Jump to content

Paper Tiger

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Paper Tiger

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling


  • Interests
    computer games, music
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi guys. I have been kept very busy this last year or so with real life work commitments and I see that some folks have reported that The Scottish Corridor campaign has been broken by an earlier update. I have had a look at the campaign with the latest build and it all seems to be working fine. I got a bit of a scare when I went into the Tiger mission and found that I couldn't see any British AT guns. But the AT teams start limbered up and you have to unlimber them and deploy them yourself. I also read that there are missing Churchils from a mission. The mission I read he report about was 'No Hiding Place'. There are nine tanks available to you in that mission and there are nine tanks when you play it. If there are any other issues or anything you think I should look at, please report it here and I'll do my best to fix it up in time for the next patch.
  2. I know I've been away for a long, long time but I thought that USMC Gung Ho was the best thing I ever made. Nice to see that folks are stil playing these old works.
  3. There are four set-ups in this mission and two in the other Guards missions. Most of my campaign missions, from Montebourg to Nijmegen, have at least two AI plans, some a lot more. I design with replayability in mind.
  4. It's hard to tell what's wrong with your core units. You make up a core unit file which contains all the core units for both sides. Call it 'Otto krieg core units' or something like that. Then open your first mission. Instead of buying units, open the UNIT tab and you'll see Import campaign units as an option in the menu below. Click on that and it will ask you which file it should use. Click on 'Otto kreig core units' and all the units FROM BOTH SIDES will be imported. I've 'shouted' that because it's extremely easy to forget and find you've imported a couple of German Panzer companies into your platoon-sized infantry battle. Delete any units or formations that you don't want in the mission. You can purchase independent forces at this point. Click on Deploy Allies/Axis and place the units in the editor. Let us know if you're still having problems after that and we'll see if we can help you.
  5. Line 8 is //Battle #1 This doesn't work. Replace it with /*Battle #1*/ That's pasted directly from the working script for the 'Road to Montebourg'. I also notice that you've got the RED parameters before the BLUE parameters. Try changing this to: /*Battle #1*/ [bATTLE NAME] Hinterhault [WIN THRESHOLD] Tactical victory [NEXT BATTLE IF WIN] Hastig angriff [NEXT BATTLE IF LOSE] Hastig angriff [bLUE REFIT %] 10 [bLUE REPAIR VEHICLE %] 50 [bLUE RESUPPLY %] 60 [bLUE REST %] 60 [RED REFIT %] 10 [RED REPAIR VEHICLE %] 80 [RED RESUPPLY %] 100 [RED REST %] 60 Looking at the script you've written, I'm tempted to ask if you typed it all up from scratch by yourself? There used to be a sample campaign script included in the game files called 'My little campaign' or some-such nonsense but I can't seem to find it anymore. I used this as the template for my first campaign script. Try pasting in the script I posted above and copy it for each subsequent entry so that you don't duplicate errors and get back to us if you're still having problems.
  6. You have somehow deleted the E from REPAIR. There are a lot of these errors in your script. You'll have to change every one of them.
  7. None taken. IMO, scenarios are like short stories whereas campaigns are like novels. I tend to 'write' trilogies. I wouldn't be surprised to read that every third mission or so is extremely difficult. That's because these missions are tests. If the player 'passes', he gets to step up a difficulty level, to Veteran for example, or back to Regular if he's currently playing Green. The big flaw in this system is that people like to win every mission and will replay until they get a win instead of accepting the loss and getting to play easier missions. I try to craft my missions so that they are challenging AND fun to play. If they're not fun, what's the point? Of course, my idea of what is 'fun' is likely to differ from yours. However, I'd argue that 'The Scottish Corridor' is perhaps the least fun to play of my campaigns because the subject material, Operation Epsom, was so grim and such a hard slog. You might indeed find the German campaign more 'fun' to play for the time being. And if you kind of like what I've tried to do with this campaign you might enjoy 'The Road to Montebourg' which was designed primarily for fun. But whatever, I hope you have fun playing what you're playing.
