SeinfeldRules

Hello all,
With the success of my CMRT and CMFI scenarios, I've decided to branch out into CMBS and create some content for this game as well. I only have one scenario right now, but have 2-3 more not far from completion. As always, these are not playtested to death and I don't guarantee perfection - I believe in the 75% solution now as opposed to the 99% solution weeks from now!  Please give me feedback - I am always tweaking in order to produce a better experience for everyone! All my maps are "hand made" originals. They look best with my terrain mod in my opinion!
 
Bradley Speedbump v1.0
http://bit.ly/1MMoW3Q

The invasion of Ukraine has kicked off, and our tanks are rolling across the countryside. The American and Ukrainian forces were not enough to stop the Russian advance, and have been scattered into many individual groups, all seeking to delay us in whatever way they can. As the commander of your Russian Brigade Tactical Group's lead reconnaissance element, you are responsible for locating these NATO forces and either bypassing or destroying them.
As your brigade pushes to Kiev, your patrol's lead vehicle is stopped by sympathetic locals, just east of a large orchard. They hurriedly explain that an American platoon with a tracked vehicle in support have established a position overlooking your brigade's main avenue of advance. The only way the main body can continue down this road unhindered is for you to dig the Americans out of their delaying position, located just west of the orchard. REDFOR vs AI only.

Building off Bulletpoint, I think the aspect of having to make a less then perfect decision amplifies that satisfaction even more. The terrain of a map plays a huge role in this, because it is the one thing you have no influence over. Real life commanders never had the perfect support by fire position or covered routes into the enemies rear, they had to deal with the hand their were dealt, both on offense and defense. The terrain was as much of an enemy sometimes as the man on the pointy end of your rifle. It's why the first step of almost any military planning process is to analyze the terrain. The great captains of military history are as renowned for their ability to read the ground just as much as their ability to lead men. "Terrain walks" are a staple of any military staff ride. All this to say that when you "bake in" terrain, you are taking away a big chunk of the decision making process. When you bake in these convenient support by fire positions, the decision is no longer "where on this map should I place my support by fire position?", but instead "should I go to Position A, B or C?". On a "natural" map, maybe there is no tenable support by fire position. The player must adapt. Maybe they utilize more of their artillery up front to compensate. Or choose to utilize a smoke screen. Or one of a hundred other ways a player can utilize the terrain and their understanding of tactics to achieve their mission. Offering up a player a series of built in options is no longer a tactical game, but a "choose your own adventure". It's why I'm deeply dissatisfied with games like the new X-Com or Unity of Command - the game offers up to you a series of baked in options, of which only a few actually work.
Another factor of tactical appeal is that the closer a map is to realistic terrain, the more likely you are to utilize realistic tactics. Half the fun of Combat Mission is pretending you're a WW2 commander and understanding why they made the decision they did.
Check out combatintman's excellent play through of one of my scenarios here: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/120527-no-plan-survives-first-contact-with-the-enemy-planning-tutorial/
He dives deep into an excellent analysis of the terrain I provided and builds a plan that I never even envisioned while designing the scenario. That's exciting! That's what real commanders had to do! Not solving a puzzle the designer offered up to you. Later in that thread I also talk about how I designed the map and more about my philosophy on scenario design.
As for why sometimes *too* realistic is a bad thing, I imagine a faithful re-creation of Ardennes style woods would result in little decision making beyond putting your soldiers in a line and waiting until they step on a mine or take a bullet to the face from 15m away. Realistic terrain yes, but not very fun. Also, a personal pet peeve of mine - zig zag roads. Yes, the "real thing" has a road branching straight off at a 67.76 degree angle from the main junction, but if I try to replicate that in Combat Mission with the draw tool, it will create a mess of zig zaggy road sections. If you now try to put a hedge or forest along that road, it will inevitably create a break in LOS on what is, in real life, an arrow straight road that just happens to branch off at a weird angle. The resulting CM recreation looks odd and often plays odd.

Building off Bulletpoint, I think the aspect of having to make a less then perfect decision amplifies that satisfaction even more. The terrain of a map plays a huge role in this, because it is the one thing you have no influence over. Real life commanders never had the perfect support by fire position or covered routes into the enemies rear, they had to deal with the hand their were dealt, both on offense and defense. The terrain was as much of an enemy sometimes as the man on the pointy end of your rifle. It's why the first step of almost any military planning process is to analyze the terrain. The great captains of military history are as renowned for their ability to read the ground just as much as their ability to lead men. "Terrain walks" are a staple of any military staff ride. All this to say that when you "bake in" terrain, you are taking away a big chunk of the decision making process. When you bake in these convenient support by fire positions, the decision is no longer "where on this map should I place my support by fire position?", but instead "should I go to Position A, B or C?". On a "natural" map, maybe there is no tenable support by fire position. The player must adapt. Maybe they utilize more of their artillery up front to compensate. Or choose to utilize a smoke screen. Or one of a hundred other ways a player can utilize the terrain and their understanding of tactics to achieve their mission. Offering up a player a series of built in options is no longer a tactical game, but a "choose your own adventure". It's why I'm deeply dissatisfied with games like the new X-Com or Unity of Command - the game offers up to you a series of baked in options, of which only a few actually work.
Another factor of tactical appeal is that the closer a map is to realistic terrain, the more likely you are to utilize realistic tactics. Half the fun of Combat Mission is pretending you're a WW2 commander and understanding why they made the decision they did.
Check out combatintman's excellent play through of one of my scenarios here: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/120527-no-plan-survives-first-contact-with-the-enemy-planning-tutorial/
He dives deep into an excellent analysis of the terrain I provided and builds a plan that I never even envisioned while designing the scenario. That's exciting! That's what real commanders had to do! Not solving a puzzle the designer offered up to you. Later in that thread I also talk about how I designed the map and more about my philosophy on scenario design.
As for why sometimes *too* realistic is a bad thing, I imagine a faithful re-creation of Ardennes style woods would result in little decision making beyond putting your soldiers in a line and waiting until they step on a mine or take a bullet to the face from 15m away. Realistic terrain yes, but not very fun. Also, a personal pet peeve of mine - zig zag roads. Yes, the "real thing" has a road branching straight off at a 67.76 degree angle from the main junction, but if I try to replicate that in Combat Mission with the draw tool, it will create a mess of zig zaggy road sections. If you now try to put a hedge or forest along that road, it will inevitably create a break in LOS on what is, in real life, an arrow straight road that just happens to branch off at a weird angle. The resulting CM recreation looks odd and often plays odd.

Building off Bulletpoint, I think the aspect of having to make a less then perfect decision amplifies that satisfaction even more. The terrain of a map plays a huge role in this, because it is the one thing you have no influence over. Real life commanders never had the perfect support by fire position or covered routes into the enemies rear, they had to deal with the hand their were dealt, both on offense and defense. The terrain was as much of an enemy sometimes as the man on the pointy end of your rifle. It's why the first step of almost any military planning process is to analyze the terrain. The great captains of military history are as renowned for their ability to read the ground just as much as their ability to lead men. "Terrain walks" are a staple of any military staff ride. All this to say that when you "bake in" terrain, you are taking away a big chunk of the decision making process. When you bake in these convenient support by fire positions, the decision is no longer "where on this map should I place my support by fire position?", but instead "should I go to Position A, B or C?". On a "natural" map, maybe there is no tenable support by fire position. The player must adapt. Maybe they utilize more of their artillery up front to compensate. Or choose to utilize a smoke screen. Or one of a hundred other ways a player can utilize the terrain and their understanding of tactics to achieve their mission. Offering up a player a series of built in options is no longer a tactical game, but a "choose your own adventure". It's why I'm deeply dissatisfied with games like the new X-Com or Unity of Command - the game offers up to you a series of baked in options, of which only a few actually work.
Another factor of tactical appeal is that the closer a map is to realistic terrain, the more likely you are to utilize realistic tactics. Half the fun of Combat Mission is pretending you're a WW2 commander and understanding why they made the decision they did.
Check out combatintman's excellent play through of one of my scenarios here: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/120527-no-plan-survives-first-contact-with-the-enemy-planning-tutorial/
He dives deep into an excellent analysis of the terrain I provided and builds a plan that I never even envisioned while designing the scenario. That's exciting! That's what real commanders had to do! Not solving a puzzle the designer offered up to you. Later in that thread I also talk about how I designed the map and more about my philosophy on scenario design.
As for why sometimes *too* realistic is a bad thing, I imagine a faithful re-creation of Ardennes style woods would result in little decision making beyond putting your soldiers in a line and waiting until they step on a mine or take a bullet to the face from 15m away. Realistic terrain yes, but not very fun. Also, a personal pet peeve of mine - zig zag roads. Yes, the "real thing" has a road branching straight off at a 67.76 degree angle from the main junction, but if I try to replicate that in Combat Mission with the draw tool, it will create a mess of zig zaggy road sections. If you now try to put a hedge or forest along that road, it will inevitably create a break in LOS on what is, in real life, an arrow straight road that just happens to branch off at a weird angle. The resulting CM recreation looks odd and often plays odd.

