Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Real life has struck which means I'll not be around much for the next couple of weeks. However I'll finish off an improved version of the current mod compilation (fixing up the various issues you highlighted) by Monday & send you the link. In terms of the overall project I think we should stick to trying to do ARVN vs VC at first. If the project is succesful then we can later try to bring the US (perhaps even the Aussies) into it. I see these as the major requirements... (i) A VC mod for Combatants. It struck me that the vanilla ninja fighter models would make better VC combatants but all my attempts to do this model swap have failed so far. I know @Zveroboy1 has already done the reverse (model his Taliban combatants as fighters) so I'm hopeful this can be done. (ii) Something to be done about the roofs... @RockinHarry (& I believe the team doing the Africa Korp mod for CMFI) have swapped flat roofs into a WW2 setting. Can the reverse be done? (iii) Some test maps (Your looks good already from what I can tell) & Syrian Airborne vs Combatant test scenarios. (iv) A Vietnemese voice mod. I've acquired suitable files for this already, so I can box this off easily enough... a few weeks from now. (v) Factions icons & UI details like that. Some loading screen bitmaps would be nice too. (vi) Anybody good with faces? The current Asian faces by @mjkerner & @Coon Dog are passable but at the very least normal bitmaps need to be made for them & I'm not sure how that's done. So if anyone can help out & chip in with some of that lot during the next few weeks that would be greatly appreciated!
  3. the good news is that a priori the patch works for the other games it makes me think that the problem is not heavy it could be an inversion in the fallback command I look forward to the new CM italy while waiting I play normandy v 4 that i like
  4. I did nothing but add some extra bushes (oh & the decorative rice paddies) to the map (Here's the link). The trees are the same mix of CMA/CMSF2 vegitation I used for the original Operation Barras video. The addition of @EZ's excellent terrain & grass doodads really help sell the Jungle feel though. Looking forward to the maps!
  5. I am having difficulty getting troops to use satchel charges - a patch change? https://photos.app.goo.gl/iJcTBuMN85mCaxxe8 These guys have been sitting here for two turns, threw all their grenades early on, now using garlands to shoot at the bunker, no use of satchel charges. MG scenario Out on a Limb. This is combined with the old issue of invulnerable troops leaving a knocked out bunker, means I don't want to move them closer... Is there a maximum range for satchel charges that is shorter than for grenades?
  6. Today
  7. I like the thinking behind these ideas, but they are not that simple to use, and they are not really enforceable. I've seen good, intelligent, and honest opponents forget way simpler house rules. Instead, these good design decisions should be implemented into the actual game system, forming the core of a new, optional difficulty level above Iron. Something which many players have politely requested for years. One funny thing: This is clearly an oversight by Battlefront. There's a whole realism level (Elite) only dedicated to turning the contact icons into "plain infantry markers" to prevent the player from knowing which type of support weapon is where. But they forgot that we can still click the enemy icon and see if it's a mortar or MG etc... This oversight has persisted until the point where people are starting to make elaborate house rules around it - why not just fix it?
  8. Yes to both questions. You cannot mod the underlying game mechanics in anyway. The "classic" example of a mod swap, I once heard, was if you swapped an M1A2 Abrams model into a WW2 game as a Sherman then that "Abrams" would still get knocked out by PzIV's.
