Sgt.Squarehead

Happened to be perusing the thread and saw this.  I looked at the video before I even read anything on the post and thought to myself "this looks vaguely familiar".  Well I built this little scenario so it should look familar!
37mm I am glad you had fun with this mission I made......I don't remember how long ago.  I currently do not have CMSF2 but maybe I'll get it and try to update it.  You are right, I am not really active here any more, I do lurk often for cool new stuff like this!
 
Steve

I've been surprised at how well the older scenarios still hold up. Other than replacing Marsh with proper water, like I did for the video, the only other additions I would suggest would be something to help out the BMP's (who are, after all, lying in wait)... making sure that they're manned with at least 3 men, an exp boost, TRP's etc.
One or more of those, some harrasing mortar fire (by a spy FO?) & some foxholes near the bridge would be more than enough.
 
PS
I don't know if you're aware but you can update to CMSF2 for as little as $15.

Fulda Gap. 

Approaching the bridge objective
A little further forward elements of B Co spot an enemy BMP. See, he can move assets without my overwatch units spotting them. Rats!

 
A little battle field overview from about the 5 or 6 minute mark.

 
The first teams from B Co 1 Pl reach the bridge. I order them to move into the steam bead and along it under the bridge. They don't do that and instead head right up on top before climbing down the hill. WTF – Why The Face as in the face of confusion and anger.

 
But they make it unharmed.

 
More of 1Pl move up and the next team gets much more detailed orders of how to get under the bridge out of the enemy view. The also ignore me and follow the same path as the first team. This time they take fire and someone is lightly wounded.

 
Meanwhile one overwatch mortar fire spotting rounds started a few minutes ago so the ATGM teams are on the run to avoid it. As the fire really starts they are safe but no longer on overwatch.

 
BMPs choosing their own targets

 
The bulk of 1Pl are in position but again the HQ team decides to go over out into the open but this time one member doesn't make it.

 
Meanwhile given where the fire at the bridge is coming from I move 2Pl up in the gully with the idea that they can interdict anything else joining the enemy threatening 1Pl and I can protect their flank.

 
After about 10 minutes this is where where everybody is.

 

I don't really understand this.
sure...
If you set the entire battalion (or some other formation) to 50 percent i can understand some randomness...
But if you specify the headcount for a single unit...a sniperteam for example...
There should be no randomness !
Why should it ?
 

The "finally it's here, the Schwimmwagen" - campaign?!

I have come across this oddety also...
Its a pain in the...
Like many other things in CM there seems to be some randomness to this...that complicates things...
A fix would be nice indeed...

@Battlefront.com.....Is there any chance you guys could fix 'Headcount' so that when set to 50% strength, a two man unit ALWAYS becomes a single man? 
It's utterly bloody infuriating when a single man, especially one who is the subject for a scenario, mysteriously develops a twin. 
PS - For some reason several types of two man team are NEVER reduced at the 50% setting, including MGs & RPGs.....How is one expected to create Rambo adequately if one can't get a single man with a machinegun or a rocket-launcher? 
PPS - Most of my comments are based on CM:SF2, but I believe they generally apply more broadly too.

Fulda Gap. 

Incorrect. It's the same group of people that have made everything else CM on your HD.
It is the same method that BFC have used for as long as I have been doing this (since 2001)- they do the code and OOB stuff and tell us what is and isn't possible on that basis (with other input and content where needed), they also do the majority of the art work. One person heads up organizing the campaigns, scenario list, maps, etc.. That's me this go around for RT- the guy that made half of the giant CM master maps on your HD since CM:MG and the subsequent WWII titles. The guy that did a fair number of campaigns and scenarios since GL for all modules. I know the drill.
This is not an outside job, nor is the CMFI module. Other testers are kicking things in as well, as always. So the trend you have seen in CM:FB will continue as far as number of areas mapped, quality of content, etc..
*The notion that bugs cause delays is a given* I can't believe I wasted internet ink typing that. Obviously true, and unfortunate- even with a genius behind the wheel of said code.
We are indeed on that RT module. And then some. When it comes time when things are in properly vetted visual shape, BFC will be throwing bones.

Noted.... I will keep an eye out for it.  Don't think I need a save file.  Thanks for posting

Anyone tried using a Sturmtiger against bridges at all? 
If anything will bring one down.....
This we like. 

