Community Scenario Pack (Updated August 22, 2025)

[Knightpawn]

I have being playing the amazing Goodnight Irene for the last couple of days and I noticed that the scoring system was broken. For example a civilian cruise-liner was supposed to give +250 point upon its arrival to a specified destination, but it was incorrectly set up. I have fixed the problem in my local file, but is there a process to include similar fixes in scearios in the updates of the community patch?

[Kushan04]

I have being playing the amazing Goodnight Irene for the last couple of days and I noticed that the scoring system was broken. For example a civilian cruise-liner was supposed to give +250 point upon its arrival to a specified destination, but it was incorrectly set up. I have fixed the problem in my local file, but is there a process to include similar fixes in scearios in the updates of the community patch?

For scenarios where the developer is still active in the community, I'd say bring it to their attention and let them fix it.

For scenarios like this one, where the developer hasn't been around for a long time, post your fixed/updated version to the submittal thread with a short description of what changes you made (like you did here).

[Knightpawn]

Could it be that the versions of certain scenarios in the steam community pack are different than those in this pack? For example I recently noticed that the briefing of Caribbean Fury 1 in the steam pack includes a last paragraph that mentions search and rescue operations whist the version in the pack posted here does not. Not that it made any big difference in the experience, but just asking if this can be the case also with other scenarios.

[Kushan04]

Could it be that the versions of certain scenarios in the steam community pack are different than those in this pack? For example I recently noticed that the briefing of Caribbean Fury 1 in the steam pack includes a last paragraph that mentions search and rescue operations whist the version in the pack posted here does not. Not that it made any big difference in the experience, but just asking if this can be the case also with other scenarios.

They're exactly the same.

[Knightpawn]

Could it be that the versions of certain scenarios in the steam community pack are different than those in this pack? For example I recently noticed that the briefing of Caribbean Fury 1 in the steam pack includes a last paragraph that mentions search and rescue operations whist the version in the pack posted here does not. Not that it made any big difference in the experience, but just asking if this can be the case also with other scenarios.

They're exactly the same.

Your are right! It is the stand-alone Hot Tamales workshop scenario that is different (in the briefing at least)

[Kushan04]

CSP 51 is now available!

[SunlitZelkova]

Question: To what extent are we allowed to modify and remaster our scenarios?

One of mine dates to the CMANO days and I feel it wasn't very good. But improving it would require extensive modification to the point that it would play entirely differently. Would the updated version be denied admission into the pack on the grounds that it is effectively a new scenario?

In another case, I built a two-part series of scenarios. This was only done because at the time, my computer would not have been able to handle a large scenario. One of the two is thus quite limited, with the player having virtually nothing to actually do. If I build an updated version using an entirely identical premise, forces, and objectives, but adding the "sawed off" parts back in, and then submit it as a single scenario, would removal of the old split versions be permitted, or denied given that in a way, the updated version is a new scenario?

[Knightpawn]

Question: To what extent are we allowed to modify and remaster our scenarios?

Adding on the above: ... or scenarios included in the pack where the original creator is nowhere to be found?

[Kushan04]

Question: To what extent are we allowed to modify and remaster our scenarios?

One of mine dates to the CMANO days and I feel it wasn't very good. But improving it would require extensive modification to the point that it would play entirely differently. Would the updated version be denied admission into the pack on the grounds that it is effectively a new scenario?

If you're the original author, I think it's up to you. Feel free to submit an updated scenario(s) or a new scenario but with a slightly different name if you want to preserve the original scenario for others to play. I've always considered my scenarios to be a living thing, that are always open for changes - either to account for database changes, game updates, or my own whims. It's really up you whether you want the old scenario preserved in the CSP or not.

In another case, I built a two-part series of scenarios. This was only done because at the time, my computer would not have been able to handle a large scenario. One of the two is thus quite limited, with the player having virtually nothing to actually do. If I build an updated version using an entirely identical premise, forces, and objectives, but adding the "sawed off" parts back in, and then submit it as a single scenario, would removal of the old split versions be permitted, or denied given that in a way, the updated version is a new scenario?

Like I said above, this is entirely up to you. If you do this just let me know when you submit the new scenario which one needs to be removed.

As a scenario designer myself, this is a case where I would have the combined scenario be it's own thing and leave the existing scenarios as they are now.

Adding on the above: ... or scenarios included in the pack where the original creator is nowhere to be found?

This hasn't been an issue so far but I have put some thought into. There's a few scenarios in the CSP I've considered either updating or using them as the basis for my own. None of us own the scenario concept, idea, name, etc. but I do think there's a good way to use others work. What follows is my own opinion of how I think it should be done. I'll let other scenario authors chime in on their opinion.

1) Credit should be given to the original scenario author. This could be as simple as adding something like "Original Concept By: Whoever" to the top of the scenario description. This is how some of the official standalone scenarios are done.
2) The original authors scenario should be preserved - whether it works or not. The new scenario should have a different name - change the year, add Redux/Enhanced, given it an entirely new name, etc.

The only thing there is a hard rule is on are modified versions of the official DLC scenarios. The original licensing must be maintained. Scenarios without it will not be accepted. Not sure if there would be other punishment for breaking TOS/piracy.

[turmoil]

My personal view on scenarios created by others that are now "abandoned" (i.e. do not play the way it was intended due to updates etc.) is restoring them to full functionality is totally fine - you wouldn't claim ownership, but rather added a note at the bottom of the briefing to say "updated by [username], [date/CMO version]" or something similar.

If someone were to take that scenario and add anything, then that would become its own scenario where the original author would still be credited for their work in both the original and "remade" scenarios. Doing so in my opinion should be fine too - building upon the work of others should be seen as a positive thing, not as though it's just copying.

This somewhat came up a few months ago in the Rimworld modding community where the author of a number of popular mods passed away. Most of his mods have since been maintained and updated by others.

[SunlitZelkova]

Thank you for the answers! I'm not fully decided on whether to go ahead with such a project but it's good to know.

[Knightpawn]

I have follow up question, if you are so kind to answer: After a limited redo of the scenario (optimising the placement of some AD units on the map, optimising the WRA and revisiting the score system) do i need to produce any kind of configuration file alongside the scen file? If yes, can it be a renamed copy of the original one?

[Kushan04]

I have follow up question, if you are so kind to answer: After a limited redo of the scenario (optimising the placement of some AD units on the map, optimising the WRA and revisiting the score system) do i need to produce any kind of configuration file alongside the scen file? If yes, can it be a renamed copy of the original one?

It's helpful to me if the scenario author includes a delta ini with the upload. Saves me from having to make one myself.

[BeirutDude]

Personally, I've always said anyone who wants to modify (or fix) one of mine, thank you very much, feel free!!!!To be honest I haven't gamed much in the past few years and CMO has changed so much I don't know if I will ever get back into it.

My personal view on scenarios created by others that are now "abandoned" (i.e. do not play the way it was intended due to updates etc.) is restoring them to full functionality is totally fine - you wouldn't claim ownership, but rather added a note at the bottom of the briefing to say "updated by [username], [date/CMO version]" or something similar.

If someone were to take that scenario and add anything, then that would become its own scenario where the original author would still be credited for their work in both the original and "remade" scenarios. Doing so in my opinion should be fine too - building upon the work of others should be seen as a positive thing, not as though it's just copying.

This somewhat came up a few months ago in the Rimworld modding community where the author of a number of popular mods passed away. Most of his mods have since been maintained and updated by others.

[Nikel]

Personally, I've always said anyone who wants to modify (or fix) one of mine, thank you very much, feel free!!!!To be honest I haven't gamed much in the past few years and CMO has changed so much I don't know if I will ever get back into it.

There are 53 scenarios you created, included in the CSP. Thanks!

However there is a problem, a huge gap between 1989 and 2018.

I suppose something happen in those years, for you to design even more scenarios