Paper Tiger

I hadn't read that it was a community favourite myself but that's interesting. I thought Red v Red was niche. I'll try to keep it as close to the original as possible without changing too much. But some changes are inevitable because the game engine has changed so much. For example, in the original opener, the rocket artillery pretty much won the game for you causing large numbers of casualties and breaking the Conscripts with POOR morale.  It was devastating and so I placed two companies of infantry in the village so that there was something left for you to fight. Now, the rocket artillery hardly makes an impact on the defenders causing a small number (single digits) of casualties and morale is eroded by one or two levels. So there's only one company in the village now and that's quite a significant change just there.
There are some things that are missing from the old engine that are important in the remake, like friendly fire at night which used to be a real issue in the Hasrabit 'Strong Stand' mission - you needed to shepherd your conscripts onto the battlefield very carefully or they'd start firing on each other and that was spectacular. That's no longer a factor in the new engine. Also buildings seem to provide much better cover for their inhabitants than before. But the positives FAR outweigh the negatives - the point is that CMx1 Dinas will not be quite the same as CMx2 Dinas. Hopefully it will be just as good if not better (otherwise what's the point?). So I can keep the rocket artillery in Petani and preserve some of the shock and awe that I was aiming for in the original. It means I'll be relying on better AI plans to make the defence more effective instead of numbers. 'He who defends everything defends nothing' is trumped by 'just add more and more troops to defend everything.'
 
As for why I prefer the Syrian theatre, well, that's hard to say precisely. I like both chocolate cake and carrot cake and all things being equal, I'd rather eat carrot cake. I just know that when I come back to this theatre after playing WW2, I no longer feel that  something is missing from the experience. What that is is not easy to define. But one thing that stands out is C2 when you're playing BLUE. I also really enjoy the helicopter sounds - it just sounds incredibly immersive when one is active - and really scary if it's not yours.

Some of you may have noticed that I've poked my head up again after a very long absence. I've just been very busy with real life and wanted to spend some time playing games rather than designing content. But this game is a bit like crack for me, it's just so addictive and watching Usually Hapless play this campaign on Youtube got me back into it. (Yes, it's ALL your fault Hapless  )
I've done a bit of work fixing things and now want to turn my attention to my first campaign for CMBN, the Montebourg campaign. It's the oldest and was made using v1.0 of the engine meaning that there are only 8 AI groups and no air support. There have also been a number of changes to the game which mean that I can experiment with some of the new stuff while reworking this one.
It's not going to be a total overhaul but it will no longer work for players with only the CMBN base game so it's a Repository jobbie. I'll let you guys know what you'll need but it will probably require the full Monty as I want flamethrowers in it. It's also worth saying that anything new in it will be historically accurate and not just added in for the laughs. So no SS with JgPZIVs. Pity.
So, I'll keep you up to date with my progress on this. I'm not looking to do a LOT of work. It's mainly to reacquaint myself with the scenario designer and writing AI plans.
 
Mission 1
I have no plans to change anything at all about the opening mission at all. It's fine as is.
Mission 2
There is a 'new' short 'Brecourt' mission. It's not really new though as it was in the revised version on the Repository. I'll need to tweak this one as the game seems to have become more lethal since I last played it but otherwise, it's good to go.
Mission 3
The first mission to get a full rework is Turnbull's Stand. I'm reworking the AI attack as there were only two AI plans and they were terrible. I've made a number of revisions to the map itself to reflect the reality of the day so it's a bit more open with less bocage and more hedges.
I've spent pretty much all morning and most of the afternoon learning how to script an AI attack using the new tools and the first AI plan is almost done. I want a second one with an entirely different focus but it should be much faster to do as I'm not 'learning' anymore. Then, I'll mix it up so that there's four attack plans.
 
And that's where I'm up to. There's no timetable on this. I'm not in any hurry but by posting about it here, I've kind of declared my intentions and am far more likely to stick with it.

As some of you will already be aware, I've decided to fast track revising my ancient 'Hasrabit' campaign and I've been busy with it since last weekend. I tried out the very first mission, Ambush, and didn't like it and my initial reaction was to abandon the original opening map and create an all-new Ambush map. I started work on it on Wednesday and I finished it earlier this afternoon. It's really big and very detailed but, well, I suspect you can already see why this map isn't going to work in this campaign...

It just doesn't look like any of the other maps in the campaign. It actually looks like the maps I made for the NATO campaigns. So I'm going to use this in Retribution which will come a bit later. I'm not teasing you by showing that in a thread purporting to be about Hasrabit, it's just that it's the end result of 3 days of work and I'm very happy with the end result. I'd LIKE to use it but the other maps would all look utterly incongruous beside it and I certainly don't want to redo them all.
Hasrabit is an old campaign and so I'm not going to change very much with it because otherwise, what you'd get wouldn't be 'Hasrabit' - it would be a whole new campaign using similar forces. So it's going to be an update instead. I'm going to improve the old maps for sure and make them look more Syrian, adding water and bridges for example and redesign the compounds and villages so that they look much more realistic. And bye bye to the vast glowing fields of wheat, the lush, green grass and the dense forests that made the maps look more like NW Europe. I'll expand a few of them, particularly the ones with armour clashes but otherwise, they will all stay pretty much the same. I'm also going to stick with the totally made-up background story as again, this is Hasrabit and there's no such place or governorate and so I'm just going to let it be. 
I've also decided to keep the original Ambush mission but take out the artillery strike on your starting positions and also remove all the trees and the mud which was everywhere and replace them with orchards. That huge yard will also get removed and redone with something that looks more Syrian. I suspect that the river will also have to go but we'll see how I feel once real play-testing starts because the bridges are a pretty bad bottleneck which the AI can't handle very well..
Which brings me to what will definitely change - the AI. I was rather surprised to find that the AI attacks in almost every mission and that's going to be fun to do. The old AI plans are atrocious though as are the set-up and positioning of the AI's units. The player set-ups look really terrible too with very narrow set-up are areas with units all crammed together so all that will change. I now have 16 groups to work with and can give them far more orders with some special ones which were not in the game the last time I played. And, of course, some triggers.
So, that's the plan as it stands. I've made up the new core units file and I've already started improving the existing maps. So, I'm going to import the new units and get down to some serious play in against the old AI plans and OBs before I rip them out so that I know the original intention behind the mission and try to stay faithful to it. I'll probably add shots of the 'finished' maps here as I go. I suspect that by the time I've finished this revision, I'll have relearned all the skills I formerly had and will be able to do a better job of the new campaign I plan to follow it with.

Yes, there is an alternative. There are 17 missions in the campaign but there are two missions that you can go to after Hell in the Hedgerows - Breakthrough if you win and Stalemate if you lose. Both use the same map and more or less the same OBs but there is quite a difference between them  

Yes, there is an alternative. There are 17 missions in the campaign but there are two missions that you can go to after Hell in the Hedgerows - Breakthrough if you win and Stalemate if you lose. Both use the same map and more or less the same OBs but there is quite a difference between them  

I hadn't read that it was a community favourite myself but that's interesting. I thought Red v Red was niche. I'll try to keep it as close to the original as possible without changing too much. But some changes are inevitable because the game engine has changed so much. For example, in the original opener, the rocket artillery pretty much won the game for you causing large numbers of casualties and breaking the Conscripts with POOR morale.  It was devastating and so I placed two companies of infantry in the village so that there was something left for you to fight. Now, the rocket artillery hardly makes an impact on the defenders causing a small number (single digits) of casualties and morale is eroded by one or two levels. So there's only one company in the village now and that's quite a significant change just there.
There are some things that are missing from the old engine that are important in the remake, like friendly fire at night which used to be a real issue in the Hasrabit 'Strong Stand' mission - you needed to shepherd your conscripts onto the battlefield very carefully or they'd start firing on each other and that was spectacular. That's no longer a factor in the new engine. Also buildings seem to provide much better cover for their inhabitants than before. But the positives FAR outweigh the negatives - the point is that CMx1 Dinas will not be quite the same as CMx2 Dinas. Hopefully it will be just as good if not better (otherwise what's the point?). So I can keep the rocket artillery in Petani and preserve some of the shock and awe that I was aiming for in the original. It means I'll be relying on better AI plans to make the defence more effective instead of numbers. 'He who defends everything defends nothing' is trumped by 'just add more and more troops to defend everything.'
 
As for why I prefer the Syrian theatre, well, that's hard to say precisely. I like both chocolate cake and carrot cake and all things being equal, I'd rather eat carrot cake. I just know that when I come back to this theatre after playing WW2, I no longer feel that  something is missing from the experience. What that is is not easy to define. But one thing that stands out is C2 when you're playing BLUE. I also really enjoy the helicopter sounds - it just sounds incredibly immersive when one is active - and really scary if it's not yours.

Well, this will probably surprise you but I've made up a new core unit file for Dinas and have imported the new units into the first few missions and started play-testing them. I am going to focus on getting THIS finished before I do anything else, or at least that's my intention for the time being Why the change?
Hasrabit is the oldest of all my campaigns and there's an enormous amount of work involved in updating it. For example:
Almost every mission has an AI attack and quite a few of these missions are meeting engagements which, as you would expect, are probably the hardest to pull off. The maps were very outdated and basically were 'Normandy in Syria' because, whether I like it or not, I really wanted WW2 with CMx1 and was trying to make it all feel as 'familiar' as possible*. The maps are green with LOTS of trees. The original OBs were the CMx1 OBs which are different from the CMx2 OBs for the same formations so both side's unitrs need to be repbought, replaced and regrouped. The AI placement is non-existent with units just plonked down in a place where they have good LoS but no protection and are easy to spot and kill. The AI that IS there is abysmal and sometimes doesn't even follow through to capture all the objectives - a small number of AI groups with large numbers of units, sometimes two+ platoons, just have three large order zones painted with some times on them. Sure, the AI does its best with that but I really didn't know much about the system when I made this and it shows. Anyway, Dinas is mainly all player attacks against fixed defensive positions with only one AI attack mission in the 14-mission campaign and that's MUCH easier to manage and rework. Quite a few of the maps need to be reforested (not deforested) as orchards and that's what I've been doing these last few days. Most of the maps are ready and a small number are pretty much done already with new OBs imported and placed for both sides except for new AI plans. I've reworked some compounds because I've grown more familiar with Syrian residential blocks which are small compounds so I've integrated those in Suib and Sabatani.
With the exception of Petani, the opener, I've also elected to keep the maps largely as is unlike Hasrabit. Sure, compounds will be improved and orchards will be pretty ubiquitous in each mission  but otherwise, I'm trying to keep it as close to the original as possible. I extended the east map edges to give the player a larger entry zone for Suib and SAM Hill yesterday and it allowed me to add a new compound to make it more interesting. Dinas's set up zones are probably the weakest thing about the campaign so this work is really needed and largely done. But otherwise, it will be more or less the same.
I updated some of Dina's original maps for USMC Gung Ho! a long time ago, in particular Flintstones (Petani), Detectives (Sabatani) and Bridges (Farmers). While Flintstones is being expanded even further to make it all look and feel new, I've decided to use the original versions of Sabatani and Farmers instead so they might feel similar to some who have played Gung Ho! but are much, MUCH smaller and less built up.
So there we have it. Hasrabit is not abandoned, just delayed while I get Dinas working. Instead, i'm going to try and stick to my 'one company with support' per mission so that battles are manageable on real time without pausing (that's how I play) so no 2-3 companies of mech infantry missions. Yikes!!! There were only 2 - Sagger Point and Dinas itself so maybe Dinas might have 2 but Sagger only 1 with support.
 
