contact wait out reacted to Combatintman in Campaign idea
Yes it would make a good campaign if you execute it well.
Your issue with the map is that CM doesn't do persistent map damage. That means that your 2x2 map, in campaign terms is not very big at all. Happy to exchange PMs with you to discuss some of the details and get you started if you want.
contact wait out reacted to puje in Campaign idea
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?
contact wait out reacted to homewrecker in Small Gain SF2
This is a scenario I have been updating from SF1 to SF2. Added water to the map, a few proper stone bridges and some flavor objects to bring the map into the back story of the original scenario. You have command of a platoon of US Marine Engineers, and a scout/sniper platoon to fend of a Syrian Mechanized Company assault on your newly repaired bridges that are to be used to resume offensive operations. The Syrians are backed by some armor in the form of BMP-1's from their battalion recon platoon, and a single T-72M1. Scenario time is 30 minutes, hope you enjoy.
Download Link Below
Small Gain SF2
contact wait out reacted to Zveroboy1 in Operation "Opportune Strike" - CMSF2 Mini Campaign
Yes I am interested. Sending you a PM.
contact wait out reacted to Boche in Operation "Opportune Strike" - CMSF2 Mini Campaign
OPERATION "OPPORTUNE STRIKE" MINI CAMPAIGN
The date is April 06, 2010. For the past winter, Marine Special Operations Team (MSOT) 8222 (callsign Dagger 22), along with Afghan and International Security Forces have been taking on the Taliban in the secluded Bala Murghab valley, in the north of the country. Their mission: prevent the enemy from launching their yearly spring offensive. Just 2 kilometres south of Bala Murghab disctricT center lies the town of Daneh Pasab, Taliban controled territory and logisctical hub from which the offensive will be launched. After several months of work, the pieces are in place for a final blow to destroy the heavily entrenched Taliban force, breaking their grip on the valley and stopping the spring offensive before it even begins. A US ARMY Special Forces ODA and an Afghan Commando strike team have been flown in to assist with the operation.
The campaign will consist of two missions. The first will be the night assault on the souther part of the village, while the next will be a continuation of the assault towards the north with more support assets. Your performance on the first mission will determine the strenght of the enemy in the second.
Right now i have mission 1 ready for testing and am starting to work on mission two.
Updates will follow!
contact wait out reacted to sburke in Operation Resurgence - The Liberation of Rajo
Not necessarily. I don't want to play a scenario I am guaranteed to "lose" for sure. But fighting a campaign where the political aspect plays out alongside the fighting so that eventually US forces end up pulling out without having obtained "victory" is kind of mostly how things play out in RL. Rarely in historical terms is there a war with a clear cut winner/loser anymore. It may have been more a poor choice of words on his part about the backstory.
So as an example if his back story is set in Black Sea. The US intervenes, NATO balks. Ukraine gov't starts waffling and looking for a compromise way out and the US doesn't feel it has the political backing or rationale to fight on it's own so US forces start a difficult retreat out of the war zone. That could be one way of doing it with some battles included that put US forces in a difficult position. Could even be fun. Reading Ed Ruggero's stuff for example Firefall that has a Ranger Bn isolated and fighting for it's life as things play out at a higher political level determining if they will be supported or not. The definition of winning and losing is a bit cloudy however the player should be able to fight and win the scenarios. "winning" in itself can mean simply avoiding being wiped out.
I think the problem with designing this as a campaign is that people expect their actions to have an impact in the campaign. If the campaign simply ends with "you lose" then yeah that would suck. However if it ends with "US forces were successfully able to break an encirclement and withdraw to fight another day"... that's a win.
contact wait out reacted to Ridaz in Operation Resurgence - The Liberation of Rajo
Yes, i like that we are finally all sharing our own backstory and adding in more flavor to each other's.
For story sake, i think after US have fully withdrawn from Syria after the disaster in my storyline. They decide to help Ukraine to combat Russia as revenge for their hand in the organized uprising of the rebel coalition.
This should lead to CMBS with US/Ukraine forces vs Russia forces.
contact wait out got a reaction from Lethaface in Nato with no AA capabilities
Seeing the Starstreak would be fantastic but it requires alot of work and I don´t think the NATO countries that come without AA use them.
Perhaps there is an easier solution without the need to create new weapons. The mission editor allows to purchase from every blue or red faction at the same time. I think having something similiar for quick battle "service selection" tab would be great: Extra options called "ALL BLUE FORCES" or "ALL RED FORCES" could be added to this service tab allowing quick battle players to purchase multibranch or multinational forces. The player then could purchase an American stinger for his British forces for example.
This would give qb- and multi-players further options without doing harm to TO&E. Nobody wants to go full crazy with that (except you and your opponent want this to happen) but you can still play the usual British- or NATO-only or what you have negotiated with your opponent but furthermore could agree that American stinger teams are authorized. This allows players to have possible Syrian air intervention but also for possible British and NATO anti air defenses.
What do you guys think?
contact wait out reacted to professionalXMAZ in Nato with no AA capabilities
why? people want a fun game, not 'brits don't get aa bc our books say they don't and we have rules for ourselves'
i don't think the solution is removing syrian airpower.
shooting at eachother is fun. being unable to shoot back is not fun.
even against the brainless qb ai it annihilated his tanks and he couldn't fight back at all.
They have starstreak. It's from 1997 - present. So yea, i don't understand what the argument is even about or why it was removed. Who cares if it's stingers not starstreak. Please keep the british competitive and give them back AA capability.
In July 2001, Thales received a contract for a Successor Identification friend or foe system for Starstreak.
In mid-2007, Thales UK in Northern Ireland revealed that it had developed Starstreak II, a much improved successor to the Starstreak missile. Some of the advantages included in this new missile are an improved range of 7 km (4.3 mi), improved lethality, an improved targeting system and the ability to operate it at much higher altitudes, up to 5 km (16,000 ft).