Combatintman

They are all the same as I said in my earlier post - exhaust gases go out one end and a rocket goes out the other.

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.

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.

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 clue's in their job description.

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.

This link with a shameless plug for one of my scenarios might be what you're looking for in relation to scenario win lose draw stats:
Probing around Poteau - Combat Mission: Final Blitzkrieg - TheBlitz
Otherwise the incredibly helpful @IanLhas a list of scenarios across all of the titles that may be helpful:
Scenario List for BFC Combat Mission 2x Games (lesliesoftware.com)
With regard to 'improving' the H2H scenario - personally I wouldn't bother as you don't really have much scope on a 512m x 512m map with two company groups launching at each other from opposite ends of the map.
 

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.

@puje a Friendly Casualty parameter for the AI force might have helped you here - say you set it at 50% it means that the AI side gets the points if the player ceasefires at start or without inflicting 50% casualties.  It is more flexible than the Friendly Bonus trick.  Obviously setting your percentage threshold requires a few tests but I often use it in conjunction with the Friendly Bonus to give the AI force a points score at the start which automatically results in a player loss if a turn one ceasefire is selected.  Clearly if the human player plays the scenario through then they will reach a point (in this instance 50%) where they have killed the required number of enemy and the AI force no longer gets the VPs for the Friendly Casualty parameter.

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.

Correct save it as a bmp and bung it in your Z folder using the file name Special Editor Overlay

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.

If this is the diagonal you're talking about ...

They are compound walls.  If you flick back and forward through the historical imagery (another IMINT trick) you can see that the diagonal appears to varying degrees in all of them so that, combined with the fact that they project shadows, tells you that you are seeing a physical feature rather than something created by the images being stitched together.
The place is slightly different now

"A Miserable Damn Performance" ... sigh ... 😉

Imagery 101 mate - look around the image and look at the shadows.

Might be worth explaining some of the bits and pieces above ....
TV station could be this sucker ...

The piece about the lower centre to mid-centre around the Ansar Mosque - throw me a bone but the image below might cover some of it off:

 
 
Can't say for sure which of the places highlighted with an antenna is the TV station but both are possibilities ... if only you knew someone who is an imagery analyst eh? 😉

+1.  NICE!!  

Might be worth explaining some of the bits and pieces above ....
TV station could be this sucker ...

The piece about the lower centre to mid-centre around the Ansar Mosque - throw me a bone but the image below might cover some of it off:

 
 
Can't say for sure which of the places highlighted with an antenna is the TV station but both are possibilities ... if only you knew someone who is an imagery analyst eh? 😉

Devil's in the detail mate - the more text the better as far as I'm concerned.  Talking of detail ... do you mean Operation Doppelkopf vice Operation Doppelkoph?  Might be an idea to make sure that's right in the briefings/opening campaign narrative 😉

This link with a shameless plug for one of my scenarios might be what you're looking for in relation to scenario win lose draw stats:
Probing around Poteau - Combat Mission: Final Blitzkrieg - TheBlitz
Otherwise the incredibly helpful @IanLhas a list of scenarios across all of the titles that may be helpful:
Scenario List for BFC Combat Mission 2x Games (lesliesoftware.com)
With regard to 'improving' the H2H scenario - personally I wouldn't bother as you don't really have much scope on a 512m x 512m map with two company groups launching at each other from opposite ends of the map.
 

This link with a shameless plug for one of my scenarios might be what you're looking for in relation to scenario win lose draw stats:
Probing around Poteau - Combat Mission: Final Blitzkrieg - TheBlitz
Otherwise the incredibly helpful @IanLhas a list of scenarios across all of the titles that may be helpful:
Scenario List for BFC Combat Mission 2x Games (lesliesoftware.com)
With regard to 'improving' the H2H scenario - personally I wouldn't bother as you don't really have much scope on a 512m x 512m map with two company groups launching at each other from opposite ends of the map.
 

I had a look this morning after seeing @THH149's question and was surprised to see it had disappeared.  On reflection though I understand why it might have gone.  There didn't seem to be much traffic, most draft scenarios weren't attracting much feedback and a lot of what was posted was of little value in polishing the draft scenario.  I think the way ahead now seems to be for people to start a thread about a draft scenario, punt up some screenies of WIP and a description of the basic premise and then ask people if they want to help out.

I had a look this morning after seeing @THH149's question and was surprised to see it had disappeared.  On reflection though I understand why it might have gone.  There didn't seem to be much traffic, most draft scenarios weren't attracting much feedback and a lot of what was posted was of little value in polishing the draft scenario.  I think the way ahead now seems to be for people to start a thread about a draft scenario, punt up some screenies of WIP and a description of the basic premise and then ask people if they want to help out.

Says USMC in the link you posted mate ... Sherlock Holmes I ain't but I figure its a clue.

Swap units for base game or NATO would appear to be the requirement mate ... 😉