Denis1973

What's about TO&E, will we get SMG platoons in rifle companies? Any "assault group" formations for urban combat?

Just suddenly found this one on my hard drive. 
H2H only, Afghanistan - Kyrgyzstan border, 1993
Here is the link 
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/LDCj/HeBHwzWyQ

Just suddenly found this one on my hard drive. 
H2H only, Afghanistan - Kyrgyzstan border, 1993
Here is the link 
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/LDCj/HeBHwzWyQ

I've gotten back into building AI orders sets recently and the V4 commands are pretty freaking amazing, IMHO.
Reverse command in the AI is easy. You paint a normal destination point for the turn then you place a second shift-click point to designate the direction you're backing away from. Vehicles will pop smoke and reverse away from that point to their destination. Infantry will conduct a 'fighting withdrawal' rather like assault except the leap-frogging units will turn to face the retreat point on their way to the destination.
The new 'area fire' AI order works much the same. You paint a normal destination area for the turn then control-click paint a second area for the unit to area fire on until the next order set starts.
For the AI 'face' command you paint a normal destination area for the turn then ALT-click a second spot for your unit to face after they've arrived. I've never seen it not work.
Scenarios have AI orders sets only as complex as the designer thought necessary. Some are downright balletic in their complex coordinated movements. Others are basic. Defensive units sitting waiting for an attack may have no AI orders at all, just relying on AI automatic reactions to events.

Yepp...the face command introduced with the V4 update is a very good one ! 
Previously the AI-units would end their move by ROTATING towards their NEXT waypoint...Very frustrating at times...The V4 update fixed this problem...Thank you !
Another neat feature of the V4 update is the REVERSE feature...This, for the first time, alows scenario designers to program shoot-n-scoot move for the AI...
I don't know if this is what the scenario designer is trying to do in your particular case mention above...having some armour move forward...wait a short while...and then withdraw back again...Pre V4 there was no REVERSE command. Before this update the vehicles would need to turn around i place (exposing their rear to the enemy) to be able to withdraw towards the same direction they came from...
If the scenariodesigner in this scenario have placed the next waypoint for this particular AI Group behind them...like mentioned...this would expain the AI behavior seen here.

Upgrade 4.0 actually adds facing commands to the AI orders available to scenario designers- so upgrade 4.0 is actually capable of avoiding the behavior you are seeing- but it needs to be planned by the designer. Since this is a release scenario (can't remember who did that one off the top of my head, but nice map!), the 4.0 upgrade behaviors were not available.
After a very quick look at the scenario in the Editor- If you are playing as the German side- the instructions let you know that this scenario is designed to be played as the Soviet side- so I'd proceed with the understanding that it may be too easy for an experienced player (as German). I think that the AI in attack won't be as potentially difficult to deal with without the "face" command and "area fire"  that are now available to the scenario designer with the 4.0 upgrade.
I'd expect the AI plan to be more varied if playing as intended (as Soviets) as well. That said, I know we scenario and campaign designers will be using the new commands to make for more challenging defensive fights vs. AI attackers (and as defenders) in the future 4.0 titles. As always, it is an AI, not a human player, etc.- that said,  I only play vs. the AI- so these new 4.0 changes are very useful for designers, rather than being a cause of irrational behaviors in this particular case.
 

This is an interesting idea for a two component scenario.  Maybe even a short branching campaign.   
Lots of cool stuff in the editor.  Just takes time to figure it out. 
Yes.  Thank you for reminding me of this. I should post a link for that thread.  @George MC use of the spot unit objective to cost the player more VP points for more units committed to the fight was a brilliant idea.  

As far as I know, the LL vehicles were slotted into the existing TOE in exactly in place of their Soviet equivalents. Certainly, the Soviet Shermans weren't running around in platoons of five and companies of eighteen like in the US Army.
In a game with Jagdtigers?

Talks about operational level have begun just after the first CV game is released. In our community we have made several attempts to complete the task. First and second (based on custom rules) were partially successful. And only third became a success.
With received experience the concept of approach was based on:
The bottom line. Operational level will be interesting to play with at least divisional level, at least 3-4 day duration of battle.
The upper line. Combat Mission scenario must be maximum about 1 hour long at 1500-2000 m battlefield with battalion(+) force size.
Simplify. Gamemaster must be released from tiresome calculations. It will be made in-game. IGO-YOUGO rules instead of WEGO at operational level. Hex-based battle maps.
Speed. Not all actions, even not all battles, can be played in CM because of slow progress. It will be made by operational game itself.
 
So, we choose The Operational Art of War III (TOAWIII) as an operational level game. Especially because very smart system of unit strength – every unit consist of given number of rifle squads, guns, tanks, etc. Contrary to "rifle Co" with given "strength" (attack 4, defence 3) or "132 men" (without any other weapons) in other games. Same about supply – every unit tracked available amount of supply during whole campaign. It spends on moving and battles and replenished with supply network.
 
Here is Google doc (in English) which describes the flow of campaign.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aZUo83DNHG8_QfmiQNc3CWo72IQRXEKMTAg8eCSJMr4/edit#
 
Unfortunately, rules are not yet translated. More on this – it is under some rework and enhancement. But if you have any questions I'll try to answer.
 
And, finally, we think about new campaign. One of problem here is that we need more gamers (in this campaign took part 6 gamers and 2 admins – not as much as we want to). So I want to understand the level of interest – we can play East or West front, Russian community against "west" (English speaking) or mixed, etc.
 
May be pin this topic up?

"You don't know where you're going til you know where you been."
 

I´m starting this thread in the hope of opening a debate about the lack of feedback to scenario designers. This is a debate that has been popping up at intervals in threads with other subjects, but to avoid hijacking these threads I´ve decided to start a separate thread on the subject (Even though my previous scenarios have all been CMBN, I´ll post it in this section, because this is the most active part of the forum and probably where most new scenarios will be published)

I´ll try to outline the problem as I see it, briefly describe the work involved with releasing a scenario, possible reasons for the lack of feedback and possible solutions. I very much hope other scenario designers will chime in with their own views and suggestions.

The problem:
A quite regular occurance on these forums is some CM player complaining that there are too few user made scenarios available. This has some times provoked me to reply along these lines:

Dear complainer, you´ve got no-one but yourself to blame for that: If you can´t be bothered to give the scenario designers feedback on their hard work - then they will stop releasing scenarios to the community.

Judging from comments in other threads it is my clear impression that other scenario designers share my frustration about the lack of community feedback. If I felt I was the only one I wouldn´t bother starting this debate. I´d probably just stop releasing scenarios. Still, I can of course only speak for myself and thus I´ll use myself and my own experiences with scenario design when I try to describe the problems as I see them.

Here´s the situation from my perspective:
I really enjoy creating scenarios. Mainly because I enjoy making maps that look realistic, but also because I like to play a scenario where I get to choose the forces and the scenario´s challenges myself. Sometimes I dream up a situation and then make a map that suits it. Most of the times I make a map and then make a scenario afterwards.



It has often been said in these discussions that "you should only make scenarios to please yourself, not the community". That is of course entirely true – and as you can see, this is what I do myself.

But sometimes I decide I´d like to share one of my scenarios with the CM community. And this is where the trouble starts.

Because there is a crucial difference between making a scenario that is playable for the designer himself and making one that is playable for everyone in the community, ie one that is ready for release.

In my experience the time needed to make a scenario ready for release equals the time used on creating the scenario itself.

Making a scenario ready for release means:
- writing a briefing that is clear and hopefully entertaing to the players. Two briefings, if it is a H2H scenario.
- making a correct list of the forces involved
- making a strategic map BMP
- making a tactical map BMP
- making a preview BMP
- making a operational map BMP
- writing designer´s notes

But the most time consuming aspect above all is playtesting the scenario. This involves activating several volunteer testers, who play the scenario while they send me save files, during action reports (DAR´s), comments and suggestions. Then, when the testers have finished playtesting, I begin altering and tweaking the forces, map, victory points or AI plans based on their experiences and suggestions. After this I usually get one or two new testers to playtest the new version of the scenario to make sure there are no oversights.



