Paper Tiger

British 40mm Grenade Launcher firing airburst ammo... Dismounted. Now you've seen it

Ken Now, the mentioned dead ground was totally out of LOS of any friendly unit. That's not strictly true because the air support is a friendly unit. So the Apaches/Cobras,/whatever, are able to spot for themselves and are therefore able to spot their own targets within that radius. They don't share that info with you though so you don't get to see little RED '?'s magically popping up all over the place. Would it be possible to allow area targeting for air support on dead ground? You can already do this at the start of a mission. This represents pretty much what you're suggesting. Once the mission starts, you need to have LoS as you've outlined above and I can live with that restriction.

Aw, you're just seeking to become immortalized in my sig. And failed miserably by the look of things

Is it possible to carry over red troops from a previous mission, do I have to make them campaign troops? Yes. You would have to make them RED core units - just buy them for RED in the same file you're using for your BLUE core units. However, you need to be careful when you have core units for both sides as the RED units will be imported each time you import units into a mission. It's a very simple matter to remove them but it does make for some confusing moments when you playtest the mission for the first time. And yes, BRDMs are really, really bad. They won't spot anything in low/no light situations so you can get right up close to them. Are you sure they didn't use grenades as well as carbines when firing at the BRDMs?

I only wish that CMSF modeled the large brown stains that appear in the trousers of anyone who has the barrel of an MBT's main gun pointed at them in anger! You could probably mod that in

I'm just finishing up 'Al Qusayr'. It's at that stage of development where it's approaching the sweet spot, where I can actually remove RED forces and finalise AI placement. The original 'Sulit' mission was a bitch and, with the BMP-3s and the T-90s added (only one platoon of T-90s) it's proving a tough nut for the Marines to crack. As Riggs said "We're going to get bloody on this one"

Since the game has several temperature settings, perhaps we'd see different results from thermal optics if the scenario designer set the temperature at Cool or Cold rather than at Hot or Extreme Heat.

<OUCH!> Let's not go poking at the hornets nest, MikeyD, especially in such a welcome thread too. Besides, there will come a time nearer the Normandy title's release when at least some of them will start posting here again so, at least from our part, let bygones be bygones.

The Dinas maps, and everything prior to that, were just 'made up', the exceptions being the maps for the 'Hasrabit' finale - a real world place just to the south of Damascus International airport, 'Orchard Road' (now The High Chaparral') which is now an amalgam of three real world places and 'Sulit' Airfield' which is called Al Qusayr. All the maps I've been making since 'USMC Second' Storm' have been real world places researched using Google Earth. Real world requires less imagination but a LOT more patience and dedication to do right. All the maps I've done for NATO are real world locations. I would LOVE to show you some screenshots as I'm very proud of them - just wait until you see the map I've done for the German campaign finale . It's my very best map ever - but you'll have to wait.

I'd love to tell you but it would fall under the category of a spoiler and the mission hasn't been released yet But trust me, if you play 'CAAT Fight' very aggressively, you'll see it happen too. And my aggressive approach didn't result in heavy BLUE casualties either. I completed the mission with the loss of one Humvee only. It goes against the grain for me to create a mission that's so easy to win but I'm going to leave it that way for two reasons: first, and by far the most important, it's fun! secondly, it's the fourth mission in the campaign and so your core forces will have taken some casualties by now. So it probably won't be so easy to get a win as playing it with the full OB I've decided to drop the 'Bridges' map for the finale and use the 'Sulit Airfield' map instead. The map's a very detailed recreation of a real world airfield and it's already finished. I'd just have to add some T-90s and some BMP-3s to the mix and I could have this finished later this week.

Neither of these should be issues at all unless your hands are severely tied due to the CMx2 engine. It's more likely to be that there's only one person doing all the coding and not something inherently flawed with the CMx2 engine

With 'The High Chaparral' mission under my belt, I got the third mission more or less finalised this afternoon. 'CAAT Fight' sees both HUEY and DUEY join forces with the part of the LAR to overrrun a Syrian position before they have time to form a defensive position. There's a ton of support in this one and it's a welcome change of pace after the preceding mission. I also discovered something really cool about the game engine while playtesting this mission too. I'm not going to give anything away but if you play this mission aggressively, then you'll see it too and it's awesome This is going to change the way I play BLUE v RED Missions when I have helicopters in support. Since missions 4 and 5 are already finished, this just leaves me the finale to do. So, hopefully, this'll be ready for playing quite soon.

