The Scottish Corridor Thread

[Erwin]

The designers' points about the AI having lots of limitations re when the AI can take actions etc, and therefore time limits are important make sense.

But, I do also sense that many of them move fast right at the start of the scenario since they know that they can move "X" meters before an enemy ambush could occur.

It's the minutes that are used at the start of a mission that a cautious commander will "waste" by being careful, which is jamming us regular/cautious players up. And the reason we're cautious is that we've all played scenarios where one can be ambushed almost immediately one moves a few meters.

I don't have a solution for this. Although making the missions have variable endings would help. Just trying to understand what is happening when some say they have too much time and others (who may be experienced at playing CM1 and CM2 for over 10 years) remark that there is insufficient time. (Why are so few missions variable ending btw?)

It also makes a big difference whether one is playing RT or WEGO - and that info is important to note when players post experiences and results.

It would also be helpful if designers could also note in their design notes whether their scenario was tested primarily in RT or WEGO so players know what to expect.

[theFightingSeabee]

Semantics.

Indeed. Whether PT let BFC use his campaign or he put it on the repository, it's still his work and he gets to design it as he sees fit. PT may be obsessed with tight time limits, well, you're obsessed with longer time limits. Everyone has their personal take on the way things should be.

So, I'm glad to hear that you are making your own campaign. I can't wait to play it. You should start a thread on it so we can watch your progress.

[theFightingSeabee]

Erwin, just as a side note, scenario designers are moving toward a general rule that has been born of a million complaints... to have the starting forces NOT start in the line of fire. There are exceptions to the rule of course, depending on the tactical situation the designer is trying to create. For example, in the Pointe du Hoc scenario, I had little choice but to start the mission with the Rangers under fire since there are no boats modeled. But generally speaking, people are trying to create scenarios that let the player move his men into some type of position as he would be able to in real life.

[Erwin]

That's good to know. However, we have seen scenarios where a couple of meters gets one into trouble. (CMA's Road Of All Fears comes to mind.)

Maybe that should be the default scenario start so we know we can move quickly for the first (say) 50 meters to cover. Or, maybe scouts should already be positioned ahead at the point of contact, so the player knows he can move to that point. However, it's nice to have surprises.

I don't know or have an answer for us careful CO's. What I do know is that I assume a threat is immediately ahead, and it's VERY hard for me to assume I can safely run my guys to that tempting cover several dozen meters ahead.

[Paper Tiger]

So, I'm glad to hear that you are making your own campaign.

This is excellent news. Contrary to current popular belief, beta testers are not egocentric elite players. Most of us really care about fostering a good community here because it supports BFC and this benefits us all because it allows us all to keep creating new missions/campaigns for the community to play. I have no doubt that blow's campaign will be welcomed enthusiastically by the posters who are calling for massively extended or no time limits. Now you have a designer who is catering for your own particular needs. I encourage you guys to get behind him and help with his project and offer him all the support and encouragement that you can.

[handihoc]

Couldn't agree more. I love a battle that allows time to scout and recce for enemy positions/optimal friendly position etc before launching my attack. Some players find that style of play tedious as little or nothing tends to happen for the first few minutes or more. Me, I get a thrill every time a new hidden enemy unit pops into view and I can make plans accordingly, even if I'm not yet going to open fire on that position. So Blow56's campaign should be right up my alley.

I've no objection to battles with tight time restrictions. They keep me on my toes and force me to respond accordingly, but the versatility of the CM game engine enables a wide variety of design and play approaches, and the more the merrier! So go for it, Blow. I look forward to checking out the finished product.

[Holien]

Just seen this and Skim read bits as still playing the campaign. Just wanted to drop in and say EXCELLENT WORK!! I usually play HtH and this is my first Campaign. The level of detail and work is great and the AI Challenge better than I thought it would be. I am just about to start the 4th mission and I have won the first three games.

The third one with the Germans attacking was nail biting and nearly as good as playing vs a human for fun and excitement. A bit too easy at the end but I was desperate for the last 2 lots of reserves and if I did not have them it would have been even closer, as it was those allowed for a fairly easy victory.

IMO these are not too difficult and the group of games have blown me away with how good AI play can be. I have never rated AI play and while it still has weaknesses I can now see why people are enjoying games vs the AI.

Thanks for the work PT (and beta test team) and I will look out for more of your scenarios.

Cheers

H

[theFightingSeabee]

Holien, you'll also like "The Road to Montebourg". And.... from what I've heard PT is working on yet ANOTHER campaign! I, personally, can't wait!

[Paper Tiger]

I'm surprised that nobody's linked this yet...

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/03/15/wot-i-think-combat-mission-commonwealth-forces/

This is particularly relevant.

My other major CMx2 gripe relates to AI. Reliant on pre-prepared scripts, much of the time artificial enemies turn in respectable and challenging performances. What they don’t do is react spontaneously or credibly to player manoeuvres. If, during an assault, you decide to, say, push hard on the left side, you won’t see a foe scrambling to reshape its defence in response. The rigidity is particularly obvious when you manage to sneak vehicles into an enemy rear. Often opposing forces seem rooted to the spot, preferring to cower and die rather than put something solid between themselves and the unexpected threat.

He goes on to say this.

To be fair to the scenario designers, they really do seem to know how to get the most out of the engine. I’m about mid-way through both the 14-mission Scottish Corridor campaign and the 8 mission Kampfgruppe Engel one, and have witnessed some chillingly effective advances and fiendishly stubborn defences. Like the events it simulates, CMBNCF is a game in which sloppiness is frequently costly. Failed to scout that lane properly? Some Hitler Youth youth with an MG 42 and an unhealthy devotion to duty, will probably make you pay. Failed to space out your eager Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders? You’ll regret your laziness the second the 8cm HE hailstones start doing it for you. This is a title that rewards methodical wargamers most generously. Which isn’t to say slightly slapdash COs like myself can’t taste success and have a ball too.

Because the Allied campaign doesn’t start rewarding defeats with barred progress until mission 10 there’s plenty of time to learn from mistakes. Forces are carried over between chapters in the German campaign, which seems a nice touch until you realise you’re nervously quicksaving after every cleared copse and cottage.

Where is the whining about time constraints from a professional game reviewer? If he felt they were unjust, he'd have said so.

[Erwin]

Good review. Altho' he doesn'r say what experience level he was playing. Reviews can often be a double-edged sword as he also says:

"...I’d have traded new Axis AFVs like the Lynx, Wespe, Marder I and Tiger II for the most obvious absentee in British tank ranks – the fire-breathing Churchill Crocodile. ...no amount of ‘It’s a coding nightmare!’ special-pleading from Battlefront will change that... silly GUI deficiencies like unhelpful icons and a non-existent reporting system... I dream of a day when CM’s impressive ballistic, spotting, and C2 realism is tethered to an AI as elastic and adaptive as the Command Ops one...I won’t be dismantling my CMx1 shrine just yet..."

As a former reviewer myself one rarely has time to get too deep into a game b4 having to test out another one.

[blow56]

I was a professional game reviewer for many years, so I DO know whereof I speak. The review you cite, especially in the second par, suggests to me that methodical play wins more prizes than any other style. If he was comfortable and pleased with the time limit, good on him. Others aint.

I am criticising, I am not scathing and I really do admire PT's work and, if he had put this up like any other modder I wouldn't be banging on about it quite so much. But this is sold as an integral part of the price tag for this game, so he has to expect to defend his work without resorting to phrases such as 'whining about time constraints' or suggestions of gaming inadequacy - it isn't helpful. I am fairly familiar with the deep workings of the AI and hope that it is possible to use it without the sticking plaster of time constraints to make the design work. If I am wrong, I will happily admit it.

[drexil]

There's naturally a difference of opinions on what players like in their games. Having GOOD campaigns of different flavors is one of the huge attractions of CMx for me. The sheer variety in designer styles shows how much effort goes in to these battles. Probably a good thing to keep in mind when critiquing any campaign or battle.

This has to be one of the most difficult camps that I have ever played and I think PT has done an excellent job on the battles and the innovative format. I'd love to see more like this with the reactive difficulty and the blend of resupply and force starvation. It makes every casualty hurt but (hopefully) doesn't dead-end your game.

Not a huge fan of tight time limits myself, but I will admit that clocking up a win in the last 1 or 2 minutes can feel rewarding. Being more used to the US force playstyle I found it much more difficult to develop fire superiority and deliver casualty-cheap assaults. A lot of force wastage just moving around with the odd poor bugger getting clipped, which hurts the Scots more than I'm used to.

Losing the section bren on a long march and not recovering is is painful. Did that a few too many times. Is it my imagination or is the gunner a bullet magnet ... must a close relative to any unbuttoned tank commander.

The Brit armor feels extremely weak in the major tank battles on veteran. It felt like they have no punch and no survivabilty compared to panthers. A match for the IV's but far too weak vs panthers. Slower, under armored, less deadly makes some of the engagements depressing. It could be I'm managing them poorly too. A couple of TDs mixed in to threaten the enemny armor might have helped me.

I found there were a couple of quirks in some maps. Buildings that units refused to use the front door to exit, preferring to wander through a known minefield. And an intersection of two different road types that vehicles refused to path through. Maybe an obstacle that wasn't displaying rendering? Either way, those are ridiculously minor complaints on a campaign so large, varied and detailed.

Currently stuck on mission 14 veteran with NO IDEA how I'm going to avoid a thrashing. But when I do, I think I'll screenshot the summary and make it my wallpaper. And if I can't beat it, I'll make a fortune selling Churchill scrap metal to my German overlords.

Thanks kindly for the great work.

[Agua]

Is there a typo in the Campaign briefing or some sort of bug here? Campaign briefing represents that "Bloody Encounter" follows "Going to Church". After G2C, my next battle was "No Hiding Place"(?).

[Paper Tiger]

No bug. If you win 'Going to Church', you control the objective and so start in place in 'No Hiding Place'. If you draw or lose 'Going to Church, your forces withdraw and try again the next day. Sounds like you won 'Going to Church' then.

