Rinaldi

Some screenshots from very nice scenario "Zinzewitz":





 

German soldiers clear out buildings with StG-44s during Market Garden.

 
German soldiers storm the town of Son, to re-capture the bridge and cut the highway.

One problem I definitely remember I found that in Mission 2 which is meant to feature a full platoon of Infantry you are light in numbers because they come in a truck, and you can't fit a whole platoon in one truck. So you are either missing your 2-inch mortar, your PIAT or some pixeltommies.
And I encountered the same problem again in some of the later missions as well. Although I think there was a thread some years back where the designer did say that he hadn't encountered the fault during testing. So perhaps I got a dodgy download.

I flipped through the campaign notes, and unless I missed it, they didn't list the designers and testers' names. So, whoever you are, my hat's off to you. It was the first campaign in a while I found legitimately difficult. I loved it. 
I thought it was an excellent depiction of the type of hastily improvised Pak-fronts the Germans would concentrate and lay across an allied mechanized thrust. You could feel mission-to-mission that you were fighting an enemy desperately trying to prevent a breakthrough or blunt a flanking thrust. There was always a great deal of opportunity for mounted manoeuvre, with use of artillery and masking fires, and the time limits encouraged a surgical attitude. I did a lot of bypassing and leapfrogging (often under light fire) of my units through one another to try and meet the timetable. Nor do I think the timetable was artificial: you're doing an armoured thrust up an enemy's flank, speed is key and the campaign captures that. 
I also appreciated being in command of a relatively untested unit. I'm somewhat familiar with the actual fight for Cellano and I do remember reading the German unit was about as fresh as the South Africans facing them, and it showed. I never felt the difficulty was artificially heightened by suddenly encountering some random, fanatic, Heer unit. The casualties seemed realistically proportionate as well. The lack of resupply and reinforcement made it quite the administrative challenge too. I spent a lot of time deciding which unit was up front or would be the main effort, trying to spread out echelon consumption and casualties. Most of the platoons were combat effective to the end, even if some were glorified squads. 
Needless to say, the maps were all gorgeous. 




If anyone wants a good little combined arms battle in complex terrain, and practice busting concentrated pak fronts, I definitely recommend. 

Ok guys, you lit my fire and I decided to burn some bunkers...again.
This time I took the proven route and went left side. I throw smoke on the trench right in front of me and to my right, thus creating a smoking "box". The smoke was ordered 5 min from the mission start to get my troops ready. I concentrated them all on the narrow left side behind railroad, except for 2 tanks, 1 HMG and sniper on the far right. 
The engineers were essential to blast through barbered wire. The snipers were responsible for a large part of enemy casualties, ranging from 16 to 6 casualties per sniper (green guy made six). For comparison - tanks made about 2-4 casualties per vehicle, but they were pivotal in terms of fire suppression. I used them as HMG\artillery platforms and leave them far away from trenches, because I knew from the previous experience that they would be booged or killed by flak or stug fire. 
Almost all of my flame tower guys made to the end and spectacularly burnt bunkers!
This time my walkthrough was really positive and energetic. 
In the beginning on nomansland from the left side. The trick was to come as close as possible under the smoke cover: 

When my troops passed the first trench they stroke from the rear: 

 

This bunker was not burnt, but was exploded with dozens of hand grenades. The team from inside opened the door and tried to run only to be smashed by direct fire:



The smartest guy gave up:

The first flame:


The next one please:


Actually this bunker was bugged and didn't want to burn no matter what


Landscape in the end:



 





 
 

