Broadsword56

I can't speak to the technical questions, but right now I post all the real-terrain maps I make to the Repository, eventually, once I've played on them and made sure they're fun. We all hope and yearn for more and better tools to speed the creation of accurate CMBN maps. But even with the great user-made tools we have (like Stone Age's HTML mapping tool), in the end it still comes down to clicking hundreds or thousands of little tiles in the editor to make a CMBN map. Having said that, I also have to say that making the maps -- for me and a few others -- isn't just a necessary evil or a chore to get over with ASAP. The mapping can be fun in itself, especially when I see what a difference a properly crafted and authentic map makes to the way CMBN plays. I also like the "battlefield detective" aspect of discovering the aerial photos and seeing how the landscape has changed, spotting outlines of old entrenchments, and learning how the terrain influenced the events on the ground. What the community could use -- besides the tools to make mapping easier and more efficient -- is some better division of labor. The mappers could map, and then those who hate mapping but love coding could code AI to make them into scenarios and/or campaigns. Those who like to do those battlefield experiments and testing could playtest WIP maps. (I don't expect this to happen, since this is just a game and it's supposed to be about fun, so the vast majority just want to play and want nothing to do with mapping or content creation.) No one has ever created AI for any of the authentic maps I've posted, as far as I know, even though I always invite people to use the maps in their own scenarios and campaigns. It would be nice to see these resources used -- although the maps play great as HTH-only battles. LongLeftFlank and I coordinated to make adjoining "master maps" and for the XIX Corps area. But I don't know of anyone else who's tried to make master maps or collaborate to cover areas this way. Also, with the HTML tool and the patch to CMBN that supports full sized maps, it's really feasible now for collaborative projects that would map an entire corps or army area of operations. Using Google Earth coordinates and the system of 400m x 400m mega-tiles in the HTML tool, many different contributors could map individual segments and post them with the appropriate label showing where they fit into the xy coordinates of the 4km x 4km grid (for example, "map square 51,1"). If that data bank of mapped squares existed, any player could DL the squares needed to assemble a battle for any area of the operation. Maybe there could be a membership requirement, to incentivize the work and prevent freeloading: To have access to the database, you'd have to contribute X number of mapped squares -- and maybe they'd have to pass some sort of quality review to make sure they weren't just junk. One other thing that would help: If BFC shared a Google Earth "placemarks" file that showed polygons of the actual outlines of every battle in every historical battle and campaign map that has shipped with the original game and the CW module. A Google Earth file was generously posted some months ago for the Scottish Corridor maps , but it has pushpins marking the centers of the areas where the battles were fought -- helpful for taking a virtual look at the real terrain, but not useful if one is trying to determine the actual borders/orientation of the game map and then expand it in the editor to cover additional terrain for a custom map, etc. The only other way I've found to get this info is to place a game map into Google Earth as an overlay, do a LOT of scaling and fiddling, and then try to see where/how it fits onto the actual terrain.

I'm missing something here -- The CC5 maps are beautiful and, as we can see, highly accurate. But what purpose does the CC5 Buron map serve if you have the aerial photo of the real place? Unless you somehow had a way of directly converting a CC5 digital map into map tiles in the CMBN editor.

How historically and geographically accurate are they?

That's interesting noob. And it reminds me that in the op-tac Saint-Lo campaign I've been running, virtually all the ground gained by the US has been won at the op level by maneuver rather than by direct combat, or by indirect fire (artillery barrages, airstrikes).

Not to throw too many variables into the mix, but recently I had the experience of Green troops with +2 Leadership (the Hamel Vallee battle sburke and I shared in that AAR). This simulated a trained and motivated force that had no battle experience yet, being put into an "intensive" setpiece attack with loads of higher-level planning and support. It's hard to tell in the heat of battle whether Green troops are firing less or hitting less -- as a commander all you might see is that they're just not achieving the desired results. But one thing I noticed right away was that with high Leadership, even Green troops will have a lot more staying power -- I was able to make even Broken Green troops keep fighting a little bit (although they'd usually be finished once they took another casualty). In other games I'd usually found Broken to mean absolutely useless -- good only for lolling around the HQ or manning some listening posts.