* This attitude absolutely all changed after I was asked to do the NATO campaigns for CMSF and by then, I LOVED the Syrian theatre and still do, probably more than I do WW2 now funnily enough.

Well, this will probably surprise you but I've made up a new core unit file for Dinas and have imported the new units into the first few missions and started play-testing them. I am going to focus on getting THIS finished before I do anything else, or at least that's my intention for the time being Why the change?
Hasrabit is the oldest of all my campaigns and there's an enormous amount of work involved in updating it. For example:
Almost every mission has an AI attack and quite a few of these missions are meeting engagements which, as you would expect, are probably the hardest to pull off. The maps were very outdated and basically were 'Normandy in Syria' because, whether I like it or not, I really wanted WW2 with CMx1 and was trying to make it all feel as 'familiar' as possible*. The maps are green with LOTS of trees. The original OBs were the CMx1 OBs which are different from the CMx2 OBs for the same formations so both side's unitrs need to be repbought, replaced and regrouped. The AI placement is non-existent with units just plonked down in a place where they have good LoS but no protection and are easy to spot and kill. The AI that IS there is abysmal and sometimes doesn't even follow through to capture all the objectives - a small number of AI groups with large numbers of units, sometimes two+ platoons, just have three large order zones painted with some times on them. Sure, the AI does its best with that but I really didn't know much about the system when I made this and it shows. Anyway, Dinas is mainly all player attacks against fixed defensive positions with only one AI attack mission in the 14-mission campaign and that's MUCH easier to manage and rework. Quite a few of the maps need to be reforested (not deforested) as orchards and that's what I've been doing these last few days. Most of the maps are ready and a small number are pretty much done already with new OBs imported and placed for both sides except for new AI plans. I've reworked some compounds because I've grown more familiar with Syrian residential blocks which are small compounds so I've integrated those in Suib and Sabatani.
With the exception of Petani, the opener, I've also elected to keep the maps largely as is unlike Hasrabit. Sure, compounds will be improved and orchards will be pretty ubiquitous in each mission  but otherwise, I'm trying to keep it as close to the original as possible. I extended the east map edges to give the player a larger entry zone for Suib and SAM Hill yesterday and it allowed me to add a new compound to make it more interesting. Dinas's set up zones are probably the weakest thing about the campaign so this work is really needed and largely done. But otherwise, it will be more or less the same.
I updated some of Dina's original maps for USMC Gung Ho! a long time ago, in particular Flintstones (Petani), Detectives (Sabatani) and Bridges (Farmers). While Flintstones is being expanded even further to make it all look and feel new, I've decided to use the original versions of Sabatani and Farmers instead so they might feel similar to some who have played Gung Ho! but are much, MUCH smaller and less built up.
So there we have it. Hasrabit is not abandoned, just delayed while I get Dinas working. Instead, i'm going to try and stick to my 'one company with support' per mission so that battles are manageable on real time without pausing (that's how I play) so no 2-3 companies of mech infantry missions. Yikes!!! There were only 2 - Sagger Point and Dinas itself so maybe Dinas might have 2 but Sagger only 1 with support.
 
* This attitude absolutely all changed after I was asked to do the NATO campaigns for CMSF and by then, I LOVED the Syrian theatre and still do, probably more than I do WW2 now funnily enough.

https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/combat-mission-battle-for-normandy/cm-battle-for-normandy-campaigns/the-road-to-montebourg-revised-for-v4-0/
Don't worry, this won't overwrite or otherwise delete the original campaign that came on the disk. IIt's a completely different file. This is substantially different from the vanilla campaign and the number of changes made is huge but the most important one to note is that you will need both the Market Garden module and the Vehicle Pack to play this.
 