I flipped through the campaign notes, and unless I missed it, they didn't list the designers and testers' names. So, whoever you are, my hat's off to you. It was the first campaign in a while I found legitimately difficult. I loved it. 
I thought it was an excellent depiction of the type of hastily improvised Pak-fronts the Germans would concentrate and lay across an allied mechanized thrust. You could feel mission-to-mission that you were fighting an enemy desperately trying to prevent a breakthrough or blunt a flanking thrust. There was always a great deal of opportunity for mounted manoeuvre, with use of artillery and masking fires, and the time limits encouraged a surgical attitude. I did a lot of bypassing and leapfrogging (often under light fire) of my units through one another to try and meet the timetable. Nor do I think the timetable was artificial: you're doing an armoured thrust up an enemy's flank, speed is key and the campaign captures that. 
I also appreciated being in command of a relatively untested unit. I'm somewhat familiar with the actual fight for Cellano and I do remember reading the German unit was about as fresh as the South Africans facing them, and it showed. I never felt the difficulty was artificially heightened by suddenly encountering some random, fanatic, Heer unit. The casualties seemed realistically proportionate as well. The lack of resupply and reinforcement made it quite the administrative challenge too. I spent a lot of time deciding which unit was up front or would be the main effort, trying to spread out echelon consumption and casualties. Most of the platoons were combat effective to the end, even if some were glorified squads. 
Needless to say, the maps were all gorgeous. 




If anyone wants a good little combined arms battle in complex terrain, and practice busting concentrated pak fronts, I definitely recommend. 

Slaying the tiger at close range.

Ha!  I retired at the beginning of July and NOW my wife is worried I am working too hard.  All the little things I needed to do around the house are now on a big active list.  I am enjoying it though, I actually feel much more productive versus spending hours on zoom calls accomplishing nothing.
Regarding the generational argument.  Cracks me up as it happens with every generation, but I really sympathize with young folks now.  My generation did a lousy job handling our impact on the planet and they'll be paying the price.  Add to that the pace of change now and trying to stay relevant in the workplace is tough.  I managed to work in one field for 30+ years and be considered very proficient.  Nowadays that is a lot harder to do.
Now excuse me I am late for my morning moment of yelling at clouds.

Boy, sure is good that everyone tries to welcome a younger generation of players.  Lets not worry about BFC's future just so we can fell good about ourselves by putting down people who play and communicate a different way.

I can't help but notice you avoided my question.

You made a statement, clearly directed towards me, which included some shameless and disgusting assertions, which you have zero business making.

I would like to know why you think this is even remotely appropriate behaviour.

does SlySniper actually know any young people?  The ones I know are working their asses off.  And last time I checked, it wasn't the young people who've so massively F-up up the world.  And here we are on a gaming site, dedicated to the fine art of sitting in front of a screen and playing w pixel armymen, and someone is saying OTHERS sit around all day?
This is some of the finest chutzpah I've seen in a while, well done.
Every generation things the next generation is worthless.  There was a ~40 yr old reporter on a boat w a bunch of young people saying how these kids weren't tough enough, were useless, were immature.  Know where that boat was going? -- Tarawa.  Same thing, over & over & over, where previous totally F-up generation thinks the next generation is somehow more totally F-ed up.  How is it older people completely forget what they were like when they themselves were young?  Of course, when I was young all I wanted to do was go to church, do chores, and study.  Didn't want to party at all.  Or play computer wargames.
We're leaving the next generation  a really F-ing mess, so we have no room to criticize anyone.

The march to Berlin continues.  I was starting to think this battle would be easy.  Then two shermans get lit up.  There's an AT gun and something else that hit anything that leaves the dead ground.  I've ordered infantry to start moving forward.  Arty observer getting in position to call strike on AT gun position.  This all takes a while, big map & lots of units, but getting there. And I get my first encounter with the weird little 37mm-PZfaust thing.  He has the jump on my sherman but first round hits tree and second goes high.  He doesn't get a 3rd chance:   Meanwhile, some folks need to work on their peripheral awareness: but the russians spot first and the PPsh is at it's best at this short range   The advance slows as the armor hides in dead ground.  The infantry push forward across a wide front while arty is called in.  Hopefully I don't have many more surprises, I am ready to clear up the remaining Germans and move on to the next battle.

