noob

I'm still trying to decide what to do in the case of a contested map. Therefore, for now, I think that if a side loses more than half of its starting headcount, it must, if defending, vacate the CM battlefield, and therefore the hex. If it is attacking, it must also vacate the battlefield and consequently fail to capture the hex. The pre battle headcount is calculated by adding the WIA, KIA and MIA to the Men OK figure. Then, if the side has less than 50% of that starting figure as Men OK, they must retreat. The 50% figure is purely arbitrary, however I think there can only really be two feasible percentages that trigger a retreat if dropped below, and they are 50% or 33%. 50% will speed the overall operation up, so I plump for that, any objections ? If this method feels right, it can stay, if not, there will have to be another way.

Giraffe execution squad ?

Brigade knows what's going on, you just lost half of A CO's HQ squad, which has put a damper on an otherwise nice little skirmish. Next time, remember to keep them out of the soup old chap

So am I ,it's the icing on the cake I am continuing to test the new values, however I am confident that a 75% defence reduction for "all" units is about right. I was going to reduce only recon units, but as other units become depleted, they will also be exploitable as blockers, so it must be all units.

I do like the 2D Zoom In view, terrain features are clearer, especially rivers and streams. I will start doing all my PzC AAR's like this from now. Those lines you have connecting the unit info boxes to the units are a bit disconcerting, I have to concentrate to make sure I am reading them right. A single black or red arrow will suffice

I was talking more about creating a good AAR than playing the CM battles well

Well, once you have a decent script, and a good set, you then need good performances from the actors

So, if a player whose PzC turn it isn't, loses a CM battle, your programme would move that players PzC units off the hex they recently occupied, then, move the attackers PzC units onto the vacated hex, and, also move any units that are occupying adjacent hexes to the vacated hex, if hex stacking limits are breached by the retreat of the losing units off the hex, and, do all this so as to allow the player whose PzC turn it is to save the new deployments as part of their PzC turn, just prior to generating the PBEM file to be sent to their opponent ? ?

This map, along with the rest of the Caen map project, basically kick started this whole operation. Without the maps, preferably realistic, and at least 2000 x 2000m, that represent the PzC victory point hex locations, it becomes a fudge to get CM maps to fit in with PzC. This is because, although the defenders hex only represents 1000 x 1000m, you have to have enough no mans land radiating around that area to allow attacks from all directions. Therefore, you need at least a 2000 x 2000m map to give you a no mans land of 400m between the attackers set up area, and the defenders set up area, from all four map edges. Thanks for making the map Rocko, and if you, or any other quality map makers, are about to make some more, keep in mind the 2000 x 2000m size, and I can incorporate them into my operations.

I really like your AAR, the ground level view is so immersive, and the narrative is good too.

I have found an easier way of editing the headcounts of the PzC units. If you open the PzC.oob file with notepad, you see the OOB as a single list of text and numbers. All the foot units are identifiable, as are their headcounts. If you open the edit menu in the notepad tool bar, there is a "Replace" function. This allows any selected part of the OOB data to be swapped with another selection, therefore, one can change the headcount of "all" the PzGD units in one action, as they are the only units with a PzC headcount of 197. It becomes slower when units from different sides share the same PzC headcount, but not the same CM headcount, then, one has to chose the side with more units to change en masse, and rectify the other sides units individually. However, this is still a much quicker way than having access each unit individually. Also by editing the entire PzC OOB to reflect the default headcounts of the equivalent CM foot units, all the pre made scenarios in a PzC title become CM friendly.

I have been experimenting with the Caen scenario in the PzC N44 demo, and, after changing "all" the participating units defence values to a quarter of their original value, I then played the sceanrio as a hot seat battle. When the PzC assault function was used, the results "felt" considerably better than they used to, meaning, the results were more like the results one would expect if the assault wee performed using CM. Therefore, I am going to apply the new defence values to the Caen operation PzC OOB, thus allowing the PzC assault function to be used to resolve one sided assaults, if desired.

There is a lot of dead ground that you display on your overhead screenshots that is irrelevant to the operation. If you zoom in further, or crop the map to exclude that dead ground, the operational area will be bigger and easier to read.

