Paper Tiger

Hi Guys glad you're enjoying it. What's the best result you've had with it? Anybody got a win yet? Extending the time limit? Interesting idea. I agree that if you're attacking, you want as much time as possible. But, because you're defending, you're following the AI's timetable and you're going to have a (very) hard time surviving the first 25 minutes. If you've still got a working force after 25 minutes, you've probably already won. The AI is on a tight scedule because weapons are 'active' and they'll blow through their ammo really quickly. In the scenario editor, I gave them full ammo but I'm not sure they have enough for another 15-20 minutes of combat as intense as this. The game was originally 40 minutes long but because of the intensity of the combat, one side or the other (usually Blue) had usually been annihalated after 25 minutes. The last 15 minutes of the longer scenario were usually me watching one or two HQ's hiding in some building waiting for the air support to arrive while the Red force sat around occupying the VP locations. Not much fun as I knew I'd already lost. Since I don't like using Cease Fire to terminate a combat as the victory point allocation is a bit screwy, I prefer the game to end with a time limit and the VP results are better.

I've finally taken the plunge and submitted my first scenario at CMMODS. I don't have any screenshots as I haven't sussed out how to do that yet but here is a brief description... Playable as BLUE FORCE ONLY - a single Stryker platoon with ATGM support attempts to defend a small village against a determined Syrian assault. The map is about 700mx700m, green, (REALLY GREEN) with lots of trees and a small village in the centre. It looks more like Europe than Syria. The AI must attack across a deep gully (ie river) across two bridges. Because you are playing as Blue and the AI is attacking, the game sets up very quickly and also plays very quickly. It's only 30 minutes long but it's intense. :eek: Be warned... this one is tough to beat. It's total fantasy because I can't believe the US Army would screw up so badly in real life that a single platoon without artillery or air support would be left in such a precarious position. But that's the challenge. You're going to see a LOT of javelin activity in this one. If you win, I'd like to know how you did it. Feedback and constructive criticism is always welcome

Well, I've been playtesting my new scenario a lot today and I must admit, I only saw a javelin fail to kill once (because it missed) so maybe I've just been incredibly unlucky with the RNG. In the course of one session I see a LOT of launches and it's really nerve-wracking when a tank trundles into view. By the way, the M1134 Stryker ATGM vehicle uses TOW missiles and they're horribly ineffective against the tanks. Very useful against the BMP-1Cs though. On the right angles thing, yes, I see that happen a lot. But they usually find their targets in the end. It seems it's not just the infantry that moves at 45 degree angles...

Rammer: you might have to wait a long time for that holodeck I play RT exclusively, not because it's more realistic but becauase I have more control over my units. I AM the Friendly Force AI. I did play WEGO the first couple of times when I got the game to play the training campaign but it was too painful. I switched to RT and had a blast and have never gone back since. For WW2, I think WEGO would be a much more realistic option for play but in the modern era, well, it's not less realistic but it is a HELL of a lot more lethal an environment and being out of control for 1 minutes is too much. It won't happen but if the WEGO turn was 20 seconds or so, that would be an improvement. However, what I really like about RT is that I get completely absorbed in the action at one point of the map and forget about what's happening at another. I try not to use PAUSE very often so that there's only so much I can do in RT. Like you said, until that holodeck comes along the game's not going to be anything like reality. But it is a lot more realistic than any other GAME that I've played and certainly one of the most immersive.

I've just changed my profile so that you can find my address.

MikeyD: T-72 M1's, "the bottom end of the reserve tanks roster" so, nothing special. I haven't had a chance to play again today so I haven't seen it happen again.

Topo: does a baked scenario always follow the same AI plan or will it use all the available AI plans? MarkEzra: hey, glad to hear that. I'll soon have a couple more for you if you still want 'em. Working hard to get my first scenario finished.

Definitely using 1.04. The scenario is still being developed but I hope to be able to release it next week. I often follow the javelins to their targets and the missiles are hitting their targets. It could be that I'm just getting very unlucky "die rolls" with my kills. It certainly happened to me often enough in my ASL days. If that's all it is, I'm quite happy but the scenario balance depends on the javelins being 'reasonably' effective. If one T-72 survives, that's it, game over, and I don't really want the game to be decided by a lucky die roll. A US platoon, without other support, has only 12 javelin missiles. Once they're used up, the US has nothing else it can use against an armoured target. This scenario requires the player to use them effectively and using 3+ to kill one tank defineitely upsets that plan. The scenario gives the US 2 ATGM Striker vehicles but they get knocked out pretty quickly. Who knows, maybe my tactics just suck big time...

I'm currently playtesting a scenario where a US Infantry platoon is defending a wooded village against a determined Syrian counterattack and I've been seeing T-72's survive multiple hits by javelins. This happens almost every time I play the scenario. Sure does make it tough for the ol' US boys. :eek: And then, this afternoon, I saw a BMP-1P(4C) take a hit from a javelin and survive. Wow. I really thought javelins were better than that... Have they been significantly dumbed down in recent patches?