F&R berlin campaign russian side, battle 5 or 6.  I spotted a panther hull down behind a railroad embankment, worked my way up through built-up area to 800m w shermans hull down behind a wall.  Panther taking lots of low velocity hits which fortunately are mostly on the weapon mount, with one finally holing the gun -- if ya can't beat, knock out the gun .  Lost one sherman, cheap price for a huge gain, as the panther was holding up my entire advance.
Big nasty panther now nothing but a rolling machine gun, watching the reds advance unimpeded.

Congrats on the retirement, hope you get to enjoy the free time to the fullest. 

I don't think anyone (apart from maybe Steve & Charles) fully knows how that works...Even those of us who do use the editor. 

Ok, I will bite:  What is a NEET?  

Phil,
According to the Aftermath as stated on the Blazin' Chariots ASL Card:
"The 5th RTRs counterattack was hindered by the setting sun, which made it difficult to spot targets and judge the fall of shot.  Consequently the regiment suffered serious tank casualties without inflicting a like amount of damage on the Germans.  It's attack did succeed in putting a check on Kampfgruppe Stephan, however, which eased the desperate plight of the 8th Hussars.  When darkness put a halt to the battle, both British regiments disengaged and , according to standard procedure, withdrew to their night leaguer.  This left the Germans possessing the battlefield and allowed 5th Panzer Regiment to recover most of its knocked-out tanks.  As a result, while British losses in the engagement amounted to over forty Stuarts, the Germans suffered a net loss of 2 Pz IIIs and one Pz II.  For the 4th Armored Brigade, in whose hands the Stuart was making its combat debut, Operation Crusader was getting off to a most inauspicious start."
 
Gary

Phil,
Sorry, I played this just a little while ago, and didn't save the end screen - I just now saw your post regarding that.  I'll play it again for sure.  
I ended up with a Tactical Defeat.  If I recall correctly, I lost 4 tanks, but I think there were two that were dismounted as well, and two with their main guns destroyed.  The only crew that was killed outright was Chutney's lads, along with the gallant skipper as well.  They took a solid hit from one of Jerrie's heavies and the 7,5cm gun set them ablaze...hence...Blazin Chariots.  Sorry, I couldn't resist.  I did get credit for a hidden victory point, but my losses were more than the AI.  I think they only had 3 tanks destroyed.  Again, just going by memory.
I recall that the German side showed as Luftwaffe, which I thought was odd and I wanted to ask you about that?  Was there some reason the German troop mix was listed as Luftwaffe?
Since I don't have the score and a screenshot of the ending, I only have my "feeling" for the battle.
It was classic!  I really enjoyed it, and everything "felt" right.  
Spoilers     Spoilers     Spoilers  [sort of]
I didn't change the location for any of my Honeys for the start.  I left everyone in place and then moved forwards.  The setting sun was recognized by Captain Chutney as a distinct disadvantage for our lads.  This, I fear, contributed to his decision not to charge headlong, but rather, move forward a bit cautiously until we could get some spots.  This did happen, and suddenly the horizon lit up with possible contacts, but no firm sighting.  There was quite a bit of dust and, of course, we were looking into the sun so the glare was a bit of a bother.
Suddenly the lads reported that hits were being taken, and shortly thereafter, our boys opened up with the feral roar of a 37mm cannon.  The commanders used a variety of tactics, mainly a fast command at an angle, followed by a hunt command straight forward.  This was done in leaps and bounds though, so the unit didn't advance on a single line.  
All too soon, several tanks took solid hits, with one being dismounted and another losing their main gun.  Other tanks, still advancing in stilted rushes, did start to get solid spots on the enemy.  There was a mix of medium German tanks, and some Eye-Tye pretend tanks, along with some heavy types.  
Corporal Clark was skirting up the right flank, and his tank took a solid hit, knocking out the corporal and the loader.  The tank soldiered on with only a driver and a gunner.  Towards the end, the gunner ordered the driver to charge up the flank, with the intent of getting around behind Jerrie, and maybe snapping up some fallen crew cowering in the desert sand, but by then the battle was over.
Some of the lads began getting really good hits, and it was believed that both Italian tanks were knocked out, along with maybe one of the heavies and two of the medium tanks.  At least that is what was submitted in the after action report, although there was way too much dust and smoke to really tell for sure.  We never really did close with Jerrie, as we'd taken our licks and had to ease back from the battlefield.   [The reporting non-com was just a bit over-enthusiastic about the unit's success...]
Some of the lads would drive forwards quickly, stop, and let the dust settle over them, partially obscuring them from view, but also obscuring their view.
There was very little to hide behind, so dust was the only way to avoid being spotted.  The dust also hindered our spotting.
All in all, it really felt like a cool battle, and had a very authentic feel to it.  Due to the smaller caliber rounds being used by most of the tanks, a hit was not an automatic kill.  This was very different from the tank battles we are used to, with the bigger 75mm+ tank guns and lots of flaming wrecks littering the battlefield.  Some of the Honeys really soaked up quite a bit of punishment.  Of course, a hit from the Mark IV was probably going to be instant death.
That is my take on the scenario so far.  It is really nicely done, and captures the flavor of the early tank battles.  The vehicles looked good too, although I didn't really see the German ones much.  Spotting was hard, and I felt it was pretty realistic.
Thanks so much for putting this one together.  It is fun to be back in the desert, if only for a few battles.  I always enjoyed the desert battles in CMAK.
Heinrich505    

