LongLeftFlank

Wot, all 1084 of 'em? Any way you can be a little more specific? Keywords or sumfink? I'm busy back in CMSF-land recreating brutal current events in Syria, trying to coax AI-controlled T72s into Assaulting in column down 8m wide streets.

I notice the Dromedary webpage is under construction (Extreme Makeover, I presume), but I'm going to be VERY interested in learning more about your shop, and the backstory of how you and BFC partnered up. Be sure to post interviews and whatnot.

.... Venturing into "wish land", I'd love to see scenario designers allowed to program AI plans for both sides (which you can do now), with the difference being that the human player's units would attempt to execute their preprogrammed AI plans except as otherwise instructed by the player. Presumably the briefing would tell the player what the plans are beforehand, so he has some idea of what his units will be trying to do and when (unless he intervenes). In a RT environment that would take some of the pressure off you to be everywhere at once, micromanaging. It could also allow you to choose to play the role of a platoon commander within a larger operation. On the other hand, too much intervention could easily expose units to danger as they try to execute their plan with far fewer forces than the designer envisioned (because you've called those units away elsewhere).

Well-written and thoughtful post. Hope to hear much more from you in the future. I generally play RT with a lot of pausing, although I've come to appreciate WeGo more lately in small PBEM games. The philosophy and the tempo are different, as you say, although I would still say I favour "paused RT" for reasons described below. As many others have said before, unlike the player who can only be in one place at any given time, in both RT and WeGo the AI exercises simultaneous control over all its units, acting within the limits imposed by the programming: 1. the by-the-clock AI plans programmed by the scenario designer, plus 2. the limited suite of reactive "return fire", "move out of danger" or "go around" TacAI routines that all units -- player or computer controlled -- are wired to execute in response to stimuli like enemy fire or terrain obstacles. So in answer to one of your questions, no, the computer doesn't benefit from the WeGo interval or play any differently. It's you who are forced to play differently. In most situations other than static defense, you the human player can't just be the battalion or company CO and let your units fight it out, you have to control every single subunit leader. Absent orders from you, your units will do nothing beyond elementary self-defense. So you're inherently at a disadvantage in RT against a computer opponent with a well-written set of AI plans. So under those conditions, a certain amount of pausing to issue orders in "RT" is more, not less, realistic. This is even more true in infantry-heavy fights in complex terrain like cities, where a lot of finesse is called for in tactical movement in order to avoid heavy BLUE losses. In cities you can't depend on precision weapons in overwatch to instantly silence RED positions moments after they open fire, and enemy ambushes generally take place at close ranges where the Kalashnikovs become a lot more lethal. "Finesse" in CMSF/CMBN tactical infantry movement requires careful positioning of waypoints, plus a lot of fine-tuning of orders, including: - extensive use of Covered Arcs - use of Pauses (e.g. pause 5-10 seconds between running up to an unscouted building and entering it). - use of the unit Face command (that will keep your men closer to available cover, like walls, as opposed to out in the middle of the street). I have found you can execute most combat drills used by modern armies quite accurately with these tools, but making sure they do it right takes time and attention. And in larger unit fights, or ones where your forces are widely dispersed on the map, this level of micro can distract you from the "bigger picture" command and threat assessments. That might explain why you feel "caught on the back foot" more often when playing RT.

The "quotes" around the "forum" name make me " suspicious". I still think this product is real, just still at vapourware stage.

Well that relationship is about to be tested... You think she'll want to swap for your man-cave 30" wall-mounted LED monitor + recliner with 2 years of Doritos and CokeZero down the cushions?

Did you check out the new building types in that tutorial? Real stuff or a mashup from a WWII shooter? I don't play those things so I wouldn't know.

Ah, as in, "this is a real product, but available April 2nd.... 2015."

Vulcans never bluff. A couple of instant reactions upon viewing the Tutorial. - Fantastic, intuitive UI! Best I've seen since StarCraft. Our prayers have been answered! - Rumours of the demise of WeGo were greatly exaggerated. 30sec turns -- yay! - Can CoPlay be far away? That would send this thing viral and be the biggest wargaming framebreaker since, oh, CMBO. - You guys have seized the high ground in wargaming once again, with a capable partner. Well done, sirs! Just 5 bucks for the app? -- that's the part that may be an April Fools joke.... Unless you're planning to generate a revenue stream for additional content, vehicles, scenarios, etc.

Building out the AI plans for the BLUE (Regime) force, tossing in some basic opposition for interest. T72-TURMS bushwhacked twice by RPG shots on the elevated highway; minimal damage. MBTs are tough to kill from the side with RPG-7ds.

Just kibitzing here (killing time during a child's ballet rehearsal), but I'm idly mulling how to represent oil infrastructure using the limited building set in the game. One decent trick I found was to use the "stilts + no-railing" balcony type with the "breached" wall surface to create a skeleton that can variously represent a partly constructed building, a parking garage or, as shown in this shot, a large water tank tower. I can't clearly see them in the imagery, but the site probably contains a maze of above-ground pipelines mounted on frames; probably next to roads. Third World facilities generally don't bother to bury these things except where a road needs to cross them which would be most cheaply accomplished with a gravel culvert. The single feeder pipes (feeding out to the tank farm) would seem best represented for tactical purposes by the low stone walls (laying down hundreds of oil drums end-to-end would be a nightmare. For the larger pipeline arrays coming in from the oilfields (multiple larger diameter pipes seated in parallel on a frame), you might consider the long thin 1x2 square building with "shot out" sides as shown above. To lower the profile for LOS purposes, maybe sink the elevation of the squares they're in by a meter or two. FWIW.

Easy. Just hit the "quote" button on my previous post and you'll see how to do it. It's HTML: you precede the filename (ending .jpg, .gif, .png, whatever) with squarebracketimgsquarebracket and then end it with squarebracket/imgsquarebracket. Spaces between brackets and text not required. Squarebrackets being [ and ] The VC for this scenario should be quite interesting. I assume the Coalition has a number of "Preserve" building objectives which for the Iraqi side are "Destroy", involving emplaced IEDs or sumfink. So the commandos need to neutralize the triggermen before they demolish the valve control buildings and the valves themselves. Not much in the way of prepared defensive positions in this complex, I'd imagine; maybe a blockhouse (bunker) at the entrance plus a barracks area where the majority of the Iraqi defenders would be located. I can't see them sitting in trenches around the complex, especially at night. But I haven't read the book.

I've had no trouble myself, although I may not have the entire mod set a(ISTR one of the 3 rar files refused to open). I still get palm trees, but that's OK.

In theory, I suppose ammo cookoffs from a burning tank could damage the structure. Although I never noticed whether or not vehicles wrecked and burning at game start cook off.

Nice! Glad to see someone (else) covering Iraq. I considered laying out an oil facility for a Libya Red on Red fight last year but never got around to it. You can embed your screenshot in the thread by putting "img" tags on your jpg. Like so: Any chance of seeing a 3d pano?

Some of the most intensive bombardment I've seen yet: Hamidiya, Homs March 26. Again, no military purpose whatever is being served by this -- it is pure terror. Note the church domes in the target area (second clip). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L3k5rvE404 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lItpfXA3e54 A glimpse of the hell on the incoming end.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD2LwPSr6ME&feature=relmfu

Empirically I'd say it's the BMP's narrower (and less robust) tracks, but I sincerely doubt that distinction ever found its way into the CMSF engine; no sign it's in CMBN either. My only other thoought would be the T72s turret height letting it "clear" the high walls opposite somehow (vehicles can "cut in" to walls and buildings to a limited extent). I now have the full regime force set up; let me see how they handle it now.

OK, enough. I forbid any further mention of Russia or even worse, the decline of America and how the Chinese now own everybody, in this thread. Please take it to the "Russian troops in Syria" thread or to another forum. Thanks. Back OT, I'm continuing my test-drives through the shattered streets of Baba Amr. Interestingly, while the T72s will edge past rubble (i.e. transit a half-square wide space) if the waypoints are set carefully, the BMPs invariably refuse and try to go around.

Or that Gilligan's Island episode wjere the Skipper gets hit on the head by a coconut and thinks the others are Japanese soldiers.

I think we're talking past each other a little here; when you say "superpower" are you defining that as "can go head to head with NATO in a conventional war?" plus cut off a bunch of critical commodity exports at will? I lump those two kinds of "power" in with the 2000 ICBM's -- actually using either of them is pretty much unthinkable. Superpower to me means a society that is capable of creating wealth both for itself and its partners, so much so that it becomes difficult to flout its rules without losing the benefits of trade. The US, EU and China all fall into this category. It's hard to see Russia joining them, no matter how advanced its army. And the second it looks serious about shutting off the gas tap, the EU will find permanent substutes pronto.

Maybe we should pursue this topic over in the Russia troops thread, but I'm not seeing Russia regaining more than regional power status in a contemporary world where China has stood up and Germans and French generally stand together when push comes to shove. There's only 110m people in Russia today, right? and I think about 10% are non-Slavs. Tack Byelorussia back on and you add what, 20m more non-breeders? Ukraine is 40m or so, of whom 1/3(?) are actually Russian, and it's unclear even those are eager to resume being governed by Moscow. Of the non-Slavic republics only Kazakhstan seems to be a reliable ally (partly by virtue of its own Russian minority plus the generally tolerant nature of the Kazakhs) and that could change once Nazarbayev Khan goes, with Chinese influence. There's more to power than population, sure, but it just seems to me that Moscow is very limited in terms of its power to either impose a new pax Sovietica on its neighbours, or be a beacon of relative stability incenting others to enter economic and political arrangements with them freely, as America still does. Rosneft and Lukoil bring nothing to the table that the Western oil majors don't, except a willingness to deal with unsavoury regimes (and the Chinese have broken their corner on that market). Just not seeing the raw material for a Russian renascence here; in contrast, a lot of factors seem to me to point to continuing decline.

My dance card is full, but if you take the northern section of the JOKER THREE map and delete the Saddam Mosque and water tower, and most of the residential blocks south of there, you have a ready-built waterfront industrial district. Doing convincing docks and ocean will require some more creativity. Again, I deny the entire premise of having Russians in a shooting war in the modern Middle East. So I see little point in taking much time building a highly realistic map for an extremely farfetched scenario. But hey, fly at her if that's what you like.

I have little interest in wargaming the End of Days, but once I release a map people are free to repurpose it for whatever you like.

Good perspective and makes sense. If I'm Putin though I'd focus on the Chinese who are right next door to the Siberian resources that underpin any possible Russian claim to global superpower status (other than their unplayable doomsday card). Otherwise, they're just another aging white nation with limited wealth creation prospects and a brain drain taking away a good portion of their most talented people. The chekisti may feel like they can do what America does, but they can't. The social contract is weak and fraying. A lot of the raw energy and ambition that won WWII has gone, or so it seems to me.

Use GreenAsJade's site instead. Click the link in my sigline to get there. It's easier to work with than the Repository, and a lot of the community knows it.