Macisle

Same experience here.

Thank you very much for your kind words, Lt. Bull. They are much appreciated! I think you're King of the Hill on that map (for both sides), so any young gunslingers that want to give it a go should look you up. Aside from a few minor tweaks I'd like to do, I've always been very happy with the way the map turned out. I can't say the same for the scenario (mainly the time limit...too low), but I'm largely pleased with it. Part of the reason it has taken so long to get going with a SP version is that I initially spent time trying to make an all-in-one when triggers came out. I couldn't get it to work and it was taking ages, so I gave up. I really like what I have so far for the SP-only (Allied vs. AI) version, but I've had to take a break from it and will finish The Radzy Award for CMRT first. Radzymin Master Map 2 is excellent and I'm using the stock version of it for the scenario. For various reasons (not wanting to derail this thread, not wanting to be negative and the ever-present bugger of...time), I don't want to go into more detail here on the various points in discussion. On the Editor, I would just say that any enhancements that BF could make that would speed up AI testing would be much appreciated. I'd also really love to see AI arty get some lovin'. It would be great to be able to have timed barrages and so forth. -Maybe just have it work like the player currently has in his initial setup, but with the ability to give orders to off-map reinforcement arty as well. I absolutely LOVE that map and scenario, PanzerMike! It's one of my top favs. Thank you soooo much for doing it! I'm still hoping to use the map for a SP-only (Axis Attacker vs AI) scenario some day. I've done some work on it, but haven't gotten back to it for a long time. I've had some EPIC moments on that map, though. I remember having an attacking platoon (and the Company CO) suddenly becoming the defender for a number of turns as a company-sized Soviet counterattack forced them to hide behind a row of buildings and shoot at whatever came through or around the corners while the rest of the company desperately tried to lend help from afar. So cool! Anyhoo, I'll leave off here on this in this thread. Perhaps we can discuss the topic more in another thread. -Maybe after I get TRA up for testing in a few weeks (I really want to get it done and out of my head ). My most recent turn of the first playtest saw one of those amazing CM moments: my ATG reinforcements arrived just as Soviet infantry was sneaking into my back field a few hundred meters from their entry point. They managed to unload and get set up as bullets whizzed past their heads. Now, enemy tanks are showing up, too. We'll see who gets the first shots in...

Loving SL led me to CMBO. Then I got into ASL and it replaced CMx1. Then CMx2: CMBN came out and ASL was pushed out completely. -Probably forever. I'm seeing more and more of CMx2 on YouTube. One of the popular gamers, DiplexHeated, loves CMx2 and his following is being exposed to the game. I see lots of comments on his videos with people saying the game is awesome and asking where they can get it. It seems like the word is getting out more and more.

My current thinking on scenario design is in the same place as Lt. Bull's. Not being bound by the constraints of satisfying more than one category of target group (SP Allied, SP Axis, H2H) really opens up the possibilities for mining the potential of a scenario for its specific, chosen group. Design roadblocks that seem impossible to overcome, at least without prohibitive amounts of time, melt away when the other two groups are cut from the picture. In fact, I'd say that SP Defensive scenarios may benefit the most from this. Maybe this is the key to making more of them happen. I'm about halfway through my first playtest of the CMRT SP-only Defensive scenario I mentioned earlier. I'm liking it and will definitely finish it. With H2H constraints removed, I am able to put in enough AI troops to allow for the AI Attacker to take big lumps and keep coming (which is also why the AI gets the Soviets ). Somehow, with a very large amount troops, the computer player seems more "clever" as well. This, along with max-variable time limits on reinforcements, forces the player to keep making tough/juicy tactical decisions, even when he's done things right. Fall back now to shorten your supply line to the ammo depot or hold onto this good position for yet another turn to see if the trucks show up? The enemy seems done here. Perhaps I can pull back--no, wait. -Gotta' keep something here unless I wanna' shift my whole line and this platoon's ammo is almost dry... I do understand that stock scenarios may need to stay where they are, though. I'm thinking more in terms of community scenarios. In fact, we might see a lot more of them if folks didn't feel any pressure to satisfy more than one target play mode.

Then there are folks like me who prefer H2H, but almost never have the time to reliably flip turns and thus, stick mostly to SP out of convenience. That situation has put my scenario design interests solidly in the direction of making SP-only, one-side-only scenarios that push the envelope on making the AI feel like a human, or at least, offer a ballpark similar level of challenge with the tools available. The SP-only version of the White Manor is coming along for CMBN, but I haven't had time to tackle the triggers yet (that's gonna' make doing a map full of flavor objects look like a pizza party). On the other hand, I might try doing a series of "low expectation" scenarios that are slightly polished versions of the kind of stuff I tend to play when I suddenly find I have a few hours of game time available. The first of those is likely to be one I cooked up this weekend for CMRT called The Radzy Award. If your company of Grenadiers and platoon of TDs can successfully defend Radzymin from a massive, three-pronged Soviet attack, you get the Iron Cross. I'm very happy with the opening of that one and am playing it through now. No ETAs on these though. -Very busy with work and RL these days (alas...). I can't afford the bandwidth drain of getting stuck into a new title yet, so I'm going to hold off on CMFB for awhile. Plus, that will allow me to start off with patches and mods ready to go when I do get it.

That's an interesting response. My guess is, it created some eye rolls of its own. I'll leave it at that.

Was there nothing else that could have been cut out? I've never seen a game cut visual damage graphics just to save on download time. Was there any notation made to let people know that they are not seeing some of the graphical functionality in the demo that they will see in the full game?

Absolutely gorgeous! Thank you sooooo much for your work on this, Juju. Veins Effects and your UI mod are my two must-haves. It's amazing how much just having those two mods enhances the game.

