Combatintman

I wish I  could test too mate - I have a similar (ish) concept for CMSF but it will be a campaign rather than a single mission. As I said in our PM - I think you have nailed this and that people will say for years to come that this is one of the 'must play' CM missions.
Just remember OPSEC

Loving the pictures and discussion but I'd be wary of posting too much because it will totally ruin your actionable intelligence design concept which underpins the whole thing.

Steve has repeatedly said It ain't happening and the subject was done to death just recently:
 

My thoughts FWIW ...
Outstanding map first of the bat, I have been following your progress with this and what you have done so far is really good work.
With regard to all facts previously stated about the current operation of exit zones, I agree with everything said. This means we are now in the game of the nuances to pull this off and the main problem has already been pointed out ... you have no control over the player once they hit that red button. As a result the solution is always going to be about player incentives to play as intended.
First off, I don't think that poor frame rates will deter players from the compelling urge to win. I had shocking frame rates when I tested the final mission of @benpark's excellent Aachen campaign ... but my reasoning was ... after all I had got this far so I wanted to see if I could win. So it is largely going to boil down to a combination of your VP structure and campaign structure.
Now I'm pretty sure that the schematic below is nothing like your concept for your campaign, but I always find that pictures help get a point across ...

To keep this simple, let's say that your campaign is a German Regimental attack by 173 Infanterie Regiment and to further simplify things I've ignored any supporting assets. As you can see I've broken the map into four reasonably logical chunks which has:
I Abt/173 attacking in Battle 1 in a 3 hour 30 minute battle with 15 minutes of variable time. The proposed force flow and associated VPs would be as follows:
1 Kompanie worth 100 VPs with an associated exit zone on map at scenario start. This Kompanie would have limited or scarce ammunition. 2 Kompanie worth 100 VPs with an associated exit zone arriving at 1 hr 15 as Reinforcement 1. This Kompanie would have limited or scarce ammunition. 3 Kompanie with no VP value and no exit zone arriving at 2 hrs 30 as Reinforcement 2. This Kompanie would have a full loadout. 4 Kompanie with no VP value and no exit zone on map at scenario start. This Kompanie would have a full loadout. II Abt/173 attacking in Battle 2  in a 3 hour 30 minute battle with 15 minutes of variable time. The proposed force flow and associated VPs would be as follows:
5 Kompanie worth 100 VPs with an associated exit zone on map at scenario start. This Kompanie would have limited or scarce ammunition. 6 Kompanie worth 100 VPs with an associated exit zone arriving at 1 hr 15 as Reinforcement 1. This Kompanie would have limited or scarce ammunition. 7 Kompanie with no VP value and no exit zone arriving at 2 hrs 30 as Reinforcement 2. This Kompanie would have a full loadout. 8 Kompanie with no VP value and no exit zone on map at scenario start. This Kompanie would have a full loadout. III Abt/173 attacking in Battle 3  in a 3 hour 30 minute battle with 15 minutes of variable time. The proposed force flow and associated VPs would be as follows:
9 Kompanie worth 100 VPs with an associated exit zone on map at scenario start. This Kompanie would have limited or scarce ammunition. 10 Kompanie worth 100 VPs with an associated exit zone arriving at 1 hr 15 as Reinforcement 1. This Kompanie would have limited or scarce ammunition. 11 Kompanie with no VP value and no exit zone arriving at 2 hrs 30 as Reinforcement 2. This Kompanie would have a full loadout. 12 Kompanie with no VP value and no exit zone on map at scenario start. This Kompanie would have a full loadout. Battle 4 would be another 3 hour 30 minute battle with 15 minutes of variable time. In this one, elements of all three battalions take part
I Abt/173 1 Kompanie 2 Kompanie 4 Kompanie II Abt/173 5 Kompanie 6 Kompanie 8 Kompanie III Abt/173 9 Kompanie 10 Kompanie 12 Kompanie As a planning assumption for all of the battles, let's say that each company has 100 men giving a battalion strength of 400. A further associated assumption is that each company will take 50 casualties. Given those assumptions:
For battles 1,2 and 3, the Russian player will get 100 VPs if the German companies sustain 50 casualties per company but exit the remaining 50; however the Russian player will get 200 VPs if the German companies sustain 50 casualties per company but do not exit the remaining 50.
We can then compound this by using a parameter setting which also allows means that the German player knows not to be profligate with the companies that do not have VPs and exit zones associated with them. Again using our 50 casualty assumption, we can set this as a 'Friendly Casualty' parameter for the German player with a threshold of 51% for a VP value of say 400 VPs or set it as an 'Enemy Casualty' parameter for the Russian player with the same figures.
To make it simple, I'll use the 'Enemy Casualty' parameter. So by doing this, if the German player:
