Paper Tiger

I don't actually see any Occupy objectives painted on your map in your screenshots. I can see Phase Line Bravo and other PRESERVE objectives with the white text so the Objectives are actually been displayed. Perhaps you have them as BLUE Terrain parameters and not RED? If you want the two sides to fight for control of a particular objective you have to paint it as both RED and BLUE terrain objectives. Otherwise, the side with no 'paint' will be fighting to deprive the other side of their points. I suspect you'll find that you have failed to assign RED these objectives in the scenario editor.

Marketing wise it wont be quite sensible to release two titles very close to each other even if the game is 100% complete I don't forsee any problems for BFC with the 'close' release date of the two titles. The Afghanistan title was, and probably still is, intended for sale in Russia. Any sales that BFC get 'over here' will just be icing on the cake for them. Nobody, and I mean nobody, who comes to these boards who is interested in the WW2 title will pass on that. Somehow, we'll find a way to get the money, won't we? And as for NATO, well, if you like CMSF, I suspect the NATO module will be the coolest module of them all. Really round the CMSF title off with a BANG.

MeatEatr Well how about finding a quote from Steve indicating a firm December 09 release date. Elmar just might be referring to this post... http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=86689&highlight=release+timeframe+normandy&page=4 However, that was a pre-Afghanistan post.

Will Normandy be limited to US army vs Heer ... more or less. Can't say exactly what as it would violate my NDA. or will there also be commonwealth troops? ... No. That's for the first module I think I read SS are to come later also, is that confirmed? ... absolutely. They will be in the first module I guess I could ask the same about LW and Volks troops.... no info on them, but again, most likely no. Hope that helped.

My God! Look at when this thread was started... how time flies...

Are there any Scens out where you get Minus Points playing as UK/US for destroying Civilian Structures? I used PRESERVE victory objectives in 'Second Storm' but not as extensively as you'd like so I wouldn't go after that one. The PRESERVE victory condition doesn't give BLUE negative points but reduces the points he starts the mission with. The DESTROY terrain objective can be employed to give BLUE negative points but it's only effective when you paint a very small area of the map with it. You need to destroy at least 50% of the structures in a DESTROY zone before you start losing points, great if it's only 1 building but if you have painted a whole city block it's not so effective. Let's just say that the next (i.e. NATO) generation of missions will be more to your taste. Be careful what you ask for as you might just get it.

One important thing to bear in mind before setting off to design a campaign: Will YOU enjoy playing it? I think you'll find a Red vs BLUE AI campaign will be a minority interest thing and so it would only be worth doing if you yourself would play it to your heart's content. That's MY motivation. I design something that I want to play and then share it with the community. I suspect tat the majority of campaign designers are similarly motivated. They design stuff that THEY enjoy playing and share it. So if you like playing Red v Blue AI, off you go and who cares about what the rest of us think. If you are doing it to make members of the community happy then make a BLUE vs Red campaign. We've ALL played at least one of those at one time or another but very few have played Red v Red and nobody a Red v Blue campaign.

#1 After i quit i got 16! Points for UK Casualties. 3 Dead, 1 MIA and 2 more wounded... #2 But whats definatly not okay is 16 Points for so much casualties... #3 But if you modell the Superior of the US/UK Army than also modell the Downside of that Like CIvilian Casualtys (in this Scen you can pound the **** of Civilian Buildings without getting any Minus Points for that On point 1 and 2, I happen to agree with you. The entire Brit force is worth 1000vps to the Syrian. Since the three vp locations are only worth 200vps and BLUE gets a further 50vps for destroying the RED force, that means that BLUE can take up to 20% casualties before the mission becomes unwinnable (Draw or worse). I agree that, with hindsight, that seems a bit excessive even for a wartime mission. However, I'd have thought it would be very difficult for a Brit player to get such an easy win against a RED Human opponent seeing as how the Syrians occupy all the VP locations at the start of the mission and outnumber the 'attacker' by 3:1. Not to mention the tanks... If I'd increased the number of VPs awarded to RED for killing BLUE troops I'd think this mission would be too tough for BLUE. Regarding point 3, the battle takes place out in the countryside, in an orchard complex. There are no civilians so you can bomb the crap out of all the buildings with impunity so I don't understand your point there. Anyway, that mission is almost a year old now and it was one of the first BLUE v RED missions I'd done since 'In Harm's Way'. Since then, I have released 'USMC Second Storm' and that better represents my current thinking on how BLUE vs RED missions should be scored. BLUE casualties are severly punished and you can't kill the civilians without losing LOTS of PRESERVE VPs. Re H2H play. You can be certain that any Mark Ezra H2H mission has been thoroughly playtested as H2H. I confess that I have never played any CMSF mission against another human opponent, Human vs AI only, so I'd take the H2H on any of my mission with a pinch of salt. They're designed to present a challenge to a Human player playing against a computer controlled opponent (usually the RED side). However, some folks can, and do, play my missions H2H and they seem to work just fine, hence the H2H in the description.

