Combatintman

Welcome Will! You might have underestimated the scale of the problem but you've certainly posed the right question - I would love to see an Australian Module! I know realistically it is unilkely to happen but jeez - it would be great.

Rune, Yes I'm aware of the fact that you can join buildings together and you can simulate warehouses or suchlike by fiddling with the door/window arrangement in 3D mode but we still need more building types and being able to have a traditional v-shaped roof would help as well (I know they are less common in the middle east - but are still prevalent enough). Think about things in the modern landscape which would be great to have over and above the things I mentioned earlier: Sewage works Oil storage tanks Oil refinery structures Oil pipelines Cooling towers Railway tracks Electricity Pylons Water towers - essential in the Middle East - (have a look at Fallujah on Google Earth).

I agree - we need more buildings although - as has been stated there will be no changes to terrain in the USMC module. I am a huge fan of this game but I do feel limited by the terrain objects available - there are so many scenarios that could be created in an Iraq or Afghanistan context (mostly the former) which aren't possible right now. I admit that the game scenario is Syria but roaming around that on Google Earth shows quite clearly that the inability to have: Bridges Cloverleafs Water Features Industrial Facilities Airfield Objects Makes things a tad difficult - particularly when you consider that an ATM/cahspoint machine is one of the flavour objects. Who uses those? (In CMSF I mean!).

Go back to 2D trenches - you are kidding me aren't you. I appreciate that you are asking for effects and that is very much a grog type request and there is an element of realism to it. However do you seriously think that it will be reintroduced - it won't be worth the other whingeing that Battlefront will cop for it. Also - for all of you guys who keep saying 'I see trenches and therefore I will target it' I go back to my earlier post. Have you never heard of deception - it is one of the principles of defence for a starter. Army Field Manual Volume 1 Part 2 Battlegroup Tactics refers: 'Deception. The attacker must be delayed and confused by the defensive layout. The early destruction of his reconnaissance, the use of false fronts, concealment and dummy positions will combine to deceive and surprise'.

That is just brilliant work - thanks!

M1A1TC - yes that would be a good idea bowever if you are playing from the US side you might expect to be able to spot trenches from Desert Hawk as an example. I know that roving over the map in set up is not quite the same capability as you would get from Desert Hawk (namely you'd see the troops as well). For once I'm prepared to sacrifice realism to be able to roam over the map - I can justify it the terms above but I never expend offensive support assets on trenchlines unless I see a target because offensive support is always limited. Your artillery guys are probably the same as ours - I'd rather them miss identified enemy troops than identified trenches (we don't call them dropshorts for nothing!).

Normal Dude It depends on the scenarios you create of course - if it is full on warfighting then fine - although you could place trenches as deception.

LongLeftFlank As you will have seen from my earlier posts - I'd love Blue defensive stuff (such as Hesco Bastion) because it opens up certain types of stability operations in the Iraq and Afghanistan theatres which can be created by a skilfull scenario/campaign designer. Like you say and as we both know this game is aimed more at the steamroller/shock and awe effect of a warfighting operation but there is enough to recreate certain stability operations scenarios from Afghanistan and Iraq if we have the right blue defensive stuff. So - I'd love to see more of it.

Shouldn't you have posted in the Tech Support Forum?

Webwing, Yes I know - I downloaded MILSketch some time ago. Its way too fiddly for me. The font pack I posted the link to is much quicker and easier in my view although of course you don't get tactical graphics just the unit symbology its also free by the way.

Webwing, That's pretty much what I suggested in my first paragraph, I'm happy with it and have no issues with it (for a change!). The reserve concept is something entirely different but it is where I feel that it opens up the possibility of more dynamic campaigns which the committal or not of reinforcements doesn't address in the same way. The player's reward potentially for not committing reinforcements is that they will be at 100% combat effectiveness for the next mission. Of course the penalty is that by not making the maximum use of his resources he may incur more casualties from his committed troops than he would have with the extra firepower he could have brought to bear. With the reserve concept - say the battalion reserve is committed by the player - it offers the campaign designer the chance to create a few scenarios where the player has to go and sort out a problem created elsewhere because the reserve wasn't available to another commander and he therefore lost his battle. Its just a thought - again I'm not going to die in a ditch about it.

APP-6A map symbol fonts for MS-OFFICE can be found here for anyone who is interested: http://www.mapsymbs.com/app-6a.html A suggestion would be to import your map into Powerpoint - add your symbols and then export to Photoshop or Paint or something similar to save it in the right format. There is also no reason why the scenario designer couldn't add Battlespace Area Evaluation markings in either Powerpoint or Photoshop/Paint to achieve the desired effect showing Restricted or Severely Restricted terrain and Mobility Corridors. The problem is that the map would then look cluttered. A way around this might be if Battlefront created more graphics slots in the Mission Editing Suite as follows: 1. Op Order (Blue Plan). 2. BAE Overlay (Ground and Mobility Corridors). 3. Assessed Most likely Enemy Course of Action.

