slysniper

Had not played much CMFI lately so decided to mess around.
Set up a QB against the AI on a very small map and selected Italian infantry as my force against a AI attack using forces of its choice.
Normally I hate these things as to what they create.
 
So the battle starts and I quickly see I am against Canadians with Sherman V's and a little bit of supporting infantry.
I have MMG's and 45 MM mortars,  well perfect stuff to take on Armor, oh I did have two tanks, if you want to call them that. But hey, at least they had a chance of taking out the armor.
But I started this thing , so lets see what I can do with infantry and having to use them in close assaults verse armor.
 
It came out it had 8 Shermans, and about 20 men in brems and such.
I started hiding all my men behind walls, hedges and in grape vines.
 
Since the map was very small the AI kept the armor together as it moved to its objectives.
Thus doing a good job of covering its own units if and when I let the infantry attack.
 
But this turned into one of the funniest battles I have played in a long time. .
My armor only accounted for one enemy tank.
My infantry destroyed 3 Shermans and immobilized 4.
The MMg's kept what little infantry there was at bay.
I used the mortars on the tanks trying to help immobilize them. they accounted for one immobilization and maybe aided in one or 2 others.
 
In came down to swarming infantry on the armor and close assaulting (Too bad there is no graphics other than HG's flying. but they were busy doing that.)
 
It cost me 110 Italians, literally using ammo support troops on the mmg's as part of my attacks.
 
Bloody and fun - sometimes this game really delivers.
 
When I was done, It was like I started thinking, this would make a great scenario. What a mismatch .
(and amazed that what is or should be the weak side did have strength in only one thing, numbers, the number of men I had to throw at those tanks).
 
 
 

Well a new one on the top of my list is.
Sleeping troops.
I was playing some different night scenarios at one point and I was trying to infiltrate enemy lines with elite units that were unknown to the enemy.
It dawned on me how unrealistic it was, every enemy unit on the alert , all watching and waiting to ambush my men.
Where as, this is the farthest from the truth.. If no enemy are known to be in a area, most men are in a state of sleep. listening post are set, a percentage of men are on watch and the rest are either trying to get needed task done or needed rest. (And this is not just at night, even in the day, during down times, commanders are trying to make sure their men are getting rest.)
 
So it crossed my mind, the designer should have a feature to put a certain percentage of men to sleep at the start of the battle, providing only a small portion of each squad to be active.
This is the state they remain in til enemy gun fire is heard or friendly troops spot enemy units or things along these lines. Then they awake depending on how close they are to the event and then a little time of not full ability as they get their act together to be able to fight and figure out what is going on.
 
Anyway, as someone that has done this for real, I know for a fact its only because of this that we were able to do such feats. Literally were able to get right inside enemy camps.
I knew of one sniper team which actually waited in some scrubs for hours near a commanders tent for them to go to sleep and snuck in and obtained planning documents right of the tables in there and then managed to get out of there in time before it was noticed, which was at about 4:00am, then it was like a ant bed. that has been stomped on.
They had every troop on that mountain side patrolling and searching, their commander was pissed and he was willing to risk his men to try and catch  who did it.

I like your thinking.
I agree with you on all three areas. ( I construct 3d models for a living and that is exactly how you can improve the map making ability for the game) what could be a easy start to that is providing the ability to split screen, meaning two views, one for the 3d view and one for their present 2d systems. Then they could take their time getting abilities to do thing directly in the 3d environment.
I love your concept to programming battle plans for item 2. I think AI scripting is very unnatural in its present forms. But a system of memory that repeats moves of what a person shows for each unit would be a interesting way of approaching it. (still would need trigger overrides and such) but I would love to just show how I want the units to move and where to exactly locate and have the machine try to carry out the plan.
Freedom to create is always on the top of my list also. (any restrictions is always a negative in my book)
So I don't even like it when they try to limit it to just the historical units present at only certain times (that's great when you want a historical set up but why not allow for a button option where that can be removed. basically any unit available for any time or any army). It would allow crazy stuff but also some interesting things that are historical also.Like use of captured equipment .
 
 
 

Well a new one on the top of my list is.
Sleeping troops.
I was playing some different night scenarios at one point and I was trying to infiltrate enemy lines with elite units that were unknown to the enemy.
It dawned on me how unrealistic it was, every enemy unit on the alert , all watching and waiting to ambush my men.
Where as, this is the farthest from the truth.. If no enemy are known to be in a area, most men are in a state of sleep. listening post are set, a percentage of men are on watch and the rest are either trying to get needed task done or needed rest. (And this is not just at night, even in the day, during down times, commanders are trying to make sure their men are getting rest.)
 
So it crossed my mind, the designer should have a feature to put a certain percentage of men to sleep at the start of the battle, providing only a small portion of each squad to be active.
This is the state they remain in til enemy gun fire is heard or friendly troops spot enemy units or things along these lines. Then they awake depending on how close they are to the event and then a little time of not full ability as they get their act together to be able to fight and figure out what is going on.
 
Anyway, as someone that has done this for real, I know for a fact its only because of this that we were able to do such feats. Literally were able to get right inside enemy camps.
I knew of one sniper team which actually waited in some scrubs for hours near a commanders tent for them to go to sleep and snuck in and obtained planning documents right of the tables in there and then managed to get out of there in time before it was noticed, which was at about 4:00am, then it was like a ant bed. that has been stomped on.
They had every troop on that mountain side patrolling and searching, their commander was pissed and he was willing to risk his men to try and catch  who did it.

I like your thinking.
I agree with you on all three areas. ( I construct 3d models for a living and that is exactly how you can improve the map making ability for the game) what could be a easy start to that is providing the ability to split screen, meaning two views, one for the 3d view and one for their present 2d systems. Then they could take their time getting abilities to do thing directly in the 3d environment.
I love your concept to programming battle plans for item 2. I think AI scripting is very unnatural in its present forms. But a system of memory that repeats moves of what a person shows for each unit would be a interesting way of approaching it. (still would need trigger overrides and such) but I would love to just show how I want the units to move and where to exactly locate and have the machine try to carry out the plan.
Freedom to create is always on the top of my list also. (any restrictions is always a negative in my book)
So I don't even like it when they try to limit it to just the historical units present at only certain times (that's great when you want a historical set up but why not allow for a button option where that can be removed. basically any unit available for any time or any army). It would allow crazy stuff but also some interesting things that are historical also.Like use of captured equipment .
 
 
 

Blame the Scenario designers, you are correct as to how seldom some units are used.
But blame yourself also, I am not afraid to make my own set ups with those units that you claim are never used.
So I have enjoyed them included in the game, where as I am so sick of Tiger tanks that I could not play with one for years and still be happy.
 
But in general, don't expect someone else to create and meet your needs, CM gives you the ability to set up and create what you want . (That's the best part about the game, So removing options as to units would be a poor decision in my book.)
 
But hey, I would still be playing CMX1 because of having so many units to choose from, but  game play in CMX2 was so much more realistic and  graphics that were not outdated made me accept the fact I am limited as to time periods I can now only play in. (So CM3 would have to be a massive improvement in play before I would accept the fact I was limited even more by fewer units to being able to create different match ups with.
 
 
 

I like your thinking.
I agree with you on all three areas. ( I construct 3d models for a living and that is exactly how you can improve the map making ability for the game) what could be a easy start to that is providing the ability to split screen, meaning two views, one for the 3d view and one for their present 2d systems. Then they could take their time getting abilities to do thing directly in the 3d environment.
I love your concept to programming battle plans for item 2. I think AI scripting is very unnatural in its present forms. But a system of memory that repeats moves of what a person shows for each unit would be a interesting way of approaching it. (still would need trigger overrides and such) but I would love to just show how I want the units to move and where to exactly locate and have the machine try to carry out the plan.
Freedom to create is always on the top of my list also. (any restrictions is always a negative in my book)
So I don't even like it when they try to limit it to just the historical units present at only certain times (that's great when you want a historical set up but why not allow for a button option where that can be removed. basically any unit available for any time or any army). It would allow crazy stuff but also some interesting things that are historical also.Like use of captured equipment .
 
 
 

Here are my top 3 choices for CM3:
1. The ability to place terrain tiles, trees, buildings, roads all in 3D view. I would like to build the entire map, including laying out AI plans in 3D.
2. The ability to create an AI plan for a map or scenario by saving a play through. For example, I create a scenario and layout the AI plans for the defence but no plans for the attacker. I send out the scenario to several players who try their best to defeat the defenders. Each of those playthroughs is saved and imported into the scenario as an attack AI plan. This will also allow players to swap AI plans with other players. A sort of single player, H2H mode if you will.
3. More of everything EXCEPT graphics. My kids are growing up in the generation with the best graphics processing available and some of the most visually stunning games ever made. Guess what they love to play the most? Minecraft. Anyone take a look at the graphics on Minecraft recently? It is the freedom to do what they want in the game that is appealing and not the graphics that keep them playing. I want a true sandbox mode where I the freedom to put any unit from any title up against each other. I want to see more tanks, more infantry, more experimental equipment that almost certainly never saw any action, airplanes, helicopters, larger maps, brigades vs brigades, you name it, bring it on! Keep the mod abilities in the game so those of you who do want to see every rivet and screw in every gun, the inside of every tank, right down to the grease zerts, can have the ability to mod to your hearts content. Just please dont give us 6 amazingly rendered vehicle models, 3 for each side, and then call that a game. If the graphics don't get any better than what we have now, but we have more freedom and more choice, that is a win for me.

Blame the Scenario designers, you are correct as to how seldom some units are used.
But blame yourself also, I am not afraid to make my own set ups with those units that you claim are never used.
So I have enjoyed them included in the game, where as I am so sick of Tiger tanks that I could not play with one for years and still be happy.
 
But in general, don't expect someone else to create and meet your needs, CM gives you the ability to set up and create what you want . (That's the best part about the game, So removing options as to units would be a poor decision in my book.)
 
But hey, I would still be playing CMX1 because of having so many units to choose from, but  game play in CMX2 was so much more realistic and  graphics that were not outdated made me accept the fact I am limited as to time periods I can now only play in. (So CM3 would have to be a massive improvement in play before I would accept the fact I was limited even more by fewer units to being able to create different match ups with.
 
 
 

Blame the Scenario designers, you are correct as to how seldom some units are used.
But blame yourself also, I am not afraid to make my own set ups with those units that you claim are never used.
So I have enjoyed them included in the game, where as I am so sick of Tiger tanks that I could not play with one for years and still be happy.
 
But in general, don't expect someone else to create and meet your needs, CM gives you the ability to set up and create what you want . (That's the best part about the game, So removing options as to units would be a poor decision in my book.)
 
But hey, I would still be playing CMX1 because of having so many units to choose from, but  game play in CMX2 was so much more realistic and  graphics that were not outdated made me accept the fact I am limited as to time periods I can now only play in. (So CM3 would have to be a massive improvement in play before I would accept the fact I was limited even more by fewer units to being able to create different match ups with.
 
 
 

Blame the Scenario designers, you are correct as to how seldom some units are used.
But blame yourself also, I am not afraid to make my own set ups with those units that you claim are never used.
So I have enjoyed them included in the game, where as I am so sick of Tiger tanks that I could not play with one for years and still be happy.
 
But in general, don't expect someone else to create and meet your needs, CM gives you the ability to set up and create what you want . (That's the best part about the game, So removing options as to units would be a poor decision in my book.)
 
But hey, I would still be playing CMX1 because of having so many units to choose from, but  game play in CMX2 was so much more realistic and  graphics that were not outdated made me accept the fact I am limited as to time periods I can now only play in. (So CM3 would have to be a massive improvement in play before I would accept the fact I was limited even more by fewer units to being able to create different match ups with.
 
 
 

yes, normally the action square just behind the one the unit is in.
I will try and set up a test map and see if I can create what we are discussing

Good suggestion, I have found the same at times, but no perfect answer.
The amount of men is also a factor as George  MC points out. But it does go beyond that and is a imperfection as to how well the game works here.
For I have seen this same issue with trenches also, which is a little harder to explain than having enough foxholes.
But again splitting your men into smaller groups does help and improves the units use of the terrain feature.
 

there HAS NEVER BEEN GAME BREAKING BUGS.
Now the bugs in the 4.0 version is game breaking  in a sense in arty  and infantry reaction to it if you are not accepting of it, but all it has ever taken is to play the game in version 3.0 before that change was made.
what you have is 4.0 format not a good format for play against the AI if you are using arty. Any other way the game is played has been fine, 4.0 is good except for a few other issues.
For those needing to bomb the heck out of AI troops, 3.0 was always still available.
Yes, was it a issue that buying the upgrade and not getting the fix all this time was bad form. Of course it was, but don't act like the game is been unplayable, for it has not.
You all know 4.01 fixes the problems, the releases are close at hand, after all this time you might as well take your chill pills because nothing on your part is making it happen any faster.
 

Lots of good points in this thread. Two more things to add:
Having two briefing presentation options, one with and one without graphics, might help. The with option would be like it is now. The without option could be a layout that looks complete with only briefing text, like say, the text on top of a stock wallpaper graphic with all the other graphic frames removed. Taking away the workload of having to provide graphics (with ever-increasing expectations) might help more designers opt to go the extra mile to make their work public. A big part of the reason that there are not more public scenarios is that the workload increase from private to public scenarios is HUGE, while the payoff for making a scenario public may be minimal, or basically nothing. So, unless you really enjoy the whole process of producing a public scenario and don't require any real feedback or acknowledgment, you are likely not to opt to go public with your work once the novelty of doing it wears off. It's really a question of time investment vs. reward. Once you know your way around the Editor, you can create very enjoyable content in a very small amount of time using house rules to cover any rough edges. So, say, 30 minutes in the Editor might give you between 1 and 3 days of entertainment. And, if you go big and do like 60-120 minutes of setup, you might get weeks or even months of fun with a private monster battle.

But, if you decide to go public with it, instead of 30-120 minutes of setup and days or weeks of fun play, you are looking at days and weeks of setup and personal testing, producing graphics, finding testers, getting feedback, tweaking, testing. In other words, you've just added a job to your life, the payoff for which might be little to no feedback and no money. So again, unless you get adequate personal satisfaction from the whole process and don't require much or any reward beyond that, it's not a hard call. I would REALLY encourage players to learn the Editor and get into making personal scenarios, though. Once you know your way around well, you've got unlimited play value in your CM title and it's not hard to produce very enjoyable, scenario-like content. Working in the Editor can become an enjoyable hobby in itself that even rivals the fun you get from playing the game.
As for things that might facilitate more public scenarios, basically, anything that reduces the designer workload/time requirement would help. Being able to copy-paste map sections and copy-rotate buildings in the 3D view would be an epic time saver. However, that seems like a mighty amount of work on the coding side.
For now, I'd say the no-graphics briefing layout option could be a good, very low-cost way for BF to take some of the workload off both would-be and veteran designers. That could yield some fruit in the way of more public scenarios.

