Pelican Pal

Not sure about the avenger system - is it still used? But not every piece of kit available was included. There has to be something for the next modules
 
What the following items are is not totally clear. I am pretty sure there will be more content for CMBS. Here is Steve's latest post about what is coming up:
 

I've been enjoying the discussion on this thread, but I honestly don't get the absolute need to convince each other of your positions. 

Oleksandr has laid out his reasoning several times and you might not agree with it, and that is fine. I personally don't agree with his opinion on it, but I think his line of thinking is interesting to read.

I also enjoyed reading the strong replies to his position. BTR, Chudacabra, Erwin, AKD, HerrTom, CptMiller's first post (even if a bit snippy) all added good content to the thread. 

It created a richer conversation about something that would otherwise not be talked about. I wouldn't have AKD's link for instance without this discussion. 

But holy **** guys. Do you absolutely need to string together a bunch of snarky, personally attacking posts that don't add any functional content to the thread just because someone likes the design ethos of the BMP-3 (Our IFV is both a weapon and a VBIED), seriously?  Like RSulomon, is Oleksandrs' opinion really such a big deal that you have to make some weirdo post asking if he understands opinions can be wrong? Great guys, Oleksandr doesn't like the Stryker, many of you have made cogent arguments to the opposite of that, but do we really need to write a bunch of internet trash so you can "win" your argument? We don't need this whiny internet trash.

Now ironically my complaint about internet trash has put further litter in this thread. But I expect better conduct here than some random reddit thread where every user is just trying to declare themselves the winner of some ****ty internet argument. Let **** go sometimes, you don't always need to "win"...

I've been enjoying the discussion on this thread, but I honestly don't get the absolute need to convince each other of your positions. 

Oleksandr has laid out his reasoning several times and you might not agree with it, and that is fine. I personally don't agree with his opinion on it, but I think his line of thinking is interesting to read.

I also enjoyed reading the strong replies to his position. BTR, Chudacabra, Erwin, AKD, HerrTom, CptMiller's first post (even if a bit snippy) all added good content to the thread. 

It created a richer conversation about something that would otherwise not be talked about. I wouldn't have AKD's link for instance without this discussion. 

But holy **** guys. Do you absolutely need to string together a bunch of snarky, personally attacking posts that don't add any functional content to the thread just because someone likes the design ethos of the BMP-3 (Our IFV is both a weapon and a VBIED), seriously?  Like RSulomon, is Oleksandrs' opinion really such a big deal that you have to make some weirdo post asking if he understands opinions can be wrong? Great guys, Oleksandr doesn't like the Stryker, many of you have made cogent arguments to the opposite of that, but do we really need to write a bunch of internet trash so you can "win" your argument? We don't need this whiny internet trash.

Now ironically my complaint about internet trash has put further litter in this thread. But I expect better conduct here than some random reddit thread where every user is just trying to declare themselves the winner of some ****ty internet argument. Let **** go sometimes, you don't always need to "win"...

I've been enjoying the discussion on this thread, but I honestly don't get the absolute need to convince each other of your positions. 

Oleksandr has laid out his reasoning several times and you might not agree with it, and that is fine. I personally don't agree with his opinion on it, but I think his line of thinking is interesting to read.

I also enjoyed reading the strong replies to his position. BTR, Chudacabra, Erwin, AKD, HerrTom, CptMiller's first post (even if a bit snippy) all added good content to the thread. 

It created a richer conversation about something that would otherwise not be talked about. I wouldn't have AKD's link for instance without this discussion. 

But holy **** guys. Do you absolutely need to string together a bunch of snarky, personally attacking posts that don't add any functional content to the thread just because someone likes the design ethos of the BMP-3 (Our IFV is both a weapon and a VBIED), seriously?  Like RSulomon, is Oleksandrs' opinion really such a big deal that you have to make some weirdo post asking if he understands opinions can be wrong? Great guys, Oleksandr doesn't like the Stryker, many of you have made cogent arguments to the opposite of that, but do we really need to write a bunch of internet trash so you can "win" your argument? We don't need this whiny internet trash.

