CMFB First Impressions

[Anthony P.]

Didn't lose quite that much of my infantry, but on the other hand I didn't take more than the right side of town. Infantry CO bought it in the street a minute after getting of his tank taxi, doubt that helped much. Had such rotten luck that I managed to get a full 4 tanks immobilized in mud, that was... eeh... It contributed to making me more passionate about the experience at the time! 

[lordhedgwich]

13 minutes ago, Anthony P. said:

Didn't lose quite that much of my infantry, but on the other hand I didn't take more than the right side of town. Infantry CO bought it in the street a minute after getting of his tank taxi, doubt that helped much. Had such rotten luck that I managed to get a full 4 tanks immobilized in mud, that was... eeh... It contributed to making me more passionate about the experience at the time! 

Yeah i took the right and had just taken the middle, but without much infantry taking the town would have been impossible.. I would have rather had a few more squads than all those MGs though as the mgs take 5-6 turns to set up in a house makes them too hard for me to use 

[Stele]

Played the first scenario of Courage Conquers campaign. Without giving anything away, gotta say I loved that little surprise halfway through the scenario!!

[Battlefront.com]

This is the first game we've released for CMx2 that really highlights horrible fighting conditions such as mud.  Even Gustav Line, which had these effects first, wasn't overly focused on it.  At least not in the way Final Blitzkrieg does.  Which means players are way more likely to play CMFB scenarios with tank sticking mud than they did with Gustav Line.  That in turn means you guys are pretty good idea why the Germans did not make good progress in the real offensive.  I pity your poor virtual pixeltruppen

Steve

[PanzerMike]

Driving your tanks out into the open fields in the Mud is risky. Cracking the defence of Singling is tough but doable, but may require multiple tries. As I Said in the notes, winning this one is something to brag about :-)

[Lt Bull]

46 minutes ago, PanzerMike said:

Driving your tanks out into the open fields in the Mud is risky. Cracking the defence of Singling is tough but doable, but may require multiple tries. As I Said in the notes, winning this one is something to brag about :-)

@PanzerMikeIs this a scenario only for single player?

Edited April 10, 2016 by Lt Bull

[snake_eye]

9 hours ago, iluvmy88 said:

I would like to see a mod come out that paints the iron cross on these vehicles =D if at all possible (i dont know if they share the same data as american side).

Actually at the time the German kept the US star on the captured vehicles and at the most obscured them with mud and or paint. That way they were able to be recognized by US outposts troops at the last moment. It was for them a Trojan trick used many times.

For the rest, I have no knowledge of a mod replacing the star by a German cross

[Combatintman]

1 hour ago, Lt Bull said:

@PanzerMikeIs this a scenario only for single player?

No ... all standalone scenarios in the release have to be playable Allies vs AI, Axis vs AI and H2H - it is BF policy and quite rightly so.

[PanzerMike]

1 hour ago, Combatintman said:

No ... all standalone scenarios in the release have to be playable Allies vs AI, Axis vs AI and H2H - it is BF policy and quite rightly so.

Quite Right. But H2H suitability varies from one scenario to another.

[iluvmy88]

3 hours ago, Lt Bull said:

sry wrong quote

Edited April 10, 2016 by iluvmy88

[iluvmy88]

3 hours ago, snake_eye said:

Actually at the time the German kept the US star on the captured vehicles and at the most obscured them with mud and or paint. That way they were able to be recognized by US outposts troops at the last moment. It was for them a Trojan trick used many times.

For the rest, I have no knowledge of a mod replacing the star by a German cross

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/ctpic2.htm

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/ctpic.htm

ive never seen a picture of germans using an unmarked captured vehicle. perhaps you have some. seems as it would be more trouble than its worth unless they had a specific operation in mind IE infiltration, but not for the normal battlefield. i wouldnt have driven it without remarking it lol.

heres some more 

http://worldwartwo.filminspector.com/2015/07/captured-weapons-put-to-use.html

Edited 1 minute ago by iluvmy88

[George MC]

1 minute ago, iluvmy88 said:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/ctpic2.htm

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/ctpic.htm

ive never seen a picture of germans using an unmarked captured vehicle. perhaps you have some. seems as it would be more trouble than its worth unless they had a specific operation in mind IE infiltration, but not for the normal battlefield. i wouldnt have driven it without remarking it lol.

