Paper Tiger
-
Posts
3,622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Paper Tiger
-
-
No problem. Back on topic. I finally pre-ordered my copy of the Marines yesterday and this morning I opened my email account and found an email telling me that my order was available for download. WOO HOO! So I clicked on the link and downloaded FlashGet and off I went. But then I was informed that it wasn't available yet.
Of course, I hadn't read the whole post which stated at the bottom that if it was a Pre-order, I might have to wait. AAARRRGGGHHH! False hopes dashed cruelly due to one's own stupidity. Ah well, maybe tomorrow...
-
Cpl Steiner's suggestion regarding casualty thresholds are definitely a better choice for scenarios. I have done almost all my work within the framework of a campaign and so the VP conditions need to be a bit more black and white. Look forward to playing it when it's done.
-
Yes. But you'll have the Marines module installed with v1.1. A new game using the new system is a much better option.
-
Some units were composed entirely for the task... and CMx2 will lack of that flexibility, wich means a "fail" in undestanding WWII era tactics.
Woah there. What are you basing that opinion on? I know you've got a big problem with CMSF and you're entitled to that opinion, but I'm pretty sure that when CMx2 Normandy comes out, you'll be playing it and dancing in the streets.
-
Meach:
we read this for our grandad at his funeral. I'm sure you'll recognise it.
Is there, for honest poverty,
That hings his head, an’ a’ that?
The coward slave, we pass him by,
We dare be poor for a’ that!
For a’ that, an’ a’ that,
Our toils obscure, an’ a’ that;
The rank is but the guinea’s stamp;
The man’s the gowd for a’ that,
What tho’ on hamely fare we dine,
Wear hoddin-gray, an’ a’ that;
Gie fools their silks, and knaves their wine,
A man’s a man for a’ that.
For a’ that, an’ a’ that,
Their tinsel show an’ a’ that;
The honest man, tho’ e’er sae poor,
Is king o’ men for a’ that.
Ye see yon birkie, ca’d a lord
Wha struts, an’ stares, an’ a’ that;
Tho’ hundreds worship at his word,
He’s but a coof for a’ that:
For a’ that, an’ a’ that,
His riband, star, an’ a’ that,
The man o’ independent mind,
He looks and laughs at a’ that.
A prince can mak a belted knight,
A marquis, duke, an’ a’ that;
But an honest man’s aboon his might,
Guid faith he mauna fa’ that!
For a’ that, an’ a’ that,
Their dignities, an’ a’ that,
The pith o’ sense, an’ pride o’ worth,
Are higher rank than a’ that.
Then let us pray that come it may,
As come it will for a’ that,
That sense and worth, o’er a’ the earth,
May bear the gree, an’ a’ that.
For a’ that, an’ a’ that,
It’s coming yet, for a’ that,
That man to man, the warld o’er,
Shall brothers be for a’ that.
-
I am thinking along these lines for the Blue player:
1. Occupy the building before the end of the alloted time = 100 points
2. Destroy more that 70 % of the enemy force = 100 points
3. Keep own losses to under 30 % = 100 points
For the Red forces:
1. For each IFV destroyed 50 points. 3 x Bradleys or Strykers@ 50 points each= 150 points
2. Occupy building before the end of the alloted time = 100 points
3. Destroy at least 30% of attacking force = 50 points
I don't know mate. Of course, I have no idea what balance of forces you're using so I'm going to estimate that the US side is outnumbered by at least 2:1. Even if it's higher than that, it still sounds very difficult for the Syrian side to get a win. Why?
First off, what's the most important thing for both players to do? Capture that building or inflict casualties?
Occupancy for the Blue side sounds good but if you don't change anything else, make it higher for the Red side. After all, they have done the near impossible. With your current scoring, the Syrians could control the building for 100 points but, unless the US player is a hopeless incompetent, they should neither lose 30% of their force or fail to eliminate 70% of the Syrian side either. That would net the US player 200 points. That means that unless they lose 2 vehicles, (+100 points for Red) the worst result for Blue is a draw.