Ah, it makes a scenario designer very happy to receive such detailed feedback on his work. If only more folk were like you, soldierz, perhaps more folks would be encouraged to 'throw their hat in the ring'. Yes, I tend to design missions that play very slowly for the first half and then become insane in the second half. I like to take my time and do a proper recon of enemy positions before I commit my forces. I also don't like to straight-jacket the player by removing his artillery and air support. Personally, I thought 'The Full Monty' was one of the best missions I made for the Brit module (although 'Edge of Darkness' was my own favourite) so I'm glad someone appreciated it. You'll be happy to hear that this mission has at least 4 AI plans, probably 5, so the defenders will occupy different out-buildings in each plan. Also, although civilian density is set as High, that's only to maximise the Syrian's chances of staying concealed - redundant as I have since discovered that the bonus only applies to UNCONS. There are no PRESERVE locations on this map so you can blow it all up without VP (or moral) consequences. And, yes, if fire were available in the game, I'd have used it a lot in this mission.

Looks like the 'Old Timers' who decided to skip CMSF and wait for the WW2 game have got a LOT of catching up to do. Self quotation is a bad habit and I try to avoid it. However, I feel I need to qualify this, especially as I feel it's a bit shirty. I have been working exclusively on the NATO module since the New Year and so have passed on the progress of the WW2 title. However, this weekend, I decided to load up the new build and have a go and I have to confess that I'm a bit bewildered! So much has changed already, important new features added, and I have no idea what they are supposed to do or how they work. So it's not just the Old Timers who will be playing catch-up.

LOL, that was priceless. thank you Whatever floats your boat, mate...

Oh no! My favourite unit in the game. I suspect the problem with the Jackal comes from the fact that it's not designed for symmetrical warfare but rather for COIN Ops. I doubt it would see nearly as much action against Mech Infantry in real life as it does in CMSF. A further problem comes from the fact that many CMSF maps are a bit too small for them to be used to their full potential. I have played around a LOT with them in COIN Ops on large maps with good LoS and they RULE! And they're the best models in the game too IMO... bloody brilliant!

One idea I had is that if Charles could somehow allow the terrain on a map to be like a core unit so that the info on each house, wall, tree etc could be saved from mission to mission allowing it us to fight on one map over several battles. I really WANT this feature in too and I believe Steve wants to see this feature come back at some point too. I have some really cool ideas for Moden Era battles using this type of battle. Regarding your queries about campaign script resupply, this is how I believe it works: When you complete a mission the core units that were in that scenario's OB will receive replacements/resupply or repair depending on the parameters set by the script. And ONLY those core units. Core units that didn't take part won't be considered. However, if your mission is less than 3 hours, you can add cores to the mission as reinforcements to arrive at T+180 and they won't see action but will be resupplied/etc like the other units. Now, if the Resupply (or ANY paramater) is set by the campaign designer at 45% then there is a 45% chance that a unit will receive full resupply and a 55% chance that it gets nothing. So it's all or nothing. It's easy enough for the campaign designern to make sure all units get resupplied/repaired etc though. He just sets the parameter to 100% and everybody gets it all. Hope that helps.

