Field Marshal Blücher

There's a stereotype of Scots being all rude and unfriendly. I don't know why, I've visited twice, loved it, and found the people to be among the nicest I've met. I hope to go there again soon, and have an excuse, as one of my best friends lives there now. -FMB

If you haven't been challenged by what's out there already, either you're a tactical genius or you've been very, very "lucky" in your scenario selection. (lucky as in that in real life, you would be lucky to be fighting those battles and not the rest )

SPOILER ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] Actually, you did just fine. In the real scenario, the soldiers only stayed at the Medevac zone just long enough to evac one soldier. However, they made a strong push to secure it (even used an AH-1 for close support!) but didn't encounter any opposition. The medevac zone is just kind of there to draw your troops away from the fight (like what happened in the real thing), and you did a good job with it. The real scenario actually occurred with Marines in At Turbah on the outskirts of Hit in 2004. I'm planning on making another version of this scenario with Marines once the module comes out, but I thought I'd make one version available to everyone. Glad you enjoyed it! I may end up tweaking the victory conditions, though. -FMB

Two platoons of infantry with HMMMWV support clear insurgents from an urban area in Hims. Based on a true story, but altered to fit the Syrian plotline. Terrain based on Google Earth. Get it at CMMods. Enjoy! Feedback welcome. -FMB [ May 12, 2008, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Field Marshal Blücher ]

I would like to help. I've been working on my own Red vs Red campaign, so I'm pretty familiar with the capabilities of Red regular forces. -FMB P.S. I seem to be having issues putting my email address in my profile, so should I just email you? EDIT: Email sent to save time. [ May 09, 2008, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: Field Marshal Blücher ]

If you read the announcement on Blogfront , you'll see that every improvement will be available for every version of the game.

Reloading is at best a temporary fix for me. It does decrease the slowdown when I reload it, but the slowdown's back within a few minutes. -FMB

I have a weird problem. It only occurs with one scenario (I'm playtesting the first mission of Normal Dude's TF Panther campaign). What happens is that the game runs fine, and then after 10-15 minutes or so the FPS tanks from 14 or so to 3 or 4. Then, whenever I spot an enemy, the FPS goes down to a completely unplayable 1 or 0. Meanwhile, the graphics continually reload themselves. When the graphics have finished reloading themselves, the game speeds up again, but only for a little bit. The game speed is fine when paused, and this problem occurs regardless of the texture quality, 3d model quality, and VSync. The map is large, and has mixed terrain of wide open space and built-up areas. Nevertheless, I've created a similarly-sized scenario that runs fine with 14-20 FPS the whole way through. I have no FPS issues with any other map, and Normal Dude has reported that neither he nor his other tester have encountered this problem. How can I fix this? I have a 2.17 GHz Dual Core Dell XPS M1210 laptop with an Nvidia GeForce 7400 and 2 GB Ram. Thanks! -FMB

There will probably be some engine improvements and there will definitely be new scenarios and a new campaign, which I think is important. I'm more than willing to pay $25 for this. -FMB

I think that Steve has said that since Syria is more likely to purchase (or already have) T-90s than T-80s, T-80s won't be in the game until after the setting moves away from Syria (if it does). -FMB

Do you know how this works when there are vehicles and crews? If I kill an M1A1 but the crew survive, how would that be figured? What if it was a mobility kill only? What is each crew casualty worth? I guess it's a bit unfair to expect you to know the answers to these question and it may just take some experimentation of my own to determine. However I thought I'd ask as you may already have some idea of what is involved. </font>

You're welcome.