Other important highlights are that the 2/8 INF core units are now mostly Green with High morale which means you'll need to manage them more carefully in a firefight.
All-new AI plans using triggers and most of the tricks that came with later versions of the game.
Flamethrowers are included in some missions.
Some maps have been revised, most notably the map for Turnbull's Stand which veterans of the original campaign will probably notice quite quickly.
A 'new' mission has been added although those of you who found and played the earlier revised version that was uploaded to BFC's old Scenario Depot will recognise it. The campaign has a prelude phase consisting of the new mission and then the old campaign opener Beau Guillot. You should notice quite a few changes made to that mission as well - some extra help to make up for the drop in experience.
There is air support in quite a few missions now and less artillery, at least the bigger guns anyway.
 
Anyway, let's post this and then I'll see what needs to be 'fixed' or not in good time. This is an old campaign so i'm not expecting a ton of feedback for it for quite a while but let me know and I'll fix things. Now I'm taking a break from CMBN. I haven't quite decided what comes next - finishing Hasrabit or a new version of Gung Ho! for the German forces. Later, I'll get to work on the two Scottish campaigns I'd mentioned elswhere.
 
Have a Happy New year.

Well, that was a full day's work. Fortunately, the wife has been busy and hasn't minded me spending 6+ hours doing the artwork and the briefings for all the missions while listening to some early-70s Prog Rock albums and Thin Lizzy (Johnny the Fox is a seriously underappreciated album). All of the new work has just been imported into all the missions and their variants and all that's left to do is rewrite the campaign script and compile it.
Now I COULD upload this later this evening and be able to say that I revised it in 2023 (just) but I'd like to spend a bit more time making sure that everything is as it says on the tin (I did a lot of that today but a second pass is always a good idea.) I like to make sure that all the AI plans are active (I switch them off while testing a new plan) and make sure that the variants have the proper changes implemented.
I expect to have this done tomorrow morning which means it will still be up before the New Year if you live in Hawaii. Or failing that, early on Tuesday (for me)
Edit to add:
I just tested compiling the new version and it all works fine. Yay! There were a few errors but I found them all and corrected them. Now I just have to set those parameters in the script correctly and it's a day!

And there we are. I finished devising and testing the AI plans for Eroudeville today and it's all working as I'd like it too. I've played through the first 30 minutes of it too and it was tough so I made a few further adjustments that are non-spoiler in nature. The mission is now 1 hour and 50 minutes long with the possibility of 10 minutes of overtime. This extra time has been added at the start so that you have more daylight time.
I've also added some new toys for the US player to play with. Since the new AI plans alone will make things a bit more challenging for the player, I think some extra help is needed. You get a couple of M8 SPA vehicles at the start to help with the bunkers and at around the 30 minute mark, you'll get an M10 Tank Destroyer, a breach team and a flamethrower unit as well as some more air support. You have a few FOO available to keep your artillery and air support on the go as well.
Now, is it balanced? I doubt it. I suspect it will be a very difficult mission for the player especially if he has had a bad result in Ecausseville. Or it could be a cakewalk. Luck always plays some part in such a game, a single lucky hit or miss can decide the entire game and there's not much I can do about. I lost two Shermans to lucky hits in my first play through and that was basically game over for me. True, I wasn't playing smart but rather ensuring that a rash player who just throws his forces ant the enemy and hopes to win by brute force gets this posterior handed back to him but the second hit was entirely unexpected and so we have the M10. 
So, I will spend the rest of the year polishing things up, writing new briefings and making new artwork where necessary and then compile the thing to upload as soon as possible.

Well, it's funny just how much you can get done if you just focus. I'm just wrapping up work on Farmhouse and will start the final mission later today. I wasn't planning to do very much in the way of revising the chapter 4 missions but the first two are so small that they were begging for an AI rework. There are three AI plans for Ecausseville and you better make sure you win the le Ham chapter as you'll get a much tougher version of this mission if you don't (now ahistorical since the PIR and GIR did the job IRL so I can do what I like with it within reason  )
Le Ham wasn't nearly as much work to get done as I'd anticipated. It was only necessary to make the AI react more to the player's moves as far as the triggers will allow me so it was an afternoon's work only. Ecausseville has three AI plans and I'm just polishing off the attack in Farmhouse this morning and I'll get at least one variant made up.
 
