Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


  • Location
    Ulanbataar, Mongolia

Recent Profile Visitors

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

ThePhantom's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)



  1. The problem is not the AI. The AI is effective at point of contact. It's how the group is planned out. A platoon, 3 halftracks, an HMG team in Group 2 (example) gets clustered as it presses forward. It's a mess. Watch the madness when you test your scenario. However, disband Group 2 and make it Group 2 Infantry Command section (Leader with 1 Squad)... Group 3 Infantry (2 Squads)... Group 4 HMG... Group 5 Halftracks. Yes, it's micro managing (That's actually called planning). However, it creates a highly effective assaulting force (and defending for that matter). You will see that AI will accomplish what the scenario designer is attempting to accomplish. Use triggers, and the AI becomes a formidable force. Just like the original 8 AI Group problem.... 16 AI Groups is an avoidable constraint.
  2. Absolutely agree with these. At the very least, add more AI groups! Clustering the entire platoon (or worse a company) in one AI group creates tactical idiocy. One platoon should be attached to two groups. A company would be 6 AI groups (Not including a weapons platoon... adding them would require 2 or 3 Groups!). Plus, that's not including their vehicle platoons for dismounting or in support (That would be 3 Groups!). That means, with one mechanized infantry platoon, I have used 11 or 12 AI groups.... That's why AI attack capability is so pathetic. With 32 AI groups.... Defending against the AI will be far more challenging.
  3. MBTs are not going anywhere (China's armoured forces are growing substantially). The USMC failed to get their 20 percent women ratio and implementing co-ed training.... and will suffer the consequences of not fully participating in the US millitary social experiment. Sorry, if this offends the easily offended. The Marines will be reduced to a USN controlled overall mission with a light infantry concept (Where as the old Marines were heavy infantry). It not only lost it's armored battalions, it also lost most of it's artillery. The new Commandant of the Marines is willing to sacrifice Marine Corps customs and traditions to bring in the new age of peace with appeasement. I have a feeling the old Marine Corps will return soon enough.
  4. TheForger! I am really enjoying this scenario. Cut the map right down the center... and attempting to get my armor across now. I really like the "Close with and destroy the enemy with firepower and maneuver!" Recon elements are essential in this one. Only about 45 minutes into it.... but, I like it... I like it a lot.
  5. I'm glad it's not out yet.... Just started working on a Shock Force 2 scenario. I have a Red Thunder on the back burner (because I got interested in SFCM2).... I have two Final Blitzkriegs almost done. However, I keep adding more to them. I stopped when my interest went to Black Sea.... worked on this outstanding scenario until I started working on a river crossing with the 36th Division in Italy... Then went back to updating my Primesole Bridge scenario.... then went back to my Monty Butchers update.... then went back to a Sherman platoon making contact with two Tigers (Keeping adding to that).... Then started working on my shock Force 2 scenario..... Yeah, I can wait. No problem here at all.
  6. I was updating my Primesole Bridge scenario..... when I suddenly realized my German paratroopers are in the wrong uniform! Anybody having this issue?
  7. 4 or 5 vehicles in one AI Group has a tendency to create group clustering. I've tried every possible way to avoid it.... However, it happens a lot. The answer is, bring the vehicle per AI group down to one or two. The key to success for the Combat Missions editor is to add more AI groups in the editor or create small scenarios.
  8. AI groups at 16 limit the editor. As in the previous post a company of tanks (3 Platoons) receive A2, A3, A4... the riding infantry company (3 Platoons) would be A5, A6, A7..... Now, if you design the scenario with a command section A8, then you have essentially used half of your editor allotment of groups. This also is a waste of units in these groups. When I design my scenarios I often use two groups per platoon. So, my riding infantry company would be A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, and A10. Also, any support weapons would be A11, A12 (Mortars, Heavy Machine guns). A1 is static positions. What I am saying is, I use 12 groups for a company of tanks and infantry. If I had another company of tanks and infantry I would need 23 groups to effectively design my scenario the way I would like to. I fail to complete most of my scenarios because I can't get my units to do what I want them to.... simply because of the group restriction. In fact, most of my scenarios are about the size of Battalion on the computer side.... I can't believe I am the only one having this issue.
  9. I totally agree with 32 AI Groups! I am always designing AI with a combination of units I really do not want together... simply because I have run short of AI groups. 8 was severely restrictive, 16 is only slightly better. However, 32 would be outstanding!
  10. This is an interesting topic indeed. In a combat situation, with known enemy spotted in the area, a smoke screen to the front would initiate immediate suppression fire from an infantry rifle company (or platoon). There is no "waiting" until you see the enemy. The smoke deployment would mean the enemy is attempting a flanking maneuver or an advance (or hopefully a withdrawal). The infantry organization's life would depend on an aggressive reaction. So, I firmly believe we should be able to area fire into a smoke screen. A smoke screen is not a "Secret hiding spot" or "Safe Space".... it's extremely noticeable and would cause life saving reaction fire.
  11. These look great and I am using them. However, is there any chance you could mod the Russian BMP 3 with a camo pattern too?
  • Create New...