Combatintman

So 10 years after the Cold War ended vs a shorter period of time to the CMSF-2 timeframe with more kit in common ... not going to happen under the CMCW banner mate, I'll wager both pensions on it.  There is already a ton of competition for nations and a time frame spanning, depending on how you frame the start potentially from from 1947-1989.  We all know what a sh1tfight R2V was for nations and their TO&Es ... playing extra pretend outside the Cold War time frame ... no ...  There's a European Mod somewhere I'm sure for SF - go knock yourself out with that ... after you've finished your other stuff of course 😏

So 10 years after the Cold War ended vs a shorter period of time to the CMSF-2 timeframe with more kit in common ... not going to happen under the CMCW banner mate, I'll wager both pensions on it.  There is already a ton of competition for nations and a time frame spanning, depending on how you frame the start potentially from from 1947-1989.  We all know what a sh1tfight R2V was for nations and their TO&Es ... playing extra pretend outside the Cold War time frame ... no ...  There's a European Mod somewhere I'm sure for SF - go knock yourself out with that ... after you've finished your other stuff of course 😏

There's a bigger bug than that then - CMCW is entirely missing the Brits.

I suspect it is the British Army's version of Combat Mission which Steve announced as something that BFC had been working on as part of a British Ministry of Defence contract over the last couple of years.  If you want it apply here:
Home - British Army Jobs (mod.uk)
 

There's a bigger bug than that then - CMCW is entirely missing the Brits.

I suspect it is the British Army's version of Combat Mission which Steve announced as something that BFC had been working on as part of a British Ministry of Defence contract over the last couple of years.  If you want it apply here:
Home - British Army Jobs (mod.uk)
 

It is one of George's scenarios and challenging from both sides.

I suspect it is the British Army's version of Combat Mission which Steve announced as something that BFC had been working on as part of a British Ministry of Defence contract over the last couple of years.  If you want it apply here:
Home - British Army Jobs (mod.uk)
 

I suspect it is the British Army's version of Combat Mission which Steve announced as something that BFC had been working on as part of a British Ministry of Defence contract over the last couple of years.  If you want it apply here:
Home - British Army Jobs (mod.uk)
 

I suspect it is the British Army's version of Combat Mission which Steve announced as something that BFC had been working on as part of a British Ministry of Defence contract over the last couple of years.  If you want it apply here:
Home - British Army Jobs (mod.uk)
 

Or you go the other way and say that Barbarossa began in 1944 and use the kit and units you've got.  It might be quite interesting to see how 1944 formations matched in the 1941 battles.

I can tell you for free that 'designed with the idea of humans playing vs humans' is a false assumption.  The rule for bundled scenarios is that they can be played in all modes although exceptions to that rule were made for CMCW in relation to the Soviet Tactical Doctrine primer scenarios and a couple of others in that title.  None of those exceptions include H2H only.  There was no direction given to any of the scenario designers to optimise their scenarios for H2H for any title I've been involved with (CMSF-1 &2, CMRT, CMFB, CMFR, CMCW).
The challenge of following the rule, particularly when making a scenario based on a real action, is that the scenario has to be winnable by both sides in all three modes.  The get out clause is the one-liner in the 'Load New Game' screen where you can say 'best played as (insert side).'  Designing H2H is even more variable:
How do you know how skilled every single player is who buys the title? Which of those players is going to take Blue/Allied in your scenario? Which of those players is going to take Red/Axis in your scenario? Is one of those players going to play to their skill level or just have a bad day? Is one of those players going to have a good day and play above their skill level? Steve from Battlefront posted some time back that the data/feedback he has indicates that most people play the title in Human vs AI mode.  This would likely explain why the rule of playable in all three modes was introduced.  It also reinforces the point that your assumption is not well-founded.
Nonetheless, designing for all three possible combinations is achievable but it generally involves employing most of the victory point combinations, asymmetric objectives and time limits.  Achievable of course does not necessarily mean that your scenario is awesome in all three play modes.  It should be in one of the three and if you can do it in two, then so much the better.  If you can do it in all three then your name is @George MC
Linking the above to your point that designers 'boost' defenders with 'tons of points' - that is correct in many instances.  I 'boost' one side or the other or both sides with victory points in order to achieve the effect I intend.  As an example, to avoid a turn one cease fire resulting in a victory for a defending force that typically occupies all of the high victory point objectives that the attacking player needs to capture I will 'boost' the attacker by giving that side the equivalent number of victory points for friendly casualties at a threshold that will only be achieved by the defender's actions half way through the battle (ballpark figure for illustration would be 20% casualties).  The turn one ceasefire would; therefore, result in a draw.  The intent here is to make both sides commit to the scenario and play it through.  If both sides commit then the attacker will not get those victory points and is not intended to.  You confirm these thresholds by testing and adjusting as necessary if that 20% (or whatever) threshold is achieved too early.  Some of those 'boosts'; therefore, are never intended to take effect if the scenario is played with good intent by both sides through to its time limit or to a point where one player or the other genuinely elects to cease fire.