Now ironically my complaint about internet trash has put further litter in this thread. But I expect better conduct here than some random reddit thread where every user is just trying to declare themselves the winner of some ****ty internet argument. Let **** go sometimes, you don't always need to "win"...

So I've got the master maps for:
 
Radzymin 1,2,3
 
and
 
Orsha 3,4,5
 
Working in CM:BS.
 
The repository is weird and I don't want to deal with it so I haven't uploaded them there so here is a link to a zip file with them in it
 
-> https://app.box.com/s/tx5wsizqe6lbe0pent88verom7grtg0h

So in the "Graphics Suck?!!?!?!" thread someone mentioned multiplayer with players controlling different formations working together.
 
The idea sounds really interesting to me and additionally it sounds like it is something that could actually be done with a number of honest players and a referee, although it will be relatively labor intensive. So I was wondering if any folks would be interested in trying it out.
 
The idea is for a small 30 minute battle, just as a proof of concept/ to avoid going too far down the rabbit hole, With maybe 2-3 platoons per side. Each platoon would be commanded by a player and one additional player would act as Company Commander.
 
There would be a single save file that is passed around and each player would get it and give commands to only their units, without looking at the commands of friendly units. They would then save the file and pass it to the next player (or possibly the ref to ensure purity of the save). The players would also be able to communicate with each other, but only through written order. Depending on the C2 link between that player and who they are communicating with the parts of the message may become garbled.
 
Any thoughts or suggestions?

It means a ricocheting bullet went into an opening in a vehicle. In a recent game I had an F-16 drop a 800 lb bomb into the hatch of a T-90. "hit: opening" was a bit of an understatement.
 
Also if you look at the CM:RT screenshot thread you'll see a T-34 catastrophically exploding after a burst of MG fire into the open driver's hatch detonated the ammo.

That isn't the issue.
 
Like sure BFC could use Unity, which would have a plethora of pre-made scripts and will handle a lot of stuff for them. However, they still have to code in the tacai, stratai, pathfinding, weapons, ballistics calculations, map making, logic for the terrain, logic for boarding vehicles, logic for spotting, optics, IR optics, penetration of materials, spotting algorithms, C2, support call ins, Anti-air simulation, ai aiming, morale, fragmentation simulation, ammunition resupply, ammunition sharing, ERA, APS, SOPs, logic for onboard artillery, airburst weapons, canister shot, flamethrowers, fire, water etc..
 
Right now you can load up a quick battle and within minutes get a decent game going with another opponent and have a U.S. SBCT up against an MRR. with firefights between vehicles at 1km +, javelins flying through the air, and at the same time have infantry fighting at grenade range. There is a lot of complexity there.

So I've got the master maps for:
 
Radzymin 1,2,3
 
and
 
Orsha 3,4,5
 
Working in CM:BS.
 
The repository is weird and I don't want to deal with it so I haven't uploaded them there so here is a link to a zip file with them in it
 
-> https://app.box.com/s/tx5wsizqe6lbe0pent88verom7grtg0h

I have a small scenario to be tested in which an elite Ukrainian force takes on a newly formed Russian company. Battle is 45 minutes long, urban combat, at dusk.

I played this on Elite and got a total victory. I really like the map and the setting, but would have liked some more background concerning all the landmarks on the map. Why are they there and so on. I also like the "trick" of having four AI versions. Don't know what to call the one I got, but feel it was too easy, or I just got lucky. As for the set up phase, I guess all the TRPs are there becaus of the different variants. So one mortar with just 22 rounds was a bit underwhelming. Maybe add another one to use before the Strykers arrive. I got beaten up pretty bad initially and was expecting an onslaut and for sure some heavy vehicles. But once the AT-guns were dealt with, there was little to worry about. I thought there would be more pressure on the victory locations. Especially as there was a real sense of urgency initially. The main problem was how the AI was set up for the assault on the primary location, as they would just pour through the breach with the crater to be gunned down mercilessly. In the end they were so tired the walked up to the breach.I don't know if it is possible to make the AI "blast", but the troops that went around the perimeter to the trenches fared much better. Maybe an more even balance between these two approaches, as it would make it much harder to defend.
 
