Ithikial_AU

Ensure the exit zones are thin and narrow along the friendly map edge and don't overlap them with the deployment zone otherwise players can mistakenly deploy units that will immediately exit. I wasn't aware of the H2H angle when I posted above. I think your solution will work from a strict VP allocation standpoint, however you can't force a player to exit "X" Unit by "Y" time within a single scenario. If this is just one big scenario with successive waves I think players will just game the system and go for broke trying to overwhelm the enemy with a total of four waves of forces, ignore the exit objective to try and crush the enemy with a overwhelming mountain of forces. If the enemy surrenders it's total victory regardless if any forces exited. Once the players hit the big red button for the first time it's completely out of your hands how a players will react. Honest ones will play as intended but it's impossible to control for.

Part 3 of the video series and the first one looking at a detailed aspect of my map. Hedgerows!

I'm guessing you haven't seen my thread on pretty much the same type of project. More videos incoming soon. Beat me to it. It should be pretty easy to do this. To be doubly sure assigning a VP allocation of '0' for all player units to ensure no levels of victory are determined by the units exiting the map. You can still use the Casualty Parameters to model in a threshold of casualties the player shouldn't go over. Suggest testing a few victory point allication patterns with the little Excel workbook I made for just such a thing. http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=4236

Saved games? Usually going over at a 'move' speed and one at a time does the trick. I think it's something to do when their's a traffic jam and one vehicle has to auto pause for a two seconds or so to let the vehicle ahead of him proceed. But that's only my observations. I hit the bridge bug over Chrissy and @IanL took my 'statement' and save game files. Maybe BF behind the scenes are still looking into it?

First and foremost take a look at the BMP file you've dloaded to see if the texture itself is in a lower resoltution. Some mods do this to lower memory size. Also check your graphic card settings. You can tweak some of these settings (no guru... I've forgot which ones at the moment) to sharpen in game textures. I assume most of us have Nvidea cards, if so go to the Nvidia Controller and you should be able to tweak settings for each CM title installed. Since it's the same engine whatever works for one game should work for the others. A long thread but lots of good advice and ideas for settings over the years:

I haven't taken a closer look at the dloaded file yet but noticed you say on CMMODS there are different seasonal varieties for each divisional portrait. Mod tagging works for the UI interface just like any other in game graphic. With the hard coded mod tags already used in this game like "snow," you can tell the game to automatically pick a certain unit portrait based on the weather codition (and possibly season...) with the use of these hard coded mod tags. See back of the game manual for these hard coded mod tags. While testing JuJu's UI mod for CMFB we worked out this was a suitable workaround for having different portraits in that mod. There was a brief mention of doing it for the whole UI, ie having a snow dusted version whenever the player was fighting in snow but the idea was dropped due to a mix of workload and early testing showed it was difficult to get it to "look good." Just a thought.

Seeing that grey panzer makes me wish for early war CM again.

Thanks @Combatintman. I agree that the lack of persistent map damage between engagements is one of the biggest problems still to be overcome. However being largely in a rural area with not many buildings it's a bit safer than some other options on the list. A few ideas to get around it so far (not set on any): - Limit the player to small caliber mortars for on and off map support. Appropriate for the type of engagement the player is fighting and minimises terrain damage but also drops the 'fun' factor down a bit. - The Germans become the "Artillery Battalion" in support. Tank control of high caliber off map support away from the player. Give the Germans similar caliber off map support and have them shell predisposed positions with AI plans. Map can be adjusted between these engagements since I as the designer knows what's going to be targeted. However again, drops that fun element for the player. (And don't look too closely at the direction of incoming rounds). - The heavy support occurs between missions and the outcome of which is simply stated in the briefing. Map is adjusted by me as appropriate. Again no fun for the player. Another positive with all three options is I can control the impact of the heavy weapons and the player can't rely on simply blasting the Germans to kingdom come to achieve a victory. The player will need to engage heavily with on map forces. The additional problem, potentially on par with terrain damage, is the limit of two outcomes per engagement. The Win or Loss restriction. Having a third option would allow me to build in a "Total Loss" rule where if the player were to drop below 50% of their starting forces it's a campaign loss as their battalion is pulled from the line without completing their objective. This would force the player to constantly be mindful of their overall casualties while pushing across the map over time. Unfortunately I can't build that and allow the campaign to progress as intended. I already need both of the possible outcomes! Sadly at this point the terrain damage problem is probably a bigger one for where a concept like this could lead. Bigger and urban maps. On the train into work I fleshed out an idea for the upcoming CMSF2 release but it's just not going to work. The fictional end to the conflict depicted in CMSF2. A gradual push into the streets of Damascus to draw out, kill the enemy and end the war with a multinational task force. Unfortunately it's just not feasible without the modern 'toy box' of heavy weaponry and that means leveling a few buildings, which you want to remain leveled between battles. As someone who's already been through a construction project as a client, no building company is that good.

