Jump to content

Volcano

Moderators
  • Posts

    8,292
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by Volcano

  1. Infantry morale can be simulated with the use of Surrender if... conditions (it has been done in other scenarios). You can say, something like: this_unit's strength < 25% (or whatever) AND random variable NEW is between 0 to 15 (or whatever) Then if an infantry teams strength drops below 25%, then there is a 15% chance they will surrender (like a 1d6, rolling 1), in this example. Adjust how you like. The main thing to be aware of is that you must make sure the infantry squads are split into teams at start, otherwise splitting the squad into a team in mid game will trigger the condition.
  2. Now now, there is a fine line between good natured ribbing and being arrogant in victory. Let's not cross that line, especially seeing how I know some on Blue wouldn't be in high spirits if it were the other way around.
  3. Thanks for playing scenario 8. 1 more remaining. Blue did well and Red again had quite a bit of bad luck that we can't seem to shake. Red had to be aggressive with the plan to grab enough points to keep it within a draw, but it just didn't pan out. Still, it was a good attempt by all to keep it close. In any case, Blue basically has a guaranteed win at this point, but let's play the last scenario to see how it goes, especially for scenario feedback purposes, and to get the final score (at least now there isn't much pressure on Red anymore, at least). Here are the results + awards... (the table is now so large that I can't fit it on the screen, so I am only showing the last scenario and the total now) MBT 87-21
  4. OK, MBT-S08-26-Power Strike (BAOR)-4267a, now updated and uploaded.
  5. Hate to update the scenario again (Red had a saved plan after all), but I noticed that several of the bridge demo events didn't work properly -- both sides had broken ones. I will fix that later today and update the scenario (at least several hours before TGIF, so there should be plenty of time to plan. I will post again here when it is uploaded (it will be MBT-S08-26-Power Strike (BAOR)-4267a).
  6. Actually, I just uploaded the scenario again, updated, now "MBT-S08-26-Power Strike (BAOR)-4267". I noticed 1x Scimitar missing from NATO side, and corrected the RPG type. Also corrected all the known errors in the briefings and removed that erroneous red "X" on the map. If any other errors in the briefing are noticed then let me know. 👌
  7. One more correction to the briefing added the post above (in purple text) -- there was some text that was missing from the scoring section.
  8. Ah, good catch, the X is in the correct place - there used to be a bridge there but I removed it because the rail line went up the hill and ended and looked terrible. I'll remove the X in the next version though. Thanks!
  9. OK, so I noticed some typos and contradictions in the briefing. I'll keep the current version of the scenario and fix the typos after, so I don't screw up the plan, but here are the corrections for NATO side: -Reinforcement arrival should say "70 - 130 minutes" (72 to 128 to be precise), but in the briefing it might say something else in various places, and also the on-map text might differ too. -Red side has 1x BRM-1 and 1x BRDM-2 for recon (it only says BRDM-2). -Red side ATGM teams are AT-4b exactly, not a mix of AT-7/AT-4. In the score section, I forgot to add this text: -15 penalty pts per each non-relief force BAOR vehicle located outside the sector at the end of the scenario (For example, you cannot move all the M113s to the outside of the sector to hide in the AA1,2,3,4,5 areas to avoid strength losses) If I notice anything else I will edit and add it here.
  10. Scenario is now uploaded to the SB Lobby for your pleasures. Keep in mind that this scenario is very complicated, lots of events, they were inspected and should work, but keep in mind that there might be issues.
  11. 12 NOV 2021: MBT-S08-26-Power Strike (BAOR)-4265a (I will announce when the scenario is uploaded and available for planning) NOTE: The scenarios can have long time limits in the MBT campaign (some up to 180 minutes), but scenarios will seldom play to the full time limit. We should try to limit planning to 30 minutes. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? No, but by side if no CO is available. Random CO selection? No. Any new players will go to the side that needs them at the moment. Minimum # players: 8 (Red [4] vs Blue [4]) NOTES: Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.
  12. True, but in hindsight the terrain didn't fit Red's assigned mission well as the terrain was quite restricted (apart from say, just blindly advancing into a possible ambush area, which isn't fun). The idea being that Blue has to use some haste in resupply with some forces. But then again, that is why we are playing the campaign - so I can see what works, and what doesn't, and I will make (and have already made) changes to make all the scenarios better. Choosing the right map that fits the mission type is the single most difficult aspect to making a good scenario in SB (IMO), as this affects the experience the most. So far the map selection has been good I think, so 9 out of 10 (hopefully) would be a pretty successful rate there. 😎
  13. Looping patrols are easy, just create a waypoint (or waypoints) and route a unit through them, and have a route looping back to the beginning. If you want the infantry to "break out" of the loop, then add a route exiting the loop with some kind of "embark if" condition, or just have the PC show up and mount them up with a "mount" command.
  14. Yeah, once you join a side you have to stick with that side until the end, so you are Red for life (well, at least for the last two missions if you show up again). 😁
  15. Glad you could participate. Hopefully you managed to have some fun - we could always use more people on Red (we seem to be scraping by on dedicated participation right at the end of the campaign here), so please return if you can. 😎
  16. Thanks for playing scenario 7. 2 more remaining. Blue won another, but Red kept it close. After the awards were factored in, the points accumulated by Blue was only +286. Not bad, still close - at least a Draw result is still very much possible (only 330 points away). Interestingly, after all the awards so far, the difference in points is only +2. That means its pretty balanced so far there. (Of course once its over I will adjust the requirements based on all the accumulated data, that's why we are playing it out), and then will likely also use it in Firefight 79 too, once its balanced and adjusted. The MOM and MOV must be possible for both sides, but rare to make it noteworthy (but obtainable) achievement. Here are the results + awards... MBT 87-21
  17. Corrected version (MBT-S07-05-Exploitation-4267b) now available in the usual place.
  18. An error was noticed with the NATO side -- supposed to be +1 M2 Bradley. I'll fix tomorrow, along with some other fixes, hopefully, and will post here when it is available...
  19. Scenario is now available for your planning delights. This one and the next one has the longest time limit, if I recall, so we need to limit our planning to about 20 minutes and start at TGIF + 30 or so.
  20. 05 NOV 2021: MBT-S07-05-Exploitation-4267a (I will announce when the scenario is uploaded and available for planning) NOTE: The scenarios can have long time limits in the MBT campaign (some up to 180 minutes), but scenarios will seldom play to the full time limit. We should try to limit planning to 30 minutes. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? No, but by side if no CO is available. Random CO selection? No. Any new players will go to the side that needs them at the moment. Minimum # players: 8 (Red [4] vs Blue [4]) NOTES: Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.
  21. Should be fixed in the next major upgrade. So basically, the fix was extensive and... "risky" and so it won't appear in a patch, but instead it will have to wait for the next big upgrade because of so many dependency type changes. Until now and the next upgrade (including in any 4.2 patches that might occur between now and then) please continue to use STAY tactic when you want your infantry to remain outside of a building in Network Sessions as CLIENT.
  22. Thanks for playing scenario 6. 3 more remaining. Good job Blue, Red was doing very well right up to the end but Blue was able to capitalize on some mistakes. Here are the results + awards...
  23. Yes, that is correct - use Stay in mean time, but with careful placement and then eventually (hopefully in the near term) it will get fixed. It seems that the DBIB feature never worked right in Network Sessions, and we are looking into that (the fix might be extensive because the DBIB feature is quite complicated, but we are trying to keep it focused on this specific issue at least but its unknown when exactly it will be fixed).
  24. Scenario is now uploaded for your planning happiness and amusement.
×
×
  • Create New...