puje
-
Posts
119 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by puje
-
-
After months in the making, I have finally completed my campaign Valleys of Death. It turned our to be quite an ambitious project, with 11 missions!
The campaign revolves around a US Army light infantry company, manning a remote combat outpost in an Afghanistan inspired terrain.
Unlike classic CMSF, which highly favors shock and awe and maneuver warfare, Valleys of Death deals with the issues of small units operating in a clearly defined AO. This means that, like in real life, you will conduct operations on the same map many times, with each mission focusing on different areas and objectives. By the end you will come to know the area very well, and this knowledge is key to defeat the enemy.
Features:
- 11 missions
- A large 2X2 km map and 2 additional maps
- Modern counter-insurgency infantry combat
- Heavily inspired by Afghanistan related media (Restrepo, Taking Fire, etc.)
- Base game, no modules needed
Please let me know ASAP if this link doesn't work! I'm not exactly a Dropbox wizz
-
19 hours ago, rocketman said:
I know that units can share ammo with each other and that specialist teams can access mortar rounds from a nearby vehicle. But I didn't know that you could be on top of a building and still have access to that ammo. It is "beamed" up to the unit. I wonder if it even works when atop the highest possible buidling in the game?
Is the ground texture a mod? Looks very interesting!
-
Would be great if some one had time to do some in depth testing. Unfortunatly Im not raising my hand right now
-
6 hours ago, Combatintman said:
I'm happy about the designer sets the value and that in principle, replacements/repairs/battle casualty replacements can take a while to show up meaning that I have to put some thought into the percentages I choose to reflect realism. This conceptual bit I get totally.
The percentage = the chance of stuff being repaired/refitted etc, rather than the number of vehicles that get repaired from what has been said so far but I do like to clarify these things because I am a dummy at sums and I think this is what the OP is getting at with the thread question.
So if I have an 11 mission campaign. I lose one vehicle in Mission 1, one in Mission 2, one in Mission 3, one in Mission 4, one in Mission 5, one in Mission 6, one in Mission 7, one in Mission 8, one in Mission 9 and one in Mission 10 for a total of ten vehicle losses.
The designer's campaign script assigns a 10% value for refit between each mission. Does this mean that it has a 10% chance of replacements being received? If it does then we'll say that it fails to trigger until the point between Mission 10 and Mission 11. In that instance do I get 10 vehicle replacements or do I get 10% of my lost vehicles (i.e. one vehicle) at the start of Mission 11. My guess is that I would get all 10 vehicles but based on @George MC's comment about testing and adjusting I am not so sure and think that the thing will trigger based on the absolute percentage but not give the player an absolute percentage of new vehicles.
Very valid question. It can mean all the difference in the world!
-
9 hours ago, Ivan Zaitzev said:
The percentage is the chance you will have of vehicles being repaired and units refitted. Allways talking about your core units.
For example, if you are playing two scenarios only separated by a couple of hours, where your troops could not be resupplied then you could leave all in 0%, but if your scenarios are separated by a year then chances of being resupplied should be around 100% (I'm looking at you, Afghanistan 1985 campaign!)
"Refitted" means filled up with replacement soldiers, right?
I did a few tests in my campaign, and my problem seemed to be that then Strykers were knocked out and drivers/gunners were killed, a new Stryker complete with crew would spawn in the next battle. At least, if the Stryker was the only casualty.
I'm fine with some wounded being healed up (they heal up, previously wounded returning to their units etc.)
But the Strykers... In story of my campaign, it just doesn't fit very well that a whole new Stryker just magically appears after being blown to kingdom come...
Another problem is that walking wounded soldiers don't seem to heal between battles...
-
Could some one well-versed in making campaigns explain to me what exactly the lines "REFIT" & "REPAIR VEHICLE" do?
Is it basically replacements for my Core Units? Like if I put both values at 50%, does that mean they will replace 50% of the units and vehicles I lost with new, similar ones?
Or are we actually talking repairing damage (like damaged sights etc.) on the existing vehicles I just took into battle?
And what about walking wounded, incapacitated, and dead soldiers?
The manual is not at all clear about this, please help!
-
Thanks guys, I'll get back to you when I have something ready, presumably this weekend.
-
I'm currently developing a campaign for SF2 (base game - no modules), in which I try to do things a bit differently than the stock campaigns.
Read about my ideas here
I think it will have about 8 missions.
I'm looking for feedback about bugs, oversights, and especially balancing issues.
I think I will be able to release a test version this weekend (23-24 Feb.)
Would anyone want to help me out?
