z1812

Hi Kevin, So far I find it easier to make two scenarios from the same map. 1 to be played from the Red side and the other from Blue. I find seperating them makes it a little easier to achieve balance in the scenario. It also makes it more straight forward for me when plotting multiple A.I. plans. It is not really much more work either. Regards John

Hi Kevin, I posted the same question not long ago. This was the most comprehensive answer I recieved from a fellow named Hawkmek: From the manual, page 126 Exit Before / Exit After The “Exit Before” option causes the Group to try very hard to get to the next Order before the specified time is reached. This does not mean the Group will do it, just that it will try. If it has taken excessive casualties, is immobilized or heavily engaged it may blow the set “Exit Before” time. The “Exit After” option does the opposite by telling the Group to stay at the current Map Zone until the specified time is reached. With this setting a Group never moves on to the next Order before the “Exit After” time is reached. These two options allow for some reasonable level of coordination between Groups. You can increase the “jumps” for the above settings by holding the SHIFT key while you click on the + or - buttons. Regards John [ August 28, 2007, 05:30 AM: Message edited by: z1812 ]

Hi Gonzo, You may want to save more frequently than when you have completed a session. I have spent time buiding a scenario only to lose it when we had a power failiure. Ever since then I save after completing a certain amount of work. Usually every 10 minutes. Regards John

Hi All, I have tried 3 3rd part scenarios. Dawn Patrol by Sim Tac: I tried this without using Javelins or the reinforcements. I gained all the objectives but none the less suffered a minor defeat . I am looking forward to playing it again. Last Harrah by James Allen: Lost big time on my first try. Total victory on the second. Lot's of fun. Soldiers Fury by Beardo1976: A very tense battle. I won on my first try but not without many casualties. Thanks to all the scenario makers for being so imaginative and creative. I have downloaded all user scenarios. Now I only need time to play them. Regards John

Hi Pandur, Nice map. I find it takes quite a bit of work to get a scenario working the way one wishes. I have been succesful in planning a ambush. The ambushing side needs lots of cover and a hide command while being deployed. During A.I. management give them an ambush at 75 meters order. My ambushers are non-cons and an IED operator. They ambush quite well. Mind you to arrive at my success it was quite a lot of trial and error. Regards john

Hi All, Very informative topic. I am building a scenario and I want my opfor troops to hide in a glade of trees. The tile type I used was 3 tree palm. Even though I had the opfor hiding at the back edge of the trees the blue force could still see them. Now I know to use the "D" tree type for better density. I will try this tonight. Thanks for a useful topic. Regards John

Hi All, Testing scenarios when you are using multi-groups and activation times is very, very time consuming. When you test and make changes then you must wait while the clock approaches the time frame you are interested in checking. It would be so much easier if there was time compression so you could fast forward to the action you wish to check. My scenario for learning is only 20 minutes long but it has taken quite some time waiting out the clock to see if my plans are working as I would like. What do others think? Regards John

Hi All, Thanks for your replies. Slow Motion it seems you are correct. The timer default starts at 00:00. Regards John

Hi All, Battlefront made a wise choice by including both. Sometimes I use RT and other times Wego. I suppose I find the larger encounters to be more manageable with Wego. When I use RT it will be with a small scenario. I really do like having the choice. Regards John

Hi All, I am having some difficulty understanding the time feature in the A.I. editor. I have checked the manual and Rune's guide but I can't find an explanation for the following. At the bottom of the A.I. panel is a timer. Can anyone answer the following. 1. Does that timer govern the activation trigger for the current A.I. order for a group. If not how does it work? 2. My scenario is 20 minutes long and starts at 06:30 hours. To time order activations do I start it at 06:30 hours and move forward. Or do you start it at 00:00. So if my scenario commenced at 06:30 and then I wanted my first order to activate in 5 minutes time, would that be 06:35. Or starting at 00:00 and then 00:05. I hope I am clear about what I don't understand. Thanks in advance for your answers. Regards John

Hi All, Dare I say that the majority of players are quietly deciding for themselves? Remember, the avid posters here are only a small sampling of those who are trying the demo or who own the game. Perhaps they post now and again for some clarification or information, but they are not becoming embroiled in the "CMSF" debate. Regards John