But overall, a fine scenario that can get even better. Maybe the other AI variants are harder.

I am almost certain that the names do not reflect unit size and if I were making a scenario I would at most give a separatist unit 100-150 fighters for a particularly large "all in" operation.
 
I made a scenario with separatists in it and I used that list to get an idea of the naming conventions for Separatist forces. I then made up a unit with a similar name. In this case I called them the Lysenko Battalion. I personally didn't want to use a real unit name for a fictional battle, while at the same time I wanted the immersion of having a unique unit name for the force.
 
Lysenko is actually the last name of a Ukrainian Biologist who was born sometime in the 1890s and died sometime in the 60s if I recall correctly.

Hi All,
 
I am currently working on a scenario which will see Separatists fighting Ukrainian regulars, with the separatists receiving Russian reinforcements and the Ukrainians receiving US reinforcements. The premise of the scenario is that the separatists commence attacks in coordination with the Russian push into Ukraine, in an area that is far from the primary axis of Russian advance. In other words, an area where predominantly Ukrainian and Separatist forces are engaged, with only token assistance from their respective allies.
 
I found this page in Wikipedia that gives unit names for many Separatist units, so I will pick one of these for the separatists in the scenario. I thought others might be interested by this list so here's the link.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Armed_Forces_of_Novorossiya
 
Currently I am still working on the map - a predominantly rural area with some light industry. It is not based on any actual geographic location within eastern Ukraine but is supposed to be representative of the areas where the Separatists are active. When I have finished the scenario I will upload it to the Repository.

Okay, gave it a spin tonight...blundered right into a swarm of ATGM fire...not pretty...will have to try again with a little more tactical finesse.
 
My first impression is that you have created a wonderful map...love the use of fortifications for the check points...and it is a very large map to deal with..well done.  
 
Will try it again tomorrow and let you know how I do...still getting  used to the lethality and spotting range of modern weapons...ouch.

Gave up about 25 min in after embarrassing myself, so I am going to start fresh -- First try, the New Checkpoint was overrun in the first 5 minutes, my supporting fires were too little, too late.  I am also thinking I had the checkpoints engage too early, they should have waited until under 200m to buy time and have a shock effect.  I thought I was being too cautious with the supporting vehicles (wasn't sure if the village they start in was friendly or not), but after taking too much time, then not enough, I rushed too many vehicles forward and lost a bunch, at which point I decided I had failed the mission and it was time to take a break and start fresh.  Very challenging, I hope to learn more from this!

There are some photogenic battles in this round 10, I think. So I am going to try and get this thread going again!

Here is the current strategic situation with the three Allied assaults this round marked.



The assault at Hex 14,6 for 200 Victory points is on hold until the adjacent assault at Hex 15,6 (Poesel71 vs Kohlenklau) is finished. This is determine which Axis forces can arrive as reinforcements in hex 14,6.

I am up against Fizou my opposite number in Hex 10,8 for 300 Victory points.

We are between 15-30 minutes into our respective battles.

Some quick snap shots to get the overall picture then I will add more detail later!

Hex 10,8 300 Point Victory Location Allied perspective



Hex 10,8 300 Point Victory Location Axis perspective



Hex 15,6 Allied perspective



Hex 15,6 Axis perspective



More coming soon....

Are you really trying to justify this? Like seriously?
 
It is just a "Real World" risk that a bunch of enemy troops will suddenly appear within 20 meters of your troops without any possibility of detecting them? That is complete and utter trash.
 