Building off Bulletpoint, I think the aspect of having to make a less then perfect decision amplifies that satisfaction even more. The terrain of a map plays a huge role in this, because it is the one thing you have no influence over. Real life commanders never had the perfect support by fire position or covered routes into the enemies rear, they had to deal with the hand their were dealt, both on offense and defense. The terrain was as much of an enemy sometimes as the man on the pointy end of your rifle. It's why the first step of almost any military planning process is to analyze the terrain. The great captains of military history are as renowned for their ability to read the ground just as much as their ability to lead men. "Terrain walks" are a staple of any military staff ride. All this to say that when you "bake in" terrain, you are taking away a big chunk of the decision making process. When you bake in these convenient support by fire positions, the decision is no longer "where on this map should I place my support by fire position?", but instead "should I go to Position A, B or C?". On a "natural" map, maybe there is no tenable support by fire position. The player must adapt. Maybe they utilize more of their artillery up front to compensate. Or choose to utilize a smoke screen. Or one of a hundred other ways a player can utilize the terrain and their understanding of tactics to achieve their mission. Offering up a player a series of built in options is no longer a tactical game, but a "choose your own adventure". It's why I'm deeply dissatisfied with games like the new X-Com or Unity of Command - the game offers up to you a series of baked in options, of which only a few actually work.
Another factor of tactical appeal is that the closer a map is to realistic terrain, the more likely you are to utilize realistic tactics. Half the fun of Combat Mission is pretending you're a WW2 commander and understanding why they made the decision they did.
Check out combatintman's excellent play through of one of my scenarios here: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/120527-no-plan-survives-first-contact-with-the-enemy-planning-tutorial/
He dives deep into an excellent analysis of the terrain I provided and builds a plan that I never even envisioned while designing the scenario. That's exciting! That's what real commanders had to do! Not solving a puzzle the designer offered up to you. Later in that thread I also talk about how I designed the map and more about my philosophy on scenario design.
As for why sometimes *too* realistic is a bad thing, I imagine a faithful re-creation of Ardennes style woods would result in little decision making beyond putting your soldiers in a line and waiting until they step on a mine or take a bullet to the face from 15m away. Realistic terrain yes, but not very fun. Also, a personal pet peeve of mine - zig zag roads. Yes, the "real thing" has a road branching straight off at a 67.76 degree angle from the main junction, but if I try to replicate that in Combat Mission with the draw tool, it will create a mess of zig zaggy road sections. If you now try to put a hedge or forest along that road, it will inevitably create a break in LOS on what is, in real life, an arrow straight road that just happens to branch off at a weird angle. The resulting CM recreation looks odd and often plays odd.

Try my CMRT "Assault Position" and "Pastureland" for examples of how open fields can be tweaked to create interesting tactical situations! Pastureland takes place pretty much entirely in an "open" field. The only cover you have is the folds you find in the terrain.
Also check this out: https://www.dropbox.com/home/Public?preview=AD+Waldbillig+Waltz.btt
It's a scenario I was never able to get over the goal line due to other commitments, but I think it's probably one of my better maps. It has the size and terrain you are looking for and is based heavily off the real thing.
Also, re:frontages again. Remember that the entire company was not on line, and these companies could often be at 50% strength if they've been in heavy combat. These companies may only have a platoon up, and that platoon may only be 25 dudes. That stuff is lost in translation sometimes.

On elevations, I will say don't be afraid to create that dead ground. Hike through the hills and you'll see dead space is a common issue defending units would have to deal with in real life. Going out of your way to create clear lines of sight creates the tabletop gaming look you are actually trying to avoid. Natural hills have undulations and numerous draws and spurs that create difficulties for the defender and opportunities for the attacker. I don't think any attacking infantry force would ever have taken a hilltop defensive position if those natural dead spaces didn't exist in real life. You'd be surprised at how nuanced and "stepped" terrain can be in real life. I've found the best way to construct realistic elevations is to draw your contour lines fairly spread out (10 or 15m in elevations) and then using the "Adjust" tool set  to 1m to add variation. This creates the natural folds you are looking to re-create, adding micro terrain infantry can utilize.
I go to great lengths to try to re-create the real world in CM, and many of the things you discuss about here concern me as well. Check out some of my scenario maps to see how I deal with them. I put an extraordinary amount of time into my elevations and villages.
Also on the subject of infantry frontages, attacking infantry forces would absolutely stick to cover. Defensive lines weren't literal lines of men occupying every piece of ground, instead clustering and flowing around the terrain that is actually defensible. Vast open ground could easily be covered by artillery and machinegun fire, and often didn't serve a purpose anyway. Roads have always been the key to warfare and defenses were focused around those key avenues of approach. Even a "hilltop defense" was key only because it overlooked an avenue of approach needed by the attacker to continue their offensive. Your map may be 1.5km wide but not every piece of ground on that map is key terrain the defender would occupy or even care about. A 1.5km map would probably support an attacking infantry battalion with 2 companies up 1 back against a company sized defending force.
Check out the US Army Green Books, they provide a history of the US Army in WW2 in all theaters, and have excellent maps sometimes showing maneuver down to the company level. Gives a great picture on how WW2 armies actually fought and what they considered important.
Also, don't overly concern yourself with machinegun lines of fire - take a trip through Europe on Google Street view and see how rare it actually is to have long sight lines. Far too often vegetation and microterrain blocks line of sight over what would otherwise look like good ground. Remember, these machineguns are dug in at ground height! Go for a walk outside and when you think you've found a good position, lie down and see how much your opinion changes!

Another scenario...
 
Assault Position v1.0
 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/d85cs6w3xeeg0oi/AD%20Assault%20Position.zip?dl=0
 

 
Our forces are counterattacking. Having detrained merely days ago, your Regiment has been pushing around the flank of the Soviets, looking for an opportunity to halt the Russian juggernaut. Your panzergrenadier company has been tasked with securing the flank of our regiment's counterattack by taking a town overlooking an important road highway. Located on the reverse slope of a ridgeline, you determine that a wooded grove just NW of the town (and SE of your assembly area) would be the perfect place to form up your company before it's final attack on the main Soviet defenses. The morning of your attack, you begin to move your company to take your assault position. Axis vs AI only.

Hi all,
 
I've been working on a whole bunch of scenarios for CMRT, and finally got around to finishing a couple. I'll use this thread to post whatever I manage to finish. I have 4 for today (though one has already been posted before, just tweaked it a little), and hopefully I can put the finishing touches on 1 or 2 for tomorrow. Most of these have had barely any playtesting, beyond what I could do by myself. That's where I need feedback from you guys. These are not 100% tested. Please let me know what I can change to make it better!
 
I like small, company sized engagements. All of these have 2 companies or less. These may be suitable for H2H, do not have anyone to test them with though. All my maps are "hand made" originals. They look best with my terrain mod IMO!
 
