JulianJ

QB maps are my own pet peeve. I think many of the CMBS ones are frikkin awful. It's not just the issues posters have identified above, but the fact that most of the QB maps I have played so far
a) bear no resemblance to any town or village landscape I have ever seen
b) lack tactical benefits of terrain so games become grinding matches
To give an example: the CMBS QB I am playing at the moment -  destroyed factory stronghold - is far from the worst, but is virtually completely flat, has only pitched roof buildings and only 1,2,3 storey buildings, so you cannot seek an elevation for snipers and arty observers.  It also has four arrow-straight main roads (eh?!). There are no ways to sneak infantry up advantageously, and as Kaunitz says just becomes a short range bloodbath.
This is unlike any terrain I have seen, and quite frankly, most factories/warehouses/industrial complexes have many different buildings, from very large flat-roofed ones, to office towers, to small sheds and utility buildings.  Where are the shops, filling stations,  car parks, workers' cafes, and the odd playing field or billiard hall where the workers take breaks?  I've seen more realistic alien planets in games.
I was actually today going to propose that some of us here modify the QB maps and make them better, call them Mk2 versions, that would be quicker than starting from scratch and if a few of us did one each it would not become too  tiresome. I am grateful to @Kaunitz for raising this topic because it was on my mind too.
(note - I like QBs because you can pick your forces, and experiment with different force mixes, vehicles and troops)

As I've been comparing CM's quickbattle-maps with actual landscape/maps, I couldn't help but notice that the scale of many quickbattle-maps is off (this issue doesn't apply to many scenario-maps which are more often based on real maps). Generally speaking, quickbattle-maps are too crowded and too small. It's a bit like the landscape of a model railroad. It’s extremely compartialized. Often there are tiny patches of trees ("woods") all over the place, the fields are tiny, there are little bumps in the terrain everywhere ("hills"). And even the houses in villages often seem to be placed too close to each other. A map of 2km² often contains several fields, villages and woods in Combat Mission, whereas in reality, you could probably only fit in only a few fields.
I'm not saying that this is bad, mind you. In a weird way, our computer-gamer-eyes are accustomed to the look of it. And also in terms of gameplay, it does certainly make sense as it leads to a lot of close quarter action, forces tanks and vehicles into point blank to each other and into the range of infantry and generally speaking offers more (and more diverse) terrain to play with. So, to some extent, you could say that miniature-terrain guarantees "action packed" engagements and revamps infantry against vehicles (balance-issue). But the geeky wargamer voice in me kept pestering me, asking that seemingly innocent question: "Yeah, Kaunitz, but it is realistic?".   
So here we go. In order to silence that nagging voice in my head, I decided to make my own map. I've been trying that before, mind you (my Gerbini project is on hold until the patch comes out). This time though, the map will not be based on an actual battle and will not even be based on a real location. This simply gives me much more freedom and speeds up things.
Here are some of my guiding principles for map design: 
realistic scale - even though the map is not based on a real location, the map will be based on a plausible scale. After a few short tests, the results are certainly interesting. You can actually set up MGs (without getting them killed the moment they can theoretically be sighted by an enemy unit) and attacking infantry needs to work a bit in order to get within rifle range!  as few "cutoffs" as possible -  A problem I have with many QB-maps is that they're so small that the more reasonable positions for vehicles, support weapons and FOs are simply cut off. Most of the time, I'm asking myself: Why would I place this tank/MG so close to the frontline? Nobody would do that! The weapon is not supposed to be used like that! Surely, there would be some small hill 1km to the rear where it would make much more sense to set up the weapon/vehicle? Also, do I really have to peek over that ridge at point blank range? Is there no hill in the rear area that would allow me to take a look from a safer distance? Admittedly, there can be situations in which there simply is no better position available, but QB maps constantly seem to force a deadly point blank ranges onto me. To prevent that, maps need to have a certain minimum size, and observation and long-range positions need to be taken into account when designing the map. Of course engagements were not static, and if you do take into account that the battle might move on a bit in this or that direction, the required map-size multiplies very quickly (irregular shaped maps would be interesting here…). To tackle this problem, I want to experiment with the “exit” objective (see below).   if possible, I’d like to pay special attention to micro-cover - I do think that infantry is a bit too vulnerable in the open. I will see whether it is possible to add a few more small bumps in the ground and some props to give infantry more cover (if prone). But I'm not sure yet if and how that will work out. I suppose one would need very tiny differences in height which would provide some cover to infantry without blocking their LOS. I don’t think it’s possible in CM, but I see if I can somehow recreate the effect. Small preview of the current status (obviously not much yet, but it is a beginning): 
https://imgur.com/a/imul3HX (the map is 1456x1920m)
https://imgur.com/a/5dX5B5s
https://imgur.com/a/SahWEan
 Further ideas: 
Allow the defender to retreat to prevent implausible blood baths:  As this is a little experiment, I do want to make the battle realistic, even at the cost of game play. Therefore, I want to give the defender the option to retreat to cut down his casualties. I’ve not taken a closer look if and how I can get it to work yet. The problem I see is that all units (tagged to be destroyed) that have not left the battlefield by the end of the battle are counted as destroyed, which is not really what I want. There needs to be a difference between "did not leave the battlefield because the battle was going well and there was no reason to do so" and "did not leave the battlefield because the player decided to make a desperate suicide last stand". I'm not sure if the editor allows me to differentiate between those two. Generally speaking, the option to retreat should also be interesting from a gameplay perspective as the defender will need to move and cover his retreat (with longer ranges, this is much more reasonable as you won't get killed the very moment you stand up and move...). ------------------------------------
Feel free to discuss and contribute! What are your thoughts on map design and particularly map-scale? Also, how many troops would be fighting over the map? I was thinking of at least 2 companies up for the attacker (the width of the front is 1456m). Do you have any comments on the retreat-idea?
Right now, I'm stuck a little bit as I can't make the cornifer-woods look pretty and functional (lack of cornifer-trees that come with a short tree-trunk/low tree crown). I think I will have to go for mixed forests. 
I will also be looking out for volunteers to test the map once it is ready!

