Combatintman

My wife can remember all the rhymes that were taught at school to convert all the metric stuff such as 'a litre of water is a pint and three quarters'

So 3/6d in old money then

@SLIM - good vid. Your compound entry was way different to how I tested it but I figured some people would try taking your routes. I thought you were going to run out of ammunition when I saw your guys taking pot shots at the various security elements at distance. Looks like the QRF didn't give you too much trouble as it appeared from the end game screen that you hadn't knocked any of their vehicles out. I'm guessing that your tempo kept you just far enough ahead of them. Anyway, I hope you enjoyed playing it.

I don't know the exact answer but it is possibly due to the conditions set by the designer in the Campaign Script. If the Campaign Script says that Minor Victory = 'Defeat and end of campaign' then there isn't much you can do about it except replay the mission and get a sufficiently good result to advance to the next stage.

Unless I'm very much mistaken you can't do it in CMSF - although I'm pretty sure there are some Mods that do the Ragtagging for you.

Yeah don't get hung up on the AI plans being worse in CMBN vs CMFB - I designed two of the scenarios that bundled with CMFB neither of which have any triggers at all (so using the same AI as CMBN at the time) and nobody seems to have noticed the difference.

Yeah I know the one (Mamasapano btw) - there was some pretty detailed stuff on it online last year ... pretty underwhelming in terms of interagency cooperation and situational awareness.

AI surrenders occur in standalone scenarios, campaign scenarios and QBs. I can't recall what the threshold is but when the AI sustains the threshold level of casualties (probably in the 60-70% ballpark) it automatically surrenders.

As I am one of two people who has made a scenario for this title (well two or maybe three actually) in the past 12 months (5 of which were spent in Iraq), I remind you that I have no intention of making one as stated the last time (and not the first time) you bemoaned the lack of scenarios featuring the fight against ISIS. I would therefore suggest that you either continue to not hold your breath, click the button labelled 'Scenario Editor' and stop nagging those who continue to create content for this title. As I have said in my scenario tutorial - one of the strongest motivations I have for doing this and the one that keeps me going after bashing away for the third week creating the map (my current timeline for an Op MOSHTARAK scenario) is that it is an action/scenario that I am interested in and want to bring to the community. Seriously you are pushing a huge boulder uphill if you think that you are going to convince someone to make a scenario by pester power alone. However if you like Afghan stuff then there is a pipeline of stuff planned from this scenario designer ....

Not videos but @Bil Hardenberger's blog is a great place to start http://battledrill.blogspot.com.au/ It also has some CMBN training type missions that you can DL to put into practice some of the lessons in the blog.

Not sure what your problem is ... make it Red vs Red and pick the forces you want. Don't get hung up about the labels (eg UNCON, Regular Army). If you want a force of say T-55s to fight other T-55s then call one lot 'HVO' and the other lot 'VRS'. The important thing to understand about UNCON specialists is their behaviour relative to other force picks and the civilian density settings otherwise the remainder of UNCONs are pretty much just like other troops. I wouldn't bother with the T-62 by the way as I am pretty sure it wasn't in that theatre and good luck with the snow ...

I don't have CMA but your artillery problem could be down to a combination of light or weather conditions/spotter experience levels and LOS.

But it seems not to be an entertaining activity for those who post 'my troops run away wtf' and on the side of your academic PhD course argument - those who post 'the Tiger armour model is borked because it seems to be a micro millimetre less than ...(insert source)'. Many people who claim things are unrealistic seem to be able to find the time to hunt around the interweb or quote a book about the behaviour or even spend heaps of time setting up tests to prove the theory when reading the manual would suffice. To be honest I have no time whatsoever for any comedian who bowls in here bumping their gums about realism or lack of immersion and arguing about game behaviours who hasn't had the decency to either have: Fought in WW2 Read the manual.

Stating the obvious really ... 'Manual contains information that is useful to understanding how the game works' ... perhaps if more people read the thing they wouldn't make such @sses of themselves on here.

That happened to me on a night shoot with the SLR on the same range ... but it was the only problem I ever had with the weapon.

Examples from my personal experience are that the magazine had an unfortunate tendency to fall off, the working parts required a forward assist more often than not and I've heard anecdotes of it being prone to stoppages in sandy conditions. If you're really interested in the subject though I'm sure if you search the topic you will come up with plenty of answers.

The preferred term is 'design decision' .

Missed this earlier - it is all about giving the enemy a fair chance and to be fair the latest version of the SA80 is a lot better than its predecessors. I do prefer the M4 though, mainly because I'm old fashioned and prefer long arms with the magazine in front of the trigger assembly.

Absolutely - this is something I have also learned in my long journey as a scenario designer. Whatever you design should be playable in both WEGO and RT. I generally check AI plans in WEGO because you can quickly click through the turns. Once I'm happy they work, I then do most of my testing in RT followed by a final test in WEGO. I think this is more important in CMSF than the newer titles because the player has less control over units (eg no 'Target Briefly' command). This was particularly important in the NEPTUNE SPEAR mission, because while the compound assault is easy for the player to manage in RT, it is more tricky in WEGO.

The 'no dismount' thing is not a showstopper though given that you can use regular technicals to transport red units so a mix of crewed HMMWVs and normal technicals will achieve the aim of being able to dismount troops and recreating the flavour of an ISIS mounted unit. By the way, thanks for finding out your trick of getting Blue vehicles crewed by Red - every day is a school day as they say.

Sure - when you get round to looking at the tutorial you'll see some of my thought processes. My approach has certainly evolved as I've spent more time designing missions and one of those evolutions has been to think about how I want the AI to perform rather than putting a blanket value like all Taliban = Fanatic. My whole approach to the AI though is just to keep it as simple as possible if for no other reason than I find the whole process of inputting individual AI group orders into the editor a bit painful. I think one of the most useful lessons I learnt from JonS's Oosterbeek tutorial was to adopt the mindset of having an AI enemy that is there to challenge the player rather than to necessarily win at all costs.

Ok - troop quality would be elite and motivation would be extreme for most Special Forces that undergo a rigorous selection process and top end training programme which is how I rated the SEALs in the NEPTUNE SPEAR mission and how I would rate the SAS in any Gberi Bana mission (which as discussed I am not doing but have a pretty much finished mission for the Paras at Magbeni).

Raising a ticket with the helpdesk is generally the quickest and most assured way of fixing the problem rather than asking a collection of randoms on the Forum.

My thoughts on this are in the Scenario Design thread here ...

It is sort of happening here - follow the links in the first post of the thread to get the whole story: