Pandur

Oh yes, thanks a lot!
 
To you too benpark, for the tips.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1M_PGMSZSrHteC72A_9YPfqy8kfvGUBxs/view?usp=sharing

Ok, the US Army version testing is finished. I think it is ready to play. The initial version was way too easy, i removed the 3rd company and replaced it, and the M1A2 i changed to M1A1. And i add just a few more things to the scenario. Also the US Army version has a proper briefing now that reflects that you play US army and not Syrians.
I bundle the Syrian and US Army version together into one zip file to make it more easy.
If anyone has a account for the scenario depot, maybe you can upload this bundle for me, that would be very nice.
 
Here are the latest versions of the Syrian Army and US Army version, all in one zip!
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AuATq63xU7cnd1CLlSVv-fdPEew?e=00IKeM

Good stuff man! I see you play the RED vs RED version. This one is quite a bit more difficult. Hope you enjoy it, but if you play till the end, it seems you did ☺️
 

Cool map.
I have a "Chora inspired" map* which I intend to box off at some point this year, I think @Hapless might be working on one too.
 
*Based on a heavily reworked version of @Pandur's original "Red Stream" map.

Hi,
 
After the latest patch the FoW trenches are fixed ( i just saw they are NOT fixed, you can see the FOW trenches from the start so just do not look too hard for trenches where is the fun in that   ) and i finished playtesting my updated CMSF1 scenario which took a long time. I had to test it alone so i hope i get it as good as it can be. It will be a brutal affair, that is for sure   
Without further talk here is the scenario, if you played it in CMSF you know what you are in for but this time with some added surprises, also i slightly changed the attacker forces and reinforcements timing and added more orders to the defender plan since now in CMSF2 there are more orders available. Also i do post a description further below!
http://www.mediafire.com/file/s5w4167dhm3s8jb/Red+Stream+120+for+CMSF2.rar/file
DL from mediafire or post attachement!
 



 
Some information about the Scenario;
 
Red vs Red, play as Attacker only. Syrian army + US advisors(FO+JTAC) attack versus heavy Unconventional forces.
Size; Large or Huge
Compared to the CMSF1 original i added some bells and whistles to the map, back in late 2007 or 2008 when i made the map the FPS was problematic so i did not add more things than needed to keep good FPS. Now about 12 years later the same map runs a lot better so i could touch it up a little. However i did not add water or bridges for several reason.
I do own all CMSF2 modules, but i try very hard to no include anything that is not in the base game, so everyone should be able to play it.
Directly taken from the briefing;
 
For the crazy persons out there that think about PBEM´ing it; some people played the original version by PBEM and it seemed to work, i never intended or balanced the scenario for PvP but there are some youtube vid where people did it.
 
So, for the few of you who are into such large scenarios, i wish you good luck and have fun! If you run into problems or want to give feedback just leave me some comments in here.
Urkut, urkut,  urkut!!!  
Red Stream 120 for CMSF2.rar

Hey, a little update. I decided to give the scenario a try with US Army MOUT Stryker units. Just for fun, maybe some people do not like the RED vs RED thingy, and i picked US Army for now since everyone has US Army that owns CMSF2 and does not need DLC to play it.
Right now, the briefing is the RED vs RED briefing(and i am not sure yet if ever change that), so if you decide to try it as it is right now, in test stage, you read the R v R briefing but the B v R battle is set up very similar. Scouts on map and A B and C company come in as reinforcements over time.
 
Anyway, here it is, as said, test stage right now, but all is fully in the scenario. What may be off is the scoring, but if you finish the scenario you know if you won or not anyway.
And as said, the briefing is still R v R briefing. If you give the scenario a try, maybe give me a little feedback here. If there are problem with the download from onedrive please also tell me
Good luck
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AuATq63xU7cncChYsWEb35UFavs?e=INnlw4

Hey, a little update. I decided to give the scenario a try with US Army MOUT Stryker units. Just for fun, maybe some people do not like the RED vs RED thingy, and i picked US Army for now since everyone has US Army that owns CMSF2 and does not need DLC to play it.
Right now, the briefing is the RED vs RED briefing(and i am not sure yet if ever change that), so if you decide to try it as it is right now, in test stage, you read the R v R briefing but the B v R battle is set up very similar. Scouts on map and A B and C company come in as reinforcements over time.
 
Anyway, here it is, as said, test stage right now, but all is fully in the scenario. What may be off is the scoring, but if you finish the scenario you know if you won or not anyway.
And as said, the briefing is still R v R briefing. If you give the scenario a try, maybe give me a little feedback here. If there are problem with the download from onedrive please also tell me
Good luck
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AuATq63xU7cncChYsWEb35UFavs?e=INnlw4

I noticed the original Red vs Red scenario alternate download from Mediafire is down, i put it up in my one drive but i can no longer edit the first post to delete the dead link and place the new one.
Are moderators able to do that?
Here is the Red vs Red scenario download from OneDrive, as the Mediafire link is down;
 
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AuATq63xU7cncdBTCQFxlaLVZ-U?e=04Dk5M

As i said above, others as well as i, as players, we have nothing from that workaround if it is not used. If stock scenarios end too soon that workaround a scenario designer could use, is doing nothing for me and all others as players of that particular scenario.
 
And the scenarios in question will not get better because a workaround exists, i talk about possible change that does improve the situation for any scenario in the game, not if some people could implement some measure to have it working differently in some few scenarios that use the workaround, that are two very different things.
Lowering the moral "threshold" that does trigger a surrender so it does happen a bit later, that is what is needed to make it better, not a crutch scenario designers use to stop it from happening at all, which has its own problems, like the player has to cease fire to end the scenario, something i can accept but it seems for many it is a nogo.
Lets not make the thread about workarounds, cause they are not helping here.

Let me throw this into the void... .
 
If CMSF2 gets another patch, maybe it would be good to consider to reduce the premature surrendering a little bit. Its not cool for the enemy to just surrender after you clear half the map, often the enemy has still plenty of killing power left.
They may be somewhat rattled but they can still kill you just fine.
 
On Factory outlet it was very noticable, i did not even set foot into the first buildings, after i smash the reinforcements they get and shot up the SF in the first compound a bit, they just surrender. The syrian SF still had rpg29´s and to dig em out of the building proper that would have been the most difficult part of the scenario to get it right.
 
On Rahadnak(?) valley search, a USMC scenario, the same thing, the enemy had 50 fighters and combatants left, one rpg29 and a few rpg7´s , and they where holed up in the walled compounds, that would again have been the most difficult and costly part of the scenario to get em out of these building in below 50m-60m ranges where they can do lots of damage. But they surrender with like 70+ turns still on the clock.
 
Just saying, it would make some of the scenarios more enjoyable i think.

Hi,
 
After the latest patch the FoW trenches are fixed ( i just saw they are NOT fixed, you can see the FOW trenches from the start so just do not look too hard for trenches where is the fun in that   ) and i finished playtesting my updated CMSF1 scenario which took a long time. I had to test it alone so i hope i get it as good as it can be. It will be a brutal affair, that is for sure   
Without further talk here is the scenario, if you played it in CMSF you know what you are in for but this time with some added surprises, also i slightly changed the attacker forces and reinforcements timing and added more orders to the defender plan since now in CMSF2 there are more orders available. Also i do post a description further below!
http://www.mediafire.com/file/s5w4167dhm3s8jb/Red+Stream+120+for+CMSF2.rar/file
DL from mediafire or post attachement!
 



 
Some information about the Scenario;
 
Red vs Red, play as Attacker only. Syrian army + US advisors(FO+JTAC) attack versus heavy Unconventional forces.
Size; Large or Huge
Compared to the CMSF1 original i added some bells and whistles to the map, back in late 2007 or 2008 when i made the map the FPS was problematic so i did not add more things than needed to keep good FPS. Now about 12 years later the same map runs a lot better so i could touch it up a little. However i did not add water or bridges for several reason.
I do own all CMSF2 modules, but i try very hard to no include anything that is not in the base game, so everyone should be able to play it.
Directly taken from the briefing;
 
For the crazy persons out there that think about PBEM´ing it; some people played the original version by PBEM and it seemed to work, i never intended or balanced the scenario for PvP but there are some youtube vid where people did it.
 
