Jump to content
Sublime

BFC - Time to Rethink the 'Roadmap'?

Recommended Posts

Wargamer, The Flare Path on RPS and Real and Simulated Wars were all happy to see the CMSF2 Demo, and those seem to indicate the mood of the grog press, which is hopeful.

As much as this kind of study sim is niche, I think that the industry has shown a willingness recently to work on UI, distribution and pricing, the 3 things that wargames draw the most criticism for. If you look at Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa, TOAW:IV, the Graviteam titles, even what's been shown for Rule the Waves 2, the core of wargames is as deep as ever but has been made more approachable by being easier to use, easier to find, and easier to afford.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of ideas and I understand everyone has their favorites, or the course they'd like to see Combat Mission take and that's understandable and quite useful even. So I'd like to throw mine in as well.

I'm concerned about the future of this fantastic tactical simulator. In my opinion, while new units, theaters and modules are all welcomed, the thing that the series is in most need of is a way for the player to more easily generate his own content. I've been playing since the CMBO demo so I've been along for the whole ride, as many here have. I'm not a continuous player, I take breaks and then come back to it from time to time. I really do love the gameplay, to me Combat Mission is the best game of it's kind, and I want to see it succeed and evolve.

In my view the biggest problem is the lack of good content. Part of this is the fact that single scenarios leave me cold, so unfortunately this brushes aside much of the quality content that actually does exist. My preference is campaign play. And here the series falls woefully short in my opinion. I'll give you a little insight from my experience as a part-time player, if you'll indulge me.

Around 2015 I got back in to Combat Mission and bought both the CMBN big bundle and Red Thunder. I played (or at least started) every campaign I could find for both titles. It wasn't very many, maybe a dozen or a few more. Some of them I found excellent (Devils Descent, Outlaws, Kampfgruppe Engel and more). Some I found of poor quality (no need to mention which), and some I found far too large for my taste.

I played for about a year and then shelved Combat Mission as I moved on to other stuff. Recently I had the itch to play once more. Excited to see what new content there was for me to play, I forked over the $10 for the engine 4 upgrade for CMBN and went in search of new campaigns to play. What a disappointment. What I found is there are very few new campaigns since two years ago. The Repository doesn't exist anymore correct? So I found what was available on the Scenario Depot and on IanL's site, which are mostly the same ones anyway.

On the Scenario Depot here's what I found for WW2 titles

Battle for Normandy -- 11 campaigns
Fortress Italy -- 2 campaigns
Red Thunder -- 4 campaigns
Final Blitzkreig -- 1 campaign

All of those CMBN and CMRT campaigns I played two years ago. Combing through forum threads reveals a few more, and more recent. But in the end that's a very small number of campaigns, with little new coming out. The nature of Combat Mission's current campaign system leaves me with little motivation to replay campaigns I already have. AI plans only go so far. Essentially you already know what you're up against,  and the best AoAs, even if the AT gun is in a different place. So I'm left with a choice of campaigns to replay with little desire to do so.

And while I am willing to try anything,  I really enjoy campaigns that feature a core force of about reinforced company strength. I really don't enjoy scenarios that are about a battalion or stronger. These aren't necessarily harder or easier, but much more involved. It's personal preference, and I'm glad they exist for the folks who enjoy them Lions of Carpiquet comes to mind. It seems a quality piece of work from a knowledgeable and skilled author, but it's just not my cuppa.

So back to my main point. As a campaign player I am at the mercy of the scenario designers. One might say well then make your own and stop bitchin'. But what fun is it playing a campaign I designed myself? The scripted nature of Combat Mission means I will know every unit, where they are, what time they are reinforced and so you lose the very things that make playing new campaigns so interesting, like uncertainty. If I know the enemy has four AT guns, and I've already taken out four I know there are no AT guns left. That's no good. I have to proceed as if there might be another four still waiting for me.

At the heart of the matter is there is no way to generate my own content. And little new stuff comes out I presume because making campaigns is so difficult. Didn't I once read that Paper Tiger spent 800 hours making Road to Montebourg? 800? If that's true it's no wonder that so little comes out. What I think the series desperately needs is a way for the player to generate his own campaigns. This idea isn't new around here, and clearly isn't on the roadmap (right?) But until something like this exists, folks like me who want to play campaigns of a certain scope will be left out in the cold, reading AARs instead of actually playing the game. I have very specific ideas of the sort of system I'd like to see, but I doubt my ideas haven't already been offered here at one point or another so I won't make a long post way longer by detailing them.

