Tank Hunter

I did this in the Italian Campaign in FI. [spoiler WARNING!] In one of the missions you have to bypass the US positions and proceed with the thrust by exiting the map. The map was split by a road and intel positioned US forces on one side of the road. I eventually decided that the best way to preserve forces was to rush them of the map as soon as possible. I had a platoon of German tanks in this mission which I decided to use as a bait. I preplanned artillery strike on the possible US positions and I also planned a smoke screen along the entire road. It was a success. One battery was shelling US troops with HE while the German platoon was acting as main force and engaging everyone. I even managed to tank rush and drive over an AT position! They abanoded the gun when the tank entered the same action spot. Meanwhile all my Itallian forces were far on the right flank sneaking past the US positions. The smoke screen prevented US forces from engaging for the most part and I managed to get out with 95% of my force intact.

Waclaw, I agree, we all are expecting performance improvements and new features I just don't expect them to show up in a module. As BF has said before modules are for contents only and upgrades are for features so I have expectations for engine version 3.0 and not for MG. If you want improvements buy upgrades, if you want content buy modules. Or buy both.. Choice is yours. I'm just happy that CMBN will eventually get all these improvements which means the game will evolve rather than become obsolete by the time we get to the last CMx2 game..

A While ago I performed a test which was posted in Tech Support sub forum After upgrading to Ver 2.01 I noticed a difference in loading speed of scenarios. I decided to set up a test to see what difference upgrading and having CW module really has on loading times. I picked a random scenario from original CMBN, one small and one big scenario from CW and tested under different patches/combinations. I noted loading speed and memory used. Here are the results: Scenario: Carbide Carbide [CMBN] V1.0 - 58 sec, 482092K MEM V1.10 +CW - 55 sec, 444984k MEM V2.01 +CW - 1:05, 462348K MEM There is a slight increase in loading time after V201 Scenario:Linkin up and Breaking Out [CW] V1.10 - 1:11, 471832k MEM V2.01 - 1:20, 481944k MEM Scenario: Colossal Crack [CW][Huge Battle] V1.10 -1:29, 770760k MEM V2.01 - 1:41, 778968k MEM Here we see a pretty big difference between 1.10 and 2.01, average 10 sec increase in loading time of the same scenario. As an additional test I decided to add 1.66GB of Mods including High Res terrain and see what it does to the loading time. Scenario:Linkin up and Breaking Out [CW] V2.01 + 1.66GB Mods - 1:27, 501188K MEM Scenario: Colossal Crack [CW][Huge Battle] V2.01 + 1.66GB Mods - 1:49, 806220K MEM As you can see it added additional 7-8 seconds to loading time. This leaves me slightly worried, every additional upgrade, add on or battle pack that we add to the original game will have a negative effect on the loading times. I'm not sure how the data is handled within the game but it would be good to look at how brz files are loaded in order to keep the loading times down. With all battle packs, updates and add ons loading time may very well double by the end of each familly. RAM usage also increases slightly, it is however not alarming high. Could it be so that the game loads different brz files in specific order as with mods? This would mean that you sometimes first load version A of a file before loading version B and C instead of going to C directy since it is the latest one..

I have taken a small break in order to regroup.. Weather has been nice and I'm back to work again after my vacation so I've just tried to enjoy the sun while it lasts. I will definately go back to the project. The last thing I was exploring were Battalions which would speed up the process significantly and allow for a faster operational game. Best Regards TH

I own them all from CMA and CMSF to CMBN and CMFI including all the modules. I like the diversity of being able to switch theaters and units in order to keep my interest up. I may stay away from particular CM game for several months sometimes. I can even stay away from all CM games for a while and then I read a book or see a movie which inspires me to revisit a specific theater or year in CM. Half of my pleasure comes from roaming the battlefield close up and examining units and action. I guess that's why I'm not a particular fan of Battalion sized engagements, they just feel to complicated to handle with the current command layout and information that is presented to the player. Anyway CMFI has a specific charm especially with GL. The maps are more interesting visually and it is easier to conduct operations without having to look for gaps in bocage. Normandy suits however my style of play better, I like to sneak and hide then popup engage and dissapear again. I suck at advancing across open field which makes it much tougher for me in CMFI. Both are excellent games but I assume general player will find CMBN more interesting due to general Normandy exposure we all have received through TV and Books. My suggestion would to to play CMBN until you're really bored with it, then evaluate the situation at that moment and if you really want something other to play and have enough money to spare then go for CMFI.

