AlexUK

Oh.... my...god...... a 10 scenario campaign!! Pegasus Bridge!! Lord Lovat!! Heaven! Now all we need is the piper special unit!* I read an interview with Bill Millin, the piper for Lord Lovat, and he listed some of the tunes he played. I have learnt the tunes - every time I play them I think of Bill and the commandos marching through Normandy to relieve the paras! http://youtu.be/B4WZwz2C72M *Oh yes, and the commandos!

Any clues on the other stuff?

A really interesting discussion! I too recall so many people asking for flame weapons, well now we have them. BFC must make profits (or at least break even) to survive. they must therefore set a price based on expected demand. They expect lower demand than for the base game (not everyone wants the new units), therefore they set the price accordingly (expectation of games sold x price per game=revenue) to match costs actually incurred. As the assumption is that the demand is fairly inelastic (i.e. only a certain amount of players will want the units, so if the price is lowered they are not going to get many more people buying, and will therefore end up in a loss making position), they have to set the price relatively high to breakeven on costs. It seems fairly straightforward to me, and reasonable (particularly with the amount of free time all the beta testers have put in, from love of the game and a desire to keep it going, as c3K has pointed out). The talk of pure supply/demand is also a bit problematic here, as it is not as if another company will come along and fill the BFC shaped void that will form if they go under - I don't think there is a replacement in the market place, so it is in everyone's interest who loves the game to keep supporting them. From my point of view, BFC have taken a risk in order to satisfy the wish of some players for flame units (i.e. responding to priorities per the forum), as they are trying to deliver what people want. I do therefore find it difficult that there are so many complaints once they have delivered what many people have been asking for for so long. I can imagine it can be pretty demoralising at times! I am happy to continue to support a company that has given me so many hours of enjoyment, and want to encourage them to continue developing CMBN into the future. PS are the bug fixes from 3.0 fixed in the new pack so I can upgrade? Is it worth waiting till the new bugs are fixed too? PPS - from an enjoyably point of view, I also would love at least a couple of scenarios with a future vehicle pack (and compensate with fewer units). PPPS - Commandos, pretty please?

I'd love to see some British para D-Day actions (not sure if need new units or not). Pegasus Bridge is the obvious one but there were loads of actions, often against strongpoints/seizing strategic locations and holding. Might be interesting to have some Axis assaults against para defended locations too.

My personal preference is to release some scenarios with a pack that use the new units - it would make it much more interesting from my point of view (perhaps could reduce number of units if need to maintain the same amount of development time). I was holding off on getting the v3 upgrade as some bugs had been reported, not sure if they are confirmed or not? Once fixed I'll more than likely upgrade and get the pack, but more for giving funding to BF than for something I'll actually use at this stage...

Any idea why the highlighted squares are different colours?

Amazing work - I just wish I had the system to run it properly - some day....

Hmmm, I did try a local counter-attack at the end of the scenario to push the allied troops out of a Victory Location - I thought with all the artillery I had dropped on them they wouldn't put up much resistance.... I think I took half of my total casualties in two turns. You must be a better counter-attacker than me!

I really enjoyed Battle 2 as well - a really well designed battle, with loads of options from the attacker's side and lots of replay possibility. (Very) light armour didn't dominate the battlefield. Anyone know the designer? Not so keen on 1 and 3, I find defending battles don't work for me really. Going to play 4 now.

Any idea if this is affecting everybody or just a subset? Have held off on upgrading to 3 on Mac so far.

From a non-expert point of view, I agree. It seems like shrapnel is modelled, but not blast effect? Although having said that, they are already pretty deadly, so making them even more powerful could imbalance the game?

I think there is a pre-planned mission at the start, that varies with different AI plans. Otherwise, he is spotting your tanks and calling in a mission. Unlikely that there will be TRPs that far back, so you should have some warning before it comes down. Shouldn't damage the tanks too much though, and may be taking some of the pressure off your infantry;) With the map design, he can also see much of your area - as a general rule I tend to keep my armour out of sight until I know what I am up against.... 'Having your clock cleaned' - that's a new one on me - sounds a lot less unpleasant than having your ass handed to you!

