Kaunitz

This thread is about the creation of a historical map and scenario for CM:FI/GL: The battle of Gerbini which was fought on 20/21st July 1943 between elements of the commonwealth 51st (Highland) Division and the german parachute-tank-division Hermann Göring. As I don’t want to create or play scenarios that are larger than 1 company, and there is a limit to the maximum map-size, the scenario will only comprise part of the battle. But maybe I will end up with several company-sized scenarios. Context There is not a lot one needs to know about the overall context: After its landing south of Syracuse, the british/commonwealth 8th army (XXX. and XIII. corps) pushed north along the eastern coast of Sicily. The aim was to get to Messina as fast as possible in order to cut off the germans’ path of retreat and trap them on Sicily. A few kilometers south of Catania – a major coastal town – the 8th army met stiff resistance. Montgomery tried to bypass Catania further to the west, on the inland. In the battles of Gerbini and Sferro Hill, however, he had to learn that his army had made contact with the first (Hauptkampflinie) of three main defensive lines of the Germans, stretching from the west coast to the east cost of Sicily. While the western half of the defensive line made use of the mountainous terrain, here, on its eastern end, it ran along the plain of Catania, a large plain south of mount Etna. The germans set up their defenses at the northern edge of that plain, stretching 40 kilometers along and behind the river Dittaino. At Sferro and Gerbini, the commonwealth/british army tried to penetrate the eastern sectors of the Hauptkampflinie. The 51st Highland-division had established a bridgehead north of the Dittaino from which it started a night attack on Gerbini. It was primarily carried out by the 7th battalion Argyll & Sutherland highlanders and 2 companies of the 1st Blackwatch Highlanders – both these battalions were part of the 154th brigade of the 51st Highland Division/XXX. corps/8th army. Gerbini itself was northing more than a crossroad, orchards and a few houses. North of Gerbini, however, lay Gerbini airfield - a major axis aerodrome which had been a high priority target for allied bombers. Also, a single railroad-track ran east-west in between Gerbini proper and the airfield, with a stop at Gerbini station (stazione di Gerbini on the map). Today, you can only make out some remains of the runway on a field in between the railroad and the modern highway. Sources For a contemporary 1943 map (1:25.000) take a look here: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/ams/italy_25k/ (Gerbini) (same here: http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/maps/europe/zoomify138659.html ). This seems to be the US Army Map Service -map that the allied troops actually used during the campaign. You can compare this to modern maps, like the OpenTopo map (https://opentopomap.org/#map=15/37.47215/14.84386) and google maps (https://www.google.at/maps/@37.4691357,14.842885,1698m/data=!3m1!1e3). Thanks to the 51st Division online museum, there are two quite detailed reports about the action available online: The first source is a report by brigadier T. Rennie, the commander of the 154th Brigade, dating from August 14th 1943. It also includes a sketch (based on the map linked above) on which the objectives/artillery targets are marked: http://51hd.co.uk/accounts/gerbini_combs (report + artillery fire plan), http://51hd.co.uk/history/sicily_gerbini (Map/sketch). Note that if you compare the plan to the report of the action nothing seems to have gone according to plan. None of the 7th Argyll & Sutherlands coys seem to have reached their assigned target area - instead they stayed further to the east and advanced on the airfield and beyond (D coy) and along the railroad (where A coy made it to the station). The west was therefore still held by the enemy as the 1st coy/1st blackwatch found out when it tried to secure the road north to clear the way for the support weapons and got pinned down in the process. The course of the tank platoon is a riddle for me. They showed up at the road/rail junction (where the 7th A&S's C coy held out) in the east at 00:00, then sent a tank to support A coy in the station, but later took up position in the orchard north of Gerbini, in the west. I wonder how the tanks got there. The second source, also to be found on the 51st Division online museum, is a shorter account of Dell Porchetta, a member of the 8th platoon of A coy of the 7th Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders. http://51hd.co.uk/accounts/porchetta_gerbini (His company surrendered at Gerbini station) I also found this account quite helpful: https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2017/02/25/the-plain-of-catania-1943-part-i/ I could even find some drawings by the Division's artist Ian Gilber Marr Eadie (1917–1973):http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/8379 It is labeled with "Gerbini". We can try to identify the exact location (see next post). Some impressions filmed at Gerbini airfield: https://youtu.be/6HOPxnK2a6A Selection The Gerbini-attack is too large to be put into a single scenario. Therefore, I've decided to select (a) single theater(s) of the battle. I think that the western flank of the battle is very interesting. Here, the 1st coy. of 1st Blackwatch got pinned down, the 2nd coy managed to take a german pillbox with the help of a smoke screen, AT-guns were moved forward, and also, the german counter-attack on the next morning has been very strong, knocking out a good part of the Shermans who had been positioned in the orchard north of Gerbini. I think that this makes for one (or two) interesting scenarios (attack - counter-attack). Moreover, I feel confident that maps and the accounts give me a quite detailed picture of the terrain. Gerbini station and the airfield are harder to imagine, since I couldn't find any contemporary pictures.

