CMFB First Impressions

[ASL Veteran]

Lt Bull, have you ever made a scenario before?  If so I would be interested in seeing a list of what you have done.  You can include scenarios that were created in CM1 if perhaps you were more active with that than with CM2.

[Lt Bull]

7 hours ago, Macisle said:

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.

Hi Macisle, your second sentence is a great summary of the point I was trying to make.  Actually this entire paragraph sums up where I was coming from probably better than I could so thanks.  "Bound by constraints of satisfying more than one target group", "open(ing) up the possibilities for mining the potential of a sceanrio for it's specific, chosen group", "design roadblocks that seem impossible to overcome...melt away when the other two groups are cut from the picture" are all key points I was trying to make. LOL, I re-quoted what I had already quoted from you because I think you expressed the idea so well I just had to type it myself.

I am glad my thoughts resonated somewhat with you.  In fact I was pleasantly surprised to see you chime in on the discussion because I consider more focussed/niche scenario designer/map making community members like yourself to be excellent examples of what I would hope more scenario designers would follow. That map you made "Under The Eyes of White Manor" in my mind is a classic example of what can be achieved when a community member just focusses on excelling in one area, in that case, the map design.  I still remember being stunned by your actual/in-game screenshot comparisons you posted of that map.  Great work.  IIRC, I may even have read in that thread you even explicitly said that all your efforts went in to making that map and would release it without any AI plans.  I recall being quite happy to give you feedback on the H2H scenario that you ended up making for it because not only did I think the map was fantastic, but I recognised that the feedback I gave you as a H2H player would most likely be more useful than if you were receiving feedback and trying to make sense of multiple different sources of feedback, namely from Allied SP players and Axis SP players.

8 hours ago, Macisle said:

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.

Yes, and your use of he term "community scenarios" as opposed to "stock scenarios" (from BFC) is a handy distinction to make in this discussion.  I think you are spot on with what you are saying, highlighting the "pressure to satisfy more than one target play mode" being a factor that prevents more community scenarios (perhaps even stock scenarios) begin made.  BFC may be understandably set in their ways of their own doing, but I hope the community at large don't take the BFC approach towards scenario design and definition of what a scenario must be as gospel.  I am not saying BFC end up producing inferior scenario content (contrary, it is typically very good, they employ great pro scenario designers), but for community members to try and do what BFC do I think is biting off more than one can chew.

Keep your focus narrow.  H2H, SP Axis or SP allied. Or just make maps.  Your content will shine more and the community will recognise you for it.

5 hours ago, PanzerMike said:

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.

Another good example of the realities of scenario designing I highlighted in my blurb.

2 hours ago, ASL Veteran said:

Lt Bull, have you ever made a scenario before?  If so I would be interested in seeing a list of what you have done.  You can include scenarios that were created in CM1 if perhaps you were more active with that than with CM2.

I have played around with it, mainly looking in to map making techniques using digital topographic data sources.  One thing that was apparent that kind of put me off entirely was the relatively crude and limited tools in the Scenario Editor, in particular related to the importing of external digital data that could conceivably make map making a whole lot less of a chore.  Perhaps if the process was more efficient I would stick at it but I am not a fan of working inefficiently. 

This is probably why I have more respect for scenario designers/map makers and an interest in discussing all things scenario design and possibilities than your average Joe end user.  I see them more like artists in many ways slaving away for the love of it using the basic crude tools BFC have given them.  Where would we be without them? 

[kevinkin]

Basic crude tools? What other war gaming platform are you designing for so we can check it out ASAP?  I need to get on board. This slave thing is getting pretty old. 

If it's Classified, fill us in on as much as you are able.  

Kevin 

[Combatintman]

22 minutes ago, Lt Bull said:

BFC may be understandably set in their ways of their own doing, but I hope the community at large don't take the BFC approach towards scenario design and definition of what a scenario must be as gospel.  I am not saying BFC end up producing inferior scenario content (contrary, it is typically very good, they employ great pro scenario designers), but for community members to try and do what BFC do I think is biting off more than one can chew.

So you now no longer question BFC's policy of requiring 'stock' scenarios to be playable in all three modes as you stated on 10 Apr.

