Broadsword56

Hey Mark, since you're so well-versed in mapping already and you're looking to fill the prerelease void, how about considering making a little tutorial or "for dummies" step by step guide on the way you go about making a map from Google Earth? I can probably work it out by painful trial-and-error, but I know it would save a lot of people a lot of time if we knew some of the proven methods of things like: *Marking the area on Google Earth that you want to map; *Use of grids, placemarks, rulers or whatever to scale it up, ID landmarks, mark elevation contours, etc. *Getting the project set up in the CM x 2 map editor so things work smoothly -- those first decisions usually have the greatest consequences for the final result! What to do first, second, third. How to get the terrain looking right. Tips and tricks, etc.

And New Zealand Maoris with those special knives and war cries...

Looks great. Looking forward to someone modding to add cammo netting on helmets and that little white "spade" insignia on the side.

But an Internet ad on the Military Channel's website might not be prohibitively expensive, and would reach the same strategy and history-oriented audience -- also allowing people to click through to Battlefront and buy the game on the spot.

I was a big fan of AP:K and played it a lot. The AI was top-notch, and really challenging to play against if you play as Soviets. Infantry has a tough time in that game, though, and they mostly just get mowed down. But the immersion and atmospherics are great. Worth the learning curve to get the GUI figured out. It's really not that hard once you get used to it.

If the tank's rockin, don't bother knockin'...

As long as player/modders can tweak things to their liking if they like fewer casualties or many casualties, all will be well. Not the weapons lethality (which isn't the problem), but aspects of the game that reward/punish certain player behaviors.

Call me weird, but the suspense of scouting and moving into position and waiting for that first "buddabuddabudda" of enemy mg fire is about as exciting as anything else in CMBN. Realism = fun. Good tactics = fun. If I just want to see things blow up, I'll go to my local multiplex.

We're all sick, sick I tell you!

In that case, just fight the campaign-generated battles against real people, not the AI.

I'd like it if it gave a rough idea of the arrival time, just to help planning a little bit. But nothing too precise -- that would allow too much micromanagement. Troops in the heat of battle rarely arrive exactly when or where they're ordered to be.

A few thoughts: 1. See the "Cohesion in CMBN" thread for a lively and detailed discussion about this very thing. 2. A good campaign game that models the grand-tactical or operational level shouldn't be just based on body-counting anyway. What really matters more at battalion and above is an overall level of fighting effectiveness -- "cohesion" is another way of saying it. So it's not really a problem for campaigns if CMBN casualties are a bit higher than was realistic --- but what's really critical is having a formula to translate those casualty levels into some realistic loss of combat effectiveness for the campaign-scale unit. 3. The scenario editor lets us set maximum casualty thresholds in a scenario. So if you want historical accuracy, you can play with that and make the battle end if the attacker wastes too many lives before capturing the objective, or if the defender unrealistically tries to fight to the last man instead of pulling back after a certain point to fight another day.

Using BFTB as the op layer really would be ideal -- because everything would be computerized and BFTB really does the op level better than anyone. But it seems the major work all really exists on the BFTB side -- to find a way to make that game stop at the right moment when a battle is about to happen (since it runs in pausable continuous time rather than turns), allow an export of all the map location and unit data so CMBN players can make their battle scenario, and then have a way (this is the real sticking point) to get battle results and unit locations BACK into the existing BFTB scenario without creating a new scenario from scratch every time. Players with modding experience over on the BFTB forum that I've asked about this just say "It can't be done" and leave it at that. And I've seen no official interest or post in response from the BFTB designers, either. So it still sounds like a pipe dream -- unless Bil knows something the rest of us don't (he seems to have been hinting at something lately).

I'd like to see a video AAR that tells a "story" -- like one platooon's battle, from ground-level view all the way. Let us care about who falls, who survives, etc. Give us the same FOW that they have, etc.

Or at least place the deployment areas closer toward the center and leave some of that extra real estate in the rear areas (so HQs and mortars can deploy properly back, and a reserve can hide somewhere safe, etc).

"Enemy at the Gates" was pretty epic -- best Stalingrad movie to date, I think.

If you want to play CMBN for the era and location of the war it was designed to simulate, then map size is unlikely to be a limitation. This bocage fighting was nothing like the other parts of the war in France or elsewhere. It was common for an entire battalion or more to fight all day over a single apple orchard -- and to have frontages that were much more compressed than normal. So a central fighting area of, say, 300m within a larger map of 1km would not be at all unusual. But for those who want to use CMBN as a freeform "sandbox" to play any sort of WWII action in any kind of location, I can see there might be some challenges. We'll just have to wait and see what the engine allows.

OK, then, what is the all-time classic war movie? I nominate "Where Eagles Dare." Over-the-top special ops heroics, of course, but suspenseful and unforgettable. Plus, the great Richard Burton-- "Broadsword calling Danny Boy... Broadsword calling Danny Boy..." Another really great one (not on DVD but it shows up on classic cable movie channels once in a blue moon) is "Five Graves to Cairo," a Billy Wilder film from 1943. Erich von Stroheim plays Rommel. Watch the original trailer:

For me, it's historical all the way. Satellite photos, period documents and Google Earth, etc., as sources, aimed at making a map as much like the real place as possible. My area of interest is mostly the US 19th Corps area: Vire River on the W to the Elle on the east, and from the La Mauffe-Rehouf line on the N to St Lo in the south. I'll have to see how the editor works and how hard/easy it is to get accurate landmarks, contours, etc., into a map. I'll be looking at battalion-sized battles, but because the fights were concentrated, some of them may be only 1 or 2 km square. But I'd rather make a 4 x 4 km map and then it would be more useful for people to cut portions out where they want to fight. Mapping quickly becomes addictive for me, so I have to make sure I keep plenty of time to actually play the game! So my maps may take a long time to finish -- I tend to be a perfectionist and I like lots of flavor atmosphere. My maps won't have any AI in them, since they'll be intended for PBEM or MP. But it would be great if anyone wanted to build AI scenario scripts into them later.

This is losing me -- maybe we need an "artillery for dummies" guide once the game is out...?

The entire area of the St. Lo campaign (from the Vire in the west to the Elle in the east, and from N to S) is at most 12 x 12 km. That's "only" 9 maps of 4x4 to cover the entire thing...

Thanks so much for leveling with us! It's always a relief to know, so I can manage the anticipation level...

Traffic on the forum seems to be dropping -- I hope the troops aren't becoming demoralized.

Those dtic studies were right on the mark for this discussion thread - thanks! Seems to me the data tend to confirm aspects of what we've all been saying: Casualties alone don't determine cohesion/combat effectiveness. But they do have some effect, and it's possible to see some ballpark ranges where a given level of casualties in a given time may correlate to a unit's "breakpoint" in being able to perform certain types of mission. Two main things I take away from this that change the way I'd translate a battalion-level boardgame to CMBN and vice-versa: 1. In the 8-day timeframe of the St. Lo boardgame, replacements would not have had time to fully replace losses, and units on both sides would get smaller over time. By the time St. Lo fell, Balkoski wrote, few active battalions in the 29th ID could muster more than one full-strength rifle company. 2. At the grand-tactical boardgame level, 15% average casualties for a battalion-size unit does seem enough to trigger at least a partial cohesion loss (for attack missions). While that might seem to be an awfully small number, this example cited in the study explains why it really isn't when you average it out at battalion scale: "Suppose that, on the first day of an enagagement, Company A suffers 25 casualties (3 percent of battaion strength) and Company B loses 8. On the second day these experiences are reversed. On the third day Company C is committed, loses 50 men (6 percent of battalion strength but 26 percent of company strength), and is unable to continue attacking. Companies A and B have by now cumulative losses of 36 each; Company D, the heavy weapons company, has lost 5 men, and Battalion Headquarters 2. The cumulative losses of the battalion for the three-day period are 15 percent. There is no reserve company to replace C; A and B are too depleted to carry the initiative alone. The battalion can do no more than reorganize, with full support from the heavy weapons company, and dig in for defense." So, now I'd be more inclined to translate the games something like this: Each 20% casualties per battalion (average for the entire battalion at the end of a CMBN battle) triggers 1 step loss. If total force size is less than battalion, each 40% casualties in CMBN per company triggers one step loss (elimination).

OK, hoping I don't bore anyone here... In the St. Lo boardgame it's like this in a nutshell: *Scale of game is battalions (which can break down to companies). *Battalions represent 400 to 800 men. *Companies represent 100 to 200 men. *Battalions can take 1 step loss; second step loss = elimination. *Companies are eliminated after 1 step loss. *US battalions all start at a combat value of 11, reduce to 8. *German 3rd FJ battalions start at combat value of 9, reduce to 7. *German 352nd Div. battalions start at combat value of 5, reduce to 4. *Combat Results Table has many modifiers, but it's bloody: results range from *Attacker loses 3 steps to Defender loses 7 steps, and every result has a loss one way or the other (no exchanges). *Operational artillery and airstrikes have their own phases, resulting in pins/disruptions/step losses. *The game gives an attacking battalion 3 options: Hasty Attack, Deliberate Attack, Intensive Attack (each one costing a battalion HQ successively more of its limited tactical activity points, but with bigger payoff due to odds shifts on the CRT). Armor and Arty, if available, can be added as assets to get even better offsensive/defensive odds. The boardgame uses the step losses to represent cohesion hits and lost combat effectiveness more than just casualties. Here's what I came up with as a starting point to translate from boardgame to a CMBN setup: Reduced US units entering CMBN battle: One level lower in Experience (from “Veteran” to “Regular") and one level lower in Leadership (from default of 0 to -1). [This reflects the US replacement system that made units and leaders "greener" over time but maintained personnel strength] Reduced German units entering CMBN battle: One level lower in Experience ("Veteran" to "Regular") and a 15% (?) lower personnel total. Leadership stays at +1. [This reflects the German repacement system, which blended veteran troops with replacements, but tended to let units get smaller over time. Also, at this point they still had some of their core of hardened NCOs with Ostfront experience] Pinned units start a CMBN battle with Fitness level "Weakened" and its Motivation level at one level above "Poor." Disrupted units units start a CMBN battle with "Unfit" Fitness, "Poor" motivation, and -1 Leadership. To translate CMBN losses back to the boardgame: Hasty Attack battles: 1 hour (?) time limit. A battalion with 20% (?) casualties at the end of battle suffers 1 step loss returning to the boardgame. Deliberate Attack battles: 2 hour (?) time limit. A battalion with 40% (?)casualties at the end of battle suffers 1 step loss returning to the boardgame. Intensive Attack battles: 3 hour (?) time limit. A battalion with 60% (?) casualties at the end of battle suffers 1 step loss returning to the boardgame. [This tries to model how the cohesion effect of casualties varies with how rapidly they happen to a unit].