Natural thing for a mission designer knowing all the details for "optimal" playthroughs for sure. Main reason I do not pump out more my missions is lack of feedback from players (if there is any), particularly of the more detailed type responses. Couple of people just reported my "You Enter Germany" mission at TSD III simply beeing too difficult as they´re about to be overun by the AIP within 15-20 minutes. Well yes....but that´s intended purpose. Unfortunately all miss the actual purpose of the mission beeing an actual "delay then counterattack" type. So the actual fun of that mission lies more in the second half of it, but I´d guess nobody ever played that out to a conclusion.  From my own playthroughs (10-15 times through final version) I know that at least a tactical vic and more is doable, although beeing quite some challenge. And that with just a single AIP (attack) battle plan. So why spending countless hours and efforts if you´re the only guy around knowing this is a well made mission. Yes, for the fun of creating it majorily. On the long run motivation degrades considerably though.

I've used both touch (unknown to player) and occupy for bridge objectives. Players gets points for touching the bridge but unless they can clear the enemy from commanding key terrain unlikely they will be able to occupy (and get more points) without coming under fire - does depend on the terrain on the map though.
In fact on one I'm working on just now enemy FOs have LOS to the approaches of the bridge and access to TRPs and a LOT (modules come in as reinforcements) of artillery so they can keep up some harassing fire. Blue player not only has to take the bridges but also clear the enemy from any commanding terrain, including the FOs. Its a massive map as well but with comparatively few units.

As do we all.....It's the when that concerns me.   

In a scenario I just completed for (redacted) I gave attacking allies fairly detailed orders in an attempt to get the player to fight in a way that's typical of the theater (you'll understand when you see it). I included a touch objective for points to incentivize him to move how I want him to move. That's not to say that's the only tactical solution. Writing-up Allied AI plans I did an alt AI orders that's an entirely different attack plan from the one in the orders text.
Bear in mind, scenario designers have to concoct AI orders based on certain assumptions. The orders set tells you to proceed down the road. Opposing AI orders are based on the assumption that you're going to proceed down the road. If you don't proceed down the road the opposing AI orders are shadow-boxing against nothing. There's a difference between genuinely superior tactics and merely gaming the AI to your advantage.

My old eyes struggle with the font a bit TBH, but 'Ctrl +' sorts it soon enough (I wouldn't say no to it being a bit bigger though). 
This could be the most exciting bit of the fight.....Once things close to reasonable RPG range Red can be a lot harder to handle.  If they have the PG-7R round in significant numbers they could prove to be a real handful. 

What's the most extreme lengths you've gone to get your guys back? 
I had a dude get seriously wounded on an inaccessible action spot between a burning BMP, a hedge or maybe low bocage tile and a house.....Left a driver to guard him and keep his spirits up, then diverted an engineer team half way round the enormous map so that we could blow up the hedge and a wall of the house to get him out! 
Apparently he's recovering nicely and planning to write a book about his ordeal ("My Commander Was A Lunatic")! 

Neither, given that I was replying to a comment made by the good Sgt. it would Worcesteshirish.

Sorry Sarge, I thought that was your religion.

Woosterfari in my case I'll have you know. 

First Few Minutes – Moving Out and the importance of C2
This is a meeting engagement, even with the twist of the other objectives, so the plan is to get to the bridge fast. The bridge objective is B company's job. 1 Platoon will rush wide and fast to cross the road and get into the woods to approach the bridge. 2 Platoon will follow but stay out of site in the gully at KT5 that connects with KT2. That way 2 Platoon can either cross the road and join 1 Platoon or manoeuvre down the gully towards the bridge which ever seems best.
A Company will protect the Red objective and position itself to threaten the Blue objective. All their BMPs and two attached ATGMs will stay on the high ground, KT7, and try to restrict the enemy's movement while the infantry take up a position on KT6 to observe and threaten the farm. Meanwhile 2 Platoon will get into the West end of the KT5 out of site and be ready to respond as needed.

 
A Compnay HQ following along on foot behind 1 Platoon as the cross into KT5.


 
B Company moving off at speed. 1 Platoon is in the lead with 2 Platoon following.

 
After about a minute you can see the plan begin to unfold...

 
The two ATGM teams setup on the high ground – all the see is a BTR for a brief second slipping along AA3. Closer examination shows that they actually do not have as good a view as I had hoped. To be clear they can see a lot and anyone venturing out into the open ground will likely become a target. The trouble is there is a low area along AA3 that is out of their view so the ATGMs and the BMPs will not be in as dominating a position as I thought. To make matter worse I now see that do to comms the BMPs are out of C2 with their HQs which also means no area fire from KT7 in support of the infantry. That is not good.

 
I really want the BMPs to be able to support the infantry. Given their poor visibility I was counting on them for area fire as directed by the Platoon HQ. Without the rules I would happily just leave them on KT7 and blast away at what ever I want them to. But under the Hard-Cat rules they cannot do that. Therefore I need to think like the Platoon commander and get them into a position that can support the platoon. Therefore 1 Platoon and the A Company BMP will reposition to KT6 so they can actually take direction from the their respective HQs. 2 Platoon's BMPs will just join their platoon in defilade and stick with them as reinforcements.


 
The first members of B Company 2 platoon reach their positions with the rest close behind.


 
B Company 1 Platoon cross the road into cover. This was the most dangerous time for them and the all made it without taking any fire.

 
Some screen shots showing the problem with C2. This is after the BMPs moved from KT7 into position hull down on my side of KT6. They are still out of C2 from their HQs.

 
The Platoon HQ is on the other side of the ridge and out of contact.

 
By repositioning the HQ back to just the other side of the ridge now the infantry and the BMPs are in C2. The HQ is also in a better position to observer the Farm but they are also more exposed. Those compromises are the point of the Hard-Cat rules thought.

 

I plan as much, or as little as necessary, and I often deviate from my own plan at any reasonable opportunity.
Most of the time, my plans are as simple as, "First Platoon will go that way, Second will go that way, and Third will wait here until later." I then fight the battle largely by ear.
Some times I will plan an attack all the way down to the level of individual teams, giving each one a specific point to go for, as part of an interlocking fire and movement plan.
"This row of buildings is key to allowing further movement, so First and Second Squad will split into teams and occupy them, allowing Third Squad to move across the street onto the objective."
But then again, most of the time I simply maintain my intervals, move as suppression allows, focus my firepower where it's needed, and generally I come off rather well by keeping one eye on the clock, the other eye on the distance from my objectives, both ears on the sounds of outgoing and incoming fire, and a third eye on the amounts of critical ammo supplies like 120mm HE, and Javelins.
So, in a nutshell, I'm perfectly happy with a detailed plan being provided to me, but I much prefer simply being given an objective and allow me to figure out how I want to accomplish it.
Some times I even deliberately ignore objectives given to me by the scenario, because I know I can achieve victory without them.
It's fairly difficult to argue with a total enemy surrender. 

It is an interesting debate and I guess there is no right or wrong answer because we all have our own preferences. Always pleasing to see that my work is part of the discussion and has provided enjoyment to players and I agree with your comments about those missions.
FWIW, my mission design philosophy is not prescriptive in that I don't set out to design to suit a particular preference, rather I try to design missions:
That I want to make. That people will want to play. Are historical, semi historical or plausible. That are achievable in the editor. As you know, I've done stuff ranging from SF HVT strikes at platoon minus strength (Op NEPTUNE SPEAR) up to Battalion plus engagements (To Verdenne and Victory). Each present their own design challenges but the general rule is that the larger the force size and map involved, then the number of options for both the designer and player increase. I also like the planning aspect of the game, which is why I wrote my planning tutorial which if you haven't seen it, can be found here:
When I play other scenarios, I therefore like to plan and that is reflected in the way that I write orders for my own missions. When I read a briefing, if the Execution paragraph starts telling me that 1 Platoon has to go Wood X to lay a base of fire for 2 Platoon to assault or similar detailed schemes of manoeuvre then I just skim over it. I'll plan and execute it however I want thank you very much based on standard planning considerations. As you've seen, in my missions the Execution paragraph usually starts with the following phrase 'Your choice commander'. I then generally use the rest of the paragraph to highlight some important considerations or provide additional information to assist the player in arriving at their plan.
What continually surprises me is reading or watching AARs of my missions because the tactical solutions presented quite often differ markedly from how I envisaged people solving that particular problem. If you read my planning tutorial you will also see that the plan I came up with surprised the designer of that excellent scenario @SeinfeldRulesand provoked some  thought from the tactical genius that is @Bil Hardenberger - the takeaway I think from the design perspective is that a lot of thought is needed in all aspects of the design of the AI controlled force.

I'm quite sure.