Ithikial_AU

Given Warhammer has long been another hobby/interest of mine, I had to Google. The internet did not disappoint.

When downloading the mod and adding it to your "z folder" under data, just go in and remove the sound files (.wav) that you don't like.

That was pre-planned with the 6.0 Update 'Unity'.

It's on the list of things to do. Already started. However, CMBN Battlepack has my full attention for the moment.

Ian beat me to it. Just use what the designer selected in the editor. Another good rule of thumb, that lines up mostly with what designers generally determine their mission as: - Meeting Engagement - Both forces attack each other... what it says on the tin. - " " " Probe - Usually a small engagement with one side trying to get to a specific point on the map or spot enemy positions. - " " " Attack - One side has a clear advantage any attacks a force that is on the defensive from the outset (probably your ambush) - " " " Assault - As per attack but the defender is usually dug in, in prepared positions or spread through an urban environment. Offensive side generally has a large advantage in troops and equipment up front. For those trying out the little spreadsheet for the first time a video guide to help you out (older version but basics are all the same):

Thanks. More than 70km2 of maps to fight over in this Battle Pack. I'm still creating two more smaller maps for two scenarios. Using a lot of BIGOT maps from 1944 and aerial photos for reference. Some master maps will have variants that will also be provided with the historical German Fortifications placed and ready to go. (<-- That took a while...) As per last year's bones on the pack, geographically the fighting is focused on the Utah Beach area itself and the area heading south towards and beyond Carentan. All scenarios/campaigns occur between 00:05 hours on 6th of June through to the evening of the 13th of June. Don't expect all of them to be brutal slog fests, particularly the D-Day ones where the Allies at times had significant advantages. I'm going for more of a focus on narrative and experiencing that first week coming off Utah Beach rather than slug fests designed for competitive tournament play. (Master Maps are there if you want to create your own matches though). If you play the pack chronologically and come out the other end content and with a greater appreciation of the challenges the forces faced, then I've done my job. The content in this part of the Normandy theatre, though popular, couldn't be created by BF as part of the CMBN base game given the absence of Fallschirmjager and Waffen SS forces in the WW2 titles at the time.

For this particular campaign that will be a question for @benpark. My guess is it's Victory Point based to determine the degree of victory.

Well I guess it depends on whether we see an overt or back channel attempt to start negotiations for a cease fire / peace treaty from Russia. If Russia can get out of the conflict and keep it's land bridge and the two breakaway regions, then it would still claim a victory. Zelensky already said no to any discussions without Russia exiting all Ukrainian terrain but if people in his inner circle are also seeing the writing on the wall in terms of the lack of a strategic breakthrough and the dwindling of western support... could get interesting. The above probably makes me sound pro-Russian to some extent and I'm definitely not, I'm just disappointed it may end up like this. Any ceasefire that leads to Russia keeping anything will be a political loss for many like Biden I'd imagine, and has to lead to questioning of the tactics used by the West to support a friend and ally when they are under attack. Unsure if this is been shared before but for a bit of history diversion. Good to see David Glantz still going....

Problem is this works both ways though as Ukraine isn't going win either. As the taps of western support start being turned off doubt we're going to see a resolution with clearly defined borders in Ukraine's (and the west's) favour. Not that they appeared to of made a difference in assisting an effective counter attack... donated Leopards are great but they can't be everywhere at once. This whole affair I guess will continue to be talked about in defence and foreign affairs policy circles for a while yet about how the west can intervene without boots on the ground and get a favourable outcome. The idea of "21st Century Lend Lease" rather than directly intervening really hasn't worked if they expected the support to lead to a clear victory. Unless stalemate was the goal of Washington, Brussels and others... which I highly doubt. Poses problems for strategy when the next move happens between the powers involving clear national military forces on both sides. China -> Taiwan? Are we really going to repeat the sending of equipment routine and harsh language in front of the cameras in that instance and hope for the best? We also know that sanctions really haven't altered the status quo inside Russia either as not all countries are adhering to them and forming their own blocks to challenge the West and it's institutions.

