Bulletpoint

"
An error occurred You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day
"

I modded me a cool Valkenswaard milestone sign in place of "Lent". All happy and ready to plop it on my Valkenswaard map.
I loaded my map and in the 2D editor for flavor objects milestones I only see a "1" and a  "2" for picks. Oh boy. I am used to like many more. Oh well, let me plop a bunch down and then 3D preview and delete all the others that are NOT mine. So I happily did.
But then reloaded the map and it says ARNHEM.
I am used to CMFI and if you plop a sign down there then it will always say the same thing each reload of the map.
It is new to me that CMBN MG seems to treat the milestone signs like those posters and just randomly deal them out like cards?
WTF?
This is very disappointing for me. I hope somehow I have misunderstood this.
Who thought that was a good ideal?
Now I gotta go and edit an mdr and ...

Great job Bud. I will handle the advertisements!

 

I struggle greatly with balancing simplicity versus giving sufficient information.

Just so that no one is confused I'll mention two things:

1) The Germans start all in the Wood Lot. The Americans all start in the Southern Wood.

2) If you know Operation Cobra, you might wonder why the Germans are in the north and Americans in the south. This is because this small German unit fled overwhelming forces and ended up choosing a direction it saw no enemy forces in. In a sense, its enabled it's own encirclement in that it's now been bypassed by Allied forces and hence, the Americans are approaching from what would normally be the German direction of retreat. As the map and text reference the compass I wanted to clarify why the Americans are on "the wrong end" of the map, so to speak.

Some time ago I began my first foray into the editor to see what it worked like. I made a map, the smallest size possible (208m x 208m) and tried to give it a realistic, inhabited appearance.
 
Kohlenklau and I have had a lot of fun battles that do not exploit the full points afforded by the Quick Battle generator. We decided to explore this little world I created, and see what happens if we limit points to 325 each, and show a chance encounter (meeting engagement in CMBN terms).
 
I've always had a hankering to do an AAR, but Bil Hardenberger really set the bar very high - and the work involved was quite daunting. The magic of the iPad and the software for photo editing and layout that is available for it encouraged me to try. I'll admit I had to resort to Photoshop a bit but this is otherwise entirely a product of CMBN, Kohl's and my battle, and the iPad.
 
Despite what seemed like a simpler course than following Bil's incredible work, I can tell you that for what is essentially a battle between two opposing platoons, it takes about a day of work per minute of battle to present to you what follows. It is shown from the German perspective, with the limitations and erroneous assumptions the man would be subject to. I do not write this with a global perspective because I don't know what Kohl is up to with his GIs.
 
What is a CAAR, you ask? A Comic After Action Report. Done as best as I can as if you're reading a comic book or graphic novel.
 
I hope you enjoy it.

What skill level are you playing?

Also...in the first beach battle you ran Bright and his team through a "Suspected Minefield".


Edit...more feedback.
I am guessing in "Echoville" you used the move command for the sake of film making as it has no real use in the game. You should never really use it. Quick or hunt is a much better choice.

Otherwise very entertaining videos.

Fixed that for you

This is my AAR  at end of Battle CMBN Rainy River British Recon Advances
Going to try it again.  Like to see some of Vet's Play this Scenario. And see if they can get a Victory.  I lose each time I play. Just want to see how many enemy Casualties
She is a tough one for me because Germans are on high ground with there ATG
If this post Looks bad.will try to delete.it.
This is not a stock Scenario  It's by "Umlaut" You can fine it at Repository.
It also is on youtube. CW Rainy River .
Regards
Lane 
 
 
 
 

The German recon vehicles with their reverse speed as high as forward speed and with a rear driver only have normal reverse speed!
How do I know that? Because I used the editor for the first time! :cool:
 
I want to use the opportunity to raise this problem to the attention of the designers, if they read this thread because of the bug:
But that's not the only problem: it's the behaviour of recon vehicles torwards tanks/guns in general that doesn't fit to the vehicle/weapon class at all (a problem affecting all sides in the game).
 
