Chris Ferrous

Well done Mr xWormwood I was playing in full screen mode. Switching that off immediately stopped the tick tock. Also, can't see any difference in the size of the map. Looks identical? Many thanks to all, who've tried to solve this. Good job.

Thanks guys, but yes, the noise is till there, in time with the flashing unit active emblem.

The unit active (national emblem) symbol flashes on and off until the unit is given orders or put to sleep. Accompanying the flashing emblem is a tick when the light is on and a tock when its off. It's not as loud as the general game sounds but it's there all the same. Anyone any ideas? I'm on v1.07

New to the game and have one question, for now:- Which sound file must I delete to stop that annoying tick tock sound when the unit is active blinking light is on? Thanks

All sorted now, thanks, Snake Eye. Well, I must say, that is a very special map indeed. There are some amazing touches here and there, and you must tell everyone how you did some of those things:- 1) sink the bridges in the turntable yard (to look like railway turntables) 2) bury buildings beneath terrain to make the entrances to tunnels 3) generally how you got such detailed destroyed bridges. The partially damaged town is an absolute gem. However, I still think (if it could be fitted in the grid) a little more 'clutter' or occlusion around the individual building plots would be even better, although with all the destruction around I suppose walls and fences etc would be damaged too. Looks like great work. I've enjoyed just looking at the mao but I will be sure to play it as soon as I have a time slot. Thanks for all the work you put into this.

Thanks Snake Eye Somehow missed that patch! I'll give that a go.

Hi Snake Eye This looks like an impressive job. Only trouble is I can't play it. The scenario doesn't show up in the battle listing, although it does show up in the editor listing, but when I open it, it is a blank 'new' file with nothing on the map. Anyone any ideas what is wrong? I am patched to v 2.0, and have the base game plus CWF, and the btt file is in the 'Scenarios' folder.

Sometimes less (objectives) is more as regards the AI behaviour, but if the objectives are diversified and increased for the human player then it can lead to choreographed behaviour resulting in linear advances or strict by rota assault on each objective. Personally, I prefer the scoring system to be based on a limited number of objectives which means capturing the 'Big One', the one that really matters, can be achieved by any approach, and by any means the player thinks fit his purpose. Likewise the defender is not hoodwinked into counterattacking every single tiny 'flag' on the map. So, I prefer 'the BIG PICTURE' as regards objectives. To be honest, a little bit of tweaking can be done by revealing or not revealing objectives, or by making them touch objectives. There's also condition, ammo, and casualty criteria that can affect the result if used properly (e.g. a defender may hold 'to the last man' but the cost could be made to outweigh the primary objective value, or the attacker could take the target only to find he musters 6 broken down guys and 20 rounds, such that an immediate counterattack in real life would simply walk back on to the objective.) So, tweaking the extra criteria can lead to some fairly subtle and I would hazard, realistic victory conditions. In conclusion, more often than not, if the attacker fails to take the main objective then the attack has failed, so the victory conditions and objectives should reflect that.

Many Thanks. Yes, more choices would be better.

Am I correct in thinking that it is currently possible only to have a WIN or LOSE (or end of campaign) choice at the end of each scenario within a campaign? In other words, just two choices for the next scenario. I realise, of course, that the 'WIN' level necessary for the 'optimum' branch (next scenario choice) could even be set as a defeat since any standard level of victory can be specified. So, I am asking, is it possible to set each level of victory, minor, tactical, major, etc, and their corresponding defeats, to a specific scenario? That would potentially give the designer a choice of about 7 branches. Also, it seems a 'DRAW' cannot lead to a separate path either; it has to be included within the 'WIN' or the 'LOSE' path. If anyone knows how to get round this, I'd much appreciate their help. Many thanks in advance. CF

As someone who does design scenarios I can say that I would not have the slightest objection to any player switching various AI plans on or off, editing the OOB or anything else they happen to feel like doing PROVIDING that it is done just for their own use, or for a HvH game with a pal. I wouldn't be too pleased if someone 're-published' this revision without asking permission or did so without acknowledgement as if it was all their own. I have usually used the 'random' deployment design feature since I like to play my own scenarios. It is simple enough to do this, especially now that we have more unit groups to play with. Previously there simply may not have been enough groups to 'waste one' on the position of a couple of batches of mines for instance. Now we have plenty. The only problem I have encountered with such 'random' deployments is that sometimes the unit orientation is suboptimal or even nonsensical, e.g. deploying on the side of the bocage nearest the enemy. It's relatively rare (say 1 in 10 units) but it can be annoying when it happens.

