Jump to content

Pandur

Members
  • Posts

    2,233
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Pandur last won the day on August 22 2020

Pandur had the most liked content!

About Pandur

  • Birthday 05/19/1983

Converted

  • Location
    Austria/Vienna

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Pandur's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)

33

Reputation

  1. What i am trying to find out is if there is indeed an artificial protection bonus you get with the HD movement command or not. I would have never thought about that, but from what MikeyD wrote, it seems that could be a reality?
  2. Wait what? How does that make sense? Do you get an artificial "protection bonus" from the use of hull down command or what does that mean? I was under the impression that hull down´s are created equal. If i use the command or if i drive to the same spot myself, same result, or so i thought? But that is not so? I dont like the hull down command, on easy to see positions it is as easy to drive there myself, on very tricky LOS situation where it is not clear where a position will be, the hull down command can spell death to your vehicle as it just keeps driving and driving never finding a position. So in my eye the HD command is useless(at least i never use it), but if it has a bonus protection gimmick built in, maybe i should get around to us it?
  3. Oh yes, thanks a lot! To you too benpark, for the tips.
  4. So, i just got fire and rubble at last, but coming from CMSF2 HQS sound mod, the stock sounds sound not so good, to put it mildly. Is there something like HQS mod out there for CMRT? I can not find anything on the mod warehouse. Are the names of weapons and explosions shared between titles? So could us CMBN MG´s sounds or k98 sounds? If yes, this is good for the germans, but not russians. Maybe i could use the .30cal sound for the maxim if i rename it... not sure. And the m1 grand sound for the mosin? Any tips?
  5. I am terribly sorry, i sneak a little problem into the US Army version. The M119 howitzer in the US Army(!) artillery section is in fact a weapon that comes with the USMC module. I did not notice right away since i have the USMC module. Now i replace the 2x2 M119 with 1x2 M777, and now you can in fact play the US Army version with the base game only as intended. New link below. If you have the USMC module, dont mind it, it is a minor change and you will be fine. Here are the latest versions of the Syrian Army and US Army version, all in one zip! (26.4.2022) https://1drv.ms/u/s!AuATq63xU7cneJkIEUGzDbtJeio?e=7ywWwT PS: I made the last post 17 hours ago and i can not edit it, this is very very annoying. I can not remove old link or change it. Why is it necessary to have such a extremely short post edit time limit?
  6. Ok, the US Army version testing is finished. I think it is ready to play. The initial version was way too easy, i removed the 3rd company and replaced it, and the M1A2 i changed to M1A1. And i add just a few more things to the scenario. Also the US Army version has a proper briefing now that reflects that you play US army and not Syrians. I bundle the Syrian and US Army version together into one zip file to make it more easy. If anyone has a account for the scenario depot, maybe you can upload this bundle for me, that would be very nice. Here are the latest versions of the Syrian Army and US Army version, all in one zip! https://1drv.ms/u/s!AuATq63xU7cnd1CLlSVv-fdPEew?e=00IKeM
  7. Good stuff man! I see you play the RED vs RED version. This one is quite a bit more difficult. Hope you enjoy it, but if you play till the end, it seems you did
  8. I noticed the original Red vs Red scenario alternate download from Mediafire is down, i put it up in my one drive but i can no longer edit the first post to delete the dead link and place the new one. Are moderators able to do that? Here is the Red vs Red scenario download from OneDrive, as the Mediafire link is down; https://1drv.ms/u/s!AuATq63xU7cncdBTCQFxlaLVZ-U?e=04Dk5M
  9. You rly think about doing this H2H? Alright, let me ask you if you guys need anything special for that? I could add a 3rd abrams for blue, as the 2 abrams are in the scenario against the AI, maybe with a human player a 3rd abrams could be justified? I mean RED is not completely impotent. Also, RED does NOT have any setup zone right now, as everything is place by hand for defense for the AI(and moving AI groups are out of player sight), i could add a setup zone somewhere in the back of the valley so the RED player could at least move units to the setup zone to redeploy them from there, instead of where i put them. Tell me if anything of that would be to your taste, honestly i did not think anyone would be "crazy" enough to H2H this, but if you guys do, maybe make plenty of screens or some videos or something, id love to see that. EDIT: i order a pizza not long ago, after i eat i check back in here, if it is needed i could do some changes still this evening, it is 22:07 here where i life. I am awake for some more hours, so if you want something done quick, get back to me here in the thread.