According to your logic I need to be prepared at all times to have a relatively heavy attack force appear within 20 meters of my troops. I must therefore, watch the entirety of the board edge with sufficient force to destroy them within a few seconds of appearing, and I will probably take absurd losses anyway.
 
This isn't something that can be planned for and frankly I find it appalling that you are trying to defend this as a realism feature.
 
Like jesus. This is a modern war. Where we can have very accurate fights at 3 KM or more. And you are saying that I just have to understand a magical teleporting force of BMPs and MBTs showing up essentially in my line as a natural part of warfare?
 
 
How is this a legitimate answer?

I can:
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/117959-cm-maps-universal-translator-tool/

Hello,
 
I have a scenario in need of testing. Resupply at Kharalyk. This is a CM:SF style scenario where a U.S. Stryker Platoon and Ukr Mech Platoon move to relieve a pair of Ukrainian checkpoints that are under attack from Separatists.
 
This is the first scenario I've done that has a variable ORBAT. This means there is a chance for the enemy force to be different each time you play the mission. There are a total of 4 different ORBATs.
 
Small scenario, 40 mins, early morning with light rain, Blufor only.
 
My Goals:
 
Create a Scenario that focused on combat against irregular forces. Utilize the range of modern weapons within that context. Use a wider battle space than would normally be used for a scenario of this size.  
My worries;
 
Victory Points might be trash right now (I'm not particularly great at doling these out) Some variable ORBATs my be very difficult. The open nature of the map may be too difficult for the force in use. Situation portion of the briefing:
 
The Ukrainian Army established a checkpoint on the outskirts of Kharalyk to control the movement of the Separatist “Lysenko” Battalion in August. It has recently established a second checkpoint to cover both bridges into the town. The establishment of the second checkpoint coincides with increased logistical support from Russia as the front draws nearer.

Within the last few days the “Lysenko” Battalion has made a concerted effort to isolate the two posts and has prevented resupply of the garrison. All attempts have been turned back by RPG and SPG-9 ambushes on the roads between Burty and Kharalyk. Ammunition and other supplies are getting critically low, especially at the newer and less fortified northern checkpoint.

A force consisting of a Stryker Platoon from the newly arrived NATO Expeditionary Force and a platoon of Ukrainian troops move out in the morning to break the blockade. Meanwhile the “Lysenko” Battalion prepares to assault and destroy the checkpoints to secure their control over the area.
 
If anyone is interested shoot me a PM or post here and I'll send you the scenario when I get a chance. I'll also probably post a link here when I get it uploaded to a hosting site.
 
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated!
 
 

Hello,
 
I have a scenario in need of testing. Resupply at Kharalyk. This is a CM:SF style scenario where a U.S. Stryker Platoon and Ukr Mech Platoon move to relieve a pair of Ukrainian checkpoints that are under attack from Separatists.
 
This is the first scenario I've done that has a variable ORBAT. This means there is a chance for the enemy force to be different each time you play the mission. There are a total of 4 different ORBATs.
 
Small scenario, 40 mins, early morning with light rain, Blufor only.
 
My Goals:
 
Create a Scenario that focused on combat against irregular forces. Utilize the range of modern weapons within that context. Use a wider battle space than would normally be used for a scenario of this size.  
My worries;
 
Victory Points might be trash right now (I'm not particularly great at doling these out) Some variable ORBATs my be very difficult. The open nature of the map may be too difficult for the force in use. Situation portion of the briefing:
 
The Ukrainian Army established a checkpoint on the outskirts of Kharalyk to control the movement of the Separatist “Lysenko” Battalion in August. It has recently established a second checkpoint to cover both bridges into the town. The establishment of the second checkpoint coincides with increased logistical support from Russia as the front draws nearer.

Within the last few days the “Lysenko” Battalion has made a concerted effort to isolate the two posts and has prevented resupply of the garrison. All attempts have been turned back by RPG and SPG-9 ambushes on the roads between Burty and Kharalyk. Ammunition and other supplies are getting critically low, especially at the newer and less fortified northern checkpoint.