All in all this process takes at least one month – usually several - and involves between three and six testers.

You see the difference here? If I just want keep the scenario for myself and enjoy it on my own, I can do that right away. But if I want to share my scenario with you guys in the community, I´ll have to work twice as much on it – for months, literally.

And then, when I release the scenario, the feedback is mainly next to nothing. Here are some numbers from my own four hitherto released CMBN scenarios:



In total 1498 downloads that have recieved a total of 18 ratings or comments.

In other words: 1,2 percent of the users that have downloaded my scenarios have bothered to give me feedback (in reality even less, as the people rating often are he same as those that comment)

This is why I have begun to doubt whether releasing scenarios is really is worth the effort. Why bother when the response from the users is so meagre? I could have used all that time creating an entirely new scenario from scratch – for my own amusement.

I must stress that my reason for bringing this subject up isn´t about simply craving praise for my effort – even though praise is very nice to recieve, no doubt about that.

This is mainly about feedback. If I am to maintain any motivation for going on releasing scenarios, I need to know that they are being used, what the users think of them – and especially how they´ve played out. Nothing makes this designer happier than seeing one of his scenarios described in a thrilling AAR with lots of pics.

So what are the reasons for the lack of feedback - and how do we solve it?.

The reasons
I believe the main reason is structural. The scenario ”archives” do not encourage feedback from the users – more like the opposite.

I have nothing but praise for GreenAsJade´s great site, cmmods.com. Unfortunately, it doesn´t provide the ability to comment on the uploaded content. A pity, but I´d never complain: I´m just really happy that we have such a site for our mods and scenarios.

I believe that it is a major problem that The Repository is almost completely isolated from the Forum. There might be good reason for this, that I am not aware of. But in my view this is the main problem: You can rate and comment briefly on a scenario in the Repository, but if you want to post longer comments, screenshots, AAR´s, debate or ask a question, then you have to go a completely separate site, the Forum.

In my view, this greatly discourages feedback to the designers. These activities should in my opnion be integrated.

What to do?
If we are to establish effective user feedback, I believe we have to make the link between the scenario and a review/rating forum as direct as possible. The longer the distance between scenario and forum, the fewer comments.

One of the solutions I can think of, is to incorporate the Repository interface into the scenario thread in the forum. In this way you´ll be able to find and download the scenario in the same place where the scenario is discussed.

I´ve tried to construct a visualization here:



I also think the Repository generally needs improvement. In my experience the search function is close to useless in the Repository – and not very good in the forum either.
That means that even if you want to go back and rate or comment on a scenario, you might have a hard time actually finding the right file or thread.

Another solution could be this:
Make sure that you get the player´s attention exactly at the moment when he is probably most inclined to comment and/or review a scenario: When he has just finished it.

This is why I suggest giving the scenario designer the option to write a short message in the AAR screen. It could look something like this:



The optimal solution would of course be if this message could contain a link that would take the player directly to the discussion thread in the forum. But I bet BFC can think of a lot of problems with placing such a link.
Ian Leslie has suggested something along these lines too:
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1500231&postcount=40

This was my ”short” view on the feedback problem – and how we might solve it. I have no illusions that these suggestions will solve all problems and make the feedback rise dramatically in one blow. But at least it will remove some of the barriers.

I hope you survived reading through it – and that you´ll post your own views and suggestions here.

End of rant

Cheers
Umlaut

Hello Gentlemen
 
I bring you exciting news of the new Scenario Depot III which has been funded by The Few Good Men.  As we all know The Scenario Depot II was the go to place for Scenario downloads with its most successful period being from the mid-90's to the early 00's for the CMX1 series of games.  Unfortunately it was never updated to encompass the CMX2 series of games but all that is about to change.  I introduce to you The Scenario Depot III.
 