I think thats whats driving this. There's a lot more natural scope for the modern titles to be used more as sandboxes compared to the WW2 titles, which naturally lend themselves to creating more historically plausible scenarios. Having the variety of units available in the editor/QB's gives the player a great sense of freedom in this regard. Oh Australia is certainly eyeing off an invaision on New Zealand. I mean if we lose to them in the Rugby again... well what other course of action is left open for us?

I think it was discussed quite some time ago so who knows if it has been revised but I was under the impression there would be a Commonwealth module to cover the existing October 1944 - January 1945 timeframe (Scheldt campaign, Antwerp etc), and then followed by a second module that would cover the final months of the war between February to May from all sides. (Crossing of the Rhine etc).

Would this be a timeframe issue in terms of CMFI? I'd assume something like this would have been addressed by the American Army prior to the Sicily landings, particuarly if they discovered the problems with the Sherman in Tunisia. Still would be a good thing to model in any CM: Africa game. Commanding the green/troubled US Army in it's first major deployment in late '42 and early '43 would be quite interesting for us Armchair Generals I think.

Actually I am expecting the full Battalion to be on the map for each engagement. It's up to the player to push what forces of his he wants forward and keep the others safe. The only exception would probably be for the opening engagements when the player needs to get some 'breathing room' before the main push. Remember the Germans are on a Master OOB file as well so any losses they experience will carry over as well. A few years ago over the the FGM Odin and I actually tried something very similar. Four players with me as the umpire. It fell flat right after the first series of engagements. The organisation of multiple OOB files which the players wanted to mix around to suit what was in front of them made it a total nightmare fore the third umpire. Granted we were using CMRT so the Soviet OOB didn't help the 'staying sane' matters. The map work was actually alright but you always run the risk of upsetting a player who may have been targeting specific building on purpose in one engagement to deprive the enemy of it for follow on engagement. It's an awful lot to track even for a Battalion level op. Not thinking H2H here though I could release the individual scenario files which would let a multiplayer fight to occur with a third party umpire... or between two very honest opponents. All you'd have to do is prep the next scenario (time wise) with some map damage and adjust the OOB accordingly before loading it up. It would all be contained in the one file. Well aware of that limitation which is why the on map supply dumps could be an option. I don't mind using the campaign script replenishment settings and do plan to but it won't be very high for anyone between each battle. Over time and multiple engagement you want to feel the problems a front commander would be feeling as his forces engage in protracted combat. I think they changed it with 4.0 to be to a flat percentage across the core units where before I think it was a percentage chance that unit would be replenished. The former makes this a lot more workable. Breaking up the organic unit and having them on the field at different engagements makes this whole excercise ten time larger in terms of prepping individual scenario files so at the moment isn't preferable. An OOB is an OOB, it's something I think designers need to work with rather than avoid or try to work around. The only 'fix' for avoiding the tedium for the allied player is to have a mid point set of objectives where once these are taken the campaign script pushes the Allied deployment zone forward and the Germans pull back. As outlined above, campaign scripts affect all core units not only specific ones the designer wants. If I want to have full control as a designer I'd need to add the unit in for each engagement on top of the core unit file and set it's head count and ammo manually. There is no way this unit is tracked between engagement however. Yes I do remember that tool when it come out. Some in the community mixed it up for my little record keeping excel file I do. It would be a great tool for a third umpire for a H2H option to help adjust battles before the next engagement begins. That's good to hear! Always try something different. Thanks for all the comments so far everyone. Keep them coming.