I would set the US casualty rate much lower at around 10% for 50 points
for enemy casualties, give them only 50 points too. the US SHOULD slaughter insurgents.
This means that failure to occupy the building but fulfill the other two parameters gives the US side 100 points only. The Syrian side would get 100 points for occupancy and unless they kill a vehicle, they get a draw. Kill even one vehicle and they win. That sounds fair.
For Red, the points for vehicles are fine and nicely balanced.
Okay with the 100 points for occupying the building too in spite of my earlier suggestion.
However, if they manage to kill 30% of the US force, that really should be an automatic victory for them. Give them 500 points for doing it or reduce the percentage to 10% and reduce the points to 50.
So, if the US player takes the building but loses a significant portion of his force, he still loses.
100 points for occupancy v 500 for the Syrian for killing 30% of the force.
If the US fulfills the occupancy and keeps his casualties below 30% he can win as long as he doesn't lose two or more of his vehicles.
:
100 points for occupancy v 0 if he doesn't lose a vehicle. Or a draw if he loses two vehicles. A loss if he loses all three.
There. I hope that helps a bit.
-
wow triple post!! good job!
Three points, three posts. What?
Actually, I have no idea how that happened. I was using the computer at work and it's riddled with viruses.
-
Well, I guess that can't be helped. Anyway, to relieve some of my frustration, I have finally preordered the Module and I will be eagerly awaiting the download, hopefully at the weekend.
-
I'm a bit late entering into this and I'd like to add my voice to the following suggestions...
1 definitely let us choose which map we want to play on instead of letting it be randomly determined.
2 AI artillery MUST have a FOS unit attached when it receives artillery.
3 Finally, better defined force types. I recently tried a medium sized Red v Red QB with both sides having Syrian mech infantry and I fired it up. I got a BTR Mech Infantry company (cool) and got it all set up and hit the start button. My opponent had a full company of T-72s with no infantry. Game Over. If I could set it up to avoid this, I'd definitely play QBs more frequently.
-
I'm a bit late entering into this and I'd like to add my voice to the following suggestions...
1 definitely let us choose which map we want to play on instead of letting it be randoly determined.
2 AI artillery MUST have a FOS unit attached when it receives artillery.
3
-
I'm a bit late entering into this and I'd like to add my voice to the following suggestions...
1 definitely let us choose which map we want to play on instead of letting it be randoly determined.
2 AI artillery MUST have a FOS unit attached when it receives artillery.
3 Finally,
-
The main challenge for me in this campaign is going to be giving each mission it's own unique feel. At the moment, there are three assaults on small towns performed by mech infantry with tanks in support. The newest small town assault mission currently under development, 'Minutemen', takes place at night and so far, it's different but not THAT much different. I don't want it to be too 'samey' although I know that you'll find the feel of the campaign will change drastically when you eventually come into contact with the lead units of the 3rd Armour Division.
However, I'll get a better feel for each mission once I've got the Marines installed and see how the AI handles it's artillery etc so that I can customise each one more effectively.
-
Okay, I'm in the process of moving to a new house just now so my main computer is offline until sometime tomorrow but I am frankly getting rather desperate waiting for some news about the release of the Marines module. Every day, I come here hoping for an announcement but there's been nothing for the last few days. We're now half way through week 3 of September and the game's already been gold for a few days. I even read a post of Steve's yesterday where he said 'now that we've got the Marines and 1.10 behind us' but it's still not in front of us. Can't you guys just give us a bit more info please? Are you hoping for a release at the weekend? Help!!!
-
My rig is nothing special. I have a 64 bit 3ghz Pentium IV with Vista Home 64 edition. My graphics card is an nVidea 8600GT and I have 3GB of RAM. I run CMSF with all the graphics settings at maximum and all these missions play fine on it. I have been designing scenarios for some time now and I've only recently started making them much bigger than 1k squared.