Interlock OP v1.0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bs581b72xj6n96s/AD%20Interlock%20OP.zip?dl=0
 

 
You are in command of a German Grenadier platoon in Estonia. Soviet forces have secured an interlocking tower overlooking our forward positions and are calling artillery on our forces. You have been tasked with securing the tower by force and securing whatever intel you can. Axis vs AI only
 
 
Pastureland v1.0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pq48lgx5c1tokfe/AD%20Pasture%20Land.zip?dl=0
 

 
The Germans are falling back in confusion. Our tank corps and mehanized infantry have pushed far foward, leaving us, the dismounted infantry, behind to mop up the remnants and widen the corridors. Your company was doing exactly that when you came out of a small copse of trees and immediately started taking machinegun fire. A large, open pastureland sits between you and the incoming fire. On the far side, a group of buildings on the outskirts of a village. You determine that is where the enemy fire is coming from, and you immediately decide to attack. Allied vs AI only.
 
 
Gorbatzewich Roadblock v1.0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/zsmkvq4hfcr09ms/AD%20Gorbatzewich%20Roadblock.zip?dl=0
 

 
You are in command of a Soviet Cavalry Squadron southwest of Babruysk. After several long days of fighting, we have finally managed to capture the vital city and open the road to Minsk. Remnants of German forces still remain around the city, occupying blocking positions and doing their best to prevent our forces from rushing into Minsk. One of these blocking forces is located in the village to your immediate front. Allied vs AI only
 
 
Amongst the Ruins v1.0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wo11fj4zcq3h2au/AD%20Amongst%20the%20Ruins.zip?dl=0
 

 
You are in command of a German Pioneer Company somewhere within a large city inside Belarus. We have been fighting with the Soviets for control of this vital city for several days now. Your company has been tasked with taking back a bombed out industrial area. Axis vs AI only
 
 
 

Wow, this is great, seeing one of my scenarios used in such a fashion - makes all the work worth it! Hopefully the scenario execution won't let you down. For everyone reading, this stuff really does happen, in this level of detail too, especially at the battalion level. And as an artilleryman and fire supporter, I get to see this level of planning from the maneuver guys every time I go to the field  - and every time I'm thankful my job is the easy part of all this - blowing stuff up! 

@ebphotoTry this link! https://www.dropbox.com/s/tr4lgsdlo6sehnl/AD CMRT Terrain Mod.zip?dl=0

Two more before/after:

I'm going to offer my own, un-solicited advice on map making...
Use the light forest tile under trees, fences, hedges, roads, buildings, any sort of man-made "divider" - its represents well the undergrowth that builds up on these less traveled/less maintained areas. Look at pictures of rural fences and such and you'll see shrubbery/grass growing taller then the immediate surrounding foliage It also serves as an eye pleasing way to "break up" large chunks of terrain, especially when you're zoomed out - where most players actually play the game - and the fences start to blend in with the surrounding grass.
Alternate between yellow grass, tall grass, green grass, extra tall grass, etc when building large fields. Breaks up the color tone that looks unnatural when zoomed out. Same goes for dirt - mix in dirt, red dirt, hard dirt etc when building lots for your buildings. These large lots - either grass or dirt, or whatever - should look like a Jackson Pollock painting in the editor. Just splashes of different tiles everywhere.
Dirt footpaths serve as a great way to break up terrain as well - simulates the many different ways people cross fields, and the paths they create. Also works great in residential dirt lots.
Combine different buildings to make a realistic looking residence. I like to use the half tile barn on the end of an independent one story house. The half tile barns also look good between fences, and when they form an "L" at a 90 degree angle to a house.
Really pay attention to how homes are setup for the area you are modeling. They are often tighter and more "intimate" then you think. Remember, tiles are 8 meters by 8 meters, which is absolutely huge. I would say most Eastern European residential lots are maybe 3x3 or 4x3 in CM terms. Use street view when you can to see how they look from ground level. Satellite imagery can be deceiving.
When it comes to forests, less is more. I almost never use the two or three tile tree lots. Single trees are enough. In fact, drop your block of trees, and then go back and remove some trees from random tiles. Creates a realistic patchwork effect. Also, use different types of trees in a forest. Trees of the same type in CM are universal in height - no forest is like that in the real word. I like to use Tree D - a fairly short tree - and mix the taller A and C trees into the mix. Creates a more natural forest.
Avoid painting solid lines of height elevation. There is nowhere in this natural world where you have a universal flat area or a universally sloping area (bar maybe a salt bed, I guess..) Purposely leave gaps in your contour lines, and then drop random points in between contours that are one higher or one lower then what the game "calculates" it should be. It will create very pleasing, very natural, undulating terrain. Failing to do this is probably the biggest sin when it comes to map making in CM, in my mind. Elevation is much more difficult in CM2 then it was in CM1, which is why I think people have a hard time with this. But if you take the time to hand craft your elevations, it will pay off big. It makes your map look 100x more realistic.
Don't tie yourself to an overlay! The real world is much more angular then what CM can handle. Have fun with your map - no one will care if this street had 7 houses instead of 5. What matters is the look, and how it plays, Additionally, the height data in Google Earth and other public programs does not have the fidelity to make a realistic map. It's great for a starting point - ie, this town is on a hill - but the nuances of height elevation in real life terrain can not be captured in an overlay. Go for a walk and look for the micro terrain that is out there. Most of it is well within CM's ability to model.

I'm going to offer my own, un-solicited advice on map making...
Use the light forest tile under trees, fences, hedges, roads, buildings, any sort of man-made "divider" - its represents well the undergrowth that builds up on these less traveled/less maintained areas. Look at pictures of rural fences and such and you'll see shrubbery/grass growing taller then the immediate surrounding foliage It also serves as an eye pleasing way to "break up" large chunks of terrain, especially when you're zoomed out - where most players actually play the game - and the fences start to blend in with the surrounding grass.
Alternate between yellow grass, tall grass, green grass, extra tall grass, etc when building large fields. Breaks up the color tone that looks unnatural when zoomed out. Same goes for dirt - mix in dirt, red dirt, hard dirt etc when building lots for your buildings. These large lots - either grass or dirt, or whatever - should look like a Jackson Pollock painting in the editor. Just splashes of different tiles everywhere.
Dirt footpaths serve as a great way to break up terrain as well - simulates the many different ways people cross fields, and the paths they create. Also works great in residential dirt lots.
Combine different buildings to make a realistic looking residence. I like to use the half tile barn on the end of an independent one story house. The half tile barns also look good between fences, and when they form an "L" at a 90 degree angle to a house.
Really pay attention to how homes are setup for the area you are modeling. They are often tighter and more "intimate" then you think. Remember, tiles are 8 meters by 8 meters, which is absolutely huge. I would say most Eastern European residential lots are maybe 3x3 or 4x3 in CM terms. Use street view when you can to see how they look from ground level. Satellite imagery can be deceiving.
When it comes to forests, less is more. I almost never use the two or three tile tree lots. Single trees are enough. In fact, drop your block of trees, and then go back and remove some trees from random tiles. Creates a realistic patchwork effect. Also, use different types of trees in a forest. Trees of the same type in CM are universal in height - no forest is like that in the real word. I like to use Tree D - a fairly short tree - and mix the taller A and C trees into the mix. Creates a more natural forest.
Avoid painting solid lines of height elevation. There is nowhere in this natural world where you have a universal flat area or a universally sloping area (bar maybe a salt bed, I guess..) Purposely leave gaps in your contour lines, and then drop random points in between contours that are one higher or one lower then what the game "calculates" it should be. It will create very pleasing, very natural, undulating terrain. Failing to do this is probably the biggest sin when it comes to map making in CM, in my mind. Elevation is much more difficult in CM2 then it was in CM1, which is why I think people have a hard time with this. But if you take the time to hand craft your elevations, it will pay off big. It makes your map look 100x more realistic.
Don't tie yourself to an overlay! The real world is much more angular then what CM can handle. Have fun with your map - no one will care if this street had 7 houses instead of 5. What matters is the look, and how it plays, Additionally, the height data in Google Earth and other public programs does not have the fidelity to make a realistic map. It's great for a starting point - ie, this town is on a hill - but the nuances of height elevation in real life terrain can not be captured in an overlay. Go for a walk and look for the micro terrain that is out there. Most of it is well within CM's ability to model.

