Jump to content

Question for scenario designers


Lt Bull

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

I have been tinkering with the idea of designing a CM scenario.  I am all for creative scenario design and there is a concept to scenario design that I am considering that I am sure I have never encountered or seen in any CM scenario I have come across.  

 

I recently learnt about the three types of "Unit Objective" tags that can be assigned to a unit or group of units.  Of the three types, Destroy, Destroy All and Spot, I realised that the Spot type may have the potential to add a gameplay dynamic that I have not yet seen or been aware of in any CM scenario and one that I first saw way back in the day while playing Sid Meier's Gettysburg and hardly/possibly never ever since.

 

This mechanic I am talking about is "Optional Reinforcements" or "releasing" reinforcements. Essentially during a battle that is typically fought over VLs, a player can make a decision to use units (or reinforcements) that COST VPs (or give VPs to the opponent) to use. I have always thought that doing the most with the least is a good measure of a commander and exploring just how far they would be prepared to let a battle run before feeling compelled to resort to help from reinforcements that come at a price would present players with quite a dilemma.

 

Giving a player or players the option within a scenario to use units that are "optional" within a battle I think adds a new dimension to any battle beyond just moving units about on the battlefield.

 

I believe this mechanic could be implemented by using the Unit Objective/Spot tag on the units to be designated as "optional reinforcements".  These units would not form the core units for the player but are essentially "optional" units the player may choose to use, or more correctly reveal to the enemy.

 

This could be implemented in a number of ways.  The units could already be on the map at the start of the game to be deployed where ever the play cares to place them knowing full well the implications of what revealing them to the enemy will "cost" him.  A confident player may place them well behind the front lines out of sight and literally in reserve probably with no intention to use them, unless things really start going pear-shaped.  The map of course would have to support this possibility.

 

A variation of this might involve units appearing as regular reinforcements at some point in the battle assigned with the Unit Objective/Spot tag that would give the enemy VPs if they are ever spotted/used in battle.

 

I haven't delved too much in to this next part of the scenario editor so not sure it can work and but the mechanic I have seen in scenarios before of course. There may be scope to use the "Exit" points on the edge of the map for players to "cash in" their units for VPs, effectively reducing their force to a level they believe would leave them enough units to battle for and capture VLs.  Not sure if it is possible but if possible, the Exit points could just be used as a "safe" way for a player to remove optional reinforcements from the map so they have no chance of being "spotted".  In this way, a player could easily "send back"/deny using early arriving reinforcements that they decide are not required or worth using for the VPs they would cost him

 

Actually in the game I first saw this mechanic/concept in, Sid Meier's Gettysburg, the "cost" in VPs for deploying the "frozen" in play reinforcements actually decreased the longer the battle went on, to a point where they might actually automatically be released at no cost.  This presented the player with the dilemma of possibly achieving some kind of early tactical/strategic advantage by releasing the frozen reinforcements early that would hopefully out weigh the cost of releasing the units.  It could be possible in CM to however present the player with "bunches" of reinforcements that arrive at intervals throughout the battle on the map at some location away from enemy eyes.  The early reinforcements would be assigned HIGH VP Spot values whereas the ones arriving later  would have less or no VP Spot values.

 

At each stage it would present the player with essentially very real tactical/strategic evaluations of the current battlefield situation and make a call on how to best proceed to attain ultimate victory. eg.  A player may choose to not use the optional reinforcements (save VPs) and try to compel their opponent to perhaps commit theirs and thus be in a position to be outnumbered but also in to a defensive "winning" position.  Then again, a player may instead decide to release all their optional reinforcements and expect to wipe the enemy from the battlefield.  So many possibilities.

 

I think playing around with these concepts might make for some very compelling scenario designs.  The scenario designer would need to keep a good handle of how the player decisions ultimately affect the 

 

Has this concept of using the Unit Objective/Spot tag as a means of implementing an "optional reinforcement" mechanic that "costs VPs" been used in any scenario before?  If so which ones?

