Combatintman

Addressing this point, I can only speak from my own design experience.  I have designed four scenarios playable both sides and H2H and three of those were historical scenarios.  The design was therefore strongly influenced by the real ground and real forces involved.  No point calling a battle 'attack on Sword Beach' and then populating it with GIs because they allow you to hit a 60/40 ratio better than the British who actually landed there.
The nuance therefore is to combine the sum of the parts and confirm by testing with the intent that both sides can at least edge some form of victory with the resources available.  I certainly didn't approach any of them with a fixed mindset in relation to combat values or a 60/40 (or any other figure) ratio.  Relating to the Victory Point discussion, I seem to recall that most of the 'balancing' involved fiddling around with the VPs rather than say, deleting a Panther which actually took part in the battle from the Orbat because it made the Germans too strong.

Note that my comment emphasises the scenario behaving as the scenario designer intends.  I prefer designing one side vs the AI to H2H or playable by both sides because it is far easier to achieve your intent in this manner.  Nonetheless, and there's been a lot of discussion about it recently, an effective way of achieving balance is through Victory Point allocations.  For me, once you master it, the Victory Point combinations in the editor are extremely flexible and powerful and probably one of the strong points of the editor's design.  If you use them correctly a platoon-sized force for example can achieve a victory over battalion-sized force and using such constructs were, and still are, common in Shockforce because of the asymmetrical force match-ups.  QB purchase values or relative combat power calculations don't help much here.  As I said earlier, I never use them and I just think that all you achieve by using them is to add another step/calculation in the design process which more often than not will be blown out of the water during your first scenario test run.

Note that my comment emphasises the scenario behaving as the scenario designer intends.  I prefer designing one side vs the AI to H2H or playable by both sides because it is far easier to achieve your intent in this manner.  Nonetheless, and there's been a lot of discussion about it recently, an effective way of achieving balance is through Victory Point allocations.  For me, once you master it, the Victory Point combinations in the editor are extremely flexible and powerful and probably one of the strong points of the editor's design.  If you use them correctly a platoon-sized force for example can achieve a victory over battalion-sized force and using such constructs were, and still are, common in Shockforce because of the asymmetrical force match-ups.  QB purchase values or relative combat power calculations don't help much here.  As I said earlier, I never use them and I just think that all you achieve by using them is to add another step/calculation in the design process which more often than not will be blown out of the water during your first scenario test run.

Addressing this point, I can only speak from my own design experience.  I have designed four scenarios playable both sides and H2H and three of those were historical scenarios.  The design was therefore strongly influenced by the real ground and real forces involved.  No point calling a battle 'attack on Sword Beach' and then populating it with GIs because they allow you to hit a 60/40 ratio better than the British who actually landed there.
The nuance therefore is to combine the sum of the parts and confirm by testing with the intent that both sides can at least edge some form of victory with the resources available.  I certainly didn't approach any of them with a fixed mindset in relation to combat values or a 60/40 (or any other figure) ratio.  Relating to the Victory Point discussion, I seem to recall that most of the 'balancing' involved fiddling around with the VPs rather than say, deleting a Panther which actually took part in the battle from the Orbat because it made the Germans too strong.

Devil's in the detail mate - the more text the better as far as I'm concerned.  Talking of detail ... do you mean Operation Doppelkopf vice Operation Doppelkoph?  Might be an idea to make sure that's right in the briefings/opening campaign narrative 😉

Formations & Units
 
The Combat Mission scenario editor has a lot of customisation for formations and units built into it from the get go. Morale, experience, fatigue, ammunition, headcount can all be set to meet your requirements. Then there’s the ability to tweak formations themselves by deleting and adding single vehicles/infantry teams. It’s a boon for a historical scenario maker.
Much of the hard work has already been done for you prior to a game or module being released. The amount of effort that goes into ensuring the Tables of Equipment are as accurate as they can be is immense. To give you a sense of the detail and questions asked before it appears in a final game here is a rough outline of one such debate over a formation appearing with the Fire and Rubble module and in this campaign. There was back and forth debate over the composition of what small arms specific squads should have. When one researcher found the digital scans of the original 1944 paperwork outlining the design of the new battalion and how many rounds of a certain type of bullet would be required for the formation to be adequately supplied… it settled the matter.
What this allows you to do when researching a campaign is to have confidence that when you read that a German Fusilier Battalion took part in the attack, you can select that same battalion in the editor and it will likely match perfectly or very closely to what took part in the battle you are trying to recreate. It’s a strong base that you can tinker at around the edges to account for casualties or additional units that were attached for the engagement.
A big problem you’ll come across reading military history books outlining the course of a campaigns is that in many cases they rarely go below the battalion level or provide regular updates on the status of the unit. It may look odd at first glance when you read that a battalion seems to be in two places at once or a full battalion is required to move in and take an area the size of a hamlet. In reality it’s likely elements from that battalion were spread out to achieve multiple objectives or some elements were held in reserve. This means it’s always handy to have at least two difference sources, one focusing on the campaign plus additional sources focusing on unit histories (or failing that campaigns from only one sides viewpoint). Unit histories and indeed a number of websites that provide unit-based information and diary like content will likely help you far more in creating your own order of battle for the campaign you are designing. Read them in parallel and plot important information onto the timeline noted above.
These are the questions I ask when pulling together information on formations I need to include in a campaign (for both the player and the opposing side):
-          Starting condition at commencement of the wider operation
o   Are they fresh off the train from the training depot or are they already battered from earlier fighting?
-          Starting condition at the commencement of the fighting you are focusing on
o   Potentially different compared to the start of the operation. Vehicle breakdowns, earlier skirmishers you aren’t including etc.
-          Condition before each engagement/scenario you will be designing (if possible)
o   Helps you gauge how much of a challenge each prior scenario was for the formation historically.
o   For example, if A Company had been in two prior scenarios and went into their third engagement historically at 80% strength, but your campaign testing shows that even with good tactics they are usually going into the same engagement at around 40% strength; then you know your balance is probably off or something in earlier scenarios is not lining up to history.
-          Condition at the end of the operation (or end point of what is being recreated)
o   As above. A good gauge for measuring how hard your individual scenarios are and perhaps appropriate victory point allocations for units.
o   For example, if the force was a shell of it’s starting strength but was still slapped on the back and told “job well done” before being removed from the lines, then perhaps victory point allocations favouring the survival of units is not the best approach.
-          What happened between engagements?
o   Another engagement? Is it worth creating a scenario for?
o   Did they have time to rest and refit? Did they get any replacements? Did they replenish their ammunition? (Do the work now and it makes Campaign Scripting a whole lot easier)
o   Would the ability to have a rest and refit be only possible if they had won the earlier battle? (Start thinking now how your individual scenarios will link together and branch out).
It’s very similar to designing an individual scenario in my opinion, but it’s perhaps more pertinent that you ‘get it right’ up front, particularly for helping with overall campaign balance when the same force is going to be following the player through multiple engagements.
For Tukums I default back to MS Excel again to plan out what the historical force and visualise how it may look inside the editor. More on this when we get to the Core Unit File creation. See the table below for the planning for the German force. Something similar was done for the Soviets but I won’t go into detail there given spoilers. All I will say is it did change a few times and again required a detective’s caps to work out what units were where and at what time.

Example of linking Formations back to Timelines
 
The worst thing you can do as a campaign designer is throw in all this hard work and not see anyone finish the end product or bail because it’s led them down a branching path with no prospect of having any hope in hell of achieving victory in follow on scenarios. How many times have you loaded up a follow-on battle in a campaign and been expected to clear a map with the same battered formation you just fought with, and this time it’s urban warfare?
This is where plotting the formations and units involved on a timeline really helps. It allows you to see how much combat (and the number of Combat Mission scenarios) each formation is expected to face. If a company of infantry is expected to fight through eight scenarios without any chance of replenishment and then the last fight is in an urban environment, how realistic will it be and how realistic will it be for a player to have that formation in fighting shape by that last mission? Even a genius commander is slowly going to take casualties.
In the end remember this is aiming for a hyper realistic wargame simulation, but it is still a game. If you make things appear impossible you will likely encourage a ‘save scum’ mentality because the player likely doesn’t know what this formation is meant to tackle next.
For Tukums it was actually quite easy to answer this question given most of the player’s formations would have to fight through no more than two engagements each. There’s still a lot that can go wrong but a strong chance the player would always have a chance right up the third and final scenario that determines if the player is victorious or not.
In the end…
 
I have a clear idea of the geography I need to map out in the editor (3920m x 2000m in this case), with no real wasted space the player will have no interest in at some point. I have a timeline of events that I’ve filled with content and a detailed core unit file. You get a rough idea of how time progresses and where the flow of the campaign should go between each engagement. You get something like this…

Mmmm. Looks a bit like a campaign script doesn’t it.
A Special Note on Fictional Campaigns
 
As you can probably tell, all of the above is focused heavily on a historical based campaign where I have limitations and boundaries for every question. No matter how hard I try I can’t justify adding a company of King Tigers to the players force since none where present.
Just because what you maybe designing is fictional doesn’t mean you have a free reign on to do what you want. Well technically you do, it is a game after all, but what I mean is the game itself is designed first and foremost as a realistic strategy game. Keep your fictional planning within realistic proportions. Some examples of what I mean:
-          The mission is to take a hamlet held by a platoon of militia and civilians are confirmed present. Better give the player Corp or Army level artillery assets to assist.
-          It’s time to take the centre of the city in a tight urban warfare. I’m the player only needs a pure armour force and no infantry support.
-          Congratulations on winning your last mission. For your next mission your force has been transported 100 kilometers away to over the course of 30 minutes.
Combat Mission is designed to reflect the real world. Situations like this drop players out of the narrative very quickly. Remember your players are the same bunch of wargamers that will pipe up when the angle of the Panther’s front armour is one degree off. They like realism.
Though I must admit I’m still waiting on a science fiction based Combat Mission: Earth vs Mars type of setting. 

So Steam isn't the easy to use no drama experience that everybody who campaigned long and hard for it said it was after all 😉 ...
This is called observational humour by the way, so no need to kick off.

The scenario designer decides whether variable extra time is present in a scenario.  Variable extra time slots are 0-5 minutes, 0-10 minutes and 0-15 minutes.  The program using an unknown variable/rule decides:
Whether that extra variable time occurs. How much extra time to allocate from the chosen block e.g. it might allocate 14 minutes of a 15 minute time block during one play through of the scenario and only two minutes on the next play through. The content of the briefing is up to the scenario designer if they choose not to tell you that variable extra time is available then that is their choice.  I generally don't do so in my scenarios because if the player thinks they've got an extra 15 minutes they will likely adjust their plan to account for those extra minutes.  This causes irritation when they find that instead of getting 15 minutes, they only get two minutes, or 14 minutes using my example above.  Think of extra time as an unexpected bonus or maybe when playing H2H, have a rule between you and your opponent in which you both agree to ceasefire at the end of the mission's original allocated time.

I did the TO&Es for the British units which were derived from the official publications and manuals for the 2008 timeframe.  The implementation of the TO&E to fit CMSF structures inevitably means that there are compromises with groupings here and there but, apart from the NBC element which Steve did not want included because it was too specialist, the recce regiment is as accurate a representation of this unit.
Ground surveillance radars, UAVs and EW teams were not widely deployed in the British Army at the time and, possibly with the exception of Ground Surveillance Radars (I'm working from memory here), not part of the establishment tables for this formation.  The teams you see in the surveillance squadron were primarily trained and equipped to conduct dismounted reconnaissance, be that close target recce or sitting in OPs mostly employing the mark 1 eyeball, binos and a radio.

You mean these badgers ...
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-2.pdf
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-3.pdf
So to answer your question ... yes 😉

You mean these badgers ...
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-2.pdf
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-3.pdf
So to answer your question ... yes 😉

Long time coming as this is my first day in the editor for over a month ... the finished article ...

Not perfect - but a 90% solution for the last resting place of German warriors.  Key to realism here is to leave plenty of space to bury all those Germans you're going to kill in your battles 😉

Looking at the pams would not reveal the complete answer - any plan worth its salt will have a High Payoff Target List (HPTL) which will drive the overall targeting effort and may not be consistent with what an operator might consider 'normal' targeting priorities.  Personally, contrary to the OP, I don't think 250m is an excessive range for a hand-held anti-tank weapon such as the AT-4.  I recall when being taught the 84mm Carl Gustav that 300m was about the max that you should consider for a moving target engagement and 500m for a stationary target so the 250m range in the example sits well within those parameters.  Although the "Charlie-G" is a different weapon system to the AT-4, the rule holds true for pretty much all weapons of this type as greater distance reduces the likelihood of hitting the target.
I also disagree with the view that Javelin should engage anything above 75m when the team also has AT4s.  Javelins should be sited and employed to engage at range because it allows you to knock lumps out of the enemy before they get close enough to cause you problems.  Of course it is often impossible to create those ideal conditions and Javelin, as with any weapon system in game, should be capable of being employed against any target that sits within its designed engagement envelope.

We clearly disagree then - I don't see running five tests as particularly onerous, particularly as there are other things to look out for to ensure that the mission is polished.  Although I make scenarios for Battlefront, I've only made five and reworked one for various CM titles which is far fewer than the number of scenarios that I have knocked out for the community.  I am not a professional and I learned how to do this by reading the manual, experimenting in the editor, picking up incidental tips on threads such as these and occasionally reaching out to people via PM such as @George MC.
Making good scenarios is not difficult and if you are going to invest time in creating the map, and programming the AI, which generally are the largest time soaks, it seems strange to me that a designer would then think, "b0110cks I can't be bothered testing it more than once."
To close, remember that the OP is complaining that victory conditions are perhaps overly punitive - I agree that this can be the case which is why I set my scenario design mindset with the player very much in mind.  Whenever someone plays a scenario, they make a conscious choice to do so.  As a designer, I want them to come away with a positive experience and I certainly don't want them to think that they've just wasted an hour's/day's/week's worth of gaming time on a scenario that was not the best that I could possibly make it.

In generic terms a pressure plate IED is effectively what most people understand a mine to be (eg you walk/drive over it and it goes bang).  All you need to do is to pick mines in the unit editor and call them IEDs in the scenario briefing.

Bear in mind that my tutorial was for CMSF-1 which didn't have the overlay feature which meant alt-tabbing to Google Earth and measuring x and y coords for pretty much everything.  You honestly do not want to know how long my CMSF maps used to take to make.  Map making is heaps easier now - with the overlay feature I can knock out a 1.5km x 1.5km historically accurate map in about a day now.

Yes that is entirely possible if the scenario designer does not fully grasp how IEDs work.  The other explanation is that the spotter is positioned in such a way that they either get suppressed or zapped before they are able to trigger a device.  I often employ IEDs in my scenarios and they rarely trigger because player actions create the conditions (suppression/zapping/obscuration) in which they do not trigger.  The mere mention of them in the scenario briefing is enough to influence player behaviour through the adoption of appropriate schemes of manoeuvre or TTPs to negate them.  For those muppets that don't read briefings or adopt suitable countermeasures then they stand a good chance of getting given the good news.

You mean these badgers ...
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-2.pdf
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-3.pdf
So to answer your question ... yes 😉

You mean these badgers ...
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-2.pdf
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-3.pdf
So to answer your question ... yes 😉

It depends on how the scenario is put together ...
When you design a scenario for say Blue vs Red AI only then the VP construct is often very different to a scenario designed to be played in all modes.  It is far easier to design Blue (or Red) vs Red (or Blue) AI than a scenario playable by both sides and capable of being played H2H.  When designing for both sides and H2H, you have to take into account the point at which someone may choose to surrender and ensure that nobody gets a turn 1 ceasefire Total Victory.  To do that, you are immediately in the game of using all of the objective/VP tools to ensure this does not happen.  I find that using parameters is the most effective means of avoiding the Turn 1 surrender Total Victory while being able to allow the player to achieve varying degrees of victory as the scenario progresses through other tools such as unit or terrain objectives and other parameters.  The trick with all of these tools is to experiment and thoroughly test them in order to achieve those desired victory conditions.
Victory Conditions are not standalone parts of the scenario - they have to fit the narrative and the stated mission so it is important to make sure that you have a vision for the scenario before you get into the nitty gritty of crunching the VPs.  While I note that some posters have said things along the lines of 'I can judge whether I have won or lost' you are failing as a scenario designer if you do not strive as hard as you can to come up with an End Game screen that awards appropriate rewards or punishment for the player's actions.  We all have different motives when we start a scenario or campaign but winning them strongly underpins the motivations for those who do not play to win all the time; for those that play to win - it is the prime consideration.
Getting this right in simple terms works like this:
Strong scenario narrative. Objectives that are clear, logical and have a purpose consistent with the scenario narrative.  Examples that I see quite often which do not fit this criteria are: Usually parked on the extreme left or right side of the map nowhere near the main objective(s). Require you to go there for some dubiously stated purpose in the mission brief. Have a low VP value. A good mission briefing and graphics. An understanding of what a Total Victory/Defeat and a Draw should look like in the scenario. A VP scheme that supports the above.  The best tool for the mathematical element of this is @Ithikial_AU's VP calculator which I unreservedly recommend. Thorough testing (at least 5).  Each test run should involve a save point at which you ceasefire and record the end game screen as a minimum standard at: The start. A quarter of the allocated time. Half of the allocated time. Three-quarters of the allocated time. At scenario end. Your records should, as a minimum, show: VPs. VP breakdown. Casualties by each individual category (Ok, KIA, WIA, MIA). Objectives achieved/not achieved. This allows you to get a feel for the moments during the scenario at which the balance can tip to one side or the other and should allow you to structure/adjust your VPs as required to either reflect this or to ensure that the player is motivated to stay in the game.  It also gives you enough data to work out a mean/median (or whatever mathematical method you choose) result for each phase of the battle and at its conclusion.  From there, you can fine-tune the VPs and it gives you an understanding of a 'fair' result for a player at various stages in the game.
Nuanced ... yes, but not hard if you have the mission narrative/concept firmly embedded in your mind before you get beyond making the scenario map.

It depends on how the scenario is put together ...
When you design a scenario for say Blue vs Red AI only then the VP construct is often very different to a scenario designed to be played in all modes.  It is far easier to design Blue (or Red) vs Red (or Blue) AI than a scenario playable by both sides and capable of being played H2H.  When designing for both sides and H2H, you have to take into account the point at which someone may choose to surrender and ensure that nobody gets a turn 1 ceasefire Total Victory.  To do that, you are immediately in the game of using all of the objective/VP tools to ensure this does not happen.  I find that using parameters is the most effective means of avoiding the Turn 1 surrender Total Victory while being able to allow the player to achieve varying degrees of victory as the scenario progresses through other tools such as unit or terrain objectives and other parameters.  The trick with all of these tools is to experiment and thoroughly test them in order to achieve those desired victory conditions.
Victory Conditions are not standalone parts of the scenario - they have to fit the narrative and the stated mission so it is important to make sure that you have a vision for the scenario before you get into the nitty gritty of crunching the VPs.  While I note that some posters have said things along the lines of 'I can judge whether I have won or lost' you are failing as a scenario designer if you do not strive as hard as you can to come up with an End Game screen that awards appropriate rewards or punishment for the player's actions.  We all have different motives when we start a scenario or campaign but winning them strongly underpins the motivations for those who do not play to win all the time; for those that play to win - it is the prime consideration.
Getting this right in simple terms works like this:
Strong scenario narrative. Objectives that are clear, logical and have a purpose consistent with the scenario narrative.  Examples that I see quite often which do not fit this criteria are: Usually parked on the extreme left or right side of the map nowhere near the main objective(s). Require you to go there for some dubiously stated purpose in the mission brief. Have a low VP value. A good mission briefing and graphics. An understanding of what a Total Victory/Defeat and a Draw should look like in the scenario. A VP scheme that supports the above.  The best tool for the mathematical element of this is @Ithikial_AU's VP calculator which I unreservedly recommend. Thorough testing (at least 5).  Each test run should involve a save point at which you ceasefire and record the end game screen as a minimum standard at: The start. A quarter of the allocated time. Half of the allocated time. Three-quarters of the allocated time. At scenario end. Your records should, as a minimum, show: VPs. VP breakdown. Casualties by each individual category (Ok, KIA, WIA, MIA). Objectives achieved/not achieved. This allows you to get a feel for the moments during the scenario at which the balance can tip to one side or the other and should allow you to structure/adjust your VPs as required to either reflect this or to ensure that the player is motivated to stay in the game.  It also gives you enough data to work out a mean/median (or whatever mathematical method you choose) result for each phase of the battle and at its conclusion.  From there, you can fine-tune the VPs and it gives you an understanding of a 'fair' result for a player at various stages in the game.
Nuanced ... yes, but not hard if you have the mission narrative/concept firmly embedded in your mind before you get beyond making the scenario map.

Might be worth seeing how long some of the master maps take to load - some of those are pretty big.

Good to see you back in these parts @Bil Hardenberger

Almost ready to test but of course I haven’t deployed my Blue Assault Force to their start positions yet.  A bit of research (see graphic below) tells me that the assault force was delivered by two helicopters at opposite ends of the compound.
 

 
Time for more compromise, not only because I don’t have helicopters but also because if I set up one team for instance in the west courtyard of the compound as if it had fast roped as shown in the graphic, they will almost certainly get fired upon straight away.  While the engine can handle it, players generally rage quit when something happens over which they have no control – particularly if it is in Turn 1.  One of the unwritten scenario design rules I’ve come across over the years is to try and avoid situations where the player loses troops in Turn 1 so it is worth filing away in your top tips folder. So to avoid this situation, we come back to making a compromise to give the player control over Turn 1 by putting the SEALs outside the compound as if the two helos had landed there.
 
The following graphics show how it looks on the ground.  Now while I am playing fast and loose with history, I must keep it plausible so first of all I have to divide the groups into two separate chalks or sticks to replicate the fact that they have ‘arrived’ in two different helicopters.
 

 

 
To do this I have had to do some squad splitting to try and even out the numbers.  So my western group was put together as follows:
 
West Group:
 

 
And the East Group looks like this:
 

 
Again I could have done this a number of ways but importantly I had to have more or less equal groups bearing in mind the capacity of a Black Hawk/Pave Hawk is 11-12 troops (I’m slightly over but hey …) and each group had to have roughly the same capability.  The latter is generally important because it is good practice to have balanced teams but in CMSF it also gives the player choices.  If I dictate through my force pick that one group is a fire support group and the other is an assault element then it forces the player into using those groups that way which is not overly popular. This is particularly so when troop resources are limited which is very much the case here.
 
So the basic rationale is – roughly equal groups with each group needing a manoeuvre element, a fire support element (M-240 team) and a breach element (5 Squad team).  The fact that the numbers worked out was a bonus.
 
Finally before moving on, it is the little touches or the ‘polish’ that can make the difference in missions.  So what I’ve done is put two elements facing north and two elements facing south in each of the two groups with a gap in the middle where their imaginary (in CMSF terms) Blackhawk has just landed.  Standard drill is to exit to the 90° and 270° angles from the helicopter’s nose (this avoids getting decapitated by the tail rotor) and assuming all round defence. While they don’t generally affect gameplay, these touches are important and aid player immersion. If you look at some of the testing threads on the CMx2 forums, you will see that testers make the comment ‘my troops were facing the wrong way at setup’.
 
