IICptMillerII

A map I really enjoy from the Quick Battle pool is called: Asslt Small Rough (bocage) QB-050. Its a small map but it has a lot to offer, with a small village in the center of the map and some classic hedgerow country surrounding. It even has a conveniently placed church to act as a good CP/fallback position for the defenders of the village. I also think it is one of the less gamey maps in the QB pool, meaning it isn't excessively 'balanced' for multiplayer purposes. I seem to keep coming back to it to fight out various battles, be it very small 2 squad actions or larger battles involving multiple companies per side with tanks and artillery. Its been accommodating to everything I've thrown at it thus far. Not sure what you're going for with your video, but there might be something this map could offer you. Also, congrats on hitting a mile marker!

I'm a big fan of historically accurate scenarios. Similar to what Bulletpoint said, I don't like it when maps are designed to be gamey, in that they are trying to force some type of gameplay. For an example of the type of scenario I like, I'll refer to Ithikial's amazing scenario "Three Patrol Action." Forum Link: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/111469-new-scenario-release-three-patrol-action/ For those that haven't checked it out, I highly recommend it. The map alone is superbly done, and is accurately reproduced to be exactly like it was historically. As an added bonus the mission is a recreation of a mission in the game Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood. For those that don't know, the Brothers in Arms games pride themselves on realistically recreating maps to be just like they were during 1944. Its awesome to first play the level in BiA and then to switch over and play it out in Combat Mission. Thanks for the awesome mission @Ithikial_AU! To summarize, I like realistic and historic scenarios that have at the least a realistically recreated map. If it at least has a decent map, then the user can take that map and create whatever scenario he likes with it in the scenario editor. There are many out there who do not have the resources and/or know how to create highly realistic and detailed historical maps, and these scenarios tend to close the gap. Anyways, just my two cents. I know its time consuming making these types of scenarios, but if you're seeking to be a crowd pleaser, then its a possible route to go that'll get you positive results! If its good enough maybe BFC will include it in an upcoming battlepack.

Heres a picture I took of some of my riflemen firing over a low hedgerow at some Germans who were running through the open trying to escape. I thought it looked pretty cool so I figured I'd share it! Here is what they were aiming at. (Note: the first German is falling after being hit, and the second was hit a mere second after this picture was taken)

Everything looks awesome so far. Can't wait for more info and the eventual release! Quick question, how does Chris play as both sides in the scenario? Is he playing a PBEM with himself and the video is edited, is it a feature in CM or is it some kind of developer voodoo magic?

Just wanted to drop by and say that this looks amazing! I especially appreciate the attention to detail with things like Company CO names and the like. Having just combed through a division history of the American 29th Infantry Division in Normandy, I understand how time consuming it can be to find out small details like that. The maps and the mission chart look amazing as well. Keep up the good work!

I'm in favor of adding some kind of hit decals to infantry models. I understand that the topic concerning gore has been debated many times before, with Battlefront firmly telling us that they have no plans or desires to add gore to the game. However this sounds like an easy thing to do for an experienced modder, and I think it would only enhance gameplay. If someone kicks in the door on this, I'm sure others will follow by making their own variations, so that the community will have a choice of "flavors" if you will depicting varying degrees of inflicted damage. For example one pack could depict just a small red hole, while another pack could go all out and have elaborate wounding image decals ripped right out of a medical textbook on how to preform open heart surgery. It will then be up to the player to choose his poison. Of course, all of this is assuming that it can in fact be modded in, as I doubt Battlefront would pursue it based on what they have already stated in regards to the topic of blood and gore. I agree with Macisle that more realistic damage depictions of buildings, terrain and vehicles would be nice to have, and probably take priority over doing the same for infantry models. Still, it would be nice to have it all in due time.

