Strachwitz

My advice. Head out for some of the CM clubs out there. There are planty of folks playing and wanting to play operational level games. We at the Few Good Men (http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/forums) have quite a few live operational games going on and the replacement lists are always full. So, there is definitely no shortage of willing players.

There are also versions for CMBN (including all modules) and CMFI available there. Just go to the right section of the site.

Not exactly what you are looking for but this mod should help you overcome the loss of the penetration tables. The UI mod provides some options to view armor effectiveness and ammunition penetration charts on a glance! http://cmmods.greenasjade.net/mods/5311/details

Have you added Japanese as a second (or third....) keyboard language? I experimented a bit with another tool by the author and errors occured as long a japanese keyboard was missing. This is needed to execute the uws files AFAIK....

@ChrisND: First of all thanks for the great demonstration! Appreciate it having a look at the next installment of CM. And a short question. During your play of the QB map I noticed you talked about having all graphic settings to max and draw distance to improved. Is this a new ferature in the v3 engine? I just have the option to change "3d model quality" and "Texture quality". Am I missing something?

I will do the turn this evening. Regarding the latest change of rules. I was completely satisfied with the reinforcements for a CM battle. This was the only way to achieve a 2:1 attacking ratio. Now basically fights will be 1:1, making it much harder for the attacker to drive the defenders of the map. So how does the attacker gets a much needed numerical superiority? By flanking on the operational layer you mean that if the enemy gets to the flank of a friendly hex he has for example the choice to start the attack from one hex with let me say 2 companies and with 1 company from another, the flanking hex?

Ok, thanks for pointing this out. So, everything is fine :-)

This one I don`t understand. If someone inflicts casualties during the movement phase (direct fire, defensive fire ect.) then the losses should be applied before the assault battles. If for example there is one enemy tank destroyed during the movement phase, this tank should not be able to take part in any assault battles fought in CM. Or am I missing something?

If have one question regarding this. Shouldn't we a least set experience to regular? I know the reasoning behind it as units of both sides where actually units fresh to the battlefield. But I think these units at least are not drafted and volunteered and received quite a good training before deployment. So I guess even if they had no actual battlefield experience their good state of training should make them react better under combat situations than green troops perform in CM battles. I mean green troops literally get spooked by he slightest incoming fire and I don't think this really reflects the actual units involved. I would like to hear from someone playing the Allies and of course noob about my proposal.

Roger that noob. I will do so. Latest tomorrow I will send the new file and hopefully adding a operstional AAR. Question: before any CM battles every side has to also change their OoBs according to the effects any indirect and direct fire of the movement phase, right? So if one side looses men or vehicles/guns they have to be removed... @ian.leslie: I agree with your basic plan. If you and others don't mind I will make the operational move with the general plan you proposed. But I guess a few details could be a little bit different. But it you wish we can discuss this in depth. It's up to you. First major difference would be to fire with all (including the 105mm) available artillery and mortar assets as we don't need them saved for a CM battle as turn 1 is over after our movement phase.

What I wrote above is just kind of a hotfix. If you encounter this odd behaviour just do as I wrote above and you are able to play the map. But what triggers this behaviour I don`t know. Most of the times it works although the parameters are not altered. But in the case the "bug" occurs, then you know now how to get around it.

As far as I know the infamous "reversed setup zone bug" is still a problem. Not always but often enough. And it has to do with the Allies beeing the attacker in QB maps. But there is a solution. Open the according map in the editor, change mission parameters to the ones you want (Axis attacker, Allies Defender) and "repaint" the setup zones. Paint the Allies zone as Axis and vice versa. Then save the map with a different name (for example 003Attck_AxisAttacker) and voila with that map there are no problems anymore.

Ok I understand. So basically the game is build upon trust between the both "commanders" handling the game on the PzC-operational-level. I have to trust him not to look at our OoBs before the battle started and also in applying correct casualties and losses of assets after the assault phase. And vice versa. I guess to speed up the process of adding the participating forces I can simply make an core unit file with all assets and use this as a template during the campaign. Is there a specific reason that all units experience level is set to green? Thanks on the info about enemy artillery and the clarification of the artillery rule. And yes, as I watch the replay of the allied turn I will incorporate these informations in the Operational AAR and inform the other players about the overall battlefield situation before discussing the orders for the next turn. Last question (for now :-)). In the PzC operational layer defensive fire (e.g. moving from enemy ZOC into another hex) is set on automatic, right? Regarding my email-address I wrote you a PM.