I can tell you for free that 'designed with the idea of humans playing vs humans' is a false assumption.  The rule for bundled scenarios is that they can be played in all modes although exceptions to that rule were made for CMCW in relation to the Soviet Tactical Doctrine primer scenarios and a couple of others in that title.  None of those exceptions include H2H only.  There was no direction given to any of the scenario designers to optimise their scenarios for H2H for any title I've been involved with (CMSF-1 &2, CMRT, CMFB, CMFR, CMCW).
The challenge of following the rule, particularly when making a scenario based on a real action, is that the scenario has to be winnable by both sides in all three modes.  The get out clause is the one-liner in the 'Load New Game' screen where you can say 'best played as (insert side).'  Designing H2H is even more variable:
How do you know how skilled every single player is who buys the title? Which of those players is going to take Blue/Allied in your scenario? Which of those players is going to take Red/Axis in your scenario? Is one of those players going to play to their skill level or just have a bad day? Is one of those players going to have a good day and play above their skill level? Steve from Battlefront posted some time back that the data/feedback he has indicates that most people play the title in Human vs AI mode.  This would likely explain why the rule of playable in all three modes was introduced.  It also reinforces the point that your assumption is not well-founded.
Nonetheless, designing for all three possible combinations is achievable but it generally involves employing most of the victory point combinations, asymmetric objectives and time limits.  Achievable of course does not necessarily mean that your scenario is awesome in all three play modes.  It should be in one of the three and if you can do it in two, then so much the better.  If you can do it in all three then your name is @George MC
Linking the above to your point that designers 'boost' defenders with 'tons of points' - that is correct in many instances.  I 'boost' one side or the other or both sides with victory points in order to achieve the effect I intend.  As an example, to avoid a turn one cease fire resulting in a victory for a defending force that typically occupies all of the high victory point objectives that the attacking player needs to capture I will 'boost' the attacker by giving that side the equivalent number of victory points for friendly casualties at a threshold that will only be achieved by the defender's actions half way through the battle (ballpark figure for illustration would be 20% casualties).  The turn one ceasefire would; therefore, result in a draw.  The intent here is to make both sides commit to the scenario and play it through.  If both sides commit then the attacker will not get those victory points and is not intended to.  You confirm these thresholds by testing and adjusting as necessary if that 20% (or whatever) threshold is achieved too early.  Some of those 'boosts'; therefore, are never intended to take effect if the scenario is played with good intent by both sides through to its time limit or to a point where one player or the other genuinely elects to cease fire.

To drag this thread closer to the subject of its title, there are no real nuances to avoiding getting whacked by aircraft.  If you have air defence assets then deploy them:
With half-decent fields of view/fire into the sky. In positions to cover the stuff you really really don't want to see get destroyed. Close to stocks of further missiles. In addition to the above, and/or if you don't have air defence assets:
Use smoke to either obscure your really important stuff from the enemy asset calling in the air asset. Get yourself into woods or other terrain that offers you good concealment and, where possible cover as well. Seek out and utterly smash every single C2 and dedicated observation asset the enemy has. Employ rapid manoeuvre. Ultimately though, there is a fair amount of abstraction in the modelling of air/aviation and their engagement by ground assets so you will always be susceptible to the fortunes of war when you hear the sound of freedom above your troops.

To drag this thread closer to the subject of its title, there are no real nuances to avoiding getting whacked by aircraft.  If you have air defence assets then deploy them:
With half-decent fields of view/fire into the sky. In positions to cover the stuff you really really don't want to see get destroyed. Close to stocks of further missiles. In addition to the above, and/or if you don't have air defence assets:
Use smoke to either obscure your really important stuff from the enemy asset calling in the air asset. Get yourself into woods or other terrain that offers you good concealment and, where possible cover as well. Seek out and utterly smash every single C2 and dedicated observation asset the enemy has. Employ rapid manoeuvre. Ultimately though, there is a fair amount of abstraction in the modelling of air/aviation and their engagement by ground assets so you will always be susceptible to the fortunes of war when you hear the sound of freedom above your troops.

