Broadsword56

The way sburke and I get around this and create some lively variety in our HTH battles is a set of general ground rules for the OOBs -- these are dictated partly by the situation in the board wargame that controls the operational layer, and partly by some "conversion" rules that try to mirror the units' conditions in CMBN terms. You don't actually need an operational layer game to adopt some of these concepts -- if you have a like-minded opponent who wants more historical play, then you can discuss the situation this battle represents and come up with ways to represent it. Even an imbalanced situation can be a fun game with winning chances for both sides, if you play around enough with the victory conditions. Here are a few highlights from the conversion rules we use: 1.0 Fitness The boardgame’s HQ morale level at the time of activation sets the starting “Fitness” level of the units entering battle as follows: HQ Morale 6 or 7 = Fit HQ Morale 4 or 5 = Weakened HQ Morale 2 or 3 = Unfit (Exception: Pinned or disrupted status affects fitness, see 6.0) 1.1 Battalion-level forces: Apply the overall Fitness level to 2 of the 3 companies. The third company is always one level higher than its fellow companies (simulating the fact that one company would have been in reserve and more rested than the others). 1.2 Company-level forces: apply the overall HQ Morale/Fitness level to both companies. 2.0 Experience levels US 29th ID and 2nd ID = Veteran US 35th ID = Regular German 352nd ID and FJ units and SS units = Veteran 3.0 Leadership levels (Can be modified by Pinned or Disrupted status, see 6.0) US units = default level 0 German units = default level +1 4.0 Motivation levels Motivation levels in CMBN can be Fanatic, Extreme, High, Normal, Low, or Poor. The default motivation levels for units entering CMBN battles should be as follows (this may be modified by Pinned or Disrupted status, see 6.0): US units – Normal German 352nd ID - Normal German FJ and SS – Fanatic 5.0 Supply levels – CMBN Range is Full, Adequate, Limited, Scarce, Severe. Most of the supply effects are modeled at the op level by the boardgame’s LOC rules, which affect how much headquarters can do. Default supply level for all units = Adequate. 5.1 Exception: Units whose HQ has no LOC at the start of the tactical action have the following effects entering a CMBN battle: 1st CMBN battle in this Op day/turn: Supply = Limited 2nd CMBN battle in this Op day/turn: Supply = Scarce 3rd and subsequent CMBN battles in this day/turn: Supply = Severe 6.0 Pinned or Disrupted states Pins or Disruptions (that were caused by boardgame barrage, etc.) are modeled at the start of a CMBN tactical battle by applying some modifications in the unit editor to the "soft factors" of affected units. 6.1 Pinned: Units pinned in the boardgame start a CMBN battle with Fitness level one step lower than the normal level that would be determined by Rule 1.0. Their motivation level is set to Low. 6.2 Disrupted: This is a more severe state, and at that point there would have been effects on a unit's command-and-control due to leader casualties and shock, etc. A disrupted unit starts a CMBN battle automatically with "Poor" motivation, and -2 Leadership state. 6.3 At the end of a CMBN battle, tactical results would get translated back into the boardgame. So, depending on units' Motivation and Leadership levels at the end, they would re-enter the boardgame as Pinned or Disrupted or normal. 8.0 Objectives and scoring: The CMBM scenarios will use two types of objectives: terrain (“occupy”), and enemy casualties. 8.1 Terrain objectives in the CMBN battles are areas within a zone of approximately 280 meters on a side, or less, which represent the target hex of the attack in the operational-level boardgame. 8.2 Casualty objectives in the CMBN battles are to inflict enough casualties on the enemy to exceed their step-loss threshold. 8.3 Each side plays the CMBN battle for 1000 victory points. Points are allocated as follows: Attacker: Terrain objective (occupy) = 1000 points Defender: Enemy casualties > 40% (if enemy is a battalion) or 35% (if enemy is a company) = 1000 points. 8.4 If the battle ends in a tie on points, the personnel loss percentage determines the outcome.

+1 to the idea of harder-to-spot ATGs. That would at least help compensate for their not having the full panoply of dug-in positions and overhead cammo netting, etc. That would just be a tweak to some numerical factors, wouldn't it? Although I understand that BFC are very (justifiably) conservative about things like that and don't want to risk unhinging the overall game balance.

Good riddance!

This really sounds terrific. Can someone explain the "for dummies" how-to for making best use of all the Italy content (terrain, battle pack, maps, uniform mods, etc), and installing it without messing up all the existing mods for these things that one might already have in the "z" folder? Is it really as simple as just collecting all the Italy stuff in a z\italy folder? Or do all the W Europe mods in z have to be temporarily moved out -- or just certain ones? PS: Does the Italy mod give us access to the modded terrain tiles for making our own Italy maps, too? How do you get the old ones back when you need them?

