Ithikial_AU

It's always been questionable in my mind that some economists and commentators reckon that globalisation is a force that prevents war. It adds a layer to the decision making but trade as an absolute block on major powers not going into conflict due to economic loss? Seems like economic study/dark arts trying rationalise human decision making, that wealth is all that matters to everybody, especially at a time of violent crisis?
If I cast my mind back to my Uni days about 20 years ago (I'm old now), you have three primary causes for conflict to break out:
- Nationalism / Territorial - "I disagree with you owning that piece of land"
- Ideological - "I disagree with the way you think and do things"
- Ethnic - "I disagree with your religion, language, upbringing, race... I disagree with who you are."
The idea was conflict in 19th and early 20th century was primarily driven by the first point. This switched over to ideological in the run up to WW2 and the Cold War. The post Cold War era has been focused more on Ethnic issues driving conflicts. Now they are generalisations and it's pretty easy to argue that for many conflicts there are more than one driver in play or one is in play while others are used as political smoke screen by political elites to justify entering a conflict. Not to mention outliers or the belligerent sides having different perceptions on what is driving the conflict.
There was no reason not to think ethnic driven issues would continue to be the primary driver most conflict into the 2020's but I think the dangling of the idea of USA pullback/isolationism during the Trump years emboldened a bunch of other global players to start pushing against the west as the 'world cop' was potentially off the beat. Nationalism and Ideology (latter a smokescreen?) have been able to pop up again as a result. If we find ourselves in another 1939 situation but this time the world opts to let it happen because, "we want our trade numbers to stay strong", I think is a bigger cross against humanity and our political systems. The fallout of not responding to unwarranted aggression is also likely to have a bigger impact on global stability.
Mark Twain may have been right all along... "The more I learn about people, the more I like my dog."

It's always been questionable in my mind that some economists and commentators reckon that globalisation is a force that prevents war. It adds a layer to the decision making but trade as an absolute block on major powers not going into conflict due to economic loss? Seems like economic study/dark arts trying rationalise human decision making, that wealth is all that matters to everybody, especially at a time of violent crisis?
If I cast my mind back to my Uni days about 20 years ago (I'm old now), you have three primary causes for conflict to break out:
- Nationalism / Territorial - "I disagree with you owning that piece of land"
- Ideological - "I disagree with the way you think and do things"
- Ethnic - "I disagree with your religion, language, upbringing, race... I disagree with who you are."
The idea was conflict in 19th and early 20th century was primarily driven by the first point. This switched over to ideological in the run up to WW2 and the Cold War. The post Cold War era has been focused more on Ethnic issues driving conflicts. Now they are generalisations and it's pretty easy to argue that for many conflicts there are more than one driver in play or one is in play while others are used as political smoke screen by political elites to justify entering a conflict. Not to mention outliers or the belligerent sides having different perceptions on what is driving the conflict.
There was no reason not to think ethnic driven issues would continue to be the primary driver most conflict into the 2020's but I think the dangling of the idea of USA pullback/isolationism during the Trump years emboldened a bunch of other global players to start pushing against the west as the 'world cop' was potentially off the beat. Nationalism and Ideology (latter a smokescreen?) have been able to pop up again as a result. If we find ourselves in another 1939 situation but this time the world opts to let it happen because, "we want our trade numbers to stay strong", I think is a bigger cross against humanity and our political systems. The fallout of not responding to unwarranted aggression is also likely to have a bigger impact on global stability.
Mark Twain may have been right all along... "The more I learn about people, the more I like my dog."

