Kaunitz

The CMSF2 'trenches-become-ditches' are a legacy terrain feature of the old CMSF1. Charles had wanted to eliminate them entirely but decided otherwise so as not to break existing CMSF1 scenarios. They're not in other titles besides CM:Afghanistan. In CMSF2 the in-terrain 'trenches' have been replaced in the scenarios by standard FOW fortification trenches where appropriate and kept when used by scenario designers as drainage ditch terrain features.
Two things Charles didn't like about those in-terrain 'trenches' in CMSF1. First, they broke fog-of-war rules. They were seen by both sides as terrain features. Second, the scenarios took a framerate hit because of them, though framerate in CMSF2 has so greatly improved over CMSF1 that the trench-ditch feature hardly has an effect anymore.

@Kaunitz check this and the rest of the thread about it:
Might be info elsewhere too.

A British MG position in Sicily.  


A British AT gun waiting for information about interesting targets. Note that there is an FO team (+radio) with the gun. I tend to do this because the FO team can deliver all information about enemy sightings to the gun. The frontline units spot stuff and tell their superiors. The superiors (battalion level) of ALL units on the battlefield stick together at the command post so that they can share information verbally, even if they' don't share a common superior. By this method, all sightings are shared to all units but it may take a while. So here the FO team is very busy listening to the radio and spotting while the gun-crew has some tea. Of course this only really matters if you roleplay a bit and don't let units area-fire at targets they don't know about. 

 
 

I'm pretty sure that a blue line means that all weapons (for vehicles: weapon-systems) of a unit can fire at the targeted spot, while a grey line means that only part of the unit can fire. 
This is very obvious when you have an infantry squad and one guy is kneeling, while the rest of the squad is prone. You will notice that the blue LOS will be limited by the prone soldiers' LOS, while there is an additional grey LOS that ends where the kneeling soldiers' LOS ends. If you order the very same squad to hide=go prone, there is no grey LOS anymore. 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Update concerning my problems with the functionality of ditches in Combat Mission games: I've done more experiments, but ditches that you create by shaping the terrain simply don't work. Soldiers will not stick to the trench, but instead still roam around at the elevated edges, horribly exposing themselves to artillery fire. I really wish that the placement of soldiers on an action spot will be improved so that they stick to the "lower" areas. Fortunately, placing trenches in ditches helps to mitigate the problem. As soldiers now stick to the depression (because they're placed inside of the trench, which is in the middle of the action spot), and because the trench itself might also provide some kind of bonus, they are now protected against artillery fire.  IN my testing barrages, the casualty numbers for ca. 20 men placed in a ditch decreased significantly. With the natural ditch, I lost ca. 12-17 guys, with the ditch + trench, the casualties are down to 1-2., which is still very high for 2 minutes of bombardement but far better than a wipe-out. 
There are still many problems though. While the trench "in" the ditch provides good cover versus artillery, the protection against small arms fire and LOS is a different matter (see my post from 16th June in this thread, where I describe a way to create positions that offer good protection against small arms fire and good LOS, but are very vulnerable vs. arty). Also, moving along a trenchline can still result in soldiers exposing themselves on the elevated borders of the ditch. Also, you still get the problem that units tend to leave the trench (for whatever reason) when they come under artillery fire and prefer to get killed in the flat open.
Pictures to make the problem clearer:
Natural ditch: horrible soldier placement - all but one soldiers are on the high terrain at the border of the ditch. If an artillery shell strikes anywhere close, half of the squad is dead.

 
Trench placed in ditch: good soldier placement. Nobody gets hurt unless a shell lands a direct hit in the trench (for that reason, I wished that trenches were narrower...)

Something similar can be achieved by placing walls/hedges in the ditch. It looks totally stupid, but it leads to slightly better soldier placement.

So, generally speaking, if you want to have a trench/ditch that actually works (i.e. offers protection to infantry), you have to make sure that the infantry will stick to the ditch/the center of the action spot somehow.  
I really think that these issues are a major concern. I'm pretty sure that the game uses a very sophisticated system to determine hits, both from artillery shells and direct fire. For example, when I was creating good MG-positions for CM:BlackSea by using craters and logs, I noticed that in many cases the MG gunners (behind the log) survived while the MG got destroyed by enemy fire! Until then, I didn't even know that MGs could be destroyed in that way! So it's a pity that the game engine is so sophisticated when it comes to determining hits but doesn't really let us "fine tune" the amount of cover and create proper positions.