There are some pretty substantial changes made to the campaign structure so I'll give you a heads-up now. As before, losing two consecutive missions ejects you from the campaign, That stays for the most part but the old 'losing two consecutive formation missions and you're out' condition  is now gone. This greatly simplifies the campaign structure with no more than one variant possible for chapter's one and three and two for chapter two.
However, chapter three is where the rules change. This contains one of the most challenging missions of the campaign and I'm sure some of you will find it too hard so instead of being ejected from the campaign for a loss, you will simply skip to chapter 4. But the chapter four opener, Ecausseville, will be much tougher as the failure to capture the le Ham area allows the Germans more time to bolster their positions. So fret not if the new chapter three missions are pigs. Let's just say though that I've given the player added incentive to try and win Hell. The following missions will be much easier if you get the win but the historical missions, especially Stalemate, will be much tougher if you lose. After the initial two missions, any loss results in the player skipping to chapter 4.
So we're nearly finished with this. I'm hoping to have the last of the real work done by tomorrow allowing me some time to revisit Turnbull and make sure the briefings and tac maps explain what the player is expected to do to win. And then I should have this up some time next week.

As well as reassuring folks that I'm not taking a break on this project again, posting updates serves to keep me actively working on this. If I didn't post my progress, I'd probably take a break from it and 'forget' for a few weeks. I REALLY want to get this finished preferably by the end of the year but as long as I keep working on it, it will get finished either on time or a bit later. Having said that, there probably will be a short break in updates from tomorrow for a day or two for obvious reasons.
Predictably, I couldn't leave Neuville alone. I've already made some small but important changes to the German forces that will make them a little bit more effective. The defending force is TINY as well so I can assign each unit to its own AI group with some to spare so it would be foolish not to take advantage of the new tools to make the defence more responsive to the player's moves. That's the point of making this revision after all.

I think the areas you're describing in some of the earlier missions are not orchards but woods. At least that's what they appear to be in Google Earth. You must surely have them in Normandy too
Neuville can definitely be changed though because that's a big orchard and not a wood but don't worry, I can do this myself.
Hell in the Hedgerows, Orchard Hill and Breakthrough - Stalemate can't be changed without doing the AI placement and plans all over again. I tried replacing the orchards and units that could see through the old, un-Norman orchards couldn't anymore. That's a LOT of work. It'll get done at some point though as now you've pointed it out to me, I want the maps to be as authentic as the editor will let me.
 
EDIT to add:
Neuville is done. it looks good too. It actually helps the defenders as well. Thanks for bringing that one to my attention.

I think the areas you're describing in some of the earlier missions are not orchards but woods. At least that's what they appear to be in Google Earth. You must surely have them in Normandy too
Neuville can definitely be changed though because that's a big orchard and not a wood but don't worry, I can do this myself.
Hell in the Hedgerows, Orchard Hill and Breakthrough - Stalemate can't be changed without doing the AI placement and plans all over again. I tried replacing the orchards and units that could see through the old, un-Norman orchards couldn't anymore. That's a LOT of work. It'll get done at some point though as now you've pointed it out to me, I want the maps to be as authentic as the editor will let me.
 
EDIT to add:
Neuville is done. it looks good too. It actually helps the defenders as well. Thanks for bringing that one to my attention.

As it happens, that's an option I was considering. The StuGs get spotted instantly by Shermans anyway so not much would really be lost. 

I think the areas you're describing in some of the earlier missions are not orchards but woods. At least that's what they appear to be in Google Earth. You must surely have them in Normandy too
Neuville can definitely be changed though because that's a big orchard and not a wood but don't worry, I can do this myself.
Hell in the Hedgerows, Orchard Hill and Breakthrough - Stalemate can't be changed without doing the AI placement and plans all over again. I tried replacing the orchards and units that could see through the old, un-Norman orchards couldn't anymore. That's a LOT of work. It'll get done at some point though as now you've pointed it out to me, I want the maps to be as authentic as the editor will let me.
 
