Crushingleeek

lolz. one word: abstract.

It would be nice if WIAs and KIAs could be tallied separately in the parameters section of scenario design.

do any other scenario/campaign-makers agree? especially the characters you become attached to throughout a campaign, you don't want in the KIA column. Translate it into point-preservation too!

When you are designing a scenario, and you want to award points to a side for a certain number of casualties, you choose a threshold and a points value. So under mission tab, parameters (Allied), I enter 20% as the threshold for friendly casualties and award 100 points. If in that scenario, the allied player loses >20% of his initial forces (whether wounded or KIA), you get no points. If allied player loses <20% initial forces, he is awarded the 100pts. The casualties parameter here, the way it is now, lumps wounded/KIA together. I would like a parameter that says KIA - eg, 5% threshold, 100 pts. (You must keep KIA to under 5% of your initial forces to get 100 pts.)

The way casualties are tallied in the final score right now, there is no difference between wounded vs KIA, making buddy aid really only for ammo (which sometimes disappears according to other threads!) and for your own humanistic pleasure of helping your fallen soldier. It may be hard-coded, but is there a way we could be able to set parameters to distinguish what threshold for # of KIAs-only affect score outcome? I think this would provide A LOT of added incentive to go back into that house and patch up a fallen comrade, and this would really change/add to gameplay, because now you'd have to decide should i just risk the 25% KIA chance, or risk having more men wounded/KIA by trying to help the guy?

thanks mord, this is great. great contributor to CMBN

Thank you! I have been making this point for years. Hollywood replaced way too many "Golly's!" with "F-- you's!"

me too. this game's iz bloody sick

working on a campaign following "The Outlaws." (B-company, 1st battalion, 506th)

I second the editor pleasure. I'm no programmer, but I don't think you need to be to appreciate how much work it had to be to make things come together smoothly for map editors.

I like that. thanks steve.

i had question about this too. the foliage of the trees (not even their trunks) in many cases looks to completely obscure LoS, yet somehow the tank commanders see right through it.

I agree. I'm 5 missions in and I like this campaign a lot. Probably also because of the much more manageable scale too, after playing courage and fortitude, which was not only larger but a ton of weapons platoons, which are cumbersome to move and watch over in bulk. question though: What happens to the designer's narrative (in designer notes) if Evans/Johnson/Spurgins get killed during your gameplay? Do following missions still have Evans cussing around left and right (from the grave)?

I was wondering, as I watched in horror when the spotting rounds of German heavy artillery came closer and closer to my 1st platoon, would it be helpful to split my squads into as many small teams as possible, ie. assault teams and scout teams and have them just spread out, as opposed to having a bunched squad try to find cover? Would this be worth the potential disarray of managing troops and loss of C2 contact? Because from experience, watching my 11 man squad instantaneous vaporize into one green (healthy) man and one yellow (hurt) man, is a pretty tough sight to see. Wondering if splitting and dispersing will disintegrate the platoon's fighting capacity to the point where its better just to take the risk of a shell landing on a squad.

Wow thanks for the detailed description. It's nice to hear that at least a few others found this to be a bugger of a mission, and I'm not just forgetting to hit the "deploy" button or something similar. ***Potential spoiler*** Can engineers defuse minefields or only mark them? Does marking them make troops move through the field slower but with less casualties?

I have no problem with this kind of "impossible" scenario, if that's what it is. I like the realism of some scenarios just being unwinnable, as they are in real life, and it's just up to you to minimize the damage while gaining as much as you can. I just want to make sure there isn't something I'm not doing right. One thing that sort of raised an eyebrow to me was how my scout team (two privates) moved forward to the bank of the river and that drew artillery fire. I'm sure anyone, especially Germans with the shortage of ammunition already in effect in summer '44, would try to target a larger force than a scout team with artillery.

Anyone playing the courage and fortitude campaign? I achieved major victory in the first mission, and the second mission puts you on a map of largely open land, and objectives are to seize the bridge (100 points), and the hill(200pts)/crossroads(200pts) about 700m or so further in. I tried playing this map conservatively (scouting and hiding) as well as pushing aggressively. Both ways, my men get a serious shallacking from German artillery. Playing aggressively, I got 174 out of 500+ men killed, mostly just from raining artillery!! It just kept coming over the course of 90 minutes. (Imagine having that kind of blood on your hands as a colonel) I know the 116th had some pretty bloody days, but the kind of beating I took is getting close to cease/fire surrender status even for a computer game. I thought knocking out their heavy mortar spotter would do the trick but the rain kept falling. 1) Anyone else have difficulty/ have any tips (put spoiler alert on)? Or are not all missions made to be really winnable? 2) Is there away to cut barbed wire?

As for getting every spot of terrain down exactly: Do ppl think the GI's gave half a rat's a$$ about whether they were standing on "dirt" or "short grass?" Tactically speaking, who cares? The terrains that actually matter in terms of cover and concealment are graphically obvious. I love the move away from %'s, dice rolling, etc. I always felt, playing those wargames, like I might as well be at a casino.

yes, this seems like a case of reactionist who are used to a certain style (CM1) that was great, and understandably having a difficult time adjusting pitted against the new age of increased gameplay difficulty/complexity derived from added realism. I second the "What would you do if you were that soldier/driver?" approach to this new game. Taking yet another step away from the classic wargames, percentages, and dice rolling, and really putting up a temporal-spatial simulation.

yea agree. Lynching is in order! I've waited years for this moment, only for noobs to beat me out of work and clog up the downloads? Shame on you. (Btw, don't worry, we will forgive you once the game is on our computers. But deal with our fury for now.:mad:

got mine too... still at work. itching to get in the slow DL line!!

what a noob. Silly rabbit, don't you know, random maps are for kids?

OMG!!!!:D:D I created that scenario! Imagine how am ecstatic I am, coming to a forum for a different simulation game, and reading about my creation as a way to pass time for CMBN!! Let me know how its going.

yes. me. and only for CM WWII's.

So, anyway, whats the new release date estimate? just kidding, jk jk but no, really, when's it coming out?