astano

Being (apparently) younger than most of you my story is a bit different. The first video game I played was Command & Conquer (I would have been 8 when it was released, must have been 10 when I started playing it). I read WW2 Magazine when I was in my early teens or so and recall seeing ads for games like CMBO and Close Combat but didn't really think anything of it. Went on to play the standard shooters and flight sims. I started playing Company of Heroes when it came out and though it was a fun game it left me really wanting something that was actually realistic. I did some googling and found the Theater of War demo on BFC's site. I was really disappointed with ToW, mostly because I couldn't figure out how to play the game and its horrible control scheme, but decided to give some game called "Combat Mission: Shock Force" a shot (lame name, but otherwise sounded good). I played the demo and loved it, but it took me about three years and a lot of price cuts to work up the nerve to spend some of my limited time and money on it. Had it for about a year now and have been hooked since.

Are you sure? I am pretty sure that I've had a sniper team spot an IED in a scenario I made. I am also 99% certain that I was not using Scenario Author Test mode when it happened. IIRC they'd been observing the area for a good ten minutes when I got the icon. As I said though I can't claim 100% certainty that I was not using Test mode, so if anyone knows for certain I'll stand corrected.

PM sent. Thanks a lot for going the extra mile on this. Can't wait to play it.

Not to stray too far from the topic, but have you read C.J. Chivers' book? I haven't had a chance to myself, but I believe he makes that exact argument.

Any chance of uploading this to the Repository? I can't seem to register at GaJ's.

ZOMFGWTAFBBQ! Ordered. The SteelBook alone is worth it. What an awesome idea. Can't wait for April. Great work BFC!

What quality are the troops? IIRC greener and more poorly-led units have been said to be more likely to ignore a target arc order.

Yes. Next time you fire it up from the Battle screen, set the difficulty to "Scenario Author Test." It allows you to see everything.

Yes, I seem to remember same. Seems like it might be premature, since the uses where baked scenarios would be most useful would seem to be more prevalent in CM:BN than in CM:SF, namely: (1) preventing files from being opened and previewed before tourney play, which I expect to be a lot more common in CM:BN, and (2) having a unit do an exact, specific action, instead of the the broad-brush AI plans, which I think would be useful for recreating small-scale historic scenarios (can't think of any concrete examples of the top of my head but if, e.g., you're recreating a battle that you know started when the PaKs waited to open up on a certain vehicle in the column, or the two sides became engaged when a squad of infantry darted across the road or some such). I sometimes wonder why baking wasn't used more in CM:SF. I think it could have had a lot of potential.

A search of the forums should turn it up, but I believe it's been said that BFC plans on two Eastern Front games with 2 to 3 modules each.

Not that kind of scripting, I should've been more clear in my first answer. The "scripting" in a baked scenario is issuing units orders - within the game itself and just like you do when actually playing - in the map editor that are saved and that the units begin executing when the scenario starts. From the manual: And unfortunately (or not, depending on what you use them for), baked scenarios, like campaigns, cannot be opened after they've been baked. The manual again: P. 142.

Here's some more on AI from the CM:SF forums: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=82396 Actually, the entire CM:SF Scenario & Mod forum will probably be a great tool when the game first comes out, since the editor and features will be the same between the two titles. Obviously not everything will be relevant, but searching for "nuts-and-bolts" information should be productive.

The reason the game ended under the first setting is not because the casualty limit was reached, but most likely because the AI's auto-surrender kicked in. Once the AI takes a certain level of casualties (as a percent of its total force size), it automatically throws in the towel. Not sure if there are other considerations there - like proximity to the objective, absolute quantity or quality of remaining forces, or enemy casualties - but I think not, and reaching 95% casualties would certainly be enough to trigger it. There is no way to have the game end when a certain percentage of casualties are reached. Baking is not necessary if you have AI plans. Baking is, as you said, more direct scripting telling the AI exactly what to do. Never played with it myself, not sure if others here have; I believe only a handful of scenarios were ever released that used it. That's my understanding, at least. HTH.

The game is due out on the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJfowXTXOfU.

I have seen the above with labels as well as units placed on the map.

BFC decided that the time and effort for visually modeling air support was better spent elsewhere so it's not in. A forum search might turn it up from the horse's mouth, I know Steve addressed it around here somewhere. Considering the ancillary role that air support generally plays in CMSF, and considering that most of the two dozen-odd air support options in the game wouldn't be operating low enough to be seen from a CMSF-level altitude, I think it was a good decision. Certainly you can argue that only helicopters would need to be modeled, but as BFC tell it even that would still require a huge investment of time and resources (and with precisely zero development experience I for one am in no position to argue that) for relatively little return, considering their secondary nature and relative rarity in the game. It would be awesome eye-candy, but IMO, there are other things I see every time I fire up the game that I'm glad to see the effort was put into rather than modeling a helicopter I see every fourth or fifth mission. YMMV.