So, for the few of you who are into such large scenarios, i wish you good luck and have fun! If you run into problems or want to give feedback just leave me some comments in here.
Urkut, urkut,  urkut!!!  
Red Stream 120 for CMSF2.rar

Total Victory amount of casualties, i go for that 

I know erwin, that is why the enemy in my Red Stream map do fight till the end...i alread did that back in 2008 in the original version, but in the stock scenarios or in mostly any scenario, hardly anyone does use it.
And it does not help scenarios that suffer from that problem that scenario designers "could" do that, they have to do it too for it to work 

Let me add here;
 
After Patch 2.03 the FoW Trenches still do not have FoW. You can see all enemy trenches on the map right from turn 1. I do hope this is fixed in the next patch cause it is annoying.

Hi,
 
After the latest patch the FoW trenches are fixed ( i just saw they are NOT fixed, you can see the FOW trenches from the start so just do not look too hard for trenches where is the fun in that   ) and i finished playtesting my updated CMSF1 scenario which took a long time. I had to test it alone so i hope i get it as good as it can be. It will be a brutal affair, that is for sure   
Without further talk here is the scenario, if you played it in CMSF you know what you are in for but this time with some added surprises, also i slightly changed the attacker forces and reinforcements timing and added more orders to the defender plan since now in CMSF2 there are more orders available. Also i do post a description further below!
http://www.mediafire.com/file/s5w4167dhm3s8jb/Red+Stream+120+for+CMSF2.rar/file
DL from mediafire or post attachement!
 



 
Some information about the Scenario;
 
Red vs Red, play as Attacker only. Syrian army + US advisors(FO+JTAC) attack versus heavy Unconventional forces.
Size; Large or Huge
Compared to the CMSF1 original i added some bells and whistles to the map, back in late 2007 or 2008 when i made the map the FPS was problematic so i did not add more things than needed to keep good FPS. Now about 12 years later the same map runs a lot better so i could touch it up a little. However i did not add water or bridges for several reason.
I do own all CMSF2 modules, but i try very hard to no include anything that is not in the base game, so everyone should be able to play it.
Directly taken from the briefing;
 
For the crazy persons out there that think about PBEM´ing it; some people played the original version by PBEM and it seemed to work, i never intended or balanced the scenario for PvP but there are some youtube vid where people did it.
 
So, for the few of you who are into such large scenarios, i wish you good luck and have fun! If you run into problems or want to give feedback just leave me some comments in here.
Urkut, urkut,  urkut!!!  
Red Stream 120 for CMSF2.rar

Hi,
 
After the latest patch the FoW trenches are fixed ( i just saw they are NOT fixed, you can see the FOW trenches from the start so just do not look too hard for trenches where is the fun in that   ) and i finished playtesting my updated CMSF1 scenario which took a long time. I had to test it alone so i hope i get it as good as it can be. It will be a brutal affair, that is for sure   
Without further talk here is the scenario, if you played it in CMSF you know what you are in for but this time with some added surprises, also i slightly changed the attacker forces and reinforcements timing and added more orders to the defender plan since now in CMSF2 there are more orders available. Also i do post a description further below!
http://www.mediafire.com/file/s5w4167dhm3s8jb/Red+Stream+120+for+CMSF2.rar/file
DL from mediafire or post attachement!
 



 
Some information about the Scenario;
 
Red vs Red, play as Attacker only. Syrian army + US advisors(FO+JTAC) attack versus heavy Unconventional forces.
Size; Large or Huge
Compared to the CMSF1 original i added some bells and whistles to the map, back in late 2007 or 2008 when i made the map the FPS was problematic so i did not add more things than needed to keep good FPS. Now about 12 years later the same map runs a lot better so i could touch it up a little. However i did not add water or bridges for several reason.
I do own all CMSF2 modules, but i try very hard to no include anything that is not in the base game, so everyone should be able to play it.
Directly taken from the briefing;
 
For the crazy persons out there that think about PBEM´ing it; some people played the original version by PBEM and it seemed to work, i never intended or balanced the scenario for PvP but there are some youtube vid where people did it.
 
