Jump to content

Field Marshal Blücher

Members
  • Posts

    2,040
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Field Marshal Blücher

  1. Ah, I think I see--it's still a halftrack for gameplay purposes, but it appears like a Priest whose appearance has been further modified by rendering the 105mm invisible? Clear as mud but if I understand it correctly seems like a cool solution.
  2. So do you give the Priest no ammunition to prevent it from firing the invisible 105mm? Incidentally, this seems like an awesome project. I never play battalion-sized scenarios, but I might have to make an exception for this one! -FMB
  3. It depends. Basically, it does indeed screw up any Unit Objectives for any side that has an exit zone. If a unit is designated as a Unit Objective, the game treats those units as "destroyed" at the end of the battle if they have not exited the map (this is how Exit Zones come into play points-wise--by giving the OTHER team points for destroying units that are supposed to exit). However, if you use Casualty and Condition Parameters, and no Unit Objectives, you should be fine. -FMB
  4. As long as the Pz Co HQ is alive you're good. The bug arises when the player has lost both the Pz Co HQ and 2IC, because then the player has no units with which to make the decision in the decision mission. -FMB
  5. Patched version is up; the file is here. Discussion (including tips on installing the patched version) can be found here. -FMB
  6. Hi Erwin, You should be able to load a save game made between missions into the new version. Check the instructions at the bottom of Page 17 of the CM Engine Manual 2.0 to see how to do this. To be frank, though, most of the changes affect the earlier missions. If you're already on the fourth one it may not make a big difference, provided that you kept your HQ Panzer IIIs alive (and thus avoiding the decision mission bug). -FMB
  7. Soon [hopefully! ], you should be able to find a patch for this campaign on the Repository. The primary purpose of this patch was to address the Decision Point bug, but some balance tweaks have also been made. -FMB
  8. SPOILERS But it's not an ambush. The scenario is one where the player is defending a static location and then counterattacking. I realize that that technique has its place in ambush scenarios, though. In this case, though, the designer should make it clear in the briefing that "look, the ambush has already happened, and your guys are under fire already. Plan accordingly." In this case, though, it represents a Mujahideen attack on a Soviet-held bridge. I made plans to move my mobile reserves out to gain better fields of fire before the enemy arrived in force and then I hit go. The defenders of the bridge, already in position, spotted these two SPG-9s immediately and I thought, "Whoa, wtf? Why did my defenders [who had been ostensibly sitting there in defensive positions for several hours already] not prevent these guys from setting their guns up?" and I needed to recast my entire plan. Again, it worked out OK and I still had a lot of fun, but it probably shouldn't happen. Just my $.02 on scenario design. END SPOILERS
  9. Hi DeeYay, This morning I realized two things: 1. I suck at CM:A 2. I almost never finish campaigns that I start I saw this and thought, "this would be the perfect way to help me fix both problems." I've played through the first two missions and they're quite fun. I concentrated on not screwing up the way I usually screw CM:A up (namely, pretending I'm playing CM:SF as Blue and wondering why all of my infantry rout immediately ), and I had a really good time. Looking forward to the 3rd mission and beyond! SPOILERS One piece of advice I would give, though, regarding the second mission, is to not start the player out in contact with enemy forces, particularly heavy weapons teams. It loses a lot of the immersion for the player because I immediately think, "wait, what? Why did my guys just let them set up those SPGs in range without doing anything about it?" Nevertheless, that SPG section was quite a fun challenge to overcome, and I still had a great time with the scen all told. Just something to keep in mind for the future. END SPOILERS
  10. Just to ease your paths, if you want to be able to make the decision keep at least one of your Headquarters Panzer IIIs alive. -FMB
  11. Heh, no worries. It worked the opposite way for me--I was so sick and tired of the WEGO vs RT debate that I automatically assumed you were 100% serious. I also wasn't in a great frame of mind when I posted, either. No hard feelings either way, then! -FMB
  12. Will do. Was trying to calm it down myself but I don't think I did a very good job. -FMB
  13. Great way to not start a flame war! Seriously, if you don't want to start a flame war, don't say stuff that belittles people who have different preferences/points of view. It's fine to say, "I prefer WEGO and here's why" (which is what the rest of that paragraph is, and to which I do not object in the slightest), but if you're not trying to start a flame war, then don't say inflammatory stuff. OK, that's my rant for the day. -FMB
  14. Time permitting, I will. Real life+beta testing can be one heck of a combination. I do have what I think is an interesting idea, I just hope I get time to implement it.
  15. The German campaign doesn't get much bigger than a reinforced company until the last couple of missions, if you want to give it a try (it is tank-heavy, though). Time permitting, I am also hoping to make an unofficial company-ish scale campaign for CMFI.
  16. Basically, no. Time is the only trigger for reinforcement arrival. A lot of us are hoping that other triggers for reinforcements as well as AI plan movements will be implemented in future releases.
  17. Unfortunately, no. Only the campaign designer can change the names of the commanders.
  18. Technically, everything I say is unofficial. Really, you should only be listening to Steve/Moon. But don't take my word for it, here's the word from the official announcement:
  19. If you didn't before, you do now: All previous content will be compatible with the upgrade.
  20. The Outlaws is an excellent campaign, although I haven't beaten it yet. (I haven't had time, been so busy helping with CMFI and CMBN:CW ) Sie Kommen also looks like a good campaign, although the scale is a bit too big for my taste. If you're into Battalion-sized action, though, it looks really well made and I've heard good things about it.
  21. This isn't possible since gameplay isn't moddable. You could make the forces look like they did in 1940 but they'll still play like it's 1944. You wouldn't be able to get Panzer Is or PaK36s, let alone Matildas or early-war French tanks.
  22. IMO, this is also a pretty big understatement. This "different scenery" completely changes the way the game plays. You have way longer lines of sight. You have way more and more significant elevation changes. Tanks and AFVs have way greater freedom of maneuver with no bocage. It is not merely a cosmetic difference. I noticed this while playtesting my own campaign even--I was able to use tactics that I hadn't even envisioned while designing the maps because I was so used to Normandy.
  23. Actually, it won't be that bad, at least not on the Repository. Especially if it's for the MG module, which requires CMBN 2.0, it will be filed in the MG section of the repository, so people (at least most people ) will know just by what section of the Repository the file is in that a) it requires CMBN 2.0, that it requires the MG module, c) that it's not for CMFI or CMBN CW. All that needs clearing up is that it's scenario rather than patch version 2.1.
  24. Haha, no worries dude, just meant that I was approaching the argument from a slightly different angle. -FMB
×
×
  • Create New...