Combatintman

Reference making scenarios for release - it does require time but I don't see how a lot of it can be automated. For my CMSF scenarios I just create a folder on my computer and as I sketch out my concept and put the mission together I put the concepts and graphics on slides as I go. Once I'm happy with it I port the graphics into paint and size them to the correct dimensions before saving them back into my folder as bmp files. I'll then write the briefing and once done copy them across to a folder in CM. From there I import the lot into the scenario via the scenario editor. The whole process takes about an hour and a half with most of that time being writing the orders text. The only thing about the whole process that I find an inconvenience is that I cannot import from a directory outside of the CMSF directories.

Sgt Joch, I would guess so. From what I can work out the 1.32 patch came out in Jul 11 - I certainly didn't update to it then because I was on tour but I would have updated my installs on my return which was in Sep of that year. I did not start working on the project containing the two missions that I referred to in the previous post until about Dec 11/Jan 12. That would certainly be post my ver 1.32 patch install. I'll send both of the functional ones to you on the other means. Regards

To clarify the above - the mission I refer to that works I started on or about Feb-Mar 2012 and I last worked on it in Nov 2013. As I say the recent changes were in terms of units, the objectives would have been locked in on the earlier date. I have another mission that works with the same sort of timeframes (eg early work in Feb-Mar 12 and updates in Nov 2013).

Now here's quite a shocking thing, none of the scenarios that I have released recently behave correctly with Red Occupy objectives. I guess my testing was all about ensuring that the mission was achievable!! I have one scenario which I have worked on recently (about 3-4 months ago) by swapping out Blue units for a Core Units File and stripping some Red units from it. However the base map and main elements of the scenario were put together about 2 years ago. That does work but as I say I'm not convinced it counts as 'recent'.

Original Australian War Diaries are here for free: http://www.awm.gov.au/view/collection/records/awm95/ Admittedly they are a dry read but they do have all of the detail of the operations that were conducted by 1 ATF in VN.

I've met one of the vets from the battle - I was his driver for a day a long time ago. It wasn't until I read a book about the battle which mentioned him years later and I thought ... 'what an opportunity I missed'.

SGT Joch, in a way I'm relieved because I would have hated to have wasted your time and I was questioning my sanity because of course ver 1.32 has been out for some time now!!! My suspicion about the Green 9 scenario (Imperial Grunt is looking at that one) which is where it really hit home was that it may have had something to do with having the mission being set to Red v Red to add some Syrians as ANA troops for Blue before switching to Blue v Red. However for the LOAM Wadi mission that is absolutely not the case as it is strictly Blue v Red and has been throughout the development process. Did you encounter the same results as I did for the LOAM Yakhchal mission?

You can do this in CMSF. Let's say you are designing a Blue playing Red scenario - first you set your mission as Red v Red, purchase your knocked out vehicles in what will become your Blue force unit selection screen and deploy them. Then switch back to Blue versus Red mission and you will see the destroyed vehicles at mission start. Not sure if this is possible in the WW2 titles as I don't have them. Reference the lottery of the AI intel settings - you can work around it by stating explicitly in the briefing what is where in the Situation Enemy Forces paragraph.

Imperial Grunt - seen your PM and replied, thanks also to you for offering to help.

While I agree that triggers for an attacking AI may take a little more finesse, I think that there are plenty of possibilities for AI design here. Much of course will depend on how many you are allowed to place as a designer but simple concepts such as weighting the attack should be easily handled by triggers. Steve's explanation in the dedicated thread also discussed a scenario where a 2nd echelon type force could be triggered forward once an initial echelon had hit a particular trigger. From what I read in Steve's explanation of the concepts the triggers revolve around the presence of units within the trigger area. This does have limitations but can still be worked around with a bit of lateral thinking. As an example an attacking AI in a screen/guard scenario can be triggered to advance by triggers on assessed fall back positions. As soon as the defending screen/guard leapfrogs back on to the trigger, the attacking AI could be triggered to advance a bound for instance. In effect they can be used by the designer to simulate a Decision Support Overlay (DSO). Link below discusses how these work and their associated concepts. http://www.cavalrypilot.com/fm17-98/ch2.htm Really looking forward to seeing these.

eniced73, well we obviously don't know the scope of the features being promised but water features and bridges would certainly be welcome additions to the terrain editor. Otherwise you have answered your question with the second half of your post - the features you list would really enhance CMSF.

Sgt Joch - e-mail sent with two missions attached which exhibit said behaviour. Regards Combatintman.

Sgt Joch - seen your PM, I'll send the mission(s) in question to you when I finish work today. Thanks for the quick response and offer of help.

Yes I do however it is unfinished, but it is the one that threw up the problem and should replicate the behaviour described. I may have at least one more unfinished one somewhere that I am suspicious of. Just tell me where to send it to.

I may have got to the bottom as to why I'm struggling to get VP balance in scenarios and the campaigns I've got on the go. I have just done a cease fire one minute into my Green 9 scenario. Red has a number of occupy objectives which it is sat on at the start with no blue troops anyway close to those objectives yet on the statistics screen that comes up at game end they are not credited with the points. Conversely the Blue occupy objective that it is sat on at the start of the mission is credited to the Blue player on the statistics screen. I can't come up with a reason for it at all and it is annoying because the mission is not fit for purpose without Red getting the credits they deserve. Thoughts anybody/Battlefront?

At some point one place is mentioned, either in the narrative of one of the episodes or in the blurb on the Nat Geo website. Can't remember the name now but if you type in 'Khenjakak, Afghanistan' into Google Earth it plots into that area. At some point I might do a semi-historical mission in that area in that, although the Brits are my first love, I do like the USMC TO&E and it would be great to get an Abrams rattling around the Dasht.

Imperial Grunt - seen it. If National Geographic had put a map at the start of each episode where the blokes are on a mission in the same way that Ross Kemp did in his two series on Afghanistan or been more specific than 'Zamindawar' about where Golf Company were operating I'd be bashing away in the mission editor. Shame really because it is a good series and the photography is superb.

I'm not sure where I sit on this to be honest. I would love to see VN done but am unconvinced that it could be executed well. My main area of interest is the 1st Australian Task Force in Phuoc Tuy. Over the time that the Australians fought in VN there were relatively few major actions, the stand out ones I suppose being: Long Tan In essence a rifle company bumped by a VC/NVA force fighting a desperate defence in a rubber plantation until relieved by the QRF. Binh Ba A small infantry/armour attack against VC defenders in a small village. Tet (this is relatively speaking thought - Phuoc Tuy was a sideshow in the Tet scheme of things) Tet for 1 ATF involved company sized street fights in the two main towns in the province. Battles for various firebases with Balmoral and Coral being pretty notable. The firebase battles are essentially company sized defensive actions against VC attackers. The remainder of the time was a heap of jungle bashing with fleeting contacts and casualties in the sub-fifty range. Now of course the US experience and tactics were different and there is more scope there but there is still a lot of grind here. Selective actions to prove a point I know but they are well known: The aircav action featuring Hal Moore's 1/7 Cav in the La Drang valley for instance is in essence an exercise in holding a perimeter. Hue is an urban slugfest. Khe Sanh is pretty much the same as the La Drang valley only with fortifications and more offensive support on both sides. Hamburger Hill is a knife fight up a hill. Now everybody has their preferences but I personally am not a fan of street fighting, advancing on narrow frontages and stumbling around in wooded/forested areas. The NATO module mission Will o' the Wisps for instance (a small hide and seek scenario in a wooded area) gave me no pleasure or challenge at all. I may have been lucky (and that is a rarity) but all I did was set all of the Canadians hunt orders to the other side of the map and ten minutes later I was the master of all I surveyed. I think all too often, those that clamour for CMVN are seduced by airmobile assaults, some bloody great looking jets and thrashing up and down the Mekong Delta in some pretty cool boats. However my observations regarding VN battles and possible gameplay are the reason that I remain unconvinced about CMVN. All of the above notwithstanding there is scope for some great campaigns out there but to be realistic you would need a lot of 'dud' missions involving hours of jungle bashing to find the enemy - those with limited gaming time are unlikely to invest their time in such a campaign though.

Thomm - while I am aware of the technique I didn't bother for the simple reason that the canal would have been all wonky and the zigzagging required for the roads/tracks actually makes the ground more interesting when most of them are flanked by irrigation ditches. Also once I got into this map it was easier than it may look - all I did was take x and y measurements for the junctions and entry and exit points of the linear features and then just drew the intervening road/track sections to fit those dimensions. Some of my maps have benefitted from the 'orientation to suit' technique although in some cases this is barely noticeable - my CIMIC House map I think needed a very slight tweak in Google Earth rather than slavishly retaining the N-S orientation.

Here are the promised screenies: This is the real world overhead from Google Earth: This is the CMSF equivalent: This is an oblique taken from CP Haji Alem which is on the eastern edge of the map looking due west: For orientation, CP Haji Alem is the compound that is about a third of a way up the map on the eastern bank of the canal. It looks almost straight along the most obvious E-W route on the map. CP Haji Alem is where you will mount your patrol from and the line of compounds that you see right next to the compass are one of the objectives that you will have to patrol out to.

First hack through with one AI plan - not quite there but the mission has the right feel to it which I'm pretty pleased with. When I have more time I'll put up some screenies of the map.

What he said and (from my library): Entry level overviews: Hitler's Greatest Defeat by Paul Adair is as reasonable a cheap primer on Bagration as any. Red Storm on the Reich by Christopher Duffy is a reasonable overview of the 1945 battles. For me the best academic overview of this part of the Eastern Front in the English language is The Road to Berlin by John Erickson. Obviously this is rooted at the strategic/operational level. Tactical Stuff: Fighting in Hell (The German Ordeal on the Eastern Front) edited by Peter G. Tsouras has a variety of operational/tactical type discussions/vignettes from the German perspective of which some cover the period to be modelled in the game. Red Armor Combat Orders (Combat Regulations for Tank and Mechanized Forces 1944) edited by Richard H. Armstrong is pretty much what it says on the tin. Specific Operations: The Battle for Lvov July 1944 The Soviet General Staff Study translated and edited by David M. Glantz and Harold S. Orenstein Belorussia 1944 The Soviet General Staff Study translated and edited by David M. Glantz and Harold S. Orenstein. Free stuff: Browse this linky for stuff that interests you: http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/CSI/CSIPubs.asp#ww2 Not bad for a dyed in the wool modern CMSF fan methinks ...

Not recently they haven't - I visit every day and have seen nothing of that ilk there.

Not quite a flamethrower but described as such: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPO-A_Shmel

lurrp - depends on your UAV - I would expect to be able to control the smaller ones such as Desert Hawk because that is ground truth reality. Larger ones such as Pred should be subject to control subject to a time delay. UAV munitions should behave in exactly the same way as CAS currently works.