[first time campaign maker for CMSF2]

12 minutes ago, sburke said:

if you have never done a scenario you are definitely biting off too much hopping immediately to a campaign.  The biggest hurdle in designing seems to be mostly based on folks being overly ambitious their first time out.  You set yourself up for failure.  I'd suggest learning to design a scenario first and once you've nailed down those mechanics you can set your sights on a campaign.  You'll have a much better idea whether your campaign missions will or will not meet the expectations you might have now. There is a guide from JonS on Scenario design in CMBN.  

thanks for the reply, will take note and instead try creating a single scenario using one of the concepts ive listed. 

[first time campaign maker for CMSF2]

hello, in the excitement for CMSF2 I've been planning out a campaign that I wish to create for the game when it comes out. I've never made a mission in CM before, so I was wondering how much of a task I have set myself in for. 

my general concept is this.

You play as D Coy from 3rd Bat PPCLI

1st mission: air assault into Syrian positions, conduct raids on C2 nodes (coy mission)

2nd mission: hasty defence against enemy mechanized infantry bat with artillery support (coy mission)

3rd mission: JTAC (if someone could enlighten me with what the canadians call their air controllers would be handy) with 2x on call F/18 hornets find OP call in strikes on remnants of retreating mech inf bat (section + mission)

4th mission: 41 PLT conduct BDA after airstrikes, touch objectives on enemy CP vehicles and heavy armour wrecks (plt mission)

I'm not entirely sure how possible my ideas are within the CM2 engine, and if possible, is there some sort of mission making guide? I have scoured the forums but didn't find anything.

thanks!

[Upgrade License Question]

i have my 3 module bundle and my og copy of CMSF1 on two different emails/accounts, will this affect me getting the upgrade discount or do i just need to have access to the license keys and the accounts do not matter?

[Canadian Defense - CMSF 2 BETA AAR #2 (Quick Battle)]

8 hours ago, IanL said:

I am not seeing the disposable M72 LAW on my troops but the larger re-loadable launchers are there. I'll check what the intent is.

 

Yes. At night units equipped with night vision will wear them.

 

That I do not know about. This is set in 2008 - were they in use on C9s at that time. I see from the Wikipedia page for the C79 that the were designed to fit on the C9. I could not confirm their use in the field though. Does anyone know about that?

thanks for the response, yes i would love to see the disposable launchers modelled on the soldiers! it was in CMBS and i found it very useful unlike in CMSF1 where you have to hover over your unit to see which one has it etc, it would be ashame if it wasnt in the game. 

loving the aar btw

 

1 hour ago, DougPhresh said:

I was in the military at that time (well, until last month actually!) and we absolutely had C79s on our C9s.

Maybe Reserve Units didn't (set eq. to Poor maybe?) but we sure did even in the Artillery.

Also, can so-sign on LAV commanders being lower down, additionally the MG on the LAV and Coyote was not remote operated.

We carried as many LAWs as possible as it was the only way to bust up what we called "Grape Huts" which were thick mud brick agricultural buildings.

I'm happy to answer as many CF related questions as I can as one of the things I liked best about CMSF was seeing "myself" represented in a major wargame.

 

e: The C9s we had in Afghanistan were the improved C9A2 which has the same buttstock as the C7 and comes issued with the C79 and has green furniture like the C7A2.

 

did basically everyone have a LAW (if possible)? including ARs, 2ic and section lead? in CMSF1 theres only two per section, and I thought personally that was a bit low. seems like it should be 4-6 at least.

[Canadian Defense - CMSF 2 BETA AAR #2 (Quick Battle)]

12 hours ago, IanL said:

Minute 2:00-1:59:

 

Capt. Leslie and his party were done with introductions and some practical discussion. They had just started on their second cup of chai and were planning to spend a few pleasant minutes on friendly chatting when the HQ sent for him and his 2IC – “Battalion command reports an enemy formation has been spotted approaching from the East”. They excused themselves from the chai and headed back to the command post to hear the details and alert the rest of the company. As they headed out the door Capt. Leslie noticed that one of the younger men who had not said anything during the meeting held back the translator, MCpl Haddad from 14 Platoon, briefly to whisper something to him.

 

“What was that about?” He asked.

 

MCpl Haddad smiled wryly as he replied “He said that if Assad’s men are coming he wishes us to kill as many as we can, so, there will be fewer for him to finish off - Inshallah”.

