snake_eye

I have had a look at your map. The obvious question is what enemy size force the USMC will find on the other side of the river? That you won’t say, no need to disclose the Red force size. We will find it playing the scenario.Where the crossing will take place ? What are the enemy field of fire setting ? Normally, I will more or less move the Blue like “The Fighting Seebea” said it will. 1/The Recon with LAR and the team dismounted sneaking their way to a position enabling them to overwatch the crossing site and the commanding places from which the Red might fire on it 2/ The recon will bring Artillery, mortars and or Air Asset on these potentials threat areas. The LAR will assist and eventually try to Recon by fire, if the AT threat is not too high. The troops (2 platoons up and one in reserve) having dismounted from their trucks at the AP (behind the ridge, you talked about) will fan out and rush for the crossing site to establish a fire base with the first elements, enabling the second ones to cross establish a fire base on the over side and so on (over bounding) The major difficulty is to set an adequate timing for the pounding on the Red and have them keep their head down , the time for the Blue to get to the crossing site, secure it and finally cross it and fan on the other side toward the high grounds and or places that might have a good field of view to the crossing. 3/ I will send 2 Tanks to the crossing site and have them hunkered down to help the infantry on the other side with their fire and repulse a probable counter attack. To summarize, if you have a Company of troops on their departure line ready to move with their Artillery Observer placed at a vintage point, 2 LAR’s and their teams doing a Recon by fire and or a swift Recon to pinpoint the enemy in order to pinned it by Artillery fire and Air Asset, plus 2 tanks ready to move, as said earlier, you can make it, if all goes by the book. Since it rarely does, I think that you will take around 30% casualties in order to get on the over side. But you won’t be able to get them farther. Remember, that in attack you should be 3 against 1 to play it safe, not less. I don’t know what is on the Red side ? Anyway, I’ll be thrilled to give it a try. Cheers

Thanks for your praise, it is always pleasant to know that you have brought something worth the effort you have put in it. For the issue with your computer, I have no straightforward answer, since the processor, the video card and the memory make the difference in so many ways. I have had, usually, problems with scenarios having a lot of trees. That is why, I try not to put so many in my scenarios to prevent the video card to have a sluggish operating mode. I don't like to remove the trees in the game setting, unless I have a fight that I can't control anymore in a wooded area. For the map if you are panning through small areas, you should not have problems, these are observed while overseeing the entire map and zooming quickly from a place to another. That, depending of the computer and hardwares you have. I hope that for the coming games they will reduce the amount of calculus generated by the trees. These are real frame and video killers. Cheers

The El Derjine campaign has just be uploaded on the repository and you will be able to download it within a few hours. The campaign played only on the Blue side against the Red A.I is being V 1.20 Patched. You might have already played some of the battles as a stand alone and you should be warned that in order to get to the last battle, you will have to maintain a reasonable casualty level. You might, even get into some vicious fights, if you fail to inflict casualties to the enemy and in particular to some units that will be the one engaged against you in the subsequent battles. I have try to make things a way that will normally prevent you to get into a fight with just a few guys and or have to fight ghosts, when the enemy has had an attrition rate too high. Anyway, I am counting on you to let me know, if I have failed. I have taken some pleasure with that campaign and I have been surprised by the change noticed with the 1.20 patch. The A.I seems to react better and since I am playing R.T Elite it was to my relief good news, since the Blue A.I save my day quite a few time. That campaign has been designed to be more or less, like a real one could be. That explain, that in some battles, you will have to suppress by fire and then assault an objective in order to establish an overwatched defensive position, allowing you to assault by leap frogging another one. You might, also, have to hold the ground and wait for the air assets and or artillery, if you want to succeed and not take high casualties. In any case try to keep a low casualty level and get to the objectives in order to get to the next and finally the last battle. If some of you wish to use the maps to elaborate new scenarios, let me know and I shall made them available on the repository. Have a good game. Cheers