  9. I eventually got so fed up with the gap charging that I gave up, and went off to play some Ted Thunder instead.
  10. Memorable, effective advertising through positive association and strong emotions. If only the people who run the distillery had the wit to do so. Of course, it would give a certain societal segment absolute apoplexy. Some simply aren't suited for fatherhood. Regards, John Kettler
  11. It is an interesting debate and I guess there is no right or wrong answer because we all have our own preferences. Always pleasing to see that my work is part of the discussion and has provided enjoyment to players and I agree with your comments about those missions. FWIW, my mission design philosophy is not prescriptive in that I don't set out to design to suit a particular preference, rather I try to design missions: That I want to make. That people will want to play. Are historical, semi historical or plausible. That are achievable in the editor. As you know, I've done stuff ranging from SF HVT strikes at platoon minus strength (Op NEPTUNE SPEAR) up to Battalion plus engagements (To Verdenne and Victory). Each present their own design challenges but the general rule is that the larger the force size and map involved, then the number of options for both the designer and player increase. I also like the planning aspect of the game, which is why I wrote my planning tutorial which if you haven't seen it, can be found here: When I play other scenarios, I therefore like to plan and that is reflected in the way that I write orders for my own missions. When I read a briefing, if the Execution paragraph starts telling me that 1 Platoon has to go Wood X to lay a base of fire for 2 Platoon to assault or similar detailed schemes of manoeuvre then I just skim over it. I'll plan and execute it however I want thank you very much based on standard planning considerations. As you've seen, in my missions the Execution paragraph usually starts with the following phrase 'Your choice commander'. I then generally use the rest of the paragraph to highlight some important considerations or provide additional information to assist the player in arriving at their plan. What continually surprises me is reading or watching AARs of my missions because the tactical solutions presented quite often differ markedly from how I envisaged people solving that particular problem. If you read my planning tutorial you will also see that the plan I came up with surprised the designer of that excellent scenario @SeinfeldRulesand provoked some thought from the tactical genius that is @Bil Hardenberger - the takeaway I think from the design perspective is that a lot of thought is needed in all aspects of the design of the AI controlled force.
  12. @General Liederkranz This should do it for you MG Borderland_vp.btt Let me know that it works ok and I'll get it loaded at the SD P
  13. Oh, I wasn't aware this was a thing. I'll take a look at this after this week.
  14. Nice map. +1 I would replace that stone wall around the orchard with a wooden fence though.
  15. This may be a dumb question, but does anyone know where I can find the updated version? The link to the repository is dead and I don't see it at The Scenario Depot.
  16. Excellent video detailing the threat from IEDs:
  17. I know Russian armored vehicles have smoke generators that they use tactically (not represented in CM). But I do believe the smoke grenades are mainly for protection. Happy to be proven wrong though.
  18. "The Russian Way of War" certainly talks about them using Smoke pots to protect against top-attack munitions, but in general getting decent info on Russian tactical stuff is difficult. Certainly there isn't much distinction made there between smoke from artillery and smoke from vehicles - other than to point out that vehicle smoke is worst at protecting from aircraft, since the cloud height will be lower.
  19. Via Lindy Beige's latest video on tactical psychology https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRB9IU3Vt2g I came upon the book "War Games" by Leo Murray which also featured an account of the battle at Longdon hill, which, in turn led me to this interesting video:
  20. Yesterday
  21. Dang. I am sure I read it on here but I went looking for an external source but could not.
  22. Can you show me where BMPs using their smoke grenades tactically is SOP? re: 3a.. yeah I also found it frustrating... I see the reason, but in practice it was a pain. Maybe I'll get rid of it.
  23. Rule 5. Interesting but yuck. It seems like the single leg move orders is well intentioned but... Let's say I have a squad that has been separated and they need to relocate. They pick a nearby building. That would be a perfectly reasonable squad leader decision but we all know to execute a proper building entry, even a safe one, requires more than one waypoint. First to the front door then inside. At the very least.
  24. I'm still reading but I'm posting as I go... 2c my understanding is the BMP's do use thier smoke system as part of thier platoon's standard maneuver. In this case this rule would restrict a realistic activity. Except list? 3a I thought you did not like this one? I found it frustrating - normally I use it to find out which if my units have spotted the selected unit.
  25. @37mm did you do much with the trees on the Barras map and flattered obviously that you used my work as a testbed for this project - I had a hissy fit trying to randomise them when making it. At some point when I can make time for CM, I might crank out some maps of Phuoc Tuy Province for this project now that I've worked out a way in which I might be able to randomise trees more easily.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...