Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'request'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • CM2
    • Combat Mission - General Discussion
    • Combat Mission Cold War
    • Combat Mission Shock Force 2
    • Combat Mission Final Blitzkrieg
    • Combat Mission Black Sea
    • Combat Mission Red Thunder
    • Combat Mission Fortress Italy
    • Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
    • Combat Mission Shock Force 1
    • Combat Mission Afghanistan
    • Combat Mission: Touch (iOS / Android)
  • CM1
    • Combat Mission Campaigns
    • Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
    • Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
    • Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord
  • General Discussion Forum
    • General Discussion Forum
  • Repository Updates
  • TacOps
    • TacOps 4
  • Opponent Finder Forums
  • Archives
    • Strategic Command
    • CM Archives
    • T-72: Balkans on Fire!
    • Dan Verssen Games
    • Theatre of War
    • DropTeam
    • Assault Wave
    • Empires of Steel
    • PT Boats

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL











Found 4 results

  1. G'day all. I've enjoyed making SP scenarios in the ArmA series in my spare time, for example, this one. I've got a scenario involving spetznas sabotaging CDF equipment in Chernarus circa 2009 that is technically finished, but I need three voice actors who either speak Russian (or are willing to take a tilt at some Russian transliterated into English) to polish it off. Two parts are small (one-two lines each) and one is considerable (around 15 lines). No prior experience required and I'll provide all the details. Please, if you're interested (or you know someone who may be), drop me a PM, reply below or contact me here.
  2. 1) Better tools to control the AI. I know building a higher level AI capable of handling CMx2 probably isn't in the cards ever, but it would be nice if the players were given more tools to make relatively intelligent AI play happen on a scenario-by-scenario basis. 1a) Branching AI plans. Nothing is more annoying than building a mission, particular one wherein the AI is attacking, and wanting them to be able to react realistic to different defensive schemes. It would be nice if inflicting sharp losses over a short time-frame would cause the AI to pop smoke, reverse and extract its force off the map to fight another day. It would be cool the AI could respond to the unexpected appearance of an Abrams on one flank by shifting its own tanks to meet the threat and if player tried the same trick from the other flank on the next play, the AI be built in such a way to react to that as well. 1b) More trigger conditions. Detecting enemies on a certain patch of ground, having artillery spotted over an objective, losses of some parts of the force, low-ammo, fatigue, running across mines, etc. should be able to be used to trigger specific actions if not branching paths. 2) Being able to edit briefing text in the editor. This is a minor annoyance, however it is one that really grates, especially when I screw the format up. I don't know how difficult programming an extremely basic text editor is but I don't imagine it could be too difficult. 3) Default images players could use for strategic and operational maps. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places and you've already included them, but I'd love to pull the already provided graphics for my own missions instead of hunting around for something remotely relevant and finagling it into the proper parameters for CMBS to use. 4) Off-map campaign branching. I remember Field Marshal Bulcher's Devil's Descent had a "mission" where touching one of two objectives would lead down different paths in the campaign. That remains workable, but incredibly hamfisted. Instead, why not offer a screen where you could simply decide on one path or another between missions? It would definitely help with the fiddly nature of getting points and victory levels correct for choosing a mission, especially when dealing with three or more choices. That's all I got.
  3. It has been a (minor) issue as far back as CMSF as I recall. I was just wondering if there was any possibility of a "Target heavy" command to avoid TacAI issues with reluctance to fire heavier (ATGMs on IFVs, rockets and missiles for dismounts) at targets deemed unworthy. It would certainly be helpful for those times when you really, really want your infantry to launch and RPG into the building before assaulting it, but as it stands right now, the odds there are hit-or-miss with no player control involved. I think it is becoming even more of an issue with gear like the BMP-3 where you might want a cannon round, but it sticks with 30mm or the Bradley not firing a TOW at an obvious target holed up inside a building. I am most definitely not suggesting taking away the TacAI's ability to function as it stands today or forcing players to micromanage ATGM shots. I would just like a command to guarantee the heaviest weapon for non-AFVs/infantry squads will be used. Thoughts?
  4. TL;DR: Currently if you misplace a target briefly order it is awkward to replace it. I suggest that merely switching to 'target' resets both placement and timer of 'target briefly'. If you misplace a 'target' you can just press 'target' again and set it to another point. With target briefly that is impossible: pressing 'y' again will only count the timer one up (to infinity btw which it shouldn't IMHO). To retarget briefly you have to delete the 'target briefly' by cancelling it, 'target' somewhere else or setting a CA. Unless you have 'cancel' as a shortcut there is no way to do it in one click. But if selecting 'target' would reset 'target briefly', too, that would be very easy as both commands have hotkeys which are right next to each other. So it would look like: 'y', <click>, <grr>, 't','y', <click>,
  • Create New...