Paper Tiger

That's a very good result. You should be well set up for the fifth mission and I'm looking forward to hearing how you get on with it. It has the potential to be a real toughie. I only ever played it as a stand alone mission and so BLUE was at full strength. Because I know its secrets, I didn't have much trouble winning it. There are four different AI plans and so a LOT will depend on which strategy you choose and which AI set up plan you're up against. If you get lucky (25%), you can walk over the AI. On the other hand...

76mm I can understand why many (even most) of those who played and loved CMx1 would decline/refuse to play CM:SF and would even look down on those who do play and love CM:SF. I can understand why those same "no CM:SF for me, thank you" people would be practically foaming at the mouth with anticipation for CM:N. What I can't understand is why there are some (among them those who think CMx2 is a sham and a travesty as well as those who wish BFC had simply skipped CM:SF and gone straight to CM:N) who seem to be expecting CM:N to be "broken"/"fundamentally flawed" and also seem to almost be looking forward to that potential eventuality. Deitrich already demonstrated that he understood why some folks like yourself might not care for CMSF and the design decisions. What he is attempting to do is to rationalise why an extremely small number of people actually wish BFC to fail, don't ever want to see a WW2 game, and should BFC ever manage to release it, that it will be badly buggy. You are not one of these people. Some of them also can't let go of the past. They are not current with CMSF, which seems to be a badge of honour for some of them and yet they still wish to be thought of as fans, supporters of CMSF and get upset if you imply that they are not. One of these so-called supporters didn't even bother to patch his game with the latest patch until quite recently. One clear symptom of being 'out of date' is that they are unaware that the Brit campaign was nearly flawless. Therefore, Redwolf can honestly state that he can't see any reason why the campaigns will work in the future. He is still posting here with a pre-Brit module pespective - a point of view that is already a year out of date.

Oh it's definitely used in real life against infantry targets. No question about that. However, I doubt it would be used quite so enthusiastically by those same crews against infantry targets were they expecting to face enemy armour. So my suggestion was this: In the game we have several Fire Orders that we can issue AI groups with. the three we're concerned with are CAUTIOUS, NORMAL and ACTIVE. At the moment it doesn't seem to matter very much which order you give the AI group, they will fire those AT-14s at infantry targets regardless. I would like to see the settings tweaked so that we have the following: ACTIVE.......the situation we have in the game at the moment. The status quo, no change NORMAL......the AI will take less shots against enemy infantry than they would with the above setting CAUTIOUS...the AI will reserve these weapons to fire against vehicular targets and will only fire at infantry once they get too close. (I don't actually care about the 'too close' condition.) This would allow the scenario designer to decide just how willing the AI side was going to be when setting up his AI plans. Note that those who want to keep everything the way it is just now can. They don't lose anything. Whereas those of us who want the AI to retain them for use against AFVs can set them to do so as well. Everybody's happy.

You are certainly NOT alone It is too late to see any of your suggested items in CMSF but they are worth considering for CMSF2 which will be set in a temperate environment. I've never played ArmA so i don't know what kind of game it is. But I think the real limit to what can be done in CMx2 is the number of polygons required to create the flavour object. A couple of examples could be that CAS based support would not be be available until all SAM sites have been taken out. A certain Beta tester would LOVE to see something like this too

I'm guessing i'll be missing those 2 TOWs in the next mission Don't worry too much about it as I tried to plan the OBs for the first three missions to prevent ammo expenditure from becoming a serious issue. You should have more than enough to do the job.

Do you know I have wondered about those LAV TOW launchers myself. When I was testing that mission they were ELITE +2 and CRACK +1 and the number of missiles that went haywire was really surprising. And then the next time I played, they hit first time, every time. AkumaSD I have added a landmark to the Hospital in mission 4. Thanks for pointing that out. I'm looking forward to hearing how you get on with the final three.

I suggested quite a long time ago that the AI movement orders be the same as the ones the player issues... FAST, QUICK, MOVE, ASSAULT, HUNT, SLOW etc... It would make AI scripting much better in my opinion.