New improvement suggestions: flares to increase visibility in night battles and add aesthetical appeal; could be implemented in a variety of ways: 1) squad-based (like smoke), 2) called in via the fire-support tab, 3) as a special scenario-parameter (night/flare). The more sophisticated implementations (1 & 2) could last only a certain time (depending on the type of flare: ordinary/parachute) and have a certain area of illumination. Flares were and are in use in all settings, from WWII to modern day. It would make night-battles much more fun to play and make timing an interesting factor (if flares are limited). Minor thing for scenario-design, especially for WWII-titles: let the scenario-designer set a fixed artillery-plan (no control for the player over pre-planned barages). It seems as if artillery fire plans were sometimes decided beforehand on higher HQ-levels than those represented in the game (company). Allow us to mix forces of one "faction". E.g. the Göring-parachute-division in CM:FI needs para-troopers AND tanks. Right now, if I choose Luftwaffe (in order to have access to para-troopers), I can't have tanks in the same scenario. Target Reference Points should be toggled on/off like units when pressing ctrl+i. They're so ugly. If not already in the game: perhaps heavier calibre small arms weapons could have an increased suppressive effect. From what I've read, larger calibers are better for suppression because their bullets travel faster and therefore make a louder supersonic-crack-sound, which is a major factor when it comes to suppression. Also, the larger the calibre, the more visible the impact-effects of the bullets on the ground/etc. Moreover, any "small arms" that fired tracer-rounds (mgs) had a stronger effect on the enemy's morale. (In the game everything fires tracers to enhance the overview for the player.) From what I've read, US & British fired red tracers, Germans fired red ones that turned green/white. PS: Inspiration for mg-tactics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_HYmcm9A2o

Have you tried it out using this method (see Rokko's posts)? It worked flawlessly for me (though I'Ve read you might need to replace some buildings). Basically, all you have to do is to strip a scenario off all troops (no need for quickbattles anyway) and change a few hex-values in its btt-map file (see the picture in Rokko's post). I (windows) was able to find all quickbattle-maps in my battlefront-folder in my user/documents (not the installation path). To change the hex-value, you simply download a free hexeditor and put in the new values (CM:SF = 00, CM:A = 02, CM:BN = 04, CM:FI = 06, CM:RT = 08, CM:BS = 0A, CM:FB = 0C).

Hey fellow tacticians and editor-gods! Thanks for all the advice! I know I'm getting lost in details that don't really matter in terms of scenario-creation and the game per se. But thinking about the bigger picture and trying to understand how modern day wars are fought on a more comprehensive level is very interesting and part of the hobby for me. Combat Mission games are a great experimental field for the micro-level, yet I still want to figure out it is interlinked with the operational level. I could babble along about my thoughts on a plausible CM:BS scenario in the last few days. I’ve also read quite a lot (John Antals decision making games…) and went through potential scenarios (Russians penetrating north and south, locking off the Dnjepr, major Ukrainian corps still trapped in easter Ukraine, Ukrainians try to keep a bridgehead over the Dnjepr....). But in the end, I decided it would be more fun for me to stick with a historical scenario rather than with a “what if” and to stay with the kind of warfare that is easier for me to understand because much more has been written and analysed about it: World War II. So, I’m back to WWII and my favourite CM-setting: Sicily. I will create at least one scenario about the 51st Highland Division’s attack on Gerbini, 20/21st July 1943. Most likely, we will join a company of the 1st Blackwatch in their attack on a german pillbox south of Gerbini (the bunker is still there today)! The battle is very well documented online for the commonwealth side and I think it can be quite interesting, especially as I plan to include the german counter-attack (including tanks and armoured cars) on the following morning - probably in a separate scenario on the same map. Until then, my Black-Sea-ambitions are not cancelled, but put on hold. I will start a Gerbini-battle thread in the CM:FI/GL forum once I’ve got something impressive to show. The first part will touch on the historical battle and my sources. I hope that you all follow me over there.