I don't disagree with the overall thrust of the points you are making - all of my 'community' scenarios have been designed for one side vs the AI for some of the reasons you state - but these sorts of discussion always work better if the protagonists are consistent.

[ASL Veteran]

1 hour ago, Lt Bull said:

I have played around with it, mainly looking in to map making techniques using digital topographic data sources.  One thing that was apparent that kind of put me off entirely was the relatively crude and limited tools in the Scenario Editor, in particular related to the importing of external digital data that could conceivably make map making a whole lot less of a chore.  Perhaps if the process was more efficient I would stick at it but I am not a fan of working inefficiently. 

This is probably why I have more respect for scenario designers/map makers and an interest in discussing all things scenario design and possibilities than your average Joe end user.  I see them more like artists in many ways slaving away for the love of it using the basic crude tools BFC have given them.  Where would we be without them? 

This explains a lot.  You have a lot of big ideas and plans for making things better but you have no idea how things actually work in either a general or specific sense.  You are making a lot of assumptions about a lot of things but very few of them are actually tethered to reality for an experienced scenario designer who knows what they are doing.  Everything you are saying is relevant to someone who is inexperienced and or unsure of how to create something.  Maybe if I have some time I may try to explain some things, although I'm not sure how receptive you will be so I may need to go about it in an indirect way.  Maybe you can answer something for me?  If you want to create a scenario what would be the first two things you would do?

[Michael Emrys]

45 minutes ago, ASL Veteran said:

If you want to create a scenario what would be the first two things you would do?

Interesting question and it made me think about how I would do it. I guess the first thing I would do is go through some history books and find battles that looked as if they might be comfortable within the CM paradigm. I wouldn't necessarily try to replicate the exact battle, which strikes me as a fool's errand anyway, so much as to create something that would have the same feel. This is what I have always done in CM going back to CMx1: tried to recreate what I felt were typical actions.

Then the detail work begins. Figuring out an OOB for each side. Making the map. Then checking to see if the tentative OOBs will work on that map in the way that I am looking for. Then all the niggling work of testing and adjusting to get it all to come out right.

That's what I think I would do if I were designing scenarios for others to play. But I mostly play QBs, and so skip most of that tedious and arduous detail work, although putting together a good QB can be more challenging than I may be making it sound. For instance, a few days ago I was looking through the QB maps to see which ones I might want to play on and 017a2 caught my eye. I decided to give it a whirl by having a complete German Grenadier company defending against a pair of US companies reinforced by two platoons of Shermans. I thought that would turn into a real whing-dang-doodle of a shootout. But that turned out to be a disaster as there simply was not enough room to even set up all the forces I had selected. I ended up starting over and sending just a single platoon of infantry against a pair of German squads who also had an extra MG or two. And then it dawned on me about a dozen moves in that this might have been more interesting if I had set it to play at night instead of at high noon. And so it goes...

Michael

Edited April 18, 2016 by Michael Emrys

[ASL Veteran]

1 hour ago, Michael Emrys said:

Interesting question and it made me think about how I would do it. I guess the first thing I would do is go through some history books and find battles that looked as if they might be comfortable within the CM paradigm. I wouldn't necessarily try to replicate the exact battle, which strikes me as a fool's errand anyway, so much as to create something that would have the same feel. This is what I have always done in CM going back to CMx1: tried to recreate what I felt were typical actions.

Then the detail work begins. Figuring out an OOB for each side. Making the map. Then checking to see if the tentative OOBs will work on that map in the way that I am looking for. Then all the niggling work of testing and adjusting to get it all to come out right.

That's what I think I would do if I were designing scenarios for others to play. But I mostly play QBs, and so skip most of that tedious and arduous detail work, although putting together a good QB can be more challenging than I may be making it sound. For instance, a few days ago I was looking through the QB maps to see which ones I might want to play on and 017a2 caught my eye. I decided to give it a whirl by having a complete German Grenadier company defending against a pair of US companies reinforced by two platoons of Shermans. I thought that would turn into a real whing-dang-doodle of a shootout. But that turned out to be a disaster as there simply was not enough room to even set up all the forces I had selected. I ended up starting over and sending just a single platoon of infantry against a pair of German squads who also had an extra MG or two. And then it dawned on me about a dozen moves in that this might have been more interesting if I had set it to play at night instead of at high noon. And so it goes...

