Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'h2h'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • CM2
    • Combat Mission - General Discussion
    • Combat Mission Cold War
    • Combat Mission Shock Force 2
    • Combat Mission Final Blitzkrieg
    • Combat Mission Black Sea
    • Combat Mission Red Thunder
    • Combat Mission Fortress Italy
    • Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
    • Combat Mission Shock Force 1
    • Combat Mission Afghanistan
    • Combat Mission: Touch (iOS / Android)
  • CM1
    • Combat Mission Campaigns
    • Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
    • Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
    • Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord
  • General Discussion Forum
    • General Discussion Forum
  • Repository Updates
  • TacOps
    • TacOps 4
  • Opponent Finder Forums
  • Archives
    • Strategic Command
    • CM Archives
    • T-72: Balkans on Fire!
    • Dan Verssen Games
    • Theatre of War
    • DropTeam
    • Assault Wave
    • Empires of Steel
    • PT Boats

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location:


Interests


Biography


Location


Interests


Occupation

Found 9 results

  1. The concept of what determines if a particular scenario (or QB) is "balanced" or not can be a very subjective thing to try and grapple with. For the sake of this discussion I will limit this discussion to "head to head" games between two players. I'm not sure how others might define what makes a "balanced" scenario/QB, but I think of it in statistical terms: for instance, if the particular scenario/QB was played "double blind" by multiple pairs of "equally" rated players many times (ideally (though impossibly) an infinite amount of times), you would expect the win/loss distribtion to approach 50:50 ie. an equal number of Allied to Axis "wins". Any bias away from a 50:50 distrubution of wins would give grounds to indicate the particular scenario/QB is "unbalanced". The greater the bias/deviation in wis/loss distribution, the greater the "imbalance". However just considering the resolution of scenarios/QBs as just a pure binary "win" or "loss" outcome for one side may still hide an imbalance that otherwise remains evident. Outcomes of CM scenarios/QBs however aren't actually just purely binary outcomes. A degree or level of victory/defeat based on actual "victory points" gained by each side, or more specifically, the numeric differential in the victory points gained by each side at the end of every battle determines the actual victory level assigned by CM. ie. either draw, minor victory/defeat, tactical victory/defeat, or total victory/defeat. But is it that simple? Consider a scenario/QB that has an equal 50:50 win/loss distribution that makes the scenario/QB appear "balanced". Should it still be considered "balanced" if the average magnitude (or level) of victories being recorded for each side is different for both sides? eg. the Allies might win 50% of the time, with the average victory level being "total victory", yet the Axis win 50% of the time but with the average victory level being "minor victory". It could be argued here that the scenario/QB actually is not totally "balanced" but rather favouring the Allies. So perhaps considering the actual victory points differential (or VPD) of each game played may be the better metric or indicator to monitor when studying "balance". Note that when monitoring VPD (rather than just wins and losses), you would expect the average VPD of all games played to approach zero (0) if the scenario/QB was to be considered "balanced". For the purposes of this discussion and to set a convention, we can always consider the VPD: Victory Point Differntial (VPD) = [ALLIES victory points] minus [AXIS victory points] That means the VPD could be a positive or negative number, with a positive VPD typically meaning an Allied victory/Axis defeat and a negative VPD meaning an Allied defeat/Axis victory. Keep in mind that there is a range of positive and negative VPDs centred about zero that CM will nevertheless consider as being a draw. When considering VPD, the "ideal balanced" scenario/QB could be seen as one where the average VPD of all games played would follow a normal distribution (or bell curve) centred about zero (SIDE NOTE: For those of you who are more statistacally inclined, it is worth considering that I can not see reason to assume that the actual distribution of VPD for all games played for any CM scenario/QB has any reason to even assume, let alone appraoch, a normal distribution. Unless it can be pointed out otherwise, I don't think the central limit theorm (and any inherint/inevitable tendency that the VPD would tend towards a normal distriution) can be applied here. The actual distribution of VPD for any scenario/QB in question could follow one of many other types of distributions (eg. skewed or gamma, bimodal etc). Certainly, idealistically a symmetrical distribution centred about zero would probably be considered more balanced than say one that has a population VPD average (expected outcome) of zero but is otherwise asymmetrically skewed about zero. Let me know if you think otherwise.) That is all just background to what I really wanted to discuss and present however..... Having recently considered a prospective