So far, this thread makes for interesting reading for me. Some folks are blowing through the early missions with very few casualties while others are finding them too tough. snake eye I am not surprised that you found mission 2 very tough seeing as how you lost mission 1. There is some overlap in time between missions 1 and 2. Failure to clear the town in good time will result in RED WOLF arriving on the battlefield about 40 minutes later. Further, you have substantially less artillery and air assets than you would have in the optimal mission as these assets are assigned to clearing up operations behind your current battlefield. (There is a third, permanent penalty but you won't see it until much later.) This is a dynamic campaign and it has been thought out - well thought out? That's up to you to judge but a lot of thought went into the campaign structure. If you play the optimal version of mission 2, I'm sure you'll find it a LOT easier. BTW, I didn't change the AI set up plans in mission 1 very much at all as they worked fine. The tanks groups were changed though as USMC BLUE can kill them far more efficiently than the original Syrian BLUE OB could. You may find that the other missions all have different OBs and different AI plans though. I have to ask this, why are some of you so desperate to PRESERVE everything? Mission 1 is very easy if you don't mind earning less VPs overall.

WEGo is THE way to play the game if you want to play missions where you control 2 or more Companies. In fact, you can play WEGo with Battalion sized forces if that is your thing. It also offers you the pleasure of watching replays of the turn's action to your heart's content so that you miss nothing. I'd liken it to a board wargame where you get to watch a movie of the turn as it plays out. It's very addictive and seems to be the only way some will play it. And more power to them. BIG DOWNSIDE to WEGo is that you are handing control of your forces over to the TacAI for one minute. Once you press START, you have no control whatsover over what happens in the game until that turn ends. REAL TIME doesn't allow you to co-ordinate large forces though. Let's be honest, it works best when you're managing single company sized forces or smaller but is a nightmare when playing with 2+ companies. RT allows you to manage your troops without handing the responsibility to the TacAI. That, for me, is the most important reason why I don't play WEGo anymore.. I enjoy managing small unit actions without pausing the game. I try to avoid the trap of pausing the game while playing RT. I only pause when: a) I am plotting artilery or air strikes. Or, I have completed my immediate objectives and am considering step B or C. Or, c) suddenly everything goes pear shaped... Pausing more frequently interrupts the game's flow far too much for my taste. I prefer to play the game out like a live action game. BIG DOWNSIDES to RT is that: a ) there is no replay option but I suspect that it WILL come one day because Steve wants to have this too. Not for CMSF though. anything more than a company becomes a nightmare to manage.

It's never easy to set the length of a mission so that everyone's happy When playtesting, I regularly finished that mission with more than 20 minutes on the clock, often a LOT more but with a few more casualties than you took. That sounds like an excellent result so I wouldn't start over just yet... However, I've made a note that at least one person thinks it's a bit tight... I am not averse to adding another 10 minutes but it might affect mission 2 as they take place almost simultaneously and RED WOLF goes on from mission 1 to arrive as a reinforcement in mission 2. Tricky... I've played missions 1-3 compiled once and it all seemed to work just fine when I tested it.

Thanks, I appreciate it. I hope you have fun playing it as well though. I have to confess that I feel a bit nervous the first week or so after I post a new campaign waiting for someone to find something that I missed/screwed up. Just before posting 'Hasrabit', I went through all the missions to check that the AI plans were all swiched on and in doing so I accidentally clicked on the map and painted an extra single square AI set up zone for group 1 which resulted in a T-72 being placed on the side of a hill. Funnily enough, no-one remarked on it though. They must have thought it was my intention to have it sitting there.