So, for the few of you who are into such large scenarios, i wish you good luck and have fun! If you run into problems or want to give feedback just leave me some comments in here.
Urkut, urkut,  urkut!!!  
Red Stream 120 for CMSF2.rar

Hi,
 
After the latest patch the FoW trenches are fixed ( i just saw they are NOT fixed, you can see the FOW trenches from the start so just do not look too hard for trenches where is the fun in that   ) and i finished playtesting my updated CMSF1 scenario which took a long time. I had to test it alone so i hope i get it as good as it can be. It will be a brutal affair, that is for sure   
Without further talk here is the scenario, if you played it in CMSF you know what you are in for but this time with some added surprises, also i slightly changed the attacker forces and reinforcements timing and added more orders to the defender plan since now in CMSF2 there are more orders available. Also i do post a description further below!
http://www.mediafire.com/file/s5w4167dhm3s8jb/Red+Stream+120+for+CMSF2.rar/file
DL from mediafire or post attachement!
 



 
Some information about the Scenario;
 
Red vs Red, play as Attacker only. Syrian army + US advisors(FO+JTAC) attack versus heavy Unconventional forces.
Size; Large or Huge
Compared to the CMSF1 original i added some bells and whistles to the map, back in late 2007 or 2008 when i made the map the FPS was problematic so i did not add more things than needed to keep good FPS. Now about 12 years later the same map runs a lot better so i could touch it up a little. However i did not add water or bridges for several reason.
I do own all CMSF2 modules, but i try very hard to no include anything that is not in the base game, so everyone should be able to play it.
Directly taken from the briefing;
 
For the crazy persons out there that think about PBEM´ing it; some people played the original version by PBEM and it seemed to work, i never intended or balanced the scenario for PvP but there are some youtube vid where people did it.
 
So, for the few of you who are into such large scenarios, i wish you good luck and have fun! If you run into problems or want to give feedback just leave me some comments in here.
Urkut, urkut,  urkut!!!  
Red Stream 120 for CMSF2.rar

No hard feelings here, but sometimes i think you read past what i try to say intentionally. For ~10 years squads did not act like a bunch of morons running around buildings to far side doors that are often observed by the enemy. That is what worked perfectly for about 10 years.
Yes, the AI generally does attack like a big blob moving forwards(CMx1) or like scripted(CMx2) without brains, i do not talk about that, i talk about the specific behavior of them spliting up where they should not, by them self. IF i want them split, i do it myself. The AI is usually too stupid to decide things but now they got the autonomy to decide anyways.
 
You are re-interpreting things here, the "workaround" is to get a group of AI morons to use 1 damn door, and not the other one too. The "workaround" is to take away autonomy that has been given in engine 4 to mindless bots that have no sense of awareness of their surrounding. THAT is the workaround.
If i as the player want to use split squad command, when where and how or not at all, should be my decision not the decision of a mindless robot tacAI that has no clue about things happening in the scenario. As i say before, it worked fine for ~10 years, that change in v4 was not needed at all.
I disagree! The extra input should be optional, when and where i want it. Not a forced mandatory move to "work around" the stupidity of the new AI behavior in v4 to get it to do what it did for ~ 10 years, as i keep saying.
.
.
Now, in order to say something positive, i think you make nice videos, there is good footage in there and the presentation is coherent, i like that. Good job on that!

i would love to share your optimism in this. in my view i expect exactly the opposite. would be great if BFC prove me wrong.
mate unfortunately there isnt anything alike, there are the graviteam games but there are some differences. thats what pains me the most, a game that is so much like a game i real enjoy, is realistic, attention to detail, more slow paced, has editor blah blah... but than multiplayer sucks. it was such a big letdown to me in summer 2007 as everyone "discovered" there is no TCP/IP wego. i am still not over that and i crave my CM multiplayer fix like i used to get it in CMx1. 9 years past and i still cant let go of this, iam a stubborn idiot you must know.
 
so has there be any words droped by steve or someone that would indicate cmx3 is even a thing?

No hard feelings here, but sometimes i think you read past what i try to say intentionally. For ~10 years squads did not act like a bunch of morons running around buildings to far side doors that are often observed by the enemy. That is what worked perfectly for about 10 years.
Yes, the AI generally does attack like a big blob moving forwards(CMx1) or like scripted(CMx2) without brains, i do not talk about that, i talk about the specific behavior of them spliting up where they should not, by them self. IF i want them split, i do it myself. The AI is usually too stupid to decide things but now they got the autonomy to decide anyways.
 