QB battle with a PBEM opponent, I got thinking about how two competing players could come to a mutualy achieved agreement on the QB parameters to ensure the QB battle was "fairly balanced". My inspiration was based on the "I cut, you choose" protocl that ensures fair division and allocation of a divisible resource between two parties. The typical example is of two brothers who want to "evenly and fairly" share a cake. The protocol proceeds as follows: one person ("the cutter") cuts the cake into two pieces; the other person ("the chooser") chooses one of the pieces; the cutter receives the remaining piece. If we consider CM QBs played H2H, I would say the vast majority of them are essentially meeting engagements (MEs) played on maps that have some degree of geographical symmetry, be it in the distribution of terrain, setup zones and/or Objective Locations, mirrored about an imaginary mid-line that would typically evenly divide the map in half between the Allied half of the map and the Axis half of the map. Of course, these ME QBs would typically be setup so that both sides get the same amount (or near enough to be close enough) of unit purchase points. I will use the term force points (FP) to mean the same thing as uniy purchase pioints. Choosing to play on an "unbiased" ME map with equal FPs each side just seems to be the easiest way to ensure the QB is "fair", so it may not be surprising why ME QBs are more likely to be played than the other types of QBs (probes (PR), attack (AT) and assualts (AS). I should also introduce at this point the concept of force ratio (or FR). It is defined as: Force ratio (FR) = [side A FP] / [side B FP] where side A is typically the "attacker" and side B the "defender" (ie side A FP is either equal to or greater than side B FP). ie. a FR of 1.25 means the "attacker" has 25% more FP to spend than the 'defender". With FR already defined in terms of the attacker FP to defender FP ratio, it does help to now simply consider the use of the global term force size (FS) as refering to just the "base" defenders FP, from which the attacker FP can be then be readily calculated by multiplying it with the the force ration (FR) The CM QB generator has pre-programmed FRs associated with each QB type. They are as follows (without any force modifiers applied): ME FR = 1 PR FR = between 1.45 and 1.49 AT FR = between 1.59 and 1.65 AS FR = between 1.76 and 1.84 However, messing around with the force modifier parameter, the range of FRs possible extends to: ME FR = between 1 and 2.48 PR FR = between 1.45 and 3.7 AT FR = between 1.42 and 4.11 AS FR = between 1.29 and 4.57 But what really makes an ME an ME, a PR a PR, an AT and AT and a AS and AS? What CM suggest are really just "guides" and broad categories to describe certain kinds of battles of various FR. FR is really just only one parameter in a CM QB that influences the "balance" of a QB, or can be adjusted to balance a QB. The parameter against which the FR is typically compared against are what I would call the QB battlefield parameters. This would comprise of the actual QB map itself (the distribution of terrain/topography/feratures) in relation to any Objective Locations (including their value) and the respective setup zones, and how they all interact together as a whole on the map. Additional to this you would also need to consider the soft factors such as weather/visibility/conditions and battle duration. The "date" and "theatre" a QB is based on may also be an influence as it may determine the availability of some units that might otherwise potentially be influential (if purchased) in the QB. I might make the assertion here that most players looking to play QBs might first start by searching for a QB map that looks interesting and suitable enough to play (size/layout etc) and typically determine these QB battlefield parameters without much trouble. With all these QB battlefield parameters predetermined and considered togther, the question can be asked: What method can players use to help determine what force ratio (FR) to assign to any QB map to make it "balanced"? I have considered the following procedure that can be used by two prospectiive players who face this question when they have already selected the map and the QB battlefield parameters: 1. Both players preview the QB map and the QB battlefield parameters and consider playing the QB from both the "attacker" and "defender" perspective in terms of force ratio (FR). They may at this point secretly record what force size (FS) they think would be suitable to use on the QB map selected (if not already agreed upon). 2. They secretly record the force ratio (FR) they think that should be applied to the QB in order to make it a fair/"balanced" contest. 3. Both players then reveal their nominated FR (and FS if required) and the average between the two numbers is calculated. This average becomes the FR (and FS) that will be used in the QB. 4. The player who nominated the HIGHEST FR plays as the 'defender". The player who nominate the LOWEST FR plays as the "attacker". 5. Players can now consult the QB Force Ratios Table that I have made available here that fully details every possible QB Force Ratio (FR) and Force Points (FP)/Force Size (FS) combination that can be achieved by the CM QB setup screen: 6. Look up the values of FR and FS determined/calculated in the previous steps that best match the "Ratio" and "DEF Points") combo values respectively in the QB Points Combo/Force ratio table. Note down these values "actual" configurable CM QB paramters. There are only a discrete number of QB combinations possible in the CM QB setup screen, so the goal in this step is to sort through all the possibilities to find the one that best matches the FR and FS parameters determined in step 3. eg. If FR = 1.70 and FS = 4750 was determined in step 3, the best match in the table would be achiveable by reading off 4500 (approx 4750) and 1.68 (approx 1.70) and configuring a Large ME with a +70% modifer in the CM QB setup screen (which will result in the Attacker getting 7580 FP and teh defender 4500 FP (FR=1.68): 7. Depending on what QB parameters get selected in step 6, players may need to use the Sceanrio Editor to open and edit the actual QB Map file to tweek one parameter to allow the QB map to actually be visible and selectable in the QB setup screen. eg. players may have selected to play a particular QB map that had previously been tagged as an "Allied Probe" map. The"actual' QB parameters determined via step 6 may have however pointed to setting the QB battle up as a Large ME (LME) with + 70% modifier. The player will need to use the Scenario Editor, Load the chosen QB map file, modify the "Battle Type" field from say "Allied Probe" to "Meeting Engagement" as per the example. Doing so makes the particular QB Map file visible and selectable when the time comes to browse for the human selected QB map. Save file as new name and exit the Scneario Editor. 8. Load the QB setup screen and and configure all the "actual" QB parameters determined from the table (typically that best matches the values of FR and FS determined/calculated in Step 6, as well as any other QB parameters: . Pressing OK will prompt the user to select the QB Map (review Step 7 if the QB does not appear in the file list). (It is important to note that when considering FR, the actual FS (force size) that is used in the QB is probably best considered a separate individual factor for consideration that just determines the number of units that appear on the map in proportions defined by the FR. We can assume that the FS are independant to and do not affect QB balance, and just determine the actual size of each of the forces. This may not actually be the case but I will assume it is fair enough assumption for simplicity unless otherwise convinced). I don't know if this method has ever been considered or used before, but unless advised otherwise, I think it is quite a simple, fair and robust means of determining how to "balance" a QB.I don't think the system can be "gamed" by either participating player to force a QB parameter outcome that somehow favours them over their opponent. Players just need to be able to look at a QB map, consider all the relevant battlefield parameters (eg setup zones, terrain, Objective Locations etc) and put a number to what they think the attacker:defender force ratio should be to make the QB "balanced", prior to even knowing whether they will be the atatcker or the defender. This may take some experience to get the right feel. It certainly will be interesting how players react to the outcomes of their QBs. If they claimed that the QB was "unbalanced" not in their favour, then perhaps their own poor misjudgment when they originally 'evaluated" the QB map and nominated their own FR may have something to do with it. Again, assigning a FR to a QB to achieve balance is not something players typically have exactly been doing. They HAVE and DO evaluate QB maps for balance however, though without ever really assigning a metric to it. Now that metric exists. It just needs tio be calibrated. I hope the "fairness" of this method is self evident by understanding the dynamics at play behind the method described. i can see that some folks might not be able to see it that way and would need some kind of explanation to convince them of how this is a "fair" way of determining QB balance. I could spend some time explaining that if asked. Happy to hear your comments/crticism/thoughts/experience with it as it really is like an alpha/beta level idea that needs some vigourous testing/scrutiny. Bull
  2. "Field Trials" Red-vs-Red - Syrian Army attacking Uncon Fighters Base game only - no modules required 1-hour on a 544m x 400m map 05 MAY 2008 0615H – Latakia Region Syrian Army BTR Company is approaching a farming village captured in the night by a band of fighters. In the center of the village is a regional government administration center of vital importance to maintaining control in the region - it must be preserved and liberated at all costs! ---------------- Decided to update an old (circa 2007) scenario of mine for CMSF:2 - this time sticking with the Syrian setting of the base game. Best played as the Attackers or Multiplayer. The AI has several plans for the defenders and one basic plan for the attackers. I kept the force balance pretty well exactly the same as the original scenario - which in multiplayer has proven challenging, but fairly balanced for both sides - at least back in CMSF:1. Download here - https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/cm-shock-force-2-2/cm-shock-force-2-scenarios/field-trials-red-vs-red/
