Andrey. About the editor POSTED HERE AND ON STEAM PAGE

[Missouri_Rebel]

How hard would it be to have the code save the battle after the deployment phase so those using the editor could do the deployment and initial orders for the enemy forces. Right now you put some troops on the map and hope for something but, think of the possibilities if you could do more like

assign troops to where you want them on the map both allied and enemy (especially enemy)
set up initial bombardments
delete and add pieces of units
put troops on transports with move and unload orders
Put hold orders on specific units
Put towed assets on movers
set up arcs
set up communications
place trenches
add wrecks
destroy buildings to represent prolonged battles
Detailed orders for enemy units (unless interrupted by contact) i.e. Move this company here by road, recon through here, set up defense there.

etc.

Most of this could be done just by having the game saved after initial orders phase.

Right now just doesnt offer much control or variances. I understand that the saves are dependent on hardware but, is there some way to make that requirement later?

I'd pay for a better editor and honestly think the editor as is now is why there are very few user made scenarios out there. They dont offer anything to players that they cant easily, with just as much lack of control, do themselves.

Thanks Andrey. I hope you can understand this.

[chaudard]

Why do you want to impose your own scenario to other players? If you made a battle, I want to have the freedom to play differently. If I think you attack through the wrong way, I want to be able to attack otherwise.
So, the editor is not bad, it is simply imperfect. We would like more options (and not less: if I want to fix your deployment, I want to be able to do it).

Otherwise, if you want to impose scenarios where players don't have freedom, you should make videos.

[andrey12345]

assign troops to where you want them on the map both allied and enemy (especially enemy)
set up initial bombardments
delete and add pieces of units
put troops on transports with move and unload orders
Put hold orders on specific units
Put towed assets on movers
set up arcs
set up communications
place trenches
add wrecks
destroy buildings to represent prolonged battles
Detailed orders for enemy units (unless interrupted by contact) i.e. Move this company here by road, recon through here, set up defense there.

It's all not for _quick_ battle editor.
We do not plan to do editor for script programmers in near future.

[Missouri_Rebel]

Why do you want to impose your own scenario to other players? If you made a battle, I want to have the freedom to play differently. If I think you attack through the wrong way, I want to be able to attack otherwise.
So, the editor is not bad, it is simply imperfect. We would like more options (and not less: if I want to fix your deployment, I want to be able to do it).

Otherwise, if you want to impose scenarios where players don't have freedom, you should make videos.

Well the problem is that there is no way for the enemy forces to be set up worth a shit. You put them in the general area and hope they are positioned decent. They're not. I've placed them in areas with trenches hoping they'd utilize them but they dont. The battle editor is just lacking.

I'm not expecting scripts how to act for the enemy, just a better way to place them.

So it's not about if you want to attack a certain way. It's about the haphazard placement of enemy units. But if a battle creator wanted to have friendly units locked at start I don't see what is wrong with that option.

Like I said, most of this could be handled by letting us save the game to share and play again after deployment if a scenario maker was allowed to place both sides units.

[andrey12345]

Well the problem is that there is no way for the enemy forces to be set up worth a shit. You put them in the general area and hope they are positioned decent. They're not. I've placed them in areas with trenches hoping they'd utilize them but they dont.

They take them if there is a corresponding order on defense. This is not always, but usually more often than is necessary (or at least what the developers want to).

I'm not expecting scripts how to act for the enemy, just a better way to place them.

This is the same. The main principle - you can ask for something specific and the units will perform it extacly. It is script. For example a script is used for training missions to always get the same conditions for placement.

Like I said, most of this could be handled by letting us save the game to share and play again after deployment if a scenario maker was allowed to place both sides units.

Saving the game is very wrong thing to do this. Firstly it is not portable to other computers, and secondly, it may change in the future or be incompatible. It is temporal data with short lifetime - to postpone the game until tomorrow (weekend) not more.

[andrey12345]

1) assign troops to where you want them on the map both allied and enemy (especially enemy)
This can be done more precisely and in detail - you can not specify exactly where each unit is located, but you can select from some variants, rather than fully to the discretion of the AI.

2) set up initial bombardments
Not very clear

3) delete and add pieces of units
This can be done in QB editor in the widest range

4) put troops on transports with move and unload orders
5) Put towed assets on movers
It will not be, only at the discretion of AI (in the near future for sure)

6) Put hold orders on specific units
This can be done for platoon

7) set up communications
Will done automatically

8) set up arcs, place trenches, add wrecks, destroy buildings to represent prolonged battles

This is not good. Since this is already be more complicated editor, with the need to operate in 3D mode, and do a lot of different things unnatural for game.

9) Detailed orders for enemy units (unless interrupted by contact) i.e. Move this company here by road, recon through here, set up defense there.
Above this, in principle, one might think.

[Missouri_Rebel]

I appreciate the reply. Not what I wanted to hear but understandable.

Id welcome any changes that gave the player more control over the types of battles created.