Ithikial_AU

What can I say I'm under an NDA. As for being evil... remember we have birds big enough to hunt kangaroos. Ok not really, they only hunt the babies and scavenge the adults, but still give you a sense of the size of our eagles against the size of our national animal. You need to be tough down here. I don't smoke and I'd rather drink rum and tequila than whiskey so I say yes. As for that book, yeah was meaning to pick a copy up for a while and this project seemed like a good excuse. It's a good book looking into the 6FJR as a unit and how they got to Normandy and beyond. Provided some good ideas for how the battles between the 101st and themselves should feel like.

Yeah that's an error. @BFCElvis - FYI. Matrix website needs to be tweaked.

Given Warhammer has long been another hobby/interest of mine, I had to Google. The internet did not disappoint.

When downloading the mod and adding it to your "z folder" under data, just go in and remove the sound files (.wav) that you don't like.

That was pre-planned with the 6.0 Update 'Unity'.

It's on the list of things to do. Already started. However, CMBN Battlepack has my full attention for the moment.

Ian beat me to it. Just use what the designer selected in the editor. Another good rule of thumb, that lines up mostly with what designers generally determine their mission as: - Meeting Engagement - Both forces attack each other... what it says on the tin. - " " " Probe - Usually a small engagement with one side trying to get to a specific point on the map or spot enemy positions. - " " " Attack - One side has a clear advantage any attacks a force that is on the defensive from the outset (probably your ambush) - " " " Assault - As per attack but the defender is usually dug in, in prepared positions or spread through an urban environment. Offensive side generally has a large advantage in troops and equipment up front. For those trying out the little spreadsheet for the first time a video guide to help you out (older version but basics are all the same):

Thanks. More than 70km2 of maps to fight over in this Battle Pack. I'm still creating two more smaller maps for two scenarios. Using a lot of BIGOT maps from 1944 and aerial photos for reference. Some master maps will have variants that will also be provided with the historical German Fortifications placed and ready to go. (<-- That took a while...) As per last year's bones on the pack, geographically the fighting is focused on the Utah Beach area itself and the area heading south towards and beyond Carentan. All scenarios/campaigns occur between 00:05 hours on 6th of June through to the evening of the 13th of June. Don't expect all of them to be brutal slog fests, particularly the D-Day ones where the Allies at times had significant advantages. I'm going for more of a focus on narrative and experiencing that first week coming off Utah Beach rather than slug fests designed for competitive tournament play. (Master Maps are there if you want to create your own matches though). If you play the pack chronologically and come out the other end content and with a greater appreciation of the challenges the forces faced, then I've done my job. The content in this part of the Normandy theatre, though popular, couldn't be created by BF as part of the CMBN base game given the absence of Fallschirmjager and Waffen SS forces in the WW2 titles at the time.

For this particular campaign that will be a question for @benpark. My guess is it's Victory Point based to determine the degree of victory.

Well I guess it depends on whether we see an overt or back channel attempt to start negotiations for a cease fire / peace treaty from Russia. If Russia can get out of the conflict and keep it's land bridge and the two breakaway regions, then it would still claim a victory. Zelensky already said no to any discussions without Russia exiting all Ukrainian terrain but if people in his inner circle are also seeing the writing on the wall in terms of the lack of a strategic breakthrough and the dwindling of western support... could get interesting. The above probably makes me sound pro-Russian to some extent and I'm definitely not, I'm just disappointed it may end up like this. Any ceasefire that leads to Russia keeping anything will be a political loss for many like Biden I'd imagine, and has to lead to questioning of the tactics used by the West to support a friend and ally when they are under attack. Unsure if this is been shared before but for a bit of history diversion. Good to see David Glantz still going....

Problem is this works both ways though as Ukraine isn't going win either. As the taps of western support start being turned off doubt we're going to see a resolution with clearly defined borders in Ukraine's (and the west's) favour. Not that they appeared to of made a difference in assisting an effective counter attack... donated Leopards are great but they can't be everywhere at once. This whole affair I guess will continue to be talked about in defence and foreign affairs policy circles for a while yet about how the west can intervene without boots on the ground and get a favourable outcome. The idea of "21st Century Lend Lease" rather than directly intervening really hasn't worked if they expected the support to lead to a clear victory. Unless stalemate was the goal of Washington, Brussels and others... which I highly doubt. Poses problems for strategy when the next move happens between the powers involving clear national military forces on both sides. China -> Taiwan? Are we really going to repeat the sending of equipment routine and harsh language in front of the cameras in that instance and hope for the best? We also know that sanctions really haven't altered the status quo inside Russia either as not all countries are adhering to them and forming their own blocks to challenge the West and it's institutions.

It draws from the nation/branch of the first formation purchased for that side. So sounds like the scenario has "USA" fortifications purchased first and there they appear at the top of the Unit list for the Allies. Only way to fix this is to delete all the fortifications (or until a British formation appears at the top), and then repurchase the fortifications, which will appear at the bottom of the unit list. You'll then need to redeploy the newly purchased "British" fortifications in the 3D preview mode from scratch.

It's a great idea on paper but then drill down and you quickly run into some problems. 1. How do you import and export the "Player as AI" plans and distribute to the broader single player audience. 2. Most players are single players. 3. What happens when the scenario or game is first released and there are no/few MP battles? 4. How would new players feel? Could raise the difficulty bar too high and turns new players off the game if the AI is 'too good'. Scenarios designed to be easy entry points could become very difficult over time. Two cents plus sales tax.

Honestly it's easier to do it manually in the campaign script so you have control to say how strong a campaign victory it was for the player. (Or defeat!). If you have a flow chart of how your scenarios stitch together it's really easy work out how you want the end result to be displayed to the player. As per my CMRT Tukums campaign. Total Victory for winning Scenario 3A, through to Total Defeat for losing 3C. Everything in between you fill in however you feel is appropriate as a designer.

@WimO it lets the designer control the degree of victory for the entire campaign. Only time it is used is for after last possible missions in a campaign tree. If you just leave it blank, the game determines as best it can from VP scores to determine a campaign result. A bit hit and miss approach IMO. Note that you can only have two end of campaign text with any approach you take here. One for victory, and another for defeat.