Pete Wenman

Guys hi Had this idea for CM1 many moons ago, but never bothered to build a map showing it. However the increased lethality of CMSF suggests this might be a good idea, and solve the problems of units being engaged immediatly they are on map before the player has had a chance to issue orders. The base level of the set up zone is 10 metres lower than the battle edge, in 2 metre steps. A few quick tests shows this is sufficent to be out of LOS to all ground units. Not sure how air assets will deal with it given the lack of LOS by the spotter when calling them in in the first place. Further advantages will be that the set up zone will not get as crowded as the normal map edge sometimes does, and that also all units can move within the set up zone and so cross the battle edge at any location of the players choosing. Whether its a bit too radical remains to be seen ? What do you reckon ?

Web' hi I just went with the type of terrain I like to fight over, so call it Redland. They were also experiments in what you could do with the editor. I've got some scenarios half done, but don't see the point of doing much more with them before 1.05. As you say you can reduce the map size down and just fight over that area or build something else adjacent. It's a shame more people arn't playing with the editor, as I think it is far more powerful than most people think. However this means scenarios are not quick to design. This ties in with the range of modern weapons and the map size required. These maps need a lot of PC power and yet only cover a 1km square (approx), with virtually every weapon system able to fire over ranges greater than the map size. Many of the issues caused by this will be solved with CM2 WWII with shorter ranges and less accuracy. I'm not sure everyone understands how difficult it is to make a balanced scenario when units can hit whatever they see, across the entire map. You can use LOS obstacles to block LOS/LOF, but these obstacles then become key terrain, and actually help which ever side can secure them (usually the player given the poor AI). That's the main reason why my maps have close terrain and covered approaches so that the identification of key terrain is that much harder. I'm waffling so I'll stop here. [ November 29, 2007, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: Pete Wenman ]

Guys just a reminder of the two large (1200x900m)maps I created. Not difficult to create the clutter, and to close down those open spaces, just time consuming. both are at CMMODS, and can be altered in anyway. I've got scenarios underway for each, but am waiting for 1.05 before finalising [ November 28, 2007, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Pete Wenman ]

Reinforcement slots after 60 minutes would be good also.

LOL 4 Battalions will kill any PC at the moment.I'm surprised you could get all those units on the map ! I've got a scenerio I'm making that starts with a reinforced company of Syrians on the map, and two platoons of Americans. Works fine. As I'm still building the scenario I'd left all the remaining units of the American battalion as purchased in case I wanted to incorporate them into the scenarion later and set them up as reinforcements on 60 minutes to get them out of the way when play testing the early stages of the battle. The last playtest was so much fun I kept playing, reached the 60 minute mark at which time all remaining US units appeared on the map and the game ground to a halt ! BFC have always said this game is based on Company sized action, and at the moment that's the truth. [ September 19, 2007, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: Pete Wenman ]

Guys hi Just a word to say that my second large rural map is available for download at Cmmods.com. This map also 1296 x 896 metres, very dense terrain, plenty of orchards leading up to a plateau top. Height from 10 to 50 metres across the map Damaged Hotel and car park Shopping mall and sports field An improved trench position Let me know what you think, some AI plans for it next up Pete [ September 15, 2007, 06:19 AM: Message edited by: Pete Wenman ]

I'd like to see more field defences. Improved positions into which a heavy weapons can be placed but with low profiles and hard to spot. Trenchs with overhead cover (kip sheets anybody ?), fortified houses, and other prepared defences. We are going to need them for CMSF-WWII The MG bunkers included are more like UN Peacekeeping Observation Posts !

From the current map WIP

Just to add to the mix. I was playing around in the editor building tank scrapes. Base level 20, berm 25, but despite this towering over the Abrams it could still fire out, and take incoming fire. If this is the same for crestlines, it will be a real problem when judging where to stop to stay out LOS, let alone judge a hull down posn. You can see here the rock wall, and beyond the smoke from the just hit T72. Taken with Camera 1 posn Not so good Pete

I run with vista, and can capture sceeen shots OK Need to press ctl/printscreen. HTH

Hopefully everyone who has requested this map has received it. I've uploaded it to CMMods.com for anybody else that is interested. Thanks for all the positive comments I've rec'd, now lets see some scenarios. Pete

Guys hi I'm putting together a scenario on the large rural map I posted in the design forum,with the intention of having US forces push forward with recce units (all that's on map for the first couple of turns). However they are being taken out as they spot the enemy units (LRATGM). Is there any way to move a large vehicle into a cover position without it being seen by the defender. Given the lack of RWS on the M1127 its role is more to do with observing than fighting. I guess in WEGO the lack of ability to move forward observe for say 15 seconds then pull back is a problem, as is the lack of moving to hull down positions without micro management. So given the above how are these vehicles best used within the game ?

check email guys

Guys hi Spent most of the week working on this, a large rural map, with close terrain and infantry action in mind. 1200x900 metre I'm working on a couple of scenarios, but if anyone wants the map, drop me a line, and feel free to use it/amend it anyway you like 30/08/07 uploaded to CMMods.com for anybody else that is interested. I've tried to see what the editor and a little lateral thinking will allow to be created, hence the toll booths, and downed highway bridge. Lots of little details, but let me know what you think [ August 30, 2007, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Pete Wenman ]

Why, what's funny about the French military ?

As I remember it from reading the book, that's exactly what happened. just my 2p

I'm old enough to remember the Copperhead guided artillery round, which required a laser designator to paint the target. Seems this is the updated version. Both systems share the same failing, which is the targets location needs to be known. I'd be interested to know how quickly a ground unit that detects a target can get a round on to it. No point having pinpoint accuracy if the target has moved. For static targets this is not a problem but the US has enough systems that can take out a known target, although I guess this system must be at the cheaper end of the scale.

These objectives sound great, and will raise the game to a whole new level. I love the idea of a "spot" objective. - Find the blue HQ unit and you win. My only concern for Steve - is the AI good enough to work with this type of sophisticated objective ? [ March 21, 2007, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Pete Wenman ]

The problem with RTS games (which I hate) is that they are not in "real time", but in massively acclerated time. This is why they become a clickfest, because the player doesn't have the time to think and plan. I've operated in battlegroup commandpost exercises that took days, with the "fighting" going on over an area 5x10 miles (not big). A lot of the time is spent thinking about what is going on, using the assets available to check on enemy positions and forces, and guessing their intentions. No clickfest there. During heavy "combat" the level of radio info reaches overload levels but most is info being rec'd, rather than orders being given. (To late for detailed orders at this time anyway). Provided CM2 operates in real time, and not accelerated time the non-stop aspect should be a great challenger. Lets be honest while the action may be intense at times, most battles still consist of a lot of hurry up and wait. just my 0.02p [ February 24, 2007, 02:26 AM: Message edited by: Pete Wenman ]

Guys hi I think the problem with gamey tactics can be solved with well designed scenarios. Given the recent bone about groups, orders, plans etc I see the following (hopefully) being possible for player vs AI. Player is given detailed orders re his objective at the same time being given bounderies for his forces within which he can operate (a very necessary real life part of orders). At the same time the scenario designer can make a wider defence than the attack frontage with fixed units place on the flanks, perhaps with more powerful weapons (ie ATGMs). If possible the destruction of these units can be removed from all VP measures so the attacker gets no bonus for destroying them, but at the same time should the attacker stray to close to map edges (and possible gamey tactics)then the fixed units can fire into his forces, causing causulties he may well not have otherwise incurred had he stayed within bounds. Obviously the maps used would need to allow this kind of set up from a width and terrain point of view. But hey what do I know, I could be talking out of my rear.

From CivDiv I suspect that this quote is the key to the Victory conditions from a Syrian point of view. Interesting how in 2006 the death of eight soldiers is a "deadly ambush" while in WWII it probably wouldn't have warrented a mention. Pete

From the same manual, and interesting reading Not sure we are going to get naval gunfire though Pete

Guys hi Thought I would jump in here to balance the perception that buildings don't offer cover. All things are relative. Taken from a MOUT manual. My point is that while I don't argue with the effects of the weapons shown in the video (and I've seen it for real, but not combat) you are better off in the building than in the street. If you have had time to prepare the building which is an art in its own right, you increase both the concealment and cover. Lets be honest how much cover does a tank offer ? Against a rifle - loads, Against a Javilin ATM - not much. The secrect of defence in MOUT or FIBUA is to not allow the attacker the ability to move his weapons into a position from where they can attack or destroying them as they attempt to do so. I'd rather be in the cover a building provides, than in the open street trying to attack it. Pete

A good compromise is a win:win situation, and this is a great compromise Do it Pete

Long time no post, but this one stirs the loins. Go with a fictional background, but realistic TO&E. I don't want to be able to navigate around Syria because I've endlessly played CM-SF, but I do want realistic terrain at the tactical level the game plays at. Lets be honest nearly all the CM scenarioes have been fictional in some way or other, if nothing else due to game restrictions. Back story - Force 1 vs Force 2 is good enough for me provided the game challenge, by this I mean TO&E, terrain, tactical problems and AI, gives me a run for my money. OP Flashpoint pretty much nails it [ September 15, 2006, 01:30 AM: Message edited by: Pete Wenman ]