@Combatintman I think that most of my problems are related to my lack of understanding how a modern war works on the operational level. I think we can agree that full-contact situations between relatively evenly matched forces in which both sides have a chance to win make for the most fun scenarios in Combat-Mission games. Yet I wonder if and in what situations and on what level such engagements would occur in reality? Especially with all those fast, mechanized units, long range weapons and modern intel technique, and also the availability of hard counters (there are specialized weapon systems against each type of threat), also air power, one would assume that no side had an interest in or could be forced into evenly matched engagements, as these engagements bear the risk of defeat and almost certainly result in high casualties for both sides. Rather, each side (and especially the one who felt to be at a disadvantage) would prefer to seek a better situation more in their favour? This shifts our focus from the tactical to the operational level, which is not the focus of CM games. And while I think that the "retreat if the enemy resists/stands"-idea is more relevant for small-scale scenarios, I wonder whether it also applies to engagements of larger sizes. If you're not really sure that all the operational parameters and your high-quality intel suggests that your brigade-sized attack will be a success, would you really risk it? Does modern doctrine include these kinds of griding/high casualty, full contact attacks determined to overcome an actual resistance by the enemy, or does it rather favour the path of the least resistance - i.e. winning the operational game rather than the tactical boxing-match? And here is where it gets tricky for CM-games: If modern war shifts more towards the operational level, situations that make for fun CM-scenarios are rather limited. Things might have been different in WWII, when intel wasn't that good, forces not that mobile and fast to react to enemy manoevres, weapons not that powerfull over long ranges and/or specialized, and frontlines relatively clear, air power on the tactical level more a support than a decisive weapon? Such a setting might have produced more casualty-intensive (for both sides), griding engagements, in which morale and tactical execution played a greater role than in a modern, more technically and operationally driven war? So my gut-feeling tells me that modern war might be more about hard-countering the enemy by quality, not by wearing him down with quantity+manouevre (local superiority of force); and that this might lead to very technical, one-sided engagements that are not really very suitable for CM-scenarios. Regardless of the size of the involved forces, I think that delaying/rearguard actions might be one of the very few plausible scenarios for two relatively evenly matched forces to engage more seriously. The attacking force would be larger of course, but a scenario is only a local and temporal selection of the larger action. You commit a small part of your force and risk its destruction in order to save a larger part of your force. So the smaller force has a reason to stand and fight, even against overwhelming odds. And the attacking side also has a reason to press on, as it is assured that the enemy is at a disadvantage and is likely to retreat any moment. The other "full contact evenly matched"-scenario I can think of is urban warfare. Here you simply don't know how many enemies are hiding in the next block, despite all modern intel options, so you have no real alternative other than to attack and find out. But for me personally, urban warfare missions are not that enjoyable in CM games because the tactical options are rather limited. As for the replay-value of CM-scenarios, I have no illusion that they're meant to be played one time (and a second time once you've forgotten all the details from your first playthrough ). If you already know the position of the enemy, a scenario is no more fun and unbalanced.

Sorry I've overlooked your comment. I haven't found a way to change the names from cyrilian to latin characters/english transcriptions either, I'm afraid.

