gdbf01

I'm about ready to upload my first scenario. Is all that is required for the complete scenario (briefing, maps, scenario itself) the "*.btt" file, or do you need to find where you've stored your maps, etc. and include those in the zip file as well? I'm just not sure what all gets stored in the .btt file. Hope my question is clear. Thanks for the help.

OK, just to add to the above, I did a search at McMaster and found this link: http://digitalarchive.mcmaster.ca/islandora/object/macrepo%3A32223 That looks a lot like the original link so if you get a McMaster "Page Not Found" use their "Browse" feature and on the right hand side is the Maps repository. Click on that and you'll find WWII Topographical Maps on the bottom left side of the "buttons". Hope that helps.

Thanks hugely for this Badger73!! This changes a lot for me and while it will now take longer to finish the scenario I'm working on, it should (if I don't mess it up ) be a far better product! One question - I clicked on the McMaster link for the maps but while it takes me to McMaster University alright, it gives me a "Page Not Found". Would you have any updates on that link at all please? Many thanks again (and to Jon for writing the tutorial which I've printed out).

I'm in the process of doing the same thing. It's trickier than it looks, but IMO it is do-able. Now the players of my scenarios may disagree (still haven't uploaded it yet, but maybe today if I can figure out how to get it up there), but I think you're on the right track. One key element I'm finding is to make sure you build in some undulations as Stephen suggested. Typically (although not always) over the distance your map spans, you will get *some* rising and falling of terrain, even if it's only a metre or two. On really small maps similar to the one I'm building, not so much, and again Stephen is right - open ground can be murderous. But that's the way things went at times (my scenario takes place in Holland). One thing I have found myself is that while difficult, unit conversions can be successful. You just want to make sure that the essence of the unit make up is the same as in the board game. For example, I'm doing an ASL scenario, and in that they call for the Germans to have a few HMG's, but they list the crews separately. In CMBN you can't get a machine gun without a crew; you just have to make sure you don't add too many or too few in the process. It's little things like that which can trip you up. I'm quite certain my first few (dozen? ) scenarios will be "challenging" for one side or the other, and to start with, I'm doing Allies vs the AI only until I can get a better feel for the AI Plans and how they operate. So maybe start with simple scenarios first (there are an innumerable small battles that can easily be listed as fictional, but who's to say these didn't actually occur - it's only the grander battles that typically get written about). They are easier to deal with and if you get a critique back that says it's horribly unbalanced, then it's easier to tweak than something really big. Good luck with this. It's a bit daunting, but I really have enjoyed third party scenarios presented here and would like to be a contributor as well as a user. The more there is, the more this game stays "fresh". PS - one thing you might want to do to add a realistic touch to maps is add lots of "Flavour" objects ("Flavor" to my neighbors to the south ). They are a bit frustrating to deal with because you have to go into 3D Preview to see where they were put exactly, then to move them around. They aren't a "drop-and-adjust" as are things like buildings, but the extra time taken is really worth it.

I'm beginning to wonder if BF doesn't have "powers" that even they aren't aware of

Watching the video from last night, it appears that they will. Before one of his crashes, a tank of his led the target perfectly (he was locked in on his firing unit at ground level which really showed this off perfectly). He nailed the target. Other shots though were mixed. Some landed in front, some behind, so there is a fair amount of variability to this (good!!). It seems (as it should) the further the target is away from the shooter, the poorer the aim, and of course, the more the target needs to be led.

I'd like to echo Collingwood's comments. Not only does this showcase the game far better than simply showing screenshots, but I find I'm learning a great deal about the CM2 engine as well. Now the manuals for all these games are extremely well written, but sometimes there is nothing like "seeing it in action" vs reading about it, and I've picked up a vast amount of knowledge and ideas which helps tremendously when playing. Chris, you asked people if they would be interested in seeing other scenarios (perhaps from other CM games, I believe that was about). I'm not signed up for Twitch so I couldn't comment at the time, but my answer to that would be a resounding YES! Lastly I totally agree with those who think you are the ideal person to be hosting the Twitch TV program for these scenarios. What they said are exactly my thoughts. So thanks again, and I'll be there again next Saturday. Much appreciated . Glenn

Thank you gentlemen. This helps a bunch and clears things up quite a bit and makes a lot of sense. Agreed "sburke", and I guess this is what they refer to in the manual as making use of TRP's for ambushes as well. And yeah, mortars are known for messing up one's day for sure (not to mention their underwear ). Thanks again people - really appreciate the help. Makes using these in QB's much easier.

