The official CMPzC Operations "how to" guide

[kohlenklau]

oh, PBEM button, whoops, got it. looks good now....

[Erwin]

I thought those old Lugers weren't in use by WW2(?).

[kohlenklau]

Hey noob,

Do you own this one? Maybe I will get it and we can get working on a scenario to play when Bagration debuts.

[A Canadian Cat]

Ian Leslie = Einen Los

OK, sure. How do you pronounce that?

[noob]

Hey noob,

Do you own this one? Maybe I will get it and we can get working on a scenario to play when Bagration debuts.

I do have that game, and it is the one I intend to use with Bagration. If you do buy it, we should start playing it without CM, and using VM's rules. That way, you can get a feel for it. The amount of artillery in some scenarios is staggering, it's like a death ray when concentrated on a single hex.

[76mm]

Minsk 44 might be the most boring wargame I've ever played--all either fortified lines or river crossings, with plenty of swampy terrain and major rivers, with all movement channelized along a few major roads.

I think that it will be difficult to play many of M44 scenarios in a CM context, especially thinking of all the river- and swamp-heavy maps.

[kohlenklau]

Ian,

Hey I was only joshing.

[A Canadian Cat]

Ian,

Hey I was only joshing.

Oh, I thought I was going to have to learn it:-)

just joshing back

[kohlenklau]

I lost track. Ian, are you first up to bat for a CM battle as axis team?

Edit: oh, I see, no show for Strach so you get the battle at Buron it seems.

OK, we have V1's and V2's lined up plus a battalion of the new JagdTigers.

Oh, shucks, I should be saying all this over at our Axis HQ thread. Shoot everyone in the room who heard me!

[noob]

I have modified the following page: https://sites.google.com/site/cmpzch2hoperations/panzer-campaigns/pzc-fortifications

[noob]

I have modified the following page: https://sites.google.com/site/cmpzch2hoperations/panzer-campaigns/pzc-demo-scenario

[noob]

I have modified the following page: https://sites.google.com/site/cmpzch2hoperations/panzer-campaigns/pzc-assault

The reason I have decided to use the PzC assault function in CMPzC is because in the CMPzC Crossroads Operation I am playing (see CMFI forum) a section of 5 M8 Greyhound scout cars blocked a substantial combined arms force, thus forcing a CM battle. The battle seemed far too one sided to warrant playing a CM battle, so we decided to use the PzC assault function. However, the results seemed way off what one would expect if the assault was performed using CM.

With that in mind, I decided to experiment with reducing the defence value of the Greyhounds, until the assault results represented a more realistic outcome. This was achieved by reducing the defence value of the Greyhounds from 12 to 3. Therefore, I would suggest players reduce their recon elements defence values by a factor of four. That way, recon units can be brushed aside if relatively insubstantial, thus saving time, and also stopping them being used as blockers.

In conclusion, I would recommend that anyone using the PzC assault function in a CMPzC game should agree with their opponent, that, if any results are problematic, the defence values of the defending units should be reduced, until a more realistic result is achieved. This can be done during the game, and will not corrupt the game file, so restarting the scenario is not necessary. I plan to experiment further with the PzC assault function, with a view to finding if I can reduce all units defence values by a set number, thus allowing me to edit the whole PzC OOB, and removing the need for players to do it themselves.

[Fizou]

I just thought I would share something that happened in the CMPzC Bulge operation I am playing with Kohlenklau. I sent five Greyhounds down a road to a crossroads to give me an early warning of any enemy units approaching from a certain direction. The enemy showed up in strength, namely, a lot of Panthers and PzIV's. My opponent declared an assault on the Greyhounds, but, according to the CMPzC rules, the Panthers would of had to change formation to be eligible to assault (they were in travel mode) and fight a CM battle. But, even if the enemy armour had routed the Greyhounds in a CM battle, as one would expect, they could still not use the road, and continue their movement that turn. So inadvertantly my five greyhounds were acting as an effective blocker, and this is exploitable.