-
From my testing, it would seem like any Syrian unit from the "Special Forces" category require Marines module. Weird, since I seem to remember Syrian SF being on the base game. But now I know...
-
1 hour ago, Combatintman said:
I use this a lot so yes it does work. We probably need to know more about what units you are selecting to understand why the game tells you that you need the USMC Module.
Well I sure didn't use any Marine units, because I don't have that installed.
I believe I used elements of a US MOUNT battalion (core campaign unit), some other minor us units, and Syrian special forces.
I guess I should experiment a little so see what works.
-
In the editor, it is possible to have US and Syria together on the same side, if you change the missions presets back and forth. Unfortunately when I did this, it seemed to corrupt the scenario, telling me I needed "Marines" to open it again. Wierd...
Is there a way to actually make this playable, or am I just dreaming?
-
It was a setup AI issue! Thank you guys!
-
6 hours ago, Artkin said:
That and check to see if your map has a setup in AI plans. It will be the setup turn, and there should be yellow grids on the map for this turn. Just erase them and you should be good to go. Turn 2 and on don't affect spawn.
Check for this if your problem persists
I deleted a ton of AI plans from the mission I based the map on. But I'll look more carefully into this.
-
9 hours ago, mjkerner said:
puje, do you have a painted setup zone for OpFor? Sounds like it’s the type of setup you don’t need one for, cuz you have specific locations for specific units. If you do have a setup zone, delete it and see what happens. Should work.
I didn't make a zone, but there might be an old one on the map I didn't catch as I didn't start from from scratch. It's not within the current borders of the map however.
-
21 minutes ago, puje said:
(Double post)
-
Sorry if this is a dumb question... But
I'm building a scenario, and I deployed OPFOR (red) in the editor to spawn them in certain places on the map. But when running in Scenario Author Test mode the OPFOR is on location during setup phase. But the moment I hit start, the OPFOR actually spawn to the far Eastern side of the map! wtf!?
They spawn just fine when playing as red.
Is there anything I selected by accicent that might cause that?
-
8 hours ago, Zveroboy1 said:
I just had a quick look at it. Very nice map! I see how it can work for a campaign and how you could easily have several localized scenarios on this big map.
You look like you know what you're doing really. There are just two minor things :
1/ Maybe add some more small stone walls, especially alongside paths and around fields here and there maybe. You could replace the fence with one.
2/ There is the issue of compounds. I like them because visually they look cool and they also present an interesting tactical challenge. However they can also cause issues from a scenario design perspective. The defender needs spots to shoot from. In a compound surrounded by tall walls, that leaves only rooftops. So even though in real life, Afghan houses tend not to have tall parapets on rooftops, troops on a flat roof are extremely vulnerable and don't last long at all in a firefight. So you might want to add more parapets. Another option I have seen designers use is to have large openings or gaps in the compound walls so soldiers inside buildings facing the "gate" can shoot enemies outside. That works too. But perhaps you could use another technique to model the use of murder holes like in the picture below.
One way to achieve this is by using buildings as part of the compound wall with just a single, maybe two windows like so :
Now I know what you're thinking. "Oh no! I have to redo all my compounds !?!" However that's not necessary at all. I see you have a wide variety of layouts for your houses and most of them look just fine. It is just a technique you could use from time to time when necessary.
Great ideas. Will definitely implement those! Also got me thinking I should build a few more compounds with odd angles, just to mix it up a little.
-
Hello
I'm well underway in making a map which will be the location of most of the missions in a campaign. (I have explained the idea here http://community.battlefront.com/topic/134457-campaign-idea/ ) And since maybe 70% of the missions will take place on this map, it must of course be solid.
It is not completely done yet, but I'm getting there. I'd be really greatful if anybody would take a look at it, and give me some pointers in the right direction. I am just looking for feedback on the MAP! Any units, objectives, etc. will be changed in final version. Location markers are just a brainstorm of ideas I might implement in the missions.
Thanks!
Download:
http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=10203666768401448600
-
1 hour ago, Combatintman said:
Back to the persistent damage and infantry only points … I disagree mainly because infantry only fights in Afghanistan for the most part operate in an environment where offensive support of some form or another (air, aviation, mortars, rockets and conventional artillery) is on tap. Generally the CONOP won't get signed off unless this kind of support is in place so it would be unrealistic in the majority of cases for any unit to step outside the wire without the capability to whistle that kind of support up when required. Inevitably, and I made a mission depicting such a circumstance, there were some well-known occasions when the offensive support either wasn't properly teed up, arrived late or the coordinating HQ misread the reporting that was coming from the ground leading to non-arrival or confusion. However, for this to happen to the unit in the proposed campaign every time it steps outside the wire is stretching credulity to the limit and therefore killing immersion.
