Jump to content
Erwin

Road to Nijmegan Campaign

Recommended Posts

On 25/03/2017 at 4:18 AM, Erwin said:

Aaargh....  B4 one brags plz let us know whether it was played WEGO or RT and what level??   ^_^

If you were meaning me, I played my first twenty or so games on WEGO and Warrior, then went to Elite/WEGO. I also try to play "Ironman", no reloads or restarts.

If I played RT I would get slaughtered. The time limits in a lot Paper Tiger campaign battles are a lot tougher than the other designers (except for the 3 hours given in Nijmegen) when things start to unravel. 

Even though I play WEGO. I often step away from the PC exhausted after hours and hours of intense concentration. :wacko: I would not eat without the wife serving me. :lol:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" I often step away from the PC exhausted after hours and hours of intense concentration."

I hear ya.  It can be exhausting.  Periodically I go back to CM1 or other games for R&R.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rankorian said:

Perhaps "teaching people to lose", or to not fight, is an admirable.....societal goal.  Or a skill that an actual commander might need (if given the authority).

But for the casual gamer to run into this philosophy, so different than most of what they are given to expect elsewhere is, in my opinion, unnecessarily off-putting.  Most of us try to "solve" a scenario, and do not realize that it may be there is, by design, no solution.  I read so many comments about "impossible" campaign scenarios with MG and the Italian campaigns that I barely tried them--they sounded "broken".

Seeing this tree gives me a far better understanding of what was going on. 

'Kobayashi Maru' for combat missions.....Actually I think that's the coolest thing ever in a CM game, but you are right that it would need to be explained very clearly in the briefings. 

One of the reasons I hate writing briefings so much is that I know I will inadvertently omit something that seems as obvious as day to me (as scenario creator) that the player (who, not being a psychic as a general rule) will have no clue about, in fact I've had something like this happen just tonight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Kobayashi Maru"--given the world wide expanse of the internet and these forums, I thought it was some distant Japanese saying.

But, ah, it is a Star Trek reference--unless I am missing something more learned.

The problem, I think, is that we cannot, unlike Captain Kirk, alter the underlying (CM2) programming to a win, and the result is a possibly frustrated public.  Is it good for the character of the public?--could be a debate.  Is it good for Battlefront?  With all sympathy to BFC, my opinion is no.

 

Edited by Rankorian
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

'Kobayashi Maru' for combat missions.....Actually I think that's the coolest thing ever in a CM game, but you are right that it would need to be explained very clearly in the briefings. 

One of the reasons I hate writing briefings so much is that I know I will inadvertently omit something that seems as obvious as day to me (as scenario creator) that the player (who, not being a psychic as a general rule) will have no clue about, in fact I've had something like this happen just tonight. 

Couldn't agree more. I'm of the opinion that every mission doesn't have to be a brow-furrowing challenge. I also hold the opposite though, if a scenario designer can get away with making entertaining, though not particularly challenging missions, then they are also capable of making missions that are near-impossible to win that are just as entertaining. I particularly liked "NEDFORCE" because it provided the British player with the opportunity to retreat; giving a player a chance to know when he's beat and quit gracefully is something I wish more scenarios would do.

Writing briefings that tell a good story and provide actual useful information usually result in page-long tomes, and you inevitably get someone who loses half a company of men to some clearly stated threat. They complain about it, and then you find out they didn't read the briefing because "I'm not reading all that." A fine line to walk.

Edited by Rinaldi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/03/2017 at 5:45 PM, Erwin said:

Oh, and if anyone is interested and can't break it out, I can give em my "SET-UP" file of the "Turning Back The Tide" mission and they can change it and play as desired.

I will pm you and see if i can remember playing this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the table under the tree, I am having even more thoughts.

 

I was thinking the decision with any of the campaign scenarios was "play or don't play".  

