Jump to content

CMFB First Impressions


Recommended Posts

11 hours 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 :-)

I just wish Cpt Belding (or is it Lt? Notes say Lt, but Cpt in the mission) wouldn't have brought so many damned MG teams! I guess IRL you can at least toss one up in a window without bothering with the tripod though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

36 minutes ago, iluvmy88 said:

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

the italicized sentence at the end was meant more so for others as I didn't want to leave things open to "how-to" type questions.  the answer to your question is yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ranks for each command level are automatically set by the game and can't be altered so if someone of a different rank was in command of a unit historically you can't change the rank in the game to match the actual rank of the commander.  You can change the name though.

 

Out of curiosity I did a quick scan of all the CM scenarios listed at the Blitz and I crunched a few numbers.  There are a total of 120 scenarios listed for CMBN, 42 scenarios listed for CMFI, and 40 scenarios listed for CMRT.  That gives us a grand total of 202 scenarios for all three game series combined.  I considered that a scenario needed to be played at least ten times to have a sample size large enough to give us a good idea as to scenario balance.  Out of a total of 202 total scenarios listed 35 scenarios were played ten times or more for CMBN, 9 scenarios were played at least ten times in CMFI, and 8 scenarios were played at least ten times in CMRT.  That gives us a total of 52 scenarios out of 202 that were played at least ten times.  I considered a scenario to be 'balanced' if no side won a scenario more than 60 percent of the time.  So a result of 60 - 10 - 30 would be counted as 'balanced' for my purposes.  Of those 52 scenarios played ten times or more 19 CMBN scenarios were 'balanced', 4 CMFI scenarios were 'balanced', and 3 CMRT scenarios were 'balanced'.  That gives us a total of 26 balanced scenarios out of a total of 202 were we have results listed.  Out of those 26 I know that there are plenty of player comments indicating that the scenario was impossible to win for one side or another so even among those 26 there was a great deal of disagreement about whether a scenario was 'balanced' or not.

A couple of observations I could make here.  First I noticed that only about a quarter of all the scenarios available have been played ten times or more.  That should give a decent idea as to how difficult it would be to test scenarios head to head under the time constraints while the game is being created by a limited number of beta testers.  Second, even amongst those scenarios that were played ten times or more only about half of those fell within the bounds of what I considered balanced for these purposes.  Finally even amongst those that did fit into the balanced category for my purposes there was disagreement amongst those who played the scenarios as to balance.

There aren't a lot of scenario designers in the community at large and even fewer who create on a consistent basis.  Scenario designers do the best they can with the tools available, but I think it would be helpful to keep expectations a little bit restrained.  Creating a perfectly balanced scenario that is fun to play for everyone and that every player agrees is actually balanced is probably the scenario designing equivalent of hitting a Grand Slam in baseball.  We can hit some solo homers and maybe get a few doubles and singles, but expecting a Grand Slam to be created on a regular and predictable basis is unrealistic.  Sometimes things work out and sometimes things don't.  Designers just put their best foot forward and hope they've created something fun and hopefully challenging for both sides.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I second the points made by @ASL Veteran I stopped bothering trying for balanced ages ago when I realised that there are all kinds of players, from tactical gods to gamey sods, and from part-time Pattons to full-time McClellans. "Balance" in CM is a pointless, frustrating and ultimately impossible ideal.

Now I go for "interesting", "plausible", and "challenging".

Edited by JonS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ASL Veteran said:

There aren't a lot of scenario designers in the community at large and even fewer who create on a consistent basis.  Scenario designers do the best they can with the tools available, but I think it would be helpful to keep expectations a little bit restrained.  Creating a perfectly balanced scenario that is fun to play for everyone and that every player agrees is actually balanced is probably the scenario designing equivalent of hitting a Grand Slam in baseball.  We can hit some solo homers and maybe get a few doubles and singles, but expecting a Grand Slam to be created on a regular and predictable basis is unrealistic.  Sometimes things work out and sometimes things don't.  Designers just put their best foot forward and hope they've created something fun and hopefully challenging for both sides.   

Very true! Totally agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking from a game developer standpoint, our customers do not want us to get distracted by H2H optimized battles for two reasons:

1.  H2H play is used by a minority of our total customer base.  Any unnecessary diversion of resources away from single player, therefore, is counter productive.