 
The new site is a community wide project and despite being hosted on The Few Good Men servers membership of The FGM is not required.  We have reached a stage where the site is pretty much finished and all that remains to be tested now is its load bearing capabilities.  
 
The Scenario Depot III is the place to upload your completed play tested scenarios for the enjoyment of the CMx2 community and I'm asking if you scenario designers out there would do me the honour of starting to upload your scenarios to the database as a stress test exercise.  If all goes well The Scenario Depot III will be up and running henceforth.
 
The site is available HERE
 
Please read 'The About The Scenario Depot III' section and then go to 'Upload A File' to go through the simple process of getting your scenario into our database awaiting front page post upload. 
 
I would like to thank Gary Krockover the original designer of The Scenario Depot II and The Proving Grounds for his permission to launch the next era of the sites catering for the new games released by Battlefront in the CMX2 series.
 
The site covers all CMX2 games [Afghanistan, Shock Force, Battles for Normandy, Fortress Italy, Red Thunder , Black Sea] and has areas waiting to be opened for the Bulge games forthcoming release.
 
As well as scenarios and campaigns the site also offers the capability of uploading user designed maps for players to download.
 
At present we have just the one map uploaded so please pop over and start adding your content and if you wish to donate towards the endeavour there is a link at the bottom of the right hand column for you generous folk out there.  Donations will go towards the programmes required to get The Proving Grounds up and running which is phase 2 of the project.  I look forward to seeing your work being submitted.
 
Thanks for reading.
 
Bootie

2All, thanks for responses and advices  .
Regarding Few Good Men – already done. Pavel have sent a message there. And received some posts.
 
2kipanderson
In short, The Rules are consist of several blocks:
1. The transitional tables from/to CM/TOAW to depict experience, ammo loads, readiness, etc. of the troops and quantity of entrenchments in both games.
2. Set of rules to restrict possibilities provided by TOAW because of:
- it is sometime hard to  GM to work with
- we need to restrict quantity of forces on CM battle map
3. Some administrative rules for:
- whole campaign
- playing the battles in CM
 
Most of the events are tracked by TOAW engine so it no needs to be mentioned in Rules. Both sides makes moves in-turn, like in TOAW or PzC.
Peoples involved are GameMasters (one or two), Head of Staff with XO (for each side) and Field Commanders.
GMs are responsible for making a CM scenarios, operational map, reports and so on. GM is the final judge if any issues evolved. Maps making doing by all people involved.
HoS&XO issued orders on operational level and basic plans for CM battles. They decided what battle should be played in CM, what – in TOAW.
FC are played battles in CM. One of important moment – they are not assigned for exact forces on whole campaign. All my experience shows that strict assignment isn't lead to "careful behavior" while some of players became bored with "nothing happened here" or "tenth attack on the same village (with same results)". My system provide player with different forces, tasks and terrain during campaign. This keeps player involved. Care on forces – work of Head of Staff, he must be in close contact with his fellow commanders.   

Talks about operational level have begun just after the first CV game is released. In our community we have made several attempts to complete the task. First and second (based on custom rules) were partially successful. And only third became a success.
With received experience the concept of approach was based on:
The bottom line. Operational level will be interesting to play with at least divisional level, at least 3-4 day duration of battle.
The upper line. Combat Mission scenario must be maximum about 1 hour long at 1500-2000 m battlefield with battalion(+) force size.
Simplify. Gamemaster must be released from tiresome calculations. It will be made in-game. IGO-YOUGO rules instead of WEGO at operational level. Hex-based battle maps.
Speed. Not all actions, even not all battles, can be played in CM because of slow progress. It will be made by operational game itself.
 