At the time CMBB came out I was happy with the Operations feature. Sure it had it's wrinkles and there were things I wished worked differently or that were changed. But that system was removed and while the episodic system we have now can be fun, and a good story can be told, it's not the answer in the long run. Not only does it appear prohibitively difficult to use, it leaves little replay value in my view. Combat Mission Campaigns was the light at the end of the tunnel, but it failed and nothing has filled the void.

This post is way longer than intended so I'll wrap it up. I fully support new theaters and modules. I am as eager as anyone to see a new engine. But unless there is also a new way for me to enjoy the game then in essence nothing's really changed. I don't need better uniform textures or additional armored cars and trench types. I need a new campaign system that offers flexibility and a way for me to generate endless content that appeals to me. I hope one day this comes to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is interesting:

"One exciting new feature Call To Arms brings to the table is the ability to take control of any unit from the first-person perspective. This feature combined with fully destructible environments..."

It also appears that many of the other games are offering SE Asia theatres including China and Korea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, landser said:

I once read that Paper Tiger spent 800 hours making Road to Montebourg?

:(  The complexity and time commitment required for making good campaigns is prohibitive for most of us.  Am happy to pay BF for professionally made content that uses all the features (eg: requires ammo and force preservation, branching storylines etc) of CM2. 

IIRC when I looked at my Campaigns folder there are more campaigns available for all titles than you listed.  But I can't recall which are the new ones and which came with the base game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, landser said:

At the heart of the matter is there is no way to generate my own content. And little new stuff comes out I presume because making campaigns is so difficult. Didn't I once read that Paper Tiger spent 800 hours making Road to Montebourg? 800? If that's true it's no wonder that so little comes out.

Not sure about those numbers but yeah it takes a lot of work. My big issue is that campaigns are not playable H2H via PBEM. Since that is how I play this game I, sadly, have little interest in campaigns. Not that I am a very prolific scenario generator but if I could play campaigns va PBEM I would shift my effort to creating campaigns.

 

21 minutes ago, landser said:

What I think the series desperately needs is a way for the player to generate his own campaigns. This idea isn't new around here, and clearly isn't on the roadmap (right?) But until something like this exists, folks like me who want to play campaigns of a certain scope will be left out in the cold, reading AARs instead of actually playing the game. I have very specific ideas of the sort of system I'd like to see, but I doubt my ideas haven't already been offered here at one point or another so I won't make a long post way longer by detailing them.

I honestly don't know how possible or likely some kind of auto generated campaign might be. One thing you can do is join in on some of the campaigns going on at TFGM. They tend to take a long time and a few have died slow and quiet but it is a possible alternative way to get your fix of playing a battle that matters more then just in isolation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To address a couple of the last few posts. Yes, there are more campaigns than what I listed. I have about 20 for CMBN, mostly thanks to a dropbox that forum member Blazing 88s was kind enough to provide back in 2016. I could argue though that a new player wouldn't know about that and what would he find? But my point isn't really about how to find them, but about what actually exists. If it's 20, or 25, is that considered a good amount for a game that's been out for almost 8 years? And honestly, these are all over the place, in scope, in quality, and featuring different forces. What if a player wanted to play company sized American paratrooper campaigns? Four?

What if he wanted to play company sized FJ campaigns? None?

As to Ian's point, yes I agree to a point. PBEM is my favorite way to play. Nothing beats it.  But as mentioned I blow hot and cold. As a result single player has to be my bread and butter so that when I get the itch I can dive right in full bore. And frankly, while PBEM is awesome, my experience has been that there is a fluctuating level of motivation from opponents, especially if things on the battlefield are titling my way :)

My point entirely discounts the logistical aspect of the request. I have zero idea how difficult it would be. It's not my hard work and long, long hours, it's not my dime at risk. And I think it's clear that for a campaign generator to succeed it would require a new AI system. So it's a big undertaking I have no doubt. Whether this is a profitable idea is another question entirely. I'm just speaking to my experience and adding my own little lane to the roadmap thread. On another forum we were discussing this and I said that I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. I've never crowd funded anything. But I'd be willing to throw in another $120 for a campaign module. Maybe that's a no-no around here, I don't know. But I want it enough I am willing to do my part to see that it happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, landser said:

But I'd be willing to throw in another $120 for a campaign module.