2.  H2H play optimization means the scenario can only be played by one force type, yet a large chunk of our customer base prefers to play as only one side.  So if we include 5 scenarios only playable from the Blue side, then we're going to need 5 scenarios only playable from the Red side to balance it out.  Then customers will complain that the other side has the "better" scenarios and why can't they play them from their preferred side.

Oh yes, this could get rather "interesting" rather quickly post release :D

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, JonS said:

I second the points made by @ASL Veteran I stopped bothering trying for balanced ages ago when I realised that there are all kinds of players, from tactical gods to gamey sods, and from part-time Pattons to full-time McClellans. "Balance" in CM is a pointless, frustrating and ultimately impossible ideal.

Now I go for "interesting", "plausible", and "challenging".

Here! Here! Well said @JonS :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

improved textures, slightly at least

dissapointed with the trees but it could work

same engine problems that we had in cmbn v1, 89.99% of them

very good atmosphere

interesting units, game do feel different from cmbn,even with 80% of the vehicles being exactly same models, did not expect that

nice new flames

on another hand, old tracers and sounds are boring

 

Edited by Camarilabot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Speaking from a game developer standpoint, our customers do not want us to get distracted by H2H optimized battles for two reasons:

1.  H2H play is used by a minority of our total customer base.  Any unnecessary diversion of resources away from single player, therefore, is counter productive.

2.  H2H play optimization means the scenario can only be played by one force type, yet a large chunk of our customer base prefers to play as only one side.  So if we include 5 scenarios only playable from the Blue side, then we're going to need 5 scenarios only playable from the Red side to balance it out.  Then customers will complain that the other side has the "better" scenarios and why can't they play them from their preferred side.

Oh yes, this could get rather "interesting" rather quickly post release :D

Steve

but, as far as i know, one H2H player is worth like 33 lesser men who play single player, therefore my statistic has shown that H2H players are in a decent majority, 69% vs 31%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one H2H player is worth like 33 lesser men

 

From a purist point of view I agree.  And I would love to see BFC add more dev time into the MP aspect of the game.

Realistically though, BFC need to pay their power and hosting bills, and the H2H fanbase ain't going to cover even that.

Still, we can dream that in future the new cmVR(tm) system will be shown some love.,

\cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Camarilabot said:

but, as far as i know, one H2H player is worth like 33 lesser men who play single player, therefore my statistic has shown that H2H players are in a decent majority, 69% vs 31%

And that "statistic" confirms what I've always suspected about those who play H2H exclusively... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, George MC said:

And that "statistic" confirms what I've always suspected about those who play H2H exclusively... ;)

Hey, we are not all arrogant.  Oh wait I've been called that here on this very forum.  Wow given how people here are always right I guess I have to reevaluate my entire life.   OK maybe we are that arrogant :D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IanL said:

Hey, we are not all arrogant.  Oh wait I've been called that here on this very forum.  Wow given how people here are always right I guess I have to reevaluate my entire life.   OK maybe we are that arrogant :D 

He! If you want arrogance wait till you see climbers talking in a bar... Oh wait add 'professional climbers' talking in a bar. Then add instructors and guides...

That's why i enjoy playing the AI, as it bolsters my sense of entitlement and self image!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, PIATpunk said:

Realistically though, BFC need to pay their power and hosting bills, and the H2H fanbase ain't going to cover even that.

That might change if BF invested in a slick, automated MP matchmaking service a la Battlefield Academy and some other gaming companies- no Dropbox, no intricate file exchanges, no hunting down and negotiating with opps. But that doesn't seem to be in the cards.

Edited by Childress
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then there are folks like me who prefer H2H, but almost never have the time to reliably flip turns and thus, stick mostly to SP out of convenience.

That situation has put my scenario design interests solidly in the direction of making SP-only, one-side-only scenarios that push the envelope on making the AI feel like a human, or at least, offer a ballpark similar level of challenge with the tools available.

The SP-only version of the White Manor is coming along for CMBN, but I haven't had time to tackle the triggers yet (that's gonna' make doing a map full of flavor objects look like a pizza party).

On the other hand, I might try doing a series of "low expectation" scenarios that are slightly polished versions of the kind of stuff I tend to play when I suddenly find I have a few hours of game time available. The first of those is likely to be one I cooked up this weekend for CMRT called The Radzy Award. If your company of Grenadiers and platoon of TDs can successfully defend Radzymin from a massive, three-pronged Soviet attack, you get the Iron Cross. I'm very happy with the opening of that one and am playing it through now.