It's always been questionable in my mind that some economists and commentators reckon that globalisation is a force that prevents war. It adds a layer to the decision making but trade as an absolute block on major powers not going into conflict due to economic loss? Seems like economic study/dark arts trying rationalise human decision making, that wealth is all that matters to everybody, especially at a time of violent crisis?
If I cast my mind back to my Uni days about 20 years ago (I'm old now), you have three primary causes for conflict to break out:
- Nationalism / Territorial - "I disagree with you owning that piece of land"
- Ideological - "I disagree with the way you think and do things"
- Ethnic - "I disagree with your religion, language, upbringing, race... I disagree with who you are."
The idea was conflict in 19th and early 20th century was primarily driven by the first point. This switched over to ideological in the run up to WW2 and the Cold War. The post Cold War era has been focused more on Ethnic issues driving conflicts. Now they are generalisations and it's pretty easy to argue that for many conflicts there are more than one driver in play or one is in play while others are used as political smoke screen by political elites to justify entering a conflict. Not to mention outliers or the belligerent sides having different perceptions on what is driving the conflict.
There was no reason not to think ethnic driven issues would continue to be the primary driver most conflict into the 2020's but I think the dangling of the idea of USA pullback/isolationism during the Trump years emboldened a bunch of other global players to start pushing against the west as the 'world cop' was potentially off the beat. Nationalism and Ideology (latter a smokescreen?) have been able to pop up again as a result. If we find ourselves in another 1939 situation but this time the world opts to let it happen because, "we want our trade numbers to stay strong", I think is a bigger cross against humanity and our political systems. The fallout of not responding to unwarranted aggression is also likely to have a bigger impact on global stability.
Mark Twain may have been right all along... "The more I learn about people, the more I like my dog."

It's always been questionable in my mind that some economists and commentators reckon that globalisation is a force that prevents war. It adds a layer to the decision making but trade as an absolute block on major powers not going into conflict due to economic loss? Seems like economic study/dark arts trying rationalise human decision making, that wealth is all that matters to everybody, especially at a time of violent crisis?
If I cast my mind back to my Uni days about 20 years ago (I'm old now), you have three primary causes for conflict to break out:
- Nationalism / Territorial - "I disagree with you owning that piece of land"
- Ideological - "I disagree with the way you think and do things"
- Ethnic - "I disagree with your religion, language, upbringing, race... I disagree with who you are."
The idea was conflict in 19th and early 20th century was primarily driven by the first point. This switched over to ideological in the run up to WW2 and the Cold War. The post Cold War era has been focused more on Ethnic issues driving conflicts. Now they are generalisations and it's pretty easy to argue that for many conflicts there are more than one driver in play or one is in play while others are used as political smoke screen by political elites to justify entering a conflict. Not to mention outliers or the belligerent sides having different perceptions on what is driving the conflict.
There was no reason not to think ethnic driven issues would continue to be the primary driver most conflict into the 2020's but I think the dangling of the idea of USA pullback/isolationism during the Trump years emboldened a bunch of other global players to start pushing against the west as the 'world cop' was potentially off the beat. Nationalism and Ideology (latter a smokescreen?) have been able to pop up again as a result. If we find ourselves in another 1939 situation but this time the world opts to let it happen because, "we want our trade numbers to stay strong", I think is a bigger cross against humanity and our political systems. The fallout of not responding to unwarranted aggression is also likely to have a bigger impact on global stability.
Mark Twain may have been right all along... "The more I learn about people, the more I like my dog."

It's always been questionable in my mind that some economists and commentators reckon that globalisation is a force that prevents war. It adds a layer to the decision making but trade as an absolute block on major powers not going into conflict due to economic loss? Seems like economic study/dark arts trying rationalise human decision making, that wealth is all that matters to everybody, especially at a time of violent crisis?
If I cast my mind back to my Uni days about 20 years ago (I'm old now), you have three primary causes for conflict to break out:
- Nationalism / Territorial - "I disagree with you owning that piece of land"
- Ideological - "I disagree with the way you think and do things"
- Ethnic - "I disagree with your religion, language, upbringing, race... I disagree with who you are."
The idea was conflict in 19th and early 20th century was primarily driven by the first point. This switched over to ideological in the run up to WW2 and the Cold War. The post Cold War era has been focused more on Ethnic issues driving conflicts. Now they are generalisations and it's pretty easy to argue that for many conflicts there are more than one driver in play or one is in play while others are used as political smoke screen by political elites to justify entering a conflict. Not to mention outliers or the belligerent sides having different perceptions on what is driving the conflict.
There was no reason not to think ethnic driven issues would continue to be the primary driver most conflict into the 2020's but I think the dangling of the idea of USA pullback/isolationism during the Trump years emboldened a bunch of other global players to start pushing against the west as the 'world cop' was potentially off the beat. Nationalism and Ideology (latter a smokescreen?) have been able to pop up again as a result. If we find ourselves in another 1939 situation but this time the world opts to let it happen because, "we want our trade numbers to stay strong", I think is a bigger cross against humanity and our political systems. The fallout of not responding to unwarranted aggression is also likely to have a bigger impact on global stability.
Mark Twain may have been right all along... "The more I learn about people, the more I like my dog."

