Heirloom_Tomato

When making a quick battle map only two things are needed, terrain occupy objectives and AI orders. Everything else is determined by the battle type; meeting, probe/attack/assault. The game sets 1000 points for each quick battle with the casualty parameters as well as the amount of points for terrain objectives adjusted automatically. I don't know the numbers off the top of my head but in an assault battle terrain is worth more than casualties for the attacker where as a meeting engagement should be closer to 50/50.
When I am making a QB battle, I use the size of the map and battle type to determine how many objectives are reasonable. I then set the points for each objective as a ratio, for example lets say the battle is an assault on a small town with a few outlying houses. Those houses are objective 1, the town center is objective 2. Based on the narrative I want to tell with this QB map, the town center is far more important for the attacker to capture so it is worth 3 times as many points. I would name objective 1 "*" and give it a value of 100 points. Objective 2 would be named "***" and have a value of 300 points. Players should be able to determine Objective 2 is worth more points and worthy of expending greater effort to capture. This ratio system will ensure whatever type of battle you set, Probe vs Assault vs Meet the game will attach 3 times as many points to the more important objective. 

I was in the Swedish military from the first half of the 90´s, to the beginning of the 20´s century. And when the Berlin wall fell. We got 5 T-72M1´s from Germany, allmost for free. To test amunition on, and to test the East German amunition, and to share the results to Germany (and other NATO contries). 
The T-72 M1 fired the BM22 and the arrows went straight through the S-Tank. When the S-Tank fired at the T-72 M1, it could not penetrate other than on weakspots! And remember, Sweden as a neutral country. Always bought the best (non DU ammo), if we could not developed it ourselfes (For political reasons, we could not buy DU ammo, nor develpe it ourselfs). And the S-Tank, had a longer barrel than any other 105mm L7 tanks out there at the time. So it compensated with higher muzzle velocity, for not using DU rounds (<10% higer penetration for DU rounds, and much more pyrophoric effects after penetration. Values are for 120mm rounds though). 
The same after we bought the Strv 122 for our armoured brigades, and rented 160 Strv 121 (Leopard 2 A4) for our mechanized brigades from Germany in 1994-95. We wanted the best non DU ammo, and it was not in Germany at the time. So we bought Israeli APFSDS ammunition after comprehensive testing. 
So I think that CM:CW is quite spot on, from my own experience!

@Splinty with his guess of when its done.

Are you sure you didn't mix up your units of measure here? I am pretty certain they are 100 yards, 300 feet, 91.5 meters long.
But I might be wrong as we play real football up here, on a field 110 yards or 101 meters in length with CFL rules, Go Bombers Go!

Let's take a closer look at the AOK 9 records on this Hungarian excursion:
Sturm-Mörser-Kp. 1000 is last shown on AOK 9 list of einsatzbereiten (operational) panzers on Oct. 10, 1944.  

There is then no mention of Sturm-Mörser-Kp. 1000 in the operational panzer holdings or transport records until Oct. 15, when the company is noted as in transport from XXXXVI Pz.K. to Budapest by train:

However, departure from Warsaw does not happen until the evening of Oct. 17:

Two days after departure, Sturm-Mörser-Kp. 1000 has switched from the Abtransport section to the Zuführung section. It is on the train to Budapest, but will be returned to the Warsaw area:

The following day the company arrives back in Warsaw at 12:10 a.m.  The entire "Hungarian jaunt" was no more than 52.5 hours.  Today (not 1944, not wartime) the train from Warsaw to Budapest one way takes 10.5 hours. I have serious doubts the company even made it to Budapest before being rerouted back to Warsaw.

Then the next day Sturm-Mörser-Kp. 1000 is back on the operational panzer list, but with one Sturmtiger instead of two: 

Does this mean that one of the Sturmtigers was lost during the "Hungarian jaunt"? Not necessarily because this is a list of operational panzers, not all panzers.  It's quite possible that one of the Sturmtigers suffered some sort of irreparable mechanical casualty during this period and remained off the operational list until the company returned to Germany Nov. 22. In fact, given the shuttling back and forth, this seems plausible.
Source: NARA T-312 R-348

I'm sorry, but you are just simply mistaken or being willfully obstinate here.
 