Ok what I think we have here is two possible constructs. The current system of reinforcements which is a slightly loose term as I've said before but I suppose its more elegant than anything else I can think of. I suppose a way of getting what TOG is after here is for a dialogue whereby it says something like 'A Company has arrived - commit?'. Then having a button on the interface that says something like 'commit next unit'. If the unit isn't committed it can be committed at the click of a button and arrive on the next turn. I have no problems with that but I think it starts getting messy when you have more than one wave of reinforcements. Then there is the concept of the reserve which I suggested and it is important to recognise the distinction between 'reinforcements' and 'reserve'. I see the reserve being from the next echelon of command up from the level you are playing so if the scenario is a Company-level command then the reserve will be the Battalion Commander's reserve. This would be on call using a separate button on the interface labelled 'call reserve'. On calling the reserve there would be a suitable time delay - 30 minutes is realistic but I'm not going to die in a ditch over it - but anything less than 15 minutes between calling it and it arriving would be unrealistic so I wouldn't want to see it as less than that. Committal of the reserve could then be used by campaign designers to engineer branches and sequels.

I think if we used the term 'reserve' then this idea has merit. However this would be managed in terms of time delays to be realistic to account for changes in notice to move times for the reserve. A realistic time interval would therefore be a minimum of 30 minutes from initial call to the reserve arriving on the map. I'm not sure we need to go down the extra victory points route although I can see its merits. What it could do though is offer campaign designers more branches and sequels in a dynamic campaign and that would be really interesting. Remember in many scenarios the arrival of reinforcements is what in real life we would be calling the order of march and therefore they aren't reinforcements at all. One of the reasons for this is quite often the map size doesn't permit all of a force to be placed at setup because there simply isn't the room to do this.

Paper Tiger, Why would you want wire as a flavour object? It surely has to have a purpose. Go all out and ask for it as fit for purpose - an obstacle in the same manner as it was handled in CMX1 - namely that you picked it in the force selection screen rather than placed it on the map as a terrain object. I'd vote for that.

Its a real shame we don't have overpasses - think of all those cloverleaf junctions in Iraq we could build if we had them in the game.

Sorry forgot to add in my last post - ISO containers and Hesco Bastion.

There certainly isn't a keystroke sequence in the manual to do that - I must admit I haven't played with flavour objects too much but the absence of keystrokes to carry out that action suggests that FMBs advice about choosing a number other than '1' when you place barrels will mean that at least one of them will be on its side.

Paper Tiger, WEGO is all I play! I'd rather wait all the same - I really don't want to start the campaign and think hey this is great and then have to stop. I'll get a new computer later on this year so I can wait that long - I've just got to avoid the thread about the campaign now! I am looking forward to trying it out though - I've been toying with some red v red stuff myself so it is something I'm interested in playing and I really want to see how your dynamic campaign works so that I can learn from it in terms of campaign designs of my own. I've started putting together some Mujahideen v Soviets in Afghanistan stuff and I think that for it to work it has to be dynamic with a number of roots and branches otherwise it just becomes a series of ambushes which don't really go anywhere. However before anyone gets excited - this is unlikely to see its way on to CMMODs for a long long while yet because I am still not happy with my knowledge of how the AI works and I'm struggling with getting the right balance with victory conditions.

Totally up for more of that - I'm thinking of trenches with overhead cover, sangars for AGLs and .50 calibre MGs for blue. If we get those then when the British module comes out you guys can wait out for some Afghanistan Platoon House scenarios from this callsign.

All in the manual (P127) as follows: SINGLE WALL CTRL CLICK on a side changes window/door layout CTRL SHIFT CLICK adds balconies SINGLE SIDE CTRL CLICK on a side changes window/door layout CTRL SHIFT CLICK on ground floor adds balconies ENTIRE BUILDING ALT CLICK changes window/door layout for all 4 sides SHIFT CLICK changes the building's texture for all 4 sides CTRL CLICK on roof changes shape/type of roof Good luck with the map!

I admit it isn't a showstopper for me but agree that if it could be implemented CMX1 style and for waypointing without too much effort it would make me happier.

Paper Tiger, I'd love to give your campaign a spin but from what I've read some of the battles will overload my system. I've read the design philosophy behind your campaign and I know how much work you've put into it having followed the thread with interest. I agree with your whole methodology and by all accounts you've done a good job at executing it.

John, "Am glad the Milan will be in with the Syrian airborne". Not when the rounds start winging their way at your units!

Webwing - sure I've seen the thread - I referred to it in an earlier post - I admit stretching the argument a bit but Paper Tiger said in his intro - don't restart the campaign if you don't get a total victory. The second poster who'd actually played the first couple of missions then coughed up to that exact crime. That is why I vehemently argue against unnecessary gamey stuff because people will identify it and take advantage of it in the interests of winning. As I know and many armies know - you learn more from defeat than winning - that is why the respective training centres around the ABCA nations have OPFORs that kick ass. Now I do appreciate that there is a game aspect here and that people derive fun out of winning. However I would rather people derived fun out of winning having used realistic tactics with a realistic force against a realistic enemy in a realistic environment. The reason for that is I am also a wargamer and I know that wargaming is more than winning - people get wrapped up in the details and they want their infantry squad to enter a building in as near realistic a fashion as they can. The bottom line however is realism - it is a default standard that we've come to expect from Battlefront - they work hard at it from what I see - well I know - I've got all of the CMX1 games and have recreated Kampfgruppe Peiper's advance. I've read the books - walked the ground and on my map when the Kampfgruppe emerges from the woods in the early morning mist from the Chateau de Froidcour towards Stoumont and I lock my view to the lead Panther - I feel like I'm there. This is ground I walk frequently - I've led 6 battlefield tours there and the more I do it and the more I think back to my re-creation of it in CMBO it grabs me even more. That for me is realism. No gamey stuff - an exact recreation (as far as the literature allows anyway) of the units and the environment over which the battle was fought. [ April 21, 2008, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: Combatintman ]