Glubokii Boy

Being able to make changes to the map in 3d would be good...but i think that i would also want to keep the 2d option...i think it might actually be easier to...paint the big picture...in 2d and then do some tweeking in 3d...

Being able to play equally good scenarios at these larger sizes would be great fun though... Hopefully the designers will eventually get the tools needed to make this happen...

Agreed...

Well CM has far more factors to considder compared to a chessboard... Elevation, different weather and time of day, a wide variaty of different terrain... I chessboard has non of those... Also a standard size CM map has many, many times the grid squares compared to a chessboard... Things like moral, experience, fatigue ammo load and supession also needs to be considdered...not so with chess. Concealment, protection are other things.. Changable LOS (smoke) and changable terrain (destroyed/damaged buildings etc..) Maybe what you are suggesting is indeed possible but to me CM if far, far more complex compared to a standard chessgame. But if it is doable...hell yeah ! Do it

Another reason to try and improve/simplyfy the current editor would imho be... New designers ! Sure...at precent the threads with the tips, tricks AND tweeks are quite active and new members might read them... But in 3 months...they may be somewhat lost a few pages down... Having an editor that do not rely this much on tweeks but rather on included features would be desirable...

Got a point

Simply because you have the option to use a braching feature does not mean that you have to use it...every time ! with every AI group. In many would be scenarios it might be enough to use the brancing option ones or twice for a few of the AI groups... I certainly would find that easier as opposed to having to come up with some tweek/trick to achive a simular result...

I agree with this post fully ! But the sad fact is that this suggestion has been mentioned...oooohh, i don't know how many times...but it comes to pretty much nothing... We don't see many such scenarios uploaded...no matter how 'true' this suggestion is... Many have suggested it...including myself. Many years ago i tried to get a new type of scenarios going...take a QB map, place some static defenders on it and call it finished. Such scenario could be good enough for others to play...in a quick sitting... I made a few of these but there where very few takers...something like 2 guys made one or two...no more.

I guess this could be true...to a degree But that is part of the reason why i would like to see the editor expanded/improved... Simply because we get more/new features this does not mean that it will HAVE TO get more complicated...i'm rather hoping for the opposit ... That we get new and better features that will make the scenariocreation faster and easier...as well as better. I don't think that it currently is the amount of features that is holding the average scenariodesigner back...but rather the userfriendlyness of those features...

I can understand that the guys that is associated with BFC in one way or the other at times gets tired with the pretty frequent complainig but... When reading many of the replies in the various threads asking for improvments one could get the feeling that these guys have the opinion that NO improvements are needed...and NO further work SHOULD be done with the editor... I hope...and belive that this is not true... But it kind of sounds like it at times... Come on ! It's not like we are asking for a fully functional cure for cancer or something...many of the suggestions in the various threads would likely not require more then some UI changes to the editor... It ought to be doable without BFC having to put everything else on hold for a long, long time. Some request are obviously more demanding though...and perhaps not realistic...or even desirable... Fine ! But this everything is fine attitude..."if you dont like it then stop playing" is somewhat strange... I mean...the severe shortage of community scenarios ought to be an indication that everything is indeed not...all fine Yes...some of the more experienced and skillfull designers can design very good scenarios...but at what price ? Hundreds and hundresds of hours...maybe even 4 didgit numbers...that is fine if you have the time and intrest in spending most of your free hours for many months doing this...some will...and that is obviously great...but many more will not. I for one still hope that many improvements will still be made to the editor...both big and small. Hopefully these will make the editor accesable to more people...increasing the amount of community scenarios being made... As well as also improving the quality of the scenarios...EVEN FURTHER

Great looking maps !

