snake_eye Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 The El Derjine campaign has just be uploaded on the repository and you will be able to download it within a few hours. The campaign played only on the Blue side against the Red A.I is being V 1.20 Patched. You might have already played some of the battles as a stand alone and you should be warned that in order to get to the last battle, you will have to maintain a reasonable casualty level. You might, even get into some vicious fights, if you fail to inflict casualties to the enemy and in particular to some units that will be the one engaged against you in the subsequent battles. I have try to make things a way that will normally prevent you to get into a fight with just a few guys and or have to fight ghosts, when the enemy has had an attrition rate too high. Anyway, I am counting on you to let me know, if I have failed. I have taken some pleasure with that campaign and I have been surprised by the change noticed with the 1.20 patch. The A.I seems to react better and since I am playing R.T Elite it was to my relief good news, since the Blue A.I save my day quite a few time. That campaign has been designed to be more or less, like a real one could be. That explain, that in some battles, you will have to suppress by fire and then assault an objective in order to establish an overwatched defensive position, allowing you to assault by leap frogging another one. You might, also, have to hold the ground and wait for the air assets and or artillery, if you want to succeed and not take high casualties. In any case try to keep a low casualty level and get to the objectives in order to get to the next and finally the last battle. If some of you wish to use the maps to elaborate new scenarios, let me know and I shall made them available on the repository. Have a good game. Cheers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sross Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Thanks!! I played a couple of the scenarios from the repository and they were very fun. Looking forward to linking it all together. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theFightingSeabee Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Cool! I've been waiting for this one... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Field Marshal Blücher Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Excellent news! I've been holding off on playing the standalones in order to play the full campaign, and I'm glad it's made it out! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theFightingSeabee Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Well, the campaign seems great, only my computer doesn't seem to be able to handle the very large maps. Otherwise, everything else I could see was quite proffessional and well made. Thanks! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake_eye Posted September 14, 2009 Author Share Posted September 14, 2009 Well, the campaign seems great, only my computer doesn't seem to be able to handle the very large maps. Otherwise, everything else I could see was quite proffessional and well made. Thanks! Thanks for your praise, it is always pleasant to know that you have brought something worth the effort you have put in it. For the issue with your computer, I have no straightforward answer, since the processor, the video card and the memory make the difference in so many ways. I have had, usually, problems with scenarios having a lot of trees. That is why, I try not to put so many in my scenarios to prevent the video card to have a sluggish operating mode. I don't like to remove the trees in the game setting, unless I have a fight that I can't control anymore in a wooded area. For the map if you are panning through small areas, you should not have problems, these are observed while overseeing the entire map and zooming quickly from a place to another. That, depending of the computer and hardwares you have. I hope that for the coming games they will reduce the amount of calculus generated by the trees. These are real frame and video killers. Cheers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chainsaw Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 I have just finished the campaign and its a great campaign! wonderful maps, a good fighting force and enemys that always keeps you on toe when assaulting. (think I had to reroute my assaulting platoons 3 different times to deal with enemy counterattacks/flanking attacks that wasnt planned for... ) I only have 2 negative things to notice! 1. Setup zone. In 2 of the missions one or more squads are deployed just outside the setup zone, so I can move half of the platoon around while the other half is just stuck. a bit anoying. 