I'm going to offer my own, un-solicited advice on map making...
Use the light forest tile under trees, fences, hedges, roads, buildings, any sort of man-made "divider" - its represents well the undergrowth that builds up on these less traveled/less maintained areas. Look at pictures of rural fences and such and you'll see shrubbery/grass growing taller then the immediate surrounding foliage It also serves as an eye pleasing way to "break up" large chunks of terrain, especially when you're zoomed out - where most players actually play the game - and the fences start to blend in with the surrounding grass.
Alternate between yellow grass, tall grass, green grass, extra tall grass, etc when building large fields. Breaks up the color tone that looks unnatural when zoomed out. Same goes for dirt - mix in dirt, red dirt, hard dirt etc when building lots for your buildings. These large lots - either grass or dirt, or whatever - should look like a Jackson Pollock painting in the editor. Just splashes of different tiles everywhere.
Dirt footpaths serve as a great way to break up terrain as well - simulates the many different ways people cross fields, and the paths they create. Also works great in residential dirt lots.
Combine different buildings to make a realistic looking residence. I like to use the half tile barn on the end of an independent one story house. The half tile barns also look good between fences, and when they form an "L" at a 90 degree angle to a house.
Really pay attention to how homes are setup for the area you are modeling. They are often tighter and more "intimate" then you think. Remember, tiles are 8 meters by 8 meters, which is absolutely huge. I would say most Eastern European residential lots are maybe 3x3 or 4x3 in CM terms. Use street view when you can to see how they look from ground level. Satellite imagery can be deceiving.
When it comes to forests, less is more. I almost never use the two or three tile tree lots. Single trees are enough. In fact, drop your block of trees, and then go back and remove some trees from random tiles. Creates a realistic patchwork effect. Also, use different types of trees in a forest. Trees of the same type in CM are universal in height - no forest is like that in the real word. I like to use Tree D - a fairly short tree - and mix the taller A and C trees into the mix. Creates a more natural forest.
Avoid painting solid lines of height elevation. There is nowhere in this natural world where you have a universal flat area or a universally sloping area (bar maybe a salt bed, I guess..) Purposely leave gaps in your contour lines, and then drop random points in between contours that are one higher or one lower then what the game "calculates" it should be. It will create very pleasing, very natural, undulating terrain. Failing to do this is probably the biggest sin when it comes to map making in CM, in my mind. Elevation is much more difficult in CM2 then it was in CM1, which is why I think people have a hard time with this. But if you take the time to hand craft your elevations, it will pay off big. It makes your map look 100x more realistic.
Don't tie yourself to an overlay! The real world is much more angular then what CM can handle. Have fun with your map - no one will care if this street had 7 houses instead of 5. What matters is the look, and how it plays, Additionally, the height data in Google Earth and other public programs does not have the fidelity to make a realistic map. It's great for a starting point - ie, this town is on a hill - but the nuances of height elevation in real life terrain can not be captured in an overlay. Go for a walk and look for the micro terrain that is out there. Most of it is well within CM's ability to model.

I'm going to offer my own, un-solicited advice on map making...
Use the light forest tile under trees, fences, hedges, roads, buildings, any sort of man-made "divider" - its represents well the undergrowth that builds up on these less traveled/less maintained areas. Look at pictures of rural fences and such and you'll see shrubbery/grass growing taller then the immediate surrounding foliage It also serves as an eye pleasing way to "break up" large chunks of terrain, especially when you're zoomed out - where most players actually play the game - and the fences start to blend in with the surrounding grass.
Alternate between yellow grass, tall grass, green grass, extra tall grass, etc when building large fields. Breaks up the color tone that looks unnatural when zoomed out. Same goes for dirt - mix in dirt, red dirt, hard dirt etc when building lots for your buildings. These large lots - either grass or dirt, or whatever - should look like a Jackson Pollock painting in the editor. Just splashes of different tiles everywhere.
Dirt footpaths serve as a great way to break up terrain as well - simulates the many different ways people cross fields, and the paths they create. Also works great in residential dirt lots.
Combine different buildings to make a realistic looking residence. I like to use the half tile barn on the end of an independent one story house. The half tile barns also look good between fences, and when they form an "L" at a 90 degree angle to a house.
Really pay attention to how homes are setup for the area you are modeling. They are often tighter and more "intimate" then you think. Remember, tiles are 8 meters by 8 meters, which is absolutely huge. I would say most Eastern European residential lots are maybe 3x3 or 4x3 in CM terms. Use street view when you can to see how they look from ground level. Satellite imagery can be deceiving.
When it comes to forests, less is more. I almost never use the two or three tile tree lots. Single trees are enough. In fact, drop your block of trees, and then go back and remove some trees from random tiles. Creates a realistic patchwork effect. Also, use different types of trees in a forest. Trees of the same type in CM are universal in height - no forest is like that in the real word. I like to use Tree D - a fairly short tree - and mix the taller A and C trees into the mix. Creates a more natural forest.
Avoid painting solid lines of height elevation. There is nowhere in this natural world where you have a universal flat area or a universally sloping area (bar maybe a salt bed, I guess..) Purposely leave gaps in your contour lines, and then drop random points in between contours that are one higher or one lower then what the game "calculates" it should be. It will create very pleasing, very natural, undulating terrain. Failing to do this is probably the biggest sin when it comes to map making in CM, in my mind. Elevation is much more difficult in CM2 then it was in CM1, which is why I think people have a hard time with this. But if you take the time to hand craft your elevations, it will pay off big. It makes your map look 100x more realistic.
Don't tie yourself to an overlay! The real world is much more angular then what CM can handle. Have fun with your map - no one will care if this street had 7 houses instead of 5. What matters is the look, and how it plays, Additionally, the height data in Google Earth and other public programs does not have the fidelity to make a realistic map. It's great for a starting point - ie, this town is on a hill - but the nuances of height elevation in real life terrain can not be captured in an overlay. Go for a walk and look for the micro terrain that is out there. Most of it is well within CM's ability to model.

I'm going to offer my own, un-solicited advice on map making...
Use the light forest tile under trees, fences, hedges, roads, buildings, any sort of man-made "divider" - its represents well the undergrowth that builds up on these less traveled/less maintained areas. Look at pictures of rural fences and such and you'll see shrubbery/grass growing taller then the immediate surrounding foliage It also serves as an eye pleasing way to "break up" large chunks of terrain, especially when you're zoomed out - where most players actually play the game - and the fences start to blend in with the surrounding grass.
Alternate between yellow grass, tall grass, green grass, extra tall grass, etc when building large fields. Breaks up the color tone that looks unnatural when zoomed out. Same goes for dirt - mix in dirt, red dirt, hard dirt etc when building lots for your buildings. These large lots - either grass or dirt, or whatever - should look like a Jackson Pollock painting in the editor. Just splashes of different tiles everywhere.
Dirt footpaths serve as a great way to break up terrain as well - simulates the many different ways people cross fields, and the paths they create. Also works great in residential dirt lots.
Combine different buildings to make a realistic looking residence. I like to use the half tile barn on the end of an independent one story house. The half tile barns also look good between fences, and when they form an "L" at a 90 degree angle to a house.
Really pay attention to how homes are setup for the area you are modeling. They are often tighter and more "intimate" then you think. Remember, tiles are 8 meters by 8 meters, which is absolutely huge. I would say most Eastern European residential lots are maybe 3x3 or 4x3 in CM terms. Use street view when you can to see how they look from ground level. Satellite imagery can be deceiving.
When it comes to forests, less is more. I almost never use the two or three tile tree lots. Single trees are enough. In fact, drop your block of trees, and then go back and remove some trees from random tiles. Creates a realistic patchwork effect. Also, use different types of trees in a forest. Trees of the same type in CM are universal in height - no forest is like that in the real word. I like to use Tree D - a fairly short tree - and mix the taller A and C trees into the mix. Creates a more natural forest.
Avoid painting solid lines of height elevation. There is nowhere in this natural world where you have a universal flat area or a universally sloping area (bar maybe a salt bed, I guess..) Purposely leave gaps in your contour lines, and then drop random points in between contours that are one higher or one lower then what the game "calculates" it should be. It will create very pleasing, very natural, undulating terrain. Failing to do this is probably the biggest sin when it comes to map making in CM, in my mind. Elevation is much more difficult in CM2 then it was in CM1, which is why I think people have a hard time with this. But if you take the time to hand craft your elevations, it will pay off big. It makes your map look 100x more realistic.
Don't tie yourself to an overlay! The real world is much more angular then what CM can handle. Have fun with your map - no one will care if this street had 7 houses instead of 5. What matters is the look, and how it plays, Additionally, the height data in Google Earth and other public programs does not have the fidelity to make a realistic map. It's great for a starting point - ie, this town is on a hill - but the nuances of height elevation in real life terrain can not be captured in an overlay. Go for a walk and look for the micro terrain that is out there. Most of it is well within CM's ability to model.