Some info regarding 'false flag' ops the Germans ran during the Bulge operation. In this case they did kept captured vehicles with the white star and even marked up some of their own as such (see bottom link for pic of Panther made to look like M10 complete with white star).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Greif

http://www.axishistory.com/axis-nations/120-germany-waffen-ss/germany-waffen-ss-brigades/1349-panzer-brigade-150

[iluvmy88]

Just now, George MC said:

Some info regarding 'false flag' ops the Germans ran during the Bulge operation. In this case they did kept captured vehicles with the white star and even marked up some of their own as such (see bottom link for pic of Panther made to look like M10 complete with white star).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Greif

http://www.axishistory.com/axis-nations/120-germany-waffen-ss/germany-waffen-ss-brigades/1349-panzer-brigade-150

i edited the post befoe you posted this yes i agree with infiltration but not common battlefield use

ahh nvmd im tired its late ugg

Edited April 10, 2016 by iluvmy88
ima wee todd

[Lt Bull]

4 hours ago, Combatintman said:

No ... all standalone scenarios in the release have to be playable Allies vs AI, Axis vs AI and H2H - it is BF policy and quite rightly so.

Hmmm...I question BFC's policy to make all scenarios that come with the game "playable from all sides vs AI and H2H".

There is a very strong argument that can be made that the more a scenario can be tailored to be played discretely/specifically via all three mode: Axis side vs AI, Allied side vs AI or H2H, not only is it easier (especially in time) to make/design, but the better the scenario experience will be/should be for the player(s) involved.

The reason why should be kind of obvious.  It is easier to design anything that excels in one area at the expense of others than to design the same same thing that excels in multiple areas. The trap of becoming a "Jack of all trades, master of none" adage comes to mind when I think of scenario designers that feel compelled to always create scenarios that can be played all three ways.  FWIW I couldn't care less if CM scenarios were not playable by all three modes, and I hope any scenario designer out there who focuses on creating the best player experience would not hesitate to say the same thing. How many of us actually go back and play through each scenario we have played in one of the two other modes?  Once I play a scenario, playing it again, be it in the same mode or one of the other two modes, is basically never going to be as "fun/challenging" as the first "blind" play through anyway.  

Any "fun/challenging/credible" scenario that can be played all three ways is going to take longer to produce than one that can just be played in one of the three modes.  I would say that H2H scenarios are the easiest to make, followed by SP scenarios where the player is the attacker (player has/requires initiative), and the hardest being ones where the player is the defender (the "CPU opponent" has/requires the initiative).

I understand BFCs reason for this policy (make all players (SP and MP) feel like they are not missing out on anything).  The alternative would then instead involve featuring/classifying/creating scenarios specifically for SP Allied, SP Axis or H2H.  In a sense this already happens in many scenarios.  How many times do you see the term "best played as" in scenario notes?  Who doesn't want to play the best? When I read that in the scenario notes,  And once you have played through a scenario 

The thing is that designing a scenario "that is fun/challenging for the player(s)" for H2H play or SP allied or SP Axis can be argued to really be three separate and ultimately independent adventures.

For a start, map making skills aside, lets split the entire world of CM scenario designing in to two totally independent realms: designing for H2H and designing for SP.  I would further split the world of SP scenario designing in to playable by one side and playable by BOTH sides, with the last type being the most challenging because not only of the added extra AI coding for one side, but a reliance on an assumption that the battle itself played by a player from the other side will actually/could actually be a fun and challenging prospect.

A fantastic H2H scenario designer needs to basically know NONE of the "AI coding" skills and techniques a SP scenario designer needs to create an equally fantastic SP scenario.  This in itself should be a reason why I would  expect to perhaps see that there are many more H2H ascension designers out there than SP scenario designers, or perhaps more scenarios for H2H play only.

A H2H scenario designer I think has much more "creative freedom" to concoct whatever intricate scenario they want compared to the creative palette available to a SP scenario designer.  A H2H scenario designer could come up with a scenario that require both players to think, observe, adapt and react in very natural/humanistic ways to the unfolding events of the battle. A SP scenario designer, armed with only a very finite, basic and under developed set of "AI coding tools"/triggers, is however severely limited in their ability to "bring to life" a credible and challenging AI opponent.  Essentially a SP scenario designer must always think in terms of what can/can not be achieved as far as "AI coding" goes when it comes to design scenarios. This becomes equally challenging when the SP scenario designer is further trying to design the scenario playable by BOTH sides.

Basically if a scenario designer has a limited amount of time (which they all do), and they wanted to create the "best" player experience possible for the scenario they had in mind putting all their effort/time in to specifically creating a H2H only scenario, or an Allied vs AI only or Axis vs AI only scenario, then it stands to reason to expect that the end product playable by the player(s) will be superior to what the scenario designer could otherwise come up with if they instead created a scenario "playable" in all three game modes, essentially spreading the same time they spent optimising one game made amongst all three game mode types.  You could say that creating a scenario playable in all three modes is an exercise in compromise.