Cheers for the kind words Rinaldi (and @Xorg_Xalargsky). 
I think the secret is, and as written back in part 2, by doing the triumvirate of 1) Timeline, 2) Units/Formation and 3) Terrain at the same time and allowing the three to influence each other that you get this kind of campaign. For the two campaigns I've worked on and completed before Tukums (CMBN Lions of Carpiquet, and the refresh of the Dutch Campaign for CMSF2 NATO), I don't go into the project wanting the collective campaign to be unwinnable. A challenge, yes, the players losing the odd engagement, yes, but not unwinnable. For historical recreations just get as close as you can to the forces that took part and trust in the game to take care of the rest. If the player's side won the historical event then on balance the player should as well. If the player isn't the best at CM and just charges across open fields... well you can't fix that.
As for Joe's Bridge, yeah that one was always a touch experimental with the way the forces come onto the map but I think the H2H crowd has some fun with it if the German player reads the briefing and sticks it out.  I've since got my hands on some more material for the actions around that area of Belgium between the Guards Armoured Division and the hodgepodge of German forces just prior to Market Garden. Well down the list of possible project but on the agenda is a scenario for the Welsh Guard action at Hectel a few kilometres south of the bridge that occurred around the same time. The chance for recreating a historical engagement between Cromwells vs Jagdpanthers is a rare treat.

Have been slowly reading through this, looking forward to the updates. I've already had a sneak peek of how you operate during the abortive attempt at Arracourt a few years back, but it's worth repeating I love your scenario design philosophy. @Xorg_Xalargsky and myself had just been talking about your JOE's bridge scenario, in point of fact, and how good it was.
Been really enjoying the Tukums campaign as well. I find a lot of the Axis campaigns tend to be mere cartharsis; fun but not necessarily challenging (KG Engel is a prime example), and sometimes a bit too liberal with supporting assets. I've been enjoying Tukums precisely for the opposite reason, you really captured how much of an improvised mess the Wehrmacht was on all fronts by August '44. 