Wow! I just loaded up a mission and had a look and there it is. All this time and you're the first to notice it... and I played Red v Red for over a year too... edit to add: I've posted a bug report. cheers

Wow, wait a minute... Your Scouts spotted ATGM positions, and this information was given to the HQ that now sees some red "?". Now i would say your HQ needs LOS to the red "?" to call a airstrike. Or is there some way to call a airstrike on suspected enemy positions without a LOS to the target ? Let's just say that I picked my spot well for the overseeing HQ. He can see about 50% of the map from his position but, because of the low light conditions, he can't actually see any enemy units because they're not moving. When he is informed of the enemy's location the LoS check is part of the call-in procedure and so he can go ahead. (It's details like these that I enjoy about the game.) Yup, I could have called in the airstrike with the spotting unit but they were less than 100m from the ATGM's position. A bit too close for my liking. And if I'd called it in and then ran off to safety before the strike was delivered, the strike might go awry. I wanted to be as sure of a kill as possible as the ATGMs can deny victory to the BLUE side. Dietrich I'll either go with Angel-1, Angel-2 etc or I'll go with your suggestion White Horse. You're right, the Archangel names are a bit out of place. BTW, I have a Sniper team that's nicknamed 'The Whackmeister'. Elite/+2

I love the british voices, was playing a game and a scimitar got hit and the crew bailed and what did i hear but "everybody oooot!". GeorgeMc doesn't just design great scenarios The man has many talents. And welcome aboard too to Hairy Pie. Like me, you'll probably be more excited about the prospect of playing CMSF2 than the WW2 game. Modern Era combat set in a temperate climate with fire, variable weather, and not to mention a new RED opponent.

sross112 thanks for that and welcome aboard. I would love to crank out one quality stand-alone each month. That's definitely doable. But it won't happen until after the NATO module is out. Then I'd like to do just that. Wodin Just hearing authentic Scottish accents in the game, as well as Brummy and Liverpuddlian makes the Brit module a unique experience for me. The voice acting is somewhat more impassioned than the rather robotic US voice acting. And the Jackals are my absolute favourite vehicle in the game. Webwing did a fantastic job of creating them. When we finished working on the Brit module I was a bit disappointed and didn't really care about NATO. However, I have to say that the NATO kit will probably knock people out once again. If someone were to hold a poll sometime after the NATO module is completed to see which BLUE force provided the best experience, I wouldn't be surprised if one of the NATO groups was the top pick...

Interesting post. I am of the opinion that the game undermodels heavy airstrikes and I bring the point up from time to time. Your example is a good one. If the house comes down, it doesn't really matter how fanatical you are, you'll probably get killed. I remember BFC remarking something about how the most hard-bitten die hard troops will pack it in when they are on fire. The building coming down around you would definitely put you out of action for a while, even if it is just to dig yourself out of the disaster area. BTW, fanatics will usually stand and fight until the die. They don't butt out when the going gets too tough. It's never too tough for those guys. Perhaps your guys probably couldn't return fire because of the smoke?

