Mad Russian

Not for scenarios it doesn't!

Sometimes even more important than knowing where things are is knowing where things aren't. Fog of war takes care of all of that. I still have hundreds of dollars worth of ASL. Don't know that I'll ever get rid of it. Every so often I do a complete research an old ASL scenario and convert it over...

Oh, come on David, there is one, it is we just find it much more enjoyable to not have to know all the rules, move tolkens and can now see our battles play out in a little 3d world. ASL has been and still is a mark that has made this Hobby what it is, it was Miniature's brought to a easy playable level. This is the only computer game that is close in concept, but also the reason why this is the one game that true war buffs love, hopefully we will see the next level of this hobby soon with the forth coming releases. Oh, bye the way, I am in the process of selling my complete collection of ASL stuff, if anyone is interested, better deal now than if it goes on Ebay. </font>

For those that try the scenario HSG Untscfhr Langanke I am interested in learning the number of trucks you manage to exit. The scenario doesn't hinge on how many trucks you get off. Victory is determined by how much of your KG you manage to save. It is just interesting to see if you can save the fragile trucks or not. I have managed to get them all off:D and I have managed to get several of them shot up. :mad: So, I know that I can do both. It'll be interesting to me to see how other gamers approach this problem. All comments appreciated.

Why do you think this? Fully tracked vehicles are least prone to bogging because of the tracks - that's precisely why they have tracks. HTs, being half track (!) and half wheeled vehicle, should bog more often. Next would come vehicles with 8, 6, or 4 wheel drive, and last would be vehicles with 2 wheel drive, which includes most wwii era trucks. </font>

HSG KC Untscfhr Barkmann and HSG KC Untscfhr Langanke are at the Proving Grounds for playtesting. These are my first attempts at doing KC scenario's for CMAK. I hope you will appreciate the wait and the time and effort that went into making this particular scenario. These are both exit scenarios. I detest exit scenarios, so I worked long, and hard, to get these to work right. For those that don[t like exit scenarios try these. I was once told the AI couldn't attack too... Nothing should be made from the fact that the first two KC scenarios for CMAK feature SS men. I was doing research on a 3rd Armored Division scenario when I found these two actions. They met my criteria for scenarios, so they were the first CMAK KC scenarios. They won't be the last. :cool: Enjoy!

Both 2nd and 3rd Armored Divisions had Armored Regiments. They were the old organization and were already outside the US when the organization was changed. It was determined to keep theirs on the old style to avoid confusion before they went into combat. Afterwards they thought it was a great idea to keep them armor heavy.

Have you considered that the authors of those books only get paid when you buy them? That they were not writing books ONLY for the love of the subject but to get paid? If they don't get paid they won't right more books. It's that simple. We all do love the hobby and SUPPORT it by paying what is rightfully theirs. Your "right to copy" attitude hurts all of us. No wonder you got the responses here that you did. We want authors to write more books about our hobby. There are a multitude of websites that have information for free. Some of it is copyrighted as well and you need to be sure to observe those too. Let's just say you painted a picture that was worth $100,000 and somebody put it on the web for free and you did't get paid. How would you feel about the "right to copy" then?

Was that thread for CMBO/CMBB/CMAK? Has BFC changed the % of bog over the evolution of the games? I routinely run King Tigers a fast speed through soft ground in deep mud without them bogging excessively. I have run some pretty extensive tests on bogging myself and I'm thinking that bogging over all is undermodeled in the "bad" driving situations. Also, bogging seems to be a bit backwards in relation to the vehicles affected most. HT's seem to bog the most, they should bog the least. Tanks should bog the most they bog the least. I haven't tested trucks. I have never seen a vehicle in reverse ever bog. Just my $.02 worth.

You did, but you lied to yourself...

Found this and thought it was interesting. Captured Panthers proved to be extremely popular vehicles among Soviet troops, who received them as rewards for extraordinary achievements in combat, and who sought (contrary to regulations that captured Tigers and Panthers should not be repaired but abandoned and destroyed after mechanical failure) to keep them in service as long as possible. Even the Pantherfibel service manual was translated into Russian and provided to crews of captured Panzers! http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-vetscor/1491929/posts Maybe we should see more captured Panthers in scenarios... :mad:

