astano

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-platoon around when the Brads came in, but ultimately decided I wanted to keep it pretty "set-piece" with a minimum of surprises - including red reinforcements - for the player. That would also have been another wrinkle in a scenario where the primary goal was just to actually complete, polish, and publish a scenario (instead of leave yet another half-cobbled-together mess on my hard drive). -I saw the same behavior in testing and am not sure what causes it. There is no way for the scenario designer to specify surrender parameters - they are hard-coded into the engine. The only control a designer really has in this regard is the ability to manipulate the AI into not surrendering by adding a bunch of AI "reinforcements" timed to never actually enter the map but I don't think that's the case here (it's been a while since I did anything with this scenario). My guess is that it has to do with the destroyed Russian vehicles on the map, which may be counted by the AI in surrender calculations and having the same effect. In the end I didn't worry about it much because it generally takes/took pretty close to time to secure Chicago anyways, so by the time the AI is to the point of surrendering time is often up anyways. Perhaps I will revisit that though. Thanks again for the feedback.

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.

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 are by light and sound. FWIW, my experience with sniper teams in-game is that the Tac AI has got pretty good about having the third man (in the US teams generally armed with an M4 ACOG) only open fire when enemies are close enough that I would want the whole team shooting anyways, or sometimes when given a direct target order. Since the snipers' rifles aren't truly "silent" in the first place, this behavior makes perfect sense to me: everyone fires at targets closer in (where the enemy would likely detect the silenced rifle anyways) than further out (where the guy with the M4 doesn't have the accuracy to make any hits). I find that it's still the case that snipers are most effective when left to their own devices, with at most a cover arc.

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.

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 that can be done. Given that BFC has said that there are no national differences between infantry (e.g. a Ukranian +0/+0/+0/+0 rifle squad is the same as a Russian +0/+0/+0/+0 rifle squad is the same as an American +0/+0/+0/+0 rifle squad) other than their equipment, I'm not sure I'd hold my breath for differentiation within nationalities either, though it's certainly possible that such a capability exists and lack of national differences is strictly based on philosophy. But given that BFC have repeatedly stated that that is their philosophy, I'm not sure why they'd take the time to build an unused capability into the engine. In that case a US mech rifle squad and a US SFOD team might only be capable of performing identically (other than their typical soft factors and whatever might be attributable to their equipment). I'd still also like to see SOF in game anyways, if for nothing else than to add some flavor and more possibilities for smaller infantry-focused scenarios. Their inclusion could also make sense as advisors in the possible future separatists module, since foreign internal defense is a traditional SOF mission.

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 reinforcements at about the one hour mark, but decided I wanted to keep this scenario pretty tightly focused on the Scout platoon. I may still revisit that idea in the future. I'm pretty new at making complete, finished, and polished scenarios, so I'm trying to limit my scope for now, but I think one day it might be fun to turn what is now this scenario into just the first hour of a long, drag-out company- or battalion-sized battle on an expanded map. We'll see how I feel about that once I have some more experience with bigger scenarios. Glad you liked the scenario and the map, and sorry about your luck. With your limited forces, and especially limited AT assets, it can be very important to have eyes on where the enemy is or might be in order to hold out, and sometimes keeping those eyes alive is the biggest challenge in the scenario. (Also, not sure if what's your driving at, but AFAIK the helicopters won't give you contact icons - the only way to know if they've spotted something is if they shoot at it). Good luck with your next go!

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.

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 values, reinforcement details, etc. - instead, there is a briefing within the briefing, from which the player is intended to determine what needs to be done. Specific objective and reinforcement details are included in the Designer's Notes tab as a fail-safe. The scenario is pretty small, with the US player eventually receiving the bulk of a mechanized Scout Platoon plus attachments, and plays out on a new 1200 x 800m map featuring four Red AI plans. Although I would recommend real time play, both my testers got on pretty well doing WEGO. It is playable as Blue only; there are no Blue AI plans and it is not balanced for H2H play. Special thanks to knightsabret and bangalor44 who gave me great feedback during testing. From the briefing: At the risk of sounding like I'm blowing my own horn, I really enjoyed this scenario while I was testing it. Even knowing the enemy's possible courses of action, it can turn into a real nail-biter. As I said in my WIP thread, I've had results ranging from a cakewalk, to my CO and a couple Humvee drivers holed up in a church with only a few AT4s to hold off a platoon of Russian armor. Depending on your decisions and the breaks it can be really tough, and Blue cannot afford to throw away a single asset if they want to win. The Red AI plans and number of tactical options available to the player, combined with a relatively short timeframe, should give this scenario some significant replayability - if things don't go your way, another crack at it should be fruitful. Comments from my testers seem to echo the intensity and replayability. As always, any feedback whatsoever is highly appreciated whether by post here, PM, or email to astanocmscens @ gmail . com, and I'm always interested to hear how people do with the scenario.

