Lt Bull

+1

Maybe I will. Big map, lots of depth. Probably going to play that QB map again with my opponent as it has been so much fun, but probably swap sides. The process to create a defensive setup/plan for a H2H in some ways is similar to the process of setting up a defence for the AI. Difference is that AI defensive setup must take in to consideration the huge limited capacity it has compared to a human player to react to an attackers moves/actions. PS: I have a good handle on who I am btw, lol.

PS: Forgot to finish by revisiting/reviewing my original question in this thread, the subsequent answer given, and my (surprising to some) reaction to it: I asked if a scenario that sounded challenging from the perspective of playing it SP was SP only. The answer given was no, all stock CM BFC scenarios must be playable Allies vs AI, Axis vs AI and H2H - it is BF policy and quite rightly so. I was not asking if it was SP only because I wanted to play it H2H. Contrary, even though I prefer H2H, I have no problem playing ANYTHING that is specifically created/tailored/designed (optimised) to be played exclusively SP. I mean it makes the decision on how to play it a no briner. That is why I have no problems playing CM campaigns. It's SP exclusive. The entire concept is designed around optimising it as a SP experience. I don't feel guilty about "wasting" the scenario playing it SP rather than upping the challenge by playing it H2H. Rather than seeing it as a "positive" that the scenario I was interested in was playable in all three mode, I actually saw it as a "negative" on whether I should to play that particular scenario SP. In fact, what I typically will do is read the scenario notes and where you invariable find something like this: "All play modes, best played Allied vs AI" Who doesn't want "the best"? Why play the scenario in any other mode apart from the one the scenario designer themselves is claiming is the "preferred"/best mode to play it in????? Everything else just seems a compromise. I would guess most people only play scenarios once, perhaps repeatedly from one side. Having played a scenario once before in any mode typically excludes that scenario as a candidate to play again in another mode (especially from the opposite side) simply because it would have to be played with "spoilers". I am sure most players enjoy playing scenarios BLIND (mutually blind as H2H) as a default choice. So from this, it should be understandable to question why scenario designers (not those making stock BFC ones, we know their reasons) by choice would bother to make all scenarios they create playable in all modes. Potentially not only are players going to prefer and ONLY play the scenario ONCE in the mode "recommended" by the scenario designer in the notes, but all the effort/compromise etc they put in to making the other game modes playable simply goes wasted. Omitting the "best played as" recommendations or lying that the scenario is best played in all modes is not a way to address this BTW. Hope this explains where I am coming from with regards to my views on it.

Wow, why wasn't I surprised by your response, but really, I've come to expect that from certain types on this forum who just come across as insular, defensive, rude and narrow minded. Kind of stretching my respect for scenario designers, but then again it's not about their personality. OK so you don't address anything I say and just want to try hard and dismiss what I am saying on account that you are an experienced scenario designer (of the BFC mold, the one I am questioning, I assume) and I am not. "You have no idea", not "tethered in reality for an experienced scenario designer", "everything you are saying is irrelevant", "relevant to someone inexperienced/unsure of creating something"...WTF? Kind of petty, condescending and unconstructive to any intelligent conversation. Ah well. The only thing worth addressing in your dismissive rant and potentially conducive to actual discussion was the question at the end. If I was to create a scenario what would be the first two things I would do? Before I do anything I would ask myself why am I doing this and what am I trying to achieve by doing it. Getting this clearly defined sets everything else up. For a CM scenario the most important question I would ask myself would definitely be if I am designing the scenario to be played Allied vs AI, Axis vs AI or H2H, or if I am feeling masochistic, all three. I would probably design a scenario that explores scenario design concepts that I know can exist but have never been tried/considered before (at least none that I know of). I have mentioned these concepts in other posts, though they mainly relate to H2H play (ie. need intelligent humans to make sense of in the game, impossible for code AI to make sense of them). Lots of planning and consideration before starting actual design in the editor. Actually I am playing a huge CMBN QB on a huge sexy QB map. I'm playing as attacker with a 2:1 ratio of purchase points and a 2hr time limit. The thought crossed my mind to perhaps try and make a SP attacker version of this battle because of the great defensive terrain and my now intimate knowledge of the micro terrain/choke points etc. Essentially using this knowledge to set up a very robust defensive network that would challenge and surprise a human player. The concept of how challenging it can be made does intrigue me. Was not going to bother replying again seeing the emergence of a negative vibe to kill this discussion and the fact that is was already way OT from original thread. Happy to take up scenario design talk in a more appropriate thread.