That is about all I have to say about initial force selection, although I will return later to the subject of unit picks.  The next instalment will cover off on some of the final preparations required prior to the initial feasibility test.
 

Now to deal with force selection for my little test.  Inevitably there are a number of factors I need to consider as I go through the process and this is one of the reasons for (in historical or semi-historical scenarios) to do a bit of research and to have a reasonably clear idea of your mission narrative or concept.
 
Also, as I have already stated, I’m likely to need to compromise (no place for the dog as an example!!). By way of a refresher, the overall strength of the US force was 79 SEAL Team 6 operators split between an assault element and a backup reserve element. The assault element numbered around two dozen.  So let’s start with them first …
 
The first problem of course is that CMSF does not have US Navy SEALs so I am going to need to compromise on my unit pick and as previously stated I’m going to go with the USMC, accepting the fact that the weapon systems aren’t going to replicate those used.  As this is a compound assault, I need to give the guys the tools to do the job so breach charges are a must.  Additionally, although I haven’t settled on the enemy composition yet, I am considering a mechanised element so I need to have an anti-armour capability up my sleeve. Finally, I may have a sniper group as part of my force so I need to pick those as well.
 
It is time to crack open the mission again in the editor and pick the units.  Once the scenario is open, clicking ‘units’ takes you to the purchase screen.  I need to ‘Purchase Blue’ and I need to select ‘USMC’ as my force and ‘Infantry’ as my branch of service. Once I’ve done that, I get a list of available units.  This is what the screen looks like.
 

 
At this point I can select my hard and soft factors prior to picking the unit, or I can do it later.  Because my hard and soft factors are universal to the unit, I’m actually going to choose those now.
 
The factors are Experience (soft), Leadership (soft), Motivation (soft), Supply (hard), Vehicle Status (hard), Fitness (soft), Equipment (soft). In simple terms, the soft factors will affect how your troops behave on the battlefield while the hard factors deal with their ammunition and equipment.
 
I won’t go into the full detail (because it is in the manual which you all have access to) but here are the wavetops …
 
EXPERIENCE – determines the experience and training level of the soldiers of the formation. I have gone with ‘Elite’ which is the highest setting.  The manual describes this setting as … ‘the best of the best. Superb training, frequent combat experience, and generally all around tough guys’.  Now some people get wrapped around the axle about this setting or delve too much into the wording in the manual, for me it can reflect the actual experience levels or how thee experience levels are going to affect gameplay.  In this particular instance it would be churlish and inaccurate to give US Navy SEALs any other rating than ‘Elite’ so that is what they are for the mission.
 
LEADERSHIP – (from the manual) ‘the capability and experience of the unit leader does not always correspond with the quality of the unit. This rating allows a unit to range from great soldiers and terrible leaders, or terrible soldiers and great leaders’.  I’ve gone for a blanket setting of +2 which is the highest rating, again my reason, notwithstanding the spiel in the manual above, relates to the US Navy SEALs being an elite unit.  I might tinker with individual values later but I very much doubt it.
 
MOTIVATION – (from the manual) ‘determines the soldiers’ will to fight. Options range from Fanatic (soldier will never give up and fight even when facing certain death) all the way to Poor (soldier has little desire to fight and will take the first chance to rout)’. I’ve gone or ‘Extreme’ which is the second highest rating.  I have chosen this rating because I don’t think it would be appropriate to describe US Navy SEALs as ‘fanatic’ (the highest rating) but, as Special Forces operators, it is fair to say that they would be very motivated to complete any mission, but particularly this one.  It is worth remembering that one of the helicopters suffered problems on the approach to the target forcing the pilot to put it down quickly.  Despite this setback, they completed the mission.
 
SUPPLY – (from the manual) ‘determines the amount of ammunition and equipment available to the unit at the start of the game. Options include Severe, Scarce, Limited, Adequate and Full’.  I have chosen ‘full’ which is the highest setting and again I think the most appropriate because they have just launched from their base so would have full ammunition loadouts.
 