Therefore, I suggested that my my opponent use the PzC assault function to force the Greyhounds off the road, or destroy them. He tried this, and the results were problematic. So I decided to edit the Greyhounds defence value in the PzC OOB. It was 12, and I made it 3. When we ran the turn again, the results felt right. The Greyhounds could not withstand the assaults, and were brushed aside, allowing my opponents units to pass.

This got me thinking. To allow the use of the PzC assault function would be a great asset, so I am going to recommend editing all recon units in a CMPzC scenario by quartering their PzC defence values. That way, recon units cannot act as blockers.

One way to use it beyond just recon units would be to allow anyone that uses it, and gets a result that both players think doesn't feel right, to edit the defence values of the units that should lose, so they do lose in a way that does feel right. This method could be used if non recon units get caught on their own, like artillery for example.

Good ideas noob. I have been doing some testing also. They way we have been handling situation like this before.

1. The attacker declares all his assault.

2. The defender decides which battles he wants to fight in CM

3. All battles that the defender doesn't want to fight in CM are seen as victories for the attacker, destroying the defending force. PzC assault used against defender with 0 headcount and 0 defense.

I was not to happy about this as the results was a bit boring and some smaller units didn't really have a role to play.

I have proposed to Kuderian that we instead use a set defense value of 4 for a unit that the defender doesn't want to fight in CM with its headcount unchanged. This will give the attacker a victory, it will give heavy casualties to the defender. The attacker might take some light casualties and will most likely take the attacked hex. But if attacking a prepared position and being in travel formation will also affect the result. This will result in a more tactical rich environment as blocking forces/delay forces have a better role to play. But the CM action will still be favored. I like it.

Another thing, regarding assaults. As units in travel formation can assault in PzC we do allow this in CM as well. Units has to be in travel formation to assault over a bridge as an example. We do however severely restrict the deployment zone for an attacker/defender that is in travel formation. With the exception for attacking over a bridge.

[noob]

I have proposed to Kuderian that we instead use a set defense value of 4 for a unit that the defender doesn't want to fight in CM with its headcount unchanged.

Don't change the units defence value by a set amount, just quarter what it is already, this maintains the units unique identity.

Another thing, regarding assaults. As units in travel formation can assault in PzC we do allow this in CM as well. Units has to be in travel formation to assault over a bridge as an example. We do however severely restrict the deployment zone for an attacker/defender that is in travel formation. With the exception for attacking over a bridge.

I agree, if PzC allows assaults in column, then it should be allowed in CM, but I would not only restrict the deployment zone, but I would not allow all the unit to come on in one turn.

So, for example, if three companies in column assaulted a hex, one company would be on the map in a restricted set up zone, and the other companies would arrive on the CM map as reinforcements, one company at a time, with one company arriving on the map in column 5 turns later, the last, 10 turns later. The same would be applied to vehicles, but platoons instead of companies.

[Fizou]

Don't change the units defence value by a set amount, just quarter what it is already, this maintains the units unique identity.

Thats another idea. I will talk it over with Kuderian. It might be so that lower defense values will have units destroyed to easily? What have you been using for your scout cars in that Bulge campaign?

[noob]

Thats another idea. I will talk it over with Kuderian. It might be so that lower defense values will have units destroyed to easily? What have you been using for your scout cars in that Bulge campaign?

Greyhounds. I had a section of 5 Greyhounds remain in the hex with a 1 vehicle / 1 vehicle result after being assaulted by 18 Panthers and 12 PzIV's. The Axis tanks were all in travel mode, which reduces the attack value, but I still think that many tanks should brush aside the Greyhounds with ease. I started reducing the Greyhounds defence value by half, then tested again, but I still felt the result was not right, that's why I halved again. This time the Greyhounds were eliminated, or disrupted and shoved aside, no longer creating an obstacle, and I was satisfied. I am going to test further to see if quartering other units defence values will give more CM like results when the odds are not as one sided.

I think when one reduces recon unit defence values, it has to be relative, as two recon units can be drastically different, i.e. Greyhounds compared to Motorcycles.

[Fizou]

Greyhounds. I had a section of 5 Greyhounds remain in the hex with a 1 vehicle / 1 vehicle result after being assaulted by 18 Panthers and 12 PzIV's. The Axis tanks were all in travel mode, which reduces the attack value, but I still think that many tanks should brush aside the Greyhounds with ease. I started reducing the Greyhounds defence value by half, then tested again, but I still felt the result was not right, that's why I halved again. This time the Greyhounds were eliminated, or disrupted and shoved aside, no longer creating an obstacle, and I was satisfied. I am going to test further to see if quartering other units defence values will give more CM like results when the odds are not as one sided.

What was their starting defense value?

[noob]

What was their starting defense value?

Their starting defence value was 12, down to 3.

[noob]

I have modified the page "CM Battle Set Up", to show how units enter a CM battle if they assault a hex in Travel Mode: https://sites.google.com/site/cmpzch2hoperations/home/combat-mission/cm-battle-set-up

[BletchleyGeek]

Guys,

I've been looking at this for a while I think I can contribute something valuable.

noob's system is indeed the most comprenhensive attempt at integrating CM with an existing operational level wargame with an appropiate scale and granularity in its models. Nonetheless, I saw two big problems in it, that noob had to work around:

1) The effects of CM combats need to be recorded as modifications on the master OOB database. This is a bit unwieldly, since it means that one needs to keep several folders, with the game engine, art assets, for each on-going game, or alternatively, copying back and forth the versions of the OOB master database as they branch.

2) Retreats are very awkward to manage, as they require the opponent to execute retreats and advances get delayed by one turn. This causes diverse kinds of "spacetime anomalies" that require counterintuitive rules such as "Virtual ZOCs" etc.

The only way to solve these two problems - and potentially other limitations - was to look more carefully at PzC data model. Specifically, the relationships between OOB databases, scenario files and non-encrypted saved games (.btl files). After looking into that for a while, the solution was quite obvious: write software that is able to "talk" with the PzC engine by modifying saved games files.

And hence this very preliminary version of what I hope can be a more comprenhensive effort at interfacing CMx2 (and why not, other tactical games such as Squad Battles, Panzer Command Ostfront or Graviteam Tactics) with PzC

https://github.com/miquelramirez/CMPzC

So far, what I have managed to accomplish is the following:

1) From a saved game, extract relevant data for noob's CMPzC system and generate a comma-separated value file (CSV) that can be loaded with any spreadsheet application.

2) From a given saved game, and an spreadsheet generated with 1), suitably modifying unit attributes, apply the changes into the original saved game and save the modified saved game in a different file.

In this link

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B60Fz61zV5lgcWdyRHlTVHRCM1E&usp=sharing

you can find:

• n44-test.btl - a saved game of the Normandy'44 Intro scenario
  
• n44-test.csv - a CSV spreadsheet with the relevant data from the saved game above
  
• n44-test-mod.csv - a CSV spreadsheet with the stats and location of one unit changed
  
• n44-test-mod.btl - the saved game, modified to reflect the changes in the spreadsheet above
  

In order to use this yourselves you'll need:

• Python 2.7.5 installed in your system
  
• Place the OOB files on the data/Normandy-44 folder
  
• To be able to use the Windows command line interface to invoke the programs :-)
  

Usage notes on the programs:

extract-to-csv.py

This program takes two parameters, the path to the saved game we want to get the data from and the filename of the spreadsheet we want the data to be saved to. For instance:

python extract-to-csv.py n44-test.btl n44-test.csv

goes through the saved game and creates a spreadsheet called n44-test.csv in the same folder the command was issued.

update-battle-from-csv.py

This program takes three parameters: the path to the csv spreadsheet where we have the modifications, the path to the original saved game and the path to a new saved game file reflecting the modifications.