+1 I think we have a mod making doyen in the making.

Hi Macisle, your second sentence is a great summary of the point I was trying to make. Actually this entire paragraph sums up where I was coming from probably better than I could so thanks. "Bound by constraints of satisfying more than one target group", "open(ing) up the possibilities for mining the potential of a sceanrio for it's specific, chosen group", "design roadblocks that seem impossible to overcome...melt away when the other two groups are cut from the picture" are all key points I was trying to make. LOL, I re-quoted what I had already quoted from you because I think you expressed the idea so well I just had to type it myself. I am glad my thoughts resonated somewhat with you. In fact I was pleasantly surprised to see you chime in on the discussion because I consider more focussed/niche scenario designer/map making community members like yourself to be excellent examples of what I would hope more scenario designers would follow. That map you made "Under The Eyes of White Manor" in my mind is a classic example of what can be achieved when a community member just focusses on excelling in one area, in that case, the map design. I still remember being stunned by your actual/in-game screenshot comparisons you posted of that map. Great work. IIRC, I may even have read in that thread you even explicitly said that all your efforts went in to making that map and would release it without any AI plans. I recall being quite happy to give you feedback on the H2H scenario that you ended up making for it because not only did I think the map was fantastic, but I recognised that the feedback I gave you as a H2H player would most likely be more useful than if you were receiving feedback and trying to make sense of multiple different sources of feedback, namely from Allied SP players and Axis SP players. Yes, and your use of he term "community scenarios" as opposed to "stock scenarios" (from BFC) is a handy distinction to make in this discussion. I think you are spot on with what you are saying, highlighting the "pressure to satisfy more than one target play mode" being a factor that prevents more community scenarios (perhaps even stock scenarios) begin made. BFC may be understandably set in their ways of their own doing, but I hope the community at large don't take the BFC approach towards scenario design and definition of what a scenario must be as gospel. I am not saying BFC end up producing inferior scenario content (contrary, it is typically very good, they employ great pro scenario designers), but for community members to try and do what BFC do I think is biting off more than one can chew. Keep your focus narrow. H2H, SP Axis or SP allied. Or just make maps. Your content will shine more and the community will recognise you for it. Another good example of the realities of scenario designing I highlighted in my blurb. I have played around with it, mainly looking in to map making techniques using digital topographic data sources. One thing that was apparent that kind of put me off entirely was the relatively crude and limited tools in the Scenario Editor, in particular related to the importing of external digital data that could conceivably make map making a whole lot less of a chore. Perhaps if the process was more efficient I would stick at it but I am not a fan of working inefficiently. This is probably why I have more respect for scenario designers/map makers and an interest in discussing all things scenario design and possibilities than your average Joe end user. I see them more like artists in many ways slaving away for the love of it using the basic crude tools BFC have given them. Where would we be without them?