You can't really carry more than two RPOs per person, so only four per squad. There should be 8 or so additional RPOs in the RPO Platoon MTLBs. That seems a bit low since the standard allocation for BMO-based platoons is 180 launchers, but I don't have the sources for MTLB to compare. 

Thanks for the links and info. After years of playing CM and over 100 h2h games there is always something new to learn about.
Combat Mission and Total War with mods are the 2 games I would pick if I had to choose just 2. 
Wouldnt want to be forced to chose just 1.

I understand that perfectly, and I consider this game to be very heavy on micro, and I love it. I know that it's expected of me to micro units into little squares and plan each move in details, etc. 
It's the situations in which some of these little details matter very much, and I'm powerless to influence them that are the problem, but for some reason that should be handled by the AI, and it frequently gets handled in a completely unrealistic and immersion breaking way. 
I don't understand why aren't you embracing the micro all the way. Why is it OK for me to place an IFV in an exact spot, but it's not OK to tell it to use ATGMs, etc. 
If I have a situation where my two man Javelin team easily spots stuff on the move, but cannot fire on it because they immediately go prone and lose LOS, I consider that to be broken. I have a realistic and reasonable intent, for them to be in overwatch on that hill, that the game simply won't let me express. That is not my fault.
This is a specific example that stuck in my mind from a user created mission (Myrne roadblock or something).
I understand that you are resource constrained, and being a developer I know that it's never so simply as adding a button or two and calling it a day. However, I think these problems need to be addressed, and that letting the player decide is going to be the easier way. I don't think any amount of tweaking the TacAI is going to produce much better results. 

British public schools introduce future officers to team play and tactics via cricket, and the overiding importance of the tea interval.
INCOMING!!

And that's tea

🙂

Frequently.....then I go off in a swoon and don't need to mod anything.  Plus my posting goes asdfhslo 04985023489-30 fjl9ip'a nasf; q .....shine on you crazy diamond....:-)

I do think this is a subject I have some expertise in: digital marketing.  Some of the work I do is for small niche software companies, not unlike BF.  All of them are  acutely conscious of marketing, even if they only have small budgets for it - they want to keep their existing customers and reach out to potential new ones.  We all know that new versions and patches can be delayed but that is a reason to ensure that customers are kept in the loop. It's not actually a cost, but has an ROI in increased sales and customer satisfaction.  BF seem to be shamefully ignorant or uncaring about this, and its Digital Marketing 101.  IMO it is a very poor business strategy just to rely on a hard core of ageing customers in a competitive marketplace, but obviously BF sees things differently,  [sigh].