Great tactics thread! Love it when we're all contributing ideas and insights about playing, instead of whining about the limitations/perceived flaws of the game itself.

If your defense is set up correctly (in depth, with advanced observation/listening posts, a first line, and then a main line of resistance behind that, and with your MGs and guns back and hidden by reverse slopes so they catch attackers from the rear or flank), then a scout that finds one of your positions doesn't really find all that much. Your opponent would still have to do a lot more scouting and probing to discover whether that contact was your main line or an outpost, etc. And if he deploys forces and mortars it, you've succeeded in making him waste his time and ammo prematurely. Here's how the Germans were taught to do it "by the book" (from the translation of the WWII German Company Officer's Handbook): One thing that always strikes me from this disgram is how much space they left between the most forward outposts and their main line of resistance (MLR). But that would be a "killzone" for the 1st and 2nd platoons, which are in mutually supporting positions on the main line. Also, notice how many MGs, guns and mortars are deployed way back, invisible from an advancing enemy, in reverse slope and "keyhole" positions. They're almost guaranteed to surprise the enemy with an ambush and get the first few shots in before they're located and taken out. Look at all the distance and enemies an attacker would have to fight through to penetrate the MLR and secure an objective -- I can't imagine how an enemy wouldn't be exhausted/decimated/demoralized by that point, ripe for counterattack by the reserve company (offmap). And this isn't even a bocage defense, which would have offered enormous additional benefits of covered/concealed defensive positions. Advantage attacker??? Final thought: You might say it's impossible to set up a defense like this on a typical CMBN map, especially some smaller QB ones. Fair enough, but then that's just the map's fault, not the CMBN engine itself. Bad maps make for bad tactics and gamey outcomes. All that's needed is to make maps that are big and realistic enough for the battled you want. The tools are there.

LLF is the ultimate map detailer. This is my favorite thread on the forum. (In my maps, even though I use the same tools to get the farm and town footprints placed accurately, I've never even thought to go as far as trying to place doors and windows in their actual places, and I just use building types that "look right" from the aerial views or that seem to make sense for the specific location.)

Don't worry, LLF -- your monster La Meauffe map will be a masterpiece, and I know I'll certainly play the heck out of it. Also, I always enjoy playing Normandy maps because that part of France looks so doggoned beautiful (before the carnage, that is) -- orchards, lush pastures, what's not to like?

The Lorraine campaign, overall, also featured some pretty ferocious infantry combat in Sept-Oct '44 as the Americans crossed the Moselle and fought dug-in Germans over a series of hills and plateaus as they hooked around Nancy. Terrain has some rough areas, hills and forests, but otherwise is pretty good for open battles in its eastern parts: "East of the Moselle...the plateau formation continues for some distances. Metz and Nancy lie close to the wide valleys of the Nied and Seille Rivers, known as "the Lorraine plain" (La Plaine). This rich, rolling agricultural region is interlaced with small streams, dotted with occasional woods and isolated buttes, and intersected at intervals by flat-topped ridges. Here are found the characteristic Lorraine villages, small, compact, and with buildings and walls of stone." --Hugh M. Cole, The Lorraine Campaign (US Army Green Book) For armor, in addition to Arracourt, there was a hellacious tank battle at nearby Luneville on 18 Sept '44.

Anyone have any links or references to good maps showing detail of how the German defenses were set up in the Dieppe raid/Operation Jubilee, Green Beach sector around Pourville, 19 Aug 1942? I found a good Osprey map but it covers only Dieppe proper.

There are so many variables -- the nature of the map (bocage? terrain variations? lots of realistic brush and cover/concealment?), the OOBs (foxholes? mines? barbed wire?) skill of the defender, and many more. A skilled defender, dug in, on a realistic bocage map should be able to hold off a force twice the size, and in some cases even more than that. Also, you mention the attacking force taking 75 percent casualties, and your forces being shot to the last man. If it's realism you want, try making some casualty thresholds that represent a cohesion breakpoint. Except in the most desperate circumstances, an attacking force would not be likely to continue attacking after suffering casualties that high. Treat the soldiers like flesh-and-blood people, and results may be closer to what tended to happen IRL. Treat them like game pieces and you'll get a fun game, but don't be surprised when you see results like this.

