Sgt.Squarehead

Exactly as suggested.....I've created ISIS teams with Humvees using US Supply Platoons & Medium Fighter Groups. Open the deploy option, dismount the crew from the Supply Platoon vehicles and put a five man Fighter Group or their HQ into each, this seems to attach the vehicle 'shell' to the Fighter Group. Now go back to the editor and set the supply section as a reinforcement that appears after the battle timer expires. When you run the game the Fighters should spawn with fully usable Humvees and they can even resupply AR & LMGs from the stocks aboard, despite it being the wrong calibre. This particular option won't work with tanks AFAIK so you can't do ISIS tanks in the editor, the Fighters lack the skills to use them. But you might just be able to put Syrian tank crew in an Abrams, TBH I've never tried, but I probably will now it's come to mind. FWIW

Here is one dissenting voice: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/expert-criticizes-allegations-of-russian-mh17-manipulation-a-1037125.html There are plenty more if you look for them.

Oh yes.....I've read it, and many of the articles it linked to. TBH the phrase 'useful idiot' springs to mind here.....I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the merit of Mr Higgins 'work'. We do seem to have rather strayed from the topic of Leopards in Syria into areas that are open to interpretation based on ones' individual perspective.....Probably better to stick to talking about the tanks.

I've had a quick look at this and the first thing I'd be inclined to adjust would be the setup zones, I'd use just two 'colours' one for all the AFVs & one for all the infantry.....The Syrians' ability to damage British forces is so limited that allowing the player to attempt to set-up creative ambushes does not seem at all unreasonable given that those ambushes will then have to survive a veritable storm of artillery and aviation attacks. Some troops can still be locked in place (ie; left out of the setup zones) to help maintain the core story narrative (ie: defend the crossroads). Do you still want holding the ground to be the core Syrian objective (a comparatively unlikely proposition given the advantage in capability of the Blue force), or do you accept my argument that causing significant & graphic casualties (ie: vehicles burning & lots of casualties for the embedded TV crews to film) would be a more advantageous objective (demonstrations against the war outside Parliament, questions asked in the chamber & so on)?

I'll play the scenario a bit later this evening then dive into your thread. It took me a while to come to the realisation that it's just not worth writing scripts for certain AI groups after a certain point in the battle because they either ain't gonna be there, or they will (thanks to the tactical brilliance of zombietruppen) be in no fit state for further offensive actions.

Glad we are in agreement.....Rating forces for balance & playability is almost as hard as getting the damned things to do what you want them to (via the AI).

Bellingcat.....You are kidding right? I guarantee you at least 60% of the people reading this thread know more about Syria than that muppet: "Higgins' analyses of Syrian weapons, which began as a hobby out of his home in his spare time, are frequently cited by the press and human rights groups and have led to questions in parliament." "Higgins has no background or training in weapons and is entirely self-taught, saying that "Before the Arab spring I knew no more about weapons than the average Xbox owner. I had no knowledge beyond what I'd learned from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rambo." Higgins does not speak or read Arabic." This is from Wikipedia by the way, not RT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Higgins Just follow the links from there.....The bloke is a first class chump. Right up there with the Syrian Observatory For Human Rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Observatory_for_Human_Rights One bloke, in a bedsit in Coventry (That's a city in the UK Midlands, it's just up the road from me BTW).....Another one of those 'authorative sites' so often quoted by the media or politicians with an agenda. Ever get the feeling you've been sold a crock?

Been trying not to look at that as I've still not played it yet.

So that's what Evade is for!

Fanatical is kind of tempting as an aid to the zombietruppen surviving their own lunatic close-combat tactics when they are on the assault.....It's taken me three days to get a ten minute assault to work without leaving a pile of AI controlled bodies in all the open terrain surrounding the objective (CM:A not CM:SF, but you know where I'm coming from) .

That will add a balcony to the level you click on, you can also CTRL + SHIFT + CLICK on ground floor to add identical balconies on all levels.

We made our own AR rather too finicky for the rough & tumble of the SF business.....Embarrassing really as it's one of the few things we do rather well. I think Combatintman strives for a higher degree of realism than I am concerned with.....If they're firing the right calibre and have a vehicle full of explody toys to acquire, I'm usually happy enough. BTW - What settings would you use for SAS.....Elite, +2, Extreme(?) Something like that? I'm reluctant to use Fanatical morale for anything other than Jihadi suicide squads.

