Jonny(FGM)

Ah, just looked at the next mission. What i didn't mention was is that i got virtually the entire LAR dismounts killed (one squad had a very bad run in with a tank) so now the sum total of my dismounts are the 2 hq units and one yellow based soldier. I don't even know if that is possible.

Sorry no link Phil i think it's buried deep in one of the bones threads somewhere

Just finished the 2nd mission 18 KIA 19 WIA 1 MIA 2 Tracks 1 Truck Minor Victory ************************POSSIBLE SPOILERS*************************** Damn that was hard! I thought i was going to go lose that one on friendly casualties alone. Some of my friendly casualties were down to my own stupidty, one LAV which i thought was in dead ground but wasn't, a truck i left in my rear areas that fell foul to a RPG that i'd left in my rear with it. The rest were caused by MG fire, AGS fire (god i hated them!) and to those troops on the reverse slopes at wily e cyote. Those AGS's really really did my head in, I just couldn't spot them! They wern't even that deadly, just inflicting minor wounds but now at least a 1/3 if not more of my foot soldiers are now yellow bases, thats really gonna slow me down! i'm also almost out of arty, only 1/3 of 1 81mm battery left, i got a bit over zealous with taking out the tanks with the 155mm Oh well, looking forward to the next battle

Surely its not that hard? i know i know next to nothing about games production but how hard can it be to link the parameter that sets how far to draw up to a slider in the options?

Exactly! 150 casualties is not a lot of casualties when you think about it, if you take 5 casualties per engagement it does not take long (well 30 engagements) to reach that figure. I don't know how many CMSF style engagements took place in the Iraq War but i'd guess it was more than 30, i'd also guess a significant proportion if not the majority of them involved no casualties for the coalition side. Also I don't think we Brits have had a willingness to take casualties since the Falklands. Unless another piece of British sovereign territory was invaded again, if any government that took us into a war that had the same intensity of casualties as that heads would roll. However, having said all that I sometimes wonder if we are making a mistake in drawing direct comparisons between the Iraq War and the hypothetical Syrian war, just because the 2 countries are side by side doesn't neccessarily mean they will roll over the same. Oh and Revenant no one misunderstood your question, we just happen to go way off topic here at the slightest opportunity. Besides no one plays QBs because the QB generator sucks, play scenario's instead : )

While i'd like to see dismounted 0.50 cals in the game, i don't think getting them from the (M)WMIKs is the most accurate way of doing it. from what i've read usually they do just grab the commanders GPMG when they dismount (especially when in a hurry or under fire), therefore i don't think they should really take the GMG with them easier. for the (M)WMIKs however it would be nice to see 2 seperate orders for getting the crew out. The bail out command for when you've just come up against a MG you totally didn't expect and you just want to make your troops smaller targets, and a dismount command for when you simply want to use the (M)WMIKs as a weapons system transporter. However seeing as CMSF is pretty much fully patched up now i doubt we'll see it.

No It's been said we can expect Afghanistan NATO Normandy

Whats hard to see about how it works? if you take a set no of casualties you don't get the points associated with that. In terms of what level to set it at, well that all depends on what sort of scenario you're creating. Making an isolated plt coming under attack from a company of armour and them holding the ground is vital if the whole american forces flank is to be protected? then you're probably not going to be very strict on casualties? If on the other hand it is a simple attack just after breaching the border then well you probably don't want to take any casualties.

Sorry i meant google maps not google earth. Looking at the terrain feature there aren't even any terrain lines in the map area i'm making, I think i'm just going to keep the town itself flat and everything around it within 5m or so in terms of height, tactically placed to give some nice overwatching high ground

Progress is steady but slow At the moment the map is totally flat, i'm not too sure what to do with the height settings. The terrain contours on google earth arn't accurate enough to use really, this whole region looks pretty flat though so i think some tactically placed terrain undulations should do ; ), tips/advice?

I think most scenario designers avoid these as the only way of discovering them is to lose some men/equipment, although if you simply used them to block off a route of advance and didn't require the player to slog through the minefield itself then i could see that being useful. But if the scen designer tells you the minefield is there then surely Blue side must be aware of the minefield and surely they could just bring up some of that fancy hardware up to breach it. the rest are all really good ideas for making tactical challenges which i shall try and use, cheers

i think it's easier said than paid for

You really think the Iranians are that much stronger than Syria? You obviously haven't played some of the extremely challenging scenario's out of there. If the iraqi's had put up this much resistance could you imagine what the death toll would have been just in the initial invasion?

This second mission is taking me forever! *************************SPOILERS****************************** I have 32 minutes left on the clock, I have one plt moving through manolito (SP?) and one plt moving through Big John. it's going to be tight to win this one, i hope there is extra time available! i'm being pinned down (but with very few casualties caused) by some AGSs that i just cannot find, not even a "?" Current casualties are 2 LAVs (one to the mines/IED, one which blew up taking all it's crew with it when it got in the sights of a T-72. Unknown infantry casualties, at a guess i'd say about 10 but its probably higher than that. Both M1A1s are still alive but badly damaged, one just let itself get pounded by a t-72 because it was out of its arc (he could see the t-72!), the other took an AT-4 to the front. Will these tanks get repaired or am i going to have to go through the campaign with a tank with no working targeting system? The T-72 in the woods on big john is a right pain! The helicopters couldnt find it for ages, eventually the harriers and apaches found it, but several bursts of chain/gatling gun and a hellfire missile didn't kill it! After that it survived 2 SMAW rounds (killing the gunner after that) before an AT4 finally forced the crew to bail, the tank isn't dead though, right now i have an AAV and LAV wasting all their ammo on an empty tank (aswell as a squad which through all of its grenades at it) ***************************** /SPOILERS *************************** overall im quite enjoying it, if i lose this mission then i might stop enjoying it quite as much ; )

In one scenario i designed and tested the AI plans using scen author mode i'm sure i saw reserve Syrian inf squads using the assault command, they were certainly bounding over each other so the squads got spread out over 50-100m.

The Swedes have 500 troops in Afghanistan according to wikipedia, no idea what the breakdown of those troops are though.

Just ran a quick test. The SA-80 definitely sounds different to the M-16/M-4, the differences between the M-16 and the M-4 are definitely more subtle but they are there. Where you might be getting confused is when the SAW/MINIMI fires, these are virtually the same weapon so its no surprise they sound very similar.

They deffo sound different to me, the SA-80 family sounds as whimpy as it usually does in video games, whereas the M-16 and M-4 sound a lot meatier. Also there's a deffo difference between the red small arms and blue small arms. Don't forget blue uses standardised ammunition so they're allways going to sound at least similar.

Although it would be great if we could launch all the WW2 games/modules with one EXE and have it as one big game. Especially in many years time when Ostfront is out, operation unthinkable anyone?

Me thinks BF should collate it's plans for the future games and modules (at least all the stuff they have confirmed to the community) It seems to me a lot of people are getting their knickers in a twist because they've misunderstood the drips and drabs of info that are knocking around the forums.

Because the bulge won't be a module, it'll be a whole new game

Care to elaborate?

Don't think it's possible. you can only assign units to one group, therefore no matter what the plan the groups will allways be the same size I'm guessing you're trying to achieve an Arma style %chance of a unit appearing on map? That isn't possible i'm afraid. Rather than making a hole in the map you could hide a very small building with no windows and doors and an innacessable roof and it'll be a slightly more elegant solution.

You cant do that in CMSF as far as im aware, i think it'd mess up the 1:1 representation. And besides the enlarge feature in CMx1 (ctrl + c, yes im still playing CMx1) enlarged all unts not just the vehicles.

It's a folder with the name of "z" thats a subfolder of the data folder