To drag this thread closer to the subject of its title, there are no real nuances to avoiding getting whacked by aircraft.  If you have air defence assets then deploy them:
With half-decent fields of view/fire into the sky. In positions to cover the stuff you really really don't want to see get destroyed. Close to stocks of further missiles. In addition to the above, and/or if you don't have air defence assets:
Use smoke to either obscure your really important stuff from the enemy asset calling in the air asset. Get yourself into woods or other terrain that offers you good concealment and, where possible cover as well. Seek out and utterly smash every single C2 and dedicated observation asset the enemy has. Employ rapid manoeuvre. Ultimately though, there is a fair amount of abstraction in the modelling of air/aviation and their engagement by ground assets so you will always be susceptible to the fortunes of war when you hear the sound of freedom above your troops.

To drag this thread closer to the subject of its title, there are no real nuances to avoiding getting whacked by aircraft.  If you have air defence assets then deploy them:
With half-decent fields of view/fire into the sky. In positions to cover the stuff you really really don't want to see get destroyed. Close to stocks of further missiles. In addition to the above, and/or if you don't have air defence assets:
Use smoke to either obscure your really important stuff from the enemy asset calling in the air asset. Get yourself into woods or other terrain that offers you good concealment and, where possible cover as well. Seek out and utterly smash every single C2 and dedicated observation asset the enemy has. Employ rapid manoeuvre. Ultimately though, there is a fair amount of abstraction in the modelling of air/aviation and their engagement by ground assets so you will always be susceptible to the fortunes of war when you hear the sound of freedom above your troops.

I think most here achieve this by plotting J (15s burst) or Y (light fire) at waypoints (short bounds of 1-2 actions spots). Insert pauses and the J / Y commands will switch/renew when it reaches a new target order at the next waypoint.
NOTE: Any target (Fire or Arc) commands can be inserted. One is not forced to plot a single waypoint 100m away. You can break that up into smaller distances and achieve a fairly effective recon by fire.
Where this breaks down is when the unit involved wishes to remain in place. But, if you can rock them back and forth over a distance of a single action spot... the above works.
Disclaimer: I'm a Luddite not wanting 'lazy' commands such as 'Shot & Scoot' or 'Halt and Fire'. There's already too much blamed on the TacAI as is. As long as everyone has the same toolkit (or limitations) - then we can blame each other (ie 'gamey play') rather than the engine.
Also, there is an realtime play mode where this isn't necessarily the same issue. We WEGO players sometimes forget this when posting.

Totally agree mate - I think others have tried the same thing but they petered out.  I know the editor not quite inside out but not far off that; however, I have never really grasped QBs at all.  I'll be honest that this has partly been due to the fact that I rarely play QBs so have less interest in them than making scenarios but I think that I ought to understand the things a lot better because after putting the graft into making a decent map, it seems a waste not to be able to offer it as a QB map.
Good luck with the thread and I'm looking forward to learning from whatever contributions are offered by people who have walked the QB walk.
Have a like mate.

I can tell you for free that 'designed with the idea of humans playing vs humans' is a false assumption.  The rule for bundled scenarios is that they can be played in all modes although exceptions to that rule were made for CMCW in relation to the Soviet Tactical Doctrine primer scenarios and a couple of others in that title.  None of those exceptions include H2H only.  There was no direction given to any of the scenario designers to optimise their scenarios for H2H for any title I've been involved with (CMSF-1 &2, CMRT, CMFB, CMFR, CMCW).
The challenge of following the rule, particularly when making a scenario based on a real action, is that the scenario has to be winnable by both sides in all three modes.  The get out clause is the one-liner in the 'Load New Game' screen where you can say 'best played as (insert side).'  Designing H2H is even more variable:
How do you know how skilled every single player is who buys the title? Which of those players is going to take Blue/Allied in your scenario? Which of those players is going to take Red/Axis in your scenario? Is one of those players going to play to their skill level or just have a bad day? Is one of those players going to have a good day and play above their skill level? Steve from Battlefront posted some time back that the data/feedback he has indicates that most people play the title in Human vs AI mode.  This would likely explain why the rule of playable in all three modes was introduced.  It also reinforces the point that your assumption is not well-founded.
Nonetheless, designing for all three possible combinations is achievable but it generally involves employing most of the victory point combinations, asymmetric objectives and time limits.  Achievable of course does not necessarily mean that your scenario is awesome in all three play modes.  It should be in one of the three and if you can do it in two, then so much the better.  If you can do it in all three then your name is @George MC
Linking the above to your point that designers 'boost' defenders with 'tons of points' - that is correct in many instances.  I 'boost' one side or the other or both sides with victory points in order to achieve the effect I intend.  As an example, to avoid a turn one cease fire resulting in a victory for a defending force that typically occupies all of the high victory point objectives that the attacking player needs to capture I will 'boost' the attacker by giving that side the equivalent number of victory points for friendly casualties at a threshold that will only be achieved by the defender's actions half way through the battle (ballpark figure for illustration would be 20% casualties).  The turn one ceasefire would; therefore, result in a draw.  The intent here is to make both sides commit to the scenario and play it through.  If both sides commit then the attacker will not get those victory points and is not intended to.  You confirm these thresholds by testing and adjusting as necessary if that 20% (or whatever) threshold is achieved too early.  Some of those 'boosts'; therefore, are never intended to take effect if the scenario is played with good intent by both sides through to its time limit or to a point where one player or the other genuinely elects to cease fire.

Been done since ...
Bayonet charge foils enemy ambush - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
Not claiming this to be the last either.

I can tell you for free that 'designed with the idea of humans playing vs humans' is a false assumption.  The rule for bundled scenarios is that they can be played in all modes although exceptions to that rule were made for CMCW in relation to the Soviet Tactical Doctrine primer scenarios and a couple of others in that title.  None of those exceptions include H2H only.  There was no direction given to any of the scenario designers to optimise their scenarios for H2H for any title I've been involved with (CMSF-1 &2, CMRT, CMFB, CMFR, CMCW).
The challenge of following the rule, particularly when making a scenario based on a real action, is that the scenario has to be winnable by both sides in all three modes.  The get out clause is the one-liner in the 'Load New Game' screen where you can say 'best played as (insert side).'  Designing H2H is even more variable:
How do you know how skilled every single player is who buys the title? Which of those players is going to take Blue/Allied in your scenario? Which of those players is going to take Red/Axis in your scenario? Is one of those players going to play to their skill level or just have a bad day? Is one of those players going to have a good day and play above their skill level? Steve from Battlefront posted some time back that the data/feedback he has indicates that most people play the title in Human vs AI mode.  This would likely explain why the rule of playable in all three modes was introduced.  It also reinforces the point that your assumption is not well-founded.
Nonetheless, designing for all three possible combinations is achievable but it generally involves employing most of the victory point combinations, asymmetric objectives and time limits.  Achievable of course does not necessarily mean that your scenario is awesome in all three play modes.  It should be in one of the three and if you can do it in two, then so much the better.  If you can do it in all three then your name is @George MC
Linking the above to your point that designers 'boost' defenders with 'tons of points' - that is correct in many instances.  I 'boost' one side or the other or both sides with victory points in order to achieve the effect I intend.  As an example, to avoid a turn one cease fire resulting in a victory for a defending force that typically occupies all of the high victory point objectives that the attacking player needs to capture I will 'boost' the attacker by giving that side the equivalent number of victory points for friendly casualties at a threshold that will only be achieved by the defender's actions half way through the battle (ballpark figure for illustration would be 20% casualties).  The turn one ceasefire would; therefore, result in a draw.  The intent here is to make both sides commit to the scenario and play it through.  If both sides commit then the attacker will not get those victory points and is not intended to.  You confirm these thresholds by testing and adjusting as necessary if that 20% (or whatever) threshold is achieved too early.  Some of those 'boosts'; therefore, are never intended to take effect if the scenario is played with good intent by both sides through to its time limit or to a point where one player or the other genuinely elects to cease fire.

Recently, in the FI forum, some of us were sharing our experience of programming the AI when designing QB maps.
This is an interesting topic that I think should be immortalised in its own thread 😛
I've put my own meagre experimentation first (because it was first in that particular thread chronologically), but @kohlenklau has observed the behaviour of the AI much more scientifically; and I know there are others on the forum (including experienced designers like @benpark) who have also carefully observed how the AI allocates AI groups to forces.
I'm much lazier, I just playtest them, and if I have fun I give it a tick (also too lazy to search the forum for previous discussions of this topic, although I know it has cropped up in various contexts over years).
I'm really interested in what some of you more analytical designers have learnt, so I can apply it to my own maps
  
 
 
 
 
 

@chuckdyke - no just defined areas on the map using the click combination above in the 2D editor.

That's one of mine @Megalon Jones ... and it is Sichenhausen not Sichausen said something like this sickenhowzen.  Have a like for the great video and always interesting to see how someone else tackles the mission.