Here's a scene I took from a battle between some attacking FJ and defending Canadians in CMFI. I thought it was pretty brutal. To set the stage, the FJ are assaulting from the left of the screen. They are moving through a forested area and coming into the area you see in the video, occupied by the Canadians. You may have to watch the video a few times to take it all in, Its rather short and everything happens very quickly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MKt4ACFrbM

Found it, thanks so much for the help guys!

Thanks for pointing that out! I opened Normandy v200 and found the gear file, but I couldn't find the specific file causing these green haversacks. I guess I'll have to unpack all of the brz files in order to find it.

Hmm when I unpack the .brz I see those files but they aren't in a BMP format. The only file related to gear in a BMP format is the us-gear.bmp. I'm not sure which one of these files is causing the green haversack. I'll try putting a replacement backpack file in my Z folder and see if that resolves the issue.

I was wondering if anyone knows the file name for this backpack that US infantry and airborne units wear? I searched through the .brz files of the game by using the rezexploder tool but I couldn't seem to find it. As you can see from the picture below, it looks rather unsightly, and I'm sure you all know that the only thing that really matters in war is who has the cooler uniform. Tactics be damned! Any help would be appreciated! Also if anyone knows the file name for that green entrenching tool (there is also a green canteen on some of the soldiers not in this picture) that would be appreciated as well, however my main concern is that pesky haversack.

This is what I figured, but I thought I would ask and see if anyone had a small uniform mod lying around. @LukeFF, I'll be sure to check out that scenario, as well as the others listed here. Thanks for the input!

Thanks for the input! That's definitely a good idea, lowering their equipment quality. Any idea if there are any mods that give the Germans a hat instead of a helmet? I know there is a mod out there that gives the Soviets the 'pisscutter' hat in RT. Something along the lines of the two types of hats shown in this picture: (Not sure if this is an authentic photo, but it shows what I mean by 'hats') I'm not sure exactly if the Osttruppen ever fought looking like this, and if there are no mods that do this then I may be out of luck. I thought it would provide a bit more flavor when fighting them.

I have yet to really get into The Road to Montebourg, but a similar thing exists in the training campaign, Task Force Raff. I'm pretty sure that all of the German units in the small training campaign are Ost troops. I'll have to give Montebourg a go. Does anyone know if the uniforms/combat kits of Ost soldiers were any different from regular German army units?

I was doing a little digging around the forums but I couldn't find much of anything regarding the Ost troops the Germans had in Normandy at the time of the D-Day invasion. I was wondering if anyone knows if there are any scenarios out there that deal with Allied forces fighting against Ost troops? Are there any skin mods that make the Germans look like Ost troops? Based on my current knowledge, the Ost troops were dressed out in lighter kit than the German regulars, but I don't know if there are enough differences to warrant a mod to show it. Does anyone have any insight on that? Finally, I was wondering what you all think would be appropriate levels in the editor to set Ost troops to, such as veterancy, motivation, and leadership. Again based on my current knowledge of the Ost troops I would likely put all of these values to be rather low, except for maybe motivation in some cases (I've heard stories of some fanatical Ost troops) Any input is welcome!

@MOS: Awesome stuff there! I really like how you included some visuals to illustrate everything. @akd: Good to know! I'm glad to hear that soldiers will be less likely to dive to ground while under the 'Hunt' command than they used to be. So its looking like once its time to breach the building, using the 'Hunt' command with a closely set target arc is a good way to get things done. I'll have to give this a try.

