WimO

Hi folks. I played through the whole campaign and found that it runs okay with the right amount of tension and risk. It is winnable and losable and also provides opportunities to alter history. It will not be to everyone's liking because some scenarios are more about contact avoidance, some require a lot of traffic management and nearly all require patience to endure the calm before the storm. I decided to post it right away and not delay any longer so that I can retire from CM and move on to other things.

I have this evening posted my 82nd Airborne in Normandy campaign, "Mission Boston - Objective La Fiere" at the scenario depot. This is my final contribution to CMBN. With that I am retiring from all things CM and moving on to other interests. I will check in here once in a while for the next few months to see what's new.

I want to thank you all for offering to play-test. I spent many hours testing over the past two weeks before compiling into a campaign. As a result, the only thing being tested is the flow-through of the 4Rs, Refit, Repair, Resupply, and Rest. At this point the campaign is playing really well. Just had a very suspenseful "No Better Place to Die" with the survivors of "Angriffe der Grenadiere". After I've done a first complete play-through and fixed the odd typo and mod-tag I'll be very happy to send it to the three of your first for a test before posting. But be forwarned, since this campaign tries to be historical and present players with some of the real problems of maneouvre before action, it's not all combat. In fact two of the large to huge scenarios are about avoiding contact rather than fighting. Not everyone's cup of tea.

I have completed revising and play-testing all the scenarios individually and have compiled them into campaign format. Today I begin testing the campaign to determine if the Refit, Repair, Resupply and Rest rates that I have set, are workable from one action to the next. I'm assuming I'll have to play through a few times and be busy a few more weeks.

Hey All! I was on the Matrix Games site today and they are advertising that CMBN is coming to Matrix Games/Slitherine later this month (March 2023)!

Adding to this thread 4 years later. I created a large master map with many flavour objects. For scenarios based on that master map I created a series of smaller maps by cutting down the master map. Result - random misplacement of some but not all flavour objects and/or swapping of some but not all flavour objects. It did not happen with every map and this might be related to which edges were trimmed off and by how much. I could run a test but don't feel like it because the problem was resolved by redoing the flavour objects on the smaller maps. A word of advice to map makers: If you are making a master map that you plan to cut down later, then do not place any flavour objects on the master map.

After come deep breathing, cuss'n and a walk around the house my obsessive personality had me have another look at it and ... I stumbled across the problem. The issue was the sequence that I loaded the compiler. As instructed I had the core units file, two scenario files and the requisite text file all in one folder ... but instead of selecting make campaign from a loaded core units file, I launched from the loaded first scenario. Consequently the campaign thought that the first scenario was the core units file. I redid it properly and voila! it all worked okay. Good. So now I'm back to work. Thank's all for the encouragement.

I quit. Two weeks and over 160 hours of modifying my scenarios and play testing. Assembled just two as a mini campaign to play test and FUBAR! It compiles properly but refuses to pull in the called elements of the core units file as well as the intro Tactical .bmp an .txt files. FUBAR, FUBAR, FUBAR. I've had it with this program. No more frustrating hours. Going back to painting minis. Happy gaming to y'all. Signing off.

Subsim is a great site for Silent Hunter Mods.

Yup, Grey Wolves for a long time. Then did a bit on LSH III.

Yes, indeed the German's have a tough situation. Assaulting across the La Fiere causeway was a suicidal proposition for both sides. On the German side, the 91. Luftlande had a lot to deal with for a few days with concentrations of American paras all over their area of operations. GIven their numbers and the nature of the bocage terrain, it was an impossible task to totally eliminate the paras. It should be said though that in a number of areas it was a close call. I believe that the critical event was the holding of St. Mere Eglise coupled with the eastern end of the La Fiere causeway until the 90th Inf Div could come up from Utah. The loss of either of those two objectives before the 9th of June would have blocked the 90th and eliminated the German movement problems.

If I am not mistaken I believe that Battlefront is working on a D-Day plus, 101st Airborne pack. I'm looking forward to that. I may have the details wrong but it's something like that.

The Campaign title will be "Operation Boston - Objective La Fiere". I am working only on American vs AI. I will not be creating a German vs AI version. All of my previous scenarios are having to be reworked because of the carry over of casualties and such from scenario to scenario. It is easy to create a single scenario but difficult to create one that is balanced (in terms of victory points) and more difficult to create an AI program that appears reasonably intelligent and difficult for the player to screw up. Also a lot of tinkering is required to prevent the player screwing it up with a cease fire. That said, ... It is easy to create a campaign but extremely difficult to create one that is historical and simultaneously has the possibility of altering history. Add to that the same old AI programming and cease fire issues PLUS the casualty carry over. All of my previous scenarios have to be reworked. An example: I have been spent five days 8am to 11pm reworking just one scenario over and over, recording progress every 5 minutes to try to get three different variations of the same scenario to work. As for retiring - this really will be my last effort. Jut gotta get around to painting my samurai figs. Already too late for this years March "Hot Lead" wargaming convention. Aiming for 2024 (if my ticker lasts).

Working on that at this time by turning the series into a campaign (excluding Shanley on Hill 30). Presently in play test, play test, play test ....

Thank you very much Combatintman.

