Field Marshal Blücher

Personally, I've never seen a badly wounded soldier return to green or yellow--which is fine with me.

Yeah, we should really leave this thread. Sorry guys! -FMB

In my opinion, "terrorists" is not a matter of opinion. A terrorist is anyone who uses fear for political purposes. Have Americans acted in a "terrorist" manner? I would say yes (WWII firebombings on German and Japanese cities being an example, but I don't want to get into that here ). However, I would also say that many of the insurgents we are fighting in Iraq are also terrorists. Being a guerrilla does not make one a terrorist, however. You need that element of killing, wounding, or making hostages of civilians to be a terrorist. Therefore, although some American Revolutionary War guerrillas were terrorists, the majority were not. However, I would say that a majority of Iraqi insurgents are terrorists, seeing as they frequently target civilians and civilian property that has absolutely zero to do with the war effort. Bush, despite whatever political opinions we may have, I do not think is a terrorist. He didn't target civilians in any way, all he wanted was a regime change, which he effected in a traditional military manner. So again, while I think our political leaders made a serious mistake, I would say that our soldiers at least are morally superior to their opponents. None of this is to say that civilians do not die unless there are terrorists around. It is not an act of terrorism to kill civilians by collateral damage or because a soldier thought that a civilian house was occupied by enemies. To sum up: in my opinion (which is just that, an opinion) being a terrorist is not merely a label. Instead, it can be empirically proven that the person is or is not a terrorist by virtue of whether they deliberately target civilians. -FMB [ May 22, 2008, 10:01 PM: Message edited by: Field Marshal Blücher ]

Men end up missing when they rout. They rout when they get too suppressed and they have too little motivation. A little orange '!' appears above their head instead of the little red '+' for a casualty. -FMB

That's great to hear, Steve. Thanks a lot! -FMB

That's great to hear, Steve. Thanks a lot! -FMB

That's great to hear, Steve. Thanks a lot! -FMB

The Occupy with % percentage would of course be up to the scenario designer. I think that on reflection there should be two options: "Occupy with Original %" as in, occupy it with a certain percentage of your full OOB, and "Occupy with %" which would just mean the percentage of your troops left at the end. For a Special Forces or raid type mission, you would want to use "Occupy with 100%," because the idea is to get every single guy out of the area. For a more conventional setting, I would agree that "Occupy with Original 70%" would make more sense. Interesting point! Thanks. -FMB

Exactly. It does work at 200+ yards, but distances shorter than that just get them killed. That's why they need to do something other than Slow. Maybe Assault or something, so some of them start suppressing the enemy while the others dash to cover, and then vice versa? -FMB

Exactly. It does work at 200+ yards, but distances shorter than that just get them killed. That's why they need to do something other than Slow. Maybe Assault or something, so some of them start suppressing the enemy while the others dash to cover, and then vice versa? -FMB

Exactly. It does work at 200+ yards, but distances shorter than that just get them killed. That's why they need to do something other than Slow. Maybe Assault or something, so some of them start suppressing the enemy while the others dash to cover, and then vice versa? -FMB

I thought I'd add to BFC's long list of stuff to change by posting what I'd like to see (especially from a scenario designer's point of view) added to objectives. Some of these have been posted elsewhere, but I think it would be handy to have them all in one place. </font> Enemy Destroys-Gives you points if the enemy blows up a building they're not supposed to</font>Occupy With %-Means you must occupy the objective with at least a certain percentage of your force, e.g. for an "exit objective" you would put this at 100%. Similarly, you could have an objective that requires that you occupy it with a certain number of troops in order to represent that it's adequately defended against counterattacks.</font>(Inspired by one of Pandur's recent threads) Enemy Touches-gives you points if the enemy goes somewhere they're not supposed to</font>Touch/Occupy With-you only get points if you touch or occupy the terrain with a specific unit (chosen like a unit objective). This could be used to represent evacuation of key personnel, etc.</font> What other things would you guys like to see added to objectives? -FMB

YES. Please.

Yup. BFISTs without the FIST are no better than regular units. I think that even if you select the BFIST even with the FIST inside, it still isn't very good. You need to actually select the FIST IIRC. -FMB

For some of my scenarios, this has caused me to give up placing those roof walls because it's so frustrating. Agree with this 100%. -FMB

Dragon67, I think most of Steve's post was directed at JasonC, not you.

I'm pretty sure you can't do this, unfortunately. It would have come in really handy in one scenario I made. -FMB

What sometimes works is if you put their spawn zone at the end of a road or something, and then change the elevations around so that they aren't immediately in LOS, that works. The only problem is making the terrain not look unnatural. -FMB

I bought it for $45 and consider it worth every penny. -FMB

the Fighting Seabee, See what happens when you try to load a save from an earlier version, as long as the save was made at the beginning of the mission (in the setup phase). I just loaded up a 1.05 save in 1.08 and it worked just fine, so you should be able to carry on where you left off last. -FMB

Well, you can add them to one side's OOB and then select the vehicles to be "Destroyed." That's the closest you can do at the moment. It works pretty well, though. -FMB

Probably. With the BMP-3's 100mm gun, it can probably take out a Bradley faster than the Bradley can use its TOW. I'm not really an expert on either vehicle, though, and if Bradleys have better optics, they might still have an advantage because it seems that between the two, whichever one sees the enemy first will win. -FMB

Hmm. I loaded up the last mission, but I can't see a date for it. BTW, you know that saved games are still compatible with newer versions as long as the save was made at the start of a mission? That was the only way I ever finished the campaign. -FMB

Agreed. I'm working on a Red vs Red campaign right now that one of my testers is ripping through with almost no problems. I might give this campaign a go if I have time. -FMB

Pun intended? Regardless, I think trees could stand to be a little less tough, but make them too brittle and you have problems as well. -FMB