birdstrike

Hm, I began working on a woodland-style camo some time ago but didn't finish it. Maybe I'll take another look at it.

Same here. For some strange reason I prefer writing long briefings over reading them. I think Mark Ezra developed a very good solution (there are possibly others who did the same, but I only remember seeing it in one of his scens first); he wrote down all importand information on the tactical map - Objectives, Victory conditions, &c. This way, anyone who wants to jump right into the fray, a quick look at the tac map is all he needs. And all who prefer some fluff can read the full briefing. I found this a very elegant and effective solution, especially in combination with the on map objectives toggle.

Thanks. I haven't seen the Afarat before, but it looks great. I think I like it even better than the other one. It seems less readable, but what the heck - it looks cool.

I assume you have not assigned them to an AI group (which means they are automatically put into AI group 1). You should check in the AI editor if AI group 1 has any zones painted on the map for their setup order. If so, delete them.

This is so freaking cool! Obviously a modern copy of the Leo Mk.0 tank: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Leonardo_tank.JPG

As for me, people can always ask to include a basic briefing if they desperately want to play a specific one of my single-player scens in 2P - and I'm sure, others would do the same . But I think it's just not worth investing the time, writing up a briefing 'just in case', if the scenario designer set it up as single-player scenario in the first place. Of course, this doesn't rule out that scens can get updated for 2 players overtime, depending on player feedback. EDIT: Actually, I'm referring to scenarios which are not supposed to be played as 2 player scens - I might have misinterpreted your post, are you referring to scens which are "supposed" to be played with 2 players but lack a briefing for both?

Yes, it's freely available. The name is "Alhambra". Got it from here: http://www.dafont.com

Care to tell which scenario it was? Perhaps it was one of mine. I usually include a note in the briefing that a scenario should not be played as a side if the game is not intended to be played as this side (duh). Such scenarios are not playtested as the non-playable side, nor do they include AI plans for this case and are often hugely unbalanced, or plain boring when played from the wrong side. Most scenarios tell you which side they can be played as when you look at the preview on the right in the selection screen.

Whohoo! Thanks for these!

Thanks. Glad you liked it.

That would be an idea - but with several triggermen around, it could be that I end up with all of them triggering all the IEDs. I need to test that, though.

Hm, I'll give it a thought. Maybe one or two smaller ones... I'd love to have variable positions for IEDs, but AFAIK, they are fixes, once you place them on the map.

Sounds like you enjoyed the scenario. Thanks.

We can't wait neither

It was fairly easy to do, no sweat. Will do.

Thanks for the feedback, Dietrich. The AI uses different setup zones, sometimes there's more of them in one spot, sometimes in another. Not implemented, yet. From what I've read, perhaps we'll get it back later down the road. Because of the remote or mobile phone he's holding? ("Hey sarge, either I just shot a guy who was going to blast us all to kingdom come, or a wallstreet trader... ") But seriously, after reading cmfan's post, I checked the map in the editor and realized that I've used a number of IED triggermen to simulate isolated gunmen - I just forgot about that. There's no hidden IED triggerd by them, if that's of help (I can add one, though if things are getting too easy).

Something like this? I'm not sure how much dust there should be - I assume, mostly around the legs, especially knees, ellbows, helmet, boots.

The LOS into the compound just turned out that way after I finished the map - a welcome coincidence, so to say, which I tried to exploit for red. In the Mission-Data Screen, the last entry Force vs. Force can be set to red vs. red, or blue vs. blue. Change the sides to red vs. red, buy forces, change the sides to blue vs. red again and buy some more. Or the other way round. Whatever you like. I made a scenario where I have only red troops for blue and only blue troops for red.

Thanks for this thread, dima. But it feels like too much praise, somewhat. The scenario is actually just an update of the one I released some half a year ago, so I didn't bother to open a new thread again. Those who have played the old version (MkIIa or b?): the changes include US AFVs are replaced by new ones with ERA (which were introduced in patch 1.10), some force adjustments for red to compensate. And, IIRC, 3 new AI plans for blue (the older version didn't have a proper one). For anyone wanting to play as red vs blue AI, you should download the new version (Mk III) from the BF repo (the one on CMMods is still the old one). Victory conditions were a little difficult to balance, because the AI will perform worse than the player in any case - but I'll leave the final assessment to the players. As usual I welcome any feedback (especially regaring VPs ) And I'll update the one on CMMods, too - should be up soon.

Sly and sneaky guys, these uncons

Theoretically, I wouldn't object giving the player more time - or encourage him to increase the time limit by himself, but in this case, the scenario uses the "60+mins reinforcements workaround" to avoid having HQ units in the battle which shouldn't be there. So, any increase of the time limit over the 60min limit would have a bunch of unwanted units suddenly appearing out of nowhere From a design viewpoint, I encourage offensive, risky play. It adds to the suspension It's a little difficult to translate everything I want to have in a scenario into what is possible from the game mechanics point. If it was a movie script I'd have a sneaky intruder blasting a hole into the cell wall and freeing Bin Wadi by end of the time limit, so the cavalry would not have the time to play it safe and the game would not be won even if all enemies were defeated. From what is possible in the game, I had to assume that if, by the end of 1h, the player has not accumulated enough VPs to win, it means that he'd either lost the captive, or suffered to many casualties, or was unable to secure the main road - the first would lead to a defeat in any case, the second would mean that the price of getting the criminal was too high, the third is again sort of a workaround which should encourage the player to really move into the town and clear a corridor, and not just level everything from afar and wait for the time limit being reached. I could of course have an enemy squad spawn inside Bin Wadi's cell in minute 60 which would then deal with him, but that would require the player leave Bin Wadi at the exact location - which I'm, sure, is not going to happen the second time around.

That's because of the chocolate you guys make. Everybody likes chocolate.

First, handgrenades are of course useful to damage the "soft" spots of tanks, like sensors. But leaving that aside, I think I seem to remember that after the initial release of the game, handgrenades were (realistically) modeled as being worthless against tanks - resulting in people wanting back a way to close assault armored vehicles similar to CMx1. That's why it *could* be that at some point the effectiveness of handgrenades against tanks and such was increased to abstractly simulate that - I could be totally wrong, though.

Thanks again. The 40mm Humvee is indeed a very valuable piece in this mission - that and the squad carrying the M32 should be treated with special care. Actually, on second thought any unit should be treated with special care, of course. Perhaps some have experienced that themsevels already, but I had repeated instances during my testing, where Humvees got immobilized on their way to the police station and I had to evacuate the crew under fire - sometimes using the BRDM or even a UAZ for that. It was nasty, but I couldn't afford to leave any man carrying a weapon behind.