Erwin

I will be happy to try it again. BTW: I do NOT think the scenario needs more than 30 mins (altho' you could make it variable ending). Had I known that I can avoid fighting the guards in the woods (I tried to suppress the guards in the town, but I did not intend to attack it and kill em all, simply to get to the RR tracks safely) I am sure I could have made it to the exit zone one minute earlier at least. Also, I think that the two bunkers SHOULD be occupied, or at least a % probability. (Also, there should be a probability that the currently unoccupied two prison towers have guards.) You should have AT LEAST two AI plans for the guards so that the scenario is replayable. It is too small and simple to be fun to replay, unless the challenges are significantly different each time. A winding path through the woods to a passable descent down the embankment to the exit zone would be excellent so one would have choices re which route to take (the longer path, or more directly/shorter via the bunkers). There should be a % probability of guards patrolling that path. And that path should have some obvious choke points/obstacles like wire, swamp, river etc. so that it is not automatically the easier option! Where to d/l the new version?

OMG. I can't believe how COMPLICATED this game has become. I barely understood what you said as I have yet to summon the courage to mess with the editor and look at what is going on under the hood. All I know is that I played the first scenario several times to see what effect different success levels of recon would have on the next scenario. And it seemed clear to me that the more enemy locations I found in scenario one, the more icons showed up in scenario 2. If that is not supposed to be how it works, then I have to admit that this game system is beyond my comprehension. There is just too much weird and arbitrary stuff going on that make no sense to even pretty dedicated players like me.

How do you order an eng unit to clear barbed wire? Assault?

"I don't buy this "you haven't occupied if it someone can fire into it"." I agree, that is ridiculous. It's virtually impossible to prevent a unit from firing into a victory location. If this were so, then one could simply get a friendly unit to fire into an enemy's VL to deny them the points.

Oh well, SPR is after all the definitive and accurate history of Normandy... (I actually only recall them on the beaches. Were they wearing them in the final battle - the sort of scenario depicted in CMBN?)

case does not matter.

Being successful is all about who you know...

All mods whether in brz, or folders, or bmp's, go into a Z folder under DATA. If you do not have a Z folder there, you simply create one and then copy those files/folders into it. You do not have to do this, but, to make it easier to compare different graphics of the same mod I recommend that you first explode brz files first in order to access the bmp files and then place those bmp files into a folder that you create and name whatever you like. Then put that folder into the Z folder.

Ok, so it is NOT possible to scale the RR embankment. That contradicts what was said earlier by rocketman. For what it's worth however, I was able to kill both bunkers pretty easily with TARGET commands and units with grenades. The Pzfausts were not used, so I guess unnecessary. All I had to do was not waste one minute killing guards in the woods earlier in the scenario and I think I would have gotten all surviving guys onto the green exit zone. In CM1 it was easier to determine impassible terrain. In CM2 it seems a lot harder to know. So, it would be good to put in the briefing that the embankment is impassible "past x point" or somesuch hint. Another thought however, was that I was surprised to find the two towers furthest away from the prison exit were unguarded. I sent guys up there to overwatch, and it would seem logical that all 4 towers would have had guards. I also wondered if I should have moved slower and hence maybe not even triggered the guards in the town and woods. BTW: I really liked the scenario and I hope you get to improve it just a little before we restart and continue to battle 2 etc.

Am confused a bit. Do we agree that success in scenario 1 leads to better intel at the start of scenario 2 (which is my recollection), or...? And more importantly why are you not using Lt Smash's xnt WW2 floating icons??!!!

Hmm. Having played that scenario several times as it was almost my first experience with CMBN I do recall having a lot more enemy unit symbols on the map for the 2nd attack mission when I had a better recon mission in the first recon mission.

Around 20 minutes in I took a couple more casualties from the guards in the woods. I also did not realize that I could run down the RR embankment and spent several turns fighting units in the village so I could kill the bunkers and then run along the tracks. Was one minute(!) short of reaching the exit zone with all surviving troops. But, only got a few out (100 points worth). 5 KIA and 3 WIA. But still got a major defeat. Not sure if the best thing is to ignore the town and bunkers and engage the guards in the woods and get to the exit zone from there, or ignore the woods guards and focus on the town/bunkers and then run along the RR tracks. The main issue is that I wasn't sure if I had to exit with all troops, or just "enuff" to get some sort of win. Will you adjust the scenario now so testers should wait for v2, or should we retry it again? I don't mind replaying this as it's so short. But, imo it's not really a replayable scenario unless you have completely different set-up for the enemy. Re the briefing, I meant you could edit a few sentences out. I think you could get it all on one "page" without losing important info. BTW: Would appreciate knowing how many guys need to exit to make the rest of the campaign doable. Also, suggest you make Berger all SS as the uniforms would then be different from the Army guards.

Fabulous... again! BTW: Is there any reason that sometimes you use an under_line within mod names and sometimes you do not?

"So I just assumed that the intel benefit was whatever you actually managed to find out for yourself, not getting pre-battle intel in the next mission." That's what I thought and I liked the way it worked. One was rewarded for a good recon mission..

10-12 mins: The briefings could probably be cut down a bit without losing info, otherwise makes the scenario sound fun. Am trying to take the closest towers first to provide high cover, then moving into the large building to eliminate guards. One friendly WIA and probably 4 or 5 guards KIA so far. I hope I am not going too slowly to escape the jail and reach the tunnel. The briefing doesn't say if ONLY the men who reach the tunnel will be available in future scenarios. Am assuming that only those who reach the tunnel will be available.

Got it. Thanks. Will take a look now... Do you have a private e-mail for feedback or we post here?

Am hoping that if I mention this enuff, it may catch on: Could scenario designers of H2H scenarios add H2H at the start of their scenario names so these scenarios are easily identified in the folder. Thanks...

I agree that the last Panzer Marsch mission (IF you got a draw or worse in the PREVIOUS MISSION) was horrible. However, there was an alternative last mission (St. Jean de Daye) that required a Minor Victory or better in the prior scenario that we would have played had we done better earlier. So, the horrible Kesselschlacht last mission was akin to the slaughter of "School of Hard Knocks."

You are the post master of amazing maps and buildings LLF... Can hardly wait to see what you come up with to rival the quality of (maybe not in size) Ramadi.

Sounds like fun... send it along. PVT message if you need e-mail.

Thank you...

I hope this down't get me into trouble here, but I thought it SO brilliant that I had to share this video: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/video/10001/gmt-games/castelli-gmt-music-video-this-is-just-a-tribute-or

That mural looks pretty good, Pete. I recall that there were some terrific CM1 building mods that had German propaganda slogans/posters (some defaced presumably by the Maquis) and other graffiti and ads on them. It all really helped.

The ability to check LOS from every waypoint is a justifiable balance to the problem of not being able to get a LOS as easily as in RL. There are many other examples of this sort of trade off in the game. The CM series has always been a balance of "gaminess" and "realism" to provide "verisimilitude". And that is what makes for a good game. Too often the CM series seems criticized cos it doesn't approach the "realism" of a multi-zillion dollar DoD sim that has undergone "Verification and Validation" tests. That is not fair. And those highly realistic DoD games are not "fun". I get deja vu reading these posts as I am reminded of similar comments/requests from consumers for more "realism/complexity" in cardboard wargames in the early 80's. That led to the development of complex "monster games" that were virtually unplayable, and which led to the great cardboard wargame industry implosion.

That is what makes Campaigns so much better that individual scenarios imo. You can get to do the recon mission in the first one or two missions and then get to more major combat in the remaining missions. I especially liked the first German Campaign (I forget the name) where the results of your recon affected the 2nd mission.