Jump to content

Field Marshal Blücher

Members
  • Posts

    2,040
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Field Marshal Blücher

  1. You are a psychic. I just finished it. Can any volunteers for playtesting it H2H to make sure that this version IS balanced please send me a PM containing your email address?
  2. Yes, hold on though. I see your points and I've been thinking about what I want to do to address them. Give me a few hours (at work, unfortunately), and I'll get back to you.
  3. While this is true, bear in mind that it's only visual. You can't get CM:A tanks to behave like CM:SF T-72s, just look like them.
  4. Haha, ironically, that was what these scens started out as (which is one reason why I think the second is imbalanced for H2H, as it was never originally intended to be playable as the Germans vs anyone! ). However, for a number of reasons, I decided not to finish the campaign and convert these into standalones. I will be releasing a CW campaign for playtesters soon, but it's not about the Canadians.
  5. I agree. I'm very sorry that it wasn't tweaked for H2H balance. It was tested extensively vs. AI so it should work fine for either side there, but the H2H testing results came in too late to make it into the shipped product. This is on me, and I do apologize.
  6. Unfortunately, if you are playing it H2H, I would recommend against playing "Sticking it Out." It's fine vs. AI, but we didn't get time to finish testing it H2H before the module shipped. Unfortunately, we found that the German player has a much easier time of it in "Sticking it Out" than I intended, so I'd only recommend that you play it H2H if one of you is the dramatically better player.
  7. I designed both Buron scens. Feel free to PM me if you want, or we can talk about it more here.
  8. Oh, I absolutely agree--I'm speaking as a player and as a designer. Balance is one of the biggest challenges of design IMO. I'm not trying to say it's easy by any means, or that all scens should be balanced towards players with the same amount of skill, or anything like that. I'm not saying that there is one right way to do it, and everything else is wrong. And I'm certainly not saying that I think Paper Tiger's campaign is flawed--far from it. I'm just saying that some people find some types of campaigns funner than others. I absolutely see the merits to PT's philosophy, and was not trying to trash it by any means. I was just pointing out that I have a different one. I think it's great that he's making campaigns like that. I also think it's great that other people are making campaigns with different philosophies. That's the beauty of our community here--there's plenty of choice.
  9. Interesting! I have a very different philosophy. I like having most missions be winnable (or at least drawable ) the first time, without too much luck. I don't really enjoy repeatedly reloading saves, because then it starts to feel more like a puzzle game than a combat sim. Now, I don't like winning everything the first time either. There should be some missions that are harder than others, and it should totally be possible to lose. But I feel that in most missions, I should be given a reasonable chance to win the first time if I play well. I prefer campaigns that are hard enough where I have to retry one or two missions, but not so hard that I have to retry all but one or two.
  10. Some of the campaign designers (myself included) have begin prefacing our file names with "Campaign." Try searching or scrolling through the list looking for "Campaign," that might yield some results.
  11. Thanks! Really glad you liked them. Honestly, I have no idea. AFAIK I didn't do anything different. :confused: Yes.
  12. I'm really glad you liked it! What sound mod are you using? -FMB
  13. Open ground: insert patches of yellow grass and mud. That makes things look a lot more interesting. Re:exit objectives: just don't assign a "Destroy" objective for the other side and no points will be awarded or taken away for exiting any units.
  14. They never get Bradleys except when supported by the US Army. The Bradley is a US Army-exclusive vehicle. Marines use LAV-25s for armored reconnaissance and the AAV7 for their mechanized infantry transport.
  15. No, timed reinforcements only, unfortunately. If the Germans don't need to move, then all you need to do is deploy them in the editor. You don't even need to touch the AI page if all you want them to do is defend static positions.
  16. There's some way to send pdf files to your Kindle. I haven't bothered to try yet but will need to do so soon.
  17. Welcome! Do you have any of the modules? Many of the best user-made campaigns and scenarios require at least one of the expansions. That said, "In Search of a Ghost" is an excellent campaign that IIRC only requires the base game.
  18. Very true, and it's also important to note that a single Syrian platoon is in fact substantially outnumbered by most American platoons. A US Army Rifle Platoon outnumbers a Syrian Mech Rifle Platoon by about 1.3-1.4:1 and a US Marine Rifle Platoon outnumbers them by 2:1 IIRC. Therefore, a single Marine Rifle platoon has about the firepower of an entire dismounted Syrian company when you take into account the fact that their individual firepower is superior.
  19. You didn't. The tall cathedral spires are always exactly 8 stories tall, and you can't change that.
  20. No--they're locked in at the same height, unfortunately.
  21. Ah, here we go, it was written by GeorgeMc: http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=1194
  22. Fleeing can also be affected by "Motivation." Be sure to check that as well when you're checking these things out.
  23. Ah, that'll be it. Make sure to unpack .rar archives (google WinRAR, it's a free program that'll let you unpack them) and extract it to the appropriate folder (Campaigns or Scenarios, depending on whether it's a .cam or a .btt file, respectively). As to the scenario editor, I forget who but one of the CMSF scenario designers put up a pretty good beginner's guide somewhere. Yes, it's for CMSF and not CMBN, but the editor is pretty similar, so that's a good starting point. -FMB
  24. The Commonwealth module does not extend into September, so that won't be a problem (you'll have to wait for the Market-Garden module for that ). I would assume that once the M-G module does roll around that the non-CW would not be able to open the QB at all if the M-G player sets the time frame to September. In fixed scenarios, where you don't buy troops, the player who doesn't have the CW module will not be able to open them either, but only if the scenario has CW-exclusive troops. These scens are clearly marked in the list, so as long as you have good communication between the players to let each other know who has which modules, it shouldn't be a problem. -FMB
  25. Yes. What will happen is that there will be a patch that comes out along with the module. The patch will make the base game compatible with the module. Therefore, if one of you has the base game+CW module and the other one has only the patched base game, you can play together! The only restriction is that neither side would be able to purchase CW module units. -FMB
×
×
  • Create New...