Agreed.  What is the point of a game without content?  Yes, there are a lot of scenarios, but CM series is most satisfying when played as a campaign and one has to deal with ammo and force conservation issues.  Unfortunately, many user made campaigns are a bit "lazy" in that one starts every mission with a new full-supplied force.  In these lesser quality campaigns, previous losses are not something one has to worry about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too would love to see more campaigns for all CM titles. Having played around with the scenario editor a fair bit, I understand how much time and effort goes into making a quality scenario/campaign, and that this is a primary limiting factor in more people making more scenarios/campaigns. That said, I think there are two solutions that would largely mitigate this:

1) Battlepacks
2) Map Editor improvements

Battlepacks are already a thing. I don't know the ins and outs of how they are directed and built, but I do know that the feedback on the two that have been made was positive and a solid proof of concept. Hopefully we start to see more of these in the near future, after the next upcoming releases are pumped out. 

Map editor improvements: The scenario editor that comes with the game is an extremely powerful tool and is one of my favorite features of CM. However, building maps takes a lot of time, effort, trial and error. As far as creating scenario's go, it is my opinion that building the maps for each battle is the single largest time sink. I think a lot of that could be alleviated by allowing for 3D objects such as buildings, trees/foliage, roads and other such objects being placed in 3D, not the 2D map. Being able to build in 3D would go a long way to shorten the total amount of time required to build a map in my opinion. The other scenario editor improvement I would like to see is some way of quickly organizing units. As it is now, when you add units to the map, they appear all clumped up and facing one direction. It can take a long time to arrange all of them properly, especially on larger maps.

I think if those two improvements were made to the scenario editor, they alone would significantly reduce the amount of time it takes to compile a scenario, which in turn would hopefully lead to more scenario's being made. I'm not sure if the improvements I mentioned are currently possible in the engine though, which could be a limiting factor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

unfortunately limiting yourself to the most difficult and time consuming material to create is a bottleneck that cant really be helped.  “I want a company sized campaign for specific unit types”. It is a great wish, but not one easily solved for.  It would likely imply some form of auto generated QB style format.  In effect an OP level interaction with the game that has been the Grail pursuit of a number of people and has continually proven to be a very difficult item to produce. The lastest iteration from Choppit being another example of how difficult it is to do and the lack of enough folks willing to put money on its development  

 

Edited by sburke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, landser said:

All of those CMBN and CMRT campaigns I played two years ago. Combing through forum threads reveals a few more, and more recent. But in the end that's a very small number of campaigns, with little new coming out. The nature of Combat Mission's current campaign system leaves me with little motivation to replay campaigns I already have. AI plans only go so far. Essentially you already know what you're up against,  and the best AoAs, even if the AT gun is in a different place. So I'm left with a choice of campaigns to replay with little desire to do so.

I feel you 100%. I think if CM had a campaign generator like Steel Panthers or an operational layer like Graviteam, it would blow those games off the market. There's few things that beat cooking up your own force and sending them into completely unpredictable scenarios (which can be customized like Quick Missions).

I get that operational layer is pretty much another game on-top of the current one. Yet, Theatre of War 2 managed to implement stringing an OBB over X amount of quick battles. I enjoyed that. If CM also had a map generator on top of a campaign generator -- instant GOTY.

When I first started playing CM, I ignored the campaigns. I felt they were too difficult and busy for a chump like me -- instead played roguelike Quick-Battles. Recently, I started playing the campaigns in each game. They're really good, but I'm a sucker for that emergent storytelling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll remain an optimist. IMHO current technology/various game engines are able to make CM game much more than they are today. The only issue is money and manpower. Maybe BF will try crowdfunding someday. Lot's of fantastic games were made thanks to Kickstarter in recent years. Most of them propably wouldn't be made otherwise since they represent niche genres (like Battletech and Pillars of Eternity I and II just to name a few).

Battlefront is a well known company in wargaming community with great reputation. I have no doubt they'd able to collect at least few hundred thousand dollars for their new engine/CM project.