Depends on what the objective of the scenario is. While I try to give the player as many options as possible there can only be so many options I can put into a scenario that has the map, OOB and initial setup that are as historically accurate as I can make them. We are now, once again, to the point where I tell you to find a designer(s) that you like and play his(their) scenarios. Lots of things enter into whether a gamer likes a particular scenario. One of the most obvious to me is the experience levels of the gamer AND the designer. If you are an experienced gamer and you are trying to play a scenario made by a novice designer you more than likely won't appreciate the scenario too well. The reverse is true a novice gamer trying to play a scenario made by an experienced designer may find himself at a loss as to how the scenario can be beaten. I'll use myself as an example so I don't step on anybody else's toes...and Jason I do make my scenarios for me - I do like them - I really don't care if anyone else does or not...the rest of you can use them for examples if you like, I have thick skin. It's not hard to make the OOB historically accurate, often times I have it in very detailed form. Not everybody in the world has the research material at their fingertips that I have and I don't count against the designer for that. How many designers would we have if they all had to have $5,000+ worth of material in the den? I have seen where designers, reviewers and CRITICS (those who don't write reviews but do take the time to be critical on a forum...you know who you are)get into the, "my source says your source is wrong", mode. I don't get into that. If you researched it at all I'm okay with that. If it's pointed out that the scenario could be more accurate then that's okay too. But it's not okay to toast a guy for trying to make scenarios, often by those that are clueless themselves how to even start to make one. For the most part, 99.99% of the time I make historically based scenarios, I don't put those down that make fictional ones just because that's not what I make. I think if you don't like a particular type of scenario then stay away from them. Once again using myself as the example, I have scenarios that range from having an OOB that consist of a single tank all the way to an operation that has an entire German Infantry Regiment. In that range I have seen reviews that toasted my work , and reviews that toasted my work! I have been on the Best Scenarios To Play lists and I have been on the Worst Scenarios to Play lists. With more than 100 scenarios to choose from it is a foregone conclussion that I cannot make scenarios that are going to be well recieved by EVERYBODY in the CM community, all the time! Just not going to happen. To make it even more certain that somebody won't like my work I often try situations that are very hard to model. Sometimes I pull it off, sometimes I don't. My scenarios are rarely long. 35 turns is long for me. I once made a scenario that was 4 turns long. I have only made three operations. More than half are medium or smaller. They are all historically based. (99.99%) The action starts within the first 5 turns or 25% of the total game turns. That's just me. I make what I like. That formula seems to have a following. BUT there are guys, some in this thread, that don't care for my work. That isn't a problem for me. I actually learn more from an AAR, that is critical of my work, than one that tells me what a wonderful designer I am, and how great my work is. Those are nice to get though. Everybody likes to be told that they do a good job now and again. I'm lucky in a couple of regards as well. I have a good working relationship with all the major scenarios designers and groups. We exchange information and sometimes playtesting. I am associated with The Proving Grounds, there I can get as much support as I can use for my scenarios. I started and have maintained one of the most talented group of scenario designers, researchers and playtesters in the CM Community with HSG. Any...ANY, scenario designer can get help at The Proving Grounds!! I say again, ANY, scenario designer can get help at The Proving Grounds!! There is no need to try to do this on your own. If you are new to scenario design get over there and get some help. If you are an old hand get over there and help a new guy learn the ropes. The personal preferences of each of us is so varied because CMx1 is that versatile. While I think it's okay to voice your preferences I think we all need to understand that there are entire groups of gamers playing scenarios that we would never try. That is what makes CMx1 such a great series of games.

Twin Villages was done by Simovitch. The BEST Bulge Scenarios are either done by him or have him as a consultant. He has period topo maps for the entire area beside his collection of personal pictures that he has taken on his many pilgrimages to the area, along with very detailed OOB and battle AAR information. HSG has an entire set of Bulge scenarios that we feel are very good. Simovitch was used consulted on the entire set. I'll email those to you, if you're interested.

One thing that I do to cut down on the scripted effect, is to playtest my scenarios using more than one avenue of attack. A designer has to remember that a playtest is not a game. As the designer you need to know how the scenario will respond, whether it's vs the AI, or H2H. You can playtest your own vs AI scenarios but you need a good playtester to help you do the H2H versions. That you can't do by yourself. If you need help go to The Proving Grounds. It's what they do. As the designer there are alot of things that you need to learn from playtesting the scenario. Only one of them is if the scenario can be beaten, IMO an absolute must, just as important is the scoring of the scenario, the length, the excitement level, the competitiveness, and for me personally - the historical content.

What??!! How come my crowd gets to be bashed??!! Just joking guys... We all need to lighten up a bit. It's Christmas for heaven's sake. I got my Christmas present with MikeyD's outstanding mod!! Great work as usual!

To me this is the part of scenarios that is most often out of balance. The flags need to be used to determine what is important. The values are also very important and should match the level of objective for the tactical situation. I have scenarios that have 4 large flags with 100 points value - total - so the AI can react. I have a scenario with 12 large flags, all scattered out on the map. There are endless combinations of victory locations and amounts, but, however you do them, they should match the scenario. You can tell at the end, after you have playtested it, if the flags are the right value amount. If the flags are the right amount they will affect the victory level. Whether they are in the right location is a bit tougher to determine. If you are after an attrition style battle the flag points shouldn't affect the outcome that much. If, on the other hand, you have to, "take that bridge" or the offensive for an entire Army is finished before it gets started, that bridge should be worth more than all of the points for your OOB. It's not how many casualties that you take that is important here but the objective. Flag placement is, for the most part, determined by the type of scenario you have designed. You have a different use for flags in a vs AI scenario than you do a H2H one. It is rare that a sceanrio plays well for both vs AI and H2H. Determine which your scenario is designed for and place your flags and their values accordingly. This is rarely done correctly. [ December 23, 2005, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: Panther Commander ]

Well this is right up my alley. Let's see... 1) Doing historical scenarios sometimes means you fight in terrain and weather conditions that are less than desirable. I do try to limit the deep snow. Your infantry can't move far at all without getting tired and then exhausted. While historically accurate it makes for a game that has a low excitement level. Deep mud has very little affect on the game from what I can tell. Even with soft ground I have driven King Tigers through it for an entire game and not bogged them. That is on "fast" command as well. 2)I agree that forces should match the map. 3)Time should match the battle. I don't like scenarios that have too much time just as much as I don't like those that have too little time. 4) Playtesting BEFORE it is released for general play would eliminate this problem. 5) This is what I call the CM Reinforcement Ball or CMRB. It is very easily taken care of as Jason says by reducing the number of reinforcements in a single slot. You can bring multiple slots near each other if you need a large reinforcement at a particular time. Just don't put them all in the same slot. I agree this one can be very aggrevating. 6) I'm not a fan of scenarios with more than about 3 Uber Tanks in them. Unless there is some reason for them. That reason cannot be that they are fun to play with. As pointed out they aren't fun if the entire scenario centers around taking out 10 King Tigers with 30 T-34/85's. 7) I agree. Exit scenarios are hard enough without adding the flags in to the mix. 9)Briefings that are history seminars about 4 echelon levels above the actual fight, but say nothing about expected enemy, or fail to tell me my own force structure, or both. Don't lie in the briefing. 3 tiny color coded set up zones that force one approach on me (unless meant to simulate literal and immediate surprise). Don't start my units in LOS of superior enemy and call it dramatic. From JasonC I agree with poor breifings period. I am very guilty of having some not so breif briefings. It is the most commented section of AAR's on my scenarios. Players either love or hate my detailed briefings. The comments run about 10-1 for the detailed briefings. I do three levels of briefings. Strategic, Operational and Tactical. The Strategic and Operational are in the main briefing and the Tactical is in the National Personal briefing. However, that may not be Jason's peeve. When I get to the personal briefing, you can skip all the rest, I try to give what I think a commander would have. What he would not have is the exact time, location and make up of every man headed his way. He would not have that the attacker has dynamic flags. He would know some tactical battlefield intelligence but not where every enemy soldier is. In an ME he may know nothing. Since all of my scenarios are historically based I try to give what the commanders knew at the time. That can include false information that they were operating under. For the most part though, I too, dislike false and mis-leading information. Sometimes historical scenarios have a battle start in a particular way. When that happens you can get small setup areas. I used to not start units in LOS of each other at all but I don't worry about that much anymore. Now I worry about if they can "see" each other at the start of the scenario. For instance if they are in buildings 200 meters apart, no problem. If a tank is sitting in the open on the road 200 meters from an ATG in woods that is a problem. For me personally, the scenarios I dislike most are those that haven't been playtested. Or maybe haven't been playtested enough. There are a few other things that niggle at me now and then too... All units in the scenario the same experience level. Victory flags that don't support the scenario, more often than not this means not enough points on the map to warrant the taking of the terrain objective vs Jason's idea of attrition of units. There are times when the objective can be either but too often scenarios don't reward players for taking the objectives. Terrain on the map that isn't correct. Like roads that are missing sections or have the washboard going on them. This is lazy design work. You should always drive your roads. Buildings that have corners out into the road is another issue. For the most part scenario designers do a great job and I have had countless hours of fun with them. I have never played a QB or Ladder game. I only play scenarios. I have responded to some of these concerns as a designer. I have at times had more than 100 scenarios on The Scenario Depot and more than likely will have again when the new TSD II comes up at the end of the month. I thought that you might be interested in some insights from the "other side" as well. Even then, we have our likes and dislikes too. The biggest thing I can tell you as a player, is, find a designer you like. As a designer, take your work to The Proving Grounds and get as much help as you can. No guarantees, but at least they all talk scenario design there, and the whole idea of the site is to help scenario designers with playbalance and to do playtesting.

When you design a scenario with them you can asign the number of RPG's and when they are in my scenarios the RPG is plentiful. One reason for that is that the Soviets like everybody else used truckloads of captured Panzerfaust's that are not in the game. RPG's represent that just fine. Then of course there is the Soviet use of the RPG's themselves. Either way my scenario get a large number of them assigned my Soviet Tank Hunter teams.

HSG has a few that are converted. Not many and you may not recognize them since for the most part we cleaned up a lot of historical errors by researching the battles from scratch ourselves. If you are interested email me. Put ASL or something like that in the subject.

HSG has a few that are converted. Not many and you may not recognize them since for the most part we cleaned up a lot of historical errors by researching the battles from scratch ourselves. If you are interested email me. Put ASL or something like that in the subject.

What is really mind boggling is what we are capable of doing to each other.

Since I made it I guess you could ask me. Drop me an email and I'll send it to you.

After further review of photo 1 and 3 it appears that the SU-85 in photo 1 is the one to the rear of the SU-85 in photo 3. The fence is in the right place as are the trees. You decide.

Well, maybe it's the one behind it in picture 3. There is no 213 on the vehicle in picture 3 that I can make out. But as I said, there is another SU-85 behind and to the left of the prominent one in the photo. Who knows. At best we now have a photographic record of exactly THREE SU-85's captured by the Germans. Not much to go on is it?!