Jump to content

Gazmaps

Members
  • Content Count

    54
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Gazmaps

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. In my experience it has always been the majority as opposed to "some" and certainly is not limited to the young / uneducated And Its certainly not specific to any specific religious, ethnic or any other grouping you might come up with..... You dont have to look far to see the same biases closer to home - for whoever and wherever that may be
  2. More just stuffing it up!!!!! Missed the bit where they didnt blow themselves up - now that would be very uncommon
  3. Well thats not uncommon for suicide bombers from what Ive seen....
  4. Whats your interest level on uncons vs convnetional type matchups (CMSF2)??? Im keen to get some more of these QB type games going and see how for they can be taken in terms of a competitive QB matchups.... However - I only do Huge and Large Games - not into anything smaller....
  5. How about take this the next step - suicide bombers - acting a bit like vbieds currently do......you could have breach teams or suicide bombers!!!!! I'm thinking it would likely be recycling similar existing code....
  6. I think this is the answer - its simply not enabled in QB maps.... This is certainly bourne out by the testing. Perhaps its an easy addition in any further patches / updates.....
  7. Thats a shame - I had a cunning plan to make a ready to go - uncons vs con QB map that anybody could use to have uncon QBs with preserve objectives setup to encourage the conventional s not to just level everything!!!!! Perhaps a functionality to add to the QB maps in the future if BF get around to it - I also had a post with suggestions for uncons as well - I think it opens up a whole lot of options for player vs player QBs.....
  8. Its can also be a random error sometimes as well - I think Ive tried putting dummy units in the QB map - ie I just purchase a platoon of supply tricks for each side - and then I think the obj you see can change - but still not correct. These truck dont show in a QB game as you then ovbiously get to make your own troop selection... The fact the editor seems to show exactly what you should in the deployment part - and this is not replicated when you start a QB game - tells me its likely a bug...
  9. Ok - so I know its not just my setup - and certaily seems to be a bug - what you see in the editor - which is working correctly is what you should see in the QB. I didnt create the whole map - it is what I like to call an ubanised enhancement to the stock map that comes with the Brits module - UK Armoured Assault.
  10. When you start your QB it has to be set as Medium - attack I believe then it should show.....
  11. What youve shown is what should be showing up. Im assuming you are looking at this in the deployment screen in the scenario editor???? If I use the deployment mode in the scenario editor this works for me as well. Its when you load it up into a QB it will not work. I usually test out my maps in a 2 player hotseat PBEM or just one player turn mode. Can you see if you get the same result in a QB????
  12. Thanks for the replys - understand what you are both saying - but Im sure Ive got it right and it seems to be a bug. Ive done a dummy QB map its here; https://www.dropbox.com/sh/b5x1pn1tt1wzyw7/AABN9VDYrmh9rh8G-JXSXqn0a?dl=0 Youll see when you go into the editor their are 6 objs for red, 6 for blue with a mix of occupy nd presrve types and mixed by who can see them. If you start a QB using the map you will see the correct objectives do not come thru (or they do not come thru for me anyway!!!!!) Ive also dropped in Huge Assault Map for Conventional vs Conventionals - Feel free to use and distribute as much a you can!!!!!! the reason for this post is that once I have these objectives issues sorted out for preserve and destroy I can then complete a dedicated uncons vs conv QB map as well. Now I Im guessing their will be no issues if you create a scenario out of this - but Im specifically wanting to create a QB map - not a scenario map and my specific aim is to have it as a working QB map. From what I can see the issue is a bug - unless Im missing something..... Cheers Gaz
  13. Hello, Just like to highlight a bug in the Scenario editor for CMSF2. Setting up terrain based preserve and destroy objectives seems to be very hit and miss; as in sometime they will appear in a map they are setup for and sometimes they will not. Ive done some playing around (including uninstalling SF2 and reinstalling, tried loads of combos on maps and cant see why this is the case. At the moment its unworkable because they simply do not show up in a completed map. Anybody had this issue or know of a work around? Cheers Gaz