Edited by Jane's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imo the one thing holding 'good' campaign design back is the HUGE amount of playtesting that is required. Even designing a small campaign with no force preservation, ammo concerns and the like is a big, big undertaking when it comes to playtesting. Many of the comunity made campaigns are made by a single guy i belive. If he is lucky he has a small number of volontary playtesters to help out. 

A Small campaign...mayby 4 or 5 'stand alone' scenarios linked together into a campaign with pretty much full replenishments between the battles resulting in pretty much a garanteed set of curcomstances for the next battle still requires testing, testing, testing...

To get a 'good' campaign

Add to this brancing scenrios, force preservation, ammo concerns and stuff...The need for testing increases drastically to be able to try out the different results the previous battle will have on the next one and the next one and the next....

'Good' campaigns is pretty much not doable by a single person...He would go mad 😉 by the need for playtesting...over and over  and over again...

Things like designing the maps takes time...sure...but it's nothing compared to the playtesting needed for a 'good' campaign.

The best improvement to the editor imo to simplyfy scenario/campaign design would be to be able to - load a save-game file into the editor - Tweak it and re-save it to be played again...

For example...You have designed a 60 minutes battle...You have playtested the first part of the fight...lets say up to minute 20 and everything is working fine so far. But as the battles continues somewhere around minute 35 things are not playing out as you have intended. Some stuff will need to be tweaked to get the second half of the battle to work the way you like.

With the current editor features you would need to tweak the second part of the scenario. Save it and start from scratch. that is minute 1 !. having to play through those 20 to 30 minutes again to get to the part that you just tweaked. Maybe it is working this time. Good for you ! but maybe it is not working this time either or you would like to try something else for the second part of the battle regardless. Tweak the scenario ones again. Save it and ones agian you will need to start playtesting from minute 1.....Uuuurghf !!!

What if you could take the save-game file you have from a few minutes before the playtesting showed some undesired results and load that file into the editor....Make your desired tweaks for the second part of the battle and save the file again. Now...when you begin your playtest of the tweaked version of your scenario you will begin playtesting at the same minute the game was on when you saved it...maybe minute 25...and start your playtesting from there. No need to play the first 25 minutes again.

Having something like this would be a feature i would really like...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sburke said:

In effect an OP level interaction with the game that has been the Grail pursuit of a number of people and has continually proven to be a very difficult item to produce. The lastest iteration from Choppit being another example of how difficult it is to do and the lack of enough folks willing to put money on its development  

 

1 hour ago, DerKommissar said:

I feel you 100%. I think if CM had a campaign generator like Steel Panthers or an operational layer like Graviteam, it would blow those games off the market. There's few things that beat cooking up your own force and sending them into completely unpredictable scenarios (which can be customized like Quick Missions).

Agreed on both points.

I personally have thrown together a few operational layers for CM that I've played mostly solitare or with a friend. In my experience doing that, the single most limiting factor is maps. Specifically, making a map for every battle. It takes a long time to do, and if you want to recreate historical terrain it takes even longer. If there was an easier way to either make new maps or generate new maps, it would go a long way to making operational layers much more accessible. 

1 hour ago, Jane's said:

I'll remain an optimist. IMHO current technology/various game engines are able to make CM game much more than they are today. The only issue is money and manpower. Maybe BF will try crowdfunding someday. Lot's of fantastic games were made thanks to Kickstarter in recent years. Most of them propably wouldn't be made otherwise since they represent niche genres (like Battletech and Pillars of Eternity I and II just to name a few).

Battlefront is a well known company in wargaming community with great reputation. I have no doubt they'd able to collect at least few hundred thousand dollars for their new engine/CM project.

My understanding is that money isn't so much an issue as the actual physical workload. Steve said in one of his updates a few months back that they were hiring a new programmer who would be starting with them in September if I remember correctly. The fact is, there is only so much that can possibly be done by BFC. Further, making BFC larger would not yield nearly as much as some think. Making organizations larger does not make them more productive, in fact it's the opposite. There comes a point where there are diminishing returns. Making a massive rocket that's extremely powerful makes it harder to get into space, not easier. Companies, organisations, etc are the same way. 

