Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Combatintman

  1. Combatintman

    Update on Engine 4 patches

    If I could make a small amendment to (my bold) this excellent suggestion ... "At this point, I would challenge anyone who is impatiently waiting like me to make a 1.5 km x 1.5 km quick battle map based on the area surrounding your mother-in-law's house, take large quantities of off map arty and blast it to pieces."
  2. I'm no expert but as far as I can remember, hiding troops have a peek around occasionally. When they're not taking a peek then their LOS is limited, from what I've read from various people here, they will hide their observers until they know the spotting rounds are due to arrive and then unhide them during the spotting process and until they get Fire for Effect. Once FFE has been called, the spotter no longer needs visibility onto the target for the rounds to land where they should so you can safely hide the observer again unless you want to conduct battle damage assessment.
  3. Combatintman

    Update on Engine 4 patches

    Fine, I had a quick look and didn't see the date. I always work on the default that Steve doesn't give dates and when he does, there's always wriggle room. Doesn't bother me anyway to be honest, if they say they're working on it then in my experience they are so it'll come out when it comes out.
  4. Combatintman

    Drone Tactics

    Money well spent given that these things are often followed by a 1,000lb bomb or a battery's worth of 152mm.
  5. Combatintman

    Update on Engine 4 patches

    I'm not sure Steve has ever said this.
  6. Combatintman

    First try at a scenario: questions

    I doubt I can shed much light on this. My understanding has always been as per the Paper Tiger quote - namely: If an AI group has no setup order, it should always start where the designer deployed it in the unit editor. I have always found this to be the case. If setup orders are used, they must be painted on areas of the map that have been painted as setup zones in the map editor. If that condition is met, the AI will randomly set units up in the designated painted area of the setup order. As I've previously had mixed results with this, I've generally not used it much. I have certainly seen the turn 1 'jump' in scenario author test mode shifting units from where the designer has placed them to their setup zones in accordance with the AI plan that is active.
  7. Combatintman

    Missing BMP-3's (or just bad eyesight?)

    It is a known problem:
  8. Combatintman

    Lions of Kandahar

    Not to my knowledge - AFAIK it still sits in the good ideas box.
  9. Top marks for the DAR - reshow for the combat first aid training 😉
  10. Top marks for the DAR - reshow for the combat first aid training 😉
  11. @Zveroboy1 - that map looks hoofing (good) as the Royal Marines would say. Looking forward to giving this a spin once I kick one of my projects out of the door. Have a like anyway for the map and for joining the scenario designer club.
  12. Combatintman

    First try at a scenario: questions

    Personally I wouldn't use 'Destroy All' - it is very binary and I think limits your flexibility with VPs, my preference is always to go with 'Destroy'. That said, I'm not familiar with the victory conditions in the original ASL scenario that you're trying to replicate. As to the trigger thing, there is something clearly going on if only one unit is moving and this is not happening all of the time and you're not getting the 'wait for' dialogue. I'm no expert on triggers having only just successfully used them in the last six months or so but one thing I would consider is having a dedicated trigger objective rather than doubling up on the exit objective. It might be that units exiting on the exit objective are not hanging around long enough for the trigger to fire. Try drawing a trigger objective adjacent to the exit objective and see how that works as a starter for ten. I guess though for us to really understand what's going on, you're going to have put up some screenshots or provide more detail.
  13. Combatintman

    Stunning Air Footage of Vulcan Bomber

    I meant the bit I highlighted … that using conventional munitions the aircraft may not have been effective.
  14. I agree with @Bulletpoint, there is definitely room for improvement. While most of it is readily understood, there is a lot of literal translation in there. The second paragraph on the page 140 scan is very stilted for example. Also munition is never used in English to describe a unit's ammunition state (note 2 on the page 140 scan).
  15. Combatintman

    Stunning Air Footage of Vulcan Bomber

    What is your justification for that statement?
  16. Combatintman

    Stunning Air Footage of Vulcan Bomber

    Correct - this is a book about the raid if you're interested: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/873380.Vulcan_607 The longest raid in history record has since been broken though, predictably by US B-52's: http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2016/December 2016/1216hours.pdf
  17. Combatintman

    Stunning Air Footage of Vulcan Bomber

    Erm … I'm sure one bombed Port Stanley in 1982.
  18. Combatintman


    Every day's a school day … peacenik eh, do you have flowers in your hair? 😉
  19. Combatintman


    Tsaritsyn? Volgagrad? 😉
  20. Yeah I tend to do this in most of my scenarios. I count the number of dismounts in a scenario and then give them 1 point each. So if 100 guys get killed, the player killing them gets 100 points. I then mix it up with parameters and other objectives and use @Ithikial_AU's VP calculator to get me in the right ballpark. Once I've done that, I test it a couple of times and tweak the numbers as required. To be honest for me, getting VPs right is the part of mission design is the most difficult thing to do; however it is still pretty simple conceptually so don't be put off by it.
  21. @LongLeftFlank that ISIS lot liked dressing in black so I guess they had a Mr Cash or two in their ranks.
  22. Correct. To balance it out you need to give the Germans some objectives. Let's say that the US attackers are a platoon of Shermans, a platoon of infantry and an engineer squad. You set those up as Axis 'Destroy' unit objectives with say U1 as the Sherman Platoon worth 100 VPs, the infantry platoon as U2 worth 100 VPs and the engineer squad as U3 worth 100 VPs. If the Germans wipe out the engineer squad they will get 100 VPs.
  23. Combatintman

    First try at a scenario: questions

    @Holditwell done for hanging in there after losing the original. Sounds like a labour of love, which generally results in better scenarios.
  24. Reference your comment about the Germans not receiving any points for saving the unit objectives from the Allies - that is normal. Unit objective points are only awarded to the side that has to destroy/destroy all/spot or preserve them. In this case let's say you had allocated 100 VPs for U1, 100 VPs for U2 and 100 VPs for U3 as destroy objectives. If the Allied player wiped out U1 but none of the others, the Allied player would get 100 VPs, the Axis player would receive no points for 'saving' U2 and U3.
  25. @Sgt.Squarehead Presumably you've read the Brookings Study referenced in that article: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/David-Witty-Paper_Final_Web.pdf A recent article here: https://www.iraqincontext.com/single-post/2018/01/23/The-Iraqi-Counter-Terrorism-Service-From-the-War-on-ISIS-to-the-Future View from the CTS coalface is that they want to get back to more traditional SF type roles rather than be the force of choice for every single crisis that befalls Iraq.