Thanks Moon, for all the efforts and the time taken in trying to answer to my question about a "reliable" rating system. I am sorry to try to describe (rather simply) what a "reliable" rating should be. It happens that without transgressing any rules of disclosure, I have had , being seen by some as an expert, (Believe me, I don’t like to be tagged as an expert, they are the one, ending always with the wrong idea – Don’t take that for the repository !), been chosen during 15 years to establish a very close survey on some industrials plants and rate their economic and technical development and compare them with others elsewhere. These stuffs were analysed and sent to the brass, with a synthesis of the things found and advices if needed. Some sort of a civilian Intelligence, in a way. I agree with you, to make rules that people don’t care about, doesn’t bring anything. Yet there should be simple rules. Because, you can’t succeed if there are none. Nobody will play the same tune and it will be a cacophony. However, since It is easier to rate 3 things than only one to the detriment of the others, you should consider to have to rate 3 fields for the file of a scenario and if you do so for each one and as you feel from 1 to 5 for example, you will get a better rating.. You rate the briefing (which is the scenario), you rate the playability of it and finally you rate the map That is easy, to do : And it the numbers can be translated by : I don’t like it, I like it a bit, I like it, I like it much. It is somehow the same way, an anaesthetist is asking someone how he feels the pain on a surgery ward. You get so many different answer, that the way to get a clear idea is to show him a ruler with numbers 1 to 10 and the patient slides an arrow on a ruler to the number that represents for him on a scale from 1 to 10, its pain. Pretty handy, no. By looking at the score for each of the fields, you know if the file is broadly good or if it has some underscore on one or more field. The same, can be done for the modds. Yet the name of the fields should differ. 1/ explanation – 2/design – 3/interest or whatever you consider fit. These ratings, don’t need any explanation, besides the title of the fields. They should not be obligatory. You rate the 3 fields, the ones you want or none. About the comments, if there are some, good, if there are none, that’s too bad, but they should no be obligatory either. About the Ergonomics of the Repository, I thing that the main difficulty is that you don’t grasp in your field of view a certain amount of files being shown. We are looking at just certain number of them at a time. Well, that is something, we have to do with Internet and its pages. If it is too small, you see everything, but you can’t read the thing. The answer might be a presentation, rather sober like CMSFMODDS and a rating with 3 fields which make you find right away the interesting files. You just have to look at it, more in details, like it is being done on the repository, to ascertain your choice.. As I said earlier, nobody’s perfect. The only improvement valuable is the one rendering the existing easier and not harder to use. That is what I have always praised and luckily for me, I had been able at time to make that simple statement understood to the higher wanting to complicate the machinery. In any case, these comments are not in any way a critic of what is being done or has been done for the repository, they are just what I feel could be improved with no much effort (from my point of view) in a near future for the benefit of all. Cheers

I may have found the answer for the SMAW behaviour, while playing the scenario once again. It seems that the icon of the bunker is displayed (the M.G icon) making you think that there is a crew inside. If you activate the icon the green circle appears, but no crew are shown. Does that mean that the bunker is empty ? that mention does yet appear later on. The SMAW crew simply seems not to fire at an empty bunker dispite the command order. Cheers

That might have something to do with patch 1.20. I never had that message, but after loading a save game (not yours, Georges) after having applied the patch. I have being unable to load it, either after a restarting. I did not have that message on saved games done after the patch. Cheers

Well, Moon, by ergonomics, I mean something you are using as it should be. I have no doubt, that people are able to look and find what they are searching, with more or less difficulties. But, you haven't pointed out that, if finding something is a result in itself, the value and the efficiency (compare to what you expect to find) of what it contains or is made off is what will cause a problem. Why ? Simply because the rating is based on 5 levels and that there are no real rules of the way it should be rated. Take a scenario and a panel of 10 gamers and you will get 10 gamers ratings, eventually the same level, but for different reason. If you have to rate the scenario, the map and finally the playability of the scenario, you will know what to expect and you don't need any comments, if you ssee what I mean. I have the memory of a pretty good scenario and briefing, with a map, making me jealous an unfortunatelly the playability of it what a disaster. The guy knows, what I am talking about, since I checked it at its demand. He made real progress lately..... Cheers

There are pictures, maps of 1944 and actual map also for the tour guide. They are describing the allied and the german side accurately. The action is quite well detailed and goes down to company and even platoon level when necessary. I can tell you that living just a few Kilometers from Périers and the landing beaches, I have learned more in these books than in the AAR made by the US Army in 1944 and 1945 about the fights. Wish I had them, when I was combing the area in the 1970 with a detector. That to tell you that to locate a fight and put the troops at the right place is quite easier, if you are looking at platoon and or company fighting feats. More, The War studies Dept at Sandhurst is making tours for cadets to show them the places they have studied and the books are being used. Cheers