I do think this is a subject I have some expertise in: digital marketing.  Some of the work I do is for small niche software companies, not unlike BF.  All of them are  acutely conscious of marketing, even if they only have small budgets for it - they want to keep their existing customers and reach out to potential new ones.  We all know that new versions and patches can be delayed but that is a reason to ensure that customers are kept in the loop. It's not actually a cost, but has an ROI in increased sales and customer satisfaction.  BF seem to be shamefully ignorant or uncaring about this, and its Digital Marketing 101.  IMO it is a very poor business strategy just to rely on a hard core of ageing customers in a competitive marketplace, but obviously BF sees things differently,  [sigh].

I do think this is a subject I have some expertise in: digital marketing.  Some of the work I do is for small niche software companies, not unlike BF.  All of them are  acutely conscious of marketing, even if they only have small budgets for it - they want to keep their existing customers and reach out to potential new ones.  We all know that new versions and patches can be delayed but that is a reason to ensure that customers are kept in the loop. It's not actually a cost, but has an ROI in increased sales and customer satisfaction.  BF seem to be shamefully ignorant or uncaring about this, and its Digital Marketing 101.  IMO it is a very poor business strategy just to rely on a hard core of ageing customers in a competitive marketplace, but obviously BF sees things differently,  [sigh].

I do think this is a subject I have some expertise in: digital marketing.  Some of the work I do is for small niche software companies, not unlike BF.  All of them are  acutely conscious of marketing, even if they only have small budgets for it - they want to keep their existing customers and reach out to potential new ones.  We all know that new versions and patches can be delayed but that is a reason to ensure that customers are kept in the loop. It's not actually a cost, but has an ROI in increased sales and customer satisfaction.  BF seem to be shamefully ignorant or uncaring about this, and its Digital Marketing 101.  IMO it is a very poor business strategy just to rely on a hard core of ageing customers in a competitive marketplace, but obviously BF sees things differently,  [sigh].

Huh? This makes no sense.
How did you jump to the conclusion that I was angry with you or anyone else? Sarcasm doesn't = anger. It means I'm tired of waiting for news from you guys and tired of waiting for new products to buy and I was tired of waiting over a year ago.
How did you decide that me and everyone else wants dates? I don't give a damn about dates. Developers can keep customers in the loop by simply letting us know what they're doing. Are you excited about something you're making? Sweet! Maybe tell us about it so we can be excited with you. Or just keep doing what you're doing and say absolutely NOTHING for over a year at a time. You're the first company I've ever seen admit that it doesn't see a problem with "customers tuning out".
How did you all make the decision that not engaging your customers at all for a year or more is perfectly ok and normal? People aren't asking for release dates. They're asking for information. Based on what devs show us, we can generally figure out about when something is coming or nearing completion anyway (because....they tell us....). Instead you've missed I think two "deadlines" (by the end of next month, twice). Instead of giving the date you can't make, just be like "guys we are getting very close to release we are just polishing X vehicle and TOE up and Fred drew boobs on all the tank textures when we sacked him so we gotta go fix those". Instead we get nothing at all.
 
You just updated the website to be in the new millennium. I'd suggest you update this keep everyone in the dark policy. This is the information age and we want information. Hell, even Games Workshop is doing a great job engaging customers nowadays. I love you guys half to death and appreciate what you do for our tiny niche community but what is literally happening here is people are yelling shut up and take my money and you're just shoving your fingers in your ears and going lalalalala i can't or don't want to hear you. Not cool, brother.

I don't think there is any need to apologize for missing a release window, but I'll repeat that it is not too much to ask for the community to be informed when that window is no longer viable. 

This is a ridiculous overreaction and not helpful. All you do when you go overboard like this is give the denizens of this place that seem so desperate to defend every action Battlefront makes meat to chew on. Don't do it. Also, don't pre-order digital goods unless you are getting something really good for doing so.
This reminds me of Kerberos Productions with Sword of the Stars 2. That game was launched busted on release, with the producer claiming that the code "exploded", which is why SotS2 was inoperable at launch. At no point does video game software ever become "explosive". Similarly, I find the idea that a shop as small as Battlefront, there are people who don't know when release is until about 10 minutes before hand, unbelievable. 
 
