George MC

Hi Frederico Thanks for your comments - Type 2 fun eh? Good effort on getting a victory though.

Reverse slope? It's not so bad in modern warfare. I mean you have UAVs and fast modern armour against what? ATGMs, infantry armed to the teeth with AT weapons, fast modern armour and UAVs, oh and attack helicopters. What could possibly go wrong?

He! Nae worries - no time wastage - meant I went back and reacquainted myself with how campaigns can be created Be keen to hear how it goes for you? Cheery!

John K: FYI from the release notes: multiplayer modes (PBEM/TCP) are fully enabled

Rolling Thunder is playable both sides against AI.

You can check out one of the two missions (Rolling Thunder) yourself at the following link: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118931-rolling-thunder-demo-scenario/

Yer sic an auld wifie so ye are!

Hi Wiggum The version that will appear on the repository was finalised in a 1.02 version of the game. FWIW the patch will not affect whether you can play scenarios made in an earlier version of the game i.e. scenarios made in 1.01 will open and play in a game version 1.02.

He! No pressure I hope it doesn't disappoint! TBH I'm pretty pleased with how this turned out - all thanks to the heavy playtesting the beta testers gave it. As it's a demo it's level of difficulty is not set to max but I think/hope it provides a nice wee tactical challenge. I pinched a load of top tips from a thread on the forum and put em in the designer notes, hopefully to help those new to CMBS come to terms with the hi-tec modern fighting systems.

This is one of the scenarios contained in the recently released demo. http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/uncategorized/cmbs-rolling-thunder/ About the scenario This scenario recreates a US company team attack against a Russian Forward Security Element or FSE. A Russian FSE is a usually a reinforced company sent forward of the regimental axis when the threat is weak but more commonly sent ahead of a first echelon battalion or battalion operating away from the main body. Motorized rifle companies are often used in this role, even in tank units. Both sides have a fairly ‘typical’ OOB (organisation, units and vehicles) plus supporting arms (air assets, anti-aircraft assets and artillery) for the missions they have been tasked with. As such this scenario serves as a useful introduction to commanding a modern combined arms unit at the company level. This scenario was originally designed to be played first and foremost from the perspective of the US side against the Russian AI. It is playable head to head (H2H) but has not been playtested for balance in this regard. It is playable as Russian vs US AI, although in the attack the AI can't dismount and remount infantry, so that can hamper it a wee bit. Still the US AI plans should give you a tactical workout. There are three distinct Russian AI plans and two distinct US AI plans – thus allowing some level of re-playability. How difficult is the scenario? As stated this scenario is really designed to be played as US attacking Russian AI (or possible H2H). The designers intent is that a ‘good’ player i.e. a player used to the Combat Mission game engine and practiced in using modern core combined arms tactics would find this fun but not over the top challenging. A new player i.e. unpractised in either modern or Combat Mission should be able to play this (TOP TIP – make liberal use of the ‘save game’ option – so you can rewind if things go horribly wrong) – and most likely at least pull a draw. So bottom line is experienced players will most likely find it fun but straightforward, less experienced might find it challenging initially but soon becoming easier. Once the US side make it over the reverse slope position they have a very good chance of winning as the fire-power of a US mech company team is pretty immense!

I've just uploaded it this morning, so as soon as it's signed off it should appear. In the meantime you can grab it HERE Just realised that the version that will be uploaded to the repository will only work with the new 1.02 patch (I'd updated my game with a beta version of the forthcoming patch). The version at the dropbox link above should be playable in 1.01 (I went back and used my original version of the game (luckily I kept some older back copies). Apologies for the slight foobar. Hopefully you can play the version at this dropbox link (although you will still have to have patched your game to 1.01). I've created a separate thread for discussion, feedback etc regrdaing Rolling Thunder at the following LINK

Just checked (been a while since I created it after all). It's playable H2H in hot seat mode. I'm not sure campaigns can be played PBEM - least I can't see any option in the campaign script nor in game.

Unfortunately not. Campaigns are only playable from one side or the other depending on how the designer set it up. However I did upload all the campaign scenarios to the repository as standalones, so you could play them in sequence, note casualties and reduce forces accordingly (just open the next scenario in the editor and delete whatever was KOd in the previous one).