But is it correct for me to infer from the table that the German forces are largely persistent from one scenario to the next? (I did not think they were, and did not even realize that was possible or done in a campaign)

[Rankorian palm-slaps his forehead]

Which would mean that if I heavily damaged the enemy forces, and took the loss, I would be in much better shape for the next scenario than if I did not play it and took the loss?

If so, that opens up a --LOT-- of interesting choices (interesting choices being most of what makes a fun simulation).  Again, much different than the "if you don't win you are a --loser--, no fun."  If that is true, I am almost stunned--because explaining that would have been so easy and to BFC, in my opinion, so important.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/03/2017 at 4:33 PM, DasMorbo said:

"I must say I think Paper Tigers campaigns are ill-designed: they are just too freaking long and get harder and harder over time. Very frustrating to be forced out after spending dozens of hours on it."

 

Wow harsh words indeed... I have just loaded up my old save files from 3 years ago to see what help I can offer. I think the scenario in question is Hunner Park. As I can remember that scenario and the hell I went through (but won) I must say Paper Tiger is a Master Designer and these words are too harsh.

Just getting version 4 upgrade and will have a crack at helping, also it is a return to CM after a break for Witcher and Game Of Thrones (never watched series but got box set and working my way through them to catch up with everyone...)

So might be on look out for some PBEM fun at some stage...

;)

Winter is over and I am coming out of hibernation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I have finally got Version 4 on computer and loaded up your file. It is Turn Back the Tide and again after 3 years I can still remember this game.

Not many games that can do that for me, this scenario was fun and tough...

Will spend some time on it and give you some pointers, I guess it might depend on what you managed to keep alive from previous games. If you think this one is tough wait for

Hunner Park!!!

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So after watching my save games I can see I pushed my squads forward and created some kill zones beyond the initial set up zone.

I have put the saves into a dropbox folder so if anyone else is stuck I can share the folder with you.

I have various save games all the way through the scenario and I even got hit by the %odding bug bridge so some of my armour did not make it to the battle at the end being stuck on the bridge...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I was thinking that pushing forward immediately to ambush the attacker was the only tactic I hadn't tried. 

What was frustrating was that the 60mm mortar never seems to live long enuff to fire direct, and are too slow to respond for indirect - at least at the start when the enemy is moving quickly.  Towards the middle, the enemy arty doesn't leave places to set up outside the buildings.

Also, the 50 cal in the foxhole seems to be suppressed and slowly killed.  Have never figured out a good use for it.  (Nor for the jeep 50 cal either.)

Not sure why one would send tanks over the bridge.  Seems like making them an easy target for the Panthers.  I always send em over the embankment to the right.

Edited by Erwin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just trying to get the tanks under the bridge but one jumped onto the bridge, known bug at time... Bloody annoying but i did not need it in the end...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Rankorian said:

But is it correct for me to infer from the table that the German forces are largely persistent from one scenario to the next? (I did not think they were, and did not even realize that was possible or done in a campaign)

Both sides in a campaign can have core units (or not). Losses to those units can persist between missions. I am not sure how you are determining that the German force are the same one all along. Are you inferring from the Refit 0 values? Cause I wouldn't do that see below...

 

18 hours ago, Rankorian said:

Which would mean that if I heavily damaged the enemy forces, and took the loss, I would be in much better shape for the next scenario than if I did not play it and took the loss?

In each scenario in the campaign the designer can choose to use any or all of the core units plus anything else they like. So, that means another reason there is a Red Refit value of 0 for every mission could be that each of those scenarios have fresh new German forces. The tool that breaks apart the scenarios of the campaign sadly cannot tell which units are core and which are fresh and new for that scenario only. The core forces file is not persisted in the cam file.

 

18 hours ago, Rankorian said:

If so, that opens up a --LOT-- of interesting choices (interesting choices being most of what makes a fun simulation).  Again, much different than the "if you don't win you are a --loser--, no fun."  If that is true, I am almost stunned--because explaining that would have been so easy and to BFC, in my opinion, so important.

