kevinkin

I also did a test. Same battle file loaded as a Battle and as a Quick Battle with designer mode on. The triggers work when the file is loaded as a Battle but not as a Quick Battle. As you describe, the triggers are ignored. The trigger terrain objective is not displayed on the map as it is when playing the file as a Battle.

Taking a look at the engine manual this is sort of confirmed:

"Quick Battles consider only OCCUPY terrain objectives and unit casualties for determining victory conditions. All other objective types and parameters are ignored. All terrain objectives are converted to OCCUPY objectives automatically, and all Units are part of a force-wide UNIT objective."

Triggers objectives are not converted they are just not used when the file is loaded as a QB.

Triggers are an important tool and we are thankful for them. Having them functional within a QB should make those battles better. The AI will react better. For example, the QB map designer has no way knowing the length of the battle the player selects for a particular QB map. With triggers, AI movement can be designed in a more generalized manner.

Kevin

Hi .. I went to click the download and then stopped and asked "what is this network thing and how does it related to the BFC in game multiplayer?" I search and see it allows people (n=30?) to "network" and play "games". I wonder why this is the first I heard of it. It sounds interesting. I am not the paranoid type - did banking via a modem - but need more info before I d/l and check it out.

Kevin

http://www.wargamer.com/Article/10202

More detail on the topic ...

Kevin

If a thread is out there on the topic please post the link.

4 related basic questions:

- what are the relative cover merits of each fortification?
- what are the relative concealment merits?
- which benefits the most from "digging in" via elevation edits?

Is there a way to quantify/rank the benefits of each?

Thanks guys.

Kevin

Any potential upgrade issues here? I mean has past new Windows been an issue with the game? I am inclined to just wait to install the free upgrade.

Kevin

Steve
 
I truly understand the point you are making in the drunk driving analogy above. It's just the loss of life touches many families including mine.
Perhaps another example would have been more appropriate. Society may not consider all drunk drivers "evil", which is true. But don't ask the families
that will never be the same.   
 
Kevin

We have read that in the late winter of '42 German high command decided to take their offensive south and a collision at Stalingrad. Case Blue was preceded by the Second Battle of Kharkov, a Soviet offensive within NE Ukraine. The objective was to capture Kharkov and surrounding road and rail network. This operation - also know as the Izium bridgehead - ended badly for the Soviets. Their attack was cut off by a classic mobile envelopment mid-May '42.

At this point was a change in Case Blue warranted by the Germans or not?

1) focus on the south and Stalingrad as planned
2) change plans and strike towards Moscow
3) change plans and go on the strategic defensive for '42 and into '43.

Please don't kill me for hindsight, but I would op for 3 and try to wear the Soviets
down to a point were a peace would settle on the lines established after the winter '41-42.
Through negotiation, a new boundary would be straightened to avoid salients. I read Rommel
envisioned a North Africa defense based on extensive mines supported tactically by assault guns and operationally by Panzer Divisions so as repeat the Kharkov experience up and down the front. So would begin an arms race.

I believe Rommel also supported a German focus on one type of assault gun and one type of tank to simplify what we now call the "supply chain". Gee - what would those be?

Another thought while reading about the battle was the nature of the fighting.
Ferocious. Selecting this campaign as the first CMx2 installment would not have been too
out of line. Perhaps it is too closely associated with Stalingrad. In any event, the battle
makes for a great read and study. It combines static and mobile warfare with both sides
in pretty good condition and looking for a fight to end the war.

Kevin

Well the devious scenario designers would like to provide wet yellow ones - if you know what I mean.

Los,
 
Juju is about to release discarded chutes mod.

For an upcoming scenario, I did quite a bit of research into the way Allied paradrops were scheduled and organised in 1944. Taking into account the limitations of the editor, I decided that the arrival location was essentially fixed, but the arrival timing can be messed about with, and organisation of the arriving forces could be heavily degraded. What I came up with was splitting a battalion drop into four company 'waves' (three rifle companies and one HQ/spt wave), each nominally 5 minutes apart. The later waves are - IIRC - more like 10 mins apart (to reflect mounting friction in the air), and all the waves are variable_5. I also used a fifth 'wave' of stragglers.
 