 

Capt. Leslie thought darkly to himself “Well that *is* the plan. My men do not need help from God to kill the enemy.”  It seems like this was going to be an eventful day after all.

 

The first turn of action was uneventful. No contacts were spotted. My team on KT3 moved up and the infantry deployed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minute 1:59: Orders

 

I corrected my mistake and moved a squad up to TK8. To avoid tiring the men out, I moved 3 section up to take 2 section’s positions and moved 2 section up to TK8.

 

 

quick questions about the game if you have the time to answer!

do the LAT models show up on the back of the soldier now? (AT4 M72 LAW etc)

does night vision also appear on the unit model?

also shouldnt that C9 have a C79 scope? 

Thanks!

[Spotted in the CMSF manual, what happened to this?]

[Oleksandr's Modding Space for CMSF2]

can you do 3 colour dcu  woodland mixed US infantry?

[New Scenario: Tactical Operations Center]

On 03/05/2018 at 1:31 PM, MOS:96B2P said:

Welcome to the CMBS club my friend. 

Exited RedFor would not count as destroyed points in parameters.  (You don't even have the scenario yet & you are already providing useful feedback)   The points (set in parameters not unit objectives) is for 60% of the entire RedFor.  So these VPs can still be earned by BluFor even if the base camps are destroyed.  Any battles for base camps, if that is the decision made by the player, will also increase the percentage towards the 60% goal.  It is one of the advantages / disadvantages a player will consider when making command decisions.  The risk of clearing a base camp vs the reward of stopping the future attacks that originate from said base camp.

I'll send you a PM.  

     

hey, i would really like to try this out too, would it be possible to get a test copy? thanks

[Smoke as a Force Field]

On 08/11/2017 at 4:37 AM, Battlefront.com said:

Area fire through smoke/fog/dust has been an issue since CMBO and it's not going to be solved any time soon.  CptMiller hit on the crux of it...

In real life you don't unload through smoke/fog/dust except for very specific conditions are met. 

The conditions which a unit does fire into smoke/fog/dust (herein referred to as "smoke") is if there's a very good sense of what is there, where it likely is, and what it is probably doing.  "Hey look, there's smoke... I'm going to fire valuable ammo into it just in case there's something there" is not how it works.  The greater the range the less likely a real life unit will fire blindly.

Real world example is an enemy unit 25m away down a narrow street.  You've been exchanging fire for 10 minutes and you are pretty sure the only way in or out of the building is in your sights.  Smoke gets popped, so you presume that sometime in the next 30 seconds the unit will probably make a move.  You pop off some shots kinda sorta towards the door area hoping to pick someone off as they exit.  If you hear something that makes you think there's a target in LOS, maybe you dump a bunch of ammo.

That's quite realistic, wouldn't you all agree?

What is not realistic is a situation where Unit A has been exchanging fire with an enemy unit and it pops smoke and starts to move in a direction that Unit B could theoretically engage.  Unit B has NOT been engaged in the fight thus far because it lacks LOS to the enemy unit's current location.  Unit B would see the smoke and not know what the Hell it's all about, but would be ready for the second a target revealed itself.  It would not likely proactively start pounding rounds into the smoke because it doesn't have a clue what is there.  Could be Unit A trying to disengage for all Unit B knows.  BUT THE PLAYER knows what's what and so the player could theoretically order Unit B to fire blindly into the area based on intel from Unit A.  That is "gamey".

The point here is that in real life smoke works because units tend to not shoot blindly for a variety of pretty darned good reasons.  Because a game gives players way, way, waaaaaaaay too much information and precise control of unit actions, smoke is inherently less effective than it is in real life.  Creating TacAI behavior which allows for realistic exceptions is not practical for us to do.  Therefore, the more we allow the player to shoot through smoke, the less realistic the game becomes.

All that said... we are having an internal debate about allowing units already engaged in Area Fire to continue doing so if obscured by smoke.  I'm not sure why this was changed for Engine 4, but it seems the game would be better off if it went back to the way it was.  It's at least something for us to consider!

Steve

ok so what if im playing against someone, and i can clearly see their AOA even if i was put into the soldiers shoes, but they spam smoke so i cannot fire into their position. this doesnt make any sense to me, give the player the option to fire through smoke if he wants. I dont like this change at all

 

or how about when a unit throws smoke infront of the building theyre in, why can i not decide to destroy their position because the smoke "forcefield" is in the way?