ts

So I'm looking for a little high level feedback regarding scenario authoring. I'm just starting out with 2 so far (Mountain Pass in CMBO, and russ_asslt in CMBB). I am now aware that I will be able to get detailed feedback on scenarios at The Proving Grounds, which I did not discover before those 2 scenarios. I'd like to beg 1 bit off people in considering if I should work on new scenarios. Now, I'm not sure I have a map making style, or if that would be discernible off just 2 maps, but do either of those 2 maps appeal to anyone (the second has only been out a few days)? Anyone enjoy or is enjoying the scenarios? If I were to work on more, I am aware that I got greedy about the map sizes so far. I'd aim smaller next. I'd also be working in CMBB for a while and sticking to fictional maps. thanks

I'm leaving a map and a couple of scenarios with the names russ_asslt at the scenario depot. The map is a large and varied fictional practice ground for Russian assaults. One scenario is intended for computer defense, the other a suggestion for human vs human. I welcome feedback, and I'd enjoy if somebody organized a defense for me to play against vs the computer. Don't forget to lock down defenders' units to preserve important facing during computer setup. Thanks ahead of time. PS: I just read another thread recommending the use of The Testing Grounds. I did not know about this resource before, but I will find out about it. For now, sorry if direct submission to the depot is not quite the right route. I'm kind of new at this.

A new CMBO battle has been left at the Depot. Name is Mountain Pass. Huge map and battalion sized forces. Hope someone enjoys this.

Let me preface with an apology for any redundancy. I have not been satisfied with previous discussions of some of these, and have not have time to search and go through all the topics: 1) in addition to the current 2 choices for targetting by tanks of with or w/o main gun, it might be nice to have the additional choice of main gun only. For example, you may wish to area fire on a building and landscape it a bit, while wishing to leave the MGs flexibility or just to save their ammo. 2) would like to see an additional unit order of "hold your fire". This would be different from ambush in that it should not have any target area, and more significantly different from hiding in that the unit may be asked to look and report on what it sees instead of just ducking for cover. of course, it is understood, as always, that the unit may get other ideas into its head under certain conditions. 3) I find that when an area may likely call for off map artillery, but I'm not sure yet, I try to cut down on the response time by repeatedly asking the FO to target the area and then cancel the order before the ranging round would be sent out. It might be nice to be able to order the FO to call in coords and let the arty do as much prep as they can stopping short of the ranging round, and then wait for a further order to go on from there. Note that the new mechanism I'm suggesting does not cut down the total time required to target an area. It just let's you spend the total time in different phases with a couple of serialized decisions instead of just one decision. 4) the support columns of 2 story bridges do not seem to block either LOS or fire. 5) more important, dead or live vehicles do not seem to block anything in some important cases. The one I have veryfied so far is actually for friendlies. I noticed that one of my tanks fired its main gun right through a friendly tank in front of it (and I mean smack through the center of its main hull). 6) there are some cases where I get more info than I find tasteful. I'm not sure I should know which of my units an enemy is currently targeting. Let me figure it out from its posture and the tracer rounds. Sounds from a distant (especially unseen) enemy should not be audible to me. The estimated sound contacts are great, but scanning around the map and finding where the sound of a gun 1000 meters from my nearest unit is, is not right. Another example: I can tell if a sniper has shocked a tank by listening for the cries of the hit man. This should only be available if some friendly is within hearing range. 7) This and the next point have to do with too little visual info, on the other hand. Let me try to preempt some unproductive responses by saying that I'm aware of the myriad sighting effects: LOS tool vs. my estimation, smoke, facing, distance, hiding, buttoning, current activity, etc ... I'm reporting here items I have a comfortable amount of experience with (though I may still be in error). I have found that the biggest giveaway for sighting is moving. I'm down with that, since movement is key to the visual systems of people and other critters. I would like to see a bit of tweaking to make large objects like bunkers and vehicles more visible though. It seems a bit off to notice a 2 man team moving between the trees 1200 meters away, but not see a stationary tank in the open at 500 meters in the same weather. (Yes, to a place where an unhidden, unbuttoned, stationary, correctly facing unit has a bright blue LOS to, etc ... ad infinitum + 1). 8) I would also like to see a bit of history applied to what is seen. Example: I was recently playing the "all or nothing" scenario. The first wooden MG bunker was spotted when it fired on me. I ordered my buttoned tank to fire on it and it already delivered a couple of rounds. But since the MG in the bunker stopped firing (for lack of a target) for several seconds, it became invisible (replaced by the german marker). I know that can be remedied by area fire, but it shouldn't come to that in certain cases. So what I'm proposing is that prominent, immobile targets that have been spotted should not go away easily. After all, just because the tracers are not still coming out, does not mean the building moved. I will accept that the same building may be hard to spot even though one knows one saw it a few seconds ago, but maybe there should be some history. For example, if a unit is focused on the target because it's firing on it, and the LOS is not interrupted, the sighting should be maintained by at least that unit (even for a buttoned tank)? 9) I do not want to trigger a new round of quibbling over this. My quick 2 cents on crews is that way too many survive the demise of their vehicles. I would feel comfortable with 9 out of 10 tanks having no survivors and 1 out of 10 having 1 or 2 at most. Just historical. Not to be macabre, but tanks, air craft, submarines, and even cargo ships were unfortunately their crews coffins. Sorry, in retrospect I should have broken this up into well titled pieces. Next time.