Okay, first of all: thank you for all your tips and suggestions! You're awesome, guys! It's so very motivating to have people who actually get involved with one's ideas and questions. @SeinfeldRules Thank you for your consoling words regarding my initial scenario-idea. I still like the minefield-idea, but, after having read through Combatinman's scneario, I like his idea better. Simply because I think it fits a bit better to the modern scenario of CM:BS. As for the more technical aspects of the editor: Thanks for the fixed terrain-box in between contour-line-tip. I will download some of your maps to get inspiration. I've already figured out that one must not draw "fixed height" continously along contour-lines, as this will result in terrassed, not gently sloped terrain. So, all I do now is to put a single fixed-height spot every 80-100 meters along a contour line. Thanks for the reminder about elevating roads (I'm also doing it for the little patches of wood) and depressing paths (and also fields). It's obvious that I can't stick to reality 100%. The lack of street-tiles/angles alone makes this pretty clear. I'm just using real maps as a base, and will then adapt things as I see fit/to make the scenario more interesting and/or balanced. Regarding map-size, I will see what map-size the scenario/setting dictates. Once I know which forces are involved and what areas are needed to represent the overall situation, I’ll make the map as small as possible within these limitations. I’m not afraid of challenges. The worst thing that can happen is that it takes me longer to finish. Also, I’m a fan of wide, open terrain/fields which don’t really require that much work, simply because it adds to realism. Most of the quickbattle-maps (not the scenario-maps, mind you) are totally crowded, resulting in engagements that do not encourage players to use troops (especially vehicles) in the way they’re supposed to be used. @Combatintman Thanks for all the effort and though you put into this! I really like your setting because I think it fits the modern CM:BS scenario much better than the minefield. The only thing I’m wondering is why the recon-element in the wood would even stand and fight. I mean they must be aware that the enemy is approaching their position? And, being a lightly armed recon-element, they would rather retreat? So, one would assume that the recon-element takes up position deep in the woods, with only some minor observation outposts at the wood-edge? It would not deploy in a way (at the wood-edge) to contest the approach to the wood? This question is even more relevant when it comes to the defender’s vehicles: The task of the recon-element is to keep an eye/their radar on the enemy’s actions around the city of Slowjansk. So, the BRM is not really supposed to be used as a combat asset, and neither is the APC – I assume that it’s main use lies in its transport capacity, i.e. evacuating the recon squad quickly when needed? So, placing the vehicles at the wood-edge in positions from which they can overwatch the open ground seems like a bad idea? (Mind you that I have no problems at all if the defenders don’t have any vehicle in the scenario) So, I’m not sure whether the defence of the wood-edge (which is what I’ve been aiming at, I should have made this more clear) is plausible for this setting? I think it would rather generate an encounter deep in the woods – for this, we could do with a very small, wood-only map. After some further consideration, however, I can think of it as a delaying-action. Consider this scenario: for some reason (?), the recon-coy (? would a whole coy be used for this observation task? rather not...?) that is positioned in the wood to observe Slowjank did not see the enemy’s attack on its position coming in time. Now, all its assets (which were spread-out in the wood to be safe from aerial recon?) need to make their way to the road M-03 in order to retreat to the north. A small task-force (=your command) is being dispatched to the forward sector of the wood (perhaps even the wood-edge itself) to delay the enemy and prevent him from penetrating into the wood too quickly, and also to prevent him from by-passing the wood to the west (this is where the wood-edge comes into play!), via Hlyboka Makatykha and Chrestyszcze, from where he could cut-off the retreating Ukrainian recon-coy (assuming, of course, that the recon-coy was operating in such an isolated way, without rear-support). But upon further inspection of the map, it's pretty obvious that you'd need a second team to deny access to Hlyboka Makatyhka. So the scenario could EITHER be to ambush the opponent along M-03 to prevent him from penetrating further north and making contact with your retreating recon-coy, OR to stop him at Hlyboka Makatykha (which -except for the name - is missing on the topo-map), so that he cannot cut off your company's path of retreat (the M-03 exits the wood at Chrestyszcze). But then again why would the enemy even try to cut off the recon-coy if his task was just to drive off the recon-coy to prevent him from detecting his main attack to the northeast? It's a vicious circle. Apart from these doubts, and if we assume that the recon-troop is for some reason contesting the wood-edge, I find the recce-context for the Ukrainian force very interesting. I took a look at the Ukrainian brigade-level recon-coy's platoons, and they seem to be composed of a mixture of recon-squads mounted on APCs in support of the BRM-1K recon vehicles. All recon-squads (6 men per squad) lack the more powerfull RPG 7 (they only come with RPG 22/26) and medium machine guns, they do come with a grenadier and a lmg (RPK-74) though, and they also have a sniper rifle (SVD) with them. So, if we stick to the single squad-idea for the defender, here is a potential setup for the defending force: 1 BRM-1K (recon vehicle) + crew [absent, if we stick to the delaying-scenario] 1 APC (any variant) + crew [present, used to transport the squad to the forward sector or to Hlyboka Makatyhka to conduct its delaying action, probably positioned very close to the road to allow for quick evacuation, might indeed see combat action in this situation] 1 platoon HQ element: 2 men (2 x AK-74, radio, binos) [can't be deleted] 1 sniper: 1 man (SVD, walkie-talkie, binos) [= sniper team at 50% strength] 1 light machine gun team: 2 men (1 x RPK-74, 1 x AK-74, NO walkie talkie, NO binos) [=RPK-team at 100% strength] 1 scout-team: 3 men (AK-74/GP-25, Ak-74, AK-74+RPG22/26, radio, binos) [=scout-team at 100% strength] Note that I have not used the natural "scout squad" that is purchased with the formation. Rather, I've broken up the squad (by buying individual teams) to allow for more tactical flexibility. You have three infantry elements: a sniper, a light machine gun, a squad-element (3 men with AT-capability and a grenade-launcher). The down-side is that there is an unwanted radio-operator in the squad-element and that the RPK-team lacks communication-means (no walkie talkie). Additional RPG22/26 can be acquired from the APC. It's pretty obvious that this force is very weak and can in no way be set up for a 360° defense. I could add another squad (but then I'd also need to add another APC...?). A more subtle solution would be the addition of a special team - there are still 3 free seats in the vehicles . I'd really like to give the squad a bit more long-range firepower - right now, apart from the vehicles’ weapons (and I’m not sure if it’s reasonable to use them – see below) you only have the RPK (800m) and the sniper (800m). Adding more long range-fire power would be necessary to make the approach-phase interesting. Without any long-range-firepower, you’re forced to sit and wait. PS: What does "G" mean on your operational sketch?

