PrezCartman

Tommy, Yea the flavor objects are a pain in the ass. What I generally have done when making a map is create everything in the 3D world and then if possible even go ahead and test the scenario, then go back and add in flavor stuff. Just too time consuming to create it all then test it and decide the farm you built with all this debris everywhere needs to go.

Tommy, Just move the files into the scenarios directory, get them uploaded, then you can get rid of them. The way the editor works I don't think it's possible to move beyond the game's folders.

c3, Umm if they're in the setup zone and the point you select is in the setup zone they will automatically be moved there when you give them the move command. It sounds like you were trying to place units outside of your setup area. That is the only way they will be given a movement command instead of simply being placed instantly where you put it.

I gotta second the Field Marshal's post. I just tried using similar tactics, taking a lead infantry platoon, splitting two squads into fire teams and using them to advance using hunt to draw fire. Behind them was half a company's worth of firepower including a Javelin team with more than sufficient ammo. Every time an enemy position opened up it was hit from 6+ sources and if they were in a building a Javelin or MGS round made their day less than pleasant. No casualties to my scouts because their fire support would hit before the enemy could do much. Never really got much use out of my infantry for scouting before reading this, but definitely think I will be getting more use out of them in the future.

Not to mention that when the Apaches start firing the Hydra missiles the damn things go everywhere. I lost nearly a platoon to friendly fire from a salvo that struck a building 300+ meters from the target.

Tiger, It would be VERY difficult to make the campaign playable from the Syrian side, individual missions, MAYBE, but even still very hard, for one thing the AI doesn't equip it's people with Javelins so that already puts a real hurt on the AIs ability to simulate a US attack.

Slow, In regards to the second part if the optics are knocked out that could basically mean the entire targeting system for the remote controlled gun system. I understand your point at close range that it should be able to shoot, but if the gunner can not see anything through the sight then it isn't unreasonable that it wouldn't fire, that's the advantage of always having a manual human backup for any automated weapons system.

Well look at it this way between WW2 and today countries have had 60+ years to improve the lethality of the weapons. I would say that the lethality is probably relatively accurate, a true modern combined arms battlefield is a very dangerous place. As for the weakness of modern armor relative to the weapons systems shooting them keep in mind that throughout history it has always been a lot easier and cheaper to break armor than to build it to withstand attack whether it be swords and arrows or Javelins and AT-14s. Don't treat the Abrams like a King Tiger of WW2 able to just sit on a perch and rain down fire on the enemy nearly impervious to return fire and you'll do ok. The US has not fought a war of this type and scale yet and hopefully we never will, but an invasion of Syria with the types of units listed would not be like the first Gulf War, the US would sustain serious casualty levels because people do learn. Part of Saddam's folly was most of his anti-tank defense was other tanks, which is fine if your opponent doesn't have the most effective air force in the world. If the Iraqis had had a few hundred ATGMs and used them effectively the idea of the Abrams invincibility would've been tempered to some extent I'm sure.

Yes the Jav has a soft launch capability allowing it to be fired from inside closed areas such as buildings.

Sonar, It's a game, you are playing a fantasy, if you can't separate it from reality perhaps you need to reexamine your grip on the real world. I'm not trying to be a smart ass but I also hear people saying in the earlier CM games, well I only ever played as the Allies because I don't like the thought of killing Americans or Brits. It is a simulation and entertainment. More importantly the campaign is nowhere close to Iraq at least in terms of what it has become, now the early stages of OIF there would be some parallels. However, CMSF does not simulate the counter-insurgency war of today. Yes mission creators can make missions that are close, but you can hardly hold the developers responsible for the ways that customers choose to use their product.

Lol first would have to do a test to see if arty actually helps with minefields, not sure if it has any effect yet.

Bird, Appreciate the comments, I will look into it when I get the chance. The enemy arty was mainly there just to punish someone if they rushed troops up onto the ridgeline right from the start. I wish the AI could actually get some use out of arty, but I see your point and I actually considered removing it anyway and probably will now anyway. I brought the last reinforcement on the road in the hopes by that point the player would've cleared some of the area, but I didn't get a chance to retest it before the last version, however I will consider moving them. I gave the extra arty to see if the player wanted to bury themselves with it since most of the targets are pretty much off limits. Lol yea I threw the IEDs in when I first created it and sadly the AI doesn't move them around so since I knew where they were from designing it I just naturally stayed away from them. I will probably just pull them out altogether since they don't do a whole lot of good, maybe toss another RPG team in to make up for it. Keep in mind I designed the battle first with US troops and Stryker have a lot less firepower than the BMP so I'll have to do a little toying with that, but I'll look into it. Thanks for the advice, I definitely plan on improving this one a bit and already have my next scenario design in mind.

