Pete Wenman

Yep, and it is easy
I've worked with terrain textures, but the concept is the same for any mod'able element.
Here is a simple example that turns the hit decal pink for easy spotting of hit locations
The .bmp file goes in the mod folder.
The text file is added to the scenario in the mission editor (bottom tab) in the same way that briefing texts are added.
Simple scenario attached for BS showing this in action.
Note the tag when added to the bmp file is [glow] but in the text file is only glow.
Shout if you have any problems
 
P
 
tagglow.btt
penetration decal [glow].bmp
glow tag.txt

These tags bring into play amended textures, for the most part as I recall being what names showed on the road signs for a particular tag. There might also be some building textures being amended.
Edit
Just to add these tags were included by BF and so have the tagged textures already included in the game brz files, and so the textures are not required in the mod folder. For any user tags however the tagged file either needs to be added to the mod folder or a replacement brz file provided. For BF provided tags to find what textures have what tags will need all of the brz files to be exploded and reviewed
P

You can picture the scene where several T-90s are racing up the M20 from Dover to London, when an unexpected knocking noise causes them to halt. At which point two dozen Somalis from the Jungle jump out of the ammo bins and disappear into the undergrowth 
p

You can picture the scene where several T-90s are racing up the M20 from Dover to London, when an unexpected knocking noise causes them to halt. At which point two dozen Somalis from the Jungle jump out of the ammo bins and disappear into the undergrowth 
p

You can picture the scene where several T-90s are racing up the M20 from Dover to London, when an unexpected knocking noise causes them to halt. At which point two dozen Somalis from the Jungle jump out of the ammo bins and disappear into the undergrowth 
p

Sounds like Borderland. Germans attack from west (left map edge)

P

@dark helix
 
Glad you enjoyed it, and finally got to beat it
 
This is the training film from my recruit days that was the inspiration for the mission. It obviously made a strong impression on me back in 1984 that I was able to remember it and then find it online. An August Morning was an attempt to recreate the situation shown and how hard it can be to find and overcome even quite a small force.
It's a just a shame I was not able to make the mission using British troops  !
P

The two ford closest to the bridges are "shallow fords" and can be crossed by both vehicles and infantry, the two outer fords are "deep fords" and so only infantry can use them.
 
P

@Rinaldi Great AAR and I love all the low down with the infantry views.That's how I play the game and how I like to see it.
When making this scenario I weighted the balance in favour of the Russians attacking as AI which does mean in H2H that the defender has a very tough job and is unlikely to win. Regardless it looks like you both made the best use of the assets available, and as you say it does show how much of a meat grinder modern warfare is.
 
P

CMBS is worth every penny. It's a deep, immersive and realistic gaming experience, that you would enjoy for years to come. It's has a great value comparing to other types of entertainment  I'm not sure if you could even call it an entertainment. It's rather a lifestyle choice 

What's the big deal. Old guard, new guard, your opinion, my opinion. V 4 is better than V 3, V 6 will be better than V 5 and so on. Fun's a poppin', just play the bloody game, life is to short as it is.
 

Sigh.

My contention is this:

We throw a wild party for Battlefront, and all of us are in attendance.  We all get positively rip-roaring drunk, do stupid things.  At the height of the party I'm demonstrating armor maneuver by going full sprint through the office swinging my arm wildly to indicate turret direction while screaming "Death before dismount." I certainly 100% do damage.

However it's hard to separate the next morning what specifically was damaged by my "Thunder Run" vs what other parties did too.  Sure there's my tanker boot treads all over the shattered remains of someone's desk...but I "ran" it over after someone else already kicked it down screaming "THIS IS SPACE LOBSTER COUNTRY!" I contributed my share to the massive pile of bottles yes....but I wasn't even the one who drank the most.

Within the context of both fights, US artillery and aviation certainly did destroy things.  This is a known variable.  However pointing to the rubble of Mosul and chittering how it was all those damned Americans and their bombs, or Raqqah and placing all the blame on 18 heavily abused 155 MM howitzers is a bit disingenuous.  

ISIS vigorously practices scorched earth type tactics.  Our "Friendly" and friendly forces all practice firepower warfare vs manuever (or they're going to shoot the objective with every weapon they have for an hour, THEN move to a closer firing position to repeat the same tactic, and then maybe five hours later, short on ammo move onto the objective).

Both of those cities felt the full weight of a 3rd World conventional military attack, a suicidal bomb happy defender, and then some Western precision fires.  Between those three, those fires certainly did their part in damaging those cities.  But again the contention that basically, without those fires the attacks would have left either of those cities pretty much intact is very much a falsehood.  Aleppo for instance serves as a really good example of what happens without the US precision fires, and with the opposition not being generally ISIS tier individuals.