Michael

Not too bad.  Yes, the first thing someone generally does is decide what they are going to depict or do.  In the case of a historical scenario you would look in a book and try to find something that had enough information to allow you to represent it in the game.  Hopefully it will also be interesting enough that it will be fun for someone to play, but knowing that is almost impossible to predict in advance since it isn't always easy to gain a full appreciation of the battle situation until you have seen it in 3D.  Many times a battle location is simply a town name in a paragraph, but even when a map is available in a book you can't always gain an appreciation for the lay of the land and how that impacts the battle without seeing the area in 3D inside the game. 

So one of the first challenges is if you can accurately find the battle location on the map.  After that you need to have enough documentation about the forces involved to have at least some idea as to what was present for each side.  Let's just assume that you have determined that you know the location of the battle and you have enough OB information to proceed with that scenario idea.  You go into Google Earth and you have to block out your map dimensions.  You now have your next decision point.  How big is my map going to be and where will it be centered?  This is the most important decision that you can make because once you have the map centered you can't go back and shift it without redoing a ton of work and once you have the map size determined it is very difficult to go and expand it.  It is a lot simpler to trim the map but then you would still end up doing a lot of work on stuff that you are just going to trim off later so that's not desirable either.  So this is my next question: how do you decide how big your map is going to be and where it will be centered?   

[Vencini]

Hello LtBull

Maybe this tread will help you

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/109190-the-sheriff-of-oosterbeek-–-a-scenario-design-daraar/

Regards

[ASL Veteran]

Lt Bull, just so you know I am not really interested in whether you know the 'right' answer to these questions or not.  This is not a test of knowledge.  I am hoping that you can identify something 'larger' ... a theme if you will ... about the process itself.    

[markus544]

The game is great...I'm happy to blast the bad guys with upgraded Sherman in the snow...  One thing I noticed is that when a had an arty strike brought down on a spot forest.  When the rounds detonated the surrounding trees flashed with light……I thought it was cool

[Erwin]

Really enjoying CMFB.  Playing the German campaign natch, and very impressed with the maps (and scenario situations) for the first 3 missions I have gotten thru.  Xnt work!

[Ts4EVER]

21 hours ago, ASL Veteran said:

This explains a lot.  You have a lot of big ideas and plans for making things better but you have no idea how things actually work in either a general or specific sense.  You are making a lot of assumptions about a lot of things but very few of them are actually tethered to reality for an experienced scenario designer who knows what they are doing.  Everything you are saying is relevant to someone who is inexperienced and or unsure of how to create something.  Maybe if I have some time I may try to explain some things, although I'm not sure how receptive you will be so I may need to go about it in an indirect way.  Maybe you can answer something for me?  If you want to create a scenario what would be the first two things you would do?

Well, as somebody who actually has experience in level design (not for CM) I can tell you that the CM editor is relatively simple to use, but lacks advanced features you would expect from professional level editing software.

Examples:

- the ability to easily import heightdata (could be as simple as converting a black and white png into elevation data, considering the simplistic height system)

- the ability to create or import custom texture brushes to easily create detailed textures without undue micromanagement

- a more robust scripting system

- the ability to change or create new gameplay elements or materials, like new map specific textures or 3d objects

I could go on. The CM editor to me is about on par with the kind of consumer grade editors they used to have in old games like Age of Empires. It is kind of baffling that stock campaigns and scenarios are created with it, to be honest.

[A Canadian Cat]

2 minutes ago, Ts4EVER said:

- the ability to easily import heightdata (could be as simple as converting a black and white png into elevation data, considering the simplistic height system)

Considering how the terain mesh works this would probably not work well. Setting up the terrain heights works best when not every AS has a height set. It works better when you draw contour lines. Using the existing overlay graphic and contour lines works pretty well.

 

2 minutes ago, Ts4EVER said:

- the ability to create or import custom texture brushes to easily create detailed textures without undue micromanagement

 

??? What's that? Do you mean a custom brush with a handful of terain tiles already in place to draw a forest with different vegetation sprinkled around? That would be nice, yes. Or are you trying to get custom terrain tiles into the game by talking about improving the editor?

 

2 minutes ago, Ts4EVER said:

- a more robust scripting system

You mean a better AI editor? Yep that would be great!

 

2 minutes ago, Ts4EVER said:

- the ability to change or create new gameplay elements or materials, like new map specific textures or 3d objects

Well that is not a game feature so being able to use the editor to create them is not really needed. We could add stuff like undo redo or improved auto road routing etc. The list of improvements possible is long even when focusing on the things that are actually current game features.

2 minutes ago, Ts4EVER said:

 

[ASL Veteran]

58 minutes ago, Ts4EVER said:

Well, as somebody who actually has experience in level design (not for CM) I can tell you that the CM editor is relatively simple to use, but lacks advanced features you would expect from professional level editing software.

Examples:

- the ability to easily import heightdata (could be as simple as converting a black and white png into elevation data, considering the simplistic height system)

- the ability to create or import custom texture brushes to easily create detailed textures without undue micromanagement

- a more robust scripting system

- the ability to change or create new gameplay elements or materials, like new map specific textures or 3d objects

I could go on. The CM editor to me is about on par with the kind of consumer grade editors they used to have in old games like Age of Empires. It is kind of baffling that stock campaigns and scenarios are created with it, to be honest.

I'm not discussing editor functionality specifically although I think that Lt Bull's suggestions are probably mostly predicated upon that since he probably hasn't advanced beyond that stage yet.  Even if someone has mastered the simple mechanics of the editor there is a conceptual level to scenario design that Lt Bull is missing and which I'm hoping to allow him to 'see' through the vehicle of 'self discovery' when he tries to address the questions I'm posing. 

[Macisle]

On 2016/4/18 at 9:12 PM, Lt Bull said:

Hi Macisle, your second sentence is a great summary of the point I was trying to make.  Actually this entire paragraph sums up where I was coming from probably better than I could so thanks.  "Bound by constraints of satisfying more than one target group", "open(ing) up the possibilities for mining the potential of a sceanrio for it's specific, chosen group", "design roadblocks that seem impossible to overcome...melt away when the other two groups are cut from the picture" are all key points I was trying to make. LOL, I re-quoted what I had already quoted from you because I think you expressed the idea so well I just had to type it myself.

I am glad my thoughts resonated somewhat with you.  In fact I was pleasantly surprised to see you chime in on the discussion because I consider more focussed/niche scenario designer/map making community members like yourself to be excellent examples of what I would hope more scenario designers would follow. That map you made "Under The Eyes of White Manor" in my mind is a classic example of what can be achieved when a community member just focusses on excelling in one area, in that case, the map design.  I still remember being stunned by your actual/in-game screenshot comparisons you posted of that map.  Great work.  IIRC, I may even have read in that thread you even explicitly said that all your efforts went in to making that map and would release it without any AI plans.  I recall being quite happy to give you feedback on the H2H scenario that you ended up making for it because not only did I think the map was fantastic, but I recognised that the feedback I gave you as a H2H player would most likely be more useful than if you were receiving feedback and trying to make sense of multiple different sources of feedback, namely from Allied SP players and Axis SP players.

Yes, and your use of he term "community scenarios" as opposed to "stock scenarios" (from BFC) is a handy distinction to make in this discussion.  I think you are spot on with what you are saying, highlighting the "pressure to satisfy more than one target play mode" being a factor that prevents more community scenarios (perhaps even stock scenarios) begin made.  BFC may be understandably set in their ways of their own doing, but I hope the community at large don't take the BFC approach towards scenario design and definition of what a scenario must be as gospel.  I am not saying BFC end up producing inferior scenario content (contrary, it is typically very good, they employ great pro scenario designers), but for community members to try and do what BFC do I think is biting off more than one can chew.

Keep your focus narrow.  H2H, SP Axis or SP allied. Or just make maps.  Your content will shine more and the community will recognise you for it.

Another good example of the realities of scenario designing I highlighted in my blurb.

I have played around with it, mainly looking in to map making techniques using digital topographic data sources.  One thing that was apparent that kind of put me off entirely was the relatively crude and limited tools in the Scenario Editor, in particular related to the importing of external digital data that could conceivably make map making a whole lot less of a chore.  Perhaps if the process was more efficient I would stick at it but I am not a fan of working inefficiently. 

This is probably why I have more respect for scenario designers/map makers and an interest in discussing all things scenario design and possibilities than your average Joe end user.  I see them more like artists in many ways slaving away for the love of it using the basic crude tools BFC have given them.  Where would we be without them? 

Thank you very much for your kind words, Lt. Bull. They are much appreciated! I think you're King of the Hill on that map (for both sides), so any young gunslingers that want to give it a go should look you up. Aside from a few minor tweaks I'd like to do, I've always been very happy with the way the map turned out. I can't say the same for the scenario (mainly the time limit...too low), but I'm largely pleased with it. Part of the reason it has taken so long to get going with a SP version is that I initially spent time trying to make an all-in-one when triggers came out. I couldn't get it to work and it was taking ages, so I gave up. I really like what I have so far for the SP-only (Allied vs. AI) version, but I've had to take a break from it and will finish The Radzy Award for CMRT first. Radzymin Master Map 2 is excellent and I'm using the stock version of it for the scenario.

For various reasons (not wanting to derail this thread, not wanting to be negative and the ever-present bugger of...time), I don't want to go into more detail here on the various points in discussion. On the Editor, I would just say that any enhancements that BF could make that would speed up AI testing would be much appreciated. I'd also really love to see AI arty get some lovin'. It would be great to be able to have timed barrages and so forth. -Maybe just have it work like the player currently has in his initial setup, but with the ability to give orders to off-map reinforcement arty as well.

 

On 2016/4/18 at 3:29 PM, PanzerMike said:

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.

I absolutely LOVE that map and scenario, PanzerMike! It's one of my top favs. Thank you soooo much for doing it! I'm still hoping to use the map for a SP-only (Axis Attacker vs AI) scenario some day. I've done some work on it, but haven't gotten back to it for a long time. I've had some EPIC moments on that map, though. I remember having an attacking platoon (and the Company CO) suddenly becoming the defender for a number of turns as a company-sized Soviet counterattack forced them to hide behind a row of buildings and shoot at whatever came through or around the corners while the rest of the company desperately tried to lend help from afar. So cool!

Anyhoo, I'll leave off here on this in this thread. Perhaps we can discuss the topic more in another thread. -Maybe after I get TRA up for testing in a few weeks (I really want to get it done and out of my head ). My most recent turn of the first playtest saw one of those amazing CM moments: my ATG reinforcements arrived just as Soviet infantry was sneaking into my back field a few hundred meters from their entry point. They managed to unload and get set up as bullets whizzed past their heads. Now, enemy tanks are showing up, too. We'll see who gets the first shots in...

Edited April 19, 2016 by Macisle

[Lt Bull]

On 18/04/2016 at 11:45 PM, ASL Veteran said:

This explains a lot.  You have a lot of big ideas and plans for making things better but you have no idea how things actually work in either a general or specific sense.  You are making a lot of assumptions about a lot of things but very few of them are actually tethered to reality for an experienced scenario designer who knows what they are doing.  Everything you are saying is relevant to someone who is inexperienced and or unsure of how to create something.  Maybe if I have some time I may try to explain some things, although I'm not sure how receptive you will be so I may need to go about it in an indirect way.  Maybe you can answer something for me?  If you want to create a scenario what would be the first two things you would do?

Wow, why wasn't I surprised by your response, but really, I've come to expect that from certain types on this forum who just come across as insular, defensive, rude and narrow minded.  Kind of stretching my respect for scenario designers, but then again it's not about their personality. OK so you don't address anything I say and just want to try hard and dismiss what I am saying on account that you are an experienced scenario designer (of the BFC mold, the one I am questioning, I assume) and I am not. "You have no idea", not "tethered in reality for an experienced scenario designer", "everything you are saying is irrelevant", "relevant to someone inexperienced/unsure of creating something"...WTF?  Kind of petty, condescending and unconstructive to any intelligent conversation. Ah well.

The only thing worth addressing in your dismissive rant and potentially conducive to actual discussion was the question at the end.

If I was to create a scenario what would be the first two things I would do?

