Mad Russian

Count it up. You held the flags but gave up a lot of causualties doing it. More often than not, it is far more important to kill enemy units than it is to try to hold flags. The points for a late war tank for example can be the same as for a large flag. Once again count it up. You lose three tanks taking the flag. Each of those tanks was worth what the flag was worth. You won't win that way. A lot of scenario designers will stack flags on a position to make them more expensive and worth the expenditure of your resources to take. In a scenario with dynamic flags they can be worth as much as 2000 points and that makes them worth the fight. Just depends on the value of the flags vs the cost of the units. In this case you lost 200 more points in casusalties and that made up most of the difference for one of those large flags you held. Hope this helps.

Jason, I should back up. When I say that the problem is with the gamer, I meant that the system allows for us to do the very things you point out. There are lot's of things that CM gets wrong. The list is well known... God view and God control being at the top of the list as far as CCC modeling is concerned. But to say that CM doesn't get the casualty part of war right I think is going the wrong direction. IMHO, it is one of the things that the game gets right. Charge a HGM over open ground and get shot to pieces. That is accurate. Move to within 200 meters of a functioning gun/tank and for the most part get hit. That part is pretty accurate. What is not accurate is the advance without regards to casualties. As you point out this is a game function. Depending on what the battle/operation level that is chosen by the designer there should be some real differences in what an assault, attack and a probe look like on the ground. An assault is what you get in every CM situation. You should expect to take heavy casualties and you will. An attack the computer should be less tolerant of losses and a probe should accept very low rates of loss. Today that doesn't happen. Sorry for misstating my position earlier.

I have a series of scenarios that follows an American Division across France, Belgium and into Germany. I put together a series of battles following the progress of the 3rd Armored Division from their first combats to their last. I chose the battles that seemed to me the most interesting of the war for the division. For, those that are interested you can email me.

I have a scenario that involves both the LRDG and the Italian Auto Saharan Company, the Italian version of the LRDG. It too was on the now defunct Scenario Depot. For those interested you can email me and I will send it to you.

I don't think that CM is too far off. Where the problem lies is with the gamer. CM will give you the casualties but we don't stop or pull back or say that, "WHOA, 20% is unacceptable!" For us, all CM battles are, "Take the objective at all costs!" Rob Disney of CSDT did a battle in CMAK where the objective of the scenario was two fold. To get the flag, on map objective, but to not lose more than 10% of your force doing it. It was a wonderful change to the normal attack at all costs scenarios and much closer to a realistic outcome. Of course the scenario was unbalanced. So are 99% of any combats real soldiers take part in. If it isn't balanced in their favor they fight another day. I have read countless after action reports that talk about 2 or 3 tanks being destroyed and the attack halted. Not 20 or 30 like we do but only 2 or 3. There were not endless supplies of equipment to be doled out to a battalion commander. And every man you lose will not be replaced in the next mission. My $.02 worth.

Yes they are! The moment a pillbox moves away they lose their boresighted bonus! So there!!

I don't understand the, "played against humans" comment. I've playtested dozens of scenarios against people, many of them in this thread, and have often found that we differ on how we view the results of the battle. I do almost exclusively historically based scenarios, both designing and playing, so I might well accept a scenario as being very unbalanced, while you on the other hand may care nothing for the historical value of the scenario and see it as being grossly out of balance. IMHO, any balance rating is a very subjective issue. I do think though, that you will find reviewers whose views you share, and when you do you can go with their view of scenario balance as it closely concurs with your own. I am a scenario designer with some experience and that is exactly the problem. I have made and posted to the Scenario Depot more than 100 scenarios. With that level of experience, whatever that means, if I put a difficulty level on my scenarios it will only be good for anybody at the same experience level as I am at. Also, would I rate a scenario that I did when I first started making my scenarios with the same rating I would if I made that same scenario today? As a scenario designer I am constantly striving for a way to determine where the scenarios I make land. I've had scenarios reviewed that were supposedly both too hard and too easy all at the same time. How can that happen? Easy, it is the skill level of both the designer and the player that come together to determine if the player had a good gaming experience. I came up with a scale to use for my vs AI scenarios that works as well as anything I have ever seen. It works like this... Computer Experience Bonus: Computer Experience Bonus: Add computer experience bonus relative to the experience you have as a player. Good player +1, above average player +2 and very experienced player +3. While this is not perfect it is at least an attempt to allow you to determine how to play my scenarios. But once again, this scale too is subjective to your own interpretation of what skill level you think you have as a player. Using an easy-hard or a number rating system is at best subjective and at worst subjective. It is also the best system out there. At some point in a review I want to know if you liked it or not and why. That is always going to just be your opinion and bottom line is that is what I'm asking for. Both as a designer and a player.