Gerbini west: axis defenses
I was quite surprised that there is no detailed (by that I mean down to company level for important individual battles) book available either in german or english when it comes to Sicily. So, most of the german dispositions will be guesswork and I'll have a lot of freedom here. For the western sector of Gerbini, however, the reports mention three distinct features: 
1) anti-tank ditch: The accounts and Rennie's sketch mention an anti-tank-ditch, ca. 20 feet deep (lined on the north side with barbed wire), south of Gerbini which served as a starting line for the attack. I've tried to make out the exact location on google maps' satellite views, but I'm not entirely sure, as there are a lot of irrigation ditches all over the place. Moreover, one would assume that the tank-ditch would link up to the Dittaino river to the west and the Simete to the east. Anyway - the anti-tank-ditch was not a really important feature for the battle itself. It would just serve as a starting point. 
2) axis pillbox/bunker: Reports of the action mention a pillbox (maybe this is what is sometimes also called "barracks"?). The bunker is visible on google maps (see pictures). It was assaulted and taken by the 1st coy/1st Blackwatch and will also be a central feature of the scenario. Unfortunately, I could not find a ground-level-picture of it. However, I wonder if this bunker might actually be the left/central building on Eadie's drawing? The shape would fit quite well, I think, and also, vegetation is growing on the building - so it seems to be camouflaged. The building to the right can be found on the contemporary map too (maybe these are the "barracks"?) - a strange dot south of "mass.a Landolina". Moreover, there is (or rather was) a "wood" behind that bunker, which would be correct. The viewpoint would be on strada statale 192, looking north-east. So the tanks would not have wandered too far off the street - a small tip of the (dirt...?) street might be shown in the lower left corner. The rise of the ground is also reasonable and the place has obviously been shelled (crater, defoiled trees, buildings in ruins). Also, Rennie's account mentions two tanks getting knocked out (well, at least "hit") somewhere around here: "Two tanks of the troop sent to E, which had moved far out onto the open and level ground, were hit."  But in the end, it's all speculation. Maybe you are in the mood to help me interpret whether this strange building might indeed be the bunker?




3) mines: According to Rennie's account, 6 AT-guns were moved up north modern Strada Statale 192 into Gerbini in order to fortify it against the imminent german counter-attack. The leading portee hit a mine. So one can assume that some parts of the road south of Gerbini were mined.
 
 

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. 
 

I'm pretty sure that a blue line means that all weapons (for vehicles: weapon-systems) of a unit can fire at the targeted spot, while a grey line means that only part of the unit can fire. 
This is very obvious when you have an infantry squad and one guy is kneeling, while the rest of the squad is prone. You will notice that the blue LOS will be limited by the prone soldiers' LOS, while there is an additional grey LOS that ends where the kneeling soldiers' LOS ends. If you order the very same squad to hide=go prone, there is no grey LOS anymore. 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Update concerning my problems with the functionality of ditches in Combat Mission games: I've done more experiments, but ditches that you create by shaping the terrain simply don't work. Soldiers will not stick to the trench, but instead still roam around at the elevated edges, horribly exposing themselves to artillery fire. I really wish that the placement of soldiers on an action spot will be improved so that they stick to the "lower" areas. Fortunately, placing trenches in ditches helps to mitigate the problem. As soldiers now stick to the depression (because they're placed inside of the trench, which is in the middle of the action spot), and because the trench itself might also provide some kind of bonus, they are now protected against artillery fire.  IN my testing barrages, the casualty numbers for ca. 20 men placed in a ditch decreased significantly. With the natural ditch, I lost ca. 12-17 guys, with the ditch + trench, the casualties are down to 1-2., which is still very high for 2 minutes of bombardement but far better than a wipe-out. 
There are still many problems though. While the trench "in" the ditch provides good cover versus artillery, the protection against small arms fire and LOS is a different matter (see my post from 16th June in this thread, where I describe a way to create positions that offer good protection against small arms fire and good LOS, but are very vulnerable vs. arty). Also, moving along a trenchline can still result in soldiers exposing themselves on the elevated borders of the ditch. Also, you still get the problem that units tend to leave the trench (for whatever reason) when they come under artillery fire and prefer to get killed in the flat open.
Pictures to make the problem clearer:
Natural ditch: horrible soldier placement - all but one soldiers are on the high terrain at the border of the ditch. If an artillery shell strikes anywhere close, half of the squad is dead.

 
Trench placed in ditch: good soldier placement. Nobody gets hurt unless a shell lands a direct hit in the trench (for that reason, I wished that trenches were narrower...)

Something similar can be achieved by placing walls/hedges in the ditch. It looks totally stupid, but it leads to slightly better soldier placement.

So, generally speaking, if you want to have a trench/ditch that actually works (i.e. offers protection to infantry), you have to make sure that the infantry will stick to the ditch/the center of the action spot somehow.  
I really think that these issues are a major concern. I'm pretty sure that the game uses a very sophisticated system to determine hits, both from artillery shells and direct fire. For example, when I was creating good MG-positions for CM:BlackSea by using craters and logs, I noticed that in many cases the MG gunners (behind the log) survived while the MG got destroyed by enemy fire! Until then, I didn't even know that MGs could be destroyed in that way! So it's a pity that the game engine is so sophisticated when it comes to determining hits but doesn't really let us "fine tune" the amount of cover and create proper positions.