I can't say for certain, but I believe that most of the built-in missions (both campaign and stand-alone), and certainly those from the newest modules, have more than one AI plan, which makes them somewhat dynamic. Some of the campaigns have player choices (like Marines) or "dynamic" outcomes based on how you perform in the missions, so they can be good for more than one replay. To be honest, if you're concerned about getting mileage out of the game, I wouldn't even worry about replaying missions. If you get all the modules it includes A TON of content - 6 campaigns (I believe the shortest is 7 missions?) plus I don't even know how many stand-alones. If you include player-released scenarios there's more out there than any typical gamer could ever play. Personally, the only scenarios I've played twice are a handful I really enjoy, and I'm still nowhere near through all the material that comes with the game and modules a year after getting the base game. QBs are still weak, not so much in terms of the AI plans or quality of the maps but in terms of the unit selection. You have very little control over what you get, so it's not always either what you want, varied, or practical. For example, when I first got Marines I kept trying to play a QB as Marines, and all the generator would give me was either a CAAT platoon or LAR platoon every time, never the rifle platoon I wanted.

No, and no. BFC has always been opposed to the idea of putting anything special forces in Shock Force, as it's out of the game's intended scope. As such we don't have any US or UK SF, including UK Commandos (or even Marines), or any SF from any of the NATO nations. As for the models, my understanding is that it is possible to mod the textures but not the physical models themselves. You can put whatever camouflage you want on them, but you can't change their physical shape, to include their helmets, pouches, and web gear.

Well, until BFC implements a system where the map is blank until your units fill it in by gaining LOS to different parts of it, we're going to have to deal with things like this. I don't think it's unrealistic primarily because the player has to exercise such precise control over the smallest elements (individual vehicles and teams) on the battlefield. Unlike reality, you can't order your tank to move up until they can see the village from a hull-down position, or tell your infantry to shift until they can fire on a particular spot, unless you can tell before you send them there that they have LOS/LOF to what you want. And as far as determining which enemy positions can then see them back, I would hope, for example, that a real-life tank commander can determine when his tank arrives somewhere what positions can see him and adjust accordingly. To me that's another consequence of having to "think" for every element leader you have on the battlefield. And as stikkypixie said it would be impossible to stack orders without it. Both of these are much more important if you play WEGO instead of RT.

Yes, exit zones are already back in CM:A and will also be in CM:BN. http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=242&Itemid=376 Not sure where but it's been confirmed that they'll be in Normandy too.

Besides akd's sound mod, Scipio's full-color weapon icons and Mord's unit portraits were huge improvements IMO. Especially the full-color weapons upped the immersion factor for me.

I wish that I could. I can't wait to play this thing, but right now I can't promise to complete a play-through - let alone get you feedback - in a timely manner.

Well, we know that CM:BN won't have anything different from CM:SF in campaign terms. There may be some streamlining-type changes to the editor, but otherwise it should all be the same on that front.

Unfortunately you can't open and mess with the .cam files. The only way to edit a campaign is to have all the component pieces before they were compiled - the core units, campaign script, and scenarios - edit those as you want, and then recompile it. Since there are no campaigns out there that have provided all of those for download you're pretty much out of luck on that front. As for trying to balance forces in a scenario - not sure how much of this you already know - that has been a long-running debate and there a few methods you can use. You can crank up Red's experience, leadership, ammo, etc. modifiers to be more on par with Blue force's. Of course, that still leaves you with the problem of Red's inferior equipment. If you have the Marines module, that adds Airborne troops, BMP-3s, and T-90s for Red, which are much more capable than most of their other stuff. On the other hand, giving Blue some of the below-average kit included in the NATO module will also put Red on more equal footing equipment-wise. You can of course just outnumber Blue, but building a Red battalion vs. Blue company scenario requires a big map and quite a bit of work. If you're up to it more power to you. By far the most common way to balance a scenario has been to give Blue very restrictive objectives and time limits - for example, asking them to clear a town with one company of infantry in less than 2 hours with under 10% casualties. You can also punish Blue for using its firepower carelessly, with the Preserve and Destroy objectives, so that the Blue player can't just level the map with his tanks. As for porting over the point system from Normandy, don't count on it. I believe that BFC has said they won't be taking features from Normandy for CMSF retroactively.

To download custom campaigns and missions, try these two places: http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=select&id=2 http://cmsfmods.heroku.com/scenarios You can make custom campaigns by stringing together your own scenarios with a campaign script. To do this you need the maps, a core units file, and a campaign script. The manual starting on p. 107 talks about the scenario editor generally, and campaigns in particular starts on p. 143. There's a sample campaign script in there as well. Unfortunately, that's the best resource I've found. A search of the forums will turn up a few other threads. There are also a few tutorials on the Repository and a handful of threads on these forums about making your own scenarios. Hope that helps. I myself have (so far) only fooled with the editor for my own purposes. Perhaps someone with more experience will be along to tell you more.