JonS, Can you place bunkers and obstacles on these long bridges?

I'd love to see EF as one game with modules + Packs. Thumbs up!

Thanks! Is there a way to know when they make a free kindle copy availiable?

I have lately been thinking about unit sizes. What you have seen so far has been action between companies and platoons. I'm just not sure that size will cut it anymore. It might be better to use Battalions and Companies, Battalions being the main size with the possibility to split certain units into Companies? What do you guys think? Personally I favor smaller battles in CM. I'll do Battalion sized engagements sometimes but I prefer to keep it smaller especially when playing PBEM. Having Battalions would make the strategical layer easier to manage and maybe even more historically accurate. There is nothing that can stop players to play smaller battles anyway, they could just decide to fight a part of a bigger battle..

I'm simulating combat using automated dices. The battle result is based on unit strength, type of terrain and the dice result. The attacker has to get a certain dice number which is calculated by comparing odds between the attacker and the defender. The odds are based on unit strengths and type of terrain. You are correct about movement; Vassal has no built in capability to know which terrain a certain hex occupies. Movement reduction must be done by the player using keyboard shortcut as he moves across the map. There are only few types of terrain so that part is actually pretty straight forward and easy.

I have been changing a lot lately. As soon as I have everything in place I'll make a save file avaliable..

What to expect from someone who was expecting a Command and Conquer game.. ??

While the CM battle is fought I decided to simulate another battle. As you can see above I've engaged 2 German companies from 4 sides, a German artillery platoon is occupying the same hex which provides the Germans with direct support. Note in the picture above how red arrows indicate which units are part of the attack. The attacker sets up the simulation marker by entering the attack and defense values of all engaged units. The attacker also selects the terrain modifier. In this case the German get a defense bonus by defending in Bocage Hex. Depending on type of terrain either attacker or defender may get a bonus. Once all the factors are entered the defending side executes the simulation or retreats if that is a selectable option. As you can see the marker provides the players with rough estimate of success of the attack. In this case the dice must be higher than 5 if this attack is to be considered successful. Here is a closer look of the German forces. Note the red bar on the units. This shows that these units are cut from their supply. I will show supply in future posts. What happened in this case was that the Airborne units cut the supply lines by occupying surrounding roads. Roads are crucial for receiving supplies from the supply depot. In the latest build all units that are out of supply will suffer a motivation penalty for each night turn that they are out of supply. Units are always supplied during night turns. Players decide how they wish to distribute their supply points. This post will actually conclude this part of the demonstration. Over the last couple of days I have done some major changes to the module. Since the beginning of the design one particular thing bothered me and that was how to represent the different squads/teams/mmgs etc. The first design incorporated properties sheet for every unit where all the parts of the unit were listed. THis can be seen in on of the posts above. After each simulated or CM battle players had to update these sheets manually. This was a manual boring work. It also required that players looked at these sheets prior to each CM battle in order to select the correct number of squads, vehicles and so on. This has now radically changed since I’ve removed these sheets completely. The latest version incorporates these factors directly on the markers which allows me to manipulate these values directly in simulated battles. That saves a lot of time for the players involved. It makes it also easier for the players to setup CM battles since they can see all the values directly on the markers. This radical change has pushed me back a bit since it requires update of all units and some rigorous testing. Next part of the demo will be more focused on normal units and showcase the supply procedure.

Vassal is pretty flexible actually. First time I opened it I was completely lost. Over time you learn how the functions work which opens up the design possibilities. Everything I’ve done so far is made of built in Vassal functions, no external coding has been made.

Thanks guys! The goal is to complete this project. I actually feel I have a pretty decent foundation in place right now. I have also started with the manual which of course will be required otherwise noone but me would probably understand what to do with the module. =) What I have left is fixing some logic. Currently if a unit drops in Headcount it will also drop in experience and possibly leadership. This is to simulate that replacements have less experience hence the whole unit will drop in experience. The problem right now is that the experience drops as soon as the Headcount drops to a certain level. It shouldn't do that, it should drop only when unit is resupplied with new men. I also need to finish the map, only 1/4 of it is currently done. Then I need to add all the formations and test Mechanized Infantry. They have the ability to leave their vehicles completely or 50% of them before they engage. Once I have everything setup I'll need couple of people to test it before it can be released to the pubilc.

Agree with the actionspots in buildings, it would be nice to add a 3rd dimension to targeting. And triggers is eventually a must if you want to have any kind of tactically smart AI. The TacAI can be further improved to handle the direct situation like what to do under fire, how to enter a house, cross a road etc.. The triggers are needed in order to provide the AI to react to the flow of the battle. Let say the AI is defending, the human player attacks on the left flank and forces a breakthrough, sweeps behind and breaks the AI completely. All the other units out there would today just sit there. Imagine if we had triggers and you set up a defence by telling AI that if the group on the right flank is not engaged move it and counterattack in certain direction if the group on the left is engaged and has sustained losses of 10% or is routed. Or you could tell the different groups to fall back to a 2nd line of defence. To make it even more interesting you could have triggers fire only if the chain of command is intact. So in order for the right group to counterattack it must be aware of the left group's status either by being able to observe it visually or by having radio contact through the HQ.

That's actually a mistake from me side. It is going to be added for the next build. I've actually been able to identify several issues during this demo, some of them are already fixed. I appreciate all the questions and comments. The whole idea behind this demo was to run a game and see how the different rule settings hold up. I'm trying to make it as easy as possible to run an operation using Vassal by trying to minimize the manual bookkeeping as much as possible.

The battle between the scattered airborne platoons and the Germans has started. One of my squads run into a wall of fire with devastating consequences I also learned that QBs don't support Headcount. This can either be ignored for CM battles or the players can use the scenario editor to setup a battle including the headcount.

Turn 2 Finally the Germans appeared and attacked one of my scattered platoons. The battle suggested was a simulated one and I chose to fight it which in reality was not a very wise decision since I’m heavily outnumbered and have not yet established any formations. As you can see the marker deployed by the German player suggest 2:1 in favor of the Attacker or 66% chance of him winning. The attacker basically updates the simulation marker according to the situation and the terrain attacked. The module then calculates the probability of a victory. I could have opted to Retreat and fight another day but I chose to simulate and the attacker got a Major Victory as indicated by MV on the marker. Uploaded with ImageShack.us Next Step is to Apply Major Defeat to my unit in which case headcount needs to be adjusted by -40% and characteristics are automatically changed to reflect the battle result. Since the unit dropped to 40% headcount which it 10% less of minimum required in CM it automatically went into Reorganization mode which makes it useless until the unit is brought back to strength. One other thing that appeared from the simulated battle are the losses of Attacking and Defensive units. As you can see below the Attack counter it says AL:8 / DL:8 These represent the unit and equipment losses for the attacker and the defender. I have to update my unit Properties to reflect these losses, HQs and heavy Equip are valued as 2p and Squads and light equip are valued as 1 point. Deducting all 8 points from this unit makes it practically destroyed so I can just remove it from the board all together. A better option would have been to retreat since the unit was not surrounded.

The scale is: 1.2 km/hex or rougly 0.75 miles/hex Each Day turn represents about 6 hours. Nights are considered as one turn. Weather conditions change between Night/Day shift (Night/Day weather). Scattering may change the landing zone up to three hexes in each direction (x,y). There is ofcourse a chance that no scattering will occur for a particular unit.

