sburke Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Hey Stephen, You don't need to defend the scenario. It is a fact of forum life that folks will make judgements of everything under the sun before they actually have critical data. Let the suspense build and let them be surprised. . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rinaldi Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 (edited) More importantly I don't think Bil will complain; he's made of sterner stuff. Its a nail-biting scenario regardless, and its two evenly matched opponents. The scenario has made for good watching, for even better tank porn and has basically guaranteed my purchasing the game; so its done its job The Teacher! Edited December 30, 2014 by Rinaldi 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jargotn Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 I find it quite amusing that both Bill and Pnzrldr are scared of how Pnzrldrs reinforcements will arive on the map. That probably is what makes them good Cm players. I really like the setting of the scenario. Having a smaller force isolated within the objectives is something I can't say I have seen before. I really hope that we get more of those innovative scenarios in BS. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Teacher Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 I'm not defending the scenario, just keeping everyone that are interested where the scenario started and how it changed into the beasty pressure cooker it is now.As I said the map changed in size and I feel the larger version was better but a real frame rate killer on older machines.One day I break the master map out, say about 2018.cheersStephen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 Scenarios that were designed for the player to die valiantly in battle have a beauty all their own. If people were only into the game to win half the players would immediately quit after the first match. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leakyD Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 Scenarios that were designed for the player to die valiantly in battle have a beauty all their own. If people were only into the game to win half the players would immediately quit after the first match. Absolutely. Having your a$$ handed to you in CM is the best way to learn and appreciate the game. LEARNING is 1/2 the "fun" here! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Teacher Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Release the Kraken ! or Death by 300.000 paper cuts Both commanders have the guts and grit to win. Will Bil clear the objectives before Scott arrives with his main force or will Bil slow Scott down and clear the objective and force Scott into a slugging match with out destroying everything. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holien Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 What I find interesting is that people are focused on the vehicles and not the victory locations and points for those? I guess once I get the game I will see if really it is all about the vehicles? Surely if Bil can get his infantry into the buildings with minimal losses he stands a chance to win the scenario depending on the time PnzLdr then has left to dig him out? That is the next phase that will interest me in how modern tech deals with city fights? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Teacher Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I'm waiting to see how Bil handles the Power Station and if Scott placed enough defenders to hurt Bil's forces trying to gain control. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 What I find interesting is that people are focused on the vehicles... Seems to me that that has always been the case. People get more worked up over seeing tanks (other vehicles too, but mostly tanks) slug it out one to one, even though that was not the most common employment for tanks and certainly wasn't the most common battlefield event of the war. My guess is that they hunger for the kind of romantic drama that can also be found in the air to air combat of the First World War...at least as it is depicted in movies. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) From watching the the effects of vehicles being targeted by AT range finding laser (popping smoke - defensively reversing) in ChrisND's senario playthrough - Would mayhem happen in Real Life™ on a battlefield if every infantryman was equipped with a simple pocket laser pen able to shine at and inundate any armour threat? Edited January 3, 2015 by Wicky 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrzafka Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I think that a laser strong enough to illuminate a vehicle some distance away (say a kilometer or so) is probably larger than a pen. And modern laser warning systems can detect radiation pretty acurately and slew sensors to the source, so life expectancy for our little infantryman jester would be rather short. I don't see many candidates for this sort of practical joke. Though I can see your point, sort of overloading detection systems. If I remember correctly, during the Falklands war there were so many false warnings from radars and other systems that when when a real missile was launched by the Argentinians RN did not react. Perhaps on modern land battlefield, with two symmetrical opponents, similar problems might crop up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted January 3, 2015 Author Share Posted January 3, 2015 You could do it with a very small remote package. Or even just hang lasers of the appropriate frequency along the line of approach to your position. It certainly wouldn't do anything helpful for the other side. Give them the fake , fake, real, and fake again to really make it really unpleasant. I can envision one remotely fired Corsair missile for every twenty or so fake ones. It would make an approach march right miserable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jargotn Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Some kind of "Laser-mines"? Definitively an interesting concept. Activate a hidden laser behind enemy lines, watch the vehicle turn arround and fire your own missile. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) You could do it with a very small remote package. Or even just hang lasers of the appropriate frequency along the line of approach to your position. It certainly wouldn't do anything helpful for the other side. Give them the fake , fake, real, and fake again to really make it really unpleasant. I can envision one remotely fired Corsair missile for every twenty or so fake ones. It would make an approach march right miserable. Heh, heh. I like the way you think. Sneaky. Michael Edited January 3, 2015 by Michael Emrys 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I actually asked a similar question of folks more in the know on the subject. It arguably could be done, but would require something real, not the little laser I make my cat freak out with. You'd also have to aim that laser, just firing one off pointing into nowhere isn't going to get a reaction. Still an interesting concept that I would think would have to be worth some development cost. Remote control with camera. Aim laser, shoot. Tank freaks out. You'll lose the laser, but the potential benefits are pretty good. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted January 4, 2015 Author Share Posted January 4, 2015 (edited) Most units, most of the time move on roads. Given that a laser could potentially cover hundreds of meters of flat road, or several of the high spots on a sort of flat one it seems reasonably cost effective. The poor bloody infantry would get tired of trotting out a klick or two to check the contacts, especially if they got ambushed even very occasionally. Claymore+camera+ BFT connection equals a bad day for somebody. It would get old a LONG time before you got from the Ukrainian border to Kiev. Edited January 4, 2015 by dan/california 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted January 4, 2015 Author Share Posted January 4, 2015 I think you could get the cost in the ball park of a modern main gun round, so at worst it would be an even trade. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Teacher Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Modern warfare is hell, so many things to be aware of on the battlefield.Makes world war 2 stuff look real slow and almost non lethal.The ranges that the modern systems can take you under fire and get a good percentage of hits is scary. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted January 4, 2015 Author Share Posted January 4, 2015 If he gets real numbers of Javelins on that central hill Bill won't have to surrender, his pixeltruppen will do it for him. The ones that aren't dead in burning tracks that is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 You all may be right, in which case you can say, "I told you so." But I am not yet convinced that the conclusion is foregone. I haven't played the game (obviously), but my impression is that battles in this modern era are going to be less predictable on the small scale depicted by CM. The sheer lethality of practically any unit of a major power army means that the door is open to dramatic swings on the battlefield, and we may get to see some more if neither player throws in the towel early. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George MC Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Sorry but sadly Bil is toast. Those M1s will just roll in, shrug of any rpg shots and machine gun (iirc buildings might be preserve options) any Russian infantry sheltering in the buildings. Once Bil runs out of a/ T90s b/ anti tank assets nowt left to do but surrender. A company team with a plartoon of M1s and two platoons of BIFVs would have made for a more balanced challenge IMO. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macisle Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Perhaps a gentleman's agreement to keep a portion of the US force completely out of the engagement using terrain, cover arcs and hide? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holien Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Sorry but sadly Bil is toast. Those M1s will just roll in, shrug of any rpg shots and machine gun (iirc buildings might be preserve options) any Russian infantry sheltering in the buildings. Once Bil runs out of a/ T90s b/ anti tank assets nowt left to do but surrender. A company team with a plartoon of M1s and two platoons of BIFVs would have made for a more balanced challenge IMO. And this is why you are a Master in scenario design, you have great maps and a good feel for balance. Teacher this is not a swipe at you, although could be seen as one. Your map is great and the scenario premise is very good. Just a tweak on force composition can take it to an all time classic. It is good that the scenario is getting a good play test with plenty of feedback, which scenarios often do not get. Also I have seen you comment on how your design has been merged by other considerations. So please don't take these comments as a swipe as I am ever grateful to those who produce the scenario's. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holien Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Perhaps a gentleman's agreement to keep a portion of the US force completely out of the engagement using terrain, cover arcs and hide? Good idea, not sure if the players could easily do that? 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.