Glubokii Boy

Hello, Stingray They are posted on the BATTLEFRONT REPOSITORY I don't know if you are aware of this place ?...if not...do this: - Go to BATTLEFRONT.COM - There's a menu at the top. Mouse-over the option COMMUNITY and select (click) the second from the top REPOSITORY. - Here you will find a list of avaliable BATTLEFRONT GAMES. - Click on COMBAT MISSION FORTESS ITALY - To select uploaded MISSIONS and MODS for GUSTAV-LINE click on the YELLOW GUSTAV-LINE (next to the incon) - click on SUBMITDATE - Now you will se those scenarios at the top. Click on DOWNLOAD - You will need to be LOGGED-IN to download any content found here. Or use this link to get right to it... http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=select&id=54&orderby=4

Thanks for your answer, JonS Yes...The timing will need to be checked and maybe not to 'over-use' it. Yes...I feel that this might work good with trenches and bombardments also... Maybe mentioning in the briefing something like "the enemy have had ample of time to prepare their defences to include blastproof shelters among their trenches. This will severly limit the effect of any initial bombardments"... And to have the trenchline defenders arrive as reinforcements prior to a likely player assult...(maybe with some reduced headcount). By the way...Thanks for making this DAR !

Hi ! I have just got started using the editor to build scenarios. My intial goal is to try and make a few simple scenarios using some of the QB-maps as the 'battlefield' and add troops for both sides with the defenders being set up and ready for the player to attack. I thought i would check here what you think about an idea i have... - Is it considered OK to have a number of enemies set as reinforcements to arrive at a later time and not being on the map from the scenario-start...Like this...? For example...If i want a number of squads and maybe a machinegun or two in a village to 'not be there' from the start of the mission to avoid likely long-range enemy recon by fire targeting those buildings...And instead have them set up as reinforcements that arrive one or a few minutes before the the first possible time the players units come close to that location. (even though the approaches to these buildings are visible to the player meaning that he would se if the AI would move troops into these at a late time) This could simulate the troops being hidden in the cellar until the last moment before an enemy assult for example or troops defending from a strongpoint (building with heavy walls). Would something like this be considered a big NO-NO ? Could it be considered cheating, boring or overly tricky if a 'reconed (by fire)' building that by all signes are empty suddenly contains enemy troops without anybody entering that building..? Regards, RepsolCBR

Hello... I just had a look at the repository... Both my first try with this (QBS one more roadblock) and Michael Clarks scenario (GL The Loyalty of Garibaldi) are now avaliable in the Gustav line section of CMFI. Please feel free to give these a try if you feel like it... Any feedback will be welcome for future creations. Especially the timesetting and force compositions macthup (to much time avalible making it to easy ?, Not enough time to do a decent attack ?, To many or to few defenders in regard to the size of the attacking force ?) Thanks, RepsolCBR

Hello... Michael Clark: - Thanks. I have downloaded your scenario. I will have a go at it tomorrow. Looks good (well made briefing). - I will indeed follow JonS DAR. FGM-Bootie: - I agree with Erwin...Thanks for the tip. I will do some downloads. Aragorn2002: - I have hade the same experience with QBs and the AI. Force selection is not the only problem though...The AI does not really seem to be able to understand the difference between the various units but rather places them where it wants some 'boots on the ground'...No matter what kind of unit it is. Bunching up on the VLs are also quite common i think. Having defences set up by an other player will be a big improvement for sure. As it is now (singleplayer) we have a hole bunch of beatiful maps (QBs) that are of limited use because of the AIs shortcommings in selecting and setting up defences... The scenarios are already more then half-done (and waiting for us)...We already have the maps ! All we need now is some decent defences to attack.

Oops...Sorry ! Forgot to mention the name of the scenario... QBS One more roadblock I thought that if more scenarios like this is made it might be a good idea to speciify that they are made using QB-maps and prefix the scenario name with QBS (quick battle singleplayer) for example...

Hello... I have just uploaded my first scenario to the repository (i hope i did it right so it works). I guess it will be avaliable in a few days... I have done like i suggested in my first post: - picked a QB-map - deployed the defensive side - added 2 simple AI-orders In this scenario the player will attack a companie-sized german force set up as a blocking possition south of Catania (sicily). Date: August 1. 1943 I understand that i'm not a tactical genius so this scenario may not be very challeging for the more experienced players but please give it a try if you like... Using the QB maps and keeping the scenario fairly simple makes these scenarios quite fast to make. I have not really kept track of how many hours a have spent on this first one but i would guess maybe 10 (including 2 quick playtestings). Hopefully some of you will find it acceptable and maybe try to do simular work...

Hello, Michael Clarke excellent ! I will have a go at it when its avaliable at the repository. Thanks !

Hi Yes. I fully understand that real life gets in the way of most people. My self included. My usual computer-time each week i would guess is something like 10 hours, 15 at best. During the winter it might be a littel more. 'perhaps the usual suspects are designing for market garden' Yes. Thats part of what i mean. I think we rely a bit to much on 'THE USUAL SUSPECTS'...It seems like there are only a dussin or two making scenarios for this game...They can only do so much (but they do very well). I think if we want this game to be as good as it could be 'we others' might need to put a littel effort into it also (real life has to come first of course). I think that quite a few casual gamers might be a little 'intimidated' to post their work because their military- and historical nowledge is no where near that of 'the usual suspects'...Nor is their expertice with the editor...resulting in a scenario that might not reach- the very high quality -of the scenarios that are released with the modules... But i don't think they need to be...I'd much rather play 5-10 good scenarios while waiting for those 'very high quality' ones made by the pros than not play any at all.. Thats why i think... -A well orginized defence set up by a human on a QB-map - for other people to attack will go a long way. Regards, Repsol

Hello, Lethaface... No. I have not played all the scenarios. The number of scenarios that come with the modules is not what i mean when i wrote that i was 'disapointed' with the lack of scenarios...Thoose are plenty and well worth the money the modules cost. What i meant is that the 'follow up' scenario creation by the comunity is a bit disapointing (you have to agree)...Take CMFI for example...have there been even 5 scenarios posted on the repository since its release ? i don't thinks so... Also...for some reason or others some people may not like all the scenarios that shipp with the game either...To big in scale or maybe some other reason. Therefore a steady flow of new scenarios of different kind and compexity would be a good thing i think... I'm trying to put together a scenario now...hopfully i will have it finished after the weekend. This is the first time i try to make a scenario so dont expect a masterpiece...I will do my best though.

Hello, nik mond ! I agree. Thoose are good ideas. Me myself is one of 'the guilty' users of this game that has not contributed with any scenario to the community so far. I thought i would give the editor a try...starting out...small and simple. Hopefully a number of users will find these kind of scenarios enjoyable and good practice and will in turn make their own and post them on the repository... Hopefully resulting in - one scenario/week - or something like that being uploaded for others to try...I atleast find the serious lack of new scenarios avaliable to be by far the biggest 'flaw' with this game. There are obviosly improvements that can be made to the game mechanics but the lack of playable content is...disapointing...

Hello... I have a small suggestion to perhaps get some more single player scenarios posted on the repository... Like has been mentioned before by others...Many scenario-ideas may be a bit to ambitious (with maps mirroring the real world location down to the last tree, 100 % historcally correct forces etc.)... These scenarios are obviously amazingly well made and fun to play but they are taking very long to finish or even ending up in the trashcan before they can be completed. The idea described below might well have been mentioned before... Theese simple scenarios will work best with the AI defending (AI attacking will need a bit more work - with plans etc.) - Load one of the QB maps in the scenarioeditor..there's something like 400 to choose from... - Remove the AI plans and setupzones from the defending side. - Tweak the victorylocations and other parameters to your liking. - Choose the troops for both the attacking and defending side. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - DEPLOY THE DEFENDING FORCES AS BEST YOU CAN !!! (like you would if playing a HTH game) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - Make a simple briefing for the attacking side (player). THERE YOU HAVE IT...A WORKING SCENARIO !!! A simple scenario on a WELL-MADE map with the player attacking a defencive possiton that has been SET-UP by an other HUMAN-PLAYER (and not the AI). I think scenarios like this will be far more enjoyable then an ordinary QB-game in wich the AI decides the defensive set-up. (most times not very well...HQ's, mortars, machineguns etc. mixed up in a terrible way). I understand that the AI defences in such a scenario will be very STATIC but i think that these kind of scenarios will work OK for simple trainingmissions and give a few hours of reasonably fun gameplay...With quite limited effort put in by the scenario designer. To add a little more life to these scenarios the designer might add some simple plans, reinforcements etc...But still...not very complicated or time consuming scenarios to make. If we could get a number of players to make these kind of scenarios and post them on the repository we will soon get 'a new kind' of QB battles for the singleplayer. Much more fun to play i think ! What do you guys think...Is this a good idea or a waste of time (producing 'second rate' scenarios) ? I'm working on one now...Let's see how it turns out... Regards, Repsol

Hello...Yskonyn and VICMAR My stupid misstake...You are absolutely right. I only had 1.10 I have dowloaded 1.11 and not everything works. Thank you !

