Combatintman

Agreed - I too think the repository is a bit clunky in execution.

The light role infantry battalion recce platoon is not scaled for GMG - so although it would benefit from the firepower it won't get it.

I've had one survive a hit from the 73mm gun on the BMP-1.

snake eye - I understand your point but even if comments were enforced it does not necessarily mean you will get quality input because people could just put 'this sucks' or 'this rocks' which is no more help - it would end up like youtube. For what its worth I've played a couple of yours and like the effort you've put into your maps.

Should have done this about 2 posts ago ... it would have saved a lot of hassle - PM me

Yep that's the one - good spot and apologies to GibsonM for forgetting to credit his input to the Scenario Editing Guide.

Wesselholt - once you've done that, the other way is to ask on this forum and you should get an answer. The thing that does cause the most difficulty is the mechanics of the AI plans. The best tip I can give is to storyboard your proposed mission either on a piece of paper or as a powerpoint - whichever method you choose it is important to document things because you have to flick between a load of different screens in CMSF to achieve the result desired and because you can't see all of the orders for a particular group in the AI editor it can get fiddly. The way I get around this is to mark where my units are going by using terrain tiles (usually the gravel tile) in the map editor. This speeds things up for me and obviously once I've got the plan to work I then change the tiles to what they should be.

Hi wesselholt, JonS's suggestion is a good one - I learnt a lot about AI plans by looking at existing scenarios in the scenario editor. The links below will point you at some other useful files on the Repository: http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=233 http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=93 http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=94 Also - somewhere there is a Mission Editing Guide - I have just looked for you and can't find it. It comes in six parts and I can't remember whether I got it from the Repository or the now defunct CMMODS site. This is a really useful document and was produced by George McEwan. It might be worth PMing him to get your hands on it.

I wouldn't beat yourself up about Paper Tiger's scenarios - the level of detail he goes into in terms of terrain modelling alone is unbelievable. Having beta tested a few of his scenarios it always seemed to me that I had to be in exactly the right place to get LOS in certain areas and on top of that every enemy position seems to be sited in such a way that the enemy has a clear advantage which is lethal if you are not careful.

Sounds like you've been spoilt by all that headroom in the Sultan.

The deployment of all AD assets will depend on the threat, priorities and the assets available. As such high ticket items as the ZSU-23/4, Tunguska, SA-9, SA-13, Gepard et al are thin on the ground they will be focussed on the priority areas. Off the top of my head I seem to recall that ZSU-23/4 and SA-9/SA-13 were regimental assets with 4 x ZSU-23/4 and 4 x SA-9/SA-13 in the Regimental Air Defence Battery. So given that the Regimental Commander has a problem to solve because he has 3 manoeuvre battalions to protect, his own HQ, his SP Artillery Battalion and his lines of communication and as you can see - the means to protect them are thin on the ground. So are you going to see these things far forward? I suspect not and based on years of exercising against this threat the default was that if you identified ZSU-23/4, SA-9 or SA-13 then 9 times out of 10 you could confidently assess that the Regimental HQ or the Artillery Battalion were not too far away. Luckily, after WW2 the MANPAD was invented and these were issued liberally with each rifle platoon likely to have one. This is the sort of the capability you are likely to see furthest forward.

Ok - I'm only guessing here but for what its worth ... In terms of researching for the game and the modules, BF are reliant on what data they can find. I suspect that open source material on knowing exactly which rounds the Syrians have purchased is pretty thin on the ground. Therefore in the absence of that detail they will have taken a pragmatic approach and said 'what rounds can this platform fire?' Having done that (and this is the guesswork bit) they will have taken out the higher end rounds unless there was a documented source stating that the round had been purchased by Syria.

24 years colour service in the British Army including tours in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan, I think is sufficient qualification.

I doubt its an OPV - not enough optics on it.

No I don't claim superpowers but the way the question was posed in the first post and your wish to 'mop up' in your second post indicated that you wanted to hunt down every last enemy unit. If I'm wrong then fine I'm not going to get into a urinating competition about it - as you say its a game and if you want to get enjoyment from it in that fashion then fine. There are ways of doing it that have been explained. For what its worth, the vast majority of insurgents in both Iraq and Afghanistan are not religious zealots intent on wasting their lives recklessly no matter what the various elements of the news media may wish people to believe. Yes these things can and do happen but it doesn't reflect the majority enemy view.

Gibsonm might be your man for this one. I could contribute but I get beaten more often than not - I know how the weapon systems work which is the essence of tactics.

There may not have been much surrendering in Fallujah but there may have been many evaders. At the end of the day this is down to your style of play - you clearly are an attritionalist and are very competitive. The truth is that your views on realism are skewed towards these tendencies - they are not realistic as you claim. If you want scenarios that favour these tendencies then yes they are possible as has been stated by ensuring that the enemy has a huge reserve that never appears.

No danger of any deserts there I think!

So Stalin was right about the Pope and how many battalions he had. I'm guessing this wouldn't be a great game either!!

wesselholt - can't be done at present - and yes it would be a great feature. The only way you'll achieve this is by running an analogue map. I've lost count of the number of times I've spotted something and want to whack it and then the spotter loses 'eyes on' and then having to remember where it was. Best tip I can give you is screenshot the map and mark spotted units manually.

I suspect what Steve will say is the problem is in implementing it. The CAS and arty scripts work well because you physically have to call CAS/Arty in. The remainder are just background noise almost like the warlike background track on every map where you hear MG fire and artillery even though its move 1 and you haven't done anything. To do something like where you have a situation where you are on zoom 1 and hit tab to centre on a unit and then hear it say 'Contact, armour on the right flank' would require a trigger system which is not present in the game right now. The effort to reproduce this would be huge and while I don't deny it would totally rock I think it will fail the cost v benefit analysis.

Destraex - I've never finished a campaign but worked on the UK one - I tested a fair whack of the beta missions (albeit not with a view to winning) - took me about 8-9 hours to test 8-9 missions. As you will see on other posts there are more missions than that.

Well 'Mad' Mike ... you'd be the expert on craziness!!!!!!!!!

Don't know about how it is implemented in-game but there are fundamental differences between the BMP-1 and BMP-2 in real life. The BMP-1 has a greater troop capacity and crew-wise there is a gunner and driver who sit in the front of the hull and the turret respectively. The 'commander' or what most people would call the squad leader sits behind the driver in the wagon. In the BMP-2 the setup is different, you have a two-man turret with a gunner and commander who is also the squad leader. All I know is the implementation of Warrior crews in the game where we have a similar situation - there was a compromise to get it to work - I suspect the same thing is going on with the BMP-2.

The Syrians have a fairly souped up tank and a fairly souped up AIFV and you think the Russians and Chinese would be a more difficult opponent kit-wise? The Taliban have AK-47, RPK-47, PKM and RPG-7. We have AH-64, Javelin, Warrior, CVR(T) and more aircraft than you can shake a stick at. Who's winning? The bottom line is that all warfare is assymetrical - how to make it so in this game does depend on the scenario/designer but I point you to Paper Tiger's stuff as an example - a lot of his stuff is red on red but his blue on red stuff is equally as good. I have yet to play one of his scenarios as blue and win.