Disclaimer

This is very kludgy, and yes, I do know it'll need some user interface. I'm releasing this into the wilds because, even in this crude state, it's providing a minimal set of features which I think people trying to use noob's system (or a "fork" of noob's system) will find quite useful.

What's next?

I'm indeed interested in devoting more time to it, and further expand it to accomodate further iterations of noob system. If anybody wants to collaborate with the programming, just drop me a PM and we talk. Obviously, since it's public, anybody can fork it to their hearts' content

Why are you doing this?

Because I love Combat Mission and this can provide endless joy to fellow enthusiasts of wargaming at the tactical and operational level.

I honestly expect that this gesture - and future efforts - will persuade BFC to include two, very minimalistic, features. One, to provide with a detailed casualty summary, not only for the "cool factor", but also that can be easily exported into a text file.

Two, and bigger, to be able to import an oob into an scenario from a file (choosing the oob file through a file dialog, please ). This oob format can be as simple as structured plain text, making references to CMx2 formations, and specifying settings such as quality of equipment, fitness, leadership, etc. And of course, I'm more than willing to write myself a self-contained parser in portable (so it compiles with both VC and Apple's fork of GNU g++) C++ code, using as the backend (which would be CMx2 engine) a simple mockup so BFC can hook up their code into it as they see fit and take it off the shelf. The code would be in the public domain, so it wouldn't have any strings attached.

[noob]

I've been looking at this for a while I think I can contribute something valuable.

Thanks for showing an interest, and your proposal, from what I can understand, sounds great. Anyone that can automate any part of CMPzC has my full support. However, what you are describing will take me a little while to fully understand, and test, as my brain tends to freeze over when confronted with the technical aspects of games

2) Retreats are very awkward to manage, as they require the opponent to execute retreats and advances get delayed by one turn. This causes diverse kinds of "spacetime anomalies" that require counterintuitive rules such as "Virtual ZOCs" etc.

I can't see how your proposal could fix this, as virtual hex occupation is a function of PzC's IGO UGO system.

[ForwardObserver]

Thanks for showing an interest, and your proposal, from what I can understand, sounds great. Anyone that can automate any part of CMPzC has my full support. However, what you are describing will take me a little while to fully understand, and test, as my brain tends to freeze over when confronted with the technical aspects of games

No worries, noob. Without the thing coming nicely packaged and with an UI on top, it's hard. I'm already using it to play solo (I always take the attacker side, with some simple defense AI plans thrown in for good measure), and taking notes of what kind of things need to be done in order to reduce the workload and the chances of making mistakes.

I can't see how your proposal could fix this, as virtual hex occupation is a function of PzC's IGO UGO system.

With the tools you can change the locations of units as well. So the retreat and advance results can be applied automatically, and end up in a situation very much like that you get when launching a (successful) assault from within PzC.

[noob]

With the tools you can change the locations of units as well. So the retreat and advance results can be applied automatically, and end up in a situation very much like that you get when launching a (successful) assault from within PzC.

So, if a player whose PzC turn it isn't, loses a CM battle, your programme would move that players PzC units off the hex they recently occupied, then, move the attackers PzC units onto the vacated hex, and, also move any units that are occupying adjacent hexes to the vacated hex, if hex stacking limits are breached by the retreat of the losing units off the hex, and, do all this so as to allow the player whose PzC turn it is to save the new deployments as part of their PzC turn, just prior to generating the PBEM file to be sent to their opponent ?

?

[noob]

I have added the following rules to the guide: https://sites.google.com/site/cmpzch2hoperations/home/combat-mission/cm-battle-victory-conditions

[kohlenklau]

Noob,

Have we had any breakthrough on the important issue of finding pretty girls in bikinis who will walk around and hold signs above their head that say "Axis Turn 04", etc.?