thewood1 wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2026 10:50 pm If that's a known...they should fix it.

It's gotten better. Right now, I've got a download speed of about 3 Mb/sec (and we're streaming the game...GO BREWERS!), so it will be about an hour download if that stays that way. Keeping my fingers crossed. For the download and the game.

Just double-checking...

It's the [PC][64-bit] Update v1.10.01 one, right? I'm asking because it's dated Mar 31, 2026, but I assume that's just a typo.

Agreed. Many thanks.

It can be any combination you want; head to head, two allied sides (one for each player) vs AI, or two players on the same side vs the AI.


So, two players could share control of one side? Would that simply be any commands, missions, etc. requested by either player would go through (i.e., the ...

I noticed that the multiplayer capability is listed as "Up to two players, PvP (head to head) or PvE (coop)."

Does this mean that, along with head to head scenarios (e.g., my two submarines vs. your four frigates), you can also have scenarios that are something like...

My surface group +
Your ...

The Battle of the Eger, 1986 [final version]

I changed the recon "time on station" trigger to 15 minutes.

Just uploaded version 5. I think I've got all the Events set up properly.

The main change is that reaching a "triumph" level of points triggers a message to conduct the recon mission. The recon mission, staying on station over a relatively small area for 30 minutes, triggers the end of the scenario ...

I like this idea. And the scenario ending might be tied to the recon mission + the point level (I believe if you list two triggers for the same event, both have to take place to trigger the action). You can't end the scenario just by flying over the bridges--you have to have already blown them up ...

Thanks for the feedback.

I've posted version 4. I tweaked a few things, mostly how things are scored, so I think that will take care of the issues mentioned earlier.

I also reduced the scenario time to 4 hours and removed the remark about having time for two waves of attacks. Now you get one ...

Any more thoughts on this one? Any changes, corrections, etc. needed? Or is it ready for the Community Scenario Pack?

Thanks!

I suspect the player base for Command MP will expand as more scenarios designed for it become available.

Challenge accepted. :)

Actually, I have a feeling MP will bring in a lot of new players who will start with multiplayer scenarios (because that is how they played other games) and then some ...

I just uploaded version 3.

Biggest changes are...

* I added the base at Zatec (MiG-21s)
* I added a small point bonus for taking down Warsaw Pact aircraft
* I placed several aircraft in "Maintenance" loadout. They are available for players to add if the scenario is too hard, but the baseline is ...

New beta for testing...

It's 1986 and you need to make a surprise attack against the Soviets so they won't be able to make a surprise attack tomorrow. All you have to do is blow up some bridges. Simple, right?

As always, please let me know what you think. Is there anything that needs to be ...

New beta for testing...

It's 1986 and you need to make a surprise attack against the Soviets so they won't be able to make a surprise attack tomorrow. All you have to do is blow up some bridges. Simple, right?

As always, please let me know what you think. Is there anything that needs to be ...

New beta for testing...

It's 1986 and you need to make a surprise attack against the Soviets so they won't be able to make a surprise attack tomorrow. All you have to do is blow up some bridges. Simple, right?

As always, please let me know what you think. Is there anything that needs to be ...

With multiplayer for Command now in beta, I suppose we have to start thinking about how that affects scenario design. I suspect most scenarios written for Command so far are actually ill-suited for multiplayer. The sides are probably not balanced and the scenarios themselves may simply be too long ...

Thanks for the very detailed feedback. I appreciate it. I think I got the errors you and Blast33 spotted.

Just posted version 2.

I deliberately didn't award points for Warsaw Pact aircraft because they are not considered important--what matters is that you take out the bridges, the radars, the ...

Anyone else tried this one out yet? I think it's in pretty good shape, but I'm hoping to get more feedback about what its strengths and weaknesses are, what could be improved, etc.

Thanks in advance!

The bridges actually are auto-detect (I think all non-mobile facilities are). But there is a lot of clutter with the various neutral buildings surrounding the bridges so you need to zoom in to find them. But they should just be there.

Good call about air defense. I will do a bit of research and ...