Jump to content

MikeyD

Members
  • Content Count

    21,155
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

MikeyD last won the day on February 9

MikeyD had the most liked content!

About MikeyD

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. There's no law that says 3rd party scenario briefing maps need to include briefing maps in the style of the release game. Or need to include maps at all! Just put in whatever your heart desires. A lot of old CMSF1 scenarios had lacked orders maps entirely (they have them now in CMSF2.) Let me rummage for a bit... ah, here it is, the 'tactical' orders map for my old 'Lone Star Shopping Plaza' scenario
  2. Yeh, I've occasionally built a dawn scenario, changed the date, then WHOA! What happened! You especially notice this in CMFB where its mid winter in the northern latitudes where the sun NEVER seems to come up then it sets at an absurdly early time.
  3. I've lost count of the number of times (over the past decade) that I made a decent scenario out of something I just threw together. You could call it 'no pressure scenario making'. My scenario won't be graded as homework by anyone, it isn't a submission for a PhD in military history. Its just me chillin' after supper when there nothing to watch on TV. Some landmarks get thrown down on a map, some terrain curves, some building clusters and water and roads, then drop in some opposing forces. If the map feels too small make it bigger, if it feels too big make it smaller. Go into the AI, make one platoon scamper into nearby trees, make another scamper behind some buildings. There, you've got a working scenario! Anything you do beyond that is gravy.
  4. A lot of the community's past biggest content creators got gobbled-up by the BFC Beta Borg collective. They're still creating content but now its for the hive. You see their work in new titles. So in a weird way, being too good at creating 3rd party content will reduce the amount of 3rd party content available as scenario makers get kidnapped and enslaved by BFC.
  5. Lack of feedback can be a positive thing at times. It means you can throw together any scenario you want just for fun and not need to worry about circling history grogs coming down on you like a ton of bricks for failing to be historically faithful in all details. I recently posted an alpha scenario for (redacted) on the beta board and told the guys to NOT give me feedback! Just have fun with it! They gave me feedback anyway
  6. It appears the volume of user-made content is in inverse proportion to the quality of the QB engine. 3rd party scenarios were at their height when the QB generator and maps were at their most basic. If you merely want an infantry engagement in wooded terrain next to a river there's no need to make it yourself. There's also the issue, I've noticed, of newbie scenario makers being 'overly ambitious'. For their first map they tend to choose metro Antwerp or something similar and soon become discouraged. Map making is fun & easy as long as you don't assign yourself impossible tasks. A field, a straight road, a cluster of houses, a barn, a fence. Nothing could be easier! Let downtown Antwerp with AI orders for multiple battalions be the 15th scenario you make, not your first.
  7. Steve isn't averse to including famous funky vehicles. He did give us the flamethrower Char B2 tank and Crusader III AA tank. Its just not at the tippy-top of his 'must have' list. Whether we see the tank in-game depends as much on Steve's mood the day he's making the vehicle list as anything else. So stay on his good side!
  8. I just gave a quick look in a mini test scenario. A US and a Russian FO both calling in off-map SP 155/152 artillery. The US FO was looking at 8 minutes delivery time, the Russian FO was looking at 7 minutes. This with an artillery observation vehicle parked next to him ...looking at other artillery types... the call-in time for 203mm Mialka goes up to 9 minutes. The 152mm 2S19M5 was 7, the 152mm 2A65 howitzer was 8 minutes. All this with a 'regular FO playing Warrior level. (I was going to test rocket artillery times then I remembered that's only in CMSF2) I now tested a Russian mortar platoon FO with his own on-map medium mortar team and a couple off-map hvy mortar teams attached to another unit. Call-in times ranged from 4 to 6 minutes. If I select a random office unit instead of an FO call-in times for the same pieces jump to 8 minutes. So it seems to make a big different who is doing the artillery directing and what artillery type is being directed. Compare this to Syrians in CMSF2 calling in rocket artillery - 27 minute call-in time!
  9. I haven't done any proper analysis but its my impression a floor that's been hammered so hard that its burning from one end to the other will usually be uninhabited. You can argue that's due to troops escaping the volume of incoming fire, not to the flames. I don't know if the AI has a natural aversion to building floors damaged to that point or if they're coincidentally fleeing for other reasons.
  10. What (VERY) little I've played with this feature, an AI on-map mortar given a properly timed 'area fire' painted target should endeavor to drop bombs onto the target whether its within LOS or not. From my few attempts, it seems the timing of the mortaring is iffy as the crew have to orient themselves, adjust and fidget around a bit before they start firing. If you paint a movement area for that order as well the mortar crew will pack up, move, then set up again (so no painted movement orders!). I'm not sure that this always works and I haven't discovered the variables involved but its fun to experiment with.
  11. I recall Steve mentioning that he once got to operate a flamethrower at a demonstration. He said, I recall, that it was an unpleasant experience. Feeling the heat coming off an exploding ball of flame originating just inches away from you. The closest most people get to fire these days is your gas stove or the occasional vacation campfire. Well, unless you live in California... or Australia... or Greece... or Spain...
  12. It looks like in-game fire support to me. If you select the mortar crew instead of the vehicle (...let me quickly double check to make sure) you will get immediate 'direct fire' but won't get any control over the round type. If you move your aim point too close it won't do anything and won't tell you why. My quick test the mortar will firing on targets 326m away but not targets 280m away.
  13. I did a quick mini test. Apparently you are using the vehicle commander as a spotter spotting for another vehicle's mortar crew. My test the delivery time was first pegged at '4 minutes', then the mortar crew transitioned to 'receiving', then to 'spotting', then the M1129 vehicle turned broadside to bring the mortar to bear on the target, then the mortaring began. So this wasn't a 'direct fire' order for the mortar, which would be immediate, but was an on-map mortar being targeted by a separate FO (the vehicle commander). Here's my test, you can see the vehicle and mortar team are being treated as separate.
  14. About capturing buildings without destroying them, I'm reminded of an old 'down-east' (rural Maine) joke. A tourist stops at a road intersection and calls to an old farmer sitting in front of the general store, asking for directions to the big city. After some consideration, the old farmer replies "Come to think of it, you can't get there from here." Some scenarios (including one of my own) I just can't see how you could take a structure and leave in intact.
  15. Combatants are just 'neighborhood guys with guns' and nothing else. Uncle Bert grabs his rifle out of the closet and runs out of the house in his sneakers. Fighters (consider them jihadists) often appear equipped with better weapons than the Syrian military because of presumed foreign financial backing. But they don't have the 'tooth-to-tail ratio' of the established supply chain & command structure that standing militaries have. QBs are QBs, there's a limit to what you can do. The heart of the game has always been the scenario editor. I've got one or two scenario in the game where the uncon force includes a couple army stragglers with commandeered ATGMs and armored cars. I agree the type 63 artillery rockets would be a good fit with Uncons. I had lobbied for their inclusion in the fighter force without success. A fighter 'spy spotter' can be used as FO for army artillery type 63 rockets (in a scenario, not QB). I just checked, they've got an awful 27 minute wait time using conscript FOs, 24 min wait for veterans (and 12 minutes spotting for their own mortar team, which must stay within shouting distance of the spotter). Steve wanted uncon limitations to be apparent and tactically significant. As for 'stealth buff', regardless of which title we're discussing "Maybe they won't spot me" has always been a weak tactical strategy. The more modern the title the more difficult it becomes. In CMBS hoping to not get spotted is pretty much suicidal.
×
×
  • Create New...