Field Marshal Blücher
-
Posts
2,040 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Field Marshal Blücher
-
-
Did you get the PM i sent you ?
Yes, hold on though. I see your points and I've been thinking about what I want to do to address them. Give me a few hours (at work, unfortunately), and I'll get back to you.
-
Angelsmurf, I believe the lad who was working on the Afghan CMSF mod successfully ported the CMA Mujihadeen into CMSF. So I believe that it would work yes. You would just have to replace and rename the model.
While this is true, bear in mind that it's only visual. You can't get CM:A tanks to behave like CM:SF T-72s, just look like them.
-
VS Ai played both time and really enjoyed it!
Any plan for a campaing of 3rd can. inf. div?
Haha, ironically, that was what these scens started out as (which is one reason why I think the second is imbalanced for H2H, as it was never originally intended to be playable as the Germans vs anyone!
). However, for a number of reasons, I decided not to finish the campaign and convert these into standalones. I will be releasing a CW campaign for playtesters soon, but it's not about the Canadians. -
Hmmm Pity this was not noted as I have just played it H2H and I as the Germans the Allies were woefully outclassed and we did not get very far through before my oppo surrendered.
This is with the Germans Counter attacking. I would give the Canadians to the stronger player with the understanding that it is going to be very very tough!!
There needs to be some tweaks on the VP levels but the overall idea and challenge for the German player is an interesting one.... Just a tad imbalanced IMO.
I agree. I'm very sorry that it wasn't tweaked for H2H balance. It was tested extensively vs. AI so it should work fine for either side there, but the H2H testing results came in too late to make it into the shipped product. This is on me, and I do apologize.
-
Good to know. My friend and I are starting with "The Main Event" we figured it was a good idea to take the town before fighting off the counter attack:)
I quite like the idea of a little series of related scenarios. We only just started so the only comment I have right now is - holy cow those fields are wide open. Closing to contact is going to be fun (not). He says as he calls in the smoke...
Unfortunately, if you are playing it H2H, I would recommend against playing "Sticking it Out." It's fine vs. AI, but we didn't get time to finish testing it H2H before the module shipped. Unfortunately, we found that the German player has a much easier time of it in "Sticking it Out" than I intended, so I'd only recommend that you play it H2H if one of you is the dramatically better player.
-
I designed both Buron scens. Feel free to PM me if you want, or we can talk about it more here.
-
Problem with this thinking is you are judging the scenario against your skill, no one else.
There is players better than you and worse than you. So a battle you find hard, which would be wrong in your book. Might be just perfect for someone with more skill. Also that perfect battle for you might be really hard for someone else and they are wondering why it is designed so hard.
Face it, people need to learn to accept the fact that the game might beat them and they need not look at the designer for putting the Blame.
If you cannot beat the scenario given to you, face it, it might be designed to do just that or more likely. You just need to improve your skills.
And dont take it personnally Field Marshal Blücher, I am posting this to any comment that goes after the designer.
Yes, there is times when a design might be flawed and it needs correction. But if even 20% can only win the game as designed, then the game is not flawed, it just means only a small portion of people have the neccesary skills.
Oh, I absolutely agree--I'm speaking as a player and as a designer. Balance is one of the biggest challenges of design IMO. I'm not trying to say it's easy by any means, or that all scens should be balanced towards players with the same amount of skill, or anything like that. I'm not saying that there is one right way to do it, and everything else is wrong. And I'm certainly not saying that I think Paper Tiger's campaign is flawed--far from it. I'm just saying that some people find some types of campaigns funner than others.
I absolutely see the merits to PT's philosophy, and was not trying to trash it by any means. I was just pointing out that I have a different one.
I think it's great that he's making campaigns like that. I also think it's great that other people are making campaigns with different philosophies. That's the beauty of our community here--there's plenty of choice. -
Further, it implies that losing is not an option. Missions should never be lost, ever! I honestly can't get to grips with that attitude. I like it when a mission kicks my butt and I am more than willing to return to it and try something different if necessary. Frankly, if I play something and I win it first time, I'm disappointed. Where's the value for my money? I want to win but I don't want it to be easy, at least all the time.
Interesting! I have a very different philosophy. I like having most missions be winnable (or at least drawable
) the first time, without too much luck. I don't really enjoy repeatedly reloading saves, because then it starts to feel more like a puzzle game than a combat sim. Now, I don't like winning everything the first time either. There should be some missions that are harder than others, and it should totally be possible to lose. But I feel that in most missions, I should be given a reasonable chance to win the first time if I play well. I prefer campaigns that are hard enough where I have to retry one or two missions, but not so hard that I have to retry all but one or two. -
Is there any to search the campaignes only in the repository. I think they need to devide the scenerios and the campaignes. To much to search through.
Some of the campaign designers (myself included) have begin prefacing our file names with "Campaign." Try searching or scrolling through the list looking for "Campaign," that might yield some results.
-
Yeah top marks FMB I loved Devils Descent and Die Letzte Hoffnung, and I really enjoyed your story telling. I think Battlefront should sign you up to make campaigns for their releases.
Thanks! Really glad you liked them.
One question though, I'm using the mod 'CMBN scenario organiser' to extract some of the scenarios from campaigns for multi-player PBEMs. Seems to work with all the campaigns I've tried it on so far. But no matter what I try I can't extract the scenarios for Die Letzte Hoffnung (it did work for Devils Descent). Any idea how I might do this or did you somehow lock the maps in? They are such well thought out scenarios its seems a shame not to use them for PBEM.Honestly, I have no idea. AFAIK I didn't do anything different. :confused:
By the way are you going to make any campaigns for the CW release? If so, sign me up.Yes.
-
I'm really glad you liked it!
What sound mod are you using?
-FMB
-
the thing is its "open ground" and as soon as i place any of these in quanities it qualifies no longer as open. and i have some elevation there already. i guess i have to leave it for now. i go post some WIP screens next, but i dont think this area is seen on them.
it should simply be a madow, like 300meters. its a homage to CMx1 problem No1. how do i cross 300+m of open under, if even only sporadic, fire. CMx1 Mg´s where quiet a different beast, i see how it turns out when i playtest first time.
id still like to know about the exit objective as this is rather important. the player will accumulate lots of useless units over time i want him to be able to get rid off.
Open ground: insert patches of yellow grass and mud. That makes things look a lot more interesting.
Re:exit objectives: just don't assign a "Destroy" objective for the other side and no points will be awarded or taken away for exiting any units.
-
OK, thanks. Dumb question I suppose as it depends on the scenario designer but, in terms of TO&E and scenarios, how often would the Marines have access to Bradley support. For some reason I just can find much appeal in the Strykers.
They never get Bradleys except when supported by the US Army. The Bradley is a US Army-exclusive vehicle. Marines use LAV-25s for armored reconnaissance and the AAV7 for their mechanized infantry transport.
-
Ok - first set of questions:-
1. can i bring in reinforcements based on the capture of an objective - not after a certain amount of time - the start of the battle was cole and his company (allow for some leeway here - im nailing down the OOB tonight), once the Germans were pushed past the railway line reinforcements were sent in - cue the the rest of the 506th (leeway!!!)?
No, timed reinforcements only, unfortunately.
2. do i need to program a German AI - it has to defend theres not much to it really - stay here and dont lose this land!If the Germans don't need to move, then all you need to do is deploy them in the editor. You don't even need to touch the AI page if all you want them to do is defend static positions.
-
How do get them on the Kindle? (They don't sell em that way, do that?)
There's some way to send pdf files to your Kindle. I haven't bothered to try yet but will need to do so soon.
-
I'm new to shock force, and I'm currently playing through the base campaign. I was wondering if there were any free mods or scenarios that are of high quality and people feel a lot of love for thx
Welcome!
