George MC

Good thing about modern is unit sizes are comparably small for the real estate available. So huge maps or smallish maps (depending on whether open or closed terrain) can both have a limited number of units on them.

In the short term you can open a scenario in the editor and download the briefings etc. Not ideal but means you can look at them in larger scale or print em off in large text for referring to whilst in-game.. Out of curiosity do your rescale your display in CM? i.e. downsample?

Small scenarios take a while to create. They can be harder to make because small size units means even losing one asset can tip the scales. So the time it takes to create the map (which IMHO has to be incredibly detailed to make the very small scale immersive - and to provide lot's of tactical options on a micro scale), write the briefings, create the tac/op maps and create a passable AI plan all take time - most likely weeks. To do that for 30 minutes play time? Hmm...not for me - to much time investment for not enough enjoyment reward. TBH playing really small stuff is where QBs come in. If you don't want to know stuff why not create a few with different OOBs then save the first turn. Come back to it a while later when you have forgotten what you gave what. If you do a few at the same time, if your short term memory is like mine you'll never mind anyway!

This is excellent - those last updates are edge of the seat stuff

Oh lot's of new

I created a wee scenario for CMS based around a real life incident where two M1s became mired in some muddy ground in Iraq and have to be protected against Syrian insurgents taking them out with RPGs. It's in the Marines module if I recall. I think I also did similar for the British module. They make fun scenarios I have seen a Syrian recovery crew hook up a disabled Syrian T72 under fire. Life video footage of them driving up under suppressing fires, duck out and hook the tank up. I've also seen this go horribly wrong, when the crew dove out only to be cut down by rebels hiding in a building right next to it. Obviously their close support had not cleared that building. Not the one I refer to but this video shows two T72 engaged in a recovery operation of another T72.

Spot on. Get the context wrong and you can lose assets big style - either moving too fast (run into an ambush) or moving too slow (allow the enemy to call in air or arty on your position). The trick will be identifying the time and the place for appropriate movement!

Video link is wrong John - takes me to some footage of a drunk Russian dude...

I was thinking the same. I know from my own game experience that does not end well....

Soonish some time

So true. In one scenario I managed to lose a while section in a less than 20 seconds to a snipe team. My section bundled out of their BTR to run 50m+ across a road and into a three story building. However a concealed sniper team in the top floor clocked the section and opened up on them. There was a very small trail of red crosses across the street and leading to just before the door into the building. This happened before my overwatch could even ID where the shots were coming from. Then trying to clean these guys out of their nest lost me more men as the team went to ground. I blasted it with my BTRs only to have em then pop up as I sent another team into the building thinking they were suppressed. They were but not for long...On the plus side I lost fewer guys this time.

You have to play fast in CMBS - by fast I mean co-ordinated and decisive action using maximum firepower. You dally about too long and chances are something spots your idle units and they are then subject to arty, helos or UAV attack. Took me a wee while to get used to it. Oh and pretty much when you spot something best hope your guys get the first shot off! It does make for very exciting game play though There are electronic warfare options which can and do tone do any high tech comms/spotting advanatges. I think players playing PBEMs might go for that as each others high tec weapons and comms systems ability to function can be seriously degraded. All in all I've found it to be so different from anything I've played before in CM.

I did one for CMSF a while back (link in my sig below). It's a quick and dirty version but it will get you started. As BlackMoria mentioned JonS did one for the slightly newer version of the game engine but it does make reference to options that are not available in CMSF currently.Still it's worth checking as whilst mine deals with the basic mechanics of creating a map his deals a lot more with the philosophy if designing scenarios.

Bottom road looks like an average road in the Highlands - or the A9, minus speed cameras!

Combat Mission 3

Make the opening turn if a CMBS PBEM game easy - hit the large red button in-game that says "NUKKEM!" and your opponent's force is obliterated. No need to get involved in all that complicated tactics crap.

Too a large extent that's down to the scenario designer. It helps if designers make full use of the tools available, including inserting micro-terrain features and creative use of the terrain tiles. If you leave the may at the default '20' with vanilla grass tiles, well...

I've noticed this in CMBS - multiple hits on Abrams will end up killing it. So it appears that degradation of it's armour is modelled, or a single hit got lucky. In fact that is the best way to do for them is engage with multiple shooters, ideally from different angles.

Nail on head mate I've found using Abrams you get cocky - then you lose em. Flank shots, multiple hits from multiple directions etc etc. They are not invincible but one on one, toe to toe T90 vs Abrams is usually not going to end well for the T90. Far better to ambush the Abrams or take one from multiple directions using multiple attackers. Think T34-76 vs Tiger

One of the beta testers is a RL US armour officer with a great deal of experience of the Abrams. It does appear they are pretty fearsome AFVs, however they do that their weaknesses and are vulnerable. Large maps are useful as you can then attempt to outmanoeuvre them and go for flank or rear shots. Another tactic that does for them is volley fire from ATGMs. Back on topic it's worth keeping in mind that large maps can be a struggle to run on some PCs etc. Whilst you can make really large maps some players will struggle to have their PCs run em. My largest map is around 4km x 4km on rolling farmland terrain with lot's of wooded shelter belts. Not many units but less beefy PCs could struggle to run it. I'm running the following: GeForce GTX 660Ti Intel® Core™ i5-4670K CPU @ 3.40Ghz 16GB RAM 1920 x 1080, 60Hz display 1 Tb hard drive And this map plays fine for me running around 30FPS, occasionally dropping to around 20FPs when the shooting starts big style. Even with lower FPS the game play is still smooth as butter. It is great fun though charging about with modern armour at full speed 'dodging' ATGMs!

It used to be but looking at the website it appears to be no longer... http://www.historicalsoftware.com/HSC/HSCmilsketch.htm

Yes, But I avoid doing that now. Strange things happen when you indulge in that activity. Like a boxload of Hello Kitty posters... Hence why Microsoft experimented with a version for users from Glasgow called Windaes Twa thoosan... http://www.jackiestewart.co.uk/jokes/weegie%20windies%202000.htm

Hi Oddball and Umlaut Originally whisky was a clear spirit - it wasn't till they started storing the stuff in old brandy casks etc that it took on the character we now associate with whisky. Re Scots words with Scandinavian origins. I've spent a fair bit of time ice climbing out in Norway and I was struck by how many words were used that sounded like Scots word e.g. in Scotland we use hoose, flitting, bairn, kirk, greetin' (as in crying), wid (means wood or would), fu' (means full i.e. as in full up or drunk - he's fu!), stane (stone). Anyway there is a lot!

Maybe the People's Free State of Scotland could claim a wee bit of this thread as it's own meeting place? Given you Scandie types came over here years back on yer summer cruise trips we mostly likely have something in common. Like DNA?!

Armour thickness on the 251/1 (off the top of my head) was around 14.5mm front, I think around 8mm on the sides. can't mid the rear. re the 8mm I can't recall if that was the equivalent thickness (due to the sloped armour) or vertical, in which case if would be the equivalent of more. I'm pretty sure a 7.62mm would only go through around 6mm of steel plate - although that would be easy to check in t'internet eh? In all the accounts I've read I've not heard of bullet rounds going through although i did read Peiper's SPW unit bolted extra armour onto the front of their 251/1 Cs to combat ATR rifles punching through the frontal armour. in fact they even did their own tests to check how bullet proof their SPW were when they first got them. Hence why the started adding extra plate to the front. As shown in this image: