Glubokii Boy

1 quick pro each._. On-map: If the mortarteam have LOS to the target they are very fast to deliver accurate rounds on target. Off-map: I have found off-map mortar units to be better suited to handle area- and linear target orders.

Yes...Good suggestiom !

I do not agree with this at all. Having more AI groups willl give the designer a far greater chans of having the AI do what he intend them to do right of the bat..Simply because of the reason that having more AI groups avaliable will give the designer the chans to issue less complicated orders to each individual AI group wich the AI in turn will be better suited to handle. Resulting in far less tweaking of the AI plans and therefore less playtesting needed to get the over all plan to work as intended. When designing player attack scenarios the lack of additional AI groups may not be all that apperent but when trying to design a AI attack scenario it most certanly is a noteable limitation imo.

If it's not already in the game perhaps troops that are possitioned in an action square with foxholes or a trench could recieve a MOTIVATION MODIFIER increasing their motivation one level for example (up to the maximum of fanatic). This ought to increase their staying-power in a prepared possition a little bit atleast.

I certanly agree with your wish for additional AI-groups. It's on the very top of my wishlist actually. Just like you i have been forced to 'cheat' by using reinforcements instead of extra AI-groups when making scenarios. Perhaps not in the exact way you described but i also run out of avaliable AI groups. The problem with limited AI-groups may not be all that great when designing PLAYER ATTACKING scenarios as a large part of the AI force may be stationarybut when designing PLAYER DEFENSIVE scenarios it most certanly is a problem. There simply is not enough AI-groups avaliable. If the player is defending an area with a company sized force then the AI will need to be attacking with something like a battalion atleast.If you split that battalion into platoon-sized AI-groups that more or less means that you have used up all of your AI-groups right away. Platoon-sized AI-groups might work OK in many situations but atleast i have found that often you would like to use smaller AI-groups to better controll the AI. Waisting all 16 AI groups on the infantry leaves nothing left to include some supporting armour/ vehicles in the AI force. If you do decide to include some vehicles into your scenario it is many times preferable to make each individual vehicle a seperate AI-group. This eats through the avaliable AI-groups quickly. With only 16 AI-groups avaliable i have found it a bit tricky to 'peal off' parts of the battalion to defend ground taken. I may not want an entire platoon or even platoon+ sized force to defend a small objective/ key terrain secured by the AI forces (they are still needed on the attack). Having more AI-groups avaliable would allow me to to that atleast to some greater degree. In V4.0 we have been granted the ability to issue area target orders to the AI-plans. This finally will give the scenario designer atleast some controll of how the AI will use its mortars in mid-game. If you asign an on-map mortar section to its own AI-group you will be able to decide where and when that indirect support asset will fire (using areatarget)...you will not be limited to a turn 1, random bombardment any more wich is brilliant. Having a few of these mortar AI-groups also eats up the number of avaliable AI-groups quickly though. So yes. I agree...More AI-groups, please !!

The idea has its merits fore sure...Keep the HUNT command as it is and add this as an extra MOVE ORDER-option. Maybe 'PROBE'... If i understand you correctly it would work something like this... - At the end of the first leg of the order (pause waypoint in the picture) the player will be able to set any actions as usual with waypoints, hide, target, target arc etc.. that will be carried out if the unit reaches that waypoint. If this happens the second leg of the order (withdraw part ) will be cancelled. - The player should be able to define what kind of withdraw option 'the probing' units should use if comming under fire (sneak, fast etc). If the unit comes under fire the first leg of the order will be cancelled immidiatelly and the unit will execute the withdraw order option (without any pausing at all). maybe as an option if the player has added a pause fuction to the end of the first leg (as in pictures) the unit will hide in place for the set ammount of time before executing withdraw-part of the order (to allow for some friendly suppression). I'm actually starting to like this idea somewhat better. This will be a quite complicated order to implement though i fear. I don't know how much of an programming effort it would take to get something like this working. (will it be worth the effort ?) It would be nice to have something like this as an option to the regular HUNT command but its not on the top of my wishlist (32 AI-Groups )...

I think that one of the greatest benefits with tiny and small scenarios are the possibility to play them in real time. Sort of like being the platoon comander and shouting out my orders directly to the troops 'on the fly'... It is indeed a welcome variation to the WEGO mode that i usually play but when playing real time i try to limit myself to something like a platoon sized or reduced company sized forces . Anything bigger then that and i find it hard to keep track of everything Company sized and above i play WEGO...

The idea as such may not be all that bad but another reason for concer with letting the AI handle this is imo... - Suppression of the enemy before a withdrawl...When, where , who should do it ? Your overwatch element...When should they start shooting, where (the orgin of the enemy fire might not be fully identified)...The AI will have a hard time telling when the enemy shooter is significantelly suppressed... also What movement type should the withdrawing unit use ? sneak, fast, withdraw (in different situations different options might be the prefered one...?) Like JonS mentinoed...Perhaps it will be better to let the player decide and time these things (even if something like a half a turn might pass until he is able to issue any new orders)

I'm not entirely sure that this is a good idea... If for example a squad are moving forward with a hunt command and takes fire ( a single shot from a lone guy or perhaps a few guys )... Very light fire that is...I don't think it would be very realistic if the entire squad decided to sort of 'flee'...and retreat a certain distance. Hit the ground (as it works now)...yes, sure...but not retreat after only a single shot ! No ! not a good idea imo...

Just thought i would check... As you mentioned 'pause and resume' it kind of sounds like you are playing in REAL TIME Are you aware of the option to play in WEGO ? and what WEGO is ? As a newbie you might have missed this playstyle-option...If you have not and already are aware of what WEGO is and perhaps already are playing in that mode... Please disregard this post... And also...You are offcourse free to play in any mode you chose...If you play in REAL TIME or WEGO is entirely up to you... If you are not aware of WEGO however it's atleast worth checking out.

One more thing...If you are in the mood for some 'bedtime' Reading i recomend that you check out the AAR threads avaliable on these forums (often as sticky threads at the top of the various game pages) one example here... These will give you a nice taste of what the game is like and as a bonus...many good tips from the pros...

There are several different controll options to choose from in the settings menu i belive... As well as the possibility to customize many of the function keys...

AAhh...Close combat ! Close combat 3 was the first tactical wargame i ever played. I to enjoyed that very much back in the days. I remember dreaming back then... " If only there could be something simular... BUT IN FULL 3d ! Oooh well i guess that would be asking to much "... But then by chans i saw some pictures of Combat Mission Barbarossa to Berlin on some forum i was just skimming through... " My god ! What is this... " I remember spending many evenings reading AARs i found posted on various internet pages drouling about this game. Back then i did not know that you could buy this game on-line ( perhaps you could not ) so i searched every computer-game store i could find in the area where i live to try and find a copy of the game... Finally i found one. I have been stuck ever since. Regarding graphics... Improvements are constantly being made and V4 will have slightely better graphics then V3 but nothing major. The two game-engines are pretty simular as far as graphics goes. Graphics are not combat missions greatest selling argument though...You will find prettier games out there... but more enjoyable...No, i don't think so. It's a matter of taste offcourse what is 'better' graphics but there are a great numberr of mods avaliable for download (for free) that in my oppinion significantelly improves some of the graphics in this game...

Imo when it comes to using and understanding the UI and basic game mechanics the game is not very complicated. You will learn this quickly. When it comes to winning a battle...Things get's a bit more complicated. Where the combat mission games shines are REALISM ! You will need to use your head to plan out your attack and to the best of your ability use somewhat correct military tactics atleast... Battlefront have gone to great lenth to make sure to provide us with as historically (and currently ) correct TOEs, OOBs and what not... Every piece of equipment is modeled with very high level of detail both when it comes to looks as well as performance (both offensivly and defensivly). If you are looking for a realistic, tactical wargame you will find no better. This is not a 'fantacy game' set in WW2 setting...It is something quite different and that's what sepperates the combatmission games from things like MEN OF WAR or COMPANY OF HEROS for example. This is much, much better... In my oppinion offcourse... This forum is very friendly to newcommers and demanding on Battlefront. If some piece of equipment does not look or perform 'right' Battlefront will most certanly hear about it. On the other hand If you as a newcommer have some trouble getting started or have some questions about different tactics to use some other things it will usually not take long Before some of the veterans players lend a helping hand. My recomendation would be...BUY IT !

Thanks.... I have not played much CMBN lately so i have not updated this CM-game to V4.0 yet but i plan to have it up and running in the latest gameengine during the comming weekend. I now how two CMBN scenarios to try in V4. Nice !

A little sneak prewiew of an upcomming campaign/scenario perhaps ?

I think that pretty much the same thing can happen here...Spending more time testing various skill-levels, motivation settings etc rather then playing the game. I tried to do this a while back but there are so many factors in play here that determins how the troops acts and also some degree of randomness i believe. If you test a certain thing 10 times it will not play out in the same way every time. I came to the conclusion that the best thing to do is to simply trust the manual...Elite troops are better then green for example...They will shoot better, fatigue less, be harder to pin/rout etc A good leader is better then a bad one.

This looks very good ! I have not updated CMBN to V4 yet...but i will and ones i do i will most certanly give this scenario a go... I have however given your - retreat forward trick - a test in the editor and the results are very cool ! A very creative way to use the current functions in the editor...thanks for sharing this way of using the withdraw command. I'm sure i will use it many times when i try to make a scenario of my own from now on...

Perhaps also add a pause order at the 'best guess' location...(something like 30 seconds or... perhaps a full turn) Units spots better when stationary and will in turn be harder to spot by the enemy. A pause function at the 'best guess' location might increase your chans of getting the first shoot of from there instead of moving...to far...Before actually spotting the enemy. Another thing to considders when it comes to vehicles atlest is - should it be unbuttoned or not ? Will the enemy threath level allow for it ? Will the spotting be better unbuttoned or not (optics, range)...

A small artillery-UI suggestion.... Have the artillery function in a simular way as AI-groups do now. The artillery should have its own seperate kind of AI-groups...Called artillery groups, maybe...asigned by using shift-numberkeys The designer should be able to asign each (or multiple) artillery asset to an artillery group (1 - 16 (or 32)) The Artillerygroups would work in a simular way as AI-groups...That is have a number of orders (targets) that would be carried out in succesion. Like with AI-groups these orders (targets) could be 'set-off' and stopped by game clock or by a triggered event (using terrain objectives). If the artillery asset is not asigned to an artillery group then the AI will be free to use it at its own discretion. Instead of setting things like DASH, ADVANCE and CASIOUS, ACTIVE for example there could be options more sutable for artillery...like rate of fire, duration, fire pattern or something like that... A small example of a scenario...a reduced german battalion is ordered to assult a russian held village after first having to cross some open ground with the russians dug-in on a ridge infront of the village... art group 1 - 122 mm howitzer battery art group 2 - 122 mm howitzer battery art group 3 - 122 mm howitzer battery art group 4 - 122 mm howitzer battery art group 5 - 122 mm howitzer battery art group 6 - 122 mm howitzer battery art group 7 - 81 mm mortar section art group 8 - 81 mm mortar section art group 9 - 81 mm mortar section art groups 10 - 81 mm mortar section min 1 - 3 artillery groups 1 to 4 fire HE on 4 seperate target areas. min 2 - 4 artillery groups 5 and 6 fires smokerounds at specified areas to cover the intitial german advance across open ground. min 10 - 12 artillery group 7 and 8 targets likely player locations ahead of the AI advance (or could have a triggered artillery target each that will spring if player forces are spotted there) min 14 - 16 artillery group 9 and 10 targets further likely player possitions min 30 - 33 artillery groups 1 to 4 fires HE at the village in preparation for an assult min 31 - 33 artillery groups 9 and 10 fires smoke screens to cover german assulting troops as they advance into the village min 40 - 42 artillery group 9 and 10 fires HE on the primary objective in the village in preparation for a final assult on that objective.

Another question... Is there any way to get OFF-MAP artillery (assigned to an AI-Group) to areafire using the new areafire-funtion ? I have tried it with ON-MAP mortars and this works just fine but so far i have had no luck with getting OFF-MAP artillery to work...

I see what you mean now... Thanks !

Thanks for your explenations and demo-scenario. but Did you perhaps mix up the shift and ctrl options here...Should that not be CTRL-click to place area fire locations...

"For example, a vehicle given a Withdraw Zone will reverse towards the Movement Zone, while keeping its front pointed towards the Withdraw Zone. " This from the manual is offcourse the correct way... I have missunderstood this a bit and done it in the way i described above but that is not the way to do it... I did a quick test and the withdraw-zone should indeed be placed in the direction you want your withdrawing vehcles to be facing while reversing. By placing the withdraw-zone behind the movement-zone (like i have been doing) will result in the vehicles still withdrawing in a good way (facing forward) but ones they reached their destination they will turn around and face the withdraw-zone (if placed behind the movement-zone). Not the best option avaliable obviously. Please ignor my previous advice ! I thoght that was the way it worked and i 'fixed' that turning around thing by adding a face-command facing forward... But NO !!!! The withdraw-zone should be placed in the direction you want the vehicles to be facing while backing up...So...infantry and armour works the same...

I guess you did ... I have not used the withdraw function with infantry yet but i'm sure it works in the way RockinHarry described. It seems that the technic for doing a withdraw depends on what kind of unit it is that are supposed to do the withdrawing... With armour/ vehicles it works just fine doing it like i mentioned and with infantry you do it the other way around (as mentioned above) it seems...