  3. The rematch! Central Italy in spring '44. I play ze Germans and Irish is the CW.
  4. About The Scenario This is one for the modern ‘Tread heads’ amongst you! This is a revised version updating the orginal to CMSF2, so you will need the base game CMSF2 to play this. Revised AI Plan using triggers; tweaked map using new CMSF terrain features and updated OOB for both Syrian Army and Rebels. This is SF2 version 2 which has a slightly reduced mission time based on player feedback. The actual scenario is very loosely based on events in Daraya, a suburb of Damascus where rebels from the Free Syrian Army (FSA) have attempted to create a stronghold near Damascus centre. In August 2012, the Syrian Army defeated the rebel forces and took control of the town. After the failed rebel offensive in late July 2012 ,the Syrian army started a campaign against rebels in the Damascus suburb. This, the 2nd Battle of Darayya, is the ongoing battle between the Syrian Army and the rebels in the Damascus suburbs of Darayya. In mid-December when the Army intensified their attacks with heavy shelling and Tanks raids into the city. This scenario depicts an armoured raid, typical of the tactics used by the Syrian Army to seize control of Daraya. You can view the video which shows these raids using footage (often filmed whilst under fire) shot by the rebels Syria - Men versus Tanks in Daraya - The Powerful T-72 Raids So your scenario looks like the scenes in the above film I’d suggest modding your game using the following excellent mods links are to CMODS: Longleft Flank’s Shot up Building; Pete Wenman’s ‘Squalor’ mod; Pete Wenman’s BlackSea favour objects for CMSF2 Map and Scenario Size This is a fairly small map although it’s very built up. Map Size: 720m x 512m Forces: Syrian Republican Guard armour Vs Syrian rebels (combatants and fighters) Best Played As Can be played RT or WEGO. This is best played Blue Vs Red AI or H2H only. There are two RED AI Plans. If playing H2H it is recommended the more experienced player takes the RED side. The scenario is NOT playable as Red VS Blue AI. You can grab it from TSDIII at the following link: http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/cm-shock-force-2-2/cmsf-2-daraya-tank-raid/ Acknowledgments Many thanks to Buzz, Erwin and Snake Eye at the BFC forum who played through the early Blue Vs Red versions and provided a lot of feedback. Thanks to Lethaface and Sublime who played this H2H and provided excellent feedback in this regard. Thanks also to Slysniper who took the SF2 version for a spin and provided some useful feedback. Cheers Guys! Any comments etc you can email me at georgemc@blowtorchscenarios.com
  5. Good morning/afternoon/evening everyone. This is an AAR of a PBEM played with the British Forces module of Combat Mission: Shock Force. The scenario is "Sabres at Dawn" - I am attacking with a British light armoured reconnaissance force and @Rinaldi is defending with a Syrian reserve mechanised infantry force. So, without further ado, let's do a quick analysis of the situation. My primary task is to attack and clear a compound known as the "East Yard" approximately 500m to the North-Northeast of my deployment zone. My secondary task is simply to destroy the enemy in the field. I must not suffer over 20% casualties and must have my force "arrayed for future operations", which presumably means I must keep ammunition expenditure to a reasonable level and have as little vehicles immobilised as possible. My force consists of light armour and mechanised reconnaissance infantry, supported by ATGM teams and rotary-wing assets. My enemy is defending positions in and around the East Yard, north of a deep irrigation ditch running west-east across the Area of Operations (AO). Intelligence states that there are no enemy units South of the irrigation ditch. Presumably, given the low quality of my enemy's units, his intent is to hold his position for as long as possible and bleed my forces as much as he can before being eliminated. Enemy forces are estimated to be a platoon-sized force from a reserve mechanised infantry battalion equipped with BMP-1s. It is possible that they may be supported by ATGM teams. Due to my enemy commanding a reserve unit, it is likely that the equipment, training and leadership of his units are of a low quality. However, several things should encourage me to caution. Firstly, my own force is small and very light, designed for reconnaissance, not assaults on fortified positions. The BMP-1 is not a fearsome machine in Shock Force, but even its low-velocity 73mm cannon can easily pop any of my vehicles if it can land a hit. Secondly (and more importantly), Rinaldi is a highly skilled and experienced player of Combat Mission. I myself have very little experience, with only two other PBEMs under my belt (one of which ended prematurely because my opponent got bored, the other of which ended with Rinaldi kicking my teeth in). I can expect my opponent