 

I should also add that this concept only works for human players.  I would expect a whole new bunch of AI code to exist if we were ever to expect the AI to make intelligent decisions on such critical things like if and when to decide on "releasing reinforcements" that cost VPs. I believe game design possibilities are set free when unchained from the burden of then trying to code a CPU opponent to intelligently understand the consequences of decisions that otherwise challenge and entertain human players.

Edited by Lt Bull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mostly skimmed your post so if I misunderstood something let me know.  I think the spot mechanic could work in the way that you want it to but keep in mind that the opposing force would gain points rather than the side using the optional troops losing points and so that makes the overall victory point calculation tricky since the points you are allocating to the other side for 'spotting' the optional force are unavailable to them.  That would make the VP total for each side unbalanced unless and until the optional force is deployed.  In other words, the side with the optional force has a baked in VP advantage.  Maybe that's what you want to do, but even so getting that to work out right might be tricky to pull off. 

 

The other part of that, the Exit locations, is also a bit tricky because you can't designate only certain units as 'eligible for exit' as you could with CMx1.  In CMx2 ALL units are affected by the Exit location in that ALL units that have a VP attached to them for the other side must exit or the opposing side would gain their 'destroy' value.  Thinking about it more, I'm not actually sure that the 'spot' VP units would have any effect at all on the Exit VP since I think Exit VPs are only assigned for Destroy type of VPs and so the player could exit the entire SPOT force and the opposing force would still gain all the destroy VPs for any other units the player left on the map.  So in other words, the Exit condition would function the exact opposite of your intention because the player would need to exit everyone except the 'spot' force in order to avoid giving VPs to the enemy.  That would then essentially force the player to use the SPOT force and withdraw everyone else, unless nobody else had Destroy type VPs assigned to them.

 

Incidentally JonS uses the Spot VPs a lot in some campaign scenarios that he made so they do exist, but yeah, they are pretty rare because the circumstances for normal use of SPOT VPs is pretty restricted.  Using the Exit VPs is very tricky to pull off the way they are set up now so while you could probably pull off what I think you want to do it would be very difficult to make it come out so that the actual victory result matched the player's expectation of what that player earned.  It would take a lot of trial and error.

Edited by ASL Veteran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course introducing this "mechanic"/concept in to a scenario would require the scenario designer to have a good handle on all the possible outcomes and decide whether they are fair/balanced and allocate the VPs to the different objectives accordingly.  A scenario designer does this anyway but this concept makes it a little more involved/tricky.

 

Unlike the game I first saw this concept in, CM does not reveal to any players what the current VP situation is at any other point in the game besides at the game ending AAR screen., which makes things a bit trickier for the player.  In a scenario that features this "optional reinforcement" mechanic, the respective players would need to at lest have a conscious idea for what the balance of points would roughly be.  I guess players do that anyway but here it is somewhat more important to the player deciding to commit the optional reinforcements/reserves at the "price" they are set at.

 

However I think the overall concept of what I am suggesting from a CM perspective is fundamentally sound, though a scenario designer would need to put in more effort and consideration to ensure the VP maths turns out right and reasonable.

 

Remind yourself what this mechanic/concept is trying to simulate.  I guess it is simulating a battlefield commanders decision to decide whether or not to deploy/commit "reserve units" that could turn turn the tide of battle in their favour despite the fact that higher command now has now lost it's (only?) uncommitted reserves that were intended to be used elsewhere or for some other reason.  Forcing an enemy to commit units essentially is a "win" and hence the rational that it makes sense that the opposing player gets "bonus" VPs should a player "release" their reserve units.

 

So essentially the commander would be thinking "If I don't use the reserves, I will most likely lose or draw the battle.  If I commit the reserves I at least might have a better chance of victory, but also risk a much heavier defeat should I fail."