I am REALLY hoping that we will be able to acquire things in the Unit Depoyment section of the scenario editor in the future. At the moment, this can only be done during the set up phase of the battle. When I'm designing a scenario, I'd like to be able to put the units in the Strikers, acquire the javelins and whatever and then move them out, possibly even splitting up the AT team (not so important) As it stands, the US AI doesn't have any javelins and this makes them easy to beat playing as the Syrians with armour. Are there any plans to do this in a future patch or module?

Are you sure that this is a bug? Something like this happened to me yesterday. I was playing a QB and drove three T-somethings to the crest of a hill. I did a horrible job of positioning and as a result they all bunched up and two got blown up by ATGMs in short order. The third was right behind the other two and it got taken out after about 10-15 secs by another ATGM. It really was tightly behind the other two but it didn't survive very long. Then, in another QB, I moved a T-72 into a perfect hull-down position and watched the crestline in front of me get hammered by ATGMs. That was spectacular to watch and my T-72 sat there patiently taking out the Bradleys and it didn't take a hit. In the first case, the tank was directly behind a crestline and two destroyed tanks but got killed quite quickly. In the second, I was just very lucky with the positioning. I would expect this would be the way it would work in real life too. Position your tank behind two dead buddies and you've got a much better chance of surviving. However, you do have two dead buddies...

I am very excited about the WW2 modules. When I see the European rural style maps that I can draw with the scenario editor as it stands just now, with new building textures and a few flavour objects, it's going to LOOK spectacular. I can't quote any thread definitively but Steve has said that QB force selection in the WW2 module will be very similar to that in CMx1 which is very good news.

This new patch is AWESOME. The frame rates have improved noticably, and the US forces have just become even more difficult to fight against due to AI tweaks. I have been designing a medium sized QB map with all the frame rate killers for a laugh (tall grass, large grain fields, type D trees - LOTS of them) and after loading up the patch this morning, I returned to it and it was a blast. It played smoothly and the AI controlled US forces are almost invincible, opening fire at long range with everything and forcing me to change my tactics on that map. Now that the game is more or less working, I'm looking forward to the first module.

Good point Meach. I'd forgotten about that. Anybody seen if they're fixed in 1.04? I'm a Gamersgate customer... feel the pain... again.

Yeah, but they're a DOG to draw, at least on my rig. Biggest I can do comfortably is 1.5kmx1.5km. Oh I CAN draw bigger but the mouse lag is horrible. Back on topic, yes, I think that would be extremely popular.

I have noticed that the dedicated teams do keep the main weapon active but the squad carried RPG's don't seem to get picked up. And they're always the first to get killed too in my experience. That would probably be quite realistic, just like in WW2 everybody shot at the flamethrower guy first. (bloody hell, I would too).

So, no word on this yet?

Wow, there are so many things that I could ask for here. But one thing that stands out for me is being able to set variable VP locations so that the defender is never quite sure which objective the attacker is after. The defender can see that there are two/three or more objectives for the enemy player and so has to plan to cover them all before the game starts. These could be placed into the AI script. It would also be nice to be able to script artillery plans to a particular AI plan rather than having them all lumped into one group.

Once the Brits arrive, I doubt I'll ever use US forces again. The US has the most powerful army in the world and the Syrians are no match for them at all. For me, the US/Syrian thing has very little longevity. And once WW2 arrives, I don't think I'll be playing modern warfare nearly so often. At last, there will be some REAL opposition to the Allied forces and I think this game will really shine.

Yes, I'd like to add my voice to this question. I can't understand why the mouse is slowing down when it's over the 2D map but when it moves onto the interface panel, it runs fine. It's just a simple x-y grid with coloured blobs, the sort of thing my old Commodore Amiga used to be able to handle without any problem.

First one sent Mishga. Check your email account. The message has CMSF in the title. Hope you like it. I'm moving house tomorrow and I expect it will be a couple of days before everything is back up and running and then I can get started on the Hills map AI.

When do you need new maps? I see that you've just posted 21 new ones at CMMOS. I have two maps that are nearly ready for posting but before I came to work this morning I decided to add a ridge line to my Open Attack Map to give it some more tactical potential. This will require me to fiddle about with the AI scripting to take advantage of this new terrain feature. The other map is my personal favourite. It's a Hills Attack map and it's beautiful but I've just finished drawing it and it only has rudimentary AI scripting. Both are Standard maps, the Hills map perhaps verging towards Elite. There's also a Hills meeting map using a much bigger version of the Attack map but it's definitely Elite and doesn't run well on my rig at the moment, at least with all the graphics settings set at maximum. I reckon I could be good for a map a week as I enjoy making maps and playing QBs.

Aaah! Gotcha... Scottish too? Fit like? I'll get it in the post to you tomorrow.

thelmia: LoL, When I read it and saw who posted it I thought, "this should be good for a laugh"...

reel-why: simple solution to your dilemma, copy the quick battle folder to another location on your hard drive or a CD before installing the new maps. Ta dah!