I have just about completed creating my Operation Boston - Ojective La Fiere campaign. I found a cease fire humbug that I am unable to resolve. It goes as follows. The player is the defender in the current scenario. The player is sitting on the Occupy terrain objectives with the associated victory points. In turn one the player selects the Command "Cease Fire" and wins the scenario without even trying. Then jumps ahead to the next scenairo. It is an easy cheat that can be used any time. FUBAR! Any suggestions? Anyone?

A few days ago I corresponded with George MC and following that created a few short test campaigns with varying percentages. These were run a number of times in author mode and confirmed the following which George MC and you folks have also posted above. 1. The 4R's (Refit, Repair, Resupply and Rest) applied to any battle are the numbers listed under the following battle. e.g. the 4R's applied after battle #1 are listed under battle #2. 2. The 4R's are applied against each individual trooper or vehicle KIA, WIA and MIA. This resulted in a great deal of variability at the squad and team level but converged towards the percentages set when moving upward through platoon, company, battalion level. Interestingly that results in a 'probability' at the lowest levels effectively amounting to a replacement 'rate' at the highest levels.

Amazing stuff!

More questions about the 4 R's (Refit, Repair, Resupply and Rest). And yes, I have read the manual - carefully. 1. When there are multiple units in the core file are the 4R's applied to the entire list of units or only to the units from the file that were engaged in the last battle? Example: A core units file includes 1/505 PIR and 2/505 PIR but only Able Company 1/505 PIR is in the current scenario. After the battle are the 4R's applied only to Able Company or to the entirety of the core units file? Knowing how this works really matters in scenario design

The probability method can result in some campaign wrecking outcomes. For example, in my 82nd Airborne campaign under construction my core units file for the Americans is 1/505 PIR, 2/505 PIR, 3/505 PIR, 1/507 PIR, etc for a total of nine battalions plus armour, anti-tank and engineer elements. The German side of the core units file is similarly long. Going from that, the American 1/505 and German III./1057 Grenadiere meet each other on a number of occasions. CM battle mechanics result in very high casualty rates. So imagine that after the first meeting both sides have suffered 50% casualties and the refit numbers are set to "x" for both sides. Between meetings 1/505 rolls less than "x" and gets a complete refit but III./1057 rolls higher than "x" and gets nothing. Consequently in the next engagement the Americans are at full strength again and the Germans at half. To me that's a humbug. A Workaround? I am considering creating a false Core units file and just setting the starting strengths for each engagement myself. The downside of this is that players really good and really bad outcomes have less impact.

I am creating my first campaign for CMBN based in my individual 82nd Airborne in Normandy scenarios. The Campaign Script File includes four R's (Refit, Repair, Resupply and Rest). The values assigned to these are probabilities rather than rates and impact "UNITS" in the Core Units File. My Question: Using 1st Battalion 505 PIR as an example, my Core Units list shows it as 1/505 PIR. Are the four R's computed for the battalion as a whole or individually for A Coy., B., Coy, C., Coy etc?

Wow K! That would be amazing.

Squad Leader, Advanced Squad Leader (ASL) vs CMBN, CMRT, CMFI, CMFB It is my impression that PEB14's experience and response to (frustration with) the CM titles appears to be 'typical' of long-term ASL players. I believe that I can reasonably make such a claim because two of my long time friends have also been regular (obsessive?) SL and ASL players from the first appearance of SL until today. One of the two quite playing CMBN after two games, the other still plays. In my opion the contrast is between ASL's god-like 'control' and omniscience which includes positional awareness, the protection and armor value, combat odds etc. In addition moves from here to there only cover a few hexes and arrival at destination takes no time at all. CM on the other hand is emphatically far more realistic in terms of the many unknowns. Just like in real life. Traditional ASLers have a difficult time downgrading from omniscience to the many unknowns. My good friends have grown accustimed to the like the chess like 'control' of ASL and get frustrated when things don't turn out they way they do in ASL. The more I read personal accounts of Canadian soldiers in Normandie and Nederland, the more I learn that most combat takes place with uncertainty. Learning to love CM requires some degree of learning to surrender to the unkown. That's how I look at it anyway. Your views may well differ. I love CMBN - warts and all. For better or for worse. Till death do us part.

I suspect it is just a random game effect. By that I mean, that one vehicle happend to drive over a mine and the other vehicle missed, maybe 'just missed' driving over a mine. Don't worry too much about the weight. An example: In one of my scenarios there is an A/Tk mine in the middle of the road. A PzKw III drives a long the road. Eight times out of ten it sets off the mine and the other two times it does not. If we recall that a CM active map area = 8 m x 8 m and that one mine icon represents a cluster, who knows exactly where the pioneers laid them? Thus a random factor. Very similar to a miniatures game. Vehicle drives over a minefield and a die is rolled to see if it 'hits'.

I rarely debate points so please excuse me for offering a different point of view. Hopefully I can offer a reasonable explanation for my way of looking at it. First I want to acknowledge that the foregoing can indeed be frustrating to the player. However, I believe that is how it should be. What is happening, is the soldiers moving foward towards a hedge or bocage looking for a way through but ultimately unable to find one. From their original starting point, they were unable to discern whether or not there was a way through. They had to go and check it out. I feel this simulates reality. I empathize since most of my creations are maps in Normandy bocage and gaps are difficult to locate. I sometimes try to assist gamers a little by using a contrasting ground ground tile such as yellow grass in the midst of green grass. Anyway, that's my two cents worth.