Glubokii Boy

The team getting killed in the video is not a recon team...As described in the UI it is a FORWARD OBSERVER TEAM...That is...a team specifically tasked with calling in artillery/mortar support.
In future games i would recomend you to not use these teams in a 'recon' role...They are to valuable...Move them forward with care through secured terrain...Keep them alive ! 
Their greatest benefit is shorter delay time (and greater precision i belive) when it comes to Calling in indirect support...Very useful ! 
Use them for that purpose...
 

Nice test/explination of the spotting feature...
When one sees it like this...the scoring actually makes perfect sence...It's working ! 
Like Bil mentioned...many cool things could be done using the spotting feature i belive...I guess it has been somewhat neglected previously in scenario designing...
The 'reinforcement trick' mentioned some time ago is one of them...Hopefully we will see others in future scenarios...
 

Below are the results of some experimenting with Unit Spot Objectives.  The experimenting was done in CMBS v2.1 Engine 4. Hot seat.  CM Engine Manual v4.0 page 88. 
Observations: 
Individual troops within a team are counted for spot VPs.
When dismounted a driver is counted separately from a vehicle for spot VPs.  
The editor will allow you to assign fortifications as unit objectives however fortifications will not be counted as unit spot objectives in the game. 
Units that are spot objectives are not required to use exit zones but they may. 
A unit cannot be both a spot objective and a destroy objective however you can have a mix of spot and destroy unit objectives in the same scenario.
When a side (RedFor or BluFor) has an exit zone all units that are destroy/destroy all objectives, that belong to that side, must exit or they earn points for the OpFor. 
Tentative contacts do not count as "spotted" for a spot unit objective.  Only confirmed contacts count.  
EDIT TO ADD:  The player will not be notified in game that he spotted a spot unit objective.  The AAR screen is the only place where the results of a spot unit objective will be found.  
EDIT TO ADD: Another useful link. 
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/121775-cmrt-campaign-kampfgruppe-von-schroif/?do=findComment&comment=1727393
 
1st Test Description: Ten Igla S teams (one troop each) were made unit spot objectives [U7] worth 100 points total. A RedFor exit was available.  None of the RedFor Igla teams exited.  Four of the teams were spotted by a BluFor scout team.  Cease fire was hit.
 
Results: BluFor earned 40 points.
2nd Test Description: Ten Igla S teams were made unit spot objectives [U7] worth 100 points total. A RedFor exit was available.  Four of the RedFor Igla teams exited.  Six of the teams were spotted by a BluFor scout team.  Cease fire was hit.
Results: BluFor earned 60 points.
3rd Test Description:  Ten Igla S teams were made unit spot objectives [U7] worth 100 points total. Three RedFor trucks were made spot objectives [U6] worth 20 points total.  A RedFor exit was available.  None of the RedFor Igla teams or trucks exited.  The three trucks and two of the Igla teams were spotted by a BluFor scout team.  Cease fire was hit.
Result:  BluFor earned 20 points for the Igla teams and 20 points for the trucks.   
4th Test Description: Ten Igla S teams were made unit spot objectives [U7] worth 100 points total. Three RedFor trucks were made spot objectives [U6] worth 20 points total.  A RedFor exit was available.  None of the RedFor Igla teams or trucks exited.  Two trucks and five Igla teams were spotted by a BluFor scout team.  Cease fire was hit.
Result: BluFor earned 50 points for the Igla teams and 13 points for the trucks.
5th Test Description: Seven Igla S teams and one 3 man scout team were made unit spot objectives [U7] worth 100 points total. A RedFor exit was available.  None of the RedFor teams exited.  One Igla team and all three troops of the scout team were spotted by a BluFor scout team.  Cease fire was hit.
Result: BluFor earned 40 points for the Igla / scout team.
6th Test Description: Three RedFor trucks were made spot objectives [U6] worth 20 points total. A RedFor exit was available. After driving the truck into view of BluFor the truck driver dismounted. None of the RedFor teams exited.  The truck and truck driver were spotted by a BluFor scout team.  Cease fire was hit.
Result: BluFor earned 6 points for the truck.
7th  Test Description: Three RedFor trucks were made spot objectives [U6] worth 20 points total. A RedFor exit was available. A dismounted truck driver walked into view of BluFor.  None of the RedFor trucks/teams exited.  The truck driver was spotted by a BluFor scout team.  Cease fire was hit.
Result: BluFor earned 3 points.
8th Test Description: RedFor foxholes were made spot objectives [U3] worth 20 points total. The foxholes were spotted & physically occupied by a BluFor scout team.  Cease fire was hit.
Results: BluFor earned 0 points.  Unit Objective “Foxholes” [U3] was not displayed on the AAR screen.
EDIT to add another test.
9th Test Description: One Igla-S team was made a spot objective [U7] worth 100 points total. A RedFor exit was available. The RedFor Igla team did not exit.  A BluFor scout team received a tentative contact for the Igla team.  Cease fire was hit.
Result: BluFor earned 0 points.
 

