Cpl Steiner

I bought the upgrade bundle today and fired up a quick battle followed by a scenario, and I must say, I'm impressed! It feels like a completely new game. Thanks BFC.

The map and AI plans are all TheVulture's work; I just converted it to CM:BS using a hex editor and picked some suitable replacement units. Glad to hear you're enjoying it though.

Wow, thanks guys! I downloaded a hex editor and was able to import the "Getting Ugly" map into CM:BS. It looks pretty damn good right off the bat but on closer inspection I am sure there will be some flavour object issues etc. You have inspired me to make a conversion of "Getting Ugly" from CM:RT to CM:BS. Same situation (Russians assaulting retreating enemy) but updated to modern day Russia vs Ukraine / NATO. Should be a blast!

Hi All,
 
If anyone would like to test my new scenario, "Neighbours From Hell!", please download using this dropbox link...
 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vauw5y8e084hdeq/Neighbours%20From%20Hell%21.zip?dl=0
 
It is Separatists vs Ukrainians and includes Blimey's Separatists Mod (with permission). The mod is the same one used in "The Boys Are Back In Town" so if you have that mod installed you don't need to install this one.
 
It is playable as Red or Blue, has multiple AI plans for both, and includes full briefing graphics for both as well.
 
I welcome all feedback, positive or negative.
 
Thanks.

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.
 
 

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.
 
 

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.

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!

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
 
 

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
 
 

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.

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.

Hi All,
 
I am currently working on a scenario which will see Separatists fighting Ukrainian regulars, with the separatists receiving Russian reinforcements and the Ukrainians receiving US reinforcements. The premise of the scenario is that the separatists commence attacks in coordination with the Russian push into Ukraine, in an area that is far from the primary axis of Russian advance. In other words, an area where predominantly Ukrainian and Separatist forces are engaged, with only token assistance from their respective allies.
 
I found this page in Wikipedia that gives unit names for many Separatist units, so I will pick one of these for the separatists in the scenario. I thought others might be interested by this list so here's the link.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Armed_Forces_of_Novorossiya
 
Currently I am still working on the map - a predominantly rural area with some light industry. It is not based on any actual geographic location within eastern Ukraine but is supposed to be representative of the areas where the Separatists are active. When I have finished the scenario I will upload it to the Repository.

.. from which we get the word "sabotage" because some disgruntled french factory workers used to put shoes into the gears of industrial machines to cause them to break down.
 
Ain't language great!

I seem to recall  Steve saying that he didn't want to see micromanagement orders such as "stand", "kneel", "go prone" etc in the game as this was not what the game was about. You can order a unit to move to a particular map reference but whether they go prone or "take a knee" when they get there is up to them, not you, as your eye is supposed to be on the bigger picture.
 
I have noticed though that if you put a unit behind a slope, they often stand fully upright so they can see over the crest, so the TAC AI does change posture in some circumstances. I also think one or two men usually take a knee anyway as default behaviour, with the rest generally lying prone.
 
One solution I would like to suggest is that when you give a unit a fire order and trace a line of sight for the unit, the game should take into account lines of sight that are not valid right now but would be if the unit changed its posture from prone to kneeling or kneeling to standing up. Once you click down the order, the unit will adjust its posture to accomodate the order. This would allow you to trace lines of sight where currently you cannot, without the need to micromanage. Of course this is only for firing. If you just wanted the men to take a peek without revealing their position, it would require another combat action such as "Spot Briefly". This would allow a unit to kneel or stand for 15 seconds just to look in a particular direction.

It's nearly 2 am in the morning here in the UK and I am debating whether to go to bed or fire up CM:BS for another game - so yes, I think you could say I'm enjoying BFC's latest offering very much indeed. Lots of posters have mentioned the increased lethality in this game and I have to agree, it is very brutal and unforgiving. Whereas in previous titles you could take some risks and get away with it, 9 times out of 10 you won't in CM:BS. I've seen whole squads mowed down in literally a second when they got caught in the open. This has the effect of making you think really long and hard about the best way to tackle an enemy position, so much so that the tactical planning aspect is almost like Chess.
 
Oh what the hell, time for another game!

I did the refresh monkey thing earlier today and was disappointed to see that Black Sea was not yet released, so in my frustration I bought the Market Garden expansion for CM:BN. That will keep me busy whilst I wait for Back Sea, I thought. I then refreshed again just now and discovered Black Sea was out! I immediately bought it and started downloading (currently at 2.0/5.0 GB). Never mind, I guess Market Garden will just have to wait!

The Javelin is a truly amazing weapon system, as demonstrated by British troops in this video (or perhaps not)...
 

The Javelin is a truly amazing weapon system, as demonstrated by British troops in this video (or perhaps not)...
 

Just thought I would comment on UK's defence cuts. The plan was to reduce the size of the "regular" army whilst increasing the size and capability of the Army Reserve, what used to be called the Territorial Army, to make up the gap.

That plan now looks in tatters as the rate at which people are signing up to the Army Reserve is laughably small. One statistic I read said that at the current recruitment rate it would take 25 years for the Army Reserve to be up to planned strength.

The other big "hole" in the UK armed forces is the lack of an operational aircraft carrier until 2020, but I don't think that is such a big issue for NATO operations as it only really hurts UK's ability to carrier out "independent" military operations in regions where aircraft cannot be based on land. For example, there would be no chance of the UK pulling off an operation like the 1982 Falklands War until the new aircraft carrier is operational.

Given the failure of the policy, I would think it will have to be changed soon, and most probably will be.