to quickly develop a very clear appraisal of the situation, with great knowledge of the capabilities of both his and my own units. He will likely try and engage me at as short a range as possible to try and offset the advantages that modern optics and firepower give me. He will be on the lookout for any weakness or mistake and will exploit such opportunity ruthlessly. I must be very careful if I am to avoid being severely embarrassed here (doubly so, as Rinaldi takes great pleasure in denigrating the fighting ability of my countrymen ). Now for the terrain. The AO is small, only about 350x600m. To my immediate front and right, the ground is open and rises steeply, before gently falling off to the north. To my left, the ground rises more gently, with an MSR running North-South and a small Orchard running North along the edge of the map. The aforementioned irrigation ditch runs east-west, bisecting the AO. The briefing informs me that the ditch is unfordable, with only two crossing points, designated Tweedledum (to the north-west) and Tweedledee (to the north-east). North of the irrigation ditch, the terrain becomes more complex. There is a small compound immediately North and to the left of Tweedledum, known as the "Tool Houses". North of the Tool Houses there is a gentle hill, designated "Point 228". Immediately North of Tweedledee is my objective, the East Yard, a sprawling compound of one-storey buildings. North of the East Yard is another hill, designated "Point 225". Both Point 228 and 225 are covered in trenches. There is a thick haze covering the AO, the temperature is warm, the ground is very dry and there is a medium breeze blowing from the west. Finally, a view of the AO through the eyes of my enemy. He has some excellent positions to take advantage of, with a large obstacle to his front, the complex semi-urban terrain on his left and right, and elevated fighting positions to his left-rear and right-rear. Now to identify the key terrain (KT) of the AO. The first KT is the hill immediately to the front and right of my deployment zone. This is one of the highest points on the map and will provide excellent sight lines and fields of fire to the North. The second KT is Tweedledum and the Tool Houses. Tweedledum is one of only two points where the irrigation ditch can be crossed and the Tool Houses could provide cover and concealment for forces defending the crossing point. The Tool Houses could be a good place for a forward observation post. The third KT is Point 228. this hill provides sightlines and fields of fire across almost the entire AO, and the reverse slope offers an excellent place to conceal forces, for ambush or counterattack. Any advance towards the East Yard will be enfiladed by fire from Point 228. The fourth and final KT is the East Yard and Point 225. The East Yard is my objective and must be cleared, but is also likely to be the toughest nut to crack. If he so wishes, Rinaldi could hide units deep in this compound as my units approach, before making a potentially devastating point-blank ambush. Point 225 provides good lines of sight over the open ground south of the irrigation ditch and would make another good location for an observation post. Now for a detailed assessment of the force at my disposal. I command a small company-sized force from "A" Squadron of the 9th/12th Lancers. Firstly, we have the Command Troop with the Squadron Leader and Second in Command (2iC) mounted in Sultan APCs. A Tactical Air Controller team is mounted in a Spartan APC and will be directing the fires of a single Apache gunship. Secondly, we have 1 Troop, consisting of four Scimitar light tanks. These little fellows are fast, agile and equipped with a hard-hitting 30mm autocannon. They wield the heaviest firepower of my force but are very lightly armoured, only really able to resist small arms fire. Thirdly, we have the Support Troop, consisting of the command team and four four-man scout teams, all mounted in Spartan APCs. Each scout team has a SAW, a sniper rifle, an under-barrel grenade launcher and three light anti-tank weapons (LAW). These infantry teams will be needed to clear out the East Yard and conduct dismounted reconnaissance, but are all very fragile. This is undoubtedly the most vulnerable but also the most important part of my force. Last, but definitely not least, we have the Guided Weapons Troop, consisting of two Javelin teams mounted in Spartan APCs. Each team has five missiles. The Javelin is an excellent weapon, accurate and very hard hitting. These teams will likely be the best option for knocking out AFVs and other hard targets. Troops thus covered, all that remains is the time; it is currently 0530 and I have 50 minutes to complete my objectives. Phew, so much for a quick analysis! I still haven't really thought much about what my enemy might do or made a tentative plan yet. However, this post is getting rather long so I shall leave that for my next entry. Stay tuned!