  14. Id say its more about simulating asymmetric warfare and the complexities of fighting an enemy who blends in with the civilian population. SF is unique among st the other titles in this regard as its the only one that models insurgents (unless the Afghan Title does this - though its the only CM title I don't have so I wouldn't know..._). "QBs are QBs, there's a limit to what you can do" - well I have a very different opinion to statements like this - Id prefer to make things the best they can be - many of the points Ive raised are likely oversights - their is no reason not to get these working as they where likely envisaged to be ... "Combatants are just 'neighborhood guys with guns' and nothing else" - you don't really address the main thrust that their should be more differentiation between the combatants and Fighters. Im not saying combatants aren't heavily loaded up enough - actually I think they have a good balance here - Im saying its realistic to expect fighters as they are defined to have larger load outs - If your saying ISIS style groups (and those lower down the food chain) dont understand the principals of logistics - Id suggest the Syrian Arab Army and Iraqi Army would disagree.... Their is a spectrum of how well equipped, motivated and organized the various unconventional forces are - battlefront have likely made a balanced design decision on how they represent this spectrum (2 distinct groups - fighters and combatants) - I'm pointing out where some of the finer implementation of these probably does not align with the what was originally intended because they look like obvious omissions in the overall framework - and I think some of the ideas I'm putting forward would add more value to the game. "Maybe they won't spot me" - this is pretty much a key operational principal of unconventional forces - hence why battlefront has gone to the extent to model civilian density. "Steve wanted uncon limitations to be apparent and tactically significant" - theirs already loads - virtually nill C2, limited / low quality weapons, much smaller units sizes - ie 5 man teams max size, limited heavy weapons....The other soft factors are for players and designers to set or agree upon. Nothing Ive suggested detracts from this... I suspect BF aimed to have the differences between combatants and fighters be tactically significant as well - more so than they are currently implemented - what Im saying makes for more interesting and varied game play - while being realistic Cheers Gary
  15. I enjoy these games immensely - so much so I was motivated to start making maps for the community (mainly because I feel I owe it - due to the hours of entertainment Ive had from other members (ie General Maltchett, Wyntergren and others who made some awesome maps!!!!!!) and battlefront for providing the framework. - Im trying to highlight bugs and suggestions with the aim of making these games even better. Ive been a solid PBEM player since the original CM. I buy every title even if I dont play them - eg RT and FB just to support the devs. Im going to respond to the Technicals as an example but the same applies to all the UNCONS in general; Your point can be debated as follows; If Technicals can be spotted straight of the bat - then why have combatant technicals at all??? I would suggest Battlefront have deliberately included Combatant and Fighter Technicals. I would assume their intent is that their are differences other than just appearance. As it stands now with the Technicals, their are no differences between Combatants and Fighter Technical s See below; (I know the res is not good - but the load out is exactly the same - ie the two identical reconciles rifles have 15 rnds a piece...) If you look at the cost of in the QB Editor; You can see identical prices for Technicals. Note To Battlefront: If you do get around to fixing these - be good to have Combatant and Fighter Technical Identified in the QB Selection Window, same as IED groups - at the moment its not clear what you are actually buying for Technical and IED groups. So - I would assume the Combatant Technical should get a stealth buff - otherwise why would Battlefront have them in their??? Then as per my original post - I'm also suggesting they be differentiated in say points and / or ammo load out In real life - hvy weapons can be disguised. They can be hard to spot at long ranges ie 300m or greater, if its surrounded by in heavy traffic (ie High Civilian Density) ....The pickup truck is just an abstraction, it may be a covered pickup truck, it may be a flatbed truck with a canvas cover....So what Im saying and what I suspect battlefront intended, makes narrative sense. Im suggesting this is a bug / oversight - which is pretty understandable given the the complexity and scope of these games. As you can see above, the same applies to UNCONS Infantry. Their load outs are almost identical as well (its only about 30rnds difference in the squads - and thats not RPG rounds - just small arms ammo) - hence I'm guessing the 1-2 point differential in the QB points cost . Youll also see the constant 50 point overhead that I mention in my initial post. I hope by raising these likely bugs and making suggestions on changes, it will improve the game overall. I broke the initial post into three sections; Likley Bugs Little / Easy Improvements Bigger / Harder to implement Fixes. I came up with some interesting ideas on how make UNCON playable maps especially on how to use Preserve Objectives etc...Have some more changes to make - but Ill get that up on the CMMOds site when its finished (may take a couple more weeks).... I focused on QB, Human vs Human matches - so that's what my posts are typically aimed at. Cheers Gary
×
×
  • Create New...