It's always been questionable in my mind that some economists and commentators reckon that globalisation is a force that prevents war. It adds a layer to the decision making but trade as an absolute block on major powers not going into conflict due to economic loss? Seems like economic study/dark arts trying rationalise human decision making, that wealth is all that matters to everybody, especially at a time of violent crisis?
If I cast my mind back to my Uni days about 20 years ago (I'm old now), you have three primary causes for conflict to break out:
- Nationalism / Territorial - "I disagree with you owning that piece of land"
- Ideological - "I disagree with the way you think and do things"
- Ethnic - "I disagree with your religion, language, upbringing, race... I disagree with who you are."
The idea was conflict in 19th and early 20th century was primarily driven by the first point. This switched over to ideological in the run up to WW2 and the Cold War. The post Cold War era has been focused more on Ethnic issues driving conflicts. Now they are generalisations and it's pretty easy to argue that for many conflicts there are more than one driver in play or one is in play while others are used as political smoke screen by political elites to justify entering a conflict. Not to mention outliers or the belligerent sides having different perceptions on what is driving the conflict.
There was no reason not to think ethnic driven issues would continue to be the primary driver most conflict into the 2020's but I think the dangling of the idea of USA pullback/isolationism during the Trump years emboldened a bunch of other global players to start pushing against the west as the 'world cop' was potentially off the beat. Nationalism and Ideology (latter a smokescreen?) have been able to pop up again as a result. If we find ourselves in another 1939 situation but this time the world opts to let it happen because, "we want our trade numbers to stay strong", I think is a bigger cross against humanity and our political systems. The fallout of not responding to unwarranted aggression is also likely to have a bigger impact on global stability.
Mark Twain may have been right all along... "The more I learn about people, the more I like my dog."

It's always been questionable in my mind that some economists and commentators reckon that globalisation is a force that prevents war. It adds a layer to the decision making but trade as an absolute block on major powers not going into conflict due to economic loss? Seems like economic study/dark arts trying rationalise human decision making, that wealth is all that matters to everybody, especially at a time of violent crisis?
If I cast my mind back to my Uni days about 20 years ago (I'm old now), you have three primary causes for conflict to break out:
- Nationalism / Territorial - "I disagree with you owning that piece of land"
- Ideological - "I disagree with the way you think and do things"
- Ethnic - "I disagree with your religion, language, upbringing, race... I disagree with who you are."
The idea was conflict in 19th and early 20th century was primarily driven by the first point. This switched over to ideological in the run up to WW2 and the Cold War. The post Cold War era has been focused more on Ethnic issues driving conflicts. Now they are generalisations and it's pretty easy to argue that for many conflicts there are more than one driver in play or one is in play while others are used as political smoke screen by political elites to justify entering a conflict. Not to mention outliers or the belligerent sides having different perceptions on what is driving the conflict.
There was no reason not to think ethnic driven issues would continue to be the primary driver most conflict into the 2020's but I think the dangling of the idea of USA pullback/isolationism during the Trump years emboldened a bunch of other global players to start pushing against the west as the 'world cop' was potentially off the beat. Nationalism and Ideology (latter a smokescreen?) have been able to pop up again as a result. If we find ourselves in another 1939 situation but this time the world opts to let it happen because, "we want our trade numbers to stay strong", I think is a bigger cross against humanity and our political systems. The fallout of not responding to unwarranted aggression is also likely to have a bigger impact on global stability.
Mark Twain may have been right all along... "The more I learn about people, the more I like my dog."