  6. Hello everyone. I haven't posted in a long time and had to actually stop playing for about 2 years due to a project I was starting in "RL". I've been playing some casual H2H games with an old opponent and have been kicking an idea around in my head that I would like to present and get some feedback on. Then, I will start to play-test it. In short, it is a "Unbalanced Scenario Maker". The first page of the rules I will post here as it describes the overall objectives. For those that would like to read the full set of rules, complete with graphs and pictures, here is the link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hOp47nNwMofaVM57eFdJE_W7zlRYLCgwmxzCaxl5Xuc/edit?usp=sharing COMBAT MISSION Unbalanced Scenario Maker / Unbalanced “Mini-Campaign” Maker Objective Tired of playing “Perfectly Balanced” H2H scenarios that are basically a contest to see who can capture the most flags? Worried that there is really no way to do otherwise without at least one of the two players knowing what advantage/disadvantage the other player will have? Wish you could decide to “hold the line”, “retreat”, “attack”, “probe” or just “defend” and have that decision affect future battles? This set of rules and simple tools will allow two relatively honest players to “blindly” create and play unbalanced scenarios and simple campaigns without the need for a 3rd party monitor. Players will be unaware of the amount and composition of the enemy forces. Decisions made in one scenario will affect the makeup and positioning of forces for the following battle. Players will have to decide whether it is worth more to “hold the line”, regardless of casualties or, fall back and sacrifice defensive posturing for the next scenario. PLEASE NOTE Objectives will be somewhat ambiguous for scenarios. Each commander will decide what objectives are best for their interests depending on the lay of the land, enemy resistance, and force composition. In the end, the objective is to capture territory … but that may not always necessarily mean “attacking” in each battle. The underlying concept is to attempt to provide more realistic objectives under varying conditions rather than a “perfectly balanced” scenario with “flags to capture”. The online Play by Email “Dice Rolling” site: http://www.pbegames.com/roller/ will be used to keep players honest. What a Player will Need: H2H Gameplay: Experience with PBEM. Quick Battles: Experience with setting up Quick Battles and unit selection by points. Basic Scenario Editing: Only the basics. Like how to set Deployment Zones, Terrain Objectives, Exit Zones and things of that nature. Honesty: The Unbalance Scenario Maker is designed to “Keep Players Honest” and verify their integrity, but there are ways to cheat. Please make sure you find a player whom you trust and whose main objective is to have dynamic, fun play … not just to win. Setup Steps: The setup for each game is divided into two parts. One part will be known and agreed upon by both players. This includes the map, deployment zones, etc … The other part is “secret” and only known by the player using those forces. Each of these steps is discussed in detail in it’s own section. Open Part of Setup: These steps are known and previously agreed upon by both players. Basically, this is the map that will be used for the scenario. Map: Select a Map. Zones: Agree on deployment zones, exit zones and objective zones and edit these onto the map. (More on this below) Sides: Once the map has been set with all zones and VOs, flip a coin to see which player deploys in which zone. Again, via pbegames.com can be used to provide an “honest” coin toss. (More on this below) Secret Part of the Setup: This part is only known by each player. Start Force: 2 six-sided die (2d6) are rolled for the “Start Force” points allotment. These will be the forces that each player starts the battle with. Reinforcement Forces: 2 six-sided die (2d6) are rolled for the “Reinforcement Forces” points allotment. These will be the forces that will enter the battle at a later time. Arrival Time: 2d6 are rolled to see at what time the reinforcements can be activated. This will be the “later time” that the reinforcements will arrive. These are the basic "outline" rules that show the overall idea of the system. The mechanics and details are fully explained in the complete Rules set in the above link. Please feel free to comment, question and suggest. I really enjoyed playing some of the Tiller Campaigns that Noob hosted a few years back. I would really like to capture that style of playing dynamic while still keeping the overall game an easy two-player PBEM system. Cheers!
  7. I'm looking for some good H2H scenarios to play and was wondering if anyone has tried this one before: http://www.theblitz.org/scenarios/combat-mission-battle-for-normandy/tt3-snafu-what-was-that-did-you-hear-that/b-15.htm?action=scenario&id=3594
  8. Just a fictional meeting engagement Scenario I whipped up. Detailed map with some unique features for H2H play. This H2H Scenario was designed to give both opponets many options and replay ability. Both sides consist of overstrengthed Infantry Companies, some Light Recon units and Armor. The briefing covers when and what the reinforcements consist of briefly and when abouts they will arrive. Both sides have primarily equal forces in skill and numbers with one exception that the German player has about 3 less tanks. This was playtested to somewhat equal out the firepower. The object of course is to do the most damage by the end of the Scenario time while minimizing your own losses. The Map is Large and is a H2H battlefield consisting of Bocage, large fields, forested areas, Urban areas, and many roads, paths to manuever from, giving both players room for manuever, ambush, and plotting out strategy from where to defend, or attack from to wreak havoc on the other player. Version is 3.11 and you will need the Market Garden Module and Vehicle pack. You can find it here. http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/cm-battles-for-normandy/mortville-and-nuertville/ @ the Scenario Depot III.
  9. I made this guide to try getting a PBEM off the ground, but I figured I'd post it here if anyone needs it. https://youtu.be/aycy-L8GE3k
×
×
  • Create New...