Mord Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Yes, I had to plot multiple individual waypoints for every single vehicle(!) and then give staggered pauses at the waypoints to avoid jams. This took an unacceptable amount of time as it has nothing to do with the GAME since it is an unopposed crossing. And even all of that was sometimes not enough to avoid jams. I find it strange that designers often want players to waste lot of time on unnecessary work before they get close to the battle. And as I said, one would not have processing power issues you mention if one didn't have to march an entire company for ONE HOUR unopposed thru woods to get close to an objective. I understand that this is your baby and you have put a lot of work into this. But when you ask for feedback you should be prepared to consider the comments. not just get respond as if you have already decided the scenario is perfect and you don't want to consider any alternative viewpoint. If you didn't bitch or have a passive aggressive comment for just about everything anybody here ever does, designers might be apt to consider your viewpoint more openly. You are one of the most demanding dudes on this board. Everything with you is "work"...CMX2 is work...the scenario is work...loading mods is work. Thing is, you aren't doing any work...you are benefiting from the WORK other people do...and apparently nobody can do any of it well enough to satisfy you. It gets f*****' old. Mord. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadsword56 Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Let's get real here, folks... If you don't like massive scenarios/maps, that's fine and you don't need to play them. But if you say you like and want massive scenarios, then the reality of having them in CM means you're going to do a LOT of order-clicking. Because it's a tactical game being stretched to simulate a much larger action. At some point, the gain in scale and scope will be outweighed by the management burden, and a battle can become unplayable. A massive force is going to need a big map. And the play value of a massive battle isn't going to be very good unless the forces have some room to maneuver and use alternate approaches/strategies. That means quite a bit of time will have to pass before the real lead starts to fly. To be sure, many players (myself included) enjoy the recon battle, the artillery prep, the cat-and-mouse aspect of the initial phases, and just plain gawking at the troops as they move over the CM terrain. So it's a tradeoff. But to say one prefers "huge" scenarios, and then complain about the work it takes to play them, just makes no sense to me. It amazes me that these huge scenarios are possible now in 2.0, with every individual soldier on the map. CMBN never seemed up to the task, but CMFI seems to be able to handle it (in my limited experience so far). But there's always a price to pay for that. There are ways to alleviate the pain -- for example, don't split your squads until they're in or near enemy contact. Use group orders. On my Tunisia scenario/map (WIP) the terrain is so open that it's easy to just issue group move orders by platoon/company, at least on the moves to contact. In 2.0, having draggable waypoints makes group orders even more useful because now we can tweak some individual vehicle paths without re-doing the whole sequence. Infantry is more of a PITA because to have them move in coordination with AFVs, the AFVs need to move on SLOW while the infantry uses QUICK. But they'll tire unless they take pauses. So one has to manually insert a 5 sec pause at every waypoint for every unit to keep the fatigue level reasonable. Big hassle, and we have no way around that. And yet... I'm surprised at how playable this still can be -- because once I issue all those initial stacked orders, the troops keep moving and I don't always have to issue new orders to everyone every turn. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Guys, designers... you put out scenarios and you bitch that no one downloads them or plays them.. You plead for feedback... Ok, so I am one of the VERY FEW players here who actually THANKS designers for all their work, AND spends 4-6 hours a day playing CM2, testing out your scenarios and campaigns in order to write down detailed feedback for you. Suddenly you don't like the feedback. You argue with the person you just asked for feedback from. If you don't want to hear any feedback that disagrees with your conviction that everything you have done is perfect, then I suggest that you say you don't want to have your work critiqued, you just want to be worshipped. I was a professional writer for many years and ALL one receives is criticism of one's work. One learns to be mature enuff to understand that it's meant to be helpful, or you are forced out of the business cos nobody can stand that sort of childish attitude "that my work cannot be improved". No worries, I don't need to bother to take the time and trouble to play your scenarios so you can get detailed feedback, and you'll have to rely on... Hmm... who else...? I guess we'll see... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Yeeahhh, but this: Yes, I had to plot multiple individual waypoints for every single vehicle(!) and then give staggered pauses at the waypoints to avoid jams. This took an unacceptable amount of time as it has nothing to do with the GAME since it is an unopposed crossing. And even all of that was sometimes not enough to avoid jams. strikes me as more of a game engine complaint than a scenario design complaint. As others have mentioned, lots of units on a big map means playing traffic cop unless everyone is going to begin the scenario almost in contact with the enemy. But in that case what's the point of having a big map? Stuff a battalion on a 800x800 map and your traffic issues disappear because there is nowhere to go. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Guys, designers... you put out scenarios and you bitch that no one downloads them or plays them.. You plead for feedback... Ok, so I am one of the VERY FEW players here who actually THANKS designers for all their work, AND spends 4-6 hours a day playing CM2, testing out your scenarios and campaigns in order to write down detailed feedback for you. Suddenly you don't like the feedback. You argue with the person you just asked for feedback from. If you don't want to hear any feedback that disagrees with your conviction that everything you have done is perfect, then I suggest that you say you don't want to have your work critiqued, you just want to be worshipped. I was a professional writer for many years and ALL one receives is criticism of one's work. One learns to be mature enuff to understand that it's meant to be helpful, or you are forced out of the business cos nobody can stand that sort of childish attitude "that my work cannot be improved". No worries, I don't need to bother to take the time and trouble to play your scenarios so you can get detailed feedback, and you'll have to rely on... Hmm... who else...? I guess we'll see... umm, he didn't argue with you. He simply provided you with more detail so you could understand his rationale. You were the one to get all upset that maybe your position wasn't immediately accepted. Pandur's response was polite and inviting discussion. Yours was a slap. Your feedback is your opinion. Pandur needs more than just one person's opinion before he knows what might make sense to tweak. Case in point, I had all the armor vehicles across the Kall in under 15 minutes. If it took you 35-40 Pandur is correct, you need to work on traffic management. It is a fair statement and very few if any of us can't say we have stuff to learn. Hell I have so many things I need improvement on in this game I wouldn't even know where to start making a list. I don't think it is Pandur who needs to work on his, as you put it "childish attitude". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 And this: "All I can say is wow. That takes some serious brass to say while pleading with others to create work for you to your design specs" "If you didn't bitch or have a passive aggressive comment for just about everything anybody here ever does, designers might be apt to consider your viewpoint more openly. You are one of the most demanding dudes on this board. Everything with you is "work"...CMX2 is work...the scenario is work...loading mods is work. Thing is, you aren't doing any work...you are benefiting from the WORK other people do...and apparently nobody can do any of it well enough to satisfy you. It gets f*****' old." I bet I play more CM2 than you guys put together. But, I am thrilled to be released from what I considered a moral imperative to make an effort playing or giving feedback on your scenarios since you had gone to the effort to make em. Maybe it's time you play em yourselves and then you can pat each other on the back as much as you like. I will be fascinated to read your detailed and most assuredly more accurate feedback on the games I have reported on that have upset you so much and am confident that your comments will be appearing shortly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandur Posted October 4, 2012 Author Share Posted October 4, 2012 hey guys, dont get all worked up here i know erwin´s feedback is a bit onesided, in fact it can look like a whole lot of bitching but he is trying to be helpfull,...i guess. he made his point about what he does not like about the scenario and i tried to give him the reasons and motivations i had for doing things the way i did. maybe he really like this scenario so far and is overly critical because of that, as we all are sometimes with CMx2 as a whole(i could bitch about the missing TCP/IP WEGO with! replay all day long if i wouldnt have given up long ago :mad: ). i am glad you guys bring some other perspectives into the thread that do not look as grim as erwin´s, however everyone of us lives in a different world or better said has a different perception of it. so when lots of stuff is "work" for erwin but not for most others we can not simply deny that it can be work for "him", he sees it that way. thats why i was not getting fed up with erwin, although he is relentless in his pursuit erwin, maybe you can stop riding around on the points you already made and i already accepted. i am sorry but i will not make a "KG Himmelfahrt; Erwin´s Edition" of the scenario that spawns you at the objectives. you wrote before you have action in Kommerscheidt, so you have the drag almost behind you? 1st Co should be near Froitscheid now or not? You makeing progress? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 you're a good man Pandur. A better man than me I think. Sorry to derail your thread. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 For the record, Erwin has been one of my most reliable playtesters and I greatly appreciate the feedback he's given, even if I don't accept all of it either. As to bedside manner, he's not the only guy who can get a bit cranky on this board. Let's all follow Pandur (the thread owner) and stand down. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 That's actually very nice of you Pandur as I DO really like your scenario and I WAS starting to really enjoy it - after I slogged through the first 30-40 minutes - which I believed unnecessary for the reasons stated above. imo the your scenario would be much improved if it started about 30 minutes later when one has maybe 15 or so minutes remaining of maneuver before one makes contact. But, my opinion is based solely on what I think makes for a fun and enetertaining game, and I couldn't care less about the traffic cop challenges of getting 3 companies across a completely undefended bridge and river. Once you've played one of those types of scenarios, you've played em all. What amazes me is the response from people who are not even the scenario designer(!) and who apparently can't even be bothered to play the scenario themselves. I am honestly hoping and assuming that SBURKE, MORD, and VANIR (and anyone else who doesn't like my feedback) will now step in and show me (and all of us) us all how it should be done. If you're going to start dumping on people and discouraging players from helping other designers who ASKED for feedback, then surely it is only reasonable that the "dumpers" take on the responsibility of stepping in and helping Pandur with better quality feedback themelves. I am sure that Pandur would appreciate the much more professional and erudite feedback comments from SBURKE, MORD, and VANIR. And I would too as I not too proud to always learn from people more accomplished and professional than myself. So SBURKE, MORD, and VANIR, I eagerly await your first instalment of your feedback. I am just curious... will you post after every 30 minutes of play, or after you have completed the full 4 hours? Or, do you have some other method? Once we read your own assessment of the scenario, we will all be able to make a more informed judgement as to whether this scenario is worth playing. So, thank you for stepping in and releasing me to go play other designer's scenarios who have also asked for feedback - I am particularly intrigued by the Pacific Front Makin scenario. I didn't think I was going to be able to get to that for weeks. But, your kind actions will now allow me to look at it right away. So, all in all... it's a win-win for Pandur to have SBURKE, MORD, and VANIR help him now, and a win-win-win for you 3 to finally show us all how a really good feedback looks like. Everyone is happy, and what a wonderful resolution to the matter. And please don't feel that I will no longer pay attention to Pandur's scenario and your feedback. I promise to check in from time to time to see how you guys are getting on... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Speaking from ignorance is generally a bad idea. I have in fact started playing as my previous comment had noted and I have provided additional feedback to Pandur via PM. That is likely where I will continue to provide it as I'd really rather not continue to feed this ridiculously childish tirade. The question isn't one of how or what kind of feedback one gives, only Pandur can speak to what is helpful in reviewing his design. The question was always one of the civility displayed in that feedback. Sorry Pandur as I had really not planned on further disrupting your thread, but I am not very accepting of snide backhanded insults. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 ....umm, I'd playtest for you too Pandur if my CM were working. Trying to get an ubergeek friend to see of my motherboard can be saved. *Sob!* Can't We All Just Get Along? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 The nice thing about having one's umpteenth meeting of the year at work over the same old topics , same old issues and undelivered deliverables is you have a lot of time to think over other crap. The point of that was I had a lot of time to think today over the dust up on this thread, LLF's plea for us to behave and my own contribution to this. First of all to repeat to you again, but publicly, my apologies Pandur for disrupting what is rightfully your space to handle feedback. My contribution was not only unhelpful, but also started the complete derailing of the thread. Secondly I'd like to apologize to Erwin. Whatever I may have thought about your reply, mine was no better. Worse in fact in that it wasn't even germaine to the thread. You are right, I am not the scenario designer and it was Pandur's place to determine how he felt about the feedback. In addition it is no less a hissy fit on my part to only provide my feedback to Pander via PM. I'd also like to apologize to the scenario designers and forum participants in general as this is not the kind of behavior that we should see here and I think I simply made things worse for designers looking for feedback while reducing the comfort level of those who would have considered providing some. It was not one of my better moments. In hopes of making up for that I'd like to take a step back and perhaps provide the response I should have originally. Hopefully it will contribute to getting this back to where it should have been. This by no means is meant to be a "correct" way to provide feedback nor are the suggestions necessarily good ones. They are however meant to be a different way to look at the issues and an attempt to not simply say what I do or don't like, but alternate ways of looking at aspects of the scenario. These are also not necessarily the suggestions I would make as I need to play through the full scenario to understand their impact. They are just general ideas and examples of alternative suggestions. Erwin made a couple of points that I have been mulling over. The primary one had to do with the actual crossing. It is too early for me to say whether I think it should or shouldn't be there, but the issue that bothered me was why was it taking Erwin almost 3x as long to get his vehicles across the Kall. He is by no means a new player and I have no secret recipe about it. So I started thinking about the mechanics of the crossing and it occurred to me it might simply be the bridge. I don't know that this is the case and Erwin go ahead and correct me, however I think my reasoning would apply for a new player regardless of whether it is true for Erwin. The bridge is a distraction. They are notorious for pathing issues and the ford has easily twice the thoughput. I only sent a few vehicles across the bridge and instead concentrated on shoving them through the ford. Fewer pathing issues, it can handle 2 vehicles at once etc. I would consider eliminating the bridge and replacing it with a second ford. Second item was finding the ford itself. Simple enough once you find it, but I know the map really well. Seeing any water at all was a dead giveaway. For someone who doesn't know it, I would consider simply adding a text location for "the ford". Last item was the trek for the initial company over to Froitsheid. First off it might add to the map and a player's orientation to have a path from Froitscheid to the Kall, mark it again as a location. You could also consider having it provide enough room to move a vehicle on. Get rid of the 1st Company halftrack carriers and replace them with a handful of trucks for resupply. Allow the trucks to be placed on the opposite side of the Kall so they can negotiate the path. Any follow on reinforcements would not have that option so you don't risk someone shoving all their armor through there. You could even make it muddy so they have the possibility of bogging and screwing the whole pooch. They'd still be there for resupply, but it'd be a lot more effort and time. Erwin also raised the possibility of other engagements. Again this is all hypothetical as you'd already noted the timing issues and this may not fit at all, but there are a few options. A couple mines in the woods, an OP/MG position or two and a TRP that calls down some harassing mortar fire, not too heavy but enough for flavor and some disruption might peak the player's interest (and have them bitching at you.) Anyway those are some intial thoughts. I hope that I have helped throw a little water on the fire and moved the gas can away (yes I know water on a gasoline fire is a bad idea). Again my apologies to everyone for being a putz. Once I get through the scenario I'll provide some more substantive feedback. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Hey SB - good apology, full marks thumbs up. GaJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 <snip> The primary one had to do with the actual crossing. It is too early for me to say whether I think it should or shouldn't be there, but the issue that bothered me was why was it taking Erwin almost 3x as long to get his vehicles across the Kall. He is by no means a new player and I have no secret recipe about it. So I started thinking about the mechanics of the crossing and it occurred to me it might simply be the bridge. I don't know that this is the case and Erwin go ahead and correct me, however I think my reasoning would apply for a new player regardless of whether it is true for Erwin. The bridge is a distraction. They are notorious for pathing issues and the ford has easily twice the thoughput. I only sent a few vehicles across the bridge and instead concentrated on shoving them through the ford. Fewer pathing issues, it can handle 2 vehicles at once etc. I would consider eliminating the bridge and replacing it with a second ford.