Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Combatintman last won the day on November 8

Combatintman had the most liked content!


About Combatintman

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 10/09/1965

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. (1). Make your mind up. (2) It isn't complex for regular folks, the mechanics are as described in the manual in the same way that game play mechanics are described. If you can play the game to a reasonable standard (and I'm a pretty average player), then you are more than capable of using the editor competently. (3). I provided input to this scenario as stated below: http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/cm-black-sea/cm-black-sea-add-ons/tactical-operations-center/ (4). You have been complimentary and constructive about released scenarios. I certainly recall some feedback discussions that we have had regarding some of my work and while we disagreed about some aspects, I accepted some of the points that you made and admitted that I could have made improvements in accordance with your suggestions. However, you repeatedly comment in threads about the absence of things that you would like to see in scenarios or what might be a great scenario idea. Sometimes you start such threads. In this case, you are bemoaning the absence of certain vehicles that are included in CMRT but are not well represented in scenarios/campaigns. In other cases your two most wanted seem to be map size and reconnaissance missions. Your comments are not feedback to individual scenarios or campaigns - they are, as you have put it 'why doncha?' This is a reaction to a circumstance which you can control. You have access to a scenario editor. You want scenarios with … (insert desire). Your solution to 'why doncha fix your own car?' I'm guessing is to take it to a garage and pay a mechanic to fix it. Likewise, the other 'doncha' stuff in your post I'm guessing requires paying specialist builders, gardeners, chefs or whatever. If I'm right then these are great solutions and, my response to the mechanic who asked me when I took my car in for repair 'so what's wrong with it then?' was 'I've no idea, you're the mechanic'. A couple of hundred quid later, the problem was solved and I have no idea to this day what the problem was. Of course if your car broke down and you couldn't afford to chuck money at the problem then your solutions would be different: Learn how to fix your car. Walk/use public transport. Move house. I'm sure there are more potential solutions but whatever they are, they will only be solutions if you have the resources. In this case though, with the exception of Battlefront releases, you don't have the option of chucking a few quid/bucks at somebody to create the missions you desire so your options go back to those in my original post. As you quite correctly point out, good scenario design does involve effort to get right. Due to the effort required, most ,if not all, scenario designers are going to design scenarios that interest them. They are unlikely to devote time and effort into the editor just because Erwin or anyone else thinks it would make a great scenario idea. The upshot is that it is pretty pointless making general comments like 'designers tend to use only a few of the available vehicles - we see the same dozen or so, and that's all'. As we have been over this ground previously I will close with 'hopefully you (finally) get the point and we don't have to go over and over and over this same old tired issue'.
  2. And herein lies the problem I think. Well actually it isn't a problem at all - it is all about the design decision. From my perspective I love making maps and getting them to that 'good enough for government work' standard. As an example relating to the map I posted screenshots of …. I had a scenario concept for it and looking at the ground I thought 'wow - this is a realistic open map suitable for a guard mission'. I made the map - and in terms of its representation of the real thing, I love it. It might be a realistic and open map - but in reality the LOS is not what I thought it would be - I am now in the process of jiggering around with other scenario factors to make it work. The takeaway here is that from my perspective - I would rather tinker with aspects other than the map to make the scenario work. Generally this is achievable and at the stage I am in testing I think I have a solution but it certainly doesn't involve bumping a contour here or there or changing a low wall to a high wall to block LOS etc. Don't stress overly about micro terrains - the work that you've posted shows that you have more than mastered the mechanics of putting a map together so I would now spend more time thinking about the other bits of the editor to allow you to achieve the results you are looking for. You are talented - keep at it mate.
  3. I take the point because it is your standard defence when someone reacts to a comment you make about scenario design. The message I, and others, hear over and over again from you are words to the effect of 'scenario designers don't do x, don't do y. It is a pity that there aren't more scenarios with x or y in them. Scenarios seem to be set on small maps'. If you have no skin in the designing game then perhaps you should consider whether it is advisable to voice opinions as persistently as you do that can be (and are) construed by scenario designers as an attack on their efforts. If you haven't worked it out yet, every time you make such a comment, someone reacts to it. Whether you think the comments are made in good faith or the best of intent, the fact that you persistently get a negative reaction is a pretty good indicator that the comments are not taken that way. There seem to be three courses of action: 1. Keep on doing what you're doing and accept that you'll get a negative response. 2. Get into scenario design and knock out the missions that you want to play on the size of maps you earnestly desire with the equipment you yearn for. 3. Consider the effect that your comments have on people who provide content for your enjoyment.
  4. So a bit like wasting precious time providing a scenario editor then.
  5. @Kaunitz An example of WW2 US Cavalry doctrine ... http://cdm16040.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p4013coll9/id/708/rec/6 There is a fair amount of picking around the above but both screen and guard missions are in there, even if they are not explicitly stated in terms of the wording of the current doctrine. With regard to front lines, I would agree that the Western front from 1944 onwards was mostly characterised by front lines but there are still plenty of examples of fluid situations. Some examples would be: The Allied breakout across France and up through Belgium. The advance north from the beach heads following Operation Dragoon. Advances across Germany in the last couple of months of the war. The Eastern front is a very different picture following the initial breakthrough of pretty much any of the major operations the situation was extremely fluid, with Operation Bagration being the best late war example. The map is scaled 1:1 and yes of course there are differences. This is down to what can be achieved in the map editor and this part of the map involved a road curve that was straightened out to avoid too many road zig zags. As a result some buildings got shifted further North or South to compensate for this rather than me painting the house right on the exact location. It is inevitable that the distance and space ratios will never exactly work out, if for no other reason than houses are 'locked' to action spots and can only be oriented, N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W and NW. The 'woods' on the right are not woods, it is a combination of a line of trees handrailing the road and trees in the gardens of various properties along that road. With regard to use of bocage tiles in woods - not my thing I'm afraid and my view is that some mapmakers over egg cover in woods. One thing I can guarantee about this map is that LOS is not what it looks at face value as I have discovered when looking for fire positions during scenario testing. My view on map making has always been, go for realism up to the limitations of the editor which includes thinking about frame rates and processing time (so I don't go mad with flavour objects, foliage or endless fiddling with contours). Close enough for government work is more than good enough in my view, so if the player recognises the CM representation as being close to the real ground I have done my job. I admire people who strive to get things exactly right but there is a point where the law of diminishing returns comes into play. Remember that the map is only one part of a scenario and players play CM primarily for the action/tactical problem solving aspect of the game. If you've got the most accurate/beautiful map in the World but a stinker of a scenario narrative/a massively unbalanced battle or a poor AI plan then all you have is a nice map which nobody will thank you for.
  6. Interesting thread …. I’ve been kicking around a few related concepts which I don’t claim to be the solution, but I think they are worth putting out there. The ‘Recon’ concept in relation to the exit problem I think boils down to screen and guard missions. Before we go on then, it is important that we all understand what screen and guard missions are as defined by doctrine rather than what would be ‘a cool mission’ or the casual player’s perception of ‘recon’. Here is the doctrinal view … Screen A task to maintain surveillance; provide early warning to the main body; or impede, destroy, and harass enemy reconnaissance within its capability without becoming decisively engaged. Guard A form of security operation whose primary task is to protect the main force by fighting to gain time while also observing and reporting information and to prevent enemy ground observation of and direct fire against the main body by reconnoitering, attacking, defending, and delaying. A guard force normally operates within the range of the main body’s indirect fire weapons. In Combat Mission Editor terms – both missions require: The use of the ‘Spot’ objective. Some form of ‘Destroy’ or enemy casualty parameters. In the case of the ‘Screen’ mission, avoidance of decisive engagement which can be handled in the editor by: Use of the friendly casualty parameter. Use of exit objectives. Or a combination of the two. Also, and yes I bang on about this a lot, there is the question of the narrative which can cover off on a lot of the concepts above. How can we get this to work then? – again I offer no solution, but this is something I’m working on. Here’s the real thing: Here’s the CM version of it: Ground view real and CM rendering. This will be for CMBS and the map area is 3328m wide x 1920 high to give enough battlespace for the thing to work. Most importantly, this mission is optimised as a Blue vs Red AI mission. Back to the narrative … In essence, sometime in the near future, NATO intelligence has identified that Russia is planning a short notice operation to secure the Baltic under cover of the ZAPAD exercise which involved troops based in Kaliningrad and troops exercising in Belarus. As part of that, elements of the forces in the Kaliningrad Oblast will attack towards the East while elements of the 20 Guards Army will attack West into the Suwalki Gap. The US, as one of the few NATO countries that can deploy forces at short notice has responded by sending high readiness airborne forces. Within 24 hours of their arrival, reports indicate that 7 Guards Motor Rifle Regiment are about to launch an attack into Lithuania from the Kaliningrad Oblast. A Troop 1/91 Cavalry (Airborne) is to screen/guard (not decided yet) IVO Alvitas in order to allow NATO forces to prepare defences to the East (or something like that). The key with the narrative and an understanding of the doctrinal mission statements is that you are telling the player three things … Exiting the map is ok. Whacking all of the enemy is not the be all and end all. Don’t lose too much stuff. You then build on the narrative by creating incentives in the victory point scheme. Now there are no numbers below, but they provide a structure in which I think you can make the ‘recon+exit’ concept work. Going back to the scenario above … Essentially the Russians are going to throw regimental reconnaissance and a battalion sized unit at this problem. That breaks down into the following groupings: Formation reconnaissance (about a company) Combat reconnaissance patrol (about a platoon) Vanguard company (you guessed it … a company) Main body (a couple of companies) The Russians will get VPs for: Hitting their immediate and subsequent objectives (Terrain ‘Touch’ objective). Reaching Phase Lines at the Eastern edge of the map (Terrain ‘Touch’ objective). Destroying Blue units (Unit ‘Destroy’ objective (linked to a Blue ‘Exit’ objective plus enemy casualties parameter). Preserving their own combat power (Friendly casualties parameter). The Russians also have an ‘Exit’ objective at the East end of the map although this has little bearing for the Russians. The US have the following objectives: Spotting Russian units (Unit ‘Spot’ objectives). Preserving own combat power (Friendly casualties parameter). Destroying Russian units (Enemy casualties parameter – point to note is that although the Russians have an ‘Exit’ objective, there is no corresponding US ‘Destroy’ objective for Russian units). Exiting the map. Comment Pulling this off properly just involves getting the sums right. As the scenario designer you have to decide at which point the Blue player has to exit the map to win the scenario. Once you decide that, you test it and fiddle around with the points and maybe shift a couple of the phase lines East or West, raise/lower their VP values to make it all work. So in this instance the Russian order of march is pretty doctrinal as shown in the schematic below along with some sample numbers for the spot objectives and terrain objectives. Then it is just a case of tinkering around with it a bit. The map making thing – use real ground – it is so much easier than creating imaginary ground.
  7. 'Don't tell him @Wicky/Pike' … 😉
  8. Interesting but this thread does not belong here in my view - where is the connection to Combat Mission?
  9. Combatintman

