noob

I would never assume that something was omitted, or added, out of bloody mindedness, but now you mention it, I should of realised that there was more to them than just allowing units to exit, and therefore I should of made enquiries before requesting them. :- )

Not knowing how exit zones affected points in any scenario using them, I thought they could be applied across the board, without consequence. So I was puzzled, and somewhat frustrated, by their omission in every scenario I have ever played. However, since I have been made aware of the problems applying them to every scenario, I can now understand, to a point, their absence. So, I should aim my original request, to the designers that do not use unit casualty points in their scenarios. It's not a ridiculous request if the person making the request is unaware of the consequences of such a request on some scenarios. On the contrary, it's a perfectly reasonable one, which could easily be implemented. However, as mentioned, it has knock on effects, so it is only relevant to "some" scenarios. Wasn't it obvious to you that I was unaware of how exit zones affected scoring in some games, or do you think I just like coming on forums, and riding roughshod over accepted scenario building practices. I acknowledged my error, after it was pointed out, on the CMBN forum, so please don't patronise me. Surely a request is different to a demand. So which one is it ? did I make a request ? or a demand ? Awww shucks, now you have gone all nice, and I was just building up a nice head of steam :- (

Ok, I didn't know that, thanks for the info.

Are you suggesting I mentioned adding exit zones on a whim ? You need to look up the definition of whim, I gave a valid reason for adding them, so I cannot understand why you would use the word whim.

Losing that many casualties wasn't to do with stacking, it was to do with the amount of artillery the Axis used. There is no collateral damage, so even if you only had one company on the Buron hex, you would of lost the same amount of men, but they would all be from one company, not spread between four.

So how would it affect the points of the side that exited a tank for example, if DC points were activated ?

That's true, both sides will always have secured flanks (map edges) in every CM battle, and the defender will always know the direction of their attacker, and their maximum headcount, which means the surprises will have to come at the operational level :- ) So, from the attackers POV, each CM battle will have to be viewed as a chapter in a larger CM battle (continuation battles in case of contested maps) where attacking will be more akin to using a chainsaw, rather than making rapier like thrusts. Also, CM battles will probably not be resolved in one go, so continuation battle However, even a 1000m wide CM map allows for some lateral manoeuvring. Nice one.

I'm currently playing a CM battle where my gun damaged tanks, because they cannot exit the battle, are having to follow my main force around like baby ducklings. Exit zones would solve this problem.

I'm currently playing a CM battle where my gun damaged tanks, because they cannot exit the battle, are having to follow my main force around like baby ducklings. Exit zones would solve this problem.

That's correct, if PzC units make their way around the side and rear of enemy PzC units, they can Isolate them, which affects the ammo levels in any CM battles fought, and reduces the Isolated units PzC combat power as well, and also makes them more prone to "Disruption", which further weakens the affected unit. I disagree, I would say being bypassed represents more of a threat to ones supply line, than the threat of being attacked from two different directions, and PzC models that supply line threat. No method is perfect, but the alternative is not practical, as the CM battles would be too big IMO. Anyway, the best thing is to try it, and see how it "feels", and then, as long as I pick a scenario where the attacker has at least a 2:1 numerical advantage, the defender is vulnerable. There's a simple way to check a PzC scenario for force balance too, so it's easy enough to find a scenario with the right attack /defence ratio.

The biggest headache I have had regarding CMPzC, is how the PzC hex areas, and units, translate to CM battle maps. My original method was to use large CM maps (2000 x 2000m and above), and to allow the attacker to bring more men into the CM battle than the defender i.e. PzC assaults from different hexes against a single hex. However, using big maps, and allowing the attacker to achieve a numerical advantage of 3:1 or more in a single CM battle, will result in CM battles that are too big IMO. Battles with up to 4 or more battalions, are not only system intensive, but also could be a chore to most players, which could reduce the appeal for most players. Therefore, I have decided to change the way the CM battles are set up. From now on, only units from one hex can assault another hex. Below is a diagram showing how I was going to create the CM battles, and how I intend to in the future. Each hex represents 1000 x 1000m. Before Now With the CM set up areas corresponding to the diagrams below, given that the CM map can be at least 1500 x 1000m to 1500 x 2000m to be functional. The green strips are exit zones. It is obvious that now CMPzC CM battles could allow the defender to have an equal force size to the attacker. This, on the surface seems problematic, and counter intuitive, however, as long as the attacker has a deeper overall PzC force pool, the defender is forced to choose between a defence in depth, with the potential for gaps in the line, or a continuous, but thin, line. Therefore, the CM battles will consequently be battles of attrition, with the attacker grinding down the defenders forces with successive CM battles, where the attacker can replace combat weary units more readily than the defender. Also, because of the hex stacking limit, there can be no more than one battalion, plus support, per side, making for more manageable battles. Please feel free to comment.

