Sgt.Squarehead

This, exactly. +1

The expression 'slow-motion train-wreck' would be fairly apt IMHO: https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2018/11/taliban-routs-commando-company-in-one-of-afghanistans-most-secure-rural-districts.php Beginning to wonder if the planned 'Exit Strategy' might not depend on helicopters & the embassy roof.

Another reminder of why I need CMSF2.

Title say it all really.....Maybe useful, maybe not: https://www.africanmilitaryblog.com/2018/07/african-conflict-map-a-comprehensive-guide#African_Conflict_Map_2018 You decide!

This is why we need Buratino in CMSF2, with Buratino there won't be any survivors.....Simple & effective fix.

I miss Ski Infantry.

1/35? What unspeakable heresy is this?

Could it be that the focus on US forces reduces interest from other areas? The CM games are almost unknown to the wider UK public as far as I can tell, certainly the only people I know personally who play CM either introduced me to the games, or were introduced to the games by myself.

Yeah, me too:

You using a phone Ian? I fear your 'Flees' became 'Feels'.

TBH I was, mostly with a certain AI Group, but you caught some of the fragments, for which I apologise. Your points and questions are valid, but the way in which you expressed them ticked me off.....Twenty plus hours in the editor is not great for your patience! As has already been recommended, a trip to the editor and an attempt at building a scenario of your own will give you a much clearer idea of the limitations & problems scenario designers encounter and attempt to overcome as a mater of course.....Perhaps you'll feel a little less critical when you appreciate just how much is involved in creating a convincing battle with a (predictably) thick AI, 2D tile-painting and assorted timings.

Basically you (Iraq's Counter Terrorism Service (Golden Division) & 9th Armoured Division) are utterly armed to the teeth.....You could probably just level the map and kill everyone, but there would be consequences as there are civilians trapped in the city (you WILL lose the scenario if you do so). I've used Syrian Special forces to model CTS (not quite right but a reasonable match, they should use a wider mix of weapons, mostly western), you have two full companies, two engineer platoons and a HQ support group transported in Humvees & MRAPs (Canadian Nyalas), all are Veteran, +1, High or better. Support consists of three Abrams tanks, two US F16s and two batteries of US M777 howitzers (Oh and a US Navy SEAL Trident Team, but if they get involved in the fighting you are probably in BIG trouble). If I can persuade someone to mod the CMSF2 US ICBT into CTS, I could remake these scenarios in a much more accurate fashion.

I guess I'm just down on The Grauniad. TBH I have my reasons.

Fair comment.....I find writing briefings that describe the scenarios I envisage to be one of the most difficult tasks. Making the briefing clear enough to convey the required information and engaging enough to ensure that the player reads ALL of it is a real challenge IMHO.

That was you? That thing's a madhouse.....It was also a big inspiration for my Trumpton stuff.

Eeeep.....Multi-Post! Oh well, seeing as I already took up the space: The issue from my perspective is that any proper discussion of these 'problems' requires some technical knowledge of how the editor works.....It's hard to provide genuinely constructive criticism when you don't understand the parameters at play or what limitations the designer faces.

Double-Post.....Sorry.

Could you teach me? ISIS are driving me Benny Mental at the moment: "Why won't you use the bloody door? It's a perfectly nice door! You know the nasty men with the skull faces will shoot you if you go into the str.....Dammit!" Back to the editor again. On the bright side, I just witnessed my first double VBIED explosion: Blimey!

What actually is the point of this thread? It seems to me that it amounts to "I don't like some scenarios because [insert issue of your choice]". Rather than denigrate the work of someone who has put in hours of effort, usually free & gratis, why not just go into the editor make the changes you desire and then (with permission from the original designer), share your modified version so we can all discuss it's merits (or lack thereof) compared to the original. It's really not that hard and it might just tempt you into designing something truly original of your own.....Then you can share the unmitigated joy of having it slagged off by non-contributors.

You are the one ranting. I've been in the editor attempting to get that AI unit to (mostly) do what I want it to, on an urban map.....So my brain hurts far too much to respond to your **** right now. Sorry.

Amen to that.....Twenty plus hours in the editor/testing, trying to get one part of one AI group to do what you want, does little for your patience with BS threads like this.

Frankly I think you are talking out of your posterior.....Maybe craft us a scenario and show us how it's done.

Sounds like one of the Spike variants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spike_(ATGM

AFAIK no. That sometimes operational level units are given less than perfect orders from above. How would you know?