Combatintman

Well according to Feskov - a source cited at your link - 207 (Guards or otherwise) Motor Rifle Division was not in GSFG in 1979 although I grant that it is a difficult work to pick through and other reporting suggests it was in GSFG. From 1964 to 1983 (and CMCW only covers 1979-1982) 3 Combined Arms/Shock Army comprised three divisions - It got its fourth division, 7 Guards Tank Division, in 1983 - a year after the period covered by CMCW. Otherwise whether you claim special knowledge or not of BAOR - if you're not going to claim special knowledge then it might be helpful if you caveat sweeping statements on the subject like "would it comfort him to know that the [sic] BAOR was the old NATO ground unit that truly concerned Red Army [sic] planners?" with a qualifier to the effect, I haven't a clue why I'm saying this.

The Soviets did not rate 1 (BR) Corps at all before the Falklands War, in fact 1 (BR) Corps was deemed weak by the Soviets up until then. In the early to mid 1970s it only had three Armoured Divisions (1, 2 and 4) with only two brigades each. In 1978 a third division (3) came across to Germany and each of the brigades were renamed Task Forces (1 Armoured Division as an example Task Force A and B - 2 Armoured Division Task Force C and D etc). In the whole 1 (BR) Corps AO, which incidentally did not include Hannover, there were eight so-called armoured/mechanised task forces and one non-mechanised infantry task force (5 Field Force). In 1982, the 2nd Armoured Division was moved back to the UK and became an Infantry Division with one regular and two reserve brigades with a 1 (BR) Corps rear area security role. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Armoured Divisions remained in Germany and by now the title brigade vice task force was back in favour. The 7th Armoured Division, for what its worth, ceased to exist in 1958 so it missed most of the Cold War. Don't start me on the 'mighty' 3 Shock Army because it wasn't. It only had three divisions for most of its existence which is nothing compared to the tasks that were envisaged for it. Apart from that, you're absolutely right.

I tested the Aachen Campaign, which is one of @benpark's, creations, who is no slouch as a map maker, or a campaign designer for that matter, and had the problem of troops handrailing the side of that street to come into the building from the opposite side. It actually didn't cause me any dramas during testing and it certainly isn't sloppy design. That building type, which I think first came in with the Market Garden module definitely has issues which, as far as I am aware, are documented on Battlefront's bug tracker.

By 1957 I would say probably, but you're right about the data being imprecise.

No problem John.

Yes I am adamant about Massoud and there are frictions/disputes between communities that end in gunfire all the time and I have seen numerous examples since August 15 outside of Panjshir Province, Baghlan Province and Parwan Province that the so-called 'National Resistance Front' has claimed to have operated in. The fact that you don't know that or who they are makes them no less or more likely to be 'the best hope for Afghanistan.' Although of the two options my assessment is less likely rather than more likely and, as I have I think by now made fairly clear, that is a pretty low benchmark. I very much doubt that Sgt.Squarehead has 'noticed' this person is ever going to weigh heavily on an Afghan deciding who their 'best hope for Afghanistan' is.

Then I suggest you revisit Mr. Karzai and all of the election results for starters. Then work out why non-Pashtuns failed to achieve power since the Taliban got the boot after September 11. About 45% of the population, which votes on ethnic lines as a rule, is Pashtun. The other groups do not come close to 45% of the population. In some ways Dr. Abdullah, an individual famously congratulated by David Cameron when he was UK PM as having 'transformed Afghanistan from a corrupt country into an incredibly corrupt country' or words to that effect, was the person who stood a better than reasonable chance of breaking that mould coming from a mixed Pashtun/Tajik parentage. As things turned out, he could not break that mould and, despite all sorts of deal making on his election tickets, came second albeit in flawed elections. To make it clear, I am not advocating Dr. Abdullah as Afghanistan's best hope - he was at best a vaguely competent Foreign Minister - but, like many of the political class, more interested in how many bodyguards he would get, what jollies he could go on and being the second-highest ranked politician in the country, despite what the constitution said. Go look at the May 2020 Abdullah-Ghani Agreement for starters. After that, see what happened afterwards and work out who was the mover and shaker behind that. And to make it clear, presuming or assuming my position is not the way to continue this debate. I return to my point that Massoud Junior never was, is not, and never will be 'the best hope for Afghanistan.' Back to the National Resistance Front's Head of Foreign Relations ... After this August 18 instruction, this gets retweeted on August 25 ... Bit of an epic fail really. What is Massoud's vision for Afghans? How important is he? His circumstances are that Dad was a bit famous in the north of Afghanistan a few years back and he doesn't like the fact that the current mob hasn't made much of an effort to include non-Pashtuns in the government. Neither qualifies him as 'the best hope for Afghanistan' because, apart from not having famous Dads a few years ago, there are other folks out there who believe the same thing. You only have to look at the various disputes between [name your sex, religion, tribe, ethnicity, locality etc] over the years to see that.

If your comment is aimed at me then I repeat what I said in my last post - that is not what I said. All of the evidence points to Massoud being a nobody and never will be. Unless you've forgotten, I've been there more frequently than you have and I have studied it more closely than you have. Stop putting words into my mouth and either accept facts as they are presented or don't. If you choose the latter approach then fine but be prepared for rebuttals.

John - if you recall LLF made it quite clear that his DBP project - which is deader than a dead thing due to how the game handles fortification and indirect fire - had all of the research banked. While your findings may be of interest and welcome to other people here, I would suggest it is pointless appealing to LLF in this thread.

Not what I said at all. Try getting over the fact that no matter how much you adore Massoud, the factual evidence demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that he is not 'the best hope for Afghanistan.' To give you an example, I used to work in a Police District in Kabul that flew Northern Alliance flags, was non-Pashtun in makeup and never saw pictures of anybody other than Massoud senior. Have you looked at the Resistance group's website/Twitter feeds or heard/seen that idiot that is its 'Foreign Minister?'

Heaven knows why - Massoud was a nobody until about eight months ago - funnily enough he is back to being a nobody. He has/had nothing like the clout or support that others of his ilk had. Sure he has been fawned over by various people of late but what qualifies him as Afghanistan's future? He is a member of a minority group, even that belligerent bombastic twit Saleh, the former 1st Vice-President who featured in the leadership of the 'National Resistance Front' had more evidence of experience and a support base than Massoud. I'll tell you for free that the name Massoud doesn't even register in Afghanistan's southern provinces - the former Massoud Day commemoration - which was a National Bank Holiday under the previous mob was just another day off. I suspect the people of other provinces with no Northern Alliance connections felt exactly the same.

Unless being flung into the air dropped you on top of the opposition of course - then I figure it would have been somewhat problematical.

Ok in which case neither do I. I'll be honest I don't know much about QBs but I went through all of the QB maps for the CMCW title and there was stuff in the original cut QB map folder that didn't have AI plans that I could find and open in the editor and subsequently got culled. Admittedly I didn't try to open them in the QB dialogue so the absence of AI plans for both sides might be an issue. The manual isn't clear in this aspect although it does say that QB maps must have plans so perhaps the wording in the manual implies that the game discards maps without AI plans in the QB selection dialogue. Maybe just paint one AI order for each side on your map as a means of establishing whether this is the case. Otherwise mate, I'm out of solutions for this short of offering your creation as 'map only' - heaps of people do this on the scenario depot.

I know this might seem like a dumb question but have you saved it in the Quick Battle Maps folder in your Game Files directory?

If about 15 years post-WW2 is 'a few years' for the UK experience then you are right. My impression, caveated by the fact that I was too young to remember it, is that it was something that the services didn't really want but it was a definite need with a still large at that time worldwide footprint. But also let's not forget the contribution of National Service personnel to Korea and Malaya among other bits of bother in the colonies. Once the decision was made to cut down the UK's footprint around the world, the need no longer existed and the regulars could cover the commitments without also having the burden of a large percentage of personnel devoted to training large numbers of people every year only to see them spend at best 3/4 of their service in the trained and deployable force.

Pretty much - yes. Some H2H maps have forces already picked and placed in deployment zones with orders, associated orders graphics and objectives. You just need to be clear what you're offering. If it is a map with deployment zones and nothing else, just say so - it's all about managing expectations and avoiding some comedian starting a thread titled 'Recce in Force is nerfed - no units' or similar. From the images posted on Sgt S's screenshots it looks like a decent map. Nice to see someone using Flavour Objects properly, rather than just littering them randomly. Having just spent the equivalent of about eight hours doing the same on a 2x2km map with over 800 buildings on it (and no its not an urban map) I can appreciate the effort that went into this.

@GhostRider3/3 as @Sgt.Squareheadsaid the easiest way is to make it clear in the scenario description box - along the lines of 'Map only' or 'playable as H2H only.' Players can then see straight away when they scroll down scenarios in the battle selection screen what they're getting.

Your guess would appear to be correct, which is a good thing all round.

Sorry - just for closure and I should have mentioned this in my last post. Fight Club has been very gracious in its response to me and for those in the UK who can make a contribution to improving the training of the British Army and are interested in helping out I can put you in touch. Contributions from other passport holders with editor skills I'm sure will also be welcomed. Please PM me if you are interested and I will hook you up.

Thanks all who have PM'd me on this as well. Fight Club has messaged me as well and I will respond as I supported the initiative initially because it was something that was much needed. If I ever have the time in between Battlefront projects I will properly reengage with Fight Club as I think the group could use somebody who knows their way around the editor.

Ok - just to clarify - the target of my last comment was UK Fight Club not 'ControlledPairs' - I think @37mm will say something similar about UK Fight Club.

Never had the decency to say publicly 'thanks Combatintman for the realistic map of Imber Village and scenario based on the map that you kindly made for us' though.

Not sure about 22. Certainly not the drills I was taught. If you're withdrawing then you wait until the other guy in your pair starts putting rounds downrange and says 'move now' and preferably after you've chucked a smoke grenade to screen you. You then make like a human swastika (run quickly) back to the next tactical bound, turn and face the enemy, blat a couple of aimed shots downrange and tell the other guy in the pair to 'move now.' You retreat by bounds in pairs. I appreciate that you can't simulate this in the current engine because the lowest level you can go to is splitting squads rather than down to the pairs level. On a practical level, walking backwards always carries the risk of falling over and - granted the enemy might laugh so much that you'd get away - but unlikely and of course you are not going to be putting aimed shots back at the enemy.

I might lose those if I'm wrong about the CMCW module though.

I can - which is handy as it is one of my rental properties - however, the point it valid - I can only see two back doors of nine on the opposite side of my street.