 

I guess it is kind of like adding almost an "operational" dimension/feel to a scenario, where players can call on "outside help" at a cost.  It also kind of simulates an "escalation" in the battle or upping the ante, even a last roll of the dice.

 

If designed correctly, a CM scenario could play out very differently depending on the personalities and progress of the battle.  A battle could progress without any "escalation" or any players calling on the reserves.  The same scenario however could however blow out in to a much bigger battle as one or both players commit reserves in a desperate attempt to turn the battle.  Situations could occur where a player may realise that perhaps his opponent has committed his reserves.  He then has to decide whether to follow suit and basically "negate the troop advantage" his opponent may have or just hang tough and weather the storm.

 

I have only started to look at how I would go about balancing a scenario that incorporates this mechanic.  I think creation of a table like this is a first step in visualising all the possible "outcomes" based on point distributions.

 

28wm7sy.jpg

 

I will play around and see if I can come up at least one scenario design that is balanced with "optional reserves" as a first off.  I am sure there will be a kind of best practice "rule" or set of steps to get it to roughly balance out.

 

I am still interested to know if this concept has been used in a scenario before.

Edited by Lt Bull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I tried playing around with the Terrain Objective/Exit feature.  It doesn't work the way I expected.

 

I thought that by default perhaps the designated EXIT zone marked on the map for a side just allows any friendly units to "leave" the map and that is it.  If a scenario designer however wanted to select a unit to count as an "exit unit" then they would specifically link that unit to the Terrain Objective/Exit feature.

 

However, the existence of ANY Exit zone marked on the map basically means that EVERY friendly unit that has been tagged with Unit Objective Destroy/Destroy All that fails to exit the battlefield by the end of the battle gives the opponent their own Unit Objective Destroy/Destroy All value in points.  Essentially all those tagged units are "associated" (whether you want them to or not)  with the Terrain Objective/Exit feature whether the scenario designer wants it that way or not.  This seems to be very limiting and inflexible from a scenario design point of view.

 

Is there a way to assign different units different Unit Objective Destroy/Destroy All tags while ensuring that only a selection of these tagged units DO NOT give the enemy points if they do not exit at battles end?

 

I can't understand why the editor would not allow a designer to nominate which units tagged with Unit Objective tags (if any) count towards giving the enemy points if they do not exit by games end.

 

I was hoping that Exit zones could be just a way to remove/withdraw units from the battlefield.

Edited by Lt Bull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No there is not. 

 

Well that is unfortunate.  I can't see why the Exit feature is limited like that.  However it's not really critical to implementing the "optional reserves" concept I am discussing.

 

In looking at how Unit and Location Objectives work, I have realised that there are definitely many different ways even a "basic" a defend/attack scenario could be designed.  In many types of wargames, the concept of "both sides fighting for control of a Victory Location" (VL or Terrain Objecive) is quite common, expected and perhaps "the norm". ie.  whichever side "controls' the zone at the end gets the VPs associated with them.  I believe this was the exclusive case in CMx1.  What is interesting in CMx2 is that Terrain Objectives are side specific which is good because of the flexibility it gives the scenario designer.  For a scenario designer to try to emulate the "traditional" shared type of VLs seen in may other games, they need to however "paint" an equivalent Terrain Objective on the map on the same tiles for the other side.

 

I am curious to know how common it is for scenario designers to use "overlapping" Terrain Objectives like this and why the would/wouldn't use them.  Come to think of it, in all the scenarios I have played I don't think I ever really considered or even know whether a Terrain Objective I was attacking or defending was in fact one of these "overlapping" Terrain Objectives.  The implications for ultimate control of these kinds of objectives however would be more significant in the final tally of VPs at the end of the battle than a Terrain Objective for one side.  How common are "overlapping" Terrain Objectives and how (if at all) do scenario designers let players know that these kinds of Terrain Objectives may exist?