@Combatintman Thank you for your interest! I'll be reading through the links and keep you updated tomorrow (busy today). The map is not set in stone yet, so if you happen to come across a different sector that seems much more interesting for a small scenario, please let me know. Here is the link for google maps: https://www.google.at/maps/@48.9119437,37.5855809,3996a,35y,315.56h/data=!3m1!1e3 (click on "discover" - or whatever the feature imight be called in english - to see some actual photos!) - and this is the link for OpenTopo Map (contour lines): https://opentopomap.org/#map=13/48.90625/37.62371 . Map-size is not really that much of a problem, if it helps to keep realism high. With the help of contour lines, a base map can be created very fast, and I have my routines for building roads, fields and woods, so I'm actually quite fast by now. Modifying terrain for defensive positions is what takes really, really, really long though. I think that the main questions for the plausibility/fluff of the scenario are: Why no/very limited artillery? (for gameplay reasons - lack of protection for dug-in infantry- and scenario balance, as there is always some random factor involved when it comes to artillery, and randomness is a bad thing for a tiny scenario in which every man counts) Why no night attack? (for scenario-balance and aesthetical reasons, plus there are no flares in CM-games)

@Lucaswillen05 Regarding micro-management, I've learned very fast that you loose very fast in Combat Mission games if you don't micro-manage. No scout team sent? Well, there goes your whole platoon. There is a tree between your tank's muzzle and the enemy? What a pity, now it can't fire. For me, Combat Mission is for micro-management. If I wanted to play on the company-level+, I'd choose a different game (command ops, e.g.). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since I had troubles to come up with a reasonable (and conventional) scenario for such a small map (and in fact I could not find a single spot in the whole of Eastern Ukraine where the terrain would have been suitable for the minefield-idea), I decided to use a much bigger map. I'm going for 2.5 x 4 km now, based on the actual landscape close to Slowjansk. I've added the maps I'm using (note that in the google-earth map, a winter view is combined with a summer view). I have chosen this spot because it offers a nice variety of tactical features (open fields, woods, a swampy area, an electrical substation/power plant, an important road). I had to make some larger adjustments for the roads though (roads in the CM-engine can only run in very restricted angles...). As you can see, the wood is still the central feature of the map (i.e. the map offers the highest number of avenues of approach to it compared to other terrain features) but the power station can serve as an alternative objective (although manoever-options from the north, east, and southeast are artificially cut off). Due to the open, relatively flat character of the eastern Ukraine (i.e. very long LOS), it's hard to get more than one objective on a single map, given that I don't want avenues of approaches to an objective be artificially limited by the border of the map. Even this map is already a compromise, as there would more open space to the east and south from which you could draw LOS on the central wood to the north. So, you're already starting the scenario closer to the wood than the landscape would suggest. But then again the central road is masked by thick shrubbery and trees, so it makes sense that the attacker could have approached so close. What is a bit problematical is that the map is almost split in two halves by the road. Not only does the road block LOS by itself (due to the the wood-stripes running along it), but also, it runs along a ridge. So, this creates two seperate areas on the map. Even though this increases tactical options, I think it's a pity if only one half of the map is used. I will be brainstorming for small missions for this map (1-2 platoons for the attacker maximum). I figure that some kind of patrol-/probe action might be nice. In general, I have troubles when it comes to visualizing how an actual war between two superpowers would unfold (and what kinds of scenarios it would produce). Would we see decisive, quick manouvre of large, concentrated forces, penetrating along highways to the capital cities, resulting in a quick decision? Then I guess smaller scenarios are a bit implausible. Or would it devolve into a drawn-out, slow slugfest dominated by the defence? Then the small and "localized" approach would make much more sense, I guess. Luckily nobody knows for sure, but what are your thoughs about it? PS: Picture of this very road in the wood: https://ssl.panoramio.com/photo/29531234# Picture of the road running through the fields: https://ssl.panoramio.com/photo/55171476# (note the thick shrubbery and trees represented by the "tiny" stripe of green which is actually 20-30m/2-3 action spots broad)

Sorry for the triple post, but here is one last addition that might prove usefull: an up-to-date (June 2nd!), highly detailed contour map (10 m intervalls): http://garmin.opentopomap.org/

PS: If you're very serious, it seems you can buy a Ukrainian contour map here (according to wikipedia, it offers adaptive contour lines every 5m before 450m height and every 10m above.) http://ukrainetopomap.com.ua/ Is there someone on the forum who understands Ukrainian? Can I use this map on the PC (not on a smarphone?).

I think that this map can be helpfull. Not only does it show elevation, but also you can filter for tactically interesting terrain (woods, crops, grass, etc.). https://maps-for-free.com/#close

@LUCASWILLEN05 Please don't take it personal but I think I have to go stubborn on the scenario size :). I know it's subjective, but I simply prefer tiny and small scenarios. I can easily keep my overview, I know what I want my troops to do next, I can get more involved, every single casualty hurts, and it doesn't feel like "working". When you're in command of so many troops that you have to use multiple avenues of approach, the amount of brainwork explodes. Planning an approach is a lot of work, and I don't see how two or more engagement-theaters are more benefitial than one. Of course it adds a layer of meta-tactics, but this comes at the cost of micromanaging two or more theaters. For me, it's not worth all the effort. For me, Combat Mission games really shine on the micro-level. Also, smaller scenarios are more likely to be played to the end in H2H games. @LUCASWILLEN05 @Erwin I also prefer a more generous time-limit. From all the (sparse) sources I could lay my hands on, it seems that attacks (even on the platoon-level) are anounced/issued well in advance. Also, if time was short, the officer in command would rather limit his planning-time (in most cases several hours). I don't think he would put time-pressure on preparation and execution. But my impression might be crooked by the sugar-candy-world portrayed in field-manuals. Perhaps attacks are more often mounted with much shorter preparation and execution time in the real world? @Sgt.Squarehead Lol, for some reason the whole communication aspect eluded me. Thanks. Makes sense.

Hi, Lucaswillen05! The idea is that the platoon-attack clears the wood (from which the enemy controls the minefield) so that the enginners can clear the minefield AFTER the scenario is won. Clearing the minefield is not part of the scenario, it just sets the overall situation. Your platoon is tasked with clearing the wood so that the engineers will be able to work safely. If you play carefully, 2 hours are already a short time for the platoon-sized attack, especially since it is better to dismount and approach the 1.3 kilometers on foot, with the APCs and the tank providing support from the rear (ATGM-danger, minefield, tanks and APCs can fire just as well over 1.3 kilometers as over 400 meters). I can't see how one could not run into micromanagement-overload and a lack of time with a company-sized attack. Anything larger than 2 platoons is too large for my taste and I tend to get sloppy with my orders. So I want to keep it as small as possible and plausible. Also, if intel suggests that there is a squad in the wood, would a whole company mobilize to drive it away? ---------------------- What I'd like to do is to give the defenders a more plausible setup. Imagine you're in command of a mechanized squad and your task is to keep control over a minefield for as long as possible. You have plenty of time. So, in my current setup, the defenders have set up their main position in the woods. It's a quite natural choice as it should conceal the position excellently from air observation. The problem is that the wood is quite far away from the minefield (850 meters). This is out of reach of small arms and MGs. What other weapons do you have at your disposal? Your APC's autocannon - you could dig a position for the APC to overwatch the minefield, but I guess it would require quite a lot of effort to dig positions (and covered connections in between them) for an APC in a wood. Other than the APC, the squad would have to rely on crew-served weapons to control the minefield from 850 meters distance. SPGs, AGS, ATGMs come to my mind., And of course snipers are also a very good means. The more difficult issue is how the main defensive position in the woods should be laid out. In the scenario, I made the position face the enemy force, covering the whole front of 600 meters. This feels gamey, as one would suggest that a position such as this would rather be set up to provide 360 degree protection and would be much smaller and more compact than a thin 600 meters-line. So perhaps it would be better to scrap the defensive line design for a smaller 360 degree outpost design. (I guess the idea to establish a forward outpost within small-arms-range of the minefield is a bit strange, especially given that it is located in a plain, open field, visible to air observation. This idea/outpost can be easily taken out of the scenario.)

A few impressions of a platoon attack: Including a long range graze shot by a sniper (lightly wounding a Russian), a truck driving forward to pick up those wounded by an artillery strike (those wounded guys - yellow circle - slow down the squad a lot), supporting fire by BMP-2s, a tank, automatic grenade launchers a quite intense fire fight between 3 fire teams and a MG-position an ATGM used as a last resort to fire at infantry (taken out by the tank soon afterwards, sorry for the hick-up in the video)