Here is the result of the Drop and Scatter. As you can see the units have mostly divided into Platoons and have also suffered in Headcount loss to simulate the confusion the Allies suffered during this night Drop. Some have dropped to 50% of the original headcount!! The platoons can be recombined into Companies again if a player wishes to do that. This concludes the first US turn.

The next step is to decide where I want to drop my units. I must be careful not to drop them on potential enemy units in which case they will suffer heavy casualties so I decide to concentrate one Battalion directly on Ste-Mere Église and the 2nd one to capture the southern bridge together with the task of blocking any reinforcements that may be coming from the west. After the deployment it is time to Drop each unit as shown in the screenshot below. This simulates the first step of the drop where the units jumps and may split into smaller units. Once the unit is dropped each unit has to perform a scatter check to see where it will actually land.

Nope, the units will in most cases scatter and split as you will see soon.

Before we deploy the units let's take a look what we have to work with. We have two battalions scheduled as reinforcement on turn 1. These are airborne units so they can be dropped wherever I like within the designated operational area. As you can see there are borders on the map letting me know where this battle should take place. This is up to the scenario designer to decide. All my units are Veterans with High Motivation and +1 in leadership. All these values may change based on the battle outcomes and Headcount. The objectives are the two bridges West of Ste-Mere Église and the town itself. As shown on the map we know that some kind of unit already occupies the town so dropping the unit directly on the town may not be the best idea. Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Here is a Demonstration of the Operational Companion that I have been trying to build using Vassal game engine. The idea was basically to create a board game that can accompany CMBN when playing against other opponents. For those of you who are not familiar with Vassal, it is a toolset that allows board games to be converted to PC world thereby allowing players to play their favorite board games through email or TCP/IP against other players. Since CMBN does not have any board game I decided to try and use Vassal and see if I can build one that can be used when playing against other people. The general idea is to provide a larger battlefield which allows for operational decisions before jumping into the tactical world of CMBN. Once completed the board game will offer people to setup their operational battles covering everything from single Companies and Battalion battles to the entire Armies of the Normandy campaign. The first version of the board game will include US Army and Wehrmacht thereby covering the same ground as the original CMBN game. If there is enough interest I will consider adding Commonwealth Units. For purpose of this demo I will use a beta version of my creation presenting a fictional battle within a historical context of the invasion. You will be able to follow as two Battalions of the 82nd Airborne deploy over Normandy on June 6th, 1944. Before we proceed to the battle itself I want to explain all the different letters and numbers that you normally see on the counters and how they relate to CMBN. On the Top of Each Counter each unit has its’ characteristics, these are from left to right Experience/Motivation/Fitness/Leadership/Supply, in the middle there is the standard NATO counter explaining what type of unit it is. On the left side of the marker you can see the current headcount of the unit. On the right side a value representing movement value is shown. This value is dynamic and is decreased by the player as the marker is moved. Below the movement value is color bar showing which unit belong to the same battle echelon or unit. On the bottom of the marker is the representation of units Attack and Defense strength. These values are used when simulating battles outside CMBN environment. As mentioned above I will showcase the 82nd airborne jumping into Normandy on June 6th 1944. The Battalions represented are the 1st and 2nd Battalion of the 508th Regiment. The unit participated in Operation Overlord, jumping into Normandy on at 2:15 a.m. on 6 June 1944. Their immediate objectives were to capture Sainte-Mère-Église, and secure crossings at the Merderet River near laFiere and Chef-du-Pont. Like most paratroop units in Operation Overlord, they were dropped in the wrong locations and had extraordinary difficulty linking up with each other. The opponents in this battle are parts of the 709th German Division namely 729th Fortress Grenadier Regiment supported by section of the 1709th Artillery Regiment. The German Airlanding units are unfortunately not present in the game and cannot take any part of this battle. This is my first real test of the engine so I suspect I’ll find few things that will need to be fixed. Comment, ask questions and enjoy!