 

These types of "overlapping" Terrain Objectives aren't refereed to here in this informative post: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/109190-the-sheriff-of-oosterbeek-%E2%80%93-a-scenario-design-daraar/page-12#entry1445450

Edited by Lt Bull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter if the other side knows whether or not a victory location is shared.  As far as each player is concerned they are attempting to win the game by achieving their own objectives.  The fact that the opponent may have objectives that aren't known to the player only forces each player to continue the fight even after they have achieved all of their own objectives since the enemy could be sitting on objectives that the player doesn't know about.  Whether or not they overlap doesn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not quite sure I understand why not knowing if a victory location is shared or not doesn't matter.  Lets say that an attacking player has a choice of three Terrain Objectives (A, B, C) to attack all occupied by the enemy. He gains 100 points from capturing each.  He may try capturing all or some of them but is aware that if he spreads his units too thin he may not capture any. However he is also told that one of those Terrain Objectives © is also worth 100 pts to the enemy.  From the perspective of net points gained from Terrain Objectives, the net points gained for capturing the Terrain Objectives are as follows:

 

A: +100

B: +100

C: +200 (enemy loses 100 points for losing control of Terrain Objective, player gains 100 points for controlling Terrain Objective).

 

Surely it matters if the player knows location C is actually more "valuable" than A or B.  Of course I am not considering how difficult or costly it might be trying to capture C as compared to A or B.

Edited by Lt Bull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter because the player doesn't know that the objective is shared.  If the player doesn't know that the objective is shared then the player can't include that knowledge in his calculation for victory.

 

Ok I understand if that is the case, but whether an objective is shared  with the enemy and whether it is known by either player is up to the scenario designer to decide.  Just remember that up until CMx2 came along, these types of "shared" Terrain Objectives were the ONLY type of Terrain Objectives in CM I believe so it's not like they should totally be a "foreign"/"unusual" concept.

 

Are you saying that shared Terrain Objectives aren't really used, or if they are scenario designers choose not to reveal that to players?  I could see situations where they would and wouldn't want to do that.

 

If "shared" Terrain Objectives are "out of style" or "just not the way Terrain Objectives should work" what does it say about all the scenarios that were played in CMx1?

Edited by Lt Bull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally I like the "optional reinforcement with penalty" idea, but question is whether the mentioned reinforcements are not rather Regt. or divisional assets, outside the scope of the usual CMX2 game? In CMX1 that was handled during operation games I think and this is not directly translatable to single CMX2 battles. But there´s potential for the CMX2 campaign game structure.

For "Reinforcements" optionally made available by higher HQ (Rgt. or Div.), I´d either create 2 different missions with enemy bonus points assigned for the scenario variation with friendly reinforcements, or as a different and interesting alternative method, create a small "campaign", where the very first battle simply decides (branches), if the second battle (actually the first) is the one started with or without reinforcements. The first (branching and decision making) battle would just need a single friendly unit, that could move onto a single "touch" map objective worth at least 10 points. Once that´s done, simply hit cease fire and with the "win", you´re automatically branched to the battle that has the desired reinforcement and enemy bonus points. If you´re not touching the 10 points objective and simply hit cease fire, it´s an automatic loss (or draw) and you´re branched to the battle variation without reinforcements and no enemy bonus points.

Here´s a small campaign script example that does the purpose:

Player red = german

Campaign_GE1 = The branching, decision making "battle"

Campaign_GE2 = The starting battle that gets (nebelwerfer) reinforcements

Campaign_GE3 = The same starting battle, but without getting (nebelwerfer) reinforcements

The actual script:

//Campaign Header//

[PLAYER FORCE]red

[HUMAN OPPONENT ALLOWED]no

[bLUE VICTORY TEXT]Dummy

[bLUE DEFEAT TEXT]Dummy

[RED VICTORY TEXT]You won!

[RED DEFEAT TEXT]You lost!

