Webwing

Don´t get me wrong. I am an editor freak! I prefer fooling around with the editor more than actually playing. All I was trying to say is that any feature you add can be used for "cheating". And the more complicated the editor gets the more it is prone to designers mistakes. Still, I´m all for triggers and whatever else can be made available in the editor!

I think this can be *solved* by the designer if he sees it as a problem. But this is actually too generic. It has to be judged case by case IMO. Triggers are a big plus when designing missions but will bring with them even more "cheats". For instance you can make the AI react when Blue gets to X position even if the AI does not have LOS to the Blue force. Just to give you one example. -

Really? Who are these people? Here in this thread we are discussing if it is interesting to add a new option or not. No one is talking about removing anything. Personally I don´t see the need for more time. But I do agree that more options are not a bad thing although this would have a very low priority for me. I don´t see why the AI issue is seen as an excuse. Excuse for what? People are just giving opinions about the topic. No one from Battlefront has posted in this thread so far. -

I have asked for this feature a long time ago. But to be honest, after designing and playing many missions I don´t think we really need it. If the designer has created a mission that might be a bit tough to be accomplished in two hour than maybe it is the case to split it into 2 or 3 scenarios using the same map. Make it a mini campaign. This way you can use some extra features as well, like core units or even branching. Supply Issue: The idea that only the player can chose the option of more time does not solve the resupply issue. The major concern is that the player can go to his vehicles and resupply as many times as he wants to, until he has used up all the ammo in there. The AI cannot.

Wow. You did better than me! I never managed to be able to push so far so fast! You went way and beyond!!! But that makes me think I need to tweak it even more! I just saw your F.I.S.H.ing in Garmsir. I downloaded the updated version just now. Looking forward to it! Thank you for the feedback. Hope you find the time to finish it soon! -

Hi Rekka, Nothing to be sorry about! I guess it is playable although there have been so many major changes to the game with the last patches!!! I´m planning on updating this for quite some time now. Time is short though. I´d love to convert it to UK and so update it completely. But I can´t promise anything just yet. -

Touché! -

This can be confusing. Designers usually put something like this in Scenarios: V1.0 *BUT* that´s the scenario version not the game version!!!!! So be careful. Recent scenarios are all for 1.11 of the game!!! --

Really? That must be awful. -

afreu, thanks for the feedback. I can understand your frustration. Are you playing v1 or v1.1, which I nicknamed, light version? Initially I had a lot of trouble to make the AI use art support. I had to set their motivation and experience real high to make it work and be efficient. There is something to consider about artillery. When you are using it you think it is too slow and inefficient. When you are on the receiving end it seems too accurate! *contains spoilers* _ _ _ _ I was very careful with that. I hate it when enemies suddenly appear out of nowhere. It´s gamey and breaks the immersion. Only two things happen in this mission for the AI. Either they are there from the start or if they are reinforcements arriving later they come from the far end, from behind the mountains. So they are coming from behind enemy lines. The thing is, they AI is moving to try to flank you! My advice is not to hurry things. You don´t really have to be on the move all the time to avoid their mortars. But kill FO as soon as you see them. Use scouts and advance slowly. -

Thanks freebirdcjb! Yes, the way the AI uses support assets now is very effective. -

Although there haven´t been any images of the UK soldiers I can say they are looking pretty good, with trousers over the boots, PRRs, etc. Skins are already in place and all. Some tweaking might be needed though, that´s why no images for now. Like everybody else I´d love to see several different versions of soldiers. But like Steve said, it won´t happen for the British Module though.

As you can see in the renders of weapons in the British Forces page, both ACOGs and SUSATs are modeled. The new version of the SA80A2 with foregrip and all is in. -

That´s no surprise. Your own Babbado series were along those lines! And what a blast that was! -

That´t the key isn´t it? The editor in CM:SF is a major part of the game. It allows us to create a huge variety of scenarios. Even the ones only we are going to enjoy. I have many I´ll never upload since I´m sure I´m the only one crazy enough to enjoy! However, in the case of the mission in question I have made changes since I thought it would be interesting to compare the results. But I left both versions available for download. Although I should have renamed the second one Yellow Pepper! PT, your campaigns and scenarios are simply awesome. It´s not because they are realistic or not but simply because you know how to mix the ingredients. I frequently read your designers post. On top of that you are a great virtual photographer! -