Agree with all of this. Insofar as community scenario designers go, most will make scenarios they themselves want to play (this is certainly true of me, and I suspect, George) and these types of scenarios are rarely 'winnable' equally by both sides. Let me toss my two pence in. 
The simple truth is that the reality of combat means creating a properly balanced scenario is not likely to occur. A clever scenario maker can make the 'unwinnable' scenario winnable through allocation of points, but the reality of the fact is its not likely to be fun for the majority of H2H players. A perfect example is my 'Power Hour' scenario for Black Sea. It was designed to be played, primarily, as BLUFOR v AI but I balanced it and playtested it for H2H as well (to which I'm grateful to @IICptMillerII and @Saint_Fuller for their time and effort). The Russian player has the unenviable task of holding forward positions against a strong breakthrough force. They simply do not have the combat power to stop the attack if it is competently (if unimaginatively) handled by the US player. If they maul the force sufficiently enough they will win, as the US force has strict casualty parameters to balance things out. This is to simulate the fact that a sane commander holding a defence in depth would never presuppose that his forward units could actually stop an initial determined effort; a forward position's mission is to maul the enemy and get out of their way when they are no longer capable of doing so. That's a realistic mission....but not necessarily a fun one. 
When I designed the scenario, I presumed that:
a) the average human player would not particularly enjoy the experience of watching his Russian force get mauled; or
b) that a US player would appreciate how the strict parameters would translate against a human opponent.
My assumptions proved correct: the scenario got rave reviews from those who played it in singleplayer but got generally panned at the Blitz by Russian players, despite them winning more often than not. The long and short of this spiel is that its difficult to actually design a human on human scenario that isn't surreal and a 'realistic' H2H scenario relies on assuming there's masochists like myself or Fuller who are willing to play the 'tough' side and not balk at taking massive casualties. That's not everyone's cup.

Formations & Units
 
The Combat Mission scenario editor has a lot of customisation for formations and units built into it from the get go. Morale, experience, fatigue, ammunition, headcount can all be set to meet your requirements. Then there’s the ability to tweak formations themselves by deleting and adding single vehicles/infantry teams. It’s a boon for a historical scenario maker.
Much of the hard work has already been done for you prior to a game or module being released. The amount of effort that goes into ensuring the Tables of Equipment are as accurate as they can be is immense. To give you a sense of the detail and questions asked before it appears in a final game here is a rough outline of one such debate over a formation appearing with the Fire and Rubble module and in this campaign. There was back and forth debate over the composition of what small arms specific squads should have. When one researcher found the digital scans of the original 1944 paperwork outlining the design of the new battalion and how many rounds of a certain type of bullet would be required for the formation to be adequately supplied… it settled the matter.
What this allows you to do when researching a campaign is to have confidence that when you read that a German Fusilier Battalion took part in the attack, you can select that same battalion in the editor and it will likely match perfectly or very closely to what took part in the battle you are trying to recreate. It’s a strong base that you can tinker at around the edges to account for casualties or additional units that were attached for the engagement.
A big problem you’ll come across reading military history books outlining the course of a campaigns is that in many cases they rarely go below the battalion level or provide regular updates on the status of the unit. It may look odd at first glance when you read that a battalion seems to be in two places at once or a full battalion is required to move in and take an area the size of a hamlet. In reality it’s likely elements from that battalion were spread out to achieve multiple objectives or some elements were held in reserve. This means it’s always handy to have at least two difference sources, one focusing on the campaign plus additional sources focusing on unit histories (or failing that campaigns from only one sides viewpoint). Unit histories and indeed a number of websites that provide unit-based information and diary like content will likely help you far more in creating your own order of battle for the campaign you are designing. Read them in parallel and plot important information onto the timeline noted above.
These are the questions I ask when pulling together information on formations I need to include in a campaign (for both the player and the opposing side):
-          Starting condition at commencement of the wider operation
o   Are they fresh off the train from the training depot or are they already battered from earlier fighting?
-          Starting condition at the commencement of the fighting you are focusing on
o   Potentially different compared to the start of the operation. Vehicle breakdowns, earlier skirmishers you aren’t including etc.
-          Condition before each engagement/scenario you will be designing (if possible)
o   Helps you gauge how much of a challenge each prior scenario was for the formation historically.
o   For example, if A Company had been in two prior scenarios and went into their third engagement historically at 80% strength, but your campaign testing shows that even with good tactics they are usually going into the same engagement at around 40% strength; then you know your balance is probably off or something in earlier scenarios is not lining up to history.
-          Condition at the end of the operation (or end point of what is being recreated)
o   As above. A good gauge for measuring how hard your individual scenarios are and perhaps appropriate victory point allocations for units.
o   For example, if the force was a shell of it’s starting strength but was still slapped on the back and told “job well done” before being removed from the lines, then perhaps victory point allocations favouring the survival of units is not the best approach.
-          What happened between engagements?
o   Another engagement? Is it worth creating a scenario for?
o   Did they have time to rest and refit? Did they get any replacements? Did they replenish their ammunition? (Do the work now and it makes Campaign Scripting a whole lot easier)
o   Would the ability to have a rest and refit be only possible if they had won the earlier battle? (Start thinking now how your individual scenarios will link together and branch out).
It’s very similar to designing an individual scenario in my opinion, but it’s perhaps more pertinent that you ‘get it right’ up front, particularly for helping with overall campaign balance when the same force is going to be following the player through multiple engagements.
For Tukums I default back to MS Excel again to plan out what the historical force and visualise how it may look inside the editor. More on this when we get to the Core Unit File creation. See the table below for the planning for the German force. Something similar was done for the Soviets but I won’t go into detail there given spoilers. All I will say is it did change a few times and again required a detective’s caps to work out what units were where and at what time.

