noob

@Kohlenklau - I looked at the section i have written about playing the PzC demo scenario: https://sites.google.com/site/cmpzch2hoperations/panzer-campaigns/pzc-demo-scenario, and although I am happy with that page, I do agree with your point about a simpler pictorial representation of a typical CMPzC turn, and, I also take your point about the location of such a representation. I will create a diagram in the Introduction section, that way it's the first thing browsers see. I do have Bulge '44, but there's not much point playing that, when I there is the PzC Normandy '44 Caen demo scenario, with ready built CM maps for the VL's, and a PzC OOB modified to reflect the default head counts of the equivalent CM units. Therefore, I suggest we play the PzC Caen demo scenario H2H, then farm out the CM battles to the players that have already signed up to play as CM players. I can get rid of the team DB folders, and we can just use the communal one to pass PzC turns to each other, and also have access to our teams CM vids. So, if you are ok with that, we can proceed, with me starting the scenario as the Allies and performing Allied Turn 01 with an AAR on the Allied HQ thread. Please make sure your version of the PzC demo scenario is the one with the hex stacking limit of 600.

Indeed they should. Bit of a security breach there, considering you are the Allied CO Thanks to "copy and paste" I can repeat myself, without having to repeat myself So here I go....thanks for the input, but I play PzC with Volcano Man's optional rules. This removes the separation between movement, firing, and assault. Therefore, in a VM PzC game, an operational phase consists of an Allied Turn 1, then an Axis Turn 1, that's it. Moves, fires and assaults can all be done whenever the player wants within the turn. This makes the game more fluid, and reduces the amount of emails sent back and forth. However, I do impose a restriction on a PzC turn for CMPzC, and that is to suggest that players perform all moves and fires before any CM assaults are carried out. I could do as you suggested for players wishing to play the way you outlined, but I prefer Volcano Man's version, so that's the version I intend to promote.

Thanks for the input, but I play PzC with Volcano Man's optional rules. This removes the separation between movement, firing, and assault. Therefore, in a VM PzC game, an operational phase consists of an Allied Turn 1, then an Axis Turn 1, that's it. Moves, fires and assaults can all be done whenever the player wants within the turn. This makes the game more fluid, and reduces the amount of emails sent back and forth. However, I do impose a restriction on a PzC turn for CMPzC, and that is to suggest that players perform all moves and fires before any CM assaults are carried out. I could do as you suggested for players wishing to play the way you outlined, but I prefer Volcano Man's version, so that's the version I intend to promote.

I am using two 2000 x 2000m maps of Buron and Authie cropped from your Caen Map Project master map. I also have 2000 x 2000m maps of generic locations to be used when necessary. I intend to create a map pack, and link it to my signature.

That was the plan, but the Axis CO who was going to process and post an AAR of the PzC turn has gone AWOL, so I have asked another member to take over as the Axis CO.

@Strachwitz - Could I have an update on the status of Axis Turn 01 please ?

I have modified the pages entitled PzC Assault: https://sites.google.com/site/cmpzch2hoperations/panzer-campaigns/pzc-assault, and CM Battle Set Up: https://sites.google.com/site/cmpzch2hoperations/combat-mission/cm-battle-set-up

@Starchwitz - I have completed the changes to the rules. Now, an enemy occupied hex can be attacked from any adjacent hex, with as many units as the attacker can spare. However, if, in the course of this operation, and as a result of this rule, the CM battles get too big, i will reduce the stacking limit of the hexes. But, for now, we can carry on. So please complete the Axis PzC turn, and the operation can proceed. Once you have finished Axis Turn 01, make a copy of it, and name the copy Allied Turn 02. If there are no Axis assaults, load up Allied Turn 02, then click on Next Turn. This will automatically overwrite Allied Turn 02, and convert it to a PBEM file. This PBEM file should then be posted in the CMPzC N44 Caen Postbox. Post Axis Turn 01 in the Axis Team dropbox folder, so the Axis team can look at the dispositions, and condition, of the Axis forces at the end of the PzC phase. Also, you need to write an AAR for the turn, and post it in this thread.

I have re written the section entitled CM Battle Set Up: https://sites.google.com/site/cmpzch2hoperations/combat-mission/cm-battle-set-up This has removed the need for a frontage, and is a more accurate representation of the relationship between the PzC map, and the CM map.