-
New mission - Mission 6 Smoke on the water
(In game action photo from Mission 6 'Smoke on the water')
I have been VERY busy this last week creating the biggest map I've ever worked on. At 2720m x 2000m, it's a monster and making it has been a real education. I don't want to do anything quite as big as this again as it was very hard work building it. I had to delete literally thousands of trees from the map to make it playable, a case of too much ambition. But as it happens, it still looks really good when you play on it.
Because it's so big, it's not really possible to get the whole map into one picture without making it look boring so instead, I'm postng a couple of action pictures from the preliminary playtesting session this afternoon. I've played it through twice so far and got one easy win and then a minor victory but at great cost.
There are several large bodies of water in this map and I anticipate that we'll all be throwing a round a lot of smoke when the new Marines module arrives soon. Thus the name...
This mission takes the place of Dimas Part 1 that was posted on page 1 as the storyline of the campaign has been slightly revised. Dimas Part 1 will now take place at around the same time as 'Road to Amarah' in the Perdition mini campaign. This mission will be a meeting engagement between two armour heavy battalions and the preliminary testing has shown that I can run it with good fps even with the long LOS and smoke from the burnng wrecks.
At the moment, there's only one AI plan but that will definitely change as I expect this one will be replayed a few times and I don't want to make it too easy for you guys. I'm also happy to get back to the challenge of designing a proper AI attack again.
That leaves me one more map to do (aready under construction) and then I have all the maps I need. Hopefully, the Marines module will be released sometime next week and that means that I can really get my teeth into this project.
-
err... yes. Obviously I'm reading too much into things because I'm so anxious to get a hold of this module. It's been a very long wait for it.
-
The announcement about the v1.10 online manual has been taken down... Moon said in another thread that we should start get excited when the Marines supplementary manual was posted up. Release date early next week? :cool:
-
It's Pete Wenman's marsh to water tiles mod but you can effectively have water in CMSF already. And you can make bridges too but of course, they're indestructible.
Close up, it still looks better than CMx1 water.
-
Too me it's the flavor objects that can and will help overcome any perceived "static-ness" when it comes to map making. The more of those we have the better the maps will look. When you look at maps, where people really took their time and placed flavor objects with an eye for detail, you can see the difference. They look real and organic.
100% agree with this. I use a lot of these when I'm making my maps but after a while, you're just repeating the same old formula with those crates, sacks, and palettes.
-
You have to create the Z folder yourself
Are you guys sure about that? I have successfully installed some mods and I didn't have to create a Z folder. I think that one of the patches did it.
-
I agree that it would be nice if folks would take a little time to give the designer some POSITIVE feedback and negative only where it actually can help. However, occassionally you get something like this...
good maps, but that's about it.,the designer will block every possible way to the objective, just to lead you ( by swamps, walls, etc) to the ambush where a crack platoon and elite tank will blow you away.some people call it fun.,dear desingers- infantry do cross swamp, and walls!!!
:confused:
That was a 1 rated review the Hasrabit campaign got from some joker called jkob. It was immediately obvious to me that this guy had never played the thing as that review doesn't describe a single mission in the game or indeed ANY mission that I've ever designed.
So yes, I'd like to see more responsible mature adults reviewing things at CMMODS.
-
Instead I'll be in beautiful Lake Tahoe
sounds like hell...
Just two words for you... credit card
-
Also the tanks were indeed the T-72M1V (2001).
oh well, my bad. But it was very dark...
Anyways, it wasn't a criticism. The AT-14 Kornet is pretty much a guaranteed tank killer when it hits a Red tank and the AT-13 is pretty spiffy too. I'm looking forward to trying out some tests on my Firing Range scenario to see just how good the T-90 really is compared to the 'old' stuff.:cool:
-
I'm greedily poring over everything that they're releasing in anticipation of this module and I've watched them all a few times already. As a devoted Red player, I was slightly disappointed to see what looked like four T-90s slaughtered by five javelin launches without doing anything in the game. While the T-90 might be able to present a greater challenge to US armour, it looks like the Javelin is still the KING.
I'll still give the Marines a run through to check out the cool new equipment but I can't see it lasting long. I want to be managing one of those T-90s in a mission very soon.
How much longer?
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
You're welcome to try...