It's always been questionable in my mind that some economists and commentators reckon that globalisation is a force that prevents war. It adds a layer to the decision making but trade as an absolute block on major powers not going into conflict due to economic loss? Seems like economic study/dark arts trying rationalise human decision making, that wealth is all that matters to everybody, especially at a time of violent crisis?
If I cast my mind back to my Uni days about 20 years ago (I'm old now), you have three primary causes for conflict to break out:
- Nationalism / Territorial - "I disagree with you owning that piece of land"
- Ideological - "I disagree with the way you think and do things"
- Ethnic - "I disagree with your religion, language, upbringing, race... I disagree with who you are."
The idea was conflict in 19th and early 20th century was primarily driven by the first point. This switched over to ideological in the run up to WW2 and the Cold War. The post Cold War era has been focused more on Ethnic issues driving conflicts. Now they are generalisations and it's pretty easy to argue that for many conflicts there are more than one driver in play or one is in play while others are used as political smoke screen by political elites to justify entering a conflict. Not to mention outliers or the belligerent sides having different perceptions on what is driving the conflict.
There was no reason not to think ethnic driven issues would continue to be the primary driver most conflict into the 2020's but I think the dangling of the idea of USA pullback/isolationism during the Trump years emboldened a bunch of other global players to start pushing against the west as the 'world cop' was potentially off the beat. Nationalism and Ideology (latter a smokescreen?) have been able to pop up again as a result. If we find ourselves in another 1939 situation but this time the world opts to let it happen because, "we want our trade numbers to stay strong", I think is a bigger cross against humanity and our political systems. The fallout of not responding to unwarranted aggression is also likely to have a bigger impact on global stability.
Mark Twain may have been right all along... "The more I learn about people, the more I like my dog."

It's always been questionable in my mind that some economists and commentators reckon that globalisation is a force that prevents war. It adds a layer to the decision making but trade as an absolute block on major powers not going into conflict due to economic loss? Seems like economic study/dark arts trying rationalise human decision making, that wealth is all that matters to everybody, especially at a time of violent crisis?
If I cast my mind back to my Uni days about 20 years ago (I'm old now), you have three primary causes for conflict to break out:
- Nationalism / Territorial - "I disagree with you owning that piece of land"
- Ideological - "I disagree with the way you think and do things"
- Ethnic - "I disagree with your religion, language, upbringing, race... I disagree with who you are."
The idea was conflict in 19th and early 20th century was primarily driven by the first point. This switched over to ideological in the run up to WW2 and the Cold War. The post Cold War era has been focused more on Ethnic issues driving conflicts. Now they are generalisations and it's pretty easy to argue that for many conflicts there are more than one driver in play or one is in play while others are used as political smoke screen by political elites to justify entering a conflict. Not to mention outliers or the belligerent sides having different perceptions on what is driving the conflict.
There was no reason not to think ethnic driven issues would continue to be the primary driver most conflict into the 2020's but I think the dangling of the idea of USA pullback/isolationism during the Trump years emboldened a bunch of other global players to start pushing against the west as the 'world cop' was potentially off the beat. Nationalism and Ideology (latter a smokescreen?) have been able to pop up again as a result. If we find ourselves in another 1939 situation but this time the world opts to let it happen because, "we want our trade numbers to stay strong", I think is a bigger cross against humanity and our political systems. The fallout of not responding to unwarranted aggression is also likely to have a bigger impact on global stability.
Mark Twain may have been right all along... "The more I learn about people, the more I like my dog."

It's always been questionable in my mind that some economists and commentators reckon that globalisation is a force that prevents war. It adds a layer to the decision making but trade as an absolute block on major powers not going into conflict due to economic loss? Seems like economic study/dark arts trying rationalise human decision making, that wealth is all that matters to everybody, especially at a time of violent crisis?
If I cast my mind back to my Uni days about 20 years ago (I'm old now), you have three primary causes for conflict to break out:
- Nationalism / Territorial - "I disagree with you owning that piece of land"
- Ideological - "I disagree with the way you think and do things"
- Ethnic - "I disagree with your religion, language, upbringing, race... I disagree with who you are."
The idea was conflict in 19th and early 20th century was primarily driven by the first point. This switched over to ideological in the run up to WW2 and the Cold War. The post Cold War era has been focused more on Ethnic issues driving conflicts. Now they are generalisations and it's pretty easy to argue that for many conflicts there are more than one driver in play or one is in play while others are used as political smoke screen by political elites to justify entering a conflict. Not to mention outliers or the belligerent sides having different perceptions on what is driving the conflict.
There was no reason not to think ethnic driven issues would continue to be the primary driver most conflict into the 2020's but I think the dangling of the idea of USA pullback/isolationism during the Trump years emboldened a bunch of other global players to start pushing against the west as the 'world cop' was potentially off the beat. Nationalism and Ideology (latter a smokescreen?) have been able to pop up again as a result. If we find ourselves in another 1939 situation but this time the world opts to let it happen because, "we want our trade numbers to stay strong", I think is a bigger cross against humanity and our political systems. The fallout of not responding to unwarranted aggression is also likely to have a bigger impact on global stability.
Mark Twain may have been right all along... "The more I learn about people, the more I like my dog."

