Holien Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 The new CW module is excellent and getting new scenarios is always fun. A minor nit pick if designers could just say in the briefing (i.e. where you can read it before selecting a scenario) if the game is best played as H2H or vs AI and which side to pick. I tend to just play the games double blind H2H (although I am just getting into the Scottish Corridor) and I want to know which scenarios to choose without spoiling them by opening them up before hand. It would be really good if all designers could just take the time to add those key bits of info on the scenario description, and when the next module is released could that be checked to ensure a consistent approach? Just started Sticking it out and the map is massive and overall looks great, really looking forward to a different play style to that game. A minor quibble with the design is use of tall bocage around the village houses. For me this would not be the case in that part of France and it looks a little bit wrong. Better to use hedges and fences IMO. The Scottish Corridor I have played first scenario and I love the Veggie patches and design of the village excellent work. The water tower is wonderful and overall the look and feel of the place is spot on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malfuriouspete Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 here here! I agree.. some people do this in their scenarios, battles... but others do not and its trial and error 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuderian Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Scenario creators' have got much better at putting in that crucial "Suitable for H2H" in their mini-descriptions' over time, I have found. I save the scenarios for blind pbem as well and use the campaigns for single player. For pbem,I always open the setup turn for my side only, to check its suitability first. Obviously, the second time around with swapped sides, it is no longer 'blind'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holien Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 Scenario creators' have got much better at putting in that crucial "Suitable for H2H" in their mini-descriptions' over time, I have found. I agree it has gotten better but in a new module you would hope after all that has been said there would be a consistent approach and there are loads of the new scenarios with no indication what so ever of how best to play, and I don't want to open them up as that would restrict me to that side. I will do when I run out of the ones already marked up... Also I will bump the thread which lists good H2H scenarios... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noob Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 As a player who only plays double blind H2H games i sympathise with you points, so much so that now i feel that the only way i can play CM is in an operational context, that way it is you who are responsible for the OOB and tactical set up of a CM battle not a designer, so with that in mind i have the following proposition. If any of you guys are interested i am starting an umpireless / paperless H2H CM Operation using Panzer Campaigns Normandy '44 by Tiller software against a CM mate of mine and if we have more than two battles to fight i am going to "sub contract" any other battles out to whoever wants to play them, you will know nothing about the operational situation apart from the briefing that will be added to the CM battles by the respective CO's. What will happen is whenever there is a CM battle to be fought, i will make the map and whichever side is defending will create their forces and the set up zones then send the CM.btt file to the opposing CO who will add their forces, then a PBEM game is generated and uploaded to a boxnet folder for that particular battle, only the player and the CO will have access to it, however to maintain a level of realism and FOW the CO's of each side will not watch the battles fought by subordinates but communication about the battle to and from the CO via the discussion threads in the respective boxnet folders will be allowed. If anyone is interested could they send me a PM with a contact email address to set up the relevant boxnet folders when required. The current operational situation is this: Northwest of Caen, D+1, June 7th, 1944: The 3rd Canadian Infantry Division was ordered to expand their beachhead and push south toward Carpiquet. The Germans reacted by sending "Panzer" Meyer and his elite troops, the 12SS (Hitlerjugend) Panzer Division, into a breach in the lines. Meyer was ordered to "drive to the beaches" but much of the division was strung out and no coordinated attack could be made. From his perch at the Abbey Ardennes, he could plainly see elements of the Nova Scotia Highlanders, supported by armour, as they moved off toward the airport at Carpiquet. The Panzer Grenadiers held their fire and waited until the time was right. The first clash between these formations was a bloody one and the vicious nature of it set the tone between the SS and Canadians for the rest of the war. [size: Very Small; Length: 8 turns] At the moment the operation is at the Allied Movement Phase Turn 1, after that there will be two PzC rounds of long range fire using the PzC game for air strikes, artillery, guns and tanks then an assault round, the assault round is where CM comes in, after the CM battles the CO's will appy the combat effects to the operational units and then proceed to the Axis Movement Phase Turn 1 and so the cycle starts again until 8 turns are completed or one side drives the other from the operational map. A tutorial on the operational system we are using is at this link: https://sites.google.com/site/cmbnnormandy44conversion/ The tutorial is a work in progress but there is enough information on it to show how the operational unit relate to the CM units and how the set up zones will be applied. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejetset Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 +1 to the "Default Stating of best played as Allies, Germans, H2H". Also, +1 to what noob is promoting. I am currently participating in the beta version of his operation system. It shows great promise and is what it claims to be: a paperless Op system that two people can easily resolve on their own without an umpire! I think the natural evolution of playing combat mission is as follows: vs. AI >>> H2H with quick-battles >>> H2H with scenarios (hoping for un-balanced, unique scenarios) >>> H2H campaigns, where your actions in one battle effect the rest of the campaign and the 1's and 0's of pixletrupen have so so much more meaning!