When playing PzC, players have to agree on which OOB, or version, to use before a game. Also, it's easy enough to copy PzC, and create a separate game folder for just one game. That way, you can remove all the unnecessary files.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by cheating. I'm talking about two people playing a PzC PBEM game, and one, or both accessing the PzC OOB to see their opponents forces headcount. For example, if I wanted to know the headcount of my opponents 25th PzGrd Battalion, I would have to click through the Axis TOE until i found it. This can only be done intentionally.

I have decided to remove the option to reinforce a CM battle. This is because I did not like the system I was using. However, by doing this, I removed the ability for the attacker to gain a numerical advantage on the CM battlefield. To rectify this, I have decided to allow the attacker to assault a hex from multiple hexes with no stacking limit cap on the assaulted hex. This means, a CM battle could have from two to four battalions on the attackers side, versus only one on the defenders side. Therefore, if the attacker can get more than one stack adjacent to an enemy occupied hex, a numerical advantage can be gained in the event of an assault by those stacks.. I will write up the new assault rules in more detail in the guide. To reduce the potential increase in CM workload, i have reduced the hex stacking limit from 700, to 600.

I have made some changes, and i want to discuss them on this thread:http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=110594&page=6

I have made some changes, and i want to discuss them on this thread:http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=110594&page=6

I have reduced the stacking limit to 600. Please go to the Introduction page in the guide, and download the .pdt file there. Overwrite the .pdt file in the PzC Normandy '44 demo folder with the new one, before you perform any moves.

I have reduced the stacking limit to 600. Please go to the Introduction page in the guide, and download the .pdt file there. Overwrite the .pdt file in the PzC Normandy '44 demo folder with the new one, before you perform any moves.

It's not arbitary. It's based on an Osprey book of WW2 infantry tactics. According to the book, battalions on both sides attacked on a frontage of 600 - 1000 yards. Therefore, given a PzC hex is 1000 x 1000m, i thought that restricting a hex to a battalion plus support was a nice fit with that parameter. They can already. If both sides start the CM battle with one battalion plus support per side, that's a lot of units to manage. Adding another battalion would start to slow down proceedings, and possibly stretch players systems (I know my PC would struggle with three or more battalions on the same map) I am allowing that. I agree, i'm going to drop it to 600. I want to keep things simple to start with. Once people get their head round my system, they can add whatever rules they like. For the purposes of this demonstration i want to keep the workload for the participants to a minimum. Therefore, removing the reinforcement option, reduced complexity, allows easier CM scenario building, and reduces the amount of CM units on a map, which saves time and processing power.

I want to think some more on this, but I must go out, so I will post when I get back.

I have removed the ability to reinforce a CM battle. I have done this for the following reasons: It reduces the maximum amount of CM units in a single battle to a battalion of foot plus support weapons per side. It simplifies the operational game play. It conforms to the hex stacking limit rule. Because of the operational layer, flanking can now be performed at the operational level.

I have removed the ability to reinforce a CM battle. I have done this for the following reasons: It reduces the maximum amount of CM units in a single battle to a battalion of foot plus support weapons per side. It simplifies the operational game play. It conforms to the hex stacking limit rule. Because of the operational layer, flanking can now be performed at the operational level.

I have removed the ability to reinforce a CM battle. I have done this for the following reasons: It reduces the maximum amount of CM units in a single battle to a battalion of foot plus support weapons per side. It simplifies the operational game play. It conforms to the hex stacking limit rule. Because of the operational layer, flanking can now be performed at the operational level.

Does Vassal have hidden movement ?

@kohlenklau - I have created another dropbox folder called "Allied Team". So you now have access to two folders. One folder is exclusively for the Allied team, the other, a postbox to the Axis team.

@Strachwitz - When you finish your movement and firing, save the file as Allied Turn 02, and post it to the dropbox folder called Axis Team. I have sent you an invite. This way the rest of the team can look at your the Axis dispositions and condition before the assault phase. Also, If there are to be assaults, please post to this thread, the hex coordinates of the assaulting units, their target hexes, and the hexes containing any reinforcements you intend to use, and which target hex they are reinforcing.

I've played this as the Axis, and i think swapping the ATG for a Marder would not hurt this scenario.