So Guderian says that the Sturmtigers were prototype vehicles crewed by factory workers and the 9th army report says that two Sturmtigers from Sturmtiger Kompanie 1000 (not 500, not 1001, but 1000) arrived in their area of operations as indicated by the army status report.  Two Sturmtigers at least one of which was the one with 'light steel' armor.  The other one may or may not have had the light steel armor we just don't know because it is unsaid by Guderian so we can't say one way or the other.  TWO STURMTIGERS not THREE.  TWO STURMTIGERS from 1000 Sturmtiger Kompanie as indicated on the official army status report.  TWO.  
Okay, now that we have that out of the way, apparently some Sturmtigers were sent from Warsaw to Hungary.  Since only TWO were sent to Warsaw then those sent to Hungary must have been the same two that were at Warsaw.  Not THREE, and not FOUR, but TWO.  Those two were then sent back to Warsaw and then subsequently sent back to Sennelager in Germany for refitting.    
That should be pretty definitive unless someone wants to say that Guderian was a liar or that the official 9th army status report was wrong.  If someone wants to die on that hill then I don't know what to say about that.  Keep on believing what you want to believe in I guess.

The goal is to use the Schwimmwagon to motor across and get to the exit objective alive. It's an opposed crossing so that group of halftracks is your fire support to soften up a crossing point. You can pick your spot. Keep the Schwimmwagon back at first and use the tracks to take out enough opposition so that you can cross without being blown out of the water. The Russians have some AT weapons so be warned. The tracks are not making the crossing, just the team in the Schwimmwagon.
Here's the plan as stated in the briefing:
 
Dave

Your welcome! It was a long time coming and you had made the most requests so it seemed fitting.

Your welcome! It was a long time coming and you had made the most requests so it seemed fitting.

Thank you to Matt A. for immortalizing me in the CM world. Getting the Schwimmwagen in the game is something I really appreciated. Thank you BFC.

This is the most important statement that has been said in weeks.
For all those that want to see the glass half empty.  None of you want to see the glass as to how it is overflowing in that none of those other companies or games does this. None
What I like about Steve is he has a view of how things should be and he goes on the path that he believes he should follow and he does not allow himself to get diverted off the path by the peanut gallery that think they can proclaim themselves as experts and try to push their own views.
Also, I do recall many a quick update release of fixes if there is some that are found shortly after a game goes out to the masses.  Then what happens is a few months go by and then some additional issues are finally discovered and these are the ones that do not get addressed normally right away since by then they are focused on another game.
So how can these type of issues be game breakers if it takes months after all the hours that players have played to finally figure out what is not right. I agree that it would be nice to get them fixed right then, but I have never lost any sleep over how the game was working  and always found ways to still play it without it affecting the results too much.
 
 

No patience is not my strong side.  In my meager defense I have been retired for about 10 years now...I don't golf and I don't surf....I do walk my three dogs and love my disabled wife of 29 years.   Just saying
 

I felt the same way in the past but after building several scenarios, I no longer do. The quick battle system needs points in order to give the player a "fair" chance in every battle. A scenario on the other hand does not need to be a "fair" fight but rather tell a story. The question the designer needs to ask is what story am I trying to tell? Once you have the story figured out and the forces chosen, play the battle. Did it play out as you hoped? Does one side or the other need more help? If so, does it change your story? Does it matter? Would changing other factors like experience, ammo levels, weather or time of day be a better change? So many questions and the best way to find the answer is to play it!
Every scenario shipped with the game was made by someone who was once in your shoes trying to figure it all out. Even now, none of the official designers get it right on the first attempt and we all need feedback to make our scenarios even better. From personal experience, I have a scenario coming out in the new Fire and Rubble module with many different versions saved on my computer from first concept to final scenario. The best way to get better at making scenarios is to have someone else play your stuff and offer honest feedback. The hardest part is the first step, offering up one of your creations for someone else to play and critique. I have found there are many truly great people on this forum who would be happy to help you improve your scenario making skills. I want to encourage you and anyone else using the editor to take that step!

I am not from the marsh however my maternal grandparents worked in the marsh when they first came to Canada. Feel free to send me a pm about your scenario and I would be glad to help if I can.

