Dennis Grant Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 I've cooked up a scenario using CM:AK to use as a training aid for an armoured recce troop. The map contains examples of each type of terrain encountered in a "held up" drill, and is intended to teach the execution of those drills. There is, however, no unit that matches a modern recce troop, so I'm using 8 "independant" Stewart Recce vehicles. I can change the names of the vehicles to their callsigns easily enough, but the rank of the commander seems baked in, and fixed at Corporal. Is there any way to change the rank of the vehicle commander, and ideally, set the reporting structure? What I want is something like this: 42 Lt 42A WO or Sgt 42B Cpl 42C Sgt 42D Cpl 42E L/Cpl 42F Cpl 42G L/Cpl Where either everybody reports to 42, or alternatively, A, C, E, and G report direct to 42, and B reports to A, D reports to C, and F reports to E Any way to make this happen, either direct via the scenario editor, or indirect via hacking the scenario file? DG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergeltungswaffe Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 About the only thing you can change is to buy each one as a platoon, then delete all but the platoon leader, to have his rank. But you cannot associate them as you desire. Armored company structure and flexibility is high on my list of hopes for CMx2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 Originally posted by Vergeltungswaffe: Armored company structure and flexibility is high on my list of hopes for CMx2. Yeah, I'm glad someone brought this up. This was often an irritating drawback of the existing arrangement. Some relatively simple way of designating a leader and 2ic and then who reports to them ("build your own platoon/company/whatever") would be very nice to have if it can be included. One thing though is that I wouldn't limit it to just armor. For instance, shouldn't the HTs of an armored infantry platoon report to the leader of the platoon? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergeltungswaffe Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: One thing though is that I wouldn't limit it to just armor. For instance, shouldn't the HTs of an armored infantry platoon report to the leader of the platoon?Exactly. We need to be able to assign command relationships to practically anything, in the best of all possible worlds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 ... and that would help alleviate the annoying situation where a passing HQ 'grabs' control of a mortar that was firing indirect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 Originally posted by Dennis Grant: I've cooked up a scenario using CM:AK to use as a training aid for an armoured recce troop. The map contains examples of each type of terrain encountered in a "held up" drill, and is intended to teach the execution of those drills. There is, however, no unit that matches a modern recce troop, so I'm using 8 "independant" Stewart Recce vehicles. I can change the names of the vehicles to their callsigns easily enough, but the rank of the commander seems baked in, and fixed at Corporal. Is there any way to change the rank of the vehicle commander, and ideally, set the reporting structure? What I want is something like this: 42 Lt 42A WO or Sgt 42B Cpl 42C Sgt 42D Cpl 42E L/Cpl 42F Cpl 42G L/Cpl Where either everybody reports to 42, or alternatively, A, C, E, and G report direct to 42, and B reports to A, D reports to C, and F reports to E Any way to make this happen, either direct via the scenario editor, or indirect via hacking the scenario file? DG But why would we want to involve modern call signs in a 1940s era game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 * Because he's using the engine to conduct contemporary trg? * Because it seems sensible, even if not CHA™ (Completely Historically Accurate)? * Because it doesn't matter what they're called? * Because it's no worse than calling them things like "Stuart #1" Incidentally, I'd like to see the rank part of the name become free-text. So, a second field that works the same as the surname part does now. Given BFCs past record I don't think they have much interest or ability in getting the accuracy and variation in this area that I'd like to see. Unless it involves a German force-type of course. Regards JonS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts