nik mond

I just submitted to Repository a new mod, it should be showing up for downloading sooner or later:

MikeyD's 'Lily Pond' pattern Deep Marsh terrain tile.

Five or six different Deep Marsh terrains had been tried out before BFC settled on the current 'algae green mud' style deep marsh terrain tile. One runner-up (and my personal favorite) was a more distinctive 'lily pond' tile pattern. The advantage (in my mind at least) is it makes those deep marsh 'no-go' areas more immediately recognizable. Nobody's going to try to drive a tank across that!

It was submitted about 2am so it'll take awhile before it get approved for downloading.

Hope you like!

I am late to the party. But I brought up a similar topic back in 2011 with my little "single guy" campaign. And ran into the same things like requiring restarts to actually to get 1 guy. Then in the second battle the troops would lose their primary team weapon. But, if the morale was set to Fanatic and the leadership 2+, actually all attributes maxed out so you could get the guys to move, it was fun in a Sgt Fury Howling Commando way.
 

Its the bad and the ugly

Tac Nukes are absolutely moot when discussing a prospective CM Fulda Gap or Reforger, or Gruner Laubfrosch etc. The game would be about the units that are fighting around or through the hot zones. The SOP's were solidly in place for fighting in an NBCW environment as the mentality was nukes were definitely going to be used. The emphasis was on how to adapt and mitigate the loss from nukes in order to carry on with the conventional fight.
 Units within brigades were spread out from each other. Always moving. Even defensive units were to relocate in their entirety after a short period of time (German roads were extremely hazardous when Corps exercises were going on). If the balloon went up these units would have operated this way for the real thing. Sealed in tanks, or dug in the ground Top High mode would have kept units with adequate distance peripheral to ground zero combat effective. It would have been rare to see many entire battalions wiped out from low yield tac nukes because of this.  Once contact was made the threat of a tac nuke would be gone for the time being and that is where CM would take place. Direction finding a Div HQ and nuking it wouldn't be all that successful either as these units were sending signals remotely by linked radio vans miles away. Also radio silence and dispatch riders were still heavy relied on even in the 80's.
Yes they were too optimistic with their mobile decontam centers and many soldiers would likely perish shortly after the war.  But I really don't want to go there.  We have Combat Mission Black Sea which featured nuclear super-power adversaries. I don't see nuclear weapons as a deterrent for the original topic here.

It sounded like you were dismissing it because it was inferior to Combat Mission. Just wanted to clarifiy for other people.
Armored combat is well done in that game in my opinion, and the infantry AI is more independent, however it can lead to some stupid stuff happening, especially tight spaces. Ground deformation due to artillery is also a plus, it actually has trenches/foxholes that go under the ground and field guns are less laughably ineffective than in CM.
If you like fighting across Ukraine's great plains, Graviteam would suit you more. If you like fighting through cities, bocage or more wooded areas then Combat Mission is you jam.
I do admit that I own all of Graviteam's releases except Steel Fury and Achtung Panzer, but I've been playing Combat Mission more because it has better quality of life and infantry models (the ones in Graviteam and Tank Warfare are sometimes so trash I can't stand looking at them).

Hi everyone,
 I was reading a thread in the forums today with regards to AI plans for use in CM missions.
That got me to thinking about the literally endless possibilities the Arma3 mission makers
can utilize through the use of script commands. List of commands here: https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Category:Scripting_Commands_Arma_3
  I'm guessing the current engine precludes the introduction of such a system, but perhaps if/when Battlefront begins work on "Engine 4", a
similar system might be looked upon as perhaps having some merit.
   Perhaps someone in the forums familiar with both working up AI plans in the CM editors as well as Arma3 might have some thoughts on this.
 
Best regards, Odd

There already is a differentiation between which scope or view ports are damaged. The reporting is just generic.

They definitely should be in CM:Nam. And Battlefront should hurry up and make CM:Nam. It's going on twenty years.
 
Mord.
P.S. The blast would look just like the canister charges in those great Stuart screen shots. The Cone of Deadly Shredding.

Also upping their experience works, making them crack or elite has made them act more in a one shot one kill kinda way. But thats just me.

Very true but a bit one sided. I guess the trouble I have is the "most" part. Looking at the patterns of unhappy customers is how you find areas that need attention. At the company I work at we have used that feedback to update the way we document features, reworked whole networking messaging because of configuration confusion and remove whole features in favor of using third party systems that were in common use already by our customers.
However the 'most' unhappy customers are actually just pissed off, frequently unreasonable jerks. Sorry like all things human there are jackasses out there and you run into them. Those angry unreasonable people are not a source of learning - unless you are talking about learning to stay polite in the face of rudeness Analyzing thier problem along with all other incidents *is* the source of learning.
A long way to say being polite and expressing your problem *is* helpful and contributes to making a better product. Being an entitled jackass contributes nothing more, while at the same time making you difficult to deal with and harming those that have to deal with you.

I will try to take a look this weekend.

A quick, little skirmish...
 

Fwiw I upgraded from a GT260 to GTX750 on my 1st Gen i7 a few years back and noticed a massive improvement in CM gaming. I was able to Max out settings for once. But that is going from a low end card.
I now have night blade with gtx 1080 8gb and of course CM plays like dream because of the processing speed alone. I suppose if it's a 4km map of just buildings you would still get a lag at ground level but that still happens in the shooters I play that are maximized.

Fwiw I upgraded from a GT260 to GTX750 on my 1st Gen i7 a few years back and noticed a massive improvement in CM gaming. I was able to Max out settings for once. But that is going from a low end card.
I now have night blade with gtx 1080 8gb and of course CM plays like dream because of the processing speed alone. I suppose if it's a 4km map of just buildings you would still get a lag at ground level but that still happens in the shooters I play that are maximized.

As long as it is expected for the player to call ceasefire at his discretion, then sure whats wrong with adding extra time. Personally I wish there was a "do you want to end scenario or keep playing" prompt for those situations when I caught on late to the avenue of approach or whatever. I was actually having a good time playing the battle. Experienced players who read the AI can really breeze through scenarios fast, shooting for an AI surrender. That can't be interpreted as a basis to set time for a scenario. Its safe to be generous with time allotment in almost all scenarios, you really can't go wrong. The exception being when time appreciation is the premise of the objective.
 

The Sgt mostly works in CMSF so you may not be familiar with his work, but he has done some really creative fun stuff that has imho pushed design for that title up a notch. He is a very good example of someone who has decided what he’d like to see and then applied it.  Now keep in mind his work just like anyone else’s may not appeal to everyone.  However it is damn good work. As to being a customer, well that only applies if you paid for it.  That is true for one that comes with the game, but not for user created stuff which will be the vast majority of content over time. For those in effect you are getting something for free and then complaining about it as if you have some customer rights.  You don’t. You can only 1decide even at free it isn’t worth it to you or 2 provide specific feedback/suggestions to the designer in a manner that is productive and collaborative. #change your tone. 😁

Meeting Engagement objectives are always somewhat atypical.  We can identify with hardpoints to hold, or swarm in an attack or defend scenario. But what objectives do you fight over when comparably sized task forces go BUMP. on a hill, in valley, in a forest. I think someone has a problem with these.  If you don't have any hold objectives to reach, one of two things will happen: Player one runs straight to the hardpoints and fights a defend battle against an equal sized opponent, of course he wins! Or player two camps back then shoots at anything that moves, wins by attrition. 
Units that did meet, whether planned, or unplanned fought each other as the objective, and the need to lay claim to the key immediate terrain features which could change the tide of the battle. A cross road maybe, but also the building that covers the cross road, or the forest that masks the enemy's movements. You can't just say "oh I'd go around the forest, that's not a real objective" Well no, too late. Its a meeting engagement and you have a forest to hold, or a choke point, a hill, or building  because your opponent will do it, if you don't.

As long as it is expected for the player to call ceasefire at his discretion, then sure whats wrong with adding extra time. Personally I wish there was a "do you want to end scenario or keep playing" prompt for those situations when I caught on late to the avenue of approach or whatever. I was actually having a good time playing the battle. Experienced players who read the AI can really breeze through scenarios fast, shooting for an AI surrender. That can't be interpreted as a basis to set time for a scenario. Its safe to be generous with time allotment in almost all scenarios, you really can't go wrong. The exception being when time appreciation is the premise of the objective.
 

