Combatintman

Yep - tanks are shell magnets - it is a tactic of limited utility although given that - if it can be done it should be done. I've never really tried it myself as I try to move in bounds.

Ok - had a look at this - the map is nice and by the looks of it you've put a lot into the AI plan. However the briefing needs a whole lot more work to get some sense out of what you need to do and what the enemy is up to and to get some immersion. Sorry to say it just looks half-finished to me.

They would be Elms actually...

I told you I know nothing about all that clever arty stuff!!!

I'm no expert at all this computer stuff but the way the thing is put together is that there is very little that you can tinker around with - skins and sound files are doable but not much more than that is my understanding of the situation. Battlefront keep the code for this game very close hold.

Quite a few is a slight understatement - taking the 14th Army in Burma alone, that was flipping huge. Wikipedia (not the greatest source I admit) describes it as the largest Army in the World in 1945.

Its practically a daily occurrence in Helmand Province.

Well according to the equipment list for the British Module, they're going to put the 51mm mortar in that. http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=217&Itemid=327 For WW2 folk think 2-inch mortar and you have what we're talking about. Given that the thing (the L9A1 51mm mortar) only has a range of about 800m I can't see how they can implement it without it being on map.

Or tinker with objectives to constrain the blue player - 'preserve' type objectives for instance and set casualty thresholds for the Blue Player.

Agreed more variety is always good and it just offers so much more to scenario and campaign designers. Certainly the addition of the Canadians and Cloggies might see some more Afghan themed missions.

Agreed - insurgent IDF attacks should be possible - there are workarounds of course but why should we have to? Why not make the 'spy' MFC capable for instance?

Aye to the above ... first picture that comes up in Google Images with the search term 'NATO Tanks' is a Canadian Leopard ... so Cabal23 ... didn't look too hard did we?

Considered obsolete they may be (D-44 and MT-12) but the things are still there - and Syria has at least 2 Brigades of them. Not withstanding the anti-tank guns you are likely to find in some of the manoeuvre formations. Anyway talking of obsolete - captured French tanks in Normandy smacks of 'Hello, pot this is Kettle (if you'll forgive the pun!!) over'. So if you insist on having your obsolete tanks in Normandy I can insist on my obsolete anti-tank guns in CMSF.

No it should be rounds down the range as quickly as possible - certainly that's why the British Army procured the L110A2 because the L86A2 (LSW) being a magazine fed weapon couldn't produce the goods in that regard.

Sure - that's why the 11100011100 bloke coded it ... because there were many instances of it ... captured weapons on the other hand ... is it worth, from what I understand, the only dedicated programmer to spend time coding a situation that happened on rare occasions? The answer surely has to be no when there are so many demands for his time elsewhere? This smacks of a 'hey this would be cool' request and that's it. What about the individual capturing the weapon's training on that weapon - at best it would be practically nil - in most cases it would be nil, is the weapon zeroed to that individual and other similar cans of worms which add little to the game as a whole which would only serve to open up so-called grog like discussions about the relative accuracy of an MG-34 or MG-42 in the hands of a veteran Paratrooper in a dark ditch in Normandy at 12 degrees centigrade in the rain at 0300 hrs in the morning utterly pointless-type debate.

I found Trial by Fire pretty unplayable - the inexperienced piece I can cope with but the fact that you have utterly no room for manoeuvre to start with and once you've played it once (and therefore have a rough idea of what happens) have to adopt some pretty unrealistic positions/make unrealistic decisions to start with did not impress me overly much. I don't mind bumbling into situations where I get zapped (and it happens a lot) but to have no choice and to have to expend all of your offensive support (when it rocks up) to get a foothold into the scenario is, in my mind, a bit disappointing. So for me Trial by Fire is not balanced ... anybody who has done well with that one is a legend in my book.

I can't comment on the programming viability of it but most of us know that Charles is pretty much the only show in town with all that 1001110000 programming stuff. So surely you've got to be realistic about expectations and probability when you ask for this sort of stuff and also what sort of game this is. Many of you will have cut your teeth on figures and board games ... how many of you when playing ASL for instance bumped your gums incessantly about these things - you got a 1-0-3 type counter marked 'Airborne' you plonked it on a hex map and chucked a dice of varying faces to resolve combat - and you were pretty content with that. I've seen debates about hand-to-hand combat, assault ladders and infantry formations for CMSF and yes all these are important ... but in the right context. It is like buying Axis and Allies and whingeing that it isn't ASL in a board gaming context. The hand-to-hand combat thing has happened in modern combat but this game is not about that level - take Operation Flashpoint - that is/was an FPS - designed for that level (namely the individual) and yet hand-to-hand combat was not part of it unless you D/Ld a MOD. This game is not about that. The figure/model gaming thing is the same - who buys skirmish rules when they want to simulate divisional-level actions? Things have moved on and expectations quite rightly increase - CMBO, CMBB and CMAK showed the way ahead and we're right to push the boundaries as things improve but we have to be realistic surely? (For realistic I mean pragmatic rather than talking about the number of wheel nuts on a Tiger-II) So I reckon that you have to ask the question ... on how many occasions did US Airborne Infantry employ captured weapons against the enemy in ... as we are talking about it ... Normandy? If the answer is shedloads of times then of course the 1001110000 bloke needs to do something about it in detriment to including say ... well look at the 'Improving the Look of CM Normandy' thread. I for one wasn't there but I am a soldier and have been for 24 years and at no point would I ever consider using a weapon other than my personal weapon unless I was out of ammunition. How many of the South Wales Borderers at Rorke's Drift for instance thought ... 'this'll be cool I'll chuck one of those dropped spears back at the Zulus'.

To repeat my question then - now Charles has done the code for anti-tank guns can we please have MT-12s for the Syrians in CMSF added to the NATO Module?

So can we have MT-12 anti-tank guns for the Syrians in the NATO module?

I've never really got the 'Syrian setting doesn't interest me' piece either - do some research on Iraq and set it there - the terrain editor gives you that flexibility. Similarly this one converts to the Afghan setting pretty easily as well. Its a more realistic scenario than the WWII Wehrmacht invading the US-type scenarios/campaign ideas that sometimes get an airing.

Not necessarily the same target market is it?

What's wrong with the Syrians - you get T-90 and BMP-3 (in the Marines Module) which are top end Russian-manufactured equipment along with RPG-29 along with AT-13 and and AT-14. I'd buy it if I were you.

I suggest you download the scenario editor guide that a few guys put together - I'll think you'll find it in the repositry or CMMODS. If you can't find it - from memory what you want to do is export the template and just save it as a txt file in My Documents or anywhere on your computer. Input your briefing notes and then 'save as' into your Combat Mission Shock Force\Game Files directory or Combat Mission Shock Force\Game Files\Scenarios directory. I think what you're expecting is the CMSF to be able to import a file from anywhere on the computer - it won't - it defaults to one or two directories and I think its the two above. That should solve your problem - if I've understood it right! As to the editing the file within the CMSF editor - no you can't, that's why you have to export it in the first place. Its a fiddly process but once you've done it a couple of times you'll get used to it.

Your licence allows you to install CMSF on 2 computers so there are no issues there.

Ali-Baba - I hope your post is not going to result in hundreds of pictures of trains - haystacks were bad enough!