Three issues here: - The run for your life behaviour. - The realist settings that should be used for the Marines and Syrians. - The mission Red Pepper and how it should be approached. First I think in spite of what CplSteiner has reported from his game I believe the game is very, very solid after 1.11. Yes, there will always be room for improvement of the AI. Our pixel soldiers will always do some strange things that a real soldier would never do and so forth. But the package now is very enjoyable and the AI seems to have really come to life. With a good plan in the editor to back it up there are fantastic possibilities for very challenging missions. Second is the realism of the settings. I´ve read, not only in wargame forums, but also in flight sim forums and others, endless discussions about realism. I´m not going to start another one. It´s enough to say that no matter how much real world data you put in it, or if you want to call it a simulation and not a game, it will always be far from the real experience. And most seem to agree that a game that managed to be 100% realistic would be either boring or would end up killing you! Back to the game though we all agree Marines will have better weapons, and more experience than the Syrians as a general rule. So to make a realistic mission in the game challenging and interesting the way to compensate for that is to give the Red side some vehicles and none for Blue. But that is not realistic. You actually need to give more and better vehicles for the Marines and less for the Syrians. Air support and Artillery is the same thing. Back to square one. So you are left with two other options here: Numbers and tactical advantages. The later meaning Red is in strong defensive positions and Blue is in need to cross open areas to get to the objective. And so we get to the third issue, the mission Red Pepper itself. To balance a company of Marines I would need at least a battalion of Syrians, or something like that, if I were to use "realistic" settings. Instead, what I did was to give Syrians more experience and less to the Marines. Unrealistic? Maybe but if I had the time I could write up a briefing justifying this. Syrians are special forces, Marines just out of boot camp, etc. And this would make it all realistic. Instead of having a passive Red defense I wanted a very active one. I wanted the Syrians on the move, trying to flank your forces if possible. There is no briefing proper but you are told the exact forces you have and the exact forces the enemy has. You have 1h30min to accomplish your goal. You have many options in that map and not just one way to get to the goal. No routes are blocked. To me there are many challenging tactical problems there. I thought that was an interesting proposition. That´s why I designed it anyway!

Like Pandur said it is a matter or wording. I said they were too brave. Opposite being cowards. That´s exactly what happens if you lower the experience level settings. I´m really short of time but this got me really curious. After playing a bit more with it I noticed that it is not necessarily the number of enemy troops but the fire power they are directing at you that counts. Even facing groups only slightly bigger than yours if they are throwing everything they´ve got at you, then your troops might fall back and reposition. Initially I was testing only with infantry. In that case more numbers = more firepower. Thus my previous conclusion. So it might be the amount of rounds/bullets/grenades coming your way that influences the result. The side with superior fire power is the one to force the enemy to reposition.

They are coming soon to CM:SF! http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bZf3HkT-1XA&sdig=1 -

Paper Tiger, Experience sure play a big role in the way units behave. But not in the redeploying routine though. At least not in any of my tests. But experience has a very important part in balancing scenarios. For instance if experience is too low you are unable to give orders to your units, since they will be panicking or something. Also, they won´t even fire at the enemy and sometimes will not even follow your orders. I also suspect (since I haven´t really tested this in isolation) that it affects accuracy of their shooting among other things. So it is a very important thing to consider, just not an issue for redeployment of units. This, I confess, was a surprise to me but does make sense when you think about it.

Ok. After all this talk I decided to run my own tests. Map. Flat with only on big slope running in the middle from east to west. Situation: Marines to the south and Syrians to the north with no LOS to each other due to the slope in the middle. Marines will move to crest and thus make contact with the enemy. Blue: 2 squads of Marines. Squad 1: Crack, Fanatic and +2 Leadership Squad 2: Conscript, Poor and -2 Leadership Red: In test one I had 3 Republican Guard Mech companies! In test two only 3 squads. Results: In test one: Both squads got to the top and soon moved back redeploying. Difference was that squad one(Crack) lost a lot more men before deciding to move back while squad two redeployed immediately losing only one man. Test two: Both squads stood in the crest but squad one(Crack) fought all the time, while squad two was panicking all the time. So redeploying is directly influenced by the size of the opposing force ( like ThePhantom noticed ) rather than ANY settings of the units. -

Was the "spotter" an FO for sure? Anyone can all artillery from the US side but for the Syrians only the FOs can. If you try to use anybody else it will be denied.

To me the game mechanics are very realistic and life like in 1.11. A great improvement IMO. The problem ThePhantom experienced was mostly my fault. In most scenarios made by others the Marines will rarely have such low levels of experience. So ThePantom was used to playing them in a style according to that. In my scenario I was not worried about representing real Marines. I wanted a very active AI enemy and very challenging infantry mission. I tweaked all the parameters until I got what I wanted. Like I wrote in the summary this was mostly used for testing. Enemy AI testing actually. By the way the way the enemy AI uses mortars is awesome! Very scary!

First of all download z-Bee CMSF Mod Manager. It will make your life easier when installing and un-installing mods. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=85193

Funny! Two things. First: Regarding my scenario. I degraded the Marines in v1.0 of this mission because they were always so brave it was a bit too easy for my taste. It was also a way to compensate for the better weapons they have. The idea is an even infantry fight. You have better equipment, they have more numbers. I like infantry fights with a WWII flavor. Realistic? Depends on how you see it. There is now a v1.1 where I have upgraded them and also given a bit more in terms of support following ThePhantoms feedback. However I have not experience the sort of withdraws that ThePhantom is reporting in all my testings with v1.0. So I guess it also has to do with style of play. I´m very careful when I advance. Second. Regarding troops withdraw in general. They don´t just run away now. In 1.11 troops retreat when under heavy attack but they regroup and fight again. That makes the enemy AI much more alive and dangerous. But yes, it is not very nice when it happens to your own soldiers but it is actually a defensive move that my save their lives. -

Drescher, Yes i did. Why can´t you download from the repository? Anyhow, don´t tell anyone, but you can also get it here: http://www.mediafire.com/file/zom3n3zvim2/RedPepper(v1.1).rar This is 1.1 and the humvee thing fixed. Please post some feedback once you finish.