There are a lot of interesting choices to be made - by both the designer and the player. Not knowing what choices the designer has made makes the player choices more interesting. But that's just my opinion. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Rankorian said:

But is it correct for me to infer from the table that the German forces are largely persistent from one scenario to the next? (I did not think they were, and did not even realize that was possible or done in a campaign)

This is something I've been looking at.....It seems to be possible to create a two sided Core file for a campaign, ie: one that has both Red & Blue units forces present.  The implication is that it's possible to create a core opponent who can be gradually weakened, allowing eventual defeat of a more powerful force by gradually wearing it down.  As I recall all of the campaign scripts are double sided too (ie: they have resupply & replacements chances for both sides), what I'm not sure of is how the game applies the campaign scripts as it runs.  Does it only apply Blue scripts in a Blue Campaign or does it apply both Blue and Red scripts?

PS - Ian, you have actually answered many of my questions while I was formulating them.....Cheers, you is a star!  B)

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its definitely possible for a double-sided core file; the Carpiquet campaign made by Ith is a fine example of that; both sides have consistent force tracking. Indeed his campaign's philosophy is that if your scheme of maneuver is bollocks  you can retire quietly because the Germans you cut up will remain so when you take a second crack. Its a wonderful way to help the perfectionists out of the save-reload-repeat cycle.

We are currently doing the same for the Arracourt battlepack; our combined OOB has the entirety of CCA and the two Panzer Brigades listed as core units.

We can't do a thing about consistent map damage but you can definitely make both units attrit.

Edited by Rinaldi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're another one who misses CMx1 static campaigns then!  :lol:

I just tried a little experiment using a massive CM:SF map (LJF Huge Rural) to see whether you could create a Core file on the playing map, such that the Core units would automatically be placed at a pre-set default location in each scenario.  Basically in each village or hamlet on the map I added a 'Local Militia'. 

The idea behind this was to create a largely random campaign, in each battle the Red Force would attack differing locales according to the AI Plan it selected and some of the defenders might well be wiped out, leading to deserted villages & hamlets in future games.  The presence or absence of surviving defenders at a location would act as its own set-up zone for future battles.  The Red Force (Al Shebab was my concept here) wouldn't attempt occupy terrain per-se, but rather in each battle they would come storming out of the desert to randomly assault settlements one or two at a time, at least until overpowered by a collective of militias, plus extras from the wider Core. 

Sadly it doesn't work, they all arrive in a blob in one corner.  :(

But I kind of like the idea (and I love the map) so I might still play around with it.  ;)

PS - I think I've figured a way to do this.....So long as I have a 'Master Scenario' with all the Core forces deployed (and recognised as Core forces), I'm sorted.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

So you're another one who misses CMx1 static campaigns then!  :lol:

Bit before my time, actually - but yes definitely on the wish list for me. Graviteam has the type of consistent tracking that I enjoy - straight down to morbid details like unrecovered corpses frozen on the steppes. That type of active tracking might cool down an otherwise gung-ho grog I think.

9 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

 

PS - I think I've figured a way to do this.....So long as I have a 'Master Scenario' with all the Core forces deployed (and recognised as Core forces), I'm sorted.

Yes, that should do the trick. Very innovative concept, you and Combatinman are keeping the previous generation of CMx2 games alive near-singlehandedly. Quite a feat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The core file does not control placement of units. It is just a holder for forces that can then be used in multiple scenarios in the campaign. Each scenario has its own deployment information for all units used in that scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:

Bit before my time, actually - but yes definitely on the wish list for me. Graviteam has the type of consistent tracking that I enjoy - straight down to morbid details like unrecovered corpses frozen on the steppes. That type of active tracking might cool down an otherwise gung-ho grog I think.

Yes, that should do the trick. Very innovative concept, you and Combatinman are keeping the previous generation of CMx2 games alive near-singlehandedly. Quite a feat.

Don't forget LLF.....He's hard at work too!  B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×