some good map designing tips in these videos and i agree...A well designed map with attention to detail is much apprisiated ! 
A brilliant map can not save a poorly designed scenario but  a very good map most certanly increase the intrest in- and enjoyment of a well made scenario imo...
If the designer has the needed time and energy to devote to a highly detailed map...It most certanly is worth it...Just look at GeorgeMcs maps for example...WOW !!! 
 

I'd rather eat a fully cooked meal than one that is raw in the middle that "looks okay from the outside".
I've got the RT module well underway- The module is being worked on nearly every day, and has been for well over a year now. But there is still more to be done in order to show people something that incorporates the cool new stuff. Otherwise you get weird, untextured bits, bugs and weird game behaviors when you weren't prepared to show something. THAT causes problems, and opens up questions that are really a waste of everyone's time, because that's not how the game will look by release. 
Getting everything slotted in, in the right way takes a loooooong time and is a huge amount of effort, to say nothing of- planning the module, making the maps (the maps!), making the campaigns, building the scenarios, testing, 2D artwork, 3D artwork, testing, testing, TESTING everything. And so on.
PR may not seem to be the main effort (the crew is too small for that now)- but the games are. That may put some people off that like updates, and I do get it- but within reason. We all like to see the new stuff, I'm the same in that respect.
Really- I would love to show off some things we have nearly done or are complete. But there are other parts that aren't slotted in or in progress, so it would screw everyone up to see them in that state- and give an inaccurate representation of a huge amount of effort. I'm sure Steve would respond "When it's ready....", which is the best, most honest answer that can be given. You can take that as frustrating, or as a truly honest answer- but it is indeed the truth, regardless.
I think I've said all I can say at the moment. Hang in there. The games are coming, and the extra time isn't being wasted. There is constant work being done, to a very high standard on every aspect of the various BFC endevors.
 
 

Why not do a bit of everything... (if you are allowed to comment on BFCs part)
We apprisiate the work you are doing and the QB-maps, scenarios and various testing...But...It's not like it's going to take forever to make some simple statements regarding the current state of the patch....
Surely you guys are discussing this  quite alot internally and more people then Steve are 'up to date' on the current state of things. 
With his promission...maybe others could be allowed to post information on this forum.
You don't have to read through the entire thread here for example...It can hardly be news for anyone connected to BFC that a number of people are kindely asking for some updated information regarding the state of this patch...
A simple statement like these...
"The patch is making very good progress...The latest version have been in testing now for a number of weeks and as of yet no problems have been reported...Some more testing are needed but if no new issius comes up we are pretty happy with the way the game engine works now. All things going well we are hoping for a release at the begining of maj...But no promosies !"
or
"Unfortunatelly we are still struggeling with a few issius with this new patch. An easy fix does not seem to be possible. We appologize for the delay but we are working as hard as we can to fix these issius. It's impossible right now to give a predicted release date because of these issius."
Something like this would not take any more time to post then the quote above....And would atleast give us a 'hint' to if this patch is pretty much ready or not...
I'm pretty sure that 99 percent of the people on these forums would not accuse you of neglecting your primary task if you 'sacrificed' an hour of your time every now and then to share some information....
Working on the game is GOOD !  But does it really have to be this 'black and white' (or how to best describe it...)
Work or not work...share information or not share information....
It seems a bit strange honestly...
 
 
 
 
 
 

That is a very good suggestion 
But i'm afraid that the lack of new scenarios might very well be a result of  - the lack of the patch -
Before spending to much time in the editor many designers are probably waitning to see how the new patch will impact  gameplay...To avoid having to re-pogram the AI and re-test the scenario if some significant changes are made to how things will work.
sure...some initial research can be made...the map maybe...but the AI ? and scenario testing ? Maybe not so much...
If we could get atleast some clues as to what the status of the pacth is...Maybe some scenarios would be released with the current game Engine if the wait for the patch is likely to be quite a while yet...But if the patch is released in...two weeks ? 
It might be better to 'pause' the scenario designing...
 