Cutting damage textures and reducing the visual impact of building façades seems an odd choice for a demo, especially since the graphical stick against which CM is being measured is moving ever forward. Old-timers like me can understand, but new folks likely won't think about the download time, just the state of the graphics. For my part, I'd rather have a larger download (mine took about 5-10 minutes) and see the full game details. Just my two cents.

Some cool destruction:

I just finished the tutorial scenario (nice map!). For me, no wall damage effects are showing and when a wall is knocked out, it is completely gone as it would be if you removed it in the Editor. It appears as if the textures are missing/not being accessed. See pic below:

Okay, here are the results of two groups of five consecutive test runs each across the buttoned front arc using my file: FO at 450m.FO wounded first at 400m, then gunner taken out.FO at 450m.FO at 500m.FO double-kill at 400.Second group: FO at 400m.FO double-kill at 480m.FO double-kill at 450m.Gunner at 350m.FO at 550m.I stopped each test run after the first casualty was taken (wounded above is light wounds).

AI won't shoot at buttoned HTs? The AI is shooting the heck out of my buttoned HT. I just ran another test and finally lost a gunner first at 480 meters.

Try grabbing the file I posted earlier and running it a number of times. It should show this quite clearly. That was actually why I set up the test that way--to have the HT buttoned, with its front towards the enemy, starting at a range where both sides are beginning to have decent spotting. It seemed to me that if you establish a problem there, then making the HT more vulnerable with other testing is sauce for the goose. The FO passengers were more vulnerable across the forward arc in all of the earlier seven test runs I ran, sometimes taking casualties from the platoon of advancing infantry (Reg 0, Reg +2, Vet 0) at over 500 meters. However, I just ran three further tests in a row and the gunner got it first at around 450 meters. I'll do five more tests and drop another post.

Here's a screen of the test setup I made: I did seven runs of it. I don't have time to collect and display detailed data, but the results seemed pretty consistent across all the tests. Using a buttoned up HT facing towards the oncoming Ami platoon (2 Reg, 1 Vet squad) the gunner was much better protected than the FO passengers. The passengers usually started taking casualties when the range dropped to around 500 meters. The gunner still got taken out occasionally at 4-500 meters, but of course, casualties occurred more frequently as the ranged dropped, getting pretty hairy at around 300m. I should have made the HT immobile because it kept showing its side after taking casualties. I adjusted it back to facing forward each time. Most casualties taken during the tests happened across the forward arc of the HT. The Amis took 0-5 casualties each time, with the HT usually being down to just the driver and perhaps one FO team member by the time the Amis got to around 100 meters. The leapfrogging Ami platoon was able to advance with no morale breaks (meaning order cancellations) each time. Between 5 and 600 meters, the HT didn't score any kills (and didn't always see any targets), but the Amis did fire and took out a passenger once (and another at around 450 meters that test). During two of the tests, it took three turns before HT casualties started, but in the other tests, they usually started on the second turn. The Amis move forward about 60-80 meters per turn in 10 to 20 sec bounds and are split into max number of teams. The Ami HQ has a 50 meter circular firing arc to limit his exposure. I can't do any more testing, so if anyone wants to give it a go, please do. Just keep advancing the hotseat turns. Don't touch the Amis, but make the HT face forward again whenever it freaks out and shows its side/rear.

I should have immobilized that HT...

Hey, guys. Here is a quick and dirty test file: 1 HT vs. 1 leapfrogging Ami Plt across 600m of open ground. It is a hotseat game save (no passwords) with 1 standard HT with an FO team as passengers facing off against an advancing platoon of Amis starting at 600 meters. The orders are all done, so just keep flipping turns and see what unfolds. I did this as fast as possible, with the first idea off the top of my head, so it may not be a great test. But it probably beats just talking past each other and offers a common starting point for discussion at least.

Yeah, I do buddy aid religiously, unless it's too hot to get to the wounded.

I've noticed this a lot in game with ordnance/arty/grenades, but not as often with bullets. A very nice touch and one that sometimes creates a moral dilemma: to area fire when there are wounded present or not?

I believe Steve said in another thread that the purpose of the "stealth release" was to create a very low volume of initial downloads/installs to work out any issues in the process before making a general announcement that would trigger a large volume of downloads/installs.

I completely agree, sburke. Having an op layer is something I used to think I wanted, but when I compare the satisfaction I get out of the current CM system vs., say, CC4 or "that" game, I realize that the CM system is far superior and can be easily-enough adapted using 3rd party resources. I've really wanted to create a mini-campaign for awhile, but...it's just...time...aargh.

Congrats on the release, Jon! Thanks for all your hard work and I look very forward to diving into it (gonna' have to wait a bit though, due to RL).

FYI guys, I'm working on a SP version (Allied vs. AI only) of my Under the Eyes of the White Manor scenario and it will use the VP. The US player will get 3 flamethrower teams grouped with a platoon of Pioneers, plus a Sherman Crab. Game play should be like a blend of Char & Char Alike and the second mission in the CnF campaign. My CM time is very limited these days, so it's going to take some time. However, I'm making progress on the initial setup and will open it up for testing when I get it to a suitable state (weeks out)

Yeah, you won't regret it! I've had CMBN since it came out and haven't even begun to dent its play value. Plus, there are a ton of awesome mods out there that really dial up the eye and ear candy. Have fun!

This. When I heard the store/site overhaul announcement, I added 2-3 months to my release date expectations, and would understand if it took longer. There is a huge amount of work in that endeavor, along with unknowns that must be tested and doubtless, problems to be discovered, fixed, and tested again. Coordinating the launch of a new, likely very-popular game title along with an upgraded store/site is a smart idea. Having haste-related issues could be very damaging. I'm fine with them taking as much time as they need to get it all done right.