For me too :-). I now have a basic knowledge of the PzC game mechanics and just have a few questions regarding some unclear topics at nnob. But basically I am ready to get this started.

@noob: If you want I can do the operational turn for the Axis team and also write the operational AARs if nobody else wants to step forward. Just to sum it up if I got it right: As you are the umpire we will make our movement and operational artillery fire by ourselves in PzC and declare which assaults to be made and converted to CM battles, right? Are you then setting up the battles? I understand that the defender gets the map first to apply fortifications and gaps and so on. But the actual deployment of forces has to be made by someone neutral I guess to not accidentally spoil the defensive plan. Or is that way that the attacker chooses and edits the map according to the assault parameters and adds his units, sends it to the defender who then edits the map and deploys his forces. Regarding artillery. As the Allies already made their operational turn and you didn`t mention that we where hit by artillery does it mean they didn`t fire any artillery at our positions?Is this the same for direct fire? So no direct fire on our units this turn? That leaves the question why there is a artillery firing sound contact. Or are operational artillery results posted just before the CM battles are due? As I understand from reading the rules it is possible to fire all of our artillery and mortar assets at enemy targets and don`t have to fear we could not use it in CM battles as there are no CM battles (assumed we don`t initiate our own assaults).

Sounds interesting and I also would like to "spend" some money on this one as soon the project kicks off.

@noob: I am downloading the PzC demo as I write and will look into it and play the scenario to get a feel for the operational layer. But this could a take until the weekend. @ian.leslie: Sounds like a plan for me ian.leslie. I will look into this a bit deeper with appropriate feedback and suggestions as soon as I am more into the campaign mechanism. @marseu: I witnessed the good turn rate. That and your outstanding performance as italian commander on the battlefield :-).

If nobody minds I would be honored to take this first battle trying to defend against the American invaders...

Of course I would let you know. I was planning to do a DAR of this battle so people get a overview of what is happening in this battle. But I am not so sure anymore if I should pass this battle to someone else. I kind of felling like I hiijacked this slot for a battle. As you already may have recognised I am very new to this forum, at least in regards of active posting. I was just passive the last years soaking every bit of information about this game, learning lots of usefull stuff from all the guys participating heavily in this great forum. And of course the allaround entertainment of all the different discussions and furthermost the excellent AARs. Somehow the start of this campaign made me jump to the ranks of active users as this campaign (or start of a campaign series as this CMPzC system has all it needs) was something I was waiting a long long time. So I tried to participate but never expected to be one of the first to actually fight a battle.

First of all try using the appropriate map. Your map is a meeting engagement map. So in your case the defender should also have a too small setup zone. Generally all attacking, probing, assaulting QB maps are internally set to allies attacker, axis defender. So if Axis forces are the attacker the bug can, sometimes happen. To get around this you have to "repaint" the setup zones. Paint the Axis zone as the attacker zone and the Allies as the defender zone. Additionally you should edit the mission type too. In this case probe to Axis attacker/Allied defender. Save with a different name. And voila, the bug should not happen when you choose this edited map. But be advised. This is only verified in CMBN. I have not yet stumbled upon this bug in CMFI. But I guess this should do the trick.

Roger that. Just send me a PM when it is time to make the initial adjustments to the map.

Thanks Vin! I never missed a base mod until I installed yours. Could never go back playing without it. It looks good and first of all it is very handy especially in larger battles. With your mod important info on the facing of units is instantly visible without the need to go closer and check everything out. Summary: Again a small but highly effective mod as all of your mods are. Can't play without your animated text info. Also just a minor modification of the game but highly effective....

I sometimes use Stugs in QBs. But. Normally just in large to huge ones. I am using them to guard my flanks and later when the "tank battle phase" is hopefully decided in my favour, I use them as support assets for my infantry. But I always ask me the same questions as you did. The same goes for the Jagdpanzer IV. I never used one as I don't know why they are so expensive offering just 60mm frontal armor. I guess the low profile makes up for this. I will see. I just purchased one for a large QB.

Great news noob! Seems we are getting closer to the first battles of this operational campaign. I am really looking forward to it. The recent rule changes are really good and I appreciate all the effort you and your fellow testers put into developing that system. That's it I always was looking for. Sure I can give something back by posting good comprehensive DARs of ongoing battles. Can't wait how this will play out!

Just checked your conversion for mac. Seems to work perfectly. I really appreciate your effort!