<snip> Interesting discussion of using fords. I am very cautious about using fords. They pose a risk. If there is a bridge and a ford that can serve the same purpose I will use the bridge and ignore the ford - every time. I am a ford user when opportunity arises. They can be great to allow forces to attack from unexpected directions. But they are not without risk. The chances of loosing vehicles to bogging are much higher in a ford. So if the risk is worth it I'll use the ford. In this case where a ford and a bridge offer the same or similar crossing I would not put a single vehicle in the ford. Why risk it? As for traffic jams there are techniques to manage traffic but lets face it, the player has to manage a lot of stuff to keep the traffic flowing. I would appreciate some helpful commands (some kind of convoy follow command) to make this work better. But I am not holding my breath for that. From the earlier comments it struck me that the issue is for the particular scenario having an unopposed river crossing is just creating traffic management issues for no particular reason. Which begs the question why have the river and the bridge at all them? Note: I have not tried this scenario so my comments are simply referring to my impressions of the earlier discussion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Interesting discussion of using fords. I am very cautious about using fords. They pose a risk. If there is a bridge and a ford that can serve the same purpose I will use the bridge and ignore the ford - every time. I am a ford user when opportunity arises. They can be great to allow forces to attack from unexpected directions. But they are not without risk. The chances of loosing vehicles to bogging are much higher in a ford. So if the risk is worth it I'll use the ford. Question - Is it the ford itself or the terrain that is used for the entry/exit that causes the bogging? I didn't off hand count the number of vehicles, but Pandur starts you out with a sizable force. Off the top of my head there must be over 50 vehicles as of 30 minutes in all of which have to make the crossing. I had nothing even hint at bogging. Not to say they wouldn't just wondering if it is the ford itself or not. I have had vehicles bog in other scenarios but the ground conditions in those were specifically set for it, I am not sure it was the ford itself. The alternative could simply be to replace the ford tile with regular dirt terrain. It probably wouldn't stand out that much (again the rest of the Kall river has no actual water tiles) and as long as it is marked wouldn't be difficult to find. From the earlier comments it struck me that the issue is for the particular scenario having an unopposed river crossing is just creating traffic management issues for no particular reason. Which begs the question why have the river and the bridge at all them? Note: I have not tried this scenario so my comments are simply referring to my impressions of the earlier discussion. The simple answer is it is a pre exisiting map. Yeah not really a good answer. The one factor that hasn't been discussed about the ford and the time that Pandur has designed into the beginning that is important is, if you set the stituation that contact will be initiated too quickly it lowers player flexibility. As it stands I am now in pretty solid contact with an enemy force at the stream near Froitscheidt. I decided to retain the halftracks and circle around below the hill crest to give myself more speed and retain the halftracks closer to my units if I need resupply or to reposition. At the moment I am wishing I had proceeded a little more slowly. My 1st platoon of 1st Company in it's recon of the stream precipitated a firefight with an enemy force they were not prepared to take on yet. So far the ford crossing itself has made very little impression on me other than it does force you to slow down your deployment a bit. Not a bad thing in a scenario this size. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Firstly, it's critical that Pandur not be penalized by other players reading the preceding posts and thinking his "KG Himmelfahrt" scenario is not worth playing. I have played only one hour of it so far, but this scenario has the potential for being a very good, challenging and entertaining scenario, (and becoming a personal favorite). It may not be big compared to CM1 scenarios, but "KG Himmelfahrt" is large by CM2 standards and I applaud Pandur for going to the considerable time and trouble of creating a large battalion-sized attack scenario with interesting objectives. And as I mentioned b4, sburke deserves thanks and credit for designing such a terrific map. I urge anyone interested in larger CM2 engagements to try Pandur's "KG Himmelfahrt" scenario. You will not be disappointed. I appreciate your apology, sburke. It takes a lot of cojones, cohones...? ah wtf... balls to do that. Thank you. FYI: I write very abbreviated. I don't intend to make my posts sound snitty. I am simply used to writing very fast and very directly to the point due to time constraints. I was fully prepared to haunt you, Vanir and Mord to the end of days about getting the discussed feedback