Combatintman

LLF - I certainly can - where does the 'img' fit in the tag to make it display? Once I master this I can promise you heaps of screen shots. Thanks for the compliments by the way - I must admit I was surprised at how long this map took me because when I looked at it on Google Earth my first thought was that it's just a box with some berms and roads - how wrong was I???? Anyway - back from the work trip so work will restart ...

Ok - next map is up. To be honest it took me longer than I thought to complete it but I'm glad it is done now because I'm away with work for most of next week and therefore won't be able to work on this project until I get back. The map is of the Al Faw Monitoring and Metering Station (MMS) which was one of the oil infrastructure objectives that the Coalition was tasked with capturing intact early on. The mission was given to C Company, 40 Commando Royal Marines who were helicoptered in on the night of 20/21 Mar 03. This mission is likely to be one of the first three missions in the campaign as I plan to sequence it chronologically. The map itself has been rotated to make the mapmaking task easier and is scaled at 1:1 (unlike the Umm Qasr map which I rectified again to make work in the editor easier for me). Map size is 1296m x 1824m. Here is the actual facility in Google Earth: http://i1066.photobucket.com/albums/u415/Combatintman/AlFawMMSActual.jpg Here is my representation of it in CMSF: http://i1066.photobucket.com/albums/u415/Combatintman/AlFAWMMSScreenshot.jpg Enjoy!

Boche ... it is primarily a Brit campaign, the meat of it will be the assault and clearance of the Al Faw Peninsula and the capture of Basra. Core units are not firmed up yet but it will be mostly 3 Commando Brigade elements supported by the Light Dragoons and some heavier stuff from 7 Armoured Brigade. Given that 15 MEU USMC was attached to 3 Commando, at this stage I'm planning some missions with then as well - the initial attack on Umm Qasr (the map attached in the first post) was done by them. I haven't made any hard and fast decisions about the enemy - the actual enemy were bog-standard units so we're talking T-55 and BMP-1 and I don't plan to change that - it is all a question of whether I need some of the niche stuff bundled with the NATO module (ZU-23 and ZU-23 technicals). At this stage I'd rather limit it so that players only need the Brit and USMC modules.

Like I said it will probably be a while yet - I still haven't finalised the detailed concept and have got about 4 or 5 maps to do. I'll post the maps on here in the proposed campaign order as I finish them. Unfortunately I haven't been doing the maps in campaign order which I realise was a big mistake because I can't put troops on the maps and put enemy AI plans in on the maps I have completed. I am now working on one of the early maps which is about 75% there and will then start the 2nd early map and once those are done I think I'll have a better idea of what I'm doing - hopefully things will progress quicker once I've got those out of the way.

Will be a while yet, I'm still ploughing through the research (which was more difficult than I thought) and putting maps together which, as we know, is pretty time consuming.

Reference my last - hopefully the pictures will come out better (newbie at posting pics) Actual http://i1066.photobucket.com/albums/u415/Combatintman/UmmQasrActual.jpg CMSF oblique of same http://i1066.photobucket.com/albums/u415/Combatintman/UmmQasrOblique.jpg

Yep - Unless you have moved - I am now just across the water from you. I wouldn't be so pleased ... I may have to pick your brains about putting missions and campaigns together.

Hi Folks, Been away for a while - marriage and emigration and other stuff take up a lot of your time as I have now discovered. Been working on an Op TELIC campaign for a bit - still a while off and not sure whether it will be a campaign or just a load of standalone missions. Taster as follows: Umm Qasr Google Earth Image versus CMSF Screenshot (Oblique) of same area:

If its any consolation - many of the scenario designers are aware of this and will give pointers to where mines are or will designate areas as minefields that need clearing by making them 'touch' objectives without any mines being there. This is usually specified in the briefing and is a good workaround.

I feel your pain - unfortunately Battlefront have stopped development on this title so it won't be fixed. I take the point about mines being the type of weapon they are and therefore quite often you hit them unexpectedly but also it is frustrating that engineers do not seem to have any advantage when moving across terrain in respect of finding mines.

BRDM-2U - no turret and 2 x antennae either side of the hull.

Absolutely not true - the Geneva Convention quite rightly prevails here. Enemy forces in the vicinity of such places can be engaged but the principle of proportionality MUST apply. Bottom line in the contemporary environment - even if you could justify the above it would be very rare to do so ... just not worth it and morally wrong. The morally wrong thing is the most important aspect here.

Absolutely not true - the Geneva Convention quite rightly prevails here. Enemy forces in the vicinity of such places can be engaged but the principle of proportionality MUST apply.

SQUEEZE the trigger surely. 4th principle of marksmanship and all that ...

No here's silly ... a U-Boat.

There is no such thing as friendly fire if you're on the wrong end of it - I can't believe anyone is seriously suggesting that it didn't happen in WW2 and that it is only a modern phenomenon. There are more mechanisms and situational awareness tools in place now than there were then and yet these unfortunate incidents still happen - why? Its what somebody from Germany called 'friction'. You put cold, wet hungry (or hot, sweaty, thirsty) and tired people with lethal weaponry in situations where they are frightened and have to make quick decisions. There is nothing from a study of warfare that suggests that you can eliminate friction.

Don't listen to my stuff - I might have done the research but I get hammered all the time in the game!

I play RT exclusively now - like others I started CMSF in WEGO due to being comfortable with it as an ex-CM1 player. It took me one game in RT to being hooked on it for ever. I tend to make sure I acquire stuff in the setup phase as having to do that later on I find to be a real faff and I plot as many moves as I can before starting and then just kick off. The number of times I pause in a game varies with the scenario/map size and complexity but the bigger ones I suppose I average half a dozen pauses.

Here you go then: 81mm Mortar Max Rate 12 rds/min 81mm Mortar Sustained Rate 8 rds/min L118 Light Gun Max Rate 6 rds/min L118 Light Gun Sustained Rate 3 rds/min AS-90 Self-Propelled Gun Max Rate 6 rds/min AS-90 Self-Propelled Gun Sustained Rate 2 rds/min

Nope - but I echo your comment about LOS. I'm an RT player these days and even I get frustrated about moving units into what I think are overwatch positions only to find they aren't - but as an RT player I can intervene quickly. WEGO must be an utter nightmare. A LOS tool would be brilliant.

I don't do points and with the way the game is designed right now I'm pretty sure it ain't going to happen - not saying its wrong but just not my thing. The solution is pretty much going to be fan generated. There are plenty of rulesets out there which could be adapted I would reckon.

The British weapon is called a LASM (Light Anti-Structure Munition ... I think) - based on the US M-72 but with a different projectile.

Paper Tiger's stuff is pretty good - Hasrabit and Road to Dinas are two of his. I've never played either the TF Thunder or the Marine campaign all of the way through but from what I've played of both, the Marine campaign is more difficult. You could also consider getting the British module. British forces are tactically very challenging to command and the campaign that ships with that module is well put together.

How did you rate it?!!

Certainly mechanised sections are unlikely to have changed their composition due to the fact that they are using the same IFV as they were when FM-100 series of manuals were called 'Soviet Army' versus the 'OPFOR' title they have now.