GreenAsJade

Yes, you can try that, and I did, but it didn't work for me. Maybe I didn't try it properly GaJ

(FWIW - there are 4 of these, one at each of NW, NE, SW SE)

I've been a vocal(ish?) critic of the QB maps in CMBN, So I thought I should pop in and say that 018Meet in CMFI is awesome. Great job, whoever you are! (though if I find out the reason my oppo got to the crest ahead of me is that his setup zone is substantially closer, rather than he moved incredibly boldly, I'll withdraw that ). GaJ

First, if you don't know about F12, you certainly should. It's great. Second, if you're on a Mac, and F12 doesn't work because it controls the volume, then you need to change the setting System Preferences->Keyboard->F keys have standard function. Thank goodness I finally found that setting Cheers, GaJ

Or the designer (or packager) could put it in the intro screen. Simple, really. GaJ

LOL no worries, thanks for acknowledging Sorry for being thingy about it. Especially since what I was being thingy about wasn't what you actually meant to say (I'm thingy about people saying that any vs AI scenario is just fine for H2H). Phew. Let's go write some scenarios or something GaJ

One definitely no good, one debatable, in that list. In addition, the next one I opened was no good either (which triggered my "Gah - I hate this" thread). Gateway to Palermo - stated in the briefing that its vs AI only. I haven't added it to that table because the edit function in the page is broken. So we return to your point: you said that as you understand it, all the scenarios on the CD are suitable for H2H. My point was that you are mistaken in this understanding. The relevance to this thread is that you responded to the OP's concern that he had limited scenarios for his money by saying "all the scenarios are suitable for H2H". I thought you were making the technical point, which irritated me for its irrelevance. Subsequently you clarified that you were actually stating that you genuinely believed that all the scenarios are good for H2H, with the implication that the OP should be less concerned. I guess the jury is out on exactly how many are or are not suitable. You had said that you thought that the _intent_ is that they all are. Clearly this intent was not met. Overall, as far as this thread goes, I think the point is actually moot, because as I said, you don't by a CM CD for the H2H scenarios on the CD. You buy a platform hoping (based on good historical evidence) that lots of good H2H scenarios will continue to be made. Regards, GaJ

My point is that the ones that are listed there as "not suitable for H2H" are ... not suitable for H2H. Since you said "most of them sound like they'd be fine" rather than "all of them are fine" I've lost track of what your point is Initially, your point appeared to be that "all the scenarios on the CD are suitable for H2H play". It is this point that I am disagreeing with. I find my own point quite clear My point is that it is frustrating that there are scenarios on the CD that are _not_ suitable for H2H, and you don't find this out until the third turn exchange. What is your point? Are you still claiming that all the scenarios on the CD are suitable for H2H play? Based on what experience would you make this claim? Cheers, GaJ

I see. In this, you are mistaken. The experience of a few is already recorded here (some, but not all, of these entries are mine). http://combatmission.wikia.com/wiki/H2H_Scenarios That would have been a good goal. I can't comment whether it really was a goal, or whether your understanding is wrong. What is a fact is that the result is not this way. There are scenarios that are manifestly (proven through play) to be not suitable. There are also scenarios that state in their briefing that they are intended for vs AI play. Cheers, GaJ.

I can't guess what was intended What I find unhelpful is the continual raising of the point that "technically you can play any battle H2H if you can play it vs AI" in the context of discussion that are talking about games that are _suitable for_ H2H play. If you did not intend to assert that vs AI games are suitable for H2H play, then I'm not sure what the point of your statement was... because the OP's point was clearly aimed at exploring the question of what battles are suitable for H2H play. GaJ

All this being said, I don't think you necessarily ever expect to pay for that many H2H battles to be supplied. Given that the average enthusiast will play many many battles of a title, then inevitably the CD supplied ones quicky run out. You paid for a platform upon which to create and play new battles, and you gambled that someone will be keen enough to create them. GaJ

Absolute bollocks. Sure, no menu pops up and says "sorry, you can only play this VS AI, hah hah", but a scenario that has been designed for vs AI play is _highly likely_ to be an _unpleasant experience_ for one or both of the players if played H2H. Let's not get sidetracked by silly debates about "is it truly balanced?". We're talking about "FFS, where's the fun in this??" Alvano Anvil is a classic example. It's either "play vs AI" or "hah hah have fun banging your head against a brick wall while you try to attack a human who is so well equppied he's bored stiff waiting for you to threaten him". Designing a scenario to get that sweet spot where it's fun for two reasonably matched players to play against each other is a skill. To say otherwise is a massive slap in the face of all those designers over the years who've slaved at doing exactly this. GaJ

eltorrente, he said he does NOT play vs AI and "therefore *not* QBs". This is what does not make sense. EDIT: oops, I see what you mean, sorry!

You're misunderstanding. BFC are correctly simulating the world. It's just that you haven't looked closedly enough in that direction yourself to see the gap. Look closer, really squint... see?

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1401032&postcount=208 Mine Mine, the money is mine! GaJ

Yep. I noticed it. From time to time it catches my eye. GaJ

Some people have a goal of "perfectly balanced" but I am not one of them. I know that there likely isn't such a thing. However this is *completely different* from a scenario that is designed for vs AI compared to one that is designed for H2H play. A scenario that is setup for the AI to be able to successfully defend will be ludicrous for a human to try to attack with another human defending. Even more the other way around. Scenarios have to be designed differently for vs AI play compared to vs H2H play. What works for one does't for the other. It's not some subtle thing about oh dear it might be a little unbalanced. Most times, it's chalk and cheese. Sometimes skillful designers can make the same scenario work for both cases. But it's far from the norm. I too tend to assume that if it doesn't say, in the intro, that it is for vs AI, then it is expected to play H2H at least in addition to vs AI. That is why it is so darn irritating to get to the end of the briefing, after two turn exhanges, and find it is designed for "vs AI Axis only" or similar. GaJ

Yes, that is what I hate. FFS, put the info in the battle selection page!!!! GaJ

BTW, something wierd has happened at http://combatmission.wikia.com/wiki/H2H_Scenarios ... it is insisting on "source mode" editing, which is too hard. Does someone know how to fix that? GaJ

You start a game with your H2H oppo, exchange passwords, excitedly read the briefing, and then get to the last page and it says "Best played VS AI". FFS! GaJ

I think that BFC deserve to have the README for this Mod pasted here: GaJ

Correct decision. But just be warned: the learning curve is _steep_. If you keep losing for 10-20 games, it's not because the game sucks, it's because you still do GaJ

You can certainly get flamed for asking that (again). GaJ

I doubt this. A small minority I can imagine would dislike them! Many more might not install them for one reason or another ... but disklike? I don't think so - they are works of art. I love the new Sherm! And I loved seeing the pictures you just posted - thanks! GaJ

Approved. Darn, still can't see it? GaJ