So.  Again not denying there's collateral damage, but it's just idiotic to lay the preponderance of the damage at the feet of 18 howitzers while ignoring the effects of thousands of ground combatants, tanks, conventional artillery from both parties, IEDs in all guises all duking it out in close quarters.

Yep -  use it all the time
 
P

Yep -  use it all the time
 
P

@Erwin it is ironic that you criticise @Sgt.Squarehead for not seeing the film and then go on to make comments about what is achievable in an editor that by your own admission you are reluctant to use.
I know quite a few people who have designed scenarios and my perception is that people who go into the scenario editor generally do so because they have seen something that inspires them or that that they have a desire to create/recreate something.
I have spent 8 years of my life on operational service, I have more data and experiences that I could convert into scenarios than you could ever wish for. Some I can make into scenarios, some I would rather not.  That is the hard side of it. The soft side has many factors but I'll keep it to five:
Does this interest me? How much time can I commit? Will players want to play this scenario/campaign? Can I make this work? What will my wife say? I appreciate that this is a sweeping statement but I would wager that the majority of people who play CM have an interest in military history. You only need to look at the various realism threads to understand that.  If my premise is true, then they are likely to have watched lots of documentaries or films about warfare and have read lots of books or magazines about warfare. The takeaway here is that there aren't many people in need of good scenario/campaign suggestions.
For me it all comes down to passion and my wife's assent - if all five of the bullet points above are ticked, I'll think about creating it.
Now I'm pretty sure that you are perhaps the most avid of mod collectors/users. A lot of the points I make about scenarios/campaign suggestions I am sure apply to modders. From my read of the situation, many modders create things because:
They want to do it. They are prepared to invest the time. They think that their creations will be popular with players. The mod can be made. The wife is happy with it. Given that context, 'I've seen this film', or' I've played this game' followed by 'this would be great inspiration for scenario designers' is not helpful. It is like posting pictures of uniforms or tanks and saying 'Please make this mod'.  I can assure you as somebody who has designed scenarios, I have never read one of your threads that says 'I've seen this film and I think this would be a great scenario' or similar and thought ... 'now why didn't I think of that' and leapt into the editor to make it so. Of course I am not the only person who uses the editor out there so I accept that other designers may have leapt to the challenge but my guess would be that very few, if any, examples exist.
To finish, I love your passion for the game but I remain unconvinced that your suggestions on potential scenarios/campaigns will encourage people to go into the editor to create them.

It's in CMSF2 at the moment for Red forces only
P

It's in CMSF2 at the moment for Red forces only
P

Ah the memories !
Happy B day 
P

Looking at this I do wonder if they may be an error in the briefing info. The three named occupy objectives featured in the previous mission, but do not feature on the scenario AAR screen for this mission..
In addition the points quoted in the briefing schedule do not total 1750 and so I think this is most likely an error with the previous briefing images not being cleared out of info before being reused.
Ignore the three occupy objectives - they don't exist in the scenario
 
P

Nope, 66mm are HE grenades.  The AT grenades are shown separately by icon in the special equipment panel.  Your example team has 3x HE-frag rifle grenades and 1x AT grenade (M9A1).  I think there is only one 3D model, however, and it is the M9A1.
Ammunition in the special equipment panel is not shown in the squad ammo counter and vice versa.

You tease.
Here's one I think I can get away with sharing

Cool eh ?
P
 

You tease.
Here's one I think I can get away with sharing

Cool eh ?
P
 

Beautiful!  That's a big boom and I love the framing of the AAVs in the foreground.  Hope to see more! 
Works fine for me.

You tease.
Here's one I think I can get away with sharing

Cool eh ?
P
 

As at Engine 4 this is now in game
Page 103-104 of the engine manual details

Each AI Order can designate a Fire Zone for area fire. This is done by painting on the 2D map just like a Movement Zone, but by CTRL-left-clicking instead. The tiles designated as targets will be colored red instead of yellow. While that AI Order is being carried out, the AI Group will attack the Fire Zone with suppressive area fire if it doesn't have any spotted enemy units to engage or other important tasks to do.
It is important to note that the Fire Zone is the lowest priority task for the AI Group. Other tasks, such as moving, unloading, attacking a spotted enemy unit, etc will take priority over shooting randomly at the Fire Zone.

Each AI Order can be given a location for it to Face towards. After painting the Movement Zone, Alt-left-click on a single tile that you wish the AI to face towards. When the AI Group reaches its destination, it will pivot or rotate towards the designated point.

By shift-left-clicking on the map, AI Groups can be ordered to Withdraw while moving towards their movement destination. Vehicles will move in Reverse to the destination, while infantry will leapfrog back while turning around to face behind them. Like the Facing Zone, Withdraw Zones are a single tile that the AI Group will face towards. For example, a vehicle given a Withdraw Zone will reverse towards the Movement Zone, while keeping its front pointed towards the Withdraw Zone.
P