Aaaah, wonderful! I'll add these fresh visions to the sugarplums that will be dancing in my head this Christmas Eve.

Very instructive! But can you explain more about how/where a small stone wall was placed and how it helps troops enter/exit basements? Can't see from the pic.

The Southwest accent sounds much closer to an American one than any other in Britain, seems to me, along with the Northern Irish accent. I wonder if that's because so many of our American settlers came from those parts, or because what we call a Southwest accent today was just what a "farmer" or rural accent sounded like everywhere in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Absolutely! The Tommies should look as mean and cammoed up as this:

+1 to this. So many maps have water that's a challenge to render in a realistic way, given the current limitations. And with the Commonwealth module coming, I'd like to be able to make the Odon and the Orne look like more than lines of swamp tiles. OTOH, I could make the wider of the two (the Orne) actual water, but then the zero elevation would require making all other elevations on the map relative to that.

If the mission is to watch, I'd go into the forest immediately to get better concealment for my hiding/watching spot. You want to grab that good recon spot before the enemy does, otherwise he'll be the hidden one and your unit will be a sitting duck in the open. But you also have to be prepared for the possibility that the enemy has occupied the forest before you -- so use "hunt" and "slow" and take pauses and creep in there carefully to avoid ambush. Use a short (15m?) circular covered arc within the forest so that your watching unit doesn't give itself away with unnecessary shooting.

What is version 1e going to change or add?

That's a pep talk and a challenge if I ever heard one! [You'd make a good squad leader...]

"What's my motivation....?"

The real deal-killer for me wouldn't be lacking the DD tanks or LSTs, it would be the known bug affecting bunkers. The concrete bunkers and emplacements are such an essential part of D-Day -- but troops get stuck in them. Then too, we're missing Tobruks and other characteristic defensive fortification types for the beach defenses. As someone said in one of the cited threads: "Even with my defenders on a very high cliff with clear views they could not suppress and hold the attackers for long. I'm not sure a decent and challenging historical scenario around Omaha is actually possible at the moment."

JonS, what would the procedure be for modding and inserting our own bmp files to replace the horizons in the game? Resolutions, image sizes, etc? Best tips and tricks to make it look right? Also, for those who have made good beach maps: Please share and post some of your hard-learned experience on how to make beaches look their best -- which kinds of terrain tiles for which effects, how to make the elevation work best when there's water, cliffs, dunes, causeways, etc. Also, what are the most detailed D-Day beach maps available online (you know, the ones that show all the WN's and obstacles and zones in their historical spots)? Personally, I'd probably use a board wargame to determine the landings/paradrops and then use CMBN to play out the first 48 hours or so for troops ashore.

@Erwin: I feel your pain. So one "standard best practice" I adopted for La Nicollerie, Choisy Crossroads, and all my maps is marking the main bocage gaps (the obvious ones the farmer would have used) with dirt and sometimes mud tiles. That makes them easy to spot, in-game. I also place many, many other gaps that I deliberately leave unmarked -- because it should be part of the tactical challenge to find those on your own and exploit them. Also -- since the Norman fields were not designed for mechanized agriculture, most field and orchard entrances/exits should not be a full space wide to allow military vehicles free access. Two things I do to simulate that: 1. Put a bocage gap at the entrance (which is never wide enough for a vehicle unless a demo charge or Rhino widens it), 2. Put an open space but use the "heavy forest" tile on it, which prevents vehicles from crossing. Those entrances/exits are marked with wooden gates, so the player can just look for the gate and not have to guess at the underlying terrain tile. I also leave vehicle-accessible open entrances/exits in places where (my personal judgment) the bocage appears to have been removed or altered to accommodate larger fields and mechanization in the 1940s -- mainly wheatfields. @LongLeftFlank -- Thank you for your kind words about La Nicollerie. If you like that, try Choisy too. It's not as varied in elevations, but has more farms and a village on it. As usual, when you open the map you'll feel as if you've gone from a "pooltable" to a menacing jungle. I'd encourage anyone with AI coding skills to try making some scenarios for those maps. They're adjacent to each other, so you could even create some linkage between two scenarios.

Something like the explosions we had in the Theatre of War 2 games (the artillery ones were outstanding) would be great. And with the Commonwealth module coming, we'll be looking at lot of explosions once Monty starts unleashing some of his massive barrages.

My 2 cents, having played both: CMBN is much closer to the old Close Combat experience, only much better and in 3D. TOW 2 has been an admirable series in certain respects, but it's more of an eye-appealing clickfest (and Kursk isn't even gorgeous if your computer can't deliver a good framerate).