    Tiger 1 cannon emergency trigger

    Interesting but this thread does not belong here in my view.
  10. Reference question 1 - I suspect, but don't know, that the reason for the cross-pollination in QB selections is linked to the fact that you can choose 'Armor Only', 'Infantry Only', Mech Only', 'Mix' and 'Random'. in the 'Force Type' drop down for a QB when you're in the process of setting up the battle. There's probably some under the hood shenanigans which make it more logical code-wise for the computer to select forces. Clearly this does not matter at all for scenario design because the designer, rather than the computer decides everything.
  11. Thanks for the heads-up - not applicable for my current projects which are insurgent light (CMBN Port Cros, an unnamed CMBS scenario, a CMFI project and a CMSF 2 OIF scenario plus a CMRT Module Beta scenario) but I'm sure it will come in handy in the future. You also forget that I lack your creativity and finesse.
  12. Combatintman

    Electronic warfare in CMSF2

    This +1 - in real life, the only (not recommended) way to know if your ECM is not working is to get blown up.
  13. Combatintman

    CMSF irregular thoughts

    In a word ... no. To be honest it isn't something I've experimented with much. I think @domfluffis probably on the money with ways of skinning the cat. Other things would be to spawn reinforcements right up close to the targeted unit but of course that is nigh on impossible to pull off for non-static targets because the scenario designer has to assess with near certainty where a moving target is going to be at a particular time. Building on @domfluff's ideas, I guess you could use a trigger to move a suicide bomber from behind a building, into a building bordering a route that the target is likely to drive down. Clearly the urban environment is going to be more friendly to such AI tricks than rural environments but that is no bad thing as it is pretty reflective of reality.
  14. Combatintman

    CMSF irregular thoughts

    You're ignoring the abstraction and intent inherent in the civilian density setting. If we imagine the HMMWV to be mobile VCP then it becomes more realistic. I admit it isn't perfect because it would be difficult for any insurgent to get a long barrelled weapon that close to a VCP in open terrain but that is the nature of the abstraction. Conversely it is entirely realistic for someone with a suicide vest, pistol, knife or hand grenade as thousands of cemeteries will testify.
  15. Combatintman

    Electronic warfare in CMSF2

    I doubt that 'deploy weapon' applies. The ECM fit does not 'deploy' it is fixed permanently on the wagons and activating it via a 'deploy weapon' dialogue would be like having to click 'deploy weapon' to switch on a radio. In game the ECM fit is functioning all of the time and should degrade phone and radio controlled IEDs.