So, we choose The Operational Art of War III (TOAWIII) as an operational level game. Especially because very smart system of unit strength – every unit consist of given number of rifle squads, guns, tanks, etc. Contrary to "rifle Co" with given "strength" (attack 4, defence 3) or "132 men" (without any other weapons) in other games. Same about supply – every unit tracked available amount of supply during whole campaign. It spends on moving and battles and replenished with supply network.
 
Here is Google doc (in English) which describes the flow of campaign.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aZUo83DNHG8_QfmiQNc3CWo72IQRXEKMTAg8eCSJMr4/edit#
 
Unfortunately, rules are not yet translated. More on this – it is under some rework and enhancement. But if you have any questions I'll try to answer.
 
And, finally, we think about new campaign. One of problem here is that we need more gamers (in this campaign took part 6 gamers and 2 admins – not as much as we want to). So I want to understand the level of interest – we can play East or West front, Russian community against "west" (English speaking) or mixed, etc.
 
May be pin this topic up?

I have decided to make a bunch of my books available for free download (but I don't promise how quickly I will upload them).  First of these is the "Environment" book for CMRT.  (Also, the very similar book for CMBS.)
 

 
Please visit the link in my signature.  It's not a commercial website.  There are no ads.  Enjoy. 
 
Mike

I'd recommend to read this thread:
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/111876-hull-down-spotting-disadvantage/

Ignorance, denial, excusions, then admitting observations of a few strange things over the years - until finally several bugs in spotting mechanism were admitted. And the fanbois have hailed - once again - a bugged functionality...

Am I the only one noticing the same in this discussion?

I have mentioned a few parameters that could give the shown results some plausibility. We have learned the camouflage effects are not present. But if they are not present, then the results that are shown are not plausible.

And when I hear the explanation that the model was way too complex to come to quick conclusions, then as an engineer I must laugh. Why? Because the engineer knows: not the complexitiy of a model has any significance if it is good, but there is ONLY one thing, that determines if a model is good: who knows the answer?
If it works as expected. That's the ONLY measurement for the quality of a model. Not it's complexity.

And this understanding of scientific engineering brings up PLAUSABILITY.

So the question is not if a customer understands the complexities of a model. What counts is, when the computer is switched on, that it works as expected. No matter if I could explain it away with hardware settings or driver problems. That's what fans want to hear, but the average customers wants that it works. The excuses are not of interest.

If camouflage effects in this case can be excluded, and switched off trees and smoke, then I miss the ability to accept, that the model in this case has a big plausability problem.

And btw, if the maker of a model does not understand, why his model behaves in a certain manner, then I always am reminded what my professor in theoretical electrical engineering teached us:
What is the best model?
A: the most simple one that works.

So maybe, if their models are too complex for them, they should reduce it to a level of complexity they are able to understand and control?

I'm suspect that the sales of CMRT are not so big that you and I want to be. There are no clear figures (commercial secret, of cause) but the quantity of mods and maps in BF Repository can give as information for a rough estimation. 
So in this situation it is a adequate decision to release new game and not a new module. Sadly...

Okay, what we get from cmmods statistics? CMRT: 183, CMBN: 429. With adding this:
my point became stronger 
 
UPD. My estimation that sales of CMRT is about 50% (pessimistic) to 70%(optimistic) of CMBN sales.
 
UPD2. Of course as Russian I want that figures will be 150% or even 300% 

Talks about operational level have begun just after the first CV game is released. In our community we have made several attempts to complete the task. First and second (based on custom rules) were partially successful. And only third became a success.
With received experience the concept of approach was based on:
The bottom line. Operational level will be interesting to play with at least divisional level, at least 3-4 day duration of battle.
The upper line. Combat Mission scenario must be maximum about 1 hour long at 1500-2000 m battlefield with battalion(+) force size.
Simplify. Gamemaster must be released from tiresome calculations. It will be made in-game. IGO-YOUGO rules instead of WEGO at operational level. Hex-based battle maps.
Speed. Not all actions, even not all battles, can be played in CM because of slow progress. It will be made by operational game itself.
 
