Bahger

Thanks, Secondbrooks. I just played it again and scored a Total Victory by extending all target arcs into the distance, so that the Red militia gets pinned before they even reach the crossroads, preventing them from taking up positions in the buildings that would give them good angles on my troops. I then used the Strykers very cautiously on the flanks. I remain unconvinced that "Hide" and target arcs enable the player to mount ambushes with confidence. In fact, I would say that real ambushes are not possible in this game without a "Hold Fire" command. A much better ambush tutorial would be one that enabled the player to choose the site of the ambush, and position his troops with intersecting fire-arcs, accordingly. The starting positions in the mission as designed place at least one infantry unit far too directly in the path of the enemy's advance, making the battle more of a standard defence than an ambush. I'd look for more tangentical arcs of fire if I were designing an ambush in this scenario.

In the "Ambush Tutorial" scenario, initial positions are not changeable so obviously the Blue mission is primed and ready to go. It always turns into a bloodbath for me, though, and I wonder what I am missing here. I have all my infantry in "Hide" and with target arcs at short enough range that the idea is to get the Red militia into a kill-zone pretty close to Blue positions so as to avoid a long-range slugfest. However, there is always a long-range slugfest. My guys get spotted and fired on, they return fire and the initiative is lost. It's no longer an ambush. Making matters worse is that fact that the Strykers' pathfinding is still not good enough to maneuver them reliably into a pincer attack on pinned enemy forces. The only thing I can think of trying is to focus my initial fire on a longer-range engagement with the eneny as soon as they enter the map to stop them from getting into cover in the buildings. Is this the tactical intent, do you think? Target arcs become a liability, not an asset when the enemy initiate fire from beyond their range because troops not spotted or fired on by the enemy will not return fire when the militia shoots at other, spotted Blue positions. Can anyone offer assistance? Many thanks.

Thanks. I suppose the title says it all, really, although the review is reasonably fair-minded. Now that the series of patches have made the core playability of the game so much more viable, it's a pity that a busted campaign gives the critics another, perfectly legitimate, reason to wail on the product. Those expecting Marines to offer the "perfect" iteration of CMSF will be disappointed, I guess. Personally, I have found 1.10 to be playable (and therefore enjoyable) to an extent that seemed inconceivable in earlier versions. Still, I'm not buying the Marines module until they fix the campaign. What is it about CMSF that constantly places the cart in front of the horse when it comes to Quality Control?

Actually I quite like "Suppository".

Really liked the first mission and I have high hopes for the whole campaign. The sign of a well-designed scenario is when you don't mind getting your ass handed to you by good enemy AI now and then. I did pretty well, got a Total Victory playing on Veteran but I gave up the scout Bradley too cheaply when I should have kept it back for one more turn. 6 KIA and 15 wounded probably too high and I dismounted my infantry too soon, making them take uneccessary punishment when I could have just pounded and pounded the buildings until nothing moved. Still, used the Howitzers to devastating effect with accurate fire in two locations and made short work of the counter attack. The briefings, maps and authentic detail are most impressive. I like strong briefings, so thank you Handihoch for helping Bardosy out with those. Mission 1 was very well balanced. The opposition might have lacked firepower but they are effectively placed, well dug in and deploy with good defensive AI. It is very well optimised for 1.10. This is going to be fun. Thanks!

Ah. Was that unfinished map the one I stumbled into, by chance. Don't tell me if you cannot, but it might just spare me the effort of trying it again vs the Republican Guard.

Thanks for the good word. I have also downloaded Bardosy's TF Narwick mini-campaign, any thoughts on that? It's built for 1.10 which is very promising. They botched the Marines campaign?? How could they have done that? They had no deadline this time and you'd think they would have learned from their experiences. What happened?

Hey Mark, I was really hoping that you'd respond to this. In the original release I binned all the stock QB maps and replaced them with yours, it was the only thing that kept me interested in the game. Hopefully you'll be able to root out remaining probems with QBs. FYI, the map in which I found the Red AI not to be maneuvering was Village, medium size battle (i.e. Company-scale) mixed Blue force of M1A1s and Bradleys vs Syrian medium armor (BMPs, etc), a Meeting Engagement. It's a good map to play as Blue because the greater proximity of the village to the Red forces' start point gives them a territorial advantage...with a good enough AI plan. Thanks again for responding and please let us know the results of your investigation.