?? What a rather curious reply and position you take on what I have said. I really don't even think you understand what I was pointing out or why or what I was highlighting. You seemed to have been "triggered" by something you read (or thought you read) and off you went on your own little pitchfork/strawman/assumption making frenzy I find hard to even follow/understand (I will, painfully however, later address what it seemed you were trying to say/imply about what/why I posted what I did). I stated that I question BFCs policy that all scenario's included in the game must be playable in all three game modes (Aliied vs CPU, Axis vs CPU and H2H). That doesn't mean I disagree with it, or hate them for it, or want it changed, or think they are stupid. Was more looking to explore the points begin made/position begin taken. I then explained a position that can be taken primarily based on the common knowledge that typically anything designed to do one thing well will typically be better at what it is intended to do than a similar thing designed to do (or be) more than one thing (in the case of CM scenarios, three things) well, each given the same amount of development time. I also pointed out that just because a scenario (via it's design) is great to play in any one of the three modes (note H2H is one mode and is only considered "great" to play if it is a "great" experience to play from both sides) that it doesn't necessarily/automatically mean that it will/can be made to be an equally great scenario to play via any one of the other two game modes. True it must be tempting to just reused the same map rather than create a new map to create a scenario catering for another game mode. Now, if we are to assume we are interested in producing the BEST player experience, and we identify and acknowledge the three possible "player experience modes": SP Allied, SP Axis and H2H, and we wish to create 10 "player experiences" for each game mode, then it would not seem usual to perhaps expect a bunch of scenarios being created that are "optimised" exclusively for one type of game mode. The extreme case of this would be seeing 10 SP Axis only scenarios, 10 SP Allied only scenarios and 10 H2H only scenarios . It would actually be more surprising to think that the best player experience across all three game modes can be achieved by making 10 scenarios (essentially maps) playable in all three game modes. This is exactly what BFC do however. It was mentioned that IF BFC released scenarios that were not playable in all three modes then would inevitably lead to the "loaded to play as SP, AI just sitting there, WTF? The scenario is broken" kind of player situations, despite any efforts in the notes clearly stating the scenario is H2H only. It is probably an undesirable feature of CM scenarios that allow the player to select any and all scenarios to play as H2H, SP Axis or SP Allied REGARDLESS of whether they were designed to play that way. I do not see why allowing players to "load" a "dead" scenario can be considered anything other than an undesirable "feature" of the game. If CM instead allowed players loading up a scenario to play to only ever select a game mode the scenario designer intended them to be played in (probably the way CM should be designed) then issues of those types would never happen. Perhaps then ensuring all scenarios be made playable in all three modes would not be so important. Now back to addressing the reply I quoted: Not sure what the point is of bringing up designing H2H scenarios or any of the playtesting. The "Ie played scenario x and nothing moved for thirty minutes! The scenario is broken!" issue, well I have already discussed. This is actually a result (more unwanted side-effect) of BFC making it possible in the first place for "dead" scenarios to be loaded. It didn't have to be that way. CM could have been instead designed such that only the game modes specified by the scenario designer show up as available gameplay modes. The scenario list could have instead even had a filter showing which scenarios are available for play as SP Axis, SP Allied or H2H. This unfortunately is not the case and instead we have a situation where "unintended" game play modes can be selected by the player. To deal with this shortcoming, BFC have then decided to "unnaturally" demand that all scenarios they release are playable in all three modes "one size fits all!" approach, a decision you can say is more driven by wanting to avoid "the scenario is broken!" moments amongst players rather than a decision based on naturally following the "designed to suit" kind of tailored quality approach. That rant on "imagine that we went ahead and put scenarios in a release and categorized them as you suggest" and splitting them up in to H2H and SP 50:50...pointless line of discussion and a construct of your imagination, not mine. Still interesting though because it kind of reveals the kinds of polar categories of SP players you think play the game. eg. Allied lovers, or German lovers. I never thought of it that way.That definitely doesn't apply to me. My discussion is not even about H2H vs SP or which one BFC should focus on more in any way. It's about the best way to approach, consider and create scenarios that optimise the player experiences in all three modes. It is probably at this point here that I should point out HOW I go about choosing/selecting any scenario: Typically if the map looks great/interesting/historically researched, then it will immediately grab my attention. However, it could instead just be a recommendation from someone/somewhere generically saying its good/balanced/challenging in any one or more of the three game modes. Second I look at the game modes it was designed to play in, and it is here that you may see WHY I brought up this discussion in the first place. All things being equal, I will always favour selecting a scenario exclusively designed by the scenario designer to be played in one of the three modes. The reason should be evident if you read what I have been saying. A scenario designer designing a scenario to be played exclusively in one game mode is more likely going to produce a better game play experience for that game mode in a set period of time than the game mode experience you would otherwise have with that game mode if the same scenario designer instead split the same development time between making the game playable in all three modes. So when I look for a scenario