BornGinger

Your best post so far.

Even though it doesn't seem necessary for Windows computers, I try to follow the game's folder structure as it helps to know where I have different mods in case I want to change some of them.

The ghost busters?

The ghost busters?

Quick battles must have occupy objectives, and occupy only, as touch objectives and objectives working as triggers don't do anything.
The occupy objectives for attack and assault are closer to the defender, in a meeting engagement there is usually one occupy objective closer to each side and one or two closer to the middle.
No need for units as they are choosen in the quick battle option window.
No need for briefing notes.
You do need to have AI-plans for booth sides if you want them to be possible to play as a single player.
You also need to make sure that you designate a size for the quick battle so people can find it when they look for a certain size.
You need to designate whether the quick battle is an attack, assault, meeting or probe.
An advice is to open different quick battle maps in the editor and check what has been done to them.
I'm sure other people will fill in what I forgot to mention.

Quick battles must have occupy objectives, and occupy only, as touch objectives and objectives working as triggers don't do anything.
The occupy objectives for attack and assault are closer to the defender, in a meeting engagement there is usually one occupy objective closer to each side and one or two closer to the middle.
No need for units as they are choosen in the quick battle option window.
No need for briefing notes.
You do need to have AI-plans for booth sides if you want them to be possible to play as a single player.
You also need to make sure that you designate a size for the quick battle so people can find it when they look for a certain size.
You need to designate whether the quick battle is an attack, assault, meeting or probe.
An advice is to open different quick battle maps in the editor and check what has been done to them.
I'm sure other people will fill in what I forgot to mention.

I might have missed this so I maybe mention something that turns out to repeat what someone else already has written.
When it's time to do the AI-plans I take screen shots of the 2d map which I in an image editing program, like Microsoft Paint, copy and paste the different screen shots to make into an overlay on which I mark positions of bunkers, heavily fortified areas and such.
I also add the movements for the different AI-groups with times (and sometimes their actions) to help keep track on what they do and when they do it which I find makes it easier to have an overview of the battle.
This 2d map overlay image doesn't always lay properly on the AI plan 2d-map, so I sometimes have to check the AI plan 2d-map so I paint the yellow markings on the correct place.

I still wait for the engine 5 before I get the bundle.
With Fire & Rubble and Cold War already finished they will hopefully dedicate their time to Engine 5, and hopefully a CM3 too.

Although I don't have RT I'll wait for this one to be finished so it can be stacked with the other custom made campaigns and scenarios I collect for the day when I buy the game.

The first video of six with the subject that the Soviets was planning for war and actually partly succeeded in what they had planned.
Maybe not so much about tanks and infantry in different battles as it is about how cunning the Soviets possibly were.
Take it as the truth or take it as a conspiracy theory. It's quite interesting though.

Who cares what faults we make while writing our posts. We're all friends here.

Who cares what faults we make while writing our posts. We're all friends here.

Who cares what faults we make while writing our posts. We're all friends here.

My mum used to say that when she was a little girl and saw soldiers in German uniform she was amazed over how handsome they looked.
But those of the forum members who play Germans in the CM-games probably do that because they maybe say the same about the tanks, halftracks and other technical equipment the Germans had and not so much about how the soldiers looked in uniform.

I maybe misunderstood Tchoup and blame the night shift for that.

I read this description about the IS-tank:
"But the Joseph Stalins were almost invulnerable.
One as big as a baobab tree, all by itself, stayed for an hour barring the way out of a conquered village. It took its stand right inside a building and  no one managed to dislodge it. The Stukas had to intervene.
The whole road out of the village was  bombed. Everyone was certain that this time the score had been settled with  the Joseph Stalin. The cloud of dust fell back to earth. And what did we  see? The ruins quivered, and the Stalin extricated itself and snorted. 
Covered with the debris of walls and roofs, it advanced along the route. We poured shells onto it. It continued on its way unharmed and disappeared..."
Is something similar anything those of you that play Red Thunder agree with? Is the IS-tank almost impossible to destroy?