Suffers 50 casualties in each of his first two companies and does not exit them. Suffers 51 casualties in his third rifle company Suffers 51 casualties in his heavy weapons company The Russian player gets 600 VPs If the German player:
Suffers 50 casualties in each of his first two companies and exits them. Suffers 51 casualties in his third rifle company Suffers 51 casualties in his heavy weapons company The Russian player gets 500 VPs As you can see the compound doesn't really change much in terms of the incentives to exit the VP with associated exit companies but by having the mechanism, you are at least giving the player something to think about for those units that don't have the exit zones. Also of course the VP figures are simplified for the sake of argument so I would play around with those and I would certainly look at weighting the VP levels for the exit zone companies so that the player gets really hammered for not exiting units. By doing this, you then give yourself more scope to look at your other VPs (eg terrain objectives etc) and how you set your victory conditions (more of this later).
The ammunition levels will require some testing, but this is part of the mechanism to convince the player to exit the first two rifle companies along with giving them the VP incentive to do so associated with the exit zones. The simple premise here is that you give them enough ammunition to fight for the 1 hour and 15 minute block of time you want them to remain in the battle. While I know that units can cross level ammunition, if you get the settings right in your testing, the player will work out that there is no point in keeping an out of ammunition company on the map - particularly when you combine that with the exit zone VP incentive.
The next thing is your campaign structure which you can use to further convince the player to remove units from the map in the initial scenarios. In my example above, Battle 4 comprises the rifle companies that you want to exit in Battles 1,2 and 3 plus the respective heavy weapons companies. If you communicate this up front, you are using the natural urge of campaign players to preserve those units that they are going to need later on (namely the VP and exit zone associated rifle companies).
A further means of convincing the player that it would be a good idea to exit units will be through the campaign script and individual scenario victory conditions. To throw out just one example, you could write your script as follows:
Total Victory = 100% chance of troops being rested and resupplied with ammunition. Major Victory = 100% chance of troops being resupplied with ammunition. Minor Victory = 100% chance of troops being rested. The rationale or backstory to this is that if they are pulled out of the line early, they have time to rest and bomb up, if they aren't then they have no time to do this.
Again you would need to communicate this concept to the player at the outset.
You'll note that I haven't said much about Battle 4 in terms of detail and this is deliberate, because I think you can add variety here too in a simple and plausible way. Although I have specified elements that could be in Battle 4, you could of course write your script so that only elements that scored a victory in their first battle can take part in the final battle. As an example, let's say that II Abt/173 suffered a 'Minor Defeat' in Battle 2 while I Abt/173 won Battle 1 and III Abt/173 won Battle 3. This would mean that Battle 4 would be fought by the following units:
I Abt/173 1 Kompanie 2 Kompanie 4 Kompanie III Abt/173 9 Kompanie 10 Kompanie 12 Kompanie Finally, you'll note that I've gone for a maximum battle length of 3 hours 30 minutes with 15 minutes of variable time. The only reason I've done this is to ensure that you don't get any unwanted early surrenders in any of the battles. This allows you to have a 'never arrives' reserve to stop an AI surrender. Now I know that you are planning this as H2H where the surrender mechanism is not relevant but if you build in this flexibility at the outset, it allows you to easily turn this into a German vs the AI campaign.
Anyway - just some thoughts ...

My thoughts FWIW ...
Outstanding map first of the bat, I have been following your progress with this and what you have done so far is really good work.
With regard to all facts previously stated about the current operation of exit zones, I agree with everything said. This means we are now in the game of the nuances to pull this off and the main problem has already been pointed out ... you have no control over the player once they hit that red button. As a result the solution is always going to be about player incentives to play as intended.
First off, I don't think that poor frame rates will deter players from the compelling urge to win. I had shocking frame rates when I tested the final mission of @benpark's excellent Aachen campaign ... but my reasoning was ... after all I had got this far so I wanted to see if I could win. So it is largely going to boil down to a combination of your VP structure and campaign structure.
Now I'm pretty sure that the schematic below is nothing like your concept for your campaign, but I always find that pictures help get a point across ...

To keep this simple, let's say that your campaign is a German Regimental attack by 173 Infanterie Regiment and to further simplify things I've ignored any supporting assets. As you can see I've broken the map into four reasonably logical chunks which has:
I Abt/173 attacking in Battle 1 in a 3 hour 30 minute battle with 15 minutes of variable time. The proposed force flow and associated VPs would be as follows:
1 Kompanie worth 100 VPs with an associated exit zone on map at scenario start. This Kompanie would have limited or scarce ammunition. 2 Kompanie worth 100 VPs with an associated exit zone arriving at 1 hr 15 as Reinforcement 1. This Kompanie would have limited or scarce ammunition. 3 Kompanie with no VP value and no exit zone arriving at 2 hrs 30 as Reinforcement 2. This Kompanie would have a full loadout. 4 Kompanie with no VP value and no exit zone on map at scenario start. This Kompanie would have a full loadout. II Abt/173 attacking in Battle 2  in a 3 hour 30 minute battle with 15 minutes of variable time. The proposed force flow and associated VPs would be as follows:
5 Kompanie worth 100 VPs with an associated exit zone on map at scenario start. This Kompanie would have limited or scarce ammunition. 6 Kompanie worth 100 VPs with an associated exit zone arriving at 1 hr 15 as Reinforcement 1. This Kompanie would have limited or scarce ammunition. 7 Kompanie with no VP value and no exit zone arriving at 2 hrs 30 as Reinforcement 2. This Kompanie would have a full loadout. 8 Kompanie with no VP value and no exit zone on map at scenario start. This Kompanie would have a full loadout. III Abt/173 attacking in Battle 3  in a 3 hour 30 minute battle with 15 minutes of variable time. The proposed force flow and associated VPs would be as follows:
9 Kompanie worth 100 VPs with an associated exit zone on map at scenario start. This Kompanie would have limited or scarce ammunition. 10 Kompanie worth 100 VPs with an associated exit zone arriving at 1 hr 15 as Reinforcement 1. This Kompanie would have limited or scarce ammunition. 11 Kompanie with no VP value and no exit zone arriving at 2 hrs 30 as Reinforcement 2. This Kompanie would have a full loadout. 12 Kompanie with no VP value and no exit zone on map at scenario start. This Kompanie would have a full loadout. Battle 4 would be another 3 hour 30 minute battle with 15 minutes of variable time. In this one, elements of all three battalions take part
I Abt/173 1 Kompanie 2 Kompanie 4 Kompanie II Abt/173 5 Kompanie 6 Kompanie 8 Kompanie III Abt/173 9 Kompanie 10 Kompanie 12 Kompanie As a planning assumption for all of the battles, let's say that each company has 100 men giving a battalion strength of 400. A further associated assumption is that each company will take 50 casualties. Given those assumptions:
For battles 1,2 and 3, the Russian player will get 100 VPs if the German companies sustain 50 casualties per company but exit the remaining 50; however the Russian player will get 200 VPs if the German companies sustain 50 casualties per company but do not exit the remaining 50.
We can then compound this by using a parameter setting which also allows means that the German player knows not to be profligate with the companies that do not have VPs and exit zones associated with them. Again using our 50 casualty assumption, we can set this as a 'Friendly Casualty' parameter for the German player with a threshold of 51% for a VP value of say 400 VPs or set it as an 'Enemy Casualty' parameter for the Russian player with the same figures.
To make it simple, I'll use the 'Enemy Casualty' parameter. So by doing this, if the German player:
Suffers 50 casualties in each of his first two companies and does not exit them. Suffers 51 casualties in his third rifle company Suffers 51 casualties in his heavy weapons company The Russian player gets 600 VPs If the German player:
Suffers 50 casualties in each of his first two companies and exits them. Suffers 51 casualties in his third rifle company Suffers 51 casualties in his heavy weapons company The Russian player gets 500 VPs As you can see the compound doesn't really change much in terms of the incentives to exit the VP with associated exit companies but by having the mechanism, you are at least giving the player something to think about for those units that don't have the exit zones. Also of course the VP figures are simplified for the sake of argument so I would play around with those and I would certainly look at weighting the VP levels for the exit zone companies so that the player gets really hammered for not exiting units. By doing this, you then give yourself more scope to look at your other VPs (eg terrain objectives etc) and how you set your victory conditions (more of this later).
The ammunition levels will require some testing, but this is part of the mechanism to convince the player to exit the first two rifle companies along with giving them the VP incentive to do so associated with the exit zones. The simple premise here is that you give them enough ammunition to fight for the 1 hour and 15 minute block of time you want them to remain in the battle. While I know that units can cross level ammunition, if you get the settings right in your testing, the player will work out that there is no point in keeping an out of ammunition company on the map - particularly when you combine that with the exit zone VP incentive.
The next thing is your campaign structure which you can use to further convince the player to remove units from the map in the initial scenarios. In my example above, Battle 4 comprises the rifle companies that you want to exit in Battles 1,2 and 3 plus the respective heavy weapons companies. If you communicate this up front, you are using the natural urge of campaign players to preserve those units that they are going to need later on (namely the VP and exit zone associated rifle companies).
A further means of convincing the player that it would be a good idea to exit units will be through the campaign script and individual scenario victory conditions. To throw out just one example, you could write your script as follows:
Total Victory = 100% chance of troops being rested and resupplied with ammunition. Major Victory = 100% chance of troops being resupplied with ammunition. Minor Victory = 100% chance of troops being rested. The rationale or backstory to this is that if they are pulled out of the line early, they have time to rest and bomb up, if they aren't then they have no time to do this.
Again you would need to communicate this concept to the player at the outset.
You'll note that I haven't said much about Battle 4 in terms of detail and this is deliberate, because I think you can add variety here too in a simple and plausible way. Although I have specified elements that could be in Battle 4, you could of course write your script so that only elements that scored a victory in their first battle can take part in the final battle. As an example, let's say that II Abt/173 suffered a 'Minor Defeat' in Battle 2 while I Abt/173 won Battle 1 and III Abt/173 won Battle 3. This would mean that Battle 4 would be fought by the following units:
I Abt/173 1 Kompanie 2 Kompanie 4 Kompanie III Abt/173 9 Kompanie 10 Kompanie 12 Kompanie Finally, you'll note that I've gone for a maximum battle length of 3 hours 30 minutes with 15 minutes of variable time. The only reason I've done this is to ensure that you don't get any unwanted early surrenders in any of the battles. This allows you to have a 'never arrives' reserve to stop an AI surrender. Now I know that you are planning this as H2H where the surrender mechanism is not relevant but if you build in this flexibility at the outset, it allows you to easily turn this into a German vs the AI campaign.
Anyway - just some thoughts ...