Please Battlefront, give the recon vehicles some love! Their implementation compared to the usual amazingly high standards I find very poor.
In the manual it is stated that victory points could be collected for spotting certain units. I begin to understandwhy I haven't found spotting scenarios yet! They would also need recon vehicles that act like recon vehicles.
 
Programming the AI to react intelligently is certainly a difficult, time consuming thing. But maybe this could be avoided if the player would have the ability to decide, how recon vehicles should behave when they face a threat? If this "retreat" behaviour is activated, then they do not engage a threat but retreat in the direction they were coming from. Problem solved.
 

Well you don't really need to see what's behind you, because you know you just came driving that way, so the road is clear. And if it's not completely clear, well, you're in a tank.

I was reading some AARs from the Italian campaign and found a nice account where a platoon plus Sherman were tasked with clearing a school and municipal building that had enemy MGs. The action took place in just a couple of city blocks and the objective was two buildings on opposite sides of a small square. You could easily do something similar in France.

Move to contact is a good idea too. The lead platoon could be tasked with recon in force for the company and make some of the objectives spotting the enemy. Maybe have the enemy have a screening force behind which is more dangerous stuff like MGs and AT guns. Your platoon's job is to break or push aside the screen and find the locations of the more dangerous stuff so the company can call up support to deal with it - as part of the back story.

I should mention @JonS's document on scenario design It started as a thread here and shipped as a PDF in the Market Garden module - http://community.battlefront.com/topic/109190-the-sheriff-of-oosterbeek-%E2%80%93-a-scenario-design-daraar/I strongly suspect that you have seen it but just in case or for others that find this thread later...

and if you only play a single turn of a few minutes you don't get any disappointed looks.

POW raids, night patrols, Airborne Pathfinder, are some off the top of my head. "Venafro Back into Hell" was a very interesting display of the engine's capabilities with small units. You can abstract quite a bit in a briefing. 

I can really encourage doing something in the editor - a ton of fun. Check out "Proambulator" on Youtube, great video tutorials.
 
How about a fictional encounter on D-Day morning, with all the scattered paratroopers making up small groups that ran into German positions. Can be small but interesting and not entirely implausible.

One idea would be to fetch wounded or killed men left behind or capturing prisoners. A lot of small actions were about gathering information or simply keeping the enemy busy by doing harm (destroying equipment or supplies).

I had this idea for a while and thought it worth sharing:
 
Right now, in the editor, we can make different AI-setups and plans. That helps replayabaility a lot. But what if we could instead designate zones and positions, and then let the game deploy its troops in those?
 
Example: Instead of the designer placing a machinegun in position A, B, or C, he places maybe 20 different "potential MG position" markers on the map. Then he places 40 "potential infantry position" markers, etc. When the mission starts, the game randomly places its machineguns and infantry in those positions. So instead of having maybe 3 different AI setups, you get 20x40 combinations, so you never know where the enemy will be.
 
However, there should still be the option for the designer to place certain assets in certain positions, so while the enemy AT-gun might be in either position A, B, or C, the rest would be randomised - or any other combination you could think of.

The five occasions concerned fictional scenarios. The weather was clear in all of them, my troops were mostly in cover - and none of the strikes seemed to take it into account, one way or another. At no time was the enemy closer than 450m - in fact, in four of the scenarios, the enemy was at 600-700m (I like big maps). In the case of the RAF (Normandy) scenario, the enemy had AA, was at 690-720m away - and the first arriving aircraft bombed my FO, in a six-storey building, in the middle of a village. I agree with YankeeDog almost completely - but it is sad that it has to be that way. As for my 'coming off rude', I thought I was restrained. From the follow-up posts, it is clear there IS a problem and rather, as I said, than shooting the messenger it might be better to focus on what can be done about it. Fixing the mess, in short. And it is a mess - under current parameters, the only thing you can do with air power in CMBN/FI/RT is not use it at all, or throw it in if you are feeling masochistic, as YankeeDog says.

Oh my apologies, I worded that poorly. I played as the Americans; the enemy defenders have several AI plans. I'm not sure if the US have more than one AI plan. As a rule of thumb I tend to play as the attackers.

Yes, it has several - at least for the Germans. I had to adjust the scenario for the new armored infantry TOs and took note while editing of that.