It draws from the nation/branch of the first formation purchased for that side. So sounds like the scenario has "USA" fortifications purchased first and there they appear at the top of the Unit list for the Allies. Only way to fix this is to delete all the fortifications (or until a British formation appears at the top), and then repurchase the fortifications, which will appear at the bottom of the unit list. You'll then need to redeploy the newly purchased "British" fortifications in the 3D preview mode from scratch.

It's a great idea on paper but then drill down and you quickly run into some problems. 1. How do you import and export the "Player as AI" plans and distribute to the broader single player audience. 2. Most players are single players. 3. What happens when the scenario or game is first released and there are no/few MP battles? 4. How would new players feel? Could raise the difficulty bar too high and turns new players off the game if the AI is 'too good'. Scenarios designed to be easy entry points could become very difficult over time. Two cents plus sales tax.

Honestly it's easier to do it manually in the campaign script so you have control to say how strong a campaign victory it was for the player. (Or defeat!). If you have a flow chart of how your scenarios stitch together it's really easy work out how you want the end result to be displayed to the player. As per my CMRT Tukums campaign. Total Victory for winning Scenario 3A, through to Total Defeat for losing 3C. Everything in between you fill in however you feel is appropriate as a designer.

@WimO it lets the designer control the degree of victory for the entire campaign. Only time it is used is for after last possible missions in a campaign tree. If you just leave it blank, the game determines as best it can from VP scores to determine a campaign result. A bit hit and miss approach IMO. Note that you can only have two end of campaign text with any approach you take here. One for victory, and another for defeat.

You'd be surprised. Creating content while a product is in beta does occur and can lead to some unforeseen problems and redos of aspects of scenarios as stuff under the hood changes. Known risk you take. Luckily, the general consumer doesn't have to worry about that. Remember that BF only announces products once development is well into the pipeline. The Utah Beach Battlepack has been the exception as that was first announced basically around the same time as a green light for the project was given. There was nothing "in the editor itself" so to speak. Just design plans and research paperwork. I'd hazard a guess there would of only be some kind of announcement that the BP existed around now based on where we're up to. There's also quite a few perfectionists behind the scenes trying to marry up the history with the tools and features available in the game engine. For example just for the Carentan campaign, I've tried to reflect all the units involved in the fighting and their relative strengths at specific points in the roughly two weeks of history I'm recreating. That's not a quick process to do right and try to validate sources. In the Carentan campaign you will command five different parachute/glider battalions plus add-ons at varying points. It's pretty big but you'll still probably be crying in parts if you know what you'll be throwing them against. I mean I could race forward and not care about historical accuracy at this point and have you pushing down Purple Heart Lane with a British Armoured Battalion because it would be 'cool', rather than a recreating the 3/502 of the 101st Airborne... but I think there maybe a few protests from the player base.

I'm not paid by the hour but I'm comfortable. Job is also quite a bit more secure than those type of casual/contract arrangements. Sadly, when you get to my level it's really no longer a 9 - 5 type of job. I also don't get overtime but time off in lieu at a ratio of 1:1 in hours so it's paid back eventually once there's a bit of slack in the work coming through. You aren't working more hours for less pay is what I'm getting at. There have been times where I've been owed effectively two additional weeks off at a point in time on top of annual leave due to overtime. It's good to get payback after years of career progression but I'd drop it all in a heartbeat if I won lotto and could become a 'full time' wargamer and hobbyist with less cares in the world. There's quite a few GMT made hex wargames I'd love to set up an play through over the course of many weeks. Would also drive my partner nuts.

