Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Combatintman last won the day on March 28

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. Here was me thinking I was going to read an interesting thread about the complexity of Heinz Harmel … 😉 Bloody good find though mate, you must be chuffed to bits.
  2. 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.
  3. @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.
  4. Good to see you back @Erwin - a few days ago I was thinking that I hadn't seen any posts from you and was starting to worry.
  5. I'm probably being belligerent but I am disappointed that the OP has failed to participate in their own thread beyond starting it.
  6. Work Rates ... Given the setting of CMSF - your temperature ranges in most scenarios will sit in the yellow or above heat category. The maximum you could work your troops would therefore be 40 minutes. That said I think 'Move' is a tad on the slow side but to be fair the 'Quick' 'Pause' routine described earlier has always worked fine for me.
  7. Well for those who were there …. every experience is real and unique.
  8. The answer to the bold bit is likely to be whatever mechanism the EU comes up with for doing so. As to the threat piece, I'm not sure it will come into play until someone sits down and decides what it is supposed to do. EU military missions exist already of course and it might be worth rummaging around those to get a feel for how they work.
  9. Off the top of my head - assault and max assault only apply to dismounted units that can be split so I'd rule those two order types out straight away for AI groups containing mounted non-splittable units. Otherwise, I guess it depends how quickly you want the dudes to bug out and/or whether you want them to use their weapons while moving. I've always found the descriptions in the manual to be fairly close to the mark for order type (page 104 of the engine manual). Bottom line though is that you will need to set up a quick test and see how they behave if it is really important to you that they behave in a particular fashion for this move order.
  10. I'd hit @Bootie up again. By the looks of it there's been another update which probably explains your difficulties. I have had hit and miss experiences trying to upload to the Scenario Depot, sometimes I've figured it out myself but also sometimes Bootie has had to help me out. While the service they are providing the community there is a noble one and Bootie is always mega helpful, I do miss just being able to write a quick description, zip a file and upload it in a couple of clicks on the repository which then automatically created a new thread announcement on the relevant board on the forum saying that a new scenario/campaign/mod had been created. I guess you've been here already but if not, here is the tutorial which applies to TPG as well as TSD: https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/about/ I think one of my successful uploads was as a result of watching this tutorial so it may get you across the line.
  11. So the release date on your first module is Jan 2020? 😉 Congratulations mate.
  12. Beats Baghdad by a country mile (1.60934 km).
  • Create New...