No ETAs on these though. -Very busy with work and RL these days (alas...). I can't afford the bandwidth drain of getting stuck into a new title yet, so I'm going to hold off on CMFB for awhile. Plus, that will allow me to start off with patches and mods ready to go when I do get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, ASL Veteran said:

The ranks for each command level are automatically set by the game and can't be altered so if someone of a different rank was in command of a unit historically you can't change the rank in the game to match the actual rank of the commander. 

This brings to mind a small niggling fact I have observed since BN came out. And that is that it consistently shows US platoons being led by first lieutenants when in fact the TO&E called for, and most of the time it was the practice, for them to be led by a second lieutenant. I would be interested to learn what the explanation for this is. First lieutenant was usually a staff position, company exec for instance, or some functionary in any kind of higher staff. They did sometimes command a company and sometimes a platoon, but usually only temporarily until an officer of the correct rank could be found. Or they might be kept in command of a company but promoted to captain. I did read a memoir a couple years ago by a soldier who commanded a company for the last eight months of the war as a first lieutenant but who never received the promotion to captain that he had been promised. So that did happen too, but it was rare.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1LTs are generally:

Company/Troop Executive Officers
Junior Staff (usually the lowest man in the Operations section's Officer pool)
Senior Platoon Leaders (there's no training or magic event that makes you transition, for most 1LT just happens because you're in the army long enough)
Specialty Platoon Leaders (Battalion Scouts, Mortars, or many of the historic small units that were not part of line companies were generally lead by seasoned 1LTs vs new 2LTs)

That said in World War Two:

Losses generally meant a wide range in actual Platoon leadership, ranging from the nominal platoon sergeant, to simply the smartest, most capable remaining squad leader.
A lot of Company level organizations seemed to wind up with 1LTs in charge, likely either the former XO, or the most capable surviving Platoon leader.
In practice given an organization at 100% fitness, it should be lead by a 2LT however.  

Random caveat:

It might be neat to tie the rank of the leader to the fitness/experience level for that organization.  A veteran reduced fitness level might have an E-6 Platoon leader, while a green high fitness unit might have the 2LT. 

Not really practical.  I've just read enough history that seems to start off with "1st Platoon, lead by Staff Sergeant Warmonger...." or "Charlie Company, with it's Commander 1LT Knifehand in the lead..." that the variety might be fun.


On topic:

Speaking of fun, M36s are just that. Getting them in position can be hard, and keeping them alive when the enemy figures out where they're at is challenging, but it's sorta awesome to see tanks that were usually a moment of figuring out how I'm going to over the course of the next few minutes get a flank shot in go down from a 90 MM round through the frontal armor.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/04/2016 at 6:14 PM, Raptorx7 said:

I am loving the Kampfgruppe Pieper campaign right now, the choices are extremely difficult to make. This is all the more compounded by the feeling of driving into oblivion and the reality of history no matter what you do.

I've just taken Stavelot and I have to say that, so far, this campaign feels like the best Battlefront have ever produced. The battles are challenging yet very convincing in terms of a realistic balance and the maps are works of art, as are the units. The series is really maturing now and I'm really looking forward to playing what I imagine will be a flood of player developed campaigns or BF add-ons, given the setting and the number of units that took their own paths through the region historically.

Bastogne, St Vith, 2nd Panzer's drive towards the Meuse, the battle for Elsenborn Ridge, the VG attacks on the southern shoulder of the bulge, are all yet to be covered as campaigns, so I expect we have a lot to look forward to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/04/2016 at 4:21 PM, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

A lot of Company level organizations seemed to wind up with 1LTs in charge, likely either the former XO, or the most capable surviving Platoon leader.

Unfortunately, in my experience, it was always the most senior officer in the unit who assumed command, not the most competent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, ASL Veteran said:

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.

?? What a rather curious reply and position you take on what I have said. I really don't even think you understand what I was pointing out or why or what I was highlighting.  You seemed to have been "triggered" by something you read (or thought you read) and off you went on your own little pitchfork/strawman/assumption making frenzy I find hard to even follow/understand (I will, painfully however, later address what it seemed you were trying to say/imply about what/why I posted what I did).

I stated that I question BFCs policy that all scenario's included in the game must be playable in all three game modes (Aliied vs CPU, Axis vs CPU and H2H).  That doesn't mean I disagree with it, or hate them for it, or want it changed, or think they are stupid.  Was more looking to explore the points begin made/position begin taken.

I then explained a position that can be taken primarily based on the common knowledge that typically anything designed to do one thing well will typically be better at what it is intended to do than a similar thing designed to do (or be) more than one thing (in the case of CM scenarios, three things) well, each given the same amount of development time.

I also pointed out that just because a scenario (via it's design) is great to play in any one of the three modes (note H2H is one mode and is only considered "great" to play if it is a "great" experience to play from both sides) that it doesn't necessarily/automatically mean that it will/can be made to be an equally great scenario to play via any one of the other two game modes.  True it must be tempting to just reused the same map rather than create a new map to create a scenario catering for another game mode.

Now, if we are to assume we are interested in producing the BEST player experience, and we identify and acknowledge the three possible "player experience modes": SP Allied, SP Axis and H2H, and we wish to create 10 "player experiences" for each game mode, then it would not seem usual to perhaps expect a bunch of scenarios being created that are "optimised" exclusively for one type of game mode.  The extreme case of this would be seeing 10 SP Axis only scenarios, 10 SP Allied only scenarios and 10 H2H only scenarios .  It would actually be more surprising to think that the best player experience across all three game modes can be achieved by making 10 scenarios (essentially maps) playable in all three game modes.  This is exactly what BFC do however.

It was mentioned that IF BFC released scenarios that were not playable in all three modes then would inevitably lead to the "loaded to play as SP, AI just sitting there, WTF? The scenario is broken" kind of player situations, despite any efforts in the notes clearly stating the scenario is H2H only.

It is probably an undesirable feature of CM scenarios that allow the player to select any and all scenarios to play as H2H, SP Axis or SP Allied REGARDLESS of whether they were designed to play that way. I do not see why allowing players to "load" a "dead" scenario can be considered anything other than an undesirable "feature" of the game.

If CM instead allowed players loading up a scenario to play to only ever select a game mode the scenario designer intended them to be played in (probably the way CM should be designed) then issues of those types would never happen.  Perhaps then ensuring all scenarios be made playable in all three modes would not be so important.

Now back to addressing the reply I quoted: Not sure what the point is of bringing up designing H2H scenarios or any of the playtesting. The "Ie played scenario x and nothing moved for thirty minutes!  The scenario is broken!" issue, well I have already discussed.  This is actually a result (more unwanted side-effect) of BFC making it possible in the first place for "dead" scenarios to be loaded.  It didn't have to be that way.  CM could have been instead designed such that only the game modes specified by the scenario designer show up as available gameplay modes.  The scenario list could have instead even had a filter showing which scenarios are available for play as SP Axis, SP Allied or H2H. This unfortunately is not the case and instead we have a situation where "unintended" game play modes can be selected by the player. To deal with this shortcoming, BFC have then decided to "unnaturally" demand that all scenarios they release are playable in all three modes "one size fits all!" approach, a decision you can say is more driven by wanting to avoid "the scenario is broken!" moments amongst players rather than a decision based on naturally following the "designed to suit" kind of tailored quality approach.

That rant on "imagine that we went ahead and put scenarios in a release and categorized them as you suggest" and splitting them up in to H2H and SP 50:50...pointless line of discussion and a construct of your imagination, not mine.  Still interesting though because it kind of reveals the kinds of polar categories of SP players you think play the game. eg. Allied lovers, or German lovers.  I never thought of it that way.That definitely doesn't apply to me.  My discussion is not even about H2H vs SP or which one BFC should focus on more in any way.  It's about the best way to approach, consider and create scenarios that optimise the player experiences in all three modes.

It is probably at this point here that I should point out HOW I go about choosing/selecting any scenario:  Typically if the map looks great/interesting/historically researched, then it will immediately grab my attention.  However, it could instead just be a recommendation from someone/somewhere generically saying its good/balanced/challenging in any one or more of the three game modes. Second I look at the game modes it was designed to play in, and it is here that you may see WHY I brought up this discussion in the first place.

All things being equal, I will always favour selecting a scenario exclusively designed by the scenario designer to be played in one of the three modes.  The reason should be evident if you read what I have been saying.  A scenario designer designing a scenario to be played exclusively in one game mode is more likely going to produce a better game play experience for that game mode in a set period of time than the game mode experience you would otherwise have with that game mode if the same scenario designer instead split the same development time between making the game playable in all three modes.