Yep. Not to mention no solutions and no alternatives (games that do NOT have any of the "bugs" he reports). I have to assume that's because the technology doesn't exist to correct the "issues" he has been reporting (at least, those that really are factual), and it would seem no other developer is able to surmount the so-called problems he lists because he hasn't listed any of them or games that are better. That being the case, that still puts BF at the front of the pack and a leader in the technology. As most all of us suspected. But never mind us. How about Jeffrey Paulding. You may know about him IntruderPI. He's the REAL infantry commander who did the tutorial series at Armchair General using CMBN. In his tutorials (and #2 especially, around the 8 minute mark) he describes using real world tactics in CM games because the game is so realistic. But, I suppose he too is just another fanatic, eh? Anyway, there are those who like to debate certain points, and those who are "all knowing" and are only here to lecture the "poor and uninformed" on how things are. Period. I'm happy to debate with the former. I'm far too busy enjoying playing the game to be bothered with the latter, and you my friend, are definitely in the latter category. That is more than obvious when you say things like "I feel like talking to a wooden wall reading posts above."; a very good indication that you've read very little of what was said in the "posts above". It is clear that you know all and the rest of us are simply pawns of BF. Well, clear to you at least. So until you can come up with clear and decisive answers to the questions I posed to you, I think I'll go back to enjoying Combat Mission. Hope you won't miss me too much, or the rest of us, but I think you're going to be talking to that wall after this. Hope you're good at listening to echoes . Have a nice day. Glenn

G'Day All, I have a question about TRP's to do mainly the concept behind them (I know how to buy and place them). The manual states that they are (in effect) pre-registered target points, and that no friendly unit has to have a LOS to them for firing units to have effective fire at the TRP. What I'm unsure of is how a TRP would be designated in real life if no unit has an LOS to it. For example, if you have a TRP in the centre of a town that you don't occupy or have an LOS to (and if you do occupy the TRP and call in the strike anyway, well... ), how would that TRP be established? They didn't have GPS back then so it's not that. Does a commander (of some type) simply designate a Lat/Long from a topo map they have (which I suspect is the case)? Thanks very much. Glenn

@Fizou - <LMAO> Thanks!! I KNEW I was going to screw that up . I feel just like George W (Bush) now . Appreciate the fix, and you are quite correct of course.

<LOL> Yeah, could do that I guess . I ended up getting FRAPS as recommended and it works great. Good alternative though - thanks

@IntruderPI - I guess I'm a little confused. You say, We have a saying in North America that goes, "Once burned, twice shy." And another one, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on you." The first one applies in that if you felt burned on CMFS after many updates, why would you shell out more hard earned cash for CMBN? If it were me, I think I'd be saying to myself that Battlefront had lost their touch and so I'm not going to throw still more money at them for a bad product. The second saying is related to the first. If you felt like you were cheated (my words, but it sounds like this is how you felt) with CMFS, then that's Battlefront's bad (shame on them). However, if knowing they were putting out a "bad" product (as you seem to feel), you then go and buy yet another product that is part of the same line up (CM), then put out still more money purchasing the updates as you mentioned in your original post, then I don't think you can point fingers at Battlefront. You willingly and knowingly paid yet more money for what is, in your estimation, an inferior product. That's not something you can blame BF for, IMO. Lastly, you say you aren't attacking BF. Well, perhaps not (jury is still out on that one... maybe), but you are certainly using an inflammatory tone, and even more so with those of us who choose to present the other side of the argument. You present many problems and bugs, but you: a) don't mention games/developers who have solved the problems you claim still exist, and aren't offering up any solutions yourself to these problems. It's very easy to sit back and take pot shots at people (particularly on the internet), but it's a whole other story to offer solutions or alternatives in a helpful and constructive manner. I guess I am left wondering why, if the game is that bad, you would even still be inhabiting the forums here? I think if I were that discouraged with a game, and there were no solutions in sight (to my satisfaction), I would have simply moved on to bigger and better things. Assuming bigger and better actually exist. So far no one has shown me that it does. Glenn

