Canuck21

I did check that everything fell within a game setup zone, so I'm good that way.

And chances are he'd never see it anyway . Now, I understand you aren't a copyright attorney or do you play one on TV, BUT, did you stay in a Holiday Inn last night (and you probably have to be at least in your middle ages to understand that one) ?

Oh sorry. CMFI Gustav Line (doh ) . It's the right scenario but I think the units are already deployed, if I'm not mistaken.

Ok, so am I right here in saying that you paint AI Setup Zones outside the Game Setup Zones you make when in Map Mode?

NUTS! That's the version with the units deployed. After I posted, I went in and hand deployed the units, so that one's not likely going to help. Sorry about that.

I've enclosed the scenario here . On it's way. 1P GL Night Moves.btt

Ok, I read these replies over lunch and it clarifies things immensely. However, I think I actually did that and still got a bad result (obviously I didn't do it exactly the right way or I wouldn't have got an odd result). So, here's what I did, and what I got. Hopefully you can help me spot where things went south. I painted in Setup Zones using the Editor ("Blue Zones" using Pete's really good description). I then assigned various units to Groups using the F"n" keys (F1, F2, etc.) Next I painted in AI Setup Zones (Yellow Paint) for each of the groups in the AI window I did NOT use the Deploy function however, as I hoped the AI would place each group into it's AI Setup Zone as defined when I made the zones (yellow) When I started the Battle using the Scenario Author Option, I noticed all the units were off to one side of the maps (the Italians side was the southern side of the map, and they were all located on the SW side (more or less) of the map). Some were in setup zones ("Blue"), many were not, and none were in their assigned yellow AI setup zones. However, as soon as I hit the first "GO" button to start the time (WeGo), they units started moving from their positions to the correct zones per the AI setups I had made. So the problem I'm seeing is that the game did not automatically deploy them to their assigned yellow setup zones (and in many cases, not even to the game ("Blue") setup zones). Now you stated Ben, that you never let the game deploy the units, which I understand, but you also state that you always do a "hand setup in 3D View" but for AI Plan 2 onwards, you paint in the setup (yellow) zones. That leads me to believe that all Plans start from Plan 1's position then reposition automatically for subsequent plans. Am I right on this or am I reading something in that's not there (or reading over something that is)? Ultimately it's just getting started that I'm having the problem with (and Pete's idea of making a test scenario is a good one for sure - I did that for terrain types and basic movement so I'm guessing I can use that, which I will). Any clarifications to the above though will really speed things up for me. Thanks so much guys, I'm getting it ever so slowly, but it is sinking in .

Excellent! Thanks for this .

Cool guys, thank you!!!! I'll have to read through this a couple of times to really nail it but this is great. Many thanks!!!

Ok, I've made an AI plan and painted in Setup Zones (for the AI - the yellow paint) for the Italians. Now, for some reason I thought that if I don't place the Italians in their setup zones during the Deployment Phase, then the AI would do it for me. What I see in the initial play test though (Author Mode) is that these guys seem to set up almost anywhere (towards their side of the lines though - south in this case), and once you start the Scenario and hit GO, then they start moving towards where their initial setup is. So, my question is, should I place the units myself in their setup zones during the Deployment Phase and then let them follow their orders from there? Thanks again, my long-suffering friends (must be tough tutoring a rookie, eh ?)

I'm working on a new scenario while my first "real" one is out for play testing, and as things are evolving, I'm getting fairly deep into the Tactical Map presentation. We know the dimensions can make the map a bit awkward to deal with depending on the area being played on, so, as others have done, I'm filling in part of the area with other things relevant to the situation. As this scenario is an operation with the British 1st Airlanding Brigade, I put in their patch as a filler. Of course, I don't think they even exist today (it's morphed into something else), but is it ok copyright-wise to include their patch in with the Tactical Map? Has anyone else done something like this that you know of? I'm quite sensitive to copyrights and follow the rules religiously, thus the question. Thanks much .

Ahh, very good. I've been using that a bit in a map I'm making now, but it's still a bit fuzzy in my head. It's getting there though. Ok, now THAT makes sense to me! I get it now. I was worried as I had made a depression in the ground that was well away from the river, but was afraid the river level would be affected. I see now that's not the case. Thanks people. Appreciate this.

Ok, from what you are saying @Combatintman, then I don't quite have it right. If I paint a river in first using the default elevation of 20, then paint in a marsh or depression (dry land) later on at 15 let's say, the river will stay at 20 then? When I tried that, it looked like the river dropped down lower, but maybe there's something else at play here?

I think I've got it Ben. Everything seems to be working out as I've put in 2 other bridges and they went in fine. The trick that I was missing was realizing that the water levels go to the lowest elevation on the entire map, so that's what had me guessing. With that knowledge, things seem to be going a lot smoother. Thanks again for the help .

Thanks for this Ben. I just came back on to say that I may have figured it out. I found a short section in "The Sheriff of Oosterbeek" about how Jon laid out the bridge ends. In there I saw that the water tiles are at whatever the lowest point on the map is, and that triggered all kinds of clues. I think what I'm seeing is "normal" in terms of the slight drop from the "terrestrial" tracks and the bridge tracks. I'm thinking that's just the difference in tiles and not an elevation issue. The more I've played around with it, the clearer it's become, knowing where the water table is now. I was trying to change the bridge elevation via a direct elevation adjustment to the actual bridge tiles, but of course that does squat. I found by sticking a "swampy" area elsewhere with a lower elevation value than the river is displayed at, then I can start getting some air under the bridge rather than having it sit in the water even though it's at the same level either side. I'm not sure if I explained it very well, but for now I think I have this solved. If I'm stuck further on, I'll repost with shots to illustrate my problem. Oh, in terms of the swamps and inundated land, I found that if I put in mud banks then there is a much shallower entry into the water (read that on the forum here somewhere in one of my searches). I still need to play with that a bit more, but that too is coming along. Thanks Ben. I may be back shortly with further info.