What I noticed, while watching the battle via the turns, not the AAR, was the fact that you put the right weapons in the right situations. For example, the units you had in that strip of woods by the beach were predominantly armed with SMG's, and your LMG's occupied the ridge line, with excellent over watch. Therefore, just by putting the right weapons with the right terrain maximised your forces effectiveness. A player that gets those fundamentals right, will always have an advantage, irrespective of other factors.

That unit finder function in the PzC OOB editor is new to me, nice one.

Thanks for showing an interest, and your proposal, from what I can understand, sounds great. Anyone that can automate any part of CMPzC has my full support. However, what you are describing will take me a little while to fully understand, and test, as my brain tends to freeze over when confronted with the technical aspects of games I can't see how your proposal could fix this, as virtual hex occupation is a function of PzC's IGO UGO system.

I just thought I would mention that there will be a delay to this operation while the CM map for the Axis assault on the VPL hex is created. Kohlenklau is making it, and I have asked him to give me an idea of when it will be completed, so watch this space.

I have modified the page "CM Battle Set Up", to show how units enter a CM battle if they assault a hex in Travel Mode: https://sites.google.com/site/cmpzch2hoperations/home/combat-mission/cm-battle-set-up

That's true, the problem I had was forgetting that "all" WIA are usually regarded as removed from the OOB altogether, which makes buddy aid irrelevant, so, you are correct, the artificial return makes the WIA number relevant, and therefore buddy aid.....phew, that was tough, I'm glad that's out of the way

I have it now. Given that in a CM operation, if "all" the the WIA of a CM battle are considered to be unable to fight again in the operation, and therefore removed from the OOB, then, by creating an artificial WIA return, you are making the WIA number relevant, which means buddy aid becomes relevant simply because buddy aid can increase the WIA number, am I correct ?

Then the men were put in a bad spot, where their weapons were inadequate for the terrain they were in. However, if they have a lot of heavy weapon suppression fire available, then it could be possible to get them, and their Stens, into a close range fight as quickly as possible, for their sakes Most scenarios I have played have squads that can be split into two teams for different ranges, so at least half the weapons will be initially useful

If a player can claim the artificial return, even if buddy aid is not used, then the artificial return cannot encourage the use of buddy aid, as it is not necessary to have used it to claim the artificial return. The mechanical return is the only thing that could possibly encourage buddy aid, as the mechanical return is only available to players that actually use buddy aid. That was my point all along. The problem was that you claimed that the artificial return encouraged buddy aid, when it did not.

Their starting defence value was 12, down to 3.

Greyhounds. I had a section of 5 Greyhounds remain in the hex with a 1 vehicle / 1 vehicle result after being assaulted by 18 Panthers and 12 PzIV's. The Axis tanks were all in travel mode, which reduces the attack value, but I still think that many tanks should brush aside the Greyhounds with ease. I started reducing the Greyhounds defence value by half, then tested again, but I still felt the result was not right, that's why I halved again. This time the Greyhounds were eliminated, or disrupted and shoved aside, no longer creating an obstacle, and I was satisfied. I am going to test further to see if quartering other units defence values will give more CM like results when the odds are not as one sided. I think when one reduces recon unit defence values, it has to be relative, as two recon units can be drastically different, i.e. Greyhounds compared to Motorcycles.

When it comes to setting up, a general rule would be to split all infantry squads into SMG and LMG teams. then put the SMG teams in terrain offering short LOS, and the LMG teams in terrain offering long LOS. Never have a squad containing both SMG and LMG, otherwise, either one will always be in terrain unsuitable for its design. Place AT guns in places offering the longest LOS, preferably a keyhole position, down a road etc, basically, use them to deny enemy tanks areas of open ground. Basically, when you look at a map, think of matching the correct weapon type with the correct terrain. However, there will be times when you are forced to use weapons in terrain they were not designed for, it is then you will know that you are probably losing For defence, it's always a good idea to put up a spotting screen of binocular guys, while keeping the bulk of your forces at the centre rear, then try and concentrate, and counter attack the weakest part of the attackers front once you have defined it. Sitting in prepared positions is a bad idea with CM artillery in the mix.