Paper Tiger
-
Posts
3,621 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Paper Tiger
-
-
-"Target" command is available in the editor to check LOS (no targeting orders are saved).
THIS will be EXTREMELY useful. Thanks a lot for including it. >sigh< August is going to be a LONG month...
-
Yes, I could see me doing a few 'macro scenarios' based on this conflict. The new Syrian equipment would probably be very useful here. I'll use some of my spare time at the office to get information on this conflict so that it doesn't have too many glaring inaccuracies.
-
So my only questions is what is next for you now that you are finished with your masterpiece!
Thanks for asking that. I've had Hasrabit v3 done for a couple of months now but I've been holding it back in the hope that BFC would introduce dynamic artillery and air support for the AI side. While working on Hasrabit, there were a few occassions when I was cursing that the AI couldn't do anything with it's artillery except dump it at the start. So my first project will be to get AI artillery into a few of the missions in Hasrabit. Hopefully, there will be some more info released on how this works before the Marines module arrives next month so that I can at least PLAN these changes. Right now, it will 100% go into 'The Barrier' and 'Saudara Part 2'. I have read that the AI will dump a load on any troops concentrations that stay in place for any length of time. Once I see how that works, then it may go into every scenario. However, this will definitely mean rebalancing things, possibly by giving the human player more artillery of his own. Then I'll have to playtest the changed missions a few times so that's probably a MINIMUM of 2-3 weeks work straight off. And then that will be me finished with Hasrabit.
After that, I'm giving serious thought to doing a short 5-6 mission Marines campaign using variations of some of the new maps I've made since Hasrabit. If I do, I will want to do it properly and give the Marines overwhelming firepower in each mission, lots of artillery and air support as well as a platoon of tanks, probably the best ones in the game. Hey, what the hell, I like to make things go bang too. But it must definitely be challenging to play too. Maps already earmarked for this project include 'Road to Amarah' and 'Flames' from Perdition and the two new ones I've finished for Perdition Part 2. (People will freak when they see the new 'Bridges' map. When I'm playtesting it I often gasp when I crest the ridge that overlooks the valley with the bridges in it.) I've already made a variation of 'Road to Amarah' with a Bradley Infantry company and it works quite well. And I'm making a larger version of the 'Flames' map too. With dynamic AI artillery, I'm certain I can make a really good campaign for the Blue side.
Then, I want to expand the Perdirtion mini campaign into a fully dynamic campaign with about 10 or so missions. I had an idea about the campaign story/structure a couple of weeks ago that will make this particular project unique. At the moment, I am playtesting two new missions and later this weekend, I'll be starting work on a third one. It's possible that I'll release the next four missions as a mini campaign again but we'll see. I don't want people to become too familiar with these missions before I do the final campaign or no-one will want to play it. Obvioulsy the three Perdition missions will be changed somewhat, especially the third mission. For those of you who have already played it, the Red side has some helicopters in that mission but you've probably never seen them do anything. You definitely will when I do the full length campaign.
After that, it'll be the Airborne v Rebels. But I reckon my schedule is pretty full until Christmas this year.
Speaking of Christmas, Handihoc, Flanker15 and Mattias are all on my virtual christmas card list for the very favourable reviews they posted at CMMODS. Thanks guys. This particular scenario designer really likes it when somebody else appreciates his work.
-
You have no idea how happy I am to read about the AI's ability to use artillery and air support throughout the game. AND artillery delivered smoke to boot... pinch me, I must be dreaming. :cool: That's the ONE improvement I've been hoping for.
-
Well, with respect to the Syrians sitting in their set-up zones, that sounds like a bad map. If I were you, I would open up all the QB maps with that terrain type and delete it from the folder when I found it. It's probably one of the stock maps so you can ignore the QBG maps.
Secondly, if you pick US Heavy Infantry vs the Syrians, that's pretty much what you can expect. Even if you give the Syrians the maxxed out force balance, they're no match for that particular combination. One platoon of M1 Abrams is more than sufficient against the Syrians. Better for the US side is choosing Stryker Infantry as you won't get any M1s or Bradleys. You can sometimes get a good battle with Stryker Infantry v Syrian mech forces but it's very hit-or-miss.