  10. Hey Erwin! All i did was replace the Syrian player battalion with a US Army MOUT Stryker Battalion and add the A B and C companies to reinforcements to have the same staggered arival of units as in the Red v Red version of the scenario. I did a few minor changes to the AI plan(there is 1), moved the scenario start ahead from 0600 to 0630. There are a lot of javelins now of course, but to keep it interesting, i removed 3 of the 9 inherent MGS strykers, so the player has 6 MGS and only 2 Abrams(maybe that is not enough, i will find out) for the scenario. Support is 1 F15 with bombs, 1 AH64D and 2x2 105mm howitzers and the inherent mortars. The AI has the same AI plan as in the Red v Red version, with some changes in timing. H2H ... i did not take that into account. The CMSF1 version of the scenario, i only know about 1 H2H match, there are some videos of it on youtube. It would need some real hardcore players to play this H2H, since both sides have a lot of units and scenario time is 3 hours. If the RED player moves his units i think he can do some real damage to blue. Also RED has good terrain to defend and many units to soak up blue ammo. With, so far, only 2 Abrams and 6 MGS, they BLUE player can not spam area fire all the time on everything, he need to conserves ammo.
  11. Hey, a little update. I decided to give the scenario a try with US Army MOUT Stryker units. Just for fun, maybe some people do not like the RED vs RED thingy, and i picked US Army for now since everyone has US Army that owns CMSF2 and does not need DLC to play it. Right now, the briefing is the RED vs RED briefing(and i am not sure yet if ever change that), so if you decide to try it as it is right now, in test stage, you read the R v R briefing but the B v R battle is set up very similar. Scouts on map and A B and C company come in as reinforcements over time. Anyway, here it is, as said, test stage right now, but all is fully in the scenario. What may be off is the scoring, but if you finish the scenario you know if you won or not anyway. And as said, the briefing is still R v R briefing. If you give the scenario a try, maybe give me a little feedback here. If there are problem with the download from onedrive please also tell me Good luck https://1drv.ms/u/s!AuATq63xU7cncChYsWEb35UFavs?e=INnlw4
  12. Honestly i dont know, i only know what i see after i look over the map after i got a totaly victory by enemy surrender, and what i see most of the time is things that could still deal quiet some damage. And in the 2 scenarios i described above, they where in quiet good locations, hard to dislodge. I do not have CMA, that sound nice, but i would already be happy if they would be a little bit more stubborn and surrender later. I dont ask them to fight to the last man, just a bit longer.
  13. As i said above, others as well as i, as players, we have nothing from that workaround if it is not used. If stock scenarios end too soon that workaround a scenario designer could use, is doing nothing for me and all others as players of that particular scenario. And the scenarios in question will not get better because a workaround exists, i talk about possible change that does improve the situation for any scenario in the game, not if some people could implement some measure to have it working differently in some few scenarios that use the workaround, that are two very different things. Lowering the moral "threshold" that does trigger a surrender so it does happen a bit later, that is what is needed to make it better, not a crutch scenario designers use to stop it from happening at all, which has its own problems, like the player has to cease fire to end the scenario, something i can accept but it seems for many it is a nogo. Lets not make the thread about workarounds, cause they are not helping here.
  14. I know erwin, that is why the enemy in my Red Stream map do fight till the end...i alread did that back in 2008 in the original version, but in the stock scenarios or in mostly any scenario, hardly anyone does use it. And it does not help scenarios that suffer from that problem that scenario designers "could" do that, they have to do it too for it to work
×
×
  • Create New...