Meeting Engagement objectives are always somewhat atypical.  We can identify with hardpoints to hold, or swarm in an attack or defend scenario. But what objectives do you fight over when comparably sized task forces go BUMP. on a hill, in valley, in a forest. I think someone has a problem with these.  If you don't have any hold objectives to reach, one of two things will happen: Player one runs straight to the hardpoints and fights a defend battle against an equal sized opponent, of course he wins! Or player two camps back then shoots at anything that moves, wins by attrition. 
Units that did meet, whether planned, or unplanned fought each other as the objective, and the need to lay claim to the key immediate terrain features which could change the tide of the battle. A cross road maybe, but also the building that covers the cross road, or the forest that masks the enemy's movements. You can't just say "oh I'd go around the forest, that's not a real objective" Well no, too late. Its a meeting engagement and you have a forest to hold, or a choke point, a hill, or building  because your opponent will do it, if you don't.

Tac Nukes are absolutely moot when discussing a prospective CM Fulda Gap or Reforger, or Gruner Laubfrosch etc. The game would be about the units that are fighting around or through the hot zones. The SOP's were solidly in place for fighting in an NBCW environment as the mentality was nukes were definitely going to be used. The emphasis was on how to adapt and mitigate the loss from nukes in order to carry on with the conventional fight.
 Units within brigades were spread out from each other. Always moving. Even defensive units were to relocate in their entirety after a short period of time (German roads were extremely hazardous when Corps exercises were going on). If the balloon went up these units would have operated this way for the real thing. Sealed in tanks, or dug in the ground Top High mode would have kept units with adequate distance peripheral to ground zero combat effective. It would have been rare to see many entire battalions wiped out from low yield tac nukes because of this.  Once contact was made the threat of a tac nuke would be gone for the time being and that is where CM would take place. Direction finding a Div HQ and nuking it wouldn't be all that successful either as these units were sending signals remotely by linked radio vans miles away. Also radio silence and dispatch riders were still heavy relied on even in the 80's.
Yes they were too optimistic with their mobile decontam centers and many soldiers would likely perish shortly after the war.  But I really don't want to go there.  We have Combat Mission Black Sea which featured nuclear super-power adversaries. I don't see nuclear weapons as a deterrent for the original topic here.

My son  and I were at the ceremony today. In front of us are the RMC cadets and in front of them are the veterans as the wreaths are being layed. 
We are grateful.

Tac Nukes are absolutely moot when discussing a prospective CM Fulda Gap or Reforger, or Gruner Laubfrosch etc. The game would be about the units that are fighting around or through the hot zones. The SOP's were solidly in place for fighting in an NBCW environment as the mentality was nukes were definitely going to be used. The emphasis was on how to adapt and mitigate the loss from nukes in order to carry on with the conventional fight.
 Units within brigades were spread out from each other. Always moving. Even defensive units were to relocate in their entirety after a short period of time (German roads were extremely hazardous when Corps exercises were going on). If the balloon went up these units would have operated this way for the real thing. Sealed in tanks, or dug in the ground Top High mode would have kept units with adequate distance peripheral to ground zero combat effective. It would have been rare to see many entire battalions wiped out from low yield tac nukes because of this.  Once contact was made the threat of a tac nuke would be gone for the time being and that is where CM would take place. Direction finding a Div HQ and nuking it wouldn't be all that successful either as these units were sending signals remotely by linked radio vans miles away. Also radio silence and dispatch riders were still heavy relied on even in the 80's.
Yes they were too optimistic with their mobile decontam centers and many soldiers would likely perish shortly after the war.  But I really don't want to go there.  We have Combat Mission Black Sea which featured nuclear super-power adversaries. I don't see nuclear weapons as a deterrent for the original topic here.

Leadership quality suffers as the intake becomes more homogeneous. Based on a couple anecdotal comments I've come across over the years that stuck with me. One was a 3 tour senior sergeant (marines I believe) from Vietnam, He said his worst experience was in his first tour when the officers were trying to be John Wayne, and the majority of his fellow troops were volunteers trying to be Audie Murphy. By his third tour he was senior NCO for a company comprised of "hippies" as he put it. Smarter officers and best damn troops he served with. 
The old generation is always doubtful of the new leaders. As long as the new candidates are stripped of their sense of entitlement they can be just as capable. Even better. Another thing is to keep the intake socially diverse, this is important. 

I just did this,  dropped some benches and crates and placed a church on top. Pews and alter. Same for factories and warehouses you can drop sacks and barrels etc. I never used or saved what I did but here's a screen shot.