And a rough mock up to show how the campaign progresses. Using the 'clear right flank' option first before progressing to clearing the map. Follow the arrows.

Next video part.

Much appreciated. Yes a master OOB for both sides is a definite. I'm not sure yet whether I as the designer should decide which US Companies of the core unit force should appear on the battlefield for each engagement. I'm inclined to think it's more up to the player to worry about that kind of organisation and make assessments based on unit head counts / ammo availability etc. For your local reservice point, shouldn't it be up to the player to organise and try to keep them out of harms way? I may include an exit zone worth 0 victory points for the Allied player so he can exit forces off the map he doesn't want to commit to the current engagement. I'm just not 100% on whether this would mess up something on the campaign scripting side of the equation, like for force replenishment of units that have 'exited' the previous battle.

That's exactly what I did for my Lions of Carpiquet campaign. It almost doubled the map making time required as you essentially had to 'build' each map 1.5 times. A clean version and then a 'rubbled down' version mesing around building states, adding craters/rubble and then making sure it looked right especailly around buildings. The players were given the artillery up front but told how to use them during the deployment phase. If it was possiible in game to remove off map support assets inside a scenario after a specified amount of time I would have done it. It was a way around creating the tail end of a carpet barrage the Canadians used on the village and airfield to screen their advance over the open fields. In game I toyed with the idea of having the map already in a damaged state but wanted to player to have the fun themselves. (We all like explosions). Even though it wouldn't affect gameplay in terms of casualties, unless the player was extremly silly, it did add immensely to the sheer feeling of chaos in those opening 30 mins of gameplay as forces dribbled onto the map in a scattered and disorganised state. C&C links were all over the place until the player was able to organise his forces and put a fighting force togther as the battle progressed. For this one I don't think there will be such a liberal use of heavy artillery for the player given the tight in terrain issues mentioned above. But I do control where the Germans get to dump some shells and can adjust the follow on maps to suit.

I should also add that I posted this in this CM2 forum since it's an idea that if it works, could readily be transported over to the other families. CMSF2 - A multi-national taskforce rolling into downtown Damascus going up against Republican Guard and over zealous militia on every street corner anyone? (But yeah persistent map damage is huge for a concept like this). Baby steps first. It would be a bit hard to do this at a smaller scale than this map wise so this historical series of engagements is a good test case.