Sheldo... errr CHRIS (had me thinking on that too ) - MANY thanks for doing these! I really get a lot out of them both in terms of tactics and weapons capabilities. Much appreciated. Glenn PS - Chris, do you always play WEGO or do you ever use RT (Real Time)? My preference is Real Time, but as a novice I have a hard time keeping up with things. Just wondering if you (and others) have any preferences in that direction (or tips for that matter)? Thanks!

Oh, I think we ALL would like the physics to be better - in this and every other game. As they say, "In a perfect world... ." The trick is that we are trying to make a bunch of 1's and 0's behave like a 3D, real life entity. At some point, we'll probably get there, but again we keep bumping up against this damned technology curve. For sure there are inaccuracies and weaknesses, but as one other responder said (and I paraphrase), show me the game that IS perfect! I've not found it (and you've not suggested one yet), so I'm not sure it exists; much as we wish it did. What I see in BF though, is a strong desire to get as close as we can at this point in time, and (again) they are always pushing the envelope. One can hardly ask for more, and is (again) one of the big reasons I keep coming back to them. I've referred to another hobby I'm in where some developers are "less keen" to build in the best they can do, which leaves us users feeling somewhat cheated. There is one developer who absolutely refuses to build in anything except graphics (he leaves in backwards working switches, switches that don't work, advertising a particular component as being a functioning unit when in reality it's the default component simply dressed up to look like a more advanced component), engines that don't work properly; all of which have looooong ago been addressed by other developers (and the technology is freely available) and easily fixable. Yet this developer is the only one who is producing the types of things the majority of users want to use, so we have to "put up or shut up." I find that approach highly offensive, but certainly not uncommon in that hobby. One or two other developers in that field DO take the high road and make things as good as they can possibly be, given the current technology. Some still criticise their efforts as not being enough because this component doesn't do exactly what it should do in the real world (never mind that it makes no difference to the sim itself). So sometimes the developer can't win, but the observer is (IMO) being unfair because what he/she is asking for, simply can't be done. BF is in the category where they try their very best and are continually pushing the envelope. Do they have it all perfect? No chance. It's not for lack of trying though, and as others have observed, they come closer than anyone else out there (that I, and apparently many/most others) have done. When you look back at CMBO and its genre and compare its limitations with what we have in the CMX2 (and soon the CMX3 - likely another jump forward in a short space of time), I think you'd have to agree they haven't been sitting around with their collective thumbs up their derrieres; but continuing to learn and push the envelope. That's light years better than some developers (not found any in the wargaming genre, but they may be there) like I mentioned above who are simply interested in pushing out another product for the sake of making more $$ and not caring about the customer one bit. As I said, I am a "fanboy" of BF, but again, with good reason. Now you did say one thing that I think (from my experience) is completely incorrect. "My guess is that a good chunk of the blokes on this forum would be thrilled with having Zombie-driven T34's firing lazer-guided muffins at Jabba the Hut." I find folks here are pretty discriminating. They know more about this stuff than I ever will, and I (and probably others too) actually was in the Infantry for a time (not in a war zone though). I read AAR's and drop noob questions all over the place here because I like tapping into the wealth of knowledge that is present here. Of course there are some people who may not "mind" the scenario you describe, but for some of us it's not that we blindly accept it, but maybe that we don't know any better. And of course there are those who are willing to delve into the simulation less so than others. There's nothing wrong with that. Each plays on their own level, and that's not a bad thing as I see it. As long as they don't start screaming at those who are bringing up specific issues (not simply wholesale, "this game is junk" statements) as being "too demanding", then that's ok with me. So no, I do disagree with you on that point I'm afraid. I've seen a number of responses here that suggest "not feeding the troll". Generally I agree with such a policy, but respectfully I think also this is a good reminder of why we do this, why we buy and support BF in particular, and how far/how good we really do have it right now. If we need too many of these reminders, something is wrong; but I don't see many complaints (of a broad nature) come up here (a good thing!). So once in a while it's good (again, respectfully) to have to answer the question of "Why?" It serves a higher purpose . Glenn