My thoughts FWIW ...
Outstanding map first of the bat, I have been following your progress with this and what you have done so far is really good work.
With regard to all facts previously stated about the current operation of exit zones, I agree with everything said. This means we are now in the game of the nuances to pull this off and the main problem has already been pointed out ... you have no control over the player once they hit that red button. As a result the solution is always going to be about player incentives to play as intended.
First off, I don't think that poor frame rates will deter players from the compelling urge to win. I had shocking frame rates when I tested the final mission of @benpark's excellent Aachen campaign ... but my reasoning was ... after all I had got this far so I wanted to see if I could win. So it is largely going to boil down to a combination of your VP structure and campaign structure.
Now I'm pretty sure that the schematic below is nothing like your concept for your campaign, but I always find that pictures help get a point across ...

To keep this simple, let's say that your campaign is a German Regimental attack by 173 Infanterie Regiment and to further simplify things I've ignored any supporting assets. As you can see I've broken the map into four reasonably logical chunks which has:
I Abt/173 attacking in Battle 1 in a 3 hour 30 minute battle with 15 minutes of variable time. The proposed force flow and associated VPs would be as follows:
1 Kompanie worth 100 VPs with an associated exit zone on map at scenario start. This Kompanie would have limited or scarce ammunition. 2 Kompanie worth 100 VPs with an associated exit zone arriving at 1 hr 15 as Reinforcement 1. This Kompanie would have limited or scarce ammunition. 3 Kompanie with no VP value and no exit zone arriving at 2 hrs 30 as Reinforcement 2. This Kompanie would have a full loadout. 4 Kompanie with no VP value and no exit zone on map at scenario start. This Kompanie would have a full loadout. II Abt/173 attacking in Battle 2  in a 3 hour 30 minute battle with 15 minutes of variable time. The proposed force flow and associated VPs would be as follows:
5 Kompanie worth 100 VPs with an associated exit zone on map at scenario start. This Kompanie would have limited or scarce ammunition. 6 Kompanie worth 100 VPs with an associated exit zone arriving at 1 hr 15 as Reinforcement 1. This Kompanie would have limited or scarce ammunition. 7 Kompanie with no VP value and no exit zone arriving at 2 hrs 30 as Reinforcement 2. This Kompanie would have a full loadout. 8 Kompanie with no VP value and no exit zone on map at scenario start. This Kompanie would have a full loadout. III Abt/173 attacking in Battle 3  in a 3 hour 30 minute battle with 15 minutes of variable time. The proposed force flow and associated VPs would be as follows:
9 Kompanie worth 100 VPs with an associated exit zone on map at scenario start. This Kompanie would have limited or scarce ammunition. 10 Kompanie worth 100 VPs with an associated exit zone arriving at 1 hr 15 as Reinforcement 1. This Kompanie would have limited or scarce ammunition. 11 Kompanie with no VP value and no exit zone arriving at 2 hrs 30 as Reinforcement 2. This Kompanie would have a full loadout. 12 Kompanie with no VP value and no exit zone on map at scenario start. This Kompanie would have a full loadout. Battle 4 would be another 3 hour 30 minute battle with 15 minutes of variable time. In this one, elements of all three battalions take part
I Abt/173 1 Kompanie 2 Kompanie 4 Kompanie II Abt/173 5 Kompanie 6 Kompanie 8 Kompanie III Abt/173 9 Kompanie 10 Kompanie 12 Kompanie As a planning assumption for all of the battles, let's say that each company has 100 men giving a battalion strength of 400. A further associated assumption is that each company will take 50 casualties. Given those assumptions:
For battles 1,2 and 3, the Russian player will get 100 VPs if the German companies sustain 50 casualties per company but exit the remaining 50; however the Russian player will get 200 VPs if the German companies sustain 50 casualties per company but do not exit the remaining 50.
We can then compound this by using a parameter setting which also allows means that the German player knows not to be profligate with the companies that do not have VPs and exit zones associated with them. Again using our 50 casualty assumption, we can set this as a 'Friendly Casualty' parameter for the German player with a threshold of 51% for a VP value of say 400 VPs or set it as an 'Enemy Casualty' parameter for the Russian player with the same figures.