I would be interested to hear from the scenario designers out there about their thoughts on this.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Lt Bull

[snake_eye]

27 minutes ago, iluvmy88 said:

i edited the post befoe you posted this yes i agree with infiltration but not common battlefield use

ahh nvmd im tired its late ugg

We are speaking of the Ardennes battle. There, the US vehicles being captured and or used for the Greif operation had the US insignia on. that was a way to deceive the US forces during an attack. In subsequent battle after the Ardennes campaign or even earlier in Tunisia , the US insignia was replaced by the standard German cross on captured vehicles replacing the sustained losses.

[iluvmy88]

1 minute ago, snake_eye said:

We are speaking of the Ardennes battle. There, the US vehicles being captured and or used for the Greif operation had the US insignia on. that was a way to deceive the US forces during an attack. In subsequent battle after the Ardennes campaign or even earlier in Tunisia , the US insignia was replaced by the standard German cross on captured vehicles replacing the sustained losses.

Once again i understand that, im more referring to general use and if it was possible not trying to start some history argument just wondering if its modifiable o they use the same data as US halftracks. simple question.

[snake_eye]

26 minutes ago, iluvmy88 said:

Once again i understand that, im more referring to general use and if it was possible not trying to start some history argument just wondering if its modifiable o they use the same data as US halftracks. simple question.

As i wrote it earlier in response to your answer, I don't know if a mod has been already done to replace the white star insignia by the German cross and if that is something that can be modded.

Cheer

[MarkEzra]

I believe it is BFC policy that all scenarios included in their games have AI plans for both sides. 

[snarre]

hym is there bug on communication , because audio or voice communication work fine and radio but visual communication dosent active at all, ewen 2 unit have clear line to eatch other. sou if some other can test this too ? 

[snake_eye]

1 hour ago, Lt Bull said:

Hmmm...I question BFC's policy to make all scenarios that come with the game "playable from all sides vs AI and H2H".

There is a very strong argument that can be made that the more a scenario can be tailored to be played discretely/specifically via all three mode: Axis side vs AI, Allied side vs AI or H2H, not only is it easier (especially in time) to make/design, but the better the scenario experience will be/should be for the player(s) involved.

The reason why should be kind of obvious.  It is easier to design anything that excels in one area at the expense of others than to design the same same thing that excels in multiple areas. The trap of becoming a "Jack of all trades, master of none" adage comes to mind when I think of scenario designers that feel compelled to always create scenarios that can be played all three ways.  FWIW I couldn't care less if CM scenarios were not playable by all three modes, and I hope any scenario designer out there who focuses on creating the best player experience would not hesitate to say the same thing. How many of us actually go back and play through each scenario we have played in one of the two other modes?  Once I play a scenario, playing it again, be it in the same mode or one of the other two modes, is basically never going to be as "fun/challenging" as the first "blind" play through anyway.  

Any "fun/challenging/credible" scenario that can be played all three ways is going to take longer to produce than one that can just be played in one of the three modes.  I would say that H2H scenarios are the easiest to make, followed by SP scenarios where the player is the attacker (player has/requires initiative), and the hardest being ones where the player is the defender (the "CPU opponent" has/requires the initiative).

I understand BFCs reason for this policy (make all players (SP and MP) feel like they are not missing out on anything).  The alternative would then instead involve featuring/classifying/creating scenarios specifically for SP Allied, SP Axis or H2H.  In a sense this already happens in many scenarios.  How many times do you see the term "best played as" in scenario notes?  Who doesn't want to play the best? When I read that in the scenario notes,  And once you have played through a scenario 

The thing is that designing a scenario "that is fun/challenging for the player(s)" for H2H play or SP allied or SP Axis can be argued to really be three separate and ultimately independent adventures.

For a start, map making skills aside, lets split the entire world of CM scenario designing in to two totally independent realms: designing for H2H and designing for SP.  I would further split the world of SP scenario designing in to playable by one side and playable by BOTH sides, with the last type being the most challenging because not only of the added extra AI coding for one side, but a reliance on an assumption that the battle itself played by a player from the other side will actually/could actually be a fun and challenging prospect.

A fantastic H2H scenario designer needs to basically know NONE of the "AI coding" skills and techniques a SP scenario designer needs to create an equally fantastic SP scenario.  This in itself should be a reason why I would  expect to perhaps see that there are many more H2H ascension designers out there than SP scenario designers, or perhaps more scenarios for H2H play only.

