Webwing

This can already be done. But the designer must tell the player in the briefing if he thinks it is relevant to reveal this info. There is now way now for the player to know this unless the person that designed the campaign reveals it to him. - -

You know what? The thing I like most about CMSF is that it manages to attract a wide range of gamers. It is quite accurate in its simulations and close to what the RL situations and vehicles might be. On the other hand it is fun to play even if you have no military background. And it can actually be a tool to learn more about all this stuff. It has been for me. CMSF manages to appeal to both the pure gamer as it does to the guys with a military background. And all the others in between. I suspect the extremes won't like the game. The hardcore grognards in one end and the RTS click fest fans in the other. But obviously each gamer will expect different things from the game. Some like QB some like designer's scenarios. Some like them both. Well, BF has included both and has promised some major improvements to the QB system. I think this game engine is a very well balanced mixture between a hard core wargame, with all the details and calculations, and an action packed and full of eye candy wargame. We all have a list of things that we think would be nice to have in the game. No two lists will ever match though. Of course we try to shout as loud as possible what we have in our lists in the hope that Steve will include some of it in his own list. As Steve's is the only list that counts anyway! -

That would be nice. Steve mentioned something about this, I just can't remember in which thread. Not sure how simple/hard that would be to implement though. -

The campaign system has been criticized for being just a sequence of missions. Well, in RL a campaign is just that. Again it's up to the campaign designer to create a story, a background where all those missions will fit in a natural way. Also to have the player get the feeling that each mission is part of a bigger picture. I tried to accomplish that in my Ghost campaign with the help of a PDF file. If you can do that, work well with the core units and with the branches then you'll find that this system is very solid. As with the mission editor, the burden is on the designer's shoulders. BF has only provided the tools. - [ April 21, 2008, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: Webwing ]

I totally agree. Take your complains to the campaign designers! Still on the topic of campaign there is the issue of the branches. If you win a mission you go to misson 2, if you lose you go to misson 3. Branching is great and makes the campaign so much more... well, dynamic! Although this is called semi dynamic. But I found that most every player plays to win. If he loses, he will play the mission again and again until he gets his win. So the missions you created as branches where just a waste of time. I guess that's why we won't see many branched campaigns around. The workaround is to set the threshold higher, for instance to Tactical Victory. That's an OK solution. Now I wonder how hard it would be to add to this a random parameter to send the player to the branches no matter the result. 50% chances to go to A or B. With this you could have a web of missions randomly assembled that would make a campaign much more interesting to be played again. - [ April 21, 2008, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: Webwing ]

FMB, Nah, he was very much talking about user made scenarios in this bit of the post! -

Regarding designer made scenarios the best solution is for you to open the mission in the editor and change the time yourself. Just a few clicks/seconds. Open editor Load mission Change time Save mission Everybody happy! -

I think it is great that this is left to the campaign designer. It's another tool in the hands of the designer. It's just a matter of warning the player in the intro of the campaign how you used it After experimenting a lot with campaign options I got to the conclusion that all units should be core units. No matter if they just show up once. The player should think of them all as core. He should not know in advance if a unit will show up again or not. This way he will treat all of them with care. So maybe a tank platoon will show up in mission 2 and then again in mission 5. You can tell the player that his main task force is this battalion, for instance. But the other units that appear might show up again later in the campaign. Take good care of them all. On the other hand I ask myself this: - A commander having at his disposal his own troops and say, some units from the Afghanistan army, is he going to look at them in the same way? -

Congratulations Paper Tiger! And more great screenshots! --

Hey my friend, Didn't see until now that you had already finished the infamous mission and posted here!!!! The only way I can win this one is by using a very careful ambush in RT. But I didn't want to water it down to make it easier. For me this is one of the most exciting battles in the campaign. Not so many troops, you are on the defense and loads of heavy action all the time. I'm not sure how the end result for the campaign is calculated but it shouldn't be too bad. The thing you have to worry most though are casualties. Thanks for the feedback. Hope you carry on in the campaign and let me know how you are doing. -

Welcome Preacher! You'll have a lot o fun with this game. This hardware, video, etc. questions are always a pain for me!!!! I guess that's why so many people like consoles for games. So much time must be spent tweaking things, that could be better spent playing the game! Video card sure makes a difference in CMSF but not so much as it does with other games. I guess performance has more to do with CPU than GPU. But what do I know! Let's see if there are some tech gurus around to help you. Check also the tech support forum. Have fun!