Its one of those situations where, show me that it happens all the time before I get worked up about it. If you can show it happening at some type of unusual rate, then its something to worry about.
One time is , wow that was cool - move on.
I had a lone survivor on a heavy machine gun, pinned, suppressed and being fired on, manage to return fire and kill at least 30 assaulting troops on his location. The bad part of all that was I was the assaulting side of the situation.
Should it of happened per game mechanics. NO
but it did, it was one of those moments where the game did a unusual thing. (it was a medal of honor moment) it was pretty cool actually.
Has the game ever done it again in the years that have followed, nothing even close.
Move on and drop it unless this is a reoccurring problem.

there HAS NEVER BEEN GAME BREAKING BUGS.
Now the bugs in the 4.0 version is game breaking  in a sense in arty  and infantry reaction to it if you are not accepting of it, but all it has ever taken is to play the game in version 3.0 before that change was made.
what you have is 4.0 format not a good format for play against the AI if you are using arty. Any other way the game is played has been fine, 4.0 is good except for a few other issues.
For those needing to bomb the heck out of AI troops, 3.0 was always still available.
Yes, was it a issue that buying the upgrade and not getting the fix all this time was bad form. Of course it was, but don't act like the game is been unplayable, for it has not.
You all know 4.01 fixes the problems, the releases are close at hand, after all this time you might as well take your chill pills because nothing on your part is making it happen any faster.
 

After months in the making, I have finally completed my campaign Valleys of Death. It turned our to be quite an ambitious project, with 11 missions!
The campaign revolves around a US Army light infantry company, manning a remote combat outpost in an Afghanistan inspired terrain.
Unlike classic CMSF, which highly favors shock and awe and maneuver warfare, Valleys of Death deals with the issues of small units operating in a clearly defined AO. This means that, like in real life, you will conduct operations on the same map many times, with each mission focusing on different areas and objectives. By the end you will come to know the area very well, and this knowledge is key to defeat the enemy.
Features:
    11 missions     A large 2X2 km map and 2 additional maps     Modern counter-insurgency infantry combat     Heavily inspired by Afghanistan related media (Restrepo, Taking Fire, etc.)     Base game, no modules needed



 
Download from Dropbox
Please let me know ASAP if this link doesn't work! I'm not exactly a Dropbox wizz  

there HAS NEVER BEEN GAME BREAKING BUGS.
Now the bugs in the 4.0 version is game breaking  in a sense in arty  and infantry reaction to it if you are not accepting of it, but all it has ever taken is to play the game in version 3.0 before that change was made.
what you have is 4.0 format not a good format for play against the AI if you are using arty. Any other way the game is played has been fine, 4.0 is good except for a few other issues.
For those needing to bomb the heck out of AI troops, 3.0 was always still available.
Yes, was it a issue that buying the upgrade and not getting the fix all this time was bad form. Of course it was, but don't act like the game is been unplayable, for it has not.
You all know 4.01 fixes the problems, the releases are close at hand, after all this time you might as well take your chill pills because nothing on your part is making it happen any faster.
 

there HAS NEVER BEEN GAME BREAKING BUGS.
Now the bugs in the 4.0 version is game breaking  in a sense in arty  and infantry reaction to it if you are not accepting of it, but all it has ever taken is to play the game in version 3.0 before that change was made.
what you have is 4.0 format not a good format for play against the AI if you are using arty. Any other way the game is played has been fine, 4.0 is good except for a few other issues.
For those needing to bomb the heck out of AI troops, 3.0 was always still available.
Yes, was it a issue that buying the upgrade and not getting the fix all this time was bad form. Of course it was, but don't act like the game is been unplayable, for it has not.
You all know 4.01 fixes the problems, the releases are close at hand, after all this time you might as well take your chill pills because nothing on your part is making it happen any faster.
 

When used correct, the results are fine. Nothing wrong with the flame thrower, its the person using it. 
Every time something does not work for you does not mean the game has a issue.
To use effectively on the offence, the method that must be used to likely get the results you need is likely one of these two things.
Don't try to take on the enemy in a fire fight, flame throwers must be moved into locations that they receive no returning fire.
Per most military doctrines that is done by smoking the target to allow the flame thrower to move into place. Use smoke correctly and you will get them where you need to get them to go.
Second, I find that I can fire them at area target locations one hex away from the target and get the needed results. So you don't need to expose yourself to the target, if cover is available and you can get target to the adjacent hex you are likely good to go. Also a bust or two on adjacent hex might not do the job, but move that one additional hex right after the bust to target directly on target also will likely work. Flame does a great job of putting the enemy troops into a state that they are not going to recover from quickly.
Try using these methods before saying flame throwers don't work correctly in game.

When used correct, the results are fine. Nothing wrong with the flame thrower, its the person using it. 
Every time something does not work for you does not mean the game has a issue.
To use effectively on the offence, the method that must be used to likely get the results you need is likely one of these two things.
Don't try to take on the enemy in a fire fight, flame throwers must be moved into locations that they receive no returning fire.
Per most military doctrines that is done by smoking the target to allow the flame thrower to move into place. Use smoke correctly and you will get them where you need to get them to go.
Second, I find that I can fire them at area target locations one hex away from the target and get the needed results. So you don't need to expose yourself to the target, if cover is available and you can get target to the adjacent hex you are likely good to go. Also a bust or two on adjacent hex might not do the job, but move that one additional hex right after the bust to target directly on target also will likely work. Flame does a great job of putting the enemy troops into a state that they are not going to recover from quickly.
Try using these methods before saying flame throwers don't work correctly in game.

When used correct, the results are fine. Nothing wrong with the flame thrower, its the person using it. 
Every time something does not work for you does not mean the game has a issue.
To use effectively on the offence, the method that must be used to likely get the results you need is likely one of these two things.
Don't try to take on the enemy in a fire fight, flame throwers must be moved into locations that they receive no returning fire.
Per most military doctrines that is done by smoking the target to allow the flame thrower to move into place. Use smoke correctly and you will get them where you need to get them to go.
Second, I find that I can fire them at area target locations one hex away from the target and get the needed results. So you don't need to expose yourself to the target, if cover is available and you can get target to the adjacent hex you are likely good to go. Also a bust or two on adjacent hex might not do the job, but move that one additional hex right after the bust to target directly on target also will likely work. Flame does a great job of putting the enemy troops into a state that they are not going to recover from quickly.
Try using these methods before saying flame throwers don't work correctly in game.

there HAS NEVER BEEN GAME BREAKING BUGS.
Now the bugs in the 4.0 version is game breaking  in a sense in arty  and infantry reaction to it if you are not accepting of it, but all it has ever taken is to play the game in version 3.0 before that change was made.
what you have is 4.0 format not a good format for play against the AI if you are using arty. Any other way the game is played has been fine, 4.0 is good except for a few other issues.
For those needing to bomb the heck out of AI troops, 3.0 was always still available.
Yes, was it a issue that buying the upgrade and not getting the fix all this time was bad form. Of course it was, but don't act like the game is been unplayable, for it has not.
You all know 4.01 fixes the problems, the releases are close at hand, after all this time you might as well take your chill pills because nothing on your part is making it happen any faster.
 

there HAS NEVER BEEN GAME BREAKING BUGS.
Now the bugs in the 4.0 version is game breaking  in a sense in arty  and infantry reaction to it if you are not accepting of it, but all it has ever taken is to play the game in version 3.0 before that change was made.
what you have is 4.0 format not a good format for play against the AI if you are using arty. Any other way the game is played has been fine, 4.0 is good except for a few other issues.
For those needing to bomb the heck out of AI troops, 3.0 was always still available.
Yes, was it a issue that buying the upgrade and not getting the fix all this time was bad form. Of course it was, but don't act like the game is been unplayable, for it has not.
You all know 4.01 fixes the problems, the releases are close at hand, after all this time you might as well take your chill pills because nothing on your part is making it happen any faster.