A H2H scenario designer I think has much more "creative freedom" to concoct whatever intricate scenario they want compared to the creative palette available to a SP scenario designer.  A H2H scenario designer could come up with a scenario that require both players to think, observe, adapt and react in very natural/humanistic ways to the unfolding events of the battle. A SP scenario designer, armed with only a very finite, basic and under developed set of "AI coding tools"/triggers, is however severely limited in their ability to "bring to life" a credible and challenging AI opponent.  Essentially a SP scenario designer must always think in terms of what can/can not be achieved as far as "AI coding" goes when it comes to design scenarios. This becomes equally challenging when the SP scenario designer is further trying to design the scenario playable by BOTH sides.

Basically if a scenario designer has a limited amount of time (which they all do), and they wanted to create the "best" player experience possible for the scenario they had in mind putting all their effort/time in to specifically creating a H2H only scenario, or an Allied vs AI only or Axis vs AI only scenario, then it stands to reason to expect that the end product playable by the player(s) will be superior to what the scenario designer could otherwise come up with if they instead created a scenario "playable" in all three game modes, essentially spreading the same time they spent optimising one game made amongst all three game mode types.  You could say that creating a scenario playable in all three modes is an exercise in compromise.

I would be interested to hear from the scenario designers out there about their thoughts on this.

 

I understand that doing a scenario being playable in either one , Allied, Axis -and or H2H , might result in scenario not as good as the one designed for only one side.

That was what I thought a long time and the scenario I have loaded in the Repertory in the past were mostly done to be fought rather on one side than the other and that did not prevent them to be played H2H..

However, we have to keep in mind that designing a battle which is fictional is easier than a real one.

A fictional battle can be fought on Allied, Axis and or H2H more easily, since the battle ground can be adapted to that need.

However, when you are designing a real battle and you want to stay as close as it is possible within the game limit to what happened at the time, each one of the three possibilities, might be more difficult or impossible to make. But, if you modify some of the blocking points you are having while designing the ground, making the OOB and or the AI plans you can end up with a scenario playable for each choice.

For some battles that is impossible and you will have only one choice or two at the most with the H2H.

Another thing that prevents a real battle to be played both sides with an equal pleasure, is that if you integrate the forces, the assets,  the ground, the timing and in the AI plan or plans, the way it was fought at the time you will have a result more or less similar to what it was at the time. That is a victory and or a defeat. It then does not matter which side you are fighting , you will get more or less the same result. To change it, you will have to fumble into the editor or do something different from what is ordered in the briefing. Stay in defence, for example, instead of attacking or the contrary. But, nothing will be granted and you might end up with the same result. However you will derived away from the historical battle.

That happens when the ground is tactically suited for one side only.

We have to keep in mind that since Antiquity the militaries used constantly grounds better tactically suited for defence, attacks and or movements than their adversaries.

So doing a scenario even if it is the best one done for all three choices, tactically these three choices won't be equal and there is nothing wrong in it.

So you will always have for an historical battle a winning side and a losing side. If you want to change the results, go in the editor and put the Allied on the Axis positions. If the change puts you on tactically advantaged positions you will more probably end up winning. Naturally that does not take in account the Armor and theArtillery that one side might have in quantity when the other side has none.

So the tactical feasibility offered by the map is the primordial reason which makes for BF, at least I think it is, a necessity to have the three choices : Allied, Axis and H2H

Cheer

[Lille Fiskerby]

This game looks awesoome ! I'm on the first mission in the 4th Armored Div. campaign and Abrams tanks, Shermans that is , looks stunning in the snow. Very nice 

mission, very much recommended.

[nik mond]

2 hours ago, iluvmy88 said:

Once again i understand that, im more referring to general use and if it was possible not trying to start some history argument just wondering if its modifiable o they use the same data as US halftracks. simple question.

Yes, modded art can be loaded into a specific scenario without polluting the vanilla game by using tags. You would probably not want to use that same model of modded Sherman for the US side in that specific scenario, as it too would have the markings. But there are other models to choose from.  This is a topic better suited for the maps and modding sub forum as this is going way OT from the OP. 

[Abbasid111]

8 hours ago, Stele said:

Played the first scenario of Courage Conquers campaign. Without giving anything away, gotta say I loved that little surprise halfway through the scenario!!

Great campaign. I was lucky and had two shermans in a good location so jerry got surprised and not me

[ASL Veteran]

Lt Bull your points are interesting but ultimately they don't make much sense since all you do is limit what people can play and create chaos and confusion.  Designing a scenario for 'H2H only' is pretty simple to do.  Make a map and plop some troops on it then ask others to play it for you.  It was already mentioned that time constraints prevent any sort of thorough testing for H2H play so let's call that 'strike one'.  Putting a scenario into the game with no AI plans will invariably create a situation where somebody will load up the scenario and say 'I played scenario x and nothing moved for thirty minutes!  The scenario is broken!'  You can place as many notes on the scenario that you want to but expecting everyone who purchases the game to read everything is not being realistic.  So putting a scenario in the release that has no AI plans is a non starter.  Let's call that strike two.

Now let's just imagine that we went ahead and put scenarios in a release and categorized them as you suggest.  A release has about 20 scenarios in it.  If half had no AI plans and were classified as H2H and half had AI plans and were classified as SP then each category of player gets only ten scenarios each.  Ten with no AI plans that would be unplayable for SP players under any circumstances and then another ten that would have AI plans that were suitable for play as only one side or the other.  If we divide the SP scenarios in half for each side then the SP player would only have five scenarios they could play as German and five as American.  So if you want to play as the American in SP then with your purchase of CMFB you would get a grand total of 5 playable scenarios out of twenty.  Anyone want to guess how happy that person will be?  Let's call that strike three.

You seem to have an assumption that someone who designs for H2H will make a superior H2H scenario.  Like I said though - all the guy who is making a H2H only scenario is doing is making a map, plopping units on the map, and saying 'I'm done, now someone play it for me and tell me how it goes.'  That's great as far as it goes but there is absolutely nothing preventing the guy who has just made a map and plopped units on it from also creating an AI plan that uses those units without any modification whatsoever to what he has already done.  The only reason not to create an AI plan of some sort is if the person doesn't know how to make one because whether the designer makes an AI plan or not is absolutely not dependent upon whether or not a scenario can be played H2H or not.  The AI plan may not be a good one or the game may not play as well as one side or the other, but there is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from creating an AI plan other than a lack of knowledge or skills with using the editor.  Let's call that 'You're out!'

Since there is absolutely no connection between whether an AI plan exists in a scenario and whether the scenario is suitable for H2H play your entire premise is a false one.  The only thing doing what you say accomplishes is to allow scenario designers who aren't competent enough with the editor to create an AI plan to plop units on a map and call it a scenario as well as limit the number of scenarios that customers who buy the game can play.  If every scenario can be played H2H and in SP from either side then everyone who buys the game has twenty scenarios to play in any way they want to.  Your gaming experience will vary because every scenario will have its own quirks but at least everyone who bought the game has twenty scenarios to play with.  If your expectation is that if every release had a few scenarios with no AI plans then your H2H experience would be better then I would submit to you that you haven't really thought through the issues as thoroughly as you might.  There is absolutely no guarantee that those H2H specific scenarios would be any better than anything already in the game now and how would you feel if one of those precious few H2H scenarios didn't work out to be as 'balanced' as you had hoped.  Just look at 'The Blitz' scenario listings and see how difficult it is to have a perfectly balanced scenario.  Read the comments and see how different an experience some players had when playing a specific scenario.  One guy says scenario x might be perfectly balanced while the next guy says it is a cake walk for side y.  Perfect balance in H2H scenarios for everyone who plays a scenario is a fantasy target that can't be achieved and including a bunch of scenarios in a release that have no AI plans will not achieve that target of perfection any more than a scenario having an AI plan will.  Balance can be achieved over the course of many games as a collective but there is no way to guarantee that any particular player in any specific instance will have a perfectly balanced competitive tournament match.  It is an impossible goal to achieve.  Once again, there is also absolutely no connection between H2H viability and whether or not an AI plan exists.  The two can coexist just fine without one affecting the other.  Adding an AI plan is just the last step in the scenario creation process and only designers who lack the skill to create an AI plan would make a scenario that didn't have one.

If your desire is perfect balance in your games then play QBs and choose your own forces.  Even QBs aren't going to give you perfect balance on every occasion but that's what QBs are there for.

[iluvmy88]

3 hours ago, nik mond said:

Yes, modded art can be loaded into a specific scenario without polluting the vanilla game by using tags. You would probably not want to use that same model of modded Sherman for the US side in that specific scenario, as it too would have the markings. But there are other models to choose from.  This is a topic better suited for the maps and modding sub forum as this is going way OT from the OP. 

WTH is wrong with people here it was a simple one line yes or no question man that i asked about a SS posted IN THIS THREAD. smh