I'm going to offer my own, un-solicited advice on map making...
Use the light forest tile under trees, fences, hedges, roads, buildings, any sort of man-made "divider" - its represents well the undergrowth that builds up on these less traveled/less maintained areas. Look at pictures of rural fences and such and you'll see shrubbery/grass growing taller then the immediate surrounding foliage It also serves as an eye pleasing way to "break up" large chunks of terrain, especially when you're zoomed out - where most players actually play the game - and the fences start to blend in with the surrounding grass.
Alternate between yellow grass, tall grass, green grass, extra tall grass, etc when building large fields. Breaks up the color tone that looks unnatural when zoomed out. Same goes for dirt - mix in dirt, red dirt, hard dirt etc when building lots for your buildings. These large lots - either grass or dirt, or whatever - should look like a Jackson Pollock painting in the editor. Just splashes of different tiles everywhere.
Dirt footpaths serve as a great way to break up terrain as well - simulates the many different ways people cross fields, and the paths they create. Also works great in residential dirt lots.
Combine different buildings to make a realistic looking residence. I like to use the half tile barn on the end of an independent one story house. The half tile barns also look good between fences, and when they form an "L" at a 90 degree angle to a house.
Really pay attention to how homes are setup for the area you are modeling. They are often tighter and more "intimate" then you think. Remember, tiles are 8 meters by 8 meters, which is absolutely huge. I would say most Eastern European residential lots are maybe 3x3 or 4x3 in CM terms. Use street view when you can to see how they look from ground level. Satellite imagery can be deceiving.
When it comes to forests, less is more. I almost never use the two or three tile tree lots. Single trees are enough. In fact, drop your block of trees, and then go back and remove some trees from random tiles. Creates a realistic patchwork effect. Also, use different types of trees in a forest. Trees of the same type in CM are universal in height - no forest is like that in the real word. I like to use Tree D - a fairly short tree - and mix the taller A and C trees into the mix. Creates a more natural forest.
Avoid painting solid lines of height elevation. There is nowhere in this natural world where you have a universal flat area or a universally sloping area (bar maybe a salt bed, I guess..) Purposely leave gaps in your contour lines, and then drop random points in between contours that are one higher or one lower then what the game "calculates" it should be. It will create very pleasing, very natural, undulating terrain. Failing to do this is probably the biggest sin when it comes to map making in CM, in my mind. Elevation is much more difficult in CM2 then it was in CM1, which is why I think people have a hard time with this. But if you take the time to hand craft your elevations, it will pay off big. It makes your map look 100x more realistic.
Don't tie yourself to an overlay! The real world is much more angular then what CM can handle. Have fun with your map - no one will care if this street had 7 houses instead of 5. What matters is the look, and how it plays, Additionally, the height data in Google Earth and other public programs does not have the fidelity to make a realistic map. It's great for a starting point - ie, this town is on a hill - but the nuances of height elevation in real life terrain can not be captured in an overlay. Go for a walk and look for the micro terrain that is out there. Most of it is well within CM's ability to model.

Combatintman asked me to provide some input on the "other side" of this scenario as part of his final analysis. I'd like to give some of my overall design philosophy for all of my scenarios and some specifics for this scenario, hopefully it's useful for future scenario designers:

I almost always start my scenarios with a vignette I've read from a tactical or personal account. From there comes an idea. The details generally don't matter too much to me; whether it was Regiment A attacking Town X isn't important, what matters is the tactical task a unit had to perform. I like to focus on company and below stuff - everyone already makes scenarios about the famous clashes, I want to make scenarios about the day to day stuff everyone forgets about. In this case, it's the taking of a step off position for a later attack. An action that would have barely warranted half a sentence in a larger narrative, is the perfect size for a Combat Mission scenario. Once I have my idea, I find a location in reality that would suit my situation - once again the details aren't super important. I rarely use overlays anymore, I just put Google Earth on my second monitor and let the in-game map become it's own place.

Once I have my map built, I integrate my situation into it. I almost always start with the enemy side (since I only do Human vs AI). In this scenario, as it is a German attack, I started with the Soviet defense. I look at the map, figure out the required amount of forces to achieve the enemy "mission" that fits the situation, and start building the enemies plan. I never build my maps around the unit or task - this almost always ends up feeling canned and puzzle-like. In real combat, you don't have the power to level hills and move forests (unless you have good engineer support). You take the forces you have and use the hills and forests to your best advantage to build your plan. The small copses of trees in the wheat field isn't there because it would make for a good MG position, it's there because I thought it looked good when I was making the map. Now I (and the player) have to build our plans around it. About the only concession I make in this regard is adding terrain later to block LOS to at least part of the player's setup area. No one likes getting shot on turn 1.

For the Soviet side here, I decided a platoon with attached HMGs would be the best force to serve as the blocking/delaying position that fits the scenario. I built the defense to accomplish the mission I gave it, as if the scenario was designed to be played by the Soviet side. I utilized the terrain as best I could to create 3 mutually supporting positions with interlocking fields of fire. If one position was taken, the other two would be able to lay fire down on the one just overrun. I envisioned that most players would choose to attack the position "head on" in some fashion, either taking the town first then the position on the Soviet right, or the outpost position on the Soviet left, attacking over the open ground. Any Germans attacking would have a hard time indeed, and need to coordinate their fire support well to accomplish it. However, the one course of action I did not take into account for my defense was what Combatintman did right here in this very thread! Only one of the Soviet HMGs was looking into the open wheat field that he advanced so boldly through. Surely no player would push his infantry through such a large open field to be slaughtered! What spelt the Soviet doom was that I did not do a proper line of sight analysis - if I had, I would have realized that the critical HMG defending the entire left flank could not see the whole wheat field, and that so called open field had undulations in the terrain (again, something I built into the map BEFORE I started building the defense) that would have allowed a whole company to advance sight unseen deep into the Soviet rear. As such, I did not plan for the eventuality that the Germans would bypass my carefully developed, mutually supporting positions with barely a shot fired. Truly an example of the enemy "having a vote", and my future scenarios won't be so assuming. Next time I will be more complete in my planning. Blame Combatintman for the lesson learned and any increased difficulty.

A quick note on doctrine, because I saw it brought up - I am not a student of any WW2 military doctrine, so I built my defense based on what made sense to me and what I have seen work, not anything historical. I do use the built in TOEs to help pick my forces though.

To touch on the German side of this scenario, for my missions I try to pick a force that when handled properly, will defeat the enemy even if the player suffers some setbacks. In other words, you don't have to be perfect. I feel that most people play scenarios to win, and if they feel that did everything almost right but still lost, then I have failed to provide satisfying entertainment (some would disagree on this, but it's just how I feel).  Usually the degree of victory and casualties taken is the distinguisher between an ok plan and a great plan for my scenarios. A 2 to 1 advantage with supporting arms will generally provide a respectable challenge against the AI while still being able to be won by most. The ratio here is more 3 to 1, as open fields and long sight lines requires more firepower and bodies to absorb casualties. I try to not to force a plan on the player, instead giving them a properly balanced force to execute a variety of actions. I also believe in simple briefings that provides truthful information the player can use to plan, while not giving away the whole show. Everything I wrote was truthful, but it's up to the player to fill in the gaps. Combatintman took the info given, executed a solid plan here and was able to wipe the Soviets off the board with very minimal casualties.

So the 2 cents that was asked for is more like 20 cents, but I thought it would be beneficial to explain my overall theory on scenario design and not just this one specifically. I like to create simple, straightforward scenarios with a realistic enemy on beautiful maps, and hopefully I've succeed with this one in that regard. Combatintman definitely executed a great plan that exploited the weak point in my plan. Great thread and thanks for picking my scenario to do it with!

Thanks sttp and Hister, the comments mean a lot. Glad you enjoy them. Keeps me wanting to put more scenarios out!

Combatintman asked me to provide some input on the "other side" of this scenario as part of his final analysis. I'd like to give some of my overall design philosophy for all of my scenarios and some specifics for this scenario, hopefully it's useful for future scenario designers:

I almost always start my scenarios with a vignette I've read from a tactical or personal account. From there comes an idea. The details generally don't matter too much to me; whether it was Regiment A attacking Town X isn't important, what matters is the tactical task a unit had to perform. I like to focus on company and below stuff - everyone already makes scenarios about the famous clashes, I want to make scenarios about the day to day stuff everyone forgets about. In this case, it's the taking of a step off position for a later attack. An action that would have barely warranted half a sentence in a larger narrative, is the perfect size for a Combat Mission scenario. Once I have my idea, I find a location in reality that would suit my situation - once again the details aren't super important. I rarely use overlays anymore, I just put Google Earth on my second monitor and let the in-game map become it's own place.

Once I have my map built, I integrate my situation into it. I almost always start with the enemy side (since I only do Human vs AI). In this scenario, as it is a German attack, I started with the Soviet defense. I look at the map, figure out the required amount of forces to achieve the enemy "mission" that fits the situation, and start building the enemies plan. I never build my maps around the unit or task - this almost always ends up feeling canned and puzzle-like. In real combat, you don't have the power to level hills and move forests (unless you have good engineer support). You take the forces you have and use the hills and forests to your best advantage to build your plan. The small copses of trees in the wheat field isn't there because it would make for a good MG position, it's there because I thought it looked good when I was making the map. Now I (and the player) have to build our plans around it. About the only concession I make in this regard is adding terrain later to block LOS to at least part of the player's setup area. No one likes getting shot on turn 1.

For the Soviet side here, I decided a platoon with attached HMGs would be the best force to serve as the blocking/delaying position that fits the scenario. I built the defense to accomplish the mission I gave it, as if the scenario was designed to be played by the Soviet side. I utilized the terrain as best I could to create 3 mutually supporting positions with interlocking fields of fire. If one position was taken, the other two would be able to lay fire down on the one just overrun. I envisioned that most players would choose to attack the position "head on" in some fashion, either taking the town first then the position on the Soviet right, or the outpost position on the Soviet left, attacking over the open ground. Any Germans attacking would have a hard time indeed, and need to coordinate their fire support well to accomplish it. However, the one course of action I did not take into account for my defense was what Combatintman did right here in this very thread! Only one of the Soviet HMGs was looking into the open wheat field that he advanced so boldly through. Surely no player would push his infantry through such a large open field to be slaughtered! What spelt the Soviet doom was that I did not do a proper line of sight analysis - if I had, I would have realized that the critical HMG defending the entire left flank could not see the whole wheat field, and that so called open field had undulations in the terrain (again, something I built into the map BEFORE I started building the defense) that would have allowed a whole company to advance sight unseen deep into the Soviet rear. As such, I did not plan for the eventuality that the Germans would bypass my carefully developed, mutually supporting positions with barely a shot fired. Truly an example of the enemy "having a vote", and my future scenarios won't be so assuming. Next time I will be more complete in my planning. Blame Combatintman for the lesson learned and any increased difficulty.

A quick note on doctrine, because I saw it brought up - I am not a student of any WW2 military doctrine, so I built my defense based on what made sense to me and what I have seen work, not anything historical. I do use the built in TOEs to help pick my forces though.

To touch on the German side of this scenario, for my missions I try to pick a force that when handled properly, will defeat the enemy even if the player suffers some setbacks. In other words, you don't have to be perfect. I feel that most people play scenarios to win, and if they feel that did everything almost right but still lost, then I have failed to provide satisfying entertainment (some would disagree on this, but it's just how I feel).  Usually the degree of victory and casualties taken is the distinguisher between an ok plan and a great plan for my scenarios. A 2 to 1 advantage with supporting arms will generally provide a respectable challenge against the AI while still being able to be won by most. The ratio here is more 3 to 1, as open fields and long sight lines requires more firepower and bodies to absorb casualties. I try to not to force a plan on the player, instead giving them a properly balanced force to execute a variety of actions. I also believe in simple briefings that provides truthful information the player can use to plan, while not giving away the whole show. Everything I wrote was truthful, but it's up to the player to fill in the gaps. Combatintman took the info given, executed a solid plan here and was able to wipe the Soviets off the board with very minimal casualties.

So the 2 cents that was asked for is more like 20 cents, but I thought it would be beneficial to explain my overall theory on scenario design and not just this one specifically. I like to create simple, straightforward scenarios with a realistic enemy on beautiful maps, and hopefully I've succeed with this one in that regard. Combatintman definitely executed a great plan that exploited the weak point in my plan. Great thread and thanks for picking my scenario to do it with!

Combatintman asked me to provide some input on the "other side" of this scenario as part of his final analysis. I'd like to give some of my overall design philosophy for all of my scenarios and some specifics for this scenario, hopefully it's useful for future scenario designers:

I almost always start my scenarios with a vignette I've read from a tactical or personal account. From there comes an idea. The details generally don't matter too much to me; whether it was Regiment A attacking Town X isn't important, what matters is the tactical task a unit had to perform. I like to focus on company and below stuff - everyone already makes scenarios about the famous clashes, I want to make scenarios about the day to day stuff everyone forgets about. In this case, it's the taking of a step off position for a later attack. An action that would have barely warranted half a sentence in a larger narrative, is the perfect size for a Combat Mission scenario. Once I have my idea, I find a location in reality that would suit my situation - once again the details aren't super important. I rarely use overlays anymore, I just put Google Earth on my second monitor and let the in-game map become it's own place.

Once I have my map built, I integrate my situation into it. I almost always start with the enemy side (since I only do Human vs AI). In this scenario, as it is a German attack, I started with the Soviet defense. I look at the map, figure out the required amount of forces to achieve the enemy "mission" that fits the situation, and start building the enemies plan. I never build my maps around the unit or task - this almost always ends up feeling canned and puzzle-like. In real combat, you don't have the power to level hills and move forests (unless you have good engineer support). You take the forces you have and use the hills and forests to your best advantage to build your plan. The small copses of trees in the wheat field isn't there because it would make for a good MG position, it's there because I thought it looked good when I was making the map. Now I (and the player) have to build our plans around it. About the only concession I make in this regard is adding terrain later to block LOS to at least part of the player's setup area. No one likes getting shot on turn 1.

For the Soviet side here, I decided a platoon with attached HMGs would be the best force to serve as the blocking/delaying position that fits the scenario. I built the defense to accomplish the mission I gave it, as if the scenario was designed to be played by the Soviet side. I utilized the terrain as best I could to create 3 mutually supporting positions with interlocking fields of fire. If one position was taken, the other two would be able to lay fire down on the one just overrun. I envisioned that most players would choose to attack the position "head on" in some fashion, either taking the town first then the position on the Soviet right, or the outpost position on the Soviet left, attacking over the open ground. Any Germans attacking would have a hard time indeed, and need to coordinate their fire support well to accomplish it. However, the one course of action I did not take into account for my defense was what Combatintman did right here in this very thread! Only one of the Soviet HMGs was looking into the open wheat field that he advanced so boldly through. Surely no player would push his infantry through such a large open field to be slaughtered! What spelt the Soviet doom was that I did not do a proper line of sight analysis - if I had, I would have realized that the critical HMG defending the entire left flank could not see the whole wheat field, and that so called open field had undulations in the terrain (again, something I built into the map BEFORE I started building the defense) that would have allowed a whole company to advance sight unseen deep into the Soviet rear. As such, I did not plan for the eventuality that the Germans would bypass my carefully developed, mutually supporting positions with barely a shot fired. Truly an example of the enemy "having a vote", and my future scenarios won't be so assuming. Next time I will be more complete in my planning. Blame Combatintman for the lesson learned and any increased difficulty.