If you say "Late September", it's not unreasonable for people to expect an update when that goal is no longer feasible. You don't have to come up with a new explanation or date while doing so, but it's pretty disrespectful to string people along who are expecting a release.
 
Especially because this is also holding back needed fixes for titles that have already been released.

I will throw in my simple request that has bothered me since their very first cm game.
Add a blasted wind directional arrow to the directional compass or something along that lines.
drives me crazy that the only way to tell which way the wind is blowing and how strong is to pull up the text in the briefing.
Wnen I am looking at a enemy position from a friendly location, I should have a arrow indicating that. instant knowledge as to what likely to expect of smoke and such.

That sounds really good... But I wonder if that means the support and rear elements become a dumping ground and province of the superbly inept.  I obviously would do the same thing given a choice on who Id prefer to be in the combat roles, just saying Id also want a good professional core still in areas where Id send mostly conscripts.  Im pretty sure if this occurred to me its definitely occurred to the professionals however.
If I was in charge I might add another 6 months across the board to the conscripts time in. IIRC service in Russia for conscripts is short right? Im gonna google that now...
Yeah Im getting a year which is what I had thought but wasnt sure of. It seems like the military is missing out almost on a sweet spot of competency time after training. It IS good for pumping out a MASSIVE number overall of people who are trained and have been in uniform; and now that I think about it I bet thats probably part of why it is a year.
Still 'if I was Stalin' it.d be 2 years. I lied about it only going up 6 months

One of my CoC colleagues posted this, and I just got through watching it. Impressive work which answers a bunch of questions about this seeming Battle That Never Was (unless you're Canadian). Features a Grade One historical bombshell, too. So astounding you may think you're hallucinating. Found it most disconcerting myself. If you haven't seen this yet, MAKE the time.
 
Regards,
John Kettler

No problem my friend.  The "Aircraft Destroyed" text disappears fairly quick and is small to begin with so it can be missed.   Whenever there is a large explosion on a map edge for no obvious reason I rewind the turn and check my air defense units.  I also check the status of my aircraft in the support panel since the large explosion on the map edge may indicate somebody lost an aircraft.   Cool game.   

There is now some feedback on if you shot down an OpFor aircraft.  Sometimes you see the missile explode in flight (see first screenshot).  Also a downed aircraft will crash/explode on the map edge (sometimes causing more casualties).  The unit that shot down the aircraft will display Aircraft Destroyed (see 2nd & 3rd screenshots).  



 

I had a friend who was a WREN during the war and was stationed there. She had some interesting stories to tell.
Michael

You Brits are a scary lot! (But that is a lovely pic at the top of the second page.)

Michael

Been there many moons ago on a very hot summer's day when the fair ground was still going - it was fascinatingly carved out from soft chalk and gratefully nice & cool when topside temps were in the 90s. More feasibly a Victorian folly / tourist attraction and expanded upon from an old chalk mine with decorations as it was 'found' about the time that railways from London to Kent seaside made weekend day tripping possible. Follow the money as CTers say...:-)
http://www.kentarchaeology.ac/authors/023.pdf
I was possibly cursed that day as an unbeliever as I picked up a scabby scalp infection after swimming in Margate's effluent outflow lovely healing waters...
Ye olde Chalk / flint mines exist along the east and south coast originally laid down when Britain was around where the Med is in a tropical climate low laying island chain.
An artist friend has been working on a project in Bury St Edmunds where there's a network of chalk tunnels and caverns > https://www.welovebse.com/2016/04/chalk-work-tunnels/
Chalk tunnels in Dover > https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3167510/Secret-network-tunnels-constructed-White-Cliffs-Dover-help-stop-German-ships-moving-freely-Channel-World-War-II-reopens-public-time-40-years.html
The Fan Bay Deep Shelter was carved out of chalk in just 100 days

THE PAPER MAKER



Cai Lun, the inventor of paper, is little known outside of China his name rarely appears in standard Western history textbooks. Until recently, many scholars believed he was an apocryphal figure. However, research makes it clear that Cai Lun was a real man, an official in the Chinese imperial court who, at the dawn of the 2nd century, presented the Emperor with samples of paper. Cai Lun’s name appears in the official history of the Han dynasty and the relevant entry documenting his invention is unambiguous. We’re told he was a eunuch.



