Concord

Thanks. Based on your advice, below is the 2nd draft of the OOB: The Americans: (Italian theatre, armour-heavy, veterans, maxed ammo) consisting of: 2 x Armour Platoons including: 10 x Shermans M4A3's 2 x M10 Tank Destroyers 1 x Armoured Infantry Platoon including: 2 x M3A1 HT's (.30 and .50 cal) 2 x M3 HT's (.30 cal) 1 x M4A1 Mortar Carrier HT 1 x Platoon HQ 3 x AR 44 Squads (actually 1945 infantry squads with 2 BAR's each) 1 x Bazooka Team 2 x MMG teams (.30 cals) 1 x 105mm Radio FO 1 x Engineer Section including: 2 x Trucks 1 x Jeep 1 x Platoon HQ 2 x Armoured Engineer Squads 1 x Flamethrower Team 1 x Bazooka Team The Germans: (Defending elements of a German Grenadier Battalion), consisting of: 1 x Grenadier Company (veterans, panzerfausts / grenade bundles, maxed ammo), including: 1 x Company HQ 1 x Section HQ 3 x Platoon HQ 9 x Rifle 44 Squads 3 x Tank Hunter Teams (featuring ATM's) 2 x Panzerschreck Teams 2 x HMG's (MG42's) 1 x Sniper (veteran or crack) 1 x 75mm ATG (PaK40) 2 x 81mm Mortars 3 x Trucks 2 x Kubelwagens Fortifications including: 2 x MG Log Bunkers 2-3 x Daisy Chain AT Mines 1 x Hidden AT Mine (maybe) 2 x Roadblocks 4 x Trenches 12 x Wire Optional extras for inclusion, or as reinforcements: 1 x 'Reserve' Platoon of Infantry 1 x Assault Gun (STUG IIIG) 1 x Infantry Gun (75mm leIG) with 6HC and 6S 1 x FO 81mm (probably line, probably 4 tube) 1 x Pioneer Section 2 x LMG Teams (MG42's) OOB Notes: Does this sound realistic? The Germans look a bit more impressive to me now ('on paper' at least). There's quite a few optional extras to consider too. I'm tempted to drop in a couple of 'character' pieces into the US mix. JasonC, you mentioned in the previous thread that task force battalions had alot of light armour and AA. What about a couple of AA HT's (M16 MGMC's)? Are the two M10's realistic? Maybe increase to a platoon (4 of)? German set-up: I am going to set up the Germans in their default positions, incorporating the various tactics you've described. When it's done, would it be OK to e-mail the scenario to you (JasonC and Kingfish) for feedback? American set-up: I will set these up in their default positions on the road. Perhaps tanks in front, HT's next, then soft vehicles? Or 1 platoon of tanks, then HT's, followed by the second platoon of tanks? Historical: I believe that this kind of situation would have been very common ("a day in the life of"). I could upload it as a fictional scenario, but because of its authenticity in regards to OOB and map layout, maybe I should slap a label on it and send it off as a semi-historical one. Any actual engagements anyone knows of that could fit the OOB and map (fairly flat farmland)? Kingfish, I was considering making the German company Fusiliers or Jagers. I'd like to ask what the definition of the different branches are (Jager Aufklarungs???), but it may be something for another thread. Cheers, Concord P.S. The deeper I go into tactics and scenario design, that more I realise there is to learn! [ May 13, 2006, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: Concord ]

Here's the photo that was my main reference image for the map...

Thanks guys for the road-specific tactics lesson. I will incorporate it into the German setup. The first draft of the map is available for download at TPG: "Long road" It takes an hour (64 minutes to be exact) for the lead tank to drive on Move command from the edge of the setup area to the northern edge. It's a very long map. I'm tempted to add a second team and a second company! Cheers, Concord

Thanks for the advice... Beefing up the forces: I had planned to have two combat teams for this scenario, one armour heavy and one infantry heavy. After looking at the map however, I changed my mind. I thought that on a map only 640m wide things could get cluttered. I also thought that the second team would possibly not see that much action anyway, as they will probably be 20 vehicles (or further) down the road. I'm guessing that in fact, there probably would be a number of combat team sized companies along the road (maybe a whole brigade?), but they simply aren't represented for playability. I will include a second team if it makes for a more accurate simulation though. Kingfish, I see your point about the infantry being asked to do too much. JasonC, what would you suggest to simulate this historically? I like your idea about the engineers in soft vehicles, but is this enough? What about a platoon of armoured infantry or recon infantry riding the tanks? Would the lead armoured combat team have had more infantry present in reality? German ordnance: For May 1944, CMAK shows the 50mm Pak38 as +20 rarity, and the 75mm Pak40 as -5 rarity. Maybe just 1 x Pak40 OR 3 Pak38's? 2 Panzershrecks. No AFV's. Hmmm, it's a bit of a tall order for the German infantry though. Suicide platoons? I wonder if anyone would survive the withdrawal after the ambush! Defensive tactics: Is it possible to outline roughly what tactics the German defenders would use? Would they use the wire and trenches near the roadblocks? Would they concentrate anti-tank defences with LOS to the obstacles? How could they stop an armoured combat team with just a company of infantry and only 'light' support weapons? Cheers, Concord

"Concord calling JasonC and Kingfish, do you read over?" Hiya, Concord here again hoping to get some more advice about designing an armoured combat team battle. The map: I'm nearing completion of the map, and will upload the blank version to The Proving Grounds shortly. It's 640m wide x 6000m (yeah, 6km!) long. I decided to make it a battle rather than an operation to reflect the run-and-gun style of the attack. The map is based largely on aerial photos, in particular a period photo of extensive farmland near the Panora River in Italy. The main (dirt) road runs dead straight up the map, with crops separated by windbreak trees, and a series of building clusters. It was interesting to note that the ground in the photo was fairly flat (for Italy), and all of the windbreaks were perpendicular to the road. The Allies: Going off our previous discussion JasonC, I'll use the list below. Any further suggestions? 1 x American Combat Team (armour-heavy, veterans, maxed ammo) consisting of: 8-10 x Shermans (M4A3's? M4A3(75)W's?) 1 x Armoured Infantry Platoon including 2 x M3A1 HT's (.30 and .50 cal), 2 x M3 HT's (.30 cal), 1 x Platoon HQ, 1 x AR HQ 44 Squad, 2 x AR 44 Squads (actually 1945 infantry squads with 2 BAR's), 2 x Bazooka Teams, 2 x MMG teams (.30 cals), and 1 x M4A1 Mortar Carrier HT. 1 x 105mm Radio FO, plus transport (M3 HT? M20 Scout Car?) 2 x M10 Tank Destroyers JasonC, should I include 2 x M8 HMC's, or a Cavalry platoon, or some Stuarts? The Germans: I think that the German forces will be important for play balance and realism. Going on my sketchy knowledge, I was thinking mainly infantry with support weapons (MG's, Tank Hunter Teams, maybe a Panzershreck or two), and a smattering of different guns (maybe 50mm ATG's, a couple of 75mm ATG's, maybe some AA Guns and Infantry Howitzers?). In addition, maybe some light vehicles such as AC's and HT's, and possibly even a couple of Panzer III's or Marders or STG's. Play Balance: Being a somewhat unusual map (narrow and long), I was considering using the setup zones for the Germans. I would like to create a situation where the Allies have the advantage, but if they lose too much before reaching the Victory Locations at the end of the map they will lose the battle on points. It would also be good to have the play balanced enough that it is tough but enjoyable to play the German side as well. Historical Realism: Being such a 'generic' tactical situation, I think it should be easy to match this scenario to an historical framework, either Italy or western Europe (the 'flat' areas of Italy could easily pass as western Europe). The main indicator would be the German force mix I imagine. I would like to push this into the "historical scenario" catagory. Any assistance with this would be greatly appreciated! Commonwealth Note: If this scenario works, it would be interesting to create an historical Commonwealth version, with a British (?) mobile column and historically appropriate German defenders. This might be something that someone like Michael Dorosh could assist me with. Any input welcomed. Cheers, Concord :cool:

