Paper Tiger

I'd have to say M1 Tank Platoon as well. I loved that game. The glory days of computer wargaming were slow in arriving though. I remember playing a few SL type games which got me really excited when I read the manual but they failed to deliver with the gameplay. There was one I remember that allowed me to fight a battle on the beaches of Iwo Juma (I think) and the US could move through the Japanese line during the movement phase just because it had enough MPs to do so. That pretty much killed it for me.

When I played CMBB, I played QBs almost exclusively. I played on randomly generated maps for a long time until I got to grips with the editor and started making my own maps. Once I had knocked a couple together, I never used RGMs any more as they just couldn't hold a candle to my own creations. I had three that I played and played and played to death - 100s of QBs fought over the same terrain month after month. I am experiencing the same love for a select number of CMBN QB maps. Almost the first thing I did in the editor was to create a map of the small village I used to live in in Suffolk. Over time, it has grown and is now incredibly detailed and I LOVE fighting on that map. I fight on it during overcast nights or stormy afternoons or beautiful crisp, clear dawns and each time it feels fresh. But that's my opinion. For some of you, I'm sure that would bore the crap out of you And you're going to see hundreds of new QB maps appear after the game appears so there's not much chance that you'll ever play even one QB one each map. And each one will be much better than a randomly generated map.

I hope I still am wrong about it, but I have the bad feeling the maps we are shown in the different AAR are much too small for a good fight. It was even worse in CMSF with all the automatic rifles and guns, and dead-precise gunnery, but it will probably be the same with CMBN. On my point of view we can only reach a "realistic" combat feeling if the maps are at least 1 or 2 km across. I think the best CMAK scenarios were reached with maps several km across, which is the only way to either leave some room to manoeuver, be able to obtain realistic tank vs tank combat, hide lines of defense, promote the use of AC for recon, allow reasonable possibilities for the infantry to withdraw/counter-attack, increase tactical value of long range MG fire for interdiction etc. I know I criticize before I see the game, so people who know I hope will prove me wrong. If you were going to create a promo video of a game, would you go for an enormous map with Battalions slugging it out or something smaller and a bit more detailed? Perhaps you'd go for the enormous map but I know I wouldn't. There are plenty of large maps shipping with the game if 1km+/2km+ is fine for your needs. And a 4x4 map is not that hard to create in the editor if you don't want detail (i.e. lots of flavour objects) or huge numbers of trees (1000+). I expect some guys will create some HUGE maps for the community quite soon after the release as well. BTW, the maps that shipped for the NATO module were quite big in comparison with the maps that shipped with the tille. I remember some folks complaining before it was released that they might be too big. FWIW, I prefer small, highly detailed and ultra-realistic maps (600m-1km) with a company or less and a mission length of 30 minutes to an hour. If you want to play on 4x4 maps with an entire Infantry Regiment (doable) for 4 hours in WEGo, off you go mi'laddio.

Ha! Just yesterday I fired up an old CMSF mission with Brits v Uncons and I found myself goggling at the Modern Era vehicles, particularly the Scimitar. They are so much cooler than almost any WW2 vehicle (I reserve a special place in my heart for the Churchill tank though). I am definitely going to go back and spend a bit of time developing something short for that title after CMBN is released. I still have three maps I made for the NATO module that never got used as well as an earlier Dinas map that I just can't believe that I never used as it's a beaut. Agreed that CMSF QBs feel very poor after playing around with the WW2 QBs. However, you can get some really good ones if you select UNCON Red opponents.

OP - campaigns are only single player (right?) The campaigns that come with the game will be single player only. However, it is possible to create two-player campaigns with the editor. When creating your campaign script you simply change the [Human Opponent Allowed] parameter to yes (default is no)

I am very much looking forward to seeing the Brits in action again in WW2. I know there has been a very slow turn-around in modules for CMSF but there are grounds for being optimistic about a faster turn-around for the first module at least. The Marines took much longer than expected because the game engine required a lot of work to get working. I suppose the same goes for the Brit module too especially seeing as how their platoon mortars required some special coding to get working. (I know that's a bit lame ) As for NATO, well, work was going on on three projects simultaneously and with only one programmer. However, with the WW2 title, we have a whole different kettle of fish. There won't be any special coding required for the Commonwealth module beyond the coding required for the vehicles. I'd expect TO&Es to be the main hold-up. I wouldn't describe myself as an overly-optimistic individual, at least when it comes to making predictions about BFC releases, but I'd be surprised if the first module wasn't out by the end of the year, if not earlier.

Phil 'The Road to Dinas' is another campaign that you can find at the Repository. It is a fictional Red v Red campaign (although it looks like current events in that country right now are making it seem less fictional by the minute). I think I really will get the FINAL version up and running over this weekend this time so you might want to hang on a bit to download it if you're interested in playing it. As it stands, it's probably a wee bit harder than the Canadian campaign as well Use your tanks and the LAVS, especially the TUAs, to put a round or two into any building you're moving your Infantry towards. It won't kill the defenders if there are any present but it will shake them up and cause them to run or miss if they start firing. IIRC, their morale is abysmal.