Thanks for the feedback, Erwin! Mine-field Well the idea is that the Ukrainians try to slow down a Russian advance with this minefield. You're right and I forgot to mention that these are AT-mines. The position in the woods is supposed to cover the minefield, just as you're suggesting. Not with a tank (I guess it would have been quite hard to get that tank into the wood, prepare a position for it, and clear its line of fire...) but with ATGMs - and in a good position to challenge any infantry assault. The ATGMs can be well concealed in the wood and I've provided alternative firing positions ;). Recon I was not refering to the editor, but rather I wanted to ask how it works irl? How would you gain info on the strength of an enemy position in a wood? Does modern military use any defoliants (agent orange...)? Arty Hm. So you say that in the given situation - an AT-minefield covered by ATGMs and a dug-in position in a wood - a big arty barrage on the whole wood (you have no clear info on the exact location) would be the way to go? In general, I find it quite hard to think of interesting scenarios if there is a lot of artillery involved. Especially in small scenarios such as this, 1-2 casualties can make a huge difference (for the defender in particular). If that MG-team is knocked out, you have a gap in your defence. Maybe I should increase the defenders' (and, as a consequence, the attackers') strength to get more overlapping fire-arcs to make the defensive line less prone to artillery. And on the whole, the situation might call for more than a squad anyway (600 meters frontage!). But still I think that the lack of proper protection for infantry makes artillery (on prepared positions) stronger than it should be. BMPs I don't need to hamstring the Russians, I can simply choose a different option for their APCs. Losses, supply, overall scenario-design I totally share your dislike of "all or nothing" squandering scenarios. Thresholds for losses and ammo will be set quite tight and matter a lot points-wise. At the same time, I don't like scenarios that put you into unrealistic settings - e.g. in which you engage a never-ending stream of enemies just to make it challenging. I rather see my scenario as a H2H scenario (primarily because the AI does not understand that their tank/ATGM needs to change position after it has fired). But if I come up with a solo-version, I'd prefer to make victory conditions harder (ammo, losses), rather than increasing the number of enemy troops. A few general design principles behind this particular scenario: I want to keep it very small. As I'm a big fan of micro-managing, I need to keep the number of troops low. I really want distance to matter in this scenario. The fields are - realistically - almost a kilometer wide, so you will need to develop and test your feeling for judging distance. Also, the weaknesses and advantages of weapon-systems really come into play. I also like that you can get infantry action without sudden deaths. At 400 meters, an infantry fire-fight can drag on for quite some time, and even Russians in the open field can survive quite long, suppression goes up and down, casualties trickle slowly, picking targets and managing fire matters much more than in shorter range "bang - bang - dead" engagements. The forces are very asymmetrical. The Russians have a lot of power, the Ukrainians have the wood - primarily concealment, but also prepared positions (at 400 meters range, my entrenching-efforts pay off quite well).

Hello! I'm working on my first scenario for a Combat Mission game and I'd love to get some feedback on it even in this early stage. I'm not a military expert by any means, which is why, for starters, it would be great to hear opinions on the overall plausibility of the scenario (and how it could be changed to make it more plausible). Here is my first draft for the briefing for the attacking Russians: Do you think that this is a plausible situation and briefing? Any suggestions for improvements? Would a mined road really be considered such an obstacle (for supply more than for the troops, one might think), especially if there are open fields around it? How would you gain the information on the enemy's strength? You could be observing supply-runs? You could perhaps make out individual soldiers going to and fro identified positions? But this would be hard to notice if you're outside the wood and when the enemies might be moving in his trenches? I suppose that an attack such as this would be carried out preferably by night? But the daytime-scenario could still be justified by the battalion's attack plan/schedule. Can you think of any way to deal with the ATGM-threat in this scenario? I guess I'm a bit at a loss how to explain the lack of artillery shelling on the wood? I'm reluctant to give the Russian player stronger artillery for balance/gameplay reasons. As there is quite a lack for protection for infantry in CM:BS (no overhead protection, trenches [units or hand-made via terrain-elevations] are unreliable at best), the effect of artillery on a dug-in position such as this can be overly crippling. So I decided to give the Russians only access to two on-map medium mortars. 1) they cannot fire airburst, and 2) they don't trigger the off-map-arty-panic-issue. For the same reason (lack of protection versus HE), I feel that the BMP-3s might be shifting the balance of the scenario in the Russians' favour a bit too much, I might still work on the Ukrainians positions in the wood to make them better protected from HE, but those high-trajectory airburst-HE rounds are hard to beat and fiddling with individual positions is so nerve-wrecking. So the better option might be to down-grade the russian BMPs (30mm autocannon would be okay, I guess, while MG only is not powerfull enough). The shape of the map looks a bit odd, but I think it works quite well. You still have a front of 600 meters, so it looks worse than it is. It also helped me to set up the defenders to cover their whole front. Anything larger would have required me to make the defenders use an all-around-defence.

I was just looking it up and I was surprised to find the BMP-3's main gun comes with such a slow muzzle velocity. So it's pretty accurate. And these round trajectory, airburst HE shells are terribly effective in my scenario. I also checked the T-72 and was happy to see that its gun fires faster rounds (1.3km: roughly 1.8 seconds in my test). Mea culpa maxima once again. It's astonishing to see how much effort has been put into these units.

Speaking of improvement suggestions again: The velocity of tank guns is by far too slow. I looked at CM:BS, but I'm pretty sure it is the same for WWII-titles, and probably also true for many small arm weapons (there is a reason why bullets make that characteristic whip-sound: they travel at supersonic speeds, generating a small supersonic boom on their flight - even WWII weapons had supersonic muzzle velocities afaik). I had my BMP-3 100mm guns fire at a target 1km away, and it took the round slightly over 3 seconds (!) to travel from the muzzle to its target while irl, it should be more like 1 second. This issue certainly affects gameplay: the slow speed comes with a more rock-lobber like, curved trajectory, which not only looks weird, but also reduces the time/distance over which the round travels close to the ground. On the one hand, more grazing leads to more danger for personell, on the other hand, it would make small bumps in the terrain stop tank-rounds more often. To be honest I would love to see this changed, but I bet it's a rather complicated issue (as it interefers with all the units' aiming procedures, animations, etc.). Perhaps slow projectile velocities are even an intentional feature like those tracers to increase the visual feedback for players? Other than that, I'm currently testing my scenario a lot. I found out that flavour objects such as rocks and logs can be destroyed pretty fast. It's also nice to see that trees are destroyed step by step (first the foliage comes off, then the tree is destroyed as a whole).

For anyone interested, here is a field manual from 1985 touching on fortifications: http://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/amd-us-archive/fm5-103(85).pdf Here is a nice collection of US field manuals: http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/publications/field_manuals/index-5.shtml (on the topic of grazing fire, take a look at the machine gun manuals).

I just wanted to point out that grazing fire is a bit hard to pull off in Combat Mission games, but it's certainly working. The reason why it does not seem all that usefull in many Combat Mission scenarios might be related to a lack of proper defensive tactics/positioning (which often requires proper/realistic map-scaling to begin with). In the scenario I'm currently working on (a mechanized platoon attacks a dug-in squad), I tried to build a proper defensive position for the defenders. The base idea is to shield the defenders from frontal fire (I only wnat to face tanks at RPG range ) and make them fight obliquely, with overlapping fire-arcs from ambush/keyhole-positions. And I think that the slanting of the angle of engagement is the key why grazing fire is important irl: when you shift your axis of engagement by 45-70 degrees, you feel less like you're firing "at" the enemy to kill him, but rather, you fire "in front of him" (well, at least that's how it feels) in order to stop him from approaching your position any further. You generally want to generate a defensive wall of fire, so to speak. If the enemy manages to get through that wall, he reaches dead ground (not covered by the fire-arcs of your positions) and thereby has overcome your defences. And this is where grazing fire is the key: the longer the reach of your fire, the more front you can cover with it. Range is much more important when you imagine it to be a wall that stops enemy movement towards your position. And grazing fire is the means to maximize range. If terrain allows an MG (positioned at 90 degrees) to deliver grazing fire down your entire front, then a single MG's wall of fire covers more than 500m of your front against an infantry assault. That's much more usefull than exposing your MG to your enemy's frontal fire (as this usually includes fire by long range assets such as tanks and APCs which tends to kill you as soon as you give away your position). I'm currently trying to maximize grazing effects in my scenario. It's needless to say that the AI can't really handle it, since it is a quite delicate and complicated matter. But the engine certainly makes it work. As you'll end up with lots reverse-slope-LOS, you usually need to area-target points well in front/short of your actual aim. Deployed MG teams are firing from a prone position, ca. 1m above the ground, and the area-target command also makes units aim ca. 1m above the ground. Therefore, on flat terrain, your MG's shots are fired almost perfectly horizontally, allowing them to go on and on and on (below a man's height) well beyond the square that you had area-targeted, Targeting a closer spot also comes with the nice side-effect that it keeps the rate of fire high (bursts!). PS: Small example video of grazing fire coming up here: Now, if you place some wire just behind that fire-wall, then this line should hold even if the gunner is reloading or the enemies are trying to crawl under it (they should still be suppressed though, the bullets fly low enough!)

This thread is very helpfull! It's great to hear that all titles can profit from the effort put into a map. It works like a charm. I could easily convert a map for CM:BS into a map for CM:FB (hex-value for CM:FB = 0C).

Thanks for all the answers and info! I'd be very interested in the differentiations the game makes and uses. @akd Do you think the game is just using the same symbol for both types (and treats them differently) or is there indeed no differentiation between thermal/IR and intensification in game-terms? I would assume that thermal/IR should also give a huge bonus to discover concealed enemies even in daylight as you don't need to spot them via shape and "natural" colour-contrast (which is what camouflage tackles), but rather via heat (converted to artificial colour-contrast). Subjectively, I did notice that a T-72 tank with IR optics was exteremly good at spotting my infantry deep in the wood in daylight. @DougPhresh I noticed that many russian vehicles are noted in the manual to have IR-blocking smoke for their smoke-grenade launchers. By contrast, I couldn't find a single US vehicle with IR-blocking smoke. Do you think this is an oversight in the manual or actual fact?

Sure, it is time-consuming, but I'm having a lot of fun trying to understand how stuff works for my scenario. I do think the game is very elegantly designed. It's just as if I have a safe place to keep my notes (I tend to drop all my notes made on paper ). ----------------------------------------- PS: I should have noted that the wall-LOS diagrams above always refer to a prone spotter (explains why he can't see over the small stone wall except for the 39m-radius). PS: Special wall-tiles (such as sharp or "rounded" corners, arrow-shapes) seem to offer a much better LOS-area than straight tiles. I wonder if they still provide the same amount of concealment.