I'm pretty sure that a blue line means that all weapons (for vehicles: weapon-systems) of a unit can fire at the targeted spot, while a grey line means that only part of the unit can fire. 
This is very obvious when you have an infantry squad and one guy is kneeling, while the rest of the squad is prone. You will notice that the blue LOS will be limited by the prone soldiers' LOS, while there is an additional grey LOS that ends where the kneeling soldiers' LOS ends. If you order the very same squad to hide=go prone, there is no grey LOS anymore. 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Update concerning my problems with the functionality of ditches in Combat Mission games: I've done more experiments, but ditches that you create by shaping the terrain simply don't work. Soldiers will not stick to the trench, but instead still roam around at the elevated edges, horribly exposing themselves to artillery fire. I really wish that the placement of soldiers on an action spot will be improved so that they stick to the "lower" areas. Fortunately, placing trenches in ditches helps to mitigate the problem. As soldiers now stick to the depression (because they're placed inside of the trench, which is in the middle of the action spot), and because the trench itself might also provide some kind of bonus, they are now protected against artillery fire.  IN my testing barrages, the casualty numbers for ca. 20 men placed in a ditch decreased significantly. With the natural ditch, I lost ca. 12-17 guys, with the ditch + trench, the casualties are down to 1-2., which is still very high for 2 minutes of bombardement but far better than a wipe-out. 
There are still many problems though. While the trench "in" the ditch provides good cover versus artillery, the protection against small arms fire and LOS is a different matter (see my post from 16th June in this thread, where I describe a way to create positions that offer good protection against small arms fire and good LOS, but are very vulnerable vs. arty). Also, moving along a trenchline can still result in soldiers exposing themselves on the elevated borders of the ditch. Also, you still get the problem that units tend to leave the trench (for whatever reason) when they come under artillery fire and prefer to get killed in the flat open.
Pictures to make the problem clearer:
Natural ditch: horrible soldier placement - all but one soldiers are on the high terrain at the border of the ditch. If an artillery shell strikes anywhere close, half of the squad is dead.

 
Trench placed in ditch: good soldier placement. Nobody gets hurt unless a shell lands a direct hit in the trench (for that reason, I wished that trenches were narrower...)

Something similar can be achieved by placing walls/hedges in the ditch. It looks totally stupid, but it leads to slightly better soldier placement.

So, generally speaking, if you want to have a trench/ditch that actually works (i.e. offers protection to infantry), you have to make sure that the infantry will stick to the ditch/the center of the action spot somehow.  
I really think that these issues are a major concern. I'm pretty sure that the game uses a very sophisticated system to determine hits, both from artillery shells and direct fire. For example, when I was creating good MG-positions for CM:BlackSea by using craters and logs, I noticed that in many cases the MG gunners (behind the log) survived while the MG got destroyed by enemy fire! Until then, I didn't even know that MGs could be destroyed in that way! So it's a pity that the game engine is so sophisticated when it comes to determining hits but doesn't really let us "fine tune" the amount of cover and create proper positions.

The problem I have with creating ditches by using ditch lock is that the ditches look nice, but I find them a bit problematical in terms of gameplay. Often soldiers don't align on the action spot as you would hope. Some stay "outside" the ditch (exposing themselves to enemy small arms and especially artillery fire), others are in the ditch so that they can't see/fire anywhere, etc. Maybe I'm just too picky, but I find that the terra-formed ditches are not as protective and effective as they should be.
I've experimented quite a lot with different kinds of combinations of blue (ditch lock) and black elevations and also with placing fences/hedges on ditches in order to "force" soldiers to position themselves on the right spot. There is a combination that makes soldiers align quite neatly along the trench with a good field of fire and okay cover (if prone)*, but troops still remain very vulnerable to artillery fire.
That's the reason why I now place actual "trench" tiles (the ones you buy in the unit selection menu) in the ditches. Even though it doesn't look that nice (see picture), this makes soldiers align nicely and (I hope!) should also give them some better cover against artillery. But this needs some further testing (I think there are already some test-results regarding the protective effect of fortifications against arty to be found in the forum somewhere...). And also, as the trench-tiles need to be bought and deployed, it doesn't work for quickbattles (problem of point budgets, setup-zones, tedious work....).

 
More generally speaking, I find that creating proper defensive positions in Combat Mission is incredibly difficult. For more modern titles, it's even more difficult, as HE projectiles are so abundant. I was pretty pround of my MG position here (crater + log, + only gently sloped terrain around so that the chance of shrapnel striking into the crater from above was low and close misses would land farther away). It withstood quite a few HE shots. But then again a position such as this is too obvious - a human opponent can simply look at the map and search for a log and a crater): 
-------
* blue 0, black -1, blue 0 //  --> place the unit on a blue (not black) tile and face them in a right angle to the ditch
 
 

 

Addition/correction to previous post:: Test 1 / tank / tall grass:  460 / 650 / full lane (second value was missing)
Conclusions from the tests described in the post above
1. Weather and daylight conditions don't seem to have an effect on LOS per se. For dawn (05:00) and hazy conditions, the LOS is the same as for clear conditions. At night (00:00), there is a hard cap on visibility (400m in this case - I've read that CM titles do consider the moon phases, so the exact value may vary with the date respectively). As there clearly is an effect on LOS in adverse light an weather conditions, but LOS as given by the target command stays the same, it seems as if units might rather receive a "hiding bonus"?
2. I think that my theory from last year (based on observations in CM: Black Sea) is not too far off the mark: There must be at least two values for each terrain: 1) density/LOS blocking value, and 2) height (either as in an acutal hitbox of some sort, or a z-value for the whole action spot). Different densities must be the reason why the range of full lines of sight vary with terrain. For example,  forest terrains (105m full LOS) are not as dense as crop terrains (60m full LOS).
The tricky part is to explain the "reverse slope" line of sight zones and the difference of results between tanks and infantry. It's much easier to explain my theory in pictures so here we go: 

Eyes below terrain height (e.g. prone infantry --> creates limited "reverse slope" LOS)


Eyes above terrain height (e.g. tank --> creates unlimited "reverse slope" LOS)


Explaining hull-down results with different terrain heights


 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If things work indeed as described in the diagrams and when you consider the test results from above, we end up with these terrain characteristics:
clear: no effect on LOS crops: large height, large density forest: medium height, low density tall grass: small height (but still higher than prone infantry), medium density  

I'm pretty sure that a blue line means that all weapons (for vehicles: weapon-systems) of a unit can fire at the targeted spot, while a grey line means that only part of the unit can fire. 
This is very obvious when you have an infantry squad and one guy is kneeling, while the rest of the squad is prone. You will notice that the blue LOS will be limited by the prone soldiers' LOS, while there is an additional grey LOS that ends where the kneeling soldiers' LOS ends. If you order the very same squad to hide=go prone, there is no grey LOS anymore. 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Update concerning my problems with the functionality of ditches in Combat Mission games: I've done more experiments, but ditches that you create by shaping the terrain simply don't work. Soldiers will not stick to the trench, but instead still roam around at the elevated edges, horribly exposing themselves to artillery fire. I really wish that the placement of soldiers on an action spot will be improved so that they stick to the "lower" areas. Fortunately, placing trenches in ditches helps to mitigate the problem. As soldiers now stick to the depression (because they're placed inside of the trench, which is in the middle of the action spot), and because the trench itself might also provide some kind of bonus, they are now protected against artillery fire.  IN my testing barrages, the casualty numbers for ca. 20 men placed in a ditch decreased significantly. With the natural ditch, I lost ca. 12-17 guys, with the ditch + trench, the casualties are down to 1-2., which is still very high for 2 minutes of bombardement but far better than a wipe-out. 
There are still many problems though. While the trench "in" the ditch provides good cover versus artillery, the protection against small arms fire and LOS is a different matter (see my post from 16th June in this thread, where I describe a way to create positions that offer good protection against small arms fire and good LOS, but are very vulnerable vs. arty). Also, moving along a trenchline can still result in soldiers exposing themselves on the elevated borders of the ditch. Also, you still get the problem that units tend to leave the trench (for whatever reason) when they come under artillery fire and prefer to get killed in the flat open.
Pictures to make the problem clearer:
Natural ditch: horrible soldier placement - all but one soldiers are on the high terrain at the border of the ditch. If an artillery shell strikes anywhere close, half of the squad is dead.

 
Trench placed in ditch: good soldier placement. Nobody gets hurt unless a shell lands a direct hit in the trench (for that reason, I wished that trenches were narrower...)

Something similar can be achieved by placing walls/hedges in the ditch. It looks totally stupid, but it leads to slightly better soldier placement.

So, generally speaking, if you want to have a trench/ditch that actually works (i.e. offers protection to infantry), you have to make sure that the infantry will stick to the ditch/the center of the action spot somehow.  
I really think that these issues are a major concern. I'm pretty sure that the game uses a very sophisticated system to determine hits, both from artillery shells and direct fire. For example, when I was creating good MG-positions for CM:BlackSea by using craters and logs, I noticed that in many cases the MG gunners (behind the log) survived while the MG got destroyed by enemy fire! Until then, I didn't even know that MGs could be destroyed in that way! So it's a pity that the game engine is so sophisticated when it comes to determining hits but doesn't really let us "fine tune" the amount of cover and create proper positions.

Ah yes, Kaunitz. Austria. Should have known. 🙂
Some first tips of the iceberg:
SS-Panzergrenadier by Hans Schmidt
Ohne Siege und Hurra by Georg Jestadt
Vergiss die Zeit der Dornen nicht by Günther Koschorrek
Pioniere nach Vorn! Günther Wannhöfer
There's plenty more, also check the Zweiter Weltkrieg Erlebnisberichte on Amazon. No heroism or glory there, just suffering and hardship. There's very little 'glory' to find in the best war accounts. 

I don't want to get into this too much, but this happened while I was with Battlegroup in '08,
https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/capt-robert-semrau-dismissed-from-the-forces/

My $0.02 CAD is having 12th SS kill Canadian prisoners out of hand in CMBN doesn't improve gameplay or immersion. Similarly, I would like to be able to treat enemy casualties in accordance with the LOAC, but I don't think that there should be systems to enable war crimes.

If you're interested in the eastern front, I can recommend "The Forgotten Soldier" (originally in French: Le soldat oublié) by Guy Sajer. I've read the german translation and for me this is one of the most impressive eye-witness-accounts of WWII (at least of those I've read so far). As for all accounts of personal war experiences, don't expect a proper account of the campaign and its chronology. But I was impressed by his description of how surreal and weird his battle experiences felt and more generally of the horrors and chaos of war.
Sajer on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Sajer

Addition/correction to previous post:: Test 1 / tank / tall grass:  460 / 650 / full lane (second value was missing)
Conclusions from the tests described in the post above
1. Weather and daylight conditions don't seem to have an effect on LOS per se. For dawn (05:00) and hazy conditions, the LOS is the same as for clear conditions. At night (00:00), there is a hard cap on visibility (400m in this case - I've read that CM titles do consider the moon phases, so the exact value may vary with the date respectively). As there clearly is an effect on LOS in adverse light an weather conditions, but LOS as given by the target command stays the same, it seems as if units might rather receive a "hiding bonus"?
2. I think that my theory from last year (based on observations in CM: Black Sea) is not too far off the mark: There must be at least two values for each terrain: 1) density/LOS blocking value, and 2) height (either as in an acutal hitbox of some sort, or a z-value for the whole action spot). Different densities must be the reason why the range of full lines of sight vary with terrain. For example,  forest terrains (105m full LOS) are not as dense as crop terrains (60m full LOS).
The tricky part is to explain the "reverse slope" line of sight zones and the difference of results between tanks and infantry. It's much easier to explain my theory in pictures so here we go: 

Eyes below terrain height (e.g. prone infantry --> creates limited "reverse slope" LOS)


Eyes above terrain height (e.g. tank --> creates unlimited "reverse slope" LOS)


Explaining hull-down results with different terrain heights


 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If things work indeed as described in the diagrams and when you consider the test results from above, we end up with these terrain characteristics:
clear: no effect on LOS crops: large height, large density forest: medium height, low density tall grass: small height (but still higher than prone infantry), medium density  

Addition/correction to previous post:: Test 1 / tank / tall grass:  460 / 650 / full lane (second value was missing)
Conclusions from the tests described in the post above
1. Weather and daylight conditions don't seem to have an effect on LOS per se. For dawn (05:00) and hazy conditions, the LOS is the same as for clear conditions. At night (00:00), there is a hard cap on visibility (400m in this case - I've read that CM titles do consider the moon phases, so the exact value may vary with the date respectively). As there clearly is an effect on LOS in adverse light an weather conditions, but LOS as given by the target command stays the same, it seems as if units might rather receive a "hiding bonus"?
2. I think that my theory from last year (based on observations in CM: Black Sea) is not too far off the mark: There must be at least two values for each terrain: 1) density/LOS blocking value, and 2) height (either as in an acutal hitbox of some sort, or a z-value for the whole action spot). Different densities must be the reason why the range of full lines of sight vary with terrain. For example,  forest terrains (105m full LOS) are not as dense as crop terrains (60m full LOS).
The tricky part is to explain the "reverse slope" line of sight zones and the difference of results between tanks and infantry. It's much easier to explain my theory in pictures so here we go: 

Eyes below terrain height (e.g. prone infantry --> creates limited "reverse slope" LOS)


Eyes above terrain height (e.g. tank --> creates unlimited "reverse slope" LOS)


Explaining hull-down results with different terrain heights


 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If things work indeed as described in the diagrams and when you consider the test results from above, we end up with these terrain characteristics:
clear: no effect on LOS crops: large height, large density forest: medium height, low density tall grass: small height (but still higher than prone infantry), medium density  

I'm certain that most veteran map makers already knew everything below, but I wasn't able to find this kind of info when I did a forum search. Maybe it'll be useful to anyone delving into the editor for the first time....
So, after lots of testing (by creating grids of 64 water spigots per 8x8 meter action square, lol), I've now made more sense of how to accurately place flavor objects and keep them where I want them. Or at least predict where they'll end up after a reload of the 3D environment. The logic is apparently pretty straightforward:
It seems that flavor objects just snap to the southwest corner of whichever 1 x 1 meter grid spot you place them on. So it's just that both grid coordinates are truncated, i.e. the decimal portion is just stripped away. A crate placed at, say, x=7.88 y=23.88, will just eventually migrate itself over to (7,23)... not to (8,24), even though (8,24) was much, much closer.
If there's already another flavor object at (7,23), the new object will replace it. Which goes to what Bulletpoint said. (Thanks.)
Also, predicting which part of a given flavor object will snap to that lower left / southwest corner of the 1x1 map grid spot seemed weird at first. But I think it just depends on the particular object -- specifically, where the (0,0) point is on its 3D model. It's usually the upper left corner of the object -- whichever corner is northwesternmost when the object is oriented in its default position. So it may not be the pole of a telephone pole, for example, that'll snap to that southwest grid position, but instead it'll be the upper left/northwest corner of its particular 3D model. It may be more complicated than all of that, but this rule has held true for about a dozen objects I've tested so far, plus it just makes sense from a programming perspective....
Hope this helps someone. I like adding lots of flavor objects to maps, and things are much easier in the editor after being armed with this knowledge.
 

