[Extend the time limit - official request]

I really wouldn't like to play a scenario that is longer than 2 hours for all of the above reasons. Furthermore, I don't agree with the sentiment that there is no harm in giving scenario designers the option. Increasing the limit would IMO lower the standard of user made scenarios. While I don't necessarily see this as a problem for the developers, I don't think they should be actively encouraging it either.

[Hello battlefront]

I know that the "quick view", for want of a better word, shows a lot of useful information, but the problem is that the information is ambiguous. It is not the game system that determines this, but the designers, and there appears to be little or no consensus on what three little men means compared to two or four.

For consistency, it would be nice if this was handled by the game, but I don't think it's worth wasting the time on when there's more important stuff to do. Failing that, a sticky note for scenario designers in the design forum detailing some system for making this reasonably consistent would be a good thing.

I also like Mark's idea of putting more info in the one line description.

[Uncon Campaign]

Originally posted by missinginreality:

Happy to help with mapping mate.

The line of advance is (loosely) from South of Al Hawl to Palmyra. The area around Palmyra has very varied terrain, and quite a lot of battles will take place in that area.

Obviously a fair proportion of the battles will be ambushes and hit and run attacks. Also plenty of small urban battles. I like to have a particular real location in mind when I create a map, but I don't hesitate to alter or stretch reality if I think it will make a better scenario.

So if you have maps that you think would be suitable, or want to make some, they would be greatly appreciated - especially urban maps, I don't have the patience for them!

Thanks.

[Uncon Campaign]

Sorry for the confusion, but I appear to be logged onto a different account at work: rollingt = Bruce70

[AI Opfor Artillery]

Originally posted by Paper Tiger:

Way, way back, before 1.03, I tried that experiment. You'd think that it would work from reading the manual but it doesn't. LOS plays NO part in the AI artillery routine. The only thing that affects it is the presence of a dedicated artillery spotter for the Syrian side. You'll find that it will all start firing around 25 seconds after the scenario starts even when NO red units have any LOS to any of the target zones.

OK I'll trust you and save my time by not testing it again. LOS does seem to play some sort of role even for the US player though. I have a mission with several support zones for the US player some out of LOS at the start of the battle and some within LOS. Only the ones within LOS are ever targeted - I have always assumed that by the time the other zones are in LOS there is no ammo left.

Have you tried starting the mission with no spotter, and then having one arrive as a reinforcement?

BTW I am in complete agreement that this needs to be added/fixed, I'm just trying to find work-arounds until it is

[Uncon Campaign]

Originally posted by birdstrike:

Note to myself: need to rework "paradise road"

Downloading now...

If it can be reworked into a red campaign would you be willing to contribute it?

[Uncon Campaign]

Originally posted by bardosy:

Bruce: if you need my help, I like to make one or two missions for your campaign. It's a very good story! Can I pick some idea and do it, or you have some plans for me? Please contacts with me in PM!

That's great! I want to have a fairly dynamic campaign and that requires more battles than a completely linear one, so the more help the better.

If it fits with what I've written above, I'll find somewhere for your battle. Otherwise I can send you a run down of what I have in mind for the first few battles. But I think the quality will be better if you do something that interests you.

I haven't decided exactly what the core campaign units will be, but so far I've been using a "fighter command" group, a "large fighter group" a "technical group" and a "transport group". At some point I'll add IEDs to this, but I may not make them part of the core units. Note that I have only been using small parts of these formations for each battle. The idea is that I will use different parts for different battles. This will partly be to simulate replenishment by recruiting fleeing fighters (EDIT: regulars), and partly to get around the fact that I expect heavy losses for the uncons in most battles. I've also made them start as veterans as they have seen action in and around lebanon.

Other than that I've been working on the basis of a US advance from near Al Hawl towards Palmyra (for no particular reason other than that the terrain gets quite interesting as you approach Palmyra), and using google earth as the main reference for maps. There will be a few battles based around Palmyra on the assumption that the uncon force is hiding in the hills and conducting harrassment operations from that base.

One final note is that I have in the back of my mind that I might want to eventually make the campaign playable from both sides (or have two slightly different versions that are playable from each side), so I have been trying to include some elements from a Stryker battalion in each battle.

Anyway keep me posted on what you are doing, and thanks again.

[ February 27, 2008, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: rollingt ]

[Are all the modern western tanks pretty similar in performance ?]

There's another cycle that no-one seems to think about.

Suppose that infantry routinely carried a weapon that could easily defeat tanks. Tanks would become obsolete, right? But then why would the infantry continue to carry that weapon? But if the infantry stopped carrying such a weapon they would be vulnerable to tanks. It's a classic Lotka-Volterra (predator/prey) relationship.

So there will always be a balance between tanks and anti-tank weapons, or high mobility firepower and weapons designed to defend against them. Sure the balance will shift about quite a bit over time, but neither will be eliminated because in a sense each relies on the other.

[CM2 WW2]

Originally posted by Pandur:

the game i played had methode 2 installed if you liked it. ovcourse if you run out of puase you have a realtime game essentialy, again. so for me that was and is no option to end up in a realtime game at some point, and i think for many others too. i dont want a game where you battle for who uses his pause up first to anhilate him while he is stuck in RT mode. he still can issue orders in your pause but for the most part thats not enough as these pauses are not timed with his needs. i played that mode and it distracts totaly from the fighting itself i have found.

Actually with method number 2 (all of them really) you cannot run out of pause, but having read some of the other posts I can see why some people want WeGo to remain (just).

[CM2 WW2]

For multiplayer pausing to work, you have to have some limits. The methods of doing this are endless, but here are three examples:

1) After you pause a countdown is started (say 60 seconds), and you can't pause again until the countdown ends.

2) Alternatively you could allow a certain amount of pause time. For every second of gameplay you get one second (or whatever the players agree to) of pause time. [This method is probably my favourite because it is simple and flexible, but places a definite limit on how long a game can take]

3) Action Points. Players accrue APs while the game is running. Every order you issue uses APs (paused or not). This means that each player gets the same opportunity to issue orders regardless of who can click quickest.

I don't play multiplayer much so I don't really care, but it's certainly possible for RT pausing to work in multiplayer. So I would also be in favour of dropping WeGo if it requires any extra development effort at all (so long as you have the option to pause on the hardest game setting). Any effort saved on WeGo, should be spent on the TacAI IMO.

[On captured equipment...]

Try and remember that he is thinking in Russian and translating to English. IOWs, replace infantry with rifleman and it makes sense. Don't take everything so literally.