All that said, there are certainly ways to contribute. The campaigns in the Battlepacks were produced by a community member I believe, and some of the texture work that is done for the more recent titles have also been helped along by community members. There are certainly ways to help out BFC and increase what they are able to do, I just don't think throwing money or random computer scientists at them would be as helpful as some think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

2) Map Editor improvements

Map editor improvements: The scenario editor that comes with the game is an extremely powerful tool and is one of my favorite features of CM. However, building maps takes a lot of time, effort, trial and error. As far as creating scenario's go, it is my opinion that building the maps for each battle is the single largest time sink. I think a lot of that could be alleviated by allowing for 3D objects such as buildings, trees/foliage, roads and other such objects being placed in 3D, not the 2D map. Being able to build in 3D would go a long way to shorten the total amount of time required to build a map in my opinion. The other scenario editor improvement I would like to see is some way of quickly organizing units. As it is now, when you add units to the map, they appear all clumped up and facing one direction. It can take a long time to arrange all of them properly, especially on larger maps.

I think if those two improvements were made to the scenario editor, they alone would significantly reduce the amount of time it takes to compile a scenario, which in turn would hopefully lead to more scenario's being made. I'm not sure if the improvements I mentioned are currently possible in the engine though, which could be a limiting factor. 

well, out of all the things I have read here in a long time.

This is the first one that actually makes so much sense. These two items if they could be fixed to do just as mentioned. Sure would be a massive time saver for anyone who does work on creating scenarios.

My day to day job is working in 3d modeling. So every time I get in the editor of these games I know just how wasteful it is to have to try and envision the change and then have to go back and forth to view the changes and how things are reacting in the model. The thought has crossed my mind but have never thought about requesting if the programming could change. I would suspect it would only happen in the  cm#3  engine. Not the present engine

The units placement is also a big time waste. Its a feature that gets old really quick. Really would be nice if they could just manage to stay grouped somewhat to their organization.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would most certanly not mind a smother way to deploy/ organize the troops ones they show up on the map...both when it comes to scenario design but especially for QBs.

But i have a hard time beliving this is in any way a significant reason for the shortage of scenarios and campaigns being made...

You can sort out and organize a battalion sized force easily in less then 15 minutes...any whay you like...platoon by platoon. Company by company and supportweapons grouped the way you like...no problems...

Deploying them into their fighting possitions will obviously take longer but that is not really because of shortcommings within the editor...

15 minutes is not really a very long time when one considders how long it takes to design a scenario or a campaign...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RepsolCBR said:

But i have a hard time beliving this is in any way a significant reason for the shortage of scenarios and campaigns being made...

You misunderstand. My main point was that being able to edit maps in 3D would help speed up the process of making maps, which would help speed up the process of creating scenario's and campaigns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

You misunderstand. My main point was that being able to edit maps in 3D would help speed up the process of making maps, which would help speed up the process of creating scenario's and campaigns. 

Ok...

I agree with your suggestion regarding the the 3d map editing...that would be a nice feature...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After 18 years of playing in CM I have some thoughts too.
The best games is  QB human vs human, or a well-balanced scenario. The game versus AI is only in a well-prepared scenario.
Playing QB is a waste of time, this is due to the AI plans that each map has assigned. Mostly  AI forces are divided into 2-5 groups, it's definitely not enough. As we give orders ourselves, they are detailed. After all, no one gives one order to the whole company platoon of tanks. AI forces can also be divided into small groups, and detailed orders (each vehicle, section, team should be separate group). Playing QB very often happens that the forces of AI are idiotically arranged, eg: a tank behind the building, etc.To prepare a scenario, map is needed and here would be useful for a separate map creator, with the possibility of transferring maps between games, with ctrl + C and ctrl + V it would greatly speed up the creation of a new map.
Another thing is the ability to divide AI forces into groups, there are only 16 of them. It's a little bit max AI strength is 2 companies and several vehicles, then we have the possibility to issue detailed AI orders. Which, of course, will translate into the quality of the scenario.
Someone will say, but he's smart, and he has not done anything yet. For years I have been creating maps and scenarios that I play with friends who are happy with my ideas. Although none of these things have been published, it will change soon.
I am currently working on a campaign for CMFI, I already have a few scenarios and I need a tester what I came up with. Are the scenarios not for difficult, boring, etc. Because working on a campaign for one person is a lot, especially testing is time-consuming.
If someone is willing to help, please contact especially those who play QB with the computer.