A force consisting of a Stryker Platoon from the newly arrived NATO Expeditionary Force and a platoon of Ukrainian troops move out in the morning to break the blockade. Meanwhile the “Lysenko” Battalion prepares to assault and destroy the checkpoints to secure their control over the area.
 
If anyone is interested shoot me a PM or post here and I'll send you the scenario when I get a chance. I'll also probably post a link here when I get it uploaded to a hosting site.
 
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated!
 
 

I do not think those are the same thing. The morale issue is there is a "quantum" effect of platoon level morale when one squad gets into big trouble and takes casualties: other squads that are out of contact are instantly effected and can drop a level in morale or even become shaken or panic too if they are already a mess. That is the issue that is known. I seriously doubt this is high on any list to fix but I don't speak for BFC so who knows.

The teams in a squad not under fire getting pinned issue is not quite the same. The actual reaction to being shot it is tracked soldier by soldier so those that are not under fire should not be cowering. If it turns out that when a squad gets pinned as shown in the UI that state effects the behaviour of all soldiers that sounds like a bug. Someone would need to do some tests comparing the behaviour of a combined squad under fire separated by the assault command vs the behaviour of a squad that is split.

I would be very happy if the mismatches were just defaulted to a basic grass, basic tree, basic house depending on what the object is.
 
There are some really nice maps for CM:BN. CM:FI, CM:RT, and CM:BS that would be nice to have in the other games. If the cost of doing so is spending sometime in the editor piecing together some parts of the map it would be totally worth it.
 
Most of the terrain seems shared anyway.

So I've got the master maps for:
 
Radzymin 1,2,3
 
and
 
Orsha 3,4,5
 
Working in CM:BS.
 
The repository is weird and I don't want to deal with it so I haven't uploaded them there so here is a link to a zip file with them in it
 
-> https://app.box.com/s/tx5wsizqe6lbe0pent88verom7grtg0h

If you go into an area of dense terrain, a viillage or a wood for instance and you failed to take adequate security precautions like for example conducting a quick recon of the area then walk smack bang into an  ambush you probably deserve all you got. t might not be grenade range but it probably will be a very close range kill zone.
 
And if they appear from off map, maybe there was a balka (the lcal term for a ravine) or a wood. It is not n the map so is not in your unit's operating area. The enemy however is not going to co-perate with you.
 
There are all sorts of ways something like this might happen in real world combat. You may not luike it and you may not like what whoever designed that particular scenasrio did. But things like that happen in real world combat frm time to time. Sure, it isn't fai but then, WAR IS NOT FAIR If you had been  beter prepared by holding a mobile reserve you would have been better placed to react to this unexpected crisis by redeploying swiftly as soon as you became aware of the theat. Something far easier to do witbh the reserves than forces in contact and in the wrong place for the changed situation.
 
Learn frm misakes like this rather than complaining how "unfair" the stuation was. A unfair stuation created, in part because you committed all your forces early on instead of folowing sound military principles such as keeping a reserve.

This is just from my experience playing Arma 3 regularly with about 40-50 people.
 
If say you are looking at a vehicle toting FLIR, and a 30MM autocannon and your AT weapons are RPGs or AT4s. Something unguided. It isn't unusual for us to fire volleys of rockets.
 
It allows you to:
 
1. increases chances of hitting.
 
2. increase the number of hits. Thereby ensuring lethality.
 
Even if there would only be possibly seconds before the next shot the vehicle might suddenly move, it might spot you as you fire the first rocket, and it may spray down your position with its gun.
 
So the whole volley fire concept I don't think is incorrect.
 
However, I would like to see a slight delay especially when the unit isn't in direct danger. Since the tacai doesn't have human intelligence it could very well be that those are the last two AT4s they have so they may want to conserve them.