I was just wondering how those of you who have played the campaign recently characterize any changes brought about by cumulative updates up to and including v1.10. I gave up on the Campaign after the first mission when vehicle pathfinding resembled the Keystone Kops but that was in the earliest Battlefront version of the game and I know that huge improvements have been made since. I'm impressed by 1.10 in the QBs I've been playing (although some maps still appear not to have enemy AI plans) but I'd appreciate advice re. whether getting back into the Campaign is a good investment of hard-won gaming time. Many thanks.

Thank you, Salwon, useful advice. It would be great at some point to gather information as to which maps lack AI plans, if this is indeed the case even after all this time.

Hmm. So if I get that map again, is it safe to assume that the AI is brain-dead? Maybe not, because there must be different tactics for different enemy units. I'm going ti try it again against a Republican Guard formation. Hopefully they will put up more of a fight. This is aggravating; I can't be the only CMSF player who does mainly QBs.

In a QB ME last night I wondered why I could move on the village two thirds of the way down the map when the Red opposition should have got there long before me. I was eventually disappointed to find that the entire enemy force was still massed in what looked like its starting positions and could not therefore put up any kind of a fight. In fact, they tried to evade fire from me but I'm not sure if there was any incoming at all. I recall there was a problem with enemy AI in QBs failing to maneuver. Can anyone comment, please? I'm enjoying v1.10 but this battle was a most unwelcome waste of time.

Thank you, Splinty, I knew I wasn't so far off-base.

I cannot get a combined force of Abrams and Bradleys in a QB. Is that such an operational unreality?

There's a perfectly legitimate role for both M1s and infantray in a medium-size MOUT operation, such as an assault on a town for example. Strykers are too vulnerable to Republican Guard T-72s and as discussed elsewhere, the Stryker MGS's inadequacy as an anti-armor platform is exacerbated by the reluctance of the AI to fire SABOT rounds.

I've been experimenting with different force mixes in the QB setup interface but I always get either armor (all M1s), Heavy Infantry (all Bradleys) or Strykers, which I'm not keen on commanding. How can I get tanks plus infantry??

Yay! It would be great for well placed hull-down MGS to have some chance against enemy armor because they are using the appropriate ammo. It will make Stryker ops all the more enjoyable -- and realistic.

Very helpful info, gents, many thanks. YankeeDog, you may be amused to learn that it was indeed a battle in the open, a QB meeting engagement. I guess I can try agin, planning for dismounted anti-armor offense but it seems odd to be taking on a third-world military at such a basic disadvantage. BTW, any advice about defilade?

The manual points out that the Stryker MGS is not designed as an anti-armor platform; no $hit, $herlock. If it spots a T72 from across the map, it will engage it but will inevitably be destroyed in any exchange of frontal fire. It will not acknowledge its inferior defenses and withdraw into defilade but will slug it out, suicidally. I have no idea how to fight a Stryker batalion against T-72s. The MGS units may as well be kept out of the fight and I'm not sure which, if any, weapons carried by the ICV can be deployed against T-72s with any reasonable chance of success. This raises a persistent issue for me with the game: How can I maneuver my vehicles into hull-down positions? How can the player ever know if his vahicles are defiladed? I don't think I'm going to select Strykers for open combat against Red armor any more. How on earth are they supposed to operate effectively in real life with such poor anti-armor capability? Is the only option to dismount the infantry with Javelins?? Bradleys do a lot better than Strykers against 1980s-era Russian armor. How's that for progress?

Good info Huntarr, many thanks.

Post-script: There's nothing about engineer deployment in the 1.10 manual anyway...

I'm about to start a medium-size attack QB with Strykers, arty and engineers. I'm going to re-read the manual but I'd also be very grateful for the most general advice about how to deploy these units. Specifically: - Should they be dismounted when mines might be present or can they detect them in vehicles moving slowly? - Am I correct in assuming that roads are generally mined, not open country? - What is SOP for roadside devices, both detection and disarmament? - Is the tactical idea to "sweep" the entire line of advance with engineers? I'm not trying to be lazy here, just hoping for an assist so that I can actually start the QB, having spent some time setting up and if I do something boneheaded with the engineer units I'll only have to start again... Thanks in anticipation.

Ha, yes, I was afraid you'd say that! Thanks anyway.

Just wondering if Battlefront -- or anyone else -- is making available a printed copy of the new manual. I do not like reading small type on my PC screen and my printer labors to deal with multicolor pages. Thanks!

Very helpful endorsement, istari, many thanks. I'll be giving it another whirl, too, partly thanks to your vote of confidence.