Edited by mirekm61

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, RepsolCBR said:

The best improvement to the editor imo to simplyfy scenario/campaign design would be to be able to - load a save-game file into the editor - Tweak it and re-save it to be played again...

+1000

Honestly this is my biggest single request for the CM system, not so much for scenario making but for facilitating joining CM and an operational layer.

17 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

I personally have thrown together a few operational layers for CM that I've played mostly solitare or with a friend. In my experience doing that, the single most limiting factor is maps. Specifically, making a map for every battle...If there was an easier way to either make new maps or generate new maps, it would go a long way to making operational layers much more accessible. 

But I think that there is an "easier way", at least for non-historical maps.  Especially if you convert maps from other CMx games to whatever game you're playing, there are literally several hundred maps to choose from--you can see the list of maps just from CMRT in the map database in my signature, and I haven't gotten around to adding another several hundred maps that I've converted from CMFI, CMFB, etc.  The DB lists all of the significant features of maps--terrain, vegetation, "urbanicity", roads, water features, size, etc.

I usually set up operational layers with 2-3 kilometer hexes, and then choose one map (ideally about 2x2 km, but not necessarily that large) to represent each hex; once I get my op layer set up, I will then use the map DB to find an appropriate map, tweak it if necessary (ie, so that roads/rivers on the tactical map match those on the operational map), then viola, I have a suitable map.  Each hex is then marked as being represented by that map.  Obviously this doesn't work if you are working from historical maps/campaigns and want maximum historical fidelity, and it still leaves the significant pain-in-the ass of persisting map damage (best way I've figured out is to take several screen shots after the battle, and then modify the map accordingly, but it is as big a pain as it sounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2018 at 7:29 AM, DougPhresh said:

Wargamer, The Flare Path on RPS and Real and Simulated Wars were all happy to see the CMSF2 Demo, and those seem to indicate the mood of the grog press, which is hopeful.

As much as this kind of study sim is niche, I think that the industry has shown a willingness recently to work on UI, distribution and pricing, the 3 things that wargames draw the most criticism for. If you look at Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa, TOAW:IV, the Graviteam titles, even what's been shown for Rule the Waves 2, the core of wargames is as deep as ever but has been made more approachable by being easier to use, easier to find, and easier to afford.

As much as I love Graviteam, their UI and accessibility for new players is behind Combat Mission. I wrestled with Graviteam's controls for weeks, CM I picked up in a day. I recently got Tank Warfare Tunisia and they changed the UI a lot, but the improvements were minimal. As a person who is used to Graviteam UI, it took me a moment to locate everything. CM has a winner UI, imho. It's also constant for all games and all updates. It's easier to plan complex maneuvers with CM's system too, no doubt about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 76mm said:

+1000

Honestly this is my biggest single request for the CM system, not so much for scenario making but for facilitating joining CM and an operational layer.

This feature could be very useful for something like this to...defenetelly...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 10:36 AM, IanL said:

Not sure about those numbers but yeah it takes a lot of work. My big issue is that campaigns are not playable H2H via PBEM. Since that is how I play this game I, sadly, have little interest in campaigns. Not that I am a very prolific scenario generator but if I could play campaigns va PBEM I would shift my effort to creating campaigns.

All it would take is the designer flipping the HTH flag to 'Yes'.
I dunno why no one ever does it.

As I recall, there is a HTH version of 'Semper Fi Syria' and it is quite fun against an opponent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 11:29 AM, IICptMillerII said:

Map editor improvements: The scenario editor that comes with the game is an extremely powerful tool and is one of my favorite features of CM. However, building maps takes a lot of time, effort, trial and error.

This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, General Jack Ripper said:

All it would take is the designer flipping the HTH flag to 'Yes'.
I dunno why no one ever does it.

As I recall, there is a HTH version of 'Semper Fi Syria' and it is quite fun against an opponent.

No that only works for hot seat play. It does not work for PBEM the game just does not support it.

I don't know about you but I only play hot seat when my but is the only one in the seat - so I can test stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, IanL said:

I don't know about you but I only play hot seat when my but is the only one in the seat - so I can test stuff.

I play hotseat against my dad when he comes over, and my little brother.

I take it you're not one of those people who can play chess against themselves?

Edited by General Jack Ripper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×