Firstly I should say that I did enjoy the battle.....It was just that I felt the damage I had inflicted would result in not less than a tactical defeat for the British. In addition to the knocked out Challengers I caught an infantry platoon advancing up the ditch parallel with the highway and mortared the crap out of it.....There were few survivors. The map was also quite liberally littered with burning British soft-skins & light armour (point-blank T-55 fire will do that). I'm pretty sure that by just tweaking the victory conditions you will have a superb scenario.....The Syrian player has to expect to be steam-rollered, but if he can exact a big enough price in casualties, the British TV & news-papers would do the rest!

Please don't think my comments about this battle are an attack on you personally.....Anybody who takes time to create for the community has my sincere respect. I still haven't had a chance to look at the files (to be honest I'm very into SC:WWI & SC:Pacific right now), but I will do and I will give your some more informed commentary once I have done so. IMHO casualties should always be the prime factor in any scenario vs. Blue.....Holding ground is: 1st - A forlorn hope.....Bordering on suicidal. 2nd - Not the way to win.....Sending bodies home draped in national flags is how you beat Blue. PS - This game so needs exit zones! PPS - I'm not your typical player, or scenario writer, I prefer to use unconventional warfare tactics wherever possible.

The guys I feel sorry for are the ones controlled by the AI, especially if they are attacking even moderately prepared player controlled positions.....Oh the horror of it all!

Now you are talking! You can kinda simulate SAS in a campaign format by selectively using a variety of units & vehicles from a core file, deleting what you can in the scenario and then having anything superfluous that you can't delete turn up as reinforcements after the battle ends.....I've used this trick to give ISIS Humvees and the like in some CMSF stuff I'm messing with, unfortunately it only really works reliably with player controlled units. I need to do more experimenting, but I've been seriously side-tracked by Strategic Command.

Five years down the road and I'll second Rankorian's experiences, they beautifully sum up my own.....It's a game you can pick up really fast and then spend years mastering, a true credit to its designers, I am genuinely very impressed. I too find myself wanting to re-fight battles several times to test out new theories.....This is wonderfully refreshing after my rather mixed experiences with the recent CMx titles, which quite often leave me feeling damned frustrated and slightly relieved when each battle finally comes to an end. Tonight though I'm back off to the Pacific, to see if I can get my Australians and Americans across New Guinea just a bit quicker.....Catch the Japanese in a really nasty trap!

Are there any plans to do the Spanish Civil War on this engine.....I think it would be a perfect match. I'd also really like to see the Gran Chaco War done, so once I get round to looking at the editor, I suspect this will be the focus of my efforts. Is there a 'help and guidance for scenario designers' type thread for such projects? Don't worry I'll do a search.....Just trying to get a dialogue going here.

Don't, just don't.....That's the exact story of my recent Italian Expedition to North Africa the bottom of the Med!

This is not how the British Army fight.....End of story. We've invaded Iraq twice and lost a grand total of one Challenger, to another Challenger.....If you think that HM Government would accept losing five just to crack the Syrian border, you are living in cloud-cuckoo land. The point is it's damned hard to kill NATO gear with old Soviet gear.....If the player succeeds in doing so they should be rewarded, the Syrians would score a much bigger victory by burning those tanks (and undermining British public support for the war), than they would by holding a crossroads that nobody in the west has ever heard of, regardless of its 'strategic significance'. I'd suggest focussing more victory points on causing losses and almost none on occupying the ground. I'd maybe also replace the British forces with Yanks.....They seem to have more tanks than sense! I haven't had chance to look at the individual scenarios in the editor yet, but I'd be glad to help out if I can.

Actually we achieved rather more than just killing the Challengers, they were just the most significant bit, but you seem to be completely missing the point.....Those four burned out Challengers don't get replaced at the local Challenger factory.....They are gone for good. And to achieve what exactly for the British government.....Four lads from Hereford with a laser-designator could have caused all the damage that the British armour did in this battle and the public would never even need to know about it. But you can absolutely take my word for it that four burning Challengers would be all over the Daily Mail like a bloody rash.....The commander in charge would soon be on a charge! All of the above should be reflected in the victory conditions.....This is not the Battle of Kursk.

Somewhat after the fact, but possibly useful for potential future purchasers, IMHO the game engine seems closest to SC:GC (in my limited experience), but the gameplay is every bit as entertaining as the newer iterations of the family.....If you like SC games and are interested in the Pacific/SEAC theatre, it's a steal at the current price, plus there's a fair bit of top notch DLC at the Repository.

That's very Japanese. Just out of interest, is there any possibility of a Japanese commander deciding to off himself after suffering a major defeat? That too would be very Japanese.

My thoughts exactly (another two years down the line).....Probably the single biggest sign of a really well designed game IMHO! My hat's off to you all.