Jump to content

astano

Members
  • Content Count

    93
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About astano

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    USA

Converted

  • Location
    Ohio

Recent Profile Visitors

695 profile views
  1. Hi Gnarly, Glad you enjoyed it and I do really appreciate the feedback. I didn't notice until now that not only comments but also ratings on the Repository are gone, which is a shame as I had got some valuable feedback from those that I didn't record elsewhere. Regarding your thoughts: -It would be possible to create such a "surge" by triggering. Reinforcement spawns cannot be triggered (as I believe they can in ARMA) but you could add reinforcements and cause them to move with a trigger. When I initially made the scenario, I actually considered bringing in a Russian mech platoon or half-pl
  2. Are you sure about that? The in-game models of the M110 and the M110 CSASS visually appear to be suppressed, although the squad panel icons for them don't show it. Admittedly, though, whether or not those or any other suppressors' effects are modeled I haven't done any testing to say.
  3. I believe the point of putting suppressors on sniper rifles isn't to make them quiet or stealthy close-in, but to make them more difficult to locate at longer ranges. Even the best suppressors won't make a rifle totally silent, and a high-power rifle round (like .300, .308, or .388 - even .223) will still make a "crack" as it passes, but they do reduce the muzzle report (as opposed to the sound of the bullet itself) and the muzzle flash. Suppressors on sniper rifles therefore aren't so you can kill sentries or something close-in, it's so the guy across the valley can't tell exactly where you
  4. Can't really be done, at least not in the way that you can in CMBS. The new QB unit purchase feature started with CMBN. Best alternative I know of is to open up the Editor, pick a QB map, handpick the forces for it (make sure you at least place them in their on-map setup zones, if not in an ideal starting position), and save it as a new scenario. You can increase the fog of war by making several scenarios with the same Blue and different Red forces for each map you do this on, so that hopefully you don't remember exactly what you're facing when you load one of the scenarios.
  5. Curious what you have in mind equipment-wise. The super-tacticool high-speed-low-drag rifles, optics, plate carriers, etc. would seem to me to be almost entirely cosmetic. Obviously if SOF make it into the game those should be modeled, but I'm wondering if there's something beyond essentially visual changes I'm not thinking of? I guess there's also suppressors (also already in-game on at least US marksman rifles) but I don't know how much difference that might make. I don't have enough of an idea to comment on any Ukrainian or Russian elements. I also wonder if anything beyond tha
  6. Thanks very much for the compliment, but I don't know how keen I am on doing a campaign. I barely have the attention span to play a campaign - I think the last one I actually finished was Kunst des Krieges in CMSF (on second thought, that might be the only campaign I've completed) and I haven't even started 2/3 of the CMBS ones - let alone make one. That's a huge amount of work and my hat is really off to anyone who can make one solo. At various points through conceptualizing and designing this scenario, I did consider adding elements of the TF reserve mentioned in the briefing as reinf
  7. Hope you like it, looking forward to hearing how it goes for you. Nice write-up theforger, and I'm glad you enjoyed the scenario! I'm particularly sympathetic to losing Daily's Bradley, it always hurts when you lose a lynchpin like that.
  8. My second scenario is now available on the Repository. You can download it here. The scenario features a US Scout Section finding itself in the path of a larger Russian mechanized force. I tried to do something a little more experimental with this scenario and give it a bit of a TDG or "in media res" feeling. Contact has already been made and now you, as the player, must develop the situation in accordance with your higher command's objectives and intent (or at least that's the idea). To that end, the briefing intentionally does not discuss the details of your objectives, any point val
  9. Glad you liked it. That's just about the difficulty I was shooting for - hard enough to make it interesting, but easy enough that most players should be able to win most of the time; the kind of scenario you can download and beat in an afternoon. Regarding your plan, The first draft of this scenario didn't include the Bradleys - actually, the biggest reason I added them was for the ammunition they carry. In pre-Bradley testing I found that the firepower from the dismounts + Javelins was pretty sufficient, but that they didn't have the ammo or the endurance to take both the hill
  10. If anyone's interested and hasn't seen it yet, my first scenario, referred to above, is now available on the Repository (link in sig / forum thread). I also have another scenario that is now ready for public testing. I currently have one tester lined up but I'm always looking for more feedback. The scenario revolves around a US Scout Section (+) making contact with Russian mechanized forces, and needing to act accordingly. There are four different Red AI plans. I've tried to give it a sort of Tactical Decision Game feeling, and dropped the player in the middle of the action with unclea
  11. Hi Wolfseven, Really glad you enjoyed the scenario! However, I'm not sure I follow your last remark. If you're referring to the contact icons at the start of the battle, the spotted units are due to pre-battle intelligence preparation of the battlefield (in this scenario, the earlier UAV overflights), not enemy forces your troops presently have eyes on. As the icons fade and disappear during the mission, it's because your troops have never spotted them to begin with - the contacts are from before the battle and, just like contacts spotted during the game, will eventually fade as they ag
  12. My new (and first) scenario is now available from the Repository. You can get it here. The scenario is built on a new 800 x 800m map and features a US Bradley platoon (+) attempting to destroy a small Russian rearguard. From the briefing: I'd love to hear how anyone who gives it a try does, and any feedback would be appreciated.
  13. Just submitted my first scenario to the Repository. Thanks again to all the testers who provided feedback. Not sure when it will actually be available, but since there are currently no automatic Repository notification threads I guess I'll be making my own when it posts. In the meantime, I plan to maintain this thread for all my WIP scenarios, of which I currently have three. One is reasonably far along in testing so if anyone is interested in having a look at it feel free to post or PM. The other two are still in map-making (they actually cover some of the same geographic area, so abo
  14. To clarify, what I would really like to see is the same asymmetric setting of CMSF with the updated TO&E and gear for NATO as CMBS. This is in no small part because I think it's easier to go backwards than forwards with the gear and have much greater scenario flexibility with the 2017 CMBS TO&E than with the 2008 CMSF TO&E - for example, in CMBS for US rifle squads you can get the XM25 (which has been in Afghanistan since 2010) and the M110 at squad level (which I believe has also been the case for some Afghanistan-deployed units for some time, but I'm not positive), with options
  15. Update: I've received responses now from all four players that contacted me to test the scenario and got some pretty useful feedback. Remarks were generally positive, especially regarding the map, and pending a few changes I'm pretty happy with the scenario overall, so some comments I'll be incorporating now, and some I'll be keeping in mind for other things I'm working on. I plan to thank my testers by forum name in the release version briefing (unless requested otherwise by PM), but thanks again to all of you for taking the time to play through and get thoughts back to me.
×
×
  • Create New...