Chris Ferrous

@ Georgie True, there's nothing wrong with a well contrived and pre-set AI defence. After all, you can still play with things like the ambush radii over an estimated time course, and although I've never managed it, it should be possible to ambush at least the lead elements of a human led attack.

Hi Gen v TV Certainly that was my experience with CM1; FOs just didn't use up their assets all that well, and sometimes not at all. I've not checked who/what is doing the spotting in the scenario I am particularly thinking about (about 900m^2), but the mortar strikes come thick and fast and all over the map. There are about 3 really good OP positions and the AI is offered them at set-up, then there's about another 5-6 more that cover significant channels. I'm convinced that a single location isn't targetting all this stuff! I've never really gone for particularly flat maps, not jagged, but certainly not flat, and so maybe that's why the AI FOs get to do their job.

I don't think zillions of TRPs are necessary for the AI to use its mortars etc. successfully, providing the map isn't chequer board flat. Even minor rises of 4-5 metres are sufficient to get an OP that can see over even dense Bocage. In all my scenarios (I've not released any yet) the AI has used its mortars very well and switched targets rapidly. The one thing I do do however, is to bring in the AI's arty assets over time so it doesn't expend it all at once. It seems to use short sharp strikes of about 4-8 rounds in 1 minute. They're usually close if not bang on target and if they hit you can pretty well scratch at least one team. For what it's worth I think the painted target zones (support zones) are too restrictive for the AI unless it is intended to represent an opening barrage or FPF. Anyone got an answer to the direction vehicles point question?

Yes, the AI will set-up ONLY in areas that are compatible with BOTH the Human set-up zone AND its own set-up zone. Thanks for confirming this JonS

I suspect that along with many others, I feel the AI needs a 'helping hand' if it is to have any chance in a battle otherwise designed for HvH play. It seems that one of the tricks I thought I'd employed doesn't work; namely, allowing the AI to set-up slightly outside of the HvH set-up zones to give it a few metres head start. Likewise I've done the reverse to keep it or special units like HQs out of harm's way for a while. In a recent test of a fairly complex AI plan, I finally noticed that one group that had been given this head start had NOT in fact redeployed at all from the default positions. Worse, that group then did nothing until the next 'step' in the plan came into effect and that intended movement was thus from the incorrect location (to the correct target). My initial reaction was that the in-game AI actually had some ingenuity after all, but not as regards of what happened with this plan! So to all scenario designers, is my observation set in stone and the AI cannot be asked to deploy outside HvH set-up zones? Has anyone seen any other pitfalls in AI plans that they'd like to share? Has anyone finally got to grips with the various behaviours permitted during a move? Oh, one other thing I'm not yet sure of:- If a vehicle is directed to a position heading towards the enemy but a later timepoint asks it to withdraw does the vehicle always turn at its forward position ready to move to spot two, even if it's hours ahead, and thereby present its backside to the enemy?

R.I.P. Jimmi

BTW I'm playing through the same fairly large battle I mentioned earlier but this time in real-time. Because everything is taking longer to do the '?' have seemed much more natural and in keeping with the situation. Perhaps the artificailly extended period of time everything takes to plot in we-go (but less time in game) is the issue with the '?', and maybe they're doing a great job in real-time.

I'm trying a fairly large battle (Regt) in real-time for the first time and I was shocked when I checked-up on a follow-up Infantry Company which I had clicked through quickly and ordered to proceed through reasonably dead ground and then through the length of a wood previously reconned by a single Platoon. I realised the new Company had reached the woods and checked-up on them: the whole Company were proceeding in two snakey lines about 5m apart with just 3 guys about 30m ahead of the rest. I quickly stopped the bulk movement through this partially secured terrain since a single grenade would have killed about 20 men! Just to make things clear, I had not simply clicked on the HQ and pointed all units simultaneously at the end of the wood. I had gone through each unit, full squads, in turn and ordered them to a separate position at the destination. I wish I'd taken a screenshot but of course I had no opportunity with it being in real time. As an aside, back to one of my original topics: I reckon on the basis of this test that at this scale of battle, real time takes about 2.5 times as long to get things done, and thus it needs totally different AI plan timings to take account of this fact.

Good call, Skogtroll. I would be interested to know what order that section was given? I do agree that visually troops do seem to stay too much in line, and it would be nice if they shook out a little. I don't know if the battle model takes into account this apparent bunching and compensates or not.

Another advantage is that the AI troopers don't talk all the time, like, "Gee, did you see that?" Rat-at-tat-tat . . .

Yeah, it's a well known tactic of working out the largest calibre in the enemy arsenal. Four men down is about 50mm!

Noob: well done for pressing on with this, especially for contacting the JT game suppliers for permissions. I've followed this topic with interest from the start and my main concerns are that the generation of CMBN battle maps of sufficient detail will be onerous to say the least; and how long does one allow for a battle? Would it be longer if greater forces were involved? I ran a CMAK (Battle for Bastogne) campaign using an old board wargame as its basis. I wrote an extensive manual and it worked quite well and turned up some very interesting battles but the main problems (after writing the manual, testing the rules, setting OOBs, and making some stock maps) was that players varied in their speeds of play (no-one dropped out in play), and didn't appreciate the amount of admin needed for adjusting the OOBs for losses. I can send you a copy of this rulebook if you like as it may give you some more ideas. What we are really lacking in CMBN, which CMAK DID provide, is a random map generator. This was used according to tightly controlled rules depending on the operational terrain, and then manually edited, again according to set principles, to generate more intricate elements such as roads exiting through the correct mapedges and intersecting in the villages etc., and to remove some bizarre random elements. In all honesty, I would actually consider making the entire strategic base map in sections, with overlap, after all they can be chopped up as needed, and then actually move units across those maps in real time. I'd have to give it some thought but I'm sure it could be done. My 6-year old pc, just defunct, could manage maps of 1km x 1km and about a battalion of units. My new pc seems to have no such restrictions! Maps that are too small would tend to work against ATG weapons which can be well hidden at 2000m and yet lethal to the right target. Anyway, good luck with your proposal, and I hope it works out.

IMHO There's three types of '?':- 1. Initial intel, and they work fine for this. 2. A spurious unidentified contact during a battle, and as reported before, the first time they appear they do fine for this aspect also. 3. A FOW or confusion or have you really checked over there sort of '?' which can be very persistent indeed, and it's these I find superfluous. An example from my '4hr battle':- There was a cornfield through which the enemy were seen fleeing/withdrawing and many were shot down. The same field was then staked out on three sides, fully reconned, and then passed through as a line of advance by an entire Company of infantry. No viable enemy troops remained. An exhausted/depleted Company was left around an objective zone overlooking the field and for the next 90 minutes '?' of varying opacity kept appearing. I ignored them and more support units moved up through there and found nothing. Maybe the '?' represent the moans of the wounded since I can think of no other reason they might keep appearing. And just to make it clear, on several occasions the '?' have disappeared completely but subsequently a whole battery of them appears again. They finally seem to have stopped appearing over two hours after the field was captured. Maybe all those wounded enemy are now dead?

Just an idea for rotated damaged tank hulks:- Have you tried placing a live tank, facing it in 3D set-up, and then destroying it in the editor?

I'm all for Fog of War but these '?' icons do seem very persistent. As far as I am concerned their simple absence would equally provide FoW since an assault squad popping up out of nowhere would be even more of a shock! I'm playing an experimental 4hr battle v AI and I am still getting '?' appearing in places I 'secured' 2 hours ago! If they were supposed to represent sound contacts (as in CMBO especially) that would be fine as sounds would be easy to miss unless you followed every unit every turn, but they seem to be intended to just generally add to the confusion / FoW. So, as stated in paragraph 2, '?' seem redundant unless seen for the very first time*. * which includes prior intel pre-set by the scenario designer.

Does this mean there is a new patch for the basic CMBN version or is purchase of CMBN:CW a prerequisite before you get these new features?

Black Prince : - An interesting hypothesis given Hitler's orders to destroy all German infrastructure when threatened with occupation.

I think it is more interesting to speculate what may have happened should the Western Allies have had atomic bomb earlier. There are a number of possible scenarios, and this list isn't exhaustive:- 1. During D-day planning - surely colatteral damage would have precluded using it in France? 2. During the Battle of the Bulge - possible if things had turned out worse? 3. During planning/execution of the Rhine crossing - more likely perhaps, as a sort of 'surrender now it's all over' ultimatum? 4. In the last days of the war in Europe - similar to above with possible implications for (5) and (6) below. 5. During the above period may it have been used to 'delay' the Russians - enough said. 6. Would it otherwise have influenced the post-war map of Europe? - I think not since peace and border negotiations were going on well after Hiroshima, and 'balance of power' scientists soon got the technology to the Soviets in any case. Overall, I'd say that other than somewhere central in Germany no target in Europe was sufficiently distant from friendly civilians, so I just don't think it would have been used other than in retaliation.

BTW aren't flavopur objects indestructible (or at least don't they have a tendency to be so)? I've had entire orchards / farmhouse complexes destroyed by arty and the fragile hand cartin the yard is still standing there serenely in the ruins! I've also seen things like barrels and drums stacked against buildings - the building collapses the barrels remain!?

Actually the hedge (or bank?) in this old photo doean't look all that high:- http://www.stolly.org.uk/ETO/renaultuechenilletteneuvilleplain.html

These give a good impression imho. Mainly towns and villages though rather than bocage. http://www.stolly.org.uk/ETO/aerialviewofbricquebec.html http://s10cil.com/archives/1970 http://www.6juin1944.com/album/thennow/index.php Slide 24 in the above link shows a great picture of a US Priest SPG travelling down a damaged street.

My view of Bocage / Hedges :- Bocage and Low Bocage - do a good job of representing these terrain features both graphically and in game play. Shortfalls : Some LOS issues nearby, get Rhinoed too easily and too fast, get blown too cleanly. Graphics of blown gaps could be improved. Wishlist: A new tile of even denser, non-Rhinoable, not instantly blown Extreme Bocage on a 1.5m berm. A cart-sized (2.5m) gap tile in addition to the 'walk through' gap and an optional gated gap of similar size. Hedge - Fails graphically and in game play because the hedge is ludicrously tidy and far too low. Shortfalls : Hardly hinders LOS, and is passed through too freely by infantry and all vehicles. I assume the low elevation is to assist differentiation from low bocage. Wishlist : Make up the current Hedge to a similar height to Low Bocage but with much less restrictions on LOS than the latter. Increase (treble?) pass through times for vehicles and men. A new tile of Bare Hedge (or very thin or worn hedge) with very low LOS restrictions, and another, doing more or less what the current tile does representing a 'domestic trimmed' hedge. Biggest overall deficiency of foliage boundaries : pass through times before or after breaching. Biggest designers' flaw : not drawing in enough 'natural gaps' to cope with current game mechanics. Cheers All

As George MC recommends: check all accessible information, including if necessary the briefings from both sides (without of course paying much attention to them and thereby ruining the Fog of War). If that still reveals nothing then open up the scenario in the editor, and again without paying detailed attention to what you see, select the AI tab in the top left hand corner; then select plan 1 for the side you wish to oppose you. Plan 1 at least should have used or used frequently listed, then see if there's a plan 2. If one or both of these plan slots are filled then the designer has at least tried to make a plan for the AI to follow. It doesn't guarantee it will work all that well even so. If there's no plans then that side quite definitely CANNOT be the attacker, but with a good fixed set-up it could fight on the defence. Then check the side you originally intended to play. If it has plans then maybe you can play as either side. If neither side has any plans then it is highly likely the scenario should only be played HvH. The same can be said of QB maps. It really is such a simple thing for designers to rectify, simply stating suitability and play recommendations, but I regret this 'obvious' info is so often omitted. Good Luck!

Note to GAJ: You are quite right about the 'binary' (you get it or you don't) nature of victory conditions asking for >30% enemy casualties etc.. However, realising that, I have been identifying enemy units as targets for destruction with appropriate points awarded and unless it's literally one man, that IS NOT binary. For example, setting an enemy platoon as 'worth' 50 pts will give about 25 pts if it's half-killed. That system would seem to be the way forward for smoothing out victory calculation. I definitely would expect to see it used for EVERY significant AFV, and if it had been the wobbley result at Barkmann's corner could have been avoided.

I've never really understood this thread: I know when I've won, and I know when I've lost, and I know when the result is inconclusive. So, who cares about points? (And whether or not the designer has got it 'right'.) May I say that victory points are just a guide to make one reflect on the action after it's done and dusted. Perhaps one should think, 'Good grief, I lost 200 men and he only lost 199', therefore I lost. Errgh, no, I don't think so, providing that generally you did what was asked, and remember, that as a platoon or company commander it would be very unlikely that you'd have any input as to the logic of an attack or a hard fought defence. That would be down to your commanding officer, and he may or may not have given you some tactical options to follow, thus restricting your course of action even further. Thus, the 'feel' is what matters. Go with the 'feel, and you'll know whether you've won or lost (or at a pinch, drawn). Good luck , everyone.