For a very detailed account, look for BATTLE ZONE NORMANDY books from Sutton publishing (UK). Almost 14 separate books with history facts and battlefield tours guide (that you can either walk and or drive throught) only dealing with the Normandy campaign. They cover each separate beachhead: US, Brits and Canadians and the land battles like, Saint Lo, Caen, Cherbourg, Falaise pocket, Operation Cobra, Epsom, Villers Bocage..... Read also "Beyond the Beachhead" from Joseph Balkoski, already mentionned by some of you. A real bible with German and US troops tactics and detailed organigrams, covering the fight of the guys landing at Omaha on to Saint Lo. The best one I read about. These, from all the reading I have done these late years, are the best I would recommend, if you want to understand what really happened and how. Sure there are many others, but if a choice has to be made, that's it. Cheers

ERGONOMICS, that is what should be improved. It will bring to one looking at the Repository, what SITUATION AWARENESS bring to a fightman either on the ground or in the air. This is not a complaint, just an advice. After all, I have dealt with these things most of my life throught technical issues and or survey analysis, mostly civilians. When, you say that a decision is sound, you point out the facts. You don't say, that's good and that's it. My boss or higher up, would have told me "Greg, you don't give a damn for what you are saying". In another words, make it short but give the facts. Anyway, let's hang up with it, if that is your choice, it will be better than not having it at all. Cheers

Yes, I was. They did not fire on the bunker, despite changing position and having the target command set. They had the opening of the bunker in plain sight, and no target elsewhere I had split the SMAW team and the A and or B guys, however did shoot at a technical and at a BTR. Since I play R.T, I am not sure for which target I gave the target command. But they got the two of them. These targets were in another spot out of view of the SMAW at the Bunker Another thing, I have notice, when tracks and or grunts are pretty much pounded and or have been fired on heavily (or have dismounted from a destroyed track) they don't respond to any command. The order panel is blank. That did happen before, but not so much, it was rather rare. It takes some time to have them back in the fight. Cheers

I have played the scenarios of a campaign and to my atonishment, it was quite different as far as the A.I behaviour is concern, from what I had noticed earlier with patch 1.11. It is really better.However, I have had small concern with the SMAW, they were not firing on a designed objective, despite changing their fire position. Is that a bug ? For the rest, I have found a more realistic overall playability. What about you ? Cheers

Actually, I think that showing either with FRAPS (and or similar) or Comics an AAR is in itself a huge work. More, if you are playing R.T, you really have to anticipate for what you want to be saved. That is quite impossible to apprehend. In Wego, you can play it back. But that means that you should nearly write the AAR right then. For myself, I prefer an overall AAR (let's say at company and platoon levels) written and indicating the tactical plan being applied and its result. If, we go into details, the writting becomes a nightmare and no wonder that just a few people have the tenacity to do it till the end. Anyway, to all doing so, thank you, for the pleasure you give us,. More, it is them that make you play a game, that you had set aside most of the time. Cheers

Well, Bertrand, "Merci beaucoup" for the links; I have seen and read some of your excellent AAR on CYBERSTRATEGE which I browse quite often. The only problem I have found is about the French troops and tacticals terminologies for the infantry and the Armor. I am more use to the US ones than the French ones. That explain partly, why I have never translated a scenario in French, when it had been asked to me. Cheers

Well, Moon and Combatintman, you are mentionning right things. We can rate anonymously or not and add eventually comments. It might help people to know their weakness. However the rating alone, either up or down doesn't give a clue to the scenario map and or playability quality. It is an overall rating reflecting what an individual thinks about the game (but what does he thinks really ?). That brings us to what Moon wrote previously (quote: User ratings - or, for that matter, any ratings, including from "professional" reviewers - always have to be taken with a couple tons of salt ) Ok Nobody can be perfect specially with ratings, lets keep it as it is. We will continue to feel like an S2 having to report a situation and making interpretation of what he thinks, he has found behind reports giving no real information. In Iraqui Freedom they expected to find people along the road with flags waiving at them. No need to recall what really happen. Cheers

Well, Moon, First - I am not asking for being obliged to had comments. I am just pointing out that it will help to understand the rating, since that there are no particular rules about it. Second - User ratings are effectively a guideline of what others thought about it and I don't see that the fact that I like it or not is relevant, unless, I rate the file for having played it. Last - I must say that at different times, I did not like a scenario and that I did not rate it and or made comments, for the only reason, that I thought that the guy having done it with all the efforts it takes just did not deserved to be discouraged; After all , he might be the one coming out with the best scenario some time later. Cheers

The files are most often rated without any comments. That conducts to be rather surprised while playing a badly rated one and or disapointed for a highly rated . Someone being defeated might have a tendency to rate low and or high because he likes the map of a scenario not worth to be played......... For these reasons a commentary, even short, will be a most valuable needed information and will explain the reason of the rating. Do you feel the same or do you have another way to improve it ? Cheers