Why not do a bit of everything... (if you are allowed to comment on BFCs part)
We apprisiate the work you are doing and the QB-maps, scenarios and various testing...But...It's not like it's going to take forever to make some simple statements regarding the current state of the patch....
Surely you guys are discussing this  quite alot internally and more people then Steve are 'up to date' on the current state of things. 
With his promission...maybe others could be allowed to post information on this forum.
You don't have to read through the entire thread here for example...It can hardly be news for anyone connected to BFC that a number of people are kindely asking for some updated information regarding the state of this patch...
A simple statement like these...
"The patch is making very good progress...The latest version have been in testing now for a number of weeks and as of yet no problems have been reported...Some more testing are needed but if no new issius comes up we are pretty happy with the way the game engine works now. All things going well we are hoping for a release at the begining of maj...But no promosies !"
or
"Unfortunatelly we are still struggeling with a few issius with this new patch. An easy fix does not seem to be possible. We appologize for the delay but we are working as hard as we can to fix these issius. It's impossible right now to give a predicted release date because of these issius."
Something like this would not take any more time to post then the quote above....And would atleast give us a 'hint' to if this patch is pretty much ready or not...
I'm pretty sure that 99 percent of the people on these forums would not accuse you of neglecting your primary task if you 'sacrificed' an hour of your time every now and then to share some information....
Working on the game is GOOD !  But does it really have to be this 'black and white' (or how to best describe it...)
Work or not work...share information or not share information....
It seems a bit strange honestly...
 
 
 
 
 
 

Why not do a bit of everything... (if you are allowed to comment on BFCs part)
We apprisiate the work you are doing and the QB-maps, scenarios and various testing...But...It's not like it's going to take forever to make some simple statements regarding the current state of the patch....
Surely you guys are discussing this  quite alot internally and more people then Steve are 'up to date' on the current state of things. 
With his promission...maybe others could be allowed to post information on this forum.
You don't have to read through the entire thread here for example...It can hardly be news for anyone connected to BFC that a number of people are kindely asking for some updated information regarding the state of this patch...
A simple statement like these...
"The patch is making very good progress...The latest version have been in testing now for a number of weeks and as of yet no problems have been reported...Some more testing are needed but if no new issius comes up we are pretty happy with the way the game engine works now. All things going well we are hoping for a release at the begining of maj...But no promosies !"
or
"Unfortunatelly we are still struggeling with a few issius with this new patch. An easy fix does not seem to be possible. We appologize for the delay but we are working as hard as we can to fix these issius. It's impossible right now to give a predicted release date because of these issius."
Something like this would not take any more time to post then the quote above....And would atleast give us a 'hint' to if this patch is pretty much ready or not...
I'm pretty sure that 99 percent of the people on these forums would not accuse you of neglecting your primary task if you 'sacrificed' an hour of your time every now and then to share some information....
Working on the game is GOOD !  But does it really have to be this 'black and white' (or how to best describe it...)
Work or not work...share information or not share information....
It seems a bit strange honestly...
 
 
 
 
 
 

Me too...
But then again the commanding officer of my regiment back in the days when i did my basic military training called me...
" a triggerhappy lunatic ! "
after a small incident involving said CO, me and a machinegun...

Me too...
But then again the commanding officer of my regiment back in the days when i did my basic military training called me...
" a triggerhappy lunatic ! "
after a small incident involving said CO, me and a machinegun...

Me too...
But then again the commanding officer of my regiment back in the days when i did my basic military training called me...
" a triggerhappy lunatic ! "
after a small incident involving said CO, me and a machinegun...

Me too...
But then again the commanding officer of my regiment back in the days when i did my basic military training called me...
" a triggerhappy lunatic ! "
after a small incident involving said CO, me and a machinegun...

Not a bug, a feature.....Gravity modelling FOC & gratis. 
Seriously man, this is a 'nothing-burger'.....Personally I find the massive hole in the roof (and the fact that I can't select 2nd Floor with a move command anymore) is more than adequate indication that the building is damaged. 

We need a bit of both i guess...if everyone is quiet, content and patient...that has a tendancy to SLOW progress...
Eastern block car design during the cold war comes to mind ...A lot of 'content' car buyers (not willingly perhaps...but still)...resulting in perhaps not the greatest leaps in car development ever seen...
A bad comparison perhaps...i know 
But we need 'whiners' also...everyone can not be a 'good example' imo...A Little bit of demand, preasure and nagging never hurt any company i belive

Take a scenario you think has a great AI plan and load it up in the editor. Check out the plan the scenario author created and how it flows and works together.  Then experiment and watch your plans over and over again. I am still trying to get my plans perfect and this is the technique I am using.

OK...
Thanks for testing it 

On the quick battle setup screen you can change the type in the top left:

In the scenario editor its on the mission tab under description at the top:

What does your set-up zones look like ? Could you perhaps post a screenshot showing them ? 
Is turn 1 bombardment allowed in this fight ?
If so...Are you concerned about a linear barrage hitting your frontline hedgerow ? That could be painful.
Maybe your opponent don't considder waisting artillery on a 'chans' target is a good idea...but if he does...and get's it right...ouuchh !
 
 
 

This is a true After Action report (AAR).  I played this game last year against one of my most skilled opponents (ScoutPL).  The scenario was Green Hell, my goal was to protect the Farm and Cafe objectives, and if possible, try to take the la Madeleine objective.  Simple no?  This was the first time I had played this scenario and the scenario and sides were chosen by my opponent.
I will give a general overview along with a quick and dirty METT-T analysis, then I'll get right into the action.  A word of warning though, there will be no long range tank fights in this AAR, it will be a tough costly mainly infantry slug-fest for both sides.  I do hope however that I can at least show my philosophy when on the defense.  I will be honest, I struggle the most with the defense, I am very offensive minded and just can't help myself sometimes and overextend, right Baneman? 
MISSION
The mission is simple, hold the enemy at bay and force him to waste his combat power on the drive to my objectives, so that when he arrives he will have a spent force.  My main goal is to protect the two objectives in my zone, and preserve my force as much as possible.

ENEMY
I have been told to expect German FJ troops in unknown strength, though if I go by the tactical map above I can expect a combined force of infantry and armor.  All I really know is that they should be entering around the a Madeleine objective area... if the tactical map above is correct.
TERRAIN
My force is sitting on a ridge-line, so I should have good lines of sight across the entire map.  Whether that means I will be able to spot much is another matter.  The map is also broken up by bocage lined fields.  However they are easily penetrated, so will be easily flanked, also those fields will mask movement wonderfully, for both sides.

TROOPS
I command Baker Company, with a weapons company (Dog) in support.  I will get into my initial plans for this battle in a future post.  Initial deployments are shown below.. Baker is spread across the entire ridge-line and Dog has been broken up evenly to support Baker's Platoons.


TIME
I have 1 hour and 20 minutes to hold off the enemy.  That is a long time, but will also mean that ammo supply could be the deciding factor at the end.

Looking at the OBSTACLE TEMPLATE it seems like the scenario designer have included a rather large amount of 'gap-tiles' and other openings in the bocage...
It does not look like movement will be all that restricted...atleast not for infantry...armour might be a bit more restricted though...lots of gates around but they look a bit tricky...providing a way in...but perhaps not out.

Maybe the 'densety' of the terrain plays a part...Tall grass you will be able to see through...crop-terrain is a bit more dense and does not allow for this quite so easily (perhaps)...
What happens if you increase the depth of the tall grass...Extend the tall grass field by adding something like 10 to 15 additional tiles to that field in the direction of the spotter....
If they are looking OVER the grass it should really not matter...but if they are looking THROUGH  it...it should ! LOS ought to be blocked by such a wide field...
 

From 1700 meters (or is it 1200 ?) i wounder if the spotters a looking OVER the terrain (crop, tall grass) to be able to see the GROUND on the immidiate other side of the obstruction or are they looking THROUGH it...?

Maybe the 'densety' of the terrain plays a part...Tall grass you will be able to see through...crop-terrain is a bit more dense and does not allow for this quite so easily (perhaps)...
What happens if you increase the depth of the tall grass...Extend the tall grass field by adding something like 10 to 15 additional tiles to that field in the direction of the spotter....
If they are looking OVER the grass it should really not matter...but if they are looking THROUGH  it...it should ! LOS ought to be blocked by such a wide field...
 

We need a bit of both i guess...if everyone is quiet, content and patient...that has a tendancy to SLOW progress...
Eastern block car design during the cold war comes to mind ...A lot of 'content' car buyers (not willingly perhaps...but still)...resulting in perhaps not the greatest leaps in car development ever seen...
A bad comparison perhaps...i know 
But we need 'whiners' also...everyone can not be a 'good example' imo...A Little bit of demand, preasure and nagging never hurt any company i belive