PeterLorre86

General ammo levels, off the top of my head i think there are 5 settings. I'll check real quick.

Like the new terrian. Makes everything look nicer on a whole (heh, my maps look nicer, and i didnt even have to do any work on them)

That explanation makes sense to me. It's not that I find lack of crushing walls a game breaker, the game is fine without it and you are right, it would be undoubtedly used more then in any real situation. And i understand your point about having to limit what you can allow the player to do. You could add tens of thousands of abilities and still only scratch what is really possible in combat, and as you say, each of those things would be used without the limiting factors a real life situation would create, and thus exploited. My gripe is only with claiming it was left out because it would knock the treads off the AFV. To me that sounded like an excuse. (rather then this honest explanation) I appreciate the expanded explanation, and am enjoying 1.3, especially like the new, more detailed looking terrian.

Thanks, already did.

Anyone else download a corrupted file? Probably just a fluke, now i have to wait another 20 minutes!

So if knocking over a wall is too dangerous, why not just include a small chance of immobilization? I would rather just be told it is too complex or too time consuming to be worth coding, instead of being told the risk of track damage excludes it from the game.

Great map. Got it today and had time to poke around. Really well done. Cant wait to see more of the same. (mabey smaller, i get about -3 fps, lol)

Wow, this is perfect, i was trying to have a scenario with technical transports, but i only wanted the trucks. I didnt feel like having 3 or 4 knocked out taxis (HQ from each group cant be deleted) laying around what is intended to be open desert in Afghanistan. Thanks.

Here is my take on that picture.

I also spend much more time in the editor then in the game. My only complaint is the Flavor Object placement system is a real pain. A drag drop system would be ideal, even if it snaps to the grid after placement. Nudging hundreds of flavor opjects around is time consuming and frustrating. Anyway, the editor is a great tool.

Beautiful map, i would love a copy. My email is kpg8686@gmail.com Also, if you get tired of emailing it to every individual who asks, you should upload it on a free file hosting site, here for example.

Bump, now that new version is ready.

Wow, thanks everyone for such positive feedback. Hopefully in the next 2 - 3 days i will have an updated verion ready for play. And yes, i have had similar problems with the berm not being as usefull as i had hoped when i decided to use it. I am not sure i can really do anything to fix that, but i will be looking at the other issues you guys mentioned.

Does anybody know if it is possible to not use the template where it lists enemy forces, friendly forces, terrian/weather, etc? I find this template too ridgid. It is nice to have a system so that every briefing has a similar layout, but i would prefer to have more control.

Thanks for the imput Louch. Lol, i just got done playing and commenting on your scenario! The flanking was meant as operational. (an excuse for my rather narrow map) And the Terrain to the west was intended as passable. (perhaps it makes for too good and overwatch point?) And i didn't intend the "assualt through the fields" bit to be literal, lol but it worked, so there we go. I agree, blue should be made harder. I wasnt sure if i should take out the command Bradleys or not, but i think i will now. I am thinking of putting the acceptable blue casualty level at 10% also. Thanks for the tip on trenchs too. I will definatly take into consideration your comments when i go back to revise the map. And thanks everyone else, who is playing my scenario!

I just gave your scenario a try, very nice map, and challenging scenario. I managed to win playing as red, but it was not by much as far as points. Saved about 2 of the Mi-8 crew. With what the editor provides, you have done a good impression of Chechnya.

Just posted my first scenario, Battle for Waja, for testing. It simulates a battle in Afghanistan (not Iraq i know), where US forces are pushing resurgent Taliban out of a fortified town. More information in the thread i started for it. Battle for Waja Tread

Hi everyone Here is my first map for CMSF. It is a fictional attack by a US mech. inf. company on a group of resurgent Taliban fortified in the farm village of Waja in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. It is intended as multiplayer, but each side has one rudementery AI plan. I have found Blue attacks sometimes. Sometimes they do that crawl thing. Red defends. It is important to understand that this scenario is intended as an example of assymetrical warfare. The scoreing is set up so that 10% casualties for US will result in mission failure, even if the town is taken. I would apreciate any feedback regarding the scenario, especially with regard to balance, mistakes, point value, casualty %, however keep in mind what i am going for with the assymetrical aspect. I hope my scenario is enjoyable. Edit: Ok, I have finished an updated version of my scenario. The download link has been changed to the new version. Please let me know what you think. Changes: -Increased size of Waja (about twice as many buildings, also added walls) -added about 30 insurgents to red force, including 2 more rpgs -US casualty limit changed to 10% -Removed 3 command Bradleys and Company CO, XO, etc. -Minor map changes These changes should make it much more of a challenge to play as US, and much more viable as played by red. This is likely the final version, as i am working on new scenarios, unless someone finds a bug/mistake. Let me know what you all think. Thanks. Download Link: Battle For Waja Edit to add some Pictures: [ August 20, 2007, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: PeterLorre86 ]

When i baked, it changed the camera position for the start of the game. Does any one have any solution to this? Also, when baking, you should always keep a back up that you can change.

I would find that interesting, i am currently working on two scenarios that fit that bill. One will be ready for testing within the next day or two.

In the set up phase, you can place deployed MGs inside or ontop of buildings. In the editor too i think. That you can not do it once the game has started sounds like a bug to me.

I think i recently saw a bundle for 14 dollars on amazon. Even shipping added to that it's still a great deal. Here is the amazon link http://www.amazon.com/CDV-Combat-Mission-Anthology/dp/B000GR004I/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-8285873-0700618?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1185855403&sr=8-1 I would suggests either CMBB or CMAK if your only going to get one. Both have noticable inprovements over the original CMBO.

I agree.

From Wikipedia on the ZSU "The turret is fully stabilised and capable of firing on the move. It has a range of elevation from -4° to +85°" Also "HEI-T (High Explosive Incendiary-Tracer), and API-T (Armour-Piercing Incendiary-Tracer) rounds are fired. They can be fired to a maximum horizontal range of 7 km (4.3 mi), and a vertical range of 5.1 km (3.2 mi). The effective anti-aircraft range is around 2 to 2.5 km (1.3 to 1.6 mi). In attacking targets on the ground, its effective range is 2 km (1.3 mi)." So yes it could be used in a direct fire ground role, probably effectivly against infantry and light armour, such as the stryker. And since it is stated above that the effective AA range is 2-2.5km, they would not be beyond the scope of the battles in CMSF. It would be nice to see them, but i would rather some bugs get worked out first.

I like the animation for reloading the .50 on the Strykers. The gunner has to open his hatch, remove the box of ammunition, replace it, and close the hatch. Makes reloading in a firefight a tense moment.