//Battle #1//

[bATTLE NAME]Campaign_GE1// Branching decision file

[WIN THRESHOLD]tactical victory// by 10 point touch objective

[NEXT BATTLE IF WIN]Campaign_GE3// with Nebelwerfer support

[NEXT BATTLE IF LOSE]Campaign_GE2// without Nebelwerfer support

[bLUE REFIT %]100

[bLUE REPAIR VEHICLE %]100

[bLUE RESUPPLY %]100

[bLUE REST %]100

[RED REFIT %]100

[RED REPAIR VEHICLE %]100

[RED RESUPPLY %]100

[RED REST %]100

//Battle #2//

[bATTLE NAME]Campaign_GE3// With Nebelwerfer and enemy 100 bonus points

[WIN THRESHOLD]minor defeat

[NEXT BATTLE IF WIN] // end campaign

[NEXT BATTLE IF LOSE] // end campaign

[bLUE REFIT %]100

[bLUE REPAIR VEHICLE %]100

[bLUE RESUPPLY %]100

[bLUE REST %]100

[RED REFIT %]100

[RED REPAIR VEHICLE %]100

[RED RESUPPLY %]100

[RED REST %]100

//Battle #3//

[bATTLE NAME]Campaign_GE2// Without Nebelwerfer and no enemy bonus points

[WIN THRESHOLD]minor defeat

[NEXT BATTLE IF WIN] // end campaign

[NEXT BATTLE IF LOSE] // end campaign

[bLUE REFIT %]100

[bLUE REPAIR VEHICLE %]100

[bLUE RESUPPLY %]100

[bLUE REST %]100

[RED REFIT %]100

[RED REPAIR VEHICLE %]100

[RED RESUPPLY %]100

[RED REST %]100

Think there´s lots more potential in all this, when chaining the branch decision files, or including them at various places within a campaign structure. One in example can opt for one and the same battle to either take place at night (no enemy bonus), or at daylight and additionally have air support, with the enemy receiving bonus points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I understand if that is the case, but whether an objective is shared  with the enemy and whether it is known by either player is up to the scenario designer to decide.  Just remember that up until CMx2 came along, these types of "shared" Terrain Objectives were the ONLY type of Terrain Objectives in CM I believe so it's not like they should totally be a "foreign"/"unusual" concept.

 

Are you saying that shared Terrain Objectives aren't really used, or if they are scenario designers choose not to reveal that to players?  I could see situations where they would and wouldn't want to do that.

 

If "shared" Terrain Objectives are "out of style" or "just not the way Terrain Objectives should work" what does it say about all the scenarios that were played in CMx1?

Create the scenario any way you want to create it.  The only 'norm' is the norm that you create.  Analysis Paralysis?  My recommendation would be to just make something the way you want to make it.  There is no magic bullet of 'guaranteed scenario design success.'  Sure, there are various things that can stack the deck in favor of making something people will like, but there is no guarantee no matter how skilled and experienced a designer may be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi RockinHarry

 

Generally I like the "optional reinforcement with penalty" idea.......Think there´s lots more potential in all this, when chaining the branch decision files, or including them at various places within a campaign structure. One in example can opt for one and the same battle to either take place at night (no enemy bonus), or at daylight and additionally have air support, with the enemy receiving bonus points.

 

This is why I felt I should bring it up because I too see it has lots of untapped potential.  Even those ideas/concepts that you refer to in relation to campaigns (branches/options) are ones that I am interested in.

 

I remember one innovative CMBN campaign I play long time ago that was created by a scenario designer who obviously had consider the concept of campaign "branches" (and that kind of psuedo-operational feel) and incorporated an innovative mechanic that I thought/had hoped would be emulated by other campaign designers.  I am sure some of you may know this campaign and the scenario designers name but amongst it's regular battles it featured "battles" which weren't really battles at all.  The battle was preceded by a briefing that explained that the player need to make some kind of tactical/strategic/operational decision.  There was maybe two or three choices/options and I remember being presented with a tiny map with a town in it with roads running off to the map edges with at least one Exit Zone.  The player just had control of a single Jeep IIRC and they had to decide whether to press Cease Fire (I think) immediately or move the Jeep to the Exit Zone.  The point was that this acted as a clever way to involve the player in making a decision that would "branch"/steer the campaign in a certain direction.  I remember thinking how great this mechanic was but sadly have never seen this mechanic in another campaign since.  I really think this area of at least campaign design should be explored further.

 

Anyone remember the campaign/designers name?

 

 

Create the scenario any way you want to create it.  The only 'norm' is the norm that you create.  Analysis Paralysis?  My recommendation would be to just make something the way you want to make it.  There is no magic bullet of 'guaranteed scenario design success.'  Sure, there are various things that can stack the deck in favor of making something people will like, but there is no guarantee no matter how skilled and experienced a designer may be.

 

Yeah, I think I may start however by finding an existing scenario (probably small/manageable, with the designers knowledge) and try to incorporate very simple and basic versions of the "optional reinforcements with penalties" concepts in to them as a prototype rather than making one from scratch.  Maybe I might find something from reading reviews/AARs of scenarios where perhaps it was thought that the forces were imbalanced both as Axis and as Allied.  Perhaps there is scope in introducing in to even these scenarios "optional reinforcements" for both sides.

 

One thing I have realised however is just how complex things can be even to make a simple well balanced scenario as far as determining what (if any) Terrain, Unit and Parameter Objectives to use.  So much choice.

 

There is another type of Terrain Objective that I suggested and was hoping would have been in CMx2 and that was Terrain Objectives that gave side points on a per/turn (per time) basis (avoiding last minute rushes/control changes of Terrain Objectives) and Terrain Objectives that ceased functioning as a Terrain Objective after a certain time/number of turns (these types of objectives could dictate the "pace of advance" of a battle).  This concept is certainly not a foreign idea in many wargames.

Edited by Lt Bull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi RockinHarry

 

This is why I felt I should bring it up because I too see it has lots of untapped potential.  Even those ideas/concepts that you refer to in relation to campaigns (branches/options) are ones that I am interested in.

 

I remember one innovative CMBN campaign I play long time ago that was created by a scenario designer who obviously had consider the concept of campaign "branches" (and that kind of psuedo-operational feel) and incorporated an innovative mechanic that I thought/had hoped would be emulated by other campaign designers.  I am sure some of you may know this campaign and the scenario designers name but amongst it's regular battles it featured "battles" which weren't really battles at all.  The battle was preceded by a briefing that explained that the player need to make some kind of tactical/strategic/operational decision.  There was maybe two or three choices/options and I remember being presented with a tiny map with a town in it with roads running off to the map edges with at least one Exit Zone.  The player just had control of a single Jeep IIRC and they had to decide whether to press Cease Fire (I think) immediately or move the Jeep to the Exit Zone.  The point was that this acted as a clever way to involve the player in making a decision that would "branch"/steer the campaign in a certain direction.  I remember thinking how great this mechanic was but sadly have never seen this mechanic in another campaign since.  I really think this area of at least campaign design should be explored further.

 

Anyone remember the campaign/designers name?

 

No idea about the mentioned campaign (or can´t remember), but that sounds like something from GeorgeMC! :)

You´re an old time SPWAW player? Points per turn objective, as well as other objective types were part of this games system, in the later revisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did play Steel Panthers when it first came out though I can't specifically remember the VP system that was in that game.

from my memory the more unique ones were, points per turn and invisble Obj. that become visible and active, when moving onto them. There was also a choice for Obj. to be captureable just once and those that could be recaptured repeatedly, with distributed victory points amongst opponents. Variable point multipliers for destroyed enemy units, could also be set by scenario makers and such I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

from my memory the more unique ones were, points per turn and invisble Obj. that become visible and active, when moving onto them. There was also a choice for Obj. to be captureable just once and those that could be recaptured repeatedly, with distributed victory points amongst opponents. Variable point multipliers for destroyed enemy units, could also be set by scenario makers and such I think.

It's important to consider that the more variety you have with how Objectives work, the more intriguing/compelling/interesting/dynamic things can become for a human player whereas it gets increasingly difficult for an/to get an  AI (scripted or otherwise) to deal with them intelligently.

This has implications on scenario design.  I am not sure what percentage of scenarios are designed exclusively/primarily for H2H play but I could see scenario designers limiting their creativity when it comes to Objectives based simply on the challenges/impracticalities they present when considering/scripting the AI to be an intelligent opponent.

Unlike human players, the CPU opponent and any scenario AI scripting in CM literally is incapable of making the kind of dynamic/educated/strategic decisions based on ever changing battlefield intelligence that human players do as a matter of course.  CM AI (if can call it that) is like a blind highly inflexible and opponent made to follow very simple rigid predetermined actions that may or may not be triggered by very simple human opponent induced actions.

As a consequence increasing "the complexity" of things like scenario objectives in a "vs AI" scenario is likely going to result in situations where the human players advantage of being flexible and intelligent when assessing multiple possibilities/options becomes even more of an advantage when playing against any "CPU opponent" for which scripting even a decent battle pla.  It just "wouldn't be fair".

I could see this being a reason why BFC might not want to have more types of objectives available because of issues reconciling them with respect to scripting AI opponents.

I appreciate the effort and time some scenario designers put in to scripting complex AI opponent behaviours, though I do not rate this aspect of scenario design too highly because most of my CM gameplay is (where possible) against human opponents.  I do however enjoy playing operations and "AI only" scenarios which you hope have been "optimised" to be more of a challenging "vs AI" experience for the player.

In many ways I think that the evaluation of scenarios should be split in to it's evaluation as a H2H scenario (if it is intended to be played like that) and as a "vs AI" scenario (if AI has been considered).  In theory a terrible "vs AI" scenario (extreme example being.one with no AI scripting in it), could be an awesome H2H scenario.

I think the potential to make the best and compelling scenarios lies with open creativity designing scenarios exclusively for H2H play.

Edited by Lt Bull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coming into this a bit late but some ideas relating to Lt Bull's opening post.

I think you can sort of do it by 'thinking of it backwards.' Do this by awarding the enemy a good number of victory points for hurting the 'optional units' that come on in reserve. For example: The player (lets say US Player) is ordered to take 3 Companies worth of infantry into an attack against some Germans holding a town. A and B companies being in the lead and C company as the 'optional reserve' if needed. The US player is briefed about this plan and knows C company is a last resort and only to be used if things get desperate. A 'Destroy' objective with a high number of VP's is assigned to C company. The Germans (perhaps unknowingly) will receive a heavy amount victory points for every casualty they inflict on C company, representing the US player throwing in his reserves and awarding the German player for forcing the US player into a state of desperation.

You can't use this trick for off map support however since it's impossible to destroy and you can't highlight a single unit with regards to VP's related to ammo levels at the end of the battle.

 

Alternatively there is an idea I've been kicking around for some time now which would recreate a CMx1 Operation pretty closely. This has largely become possible thanks to the expanded map size the engine can now handle following the updates prior to CMRT's release. I'm partially using some of these ideas in my Windsor Campaign which is currently in testing. Essentially you give the player an expanded force that is entirely core units which goes up against an opposing force, again most of core units. You have a series of phase lines to reach to achieve victory and progress to the next phase line. If you do, great, time marches on and you fight again over the 'next hill.' If you fail, time marches on, but you need to try and achieve the same mission again but probably against weakened forces opposing you.

The player is given plenty of forces but force management on map is the key here for the player. Ensuring the burden of the advance is shared around between different units to ensure their relative strength is maintained. You can potentially just ceasefire and skip a battle if you want to give your troops time to rest, refit and potentiality take in some replacements (you give the player forewarning when this occurs), but the player runs the risk of their overall objective falling behind schedule.

 

It's pretty clear in my head for the moment but it's a long way off before I try to actually make it work. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ithikial,

I like your consideration and thoughts on how to mix things up.  "Thinking of it backwards" and assigning optional reinforcements with inflated Objective Target/Destroy points values is one way to do it, however it is a one step removed (less costly) mechanic to the player because the points differential only will be affected if the units get destroyed, as opposed to just spotted.  Units tagged with Objective Target/Spot points however don't need to be destroyed for them to "cost" the player deciding to use them.

I still think there is some untapped potential in designing scenarios and campaigns that have not yet fully explored several of these possibilities and ideas.  I like your campaign ideas and hope you explore them further.  I would be happy to help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using the reserve company as an enemy 'spotting' target could work, but your map would have to be big enough and with enough concealment around the reserve arrival direction for it to work - so therefore they have to be truly committed in some way allowing for them to be spotted by the enemy. Again won't work with off map support elements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using the reserve company as an enemy 'spotting' target could work, but your map would have to be big enough and with enough concealment around the reserve arrival direction for it to work - so therefore they have to be truly committed in some way allowing for them to be spotted by the enemy. Again won't work with off map support elements.

Yes, that is what wound be required as I had mentioned.  Obviously the larger this force the "more map" you may need reserved to "hide" them.

I was hoping that Exit zones could be used to, well, just safely exit any of these optional reserves the player decided not to use but unfortunately exiting any unit from CM via an Exit zone will always give that player "exit points". I don't understand why the game makes it so inflexible that way.

Edited by Lt Bull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many good ideas shared here. :) One thing I want to throw into the cauldron is, that the larger the maps get and the more troops you place on them, then an increasing number of players will start to get problems launching and playing these maps! I.e I still can´t launch and play GeorgeMC´s Fire Brigade (CMBN) due to its size. :( Those who can, might experience lowered FPS and game play performance. So adding map space, as well as units that are just "optional" and placed onmap, might exclude a number of players from launching such a battle at all. Otherwise, I like the shared ideas as said, when map and force sizes are kept within a certain limit.

 

Think I´ll keep following the campaign structure possibilities more, since there´s a number of options available, that can´t be included in a single battle, or requires more complicated and laborous mission design and testing. You can double up (or more) mission variation possibilities, just by use of branching to missions with a limited set of parameters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a quick question for Scenario designing.  How the heck do you use Mod tags.  Example.  I want to use Veins 2nd Rangers, it is a brz. file.  I placed it in one of my files so that I could import it, but whenever I go to import it the screen is blank like there is nothing in the file folder.  ie... Incoming email, outgoing etc... where you normally can import from.

Any advice would be great, thanks.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

GR - I think you are missing how mods work.

First the mod itself must have a tagged name, and I'm not sure Vein will have done that. In this instance the tag could be [2R].

You will therefore need to unpack the brz. file and add the tag if it is not there, and then add the files to your Z folder.

You then need to create a simple text file and import it into the game with this quoting the tag name. In simple terms a tagged file, whether it be a texture, sound etc is a file that is only called when the mod tag is loaded into a scenario.

If you have BS play around with the tagged textures that came in game.

 Stock Mod Tags
[lawn] - Turns Ground Dirt Red into a mowed lawn.
[trash] - Turns Ground Hard into a pile of trash.
[softtrash] - Turns Ground Sand into a pile of trash.
[rubble] - Turns Ground Heavy Rocks into urban rubble.
[night] - Adds camouflage face paint to soldier faces.
[brown] - Used for US soldiers. Replaces camo pattern on gear with solid coyote brown.
[digital] - Used for Ukrainian soldiers. Replaces older uniform with new digital uniform.
[ukraine] - Used for Ukrainian vehicles. Vehicle models in both Russian and Ukrainian service use
this mod tag to differentiate between Ukrainian and Russian vehicle textures

HTH

 

P

Edited by Pete Wenman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...