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 and the town. I ran the scenario several times that way and would frequently wind up with exhausted infantry squads trying to secure the town with only a couple mags of 5.56 and a few hand grenades left, which put the player in a bit of a bind - save their ammo and risk more casualties taking the earlier objectives, or try to take the final objectives with virtually no ammo. That made the scenario a little more difficult than I was shooting for. I settled on adding the Bradleys because, given the map and circumstances, I didn't think it would be fair to give the player supply trucks, and doctrinally the dismounts aren't intended to operate without their Bradleys for a long period of time anyways. Also,

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 unclear objectives and a briefing that may or may not directly address the situation - the idea being that the player needs to assess the situation and act in accordance with the objectives and intent of their chain of command. From the briefing: My testing so far indicates that this mission can be really easy or really hard, depending on some of the decisions you make and the breaks you do (or don't) get. You're up against a fair amount of Russian AFVs with limited but very effective NATO AT assets, so if you can keep everyone alive the Russians might have a rough time; conversely, if you lose even a couple AT weapons, it can be quite a nail-biter. I've had results in testing ranging from zero NATO casualties, to chasing T72s off the objective with Humvee drivers armed with AT4s because that's all I had left. If anyone would like to give it a couple play-throughs and report back I'd really welcome more feedback. Feel free to post here or PM if you're interested. Otherwise, I expect to have it up on the Repository in the next couple weeks.

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 age. You need to spot these enemy forces with your "own" assets (your troops or UAV) in order for them to "reappear." Hope that helps... if not, could you elaborate on the issue?

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.

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 about half of the smaller one, currently on 3D work, will make up probably a quarter of the larger).

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 to replace each with older gear (XM25 for M320, M110 for M4 ACOG). So while you can use the CMBS TO&Es for older scenarios, to me it's harder to do the other way around - an M203 is not as good a stand-in for an XM25 as an M320 is for an M203. Therefore I think it would be easier to do a 2003/4/5/whatever scenario with CMBS infantry gear than it would be to do 2010/11/12/future scenarios with CMSF equipment. I remember in fooling with the editor in CMSF to make 2008/2009/2010 era scenarios that I was even then running into issues with getting the correct equipment. A lot of this could already be mollified with the cherry-picking and team attachments of CMx2 versions 2 and up, but even though upgraded equipment might not sound like that big an issue, when you're trying to design a scenario that has no more than a squad and some attachments even slight firepower differences become much more apparent. (Edit to add: I'm not certain, but am fairly confident that the same would be the case with armor and other vehicles. I keep harping on infantry because those are my preferred CM scenarios, and thus I am less familiar with the kit and TO&Es as far as tanks and IFVs go in CMSF vs CMBS, but my sense is that just using the non-APS equipped vehicle variants in the CMBS TO&E would give you substantially the same organization and equipment as was available in CMSF). That said it's a matter of priorities for me. I will happily go back to the original CMSF forces and TO&Es with the newest engine if that's the trade-off for the original asymmetric force mixes to be combined with new features, but in absolute terms it's not my number one preference. Conversely I don't think CMBS in a desert setting is enough to get me excited about a new game because I'm just much less into the armor-heavy, symmetric fights characteristic of CMBS (even though I'd probably buy it anyways). Who knows, maybe BFC will surprise us all and (1) move ahead with CMSF2 in the first place - they haven't said anything about it in a while, so I'm not holding my breath - and (2) give us options for both 2008 and 2017 flavors of TO&E.

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.

Yep, this. To me, the heart and soul of CMSF was the assymetric, often infantry-focused, frequently COIN-style fights. If CMSF2 is going to happen, it's much more important to me that it keep that flavor than that it include the most modern NATO forces (and by correlation, the updates I most want to see for NATO are to infantry, not to the M1A2 SEPUBER et al., though it makes no sense to do one without the other). To paraphrase a poster above, if you want a peer-to-peer slugfest, just go buy CMBS.

Hi everyone, I'm currently working on a few different CMBS scenarios, the first of which is ready for public testing. If anyone is interested post here or send me a PM. I can e-mail or Dropbox the file as necessary. It's a custom map approximately 800 x 800 meters set at night and pitting a US Bradley platoon (+) vs. approximately a platoon of Russian defenders. The US rifle platoon plus some snipers and Javelin teams start on map, with their Bradleys arriving at approximately the halfway point of the scenario. It's intended as a not particularly difficult, infantry-centric fight; the force size should be pretty manageable and I think the time limit is fairly generous. Briefing excerpt in the spoilers: I have had one tester go through it already and results were mostly positive, barring some objective quirks which have since been adjusted. However, since this would be my first published scenario, I would like to get as much feedback as I can before putting it on the Repository. I also have a couple other scenarios in various stages of completion (one just starting testing and one with the map about 50% complete) that I will hopefully be looking for testers on in the not-too-distant future, which I'll post about here as well when/if the time comes.

Thanks for the replies guys. @Heirloom - to be honest I couldn't say for certain that that wasn't part of the problem. However, I'm quite sure now that that's not the case, and at any rate, I don't think that would explain why, if the triggering group comes on as reinforcements, the can trigger order is apparently triggered before they have even appeared, but if they start on map the timing doesn't seem to matter. Either there's an issue with that, or some other variable in my testing that I'm not thinking of produced that result. At this point, for the scenario I'm working on the AI needs a pretty substantial rework anyways as the groups aren't working out, so I'll probably be switching to terrain triggers regardless. If I do any more with the orders triggers I'll post what I find here, and of course I'd love to hear from anyone else about them.

I've done some testing and fiddling with this since my last post and it looks like Heirloom is mostly correct - the problem is specifically related to the fact that the triggering group comes on as reinforcements. First I confirmed that you can successfully use an open-ended time with an orders trigger just like you can with a terrain trigger (that is, exit between 0:00 and [end of scenario], wait for [trigger]) - that on its own appears to work, if both the triggering and triggered groups start on the map. It doesn't appear to matter what you do with the timing if both groups start on map - for example, if you make the triggering order the third order, scheduled to begin at 1:00, but at 1:00 the triggering group hasn't yet reached the triggering order, the triggered group will not advance. This is not the case if the triggering group is not on the map at 1:00 - then the triggered group will advance. An orders trigger also works under the circumstances Heirloom discovered - that is, where the reinforcements arrive on the map and have no orders that are supposed to be started before they arrive on the map, and the triggered group has a specific timeline. It appears though that even if the triggering group doesn't have any orders scheduled during the time it is still off-map, giving the triggered group an open ended order (e.g. exit between 0:00 and [scenario end]) causes the triggered group to advance whether or not the triggering group is even on map yet. Semi-detailed semi-scientific test results: I have no idea why that's the case, and to be frank I'm not terribly confident in those results or my methodology. But it looks like if you want to use orders from a group that does not start on the map as a trigger, the timing of their orders and the orders of the group being triggered need to be timed almost as you would if you were using time as the only trigger. This seems to take a lot of the utility out of orders triggers, but it is what it is.

Plus one to pretty much all of this. I would happily buy CMSF, CMBN, CMRT and CMBS all over again with sufficient upgrades, especially if they came in the AI and scenario editor department (expanded trigger capabilities, copy/paste or map "tiles", and a fully 3D editor, at least for flavor objects, being my top three). And I might lose my mind if BFC could come up with a realistic, semi-first-person operational game - I've been dreaming of such a thing for years.

Maybe I'm being dense, but does this mean that the AI can move based on the time condition being met even before the trigger is actually tripped (e.g., if I set the earliest time to 0:00 and have a terrain trigger, the unit can still move at 0:00 even though the trigger hasn't been tripped yet)? The CM Engine Manual 3.01 states on pp. 104-105: It would seem that either I'm misunderstanding something or one of these is incorrect.

Thanks for the replies guys, I really appreciate it. At this point the question's really more academic than anything else, as I know a terrain trigger can do what I want, but I'd still like to figure it out if possible. @Pelican Pal - The exit before time is (and I think always has been) set to 1:22:00, two minutes after the end of the scenario. I double-checked that that was the case and ran the scenario again but it doesn't seem to make a difference. I tried using a terrain trigger instead with all other parameters left the same, so it seems to just be the order trigger that's the issue. Download link for the scenario so far: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8gmktv1lh3ch7xy/wrong%20turn%20at%20albuquerque%20ai%201.btt?dl=0 I don't currently have any terrain triggers on the map. I know I could get more-or-less this effect with them but I was hopping to do simultaneous advances, rather than leapfrogging (although again I could achieve the desired effect with Heirloom's technique). I was always under the impression that a trigger order doesn't require terrain triggers, is this correct? It's definitely the impression I have from the manual, and I know that the opposite isn't true (i.e., for terrain triggers you just need the objective set regardless of the can or cannot trigger status of any orders). If not, at least I have a pretty quick answer to my problem.

Hi all, I can't seem to get "Can Trigger" orders to work, specifically the following example: AI Group 2 is supposed to exit its setup zone and secure a farm complex, then wait to advance until AI Group 3 appears on map as reinforcements and begin their advance on a different farm complex. Group 3's second order is set to "Can Trigger," and Group 2's second order has the Group 3, Order 2 trigger listed as "Wait For," and then they have order three, like so: Group 2: Setup (exit between 0:00 and 0:30), Order 2 (wait for Group 3, Order 2, exit between X and Y), Order 3, Order 4, etc. Group 3: Setup (exit between 0:00 and 1:00), Order 2 (Can Trigger, exit between 0:00 and 1:00), Order 3, Order 4, etc. But Group 2 just isn't waiting for Group 3 - rather, whatever time is set as the exit after for Group 2's third order is when they leave to execute order 3. I have tried setting the earliest exit time for Group 2 at 0:00, 5:00 (the earliest Group 3 can appear on map), and 1:00:00, and in each instance that is when Group 2 exits for their third order regardless of what Group 3 is doing or even if they're on map (that is, if Group 2's exit after time is 0:00, Group 2 immediately moves from its second to its third order, regardless of the fact that Group 3, who they are supposed to be waiting on, isn't even on map; same for 5:00. If I set the exit after for Group 2 to 1:00:00, Group 2 sits in its second position until 1:00:00, even if Group 3 has come on map and moved several orders beyond their "Can Trigger" second order). I tried switching the triggered order for Group 2 from the second order to the third order as well (that is, Setup (exit between 0:00 and 0:30), Order 2 (exit between 0:00 and 1:30:00), Order 3 (wait for Group 3, Order 2, exit between X and Y), etc.), but this still resulted in Group 2 just blitzing through its plan. I know with objective triggers I've had success by setting an exit after time of 0:00 and an exit before time of the end of the scenario, with the trigger as the "wait for" condition, but this doesn't seem to be how an orders trigger works. I assume there's an error on my part here somewhere but I've tried just about every variation on the plan I can think of with no change in outcome. The manual doesn't really discuss these triggers; I also tried searching the forums and had no luck. I looked through some of the stock scenarios and couldn't find an example of an Orders trigger being used either. Any tips would be appreciated.

This was my vote as well. The 2008 storyline is fine, but if the game's to be redone I'd prefer it have modern NATO forces. It's my understanding from past BFC statements that most of the assets from CMSF are unusable today anyways, so I think it would be easier to just re-use modern CMBS forces where possible (they might well have to re-do the Syrians anyways though, because I don't think much of the Syrian equipment beyond trucks, BMP-2s and BTR-70s made it into CMBS).

Ditto, I was always under the impression/hope (okay, so probably just hope) that CMSF2 was going to be the same setting and storyline as CMSF but with the modern units and engine upgrades of CMBS. I can still dream...