Roadiemullet: rather than the generic flame thing thats in the game now (some of the worst graphics ive seen in a long time IMO).... Yup, no argument there. However, if you install this fantastic mod, it'll look MUCH better. http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=282

Cheers for that. I'll take a peek later and correct those errors for a later version. #1 - ah, I see. That's me being vague. That's not their call sign but the platoon they will be carrying throughout the campaign - I should have said 'assigned to carry' or something like that. #2 is due to me deleting Huey from the OB the day before I posted the campaign. I wanted to see if I could win the mission with only one CAAT team (I could. It didn't make any difference either as I rarely used the second in RT). This will actually help you later as ... ach, that would fall under the category of spoiler. #3 was an error. I wanted Cobras but must have been using the US Army default menu when I added the air support. I hope it doesn't bother you too much. I'll check the other missions and see if this happens again. Actually, for a wee while, I was playing with the US Light Trucks that came with the Brit module by mistake for the same reason - I saw Truck platoon in the US Army menu and bought it only to realise later that they were not the Marines trucks. edit to add: I have corrected these errors and checked the remaining missions to see if I'd made the same mistake with the helicopters. Don't worry, it doesn't happen again. Once again, thanks for taking the time to bring these to my attention.

Yes, 'UK The Full Monty' was one of mine. I liked that one a LOT. I suspect you guys will be (pleasantly) surprised by how easy some of the missions in this campaign are. However, taken together, with no replacements for casualties and not a lot of resupply either, you'll probably find the later missions more challenging. Your infantry platoons fight in 5 battles. Even if you earn the Friendly Force Preservation bonus is each mission, the best of you will be playing the last two missions with a force at 80% strength. The rest of us mere mortals will be down to about 75% or worse and maybe be down a tank or two as well.

I have no idea how that particular system would affect the vehicle's overall performance for the duration of the mission. I would guess that it would affect C2. But damage to weapons systems can all seriously affect your day. I've had a few 'why won't it fire?' moments only to find, upon inspecting the damage panel, that the vehicles targetting system had been knocked out or it's main armament damaged. Even a Syrian HMG can stuff up some sensitive equipment.

'Gung Ho!' is a fully dynamic six-mission campaign which follows the fortunes of an MEU as they fight their way from the Syrian coast into the western mouth of the Hims Gap (missions 1 and 2), aggressively push through the Hims Gap (missions 3 and 4), fight for control of bridges across the Orontes (mission 5), and finally, assault the Syrian airbase at Al Qusayr (mission 6). The primary core Unit for this campaign is BRAVO Company of the 1st Battalion 8th Marines, the 'Beirut Battalion'. Depending on your success in the campaign, various other units from the MEU will be attached to BRAVO Company to create a new, and hopefully, interesting OB for each mission. At some point during the campaign, you should see all of the equipment an MEU fields in action, from LAVs to M1A1s, and from AAVs to MTVRs. Each mission has at least 2 AI plans, some have four, to confer some replayability on this campaign. You will have plenty of artillery and air support on call in each mission. But don't get too carried away as these artillery assets are part of your core forces and will only be resupplied once during the campaign. Therefore you will have to manage these assets carefully from mission to mission. To provide the BLUE player with an interesting and realistic challenge, I have employed the following scoring conventions in this campaign: To progress along the optimal path, you must WIN each mission. A DRAW is considered a loss. You are allowed to lose one mission but a second loss will eject you from the campaign You must take great care of your men in each mission as you will lose the mission if you take 15% or more friendly casualties. While there are quite large PRESERVE bonuses for missions fought where civilians are present, the mission can be won without them as they do not award points to the RED side. Rather, they reduce the total number of VPs YOU can win in the mission. Losing these awards will mean that tolerance for friendly casualties in that mission will be severely reduced. Important exceptions are Mosques and Hospital buildings. Damaging or destroying these buildings will award points to the RED side. You will be alerted in the briefing when these buildings are present. While there is a good chance that vehicles that get immobilised or damaged in the course of a mission will get unstuck or repaired before their next mission, the chance of this happening is not 100% so be take good care of your vehicles. You should be able to find the download by following this link. http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=739 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Some quick personal notes Because of my Beta testing commitments, I haven't had the time to create an all-new set of maps for this campaign. To save time, I adapted maps used in my 'Road to Dinas' campaign. However, this is not just a simple 'swap Marines units for existing BLUE core units'. Each map has been 'improved' to some extent. RED OBs and AI plans have been substantially reworked and tested as well so this campaign should still be able to provide a fresh challenge for those of you who have already played the Dinas campaign. However, unlike 'Hasrabit', 'Perdition' or 'Dinas', I have not had the time to play through the entire campaign before releasing it. I've played each individual mission, or parts of one particular mission, several times to make sure that the AI is working properly. Although I'm confident that the campaign is winnable, I am not sure if the campaign is too difficult or too easy. It will need to be played through a few times to determine this so I will welcome your feedback. I am also sure that there will be typos, logical inconsistencies, and even a few grammatical errors in the mission briefings as I had to do them very quickly so if you find any, report them and I'll change them for an inevitable 'Gung Ho - Final' version later. Hope you guys enjoy this as much as I did playtesting it. The Marines are a blast to play.