  8. Heh heh. This one continues to upset people. It got a lot of hate on release. If you hate it now, wait 'til you play 'Crescendo of Doom'. The Cameronians are generally regular experience with Normal motivation. The ASH are generally Green experience with Normal to High motivation. Both have good NCOs and leadership. There are actually a few, very good units scattered about in both infantry formations. Churchills are definitely a bit crap when compared to Shermans and are certainly NO MATCH for Panthers. However, the OBs and match-ups in most of these campaign missions are about as historical as I could make them. The Brits didn't do very well 'Going to Church' either. The 7th and 9th RTRs were both equipped with Churchills and they did do battle with some Panthers along the way. Yes, it's a long campaign. That's just the way I make them. It could easily have been released as two separate campaigns, one for the Cameronians, 'The Road to Grainville' and one for the ASH, 'The Road to Gavrus', but two core groups is pretty much how I've been designing campaigns from the get-go. (Hasrabit had the Republican Guards and the Special Forces)
  9. I'll have a wee look at that one and see if there's a problem. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
  10. The AI can use Fast (Dash), Quick (Quick), Advance (mainly Assault movement orders for infantry squads and Quick for support teams), Assault and Max Assault (which might mean Slow) movement commands. It never uses Hunt and will only use Move when the units are approaching exhaustion. Under which circumstances depends on which order the scenario/QB map designer issues to that particular order. Important to remember that the AI cannot reverse its vehicles except when the Tac AI determines that they are threatened and tells them to back up. If you want them to back up as part of an order, they will turn their backsides to the enemy to do so. As above for Run. The Fire order can make the AI group Hide when it reaches its current order. As for covered arcs, we can issue these by giving them an Ambush order with a range. However, these are NOT the same as the covered arcs you are likely to use. They are 360 degree covered arcs so if you want to play by the same rules as the AI, you have to do this too. One nice thing about giving an AI group an Ambush order is that they will maintain their facing at the end of the movement order rather than swivelling to face their next order. Through repeated play, intensive testing, in particular, observing AI units following their orders in Scenario Author mode and making adjustments where necessary. It's a lot of work but, for me, it's fun work. I spend at least as much time testing AI plans as I do creating my maps.
  11. A quick reply, you might want to have a few guys performing a Target Light fire mission on the building you're attempting to enter. As long as you don't throw any HE at the building, your boys won't get hurt by the small arms fire. Also, place a movement waypoint outside the door so that your assaulting squad can use Target on the building as well. Go in hard and heavy and don't mind the ammo expenditure. There's plenty more in your vehicles. Or you can use SMOKE. It's amazing how frequently folks forget to use this valuable asset. I use it all the time.
  12. I should have said the Commonwealth instead of Britain, my bad! The New Zealanders threw their hat in the ring too.
  13. I don't think that WW1 would offer much for the CMx2 engine, that's for sure. I might be wrong but I suspect that the BFC guys are really armour fans and that might apply to their customer base as well. Me, I'm more of an Infantry guy I like tanks but I don't want them to be the centrepiece of my missions. I think WW1 Grand Strategy, done properly, would make for a very good wargame. I am looking forward to AGEOD's 'To End All Wars' too. But it might be a few months after the release before it becomes really first-class. If they can make sure that fronts remain reasonably static and hard to crack without one side making a major effort, it'll be a classic. To be sure, the air and naval aspects of the war have been more popular with the gaming community at large.
  14. For me, WW1 is the ultimate war for a wargame as it featured static lines, massive, lengthy offensives that resulted in gains of a few kilometers at most. I have no idea why but that's a big, big draw for me. It probably doesn't help that it's not a war that the US got involved in until near the end either . Until 1917, it's just Germany, Austria-Hungary, The Ottomans, France, Britain, Italy and Russia plus a few Balkan minors thrown in for good measure.
  15. That was a one off and I don't expect that ever to happen again. We can speculate that BFC were forced to released the game before they thought it was ready due to contractual relations with another game company. Steve posted once that v1.05 was the version he'd have liked to release the game in. That was about 3-4 months after the release. Since then, BFC have been releasing games when they are ready and every other CMx2 title has been pretty solid at launch.
  • Create New...