Cpl Steiner

To anyone who is thinking of designing a heavily wooded map, my plea would be "make it interesting". Don't just have a big flat area covered in trees. Add little hills, ravines, rocky areas, glades full of flowers (where the woodland animals presumably feed), areas of differing tree density, and maybe a stream or two draining into a marshy area. For inspiration take a look at some screenshots or gameplay videos from the game "Cabela's Big Game Hunter Pro Hunts" (which has some of the most natural looking wooded terrain I have ever seen in a computer game). Before plonking down a huge flat forest, remember that some player's like me will most likely quit the scenario on turn 1 if half the map is filled with max tree density tiles unbroken by any other terrain. Thanks for your replies.

Hi all, Does anyone agree that maps with lots of trees are horrible to play on? If I load a scenario downloaded from the Repository and the map is over 50% dense foest I am instantly put off playing it. Yes, I know you can turn off trees or reduce the nearest trees to stumps but to my mind too many trees on a map just looks ugly. I don't want to fight a battle in the Ukrainian equivalent of Endor from Star Wars! Whenever I design a map I try to keep the number of tree tiles to a minimum and to limit most tree tiles to only one or two trees, with the centre of each wooded area being reserved for those dense three-tree tiles. I also tend to leave some clearings here and there just to break up the forest a little. I am wondering if maybe the three-tree tiles are just more dense than is found in nature, as when I look at photos of real forests they seem to be a lot less dense than a typical CM:BS forest map. Looking forward to your opinions.

My repository battle "Neighbours From Hell" is most definitely best played as Red vs. AI (shameless plug!)

As a Brit who has been outraged by the events in Tunisia this week I have decided to reinstall CM:SF and conduct my very own ground offensive against ISIS to eradicate them once and for all. I realise it's just a game but kicking some ISIS butt in CM:SF seems like an ideal outlet for the anger and frustration I am feeling right now. Is this something that anyone else here is doing, and do you know of any good West or Syria vs ISIS campaigns for CM:SF? Thanks.

I think the scenario victory conditions might be a bit - unbalanced. US Army: - Exit at least 30% of force off map for 100 pts - Destroy Martian force (impossible) Martian Army: - Destroy US force for 100 pts - Don't catch a cold!

Hi MikeyD. I am pretty sure I downloaded that mod. I remember it being very well done. Here's an interesting fact I only discovered today. The film "The Wild Geese" (mercenary force contracted to rescue African leader from captivity get shafted by employers) included in the cast a guy called Ian Yule as one of the mercenaries hired for the operation. Ian Yule actually fought as a mercenary in the Congo under Col. "Mad" Mike Hoare. Any game depicting the wars in Africa in the de-colonisation period and the later Cold War interventions would need to do it delicately to avoid any accusations of racism but I think we are all grown ups and would understand that a game of tactical combat set in Africa would be about the combat and forces involved and not the politics.

I sometimes get tired of CM titles but always find myself returning eventually, because there is something about CM that no other games have. With Mods, the game graphics are actually pretty decent in my opinion, especially the actual units. The terrain itself is a bit bland though. I played a hunting game recently (Cabela Big Game Hunter Pro Hunts) and the terrain in that game is incredible. If CM titles could somehow have a revolution in the depiction of the battlefield environment that would go a long way towards improving the graphics. Another revolution would be if they hired some sort of computer AI guru who was well versed in the very latest AI design approaches and overhauled the AI. The scripted AI, even with triggers, is something that limits the game for me. I would love to see a truly dynamic AI that makes use of its C3 Net, such that units reposition to engage identified enemy that are not in LOS based purely on the AI's assessment of the situation. In terms of new game families, there is plenty of scope still to explore. I would personally love to see some of the African wars explored such as the Congo and Angola in the 60s and 70s.

I just did a quick test of Terrain Objective Triggers and again, I could not get them to work as the manual suggests they should in a QB map. It's easy to test for yourself. Just create a map, add an AI group and some orders, and an AI side terrain objective set to "Trigger (Enemy)". Have one of the orders be to wait for this trigger, with the two times set to 00:00 and 1:00:00 then run the QB in "Scenario Designer" mode. According to the manual the group should wait for the enemy (player) to move into the trigger zone before executing its next order but they just move off immediately regardless of what the player is doing. I have yet to be persuaded that triggers work in QBs.

I use a program called Paint.NET to create the images as it's free and has a "layers" function which is very helpul when you need to combine several graphics such as map, icons and text and need to be able to modify just one element to fix some problem or other. In the editor you import the briefing text and graphics in the "Mission (Blue)" and "Mission (Red) subsections within the "Mission" section.