I have noticed that with the laptop only under VISTA. Yet, I think it doesn't have anything to do with the OS, but with the cooling of the laptop and in particular of the VideoCard (pretty much used to the top of its possibility). I have raised my laptop to cool the underside and I haven't had anymore crashes. You could use also a vent device being easily available for laptop. Cheers

I agree with mickeyD for the AAR. I have had some written for scenarios I have made and they were pretty well described. I won't give name, since all deserve appreciative words. They don't have to go in details, but the casualties table (for both sides) and the overall way to get to the objectives and how, should be sufficient. However, it is some kind of homework to do it and the lazy side is sometimes hard to overcome, since it seems that the effort done doesn't touch a broad audience. That's too bad, because they are a fantastic source of information for a scenario builder. Please don't get too lazy and try to write some AAR. Cheers GKE Snake Eye

Let me know how it fare. Cheer

Al Hillah battle has been downloaded yesterday on the repository. That is the last battle to be played in the campaign. I hope you will enjoy it and that you won't be surprised by the intensity of the fight. Grab the ground and do for the best. I shall be pretty much interested by your comments on it and on the others. That way, I might be able to alter if needs arise some settings of the campaign, which should be after some more testing ready for downloading in a week or two depending on my occupation. Cheer P.S: 3rd ID in its run to Baghdad had to fight intensely for most of its 21 days drive. It is with that in mind that this scenario has been made. The possible defeat that you might have, are in no way the reflect of what they did. They fought as none had done it ,since a long time, in some of the fiercest fights of Iraqui Freedom. Since Vietnam no artillery final protective fire had been ordered (Command made when a unit is in mortal danger). A Company commander ordered it. That is to say, of the fighting intensity.

The campaign is still in the box, since I don't want to have you play it, with an unrealistic attrition of troops. I need your help, for that reason. Let me know what you think of the stand alone battles released. First, Assault the Dam, then Assault Sidi Brahim and finally Assault Midoum. That will help me in finding out which troops are wiped out and which one are still OK. That way, an attack and or defense in the next battle planned as a stand alone, won't be in the campaign (because of the core units) an attack and or defense with ghost troops. Never the less, the next and final battle has been thoroughtly and successfully tested, some time ago. I just hope that, when all these are combined and depending of your individual skill and score that it will provide a balance troops level, making it realistic.. That, I have difficulties to apprehend. Knowing the scenarios to test, I am surely not fair. Thanks in advance for your appreciations and gamer advices. Cheer

The battle following Assault Sidi Brahim is on the repository. This is the 3rd battle being played if you won the 1st an the 2nd ones. I have still not uploaded the campaign, since I think that the management of the core units is one of the biggest problem, that I have had with CMSF. I dropped playing the USMC campaign of the game when in one of the two or three missions near the end, I found myself playing with 4 or 5 guys against the all syrian army !; The same thing happened again and again with other campaign which were made by what I consider like the masters that showed me the way to do scenarios rightly (I hope). I shall release the campaign anyhow, but I think that the core units will be so depleted that the reinforcement being brought in will be absolutely necessary. However, it is very difficult to write an A.I plan using a core unit and not knowing by advance its fate. It could escape complete annihilation or not. To balance the troops is not that easy and to play the campaign from the beginning does not bring necessarily the answers we are expecting. So , we go for the stand alone for the time being Cheer

Well, I know the limitation in size, but I thought that when you were reducing a map, let's say on the left, you could always augment it on the right side; I did it already. This time it doesn't work. As a matter of fact the depth of 1152 meters could not be modified, when I did it last time. I had reduced the preceeding map in depth, could not get farther than 1152 meters, yet I was able to augment it on the right, till I reach 1872 meters. Being stuck this time, the battle will take place a bit farther. Too bad for the continuity. I shall try however your copy advice, might be handy besides being time consuming. Thanks Hcrof

If anyone has an answer for the following, thanks in advance. I was using a map for a preceeding battle having a 1872 meters width and a 1152 meters depth. Needing the right foremost part of the map, I erased it from left to right till I had 400 meters width. I then tried to augment it to the right. it is lock and nothing to have it agmented. I tried to augment the depth starting on the top side. Same issue. I erased the depth either from the top or the boottom it worked. When I augmented it again. The mapping was back again, unmodified !. I can't still augment the size of the map. I save the file, closed the editor and CMSF, did it again , same result. If I can do a thing, I will have to modify my scenario and let go with that map. It never happened before.I was working for the fourth time on that map. Does that happen, because the original map was so huge ?