A quick note on doctrine, because I saw it brought up - I am not a student of any WW2 military doctrine, so I built my defense based on what made sense to me and what I have seen work, not anything historical. I do use the built in TOEs to help pick my forces though.

To touch on the German side of this scenario, for my missions I try to pick a force that when handled properly, will defeat the enemy even if the player suffers some setbacks. In other words, you don't have to be perfect. I feel that most people play scenarios to win, and if they feel that did everything almost right but still lost, then I have failed to provide satisfying entertainment (some would disagree on this, but it's just how I feel).  Usually the degree of victory and casualties taken is the distinguisher between an ok plan and a great plan for my scenarios. A 2 to 1 advantage with supporting arms will generally provide a respectable challenge against the AI while still being able to be won by most. The ratio here is more 3 to 1, as open fields and long sight lines requires more firepower and bodies to absorb casualties. I try to not to force a plan on the player, instead giving them a properly balanced force to execute a variety of actions. I also believe in simple briefings that provides truthful information the player can use to plan, while not giving away the whole show. Everything I wrote was truthful, but it's up to the player to fill in the gaps. Combatintman took the info given, executed a solid plan here and was able to wipe the Soviets off the board with very minimal casualties.

So the 2 cents that was asked for is more like 20 cents, but I thought it would be beneficial to explain my overall theory on scenario design and not just this one specifically. I like to create simple, straightforward scenarios with a realistic enemy on beautiful maps, and hopefully I've succeed with this one in that regard. Combatintman definitely executed a great plan that exploited the weak point in my plan. Great thread and thanks for picking my scenario to do it with!

Combatintman asked me to provide some input on the "other side" of this scenario as part of his final analysis. I'd like to give some of my overall design philosophy for all of my scenarios and some specifics for this scenario, hopefully it's useful for future scenario designers:

I almost always start my scenarios with a vignette I've read from a tactical or personal account. From there comes an idea. The details generally don't matter too much to me; whether it was Regiment A attacking Town X isn't important, what matters is the tactical task a unit had to perform. I like to focus on company and below stuff - everyone already makes scenarios about the famous clashes, I want to make scenarios about the day to day stuff everyone forgets about. In this case, it's the taking of a step off position for a later attack. An action that would have barely warranted half a sentence in a larger narrative, is the perfect size for a Combat Mission scenario. Once I have my idea, I find a location in reality that would suit my situation - once again the details aren't super important. I rarely use overlays anymore, I just put Google Earth on my second monitor and let the in-game map become it's own place.

Once I have my map built, I integrate my situation into it. I almost always start with the enemy side (since I only do Human vs AI). In this scenario, as it is a German attack, I started with the Soviet defense. I look at the map, figure out the required amount of forces to achieve the enemy "mission" that fits the situation, and start building the enemies plan. I never build my maps around the unit or task - this almost always ends up feeling canned and puzzle-like. In real combat, you don't have the power to level hills and move forests (unless you have good engineer support). You take the forces you have and use the hills and forests to your best advantage to build your plan. The small copses of trees in the wheat field isn't there because it would make for a good MG position, it's there because I thought it looked good when I was making the map. Now I (and the player) have to build our plans around it. About the only concession I make in this regard is adding terrain later to block LOS to at least part of the player's setup area. No one likes getting shot on turn 1.

For the Soviet side here, I decided a platoon with attached HMGs would be the best force to serve as the blocking/delaying position that fits the scenario. I built the defense to accomplish the mission I gave it, as if the scenario was designed to be played by the Soviet side. I utilized the terrain as best I could to create 3 mutually supporting positions with interlocking fields of fire. If one position was taken, the other two would be able to lay fire down on the one just overrun. I envisioned that most players would choose to attack the position "head on" in some fashion, either taking the town first then the position on the Soviet right, or the outpost position on the Soviet left, attacking over the open ground. Any Germans attacking would have a hard time indeed, and need to coordinate their fire support well to accomplish it. However, the one course of action I did not take into account for my defense was what Combatintman did right here in this very thread! Only one of the Soviet HMGs was looking into the open wheat field that he advanced so boldly through. Surely no player would push his infantry through such a large open field to be slaughtered! What spelt the Soviet doom was that I did not do a proper line of sight analysis - if I had, I would have realized that the critical HMG defending the entire left flank could not see the whole wheat field, and that so called open field had undulations in the terrain (again, something I built into the map BEFORE I started building the defense) that would have allowed a whole company to advance sight unseen deep into the Soviet rear. As such, I did not plan for the eventuality that the Germans would bypass my carefully developed, mutually supporting positions with barely a shot fired. Truly an example of the enemy "having a vote", and my future scenarios won't be so assuming. Next time I will be more complete in my planning. Blame Combatintman for the lesson learned and any increased difficulty.

A quick note on doctrine, because I saw it brought up - I am not a student of any WW2 military doctrine, so I built my defense based on what made sense to me and what I have seen work, not anything historical. I do use the built in TOEs to help pick my forces though.

To touch on the German side of this scenario, for my missions I try to pick a force that when handled properly, will defeat the enemy even if the player suffers some setbacks. In other words, you don't have to be perfect. I feel that most people play scenarios to win, and if they feel that did everything almost right but still lost, then I have failed to provide satisfying entertainment (some would disagree on this, but it's just how I feel).  Usually the degree of victory and casualties taken is the distinguisher between an ok plan and a great plan for my scenarios. A 2 to 1 advantage with supporting arms will generally provide a respectable challenge against the AI while still being able to be won by most. The ratio here is more 3 to 1, as open fields and long sight lines requires more firepower and bodies to absorb casualties. I try to not to force a plan on the player, instead giving them a properly balanced force to execute a variety of actions. I also believe in simple briefings that provides truthful information the player can use to plan, while not giving away the whole show. Everything I wrote was truthful, but it's up to the player to fill in the gaps. Combatintman took the info given, executed a solid plan here and was able to wipe the Soviets off the board with very minimal casualties.

So the 2 cents that was asked for is more like 20 cents, but I thought it would be beneficial to explain my overall theory on scenario design and not just this one specifically. I like to create simple, straightforward scenarios with a realistic enemy on beautiful maps, and hopefully I've succeed with this one in that regard. Combatintman definitely executed a great plan that exploited the weak point in my plan. Great thread and thanks for picking my scenario to do it with!

Combatintman asked me to provide some input on the "other side" of this scenario as part of his final analysis. I'd like to give some of my overall design philosophy for all of my scenarios and some specifics for this scenario, hopefully it's useful for future scenario designers:

I almost always start my scenarios with a vignette I've read from a tactical or personal account. From there comes an idea. The details generally don't matter too much to me; whether it was Regiment A attacking Town X isn't important, what matters is the tactical task a unit had to perform. I like to focus on company and below stuff - everyone already makes scenarios about the famous clashes, I want to make scenarios about the day to day stuff everyone forgets about. In this case, it's the taking of a step off position for a later attack. An action that would have barely warranted half a sentence in a larger narrative, is the perfect size for a Combat Mission scenario. Once I have my idea, I find a location in reality that would suit my situation - once again the details aren't super important. I rarely use overlays anymore, I just put Google Earth on my second monitor and let the in-game map become it's own place.

Once I have my map built, I integrate my situation into it. I almost always start with the enemy side (since I only do Human vs AI). In this scenario, as it is a German attack, I started with the Soviet defense. I look at the map, figure out the required amount of forces to achieve the enemy "mission" that fits the situation, and start building the enemies plan. I never build my maps around the unit or task - this almost always ends up feeling canned and puzzle-like. In real combat, you don't have the power to level hills and move forests (unless you have good engineer support). You take the forces you have and use the hills and forests to your best advantage to build your plan. The small copses of trees in the wheat field isn't there because it would make for a good MG position, it's there because I thought it looked good when I was making the map. Now I (and the player) have to build our plans around it. About the only concession I make in this regard is adding terrain later to block LOS to at least part of the player's setup area. No one likes getting shot on turn 1.