Ok, I'm stuck. Officially . I did do a search for this term as I'm probably becoming a PITA with all my questions, but didn't come up with anything. So, I have a railway bridge spanning a river. I finally got it to where the train occupants aren't in danger of drowning when they cross it, but there is a discrepancy of a metre or so between the rails on the bridge (lower) and the rails on the banks (higher). Now what I've done is set the elevations (this is a diagonal crossing - making it straight across would have been far too easy ) of the squares containing the bridge to 30 while all the other elevations around it are at the default 20 (early on in the map making, and I confirmed the surrounding elevations by manually setting 20 around the 30's). I've tried setting the bridge square elevations higher, but that's not having any effect it seems. I tried lowering the surrounding elevations but that too isn't having the desired effect. So I'm kind of buffaloed as to how to set elevations when it comes to rivers and crossings and even banks. Another related issue is I've wanted to produce some very shallow "swampy" land at the edges of a river, but again, I'm having elevation issues. In these cases there are significant banks along the edge of the river; not huge, but not inundated land either, which is what I'm trying to achieve via very low banks (if any) and using weeds and marsh around it. So, as you can see, I'm having elevation issues when it comes to water. I know there's got to be some tutorials somewhere but I've not found them yet. If anyone can clue me in, that would be really great. Many thanks!

My pleasure, believe me! Thanks for this link as well. Heading there now.

Good stuff here guys! I think I'll take @Combatintman's advice and just do regular scenarios first. Given what @benpark is saying above, I suspect much of what you learn in scenario making then gets carried through to QB's, only there is more to it with QB's in terms of being more specifically general (and if that makes any sense whatsoever, then you need the guys with the long-sleeved jackets more than I do, which is saying a lot ). That said, what you are listing above is making sense to me for the most part, so I'm getting there, but I think I need to get decent with scenarios first. Really appreciate this folks! I'm getting there, slowly (the entire war didn't take this long <LOL>) but surely .

Oh, and I also found this by @Combatintman, which is outstanding! Thanks for doing that. That's next on my list of reads.

This is great stuff guys! I don't know if I'll ever be as good as @mjkerner suggests, but I'd like to try . I guess I love learning new stuff so this is really feeding that little obsession. I think @37mm has a point and it's well taken. The way I see it, anyone who throws out something for everyone to use has my respect and appreciation. I find the bar here pretty high and as I have (mostly) the time to do this (well, to a degree ), I do want to take it that extra little bit. Folks here have been so great when I ask questions (and some of them are so basic, they must be rolling their eyes into the backs of their heads <LOL>) that maybe this is something I can do to give back a bit. As I said, I did download Ithikial's Victory Conditions Calculator (https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/cm-mod-warehouse/uncategorized/ithikials-combat-mission-victory-calculator-version-2/) (I said earlier I "found" it, but it was @Combatintman that linked to it above - it was his find, not mine - sorry about that) which I used to adjust the scenario I'm working on now, and that has clarified and sped things up greatly. Anyway, this is a boat-load of fun (I'd call it a "blast" but that's just too obvious, even for me ) . One thing I'm remaining real good at is getting my guys dead <LOL>. Need to work on that a tad.

So, just to add to the above, I found @Ithikial_AU's Victory Conditions tool and have downloaded it and watched the video on how to use it. For someone like me (just starting out in scenario designing) this is a godsend. I'll start reading "The Sheriff of Oosterbeek" guide today. That should help out quite a lot. I have to admit, while I'm feeling a tad overwhelmed in a way, this looks like a whole lot of fun and a good way to give back to the community, so thanks all for the help here.

Many thanks for this @Combatintman. Yes, I have actually airdropped that PDF you mention to my iPad but hadn't started reading it yet. That I will do this morning. This (naturally) is getting a lot more complex than I had initially thought, so it looks like I have some serious book time ahead of me . I think I'm good insofar as the objectives being logical for each side (in the one I've done, they are the same for both sides), but my points allocations need working on. I'll definitely bookmark that site you linked above and have a good read of it. To be honest, I've not considered what happens if someone calls for a Cease Fire on Turn 1. That one I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around as if you only play through Turn 1, and you still occupy the objective, and you call for a Cease Fire as the defender at that point, I'm not sure why you'd even start the scenario (I can see where a human opponent *might* do that, but to me that would be cheating and would probably be the last time I played that person unless we were testing a situation out and had agreed that's what we'd do). However, being new to this, there are likely numerous situations I'm not aware of where something like that would be legitimate, so I guess I'd better get to know as many aspects to this as I can. Ok, looks like I have some reading to do. Thanks very much indeed for this. I really appreciate your time.

Thank you @kohlenklau!! This helps immensely (it also means I need to go fix that scenario I'm doing ). More to come... .

This is really great guys! There's a lot here for me to disseminate, which I will do over tomorrow. I'm making notes as I go so I don't lose anything. Thank you!!!

Next question (I'm becoming a PITA, aren't I! I'm so proud ). When making a scenario that involves an assault by one side and the other side defending a position, do you need to paint AI objectives on the map for the defender when the defender is set up on the objectives? What about if the defender is not on the objectives, do you then need to paint objective(s) on the map so the defender will know what they are supposed to be defending? If so, I would assume you assign points to the objectives, correct? Many thanks. I promise - no more questions until the next ones .