Yes. Please be aware that the Battle Packs are led and being made by volunteers who have day jobs/mortgages/bills/significant others etc. I can't speak for the others, so maybe they have less demanding jobs, are retired or have secretly won the lottery and are living an Armchair General's paradise I'm just not sure. Just please be aware we aren't employed by Battlefront working full time on content creation. The first half of this year virtually nothing progressed because of my real life work skyrocketed, dominating my waking hours. If you can pull a 10-12 hr work day five days a week and then back that up with an additional few hours a night in the editor let me know. Progress jumped ahead as I took much needed extra time off work in August. Two of three planned campaigns are now in the testing phase. My own testing for my vision of the Carentan campaign also didn't play out as expected. It just wasn't fun. I had to rejig that. It all just takes time. Maybe I'll be able to post a bone or two soon. I keep @BFCElvis in the loop on developments as they occur. My personal secretary trying to keep my life balanced and on schedule, seen here looking up at my monitor trying to work out the differences between a StuG III (mid) and StuG III (late).

This has always been a confusing part of the campaign design process and IMO not the best defined part of the instruction manual. I wasn't around behind the scenes when the CM2 engine was being developed so unsure of the development intentions at the time. I've always strongly assumed it was option 1) from the list but not aware of of any definitive test of answer being stated on the matter. If the original intention was that all core units are buffed whether they appear in the scenario or not then that had to of fallen away pretty quickly as designers immediately used the system to jump back and forth between multiple core units being split up and appearing in separate scenarios but affecting a joint final outcome. The CMBN - CW Campaign "The Scottish Corridor" springs to mind as a clear example. I'd be surprised if it was anything but option 1. There were some changes in CM2 Update 2 or 3? That altered how reinforcements worked. Initially if the script had a 10% value assigned then there was a 10% chance that the entire unit would be replenished back up to full strength. Now it's a flat 10% replenishment across the core units but not exceeding full strength. Far easier for campaign designers to plan for now and helps them set the narrative between scenarios. 100% replenishment is the unit going off the line for some time and getting a period of rest, refit and replacements. A 10% replacement is a nice way to reflect some time has passed between engagements and a small number of the casualties have been tended to by the medics and able to be patched up enough to fight again.

It could also be something very small that appears, like a jeep or isolated HQ unit. Some designers have used the function to pass along a pop up msg to the player at a specific point of the scenario. For example: "Main body of reinforcements 5 mins out".

Bootie has the updated package. Should be on CMMODS sometime soon. Easiest way to update is replace the whole file and click "replace all". Only needed for CMBN and CMFI.

I have a fix but need to get it to Bootie. Enough bmps to cover the new version of the button and old.

Don't quote me 100% but pretty sure the Easy 8 only went to US tank units that went through NW Europe rather than through the Mediterranean theatre throughout the late stages of the war. US forces in Italy were diminished further after Op Dragoon in August 1944 so less tank units overall. Unsure if it was just a quirk of the logistical chains at the time or a conscious choice on US Army's part. Italy struggled to get the same attention and resources compared to the 'main' Western Front by that stage of the war.

I'm pretty sure it's not possible. They will button up pretty quickly as soon as they come under fire.

That would probably just be the Steam overlay overriding the CM's default key bindings. Should be able to rebind the keys in either program.

I was one of the "young ones" back in the CMBO days still being in high school when that was released. I think I was 15 when it was released. I was also both a miniature and card/hex wargamer at the time, so add on a love of history meant CMBO/CMBB/CMAK scratched a lot of itches in scope and scale. Playing as my native Aussies in North Africa in a computer wargame was (and still is) an incredibly rare opportunity. I had to move away from the CM community in the back half of my University study as it was gobbling up far too much of my time. Came back into the fold after I had finished my graduate-ship and set down some career roots, so that was just before the release of the NATO module for CMSF1. Would love to be happily retired, play a long running physical hex wargame in my lounge room during the day and Combat Mission in my study in the evening. Okay a little excessive but can't see myself not doing something in this space for a while yet.

You'd have to ask JuJu that as the owner of the mod. I've just been a caretaker.