-In 105AD Cai Lun submitted to the emperor a process for making paper out of the inner bark of mulberry trees, bamboo, and remnants of hemp, rags of cloth, and fishing nets. He mixed them with water, pounded them with a wooden tool, and then poured this mixture onto a flat piece of coarsely woven cloth, letting the water drain through, and leaving only a thin, matted sheet of fibers on the cloth.-
-New World Encyclopedia

Prior to the introduction of paper in China, most books were made of bamboo or silk. In the West, books were written on parchment processed from animal skins replacing papyrus used by the ancients. All four media were cumbersome to use and expensive to manufacture. The paper revolution enabled China, which had been less advanced in comparison to Western Europe, to leap ahead culturally and scientifically.

During the succeeding centuries, as Europe dithered in the Dark Ages, the Chinese brought forth the compass, gunpowder and block printing. Muslims learned Cai Lun’s technique in the 700s by capturing a Chinese paper trader following a winning battle on the frontier. Once the West finally acquired the secret of papermaking five hundred years later it narrowed the technology gap. However, as late as the 13th century, Marco Polo reported that China was far more prosperous than Europe.

Cai Lun’s invention made him wealthy and the grateful emperor awarded him an aristocratic title. That promotion proved fatal; following the latter’s demise, he joined the losing side in the ensuing dynastic struggle. Chinese records tell us that upon reading the writing on the wall Cai Lun took a bath then dressed in his finest silk robes and drank poison.

THE PRINTER


Johann Gutenberg is credited with the invention of printing by combining moveable type and an efficient press in such a way that a large variety of written material could be printed with speed and accuracy. Moveable type had been invented centuries before in China and Korea but Gutenberg vastly improved the entire process marrying all the components including suitable ink, a durable metal alloy for the type, and an efficient press. Above all, he developed all the elements of printing into an effective and reliable system of mass production, a complete manufacturing process.

The crucial ingredient, paper, had spread to the West by Gutenberg’s day. However moveable type was rarely used in the Orient and Gutenberg developed his proprietary technique independently.


-The Gutenberg Bible

The so-called Gutenberg Bible, printed in Mainz, appeared in 1454. We know it came from Gutenberg’s atelier based on the typeface but his name never figures on his work, in retrospect a careless omission on his part.

Some idea of Gutenberg’s impact on history can be gained by comparing the subsequent development of China and Europe. At the time of his birth, the two lands were about equally developed technologically. But after Gutenberg’s invention, Europe progressed rapidly spreading knowledge while China, where block printing continued, remained comparatively sterile.

Though a mechanical genius Gutenberg was never much of a businessman; it appears he was chronically short of money. Struggling to keep his project alive he partnered with a feisty goldsmith and lawyer named Johann Fust who loaned Gutenberg the funds he needed to continue. However, Fust began losing patience; he pestered Gutenberg claiming that he was doing nothing but blowing money. At last, Fust brought suit against him in court, and the judge ruled in his favour. Everything in the world that Gutenberg possessed, even his tools, came into Fust's possession- including the original, unsigned Gutenberg Bible.

Johann Gutenberg died in Mainz, Germany. Pathetically the creator of the (arguably) most important invention in human history lived out most of his later years in dire poverty until the Archbishop of Mainz granted the printer a meagre pension just before his death in 1468. Gutenberg was buried in a Franciscan church, which was demolished and replaced with another church, which was also subsequently demolished. The location of his final resting place remains unknown.

While Gutenberg went without financial reward for creating the process that revolutionized the world, history recognizes him as holding this honour. Without his printing press, the Protestant Reformation would likely never to have had occurred.

THE CHEMIST



-Antoine Lavoisier and his wife, Marie-Anne 

The French scientist, Antoine Lavoisier, is generally considered the most significant figure in the development of chemistry. Born into a prosperous bourgeois family in 1743, young Antoine completed a law degree in accordance with his family wishes. But he never practised; his true calling was in science. On the basis of his early researches, he was elected- at the tender age of 25- to the Academy of Sciences, France’s most prestigious scientific society.

