard way after losing an entire company, 2 halftracks, 2 AA guns and a Panzer IV to one barrage while playtesting the scenario)the AI however will often not use its naval assets at all if no lucrative target is presented (I have played through all 11 battles with only one or two salvos fired against me by the AI) . Against a human opponent tactics will be much as the real life tactics were. Don't bunch up units, hide all units during the day, shoot only at worthwhile targets and move to a new hiding place after shooting,and expect to lose a unit every battle to barrages anyway (these suggestions work against aircraft as well). In short, if this inclusion of these realistic units makes this a poor scenario then I guess I am guilty of making a poor scenario. BTW I would be interested in hearing from anyone who has actually gone all the way to completion with 2 player on this huge scenario. Although the first few battles were tested that way I have never had anyone complete the entire campaign. Also I have been in the process of revamping and expanding the map from 2k to 2.5 k wide with 2 more towns and more room to manuever and hide from barrages (since it wasn't big enough, LOL)and also tweaking other aspects of this operation and as soon as the authors only section is up and running at the depot I will post it as version 2.0 [ January 25, 2003, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Emar ]