Hi All, The BMP does not use its ATGM's properly. I have only seen one fire a missile at a vehicle 3 or 4 times. Surprisingly they do fire them now and again at infantry. Altogether they don't seem to make very good use of them. Also when firing at Strykers, I wondered why BMP's were not killing a little more. I noticed when they fire their gun at armour they are often using HE rounds instead of AP. Also you can't load a regular Syrian Inf Sqaud into the BMP. Command units, AT and Observors yes. But not a regular sqaud. Nor can you split a Syrian sqaud into teams. Regards John

Hi All, I think the signs for pause and others that appear in the middle of the screen are quite distracting. They would be less so if moved to the top or bottom. Regards John

Hi All, Sometimes I play RT but mostly wego. Both have have pros and cons. RT does not allow you to review the action. Plus I find the larger scenarios a tad difficult to keep track of in RT. I find it is very difficult to micromanage units while in RT. However you can pop smoke on the fly and react on the spur of the moment while in RT. Plus you may pause the action to make adjustments. Wego does not allow you react to a problem immediately. Once you have decided your move you are tied to it for 60 seconds good or bad. However you can more easily keep track of units and you can review the action. Larger battles are more easy for me to keep track of. So I suppose it is a question of personal taste. Perhaps Battlefront will make some changes to RT and Wego to make them more flexible for both types of play. Try smoke to cover your dismount. Also you can suppress known enemies while dismounting. In terms of scouting I usually split a team and fan it out through cover where possible. Then upon contact I smoke and hide or withdraw. regards John [ August 16, 2007, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: z1812 ]

Hi All, I don't know. It has been said elsewhere and it would be nice to have more choice about map size ect, ect, in the QB builder. I suppose one could go into the editor and load the small QB maps and see what size they are. At the moment I have not much interest with the QB builder as I have not enjoyed much satisfaction with it. Regards John

Hi All, I don't think map size is too important. Usually, to me, the amount of units to manage determines size. So if there are 8 units for each side on a large map I would still call that tiny. Mind you I like small battles with room for manouver. Regards John

Hi All, Sometimes my units won't move unless given more than one waypoint. Also I notice when plotting waypoints, sometimes the waypoint cursor turns red and a waypoint cannot be made there. These are areas that are open and should not be a problem for movement. I wonder if that explains some of the erratic path finding. Regards John

Hi All, I would go by amount of units. So: Tiny: 8 or less Small: 9 to 16 Medium: 17 to 24 Large: 25 to 32 Huge: More than 32 Mind you I prefer smaller battles. In my view the game system seems to suit smaller actions. regards John

Hi All, Does anyone know if CMMODS will be hosting CMSF scenarios? Regards John

Hi All, Yes Regards John

Hi All, There were about 4 to 5 people at the Proving Grounds chat room yesterday. I managed to play 3 games. Great fun. Some people have Hamachi which is a free software that allows you to connect without router problems ect. Works very well. Regards John

Hi All, I am making some scenarios and just started baking. I imagine that Baking works in tandem with the normal A.I. that is programed. I realize that once baked you can only change baked orders but not the previous "regular setup". Has anybody tried baking and do they have any comments or suggestions? All advice appreciated. Regards John

Hi All, Being able to pause to give orders is great. However you cannot review what has happened on the battlefield. You can use wego, and that would be my recommendation. I have tested some scenarios and I do not see that the A.I. acts any differently from RT to Wego. I like RT and wego for small battles. I also prefer smaller battles anyway so this is not much of an issue to me. However when playing TCP there is no pause in RT and Wego is not avaiable in TCP play. I would like to see the following. A choice of time compression for RT. Slower/Faster. Wego for TCP play and a duration of 30 second "moves" possible in addition to 60 seconds. Mind you I really like the game and find it quite fascinating. Regards John

Hi All I have had this happen twice with Bradleys and once with a Syrian tank. They become stuck. Not so far with infantry. Regards John

Hi All, Thanks for the replies. regards John