I've modified most of my CMBB a couple of years ago, and recently modded most of my CMAK. I created a 'mod-test mission' with most of the vehicles and guns available for the major sides across the years (by changing the date in the parameters area and going back to unit selection area) and a few of each terrain type. Gradually over time I browsed cmmods.com using the 'unit type' list and compared the screen shots of different mods for units and terrain, and download my favourite ones. Over about 4 months I have installed mods for most vehicles, much of the terrain (including gridded ground tiles - great for seeing the contours), many sound effects, the in-game interface/orders, and even the opening music and splash screen graphic. It's a great improvement to the 'vanilla' originals, and adds to my experience of playing them! As I went through cmmods.com , some authors I picked regularly, but many were once-offs. I downloaded all the snowy winterised vehicle mods for all sides, then started on non-winterised. For the Germans, I downloaded grey versions for the 'lesser' vehicles, and then hand-picked mods for many vehicles. For the Allies, I downloaded 'dusty' versions for the lesser vehicles, and then hand-picked. I found 'mod packs' (eg flak packs) good because it was easy to mod multiple units at a time, and standardised the look somewhat. I haven't modded the infantry or crews, because I don't think they have as big a graphical impact. I think that the infantry mods change all of the particular 'branch' of the side modded. As for the terrain mods, I selected with two goals: realistic looking, and medium to small size. Some mods warn of possible slow-down to performance because they're so hi-res. One thing I found helpful was installing the mod bmp's using a picture viewer program like "ACDSee", which shows both the old and new file and allows you to choose to over-write it or skip to the next one. If I was unsure about a mod, I would copy the mod files and paste them into the bmp folder. I would then choose skip for the files to get a comparative preview without actually overwriting the bmps. I did periodically back up the wav and bmp folders, but never had to restore anything. Finally, once I'm completely happy with the results, I'll zip the bmp folder and burn it to disk in case I ever need to re-install the games.

I've modified most of my CMBB a couple of years ago, and recently modded most of my CMAK. I created a 'mod-test mission' with most of the vehicles and guns available for the major sides across the years (by changing the date in the parameters area and going back to unit selection area) and a few of each terrain type. Gradually over time I browsed cmmods.com using the 'unit type' list and compared the screen shots of different mods for units and terrain, and download my favourite ones. Over about 4 months I have installed mods for most vehicles, much of the terrain (including gridded ground tiles - great for seeing the contours), many sound effects, the in-game interface/orders, and even the opening music and splash screen graphic. It's a great improvement to the 'vanilla' originals, and adds to my experience of playing them! As I went through cmmods.com , some authors I picked regularly, but many were once-offs. I downloaded all the snowy winterised vehicle mods for all sides, then started on non-winterised. For the Germans, I downloaded grey versions for the 'lesser' vehicles, and then hand-picked mods for many vehicles. For the Allies, I downloaded 'dusty' versions for the lesser vehicles, and then hand-picked. I found 'mod packs' (eg flak packs) good because it was easy to mod multiple units at a time, and standardised the look somewhat. I haven't modded the infantry or crews, because I don't think they have as big a graphical impact. I think that the infantry mods change all of the particular 'branch' of the side modded. As for the terrain mods, I selected with two goals: realistic looking, and medium to small size. Some mods warn of possible slow-down to performance because they're so hi-res. One thing I found helpful was installing the mod bmp's using a picture viewer program like "ACDSee", which shows both the old and new file and allows you to choose to over-write it or skip to the next one. If I was unsure about a mod, I would copy the mod files and paste them into the bmp folder. I would then choose skip for the files to get a comparative preview without actually overwriting the bmps. I did periodically back up the wav and bmp folders, but never had to restore anything. Finally, once I'm completely happy with the results, I'll zip the bmp folder and burn it to disk in case I ever need to re-install the games.