In another thread I mentioned I had a set of links saved away I called a set of FAQs. I promised to share so here they are.
This is an export of the bookmarks for the folder I call FAQs on my bookmark list so nothing fancy and, while I did a little fixing up, this is really how disorganized it is on my computer. This is a combination of stuff I think will be useful to me, issues that come up frequently that might benefit others and totally useless topics that I got tired of answering again and again and or I got tired of googling for the last answer that was given. The order below is not really planned either. It's just the way they are organized in my bookmarks. Sometimes the link titles are what the poster used sometimes they are my rewrite. The description was automatically added by FF, except when it didn't. I left it all so some of the spelling mistakes are mine and some are yours I could not careless and only mention it cause I don't want to hear about it . It is possible that a link or two is to an internal tester only part of the forum or I might have repeated a link. If that happens - sorry. I would not mind knowing about those.
You might or might not be able to tell which is which. Either way I hope you all enjoy them! Hey, lets collect your FAQ or Important links in the follow on discussion.
Scenario and Map Design
Scenario designing with AI
Hi,I have had reason to be inspired to create a SP scenario that will feature the player as the attacker.It has occurred to me that there are some basic gam...
Making OP Neptune Spear – A Scenario Design Tutorial
Ok a couple of people (yes you @Borg ) have been screaming out for a ‘Special Ops Mission’.  So I thought – hell why not?  But there is a twist to this … ...
Scenario Test & Discussion Thread
I did a lot of work on the scenario yesterday, mostly in the AI Plan. Here are the highlights: Fixed the runaway MG team problem (yes, it was just th...
AI triggers small tutorial
Using Google Earth to create contours
Adding spoilers using the editor
CM Maps Universal Translator Tool - Manual hex edit instructions
Flavor Object Placement and limits
Is there a limit to the number of flavor objects you can insert into a map? Or the number you can have within some set number of square meters? I keep...
Spotting Objectives
An interesting discussion of how Spotting objective work and how you might use them
How to use Mod tags
Instructions on how to use mod tags with scenario authorship
Another Mod How to
This one includes how to add multiple tags
Supply platoons and ammo dumps
A post discussing how vehicles from the same platoon converted into ammo dumps combine into a single ammo dump.
 
Mods
How to install mods
The short and sweet explanation of how to install mods.
Mods and sub folders
Because the short version didn't make it clear.
 
Tank fighting positions
Static defenses
OK I went and did some experimenting.  Here is a scenario with four different prepared tank positions on each side one is T90s vs M1s and one is T90s vs Bra...
Battle positions for tanks/AFVs
I think M1A1TC's description of how BPs are used goes to demonstrate just how hard it would be to code the AI behaviour for them.
 
Writing Briefing Info
CCIR in briefings - Combat Mission - Black Sea - Battlefront.com Community
Commanders essentially do two things - they lead and make decisions. CCIRs are designed to allow them to make informed decisions and are recommended to th...  
 
Destroying Bridges
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/94780-how-do-i-blow-bridges-up-staftesters-q/?tab=comments#comment-1235110
Steve's direct answer to why blowing bridges is not part of CM
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/110304-destroying-a-bridge/
What can destroy a bridge.
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/110851-can-pioneers-blow-bridges-in-mg/
Market Garden specific discussion
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/124968-blowing-bridges/
A discussion about blowing bridges
Spotting
LOS Through Trees and general explination Good discussion.  Picking up on the last train of thought... design for effect vs. engineer for effect...   Spotting and Multi-threading So if the spotting cycle were reduced the chances to spot in any given cycle would have to be reduced to keep the results in the game the same. An increase in resources dedicated to spotting checks could allow the game some room to tweak some corner cases but that is about it.   Spotting cycle explanation   Tactical Tips
Learning the ropes of IFV combat 1 hour ago, Ivan Zaitzev said: I don't know much about modern warfare.I'm more of a WWII guy and can't say I'm very good at that either. So,...   YouTube Play List of Tactic Instruction This playlist includes: Combat Mission Normandy Tactics - by Jeffrey Paulding Combat Mission: Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures - by Chris Maillet Combat M...   Tactical Lifehack - Getting solidiers to Stand up when not moving 15 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said: The Pause + move command thing does work with the caveat that the unit must be already moving when the paus...   HQ in BMP impoves spotting and engagment I did some tests... 1 BMP-3M  at 300 meters open field against 2 strikers.   Only gunner and driver: average spotting time of strykers and engagem... Hull Down & Partial Hull Down Advantages
V4.0 Hull Down question
           How to use the command and other disagreements.
Sniper Tactics
           Some thoughts on how to utilize snipers - some advice from an actual sniper!
 