During his era, water and air were wrongly believed to be elementary substances and that combustible materials contained a substance called ‘phlogiston’. It was Lavoisier that managed to put the pieces of the puzzle together correctly and get chemical theory started on the correct path.

Denying the existence of phlogiston, he proved that the process of combustion consisted of the chemical combination of the burning substance with oxygen. Also, air was not an elementary substance either but a chemical compound of oxygen and nitrogen. Many leading scientists refused to accept Lavoisier’s theories but his book, The Elements of Chemistry, silenced most of the doubters. It was published in 1789, a significant year.



-Lavoisier’s laboratory

Having shown that water and air were not chemical elements Lavoisier included in his book a list of those substances that he believed to be elementary. Our modern periodic table is essentially an enlarged version of his list. His creation of a uniform system of nomenclature enabled chemists throughout the world to clearly communicate their discoveries with each other.

In the same year of his election to the Academy, in order to finance his scientific research, Lavoisier bought into the Ferme Générale the private corporation that collected taxes for the Crown. It was essentially a racket, there being no limit to the taxes collected except what the tax collectors could gouge from the populace. The Crown got its share, but everything above that was pure profit. Lavoisier grew rich but the Ferme was bitterly resented by the rising middle-class.

Several years later he married Marie-Anne Paulze, the 14-year old daughter of another ‘tax farmer’. A brilliant woman, Madame Lavoisier learned English in order to translate the work of British chemists including Joseph Priestley and Henry Cavendish for her husband.

Lavoisier though a political liberal who had worked for many reforms was, as a perceived aristocrat, vulnerable to the revolutionary fervour of the times and he made two mistakes that eventually sealed his fate. He performed a flashy public experiment in Paris demonstrating that a diamond is made from carbon by burning one in an atmosphere of pure oxygen. It didn’t go over well. Given the food scarcity that existed during the early days of the Revolution, it was taken as an unforgivable extravagance.


-Jean-Paul Marat

Still, he might have survived were it not for the fact that he had acquired a famous enemy, Jean-Paul Marat, a physically repulsive and frustrated scientist who rose to become one of the most prominent members on the increasingly sanguinary Revolutionary Tribunal.

Years before, Marat applied for membership in the French Academy and was rejected, with Lavoisier being a major factor in his dismissal. It seems that Lavoisier had publicly ridiculed Marat’s ‘animal magnetism’ theory. Humiliated, the fiery demagogue never forgave him becoming an indefatigable force in the chemist’s destruction.


-Lavoisier en route to the guillotine

Flogged on by Marat, the Revolutionary government grew increasingly suspicious of Lavoisier. Eventually, he was arrested along with twenty-seven other members of the Ferme Générale. Revolutionary justice may not have been too accurate, but it was certainly speedy. On a single day (May 8, 1794) all of them were tried, convicted and guillotined.

At the trial an appeal was made to spare Lavoisier, citing his services to country and science. The judge rejected the plea with the curt remark that, ‘The Republic has no need of geniuses’. Closer to the truth was the remark of the great mathematician Lagrange: ‘It took but a moment to sever that head, though a hundred years may not produce another like it’.

GUILLOTINE SIDEBAR
 

Correction - Looks like it was originally a Time Life Colour pic - Goodness what the original colours were if the print magazine page was digitally scanned...

I will post this link here since the CMSF2 forum is getting a lot of traffic these  days. 
https://mwi.usma.edu/video-dr-phillip-karber-ukraine-russian-way-war/
From a West Point  presentation to cadets in April.
Impressive one hour talk on the Russia Ukraine war circa 2014. The speaker was in Ukraine 30 times and conducted  "staff rides".  Good idea to pause the video and read the slides. Beware: there  is a lot of detail. There is a portion that compares an Ukrainian '"thunder run"  to Jeb Stuart's audacious cavalry ride completely around the Union army during Seven Days.  Mentions one Ukrainian helo pilot that was shot down 3 times in one day with MANPADs and survived to tell about it.  
This may have been posted in a forum already. If so, I am simply behind schedule. 
Kevin