Paper Tiger

Ah, that would be a US pilot mistakenly attacking your forces. The F-15 is included in the RED OB and is meant to represent a 'Friendly Fire' incident. And, yes, it is nasty when it happens.

Poor RepsolCBR. The first three respondents to his OP are all beta testers Don't worry, mate. We all want to see AI triggers in the game and I really hope that BFC's next title will have them. There are workarounds to create the illusion of an AI that responds to the human player's moves but thats just pure guesswork on the part of the designer. I think somebody once described the current AI scripting as one huge WEGO turn that spans the entire game. That's about right. Triggers will really unleash the Single Player game, that's for sure as they are a complete waste of time for the H2H player. I also think the majority of new scenarios being uploaded to the Repository recently have been almost exclusively for H2H play. It's a simple fact that it's much easier to design H2H missions than it is to design missions for Single Player. A mission designed for Single Play should have at least three AI plans for the side the missions is designed to play against, ideally five.

Lower all the units' morale and you'll see them behave more realistically. They will react to incoming fire and casualties more readily if their morale is set to LOW or POOR. And their Global Morale falls faster as well which will mean they'll be less willing to carry out their orders if the player has been taking heavy casualties. Personally, I think NORMAL is just a bit too good. And anything above NORMAL will give you very heroic units.

Yeah. That's been my experience with Green troops too. The breaking is more a result of their morale setting. I suspect Green troops with Normal morale break a tad easier than Normal experience troops with Normal morale but it's easy enough to sculpt your forces in the editor. BTW, I wanted to make the 2/8 INF in the Montebourg campaign Green troops but chickened out. In fact, a lot of the private testing was done with Green troops. However, I took the plunge with the US units in 'Buying the Farm'. Both the US and German forces were Green and I liked the way the battle felt.

There's a thread on Spotting currently active and the reporter of the issue found that if he reduced the unit's experience to Green, the spotting worked more the way he expected it too. Perhaps there is a problem with the REGULAR experience level inasmuchas the values are probably a tad too high? This may not just be about Spotting but mortar accuracy as well as off-board artillery accuracy. And the number of first-shot hits from tanks firing on targets would decrease as well. I think the numbers we currently have for GREEN would be better for the REGULAR experience, or perhaps somewhere between where the two presently are. The game really does just get silly when you start playing with VETERAN and CRACK or ELITE units. :eek: Thoughts?

The Marines don't just have Infantry. While it's more Infantry-centric than either the Stryker or Bradley Infantry they have lots of cool Humvees and the LAVS and the AAV-7s are awesome. And they have tanks too. I used to think Humvees were really lame until I started playing around with the CAAT. Then I grew to love 'em.

And just in time for you to catch a breath of fresh air before the Commonwealth module arrives with a whole new batch of vehicles for you to work your magic on. Your efforts are greatly appreciated Aris.

It usually comes out after the module.

I got a lot from this particular source. http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/utah/utah.htm I also read Keegan's 'Six Armies in Normandy'.

The reinforcements arrive where the scenario designer places them in the editor. No possibility of having them arrive somewhere else in a different plan so that's one thing you have to keep in mind when topping up an attack. They will have to drive/run to their order so you need to monitor their movement carefully using Scenario Author mode to make sure that they don't do anything really stupid.

LOL. I just watched that particular sequence and the first shot got a direct hit on the crew compartment and killed one guy. (3:02) The second shot (3:10) lands about a metre to the right, the third shot (3:17) right on the frontal armour, and the fourth shot (3:25) delivers the knock-out blow. Very accurate indeed.

