Jump to content

Zveroboy1

Members
  • Content Count

    572
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Zveroboy1 last won the day on October 6 2020

Zveroboy1 had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Zveroboy1

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,338 profile views
  1. Just out of curiosity here, how do you see this working exactly? Battlefront already struggles with the current schedule and barely manages to publish a new game every year or every other year. Granted they could in theory have people work on scenario packs in parallel. And fair enough they have done so in the past once or twice. But in any case, this is only feasible if you assume the current official scenario designers do not already have their hands full and are not already busy working on battles or campaigns for the new games in the pipeline. And let's say they do happen to have
  2. No offence but I think you clearly got pretty hung up on my elitist comment and as a result you're completely missing the point. This isn't what this is about at all. It is about encouraging more people to play with the editor and publish their work. I have no idea where you got this idea in your head that this was in any way related to a "competition".
  3. I am neither a millennial nor gen Z, no one is expecting a cookie or a pat on the back. I just wish there was more scenarios available to play and trying to encourage new people to contribute and post their work. That is all. And knowing how long it takes to design a scenario and how victory conditions is the last step in the process, I personally tend to not look a gift horse in the mouth too much. Because before you can do VP calculations, you first have to do some research on the battle you want to portray, work on the map and this part alone can take several months, then worry about
  4. I don't think anyone ever said that, this is a plain straw man mate. Clearly testing it just once won't do. But there is a difference between testing it several times and expecting amateur designers to spend 6 months working on a scenario. I strongly disagree as well because this is way too elitist an approach for me. What you propose is a great set of guidelines for the purpose of making official Battlefront scenarios. I know that you meant well and were trying to be helpful but for the average aspiring scenario designer it is simply unrealistic and detrimental to expect this kind o
  5. @Erwin Yes but my point is that there are probably dozens and dozens of CM players who have toyed with the editor and experimented with it in order to create something for their own use that would be perfectly fine to share with the community. I for one would be delighted to have more content to play with even if it is not of the same quality as the official Battlefront scenarios. Because really this is probably the number one reason someone ends up publishing a scenario. They create something for their own use, to test things, explore a particular match up or a situation and then they de
  6. I have this small basic scenario I made before to test various IED related tactics. I just loaded it and played it versus the red AI in scenario author test mode. It seemed to work fine for me.
  7. These are helpful and very good guidelines no doubt. But personally I can't help but think that expecting this level of work and testing in particular for amateur scenario designers is both unrealistic and in the end also counter-productive. For me it is one of the reasons why we have so few community made scenarios being released these days. The expectations and standards have become way too high. And what this does is just create more hurdles for aspiring scenario designers. I mean put yourself in the shoes of say someone who just bought the game on Steam and wanted to give scenario des
  8. I don't get the deathtrap thing. Deathtrap for the AI defending in the house? Isn't it is better for the AI to be inside than two action squares away in the open facing the wrong way half the time? Because as Bulletpoint said they never pulled back into cover before unless there was some cover conveniently located behind the building which happens sometimes but it is just an accident. Now in cover or not, you will have to deal with the defenders in any case. So they will most likely die in both cases. And they will die a lot more easily in the open. If they pulled back to a second po
  9. Getting the victory conditions right from a scenario design perspective is actually not that easy. Not only is it difficult to get the full spectrum of victory conditions available to the player but you have to take into account the fact that the skill level can vary a lot from player to player. Someone might struggle with the battle while another player will find it a breeze. Moreover it can be very time consuming and tedious to replay the battle several times. Okay sure there are ways that you can use to compute the victory points without necessarily replaying the battle but it is clear
  10. Personally I think this is the way it is supposed to be. A 10 minutes firefight between troops in good cover isn't shocking at all if their motivation is good. It is what we sometimes had before with soldiers just fleeing and getting mowed down in the open that was wrong. Now you need to actually maneuver to root them out or be prepared to have a prolonged firefight. I find it both more enjoyable and realistic. And it is not necessary to actually assault the position. A crossfire will usually do.
  11. This is a modern Russian artillery nomogram : Example 3 ( the dashed green line) : Determine how many 100mm cannon and the quantity of rounds needed to destroy dug-in personnel and weapons in a 7.2 hectare target area in a 10 minute artillery strike. Begin at the "duration of fire" axis and find 10 minutes. From that point, move vertically to the 100mm line in "type of fire". Mark that point. Next, drop down to the "area of destruction" axis and find 7.2 hectare. Move horizontally to the 100mm line in "covered and concealed personnel and weapons". Move vertically and determ
  12. No. If you want both Afghan National Army and Taliban in a scenario you need to add [taliban] and [ana] without brackets to the modtag file in the editor. Each mod has its own tag. Here is what I usually use : trashsoft mudhouse mudwall poppies ana taliban rubble Yeah I could have used a single modtag for all the Afghanistan related mods but I chose to do it this way because it is more flexible. For instance someone might not want to have poppies replace grain tiles. Also, I will probably never do it, but I thought maybe one day I'd do stone houses that are more
  13. Yes but not PC games. Hoplite, Great Battles of Alexander etc.
  14. Well it is either that or glitched javelins.
×
×
  • Create New...