Combatintman

No - but people wanted Red air and because Syria possessed an air force but the British did not possess Stingers, Syrian air got added. The latter is great for the sandboxers who want to create even more fictional Red vs Red 'somewhere in Africa etc' conflicts elsewhere.

One day to play with it ... have you started Bidenton yet?

Another failed joke ... maybe my wife is right as she keeps telling me I'm not funny.

They would hardly be quick then ...

The standard MANPAD in the Falklands was Blowpipe. The SAS had a few Stingers. The Blowpipe replacement was called Javelin LML which in turn was replaced by the Starstreak LML which is what would have been issued during the notional 2008 Syria War. And no they can't just add Stingers, they were taken out because they're not part of the real world British TO&E for that era.

Set the guns to have less ammunition then. If you need arty for stuff going on later add extra batteries as reinforcements.

It is 2IC (Second-in-Command) not 21 C which would be an entirely different C/S.

Building a training range shouldn't take you long so long as you're not looking for anything too fancy.

Marginally incorrect ... 21 & 23 SAS (Reserve) | The British Army (mod.uk)

Thanks for sharing your experiences and taking the time to make comparison shots - take a well-earned like mate.

If we're using the doctrinal term for raid: "An operation to temporarily seize an area to secure information, confuse an enemy, capture personnel or equipment, or to destroy a capability culminating with a planned withdrawal," then I'm not sure Eben Emael counts.

For CMSF-1 but the principles hold true ... MAKING OP NEPTUNE SPEAR – A SCENARIO DESIGN TUTORIAL (CONTAINS SPOILERS) - CMSF Scenario and Mod Design Forum - Battlefront.com Community Knock yourself out mate - heaps of pictures ...

My reply is along the lines of @BornGinger's - so long as the player has the information they need, you don't need to stress too much about the briefing. The mechanics are a doddle as well.

I'm more of a scenario guy mate but I'm led to believe that if you pick 'meeting engagement' as your battle type, you will only see maps that are designed for meeting engagements. Naming conventions seem to be a bit variable across the titles but looking in my CMSF-2 directory I have maps such as: Open Hills (1200 X 1008) 249m.btt I'm guessing that is a meeting engagement map While ... Open-Water (1312 X 576) 256p.btt I'm guessing is a probe map.

QB maps have the same file extension as scenarios (.btt). I'm not quite sure what you mean by map selection but if this is a QB map you've made yourself and you're not seeing it in the QB pick list, I'm guessing that you may not have saved it in the Quick Battle Maps directory.

It all comes down to practice. I don't really know how it all works - I always talk about vision if you're going to design anything. For that one, I wanted to do something snowy and big and when I saw the ground and had a bite-size account of the action from one of the Osprey OOB books, I thought 'yes that would be a good map and situation.' I enjoy making maps (you have to when they're that sort of size). After that I knew how the bits would fit together. The drama, as always was the testing. I hope you will enjoy my Fire and Rubble stuff ...

Thank you - I am quite proud of it as you may have guessed. It was quite epic to put together though but the thing that motivated me to do that scenario was the tactical problem that could be set for both players.

There is an awesome scenario in CMFB featuring 116 Panzer Division ... 'To Verdenne and Victory'

Probably being a bit harsh on the VP piece mate. This scenario and Wadi Scouts scenario that you posted about on another thread date back to the very early days of Shock Force. Certainly looking at the Wadi Scouts VP structure, it smacks very much of early days stuff because it seems the designer looked at the parameters and thought 'ooh I must use all of them.' I certainly approached things this way when I started noodling around in the editor around that time. The early CMSF-1 scenarios did not have the same level of guidance on VP structures from Battlefront that are in place now so you

@benparkand @Pete Wenmanare the master map makers. Mine aren't bad either but not in their league 😏

Look at the image of the tunnel - the German defender is bound to want to stick an anti-tank gun or a Stug in that tunnel and you can see that at least one and possibly 2 AS's into the tunnel, any gun/Stug can zap anything on the bridge. The player wanting to do this cannot do so with some flipping convoluted bone spawning/exit zone workaround. Conversely any allied player putting fire down on the tunnel entrance is going to be pretty urinated off if a German unit spawns there two minutes after the bombardment finishes. There comes a time when you have to accept that there is stuff that can

No - it is an extension of the manoeuvrist approach - you shatter the enemy player's will by getting them into a situation where they think they cannot win and hit the surrender button. This can be achieved in part by deception but it requires other mutually supporting activities.

Everyone who has a copy of the game has access to the tools, including yourself.

The picture proves nothing unless you're going to explain what the MFDs in the image are and show a Harrier cockpit. The area represented by the map is also irrelevant as there is definitely an added area for aircraft outwith the map boundaries if you take a look at some ground to air engagements. The targets were dug in T-55s which can be fairly easily acquired by any infra-red sensor such as a FLIR pod or the target acquisition systems on an AH-64.

Generally you get good deals on bundles so in terms of getting bang for buck I would hang on until Fire and Rubble comes out. I can't remember much about the campaigns as its been a while since I played them but from memory the German one is at least battalion-sized in three of the campaign scenarios that I recall.