This is essentially what I was hoping to do. A QB on its own is a lot of fun, but it lacks context. There isn't a bigger picture that you can interact with, unless you use a lot of imagination. I think it would be cool to be able to look at a map (in this case of Ukraine) and point to it and say, "The Russians are attacking from here" and then play a QB battle based on the terrain you pointed out. The results of the battle determine the next battle, and its terrain and so on. It could go as long as you wanted it to, and it would have some context as you would be drawing from a core force that would take casualties and be resupplied based on what was going on in your dynamic do-it-yourself campaign. I understand that BFC has its hands full, and I'm very excited for all the new content thats coming soon. I would love to see a small feature such as what we've been describing added to CM at some point in the future. I understand that it could be a while, or it may never happen, but theres no harm in talking about it! Also I would just like to mention that my idea for a do-it-yourself dynamic campaign was spawned from seeing Kohlenklau's operational games that hes been running. The AARs are really interesting/fun to read through, and I think that the idea is fantastic. I know its been talked about before and likely beaten to death at this point, but I do believe that CM would only benefit greatly from some kind of operational level or framework. I know someone is currently working on a project like this that would use CM to resolve the battles. Its called 'Combat Operations' if I remember correctly, however its only just starting up (I think there is supposed to be a kickstarter for it soon) It would be nice if there was something like this in CM already.

I too have always wondered what the best way to go about MOUT is in CM titles. My first experience with it was in CMSF and while I was able to do a decent enough job, I did take some heavy casualties in a few cases. Generally, an enemy squad opening up from point blank range, or from a lone enemy soldier with an AR or just a regular rifle tearing into my men as they entered a building. I have been told a general rule of thumb is to use the 'Hunt' command, but I often find this very lacking. For instance, if there is a full blown MOUT battle going on, units given the 'Hunt' command tend to instantly dive to cover instead of proceeding into the building and clearing it. The 'Assault' command is good for bounding between buildings, and getting your men close to a building you want to breach, but when it comes time to actually enter the building the command is no good. I'm at a bit of a loss as to the best way, or command to use. I've found that using demo charges/breaching kits is usually a great tactic when you know there are bad guys on the floor you're breaching as it stuns them and allows your men to rush in and dispatch them quickly. But this has drawbacks, the first and primary being limited ammo/ capable units. The second is that its useless for clearing floors vertically. Wall of text aside, my main issue in MOUT is actually entering/clearing an occupied building. I know what needs to be done, I just do not know how to translate the real life tactics into CM with the given commands. @Mech.Gato: Thanks for the first hand experience/knowledge! During my MOUT operations I have generally tried to do what you are describing, although it is a lot less pretty or coordinated. I essentially try to bound my units while covering them and recon by fire as much as possible, especially when I have vehicles such as the Bradley or the Stryker. They carry a ton of ammo and can literally hose down buildings for hours without ceasing. As long as you keep them protected with your infantry, they are a powerful asset to use. On a personal note here, this is one of the reasons I much prefer the Bradley. The amount of firepower a single Bradley brings to the table is amazing. The 25mm Bushmaster can suppress and destroy both buildings and enemy positions with ease, and if there are any hardened structures or particularly tough enemy holdouts, the TOW missile usually does the trick real quick. I dislike the Stryker for its lack of firepower. The .50 Cal is a great machinegun and all, but the Bradley brings so much more in one package. @Phantom Captain: Give your Great/Grand/Father a handshake and a hug (if he is still with us) and thank him for what him and the rest of those boys did. Just so happens that today is the 70th anniversary of VJ day. Hope its a great one for you and your family, and everyone else as well. Edited: Grammar

Ahh ok well that makes sense. Thanks for the answer George! I agree Stagler, I think it would be a nice feature to add to QB's. Hell while they're at it, might as well add in player defined point budgets as well. One can hope.

I was wondering, how exactly do you utilize this feature while making scenarios? I know how to make a core units file and how to import them into a mission I am building. What I do not understand is, once that first mission is over, how to I carry over the core units to the second battle? Or put a different way, how do I update the core units file with the resulting losses from the first battle so that when I upload the core units file into the second mission, the losses from the first mission are tracked? I've read through the manual and done a few tests but I'm not having any luck. Is it only possible to track core units through a built campaign? I'm trying to avoid having to build a whole campaign just to benefit from this feature. For those wondering, I'm trying to build missions based on the results of the previous mission. Essentially I am building the battles as I go, but I want to use the core units feature to make things a bit more realistic for the attacking side. If my question is unclear please don't hesitate to ask me to clarify Thanks in advance!

