_Itchy

Sure. In this case both pretty experienced players and not looking for anything too big or too one sided. I was just a little surprised at the ambiguity. Thanks all.

Yep, thanks, was just looking for something a bit smaller to compliment... ...this (Pershing) large battle that I am already playing (fun so far!).

Yeah I get that. They will get round to upgrading, I was just pointing out to the OP a possible cause.

Most of the new DF scenarios say "Play either side. X vs AI preferred." with no mention of suitability for H2H. Should these be read as suitable for H2H or NOT suitable for H2H?

I am getting this from a game that my fellow players (four of us playing this game) have yet to update to the same version.

OK, thanks.

That's exactly what I did, well tried to, but something is indicating the battle pack is required.

Is there a way to set the editor to only show units from the base game and/or specific modules? A friend has just purchased the base game for CMBN and I want to create some simple scenarios to help them get up to speed. However, I seem to have unwittingly selected some units from other modules I own which will obviously make my scenario unplayable for them. How can I see which module each unit requires from the editor? Thanks.

Thanks, though it didn't occur to me at setup either and I tend to play scenarios (especially H2H) blind so as to avoid spoilers so this sort of thing is usually only discovered once play has commenced. As I say, I think not having TRPs is more common that having them in most scenarios. Enjoying the scenario so far though. I'll let you know more once all my units are flaming wrecks... Thank you for putting it together, scenario design efforts are always appreciated though never loudly enough!

True. Though, if you prefer to play scenarios as I do, you are stuck with what the designer gives you. I am playing one of the Kriegsburg battles at the moment. 2 hrs duration, big map, lots of artillery assets and no TRP's. I would say that is more often the case than not. Of course, scenario designers could add more TRP's, but a few extra options for time delay would be a more generic solution. I was more just curious to know the 'why' of this limitation rather than expecting a fix.

Ah, so just... legacy then.

I was just wondering what the official rationale for limiting pre-planned artillery to a maximum of 15 minutes after the start of the battle is. Playing some of the longer missions in Cold War as the Soviets especially, I find that limitation really frustrating. Heavy artillery with its long lead times and requirement for LOS from the observer once the game has begun, usually means that either the advance has to stop for 20 minutes while the observer gets in position and corrects the spotting, or your advance has to do without that incredibly useful asset altogether. Given the guess work involved in using long delay, pre-planned artillery typically means the further ahead you plan the greater the risk that your fires will be ineffectual, I don't see a problem in allowing greater time delays. What am I missing?

The loading images are my only, minor, disappointment with this game so far. The grainy, green images mean the subjects are quite hard to make out. I for one much prefer the sharp AFV models of previous titles, though AKD's sample images above or equivalents would be much better too.

Ah, didn't think to check that. Even better! Thanks.

That is brilliant! FYI - it does not appear to work if the floor in question is a sloped roof, but on a flat wall that works a treat, Many thanks!