So when I look for a scenario to play that is listed as "H2H" only, or "SP Allied only" or SP Axis only", all other things being equal, I would prefer it, and preferentially play it over perhaps even the scenario listed as "SP allied, SP Axis or H2H".  It indicates to me that it is more likely that the scenario designer has not compromised the gaming experience by trying to arbitrarily making the scenario "all things to everybody".  It kind of tells me that the scenario designer is more of a specialist "pinch hitter" tailored craftsman rather than a mass producer, no disrespect to any scenario designer of course.  The true common skill that they all need to have is of course map making skills and this really is where the similarities start and finish.

I have as much respect for SP scenario designers as I have for H2H scenario designers, unlike the views of the poster above who seems to think designing good quality H2H scenarios is something anyone can do: "make a map, plop some units on it".  The things a good H2H scenario designer needs to contend with are vastly different to what a good SP scenario designer has to contend with.  A good H2H scenario designer needs to consider a scenario that will be fun and balanced to play by TWO opposing players. A good scenario designer needs to consider the battle played from both sides and the dynamic iterations that could ensue as a result of two free minded humans matching wits against each other.  Not all scenarios of course are necessarily good selections for H2H play, as I have been highlighting throughout.  A good H2H scenario designer is trying to make one scenario fun, entertaining, balanced and challenging for BOTH players. You don't need to think too hard to consider the kinds of scenarios that typically would be rather bland and boring for one player yet fun an engaging for the other.  Static defenses vs a mobile attacking force spring to mind.  One player might be required to conceptualise and execute many complex plans and orders and consider many options while the other just baby sits static defences.  Not saying it is impossible for such scenarios not to be fun and balanced for BOTH players in H2H, but you can see how imbalanced the demands and requirements can be for one player as opposed to the other in any given H2H scenario.  The other major issue a H2H scenario designer needs to contend with is "play-testing" which is something that is a HUGE issue in itself. Unlike a SP scenario, they can't really playtest it by themselves. Much harder (and more time consuming) to get two people to play H2H and get feedback back from two different perspectives and objectively process it than it is to give a bunch of players the same SP scenario and get and process their thoughts on it.

A good SP scenario designer however requires a very different mindset and approached when creating/envisaging scenarios to produce.  They care about just the fun and challenge as experienced by just one player playing one side of the battle. The "challenge" the player will face will for the most part be a function of "how intelligently a CPU opponent can be coded" by that scenario designer.  "How intelligently a CPU opponent can be coded" is an arbitrary function of the TacAI and "AI scripting" tools made available to them by BFC.  The TacAI in CM is relatively very good, but can not be relied upon typically to , but the "AI scripting" routines/tools by comparison are however very crude, basic and underdeveloped, which is incredible for a game that states that the SP experience is their major focus.  I have a lot of respect for the poor ol' SP scenario designers that have these very basic"scripting"  tools to "bring to life" the CPU opponent in any CM scenario.  These people literally are tasked with the none too subtle task of trying to breath "human-like" intelligence/AI in to what really are a bunch of 1s and 0s of an abstract computer based simulation that tries to represent the very complex and dynamic real world situational behaviours of an actual human being (or a concept of a collective human intelligence). Do not underestimate and overlook just how incredibly daunting and unrelated to pure map making or general H2H scenario design such a task is.  It is no wonder that most SP CM scenarios are typically best played from the side that demands more initiative and creativity to command.  Invariably this is typically from an attackers perspective.

I might touch on another type of "scenario designer" but they are not really scenario designers, more scenario map makers.  The best CM map maker might not have ever designed a scenario or released it in his life, instead giving the completed map to someone else to create a scenario around, and I would be 100% OK with that.  In fact I would expect that.  Similarly I might even expect the best CM scenario designers (SP or H2H) to have never physically created a map in the scenario editor themselves and I would also be OK with that, though I understand that most scenario designers going around are a "jack of all trades" doing it all, wearing all the hats. As impressive as that may be, I know that it would be unreasonable to expect any individual to excel in all facets of scenario designing/making because of just how unrelated and completely divorced each area of scenario actually designing is. It's like expecting a "building designer" to not only be able to design a building that can be used for any function, but to also literally construct the buildings themselves individually,  I would however say that a group of specialist "map maker only" kind of scenario designer already exist to some extent, those that make the QB maps being one of them.  NOTE: as great as some QB maps and scenarios are, they not what I am considering to be the typical representations for what I consider a true H2H scenario, which could otherwise containing detailed important briefings, reinforcements and other nice features and surprises to contend with.

