Jump to content

Combatintman

Members
  • Posts

    4,343
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    56

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Combatintman got a reaction from Freyberg in Map Making Guide   
    You can't - you have the choice of straight up, down, left or right and diagonal road tiles.  If you're trying to map a real place using the overlay feature, the top tip is to orientate your overlay so that the important/major roads or the majority of the roads flow to fit the limited choices you have see below:

     If you look at the image, you can see a whole heap of tracks through the forest which I decided should run north to south to make the map making easier.  If you look at the topographical overlay, you can see that I have tilted it so that north in real life is actually pointing NW (the grid line runs from number '171' at the bottom of the image).  You can also see that with the other roads and the railway line, I just have to compromise and make the best job I can of getting them to generally flow in the intended direction.
    This is a 3D view of part of the map:

    Which although not 100% accurate doesn't look too shabby.
     
  2. Like
    Combatintman got a reaction from sburke in September is coming   
    You're all missing the point ... given BFC's record with predicting conflicts in their games, it must mean that Black Sea will get Brits in a module.
  3. Like
    Combatintman got a reaction from Canuck21 in The [U*] Designation?   
    I have no set rule.  Your weighting will depend on the type of scenario it is.  If grabbing or not losing bits of terrain is the key bit of the mission concept then it is logical to weight VPs towards terrain objectives.  If your mission is about killing the enemy or not being killed then you can weight towards parameters and unit objectives.  If you then follow that logic and you have a mission which emphasizes grabbing a piece of ground but not losing too many troops in the process then you're looking at balancing your terrain, parameters and unit objectives.
    That should be the starting point but always needs refinement.  If your scenario is going to be playable by both sides, how do you stop one player getting a turn one victory by hitting ceasefire because they are the defender sat on all of the high VP terrain objectives?  How do you keep one or both players in the game by ensuring that neither side has an advantage until just past the mid point in the scenario?  The mechanism I use for the latter eventuality when testing is to save and ceasefire at between five and 15 minute intervals and screen capture the end game screen.  The numbers there inform me as to how the casualties tick over and allows me to adjust unit objective values for instance.  It is rare that my original VP schema survives testing so you shouldn't think narrowly about 'terrain is the most important' or whatever.  You need to just use what is perhaps the biggest and most flexible toolkit in the editor to get the right scores on the doors.
  4. Upvote
    Combatintman got a reaction from Heirloom_Tomato in The [U*] Designation?   
    I have no set rule.  Your weighting will depend on the type of scenario it is.  If grabbing or not losing bits of terrain is the key bit of the mission concept then it is logical to weight VPs towards terrain objectives.  If your mission is about killing the enemy or not being killed then you can weight towards parameters and unit objectives.  If you then follow that logic and you have a mission which emphasizes grabbing a piece of ground but not losing too many troops in the process then you're looking at balancing your terrain, parameters and unit objectives.
    That should be the starting point but always needs refinement.  If your scenario is going to be playable by both sides, how do you stop one player getting a turn one victory by hitting ceasefire because they are the defender sat on all of the high VP terrain objectives?  How do you keep one or both players in the game by ensuring that neither side has an advantage until just past the mid point in the scenario?  The mechanism I use for the latter eventuality when testing is to save and ceasefire at between five and 15 minute intervals and screen capture the end game screen.  The numbers there inform me as to how the casualties tick over and allows me to adjust unit objective values for instance.  It is rare that my original VP schema survives testing so you shouldn't think narrowly about 'terrain is the most important' or whatever.  You need to just use what is perhaps the biggest and most flexible toolkit in the editor to get the right scores on the doors.
  5. Like
    Combatintman got a reaction from Splinty in September is coming   
    You're all missing the point ... given BFC's record with predicting conflicts in their games, it must mean that Black Sea will get Brits in a module.
  6. Like
    Combatintman got a reaction from Monty's Mighty Moustache in Cold War C2 Info Sharing   
    I'm reasonably sure it would be the same for the US but in the British Army of the time, platoons will be on a company net so as soon as the sighting platoon sends in their contact/sighting report every platoon and the company HQ would have the information.  Battalion would be a different net so passage upwards would be from the company HQ on the battalion net which also goes sideways to all of the other callsigns on that net (i.e., the other companies in the battalion).  I can't speak for the Soviets as I am nowhere near my reference materials but I don't think it was that much different.
  7. Like
    Combatintman got a reaction from Lethaface in Beginner Help with A December Morning (Demo)   
    I suspect that GerryCMBB has finished this scenario in the four and a half years since the original post.
  8. Upvote
    Combatintman got a reaction from Artkin in What Subject For The First CMCW Module?   
    Pretty much what Royal Armoured Corps crews thought in the 1970s/1980s before the thing broke down on its way from the tank sheds to the camp gates. 😏
  9. Like
    Combatintman got a reaction from Canuck21 in The [U*] Designation?   
    Highly recommended - it is a useful mechanism for balancing your VPs.  I often just do a head count for each side and allocate 1 VP as a 'Destroy' objective.  So if there are 130 dudes on one side and 150 on the other, the VP count is 130 and 150 respectively.  The beauty of it is that each side picks up points as they go along ... provided they kill people of course.
  10. Like
    Combatintman got a reaction from Canuck21 in The [U*] Designation?   
    It signifies a unit objective - this is what the manual (page 88 refers) says:
    To designate a unit or formation as a scenario objective, you have to first assign it to a “unit objective group” in the Unit Editor. To do that, select the unit or formation and hold down the SHIFT key while pressing a number key from F1-F7. The selected unit(s) will then show a [U] next to its name followed by the corresponding group number you pressed.
  11. Thanks
    Combatintman got a reaction from Double Deuce in 1941 Scenario Feasibility??   
    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.
  12. Upvote
    Combatintman got a reaction from Warts 'n' all in Really Good War Movies (CM Scenario Inspiration)   
    Sorry mate, that film is an utter shocker.
  13. Like
    Combatintman got a reaction from 37mm in CMSF2-Afghanistan 'All in One'   
    Who, perhaps appropriately, is sat in Kabul typing this 😏
  14. Like
    Combatintman got a reaction from womble in Just Some Basic Help   
    Peace loving peoples of the Soviet Union - bound to happen mate ... 😏
  15. Like
    Combatintman got a reaction from Lethaface in For you mortar men out there?   
    Have a like - me too, at least the OP has an answer to the question he actually asked.
  16. Like
    Combatintman got a reaction from Lethaface in Bug/glitch thread   
    Given the poster is talking about dismounted infantry employing a man portable Dragon, I'm not sure that it is a consideration at all.
  17. Like
    Combatintman got a reaction from Lethaface in Just Some Basic Help   
    Nothing automatic about it.  NATO forces in Germany were under strength and needed time to round out.  For instance most of the NL and BE corps were based in their respective countries.  1 (BR) Corps' 1 Armoured Division's peacetime locations were a good deal north of their wartime AORs and, depending on the time frame, two of the 1 (BR) Corps roled Field Forces and latterly one of it's divisions was based in the UK.  Same for the US, who had even further to move their reinforcements.  Soviet exercises plus the routine rotation of conscripts were watched closely because if GSFG/WGF went for the standing start option a lot of NATO would be in the wrong place.  It would be naive to assume that the Soviets didn't know this and didn't have a planning option for the standing start scenario.
  18. Like
    Combatintman got a reaction from Sandokan in For you mortar men out there?   
    Linear deployment of mortar and observer to line up with a target is something I have never heard of.  So, while I am not expertly versed in mortar procedures, I suspect it is something that doesn't happen or is taught as the 'ideal' solution.  With all observed fire, so long as the observer can read a map accurately, see the target and can then communicate that to Fire Direction Center/mortar line you are well on the way to getting rounds where you want them.  So long as the people at the FDC/mortar line transcribe those grids accurately and they are passed on to the individual mortars accurately you are further down that path.  If the mortars/guns are correctly sited and even better, surveyed, and the crews know how many turns of the dial = 'up 100 - left 50 etc' on the aiming mechanism and how many charges are needed for the required range, then they should hit the target.  Gunnery is lots of sums and works best if you know where the target is, what the weather's like and where your guns/mortars are so does not need mortar, observer and target to be in a nice straight line.
  19. Like
    Combatintman got a reaction from Lethaface in For you mortar men out there?   
    Neither is it determined by being the most persistent and vocal person in the debate.  One of the people with whom you are disagreeing @Ultradaveis or was responsible for the planning and execution of indirect fires as a profession.  You, on the other hand, appear to lack the same credentials, so guess who is more likely to be believed.
  20. Like
    Combatintman got a reaction from Lethaface in For you mortar men out there?   
    Then why did he mention an FO (forward observer) and indirect fire in his question smarty pants?
  21. Upvote
    Combatintman got a reaction from LukeFF in For you mortar men out there?   
    Neither is it determined by being the most persistent and vocal person in the debate.  One of the people with whom you are disagreeing @Ultradaveis or was responsible for the planning and execution of indirect fires as a profession.  You, on the other hand, appear to lack the same credentials, so guess who is more likely to be believed.
  22. Upvote
    Combatintman got a reaction from mjkerner in For you mortar men out there?   
    Neither is it determined by being the most persistent and vocal person in the debate.  One of the people with whom you are disagreeing @Ultradaveis or was responsible for the planning and execution of indirect fires as a profession.  You, on the other hand, appear to lack the same credentials, so guess who is more likely to be believed.
  23. Thanks
    Combatintman got a reaction from BletchleyGeek in For you mortar men out there?   
    Neither is it determined by being the most persistent and vocal person in the debate.  One of the people with whom you are disagreeing @Ultradaveis or was responsible for the planning and execution of indirect fires as a profession.  You, on the other hand, appear to lack the same credentials, so guess who is more likely to be believed.
  24. Like
    Combatintman got a reaction from Vergeltungswaffe in For you mortar men out there?   
    @markshot - no issues with the question from me either @LukeFFhas pretty much summed the situation up.
  25. Upvote
    Combatintman got a reaction from Ultradave in For you mortar men out there?   
    @markshot - no issues with the question from me either @LukeFFhas pretty much summed the situation up.
×
×
  • Create New...