[theFightingSeabee]

The Brit armor feels extremely weak in the major tank battles on veteran. It felt like they have no punch and no survivabilty compared to panthers. A match for the IV's but far too weak vs panthers. Slower, under armored, less deadly makes some of the engagements depressing. It could be I'm managing them poorly too. A couple of TDs mixed in to threaten the enemny armor might have helped me.

I was initially surprised at how slow the Churchill's were. It is possible to use them effectively, but you really have to be sneaky. I did have success while testing one of the scenarios by being VERY bold and moving them up quickly (or at least as fast as they will go, not very) and taking up positions for a flanking ambush. Using them to fight head on against German armor is suicide. Just try to be as sneaky as you possibly can.

And if I can't beat it, I'll make a fortune selling Churchill scrap metal to my German overlords.

:D

[Paper Tiger]

The Churchill v Panther match-up is not a very fair one, that's for sure. However, if you are a GREEN player, you will only have to face Panthers once in the campaign - 'Going to Church'. Generally, the VETERAN level player will see them more often in the fighting for Grainville.

Good luck with mission 14, drexil. I gave the player an impressive load of artillery and TRPs, as well as three Achilles tank destroyers so you should have a fighting chance. I really enjoyed playtesting that mission. It feels very 'East Front'. BTW, which version are you playing? Green, Regular or Veteran?

[Hister]

I shall express my deep gratitude for your excellent work Sir Paper Tiger - once a player tastes your maps there is no going back to other maps since they are so nicely done.

[Agua]

Just finished Fair & Square. Lost all my armour obtaining a total victory in Crescendo of Doom. Kept hoping I'd get replenished like the Germans apparently did, but nope. B R U T A L

On a positive note, the bonus mission map is nearly stunning. Absolutely beutiful.

[Paper Tiger]

I originally had two bonus missions planned for the campaign. One for the Cameronians, which you got, and one for the Argylls, which you didn't. The Argyll's mission was another Bluecoat action featuring three JagdPanthers attacking a squadron of Churchills on a hill near Les Loges. I agonised over the creation of that map. It's huge and it's a real beauty too. But there wasn't enough time to develop the mission properly so it didn't make the cut. Besides, there wasn't much for the Argylls to do except hunker down and hide from the JagdPanthers.

Actually, there were two other maps/missions that didn't make the cut. There was a third Bluecoat mission called Sept Vents, a small assault on a fortified village. But time ran out before I could finish the map. And there was a huge tank battle on Hill 113 to the south of Gavrus for the Argyll's battles. The map for that one is ginormous. Maybe one day, I'll finish them off and revise this campaign for the Repository.

BTW, let me know how you get on with La Mancelliere. It should be a fun battle

[Placebo]

Paper Tiger, is seems a waste to not let those unfinished maps not see the light of day. Perhaps they could be standalone battles as they could be interesting to play from both sides.

[Erwin]

+1... PT, your maps are so good, it would be a shame to waste it.

[Paper Tiger]

Here's a screenshot of the 'Brew Up!" map. This was intended to be the bonus Argyll mission. This was probably the most difficult map I have ever crafted. (Why? Look at the roads. They're all straight - avoiding the wigglies while staying true to the real terrain is a LOT of work). I nearly gave up on it several times. But now, this map is completely finished, with the fine detail work on all those little farm compounds done (and some of them are very beautiful). However, while the initial playtesting was fun as the Germans, it was zero fun to play as the Brits. It was a massacre in real life and it was a massacre in the game too. So I have to rethink the historical action to make a more interesting action. Sometimes historical sucks!

This is the map for Bougy and Hill 113. It is more or less finished too and it's huge. It was intended to sit in between Les Vilains and Gavrus Part 1. It's a historical action between two very large groups of tanks (over 100 in total). I've played this one a few times but the Shermans are just too good against the Germans, especially the Fireflies. The Germans don't have much of a chance in this battle when it's close to historical even though they did very well in the real life action.

As to when I'll get around to developing these, I honestly don't know. Real life is quite interesting just now and I have other demands on my free time. But I fully intend to finish these two off at least.

There is no screenshot of the Sept Vents village map as it's not finished. Besides, there is a stand-alone that ships with the module called 'Seven Winds' that covers the same battle, more or less.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Superior maps. Immediate immersive feeling while looking at them.

[Paper Tiger]

Heh! Those are not photos of the finished product either. Those are pictures of the maps when I was showing the other testers what I had already done for the Commonwealth campaign way, WAY back . They have both had a LOT of work done on them since then. Once I get back to work on them, I'll show the finished product.

[Agua]

BTW, let me know how you get on with La Mancelliere. It should be a fun battle

It was fun. Eeked out a minor victory. I was expecting some extra time at the mission's end as per the briefing, but it halted at 0:00 straight up.

SPOILER

Tried taking out the KTs with typhoons, piat, Achilles, big arty ... only thing that didn't die was the typhoon. Big arty did nothing more than immobilize one of them - no gun damage, nothing.

I've got a good early save and want to have another go at those KT.