. There are four German AI plans in that mission and each one is carefully designed to offer you a completely different experience. So, sometimes it's a good idea to go down the left side and other times, the right side. And one of them is really, really nasty! As for the MG nests, you just have to take your chances with them. You only have to block their LOS to get across the creek and you've got a LOT of 60mm mortars in your OB (six IIRC) so it's not too difficult to keep them out of the action. Only another 14-mission campaign for the Commonwealth module

There is a simple answer to your question, of course. When I first designed that mission, and wrote the briefing, the AT guns had full ammo loads. However, the 57mm AP shot was so lethal to the German infantry that it was possible to take out the entire German force just by positioning those two guns in good locations. Historically, the Germans had three vehicles in support so I had to keep the AT guns in but I decided to reduce the ammo loads to the bare minimum to give the Germans a chance. And, obviously, forgot to amend the briefing. Sometimes, when you're doing all this work yourself, things get past you

I see... AFAIK I think what you'd like to do is not possible. You can definitely control where those three guns will go in each plan which means 5 possible set up areas, one per AI plan and that would keep the player guessing where they are set up. I understand why you want to introduce as much randomness to the set-up as possible but THAT degree of randomness AND control is not possible... yet. Good luck with the naval artillery by the way. I wanted to use it in the Commonwealth campaign but it's just too damned precise and that makes an already lethal asset even more effective.

I'm not 100% clear on what you're asking here but I think you might find an answer if you take a look at the German AI plans in the stock mission 'Buying the Farm' or the 'USMC Second Storm' mission for CMSF. I really restricted one side's set up by using all three set-up zones (Red-1, Red-2 and Red-3) and placing one unit from an AI group consisting of three units only into each zone. With this method, I can control exactly where certain units will go in each plan. However, it will severly restrict the playablility of that mission if the player wants to play as the 'restricted' side or H2H. This technique is particularly good for ensuring that AI platoons stay within C2 of their HQ unit from plan to plan. It really bolsters the AI-controlled sides ability to put up a fight while keeping their experience, morale and leadership values at realistic levels.

Hi Pandur Glad to hear you're back on the designing wagon. To your second question, yes, you can re-use AI groups but you have to be really careful doing so. There are a lot of pitfalls involved in doing so especially when you are designing a defensive AI set up. I did a LOT of work way back to find out how all this works for the CMSF NATO campaigns. The Canadian campaign used these techniques in spades but they required a lot of careful play-testing to ensure that they worked right. Especially if you plan to 'empty' or kill off an existing group. The mission 'HOPE' was like that and it was a really complex beast. To the observant player, it must have appeared like I had more than eight AI groups working together However, if you want to design an AI attack, it's easy to add reinforcements to an existing group. The reinforcements will join the group as long as its first order is timed to a minimum of 30 seconds after the reinforcements are scheduled to arrive. (They tend to arrive about 20-25 seconds after their slot activates) If you have a reinforcement slot arriving at T+15, be sure to have the group that it's about to join's order set to start at T+15:30. Then they'll join the group. If you set it to T+15, they'll arrive after the order begins and will have to sit around until the next one comes along. Again, you'll need to play-test the mission a few times to make sure that everything operates. If the current group falls behind with its orders and hasn't reached the necessary order, it will screw up the plan. A lot also depends on the type of movement order you give them (QUICK, FAST, ASSAULT etc). You'll see this a LOT in the upcoming Commonwealth campaign in the module. Playing in Scenario Author mode will let you see what works and what doesn't, and most importantly, WHY it does or doesn't work Look forward to seeing what you're putting together.

Simple answer. Yes. It will work.

The Marines module is probably the best module to buy as the Marines are a blast to play with. Not only do you get the Marines but you get the Syrian Airborne as well. I got brought onto the Beta team for the UK module but I wish I'd been around to do something for the Marines as they really pack a terrific punch. For a laugh, you might also want to add 'USMC Gung Ho!' to that list Yes, it's mine but it's much smaller and more manageable that handling a whole Battalion. Personally, I thought the Marines and the IBCT (UK module) were the two coolest US units to play with.