Maybe you should take your minds of the game, and go out on the week end to get a real bone, if you know what I mean,wink,wink I implore you, post no screenies

In order to have persistant units, the campaign core file needs to record each individual from battle to battle. This is hardly a demanding process if handled at the end of a mission where the player would expect a load waiting period. The campaign file can be improved to handle resupply. What am I missing here? I don't understand because the game already does this. They're called core units and each individual is tracked, just as you have suggested. Not just alive or dead, but his ammo, fitness, condition, damage to systems if a vehicle etc etc. And the campaign script determines the % that each system will be repaired, resupplied etc... Persistant battlefields should be easy if handled as a static map. Agreed, However, you have also pointed out the major obstacle to this: Complexities arise with redployment for the AI, I can't think of a reasoned solution right now, but I would reason along giving the AI a strategic plan (Defend, Delay, Probe, Attack, Assault) and the AI sets would find suitable terrain to occupy and use (Large Buildings, Elevations, Large Areas of woodland. That's a BIG obstacle given that each map needs its own AI plan. Without it, it will just dump the AI units in one corner of the board and there they will sit. Since I've done a lot of work creating scenarios in the last two years, I can't see BFC writing some code any time soon that allows the AI to analyse a map, create set- up zones and then create the plans for it do do something. In order for this to produce a satisfactory result it would require a lot of Charles' coding time. When you guys are musing why we can't have Operation style battles in CMx2 you have to remember that CMx2's AI is completely different from CMx1's. Yes, CMx1's simpler system allowed BFC to create things like Operations as the AI was programmed to 'hold the flags'. CMx2s's system is much more complex than that and can allow the AI to behave almost like a human opponent. The price of this is that the AI can't improvise anything.

Hey, go easy. I came up with that conclusion based on the first post of this thread. Fair enough. But didn't you read Normal Dude's post that immediately followed? I still don't understand how you could arrive at that conclusion especially after you further said: I did purchase SF and loved it It had a campaign.:confused: There are a lot of threads on this topic already. Here are links to a couple of them http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=88707&highlight=campaign+system+operations http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=88248&highlight=campaign+system+operations

..So all we will have in Normandy is a series of single missions? No more semi-dynamic campaigns, or choices to be made that may effect the outcome of the whole campaign? No, and no. Where on earth did you come up with that conclusion? You haven't played a CMx2 campaign yet, have you? Looks like the 'Old Timers' who decided to skip CMSF and wait for the WW2 game have got a LOT of catching up to do.

Ah, don't worry yourself. I have no objections to BFC adding an option to remove the time limit as long as it's an option. I honestly can't understand why people think that 4 hours +15 minutes isn't enough time to play any mission.

Cid250: You might want to revise your signature as the Blue Bar was returned in patch v1.11. The sentiment's a bit redundant now.

Well, I'm rather hoping we'll see a host of new scenarios for WW2 that play in less than an hour, ideally in 30-40 minutes. Honestly guys, this is a non-issue. You can already adapt any scenario in the editor to play for 4 hours with up to 15 minutes of extra time.

They helped a third party with Brits module Wrong. From the CMSF Game manual: 3D Models Dan Olding X-trusion 3D products and from the CMBF manual: 3D Models Cassio Lima Vanessa Campos The 3-D models were made by an 'outside' team and not in-house. The same team has done the 3-D model work for NATO.

They need to bring back CMx1, these(CMx2) games are too narrow in scope, if I want a RTS game I will just go buy one of the quality games out there. They should have stuck to what they were good at and keep improving CMx1. I wish they could sell the rights to it and let someone else develope it RTS? You should go and post at Gamesquad. There you will find yourself surrounded by people who who share all the sentiments you've just expressed in your post. There, you can happily spend the next two-three years of your life trash talking CMSF and making factually inaccurate posts like this and they won't disagree with you. Heaven.

I imagine that the CMSF2 title would primarily feature the Russians as a lot of their kit has already been modelled and coded for CMSF. I suspect the Chinese field a lot of unique kit and that would mean building a whole new set of models before work could get started. Not to mention unique terrain too. And folks would want the Koreans and Japanese etc etc etc.

Was that an UNCON ATGM team? They would be hard to spot if the civilian density was set to High.

You do appreciate that these guys need to take a holiday every once in a while? They've got families that make demands on them too.