So I really am pointing out that perhaps the best way to achieve the best possible collection and range of CM scenarios would be within a collaborative environment where scenarios are typically created specifically as SP Allied/SP Axis or for H2H by scenario designers that specialise in designing SP or H2H scenarios, potentially collaborating with dedicated map makers rather than trying to force the expectation on individual scenario designers to do all while forcing/trying to make all scenarios playable in all three modes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My current thinking on scenario design is in the same place as Lt. Bull's. Not being bound by the constraints of satisfying more than one category of target group (SP Allied, SP Axis, H2H) really opens up the possibilities for mining the potential of a scenario for its specific, chosen group. Design roadblocks that seem impossible to overcome, at least without prohibitive amounts of time, melt away when the other two groups are cut from the picture. In fact, I'd say that SP Defensive scenarios may benefit the most from this. Maybe this is the key to making more of them happen.

I'm about halfway through my first playtest of the CMRT SP-only Defensive scenario I mentioned earlier. I'm liking it and will definitely finish it. With H2H constraints removed, I am able to put in enough AI troops to allow for the AI Attacker to take big lumps and keep coming (which is also why the AI gets the Soviets :P). Somehow, with a very large amount troops, the computer player seems more "clever" as well. This, along with max-variable time limits on reinforcements, forces the player to keep making tough/juicy tactical decisions, even when he's done things right. Fall back now to shorten your supply line to the ammo depot or hold onto this good position for yet another turn to see if the trucks show up? The enemy seems done here. Perhaps I can pull back--no, wait. -Gotta' keep something here unless I wanna' shift my whole line and this platoon's ammo is almost dry...

I do understand that stock scenarios may need to stay where they are, though. I'm thinking more in terms of community scenarios. In fact, we might see a lot more of them if folks didn't feel any pressure to satisfy more than one target play mode.

 

Edited by Macisle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a difference between "playable" and "plays well". BFC requires the former for all three (both sides vs. AI and H2H) but only requires the latter for one. In fact, I am pretty sure most scenarios that ship with the game are primarily intended to be played one particular way and say so in the description.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Macisle said:

I'm about halfway through my first playtest of the CMRT SP-only Defensive scenario I mentioned earlier. I'm liking it and will definitely finish it. With H2H constraints removed, I am able to put in enough AI troops to allow for the AI Attacker to take big lumps and keep coming (which is also why the AI gets the Soviets :P). Somehow, with a very large amount troops, the computer player seems more "clever" as well. This, along with max-variable time limits on reinforcements, forces the player to keep making tough/juicy tactical decisions, even when he's done things right. Fall back now to shorten your supply line to the ammo depot or hold onto this good position for yet another turn to see if the trucks show up? The enemy seems done here. Perhaps I can pull back--no, wait. -Gotta' keep something here unless I wanna' shift my whole line and this platoon's ammo is almost dry...

I do understand that stock scenarios may need to stay where they are, though. I'm thinking more in terms of community scenarios. In fact, we might see a lot more of them if folks didn't feel any pressure to satisfy more than one target play mode.

I made CMRT Fester Platz Polozk as a community scenario that is really only playable as the defender (Germans) against the attacking AI Soviets. A human Soviet player will likely just wipe the Germans off the face of the map with ease, so no fun in that (unless you enjoy a milk run). A human German player will have a nailbiting time though, trying to stop the Russian AI steamroller. I did not make the effort to script an AI for the German defender. And H2H suitability for this scenario is probably low.

In its current state Polozk is not up to par as a stock scenario. Although if I made a German AI script, it could still meet the standards for a stock scenario. A human player could battle it out against the poor German AI defenders. It will be a pushover, but it is playable. Though not playable very well. And like I said, H2H, probably meh.

I understand what Lt. Bull is saying, but like Vanir said, there is a difference between "playable" and "plays well". Had I made Polozk a stock scenario, I would have made sure players are informed that is was intended for play as the Germans versus the Soviet AI.

And I kinda like being a Jack of all trades :-) Of course there is nothing wrong to create scenarios in pipeline kind a way with more people doing different tasks. In fact, I made a few scenarios using the master maps in CMBN, because I was not a very good mapmaker compared to the pro's. But I wanted to master the art of mapmaking too and now I make my own. But I would still not hesitate to pick up someone else's map and make a scenario out of it. Highly recommended for all who aspire to be scenario makers.

Edited by PanzerMike
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...