Before I do anything I would ask myself why am I doing this and what am I trying to achieve by doing it.  Getting this clearly defined sets everything else up.  For a CM scenario the most important question I would ask myself would definitely be if I am designing the scenario to be played Allied vs AI, Axis vs AI or H2H, or if I am feeling masochistic, all three.  I would probably design a scenario that explores scenario design concepts that I know can exist but have never been tried/considered before (at least none that I know of).  I have mentioned these concepts in other posts, though they mainly relate to H2H play (ie. need intelligent humans to make sense of in the game, impossible for code AI to make sense of them).  Lots of planning and consideration before starting actual design in the editor.

Actually I am playing a huge CMBN QB on a huge sexy QB map.  I'm playing as attacker with a 2:1 ratio of purchase points and a 2hr time limit.  The thought crossed my mind to perhaps try and make a SP attacker version of this battle because of the great defensive terrain and my now intimate knowledge of the micro terrain/choke points etc. Essentially using this knowledge to set up a very robust defensive network that would challenge and surprise a human player.  The concept of how challenging it can be made does intrigue me.

Was not going to bother replying again seeing the emergence of a negative vibe to kill this discussion and the fact that is was already way OT from original thread.  Happy to take up scenario design talk in a more appropriate thread.

[JonS]

2 hours ago, Lt Bull said:

Essentially using this knowledge to set up a very robust defensive network that would challenge and surprise a human player.  The concept of how challenging it can be made does intrigue me.

That is a perfect description of how one goes about creating 'puzzle' or 'maze' scenarios. There is definitely a demographic for those scenarios. You should make it - you'll probably learn something yourself, and something about yourself.

[Lt Bull]

PS:

Forgot to finish by revisiting/reviewing my original question in this thread, the subsequent answer given, and my (surprising to some) reaction to it:

I asked if a scenario that sounded challenging from the perspective of playing it SP was SP only.  The answer given was no, all stock CM BFC scenarios must be playable Allies vs AI, Axis vs AI and H2H - it is BF policy and quite rightly so.

I was not asking if it was SP only because I wanted to play it H2H.  Contrary, even though I prefer H2H, I have no problem playing ANYTHING that is specifically created/tailored/designed (optimised) to be played exclusively SP.  I mean it makes the decision on how to play it a no briner. That is why I have no problems playing CM campaigns. It's SP exclusive. The entire concept is designed around optimising it as a SP experience. I don't feel guilty about "wasting" the scenario playing it SP rather than upping the challenge by playing it H2H.

Rather than seeing it as a "positive" that the scenario I was interested in was playable in all three mode, I actually saw it as a "negative" on whether I should to play that particular scenario SP.  In fact, what I typically will do is read the scenario notes and where you invariable find something like this:

"All play modes, best played Allied vs AI"

Who doesn't want "the best"?  Why play the scenario in any other mode apart from the one the scenario designer themselves is claiming is the "preferred"/best mode to play it in?????  Everything else just seems a compromise.

I would guess most people only play scenarios once, perhaps repeatedly from one side.  Having played a scenario once before in any mode typically excludes that scenario as a candidate to play again in another mode (especially from the opposite side) simply because it would have to be played with "spoilers".  I am sure most players enjoy playing scenarios BLIND (mutually blind as H2H) as a default choice.

So from this, it should be understandable to question why scenario designers (not those making stock BFC ones, we know their reasons) by choice would bother to make all scenarios they create playable in all modes.  Potentially not only are players going to prefer and ONLY play the scenario ONCE in the mode "recommended" by the scenario designer in the notes, but all the effort/compromise etc they put in to making the other game modes playable simply goes wasted.

Omitting the "best played as" recommendations or lying that the scenario is best played in all modes is not a way to address this BTW.

Hope this explains where I am coming from with regards to my views on it.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Lt Bull

[Lt Bull]

9 minutes ago, JonS said:

That is a perfect description of how one goes about creating 'puzzle' or 'maze' scenarios. There is definitely a demographic for those scenarios. You should make it - you'll probably learn something yourself, and something about yourself.

Maybe I will.  Big map, lots of depth.  Probably going to play that QB map again with my opponent as it has been so much fun, but probably swap sides.  The process to create a defensive setup/plan for a H2H in some ways is similar to the process of setting up a defence for the AI.  Difference is that AI defensive setup must take in to consideration the huge limited capacity it has compared to a human player to react to an attackers moves/actions.

PS: I have a good handle on who I am btw, lol.