These tricks are nice and all and I agree that the quality of the scenarios have improved over the years. I like all the latest additions to the editor. Things like area-fire, withdraw and face have all made the AI better. But nothing is so good that it can't be improved...not even a Repsol-Honda apoarently ... Any MAJOR remake of the editor within the CM2 timeframe is not likely and CM3 seems to be quite some time away... The various tweeks/tricks the community have come up with works good enough in many situatoons but it is a bit of a shame that these tricks are neccesary. It makes scenariodesign more complicated and time consuming then it need to be imo... Any further improvements to the editor would be most welcome... One of the major shortcommings of the AI programing currently is the lack of any branching options...the 'one way forward or non at all' limitation is quite... Limiting ! One fairly simple solution to allow the AI to have some more flexibility could be to add a SKIP-function to the editor... Dependant upon the situation the AI group could be made to SKIP a number of AI-orders and move directelly to a selected one further down the cue... This way the designer could program several paths forward and the AI could be made to pick the most adventagus one via the use of triggers. Currently the timing options for the AI groups looks something like this... - exit between option - wait for trigger (or AI order) What if we could expand this somewhat to look more like this... - wait for trigger XX - wait for trigger XX - wait for AI order XX - wait for AI order XX - exit between XX Now we have two trigger options AND two AI order options as well as the exit between option to choose from. That is FIVE different options that could decide when the AI group would move out. But still only ONE way forward ! The next waypoint in the cue... The game would 'check' this list of options from top to bottom...the first option that becomes true will be choosen... We have more timing options...but what if we also add this... - wait for trigger XX skip to XX - wait for trigger XX skip to XX - wait for AI order XX skip to XX - wait for AI order XX skip to XX - exit between XX skip to XX Now...if for example the first trigger becomes true the AI group would SKIP to the designated waypoint (AI order) and continue from there. If instead the first AI order becomes true then the AI group would SKIP to that waypoint and follow that path forward. This would allow THE SAME AI group to have several courses of action it could choose from at various points in the battle instead of only ONE or non at all. If we for example have an AI group that has been designated to counterattack a player advance...we could now setup trigger one on the right and trigger two ln the left. If the player attacks into trigger one then the AI group would SKIP to the first waypoint in a path that is designed to counter a player attack on the right. If the player instead decides to attack on the left...then trigger two will become true and the AI group will SKIP to a path designed to handle a left flank attack... Or.. We have two AI groups attacking. Each consisting of a tank platoon. They need to cross a river...if the first platoon makes it across then the second platoon could follow. If the first platoon fails to cross at that location though then the second platoon could be made to move to another crossing-location instead of following platoon one and dying in a simular way... To take this a step further ... What if we could also add this....DURATION - wait for trigger XX skip to XX duration XX - - - - Duration would specify how long the AI group would try to carry out the current AI order. If left unspecified no duration would be set. This duration would not affekt the AI performance in any way...like forcing the group to run full speed for example...It would only be a timer for how long the current AI order will run... Ones the duration runs out the AI group would move on to their next order. A duration feature could be useful in shoot and scoot moves...area fire etc.. Or... An AI group is set to assult an enemy possition in a village. The duration for the assult order is set to 5 minutes...a terrain objective is placed infront of the enemy possition...if the AI group makes it into that terrain objective within the assigned 5 minutes then the assult is considdered to be making good progress...the order after that assultorder checks of any friendly troops have made it into that terrainobjective...if they have then the next order will continue the assult...if they have not then the AI group will SKIP to a new waypoint and either pull back and wait for reinforcements...or try a new assult direction... It may not be perfect but this SKIP to waypoint funktion seems to me to be a fairly 'simple' thing to add....and might be doable within the CM2 editor... A completally new design with conditional/branching triggers and conditions would obviously be better...but how long will that wait be ? Would a skipfunction or something simular be a worthwile effort within CM2 ?

considdering the current releaserate i kind of wish that BFC would considder doing something like this for all/most of their future products... Release the modules in two steps...step one...the unit rosters...step two a scenario/campaign pack to acompany the initial release. What could be the harm in allowing the community in getting the hands on the 'first game' to be able to get cracking with scenariodesigning... Those people not intrested in a title without playable content could wait for the full release (step 2)... To a degree they have alredy done it with CMSF2...the main title having been released before many of the campaigns where finished. It seems to have been working OK !

Ooouch !!! 1000 + hours of personal playtesting/tweaking for a single scenario... that's dedikation to duty ...

Yepp... I guess that like most i'm really hoping that this new partnership will improve things... Significantelly ! Othervise it will be a long wait...

The sad thing is...after F & R is released we are still 10+ additional releases short of being able to play the whole (or better part of) the eastern campaign... I will probably be an old, drewling man...wetting myself before that happens...

yepp...

Maybe the old stuff needs to be left as is... But couldn't they not add a 'slider' to the editor now that would allow the designers to specify the surender treshold on the future scenarios... If the slider is left untouched it would default to 40 %.... Allowing already released scenarios to work as before but give some options...going forward .

Getting your own Dropbox account is very simple...and free ... And then you simply provide the link to it...

My question was actually more aimed at Anonymous_Jonz... With regards to a 'fix'...i agree that that would be welcome. Tweaking the moral threshold as you mentioned is probably the easiest fix. Having the option to specify a retreat- as well as a outright surrender threshold for each AI group (preferably at each induvidial waypoint) as well as a force-wide surrender threshold for the scenario would be even nicer imo. Even better if the scenario designer could also asign the pullback locations for the AI groups if they are forced to retreat.

acceptable casualties are highly dependant on the difficulty and importance of the mission i would say...

witch answer are you refering to ? Erwin or nik mond As far as i know it has been the consensus for many years to use reinforcements to prevent early surrender.

Aha...yepp that sounds weird ! Seems like you are doing it right... Could it have something to do with the scriptfile ? But that shouldn't mess up the first scenario one would think...

I don't really understand what you mean with this line... That is not something you usually do...the core units are core units...you usually do not change that file between different scenarios in a campaign.

I have never heard of any limit... The most common limitation with regards to size is...when playing the scenario... The FPS might be struggeling with anything close to regiment size... A corps might be asking to much... But i guess that you do not intend to use such a huge force in each scenario...