from you, so you have saved me (us?) a LOT of trouble. Thank you again. I hope we can have a fresh start. And yes, I think the points you raise above are good. I tried to use the bridge for the first 2 companies as I figured that's what a RL CO would do rather than risk immobilizations in a ford. However, I gave up and used the ford for Co 3 and there were no bogging issues at all. Your other ideas to mitigate Co 1's pointless hour-long trudge through undefended woods also have merit. I can only presume that we haven't heard anything more from Vanir and Mord as they are deeply involved in playing "KG Himmelfahrt" in order to help Pandur out with their feedback lol. Now I have to figure out if go back to "KG Himmelfahrt" and po LLF since I promised him that I'd play his very impressive-looking Pacific War Makin Island invasion scenario, or start his Makin Island and leave "Himmelfahrt" hanging. Man... strategic executive level decisions are exhausting! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Firstly, it's critical that Pandur not be penalized by other players reading the preceding posts and thinking his "KG Himmelfahrt" scenario is not worth playing. I have played only one hour of it so far, but this scenario has the potential for being a very good, challenging and entertaining scenario, (and becoming a personal favorite). It may not be big compared to CM1 scenarios, but "KG Himmelfahrt" is large by CM2 standards and I applaud Pandur for going to the considerable time and trouble of creating a large battalion-sized attack scenario with interesting objectives. And as I mentioned b4, sburke deserves thanks and credit for designing such a terrific map. I urge anyone interested in larger CM2 engagements to try Pandur's "KG Himmelfahrt" scenario. You will not be disappointed. I appreciate your apology, sburke. It takes a lot of cojones, cohones...? ah wtf... balls to do that. Thank you. FYI: I write very abbreviated. I don't intend to make my posts sound snitty. I am simply used to writing very fast and very directly to the point due to time constraints. I was fully prepared to haunt you, Vanir and Mord to the end of days about getting the discussed feedback from you, so you have saved me (us?) a LOT of trouble. Thank you again. I hope we can have a fresh start. And yes, I think the points you raise above are good. I tried to use the bridge for the first 2 companies as I figured that's what a RL CO would do rather than risk immobilizations in a ford. However, I gave up and used the ford for Co 3 and there were no bogging issues at all. Your other ideas to mitigate Co 1's pointless hour-long trudge through undefended woods also have merit. I can only presume that we haven't heard anything more from Vanir and Mord as they are deeply involved in playing "KG Himmelfahrt" in order to help Pandur out with their feedback lol. Now I have to figure out if go back to "KG Himmelfahrt" and po LLF since I promised him that I'd play his very impressive-looking Pacific War Makin Island invasion scenario, or start his Makin Island and leave "Himmelfahrt" hanging. Man... strategic executive level decisions are exhausting! Thanks Erwin, group hug! LOL Seriously I have been a regular contributor to this forum now for about 2 years (despite my join date) and have only been a PBEM player since my first game with Broadsword56 just over a year ago. This space means a lot to me and how does the saying go "don't s**t where you live"? As to the scenario, yeah it is still early but so far it looks pretty good. I expect I will be cursing Pandur soon if my present practice of stumbling into defensive positions continues. Makin and Tunisia are both on my hit list as well. I loaded a new instance of CMBN for Makin just to not have to worry about the mods on my other gaming. Then I also want to try my hand at a Monte Cassino map (the town, not the monastery) based on some map ideas Pete Wenman displayed in his ruins in Shadow of the Hill. Damn there is never enough time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Question - Is it the ford itself or the terrain that is used for the entry/exit that causes the bogging? I didn't off hand count the number of vehicles, but Pandur starts you out with a sizable force. Off the top of my head there must be over 50 vehicles as of 30 minutes in all of which have to make the crossing. I had nothing even hint at bogging. <snip> I have had both happen - in the ford and at the edges. In Huzar I lost a sizable chunk of my flanking force to a ford (5 vehicles mix of tanks and HTs) one on entry tile one one exit tile and others in the middle. In a QB a while back I lost a tank in the middle of the ford. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerner Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Then I also want to try my hand at a Monte Cassino map (the town, not the monastery) based on some map ideas Pete Wenman displayed in his ruins in Shadow of the Hill. Damn there is never enough time. I already started one, sburke. Actually got quite a ways done last year in CMBN, but gave up--walls, roads, flavor objects were all PITA. But with CMFI editor improvements, I decided to start over. I re-oriented the map so the Monastery is north. It's about 3000m x 2200m, which takes in the monastery (come on, man, gotta have the Monastery for ambience!) past the town the south/east/southeast, and from a ways north of town to past the train depot. I want to build a Maori attack scenario, eventually. I have the road up Monte Cassino and the outer wall done, with a couple of the town boundary roads put in. This is going to take a while, and RL has done some recent kicking of the this forumite's ass, but I plan to keep chugging away here and then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 I can only presume that we haven't heard anything more from Vanir and Mord as they are deeply involved in playing "KG Himmelfahrt" in order to help Pandur out with their feedback lol. Ha ha. I am in fact playing it, but real world issues have reduced my time commitment for the moment. Some of us have jobs, you know. As for the bridge crossing, I don't see any reason why there should be an unwritten rule that all bridge crossings must be contested. One of the benefits of a huge map is that you can't guess where the enemy is. When you see a map this size you can guess that sections of it will be uninhabited, you just don't know which sections. I like that. Make the player do some real recon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 I would consider simply adding a text location for "the ford". ... Last item was the trek for the initial company over to Froitsheid. First off it might add to the map and a player's orientation to have a path from Froitscheid to the Kall, mark it again as a location. I like landmarks, and I think it's something that should be used a LOT more than they are. They're really helpful for orienting the player to the scenario via the briefing, and they also provide mental keystones when you get a turn; "ah, that's right 1 platoon is moving towards 'The Nook', while the rest on the company provides covering fire from the area of 'Route 66'", rather than "um, I think I had 1 platoon moving towards that nondescript piece of ground, while the rest on the company did ... something ... uh, somewhere?" They're also REALLY useful when describing the scenario to anybody else, either in a public AAR or your opponent during or after the battle. But particular pieces of ground - like the ford or the path through the woods in Pandur's scenario - might be subject to FOW, and you might not want to put a big Location Flag flying over them, drawing attention. What you can do then is make use of any un-needed victory locations, and mark 'The Nook' and 'Route 66' as TOUCH objectives, worth zero (0) points. The text will stay flying overhead even once touched, the player won't be tempted to garrison the worthless location after they've 'touched' it, and even if they don't it doesn't matter because it isn't worth anything. Oh, and the opposing player can't see it. Win! tl;dr: 1) mark the stuff you'd expect to find on a 1:50k map as locations. 2) mark the stuff you'd only find marked in chinagraph on a talc overlay at company HQ as an objective worth zero points. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFF Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 I bet I play more CM2 than you guys put together. But, I am thrilled to be released from what I considered a moral imperative to make an effort playing or giving feedback on your scenarios since you had gone to the effort to make em. You take this stuff way too seriously. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 I already started one, sburke. Actually got quite a ways done last year in CMBN, but gave up--walls, roads, flavor objects were all PITA. But with CMFI editor improvements, I decided to start over. I re-oriented the map so the Monastery is north. It's about 3000m x 2200m, which takes in the monastery (come on, man, gotta have the Monastery for ambience!) past the town the south/east/southeast, and from a ways north of town to past the train depot. I want to build a Maori attack scenario, eventually. I have the road up Monte Cassino and the outer wall done, with a couple of the town boundary roads put in. This is going to take a while, and RL has done some recent kicking of the this forumite's ass, but I plan to keep chugging away here and then. Yeah including the monastery is one big project and map. The only reason I selected that town was it had been utterly destroyed. I wanted to try out some things I learned from one of Pete's maps and to do it to the extent I was thinking took something that had been pummeled. Cassino seemed ideal simply cause it fit the bill for the state of destruction, and it was fought over extensively. Aachen was another option, but not quite the same scale of destruction and it takes place using CMFI which has better map making tools. ;-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 You take this stuff way too seriously. Spritz! Spritz! Spritz! [spray bottle] Bad dog! PS Erwin - no rush on Makin. I can't make changes anyway right now. Finish what you got going here... as long as it's fun 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.