I unistalled the game and made a fresh download of 1.11 Normandy and then downloaded and installed the V 2.0 update. I have the same problem that Yskonyn had...The shaders will not toggle ON... No matter how many times i press Alt R it only shows SHADER OFF It has nothing to do with my graphics card...Shaders in CMFI works fine... Any help apprisiated !

Good suggestion...I like it !

More options in the DELAY part of the artillery interface... Now we have: Immidiate 5 min delay 10 min delay 15 min delay If i estimate that it will take me 20-25 minutes to get my men into possition i will not be able to use the pre planned artillery to target the enemy defences just prior to my assult.. I don't understand this limitation in timing...It could be no more difficult for the artillery assets to understand an order that says... "start fireing at 16.30" instead of "start fireing at 16.15"... Maybe there could be an add and subtract button in the interface to allow the player to set the delay timing like he wish... Or atleast add 2 more options to the current delay timing interface (there are 2 'boxes' in that interface not currently used...below the 15 min option). Maybe set thoose at 20 and 30 minutes...

I really enjoyed this one to...Very good battle ! Nice ending...good AI plans. Thanks !

Thanks Baneman...I will defenetally look closer at this !

Hello Baneman... I'm not really sure i understand what you mean...I have looked at the different TOEs in the editor and i can't find any 'seperate mortar company' in any of the battalions...The battalions i can find have 3 rifle companies and 1 heavy weapon company (with a mix of support weapons)...No full mortar company ? By "one of the HQ's in the mortar company has an inherent Forward Observer - who functions perfectly. So you don't need to buy a separate team"... Do you really mean a FO-team (with binoculars as floating incon)? it's not just an ordinary HQ-team (with a flag as floating incon)... I know that all HQs can call for artillery support (up to a certain level atleast) but the dedicated FO-teams will have shorter respons time (if i'm not misstaking)... The reason for my original question is that i have set up a 'training ground' to play 2 player hotseat aginst myself...to practice my tactics and and experience how the spotting works and what effect the weapons are having on different targets.. The training ground is a large mountainus map with a depleted german infantry battalion (1 full company + 2 additional platoons from the second company and some battalion support weapons) defending against a US infantry battalion... I have possitioned all the troops from both sides as best i can in the setup-face as i would have placed them in a full battle...To start with though i will only play parts of the battle at any time to practice. Right now i'm practicing attacking with 1 US riflecompany with asigned supportweapons (attacking the part of the mapp that i have asigned to that company and defending with the part of the germans that i have asigned to defend that part of the front...I will play this part of the map a few times to try and improve both my attack and defence with lessons learned the last time...Then do the same with an other part of the front and finally do the whole battalion attack (perhaps with some armour support)... The reason for this post is that i have found that the germans are in a big disadvantage in the light, medium indirect firesupport part of the fight... The US 60mm mortars (especially when firing directly ...they very quickly place rounds on target)are very effectivly destroying/suppresing my defensive possitions (not dug-in). I'm having a bit of a problem countering this as the germans...They only have a few mortars and they are not as responsive (when fireing indirect...)... My thinking was that maybe i should give the germans some FO-teams to shorten their responstime...but i don't want to do it if its totaly unrealistic... So...how many FO-teams would be good in this setup ? 0...because i only have the battalions organic artillery support (no attached artillery units from regiment or division). 1...A pretty 'normal' number for a battalion (atleast if they have higher artillery support) 2...Because of the difficult terrain... Any suggestions apprisiated...Thanks

Hello again... Or would none FO-team be the most realistic if the battalion had to rely on its organic mortar support only ?

OK, thanks... On a large (hilly, mountainus) map with 2 german companies (+ some battalion support- weapons) deployed in defensive possition...This battalion have no priority to recive any extra support from regiment, division... Would 1 FO be the max number or could possibly 2 be used and still be somewhat realistic ? On this map 1 FO can not cover the entire section of the front...

Hello ! How many FO-teams would be normal, realistic for a german infantry battalion to have ?

This sure sounds familuar... Many years ago when i did my military service (swedish army) i guess my unit would qualify for the GREEN catigory...

Hello, TrailApe... That could possibly be the reason...just checked the game... 2 guncrews where GREEN and 2 REGULAR

And also... I think that the 'stealth modifier' difference between different size guns might be to insignificant to... I would like the 'tiny' 37mm AT-gun to be much more stealthy than the big 88s for example...(i guess they are but i wish the difference was more noticebel)... In the afore mentioned battle i played both 37mm guns where spotted very quickly despite having line of sight to them obstructed by a number of trees (one being spotted by a buttoned-up tank from 500+ meters through a wooded area)...