@mjkerner: I'd never seen Operation Dauntless before -- the scale and location all look excellent. Not familiar with that game system. But it looks like it has all the essentials. @noob: Some ways board wargames simulate operational FOW is with some mechanisms (activation rules, chit-pull systems) that randomize which units can activate to do something, and randomize how much a given unit will be able to do in a given time period. So even though you see all the enemy counters attacking you in a certain place, you won't necessarily be able to make your units react to the attack or bring needed reinforcements there in time. That also makes these types of games well-suited for solo play. Some games even have "automatons" built in (just a table of variable results) where you can use die rolls to determine which enemy formations activate on a given turn.

That's amazing news about the companion game. Did BFC ever confirm that it was happening or that it had their official blessing/support? Hope it comes to fruition.

Agreed about the need to resolve larger (or more lopsided or dull) battles using the op layer instead of CMBN. It speeds campaign play and saves CMBN for the real nail-biters. Good to share our insights so we can learn from each other's experiences -- we've all evolved very distinct ways to run op-tac campaigns, yet we're all finding they lead to the same goal: Fantastically meaningful and exciting CMBN battles that impact (and are impacted by) the wider situation around them. The operational game one uses can be as complex or as simple as one likes -- the main thing is to have one, because of the compelling situations it creates. For example -- I received a tiny little "pocket" bonus game from Against All Odds magazine, "Stand at Mortain," that fits in a business envelope and has just a few simple counters and rules -- yet it could probably be used to govern a small CMBN op-tac campaign (I think someone posted -- or was working on -- an authentic CMBN map of the Hill 314 area of Mortain recently, so you might not even need to make a custom map for that one.)

@Noob How good would you say the operational AI is in PC:N44 ? Does it give a real challenge? When you make your CMBN maps, do you use generic maps with the setup/exit zones dictated according to your campaign rules? Or do you make maps of the actual places and terrain? One thing I've come to believe strongly is that accuracy of the terrain has a huge effect the way CMBN battles play, and on outcomes -- way more effect than accuracy of the specific numbers of soldiers/vehicles/guns in the OOBs. The next-most significant aspect IMHO is the "soft" factors (motivation, experience, leadership, fitness). But I can get away with a lot of fudging and guesswork on OOBs and soft factors in my campaigns because I'm my own "referee," and I'm forced to translate what I'm seeing operationally into tactical situations for CMBN. In a multiplayer campaign you'd have to have a more objective system like Noob's with PC:N44, so players would feel their strengths and casualties were being tracked fairly and accurately in a transparent way.

Good to see this thread -- op-tac campaigns are really what raise CMBN to its ultimate level! Noob's links and tutorial answer a lot of my questions. Bravo to all his work to make that campaign system -- it looks like a terrific system. The intricacies of using the Panzer Campaigns editor with CMBN are off-putting to me, but at least the tutorial would make it approachable. It seems especially good for tournaments and multiplayer campaigns. But since I do my operational campaigns solo (and just play the generated battles HTH) the boardgames seem to work fine for me. I probably spend just as much time fiddling with an editor, but in my case most of my time goes into the accuracy of the CMBN battle mapping (which I enjoy) and not as much into the details of the OOBs.

Kip, Just curious... Is it easy/feasible to stop a Panzer Campaigns game, export the OOB, fight the battle in CMBN, and then import or re-edit the op game to update the units and positions to resume play? (That was always the obstacle with other good PC operational games, like Battles from the Bulge.) Do you find the Panzer Campaigns maps accurate compared to Google Earth, for locating battles and making the CMBN maps? The hex scale (1 km) and time scale (2 hours) seem just about right (1km). How well do you find Panzer Campaigns models morale, supply, weather, command-control, FOW, and the "friction" that prevents commanders from being able to move troops when/where they want? Do the Panzer Campaigns unit attributes translate well to CMBN (experience, fitness, leadership. etc.?)

Wow, VGA Omaha Beachhead looks excellent for a CMBN op layer. Only issue I see is the apparent lack of a Vassal or Cyberboard module for it -- really helps with the mapping to be able to snap screenshots of the game board, to be be able to leave the game set up, play against a remote opponent, etc. But Cyberboard modules are not hard to create if you have a decent scanner at home. I've made two already for games that didn't have them.

