zwobot
-
Posts
197 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by zwobot
-
-
I don't understand why you need the Marines module to produce Blue vs Blue scenarios. Okay, there is a certain rivalry between Marines and Army I guess but you don't need the Marines to design a challenging Blue vs Blue scenario (for those who complain about ordinary and low challenging Red vs Blue scenarios like MikeyD described).
-
SFC Kuba, I agree on what you said. I often try to move a single Fire Team ahead of the platoon with "Hunt" command. But if this unit makes contact with the enemy they often get pinned or suffer some casualties and then it is hard to make them break contact especially in WeGo. I usually let them pop smoke and then "Fast" or "Quick" back a few meters to get them out of the enemy LOF. But it hard to get them to do this properly in WeGo because they are crawling around to avoid the enemy fire and thus the "Pop smoke" target is shifting around which may result in that the smoke is popped 180 degrees into the wrong direction or so...
This raises another question: I've just played a scenario where I split a US MOUT squad into two teams with the "Assault squad" button. Now I cannot get these two teams to join into a single squad again. I've moved both teams around a few meters and then into the same action spot but they simply refuse to rejoin again. And it did not happen to only one squad, I already have two split up squads like that in the same scenario :confused:
-
I have to admit I suffered quite a lot of casualties in this scenario despite the airsupport. I'm simply too keen to rush in my infantry like it was common practice in CMx1
-
Yes but I think exit zones only make sense in conjunction with events like I described. It doesn't help much to have an exit zone active right from the start of a scenario so that the defender can exit his troops through it right from the start. Exit zones should become active after a certain time passed in the scenario or when the defender has suffered a given amount of casualties or the attacker has reached a certain area - like I said before.
-
Nice scenario, I'm still not through with it but I liked it so far. It is the first CMSF scenario I played for weeks and the first with the 1.11 patch. I've never before played a scenario with so much airsupport available.
Most scenarios don't give much airsupport (if any at all) but yours almost provides too much for my taste
-
I would argue to that the amount of damage required to be done to an enemy in a situation is probably substantially higher than what would be required in Real Life. This leads to a higher level of friendly casualties because of a tendency for the enemy to almost literally fight to the death. I often see results something like this:
Enemy Casualties
6 Men OK
46 Casualties
23 Wounded
12 Missing
Those are hardcore enemy combatants! I would like to think almost ANY enemy would have bugged out before it got to this......
Good point! Unfortunately there's no way this could be achieved with the current scenario editor. AI plans are based on time only. I really want to have more complexity for the AI plans in the scenario editor like event based orders. For example trigger a movement order when a certain casualty threshold is met or a certain unit is spotted or an enemy unit touches a certain part of the map. Generally a bit more stuff I know from the Operation Flashpoint and Armed Assault mission editor...
Oh and I forgot to say that I want exit zones again like in CMBB or CMAK to be able to simulate withdrawal of enemy troops.
-
Isn't there a built in player limit for Hamachi networks/rooms? I experienced this with a Dangerous Waters network in the past where new players could not jon the network becaue inactive players occupied the slots which prevented new players to join.
-
Don't think this will happen Taki. Routing units will be shot to pieces and will not remain very combat effective (not that they were particularly combat effective in the first place ;P )
-
I observed something similar in a small test scenario I setup to get to grips with the scenario editor. Uncon fighters ran out of a house which was under heavy small arms fire from several Blufor squads so I guess this is some kind of routing prior to the ! mark.
-
Problem solved, it was my mistake. I did install the 1.11 patch directly, instead of installing 1.10 first and then 1.11... d'oh
-
Thank you Moon. I did not know about this "Top" link. But I am surprised that there isn't an optional select box or something which can be displayed. I know other forums which use vBulletin too and have this functionality, subsim.com for example (although subsim.com runs an older version of vB)...
Anyway the "Top" link is better than nothing
-
Hello,
I really like the new forum but one thing is really annoying me: there are no links for forum navigation at the end of the page when viewing a thread. There are only links to go back to the thread list or other forum sections at the top of the page, so if I want to go back I have to scroll all the way up to the top of the page to use those links (using the "back" function of the browser is not an option here as it will not mark threads I have already read).
Can you please add adequate navigation controls (the same links like at the top of the page or a select box) at the end of a thread?
-
Today I reinstalled CMSF (no Marines module) and patch 1.11
The terrain is pretty much all black in a certain distance to the camera (see this screenshot). I play on Windows XP with Ati X700 graphics card. Everything worked fine a few weeks ago when I have played with patch 1.08 if I remember correctly.
My graphics settings:
V-sync off
Model quality Fastest
Texture quality Fastest
Antialiasing Off
High priority process On
Alt-click compatibility On
Help (apart from trying other graphics card drivers)?
-
Sounds good to me. I always wanted something like that. Some might say "this is out of focus because a batallion or company commander wouldn't tell a single squad leader which weapon to fire and how". But on the other hand it is ridiculous to fire 3 Javelins at the same spot in 1 minute. I'd like to have it! I always got the impression from previews prior to the CMSF release that this was planned to be included anyway, so: gimme gimme gimme
-
Then better not disturb Webwing and distract him from work with scenario requests and the like
-
Hello,
1. Can anyone tell me if Combat Mission 3 works OK on Windows Vista?
( If you have the game and you use Windows Vista your comments would be particularly useful. )
2. Does anyone know if Battleground (?) are planning to update this game to make it Windows Vista compatable if it needs it?
( If it just needs some user "adjustment/s" to make it work correctly, can anyone please advise the nature and detail of the "adjustment/s" req'd. )
Many thanks.
I guess you mean Battlefront (not Battleground); and I don't think they will work on any CMx1 title again to make it Vista compatible.
-
To some reason I cannot edit above post so:
the surrender worked after a second try. But I still don't know why it did not want to work one turn earlier in the scenario.
-
Hi, I'm playing a PBEM multiplayer scenario (Al Amarah) as Red. I am almost totally exterminated and only 30 of the 90 minutes time limit are over and no reinforcements are in sight for me so I want to surrender to my opponent.
Therefore I press the "surrender" button in the game menue and confirm my choice with the "yes" button. Then I press the "go" button again and save the email file and send it to my opponent but the scenario did not end for him as far as I can tell and when I opened his next email file the scenario was not over for me, too.
Have I done something wrong with the surrender or is this a known problem?
-
Thunder is the main campaign whereas Lightning is a tutorial.
-
I'd rather want to play some PBEM WeGo, preferrably samll to medium sized Red on Red scenarios (but Blueforce is fine too).
I think I could make 1 to 5 turns each day (depending on the timezone you are in, I am in GMT+2).
If anyone is interested: feel free to contact me via personal message here.
-
I have only just come across this thread. I am very looking forward to this campaign, all the work with the PDF you have shwon already will add much to the immersion and atmosphere of the single scenarios.
-
I'm currently working on the Battle for Goose Green in The Falklands Conflict and I've got US troops assaulting a Syrian captured Goose Green...with airstrikes from F-15Es!!!
Sounds very good. I'm looking forward to playing this!
-
I noticed the same yesterday.
I purchased mines (Antitank and Antipersonal) from the regular Syrian forces for my Uncon Fighters on the Red side.
When I want to deploy the mines, the game crashes to desktop after the loading of the map etc. is done.
-
Thanks for the hint.Originally posted by Combatintman:Zwobot,
According to the 1988 version of Jane's Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army it states that 'The Resistance has no made use of captured Saggers.' (Page 208 refers).
Also having skim read my copy of The Other Side of The Mountain - Mujahideen Tactics in the Soviet-Afghan War - I can find no mention of the Mujahideen using Saggers. Anti-tank weapons were mostly RPG-7, SPG-9 or BT-10.
So I'd delete the ATGMs altogether if I were you.
I already considered this after starting this thread because I could not find any evidence for mujahideen using Saggers after a quick search on the internet.
Anyway, apart from this special scenario I still find it strange that fighter ATGM teams only seem to get AT-14 tubes.
If you could simulate any set-piece battle
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
For me: anything from the Falklands War. Goose Green and Mount Longdon would be the most interesting.