Combatintman

@Combatintman I know this is ancient by now, but I just found this map a week ago and got very excited. I did because back in late 2006- early 2007 this place was my hood. I was deployed with the Danish Army back then, and this place (Al Harta) was the southern tip of my company's AO.
I just thought it would be fun to do a little review (everybody's a reviewer these days, right?) of your map and compare it to some actual images.
I've marked a few spots on the overview where the following images were taken.
 

Qarmat Ali bridge. There are some clear limits in the CM editor, so I get why you made a land bridge. But the real thing was very large and frankly daunting. Like in your scenario, we also had a lot of trouble with it. We had one man KIA a hundred meters south of it (if just applying North to the top of the map), and 2 WIA just when they reached the northen side, at another time. Also single shots fired at us.

 
The Tate factory, as we called it. We took breaks in there a few times. When I was there the werehouses were just open with tin roofs. Not sure all the holes were damage from fighting, or just decay. There were some families with cute kids living in there. One thing you missed, was that one of the buildings was actually a water tower. For some reason my PL found it a great idea to put a guard up in it. It was the worst position ever. It took 5 minutes to crawl up there. I could not imagine a more ****ty position to be in if you got shot at. Luckily we never did while up there.

 
This is just a shot from a little street we called Happy Street- The image is take a few hundred meters up the road west. One day we got shot at up this street. after searching the area we found a KPV 14.5 HMG in a garden. It wasn't the weapon that fired at us, but at least we got that one off the street. Pulling out we had a firefight again.

But yeah Al Harta, Iraq was a pretty ****ty place. I rate it 2/10.
Your map I'll give 7/10 for realism
--
@Sgt.Squarehead, I mentioned this to you, thought perhaps you'd want to see it.

For CMSF-1 but the principles hold true ...
MAKING OP NEPTUNE SPEAR – A SCENARIO DESIGN TUTORIAL (CONTAINS SPOILERS) - CMSF Scenario and Mod Design Forum - Battlefront.com Community
Knock yourself out mate - heaps of pictures ...

For CMSF-1 but the principles hold true ...
MAKING OP NEPTUNE SPEAR – A SCENARIO DESIGN TUTORIAL (CONTAINS SPOILERS) - CMSF Scenario and Mod Design Forum - Battlefront.com Community
Knock yourself out mate - heaps of pictures ...

Everyone who has a copy of the game has access to the tools, including yourself.

Everyone who has a copy of the game has access to the tools, including yourself.

It all comes down to practice.  I don't really know how it all works - I always talk about vision if you're going to design anything.  For that one, I wanted to do something snowy and big and when I saw the ground and had a bite-size account of the action from one of the Osprey OOB books, I thought 'yes that would be a good map and situation.'  I enjoy making maps (you have to when they're that sort of size).  After that I knew how the bits would fit together.  The drama, as always was the testing.
I hope you will enjoy my Fire and Rubble stuff ...
 

It all comes down to practice.  I don't really know how it all works - I always talk about vision if you're going to design anything.  For that one, I wanted to do something snowy and big and when I saw the ground and had a bite-size account of the action from one of the Osprey OOB books, I thought 'yes that would be a good map and situation.'  I enjoy making maps (you have to when they're that sort of size).  After that I knew how the bits would fit together.  The drama, as always was the testing.
I hope you will enjoy my Fire and Rubble stuff ...
 

It all comes down to practice.  I don't really know how it all works - I always talk about vision if you're going to design anything.  For that one, I wanted to do something snowy and big and when I saw the ground and had a bite-size account of the action from one of the Osprey OOB books, I thought 'yes that would be a good map and situation.'  I enjoy making maps (you have to when they're that sort of size).  After that I knew how the bits would fit together.  The drama, as always was the testing.
I hope you will enjoy my Fire and Rubble stuff ...
 

Thank you - I am quite proud of it as you may have guessed.  It was quite epic to put together though but the thing that motivated me to do that scenario was the tactical problem that could be set for both players.