to play that is listed as "H2H" only, or "SP Allied only" or SP Axis only", all other things being equal, I would prefer it, and preferentially play it over perhaps even the scenario listed as "SP allied, SP Axis or H2H". It indicates to me that it is more likely that the scenario designer has not compromised the gaming experience by trying to arbitrarily making the scenario "all things to everybody". It kind of tells me that the scenario designer is more of a specialist "pinch hitter" tailored craftsman rather than a mass producer, no disrespect to any scenario designer of course. The true common skill that they all need to have is of course map making skills and this really is where the similarities start and finish. I have as much respect for SP scenario designers as I have for H2H scenario designers, unlike the views of the poster above who seems to think designing good quality H2H scenarios is something anyone can do: "make a map, plop some units on it". The things a good H2H scenario designer needs to contend with are vastly different to what a good SP scenario designer has to contend with. A good H2H scenario designer needs to consider a scenario that will be fun and balanced to play by TWO opposing players. A good scenario designer needs to consider the battle played from both sides and the dynamic iterations that could ensue as a result of two free minded humans matching wits against each other. Not all scenarios of course are necessarily good selections for H2H play, as I have been highlighting throughout. A good H2H scenario designer is trying to make one scenario fun, entertaining, balanced and challenging for BOTH players. You don't need to think too hard to consider the kinds of scenarios that typically would be rather bland and boring for one player yet fun an engaging for the other. Static defenses vs a mobile attacking force spring to mind. One player might be required to conceptualise and execute many complex plans and orders and consider many options while the other just baby sits static defences. Not saying it is impossible for such scenarios not to be fun and balanced for BOTH players in H2H, but you can see how imbalanced the demands and requirements can be for one player as opposed to the other in any given H2H scenario. The other major issue a H2H scenario designer needs to contend with is "play-testing" which is something that is a HUGE issue in itself. Unlike a SP scenario, they can't really playtest it by themselves. Much harder (and more time consuming) to get two people to play H2H and get feedback back from two different perspectives and objectively process it than it is to give a bunch of players the same SP scenario and get and process their thoughts on it. A good SP scenario designer however requires a very different mindset and approached when creating/envisaging scenarios to produce. They care about just the fun and challenge as experienced by just one player playing one side of the battle. The "challenge" the player will face will for the most part be a function of "how intelligently a CPU opponent can be coded" by that scenario designer. "How intelligently a CPU opponent can be coded" is an arbitrary function of the TacAI and "AI scripting" tools made available to them by BFC. The TacAI in CM is relatively very good, but can not be relied upon typically to , but the "AI scripting" routines/tools by comparison are however very crude, basic and underdeveloped, which is incredible for a game that states that the SP experience is their major focus. I have a lot of respect for the poor ol' SP scenario designers that have these very basic"scripting" tools to "bring to life" the CPU opponent in any CM scenario. These people literally are tasked with the none too subtle task of trying to breath "human-like" intelligence/AI in to what really are a bunch of 1s and 0s of an abstract computer based simulation that tries to represent the very complex and dynamic real world situational behaviours of an actual human being (or a concept of a collective human intelligence). Do not underestimate and overlook just how incredibly daunting and unrelated to pure map making or general H2H scenario design such a task is. It is no wonder that most SP CM scenarios are typically best played from the side that demands more initiative and creativity to command. Invariably this is typically from an attackers perspective. I might touch on another type of "scenario designer" but they are not really scenario designers, more scenario map makers. The best CM map maker might not have ever designed a scenario or released it in his life, instead giving the completed map to someone else to create a scenario around, and I would be 100% OK with that. In fact I would expect that. Similarly I might even expect the best CM scenario designers (SP or H2H) to have never physically created a map in the scenario editor themselves and I would also be OK with that, though I understand that most scenario designers going around are a "jack of all trades" doing it all, wearing all the hats. As impressive as that may be, I know that it would be unreasonable to expect any individual to excel in all facets of scenario designing/making because of just how unrelated and completely divorced each area of scenario actually designing is. It's like expecting a "building designer" to not only be able to design a building that can be used for any function, but to also literally construct the buildings themselves individually, I would however say that a group of specialist "map maker only" kind of scenario designer already exist to some extent, those that make the QB maps being one of them. NOTE: as great as some QB maps and scenarios are, they not what I am considering to be the typical representations for what I consider a true H2H scenario, which could otherwise containing detailed important briefings, reinforcements and other nice features and surprises to contend with. So I really am pointing out that perhaps the best way to achieve the best possible collection and range of CM scenarios would be within a collaborative environment where scenarios are typically created specifically as SP Allied/SP Axis or for H2H by scenario designers that specialise in designing SP or H2H scenarios, potentially collaborating with dedicated map makers rather than trying to force the expectation on individual scenario designers to do all while forcing/trying to make all scenarios playable in all three modes.

SPOILERS below! I attacked previous day (no rest)...was a good fight but ended up a total German victory. Awesome map. I went for attacks on both flanks and avoided middle attack all together. Had quite a few tanks bog down and get immobilised but nothing that affected my attack too much. Sent several platoons of infantry and tanks up through the wood trails to take the high ground. Was pretty important as my Panthers had excellent LOS to pick of enemy tanks in the town from the wooded high ground. Those M36 (stand in 90mm ATGs) were quite deadly despite me having spotted them early on from the hills. Faster than expected reaction/turret rotation speeds etc.

? I don't think you structured your comment very well but I will address what you said and what I think you wanted to say. Value of adding sunrise/sunset times to the briefing? That should be pretty obvious. If you made a scenario that occurred during sunset or sunrise, the timing of when the sunrise or sunset actually occurs could be (generally is) a rather important consideration given the vastly different effects between pre/post sunset/sunrise (the transition period lasts about 15min). However I was talking about having it automatically listed in the "Conditions" window (where it obviously naturally belongs) along with Wind Conditions, Temperature and Ground Conditions. Obviously no one really cares when sunrise/sunset is when playing a battle in the middle of the day or night. But then again no one really cares what the Wind Conditions are in a scenario that features no smoke. Or what the Temperature is in battles that mainly feature vehicles (or even those with infantry, do we really know to what extent infantry fatigue/fatigue recovery is affected?) Or what the Ground Conditions are in scenarios where combat is taking place primarily in paved towns/cities. What's the value of showing this data in those scenarios? Should this information be removed from the "Conditions" window? Of course not. It's just easier, more complete and consistent to always display this "environmental" information for the player in that window at all times regardless of whether it is important or not to them in the particular scenario they are playing. If they do need it, they know where to look;if they don't, big deal!. It takes no effort by anyone (except a once off minor coding by BFC) to display that information there and it's not like there is any sane/compelling reason why it SHOULDN'T be shown there. Curiously, I wonder how many scenario designers that have designed sunset/sunrise battle are actually aware themselves of when the sunrise/sunset occurs for their battle! I bet few have actually really known or bothered to find out. If CM displayed it then they could much easily plan/create their scenarios around this information. Another reason for showing it but this time within the Scenario Editor itself at the time of scenario creation. An officer on the ground would typically be well aware of the sunrise/sunset times and plans could be made around it to the very minute. An argument why the game is better off not showing this information anywhere at any time is ridiculous. (It does pain me to explain in detail what I think is bloody obvious, but that is what you need to do sometimes I guess)

+1 Awesome campaign so far, maps are top notch, "innovative" campaign design and options that I really like. More of this please In fact, playing this campaign makes me wish campaigns could be H2H.

Happy to report that I noticed for the very first time in any CM game I've played, a tree trunk being hit by tank round that removed the foliage, followed by the next round that hit the trunk that actually removed (destroyed) the trunk! This was in CMFI BTW. Probably would not have noticed it (again) if it wasn't mentioned in a thread like this that these things CAN happen in the game.

Correct. The first I knew of their omission was in the "Kamfgruppe Peiper" operation which I started (amazing design!) and I am about to attack Stoumont where they famously featured (I remember them even in a Stoumont scenario back in CMBO days!). In the designer notes it is (disappointingly) pointed out that because these units don't feature in CMFB, they are instead "simulated" by immobilised M36s I can't think of why these weapons were omitted from CMFB.

Hmmm...I question BFC's policy to make all scenarios that come with the game "playable from all sides vs AI and H2H". There is a very strong argument that can be made that the more a scenario can be tailored to be played discretely/specifically via all three mode: Axis side vs AI, Allied side vs AI or H2H, not only is it easier (especially in time) to make/design, but the better the scenario experience will be/should be for the player(s) involved. The reason why should be kind of obvious. It is easier to design anything that excels in one area at the expense of others than to design the same same thing that excels in multiple areas. The trap of becoming a "Jack of all trades, master of none" adage comes to mind when I think of scenario designers that feel compelled to always create scenarios that can be played all three ways. FWIW I couldn't care less if CM scenarios were not playable by all three modes, and I hope any scenario designer out there who focuses on creating the best player experience would not hesitate to say the same thing. How many of us actually go back and play through each scenario we have played in one of the two other modes? Once I play a scenario, playing it again, be it in the same mode or one of the other two modes, is basically never going to be as "fun/challenging" as the first "blind" play through anyway. Any "fun/challenging/credible" scenario that can be played all three ways is going to take longer to produce than one that can just be played in one of the three modes. I would say that H2H scenarios are the easiest to make, followed by SP scenarios where the player is the attacker (player has/requires initiative), and the hardest being ones where the player is the defender (the "CPU opponent" has/requires the initiative). I understand BFCs reason for this policy (make all players (SP and MP) feel like they are not missing out on anything). The alternative would then instead involve featuring/classifying/creating scenarios specifically for SP Allied, SP Axis or H2H. In a sense this already happens in many scenarios. How many times do you see the term "best played as" in scenario notes? Who doesn't want to play the best? When I read that in the scenario notes, And once you have played through a scenario The thing is that designing a scenario "that is fun/challenging for the player(s)" for H2H play or SP allied or SP Axis can be argued to really be three separate and ultimately independent adventures. For a start, map making skills aside, lets split the entire world of CM scenario designing in to two totally independent realms: designing for H2H and designing for SP. I would further split the world of SP scenario designing in to playable by one side and playable by BOTH sides, with the last type being the most challenging because not only of the added extra AI coding for one side, but a reliance on an assumption that the battle itself played by a player from the other side will actually/could actually be a fun and challenging prospect. A fantastic H2H scenario designer needs to basically know NONE of the "AI coding" skills and techniques a SP scenario designer needs to create an equally fantastic SP scenario. This in itself should be a reason why I would expect to perhaps see that there are many more H2H ascension designers out there than SP scenario designers, or perhaps more scenarios for H2H play only. A H2H scenario designer I think has much more "creative freedom" to concoct whatever intricate scenario they want compared to the creative palette available to a SP scenario designer. A H2H scenario designer could come up with a scenario that require both players to think, observe, adapt and react in very natural/humanistic ways to the unfolding events of the battle. A SP scenario designer, armed with only a very finite, basic and under developed set of "AI coding tools"/triggers, is however severely limited in their ability to "bring to life" a credible and challenging AI opponent. Essentially a SP scenario designer must always think in terms of what can/can not be achieved as far as "AI coding" goes when it comes to design scenarios. This becomes equally challenging when the SP scenario designer is further trying to design the scenario playable by BOTH sides. Basically if a scenario designer has a limited amount of time (which they all do), and they wanted to create the "best" player experience possible for the scenario they had in mind putting all their effort/time in to specifically creating a H2H only scenario, or an Allied vs AI only or Axis vs AI only scenario, then it stands to reason to expect that the end product playable by the player(s) will be superior to what the scenario designer could otherwise come up with if they instead created a scenario "playable" in all three game modes, essentially spreading the same time they spent optimising one game made amongst all three game mode types. You could say that creating a scenario playable in all three modes is an exercise in compromise. I would be interested to hear from the scenario designers out there about their thoughts on this.

"Too much work"? Really? Why? The game already must have a "look-up" table of sunrise/sunset AND lunar phase operational somewhere in the game code which I think is a awesome. Don't believe me? Start the scenario editor, set the date to 1 Oct 1944, set the time to 0600hrs and go to 3D preview. Now change the date to 31 Dec 1944 and set the time to the same 0600hrs and now go to 3D preview. In October the sky is kinda pinky dawn, but in Dec it is black and starry. I am quite sure this is not simply cosmetic but actually reflects the light that affects LOS/visibility. All BFC would need to do is assign text based values to this pre-existing/working table that "stamps"/saves the sunrise/sunset time (and even lunar cycle for that matter) in to the scenario file, which like the many other bits of unchanging information related to a scenario are available for inspection by the player (specifically the info found in the "Conditions" tab). I do not see any reason why this information could not be simply displayed in the pre-existing "Conditions" window that already displays Weather, Temperature, Ground Conditions and Wind. It seems natural/logical and complete to just add 2 or 3 extra lines: Sunset, sunrise, lunar phase. Come to think of it, the rational of a "too much work/too little gain" argument in this case would have applied equally to if I was suggesting BFC add Weather, Temperature, Ground Conditions and Wind to the Conditions window. What makes showing sunrise/sunset time (and lunar phase) any more "difficult" to display in the Conditions window?

Hi, Expecting the US 90mm AA/AT gun to to feature in the TOE. Any good reason why this piece of equipment that featured in some key battles in the Ardennes didn't make the cut?

@PanzerMikeIs this a scenario only for single player?

@George MC LOL!!!!! OMG....it is too! All these years and never noticed :/ Awesome, thanks. I thought it seemed a bit odd such a feature didn't exist in the game. Now with that sorted, we can perhaps instead discuss the potential for sunrise/sunset times to be automatically added somewhere in the briefing notes/conditions tab when a scenario is created based on a database of what the historical sunset/sunrises were based on the battle date set in the scenario editor.. A scenario designer may or may not care about the actual time of day or actual date of the scansion they are making, but that should not be a big deal. Each scenario could give the player this information regardless without the scenario designer necessarily knowing or being aware of when sunset/sunrise actually occur.