Yes that is the JuJu UI mod. I know because I'm looking after it now. Unfortunately any update to the mod is on the backburner while I focus on BP2.

To echo what IanL has stated here, please note that it is slowly being chipped away at but I have a "real life" job to attend to that has it's own ups and downs. (Still trying to win Lotto and retire to a life of wargaming). I don't work for Battlefront but keep them in the loop with the status of the project. BP2 - Utah Beach was always going to be a release beyond CMBN coming to Steam. The big milestone was getting all the maps pretty much locked away before Christmas (70 sq km+ worth) except for the odd touch ups here and there while scenarios are being built.
I'd imagine it would be similar to CMSF2's release on Steam where the whole game family came out at once, but @BFCElvis should be able to confirm what exactly comes out on Steam on the 28th of March.

I decided to create a new topic for this because "tool to set elevation in the editor" is no longer really a good description. Finally (from my perspective 😉) I managed to release version 2.0.0 of CMAutoEditor.

https://github.com/DerButschi/CMAutoEditor
Woah, Butschi, wait a minute CMAutoWhat? What the hell are you talking about? CMAutoEditor is a tool that takes "external" data, like elevation, and automates clicking in the CM scenario editor. This way it kind of works around "missing features" in the editor. Wouldn't it be nice to import something like a heat map instead of clicking elevations in the editor? Of course I can't change the editor but by letting CMAutoEditor do the clicking it does something similar.

 
Version 2 is really a major update as it now includes importing data from OpenStreetMap. This way you can basically use CMAutoEditor to create a whole map for you.
Still, feature creep and being overly ambitious is certain to kill such a small project so I had to triage what makes it into this release and what (maybe, provided there is enough interest on your side and enough time on my side) gets postponed to a later update.

The cut affecting most of you is that for this release only CMCW is really supported. The reason is that there are differences in what is in the scenario editor for each CM title. That means not only are there buttons at different positions but there are also different buildings, roads, flavour objects etc. which need to be programmed as a "profile". I intend to modify CMAutoEditor in a way that the community can help with that but I am not yet sure how best to do it. So, for now CMCW only. CMBS should work for everything but flavour objects.

Another thing I had to cut is support for Windows version older than Windows 10. I know, there are quite a few of you around who still field Windows 7. However, python is only supported up to version 3.7 on Windows 7 and a few of the libraries CMAutoEditor depends on require python 3.10. In addition, I don't have a farm of PCs idling at home where I can test different Windows version so I can really only develop for Windows 10. Sorry for that but maybe this doubles as a friendly reminder that nowadays Windows 7 is a security liability and you should upgrade to Windows 10 or 11. 😉
There is of course a long list of things I'd like to improve eventually and given that this is a rather complex piece of code the chances that it is free of bugs is close to zero. So, feel free to contact me here or on github if you find something!

Now, with all the caveats out of the way let's move on to the more pleasant stuff. 🙂 What's new in version 2? Well, of course OpenStreetMap data. You can import forests, rivers, roads, streams, railways, farmland, grassland, bushes, buildings and even bus stops, wayside crosses and much more. I improved the tools to import DGM data so that now arbitrary rectangles can be extracted. The information from this can be loaded into the OSM data converter so that you don't have to manually enter bounding boxes. (The geotiff tool is unfortunately among the things that didn't make it for this release so you are left with the previous capabilites). CMAutoEditor itself is now also much faster. Please note, that it may be too fast for what your PC can handle. If you experience "holes", e.g. when setting the elevation, that means the CM Editor is not responsive enough. I will make the parameters that determines the rate of clicking selectable from the GUI in a later update. Last but certainly not least there is a GUI for all the tools, so no more going to that evil shell, typing commands - kudos to @Dawntaker for supporting me with GUI making!