I don't actually need it now, but thanks for the replies.

I have had an idea regarding setting up CM battles in a CMPzC operation, which will create enough battles, even using small scenarios. This will allow me to dispense with playing the PzC MG grand campaign, and allow me to use a small scenario, which will be easier, and quicker to run. I will discuss the set up idea in another thread.

Yes. If I had maps for other areas of the Caen map, I could of created a more extended front, but given the maps have to be at least 2 x 2km, with the major terrain feature in the centre, I only had the Caen map to play with. I could of fudged a map as a possible solution, but with CMMG on the horizon, complete with master maps, and tweaked engine, it seemed more reasonable to shut down Caen, and put all my time into MG. Once I have the game, I can look at the maps available, and then match them up with a suitable PzC scenario. This is the answer. There has to be at least two VL's, that are far enough removed from each other to create two distinct areas of combat, but still have an impact on each other. This is where Market Garden is perfect, one force conducting an Alamo defence, another trying to come to the rescue. But whatever I decide to do, I have to really think through the PzC scenario, before committing to another operation.

Thanks for being involved, and I certainly will let you know when the new one is ready.

After two aborted attempts at running a CMPzC operation, I am going back to the drawing board. Rather than release a "how to guide", which I thought was still to cumbersome a read, I intend to create a package. This will contain a better PzC scenario from PzC Market Garden, the CM maps for the PzC victory locations, along with all the set up and exit zones added for an attack by either side, and a unit attribute conversion table. I will also create a master OOB that can be imported into the CM scenario editor when a CM battle is required. Using a master CM OOB will also allow the combat effects to be tracked, as they will be added to it after each CM battle. Once this package is ready, I will add it to my Google Drive for public access. As far as Market Garden is concerned, if I can get two PzC players that are willing to play the Grand Campaign, I am willing to create and post each sides PzC AAR reports on the BF forum, set up all the CM battles, and edit the PzC OOB after each CM battle. The PzC players can decide who fights the CM battles. The beauty of playing the MG GC, is that all the CM battles will have consequences.

I'm glad you see my point about the objectives, they are everything. Like a CM battle designer, setting up an operation is like being a movie producer, you need to imagine how the big picture will play out, and will it be interesting, i.e. create tension, so choosing the right PzC scenario is essential, given the work one has to put in.

I'm shutting this operation down. The reason is because of the way the VL's are set up. The VL locations will draw all the units quite quickly into a mega CM battle, which reduces the operational element to almost nothing, which is not what I intended. So, given how predictable the operational moves will be, I might as well just set up a mega CM battle, with all of both sides units deployed, and dispense with the PzC part. In conclusion, my experiences with this particular PzC scenario, and also the Bulge one, have taught me that one cannot just use any old PzC scenario, one has to select one which will create CM battles with the most intriguing operational consequences. So, with that in mind, I am going to concentrate on creating a CMPzC Market Garden operation, as that has more potential for really interesting strategic situations than this operation. Apologies for anyone following this, but I cannot put precious time into something that is not satisfying me.

I'm shutting this operation down. The reason is because of the way the VL's are set up. The VL locations will draw all the units quite quickly into a mega CM battle, which reduces the operational element to almost nothing, which is not what I intended. So, given how predictable the operational moves will be, I might as well just set up a mega CM battle, with all of both sides units deployed, and dispense with the PzC part. In conclusion, my experiences with this particular PzC scenario, and also the Bulge one, have taught me that one cannot just use any old PzC scenario, one has to select one which will create CM battles with the most intriguing operational consequences. So, with that in mind, I am going to concentrate on creating a CMPzC Market Garden operation, as that has more potential for really interesting strategic situations than this operation. Apologies for anyone following this, but I cannot put precious time into something that is not satisfying me.

I can remember someone mentioned a while back that they were making a Carpiquet map. Was it completed ?

In that case, the gun would have to toggle between being infantry when attached to a vehicle, and a tank when unattached, if that's possible.

I've no doubt it has, and I fully expect a "we've tried it" answer, but it's easier to ask the question again, than try and find a previous answer in the archives.

To allow re manning, could AT / IG guns be modeled as tanks ?

There's the rub, if they were modeled as tanks, they could be re manned, if the gun were not knocked out. So, BF have either tried it, and it doesn't work, or not tried it. I will ask.

Tanks can be re manned, so if the gun could be tricked into thinking it was a tank, it could be re manned. If a tank, in CM, is an entity, whose distinguishing features are a gun, wheels, and armor protection, then an AT gun could be a tank, but with next to no armor protection, very slow to move, and a very low profile.