Good suggestion! Definitely on the list of games appropriate for a meta-layer...but... The scale of N44 is what I find problematic ( "Each hex represents 3.8 kilometers (or 2.3 miles). Most units are regiments or brigades though most of the armor units are represented as battalions.") Personally, I find boardgames whose counters are battalions and companies to be the highest scale I'd find comfortable for the best fit with CMBN and the minimum amount of "translation" (i.e., conversion rules to figure out where in that 3.8 km the battle is actually taking place, determining man and vehicle strengths for a CMBN order of battle, etc.) Many accounts of Normandy say it was really "a battalion commander's fight." So at that level you get all the combined arms goodness, yet a small enough scale that you can fight battalions vs. battalions and lower in CMBN in full detail and play out the campaign at a good pace. The most direct translation, of course, would be a purely tactical boardgame (counters are squads) but then it's too long and drawn out a process to play the campaigns out, due to the shorter time scale. That would seem unmanageable to me. I've started a meta-game using the Panzer Grenadier boardgame series (counters are platoons and units of 5 vehicles) but at 15 minutes per turn, the gain in specific detail and "translatability" comes at a price of a much slower pace of play at the boardgame level. Another option is games where the counters are companies (the Grand Tactical Series from MMP, for example). That is highly compatible with CMBN and I'm planning to use their OMG game "Where Eagles Dare" as the op layer for a Hell's Highway campaign in CMBN. (Well, that's the next several years of my hobby life planned out...)

OK, here's an unqualified rave for a documentary series (occasionally shown on public TV in the USA, but not on the TMC or MHC as far as I know -- I recommend you buy the DVDs): The "American Road to Victory" series (one program each on D-Day, Bulge, OMG) http://www.livingbattlefield.org/battlefield-tours-on-dvd.html Like most of you, I've felt I'd read 'em all, seen 'em all. And my earlier posts describe what I think of most of what poses as WWII documentaries nowadays...But these really seem to stand out for a number of reasons: *Great human-level storytelling that manages to show the "bigger picture" of these operations at the same time. *Ellwood von Seibold (the Canadian historian who tours the sites as he narrates and even acts out the situations on camera) is an absolute trip -- totally passionate about the history, and manages to entertain even as he shows you the places and events. *Good special effects that help show the story -- not just eyecandy for its own sake, but enough to make it convincing and appealing to the modern viewer -- much better than just the same old film clips and talking heads. *Loads of veteran interviews, many telling stories that probably have never been told anywhere else.

Also, note the difference in tone between the 1970s Word at War series and the ones made today. The WoW series was thorough and factual, and always conveyed respect for the dead and the vets, and showed the cruel face of war for civilians and soldiers alike. I always feel a bit sad after a WoW episode, even as I enjoy the history of it.

Ask yourself if you really need Photoshop. Gimp is free, and does nearly everything Photoshop does, especially for gamers' modding purposes. Plus, it has a huge user community so there's a tutorial or forum discussion for almost any aspect or problem. And a large base of user-made plugins that achieve special effects.

And the proliferation of "bests" programs (10 best machineguns, top tanks, etc.) is a plague that has really made those channels nearly worthless lately -- programs like that are mindless parades of hardware, devoid of context or narrative, and probably get made because they're so cheap and easy to produce (just splice a lot of old film clips together and narrate).

But mines -- even if thickly placed in those other areas -- would interdict movement and explode a bit like HE shells, if one wanted to simulate that effect, wouldn't they?

All we need is a little crank on the side of the turret and a "Pop Goes The Weasel" sound mod...

Maybe some MG shots into the view slits?

Not to mention how nearly every show needs to recap the first several years of WWII, because they assume their audience is either so young or uneducated that they have no idea who fought on what side, etc.

Too bad the Military Channel and MHC keep endlessly recycling the same old series and footage as if WWII began only when the Americans joined it, and consisted of Normandy and The Bulge. To be fair, they have improved recently with some new series that tell some little-known and and recently discovered stories -- "Secret War" and "Narrow Escapes of WWII" are some notable examples.

Not a perfect solution, but just a work-around: Plant a lot of mines on the flanks of your map. Those will simulate fire from off map.

Not a perfect solution, but just a work-around: Plant a lot of mines on the flanks of your map. Those will simulate fire from off map.

We have a V-mail letter than my grandfather wrote home from his camp in England, saying, "Today is June 5, the day you'll remember as D-Day..." I guess the censors allowed him to write that, knowing the letter wouldn't arrive stateside until well after the invasion. He must have penned those lines early in the day, before Eisenhower made the deicison to postpone. (Having a historical artifact that's erroneous like that is even cooler, in a way, than if the date had been correct. It's a reminder about how much of an hour-to-hour thing the invasion decision was -- and how the events we tend to see as concrete, inevitable facts in the light of history were always fleeting, uncertain and fast-changing to the people who experienced them at the time.)