Well, I posted it on the Repository about 7 hours ago but it still isn't showing. I guess it needs to be manually approved by Moon before it goes up and he's still in his beddy byes. I will create a thread for posting feedback later so if you get it before I post the thread, save your comments for that thread. edit to add: ah, there it is...

LukeFF Don't worry. I've already brought this one up on the Beta boards so we'll see what happens.

LOL. I have to confess that when I was scrolling down through this thread and saw your photo of the street, just for a second, I thought it was a screenshot - which, incidentally, looks a lot like a typical street in Indonesia.

It's finished now. I'm just running through some last minute checks and it'll go up either later today or sometime tomorrow.

Scalable Menus? Dear God, yes. None of us are getting any younger and staring at a computer screen for 2-3 hours each day isn't going to improve the situation. Kill Stats - probably the one thing we'd all like to see. Unfortunately, I doubt very much we'll see them in CMSF but we can all hope for Normandy and every title after that. I doubt we'll see them in quite as much detail as that though Stop the sound in RT when you pause? Yes, that would be useful too although I can live with it. I don't know how easy it would be to interrupt that sound file once it gets started. More map info - I have to confess that I never look at these icons when I'm choosing a scenario to play, except for the force size icon - five men in that box and I'm not playing it. I usually put my name at the end of a scenario description but there are a lot of folks who don't. I'm probably just a bit more conceited than the other designers in the community though so I wouldn't call for this to be a standard

I'm just putting the finishing touches on this one. There's one briefing still to write and most of the variants are done now. I'll just run through each mission quickly and try to get this posted either later tomorrow (Sunday) or early next week.

Would assigning AI triggermen the orders of [Ambush 75m]+[Hide] (i.e., the most "lay low and keep hidden" sort of order set) keep them from opening fire? Theoretically, yes. However, if they are of very low experience level (Green or Conscript) they will tend to ignore that Ambush order and open fire anyway. Also, when they are hiding, they don't spot nearly so well so there's a much greater likelihood that your pixeltruppen will be able to pass over the IEDs unmolested. The best solution to this would be to make them spies rather than uncon soldiers, thus disarming 'im. And now, we eat the banana...

Launch is for wimps.

Deriuse I'll offer you a couple of pointers if you don't mind. First, I would recommend that you don't use QB maps to start with but create a very, very basic one in the editor first, say about 240mx240m. Put a couple of buildings on it and paint one as an AI set up zone. Buy a very small formation fom the editor and place them in the set up zone. Once you've done that, give them an order to move from the set up building to the other and then you can play around with the AI orders and watch what they do. Use SCENARIO AUTHOR mode to do this. Try varying the types of movement orders, DASH, QUICK, ADVANCE etc and also try changing the Exit Before/After times and see what happens. Make notes if it helps. Since your map is so small, it will load up very quickly and you can do several experiments in 15-20 minutes. Once you've got a handle on what's going on then you can progress to two AI groups, 3 etc and even add enemy units for them to interact with. You will even know what questions to ask when you need help rather than very general 'how does the editor work' That's how I learned to use the editor and I had a lot of fun discovering its workings myself. I still do this when I am trying out something new. Anyway, good luck with your experiements.