For the Soviet side here, I decided a platoon with attached HMGs would be the best force to serve as the blocking/delaying position that fits the scenario. I built the defense to accomplish the mission I gave it, as if the scenario was designed to be played by the Soviet side. I utilized the terrain as best I could to create 3 mutually supporting positions with interlocking fields of fire. If one position was taken, the other two would be able to lay fire down on the one just overrun. I envisioned that most players would choose to attack the position "head on" in some fashion, either taking the town first then the position on the Soviet right, or the outpost position on the Soviet left, attacking over the open ground. Any Germans attacking would have a hard time indeed, and need to coordinate their fire support well to accomplish it. However, the one course of action I did not take into account for my defense was what Combatintman did right here in this very thread! Only one of the Soviet HMGs was looking into the open wheat field that he advanced so boldly through. Surely no player would push his infantry through such a large open field to be slaughtered! What spelt the Soviet doom was that I did not do a proper line of sight analysis - if I had, I would have realized that the critical HMG defending the entire left flank could not see the whole wheat field, and that so called open field had undulations in the terrain (again, something I built into the map BEFORE I started building the defense) that would have allowed a whole company to advance sight unseen deep into the Soviet rear. As such, I did not plan for the eventuality that the Germans would bypass my carefully developed, mutually supporting positions with barely a shot fired. Truly an example of the enemy "having a vote", and my future scenarios won't be so assuming. Next time I will be more complete in my planning. Blame Combatintman for the lesson learned and any increased difficulty.

A quick note on doctrine, because I saw it brought up - I am not a student of any WW2 military doctrine, so I built my defense based on what made sense to me and what I have seen work, not anything historical. I do use the built in TOEs to help pick my forces though.

To touch on the German side of this scenario, for my missions I try to pick a force that when handled properly, will defeat the enemy even if the player suffers some setbacks. In other words, you don't have to be perfect. I feel that most people play scenarios to win, and if they feel that did everything almost right but still lost, then I have failed to provide satisfying entertainment (some would disagree on this, but it's just how I feel).  Usually the degree of victory and casualties taken is the distinguisher between an ok plan and a great plan for my scenarios. A 2 to 1 advantage with supporting arms will generally provide a respectable challenge against the AI while still being able to be won by most. The ratio here is more 3 to 1, as open fields and long sight lines requires more firepower and bodies to absorb casualties. I try to not to force a plan on the player, instead giving them a properly balanced force to execute a variety of actions. I also believe in simple briefings that provides truthful information the player can use to plan, while not giving away the whole show. Everything I wrote was truthful, but it's up to the player to fill in the gaps. Combatintman took the info given, executed a solid plan here and was able to wipe the Soviets off the board with very minimal casualties.

So the 2 cents that was asked for is more like 20 cents, but I thought it would be beneficial to explain my overall theory on scenario design and not just this one specifically. I like to create simple, straightforward scenarios with a realistic enemy on beautiful maps, and hopefully I've succeed with this one in that regard. Combatintman definitely executed a great plan that exploited the weak point in my plan. Great thread and thanks for picking my scenario to do it with!

Combatintman asked me to provide some input on the "other side" of this scenario as part of his final analysis. I'd like to give some of my overall design philosophy for all of my scenarios and some specifics for this scenario, hopefully it's useful for future scenario designers:

I almost always start my scenarios with a vignette I've read from a tactical or personal account. From there comes an idea. The details generally don't matter too much to me; whether it was Regiment A attacking Town X isn't important, what matters is the tactical task a unit had to perform. I like to focus on company and below stuff - everyone already makes scenarios about the famous clashes, I want to make scenarios about the day to day stuff everyone forgets about. In this case, it's the taking of a step off position for a later attack. An action that would have barely warranted half a sentence in a larger narrative, is the perfect size for a Combat Mission scenario. Once I have my idea, I find a location in reality that would suit my situation - once again the details aren't super important. I rarely use overlays anymore, I just put Google Earth on my second monitor and let the in-game map become it's own place.

Once I have my map built, I integrate my situation into it. I almost always start with the enemy side (since I only do Human vs AI). In this scenario, as it is a German attack, I started with the Soviet defense. I look at the map, figure out the required amount of forces to achieve the enemy "mission" that fits the situation, and start building the enemies plan. I never build my maps around the unit or task - this almost always ends up feeling canned and puzzle-like. In real combat, you don't have the power to level hills and move forests (unless you have good engineer support). You take the forces you have and use the hills and forests to your best advantage to build your plan. The small copses of trees in the wheat field isn't there because it would make for a good MG position, it's there because I thought it looked good when I was making the map. Now I (and the player) have to build our plans around it. About the only concession I make in this regard is adding terrain later to block LOS to at least part of the player's setup area. No one likes getting shot on turn 1.

For the Soviet side here, I decided a platoon with attached HMGs would be the best force to serve as the blocking/delaying position that fits the scenario. I built the defense to accomplish the mission I gave it, as if the scenario was designed to be played by the Soviet side. I utilized the terrain as best I could to create 3 mutually supporting positions with interlocking fields of fire. If one position was taken, the other two would be able to lay fire down on the one just overrun. I envisioned that most players would choose to attack the position "head on" in some fashion, either taking the town first then the position on the Soviet right, or the outpost position on the Soviet left, attacking over the open ground. Any Germans attacking would have a hard time indeed, and need to coordinate their fire support well to accomplish it. However, the one course of action I did not take into account for my defense was what Combatintman did right here in this very thread! Only one of the Soviet HMGs was looking into the open wheat field that he advanced so boldly through. Surely no player would push his infantry through such a large open field to be slaughtered! What spelt the Soviet doom was that I did not do a proper line of sight analysis - if I had, I would have realized that the critical HMG defending the entire left flank could not see the whole wheat field, and that so called open field had undulations in the terrain (again, something I built into the map BEFORE I started building the defense) that would have allowed a whole company to advance sight unseen deep into the Soviet rear. As such, I did not plan for the eventuality that the Germans would bypass my carefully developed, mutually supporting positions with barely a shot fired. Truly an example of the enemy "having a vote", and my future scenarios won't be so assuming. Next time I will be more complete in my planning. Blame Combatintman for the lesson learned and any increased difficulty.

A quick note on doctrine, because I saw it brought up - I am not a student of any WW2 military doctrine, so I built my defense based on what made sense to me and what I have seen work, not anything historical. I do use the built in TOEs to help pick my forces though.

To touch on the German side of this scenario, for my missions I try to pick a force that when handled properly, will defeat the enemy even if the player suffers some setbacks. In other words, you don't have to be perfect. I feel that most people play scenarios to win, and if they feel that did everything almost right but still lost, then I have failed to provide satisfying entertainment (some would disagree on this, but it's just how I feel).  Usually the degree of victory and casualties taken is the distinguisher between an ok plan and a great plan for my scenarios. A 2 to 1 advantage with supporting arms will generally provide a respectable challenge against the AI while still being able to be won by most. The ratio here is more 3 to 1, as open fields and long sight lines requires more firepower and bodies to absorb casualties. I try to not to force a plan on the player, instead giving them a properly balanced force to execute a variety of actions. I also believe in simple briefings that provides truthful information the player can use to plan, while not giving away the whole show. Everything I wrote was truthful, but it's up to the player to fill in the gaps. Combatintman took the info given, executed a solid plan here and was able to wipe the Soviets off the board with very minimal casualties.

So the 2 cents that was asked for is more like 20 cents, but I thought it would be beneficial to explain my overall theory on scenario design and not just this one specifically. I like to create simple, straightforward scenarios with a realistic enemy on beautiful maps, and hopefully I've succeed with this one in that regard. Combatintman definitely executed a great plan that exploited the weak point in my plan. Great thread and thanks for picking my scenario to do it with!