There's the one that comes with the game - TF Narwick by bardosy - Crossroads Trilogy - my first attempt at a campaign - In Search of a Ghost - my second campaign - The Hasrabit - by Paper Tiger. He is promissing to upload it this weekend!!!! - Task Force Panther by Normal Dude - no release date yet but it seems it won't be long - There will also be a campaign to accompany every Module. And loads and loads of individual scenarios. Have fun! -

Welcome aboard Gridley!!! You will be overwhelmed by the number of scenarios available. There are also 2 more new user made campaigns that will be release soon. It should keep you busy for quite some time! -

Map damage would be cool. This is a branched campaign system. If properly used it can be quite dynamic and interesting. You also have core units. The campaign system seem pretty solid to me. It's all up to the designer of the campaign though. It is extremely time consuming to do it. Give it some time and you will see some pretty cool campaigns being released to add the ones already available. -

MikeyD, At least your's look nice! -

Now I understand what handihoc felt was strange. If you see a 1st Squat/ 2nd Platoon, for instance, that sounds ok. But Tiny Combatant group sounds weird! :eek: I got so used to them that never occurred to me that I should change them. Maybe Combatant group 1 or something like that only. The size specification is what makes it look a bit strange. -

I told you! Some observations Your situation: Pros: - You are in a protected position with good visibility. - The enemy does not know where you are - The enemy needs to expose himself in open terrain to get and cross the bridges - Quality of your weapons and troops - You don't need to move Cons: - Big and aggressive enemy force. - You don't know the size of the enemy force. - Enemy has armored vehicles. - Enemy will try to flank you, as expected. - Too much time. What do you mean? They are Uncons! Fighters, Combatants and Specialists... Well, I could have changed the names. I should have actually! -

Great to have feedback from you! I have changed some units, support and position of a few troops. Added some additional plans in some missions as well. Mission 2 always had a minefield. I guess you just got lucky the first time around. I'm curious to see how far you go. The counter attack at the bridge seems to be where most people have trouble. Let's see how you deal with it! -

15 minutes is not too bad IMO. Every time I look at it there is something I want to change though! -

I got that. In Taki's AAR he used the names of the officers and followed then throughout the campaign. So it might be during the editing process but once you start playing the campaign the names will be always the same. This might not help you at all of course. I imagine you wanted to refer to them in your briefing by name. Am I right? -

:confused: I made a mess of this post last night. Anyway... Normal Dude, As a mission designer I want as many options as possible. Not sure if that would be good for most players that don't want to spend too much time in the editor though. - [ April 15, 2008, 05:13 AM: Message edited by: Webwing ]

That is true but still the major thing IMO is the fact that you have so many more options in the editor as compared to CMx1. It's a paradox. Players want loads and loads of options in the editor but the more options you have the harder it is to make a good mission. This reminds me of an excellent book I read some time ago : The Paradox of Choice. The author shows that some choice is good but too much choice leads to unhappiness and ultimately to paralysis. -

[edit]Ops, Steve already answered that, while I was uploading my image![/edit] Best way to handle it is to think in terms of 'islands' of the same height. - - Use the zoom out mode. The one where you don't even see the numbers you are drawing. Chose the fixed height tool. Paint 'islands' with it. The engine will make the transition between those heights. The closer the islands and the bigger the difference between the numbers, the steeper the landscape will be. - [ April 14, 2008, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: Webwing ]

Really?! I never noticed that! But I think in game during the campaign they will be the same all the way. I remember from Taki's AARs. Have you tested that? -

It all depends on how you do it. Assigning points to objectives and conditions can be quite tricky. Personally I like to keep them simple. Since this an assimetrical war, where one side tolerates casualties and the other is extremely sensitive to it and the weapons are so different and the goals too, the point system reflects that. There is even a Bonus field so that you can give one side more points for no specific reason other than to balance the game. Ops, have I answered your question or have I just gone around in circles? I can't remember how 'Ambush in Al Fubar' goes and have no way to check it out now. If you can check the point system in the latest mission from George Mc and also the ones from MarkEzra. They are pretty good at doing this. - [ April 14, 2008, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: Webwing ]