[ASL Veteran]

Lt Bull, thank you for confirming my suspicion that you would not be receptive to any suggestion that perhaps your views on scenario design may not be based on a solid foundation of knowledge or experience.  Your answer above

"I have played around with it, mainly looking in to map making techniques using digital topographic data sources.  One thing that was apparent that kind of put me off entirely was the relatively crude and limited tools in the Scenario Editor, in particular related to the importing of external digital data that could conceivably make map making a whole lot less of a chore.  Perhaps if the process was more efficient I would stick at it but I am not a fan of working inefficiently."

would seem to confirm my comment that

"This explains a lot.  You have a lot of big ideas and plans for making things better but you have no idea how things actually work in either a general or specific sense.  You are making a lot of assumptions about a lot of things but very few of them are actually tethered to reality for an experienced scenario designer who knows what they are doing.  Everything you are saying is relevant to someone who is inexperienced and or unsure of how to create something."

was factually based and your response of

"Wow, why wasn't I surprised by your response, but really, I've come to expect that from certain types on this forum who just come across as insular, defensive, rude and narrow minded.  Kind of stretching my respect for scenario designers, but then again it's not about their personality. OK so you don't address anything I say and just want to try hard and dismiss what I am saying on account that you are an experienced scenario designer (of the BFC mold, the one I am questioning, I assume) and I am not. "You have no idea", not "tethered in reality for an experienced scenario designer", "everything you are saying is irrelevant", "relevant to someone inexperienced/unsure of creating something"...WTF?  Kind of petty, condescending and unconstructive to any intelligent conversation."

just tells me that not only are you uninformed, but that you are unwilling to learn.  If you aren't willing to admit that perhaps you don't have all the requisite knowledge and experience to pontificate on the topic as an 'expert' then we wouldn't be able to have an interesting and compelling discussion.  Unless you stayed at a Holiday Inn last night.  From a theoretical standpoint perhaps your views on the subject may have some merit, but once your theories hit up against hard facts then your theory of a collective of several scenario 'specialists' who create three versions of every scenario with each specialist doing what he does best crumbles to the dust of impracticality and irrelevance.  Scenarios aren't created in a fashion similar to building a car at the auto factory.  Sure, things do need to be ... assembled ... in some fashion, but only in the same way that a master carpenter might make a custom built chair.  While the process may superficially appear to be suitable for mass production in a scenario factory of some sort the fact is that scenario design is more of an art or a craft than a simple matter of assembling parts.  The fact that you haven't gotten past the parts assembly bit is why you have the views that you have on this subject.  If you ever made it past the basics then perhaps you would understand my responses a little better.

[GhostRider3/3]

A lot to read in this thread..... My only question in regards to the scenario Baraque de Fraiture and other Scenarios... how the heck do you get the US Vehicles in the TOE for the Germans?  I looked in the TOE and could not see any US vehicles listed or groups etc.  Is it a specific date? Single vehicles etc?  It was a really well done scenario.

[Lille Fiskerby]

To give the Germans some US vehicles you set both sides to blue force (US) and bye what you want for the germans then switch one side to red force (germans) with the vehicles you want for them.

[snake_eye]

3 hours ago, GhostRider3/3 said:

A lot to read in this thread..... My only question in regards to the scenario Baraque de Fraiture and other Scenarios... how the heck do you get the US Vehicles in the TOE for the Germans?  I looked in the TOE and could not see any US vehicles listed or groups etc.  Is it a specific date? Single vehicles etc?  It was a really well done scenario.

Thanks, I am really glad you enjoyed it and Lille Fiskerby already gave you the answer to acquire enemy vehicles. You might have to set a specific date depending on the vehicle and or tank you are acquiring

25 minutes ago, Lille Fiskerby said:

To give the Germans some US vehicles you set both sides to blue force (US) and bye what you want for the germans then switch one side to red force (germans) with the vehicles you want for them.

 

Edited August 4, 2016 by snake_eye

[GhostRider3/3]

11 hours ago, snake_eye said:

Thanks, I am really glad you enjoyed it and Lille Fiskerby already gave you the answer to acquire enemy vehicles. You might have to set a specific date depending on the vehicle and or tank you are acquiring

 

Thanks for the reply Snake_eye and to Lille Fiskerby.  much appreciated.