One more thing. I won't repeat the mistake and not have a manual or tutorial video ready at release: Since my previous tutorial video is now totally deprecated I am doing a new one. This time, instead of just telling you what the different features do, I'll do a step-by-step tutorial in four parts where I will create an actual map. This way I will certainly miss a few features but you should get a better feeling of how to actually use the tools in reality. Part 1 is finished already and it covers "installing" (i.e. downloading the .exe files) CMAutoEditor, installing other necessary tools, selecting a location for the map in map.army, finding and downloading elevation data, downloading OpenStreetMap data and getting historical aerial imagery and working with it. So, basically the boring stuff, some of you might say, but possibly the most important part. 😉
In the future I'd like to adapt CMAutoEditor to one of the WW2 titles, I think CMFB or CMRT would be best. Obviously present-day OpenStreetMap won't do for that. So, instead I'd like to make another tutorial showing how to use and old map or aerial image to make "OpenStreetMap data" from scratch and feed it into the CM scenario editor. Drawing polygons and tagging them is still - in my view - much more comfortable than clicking in the editor with some semi transparent overlay. So, if you have good material, go ahead and make a suggestion here. 😉
I hope you enjoy this new version of CMAutoEditor and the tutorial video(s)!

It's true.
The Sydney Harbour Bridge is the quickest way to get from Sydney to the Auckland CBD.

@WimO - Even the old hats run into difficulties and unexpected issues with the scripts. Keep strong buddy.  

@WimO - Even the old hats run into difficulties and unexpected issues with the scripts. Keep strong buddy.  

@WimO - Even the old hats run into difficulties and unexpected issues with the scripts. Keep strong buddy.  

The maps weren't complete from memory but this is going back years so I'd have to check.  

@WimO - Even the old hats run into difficulties and unexpected issues with the scripts. Keep strong buddy.  

After come deep breathing, cuss'n and a walk around the house my obsessive personality had me have another look at it and ... I stumbled across the problem. The issue was the sequence that I loaded the compiler. As instructed I had the core units file, two scenario files and the requisite text file all in one folder ... but instead of selecting make campaign from a loaded core units file, I launched from the loaded first scenario. Consequently the campaign thought that the first scenario was the core units file.
I redid it properly and voila! it all worked okay. Good. So now I'm back to work.
Thank's all for the encouragement.

As per SLitherine's recent announcement CMBN comes to Steam end of March but the BP I'm working on is a separate release sometime after that.

@BFCElvis - For pinning please.
 
Steve has let me off the proverbial leash to release some bones for CMBN in 2023.
 
Relive the opening days of the Normandy Campaign from the perspective of American and German forces fighting for control of the Cotentin Peninsula of France. From D-Day through to the 13th of June, take command of forces from the 4th Infantry, 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions, as they fight for a foothold on the western edge of Operation Overlord. Alternatively, take command of German formations in the area, including the 6th Fallschirmjäger Regiment as it tries to hold back the Allied Invasion.
A Taster of Included Content
 
-          Three Campaigns
o   We Start Here – Follow the exploits of the 101st Airborne and 4th Infantry on D-Day. Follow the first paratroopers to hit the ground just after midnight, through to the evening of June 6th. Get off the beach.
o   Purple Heart Lane – Command the 101st Airborne from the Battle of Ste Come du Mont through to the Battle of Carentan.
§  A slight experiment in campaign design, allowing the player to fight a rolling battle at their own pace over several in game days. Can you keep pace with history or will the 17SS Panzer Grenadier Division arrive in time to make your task more difficult?
Current count, 110 scenario variants so that is quite a long campaign script.
§  A recreation of the Carentan Operation from Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord.
o   Fist of Iron – Take control of the 17SS Panzer Grenadier Division on the 13th of June as they launch their counterattack to retake Carentan. Can you defy history?
-          Scenarios (purposefully incomplete to leave some surprises)
o   La Madeleine / Tare Green – The 4th Infantry Division head north along the beach to clear the German Strongpoints.