2. Enemy surrender. in 2 of the scenarios the enemy surrendered to early... They had plenty of forces left to fight with and I have only reached first objective of the whole lot i was supposed to take. both surrenders left me in shock "hey you cant give up now, we just started!?" Besides those two its a killer campaign. what really touches my heart dearly is the scout/sniper platoon and LAR platoons along with the CAAT section present. I had the oportunity in 2 of the scenarios to send the scouts and LAR/CAAT on flanking manouvers and recce in depth. Not many scenarios allows you to do that, so that is a really big plus for me! So to summon it up: + Great force structure. you get what you need and want to complete the mission, it really feels thought-thrue. + Great enemy AI,cant say how supprised I was to find the enemy flanking and attacking me when _I_ was supposed to attack! + Great missions for recce fans, the oportunitys for recce by fire and recce thrue infiltration is large! - The setup issue - The surrendering. If it hadnt been for the setup issue and surrendering to early it would be a 5/5 star! /Chainsaw 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake_eye Posted October 19, 2009 Author Share Posted October 19, 2009 To Chainsaw: Thank you for your campaign analysis and for pinpointing two things so rightly. -The first one, about the setup can be corrected, unless there is a good reason for that half platoon for not being moved at the setup. Could you tell me in what battles you have seen it. - The second one, the enemy surrendering, while having enough troops remaining is rather difficult to deal with. I have mentionned that earlier in a post and or a reply. No one gave an answer to that annoying behaviour of the A.I. In the last few days, I was finalizing the testing of a new scenario that will permit to rescue of a beleaguered US Army and ANA platoons in a village "WANAT"style. It is a tactical scenario in which the errors and events of that terrible Taliban's attack are recreated. At the end you will win that is certain, but how many men of the beleaguered platoons will be left. How the QRF forces will reach them and will it be on time ?. How the Apaches will suppress the taliban's and help the QRF as well as the the surrounded and or overrun outpost ? All these things had to be carefully tested. The most astonishing thing, was the Taliban's surrender, when their forces were still numerous. I have found out, that if you move your forces with a tactical insight on grounds from which you could lay fire on the A.I troops , they will consider and specially, if you have forces numerically higher than them, that they are tactically beaten and if their order is to stay around, they surrender. That was for "WANAT" I corrected it, nearly accidently during the testing and since they don't surrender early as they did. So, I have found a way to prevent the surrender, but I can't say that it will work with every senario. In the El Derjine Campaign, I have had such a surrendering problem in the Midoum battle. It seems that if you are able to assault the radar station on the top of the right hill and to get through the passe at its bottom toward the town, with some troops on the other passe on the left then the A.I consider that tactically you have won and they surrender. In a real fight, being the Red you would be in a pretty disastrous position and defending in the town will mean accept to be crushed by artillery and air asset. That is correct, but you could still withdraw and have a rear fight action, instead of surrendering. The only way to prevent that should be to have new red forces coming in sufficient numbers to offset the A.I intention. It is feasible, but it change the scenario and the timing has to be precise, which is is easier said than done. To come back to your Campaign analysis, I have been pretty much touched by your compliments about it and pleased to learn that the LAR played its role and that the Red A.I more than often caught you by surprise. That is something I can't appraise very easily in testing, since I know the Red commands. I try anyway, to put myself in situations that I think will be yours, with more or less success. I am sure that your post will mean that more persons will give a try to that Campaign, that is why your analysis and judicious comments are so important for improving it. Cheers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sross Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 I loved it as well. I like the feel of the USMC "light" forces and an infantry company supported by realistic assets. The mission was well thought out and I absolutely loved how each of them tied together with extending the map!! That was excellent. I'm off this weekend, so if you could throw together a couple more like that by Friday, that would be great. ;o) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake_eye Posted October 20, 2009 Author Share Posted October 20, 2009 I loved it as well. I like the feel of the USMC "light" forces and an infantry company supported by realistic assets. The mission was well thought out and I absolutely loved how each of them tied together with extending the map!! That was excellent. I'm off this weekend, so if you could throw together a couple more like that by Friday, that would be great. ;o) Thanks SROSS. When the ones who play it, enjoy it that makes you feel good. More, the sound reports telling what is good and or wrong will improve the making of next scenarios. I have always tried to have a sense of reality in them, starting with the landscape and the tactical situation that will be suited with it, from the attacker as well as from the defender point of view. You will find the latest one, about a tactical assault from Taliban's in the repository. It has just been uploaded yesterday. I think that you will like it. Anyway, let me know. Cheers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chainsaw Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Snake_eye, you should do a Scout/LAR/CAAT campaign I have checked the setup issues. and here they are: Objective Normandy 1st,2nd and 5th Squad /2nd Platoon is outside deployment, on wrong side of the hill. I wanted to pull them back to "my" side of the hill incase the enemy had something bad planned. wich I couldnt here. http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y291/Magnusson/CMSF/ElderjineCamnormandie.jpg Al hillah Battle 2nd 3rd and B team/4th Squad/2nd Platoon outside deployment zone again (do you have something against 2nd platoon? ) http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y291/Magnusson/CMSF/ElderjineCamalhillah.jpg Once again I wanted to deploy them elsewhere but had to work with the situation I had. about the surrendering issue, wasn't there a topic somewhere about that adding ALLOT of reinforcements that never spawns helps that issue? then the AI know reinforcements are "on the way" so they continue to fight but the reinforcement never spawns because its put on like 120min spawn or so? just a possible solution. your scenarios in that campaign was to good to end so soon /Thomas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake_eye Posted October 20, 2009 Author Share Posted October 20, 2009 Snake_eye, you should do a Scout/LAR/CAAT campaign the setup issues. the surrendering issue /Thomas Thanks, Chainsaw for the pictures about the setup of Normandy and Al Hillah battles in the El Derjine Campaign. Nothing precludes these units being in a setup zone. About the surernder, you are wright to recall that an advice had been to send reinforcement and setting their time of entry in such a way that they won't interfere with the battle, since it will be finished before they arrive. The A.I is less willing to give up knowing that troops are coming in. I have done a similar thing in my last scenario "A Tactical Taliban's assault". Well, I think that I shall update the campaign with these changes in not a so long time. I shall only test the surrendering issue before to make sure it works properly. No sweat for the setup, it will be done right away. I shall try to put in a scenario with LAR-scout & CAAT making a deep Recon in a possible tank country, with Apaches teaming with them and close air support in short call. It should a cat and mice play. Well, I start thinking about it. Cheers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARS42 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 @ Snake eye I also want to thank you for a great campaign. I finished it yersterday! The map on the first 3 scenarios was the best i ever played, the campaign style with less armour at the beginning an a lot of infantry fights is exactly, what i like most. More please! Greets, MARS42 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake_eye Posted October 22, 2009 Author Share Posted October 22, 2009 @ Snake eye I also want to thank you for a great campaign. I finished it yersterday! The map on the first 3 scenarios was the best i ever played, the campaign style with less armour at the beginning an a lot of infantry fights is exactly, what i like most. More please! Greets, MARS42 Well, thanks to you MARS 42. I am real please you liked it. By the way, what did you think, frankly of the last battle "Al Hillah" ?. It is not a battle like the one we are acustomed to find in the repertory. I thought of not putting it in the campaign and finally, I did it, because things don't go, always the way we thought they should. It look more realistic that way and despite all you can imagine, you can win it by a daring tactical move. There after are the AAR of the campaigh and of that Al Hillah battle. Cheers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle2 Posted March 14, 2010 Share Posted March 14, 2010 I'm sure this thread is probally dead by now, but I just wanted to say that this campaign is truly the best set of missions I have ever played, period. The AI is fantastic, with great uses of terrain to mount proper counter-attacks. I have never been challenged so much by the AI, and I find myself constantly reminding myself to secure my flanks, lest I become a target for a stray rifle platoon. While there are a few units placed outside of the setup zone, it really isn't that major of a problem. Overall, an excellent campaign, truly the most enjoyment I have gotten out of Shock Force. Thanks for all your hard work, keep it up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake_eye Posted March 15, 2010 Author Share Posted March 15, 2010 Thanks EAGLE2, I am just trying to put to best use, the fantastic CMSF possibilities offered to a designer. I am also applying myself to design a landscape feasible with the tactical game I am choosing. Sometimes a sound tactical appraisal of a landscape, should prevent you to engage a fight, unless you must at all cost accept high casualties for your survival and or to a lesser extent to take a strategic objective. That is done that way, most of the time, thankfully, in real militaries ops. Cheers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.