VEHICLE STATUS – (from the manual) ‘changes a Vehicle to be immobilized, knocked out, or burning from the very start of the game’.  This value is not really relevant because the Blue Force will comprise dismounts only, however I have set the value to ‘ok’ which represents fully functional vehicles.
 
FITNESS – (from the manual) ‘determines the inherent degree of physical readiness of the unit’s soldiers. This influences on how quickly soldiers tire and recover from physical tasks, such as running or being bombarded by enemy fire. Options include: Fit, Weakened, and Unfit’.  In the case of my US Naval SEALs, this is a no-brainer as they are known for their physical fitness standards.  Predictably the setting therefore is ‘fit’.
 
EQUIPMENT – (from the manual) ‘the quality of the equipment available to the unit can vary even within a formation. This option is unique in that it behaves differently depending on when you set it. If you set this option for “activated” units (i.e. already purchased and in the right-hand activated column), the available equipment is simply adjusted in its performance (accuracy, jams etc.). If
you set this option BEFORE purchasing a unit, this setting determines what type of weapon or equipment the unit will be equipped with. This is explained in more detail under “Purchasing
Equipment” below’.  As you can see there are nuances to the timing of making this selection and it is one of the reasons why I decided to go select my values early.  In this case because I am using US Marines to replicate my SEALs, it is worth looking at the module specific manual to get an idea of what effects particular values might have.  Fortunately there are not too many things to consider because I am only interested in dismounted elements and equipment quality only affects the sniper squad (which I may use).  ‘Good’ or above will equip the squad with the M40A3, ‘Bad’ will equip the squad with the M82A3, while normal will equip the squad with a mix of both types (page 21 of the USMC Manual refers).  I have chosen the highest rating of ‘Excellent’ which means that all troops will have accurate weapons that will jam infrequently and will equip my snipers with the M40A3.
 
With all of those settings done (although they may be revisited after testing), I now need to strip out the bits of the TO&E that I don’t want.  I need to do this because of the way unit picks work in the editor.  Unfortunately I cannot completely cherry pick elements of the TO&E, I have to first ‘buy’ the complete unit and then pare it down.  One of the limitations is that I cannot delete the HQ elements, as an example if I delete HQ B Company, all of B Company gets deleted.  Fortunately there is a workaround in that if I don’t want HQ B Company to appear during the scenario, I can set it as a reinforcement with an arrival time after the scenario time limit.  That is to say that if my scenario is 1 hour long, I can set it for an arrival time of 3 hours and it will never appear.
 
In this instance I’ve stripped out a lot of what I think will be unnecessary early.  This is because I have a pretty good idea of what elements I want (about 79 soldiers) and I am reasonably familiar with the TO&E.  My advice is that if you’re not sure, leave everything in and have a look at what the TO&E gives you in the ‘Deploy Blue’ screen because (unlike the WW2 titles) if you find that you have stripped out bits that you subsequently require, you have to delete the whole unit and repurchase it.  Now this is not a showstopper but it just saves you a bit of work if you make a mistake.  As you will see I have already stripped out all of the Battalion HQ (less the HQ team for reasons already explained), the Anti-Armour team, the third platoon of A Company, A company’s mortars, B and C companies.
 

 
As seen in the graphic above, once I’ve got what I think I might need, I now need to see the detail so that means deploying the units onto the map.  This is done by hitting the ‘Deploy Blue’ button which will take you to the map.  At this point it doesn’t matter where the units setup, I can sort that out later, I am interested in how the numbers break down and what equipment is in each element to make up my desired force package.
 
In the following screen I’ve arranged the units by their sub-unit components by selecting the respective HQs and grouping the elements together by selecting them and hitting ‘move’.  While it is not absolutely necessary, it just makes things easier because the default unit deployment tends to make identifying individual components tricky as it is fairly random. 


 
Time now to drill in to the detail and for this mission I am first of all interested in what I can use to simulate my ‘about two dozen’ assault element.  The natural place to look is the rifle platoon so all I need to do is to zoom in there and select the individual elements.  I will cover this process in the next instalment of the tutorial.