You are re-interpreting things here, the "workaround" is to get a group of AI morons to use 1 damn door, and not the other one too. The "workaround" is to take away autonomy that has been given in engine 4 to mindless bots that have no sense of awareness of their surrounding. THAT is the workaround.
If i as the player want to use split squad command, when where and how or not at all, should be my decision not the decision of a mindless robot tacAI that has no clue about things happening in the scenario. As i say before, it worked fine for ~10 years, that change in v4 was not needed at all.
I disagree! The extra input should be optional, when and where i want it. Not a forced mandatory move to "work around" the stupidity of the new AI behavior in v4 to get it to do what it did for ~ 10 years, as i keep saying.
.
.
Now, in order to say something positive, i think you make nice videos, there is good footage in there and the presentation is coherent, i like that. Good job on that!

I wish that would work reliable, i try that several times, i even mentioned that in the first post(or second?) i made in this thread. I have had squads parked right outside a 1x1 house right by the door, then let them "assault" into the building, i saw the first team run in the close door as they should, and the 2nd team still took the long way around to the other door. So it does not work reliable  
 
Maybe you are right, ... maybe i get back to it another time.

I wish that would work reliable, i try that several times, i even mentioned that in the first post(or second?) i made in this thread. I have had squads parked right outside a 1x1 house right by the door, then let them "assault" into the building, i saw the first team run in the close door as they should, and the 2nd team still took the long way around to the other door. So it does not work reliable  
 
Maybe you are right, ... maybe i get back to it another time.

Ian, i would not credit the problem to v4 patch if i would have a "whole" squad run to the wrong door or take a bizarre path, i talk explicitly about them spliting up and 1 team take the close door and the 2nd team run around taking the other door. This was not possible in any other engine version of the game as far as i can remember(did any of your see that in any other version but v4? correct me if i am wrong). I play CMSF a lot, i play CMBN a lot when it was released and i play CMRT quiet a bit too, all of them not(!) at engine 4, only when i play CMSF2 demo that came with engine 4 i saw this behavior for the first time. Right in the first battle in the demo, it was plain to see. And i continue to see it in the full  CMSF2 game.
However, i am about to give up, i realize there is nothing that can or will be done about it, i guess i have to get used to use the glorious workaround. CMSF2 is better in everything compare to CMSF in my eyes, only that retarded tacAI behavior where their cue thresh-hold is way too low(to give it a name), leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. I guess i have to load the save game in this cases and use the workaround where it is necessary. Terribly annoying
I am not in the mood to run lengthy tests in order for everyone to tell me everything is "in order". Id rather finish converting my scenario for now, that takes enough time.
 
 

No hard feelings here, but sometimes i think you read past what i try to say intentionally. For ~10 years squads did not act like a bunch of morons running around buildings to far side doors that are often observed by the enemy. That is what worked perfectly for about 10 years.
Yes, the AI generally does attack like a big blob moving forwards(CMx1) or like scripted(CMx2) without brains, i do not talk about that, i talk about the specific behavior of them spliting up where they should not, by them self. IF i want them split, i do it myself. The AI is usually too stupid to decide things but now they got the autonomy to decide anyways.
 
You are re-interpreting things here, the "workaround" is to get a group of AI morons to use 1 damn door, and not the other one too. The "workaround" is to take away autonomy that has been given in engine 4 to mindless bots that have no sense of awareness of their surrounding. THAT is the workaround.
If i as the player want to use split squad command, when where and how or not at all, should be my decision not the decision of a mindless robot tacAI that has no clue about things happening in the scenario. As i say before, it worked fine for ~10 years, that change in v4 was not needed at all.
I disagree! The extra input should be optional, when and where i want it. Not a forced mandatory move to "work around" the stupidity of the new AI behavior in v4 to get it to do what it did for ~ 10 years, as i keep saying.
.
.
Now, in order to say something positive, i think you make nice videos, there is good footage in there and the presentation is coherent, i like that. Good job on that!