FRAPS is used by a lot of players (including myself) to record video and take screenshots. http://www.fraps.com/

Thanks for the feedback exsonic01 Glad you enjoyed it. Yup RPGs do seem to be deadly at close range, but less accurate as the range increases. Although in saying that I've had AFVs hit at long range from RPG7s, so you just never know...

Hi Agusto Great job man I'm most likely going to re-do this. Be my big project for this year. I'm part way doing a Carius scenario for CMRT. When that's done I'll most likely start on redoing Forging Steel (very different maps) but same idea/concept. Balancing it for CMBS will the fun bit Thanks again for playing it out, really pleased you enjoyed it and thanks for playing it

Thanks Wiggum, Chazz and Kraft for your comments. Nice to be loved! I'm pleased this wee scenario has provided a great deal of challenge and maybe what could be Type 2 fun! I'm equally pleased players appreciate the wee details in the map. I think when you get down to this scale of scenario then you play it more 'in the weeds' so having lot's of ground level details makes it more immersive and provides micro tactical challenges (e.g. folds in the ground etc). To use the air support effectively I've found you have to keep it well away from any of your units, have eyes on from the air controller and use point targets. That seems to minimse the chances of 'blue on blue'. Thanks again for posting your comments and feedback guys - really appreciated

Aye it does push the envelop with maps - I think 4x4 is as large as I'd go for a practical scenario (I've played about with larger test maps but even on my PC they chug or slow down). I've got the bits and pieces of my 'older' pc (Mobo, memory, processor etc). If anyone is interested (and assuming they are 'better' than what you have happy to give me away. No value to me and just collecting dust in my office). PM me.

Oops my bad. It's working now. Cheers for the heads up guys

This scenario was originally released as part of the CMBS game. Whilst the intent pre-release was to create an intro to modern armoured warfare it appears many players post release considered it too easy – mainly due to the strength of the US forces arty and air support. Whilst doctrinally correct it did make the scenario a bit easy for the US to win. In addition all US AFVs had APS. The preponderance of APS equipped armour did mean the M1s were pretty unstoppable. This version tones down this. Overall the changes aim to make the scenario a more challenging proposition. This scenario recreates a US company team attack against a Russian Forward Detachment of an armoured tactical group – the first contact between both sides ‘heavy’ forces. The map is a large one - around 4km x 4km although the OOB on each side is kept manageable at around reinforce company level. Both sides have a fairly ‘typical’ OOB (organisation, units and vehicles) plus supporting arms (air assets, anti-aircraft assets and artillery) for the missions they have been tasked with. As such this scenario serves as a useful introduction to commanding a modern combined arms unit at the company level. This scenario was originally designed to be played first and foremost from the perspective of the US side against the Russian AI. There is also a Blue AI Plan and potentially it is playable head to head (H2H) but has NOT been playtested for balance in this regard. There are two distinct Russian AI plans and one US AI plan – thus allowing some level of re-playability. You can grab the new version at the following HERE There was an earlier thread discussing the stock version that was packaged with the game HERE. I'd appreciate any comments regarding the redux version are posted here - just to keep em separate please?

What's wrong wi bulgar wheat and pig fat? Russian guys I climbed with all swore by that stuff. Gave me the boak at 6000m!

Thanks for the comments guys. I went through and played it myself (first time for a while). I went down to the wire at the end, although got all the trucks out and got a tactical victory. I lost a lot of the QRF at the end though...

Hhmm. I did think about reducing the M1s Rocketman but on reflection I've kept the OOBs as is. I'll wait till the patch comes out before radically changing anything. FWIW APS being reduced does make the M1s far more vulnerable to ATGMs. The UAVs might now not be as effective as the Russians have a counter to them.

Cheers for the reminder Vanir. I've reduced the APS equipped US units and reduced the amount of arty rounds. Also beefed up the Russians with some extra AA support (after playing with AA stuff more I've realised you need lot's of it!). I'll upload this to the repository. The original version will still ship with the game, so players have a choice.

It's in the pipeline.