Do you have any of the modules? Many of the best user-made campaigns and scenarios require at least one of the expansions. That said, "In Search of a Ghost" is an excellent campaign that IIRC only requires the base game.
-
Make sure you don't use the "typical" settings for the troops, but set your own motivation and morale. Also remember that a typical Syrian platoon has a lot less firepower to its disposal than any NATO one and you need to adjust for that somehow.
Very true, and it's also important to note that a single Syrian platoon is in fact substantially outnumbered by most American platoons. A US Army Rifle Platoon outnumbers a Syrian Mech Rifle Platoon by about 1.3-1.4:1 and a US Marine Rifle Platoon outnumbers them by 2:1 IIRC. Therefore, a single Marine Rifle platoon has about the firepower of an entire dismounted Syrian company when you take into account the fact that their individual firepower is superior.
-
Am pretty sure I played a game where the spires were higher, altho' yes, they may all 4 have to be the same height.
You didn't.
The tall cathedral spires are always exactly 8 stories tall, and you can't change that. -
looks nice - can the spires go any higher? i would say maybe one more level hire - as in the real pic
No--they're locked in at the same height, unfortunately.
-
Thanks Blucher, that was trick got things up and running now, including the Decent so far im enjoying the camp. very much. I little on the strong side for the US but thats never a bad thing lol. Looking forward to more custom maps . If you can think of it or know someone that does send me the link to that CMSF editor help guild, thanks again.
Chris
Ah, here we go, it was written by GeorgeMc: http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=1194
-
Fleeing can also be affected by "Motivation." Be sure to check that as well when you're checking these things out.
-
Hey, well I managed to get some of the DLC maps to work, wicked fun! But still having trouble getting terain mods and the devils decent map to work in game. I am running v.100 guess I should update that first thing. The devils decent map is an .RAR and not a .BTT or .CAM so that may be why. Also if you have any advice as too where I can find a good readme/tutorial on the scenerio editor? I tried messing around with it but could not complete making my map. Thanks
Ah, that'll be it. Make sure to unpack .rar archives (google WinRAR, it's a free program that'll let you unpack them) and extract it to the appropriate folder (Campaigns or Scenarios, depending on whether it's a .cam or a .btt file, respectively).
As to the scenario editor, I forget who but one of the CMSF scenario designers put up a pretty good beginner's guide somewhere. Yes, it's for CMSF and not CMBN, but the editor is pretty similar, so that's a good starting point.
-FMB
-
Ok, must phrase the question better. Given the same patchlevel two players can play together, yes. But what happens when the CW player chooses September 44 as timeframe which isn't in the base game IIRC? Can the non-CW not open the QB or only buy units from August? What happens with scenarios where you don't buy troops at all?
The Commonwealth module does not extend into September, so that won't be a problem (you'll have to wait for the Market-Garden module for that
). I would assume that once the M-G module does roll around that the non-CW would not be able to open the QB at all if the M-G player sets the time frame to September. In fixed scenarios, where you don't buy troops, the player who doesn't have the CW module will not be able to open them either, but only if the scenario has CW-exclusive troops. These scens are clearly marked in the list, so as long as you have good communication between the players to let each other know who has which modules, it shouldn't be a problem. -FMB
-
Yes. What will happen is that there will be a patch that comes out along with the module. The patch will make the base game compatible with the module. Therefore, if one of you has the base game+CW module and the other one has only the patched base game, you can play together! The only restriction is that neither side would be able to purchase CW module units.
-FMB
). However, for a number of reasons, I decided not to finish the campaign and convert these into standalones. I will be releasing a CW campaign for playtesters soon, but it's not about the Canadians.
CW Buron - Sticking it out (no spoilers)
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
You are a psychic. I just finished it. Can any volunteers for playtesting it H2H to make sure that this version IS balanced please send me a PM containing your email address?