Excellent suggestion! This actually makes a lot of sense. This, combined with a generous amount of artillery initially on call would likely do the trick! Thanks for the input!

Hi all, I've got a question concerning off map artillery ammo. I was wondering if it is at all possible to have off map artillery resupplied during the course of a battle, or simply set them to having unlimited ammo in the scenario editor. Are either of these things possible to do? The reason I ask is because I have recently been re-reading the fantastic book "We Were Soldiers Once... And Young" by Hal Moore and Joe Galloway. For those that may not know, this is the book that the movie "We Were Soldiers" is directly based off of. Anyways in the book the Americans constantly have a lot of artillery support that they call upon throughout the battle, a battle which lasts roughly 1.5 days for Hal Moore and his men. I believe they eventually have a total of 24 tubes of artillery supporting them in the Ia Drang, that essentially fire non stop throughout the entire battle. In the book it is mentioned that some of the guns 'burn out' due to being fired so much and that others suffer damage to the hydraulics and the like. I know that in CM it is impossible to have a battle with a battle timer of 36 hours, and that a lot of the artillery fires in the battle at Ia Drang were not in direct support of the men in contact, rather they were harassment and interdiction missions away from the battlefield, thus beyond the tactical level of the battle. But many of the fiercest fighting occurred in the course of only an hour or so which is well within the limits of a CM battle, and during these engagements there was a lot of artillery coming down. Essentially what I was hoping to do was make a battle in the scenario editor for my own personal enjoyment where one side is very outnumbered by the other side, but compensate for this by having a lot of artillery on call. I do know that one way to go about doing this is to just give the fire support heavy side a ton of batteries, but I was hoping to avoid that by just having a manageable number of artillery batteries with either a lot more ammo, or unlimited ammo. I know that unlimited ammo is not a realistic notion overall, but for these purposes it would serve to simulate a firebase with a lot of stockpiled ammo, and ammo resupply while the firebase supports troops in heavy contact. Thanks!

Clown car maneuver indeed, sounds aptly named! Thanks for your input, I do appreciate hearing first hand accounts like this. I think it helps add a better layer of immersion to the game, and if nothing else this helps me justify this slight fudgework in CM, which is usually realistic down to the last detail. Also, the maneuver sounds very audacious, as the enemy would not expect it knowing the supposed limitations of the Bradley. Patton would be proud. It does sound like it would have been uncomfortable for the soldiers in the back and that it would be a maneuver only done over short terrain, plus I know it gets hot back there. I would suspect that the size of CM battlefields is about the size where this maneuver is viable. Any larger (bigger than 4x4km) probably wouldn't make sense. As for this developing debate over US vs USSR armor, my first response is, lets see how it would play out with a CM: Fulda Gap game! Personal wishes aside, I think its important to remember that all armored vehicles, even tanks such as the Abrams, are very vulnerable to the sides and rear. They have to be, because not everywhere can be super up armored. The vehicle would be far too heavy, and would sacrifice mobility which is one of the most important aspects of armored vehicles. I know that the Abrams (without ERA) can be penetrated in the side armor by some of the later war tanks of WWII. Soviet era tanks had to deal with the same thing. Not to be patronizing, just pointing out that thin skin on tanks is something that all sides still have to deal with. As to the auto loader comments, I personally hate the idea of auto loaders. To me, an auto loader is just another mechanical part that can fail. I would rather have tanks without auto loaders than tanks with it.

Thanks for the input mech.gato. I'll just assume that the three extra soldiers were crammed in there, stacked on the floor like sardines. I know that some detract from the Bradley due to its troop transport capacity, but I think its worth it. The Bradley is such an effective vehicle. One of them can suppress an entire enemy position, and a platoon of them working alongside the rifle squads are truly a force to be reckoned with. The personification of fire superiority.

Ah ok, thanks for the quick reply!