GreenAsJade

And also face the fact that it's a game. Yes, it's fine to expect it to behave somewhat realistically, since this is what it sets out to do. But moaning and groaning about it being ruined is over the top. Once you know how it works you play with it that way. It's not ruined, it just works differently than you expected at first.

Hee hee - I just saw a sound contact of a light armour get bogged!

Have you looked at the realistic maps created by designers for this reason? The auto-generated maps are just auto-generated maps to let people play easily. You can find more realistic maps in places like Scenario Depot and The Proving Grounds (which Sergei mentioned). There are lots of very good maps. Please do add some more! GaJ.

TCP here we come...

It's worth noting that this is not a small thing. The difference is DRAMATIC. If you are defending and have all your units hidden (as I stupidly used to) the attacker will be on you before you see them if there is any cover whatsoever. For example, I was attacked through vineyards and taken by suprise by an infantry force while I was hidden.

How does your question add to anything, Joe? What makes you think anyone who kindly offers the possibility of helping you with your play owes you anything, in January or any other month? Do you think that needling them will help bring on what you're looking for? When was the last time you actually thanked someone for something that they *did* contribute? Lastly, are you debating the fact that Walpurgis stated? I thought his point, which is "treat answers you read here with suspicion" is a valid one. While not infallible himself, Walpurgis has demonstrated that he is one of the people who does know what he is talking about. Wise people will listen. And as Walpurgis said, wise people will check the answers with experiments of their own. To Adam's point: it doesn't mean that the posts aren't helpful, just that you need to be aware they may not all be well founded. GaJ.

Ever since I started I've really only played scenarios. I like them better, but finally it's getting hard to find new ones to play blind that have a reasonable chance of being balanced. So I'm new to the whole force selection thing. Are there "house rules" specifically to help ensure a balanced game? Ta.

Thanks PP! Thanks also for your comments in CMAKdb - they are very helpful. I went for '45 GaJ.

From a QB force selection point of view, what are the most balanced times? What I mean is, what year/month combinations are the ones where the available forces to each side are the most balanced? (The opposite of 1941 in CMBB, when KVs come on line and almost nothing can touch them, for example) Thanks! GaJ.

I just recently finished this scenario PBEM, and I have to say that it was really tops. I don't usually like big maps with large forces, because they can be overwhelming in the management needed, and they can bog down with two large forces grinding against each other. Not so in this scenario. We had varios skirmishes all across the map, and also a fantastic struggle of the central battle. The timing and positioning of reinforments really contributed well to this feeling of flow and interest. There are some reviews out there that suggest this scenario is not balanced. I don't think this is the case: both sides have a good chance to win, if they choose the right tactics (and keep choosing them as the game goes on). Are there any more scenarios out there like this one? I'd love to play another like it! GaJ.

To make sure my intent in this discussion is clear, I've edited the first content post. I'm also adding another thread about my general thoughts on the scenario... with all of that hopefully any confusion will be swept away! GaJ.

ROFL! ("tiny" hardly being the word for a Maus, mind you!)

Yeah - EFOW is the default, because.... Um.... it's the default GaJ.

Right, but all I want is to be able to say to my partner "see, what are you complaining about, all you had to do was 'this'"...

Good on you, Walpurgis, for being good spirited about it. Please do tell us how it's done. Screenies and all. I've had a wonderful time with Tigers in a recent scenario where my opponent had bazillions of T34s. What should he have been doing, if he wanted to take me down? GaJ

If you keep trying it, does it keep getting worse!?

I think lots of keen players have finished their ROW games already, and the ones that have are the ones you're specifically looking for anyhow. GaJ.

It is.

You can pick up the Schonhult Crater Mod Variants here. The one in the folder called JS Crater is JS's original. The other one has that original with a smoothed interior intended to look better. It's one of those playing aids that you can't believe you lived without, once you've got it... GaJ.

Wow - that's really fantastic news. Fingers crossed for the recovery... GaJ.

I recall Walpurgis Nacht explaining how vital it was: that the key factor in winning was delivering all your ammo into the enemy most effecively. I took away the message that if you still have ammo left, and there are still enemy forces around, you probably haven't done as well as you could have. Of course, it's never going to be "all" about ammo or "all" about manoevering. I think the reason for highlighting ammo thinking is because unlike manoeuvering it's not so intuitive. The first thing you think of when you have some forces is where you are going to move them. It's much less obvious to think about how you are going to dispose of their ammo. GaJ.

It's worth noting that these guidelines apply only to QBs. Scenario designers can and do totally ignore them. They can designate something that looks like an ME as a Probe just to get the AI to behave in particular ways. You can't infer much about a hand designed scenario from the "battle type" designation. GaJ.

How am I going to beat you if you do all this testing stuff, DerK? Sheesh - that's the kind of thing Walpurgis does, and look where it gets him...

That is truly fantastic. Cog, Cog's wife, we're all wishing you well!

Yow - you're a twisted boy, Dwag, and now we really know it. Sea Side Vacations: YAWN. Orchestral manouevers in the dark: fascinating!