Bahger

Thanks very much purp. Most encoraging. The patch cannot be installed over the Marines module, so I'm assuming I can install it with full functionality post-patch, right?

Hey gents, it's been a long time since rock and roll but I'm contemplating giving CMSF another go after installing the latest patch. I put it aside after a series of attempts at Internet play failed through glitches (disappearing armor, especially) and I would be very grateful if someone could let me know if the game has improved in this respect, i.e. if Internet games (not PBEMs, although I might try them, too) are playable, reliable and rewarding. Many thanks in anticipation.

Thanks Dirtweasle, appreciate the advice and clarification. Needless to say I was not familiar with the acronym MGS.

Useful advice, many thanks. However, surely MGs cannot attrit tanks? Can they even suppress them?

Interesting. How did you move all that infantry forward over open ground, under fire? As I recall, the more accessible buildings are on the left hand side of the road, whereas the best cover is on the right...

Thanks. SPOILERS AHEAD . . . . . . . . . Okay, well what I think I'll try and do next is put the weight of my forces on the right hand side of the road as there is more cover there. The dismounts get hammered in the open ground on the left. Surely if I played it as though I believed the crossroads to be undefended I'd get ambushed on the road?

Now that the game "works" I can no longer blame it for my own deficiencies and they are grave, indeed. before I withdraw in frustration can someone help me with tactics? I'm getting pummeled. Playing "Chance Encounter", RT/Veteran, the brief says that the crossroads are not defended. However, either they are, or it's a meeting engagement. My anti-armor Strykers seem much thinner-skinned than the Red T-72s so maximising the range to target seems to be the best tactic, yet from a distance the Strykers rarely spot the tanks long enough to get a shot. Meanwhile the tanks have good angles on all open ground; dismounts attempting to cross open ground on the left get annihilated and there are not enough Blue vehicles to be able to transport troops into cover at speed. On the right my troops have their hands full and a battle of attrition develops in the woods. I lose too many men, lose the initiative and then the 40-minute clock runs out. I'm not criticising the scenario, it's great. My tactics must be profoundly at fault. Can any of you grogs advise re. how to approach this mission, i.e. mounted/dismounted, placement of spotters/sniper, how to cross open ground and use of indirect fires? I'd be grateful for an assist.

Yeah, my immersion in the scenario was not affected by this because the vehicles were placed in OPs that might be programmed to withdraw on contact. It was just a little odd that I was able to spot the BMP facing the wrong way and then, unchallenged, sneak up on it and destroy it at close range. That was before my whole battle plan went to ****, however.

Hammertime v4, CMSF v1.08. It just kicked my butt. I thought I was doing so well. I'm going to have to approach this farm-by- farm, take my time and get my supporting fires coordinated. It's a great scenario.

Right. The problem, according to what I've read, is that allegiances amongst the Iraqi police are often, but not always, tribal/sectarian as opposed to nationalistic, unlike the new Iraqi army, whose commitment to the counter-insurgency appears to be more uniform. It would be interesting if this realistic aspect of unpredictability could reflected in gameplay! [ April 08, 2008, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: Bahger ]

This looks great! Would they be Red or Blue combatants or can the mission designer decide?

Heh, well, my experience is similar, except for the conjugal priorities. I thought the game was a disgrace on release but, for all its prickliness (well, Steve's) about the product's obvious faults, the team deserves tremendous credit for digging in and fixing the main issues. I knew I would never be able to live with the quality of vehicle pathfinding found in the initial release and I'm still holding my breath, because Stryker platoons that behave like Keystone Kops are a deal-breaker for me. So far, post 1.07 I'm finding the pathfinding acceptable, albeit a little eccentric at times. Hey George Mc! I'm having a lot of fun with your Hammertime scenario and was intending to email you about it. The attention to detail is great, ditto the map and the tactical lay of the land. I'm just wondering (since this topic is about CMSF's new-found credibility) whether you intended for Red vehicles at OPs on farms in no man's land to be facing their own rear. No big deal, though. I'm about twenty minutes in, playing Blue, and determined to get my supporting fires sorted before committing myself to move on the objective as I'm sure you have much nastiness in store for me.

Yeah, between the time limit and the requirement for force preservation, it sometimes feels like being on the wrong end of Patton's famous dictum to "hold 'em by the nose then kick 'em in the ass". Still, that's what makes it good, and my AAR posted in this thread proves that a very average player can beat it. I like it but what I like most about it is seeing the mission goals clearly laid out in this screen shot. Ideally, I'd prefer a tactical map with those mission goals overlaid, as I'm in the movie business and do not need to be given cinematic experiences when I'm pretending to be a dust-caked LT fresh out of West Point trying not to get his guys killed. You could, however, use FRAPS to make a great "trailer" for the mission, upload it to YouTube with a suitable soundtrack (oh please, no more friggin metal) and put the link in the thread here announcing the scenario. Now that would be cinematic. [ March 11, 2008, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: Bahger ]