To make it simple, I'll use the 'Enemy Casualty' parameter. So by doing this, if the German player:
Suffers 50 casualties in each of his first two companies and does not exit them. Suffers 51 casualties in his third rifle company Suffers 51 casualties in his heavy weapons company The Russian player gets 600 VPs If the German player:
Suffers 50 casualties in each of his first two companies and exits them. Suffers 51 casualties in his third rifle company Suffers 51 casualties in his heavy weapons company The Russian player gets 500 VPs As you can see the compound doesn't really change much in terms of the incentives to exit the VP with associated exit companies but by having the mechanism, you are at least giving the player something to think about for those units that don't have the exit zones. Also of course the VP figures are simplified for the sake of argument so I would play around with those and I would certainly look at weighting the VP levels for the exit zone companies so that the player gets really hammered for not exiting units. By doing this, you then give yourself more scope to look at your other VPs (eg terrain objectives etc) and how you set your victory conditions (more of this later).
The ammunition levels will require some testing, but this is part of the mechanism to convince the player to exit the first two rifle companies along with giving them the VP incentive to do so associated with the exit zones. The simple premise here is that you give them enough ammunition to fight for the 1 hour and 15 minute block of time you want them to remain in the battle. While I know that units can cross level ammunition, if you get the settings right in your testing, the player will work out that there is no point in keeping an out of ammunition company on the map - particularly when you combine that with the exit zone VP incentive.
The next thing is your campaign structure which you can use to further convince the player to remove units from the map in the initial scenarios. In my example above, Battle 4 comprises the rifle companies that you want to exit in Battles 1,2 and 3 plus the respective heavy weapons companies. If you communicate this up front, you are using the natural urge of campaign players to preserve those units that they are going to need later on (namely the VP and exit zone associated rifle companies).
A further means of convincing the player that it would be a good idea to exit units will be through the campaign script and individual scenario victory conditions. To throw out just one example, you could write your script as follows:
Total Victory = 100% chance of troops being rested and resupplied with ammunition. Major Victory = 100% chance of troops being resupplied with ammunition. Minor Victory = 100% chance of troops being rested. The rationale or backstory to this is that if they are pulled out of the line early, they have time to rest and bomb up, if they aren't then they have no time to do this.
Again you would need to communicate this concept to the player at the outset.
You'll note that I haven't said much about Battle 4 in terms of detail and this is deliberate, because I think you can add variety here too in a simple and plausible way. Although I have specified elements that could be in Battle 4, you could of course write your script so that only elements that scored a victory in their first battle can take part in the final battle. As an example, let's say that II Abt/173 suffered a 'Minor Defeat' in Battle 2 while I Abt/173 won Battle 1 and III Abt/173 won Battle 3. This would mean that Battle 4 would be fought by the following units:
I Abt/173 1 Kompanie 2 Kompanie 4 Kompanie III Abt/173 9 Kompanie 10 Kompanie 12 Kompanie Finally, you'll note that I've gone for a maximum battle length of 3 hours 30 minutes with 15 minutes of variable time. The only reason I've done this is to ensure that you don't get any unwanted early surrenders in any of the battles. This allows you to have a 'never arrives' reserve to stop an AI surrender. Now I know that you are planning this as H2H where the surrender mechanism is not relevant but if you build in this flexibility at the outset, it allows you to easily turn this into a German vs the AI campaign.
Anyway - just some thoughts ...