One of the aims for sure, which goes in hand with save/load repeat mentality I mentioned above. Players will more likely take the stupid risks if they know they can just revert back to the last save from 1 minute ago in game - which they do more of in campaigns given the fine lines between winning and outright defeat down the line mentioned above. If the player can take a hit in one of these battles and naturally want to keep pushing through, then it's mission accomplished in my book. That's what decides the outcome of the campaign. The degree of victory is determined by when you finished - ahead of history means a greater degree of victory. Behind history then it's a campaign loss. Honestly I'd be surprised if any player would run out of time in terms of what's built into the campaign. (At least how I've got it mapped out). AI Plans are are always fun but the the implementation of triggers makes this more doable. "Bush war" that Germans got a lot of experience in around St Lo at this time had a mobile defense. This can be done with the tight in terrain on the map I think, however full scale counter attacks to push the Americans back is probably a step too far and out of the realms of possibility strategically for the German defenders at this time of the campaign. The fact the Germans won't have to have huge formation wide movements makes life a bit easier as a designer. Initial placements and what they can see from their prepared positions will be a big factor for determining the amount of difficulty the player will face. Thanks Pete. I'll have to admit I've never got around to those scenarios even after all these years. I need to take a closer look. Keen for any input and ideas you may have had though both now and at the time in this space. Future video will be on this. Either gradual progression in phase lines which moves the deployment zone further up the map once achieved, or just the one objective and you need to move your forces from a muster area at the start of each battle. Keeping in mind that in the later half of the campaign there won't be much if any Germans manning the forward positions if you've been thorough. Maybe add some RPG elements into some engagements like a platoon being cut off at the start of an engagement just to mix it up for the player and add a curve ball here and there. Where the RPG elements mentioned above come in possibly but haven't worked that bit out yet. The game won't automatically set a deployment zone in a CM2 campaign. For you first concern yes I agree but you can limit this slightly by having fixed check points the player must reach by a specific time or they are 'replaced' and the campaign ends. Remember you aren't creating each scenario from scratch, it's the one map with some tweaks to the settings such as data and time to push the time along. Keeping track for the campaign script at the end will probably by the biggest challenge. Second dot point, if it works as intended the player should be organising things like recon etc themselves without being told to do so. It would be smart to maybe probe forward slightly in one engagement when you know you're going to have a battery of divisional heavy artillery being available in the next battle. It's that level of player choice which I'm trying to achieve here. Throwing in problems outside of their control as well such as maybe the weather turning bad in the afternoon. Do I make an extra effort in the morning knowing a downpour will hit in the afternoon? Or do I proceed as normal and continue my regular attempts to advance during the bad weather? One big briefing up front but minimal briefings required during the campaign itself. Again you wouldn't expect a Regiment Commander to hold a Battalion commanders hand for things like organising recon or maintaining a front line with enough men and ammo. Master OOB for both sides is a definite but there will be one additions that will be available for one scenario at a time which are added in manually. For example the availability of divisional artillery for a specific allotted time before it's assigned to another part of the front. Not to mention the Germans need to be able to throw the odd surprise the American's way once and a while to keep the player guessing. Historical plausibility is the term I'll go with. I'm not trying to be 100% historically strict on what you'll face so there may be the odd stray Fallschirmjager platoon that gets lost from their portion of the front for instance. But at the same time I won't throw a Tiger tank at the player and give an evil laugh when that was never plausible in the defense mounted for St Lo. I'm very mindful of arty being a one sided affair and want to minimize it's impact. It was also of questionable use for boccage fighting given the knife fight scenarios many troops found themselves in. Mortars on the other hand are another matter. This isn't a regiment sized campaign by any means, it's only one Battalion and it would be discouraged in hurling all the men forward at once on such a tight map where the enemy has a liberal amount of machine guns in dug in positions. Hopefully the design will encourage the player to follow Allied actions on the ground of sending in 'dribs and drabs' as you put it, rotating troops around to whoever was most suitable for that objective. Having on map resupply will I think go a long way in achieving this aim. But more on that later. Thanks for the early comments. Looks likes it's peaked some peoples interest. Good signs indeed.

