Davis06

On Discord I've heard of a mod that adjusts vehicle gunner animations in order to make them less 'exposed' and harder to hit by the enemy AI? Is anyone familiar with this and could direct me to it?

Interesting. I'm going to have to try this. Thank you!

Here's a 'tutorial' scenario that takes a US infantry PLT through a point ambush. Most of the steps are within the Mission Briefing. This is one of the first scenarios I've done working with the ENY AI. I've generally used the SQD Ambush Ranger Board (level 20/30) and it's still applies fine for a PLT as well. Ambush Tutorial (US Infantry).btt

Is there a way to create a scenario with non-player controlled units on their side? I am looking to provide adjacent units or scenarios where the player has to FPOL/RPOL (forward passage of lines/rearward passage of lines), etc. etc.

Here's the scenario. I tried to request access over at The Few Good Men but never heard by from them.

All, Here's the scenario from a video essay I posted a bit ago on the US Infantry Battalion. US IBCT IN BN DOCTEMP .btt

Thanks Artkin, I'll work on uploading.

I recently used the newer ClipChamp (from Microsoft) to put the final touches on a video I made a while ago about the real size and composition of an IN BN within CMBS. This was partly for my own practice and partially to show, and suggest, how Battlefront could expand the T&EOs to provide a wider range of scenarios and the flavor objects that may be good to add someday.

It strikes me as odd games like CMSF2 and CMBS do not have additional military equipment in the map editor that a BN and below would have. I'm meaning more of the GP medium or large tents, OE254 antenna's, COM201B antenna's, generator carts, satellite dish carts, ULCAN netting, HEMMIT (even static) for refueling points, etc. Has anyone been working on these? I have found a couple camo nets, tents, and HESCO barriers from modders. Is there anything else? I do hope engine 5 or the next CMBS DLC addresses this a bit.

I would like to reiterate, that possibly the most valuable improvements could be toward; -Quality of life improvements for the scenario editor, especially in the map making and enemy plans. --Every type of linear objects; roads, streams, rivers, walls, etc. should have the path making option available. Buildings and so on should have a big square procedural generation option in order to make towns/cities faster. The fidelity of curses and angled lines needs to be improved. --Personally, I am very interested in the upcoming VBS3 planning tools, where I can assign a tactical task and timeline (video editor style) to the unit. The current tools are good and it need to keep the postures and and fire control guidance. It just seems it would be easier to design and plans with more intuitive tools. --PS: task organization options; I'm sure a balance could be generated IOT develop more customizable task organizations without the risk of franken units. This seems to be a continual request in the community. All this would make content generation faster and more accessible for more players, which will (pun intended) should provide the games with a "force multiplier" to attract and keep more players!

Dang, that would be interesting if able to replicate!

Yes, the javelin (and tow) through the BST (Basic Skills Trainer) is easy to become proficient with. As are the real systems. As are they are designed. And yes we are seeing how effective these extremely expensive systems and rounds are because of that (60-75k per javelin round but at 90% effectiveness at full range). I am personally impressed with these expensive systems that are actually justifying their costs (b/c SACLOS doesn't cut it).

Steve, Thank you for the clear messaging. I admit I am eagerly awaiting the next addition, but also respect your prudence. There are a good amount of folks who look to your 'simulations' as the next best thing to understanding potential realities. I look to you for this as well, but understand there's so much more that goes into these engagements than just composition of forces and tactics on the battlefield, and only take what you offer with a healthy dose of salt. Much of the higher limitations or classes of supply completely negate any tactical options or opportunity a side, with real human lives, have. Thank you for being patient to wait out this historic conflict.

Good points. Yeah, the suppression and cowering mechanics seem like they may not be entirely accurate. I also am not completely satisfied with how 'to the death' many AI (both TAC-AI and Scenarios) will hold their ground instead of retreat or surrender en mass. However, the your marksmanship point may be more accurate than it would seem. Numerous battlefield studies have confirmed how many rounds are expended per WIA and KIA, and it's A LOT. It may stem also from the physiological reluctance to kill as is discussed in "On Killing" by Dave Grossman. Not as much small arms combat has been about killing as it has been about driving the ENY away or compelling them to surrender. I do not find the inaccuracy un-realistic b/c of these considerations. I have this game as my choice of simulation to practice on b/c on the whole it still seems more closely realistic than all else so far. When you do put your troops into a bad position you are punished extremely quickly and costly. There's a weird mix of macro leading the bigger fight, then getting down into micro-management of each unit that teaches good lessons on terrain understanding, fire control measures, setting conditions for the battle, experiencing optics and engagement ranges that are closely approximate to the real thing. I wish they could upgrade the TAC-AI to be better, but it also forces you to understand what each fireteam and squad leader should be thinking and communicating amongst the team. What do you think? Does any of this make sense, or still not quite what you're asking for?

Uhm, old Mattis may take issue with that. In his book, 'Call Sign Chaos' he believes the initial Marine insertion into Afghanistan was the longest amphibious invasion to date. It just used aerial assets from ships instead of ships and landing ships initially.

Thanks for asking for the feedback. FYI- I play CMSF2 and CMBS. Environment/Map Better map editing tools: aka more paintbrush options for all roads, elevations, fences, etc. I understand the 1x1 meter detail needed IOT accurately represent the physical environment. It's just extremely un-user friendly and way too time consuming. I imagine, this prevents more content to be developed and shared, which lowers how many players you can add. I've seen recommendation for procedural generated maps. That may be a cool option. Or: add the possibility to directly import a whole map from an outside source; bing/google/esri/etc. An AI/machine learning/GAN (generative adversarial network) software program would be needed IOT determine all the needed details, but it would take the scale of the locations to be way more infinitely expansive. The ability to create and save our own battle orders/task organizations: personally, I've been working to figure out better RUS task orgs vs USA as their base 2017 ones don't cut the mustard. I'd be a quality of life improvement. More mod tools: While it may be a concern to open up the ability for others to add units or terrain objects, it could greatly improve the interest and player base. Reference- Cities Skylines. (while that base game was a great improvement over simcity, the modding steam workshop has been what has kept the game going and growing. I'm sure paradox has been happy with all the dozen of DLCs revenues they've gained b/c of that openness model) Contour line hot keys; While the game's been a great teacher on the importance of micro and macro terrain utilization, conducting terrain analysis takes way too long. Adding the ability see general contour lines would assist in ID'ing IV (inter-visibility lines) quicker and wouldn't take away from the ruthless punishment we all love about this game. More defensive tools and options!; more in game options for defensive positions would add to the realism. Simple fighting positions (holes w/ no cover) should cost way less or nothing as everyone has an E-tool and pioneer equipment for digging simple positions. Having improved positions (T and different shaped/ overhead cover/ vic fighting positions) with prior costs makes sense in that BN/BDE/DIV engineers would need to build those or provide resources. We should always have the option to build what we can organically. This also needs to be an option w/in the mission/scenario/battle; not just w/in the deployment phase MOPMS/FASCAM/VOLCANO/MICLICs/etc and other country equivalents HAVE to be added if you want to continue to call this a realistic game. Specifically to CMBS- If only we could conduct a wet gap crossing with bridging assets.... I can imaging playing a mission recalling some of action during the Great Raid of 2014 of the 95th UKR brigade. Represent literally every civilian just as any normal pixletroopen. Having this option and tool set in the scenario editor would also open up an entire other facet to play. Imagine humanitarian crisis scenarios or having goals to also evac civilian wounded. TAC-AI/Gameplay Non-line of sight Call For Fire: It can be called anywhere at anytime: it would need to have less accuracy with the bracketing adjustments. Macro Tools; The micromanagement has been great to understand every detail of small unit tactics and every aspect of the fight. However, when getting to company/BN/etc. level operations, that micromanagement isn't the best method. Maybe for those higher leaders add more commands that can be given (ideally in a joint tactical task defined task/purpose) ie- attack/defend/isolate, consolidate & reorg, ambush, etc. Leader soft factors could then play more of a role as the added leader tac-ai would be poor/better/best at figuring out the best way to execute the order. Reference the upcoming VBS4 plan tools. This would add another layer of valuable game play options. Steel Division 2's 'smart orders' are kind of a step in the direction as well. Better team commands; such as vehicle section or PLT berm drills For higher difficulties; possibly add more medivac requirements. All the staff (1SG, XOs, staffs) are already represented; having to evac certain casualties to an exit marker in order to reach an aid station would add more realistic depth as well. MORE AMMO (class V)!!!!!! For god sakes, the lack of SMAW, Gustov, Javelin, TOW, etc resupply options are crazy! A supply section would have way more class V than what is offered. Anyway, again thanks for asking for the feedback!