I finished testing the AI plans for the 'High Chaparral' mission today so it's pretty much finished. I had a tense time doing a proper recon on the Syrian positions in the pre-dawn murk. I was able to infiltrate my scout teams through the Syrian perimeter and locate some ATGM teams, waiting just long enough for the C2 to pass the information back to the HQ who then called in air strikes on their '?'s to eliminate them while the scouts scarpered to safety. I am a real stickler for not cheating when playing against the AI so if you think my missions are tough, just imagine how tough they are for me The new AI planning techniques I've been developing since 'Second Storm' allowed me to make the AI player a bit more effcient so I've been able to cut back the RED side numerically and to shorten the mission from 150 minutes to 120 minutes. Two hours is long enough for me. Being able to co-ordinate all the different arms efficiently and is one of the things that has really got to me in playing Modern Era combat. Because I don't (often) resort to cheating by giving my units orders to open fire on enemy positions that other units have exposed but they are unaware of, I am able to appreciate the real superiority the BLUE side has over the RED side: the ability to develop intelligence on enemy dispositions and to use that intelligence to formulate their response. The game allows me to do that whereas in WW2, the very best intel any side has is significantly less than the Syrian side currently enjoys in CMSF. So, when you finally get round to playing these missions, I hope some of you will try to play the game in a similar fashion. I play Real Time, only pausing when I'm issuing fire orders for my artillery or air assets. (You really are hands-off while you're doing that) and only giving units orders to fire on positions that have been informed of. BTW, I was thinking about what I said earlier about WW2 and thought this was an interesting analogy: WW1 had artillery, tanks, machine guns and aircraft and can be compared to kids playing football. No real knowledge of how it should work, no zones, no domination of the midfield etc, just 20 kids bunched up around the ball for most of the time (hey, that's how we played it when we were small kids and it was great fun too - unlike WW1) WW2 is like 3rd Division football (or College Football is you're into American Football) while Modern Era is like Champion League football (or playing in the NFL). All playing the same game but the experience at each level is substantially different.

I don't think anyone knows. It's not an unreasonable supposition so if you want a minefield, have one. Personally, because minefields are only discoverable by walking/driving into them and can only be removed after they have been discovered, I think they need to be used carefully in campaigns. Scenarios are different as they don't have core units. Now IEDs are fun and their employment would be expected. And, of course,the Brit Warriors and Bulldogs are fitted with those wonderful ECM devices to counter them which would give your mission a bit more depth.

What, nobody mentioned anything by the community's most prolific campaign designer, FMB? He's made at least three: From Dawn to the Setting Sun - Marines Operation Hangman -Marines Tip of the Spear - Marines (he obviously likes Marines ) And they're quite small in scope which is refreshing.

snakeye that's very useful and makes a lot of sense too. It seems that I'm alright with the two CAAT teams Huey and Duey. The team leader is Huey and the other four humvees are Hue 1, Huey 2 etc. So I'll keep that. My four tanks are nicknamed the Angels and are called Michael, Gabriel, Raphael and Uriel. While I like that, I'm not sure if a Marines unit would use such names. I'll have a rethink about Company/platoon names following your guidelines. cheers PT

i'm more willing to take heavy casualties to achieve my goals as it was historically accurate to do so That's a very good point and perhaps something I will have to learn to cope with when playing WW2 missions. Both the US and the Germans demonstrated a willingness to accept high levels of casualties in getting the job done rather than pussy-footing around and taking fewer in the short term but more in the long term. After four years of war, the Brits weren't able to take so many casualties and so working with them will feel a bit more familiar to me. DaveDash I have no doubt that I'll get round to playing it at some point in the future. What really holds me back though is that I prefer to spend my CMSF time creating missions and campaigns of my own. Since I started working on 'Hasrabit', there has never been a time when I haven't been working on something. I keep promising myself that when I finish project X, I'll sit down and play through some GeorgeMc missions. But I never get round to doing it. I love the scenario editor.

Actually, no. But let me reassure you that what I posted is only my own personal opinion. I'll probably get more excited about WW2 when they do the Commonwealth module. One word - Churchills.

Thanks for the feedback Dietrich. I will remove the platoon names and give them the platoon leader's name instead. Of course, the game will give the game a leader randomly picked from its pool of names but it helps give ME a greater sense of immersion if they have names. Chainsaw: It's an LAR platoon alright. The whole platoon. As an aside, playtesting modern era missions like these just distances me further from playing WW2 Infantry battles. Modern Era Infantry combat is so much more interesting and complex. And throw IFVs and other light vehicles into the mix and it just leaves WW2 behind.

Good. I'm glad to hear that. I've never played the official Marines campaign because I was under the impression that it had Battaion sized battles in it. As a Real Time player, an entire Marines battalion sounds like a nightmare to manage. Heck, a whole company is a bit of a monster, especially as I usually break those monster squads up as soon as they're getting close to contact with the enemy. Two platoons of Marines field more bodies than most, if not every other Infantry company in the game so I think two is enough for the first three missions. They won't be alone though. There'll always be units from some other part of the MEU accompanying them. That makes for some interesting force mixes for a bit of variety.