PEB14

I sure agree with you, but my point was, to quote myself: In other words, I would find these scenarios a lot more enjoyable and immersive if you really could see what your units actually see !

I don't get the point, the last module mentions (on the dedicated page of the BFC website): So if there is another module it shouldn't move the timeframe further...

Thanks Fred. Makes perfect sense to focus on new projects, as a designer I think it's always more exciting than revamping old stuff !

I know that very well. But I find it most disturbing when at ground level I can see things that I shouldn't.

Hi, Did you playtest your "old" campaigns with Engine 4? It appears that changes introduced over the years (particularly regarding MGs efficiency) have completely unbalanced earliest CMBN campaigns and scenarios; I have learnt it the hard way: campaigns like "Devils' Descent" (April 2011 version) and "Blue and Gray Campaign" (May 2012) have become completely unplayable, the former became a lot too easy (found it completely unchallenging as a newbie) and the latter (at least the first scenario) unwinnable... Anyway, nice website and exciting stuff in the works...

Hi, Am I the only one to be frustrated by low visibility scenarios? The associated game mechanics is not the issue, even though it can lead to some weird situation (in the last Scottish Corridor night mission, I had a squad unable to see a moving Sturmgeschütz in an adjacent tile, that's less than 12 meters away, while it could area target that tree line 100 meters away?!!.... It looks like the game makes it easier for vehicles to sneak into enemy lines in the dark than for foot soldiers, which is really not realistic). My main concern is the visual rendering of the lower visibility, which IMHO really hampers playability. If I'm not mistaken, the game engine always shows ALL TERRAIN FEATURES attached to the map itself, whatever the actual visibility. Wherever you put the camera, you'll always see that house 500 m away, even when visibility is reduced to 200 meters. At least for me, it makes playing very difficult, because I always struggle to estimate what terrain pixeltrüppen actually can cover or not. Agreed, you still have the LOS tool; but in close terrain you always have a doubt wether blocked LOS is caused by some obstacle or by reduced visibility. Ans situation gets worse when it comes to visibility changes: dawn, dusk, etc. Nothing changes visually in the game !!! You have to test and guess every turn to check wether visibility has changes or not... Presently, when you click on an unit, you can see exactly what is sees in terms of enemy units and fortifications. I'd really, really enjoy the extension of that to terrain features: anything beyond visibility range would disappear when you click on an unit. THAT really would make up for great low visibility scenarios, don't you think?

There are "niche" battles out of the Eastern Front with the Germans enjoying complete air superiority that can be translated into campaigns, even in CM actual timeframe (mid 1943-1945). Think of the battles of Samos and Leros at the end of 1943 (see "Churchill's Folly: Leros and the Aegean, the Last Great British Defest of the Second World War"). The perfect theater for a couple of reasonably small CMFI campaigns, even though technically (I should write "geographically" !) the battle did not occur in Italy. I'd really like to play such a Paper Tiger's campaign in which you'd fight against British AND Italians with plenty of Stuka support…

I can only agree to all you've written above. There is only one point that you don't mention : H2H vs. AI balance. We all know that a human player is (or at least should... ) be stronger than CM AI as an opponent. Which basically means that a scenario well balanced for playing against the AI is inherently unbalanced in favor of the AI side w<hen it comes to playing it H2H. Or that a scenario well balanced for H2H games will be easy wins against the AI. This is especially true for the AI as an attacker. Most scenarios released by the community contributors are either flagged as "best played against the [Axis/Allied] AI" or "best played H2H", and some have even different versions (one balanced for H2H and another one for playing against tha AI). AFAIK, BFC requests that all scenarios packed into their commercial releases shall be playable in all modes. IMHO this is a source of frustration (in particular when it comes to playing them H2H) because, except in some very particular cases, a CM scenario CANNOT be well balanced for all modes because of the AI intrisic weaknesses. Am I correct in my statements?

@ASL Veteran Thanks you for comforting me in my distress... If I lost it's finally because my opponent did a good job. Which makes clearly sense. I still have the feeling that this specific scenario is optimized for human Canadian player against German AI. Am I correct?

Not the disaster I wa afraid of, but what a massacre… Victory conditions are really harsh for the Germans: he caused me more than 75% of casualty rates but still he hasn't got all the VP for targets… I'm still wondering how the Canadians are supposed to win this one. They have no advantage at all save the numbers. They hold only half of the VP locations at game start (so they're not really the defending side), they have no artillery (save their lovely light mortars), poor to very poor quality troops (regular/green with low leadership), no support weapons… More importantly (IMHO) they have ne place to retreat to, if they're pushed back they have to retreat in the open, squeezed against the map edge… The briefing suggested to push forward towards the crest, which I gladly tried to perform with 2/3 of my forces screened by scouts (the other 1/3 being kept in reserve). But I only won a well placed mortar barrage for my effort, and once it lifted the Germans were on me before I could reach the next wall (save on my left side)… Jon, I'm really interested to know what point I missed in this one…

Thank you, I've already checked that, and I was somewhat surprised to see good Canadian achievements. Which, basically, doesn't answer the question: how?? By the way, as the scenario author (nice map, by the way!), you certainly have an idea...

Has anybody played this one H2H? I have been overrun in 20 minutes as the Canadian side. I didn't stand a chance. Two rounds of mortars (first turn and around 15 minutes at the clock) and pooh… everybody's either dead, broken or about to be so. No hiding place, no cover behind the start line, no time to advance to the next wall as the Germans are upon you before you can move an inch. Did I miss something there???

Having just finished the campaign, I would have really loved to have some FT tanks! I just played them once, in CMFI's "Flames in the Mist" scenario. Really cool, great scenario.

Hi @Paper Tiger, and happy new year! Just one short question: campaign header says 17 missions while uncam reaveals 18 different missions (discounting the variants sharing the same name). Is one mission an alternative or is the header wrong?

Hi Mr. X, I'd say: go for something NEW and ORIGINAL! Either because of the terrain, or of the units involved, or of the campaign goals. Not an easy task... There are now plenty of Panzergrenadier campaigns on the Eastern Front, and I understand that several of your new campaigns will feature Sicherung and Infantry divisions. I think Operation Nodrwind is probably a good bet at something original...

Translation for those who need it: "Performation en mètres" = Penetration in meters (I understand this value as the distance up to which the area can be penetrated) "Performation en yards" = Penetration in yards (you had guesses this one… ) "Nota: ces chiffres décroissent avec l'inclinaison de paroi" = "these values decrease because of the armor angle"

Excellent!

Well, not really… I've never seen any (WW2) report of a WHOLE crew disembarking to scout. That makes no sense to completely abandon a tank just to have a look at the corner…

I agree and disagree at the same time… Agreed: Sometimes you dismount (bail out) to recon over the ridge. That was regularly done in WW2, but in ALL cases I am aware of, only the tank commander dismounted to recon over the ridge or the street's corner. Which makes sense, by the way… Disagreed: any other unit could crew the tank. You don't man a tank without at least basic training…

You're correct, we cannot do but with what we have at hand… Unfortunately, information regarding German forces on the Cotentin peninsula are sketchy, mostly because they were destroyed in a matter of days and weeks — with most of their archives gone with them. I consider Dutch historian Niels Henkemans as the main authority regarding German OOB on the Cotentin peninsula. Please find a link to a long post of his, mentioning information regarding StuG and the offensive on Ste-Mère-Eglise: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/missinglynx/panzers-on-the-cotentin-take-3-long-post-t37056-s11923620480.html) Here's the part of the post dealing with Stugs: That's the most up-to-date research I'm aware of regarding this topic. But I may be wrong!

I also don't get the point why, an AFV can be recrewed and a gun cannot. Honestly, based on my (WW2) readings, the opposite would make more sense: while I have seen occasions on which an abandoned AT gun was recrewed and manned by the same crew (seeking temporary cover during an artillery bombing, by example), or even by other (friendly) troops, I have never seen any report of a tank being abandoned under enemy fire and then recrewed within the timeframe covered by a CM battle… My humble opinion is, a tank crew abandoning its vehicle should be broken and stay so until the end of the game. That would avoid the temptation to use these highly trained specialist soldiers as cannon fodder…

You're very negative in your statement. 2023 has still 10 days to go…

Yes, very well known picture. Except that, as indicated from my post above, latest research tend to indicate that this vehicle did in fact belong to 2./Pz.Jg.Abt.243. According to my archives, Pz.Jg.Abt.709 had no StuG in its OOB: 1.Kp: 9x Marder I (Lorraine) 2.Kp: 12x motorized Pak40 3.Kp: 9x 3,7cm Flak (at least some self-propelled)

I obviously agree with you, but honestly I understood the opposite from your post… By the way, I don't think Pz.Jg.Abteilung 709 was attached to Sturm-Bataillon AOK 7 either. I think to remember that both the Sturm-Bataillon AOK 7 and (at least part of) Pz.Jg.Abteilung 243 (not 709) were attached to the Grenadier-Regiment 1058 for the counterattack towards Sainte-Mère-Eglise. To be more specific, It appears that attacks from the North towards Ste-Mère-Eglise on D-Day were performed by the G.R. 1058 with some support (Stugs) of 2./Pz.Jg.Abt.243 (a.k.a. Stu.Gesch.Abt.1243) ; because of the disastrous results achieved, G.R. 1058 was reinforced on D-Day+1 by Sturm-Bataillon AOK 7 and heavy artillery (I think it was schwere Heeres-Artillerie-Abteilung (mot.) 456 with its eight 15,2cm KH 433(r) and four 12,2cm K (r) - captured russian guns). The reinforcement by Sturm-Bataillon AOK 7 proved nearly decisive as on June 7th the Germans reached Ste-Mère-Eglise. US accounts are quite confused and it's not clear how far into the city the Germans entered. Anyway, to answer the initial question, based on my own research, the StuG which attacked Turnbull belonged to 2./Pz.Jg.Abt.243.

Historically, it sounds good. The 1058. Grenadier Regiment performed pretty badly during its attacks on June 6th and 7th. Not only was it battle untested, but it looks like it was poorly led as well, from the top of the regiment down to company level… That's for History. Now it has to come out as a good scenario. That's were it gets difficult for a young designer like myself… but you're an old grognard so we all trust in you!