Here is my latest AAR...not that I'm boasting or anything. Bear in mind it's my fifth try, on Veteran, RT. They key seems to be suppression. You have to bring all the pain the Bradleys can inflict on Red dug-in defenses while pounding the crap out of them with heavy anti-personnel mortar fire. Move forward cautiously but with an eye on the clock and pop smoke and reverse as soon as RPGs are spotted by individual units. Do not go mano-a-mano with RPGs once spotted but note the location of the AT weapon and suppress it before moving forward and getting ready to target any unit that survives. I've lost up to three vehicles in this scenario by assuming that a Bradley can outgun (or at least out-react) a dug-in soldier with an RPG. I'd love to know if it's "gamey" or real-world (Mark?) but the only way I can gain a Total Victory as Blue and remain within the 20% casualty rate is not to set target arcs but to use "Area Target" and arty to suppress the crap out of all trench occupants and then have the reinforcements move through in cautious bounds.

I'll find out when I get back from the office, that's the beauty of "save".

Okay, about six minutes in, command vehicle immobilized but I've pushed through the arty barrage and sent the two forward dug-in RPG teams to frolic with 72 virgins. The village is in LOS but I know I'm facing several more entrenched defences so I've dialed in the arty but (this must be a r/l cav commander's decision) should I sit and wait for the barrage to take effect, or push forward? Well, no point sending my troop into my own arty so I think the question answers itself. It is a speed versus security dilemma, however, as sitting still makes me a target for red arty and was that a spotting round? Oh dear... Great mission.

Can we get this thread stickied, please? It's great. And who's the troll?

Well, short of achieving a sortable database system for scenarios in-game, it might be worth making some of these suggestions to Todd at CMMods so that we could at least filter them effectively before downloading them from his invaluable site. The search criteria over there at the moment are adequate but a little basic.

I'm really looking forward to playing this, Mark, because, as you know, I'm a fan of your work in CMSF scenario design and used a scenario of yours to essentially teach myself the game. The work that goes into making multiple plans per side is a big deal and much appreciated. I agree with you that AI limitations can be overcome (or, more accurately, disguised) with what I call pseudo-randomization, i.e. multiple battle plans combined with detailed orders. It's not about making the AI genuinely intelligent -- AI is years away from that -- as much as it's about being so attentive to detail in the design and orders input that the AI appears convincingly intelligent. The greatest tribute to any mission designer is work that all but convinces the player that the AI is using initiative. I base these musings on my deep experience in the Steel Beasts mission editor, which is a marvel, and uses triggers, randomization and conditions to simulate initiative in AI actions when initiative cannot yet be coded into AI. Just like in CMSF or any good tactical mission design editor, however, the quality of the output is directly proportionate to the quality of the input and the use of multiple battle plans is key to a less linear experience in playing the mission.

Oh I thought you were asking a different question entirely. In response to which I'm taking the Fifth.

Do you recall the explanation in the training campaign for the grey wall around the village in the attack scenario? Basically it is explained that the wall is an abstraction that simulates limited avenues of approach to an objective without overburdening the scenario with multiple objects and structures, in other words it's an abstration, a good one, I feel, tactically. I've been playing a lot of QBs downloaded from CMMods (Mark Ezra's group) and I've noticed the same thing; objectives surrounded by grey walls that, while physically unrealistic, serve to increase the realism of the tactical challenge. I guess the inclusion of these things is in the hands of the scenario designer.

Thank you. Does this apply to the "virtual" walls or just walls of structures?

I found myself with an engineer unit in a QB last night. I wasn't quite sure how to exploit this asset. Their transport was equipped with demo charges, but no specific breaching equipment and the mission was an ME with a village in the middle of the map. I've noticed the use of virtual walls as abstractions, an idea I like because approaches to urban or semi-urban terrain are rarely unimpeded, but I'm assuming that no engineer equipment can have any effect on these virtual impediments unless I have grasped the wrong end of the stick here. Also, I do not know how to deploy either demo charges or breaching equipment, what the differences are, and what to look out for in terms of context-sensitive menu items that will enable me to deploy this equipment. Can anyone guide me? With thanks in anticipation...

Just wondering, as I've been thinking about replacing stock QB maps with proven user-made ones. I'd rather not, but I'm loathe to waste time in QBs where I discover that the enemy AI is immobile, something which might account for my unusually easy victory in a meeting engagement recently! Obviously my preference would be for the user-made QBs to supplement the BFC QBs, not replace them, and I will do it this way as soon as somebody can confirm that the BFC QBs are working as advertised in 1.07. Many thanks.

The '73 war was a real armor event, on both fronts, which is why I've always wanted to see it modeled in Steel Beasts. Their MBTs were British Challengers, I seem to recall. There is a fantastic memoir of the Yom Kippur War by a top IDF tank commander but I'd have to be at home to find it and confirm title/author. Of course, the biggest contribution to accuracy in a simulation would be to ensure that the Arab player could never open the hatch and stick his head out, as their (understandable) reluctance to do so was a key factor in the Israeli victory. IDF tank commanders did not ride buttoned up. [ February 27, 2008, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Bahger ]