I would love to play this too as I like narrative campaigns like "Devil's Decent". Please can you PM me with the download URL. Thanks. [EDIT] Did not realise you'd already given a link above. Downloading now.

Please answer me this. How do you get parked cars into the maps! I thought it was only Shock Force that had civilian vehicles?

If it is possible to take an existing CM human figure model and mod it to look like some other type of unit, that might be very cool for some scenarios. I am thinking of things like Security Contractors, downed Air Crew, maybe even News Teams etc. [EDIT] Oh and don't forget parked car doodads! The potential for unique scenarios is endless.

Hi guys, Just a quick heads up that I finally got around to finishing my Separatists vs Ukrainians scenario "Neighbours From Hell" and it is now available to download on the Repository. It's a raid by Separatists on a Ukrainian held village. The Separatists must touch several objectives in and around the village and defeat the village garrison then run for the hills as a large body of Ukrainian reinforcements begins arriving on the scene. Playable as Red, Blue or H2H but I would suggest Red is the best side to play. Thanks to "Blimey" for his Separatists Mod, and to "Takoda", "The_MonkeyKing", "RepsolCBR" and "verulam" for playtesting an earlier version. I apologise if I left anyone out. I hope you enjoy it.

Just played this. Thanks for posting. It was a fun little battle. I got a Total Victory as the US despite having to leave behind 2 KIA, 4 Incapacited and 1 healthy soldier when I got surprised by some late-arriving Russians. The main attack on the mortar position was a real gung-ho infantry charge across the open by 3 infantry squads using Assault movement. Lots of enemy surrendered during that action. I did not find I had insufficient time except for the poor sods who got bounced on their way off the map. Body count for US was 5 KIA and 8 WIA I think.

I don't know about real life but crazy stuff has always happened in CM. Most likely this was a bug - the German failing to "spot" the US troops as he wasn't facing the right way - but if it was a bug they should leave it in!

Surrendered German in room full of US Airborne decides to be a hero. https://www.dropbox.com/s/37qia6pkj0t3rgr/CM%20Normandy%202015-05-17%2020-32-53-43.avi?dl=0

I doubt civilians will ever be given actual models in a CM game but can we at least have some vehicle doodads for parked/abandoned cars? Currently there is only one single vehicle doodad in CM:BS - a forklift truck.

Just played "Gateway to Palmermo" and one of my tanks achieved such an amazing kill score I thought I would share. Screenshot attached. 5 tanks, 2 self-propelled guns, 1 AT gun plus 31 enemy casualties. Unfortunately the TC got shot manning the 50 cal. One thing I wish BFC would add is a way to see if vehicle crew casualties are KIA or just wounded so I don't know if he made it or not. This was a great scenario, a real tough slog for the Amies. In the end I got a total victory as the Germans decided they'd had enough and surrendered.

Hi all, I was tempted to post this in the CM:BS forum but I know politics there is against the rules, so I am (reluctantly) posting this here instead. Tonight I watched a Russian movie called "Gagarin: First in Space". I really loved this movie, which tells the story of Yuri Gagarin, from boyhood in Nazi-occupied Russia, to becoming the first man to orbit the Earth in 1961. It is a movie just as moving and uplifting as "Apollo 13". Watching this movie made me realise just how similar Russians and Americans are. I urge everyone to watch this movie. I know things are pretty bad these days in terms of East-West relations. Putin shares a big part of the blame, but if we are honest, we in the West share a part of it too. We may have won the Cold War but the future depends on us being magnanimous in victory. We should not be playing power games in Eastern Europe and gloating over our victory in the Cold War. Russia is a great nation, just like America is, and it would be in the interests of all mankind if these two great nations could work together rather than be rivals. I sincerely hope that the Ukraine situation does not blind us to what we in the West have in common with Russia. There should be less sabre rattling and more accomodation. Great nations like these are our future. We need to settle our quarrels peacefully and work towards a better future. Thank you for reading this - now go watch the movie! Currently it is free to watch on Amazon Prime.

Thanks for your support. I am pretty sure they are broken but there is an easy test. Find a QB map that ships with the game that has triggers and play a QB with map selection on, select that map and play it in Scenario Author Test mode. As you rightly point out, the manual is clear about what you have to do to get triggers to work and it is not the same as what the posters who swear blind that they work are advising.