I felt the same way in the past but after building several scenarios, I no longer do. The quick battle system needs points in order to give the player a "fair" chance in every battle. A scenario on the other hand does not need to be a "fair" fight but rather tell a story. The question the designer needs to ask is what story am I trying to tell? Once you have the story figured out and the forces chosen, play the battle. Did it play out as you hoped? Does one side or the other need more help? If so, does it change your story? Does it matter? Would changing other factors like experience, ammo levels, weather or time of day be a better change? So many questions and the best way to find the answer is to play it!
Every scenario shipped with the game was made by someone who was once in your shoes trying to figure it all out. Even now, none of the official designers get it right on the first attempt and we all need feedback to make our scenarios even better. From personal experience, I have a scenario coming out in the new Fire and Rubble module with many different versions saved on my computer from first concept to final scenario. The best way to get better at making scenarios is to have someone else play your stuff and offer honest feedback. The hardest part is the first step, offering up one of your creations for someone else to play and critique. I have found there are many truly great people on this forum who would be happy to help you improve your scenario making skills. I want to encourage you and anyone else using the editor to take that step!

Two missions done in the Highland Games campaign and really enjoying it so thanks again all for the recommendation!

Steve,
We have heard the story from MikeyD about the Valentine going in or not going into F&R. You're the boss. You take a high standard on TOE and historical accuracy. He proved it and you then agreed, it went in.
But for the vehicles that Casio has already modelled but are in other titles, the dogs and cats, like the R-35 or the Samoa, early Panzer III, (I can send you a list if you want me to bird dog it all) CAN THEY BE JUST SHOVED INTO THE EDITOR AS SINGLE VEHICLE PURCHASABLE? Please maybe also a water cooled HMG for the axis? And some infantry team WITHOUT panzerfausts? These would be clearly said as "Steve didn't approve but took pity on kohlenklau" and we threw it in for modding purposes as building blocks for SOME early war scenario ability...
..and I think this might have helped get me the Schwimmwagen...

 

One Sci-Fi that hasn't faded away is the Mandalorian.  In my humble, but correct, opinion, that series is better than several of the Star Wars movies.

Are you sure you didn't mix up your units of measure here? I am pretty certain they are 100 yards, 300 feet, 91.5 meters long.
But I might be wrong as we play real football up here, on a field 110 yards or 101 meters in length with CFL rules, Go Bombers Go!

Progress but not done yet.  Final battle (#16) on US + Brit path in Damascus.  CharacterCount: your destiny awaits!  this is a really fun campaign, enjoy.  I will finish this and then at some point go back & take alternate path.

I'm reposting this here from the "new things" thread as my perspective on tactical nuclear weapons from an entire 34 year career in the military nuclear world, including actual US Army experience as a Field Artillery officer/Nuclear Weapons secondary specialist. (And Steve says no NBC, so there's that too 🙂 )

++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My secondary specialty in the US Army was Nuclear Weapons - Field Artillery primary specialty, , commissioned coincidentally in 1979 (so nuclear warhead artillery shells, 155mm and 8" howitzer fired). Also spent a few years doing research in the field of nuclear non-proliferation, and about 30 years in nuclear propulsion and radiation protection. A few points:
1)  Pointless to include them in the game as the blast would cover a whole CM map. (give or take, depending on whether it was 155 or 8" that was fired).
2) Mostly the projected use by the US was at 2d and 3d echelon troops assembling for continuing the attack, so way behind the Soviet front line unit you are fighting on the map, to isolate the front line units from reinforcements.
3) Conversely to 2), NO ONE thought that anyone in NATO/US would authorize nuclear strikes on anything inside West Germany, which made having them pretty pointless, really. 
4) Considering the expected course of a Soviet invasion of West Germany, the most important thing I learned was exactly how to blow the warheads up into tiny little pieces so that they wouldn't fall into Soviet hands (blow them up conventionally - which you can do without setting off the warhead). 
5) The consensus at the time was that any use of tactical/battlefield nuclear weapons would not remain contained and would rapidly escalate to a general nuclear exchange. It seemed both sides felt this was true (it later came out) which makes it unlikely they would be used.
6) Lastly, personal opinion (facetiously) - we're talking firing nukes out of artillery - you just don't want to be that close.
Dave 
 

This is one of my scenarios and I can tell you the Archer is behaving exactly as it was designed. The Archer is a tank destroyer with the gun mounted over the rear of the vehicle. It was intended to be used in ambush shoot and scoot situations where the tank would be reversed into an ambush zone and then drive away at full speed after engaging the enemy. These vehicles would also be used as longer range fire support, where the risk of close engagement could be avoided. To use them in this role, reverse them into firing positions and blast away.

Enough to change your name to Sgtlove?

Enough to change your name to Sgtlove?

Enough to change your name to Sgtlove?