sburke

Stop it guys. Yeah this is a subject with some strong feelings but we either can have it like adults without name calling and blanket denigrating people or we can not have it at all when Steve closes the thread.

The Sgt mostly works in CMSF so you may not be familiar with his work, but he has done some really creative fun stuff that has imho pushed design for that title up a notch. He is a very good example of someone who has decided what he’d like to see and then applied it. Now keep in mind his work just like anyone else’s may not appeal to everyone. However it is damn good work. As to being a customer, well that only applies if you paid for it. That is true for one that comes with the game, but not for user created stuff which will be the vast majority of content over time. For those in effect you are getting something for free and then complaining about it as if you have some customer rights. You don’t. You can only 1decide even at free it isn’t worth it to you or 2 provide specific feedback/suggestions to the designer in a manner that is productive and collaborative. #change your tone.

Yeah have to agree here. Put up a scenario designed the way you think it ought to be, hell take an existing one and “correct” it, but stop sitting in the cheap seats and trashing other folks work.

@MattisHonestly I have not messed with unpacking and repacking a campaign and can’t speak to how easy or not that is. I do however edit scenarios I really like a lot. Circle the wagons is one of my favorite CMSF scenarios and I have created probably 4 different versions and then took the map itself and extended it. You can also go in and relatively easily copy and paste AI plans and subtly edit the added plans to add replay value for those scenarios that have a limited number of plans. Editing an existing scenario is a really good way to learn the editor and also vastly increases the value of the game. You can turn a scenario you like into multiple scenarios and with enough variability to make it a little more unpredictable. I basically look at every scenario as sort of a food dish. The designer made it to their tastes. I try it and then edit it to my tastes. The problem I have with a lot of the above comments is folks seem to be acting (using the same analogy) like walking into a restaurant and telling the chef how to cook. Now if your steak comes well done and you ordered medium rare that is one thing. But getting your home fries at breakfast and the cook doesn’t make it with onions (blasphemy!) well too bad, you’ll just have to eat elsewhere.

@Mattisyou do know for scenarios you can open the editor anytime you like and change the time length to whatever you so chose right? Doing so will not reveal any intel or details and takes all of a minute.

This Critical feedback is appreciated. It does help a designer improve their craft if done in a productive way, but hearing someone call designers lazy who refuses to open the editor is not particularly productive. If you like scenarios done a particular way and you find designers don’t share your vision then maybe you need to try your hand and see if your vision is actually possible. Designers of official game release scenarios are under specific guidance from BF in terms of making scenarios able to be played in multiple modes and sides. Player community provided scenarios are under no such constraints.

tickets please, tickets.

I think there might be some confusion there. Day at the beach is as far as I know not part of the Marine Campaign. Day at the beach is a standlone scenario in both CMSF1 and 2.

I don't disagree. However I think we are in a minority of folks who would play several hours scenarios. They are also a lot more difficult to built an AI plan for.

I don't think I have ever read a tactical engagement story that included spotting from a piper cub. They would have been a higher level asset not able to communicate to the level of your typical CM battle. This is part of what I think CM players frequently do not get. Combat in WW2 was a lot different than they sometimes seem to expect. Problem is it is also inherent in the game and our attention spans. Combat should be a lot slower. Your average player however doesn't want a 3 hour battle with a reinforced platoon. Player expectations, game mechanics and reality don't converge very well. As to the grid system, problem is the player already has way more info than any individual unit would have and is not bound by C2 comms. Balance is a difficult conversation. As to scouts - I think Nick is more on target. a 2 man scout team is a point element, not an FO unit.

I am not sure the doctrine would come anywhere close to CM play. Due to some specific issues in game play particularly for the AI small arms isn't generally capable of friendly fire. There are things we can get away with that in RL wouldn't likely even be considered,

Also did you add any mods recently?

Mostly agree, except for terrain. In that particular case we have far more intel than any officer ever would unless they have fought on that ground before. One other item at the player disposal that I don't see used frequently in AARs is recon by fire. Trigger the enemy to expose themselves. Risky but it can work.

fixes for what? Not being a pain, but there isn't any date there to do anything with. Forgive me if this is from a prior thread or something, but do you have a save? (Hatten as I recall is a real hog on resources as a large scenario).

I think part of the issue is adding time affects play balance for human to human and adversely affects one player while benefiting the other. Balance is really tough considering the different play options. Nice thing is if you really want it you can always open the editor and add time for play against the AI and save that separately.

Well anything to do with the models of units is most likely out. Soldier models and vehicles are all redone. Sound may or may not be an issue. I haven't had time to really check that. Base terrain I would think would be okay, but MikeyD would be better able to say on that. UI mods would definitely be out as their have been significant UI changes since CMSF. Yeah starting fresh is likely a good idea. Though it may be some time before the level of mods approaches CMSF1, it will be worth the wait I think as the mods themselves will be able to take advantage of better models. Kieme's buildings though are a must for me (I think your fault as you pointed me to those a while back ) and fortunately those work.

A questionable effort. There may be folks who continue to play CMSF, but I would expect that to drop off pretty fast considering how much better CMSF2 is and the vast majority of these mods will be CMSF1 only compatible. The only mod I have truly played around with is Kieme's buildings. Everything else including sound mods is likely going to have to be checked. As all CMSF content will work in CMSF2 there isn't much reason to keep the original. Vehicle and soldier mods are almost certain to fail. If someone is going to upload these there should be a caveat to inform new players that they may face compatibility issues and to only use mods that are specifically uploaded for CMF2 or they will have a helluva time sorting through the issues they will face.

comparing WIA/KIA ratios for US and Red forces in CMSF, high KIA ratios are much more prevalent for Red. It isn't guaranteed that is body armor but likelihood is high as I tend to fight Inf on Inf and not have to worry about 120 mm rounds. As Mikey said though that is not based on anything other than observation of game results. While individual rounds are calculated I am not so sure that intersection points with Pixeltruppen are such that they would provide the kind of detail @Gkenny is asking about. I would expect not.

Apparently what no one understands is that when Steve gives a possible release date what that date means is the date it definitely WILL NOT be out by. So when Steve said October that meant NOT October.

If you ever see it again please grab a save. Other than that no I have not seen that behavior in any title.

Now that demo is out time to revisit this. I tend to look to Iraq simply because there were a lot more units involved than the theoretical CMSF backstory. What I am hoping to do here is ID units and the appropriate Icon so Mord has a starting point. Any sources of info folks have and pointers about what the icons should be would be really helpful Wiki OoB for Allied forces. This is just the initial invasion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq_order_of_battle

you know you have spent too much time in LLFs Ramadi map and looking at satellite views of the city when you can recognize in Videos from 2004 where exactly a unit is.... at 2:15 is when they hit Rte Michigan about a 1/2 km from the map edge of LLFs map (near Gov't ctr). The other thing that is freaky is to watch civilian behavior when there is gunfire and rpg rounds going off. People don't quite run for cover like i'd expect. Crazy.

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/11/14/a-female-soldier-has-made-it-through-the-armys-special-forces-selection/ For the first time since the Army opened its special operations jobs to women in 2016, a female soldier has completed the initial Special Forces Assessment and Selection process, a spokesman for Army Special Operations Command has confirmed to Army Times. Several women have attempted the 24-day program, part of the Special Forces Qualification Course, since then, but none have made it to the next round.

Him? Hmmmm interesting......

yep, in my Hamel Vallee game a Marder driver was hit and another crewmember was in the seat so fast I had to assume the former driver had been vaporized. That is odd, hopefully he has a save otherwise chalk it up as a mystery.