To Kingfish: OK, historical advice will be great. Do you think I should 'post an ad' to announce my availability as a mercenary map maker? "Grog wanted. Must hate making maps." To Stoffel: Well, ask for linked scenarios, and you get them! It's like being invited to a mysterious secret society. Looks good, I think I'll join, but I will need to more closely examine the rules and make sure I can commit to the time needed (it's a turn per day?). To JasonC: Thanks for the breakdown. This info is ideal for the construction of my task force battle. I like the idea of the teams representing the point elements of a larger task force. It allows an historically accurate simulation without overloading CM. That said, I do like the idea of TWO teams in column rolling towards a distant objective. I'm amazed at how light the proportion of infantry to armour could be (in the "armour heavy" team). I would be decidedly nervous moving into enemy territory with only a platoon of armoured infantry to screen and spot for all those valuable AFVs. It wouldn't take many ambushes to potentially wipe out your recon abilities, and how would they deal with 'guerrilla' infantry that fade back into cover? All that vehicle firepower would make short work of say, a fanatical suicide squad next to the road (once spotted), but does that mean losing an AFV at every choke-point? Maybe that's why their infantry was always low...using the squads as scouts to flush out targets for the big guns? If they were your armoured team's best eyes and ears, presumably you would want to conserve them and avoid combat and casualties as much as possible? Would having two teams, one infantry-heavy and one armour-heavy solve the problem I wonder? All up, maybe: 12 Shermans, 1 platoon of TD's, 1 platoon of cavalry, 3 platoons of armoured infantry, 2 company HQ's, 2 105 FOs, 1 platoon of mortar HT's (or 81 FO), 1 platoon of AA HT's. I wonder if I could jam in some Sherman 105's too?

Well what do you think about teaming up on a project? I've got a few ideas. Perhaps an operation or maybe a series of 'theme' battles based on the exploits of a combined arms group like a task force. How did you go about combining efforts in the map making process?

It worked! Sound mods here I come! The first one I tested was new start up music to go with my new splash screen. It's like having a newly released fourth CM! :cool: Cheers Schrullenhalft!

Well, I would like to do a purely historical battle / op for this, but it looks like quite in-depth research is required to find a suitable event and then accurately portray the forces of both sides. I may have to be content with a semi-historical battle. By the way, do CM fans ever team up to design battles or ops? For instance a graphics person to create the map (like myself) and someone to provide historical facts and framework? If so, I would be keen to participate. I'm torn between a US or Commonwealth task force. I'm interested in the US machines (especially including some tank destroyers!), while the "quirky" Commonwealth mix would be interesting to simulate. I may start two concurrently! As for the US, it would appear that you could simulate a "generic" task force with maybe 1-3 armoured rifle companies with transport, towed AT's and support weapons (these companies seem to be carrying alot of support equipment - I had mentally pictured them more as light scouts for the armour). Also, maybe 1 tank company, a platoon of TD's, and a mixed bag of odd-ball vehicles (the "assault guns" listed as part of the Arm Inf would be Priests?). Oh, and artillery of course! Have I interpretted it correctly? As for the Commonwealth, I think would need to be much more specific about units. From the task force links above, Porter Force looks the most suitable (Canadian Dingos and Staghounds on recon!) One idea I had was to have a map that was maximum length, but fairly narrow, and simulate an attack deep into enemy territory. Any comments appreciated.

Thanks! I will examine the links in more detail tonight.

Great, thanks Schrullenhaft! I will try it tonight after work.

I did a search in the archives and couldn't detect a previous post regarding task force compositions. Can anyone give me a generic list of units that would be in a typical US / UK task force?

Thanks Sergei. Checked their properties. Both the old and new wav's are 16 bit, but the new ones are 22 kHz instead of the original 44 kHz. Is this the problem? All of the new ones were downloaded from cmmods for CMAK, so I wonder why they aren't compatable? Is there an easy fix?

I replaced some sound files in the WAV directory with mod files (some sound effects and some music), but they all play super-fast. The sped-up results are amusing, but don't add to the atmosphere of the game! Any sugestions?

OK, it's uploaded: Blue Devils Mt Damiano @ The Proving Grounds

Well, I have finished designing the Blue Devils Mt Damiano scenario and given it a test run from both sides. I will load it up onto The Proving Grounds after work tonight. I'm content with the results, but it may need tuning up. It is a fairly intense infantry battle, and it portrays a situation that was repeated time and again in Italy: infantry with artillery support assaulting large hills with dug in defenders and fortifications. In that sense, it's almost generic. Thanks to JasonC and Kingfish for your help and advice!

Hi All, I am going to design an historical scenario or operation based on the exploits of a combat command or a task force during the Italian campaign. I think that these combined arms forces will work well for CM scenarios. As I don't have a library of WWII books, I am doing research online, but there are considerable gaps in the information available. Can anyone supply an OB of the units present in such a force, such as Task Force Ramey? Any information about Task Forces or Combat Commands appreciated.

Awesome! Google Earth is quite amazing to see. The world doesn't seem that big now. It really helped in putting things in perspective, with the ability to view the landscape from an angle. From what I can tell, Mount Diamano looks like an extension of "S Ridge" from Santa Maria Enfante, and has been described as "pudding shaped". I am about 75% through the map design. JasonC, your info about the US battle formations was very helpful. Given the German force composition previously mentioned, is there any standard infantry defence formation the Germans used? The map I've made is quite large (about 1000 x 1700 from memory), that increasingly slopes uphill to the rounded crest. The ground is fairly uneven, with brush, rough, and some scattered trees. Do I let the German player choose where to set up across the entire set-up area, or should I divide it in two areas; 'forward defence units' and 'rear defence units'? If I allowed the German to set up anywhere, they may decide to bunch up at the crest, which would make for a long 'uneventful' march to the top for the US player. Bunching up would make the German forces more suseptable to artillery though, so it may not be an issue.

"Kingfish, this is Concord, do you read, over?" I've decided on a battle to historically simulate. It's the 88th infantry division (AKA the "Blue Devils"), 350th regiment, 2nd battalion, attacking the German 71st / 94th division on Mount Diamano (Hill 413, "key to cracking the defences of Castleforte") at the Gustav line, May 1944. (whew!) The 88th Infantry Division Association History of the 88th 'Blue Devil' Division Blue Devils - 88th Infantry Division Would it be possible to post instructions on how to navigate to the maps in the PCN website for me and others-hungry-for-maps like dieseltaylor? Portale Cartografico Nazionale I am going to guess what was present on the battlefield, using my research and descriptions. Initially, I'm thinking a US infantry battalion with fairly hefty artillery support (multiple FO's with offboard 105's), against maybe 1 or 2 companies for the Germans, with the addition of dug-in HMG's, 81mm mortars, snipers, mines and wire (ahhhh, a typical day in Italy 1944, eh? :mad: ) and possibly a wooden MG bunker or three...does the mix sound about right, at a glance? The map design will have to carry it off I think. I'm not too sure about mountains in Italy: some photos show them covered in trees (eg Mount Battaglia), and others almost totally bald except for scrub (eg Tre Poggioli Ridge). Any insights are welcome.

Valuable input!!! Perhaps I will still do a very large scenario out of interest and for novelty value, but I will keep it down to a maximum of battalion level for most. The issues of borg awareness and parade ground marching are valid scale issues that the game wasn't designed to handle. For 'smaller' scenarios / ops, fudging the details probably won't have as much impact on realism, and simply provide guidelines for terrain and force composition. I'm getting a better picture of the actual combat scale, and how the units were employed. One of my main goals in going for a larger scale was to see the impact of say, a battery of 88's with a view across a 2km front where a regiment was advancing, or the impact of divisional artillery support on a line, etc. I don't imagine that much combat would happen beyond 2km from any unit, even for things like 88's or FO's, so it seemed the right scale to get a true picture of what would be going on at the front. Still, I'm thinking that there will still be a way to show only a slice of the front and still retain historical accuracy. Some of the accounts I read about on those websites talk about a "breakthrough" by a group of 8 tanks (company size?) with support. So maybe keeping the scale to a maximum of say, a battalion of infantry and a tank company plus supporting units could very well portray a realistic section of the front. Rather than having the full divisional battalions in support, you could for instance portray 103 Pz Recon with a reconaissance company and a platoon of armoured cars. Note: a battalion wouldn't neccessarily always be working as one big unit would it? Sometimes they might split units like this to different areas of the division? The sheer scale of all this is staggering. When you consider the size of a company, and then multiple companies per battalion, multiple battalions to a regiment, and multiple regiments spead out across just 5km, that's ALOT of men and equipment! And yet, a "threatening" breakthrough could be caused by just a company of tanks!

The PCN site sounds good, but it may be hard to navigate as you said (especially because I don't speak Italian), so once I decide on a battle location, I'll e-mail you. The randomly picked battle we're looking at as an example might not be too fun...moving a US battalion at night through mud and minefields while being shelled..."Swell" So, 3rd Panzergrenadier division eh? Some things that occured to me looking at their OOB: 1.) Some of those so-called "battalions" look no bigger than a company in size! (eg 103. Panzer Reconnaissance Battalion) I guess the 8th and 29th Panzergrenadier Regiments were the guts, not to mention the 3rd Pioneer battalion with 3 companies. You could sacrifice the motorised mapping detachment and the regimental band as a delaying action! 2.) How much of this stuff would actually be committed? Whether to give the axis player the two heavy flak batteries to set up on the mountain (!!!) or have the three STUG batteries roll up? My first thought is that I will have to select based on gameplay and guesswork where there's no specific details available. Hmm... I agree about maps. A well designed map makes it more engaging and helps make up for the slightly clunky graphics. What are the names of your multi-battalion scenarios (on SDII or TPG)? I just uploaded two of my blank maps to The Proving Grounds: "Factory" for CMBB and "Italian hills farms" for CMAK.

Thanks again for all the great links Kingfish, it will allow me to concentrate on actual map and scenario design rather than chasing my tail with the researching! Just skimming through the example description of the 3rd crossing of the 34th Division, I wasn't entirely sure of the German composition though (a more detailed read will probably reveal it). Just for the record, what size units are depicted by I, II and III? I gather II is a battalion? So, for an accurate portrayal of an event like this, I think that a battalion size would be a minimum, and I would prefer even two battalions! But for purposes of an enjoyable game, maybe played by PBEM, am I getting too ambitious? It would probably involve almost maximum allowable map sizes, and allot of units. When I play a large game, I tend to group units by platoon and drag a box to select and move them together, so maybe it wouldn't involve too much micromanagement. I think that the advantage of a large game with big map and units, is you get a better representation. There tends to be more tactical options too. I'm imagining maybe 9 HMG's hampering the advance of a whole infantry battalion (?) I'm trying to convince myself that a BIG game is OK! If all the units for both sides were neatly layed out for placement by the player (saving time) and the size of the map wouldn't hamper us poor unfortunates who have a slow band width on e-mail, it could be manageable. In your experience, would there be disadvantages to this scale? Do you think players would enjoy it?

Well that is fantastic, thanks Kingfish and JasonC! These links and answers alone are enough to anchor my designs in some historical realism. Kingfisher, the info in the links I had a brief look at are ideal. Descriptions, topographical photos etc. Any additional links you supply I will also investigate. JasonC, in regards to scale, it sounds like a 'quiet' km-wide area of the front could have just a company, while it could be packed for an assault. (Wow, 50 tanks in an assault would be extremely fun in CM, but I think you would be waiting a long time for the calculations and movies!) Looking at one of the links posted by Kingfisher, "Volturno to the Winter Line", shows an attack by the 34th Division across a front about 3-4 km wide (page 89 - "Third Crossing of the 34th Division"). It would appear 168th Infantry Regiment advancing on a front about 1.5 miles wide, consisting of three battalions (the symbol II ?). So if I've interpreted it correctly, you could accurately simulate this regiment's attack in CM with a map 2km wide, and three (!) battalions of US infantry?