New To Multiplayer
Announcing "Whose Turn Is It?" a PBEM turn management program
Use Dropbox / WTII / CMHelper for multiplayer games
PBEM opponent wanted
Search for PBEM opponents
New player resource list
In the meantime, Mishrae, welcome to the forums. Don't forget to bookmark both the repository, and The Scenario Depot III:http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/ts...
  Unit Behaviour
Command Connection - Company CO commanding section   C2 & Information Sharing - Redux   The Relationship between Soft Factors, Morale & Fatigue The Relationship between Soft Factors, Morale & Fatigue    Preface Hi all, I'm pretty new to the BFC forums but I've been milling about over . Buddy Aid: How to handle casulties at the border of AS
XO or 2IC taking over command
 
Targeting Buildings
Targeting with tanks in an urban envionment   City fighting, what are the isssues?? - Page 3   It's got to go It really has. Before we come to the wide open plains of the Rodina. What has to go? The requirement to be able to spot the ground plane at the centre of an...   Urban Combat: share your tips and techniques that work for you With the market garden module on the way and some improvements to urban combat mentioned by BFC I thought now would be a good time to start a thread about w...   It's got to go. - Steve's comment I know this thread has been quiet for over a month, but today I stumbled upon it and figured I would address the issues here since, no doubt, they will come...  
Performance Discussions
Ben's Video settings This what I have ticked "on" in the Nvidia Control Panel ...   Performance Optimization   Notes on Performance for NVIDIA gpu And now for some hard data to prove my point regarding inconsistency in antialiasing levels with my hardware/drivers: AA 4x (default in-game setting) vs AA 16x (set in Nvidia control panel) --> AA 16x wins with higher FPS's. ...   Performace Discission With Steve As my topic, I'm wondering if there's any optimization done on the new Combat Mission. The mouse and control lag is really painful when there's more than a ...   CM:BS Performance Nvida settings   Erratic frame rate investigation Open GL instructions analysis   AMD Graphics card Recommended Settings     Full Battle Playback
Review entire battle?
Future Feature Request: Save Replays for Playback Battle video - Combat Mission: Shock Force
Full replay some thoughts  
 
IP Address Problems
blocked battlefront site
I really, really want to buy new CM .... but My ip is blocked for 2 or 3 years already I know at least 10 other CM fans who can't access www.battlefront....
not allowed to buy your product?
Dear Publishers/Admins/(Devs?)   I am a big fan of your games and products. I find it disappointing that I can not access and purchase any of your games usi...
Battlefront site blocked
While traveling, I found that this site is nearly always blocked at airport lounges even though other game sites are not blocked. Just thought maybe someth...
 
Bones and Future Plans
May 2018 General Update
May 2018 Engine 4 Patch update
May 2018 Update on Shock Force 2
May 2018 CMFI Rome to Victory Bones
May 2018 CMRT Module 1 - to be named later - Bones
2017 Summer Bones
15 hours ago, Apocal said: Someone in another thread mentioned that BF's programmer had left. I immediately assumed it was ChrisND since he ...
July 2015 what's next post
It's been a while since we've laid out our development plans. Time to change that As always we are hard at work on more than one thing at a time. The big pr...
 
Unit Encyclopedia
In game unit encyclopedia Hello. I am a long time Combat Mission player that started with Beyond Overlord and have played most of Battlefronts Combat Mission games. The one thing I ...   Other / Not Categorized
How to update a PBEM game after applying a patch or upgrade of the game   Sell on Steam? Steve's summary   Steve's discussion of DRM   Load Time Varies with Number of Mods?
AT Guns: Re-crewing There are three basic technical complaints as I see it: 1. Rotation speed 2. Pushing speed 3. Ability to take cover far from the gun CM presumes battle...   Any plans for Vin's animated text to be updated On 23/05/2016 at 8:55 AM, CMFDR said: "Cas" versions have casualties in plain letters instead of signs. As you asked for Erwin:  ...   Crews Re-manning Tanks There are a lot of aspects of crew behavior that could be looked at, but I think it would be helpful to keep in mind that tank and crew behavior in Combat...   150mm heat from a 50mm AT gun   Indirect Fire
General Advice
Rate of Fire and Rounds Used
Artillery and Smoke
How come smoke rounds are unusable (and who's responsibility is it to keep track)
 
Saved Links
Command Friction - Applying C3 Effects A set of Rules   Newbie H2H questions - Combat Mission: Battle for Normandy - Battlefront.com Community   Combat Mission Victory Calculator One for the scenario designers. I've been thinking about a dormant Carpiquet campaign I really want to get done and realised it's a bit hard to test objecti...   CM Career Record System CM Career Record System [Now featuring Red Thunder] Combat Mission Red Thunder   Best way to structure objectives for screen scenario What do you want each player to do? Figure that out, then reward them for doing the 'right' thing. It seems to me that the two sides have quite differ...

Full contact, all the way.
On the one hand, it feels impossible to either ignore or expect an opponent to ignore the things that CM inadvertently clues you in on: the sound of enemy mortars, holes magically appearing in fences as the enemy drives through them, being able to back plot tracer fire or penetrations through vehicles back to where they came from. Its much easier to keep things simple and say "Do whatever, just don't bomb my setup zone".
On the other hand, exploiting these clues almost always encourages reasonable tactical behaviour anyway: better keep your mortars moving to avoid counter-battery fire, better smash through some walls or fences as part of a deception plan, better play pop-up with your tank destroyers.
Even things like splitting your squads and platoons and leaving them out of contact has a cost-benefit decision attached: do I as the player want more information by spreading my troops out, or do I want them to be able to share information between themselves and benefit from being in contact with the platoon HQ? Its nice to have a recce screen out in front. Its not nice to see it crumble at the first sign of contact because the individual teams are scared and alone.

A British MG position in Sicily.  


A British AT gun waiting for information about interesting targets. Note that there is an FO team (+radio) with the gun. I tend to do this because the FO team can deliver all information about enemy sightings to the gun. The frontline units spot stuff and tell their superiors. The superiors (battalion level) of ALL units on the battlefield stick together at the command post so that they can share information verbally, even if they' don't share a common superior. By this method, all sightings are shared to all units but it may take a while. So here the FO team is very busy listening to the radio and spotting while the gun-crew has some tea. Of course this only really matters if you roleplay a bit and don't let units area-fire at targets they don't know about. 

 
 

A British MG position in Sicily.  


A British AT gun waiting for information about interesting targets. Note that there is an FO team (+radio) with the gun. I tend to do this because the FO team can deliver all information about enemy sightings to the gun. The frontline units spot stuff and tell their superiors. The superiors (battalion level) of ALL units on the battlefield stick together at the command post so that they can share information verbally, even if they' don't share a common superior. By this method, all sightings are shared to all units but it may take a while. So here the FO team is very busy listening to the radio and spotting while the gun-crew has some tea. Of course this only really matters if you roleplay a bit and don't let units area-fire at targets they don't know about. 

 
 

Thanks a lot! It works just like you've described! This should be in the manual!

Below are my editor notes from ammo dumps:
Ammo/Supply  Dumps: Multiple smaller supply dumps look cool and are easier to Acquire reasonable amounts of ammo from (instead of 1000 rds. of 5.56 etc.). Supply dumps are dismounted vehicles.  They will combine into one supply dump if the dismounted vehicles are in the same platoon or are both directly subordinate to the same Bn. HQ.  Make one dismounted vehicle subordinate to Bn. HQ, one subordinate to A Co., one subordinate to a supply platoon etc.  This will create multiple ammo dumps.  It does not matter if the dismounted vehicles are different vehicle types.  A Humvee, Armored Knight & Truck will all combine into one supply dump if they are in the same platoon.  If the dismounted vehicles are in the exact same chain of command additional ammo dumps that are added will always appear in the location the first ammo dump was place and automatically combine with it.  Ammo dumps from different nationalities will also combine into the same ammo dump.  If ammo dumps are in adjacent action spots there may be some weirdness.  Keep at least one open A/S between ammo dumps.  Next, in the editor, change the supply status of the dismounted vehicle from full to limited or scarce.  This will help with allowing for smaller amounts of ammo to be obtained. There of course won’t be as much ammo in an ammo dump so create multiple limited supply dumps. Changing the quality (typical, average etc.) does not seem to change the amount of the ammo.  Also as of April 2018 there is a bug in CMBS v2.1 Engine 4 where the OpFor ammo dumps are invisible except in Hot Seat play.   

These are pdf's with large, labeled pictures for every QB map, covering CMFB, CMFI, and CMRT. I always get frustrated trying to remember which QB map is which, and having to load up the scenario editor just to find one gets really, really old. So I created these.
I'll eventually put these on CMMODS. As soon as I finish the CMBN one, which is a significantly bigger task, and has had to take a back seat to a different project I'm now invested in. So I decided to just post these here, now.
Can someone please let me know if these links work for plain ol' public download / access? If not, I'll repost proper links in a new thread. Dropbox recently got rid of its "Public Folder" feature, and the new way to accomplish almost the same thing is not very intuitive....
Here ya go:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jffokwaq2w017bj/CMFB - All QB Maps.pdf?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3l4xpbdhps0mgq6/CMRT - All QB Maps.pdf?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4rh9ya8wbe3tldr/CMFI - Alol QB Maps - lower quality.pdf?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/p9vhj33u708h0f9/CMFI - All QB Maps.pdf?dl=0
*NOTE:  the "lower quality" CMFI pdf is actually the same quality as CMFB's and CMRT's -- plenty good enough. The higher quality CMFI pdf was my first, though, and features lossless images... which is great, except that the file size is almost 300MB.
 

10. Attack sectors - Unless the map-designers place some restrictive terrain on purpose, the attacker can often "exploit" the border of the map. He can easily keep one of the flanks clear by hugging the border. It feels a bit cheap, so I think it might be worth to consider a movement-restricted zone for the attacker (i.e. on each flank of the map) He should not be allowed to order movements into these out-of-bounds areas and stick to his attack sector (ie. the center of the map) instead.  Unvoluntary movement into the restricted area  - a squad panicking, e.g. - should still be allowed, of course.
11. Flares.