Field Marshal Blücher

Foote is pretty good for dealing with the Civil War as a whole. He does have some weaknesses, but those have already been explained fairly clearly. If you want truly Oman-esque levels of detail, it might be worth looking into histories of individual battles and campaigns. I can recommend a few of those if you'd like.

I can't speak for why they're not in the campaign as I was not involved in the design process for it, but be aware that in the British TO&E the Vickers guns were broken out into separate machine gun battalions. So the only way that the PBI got HMG support was to be lucky enough to get HMGs attached to them from a completely different battalion. Very different approach from how the US and Germans handled their MGs!

If you had to beef up the enemy just so they don't surrender, you can keep the extra units as reinforcements that never arrive and it'll still work.

I have attempted to make campaigns with multiple designers outside of the CM Beta team (which is obviously a different experience than what you're talking about for several reasons), and I in fact released one for CMSF that I co-designed with Bulgaroktonos (Rolling Lords of War). Overall, I found making CM scens cooperatively a very difficult experience outside the Beta testing community. There are two big reasons for this: -The main problem with making scenarios cooperatively is that the mapmaking takes a tremendous proportion of time. I would argue that for most scenarios I've made, mapmaking is 90+% of the effort. Once the map is made, the rest of the stuff is comparatively easy, the one exception to this being the AI plans if they are particularly complicated. So it doesn't really make much sense to divide the effort within the scenario because one person is still doing 90+% of the work. -Another serious problem is coordination. The more people involved in the process, the more moving parts. The more moving parts, the more that can go wrong. Unless you are part of an official BFC team that's working under deadlines, actually getting things done in a timely manner is often very difficult. People have commitments in real life and they have free time at different times. It's extremely easy to lose momentum on a project when only one team member stops working on it. The one part of scenario and campaign design that really makes sense for cooperative work is obviously playtesting, which I'd say the community is already pretty good about doing. My two cents, anyway. I think the best use of cooperative scenario design is the note that you end on, which is when there's a gap in someone's knowledge or skills that another designer could fill. In this case, though, it'd probably be best to just have the other designer teach the newer one how to do the bit that he doesn't understand. The CMx2 editor is actually not very difficult to use, it's just sometimes unintuitive and time-consuming. The difficulty of making scenarios is most often a matter of effort rather than skill. To make truly great scenarios requires good ideas and creativity, but you can create competent scenarios with little skill. -FMB

Some modifications that will help: Use non-core units that look like core units. This way, if the core units get destroyed, it doesn't mess up the decision battle. Don't use large point values. You just want enough to have one way be a defeat or a draw, and the other way a victory. If you use too large a point value, it could mess up the scoring at the end of the campaign. The way I usually set it up is 100 points for one objective zone and 10 enemy "bonus" points. Don't use Exit objectives. Use Occupy objectives. This will fix the Cease-Fire problem, I think. (At least, I've never had any problems with this method.)

Assuming CMSF is installed on both computers already, you should just need your most recent save file. I suppose it probably wouldn't hurt to have the campaign file on both computers, but that should be it.

Uhhh . . . I swear I had nothing to do with that! :eek: Seriously, that is some of the most rotten luck I have ever heard of in a CM campaign. I tend to also not restart missions in campaigns, but this definitely sounds like an exception is warranted!

You're welcome! I'm glad that people are still finding and enjoying the campaign. -FMB

Erwin and Euri are correct here, I think (without testing it myself). It's not about number of slots, it's about encumbrance. Gill missiles and the launcher are pretty large and heavy, as is the Panzerfaust launcher. So I would second Euri's advice to only take one launcher type or the other.

Specifically, it is caused by the lack of two particular tanks--the company CO and XO tanks. It doesn't matter how many tanks you have left aside from those, if those two were destroyed, you wouldn't be able to make a decision in the unpatched version.

Did you follow the proper procedure to load the old save into the new campaign file? It's via some arcane process which I believe is described in the manual. IIRC, the correct procedure is something like this: 1) Click "Campaigns," not Saved Game 2) Select "Conrath's Counterattack" and then SHIFT+click on "OK" 3) Pick a between-missions save I think this should work, if not, check the manual.

NATO contains Red air support as well as the ZU-23 and ZSU-23-4 and Red trucks, at least. Might even be a few more goodies I'm forgetting.

Huh, yeah, that actually looks decent. Cool.

Regarding the buildings, though, Mord, since the code is still CMSF, won't guys be able to get up on those slanted roofs? How will that work?

Could you give us a bit more information? If your FO and HQs are not "Denied" when you click on the air support button, then you should be able to call in airstrikes. Walk us through what's going wrong.