But don't focus too much on the QB system. Fortunately, the quality of the scenarios for CMSF more than compensates for the QB system's shortcomings.
-
If you want to keep them small for the time being, pick the missions with 1 or 2 soldiers in the scenario size box. It doesn't mean that it'll be easy but it means you'll feel more in control so that you can learn the game.
However, if you want something simple to teach you the basics, Mishga did a nice mini campaign featuring a full US M1 tank platoon with support called Operation Sandstorm. You'll find it at www.CMMODS.com under her hubby's name 'Meach'.
-
Red Rage
Liked it less than Hasrabit, but that is mostly due to armour heavy force balance.
Then you're going to like the next installment in the Perdition mini campaign series. So far, the two battles I'm and playtesting are very good infantry bashes. You have a single company of BDRM Infantry with a small number of T-72Ms in support. I really like the BDRMs in support of the infantry. They're not as sexy as the BMPs but they're like WW2 armoured cars and I'm having a lot of fun playing with them. In fact, I have to confess that the first of the two, currently called 'First Blood', is the best thing I've done to date.
BTW, how did you get on in Perdition? Did you get a good armour battle in the second mission?
-
The version numbers refer to the game version the scenarios were created with. However, YOU are playing with version 1.08 so each mission plays with 1.08 TacAI, unit behaviour etc. When you install the new patch (V1.1) or buy the Marines module, all these missions will then play with v1.1 Tac AI etc. Any bugs that were present in the scenario's build version have been removed.
The scenario version is only important if you are not up to date with your patches. Example, if you only have build 1.05 on your computer, you won't be able to play scenarios built with v1.06 or higher. Hope that helps.
-
Beautiful work. I have successfully installed them all now and they look great. I play Red on Red almost exclusively so I'll get plenty of mileage from this mod. Thanks for sharing your work.
-
But that yellow ground color on my game is in different places to that on the screenshots on site one...
Yes, that's because those screenshots were taken of a special version of the game map that was made solely for the purpose of creating a tactical map and those promotional screenshots. Have a look at the tactical map in the briefing and you'll understand. Those yellow arrows won't appear in the game and they're not important. You'll find that I used the same technique to make the tactical maps in Hasrabit.
-
I'd give Perdition a run first. The forces are quite interesting and I really like the second mission. It's tough but it's a beauty.
There will be a v3 of Hasrabit posted very soon after the Marines module arrives that eliminates all of the small errors that were reported by players. It might be better to wait until v3 is out before playing Hasrabit. I've even improved a few of the maps to make them look better.
I am working on a second mini campaign right now but unless we're all very unlucky, it shouldn't be finished before the Marines module arrives.
-
Yup, got that. Do they go in the Z file or do I put them in with all the other BMP files?
-
Well, I've downloaded these skins, renamed them as skins 6-11 as Mord suggested and put them into my Z folder but I'm not seeing them . Am I missing something?
-
That's good news. I'm really looking forward to the first one.
-
That's a working script for a linear three mission campaign. Combined with the manual, you now have all the info you need to write a compaign script of any length and complexity. (The script for Hasrabit has over 400 lines of text.) Copy and paste is your friend here. You don't have to write out every single line.
As for the campaign briefing, well that goes into the core units file just like a normal briefing. Your best way forward now is to experiment with what you've got. Try compiling a 2 or 3 mission campaign and get back to us if you have any problems.
-
Like the thread title suggests, can we hope for an update from BFC about the Marines module this month? It's almost three months since the original announcement and there has been nothing since (except to notify us that one of the Beta testers had posted a video at Youtube). Obviously the tone is a bit sarcastic and I'm hoping for an update much more quickly than the end of this month.