Here are a few pointers if you want some help: Firstly, I am a believer (perhaps wrongly) that some scenarios are designed to be won first time through as long as good tactics are used. Others are more a puzzle that can only be solved through repeated playthroughs, i.e. they are not designed to be won first time through. In my opinion, this Scenario in Courage and Fortitude falls well and truly into the latter. I would struggle to believe that many people could win this one first play through, so don't feel too hard on yourself. I had to play through several times before getting there. You will learn as much (if not more) from failing as you will succeeding. Don't be afraid to experiment. What are your advantages in this battle? Have a think about your strengths vs the enemy's. For me, one of your biggest strengths is time - the amount of time you have. Don't rush into this battle, there is no need to. Another big advantage is that you can see pretty much all of the enemy's territory. There are very few hidden areas - his entire defensive scheme is laid out for you.... ...but you may not be able to see all of this at the outset - consider time of day at the start, and how this will evolve over time.... ....and could also be used to your advantage.

I'm enjoying your DAR - it's interesting to hear your thought process in terms of orders. I'm really impressed by the map too, especially when you go in to infantry LOS level - the terrain in the woods, while seemingly flat and un-interesting when zoomed out becomes a realistic dry/ sandy wooded area with lots of variation, somewhere I'd like to go for a walk! I'm sure part is down to the quality of your graphics card but in general the maps in RT seem more (realistic/natural?) than in CMBN. Is the map a QB? I can also see why it is important to go down to infantry eyeline from a tactical point of view - something I definitely need to do more of. Looking forward to the next instalment.

Thanks both, I thought it was some obscure reference to a method of governance in roman times - was very impressed with the erudition!

Yes, like this a lot - happy to take a time penalty to reduce the hassle.

What's a Tetrarch?

Yes, from memory there is loads of time in this scenario. I too have a tendency to rush, but gradually learning through dying, if you see what I mean....

Yes, that is a drawback.... One other bump that is icon related is for the icon of a wiped out unit to flash as with normal casualties - at the moment it just disappears. Also good to have enemy casualties flash (maybe level of difficulty related?)

I see some scenarios as being designed to be challenging but achievable first time through. Others are designed as being something you have to play over and over to win. The second lot I have alone/hate relationship with - frustrated that I am getting slaughtered each time - motivated to find a way to beat it. I couldn't count the number of times I failed on the second Troina mission, which I think clearly falls into the second category (I think it's the second anyway - the one with the three bunkers on the hill). I was really pleased to finally complete it SPOILERS****** (but slightly put off by the 'gamely?' solution of using far right flank, although I am sure this type of slaughter happened all too often in real life). END SPOILERS****** I was so traumatised by that mission though that, having had a look at the map on the next mission, I haven't even attempted it..... So don't feel too hard on yourself! load it up again and try a different approach. I think you learn a lot more through failure than you do through easy wins.

I was thinking a different shade of the colour could be used on all associated teams when one team is selected. Not so sure about icon form change to diamond. Also I think others have mentioned, but icon to reflect AT element of split squad for allies, icon change to reflect when a gun team has abandoned the gun (as with vehicles).

Great tips JasonC. I am starting to understand the importance of long suppression now. One of the disadvantages of the Russians is how quickly they burn through ammo.

Holy moly that was fast!

Yup, would be interested too... Really enjoyed FJ scenarios in CMBO

Yes, this is what I picked up on too. Not sure PT is working on another campaign though? Would be great to see campaigns from other scenario makers (benpark, for example) but clearly a major investment in their time, but perhaps Battle Packs may be a way for them to get a small share in the proceeds? Not sure whether this is a major motivating factor for campaign/scenario designers though, and could put some off (e.g. From customer criticism as they are aware that some of their money is going towards the designers) I think I read some comments along those lines from designers in a thread a while back.