o   Clash of Eagles – 101st Airborne and 6 Fallschirmjäger Regiment elements clash around Vierville.
o   Hill 30 – 101st Airborne try to hold the line southwest of Carentan against a determined 17SS Counter Attack.
-          Master Maps
o   Seven maps covering just over 70 square kilometres of now famous battlefields, recreated from Allied aerial photographs and D-Day planning maps from 1944.
-          (Possibly) Master Unit Files. In combination with the Master Maps will allow players to easily put together fight their own linked multiplayer campaign battles. [Let me know views on this one].
Requirements
 
Players will be required to own:
-          Combat Mission Battle for Normandy Base Game;
-          Commonwealth Forces Module;
-          Market Garden Module; and
-          Vehicle Pack.
 
Likely Questions
 
Why are we going back to D-Day?


When the CMBN base game was designed there was a conscious decision to focus on the US Army and German Heer forces only. This meant that key German formations that were fighting around the 101st Airborne area were not available. With Waffen SS and Fallschirmjäger formations now part of the game family we are able to recreate these famous engagements inside the CM2 engine. It's also a chance to present a number of different tactical scenario situations rarely used in previously in stock scenarios such as the use of naval gunfire, extensive fortifications, spotting victory point allocations etc.
Why the focus on the 101st Airborne? No love for the 82nd Airborne?


There are already a number of community made scenarios and maps available for players focusing on the exploits of the 82nd Airborne to the north of the location depicted in this Battle Pack. We didn’t want to crossover too heavily with the work the community had already undertaken.
Will any new formations or units be added to the CMBN family with this release?


No. Like other Battle Packs the focus is on campaigns and scenarios. Unlike Modules which focus on the new units and formations introduced, Battle Packs provide us the opportunity to mix and match all the content available in a game family.
What’s the release date?


When it is ready. This will be sometime after the CMBN Steam release. This pack has also been a bit different when compared to others to date. When this was announced at the start of the year the actual work had only just commenced rather than being in development for some time already. Saying that, the mapping is virtually complete and scenarios are being built.
How will I be able to get my hands on it?


From all the existing places you can currently buy Combat Mission products.
In the promotional photos that bush is 0.764 meters away from where it was historically!


Everything is a work in progress. Also, I suggest you may want another glass of a fermented vegetable drink.
Wait a minute who the hell are you?
One of the volunteer beta team. Like GeorgeMC and JonS before me, one of us generally leads a Battle Pack development though this time I've been lucky enough for a number of other betas to help out and get all that mapping done. Also dabbled in some modding and YouTube in previous years.
Can we see some pictures?
Oh alright.

Take a look at my Carpiquet Campaign from years ago and feel free to tie it in if you wish. Or steal the maps.  I've wanted to one day go back and shorten it a bit actually. Cut off some of the branching possibilities, remove the first mission that was a night recon that never really worked. Also probably just one big German counter attack from the 1SS on the night of 4th / 5th July, rather than multiple.
https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/combat-mission-battle-for-normandy/cm-battle-for-normandy-campaigns/the-lions-of-carpiquet/

Take a look at my Carpiquet Campaign from years ago and feel free to tie it in if you wish. Or steal the maps.  I've wanted to one day go back and shorten it a bit actually. Cut off some of the branching possibilities, remove the first mission that was a night recon that never really worked. Also probably just one big German counter attack from the 1SS on the night of 4th / 5th July, rather than multiple.
https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/combat-mission-battle-for-normandy/cm-battle-for-normandy-campaigns/the-lions-of-carpiquet/

Take a look at my Carpiquet Campaign from years ago and feel free to tie it in if you wish. Or steal the maps.  I've wanted to one day go back and shorten it a bit actually. Cut off some of the branching possibilities, remove the first mission that was a night recon that never really worked. Also probably just one big German counter attack from the 1SS on the night of 4th / 5th July, rather than multiple.
https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/combat-mission-battle-for-normandy/cm-battle-for-normandy-campaigns/the-lions-of-carpiquet/