This sounds do-able and something I'd be semi-satisfied with.
Something I'm not quite clear on, actually a few things such as how do I make the core units file? This is explained in a very poor way in the lousy manual. Given how difficult it is to proceed at this point in making a campaign they really need to make a point by point explanation on how to get the initial build done. At this point I'm not sure if I need to make a .txt file and write code for the stupid game to figure out or if the game will just save the core units when I save the file I'm working on for the map. What they really needed or probably KNEW they should have done with the editor was build in the tools to accomplish what needs to be done instead of forcing the user to take such a frustrating route. 10 YEARS AGO THE CAMPAIGN EDITOR REQUIRED YOU TO MAKE .TXT FILES FOR BRIEFINGS AND INTRODUCTIONS AND IT WAS OLD THEN. It was ALSO way easier to understand, edit and complete back then; now the editor is confusing.
You know I'm surprised that everyone here is not freaking out on this game in the forums; or maybe it has happened and I missed some of it since I just got the game. I mean... I play the demo and thought "I really need to get this game, it really is a great update to CMBO. I realize that it's only 3 months of the Normandy campaign and Common Weath, Polish forces etc aren't included but I guess I can live with that."
Then I get the game download after purchase and first thought I have is: "wow, there's really not that many scenarios or campaigns; I'll have to make some!" "I played some of the campaigns already and have a poor opinion of them so I defeinaltely wanted to get into the editor and start making my own. So then when I get into the editor what do yout think are my next thoughts. "why is this goddam editor so freakiing hard to use!!!"Where are the German Paratroops why the hell wouldn't they be in the game in release?" "Why after 10 years would they make such an incredibly difficult editor when they had such a simple editor to begin with 10 years ago?" "Why is there no opportuity to build a Beach landing when basically that is what this timeline of ww2 is based on?" "Why is there no bunkers with ATG's now?"
There are some great things about the game that I'm happy with but the short givings are so severe that I'm thinking I'll take my money elsewhere and never spend another penny at Battlefront. If I could get my money back right now I'd gladly do so.
You know what they're doing too, they're going to screw everyone here in the playerbase for as much as they can with back to back releases. Content that should have or partially should have been in the Core product to begin with. CMBO in example; which should be focused on since this game is it's predesessor was D-Day to Berlin, most if not all of the units were included and it had an awesome selection of battles and campaigns that kept you busy for months. The editor was easy to use for both making battles and campaigns, there was a learnig curve, it took time, patience, planning and testing to make good product but it was fun to do. Another thing to mention, they never had the beach landings then either, they had the excuse that it was to difficult and not worth it however the playerbase still wanted it dearly. So obviously, Battlefront ignored that request knowing full well that shortgivings 10 years ago would not be remembered or cared about.
So then they put out the game with an incredible INCREDIBLE lack of what the original had for content and expect us all to gullibly pay for more incomplete crap while they lead us down the milking path. I can see it now, after the commonwealth forces release we'll find out they plan to release a "Battle of Bulge" addition, then a "Capture of Berlin" followed by a probably more expensive "Eastern Front" addition.