Hi, Have only played one scenario (currently in PBEM) and several battles in to the Pieper operation (awesome so far!). I think BFC did a great job of capturing the winter in the Ardennes look and feel (colour palette) and a huge shout out to the map makers! Great work. I have seen the threads of people wanting to see new features however, and I too would want to see the game develop more features, rather than purely graphical updates. There still are a number of simple/minor features missing from the game that baffle me as to why they don't exist. One of these is the conventional way to know "what time of day" it is in any given battle. eg. 0738hrs, or 1528hrs Instead, the game just shows the "base" number of minutes (turns) remaining in the battle. Why is this something to care about? Well, as you know, the game does have a day/night cycle that tries to simulate changes in visible light and hence visibility ranges. Several scenarios/operations etc that you play are based on dusk/dawn time. As a consequence it becomes very important to understand when these changes in visibility are going to occur. I have been playing the Pieper operation and for the first time have seen a special effort by the scenario/operation designer in the battle briefing to indicate what the "visibility range" is at the start of battles and what the "visibility range" will become later in the battle as daylight sets in and how important it was. They also mention the range at which enemy gun fire can be spotted. You play the battle and you "unrealistically" have no idea what time it is! I understand that the scenario/operation designer could just arbitrarily say that sunrise will begin "x" minutes/turns in to the battle and last for "y" minutes/turns (something hey did not mention in my case) but is it really that much of an issue to instead have a "time of day" clock players can easily check against say sunrise/sunset times mentioned in the briefing? In fact, all sunset/sunrise times are fixed based on the date/year and the game could automatically list this information somewhere in the briefing notes. I also think that using 2400hr notation is a bit more "immersive" and useful when reading it in a briefing rather than everything based on "minutes/turns from the start of the battle", something a player can lose track of anyway once a battle starts anyway. Again, no big deal but something easy/simple that I am sure would be appreciated.

Painfully slow download...can't ever recall it being this bad before...getting 1-2 days to download just 5.1GB :/ Been several hours downloading however, I'm 2.2GB/5.7GB and estimates bounce between 2 days, 3 days, then 6hrs, 4hrs, 3hrs, 13 hrs, 1 day etc Someone torrent this already :/

Ok thanks for that!

OK thanks, I found it on my HDD....reason why I never installed it was a) it had an odd name (packed.brz) and b) being weary of it I wanted to first check exactly what files were in the brz file but never got round to finding out how to extract/look. How do you inspect/extract a brz file?

I think I downloaded this originally but have lost it on the HDD. +1 for download link, or if someone had downloaded this file previously, what is the file name/file size?....I will be able to search for it on my HDD.

??? I have never seen/known/witnessed any CM trees being defoliated/damaged/destroyed/leveled from HE/AP or any other weapon. Have I perhaps not been paying enough attention? Got to say it would be pretty cool if they did.

Interesting thread. This thread is not really a surprise to me however. I too have wondered before if perhaps the supposed "protection" conferred from being within a HT (as opposed to being outside of it) is actually a detriment to infantry well-being in CM. I am surprised just how much more exposed infantry travelling in CM HTs (at least the German ones) are compared to actual photos of WW2 infantry travelling in HTs. I wonder ff the higher seating position of CM infantry HT passengers actually is to blame for what seems to be a perception that they are more vulnerable to small arms fire than what we might otherwise think.

Hi SeinfeldRules, Can't say I am familiar with your scenario work but the presentation alone in this thread is enough for me to download and try them all out. I am not primarily a single player player as I know how difficult it can be to design a scenario with "intelligent" AI plans. However I really appreciate it when a scenario is made specifically and exclusively for single player to be played from one side only (also why I do like playing campaigns). It comes across that the scenario designer must have been very focused and precise when designing the scenario to maximise the quality of the scenario as SP experience, as opposed to having to design and consider it being played from both sides, with AI plans for reach, and as a MP scenario etc. I expect this to be the case with your custom designed scenarios. I much prefer a scenario be very good at one type of game mode rather than average in all the three variants. I would hope that other scenario designers also follow this "narrow focus" scenario design approach. Coming up with a scenario design concept is hard enough as it is (map, units, objectives, narrative etc). To then expect the scenario to play well in all game modes (single player both sides or as a multi-player game) is just trying to do and expect too much. Choose one game mode type (single player axis, single player allied or multiplayer) and focus energies/time on making it great. I would challenge any scenario designer who somehow feels a scenario is "incomplete" or not worth releasing if it can't be played as single player from both sides as well as multiplayer.