Erwin Yup, I play in RT exclusively. Funny but I'd have thought that they'd be easier to win in WEGo as you can keep your entire force in action whereas in RT, only a part of it is being used effectively. Obviously, I'm managing that part very effectively indeed . I also use SMOKE a lot when I'm playing, probably a lot more than most of you guys. Which mission is mission 11 again? It's not 'Amarah', is it? I've been promising to return to the Dinas campaign and sub in real Syrian air support as well as add a couple of Shilkas to the mix but the Normandy title has kept me very, very busy indeed. If you can remind me which missions are proving too tough, I'll ease up the difficulty somewhat and release a FINAL as soon after the Normandy title is released as possible. The changes will be unplaytested though as I'm finding the sparseness of the CMSF maps a bit hard to handle after the sheer density of the terrain on your average CMBN battlefield. (understatement) BTW, the Montebourg campaign is all my own work

Ach, what the hell. Heres a couple more that are sitting in my CMSF Screenshot folder... That's one of my all-time favourite CMSF screenshots. I guess BFC couldn't use that one because it uses Scipio's 'must-have' flames mod. And Valhalla Bridge. I had so much fun playtesting this campaign... good times indeed

A picture is worth a thousand words. But I'm going to write them all the same. SPOILERS A strong central thrust is how I usually approached this mission. I'd have my air support patrolling the suburbs constantly searching for armour and would hammer the sector of the city I was going to assault first with my heavy artillery and I'd never let up on the pressure. Eventually, the Syrians will throw in the towel.

Suburban Hell, eh? The support firepower you have at your disposal in that mission is awesome. Just level the place and move in slowly with the tanks and LAVs, particularly the Tuas and unleash hell. I was worried that that mission was too easy Hey, I just had a look at my last playtest AAR of that mission. 4 KIA 10 Wounded and 1 AFV lost (not a tank). Syrian side surrendered with 31:52 of regulation time still on the clock. If I'd moved more slowly and taken advantage of the time remaining I could have done it with fewer casualties. BTW, thanks for bringing this up. I had forgotten how much fun I had playing this campaign. I should post up some of the best screenshots I took while playing it.

51 now, 52 in December. I got into tabletop wargaming at school when I was 15 and quickly discovered how utterly uncool it was. When I told my best friend that I was joining the school wargaming club, he asked me how much money I was going to spend and I foolishly told him '5 pounds' (hmm... no pound sterling key on my keyboard - only just noticed that). After which he told everyone that I was spending five pounds on 'toy sodjers!'. Wargaming is a great hobby for a young teenager who's not particularly interested in having any sex for a while. Nah, I just stopped advertising it after that and still rarely do At the club, we collectively discovered board wargames, the first being SPI's Kursk ("Twanky's lost the Hagen Line! Ha ha!") and from there on, it grew and grew. I cringe when I think how much I have spent on wargames in my past. Nearly as much as on music I suspect. ps I wasn't Twanky. As I said, very uncool crowd. But so many fond memories. Cheers guys wherever you are now

If it's in the manual, it's in the game. Sadly, not yet but maybe it will appear in a later module. I love it too and used it for close in city fighting as well when I played ASL. Very, very cool!

Hi Phil Which mission are you playing? Is it 'Storming the Gatehouse' (one platoon or 'Tightening the Noose' (again, one platoon)? Both these platoons have only been through one mission prior to these missions (Gatehouse was in Killing Fields and Noose was in Red Barricades, I think...). In both cases, these missions are the final mission for these units. The finale is fought by the remainder. The playtesters felt that the finale was too easy so keep going. You never know. FWIW, I wish there was some way to combine these utterly decimated squads to have some semblance of fighting ability. How are your vehicles? Do you have more or less the full compliment? In the past I used to have an absolute car park full of vehicles with squads with only 1 or 2 men in them... OUCH. Eventually, I got used to the idea of putting my vehicles in harms way more often and the Infantry casualties declined drastically, at the expense of the rides. Also, forget trying to earn the VPs for PRESERVE objectives. They're just candy. You can win without them. With a sorely depleted force like yours, you'll have to.

I think you'll find that it is your supplies that will be replenshed in full after mission 6. There are no reinforcements for any of the three NATO campaign forces. The time span of the campaigns are just too short for that to happen. If it is of any consolation to you, the final series of battles for As Hasakah were designed and playtested with heavy casualties in mind. The playtesters were uncertain of their ability to continue beyond CHARITY with their casualty levels but they continued and, to their surprise, got to the end. It's doable.

Is that right? No larger buildings except churches? If so it really pushes CMBN into tiny Normandy villages only! Don't worry yourself on that front, sir. There are plenty of huge buildings available in the editor to create very detailed city maps if that's what you want. There are just not that many of these types of maps around at the moment for BFC to display. For my part, after spending 3+ years playing CMSF and its MOUT heavy missions, I'm so glad to be able to take the action out of the cities and into the countryside that I haven't gotten around to finishing a city map yet. But I do have one in the works...