Don't forget to factor in how fast the a/c is traveling, and how quickly men can get out the door. The guys do not arrive in a nice compact blob. Typically, each a/c platoon-stick would be split into teams and stretched out over 3-500m along the flightline, with just a little bit of lateral dispersion. That, in turn, means that the LZ on your map has to be really freaking large. Also, the alignment of the various platoon sticks probably shouldn't all be perfectly parallel, but they should all conform to roughly the same approach and departure route (say, up to about +/-15° in orientation? A bit more for the Brits whose a/c flew individually within the stream, a bit less for the US who flew in formations. A bit more by night, a bit less by day).
 
Edit: oh, and don't forget the detachment of pathfinders who'll arrive 10-15 minutes before the first wave to set up the Eureka beacons and visual markers ...
Edit2: the various 3-500m strings of dropped troops within each wave should NOT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyaLZHiJJnE. 'Why' is left as an exercise for the reader
Edit3: each of the strings of dropped troops within each wave should be separated laterally by about 100m. The 'Why' is basically the same as in Edit2 above

I never addressed the fate of the 79th VG. I was speaking in much more general terms on why operationally destroyed formations can be re-formed under the same name and with remaining veteran survivors.

"It's not semantic. A rebuilt is nothing that is secret. You do not admit your logical failure that you brought up a newly set up unit like the 6th army as an absurd argument why 79. VGD was destroyed during Wacht am Rhein."

Therefore, please clarify. Thanks.

The new formation could be named anything once re-formed since it existed as the original unit only on paper after destruction and the fortunate few fleeing into the hinterland in a disorganized manner. A division reduced to scattered platoons is not a functioning division any longer.

Kevin

PS: For what it's worth ..

On October 27, 1944, the division was raised again outside the Welle system, this time in West Prussia and now as the 79th Volksgrenadier Division (79. Volks-Grenadier-Division). It had only ten percent combat veterans and was largely made up by absorbing the 586th Volksgrenadier Division (Katzbach). On December 11, 1944, the 79th Volksgrenadier Division was assigned to 7. Armee a reserve force near Bitburg, Germany. Although at half strength, the 79th was to take part in Operation Herbstnebel.
On December 21, 1944, the 79th VG moved towards its assembly area near Diekirch, Luxembourg. On December 24, 1944, the Volksgrenadiers in conjunction with the Führer Grenadier Brigade, launched a series of attacks against the Blue Ridge Division, the 80th Infantry Division (United States). The objective was to seize the town of Heiderscheid, which included a strategic bridge across the Sure River. Both units suffered very heavy losses, particularly when on December 26 most of the 79th VG artillery and FGB armor was destroyed by American fighter bombers. The 79th VG began falling back towards the town of Baunscheid, to hold another strategic bridgehead there; it was unable to hold against the US 80th Infantry Division.

The first quick battle screen allows for map selection > human (left hand side). You might want to look at some of the maps in the editor and write down the names of the ones that interest you. Then go at it ...

Kevin

There has also been some community thought to North Africa. E.g battles for and around Tobruk. But continuing with the east
front appears to be almost certain.

Kevin

element of chance or unpredictability
 
The editor allows for 5 separate AI plans per battle These are randomly executed depending on the designers settings. The TACAI delivers somewhat
unpredictable fire results and movement. Indirect artillery and air support are not 100% predictable as well. LOS/LOF are difficult to master and while predictable offer a lot of surprises. One thing to try is to play a battle where you only give orders every 3 or so turns and let the AI try to carry out your
intentions. Another thing to try - which can be wild - is to play a battle only from ground level. Take a screenshot of the map at the beginning and try to keep the angle of view down low. (No level 2 buildings). We used to game this way back in CM1x now and then.
 
Not sure where you would like to see more chance/unpredictability but these are my thoughts.
 
Kevin

I would like to see 41-43 since I have little interest in the final battles other than reading about them.
 
But the list correctly identifies
1 Waffen SS
2 Romanians and Hungarians
3 Partisans
7 Winter weather 
 
BTW some of the coolest small unit battles can be designed from fall/winter 41 aka gates of Moscow.
 
Kevin