EDIT to add:
Neuville is done. it looks good too. It actually helps the defenders as well. Thanks for bringing that one to my attention.

As it happens, that's an option I was considering. The StuGs get spotted instantly by Shermans anyway so not much would really be lost. 

I think the areas you're describing in some of the earlier missions are not orchards but woods. At least that's what they appear to be in Google Earth. You must surely have them in Normandy too
Neuville can definitely be changed though because that's a big orchard and not a wood but don't worry, I can do this myself.
Hell in the Hedgerows, Orchard Hill and Breakthrough - Stalemate can't be changed without doing the AI placement and plans all over again. I tried replacing the orchards and units that could see through the old, un-Norman orchards couldn't anymore. That's a LOT of work. It'll get done at some point though as now you've pointed it out to me, I want the maps to be as authentic as the editor will let me.
 
EDIT to add:
Neuville is done. it looks good too. It actually helps the defenders as well. Thanks for bringing that one to my attention.

I'm not sure what to do about this. I tried having the StuGs advance one action spot to the bocage line at the start of the mission and they don't poke through. Good, but they can't spot diddly either. The one in the east gets spotted pretty much instantly - I drove a buttoned up Sherman into the field and as soon as it entered, it spotted the StuG behind the bocage and started firing. Of course, the StuG couldn't see anything at all and took three hits (ineffective except to close the hatches further reducing their chances to spot).
We had the opposite on the east flank where nobody could see anybody else so the StuG is completely ineffective and safe.
So, what to do? I think I'll just leave it as is because at least they can do something even if it looks weird.

I'm not sure what to do about this. I tried having the StuGs advance one action spot to the bocage line at the start of the mission and they don't poke through. Good, but they can't spot diddly either. The one in the east gets spotted pretty much instantly - I drove a buttoned up Sherman into the field and as soon as it entered, it spotted the StuG behind the bocage and started firing. Of course, the StuG couldn't see anything at all and took three hits (ineffective except to close the hatches further reducing their chances to spot).
We had the opposite on the east flank where nobody could see anybody else so the StuG is completely ineffective and safe.
So, what to do? I think I'll just leave it as is because at least they can do something even if it looks weird.

That's a very interesting detail. If you tell me which maps you want changed, let me know and I'll see what I can do. If you've decompiled the campaign, you can take a look at the orchards in the later missions and tell me if they're better. They're already remade like the orchards in The Scottish Corridor and improved further. But there's one which I won't redo and that's Orchard Hill - ironically and I'll tell you why.
The reason is because changing the trees in the orchard blocked existing LoS and changing it would mean redoing the AI entirely and I just couldn't do all that work over again. It's a change that needs to be made before you do the AI. I spent ages finding good LoS for defending units not just for plan A but for plan B too and so I undid the changes when I saw that LoS was blocked.
But otherwise,  yes, I'm very happy to make the changes you recommend. If I have time, yes, I will redo the AI for the Le Ham series of missions but not just now.

I actually do slip in some small terrain undulations to break up LoS because the real world is not generally billiard table flat (except perhaps for beaches). I've been doing that as long as I've been making maps for this game  Check out Beau Guillot for a good example - Google Earth shows flat terrain but as you can see, there are plenty of small dips.

I actually do slip in some small terrain undulations to break up LoS because the real world is not generally billiard table flat (except perhaps for beaches). I've been doing that as long as I've been making maps for this game  Check out Beau Guillot for a good example - Google Earth shows flat terrain but as you can see, there are plenty of small dips.

I actually do slip in some small terrain undulations to break up LoS because the real world is not generally billiard table flat (except perhaps for beaches). I've been doing that as long as I've been making maps for this game  Check out Beau Guillot for a good example - Google Earth shows flat terrain but as you can see, there are plenty of small dips.