WHAT!!! :confused: That is where I get my best sources for my historical scenarios! :mad: Now you tell me...

You lose the boresighting ability if the weapon using it for that purpose moves. If it moves it cannot regain the boresighting modifier.

It would be nice if there was a way to include battle maps with the briefings as well. I know of several concerted efforts to do this with the CMx1 series of games.

This is a compilation of HSG and CSDT scenarios that include Tiger tanks. All forms of Tigers will be found here. There are large, medium and small scenarios that range in length from short to long. Almost without exception they are very competitive scenarios. I would llke to thank the HSG and CSDT members for supplying scenarios to this pack. This scenario pack can be found at <font color="white"> The Proving Grounds</font>. Name of the pack is pretty catchy too...HSG_CSDT Tiger Pack. This pack will be revised as more scenarios are playtested and become available. Enjoy!!!!!

(eg. omit night games or whatever... or omit scenarios by Panzerman and Steve Overton - only joking!) Okay Kip, the gloves are off after that!! :mad: Just like always, 10% of the people do 90% of the work... Steiner14...an easy - hard rating is no better. What you may consider easy I will more than likely consider hard. Every rating system is a judgement call by the player and we are all at different levels. When the SD was up and running I watched for reviewers that seemed to have about the same skill level as I do and noticed how they rated a particular scenario. Something that I think would be of particular worth along those lines would be to allow a search for particular reviewers. Just a thought.

No, the scenario he's looking for isn't mine. (Mad Russian...Steve Overton) I have one called HSG SS Eagles that has 3 King Tigers in it but there are supporting arms as well. That scenario is at <font color="white">The Proving Grounds</font> for those that are interested. Enjoy the KT's!! :cool:

I have uploaded the entire HSG Knight's Cross series of playtested KC scenarios on <font color="white">The Proving Grounds</font>. The name of the pack is "HSG KC Scenarios". For those that have never tried their hand at winning a Knight's Cross these are a series of scenarios that depict actions where the Knight's Cross was won. They are all Germans vs the AI. Lest you think, that a game vs the AI cannot be challenging, or that the AI can't attack, be forewarned. These scenarios will test your abilities on BOTH attack and defense!! The scenarios have been playtested and balanced to be played with a +2 Computer Experience Bonus (CEB) The CEB allows the computer AI to respond more aggressively than what you might normally see and give a more competitive game. For those that have played others in the KC series, here is the series as it stands at the moment. For those that haven't played any of the KC series, come and see if you have what it takes to win the KC!! If you have any doubts about the intensity of the combat in the series just ask here. There are lot's of gamers on this forum that have won the Knight's Cross in this series and they will tell you that it isn't easy... :eek: :mad: [ August 28, 2005, 06:47 AM: Message edited by: Panther Commander ]

Sorry if I missed any reference as to whether there will be detailed night combat in the upcoming series. I would really like to see night combat done with the assorted bells and whistles...flares, star shells, targets silhouetted against burning backgrounds... You know the drill...sorry Jason, I can resist everything but temptation... I can see where this could lead to a real number crunching, nightmare of a resource hog though. Just thinking out loud. Whatever you decide to put in I'm sure we'll all think is wonderful before it's over. Thanks for the CMx1 series! They rock. Can't wait to see what CMx2 looks like.

Things I'd like to see changed: 1) Convoy movement. There should be some. A convoy order so that click the order then the front and back vehicle and everybody keeps the spacing. Give the front vehicle movement orders and watch them all move. Combat breaks the convoy order. 2) Realistic modeling of night combat...flares, shadows, very selective LOS. I know that from reading some of your comments on file size this may have to wait for a later fix. In place of night combat, in case that isn't on the menu or isn't possible to integrate at the moment, then aircraft using the correct armament. No more P-38 bombing attacks using a total of 10 bombs...that, of course, was an exaggeration but not by much. 3)Accurate leadership model for both infantry and armor. Make the Bn/Company commander worth more than an extra Lt. on the map. Do a leadership Chain of Command for armor that has a leader higher than a Lt. 4)Artillery with smoke shell capability that is not all or nothing. The game should be able to handle an amount of both HE and smoke rounds assigned to an artillery unit without too much problem I would think. 5) Remanning guns and vehicles. This should include enemy guns or vehicles as well. While a case can be made for all guns and vehicles, machineguns should be an absolute. There are litereally thousands of examples of enemy MG's being used during tactical engagements against their owners. Not to mention any other types of weapons that would help. It goes without saying if enemy weapons would be crewed upon capture your own weapons would be recrewed as soon as possible during the fight. Don't change: 1: PBEM. It is the preferred way to play. I know you will do your best to keep it. 2: Some sort of After Action Report page. There are multiple possiblities that an AAR page can bring to the game. If that data could be easily transferable to a spreadsheet so much the better. 3: The ability of the modder's to continually take all aspects of the game to another level. The modding community has increased the value of CM for most gamers by multiples. 4: The simple CMBB/CMAK style of giving commands. While there are some more commands I would like to see, I have no problem playing the series with those already in place. 5: Aircraft. While I have a couple of issues with the way aircraft are modeled, I would rathere have them the way they are than to lose them. Most gamers seem to prefer CM without aircraft but that just wasn't the reality of a good share of WWII combat. Thanks for listening.

Really, Dorosh actually made a scenario in 3 years? :eek: I wonder how I missed it? It must have been small... I'll do what I can to help as always GJK.

These battles are ready for either more playtesting or just going to The Proving Grounds and downloading them. If you think you are tough enough to go where the Knight's Crosses grow, then climb aboard a Panther, and take your place in line!! Use at least a +2 CEB and get ready to fight for your very existance! I promise you that the AI will give you a run for your money. Forget all that stuff about the AI not fighting. It will fight you in the KC series!! :mad: :eek: :cool: These small tank battles are very intense..why it may take longer for the smoke to clear out of your house than it did to fight the scenario... :eek:

No. Since the Scenario Depot doesn't exist any longer I don't go there. So, by that reasoning I don't time out. Hopefully there will be an alternate to the site soon.

I think that a German operational victory at Kursk would have meant a strategic disaster. If you will remember the Red Army launched offensives both at Orel and Khar'kov even while the fighting at Kursk was still active. If the Germans had won the battle they would have had their forces farther east when the flanks caved in. I would think that Operation Bagration would be the answer to your question of what could happen to the German Army later. In mid-1944 the Red Army fooled the German Army into watching Army Group Centre destroyed and then losing the entire area of Russia and parts of Eastern Europe before the Red Army had to stop and regroup. Why would you need to drop an A bomb on Germany when the Russians were more than capable of finishing the job. Win or lose at Kursk. Someone said that the Soviets were low on manpower. By the end of the war who wasn't? By the end of the war the British had stopped sending infantry replacements, the US had made several manpower combs through service troops to get more rifle strength and the Germans were using 12 year old boys. It's not like the Soviets were the only ones with a manpower strength issue. Germans win at Kursk, the best the Germans get is, MAYBE, some extra time. The worst they get is another Stalingrad or destruction of Army Group Centre, only in July 1943, not June 1944. Just my $.02

It's back up now!! Ya'll drop in, yah hear!! :cool:

Any word on when TPG is coming back up?

What time period are you playing and what PzIV's are they picking?

I have two scenarios, yes, TWO scenarios, that feature platoon sized Panther elements in medium sized tank fights. Both are Knights Cross scenarios. Both feature elite units involved in extremely heavy fighting. Both feature Panther tank commanders in battles where they earned the Knight's Cross. These scenarios can be found at The Proving Grounds. http://the-proving-grounds.com HSG KC Untrstfhr Muehleck has been playtested for balance and is ready to for play. HSG KC Lt Neumeyer has just been put on the site for playtesting and may be in need of a little balance in the Russians favor. You tell me. These are both brutal tank battles against the AI. In one the AI is attacking and in the other it is defending. Go get the Panther Pack, and enjoy some brutal short knifefights in Russia, from the turret of a Panther!! Did I mention that there are Panther tanks in these two scenarios? Or that they are from the Knight's Cross series? Good I'd hate to think I forgot to mention it...

And yet you spell his name incorrectly no less than three times. Not to worry, so did GJK, Larry and Gpig also.... </font>