There are of course techniques that can be applied relating to realistic concerns about collateral damage and the policy of courageous restraint implemented towards the back end of the NATO involvement but ultimately that firepower is still going to be on call and will be used where ROE permits which means that buildings and compounds are going to get dropped. All of this ignores dynamic compound entry using breaching charges which is another thing that is going to create persistent map damage.
A perfectly viable way to nail this campaign is to have the unit newly arrived in its newly established FOB and then have a series of missions where it extends its security bubble. In the schematic below, there are nine separate maps which would be say anything between 1km x 1km and 2km x 2km. Mission 1 sees the unit securing its FOB properly and then the remainder are extending that bubble by patrolling or knocking over the insurgents in the villages (or outside them if you prefer) in each box. Each mission doesn't have to be of this type and could involve things like a hard knock on an identified insurgent commander's compound or maybe doing route clearance and security for a resupply convoy coming up a route leading to the FOB or whatever else takes your fancy. The bottom line though is that you get realism without bumping up against the persistent map damage issue, which certainly for me is an absolute immersion killer.
I do plan on doing something sort of like this. One of the early missions will be to escort an engineer squad to examine possible locations for a new COB.
I will of course have artillery be an important part of the arsenal available to US troops. I'm thinking I'll get around the building damage mostly with barring the unit from causing collateral damage to buildings (I dont remember what the order is called in the editor). I probably can't make continuity 100% perfect, but if a wall comes down people rebuild, right?
-
I've been thinking about making a small campaign inspired by Afghanistan documentaries such as Restrepo and Taking Fire.
It would revolve around a couple of platoons stationed in remote COBs in a mountainous environment. I'm thinking I'd like to make one large map (maybe 2km x 2km), and have all the missions (or most) play out on the same map, just in different areas. It would mainly be infantry focused, so getting to remote places would be time consuming, and discourage going too much of course.
Missions would mainly be patrols in the AO (I have a few ideas), and not so many pitched battles.
Do you think it would make for a good campaign? Especially the one map idea, would it get too boring?
-
On 10/20/2018 at 12:29 PM, Xorg_Xalargsky said:
WeGo is a turn-based mode of play where two plays issue their orders and see them being executed at the same time.
If you have played Combat Mission in turn-based mode, you've played WeGo.
PBEM means Play By E-Mail indeed, the preferred mode of online play for many, because it allows to see the execution of your order, unlike direct online play.
You can directly play with your friend over the internet, no need to be on a LAN.
To start a multiplayer game, all you need to do is select a standalone scenario like you normally would for single-player (campaigns are not available for multiplayer) and select your preferred option from the Players dropdown list.
The Join Network Game option from the main menu is for you to join a game that is currently being hosted by entering your friend's IP address.
TCP-IP/LAN : either real-time or turn-based, does not allow you to see replays, you need to forward some ports if you're hosting a scenario.
PBEM : turn-based only, allows you to see replays, can be tedious unless you use a tool like the excellent CM Helper.
Thanks a lot, appreciate it!
-
Hello
I've played CM for a few years but have never gone into the multiplayer aspect of the game.
How with CMSF2 one the way, I have a friend who would like to play with me, but I'm not sure what is actually possible with the game.
I have questions!
What is WeGo? It's mentioned so often, and I don't know what ot means.
What is PBEM? (I'm guessing Play By E-Mail?)
Can I actually play with my friend online through Join Network Game mode, or is it LAN only?
-
20 minutes ago, Combatintman said:
You can't - any red unit hitting a red touch or blue unit hitting a blue touch objective activates it.
That's what I thought.
-
20 minutes ago, domfluff said:
Sure, but if the idea was:
Then you can do precisely the opposite of that, which achieves the same end (i.e., you can't give points for the spy touching an objective, but you can give points to the enemy if specifically the spy doesn't hit that objective.
Only once, mind you, but it's a start.How do you do that? Specifically the spy? Wont other units activate it as well?
New Afghanistan inspired campaign: Valleys of Death
in CM Shock Force 2 Maps and Mods
Posted · Edited by puje
Thank you guys for downloading it.
I'm sad to I have a few doubts on how the ending screen of the campaign plays out. I can't really figure out what activates the win or lose message. Whether it is average mission result, or solely result on last mission. Let me make it clear, there is nothing with the gameplay of the campaign (as far as I'm aware). But if you get a "You lost" message after you complete the campaign, (and you feel you shouldn't) that's an F up on my part!