So, we choose The Operational Art of War III (TOAWIII) as an operational level game. Especially because very smart system of unit strength – every unit consist of given number of rifle squads, guns, tanks, etc. Contrary to "rifle Co" with given "strength" (attack 4, defence 3) or "132 men" (without any other weapons) in other games. Same about supply – every unit tracked available amount of supply during whole campaign. It spends on moving and battles and replenished with supply network.
 
Here is Google doc (in English) which describes the flow of campaign.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aZUo83DNHG8_QfmiQNc3CWo72IQRXEKMTAg8eCSJMr4/edit#
 
Unfortunately, rules are not yet translated. More on this – it is under some rework and enhancement. But if you have any questions I'll try to answer.
 
And, finally, we think about new campaign. One of problem here is that we need more gamers (in this campaign took part 6 gamers and 2 admins – not as much as we want to). So I want to understand the level of interest – we can play East or West front, Russian community against "west" (English speaking) or mixed, etc.
 
May be pin this topic up?

Okay, what we get from cmmods statistics? CMRT: 183, CMBN: 429. With adding this:
my point became stronger 
 
UPD. My estimation that sales of CMRT is about 50% (pessimistic) to 70%(optimistic) of CMBN sales.
 
UPD2. Of course as Russian I want that figures will be 150% or even 300% 

Just made a quick test with my largest Bitvagorod/Umlaut´s Factory scenario. A large urban map with a huge amount of building mods, not to mention vehicle and uniform mods. I loaded twice with the mods installed and twice without:
 
Without: 2:27 minutes average
 
With: 2:57 minutes average

I'm suspect that the sales of CMRT are not so big that you and I want to be. There are no clear figures (commercial secret, of cause) but the quantity of mods and maps in BF Repository can give as information for a rough estimation. 
So in this situation it is a adequate decision to release new game and not a new module. Sadly...

So, sides are chosen, there is a map:
 

 
I am playing for Russians, starting at the left setup zone. c3k is playing for U.S., right setup zone.
You can read conditions there. In short, I must take that bridge.
 
As you see, there is a large open space between the bridge and the town.
Of course, it would be nice to take a company of good old T-72s and to make a tank rush. (I have 7500 points - enough for 1,5 tank companies)
But Javeline and Abrams...
 
 I chose:
-152mm battery
-120mm mortar platoon
-Zala UAV
-Artillery and air spotters
-BTR company without a platoon
-T-90, Chrisantema and Tunguska. 1 piece of each.
-ATGM battery
-Su-25 wing
 

 
Setup for long range engagement and some infantry for guarding spotters and final attack.
 
I am awaiting for you advices! Have I any chances?

In my opinion the main problem with QB point is with it impact on final score.
You can lost most of your forces but if you has captured objective (for example 1000 pts) then you win. Enemy received 0 point for objective and funny 40-50 point for all that he destroyed from your force.
In good old time of CMBB the points for objectives are correlated with points for forces (900 pts objective and 1500 pts for forces, for example)
This is why I don't play QBs...

When the Market Garden module gets released I will be releasing officially the Combat Mission Tactical Problems Blog (link).
It has been up for some time as I have been slowly adding content. Eventually I will have practice scenarios that will be targeted towards practicing and experimenting with different tactical concepts. The first scenarios are completed and tested, only waiting for the module to release and for me to finish the content necessary for their completion. These problems will be progressive, meaning that you will start with small units (squads and tank sections) and then build to full company (+) combat teams.
The tactical concepts and procedures will get more complicated as you progress. I will add to this content as I get the time and motivation.
I thought a little sneak peek, now that Market Garden preorders are active, was in order. Feel free to look around and comment, either on the blog or in this thread if you have any questions or if you see any errors or issues.
If any of this information helps your CM play, in any of the different CM games (the concepts will be similar from game to game) please drop in and let me know.
Here is the overview post from the Combat Mission Tactical Problems Blog: