handihoc

Nothing wrong with that. He's just tuning his air guitar whilst awaiting orders.

I tested in WEGO. I usually prefer it, mainly so I can go back and replay all those WOW! moments (or alternatively, work out how that squad of mine got so badly beaten up!). Results? Well, read the above. I can't remember each battle but I think I got a major victory overall, but remember we were playing, making comments and suggestions, replaying with PT's changes etc, so my results may not be wholly representative of the full campaign as it stands. Actually, I'm really looking forward to playing it again soon. I enjoyed it that much, and as PT has added new AI plans since, I can be pretty sure I'm not going to have any major advantages in terms of foreknowledge.

Yes, this game is amazing. Really amazing! And Normandy is just the beginning!

That's a great screenshot, permanent666. Really illustrates how beautifully crafted the game visuals and map designs are. I was one of the playtesters on this campaign and I had an absolute blast testing it. It was tough but fantastically good fun to play, with every map being a real beauty. By the time I got to the end I genuinely felt I had improved as a tactician. Get your tactics right and (sometimes with a little bit of luck, too!) you can win several of them with pretty minimal losses; get it wrong and you'll be sent home with your tail between your legs - if you're lucky enough to still have a tail! And as PT points out, there are four AI plans for each, so if you lose and need to replay you are unlikely to find yourself playing the exact same battle again. Makes it very challenging and loads of fun!

I'm getting a new Sandybridge based rig myself quite soon. Almost certainly going with Nvidia. From what I've researched to date the minimum gpu spec (for an Nvidia card) to give any kind of future proof performance would be GeForce GTX460. Anything lower than that is likely to stutter at the first or second hurdle (i.e. probably just about okay for CMNormandy but struggles with huge maps/multiple units/highest settings). GTX460 and above, coupled with good CPU and minimum 4Gig RAM, ought to handle anything Battlefront can throw at us for the next few releases, as well as the vast majority of blockbusting games out there. At least, that's what I'm hoping as I gather my last few hard-earned pennies together in anticipation of this long-lusted after purchase.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

Yeah, I'm in the same boat as Ken and Blucher (not that I'm complaining!), but this is a definite must-play in, I hope, the not-too-distant future.

For the first time in my life, I wished I lived in Liverpool

LLF, this is HUGELY impressive! A genuine labour of love and looks to be an absolute must to play when you finally get it finished. I suspect the urban density and size of the map will break my poor current pc's back, but whaddyaknow - I'm planning on upgrading to a new rig later this year! OUt of interest, what are the specs you're playing on? This is a perfect example of what can be done with an exceptional wargame engine, which CMx2 is, (and which is still being developed and enhanced) when it's placed in the hands of creative, devoted, even obsessive, players and designers. I'm at a loss to find enough superlatives to heap upon this magnificent effort. It is simply fantastic! :)

This is an interesting proposition, particularly with the campaign overlay option, and the fact that it's a theatre long-neglected in computer game history. I shall be watching development of this one with great interest.

Just re-read the briefing - properly, this time! - and it does make it pretty plain that Mission One is purely a recon mission, with major engagements not encouraged. My fault for not doing that in the first place. A well written briefing can make a world of difference to how one approaches a battle or campaign - though, like me, I reckon there are a lot of players who have a tendency to rush in with minimal time given to reading it. Additionally, I have a tendency to keep pushing forward wherever possible. Had I known that the enemy were scoring points for id-ing my tanks I'd have been much more cautious in the opening stages. A little more professional discipline required in my barracks, I think! I still do think it would have been good to have had Mission Two's setup zone set a little further forward, though - don't know if the editor permits that (?). Anyway, gonna have to start again at some point, now you've tweaked it. This time I'll be much more aware of what I'm revealing to the enemy. One question: are the Reds scoring points for spotting/id-ing my units from the start, or only later on? Is it only specific recon spotters that pick up the points, or any enemy who spots me? And if an enemy unit spots me, then dies very quickly, do they still get the points? (OK, that was three questions, not one.)

Hi George, That's something I didn't know either - adds quite an interesting extra dimension to the game. I tried this campaign quite a long time ago and really enjoyed it - as far as I was able to get. I got hit by the Very Big Map Bug and couldn't progress beyond a certain point (iirc, the third battle). Thankfully that's long been fixed. However, there was one thing that annoyed me, and I recently restarted the campaign and the same thing occurred. It's the fact that, after completing the first mission and making pretty good progress (even better this time around, as I had the 'advantage' of prior intel) I then found myself starting mission two right back at the original starting point. All my gains had been wiped out and I had to trudge cautiously over the same ground again. Have to say, it put me off continuing this time around. I do hope to continue at some point as I really want to complete it, especially now that you've tweaked it further, but gaining ground and then having it taken away from me because of the way the scenarios are designed feels unrealistic. But keep 'em coming, George. I've played several of your scenarios and they're always a great challenge and a lot of fun to play.

That's interesting. I had a helluva tough time taking that damn dam! Suffered numerous friendly fire casualties from my air support (there's too much air support, I agree) and a lot of problems from snipers, MGs and RPGs. Once I'd taken the dam itself the rest was easy, but I certainly didn't find it any kind of walkover. Maybe it's just different strokes for different folks. What level did you play at? I was on Iron.

I've played Narwick and the Brit Warrior campaign, and I totally agree. He makes great campaigns. He's also got a single scenario up on the repository, UK Dammit. Highly recommended.

Hi Pt, I'm back on the Road to Dinas, and what an excellent campaign it's turning out to be! Just completed mission three, Orchard Rd. I remember getting here before, sometime last year I think, but for some reason the campaign at that time wouldn't let us advance beyond this mission. Well, now I've moved on and am about to start Sabatini. Playing red v red again is really good fun and hugely challenging, and your maps are among the best out there. Map 1, Petani, and 3, Orchard Road, are particularly enjoyable for the level of detail you've put in. Really atmospheric. I'm very much looking fwd to completing the campaign - if I can just find enough time.

George, Yes, with flow chart, is my answer. I started the campaign a long time back but couldn't continue - can't remember exactly why, but I think it was due to incompatibility with a new patch, or some kind've bug that needed to be fixed. Something along those lines. I really enjoyed it, as far as I got, and now I'd like to replay it, but don't have a mass of time for another full campaign. So the missions, with info on the campaign structure just to paint the full picture, would be great. Go for it, please! And btw, that's the first time I've come across the term swithering. I'm a Brit, but must assume it's unique to north of the border?

Highland Laddie, That's an interesting approach - it never occurred to me to charge hell for leather for the exit as I assumed there were too many nasties lying in wait. Not sure now whether that is the optimal approach or whether you were simply lucky not to have taken higher casualties. It's great when someone comes up with something different and kind've turns the mission on its head. To answer your question about exiting - the game doesn't actually allow for units to physically leave the battle (unless I've missed something vital!). So when you arrive at the exit area you will have to turn and fight anything there until victory conditions are met and the battle ends. I've found this in other missions (not in this campaign). It would be preferable if units could be removed, although they would then of course be lost should they be needed later to support their oncoming buddies. Not sure what the best approach would be for this. Anyway, hope you enjoy the rest of the campaign. Overall, it's a very good one.

I haven't yet played the Airport mission or beyond (no time) but from what I remember when I helped out with the briefings, the only difference with the USMC version is that in the Airport mission the Syrians have elite Airborne troops. Maybe also US Marines when the Brits and Yanks finally link up, but I may be wrong on that. I'm sure Bardosy will put us right, though.

George, I've got both Brits and USMC installed, and both light up when I choose the battle, so it's a double. I didn't choose it, I think if you have both, it chooses automatically. I assume you have both, too? In that case, I would imagine the loop is caused by you getting a draw rather than a victory, but don't know for sure. Blackcat, yes I agree, the AI does have a tendency to give up early, not just in this campaign but in SF generally. Don't know if it's written into the game itself or whether it's the designers not setting stiff enough conditions. I'd like to see it improved because I've had numerous battles end early which, when viewing the map, show considerable numbers of fairly well armed enemy units still in place. In fact, I often decide not to even try to occupy the furthest victory locations, concentrating instead on wearing down enemy resistance from a distance so as to inflict maximum casualties and get a surrender. Not wholly satisfying.

Hmm, strange, I went automatically to the Airport battle.

Guys, sounds like you were both just a minute ahead of me, and paid a high price for it. Those Syrian tanks came on when I just happened to have two Challengers perfectly positioned to deal with them, along with a Javelin team, and I survived them without a scratch. A minute or so later and my Challengers would have been caught with their backs to them. Luck of the draw. I completed the next mission, Aleppo by Night, and really enjoyed it - though was slightly disappointed to get a surrender twenty minutes before timeout, and just as I was getting ready to storm the embassy and nearby buildings. I also found that Syrian rooftop snipers were facing away from me and didn't get to let a single shot off before they died. That needs to be fixed. On to the Airport - though I haven't had time to start it yet.

Agreed that units starting a battle, or as reinforcements on arrival turn, should not be in direct line of fire of enemy units. But in a perverse kind've way, I'm quite a fan of traffic jams (providing they're used sparingly!) It's a realistic cause of frustration, after all, and has happened, and still does, frequently in real military situations. Viz D-Day, Market Gdn, Bulge and no doubt during the two Gulf Wars. So when it happens in-game I kind've groan, but equally kind've enjoy the hassle of sorting it out. Maybe I'm nuts. There's a great tv series in the UK at the moment called Road Warriors, on ITV1, about Brit land supply units delivering supplies and equipment to forward bases in Afghanistan. These convoys can be up to 6 miles long, hauling across deserts and through towns, villages etc - on or off road, day night, sometimes in atrocious conditions, always under enemy observation, sometimes under attack. Often the entire convoy gets held up due to an IED or abandoned truck or something. You can feel the tension and frustration, as well as the fear, mount. It can be nailbiting stuff.

Can't say I had any real problems with the set-up zones. Moving out of them, I came under fire and took a few hits, but that was more because I was hasty. Realising this needed a little more thought, I restarted. A more cautious approach - if I remember correctly only a couple of my vehicles came under fire from rpgs, and these were some distance off and inaccurate. My guys returned fire and they were quickly taken out. Next turn I was able to edge forward a little, whilst sending recons out to the right. Following that pattern I eventually took the village with relatively low losses. Had no problem with placement of reinforcements when they arrived - they only came under fire as they advanced, but not by a lot as my first wave had already dealt with most of the resistance by then. Love this campaign. I'm in Aleppo by Night now. It's a dense urban Brit Special Forces nighttime infiltration to locate and rescue hostages being held somewhere in and near the British Embassy. Really excellent fun, and a nice variation in battle/scenario style. You've got a treat coming, guys!

The village is pretty tough, yes. But time is on your side, so be very methodical and allow your guys to sit tight at times and observe - hidden enemies often reveal themselves after several minutes (though there are still plenty of times when they don't until they open fire!) It's true that the Brit sections lack firepower individually, so it's vital to cover any movement with plenty of well-placed backup to hammer anything that reveals itself. Also, put suppression fire on buildings you suspect could harbour enemies before you send guys across open ground. The Syrians are generally very well positioned and, at Iron level, deadly. I did have a couple of false starts on this battle, taking unacceptable losses in the opening minutes. So although I got a good victory eventually I have to confess that it was I think on my third attempt.