Example of linking Formations back to Timelines
 
The worst thing you can do as a campaign designer is throw in all this hard work and not see anyone finish the end product or bail because it’s led them down a branching path with no prospect of having any hope in hell of achieving victory in follow on scenarios. How many times have you loaded up a follow-on battle in a campaign and been expected to clear a map with the same battered formation you just fought with, and this time it’s urban warfare?
This is where plotting the formations and units involved on a timeline really helps. It allows you to see how much combat (and the number of Combat Mission scenarios) each formation is expected to face. If a company of infantry is expected to fight through eight scenarios without any chance of replenishment and then the last fight is in an urban environment, how realistic will it be and how realistic will it be for a player to have that formation in fighting shape by that last mission? Even a genius commander is slowly going to take casualties.
In the end remember this is aiming for a hyper realistic wargame simulation, but it is still a game. If you make things appear impossible you will likely encourage a ‘save scum’ mentality because the player likely doesn’t know what this formation is meant to tackle next.
For Tukums it was actually quite easy to answer this question given most of the player’s formations would have to fight through no more than two engagements each. There’s still a lot that can go wrong but a strong chance the player would always have a chance right up the third and final scenario that determines if the player is victorious or not.
In the end…
 
I have a clear idea of the geography I need to map out in the editor (3920m x 2000m in this case), with no real wasted space the player will have no interest in at some point. I have a timeline of events that I’ve filled with content and a detailed core unit file. You get a rough idea of how time progresses and where the flow of the campaign should go between each engagement. You get something like this…

Mmmm. Looks a bit like a campaign script doesn’t it.
A Special Note on Fictional Campaigns
 
As you can probably tell, all of the above is focused heavily on a historical based campaign where I have limitations and boundaries for every question. No matter how hard I try I can’t justify adding a company of King Tigers to the players force since none where present.
Just because what you maybe designing is fictional doesn’t mean you have a free reign on to do what you want. Well technically you do, it is a game after all, but what I mean is the game itself is designed first and foremost as a realistic strategy game. Keep your fictional planning within realistic proportions. Some examples of what I mean:
-          The mission is to take a hamlet held by a platoon of militia and civilians are confirmed present. Better give the player Corp or Army level artillery assets to assist.
-          It’s time to take the centre of the city in a tight urban warfare. I’m the player only needs a pure armour force and no infantry support.
-          Congratulations on winning your last mission. For your next mission your force has been transported 100 kilometers away to over the course of 30 minutes.
Combat Mission is designed to reflect the real world. Situations like this drop players out of the narrative very quickly. Remember your players are the same bunch of wargamers that will pipe up when the angle of the Panther’s front armour is one degree off. They like realism.
Though I must admit I’m still waiting on a science fiction based Combat Mission: Earth vs Mars type of setting. 

Timelines

The timeline is what it says on the tin – a timeline. A chronological listing of all events and other important information that pertains to the outcome of what you are simulating inside Combat Mission.

I like to build out a timeline of events as I read source material usually down to the hour. Yes, there may by gaps when everything seems to stop for an extended period, for instance as both sides hunkered down for a night of rest, but this inaction is still important information for the purposes of campaign design.

Different sources will usually tell you different parts of the battles from specific viewpoints. When you are trying to cover days of combat and other tangible events impacting your campaign, being able to see all known elements in front of you spread out in the order that they happened is a huge help in knowing if you are covering the right content.

If you are an uber designer you may go down the Gantt chart route for generating this timeline, but honestly, it’s easy enough to do this in Microsoft Excel or even just a simple paint program. Even the old-fashioned way with a pencil and paper is suitable. Draw it out with little key points and notes outlining what happened when.

Key things you need to look out for while researching and then plot on your timeline:

-          When and where formations entered the general area of operations.

o   Important to see if specific formations actually took part in what engagement and whether they came on as reserves.

-          Movement of formations and where possible the sub-formations/units throughout the campaign.

o   Historians will likely focus on key movements between towns or landmarks but with enough information and a detailed map you can usually plot the route they took.

o   Sub-units are still terribly influential in a Combat Mission environment. For example, a platoon of Tiger I’s has the ability to potentially swing an entire battle, but it’s unlikely a full battalion is moving around together so it’s easy for these details to be missed.

-          Kick off times of planned movements and attacks.

o   Will help determine start times for scenarios but also where set out the boundaries for your in-game map builds.

-          When forces became aware of their opponent’s presence or were spotted.

o   For adjusting start times and reducing the amount of mapping work. For example, if the operation kicked off at 0630 hours but the force you are following first travelled three kilometres and didn’t meet any resistance, do you really need to map out another 3 square kilometres plus worth of terrain in the editor?

-          When the first shots or major fighting erupted.

-          When and where key units were located. (Includes reactionary movements of opposing forces).

o   Helps plot which units should be in what scenarios.

o   Reinforcement timings.

-          When major fighting died down or an engagement clearly ended. (The hill/church tower was captured)

o   To plot out initial end times and therefore individual scenario lengths.

o   Time allocation is a big factor in overall difficulty of individual scenarios and campaigns. Reduce time players have in campaigns and they are likely to act recklessly to try and achieve their objectives which may not be historically accurate and mess up balance for future scenarios. (Remember Combat Mission commanders pushing pixeltrüppen around the battlefield are more likely to be a blood thirsty lot who aren’t under the same strains of a real officer in the field who has to write letters home to mothers.

Once you have a populated timeline you should be able bookend the timings of each of your scenarios around natural beginning and and end points based on the chronology of these events and the engagements. As always, remember to tweak as your project progresses and new information comes to light.

For Tukums, once it became clear the actual campaign was going to be centred around the engagements of a single day (see part 1), my time line was a very narrow window of effectively 6 hours or so. A lot still happens in 6 hours and I had to pay more attention to when units arrived in the area on both sides. I also had to deal with contradictory sources (more on that later when we get to units).

My research led me to the conclusion that it should be a three-scenario campaign, with scenarios 1 and 2 occurring concurrently on either side of a waterway, while scenario 3 takes place directly after. There is no real time gap between the engagements unlike a usual campaign. This is important because it dictates that there was never any chance for the forces involved to be receive replenishment or resupply between engagements. Knowing this key piece of information up front helps in the design and feel of the campaign throughout the remainder of the process right up to writing the campaign script.

<I’m purposefully being light on in this section and not showing any graphics given likely spoilers>