I'm really not expecting the module to be released this month but I'm really hoping that you can get it out sometime next month.I'm not expecting any inside info to be revealed at this point but it would be nice to know if the artwork for the T-90s has been finished yet. I still haven't seen any screenshots of the T-90 yet so I'm going to assume that the artwork is still incomplete.
I have compliled a short list of the changes we KNOW we're going to see in the new module and 1.1 patch. If I have missed something, please add it to this list.
BFC have already let it slip that there will be a substantial overhaul to the Infantry behaviour in-game as well as their ability to exploit important terrain features such as hill crests and walls. And even some sort of notification to the player how his force will do this in advance.
There will also be improvements to the way vehicles are damaged by small and medium calibre weapons.
And, err, that's it.
-
Or you can copy and paste this...
[PLAYER FORCE] blue
[HUMAN OPPONENT ALLOWED] no
[bLUE VICTORY TEXT] Congratulations. The mission was a complete success.
[bLUE DEFEAT TEXT] Your failure to complete this mission has resulted in the termination of this military operation for the day.
[RED VICTORY TEXT] You won!
[RED DEFEAT TEXT] You lost!
/*Battle #1*/
[bATTLE NAME] The Road to Perdition
[WIN THRESHOLD] minor victory
[NEXT BATTLE IF WIN] Depot
[NEXT BATTLE IF LOSE]
[bLUE REFIT %] 0
[bLUE REPAIR VEHICLE %] 75
[bLUE RESUPPLY %] 0
[bLUE REST %] 0
[RED REFIT %] 0
[RED REPAIR VEHICLE %] 0
[RED RESUPPLY %] 0
[RED REST %] 0
/*Depot mission*/
[bATTLE NAME] Depot
[WIN THRESHOLD] draw
[NEXT BATTLE IF WIN] Descent
[NEXT BATTLE IF LOSE]
[bLUE REFIT %] 0
[bLUE REPAIR VEHICLE %] 50
[bLUE RESUPPLY %] 100
[bLUE REST %] 100
[RED REFIT %] 0
[RED REPAIR VEHICLE %] 0
[RED RESUPPLY %] 0
[RED REST %] 0
/*Battle #2*/
[bATTLE NAME] Descent
[WIN THRESHOLD] minor victory
[NEXT BATTLE IF WIN] Perditions Flames
[NEXT BATTLE IF LOSE]
[bLUE REFIT %] 0
[bLUE REPAIR VEHICLE %] 50
[bLUE RESUPPLY %] 0
[bLUE REST %] 0
[RED REFIT %] 0
[RED REPAIR VEHICLE %] 0
[RED RESUPPLY %] 0
[RED REST %] 0
/*Battle #3*/
[bATTLE NAME] Perditions Flames
[WIN THRESHOLD] minor victory
[NEXT BATTLE IF WIN]
[NEXT BATTLE IF LOSE]
[bLUE REFIT %] 0
[bLUE REPAIR VEHICLE %] 0
[bLUE RESUPPLY %] 0
[bLUE REST %] 0
[RED REFIT %] 0
[RED REPAIR VEHICLE %] 0
[RED RESUPPLY %] 0
[RED REST %] 0
-
I tried to send you a copy of the very short one I wrote for my mini campaign to your email but you have this disabled. I'll try again tomorrow.
-
No, just the basic text will do. You'll find that in a file somewhere in your games files called 'My little campaign' or something like that. That's all you'll need to get you started. Once you've found that, get two or three scenarios that you've made (or adapt somebody elses scenarios) and try your hand at compliling. It looks easy but you'll make mistakes and debugging can take quite a bit of time. Don't wait until you're nearly finished to start doing this.
-
Well, that's a pretty ambitious project you've embarked upon there sir. Just out of curiosity, how familiar are you with the map editor? Your remark about the program bogging when you zoom out tells me that you're working with BIG maps. I would STRONGLY advise you to try your hand at drawing up some small maps with no more than a company on each side and learn how to program the AI to do what it's got to do. While it's not difficult in theory, it requires a lot of work to get a credible computer opponent and since a campaign can only be played against the computer, your skill with the AI will be the most important skill you'll need.