I have voted now. Re. "passengers" I cannot believe that this could not be done straight away in a patch. I think the way it is implemented now is to give the vehicle a "Dismount" command at its "Passengers Dismount" waypoint, and then to give the unit dismounted a move order next turn, once it is no longer mounted. A human would not do this - they would instead give the move order to the passengers whilst the vehicle was moving to its drop off location. As soon as the vehicle stops the unit will then automatically dismount and move off towards its next waypoint. The way it is done now is just crazy and can result in loss of vehicle and all passengers when dropping off troops close to the enemy. The other two suggestions - "Reverse" option and "Facing" option - would help for orders intended to make units fall back, such as rearguard actions and raids requiring the unit to exit its friendly map edge. When testing my scenario the order to exit the map resulted in my vehicles turning their rear to face the enemy whilst they waited for the order to advance off the map. "Reverse" could actually be applied to both infantry and vehicles. You could have it as a "Fall Back" option in the menu that has "Advance", "Assault" and "Max Assault". "Fall Back" would cause the AI engine to issue a reverse order for vehicles, or a series of "quick" orders with a "face" order in the opposite direction at each "quick" waypoint for infantry.

This is a long thread and I haven't the time to read it all but here are my thoughts. a ) Are the improvements largely obvious such as tweaks to the existing scripted AI plans system that just require some coding time to implement? If so I am all in favour and would be prepared to pay for an upgrade. or b ) Are the improvements largely conceptual, meaning they would need to be "designed" as well as "built"? If so I am not in favour as I think it would become a massive time sink and might not even deliver anything worthwhile. I would like the AI side of things to be looked at again because having designed a scenario recently I have noticed several things that could easily be made better. For example... 1) Ability to determine unit facing at each waypoint. 2) Ability to order a vehicle to "reverse" to its next waypoint, 3) Implement passenger orders better so they are plotted by the AI whilst the passengers are still mounted, so that they start moving as soon as they dismount. Currently after reaching a "Passengers Dismount" waypoint the passengers wait until next turn to get out and until the turn after that to actually start moving. That is not how a human would handle those orders.

Great feedback everyone! I will definitely take note of your experiences with the victory point allocation, force composition etc. _MonkeyKing... About those BTR-4Es - originally they were BTR-70s and in one test the Separatist BMP wiped out pretty much every Uke APC on the map. I upgraded to the 4Es to give the reinforcements a chance, but now it seems the Uke's are overpowered. I will consider your idea of using BMP-2s for the Weapons Platoon (but they are not standard OOB vehicles for Uke Mech Inf so will have to delete the platoon's vehicles and add individual BMP-2s). Supporting arms for the garrison makes sense as they would probably have extra attached units for defence. I might take the MGs from the Weapons Platoon and put them with the garrison, and/or add some extra MGs/RPGs not in the standard OOB as extra defenders. RepsolCBR... About the Destroy Reinforcements objective: you are right, the Separatists should not attempt this at all and just get the hell out of Dodge as soon as they show up. The only reason it's such a high value is because the reinforcements make up 3 times as many men as the garrison. I will consider reducing or removing it though, and/or making it unknown. About the Warehouse, it is defended but in the current AI plans for Blue the defenders either move out towards the village or towards the attackers rather than just sit in place and defend. I will review this and see if I can have some units actually stay in place. [EDIT] Once I have made some changes I will test them myself to see if they achieve the desired result and then put the scenario up on the Repository. This scenario took a long time to make - it was like writing a bloody novel or something! My hat is off to designers like GeorgeMC and others who create so many scenarios for the community. Everyone should have a go at using the Editor, if only to see for themselves how much work goes into a scenario. For this reason alone I am determined to make this one as good as it can be and then get it onto the Repository - which will be the final version so I never have to tinker with it again and can get on with actually playing CM:BS

You guys should also give Blue vs AI a go. I was not even going to bother doing Red AI plans as I thought playing as the defender in this scenario would be boring but when I did play as Blue I had one of the most exciting games I have ever played. The garrison commander was literally the only man still standing when the reinforcements arrived! It was like being in the Alamo or at Rorke's Drift.

Thanks, and glad that you liked it. The hardest part of scenario design in my opinion is getting the victory points right. I am still not sure they are correct in this one. As it stands the Ukrainians get more points than the Separatists for just killing the enemy, whereas the Separatists get a lot of points for entering the village, even if only briefly. The idea was to give the Separatists an incentive to actually assault the village rather than just shoot it up from a distance and then run for the hills but if they take casualties this is going to give a small victory, like you described, because pure "body count" favours the Ukrainians. I did think of giving the Ukrainians points for occupying the terrain objectives but as the Separatists are expected to exit the map I thought that would be a little too easy for the Uke's.