Anybody play through either one yet?

Nem, From what I've seen the lower the better only because if you take out an upper floor you can sometimes have it collapse without leveling the rest of the building.

Hey Guys and Girls, Just posted two new scenarios over at CMMods. If you want to check them out just search by designer and look for PrezCartman. I have a scenario with the US as Blue Force and with Syrians as Blue Force. In both cases AI is only setup for Red, so they are only playable as Blue or 2 Player. Also in both I was unable to get the scoring setup right because of the number of objective given to the AI, hence the Blue Force score wise will almost always get a Total Victory. However, if in the score board the AI is close or has a higher point total than you, consider it a loss because the actual point values are pretty even. Both scenarios use the same map. Relatively small map, Blue Force starts out behind a line of hills free from observation. There is a main road, Highway Boston/63, running down the middle of the map. On one side of the highway there is a small airfield and a bombed Syrian military base. On the other side there is a decent sized family farm as well as a small boarding school, hence the title. For the blue player, the airfield, school, and farm are preserve targets and the player must try to do as little damage to those buildings as possible. In both versions the attacking side consists of a reinforced company, obviously due to different army configurations the forces are a bit different. I have found it to be a fun but interesting challenge and hope you guys like it. Please offer any comments positive or negative as this is my first public scenarios and I greatly appreciate any complaints or compliments both to improve this and future scenarios. Below is the tac map, basically a UAV image of the battlefield with the major areas landmarked.

GDog, I don't mean a specific loadout, more deciding which troops to give Javelins to and who gets extra ammo from the Strykers.

Bah, yes the adjust mission does work, used it just yesterday and I have an ATI X800XL.

My basic loadout depends on the mission. If its somewhere that I can setup a good overwatch position with Javelins out of each platoon available I will take on squad and split off an AT team, load them up with the CLU and the entire platoon's Javelins, I realize that's not realistic, but if the game will let 2 guys carry 15 Jav missiles I'm certainly going to put that to good use. The rest of the platoon gets 500 rounds of extra 5.56 each with each MG teams getting an extra 500 rounds of 7.62 as well. I do have to be careful to make sure my Jav teams don't get wiped out but with their range and accuracy they can usually stay well back of the battle and knock out vital targets without putting themselves at risk.

Thanks Mord if I knew someone else had already done it I wouldn't have spent my time but had never seen that there was already any out there.

Hmm just tried downloading it the file is there but won't open for some reason, can someone take a look at this and see if they can get it to work.

Hey Guys and Girls, Here's a little help for all the scenario designers. I went through and took screens of every flavor object cropped them and slapped them into a Word doc. It is in the order that they are displayed in the editor and the order for the numbers goes from left to right in the individual pictures. Hope this makes things simpler for a lot of us. Prez http://www.knightsofkarbala.com/chipsstuff/cmsfflavobj.doc

John that's actually not as much of an issue, lol because most of my buildings have preserve set on them for the blue force, so if they go crazy with the Javs they're going to lose points. I will look at it some more, my red is largely defensive and ambush setup so they don't need to be particularly aggressive, just not give away positions needlessly.

Ok so clearly asymmetric warfare makes things a bit more of a challenge in terms of balancing scores. I'm working on creating a scenario right now where basically a Stryker company is attacking an irregular Syrian force. The US has only terrain objectives and maximum casualty levels because these would be the main goals of a US attack in the situation. The Syrians have as minimum casualty goal to inflict on the US as well as unit objectives for knocking out the various units. I.e. 150pts for a regular infantry platoon Stryker, 250pts for knocking out a command Stryker, etc. Right now the scenario is only playable as the US because the AI is not skilled enough on the offensive. So I played through it once, lost more forces than I would consider acceptable, got to the score screen. Total US Victory. The point totals were only about 50 pts apart. However the US came a lot closer to achieving their maximum points allowed than the Syrians because in order to get the max points possible the Syrians would literally have to wipe out the US force. So my actual question, is there any way to balance this or do I basically have to put a caveat in the scenario that as far as the game's scoring system is concerned the US will almost always score a total victory, even if the actual point totals are very close? I guess I could try giving the Syrians a bonus in the parameters section but then I'm afraid of unbalancing it the other way.

Lol aww crap that scenario where I gave the Syrians IEDs is about to become more interesting.

Thanks Steve, just wanted to make sure it was known about and would be looked at when you guys were able.