In the past, I have been accused of writing very wordy briefings and there's a lot of truth in that accusation. I like to create a context for my stand-alone missions. I have zero military experience and so I confess I have no idea what I'm blathering about but I'd imagine that in real life, the commander on the ground will already understand this context. His company travelled there, probably fought a few actions on the way and now, the main effort is in front of him. The player of a stand-alone mission is magically teleported into this situation and the briefing is all he has to go by to set the context for the coming action. Therefore, the less misleading the briefing is, the better IMO. I've said it before, the mission should provide the player with the challenge, not a correct reading of the briefing. I also hate hidden objectives when they have the potential to deny a player a victory should he not accidentally discover it. It's a lame gotcha. I have no objection to employing them from time to time (I have done so in a couple of my campaign missions) as long as they do not exert a large influence on the outcome of the mission. A surrender usually yields you all possible objectives anyway. As for artillery strikes on your start up positions, in WW2, I think that's fair game from time to time. I hated it in the Modern Era context when US/NATO forces were hit by sneak Syrian artillery strikes at the beginning of the mission. But in WW2, it happened from time to time. (Don't worry, I would never use these tactics in a campaign mission against your core forces so 'Montebourg' is free of such cheap shots.) But in stand-alones, if I use them, then I expect the player to get on with the mission and do the job. The mission will have been thoroughly playtested before release to ensure that the average outcome will allow the player to go on and win regardless. A good, highly detailed map does not guarantee a good game experience IMO. I have played quite a few CMSF stand-alones on maps that I cringed at upon first glance but once I got started, I got sucked into the action and the quality of the map was not an issue. Other than that, I would encourage folks to get to work with the editor and start producing stuff. Create something that YOU like playing. If you are happy with the finished product, share it and I'm sure some folks will love it, warts and all. In general, this community is not overly-critical so don't be shy.

dieseltaylor I think what you're looking at is a screenshot of a previewer's early attempts at constructing a map with a broken bridge feature. I don't recall ever seeing such a 'bad' design like that during the entire course of playtesting. Since that is an example of intelligent design then perhaps it will help some folks who call for randomly generated maps why this would be such a waste of BFC's valuable coding time. I'd take one look at that and quit in disgust.

A lot of what I'm excited about using has yet to make it into the title and probably won't until the final 'funnies' module. I don't share most folks' excitement here about Tigers, Panthers or their Jag counterparts. I much prefer Infantry action with a small number of light vehicles thrown into the mix although I do love StuGs and Stuarts. It's not nearly so psychologically damaging for the player to lose his one PSW 222 AC as opposed to losing his lone Tiger. It's more likely that I'll continue the fight to the bitter end after losing my AC than I would had it been a Tiger. The on-map mortars and Infantry guns are my absolute favourite thing about the Normandy title. The WW2 Infantry game is my focus, in both campaigns and QBs.

World in Flames is finally finished? OMG! It's been so long I'd actually forgotten all about it.

Pvt.Ryan I definitely wouldn't recommend doing that from up close with the volume turned up. I can't wait for this game to be released because I think it is going to blow folks away and I'm looking forward to reading their reactions. You can post screenshot after screenshot of the game but they just can't convey to the viewer how superb it looks when it's moving. The smoke/dust blowing across the landscape, the trees moving in the breeze, your troops dashing from cover to cover. It's like being in your own movie. And the action.... However, after this is over I plan to play QBs like crazy for a few weeks.

This is an early April Fool joke. Don't get fooled.

I am actually quite tempted to try my hand at an Omaha beach mission as a prelude to a larger campaign. It would need to focus on a very small section of the beach and the casualties your core units took in the struggle to get off the beach would play a large part in what followed. We've already got mostly everything we need to make a good Omaha beach mission except for the boats. It would imagine that such a scenario would only be 'fun' to play as the US v the German AI side though. Anyway, there will be a 'off the beach' mission in my first WW2 campaign, just after te landings on Utah. It might be fun

My 'local' (read 21+ miles) Electronic Boutique had a small display for the newest games and I found CMBO there on its first week of release in the UK. I was a big fan of ASL but lived in the depths of the Suffolk countryside and so wasn't able to find an opponent. When I got this home I fired it up and started work on converting a few ASL missions for it. TBH, I was a bit disappointed that MGs had very little stopping power in the original game as I used them a LOT when I played ASL. They were always the lynchpin of my defensive set up or supporting my attack. However, I really enjoyed the QBs and spent most of my CMBO time playing Brit v German QBs. I've alway had a real soft spot for the Churchill tank. I'm really looking forward to seeing it in CMBN. The models for the existing tanks already surpass the models I used in my tabletop wargaming days. They are almost photorealistic now. Bring on the Churchills.

Zebulon what you're experiencing there is likely knowledge shared through the C2 net.