Maps are not difficult to do if you're not too concerned about making them photo-realistic. If you plan to make them highly detailed, then you're looking at about 1-2 weeks minimum just to draw each map.
Then, finally, you must playtest and playtest and playtest each individual mission to catch some of the most glaring errors. The larger the campaign the more errors you'll miss. Trust me, I know because I made a 10 mission campaign and I was appalled at what slipped past me in spite of four months of work.
Good luck with your project. If you need any help with it, this is the place to ask.
-
Wow! That looks amazing. Just out of curiosity, do I detect a slight resemblance to Daniel Day Lewis and Brendan Fraser in the bottom two? Apologies to either actor should they find themselves reading this post...
-
I remember reading a post by Steve some time ago where he told a story about a javelin being fired on a real life sniper in Iraq. I particularly remember this anecdote as he mentioned that there wasn't much left of the sniper but the building was left intact. At that time in CMSF's development, a building hit by a single javelin was usually destroyed too. So, yes, it would appear that the US army use their javelins as portable artillery in real life too.
-
Good grief! Is is really a year already? I've pretty much played this game solidly for the last year to the exclusion of almost everything else.
I have to agree that it is remarkable how much this game has improved over the course of the last year. So much so that it has exceeded all my expectations of a modern era tactical warfare computer game. I consider myself incredibly blessed to have found CM games. Ever since I found a copy of CM.BO in my local computer game shop in Ipswich all those years ago I've played CM in one shape or form ever since. I might whinge from time to time about niggley little things but I have no doubt that I'll be spending the next year of my life working with this remarkable creation.
Thanks BFC. No doubt you will continue to work hard to improve this already brilliant game in the next year.
-
Given that a standard Stryker infantry platoon wth standard ammo, or even a scout platoon, has 12 javelins at their disposal the suggestion that increasing the number of enemy tanks to rebalance the game is simply absurd for two reasons...
the first is that you would need to endow the enemy side with an absolute minimum of 12 tanks per stryker platoon. And if there were a full US Stryker Company, you're talking about more than a battalion of tanks. Now, if we follow c3k's logic, these tanks are merely included in the game to soak up the javelins that we can't otherwise delete from the game. Yes, you can reduce the US ammo supply but even with the lowest settings you still get 1 and that means a minimum of 4 tanks per platoon that are just there as cannon fodder. After you've blown those dozens of tanks up, you've then got potentially dozens of frame-rate killing burning wrecks scattered all over he battlefield before you can get down to the REAL action.
(Yes, you can argue that it's not a given that 1 javelin equals 1 dead tank but it's pretty close to that when they're being used by a competent US player who knows how to deploy his javelin teams)
the second is that, without any other AT assets, ie Stryker ATGM's or tanks, when the US Stryker force runs out of javelins, they have almost nothing left with which to hurt enemy armour. And that's not funny when it happens.
Therefore the BEST way to balance these scenarios is to give the US an realistic OB that includes tanks when there's the possibility that they'll be fighting tanks.
Cpl Steiner's suggestion is a good one for those of us who'd like to reduce their influence in the game without denuding the US Inafntry of their ammo and it's not an unrealistic proposition. You can just cut the boring armour slaughter-fest out and get straight into the action. The mission starts after the enemy armour has been eliminated...
I'm really not expecting the module to be released this month but I'm really hoping that you can get it out sometime next month.
exist it a tutorial to create a campaign ?
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Another question.
in the unity kernel, is necessary you it to put the two camps or just the camp of the player?
For the remainder I think to have understood.
it suffices to create a card as for a single scenario...
Whew, unity kernel? WTF is that?!
Do you mean parameters for the Computer controlled side? If that's so and the computer doesn't have Core forces in that mission then no, you can leave the computer opponents resupply replacement lines with a value of 0.
And yes, you need one 'card' for each scenario. If there are two or more different versions of the same scenario (Branches) then you need a 'card' for each one.