Just saying thanks to Chris for the video! I just finished the first one and will watch the other(s) ASAP. The game looks great and I think I'm even learning a few tips and tricks from this. Thanks! Glenn

Hmmnn, well "Zels...", at least you found SOMETHING good about BF . Otherwise, they'd be as bad as EA I suppose, would they? As someone who is quickly approaching official "Old Fart" status, I can tell you from experience that you're in for more and more disappointment as time goes on. NOTHING in this world is perfect (don't I wish!). Oddly enough, that would include BF. The thing is, you learn to find what works the best given the circumstances. I played Advanced Squad Leader (maybe before your time - Google it as it might be rather enlightening to see what we had to do prior to computers and BF) for many years and it was really, really good. For it's time. But it can't hold a candle to BF's offerings. Why? It was more "fully featured" after all (more weapons, more nationalities, etc.). But, you could see every single counter on the board(s). The game required a degree of imagination that bordered on the insane in order to pull off most games, and that was H2H. We won't even talk about solitary play! Now "all" BF has managed to do, is take a goodly portion of what ASL gave us, and put it on a format that enables one to march their units across a "map" (that is far more realistic looking than any board artwork), and merrily walk into a waiting ambush that you had no idea was coming. That's H2H OR vs. the AI! I wonder if you know how much coding it takes to make even one of these collections of electron (called "Squads" in the BF world) do anything at all, never mind something even remotely realistic? I suspect not. It's mind boggling, and I learned Fortran in high school (yes, we had just only graduated from painting on rocks - it was quite an advancement!). What these guys do is pretty dramatic stuff. Now no doubt those of us who are left will look back on CMx2 and wonder how in the world we ever played these games, when we... err, "they" are running on Windows 15.3v4 and the squads are true 3D on a holographic screen, but for now we're stuck with the technology we have. And frankly, it ain't bad. Even better, we have guys like BF pushing the envelope constantly. They aren't sitting on their laurels the way some developers do (and you did mention one). Better still, when they break new ground, the push as much as they can of that back on the previous games, which keeps them new and fresh (and fun, and more than worth the $$$ they cost!). As much as how well the games are developed, it is the developer's treatment of its customers that is a key component for me. I partake of another hobby where daily I am blown away about how most developers still have any customers at all. Their treatment of their "bread and butter" ranges from completely ignoring any posts on their forums to that of out and out contempt; and yet they still sell products. Now THOSE are fanboys!! This cannot be said of BF. Believe me, before buying any of the CMx1 games, I watched the forums for a while (and still do), and BF treats everyone with a high degree of respect and always comes up with an answer (or at least a reason if there is no answer) to any queries. The very, very odd time they have to deal with a rude post(er), it's always done (again) with respect. They have more tolerance than I do, believe me. That says a lot about the quality of the people behind this brand, and it also speaks highly of the people that inhabit these boards. Had you posted your message above at the aforementioned forums for the unmentioned hobby, the abuse you would have taken would have been truly monumental, and without any mercy whatsoever, and your message would have been more accurate for that crowd than this one by a country mile. The folks here would seem to be well above that, for which I am grateful. Anyway, I guess this is getting a bit long, but before you go, perhaps you'd care to share with us what games you DO find "worthy"? I won't switch from BF because I AM a "fanboy", but with good reasons (all mentioned above). I'm sure we here are all interested in something that does work well, and especially if it works better than CM does. That would be a very tall order indeed; but even if you do have a candidate, BF won't be losing any customers to it. We will simply be widening our scope of "worthy" developers. Thank you for reading (assuming you did ). PS - forgot to mention - I'll be ordering Red Thunder the second it hits the shelves, and I regularly get beat by the AI (even AI that I build - now THAT hurts !!!) . FYI. Guess I really am a fanboy!

Thanks Ian. That too helps. I'm just making up the Axis AI now, so knowing how this works will sure speed things up. Much appreciated to both.

Thanks Vanir. Appreciate the help

Good Day, I'm trying to put the finishing touches on a scenario that hopefully I can upload within the next week. I have a question about terrain objectives. For "Occupy" and "Touch", do all of the painted squares have to be occupied at the end of the scenario time? With "Touch", does each and every square that is painted on the map have to have been passed through by a friendly unit? I ask because I have a woodlot as a terrain objective and given the attacking force size, I want to make sure the attacking force can realistically achieve its objective. I this case, I basically want to clear the entire woodlot of enemy forces, but not necessarily have to have a unit on each square (or have touched each and every square) at the end of the scenario as the woodlot is fairly large in relation to the number of units. It wouldn't be unrealistic for the units in question to completely clear this woodlot, but it would stretch them too thin if the occupying force couldn't move on to the next objective (thus the consideration of the "Touch" option - I'm exploring both possibilities at the moment). Thanks very much for the help . Glenn

Hmmnn, not sure what happened here, but I think I just "reported" my own post (I hate it when I report my own post <LOL>). It appears to be gone so I'll repost it now and hopefully I don't end up with a double post. Please pardon my awkwardness on this forum - still getting used to it . I would agree Ian. I do think the gun should fire regardless. How would the AT gun crew know if the occupants were still present or not, or if they had all been killed in real life? This all said, I think I'll reset the scenario and this time make sure I place people in the bunker, then try shooting the bunker using the Target Command as before. I'll play both sides and at some point remove the occupants, then attempt to shoot at the target again with the AT Gun. If it fails to do so once the occupants have left (including left the "universe" ), then yes, I would say it's an issue and hopefully one that could be fixed. At this point though, I'm a little reluctant to say anything definitively as there may be other variables at work here that I'm unaware of. Thanks much for your input Ian. Appreciate it. This time I'll try to post this without reporting myself (for whatever I did before <LOL>). (yeah, double post. Sorry for the mess people. I'd say it's "Monday", except it's not <sigh>)

Yes, my feeling is that it should fire at the bunker regardless. How does the AT team know if everyone is either dead or has fled the bunker? What I would like to do though is re-run this scenario, only this time make absolutely certain there are enemy troops inside the bunker, then shoot at them using the Target command. If that works, and then if I have the Germans abandon the bunker and the gun then refuses to fire at them, the "issue" would be confirmed and perhaps something can be done about that. Until this is fully "tested" further, I'm reluctant to call it an issue just yet, but it looks like it might be. More to come. Thanks for your input Ian. Appreciate it.

OK, yes it was that the bunker was empty (something I'll need to fix in the scenario starting point). When I switched to area fire, I got all kinds of action. All good now, so the testing continues. Thanks again for the help! Glenn

Good Morning @Freyberg - thanks for this (and sorry for the long delay in replying - I seem to be having problems logging into the forum for some reason). That's very possible that this is the issue. I'm doing some tests now as this is a self-designed scenario I'm using and it's possible that the bunker never did get occupied. I thought I had shot at that bunker previously, but it was another one adjacent to it and it was destroyed in the process. As was mentioned above, it seems like you can't fire on something that's surrendered or destroyed, so I suspect that's what the problem is. However, yes, I did set a facing command prior to deploying the weapon, so this is something else to look at. Much appreciated. Hopefully I can get back in again in another day once my tests are complete and let you folks know what finally was determined. Again, sure appreciate all the help. Have a good one, all .

Thanks for the replies people! I'm thinking that it just might be the bunker is no longer occupied as zmoney suggested. When I draw the line to the bunker, it shows a clear LOS (the screenie wasn't very good in showing that aspect unfortunately). I do have a way of confirming this as the previous shot was at a second bunker and it destroyed it. I'll try targeting the destroyed one again and see what happens. I didn't realize that units wouldn't fire on destroyed or empty units/bunkers, so that may well be what I'm seeing here. I'll try a couple of things and report back. Many thanks again for the help. Back in a bit.