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 The scenarios with no guidelines listed can be played as either side vs the AI or head to head. In other words you can play it however you want to. As to the balance .... you aren't going to get an indicator of the level of balance that you are seeking from a module scenario on the day the module is released. That would require hundreds of play throughs by players who then record their results on some website that tracks scenario results. In other words "The Flowers of the Forest" was played 100 times and the British won 60% of the time. You are simply not going to get that level of balance accuracy right out of the box because there is just no way for the beta testers to run through a scenario head to head often enough to get the results that you seek. So, my advice would be to just grab a scenario, play it against someone, and let the chips fall where they may. Maybe you end up on the short end of an unbalanced scenario but at least you can make an effort to overcome the imbalance and score an improbable victory against an over confident opponent. If you lose - so what? Try to have a little fun. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 What you say about "measured balance" is true. But actually it's not what's being asked for. What's being asked for is much less: did the designer design the scenario with play balance in mind? Did they strive, at all, to ensure that each H2H side has an reasonable chance? This is not a given. Some designers couldn't care less about that, they are concerned with historical accuracy, or other considerations, like AI playabillity. That is why it is so important for designers to list this. Ironically, one of the people who "suffer" most from no listing it is the designer themself. Whether they like it or not, if you don't list it, some assumption is made that it's reasonably balanced, and criticism ensues if it turns out its not. GaJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umlaut Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 All true. But this leads to a plea to BFC: Please allow a little more characters in the scenario description. It is very hard to both give a brief description of the scenario and state whether it is best played H2H vs AI or both. I suspect this is one of the reasons many designers doesn´t state this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 What you say about "measured balance" is true. But actually it's not what's being asked for. What's being asked for is much less: did the designer design the scenario with play balance in mind? Did they strive, at all, to ensure that each H2H side has an reasonable chance? This is not a given. Some designers couldn't care less about that, they are concerned with historical accuracy, or other considerations, like AI playabillity. That is why it is so important for designers to list this. Ironically, one of the people who "suffer" most from no listing it is the designer themself. Whether they like it or not, if you don't list it, some assumption is made that it's reasonably balanced, and criticism ensues if it turns out its not. GaJ Even if the designer puts 'good for head to head play' in the subject line that doesn't mean it's going to be balanced for you and your preferred opponent. Some players play hyper aggressive. Some players play hyper cautious. So really, putting that in the subject line without extensive testing is just a guess by the designer. If you assume that just because a designer labels the scenario 'good for head to head' means perfectly balanced then you are making a huge assumption. The only way to be certain is through repeated playings, and like I said, there is no way the beta testers are going to be able to do that - especially considering that there is no TCP/IP We Go or Pausable Real Time. So I would say that listing a scenario as balanced for head to head play through guessing is going to lead to just as much criticism about the balance as saying that a scenario is good to play however you want to play it. If a scenario is designed such that it can be played vs the AI from either side, then there should be an assumption that there is 'some' level of balance for head to head play since the designer can't use the typical tricks (force stacking and terrain massaging) that scenarios designed specifically for "attacker vs AI only" can do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holien Posted March 10, 2012 Author Share Posted March 10, 2012 ASL I was not asking for "balance" and I agree that is always subjective until you get a meaningful sample. Just as a minimum say if H2H or Vs AI or both. Obviously some designers might think one side or the other might be stronger and if they said weaker player take X side, that would be good. But your point that if it does not say means it is good for everything is a cop out IMO. The way designs work, IMO, I doubt a scenario can be good for AI and H2H play at the same time. Maybe an odd one works out that way but it is a lot harder to design something for good AI play as to H2H play. So far I have avoided any scenarios without any guidance on H2H or AI play until I see it mentioned on forum from other players saying it was good for H2H. I have limited gaming time and I want to play the good scenarios for H2H. As for the extra text required in the description the use of the limited characters to say Allies or Germans vs AI or AI Both or H2H is not a great deal to ask? If I was looking to put a bit of polish on the product which did not cost anything I would ask that the Scenario Introduction has a consistent look and feel (for those released with the modules) as it is the initial shop window of the game and it can look a lot better IMO. It really is not a big point and if it does not happen no big deal but things look more professional if you have standard formats. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hilts Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 It would be useful if we could just have a brief description of the scenario and also it's size, precisely along the lines of what was available in CMAK/BB 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris69 Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 There was some discussion a while ago as to how this information could be conveyed to the player best. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=101894&page=2 The issue is not whether it is a balanced game to play the scenario H2H or as Axis/Allied, it's just to indicate if it is possible (i.e. AI plans exist for the respective opponent). If it isn't recommended, well, that's something that would fit perfectly in the description. The nuisance of having to double-check every scenario in the editor for AI plans is one that should be avoidable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holien Posted March 10, 2012 Author Share Posted March 10, 2012 Hi Chris69 if there could be some changes to the screen then fine, but I realise there is issues with coding resource. In the meantime Battlefront could just ensure before a module is released that this is covered off by issuing simple guidelines to the designers. I am hoping by raising this again we can get some consistency to help the players. Thanks for the link as I had missed that thread. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 ASL I was not asking for "balance" and I agree that is always subjective until you get a meaningful sample. Just as a minimum say if H2H or Vs AI or both. Obviously some designers might think one side or the other might be stronger and if they said weaker player take X side, that would be good. But your point that if it does not say means it is good for everything is a cop out IMO. The way designs work, IMO, I doubt a scenario can be good for AI and H2H play at the same time. Maybe an odd one works out that way but it is a lot harder to design something for good AI play as to H2H play. So far I have avoided any scenarios without any guidance on H2H or AI play until I see it mentioned on forum from other players saying it was good for H2H. I have limited gaming time and I want to play the good scenarios for H2H. As for the extra text required in the description the use of the limited characters to say Allies or Germans vs AI or AI Both or H2H is not a great deal to ask? If I was looking to put a bit of polish on the product which did not cost anything I would ask that the Scenario Introduction has a consistent look and feel (for those released with the modules) as it is the initial shop window of the game and it can look a lot better IMO. It really is not a big point and if it does not happen no big deal but things look more professional if you have standard formats. It's only a cop out if it's not true. Maybe there is a scenario designer out there who actually can make scenarios challenging for both the defender and the attacker. If you don't try any of them then you will never know. Why don't you try any of the scenarios that don't indicate which way is best to play and then play it once against the AI from both sides. Let us know how it goes. Otherwise you are just wasting our time speculating and pontificating. All it will cost you is a couple hours of gameplay - and possibly a 'ruined' scenario because you can't play it head to head now that you've played it once. Of course, since you aren't playing any of them anyway that shouldn't be much of a loss. At least you will know if you might be interested in some of the others rather than just trembling with fear that you will end up in an unbalanced head to head game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 There was some discussion a while ago as to how this information could be conveyed to the player best. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=101894&page=2 The issue is not whether it is a balanced game to play the scenario H2H or as Axis/Allied, it's just to indicate if it is possible (i.e. AI plans exist for the respective opponent). If it isn't recommended, well, that's something that would fit perfectly in the description. The nuisance of having to double-check every scenario in the editor for AI plans is one that should be avoidable. As far as I know, every scenario that comes with the CD has AI plans for both sides. Some plans are more challenging than others but that's going to be dependent upon the skill level of the designer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wadepm Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 I am waiting for true multiplayer, i.e. 3 on 2, 6 on 6, etc. I remember (maybe) hearing that somethng like that is being contemplated. What have you guys heard? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 I am waiting for true multiplayer, i.e. 3 on 2, 6 on 6, etc. I remember (maybe) hearing that somethng like that is being contemplated. What have you guys heard? Steve has mentioned Co Play in the past and I know that he is a very enthusiastic supporter of having a Co Play option in the game. The fact that it's not in there already (even with Steve being an enthusiastic supporter) should be an indication as to how difficult it would be to implement. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holien Posted March 10, 2012 Author Share Posted March 10, 2012 At least you will know if you might be interested in some of the others rather than just trembling with fear that you will end up in an unbalanced head to head game. Please read my post(s) more carefully. All I politely asked was for designers / battlefront to say if the scenario was H2H or AI play. Dead easy to do and not a massive problem if not done. Just means people will aim for scenarios that have specifically said AI or H2H. I said nothing about "Unbalanced" you seem to have gotten the wrong end of the stick and are being IMO a tad aggressive and belittling in your response. "Trembling with Fear" "just wasting our time speculating and pontificating" (the irony) If Designers don't want to put that info in then that is up to them but it would be helpful and then players can make informed choices. As for giving feed back on scenarios I have done that and there are some really good ones out there and I have given my view on ones that have been good to play and I hope others will do the same so we can focus our game time on what we personally enjoy, be that vs AI or H2H. Anyway I have made my point and there are others that have come up with good suggestions who feel the same, so I hope it might get adopted by some of the designers if not all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.