** I think we know to expect spoilers in this thread by now! ** Incredibly I am playing this one for the first time - thanks for reminding me that I'd missed out this campaign so far. Well, a couple of comments. First mission - way too little time. Hardly any losses on either side, but I didn't reach the objectives so I 'lost'. Then comes the mined bridge mission:- First confusion was that I seemed to set-up in daylight, and where on earth does one hide the troops? There's one building to hide behind, hardly any reverse slopes of any significance, and a few overgrown fields. I did my best. I laid on a few speculative artillery strikes but sparingly, and then hit 'go' only to discover it's night! OK, well my troops are hidden after all! I sent one squad of engineers to the bridge with the remainder in back-up in echelon. They reached the bridge and blew the wire, trod on the mines, cleared them and then got hit by enemy artillery. That hurt, but the job was done. Then, next shock, it's suddenly daylight, like a tropical morning. (I did mention this very early on in 2011 that the dawn/ dusk settings didn't seem like NW Europe and it still seems to be the case.) So, my troops are now fully exposed and get stonked - BIG TIME. If there'd been an option to leave the map, I would have done. Then my tanks arrive ( no chance of repositioning them of course since they're reinforcements ), and start to get hit by ATG. The general location of the guns is spotted (an improvement on CMBN V1 where ATG were spotted and killed by even moving tanks), and all units hunker down while a counterstrike is brought to bear. Both guns survive about 15 rounds of 155mm (or was it 105mm?) all landing within 20m or so of their location, and promptly create havoc again. Anyway, fascinating tactical problem set by the designer - it's fun but frustrating obviously. Thanks for a great job. Also, thanks for giving a sensible amount of time for this second battle.

The strategic assessment of the Ardennes region pre-war, was that it was bad tank country, and the fact of the matter is that that is TRUE! The reason Hitler succeeded in 1940 was because the Belgian defenders were Cavalry units and thin on the ground. Thus the Germans occupied the Ardennes very quickly and used it as a covered deployment / transit zone for their sudden concentrated thrusts across the Sambre and Meuse Rivers and thence into northern Belgium, the Channel coast and the Paris plain. In 1944 the Germans were assaulting an experienced enemy in appalling terrain, in shocking weather conditions. The road net, although in many respects 'adequate' didn't fit their strategic design (unlike in 1940) in that the thrust was intended to be NW. If you look at even a modern map of the region, I don't think there is a single major road starting in the E and running NW. The entire area is riddled with bottlenecks and choke points caused by steep valleys, dense forests, rivers and swollen streams, and small stone-built towns. The only things on their side were bad visibility which negated Allied Air supremacy, surprise, choice of location, and concentration of force. The fuel and ammo situation was adequate for a brief supercharge thrust but as soon as that failed (and despite the undoubted heroism of the US troops in situ) and it was doomed to fail simply because of the terrain constraints. The US took full advantage and despite heavy losses inflicted losses in excess of their own. Undoubtedly the offensive DID marginally prolong the war in the west. It may / may not have shortened the war in the east. If there really had been a super-weapon forthcoming which could have been produced and deployed in those few weeks gained, then the Battle of the Bulge could well have been adjudged a German victory. One final point: I have always equated Hitler's Ardennes offensive with Napoleon's Waterloo campaign. Both proved these leaders could still lead men, could still have power, were still a force to be reckoned with, and they both failed. So they were 'ego-trips' which furnished their respective nation no benefit. In fact, some of their best troops were all but annihilated; Hitler's 1st SS Panzer, and Napoleons Old Guard. NO doubt there'll be some flak. I shall retire to my bunker.

Hello again File sent. It has AI for both sides if you cannot find an opponent. I've played it too many times so I'm out. Let me know how you get on.

Hi Bisu I can send you one for testing if you like. About Battalion scale, armour and infantry, shallow valley, variable afforestation and bocage. Interesting lines of sight and objectives. PM me with your email and I can send a copy.