My thoughts FWIW ...
Outstanding map first of the bat, I have been following your progress with this and what you have done so far is really good work.
With regard to all facts previously stated about the current operation of exit zones, I agree with everything said. This means we are now in the game of the nuances to pull this off and the main problem has already been pointed out ... you have no control over the player once they hit that red button. As a result the solution is always going to be about player incentives to play as intended.
First off, I don't think that poor frame rates will deter players from the compelling urge to win. I had shocking frame rates when I tested the final mission of @benpark's excellent Aachen campaign ... but my reasoning was ... after all I had got this far so I wanted to see if I could win. So it is largely going to boil down to a combination of your VP structure and campaign structure.
Now I'm pretty sure that the schematic below is nothing like your concept for your campaign, but I always find that pictures help get a point across ...

To keep this simple, let's say that your campaign is a German Regimental attack by 173 Infanterie Regiment and to further simplify things I've ignored any supporting assets. As you can see I've broken the map into four reasonably logical chunks which has:
I Abt/173 attacking in Battle 1 in a 3 hour 30 minute battle with 15 minutes of variable time. The proposed force flow and associated VPs would be as follows:
1 Kompanie worth 100 VPs with an associated exit zone on map at scenario start. This Kompanie would have limited or scarce ammunition. 2 Kompanie worth 100 VPs with an associated exit zone arriving at 1 hr 15 as Reinforcement 1. This Kompanie would have limited or scarce ammunition. 3 Kompanie with no VP value and no exit zone arriving at 2 hrs 30 as Reinforcement 2. This Kompanie would have a full loadout. 4 Kompanie with no VP value and no exit zone on map at scenario start. This Kompanie would have a full loadout. II Abt/173 attacking in Battle 2  in a 3 hour 30 minute battle with 15 minutes of variable time. The proposed force flow and associated VPs would be as follows:
5 Kompanie worth 100 VPs with an associated exit zone on map at scenario start. This Kompanie would have limited or scarce ammunition. 6 Kompanie worth 100 VPs with an associated exit zone arriving at 1 hr 15 as Reinforcement 1. This Kompanie would have limited or scarce ammunition. 7 Kompanie with no VP value and no exit zone arriving at 2 hrs 30 as Reinforcement 2. This Kompanie would have a full loadout. 8 Kompanie with no VP value and no exit zone on map at scenario start. This Kompanie would have a full loadout. III Abt/173 attacking in Battle 3  in a 3 hour 30 minute battle with 15 minutes of variable time. The proposed force flow and associated VPs would be as follows:
9 Kompanie worth 100 VPs with an associated exit zone on map at scenario start. This Kompanie would have limited or scarce ammunition. 10 Kompanie worth 100 VPs with an associated exit zone arriving at 1 hr 15 as Reinforcement 1. This Kompanie would have limited or scarce ammunition. 11 Kompanie with no VP value and no exit zone arriving at 2 hrs 30 as Reinforcement 2. This Kompanie would have a full loadout. 12 Kompanie with no VP value and no exit zone on map at scenario start. This Kompanie would have a full loadout. Battle 4 would be another 3 hour 30 minute battle with 15 minutes of variable time. In this one, elements of all three battalions take part
I Abt/173 1 Kompanie 2 Kompanie 4 Kompanie II Abt/173 5 Kompanie 6 Kompanie 8 Kompanie III Abt/173 9 Kompanie 10 Kompanie 12 Kompanie As a planning assumption for all of the battles, let's say that each company has 100 men giving a battalion strength of 400. A further associated assumption is that each company will take 50 casualties. Given those assumptions:
For battles 1,2 and 3, the Russian player will get 100 VPs if the German companies sustain 50 casualties per company but exit the remaining 50; however the Russian player will get 200 VPs if the German companies sustain 50 casualties per company but do not exit the remaining 50.
We can then compound this by using a parameter setting which also allows means that the German player knows not to be profligate with the companies that do not have VPs and exit zones associated with them. Again using our 50 casualty assumption, we can set this as a 'Friendly Casualty' parameter for the German player with a threshold of 51% for a VP value of say 400 VPs or set it as an 'Enemy Casualty' parameter for the Russian player with the same figures.
To make it simple, I'll use the 'Enemy Casualty' parameter. So by doing this, if the German player:
Suffers 50 casualties in each of his first two companies and does not exit them. Suffers 51 casualties in his third rifle company Suffers 51 casualties in his heavy weapons company The Russian player gets 600 VPs If the German player:
Suffers 50 casualties in each of his first two companies and exits them. Suffers 51 casualties in his third rifle company Suffers 51 casualties in his heavy weapons company The Russian player gets 500 VPs As you can see the compound doesn't really change much in terms of the incentives to exit the VP with associated exit companies but by having the mechanism, you are at least giving the player something to think about for those units that don't have the exit zones. Also of course the VP figures are simplified for the sake of argument so I would play around with those and I would certainly look at weighting the VP levels for the exit zone companies so that the player gets really hammered for not exiting units. By doing this, you then give yourself more scope to look at your other VPs (eg terrain objectives etc) and how you set your victory conditions (more of this later).
The ammunition levels will require some testing, but this is part of the mechanism to convince the player to exit the first two rifle companies along with giving them the VP incentive to do so associated with the exit zones. The simple premise here is that you give them enough ammunition to fight for the 1 hour and 15 minute block of time you want them to remain in the battle. While I know that units can cross level ammunition, if you get the settings right in your testing, the player will work out that there is no point in keeping an out of ammunition company on the map - particularly when you combine that with the exit zone VP incentive.
The next thing is your campaign structure which you can use to further convince the player to remove units from the map in the initial scenarios. In my example above, Battle 4 comprises the rifle companies that you want to exit in Battles 1,2 and 3 plus the respective heavy weapons companies. If you communicate this up front, you are using the natural urge of campaign players to preserve those units that they are going to need later on (namely the VP and exit zone associated rifle companies).
A further means of convincing the player that it would be a good idea to exit units will be through the campaign script and individual scenario victory conditions. To throw out just one example, you could write your script as follows:
Total Victory = 100% chance of troops being rested and resupplied with ammunition. Major Victory = 100% chance of troops being resupplied with ammunition. Minor Victory = 100% chance of troops being rested. The rationale or backstory to this is that if they are pulled out of the line early, they have time to rest and bomb up, if they aren't then they have no time to do this.
Again you would need to communicate this concept to the player at the outset.
You'll note that I haven't said much about Battle 4 in terms of detail and this is deliberate, because I think you can add variety here too in a simple and plausible way. Although I have specified elements that could be in Battle 4, you could of course write your script so that only elements that scored a victory in their first battle can take part in the final battle. As an example, let's say that II Abt/173 suffered a 'Minor Defeat' in Battle 2 while I Abt/173 won Battle 1 and III Abt/173 won Battle 3. This would mean that Battle 4 would be fought by the following units:
I Abt/173 1 Kompanie 2 Kompanie 4 Kompanie III Abt/173 9 Kompanie 10 Kompanie 12 Kompanie Finally, you'll note that I've gone for a maximum battle length of 3 hours 30 minutes with 15 minutes of variable time. The only reason I've done this is to ensure that you don't get any unwanted early surrenders in any of the battles. This allows you to have a 'never arrives' reserve to stop an AI surrender. Now I know that you are planning this as H2H where the surrender mechanism is not relevant but if you build in this flexibility at the outset, it allows you to easily turn this into a German vs the AI campaign.
Anyway - just some thoughts ...

Well in which case you'll be able to buy me a pint in the nearish future as I will be living not that far away from you.

@FoxZz - an impressive post but in my case I have never needed convincing about including France in CMBS or CMSF. I could certainly think of hundreds of scenarios for CMSF if French forces were available.

@FoxZz - an impressive post but in my case I have never needed convincing about including France in CMBS or CMSF. I could certainly think of hundreds of scenarios for CMSF if French forces were available.

Of course if you lose this battle you will have to resit this year's semester
And ... as I've said before ... this is a toughie - inspired by your AAR I played it again two weeks ago against the AI and came second but still enjoyed playing it.
Feel free to PM me about assistance with your degree by the way - I am not a graduate but have spent a fair whack of time waving guns at people in both cold and hot places since 1984 with the British and Australian armies.

They were good scenarios though - I enjoyed testing them, so I wouldn't be too hard on yourself.

I doubt it - the map is 320 x 656m.

@MOS:96B2P has served ... he probably has plenty of medals already
Banter aside - if you want to know stuff about the mechanics of this game, he's definitely not someone I'd have on my ignore list.

@MOS:96B2P has served ... he probably has plenty of medals already
Banter aside - if you want to know stuff about the mechanics of this game, he's definitely not someone I'd have on my ignore list.

@MOS:96B2P has served ... he probably has plenty of medals already
Banter aside - if you want to know stuff about the mechanics of this game, he's definitely not someone I'd have on my ignore list.

@MOS:96B2P has served ... he probably has plenty of medals already
Banter aside - if you want to know stuff about the mechanics of this game, he's definitely not someone I'd have on my ignore list.

@MOS:96B2P has served ... he probably has plenty of medals already
Banter aside - if you want to know stuff about the mechanics of this game, he's definitely not someone I'd have on my ignore list.

It was a pleasure helping such a master craftsman - although even my wife did say 'bloody hell' when I told her the scale of the mission briefing part of the task.  Compared to that, the casualty trackers were a doddle.

Nope - I think my limited knowledge on this topic was covered pretty early on. Bottom line is that AI spotters can be a tricky beast to work exactly as you intend. If you really really really want artillery to fall on a particular area then you have to use TRPs and max up the skill levels of the guns and spotters but even then it is down to the vagaries of the AI.

Easiest question to answer ever .... Australians.

No he doesn't and if you open such a thread somebody will open the same one in about a year's time - rinse and repeat for every year that CM3 is not released. Seriously ... it is far too early to be thinking that CM3 is coming on the horizon given the workload that Steve has already outlined. This workload I doubt will prevent them from paying much attention to what is said about CM3 out here.

No he doesn't and if you open such a thread somebody will open the same one in about a year's time - rinse and repeat for every year that CM3 is not released. Seriously ... it is far too early to be thinking that CM3 is coming on the horizon given the workload that Steve has already outlined. This workload I doubt will prevent them from paying much attention to what is said about CM3 out here.

Easiest question to answer ever .... Australians.

@Erwin it is ironic that you criticise @Sgt.Squarehead for not seeing the film and then go on to make comments about what is achievable in an editor that by your own admission you are reluctant to use.
I know quite a few people who have designed scenarios and my perception is that people who go into the scenario editor generally do so because they have seen something that inspires them or that that they have a desire to create/recreate something.
I have spent 8 years of my life on operational service, I have more data and experiences that I could convert into scenarios than you could ever wish for. Some I can make into scenarios, some I would rather not.  That is the hard side of it. The soft side has many factors but I'll keep it to five:
Does this interest me? How much time can I commit? Will players want to play this scenario/campaign? Can I make this work? What will my wife say? I appreciate that this is a sweeping statement but I would wager that the majority of people who play CM have an interest in military history. You only need to look at the various realism threads to understand that.  If my premise is true, then they are likely to have watched lots of documentaries or films about warfare and have read lots of books or magazines about warfare. The takeaway here is that there aren't many people in need of good scenario/campaign suggestions.
For me it all comes down to passion and my wife's assent - if all five of the bullet points above are ticked, I'll think about creating it.
Now I'm pretty sure that you are perhaps the most avid of mod collectors/users. A lot of the points I make about scenarios/campaign suggestions I am sure apply to modders. From my read of the situation, many modders create things because:
They want to do it. They are prepared to invest the time. They think that their creations will be popular with players. The mod can be made. The wife is happy with it. Given that context, 'I've seen this film', or' I've played this game' followed by 'this would be great inspiration for scenario designers' is not helpful. It is like posting pictures of uniforms or tanks and saying 'Please make this mod'.  I can assure you as somebody who has designed scenarios, I have never read one of your threads that says 'I've seen this film and I think this would be a great scenario' or similar and thought ... 'now why didn't I think of that' and leapt into the editor to make it so. Of course I am not the only person who uses the editor out there so I accept that other designers may have leapt to the challenge but my guess would be that very few, if any, examples exist.
To finish, I love your passion for the game but I remain unconvinced that your suggestions on potential scenarios/campaigns will encourage people to go into the editor to create them.