There's no point value for individual kills--instead, the percentage you select is the percentage above which (for enemy casualties) you must kill in order to get points. Example: Blue Parameters: Enemy Casualties: 80% 50 If the enemy has 100 troops, I need to inflict 80 casualties in order to get the fifty points. If I inflict 79 or below, I get zero points. There is, however, a way to do what you want: leave the parameters alone, in the "Units" screen, set all of the enemy force to Unit Objective 1 (SHIFT-F1 I think) and then go to Unit Objectives (in the "Mission" screen) and select "Destroy" (NOT "Destroy All") for Unit Objective 1. Then enter in the point value you want for each kill times the total number of men in the force. The problem with this method is that it is annoying because you need to actually know the total number of men on each side, and if you change that, you need to change the number, etc. Parameters are much easier to use, but if you absolutely require a point value per kill that's the only way I know how. You could also create several Unit Objectives for different parts of their force: Infantry are 6 points each, tanks are 20, IFVs are 12, whatever you want. Either way, though, it's still messy. Hmm, I don't really understand what you're asking here. Are you asking if there's a way to require 100% casualties to win a scenario? If so, the AI will always surrender before then (unless you have next to no troops left yourself). The only way to actually get the game to end with 100% enemy casualties is to kill a lot of enemy troops with a single shot (like an air strike, for instance). -FMB [ May 06, 2008, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Field Marshal Blücher ]

1) It's all in 1.08. 2) I don't have a clue; never done any modding. -FMB [ May 06, 2008, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: Field Marshal Blücher ]

Aww man, I was hoping it was the one with the Storm Bolter. </font>

Yup. Many Medieval castles were built in the same sites as older fortifications. -FMB

YD, that makes sense. I guess I'm still wondering how often in the game M32 soldiers will use their M4s. -FMB

Hmm. It is possible that they are based on Medieval helmets. However, such things would have been a choice of a particular Medieval helmet style rather than an "English" or "German" or "Russian" style. Most helmet (and armor, and sword, and just about every type of Medieval military equipment) designs that were effective were copied by the armorers of other nations. In particular, the "English" helmets were, indeed, used by the English, but they were also used all over Europe during the Middle Ages. The German helmet certainly had its origins in Germany, but I believe the style was exported all over Europe. The "Russian" style was also used all over Europe (and the Middle East as well) over the centuries. So it is possible that they chose to model their helmets after Medieval ones, but it would have been a choice of a general helmet style rather than choosing a particularly "English" one. -FMB

Finally got around to looking at Huntarr's pics. In the captions, it seems that the M32 is used primarily as an indirect-fire weapon. How will this be modeled in the game? Will they primarily use their M4 for direct fire and switch to the M32 under certain circumstances? -FMB

I've been working on this campaign off and on for several months now, not announcing anything for fear that I'd never finish and disappoint you all. Anyway, it's now complete in beta form and I'd like at least 1 or 2 people to test it before I release the full thing. The An Nabk campaign is Red vs Red: the player controls a battalion-sized armor and mechanized infantry force from the Republican Guard as they take the first steps to putting down an extremist rebellion. The campaign takes place in a variety of different settings and times of day. The terrain ranges from brutal close-quarters MOUT to wide-open deserts. All maps are at worse loosely based on actual locations courtesy of Google Maps. Some are in fact very heavily based on exact locations. Most of the battles in the An Nabk campaign contain only your core force, but some do contain regular Army mechanized units that your force is reinforcing. Your enemies also run the full spectrum, from mobs of fanatical extremists to tank companies. There is a wide variety of different feels to each of the battles (including one with even a World War I feel) and I hope you enjoy them all. Due to the variety in battle settings, this is a good way to get to know the capabilities of the Republican Guard. EDIT: I seem to be having problems with putting my email in my profile, so if you're interested in testing, post here with your email and I'll drop you a line. Thanks! -FMB

Meh, number 3 is the only one I really want.

I doubt any artillery upgrade would be part of the module. Steve has said that if there's any kind of core engine improvement, that it would be available to everyone. Nonetheless, I can hope that some such fix will be released soon. -FMB

I agree, but it's probably more efficient if they concentrate on one update at a time. -FMB

I think that the single most important thing for the next patch (probably after the Marines module) would be a major artillery upgrade. One thing would be the inclusion in the mission editor of being able to choose the timing as well as the location of the AI artillery strikes. The second thing, also of vital importance to me (and others, I believe) is the inclusion of artillery-fired smoke rounds. This is the one aspect of the game which I still consider broken; BFC has done a good job of fixing most of the other problems. -FMB

Yup. That problem is really, really annoying if you play as Red. Generally what I've done in the Red vs Red scenarios I've made (none of which have been released yet) is that if you have battalion level command units in the game, you can put the weapons platoon leader in a UAZ. Not as safe as a BMP, but better than walking. -FMB