Mission 1 is in the bag already and I'll get the second one started tomorrow. But it looks like there will have to be at least one more completely original map crafted for this one. As luck would have it, I was scouting out locations to the south east of Allepo to find an attractive and tactically interesting place for a Red v Red fight for a stand-alone to ship with the NATO module. I even got as far as starting drawing one up. Both those locations look really good from an 'attractive map' viewpoint so I think I'll go with at least one of them. The old Dinas-style maps are utterly unappealing to me now and so I doubt I'll be using either of the two spare Dinas maps. I much prefer maps of real locations now.

I have started work on a third Red v Red campaign. The campaign, which is tentatively called 'Retribution', will have about 6 missions, all of which use maps that I created for the NATO series of campaigns. The idea of the campaign will be simple: The player will take the part of Government forces attempting to put down Free Syria Army rebels in three locations in Syria. You will have one group of core units that will appear in each mission of the campaign: two companies of a Syrian Airborne Battalion. They will act as a Fire Brigade, assisting local forces with suppressing the rebel forces in As Hasakah, Allepo, and Hama. Almost all of the action will take place in built up areas and as a result, unit density will likely be very high in these missions, especially the player-controlled forces. The player will need to have both the MARINES and NATO modules to play this campaign as it features the Syrian Airborne and RED airpower as well as the Shilka and other improvements to the UNCON OB There may even be a platoon of T-90s but we'll see how that pans out. I'm sorry if you don't have these modules guys but I really want to use them and inspiration is what will keep me working on this until it is finished. CAMPAIGN OVERVIEW The campaign will be divided into three series of missions, each with a main event and either one or two preludes. Each series will feature a different opponent and friendly supporting forces. In the opening series, As Hasakah, the action will be Infantry-only. 'A' company of the Syrian Airborne will be choppered in before dawn to assist a Reserve Motorised Infantry battalion with the assault on UNCON forces in As Hasakah. The player will have a lot of air and artillery assets at his disposal but he will have to be careful how he goes about winning the mission. More about that later. The player will take what is left of his force into the second mission, the assault across the rail lines into the centre of As Hasakah. Once again, this mission will be Infantry-only. From there the action moves to somewhere around Allepo. In this series, 'B' company will be assisting part of a Reserve Mech Infantry Battalion with some Reserve Tanks in support in assaulting the enemy forces near Allepo. I have a map that I crafted for the German campaign that never got used so it will appear here for the first time. This may be a one-mission series as I don't have any more Allepo maps. I want this series to be a bit more open so it's possible I might use an early German campaign map or a Dinas map that didn't make it into that campaign. (Shame, as it's a nice one too, but fictional and so might look out of synch with the other maps) The third, and final series will return to the dense urban jungle and will take place at Hama and will use the maps for the 'Audacity' and 'Bridge to Valhalla' missions from the German campaign. In these missions, 'A' Company will be assisting a Mech Infantry Battalion with 'good' tanks in one mission and 'B' Company, a Syrian Mechanised Airborne Company with BMP-3s in the other. This means that both core companies will fight three missions each and that's just about right. NO FREE HAND I didn't mention which forces you'd be fighting in the second and third series and that's because the opponent you face will change depending on your success in the first series. Nowadays, with the proliferation of handphones with video cameras and internet access, the manner in which you conduct yourself in putting down the rebels will be scrutinised by the world community. You CAN win the mission by plastering the city with high explosives before sending in the troops to mop up the dazed survivors. But this will outrage the International community and will result in western forces launching an air campaign to support the Rebels. The most obvious effect will be to remove all of your heavy artillery and air support from your future OBs and give the Red forces air support instead. Victory conditions in missions will be carefully crafted to disallow a BIG win (i.e. a Major or Total Victory) to the player who is too free with his artillery and air assets. You will still be able to win but only a Minor or Tactical Victory at best, and the campaign script will track this and send you to a different opponent in the next series. The REAL challenge will be to put down the Rebels without offending the International community. Do this and you will continue to fight UNCONs in the next series. Otherwise, you will stir up discontent both abroad and at home and the Rebel forces will consist of Regular Army formations. In the final series, you will be fighting Regular Mech Infantry forces with tanks in support regardless. However, they may have NATO air support and I might have another trick up my sleeve;). CAMPAIGN SCHEDULE I spent a lot of time this weekend playing and replaying the first mission to get the balance of forces more or less right and I'm in the process of getting a second AI plan up and running for the first mission and will get started on the second mission soon afterwards. Although I'm using existing maps, I should have enough time to improve them. Unlike creating content for a BFC release, I have as much time as I'm willing to spend to get this ready. I'd rather get this finished in 4-6 weeks which seems realistic as long as I don't get carried away and expand on it too much (which might happen). Re-using these maps cuts down the development time considerably and lets me get right to the best part of scenario design, for me at least, which is crafting the AI. Afterthought: If I still have some time on my hands after finishing this project, I may rework the NATO Canadian campaign as a British Light Infantry campaign. While waiting for TO&Es to become stable enough to create the real campaign missions, I was using the Brit Light Infantry Battalion as core units for testing and playing it that way was a real blast. The NATO Canadian Task Force is a much heavier force than the Brit Light Infantry battalion. the Brits have those really cool Jackals and WMIKS and no tanks and I'd like to rework it so that it can be played as the Brits as well. Tentatively called "Carry On up the Khabour".

