_Itchy

Sure. In this case both pretty experienced players and not looking for anything too big or too one sided. I was just a little surprised at the ambiguity. Thanks all.

Yep, thanks, was just looking for something a bit smaller to compliment... ...this (Pershing) large battle that I am already playing (fun so far!).

Yeah I get that. They will get round to upgrading, I was just pointing out to the OP a possible cause.

Most of the new DF scenarios say "Play either side. X vs AI preferred." with no mention of suitability for H2H. Should these be read as suitable for H2H or NOT suitable for H2H?

I am getting this from a game that my fellow players (four of us playing this game) have yet to update to the same version.

OK, thanks.

That's exactly what I did, well tried to, but something is indicating the battle pack is required.

Is there a way to set the editor to only show units from the base game and/or specific modules? A friend has just purchased the base game for CMBN and I want to create some simple scenarios to help them get up to speed. However, I seem to have unwittingly selected some units from other modules I own which will obviously make my scenario unplayable for them. How can I see which module each unit requires from the editor? Thanks.

Thanks, though it didn't occur to me at setup either and I tend to play scenarios (especially H2H) blind so as to avoid spoilers so this sort of thing is usually only discovered once play has commenced. As I say, I think not having TRPs is more common that having them in most scenarios. Enjoying the scenario so far though. I'll let you know more once all my units are flaming wrecks... Thank you for putting it together, scenario design efforts are always appreciated though never loudly enough!

True. Though, if you prefer to play scenarios as I do, you are stuck with what the designer gives you. I am playing one of the Kriegsburg battles at the moment. 2 hrs duration, big map, lots of artillery assets and no TRP's. I would say that is more often the case than not. Of course, scenario designers could add more TRP's, but a few extra options for time delay would be a more generic solution. I was more just curious to know the 'why' of this limitation rather than expecting a fix.

Ah, so just... legacy then.

I was just wondering what the official rationale for limiting pre-planned artillery to a maximum of 15 minutes after the start of the battle is. Playing some of the longer missions in Cold War as the Soviets especially, I find that limitation really frustrating. Heavy artillery with its long lead times and requirement for LOS from the observer once the game has begun, usually means that either the advance has to stop for 20 minutes while the observer gets in position and corrects the spotting, or your advance has to do without that incredibly useful asset altogether. Given the guess work involved in using long delay, pre-planned artillery typically means the further ahead you plan the greater the risk that your fires will be ineffectual, I don't see a problem in allowing greater time delays. What am I missing?

The loading images are my only, minor, disappointment with this game so far. The grainy, green images mean the subjects are quite hard to make out. I for one much prefer the sharp AFV models of previous titles, though AKD's sample images above or equivalents would be much better too.

Ah, didn't think to check that. Even better! Thanks.

That is brilliant! FYI - it does not appear to work if the floor in question is a sloped roof, but on a flat wall that works a treat, Many thanks!

Thanks for the confirmation.

Hello, I want to knock down a wall that has no windows on the 4th floor of a building I have some troops in, so that they will be able to see/fire out in that direction. They have satchel charges but the tests I have run so far all end with the satchel charge going off inside the building and the wall remaining standing. It may be that this is not possible or it may be that I am just being dense! If anyone could give me a pointer as to how to achieve this I would be grateful.

+1 to this. 5 minute blocks are particularly unwieldy when creating shorter scenarios.

Sure. OK, well we have done 2vs2 QB's too and totally get the fun of shopping for units. Though lack of reinforcements and the more predictable nature of those games (obvious objectives, known point strength of the opposition, etc) is the flip side. The issue of having played the scenario before is a non-issue really, as any such scenario is eliminated as a candidate if one of the players has already played it. CMRT would make a nice change that's all. Currently we have games going in CMBN (2) & CMBS. But we are flexible, let us know which game(s) you have to pick from. CMFB will be an option too as soon as it is released! Neither is a complete deal breaker. Though I doubt we would want to play nothing but QB's long term. Have a word with your potential team mate and get back to me.

It really is!

A buddy and I have been playing some very enjoyable games as a team versus pairs of other players for the last couple of years and are looking for some new opponents. The mechanics of playing 2vs2 is very simple and described briefly below. We tend to prefer playing scenarios to QB's, but that is negotiable. I would say we average about 2 turns per week playing in this style - but that varies hugely (plus and minus) depending on other factors. So if you have a buddy and fancy some co-operative play against a common enemy (us!) then send me a pm and we'll take it from there. -------------------------------------------------- Once we have the scenario and sides agreed with the opposition it works like this: After inspecting the available forces we decide which of the two of us will control which units.We discuss a plan of battle (or not!)Player 1 places their units and gives orders. Making a save game and then puts the file in dropbox for player 2.Player 2 grabs the save, places their units, gives orders, presses the red button and puts the resulting outgoing pbem file in dropbox for the opposite team.The opposition mirrors this.When we get a file back from the opposition whoever gets there first updates the orders for their units and passes the save to the other player, usually letting them know by email/whatever that they have done so.The other player then gives their orders and presses the button etc.Rinse and repeat...Obviously there is plenty of opportunity for discussion, making plans, cheering success, drinking beer, etc along the way. Equally, plenty of opportunity for misunderstanding, friendly fire, general confusion, lamenting bad luck, and drinking more beer - great fun!

Awesome. I have uploaded my one and only scenario!

Great! Commonwealth forces will presumably be in a module too, is that likely to be released before or after the VE day module?

Hi Joe, Yeah, battalion sized battles work well - each player ends up with a company+ sized unit to handle. But we have played smaller and larger games too - as long as the action starts promptly they all work well enough. So essentially we are pretty flexible on that score! How would you see a campaign working? R

Hello, A buddy and I have been playing some very enjoyable games as a team versus a pair of other players for the last couple of years and are looking for some new opponents. The mechanics of playing 2vs2 is very simple and described briefly below. We tend to prefer playing scenarios to QB's, but that is negotiable. I would say we average about 2 turns per week playing in this style - but that varies hugely (plus and minus) depending on other factors. So if you have a buddy and fancy some co-operative play against a common enemy (us!) then send me a pm and we'll take it from there. ------------------------------------------------ Once we have the scenario and sides agreed with the opposition it works like this: After inspecting the available forces we decide which of us will control which units. We discuss a plan of battle (or not!) Player 1 places their units and gives orders. Making a save game and then puts the file in dropbox from player 2. Player 2 grabs the save, places their units, gives orders, presses the button and puts the resulting outgoing pbem file in dropbox for the opposite team. The opposition mirrors this. When we get a file back from the opposition whoever gets there first updates the orders for their units and passes the save to the other player, usually letting them know by email/whatever that they have done so. The other player then gives their orders and presses the button etc. Rinse and repeat... Obviously there is plenty of opportunity for discussion along the way. Equally, plenty of opportunity for misunderstanding, friendly fire and general confusion - great fun!