@benparkand @Pete Wenmanare the master map makers.  Mine aren't bad either but not in their league 😏

No - it is an extension of the manoeuvrist approach - you shatter the enemy player's will by getting them into a situation where they think they cannot win and hit the surrender button.  This can be achieved in part by deception but it requires other mutually supporting activities.

No - it is an extension of the manoeuvrist approach - you shatter the enemy player's will by getting them into a situation where they think they cannot win and hit the surrender button.  This can be achieved in part by deception but it requires other mutually supporting activities.

No - it is an extension of the manoeuvrist approach - you shatter the enemy player's will by getting them into a situation where they think they cannot win and hit the surrender button.  This can be achieved in part by deception but it requires other mutually supporting activities.

No - it is an extension of the manoeuvrist approach - you shatter the enemy player's will by getting them into a situation where they think they cannot win and hit the surrender button.  This can be achieved in part by deception but it requires other mutually supporting activities.

RPGs also come in various flavours - the RPG-18 for instance is essentially a Russian version of the LAW.  I think therefore we're getting tied up in nomenclature.  If you boil the thing down to the essentials, RPGs are manportable short-ranged weapon systems that can be carried by a single combatant in which a rocket comes out of one end of a tube and exhaust gases from the other end and have a reasonable chance of knocking out a static armoured vehicle up to 500m and a moving one at 300m.  The Charlie G, LAW, Panzerfaust etc which were, and still are, widely deployed in NATO forces are all exactly the same when viewed from that perspective.  Therefore there is nothing particularly uniquely Russian/Soviet about the concept of having such a weapon system.

Everyone who has a copy of the game has access to the tools, including yourself.

The picture proves nothing unless you're going to explain what the MFDs in the image are and show a Harrier cockpit.  The area represented by the map is also irrelevant as there is definitely an added area for aircraft outwith the map boundaries if you take a look at some ground to air engagements.  The targets were dug in T-55s which can be fairly easily acquired by any infra-red sensor such as a FLIR pod or the target acquisition systems on an AH-64.

This still does not disprove the observation that aircrew may have spotted and engaged their own targets though.

Everyone who has a copy of the game has access to the tools, including yourself.

Generally you get good deals on bundles so in terms of getting bang for buck I would hang on until Fire and Rubble comes out.  I can't remember much about the campaigns as its been a while since I played them but from memory the German one is at least battalion-sized in three of the campaign scenarios that I recall.

Everyone who has a copy of the game has access to the tools, including yourself.

Ask how that went for R2V - or put another way, the TO&E is not a little touch-up.

If it is a ground controlled strike in the CMSF timeframe - there will always be chit chat between the ground C/S and the attacking airframe so the PDA piece really only comes into play in terms of general situational awareness in relation to airstrikes.  Although I have no evidence to this effect, I'm pretty sure that Blue Force tracker doesn't plug directly into a pilot's/WSO's cockpit display for fast air although the capability might exist for attack helicopters.  Nonetheless, radio chit chat is always going to happen so that the ground C/S can clearly state where they are, where other own troops are, where and what the target is, the desired effect on the target and most likely the weapon to be employed on the target (if one is to be used of course - it might just be a show of force).  The aircrew will then step through all of these things until both are satisfied that the airframe is going to drop on the correct target and discuss other hazards be they tactical, environmental or whatever and agree on the direction of attack.

As Elvis works for Steve you would think that Steve would have authorised that date commitment - so call it nonsense all you like.  I also can live with the fact that, based on previous performance, it may not hit that target date.  If it doesn't hit the target date, it will almost certainly be for reasons of quality control.

The other issue with hull down is that the commander sits in the hull to the LH side of the turret which effects their ability to find, observe and track a target when hull down and generally to be honest.  The gunner should always be closed down in the turret because they have to man the gun and look through the gun sight.  Having crawled around a few of them, I can vouch for the fact that the BMP-1 is not a good operator's environment.