That's probably quite true but I doubt they'll lose any sales because of it. They'll be back once the module is released and all will be forgiven... 'till the next release ditto here. East Front is my first love when it comes to wargaming. When I got into SL, and later ASL, I much prefered the Russian v German scenarios to the US v German ones. It was a bit different when we got the Brits as I'm Scottish and so I can get my kicks playing as the Brits. But Russian Front is the dream front. I was designing a mission for the Commonwealth campaign and during playtesting I thought 'Wow! How much cooler will this be when it's East Front!'

Yes, but it's Present Perfect Continuous tense

When Beta testing I have to keep my game clean. Otherwise, yes, I'd have all these mods installed as well. I've really missed Aris's vehicle mods while I've been getting the Commonwealth stuff finished.

I've been trying to find a 'hook' to hang my campaign on and I've finally found it. Without some theme, all a campaign is is just a string of connected missions. Now I have a story and some interesting ways for the campaign to develop depending on how the player fares in the earlier missions. I might even be inspired enough to create a few new original maps for it as well. I won't say much about it now until I have something real to show. Needless to say it will be Red v Red with the player taking the part of the Government forces fighting against the Free Syrian Army. The first mission is shaping up nicely though and I'll really put it through the paces this weekend.

The old files are going up on the Repository as I type this. I guess it will be another 24 hours before it gets through BFC's screening process. The file contains the original, unadulterated versions of the 10-mission Hasrabit campaign and the 3-mission Perdition campaign. They are both playable with the base game only. It wouldn't have taken more than a few minutes to sub in real Red airpower for the current Blue but then, players without the NATO module wouldn't be able to play them. Besides, I would really like to start something new rather than rework existing campaigns. I gave both of them a good look at and jotted down lots of notes to guide me through the upgrade process. Hasrabit first, with 10 missions and a huge number of variants would have required a hell of a lot of work just to reimport the new campaign core units, never mind upgrading the maps or improving the AI plans. I guessed it would take about 3-4 months to do a decent job and I don't have the time for that. Not only that, it would be so far from the original Hasrabit that it would probably be best to rename it. At three missions with no variants, Perdition looked like a more likely candidate for a thorough overhaul. But, once again, the list of changes that would be needed grew and I was looking at about a months work again. But I really want to do one last Red v Red campaign for this title and I'd be much happier if it were an all-new campaign. I plan to use a number of maps from the Canadian and german campaigns for this one and yes, it will be an infantry-centric campaign for a change. Most likely featuring Syrian Airborne and Reserve Motorised Infantry as your core forces with tanks kept to a minimum. When they do appear, they will be relics. It will definitely have Red airpower and shilkas as well as the improved UNCON units for the AI side.