Here's the campaign run-down for the ones not described yet. Ithikial has an additional campaign that he has been outlining, so that's another campaign in the mix, additional to the below.
The German and Soviet main, and more traditional campaigns are each around 9 battles, depending upon track. These each have some limited branching to keep things interesting.
Each of the below has some degree of variable set-up for each campaign scenario, again-to keep things interesting over more than one play-through.
3 AI plans are the norm for each, as well. A lot of attention has been given to the AI in both the attack and defense, and I hope it shows when you are hunkered down in the Hegyikastély, or countering attacks outside of Naugard.
I am a proponent of letting everyone discover the thing "as new" as much as possible, so I'll be posting just the thumbnails for the settings and forces for now, with a brief description of the Berlin campaigns.
The two central campaigns are somewhat "phased"- The Soviets have 3/3/3 phases- 3 battles in Poland, 3 in Germany, and 3 in Berlin. The Germans are phased by KG assignment, as Regiment "Norge" is the through-line. It is about half KG Darges, half KG Phillip. Some branching may impact that, but the variable AI should keep it interesting between plays.
Soviet campaign:

German Campaign:

Berlin. Two versions, one for the Soviet side (pummel away, but watch those Panzerfausts), and one for the German (enjoy the pummeling).
The following campaigns (roughly the same, from two different perspectives) cover the fighting for the Lehrter Station and Kroll Oper in the first battle, the Reichstag and to the Staatsoper in the second battle. Forces are retained over the two battles, with some limited replacements/reinforcements. Two battles each.
The idea for these was to somewhat recreate the feeling of the old CMx1 Operations. One force, during a single battle, linked terrain. There isn't persistent damage, but creative map positioning gives a sense of advancing over the ground fought over.


 

I have been thinking about getting Red Thunder for quite a long time but have enough of quick battles and scenarios in Final Blitzkrieg to play so waiting a bit longer won't make a lot of difference.
As the scenarios I have made and uploaded, are battles which occured in Estonia, and as such on the Eastern Front, I should maybe convert them to be played in Red Thunder later on when I have bought that game.

If you are talking about quick battles and would like to know how the AT-guns are being placed by the AI in a quick battle, you can start to play one in scenario author mode and choose the AI to use a bunch of AT-guns. When you start to play the battle you can have a look how the AI positioned them.
If you talk about whether the AI use hidden mode with fire arc in quick battles, I think only those who wrote the code for the game engine knows the answer to that.
If it is a scenario, the one who made the scenario decides how the AT-gun behaves from the beginning of the scenario until it sees an enemy object it has been told to wait for (enemy armour or enemy anything). As soon as the AT-gun has shot at the first enemy object it's supposed to wait for I think we come back to the question what the game engine's code tells it to do. The AT-gun is either coded to go back in hiding and wait just as it did according to what the scenario designer told it to do or it stays unhidden and waits to be shot down.

Give The Expanse a go and maybe you'll change your mind for a few hours.

Give The Expanse a go and maybe you'll change your mind for a few hours.

That is easy to say. But with the LoS these games have an enemy soldier without binocula can sometimes (or too often) easily see through a forest and find the troops or vehicle one want to hide behind a forest or woods.
The expression "I can't see the forest because of all the trees standing in the way" can't always be used in a CM-battle.

I changed the tiles and made all of those connected to the bridges into rocky red, or whatever they're called but it didn'make any difference.
The 26 meters tile and a bit above and below are ones which are under the bridge.
I had earlier made all tiles around the areas where the bridges connect to the ground having the same elevation but that didn't make any difference which is why I went back to how I wanted it to look.
I think I have found the solution to the problem.
I had earlier lowered the elevation a bit were the bridges connect to the ground but didn't see much difference so I went back to how I wanted it to be. 
But I decided to try and lower the elevation even more and made the 47 and 46 meter elevation tiles into 43 meter elevation tiles and it looks a bit better now although not perfect.
From this problem I think I have learned that there is a limit to how high up bridges can be placed. It seems that bridges, or at least the 56 meters long stone railway bridge, can't be higher above the sea level than 42 or 43 meters. If they are higher up than that we get the problem with bridges sunking into the ground.
Thank you all for your advices and thoughts about what I could try to make it work.
Now when this problem is solved I can continue with this map and also add some AI plans to it.

It always makes me disappointed when scenario designers don't check the buildings and make sure everything looks ok enough before they decide that their scenario is ready to be used to fight on.

The same reason as to why we enjoy watching horror films and thrillers or detective tv-series. It's often far away from our daily life and give us some excitement.
If we were having this daily we would probably not feel the need to watch or play it.
Red Orchestra was a game I enjoyed very much as one has to be careful and not die too early. If you do and play as another soldier in the platoon or squad you might have caused the death of everyonecand loose the battle.
I wish more first person war shooters used the same system.