I’m apparently part of a small breed of the CM community that misses the old CM1 style operations. This is something I've talked about for some time on and off but over Christmas started to put my mouse where my mouth is... and started designing the thing. I hope to use this forum thread to update the community on my progress with this experiment and for others to chip in their thoughts/ideas/solutions to problems encountered. Introduction video first (I plan to do more down the line), followed by some written thoughts to get the ball rolling. For those younger CM Generals among us, CM1 Operations were essentially one large map with an end objective to reach by the end of a set time period broken up into multiple engagements. Force preservation and forward thinking were key to success. For example: “Okay, I’ve taken this village, do I keep pushing now while the enemy in front of me is disorganized or do I wait until sundown before creeping forward with additional forces that are due to arrive.” It wasn’t a perfect system by any means, for example there were issues regarding how the CM1 titles calculated the deployment zones for follow up missions based on how far the player pushed forward. (It could be gamed a bit). The CM2 Campaign system is more Designer controlled and is suited to following a more narrative structured series of events over multiple locations. My biggest issue with the current system is depending on how the Designer builds the campaign and handles reinforcements/replenishment; it can heavily encourage players turning to a ‘save scum’ mentality, (a constant reloading of older saves when something goes wrong), knowing they are unlikely to achieve victory later on if they lose ‘x’ number of units now. Or worse, you get the feeling you've progressed through the campaign well only to get to a mission that is simply unplayable due to previous losses. The fact we now see designers (or the community through websites such as @IanL 's) outlining in briefings and in supporting Read Me's released outside of campaign file, pathway and replenishment details is, I think, testimant to this problem. The margin for error before it becomes unwinnable (beyond the point of being a hardy worthwhile challenge) in a lot of campaigns is simply so small. Thing is I think we can create something close to a CM1 style Operation inside the CM2 engine. This is now largely possible due to: - The far greater map sizes and units the engine can handle now compared to CM2’s debut. - The variety of forces now on offer in most titles once modules and packs are released. - General beefiness of current computers. So a CM2 campaign is essentially a series of linked scenarios that form either one or two pathways to another dependent on 'winning' or 'losing' a preceding scenario. If we switch up the usual formula for a campaign to include the following: - The player has one large map to clear over a series of engagements that are spread over a tight timeframe. - A player must hit numerous terrain based objectives in a set order to reach the final objective which ends the campaign. The longer it takes the less the degree of campaign victory. - These terrain objectives are provided in an order set out by ‘higher command’ (the designer). - If the player wins, they move on to the next objective in the next allotted time slot. - If the player loses, they repeat the same scenario with time progressing to the next allotted time slot. - As time progresses both sides receive reinforcements and replenishment though given the small time frames there would be at set periods or only in small increments. - An extensive initial Campaign Briefing would be required. - Briefings between missions would be minimal to represent the lack of orders from higher command during a prolonged engagement. It's up the Battallion Commander (the player) on the ground to make the call on what to do next to meet their final objective. Perhaps limited to some on the ground intel or feedback to the player on what type of support is coming up in future engagements to help them make an informed decision around ‘commit now or later.’ - Forces on both sides would be nearly all Core Units and tracked for the duration of the fight. The thing is why do we always think of campaign progression as a ‘line’ and why not a ‘table.’ If the player ‘loses’ a scenario, let them try the same mission again with what forces they have on hand but push the time along a little bit for the follow engagement. The major limit to this approach is the fact that the CMx2 engine doesn’t support terrain damage carrying over between missions. The designer would have to be a little bit creative here and slow damage / rubble down the map as time progresses depending on the circumstances. Perhaps at a set point you damage key focus points on the map to take into account pre-planned bombardments from Army HQ assets. Using this St Lo period engagement that historically occured on the map in the video over two full days of fighting is a nicely contained and smaller situation to test out these ideas. If this theory works it would be good to have a crack at the 502d/101st Ab's push towards Carentan. Dreams are always bigger than reality.

Thanks for the approval Freyburg. Nice map. In a modern warfare scenario it's easy to thing stadiums would become the 'hill fort' of the 21st century. I I was on the ground I'd be calling in a quite a few air strikes. One problem with huge urban maps, particularly those relying on an awful lot of connected modular buildings is it becomes a camera nightmare for the player. Fingers crossed there is something that can be done in the future to improve this part of the design. I've always wanted more terrain options (or terrain packs). For the modern titles there are quite limitless opportunities to expand the battlefield.

Which is why I'm part of the the "Hope we get Mid-Early War CM" brigade. Completly different battlefield to experience given the different kit the nations fields. Though granted a Flak36 is scary in any situation.

Thanks IanL. Just looked odd at first glance when I was rummaging through the editor so thought I'd flag. Ta.

I was messing around in the editor on the weekend and noticed the following: The purchase screen on the left for the Panzerjager Battalion appears to be completely different to what you get on the right. Just raising to check if this correct or some bug that's been introduced. (Not a OOB / TOE expert). I haven't checked other titles or German armed forces branches. Cheers

Yeah using heavy artillery in most CM battles is usually overpowered and I know from personal experience in the editor that it can quickly lob a battle to being a one sided affair depending on where the rocket/heavy shell lands. A nice denseurban map of this size like this makes it very workable proposition for scenarios. Looking forward to it. (Now we just need saved map states functionality between scenarios within a campaign!)

Yeah I have a love hate relationship with any off map support. Had squad wipes more times than I can count thanks to it. I have had a lone British Tommy already weilding a Bren and quite a bit of ammo pick up a PIAT, rockets and extra grenades before. Could barely move as well. Ended up holding down a house all by himself against some German stragglers in the CMBN-CW "Colossal Crack" scenario.