Webwing
-
Posts
2,309 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Webwing
-
-
Normal Dude,
It's a pleasure to witness your work in progress.
The PDF is looking great! A lot more military oriented than mine with all those symbols and information.
Cpl Steiner helped me with the text and I have to say it was a great help.
It's just too much work and if you can find people to help you, accept it right away!
Of course it's up to you. Some people have a very specific idea of how they want things done and enjoy doing every little thing themselves.
It's clear to see how much attention you are giving to every detail. I sure know how much work that means.
Fantastic work!!!
-
-
No, not a bug, just the opposite.Originally posted by Scipio:BTW, something I have noticed in the 'Ambush in Al Fubar' scenario today when I played it as red side: the terrain objectives for the blue side are shown, even when I play as red side. It seems to me that I shouldn't have this information available, and beside that it's very confusing, too, since the red side doesn't have any terrain objectives at all in this scenario! Look like a little bug, doesn't it?
It's an option in the editor.
Known to player/Known to Enemy/Known to Both/Know to Neither.
-
-
Best pure MOUT scenario IMO is Big City Blues. Of course, from the ones I played.
Tough as hell for Blue, so I'd say it is very well balanced.
Loads of excellent scenarios around but this one is a very natural and well set up pure MOUT engagement with a lot of variety. Still, the map is small in scale.
George's scenarios are always on top of my list and Babado and anything from Rune is always a blast but they are not exactly my definition of MOUT.
-
-
Like FMB said it could be the Touch objective. What mission was that Wiggum?Originally posted by Wiggum:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Webwing:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wiggum:
What does it mean if i get points for a Terrain Objective and the enemy gets points for the same terrain objectives...that is what i see today in a scenario.
There is also the Spot objective for units. In which case you get points just by spotting the enemy unit.
I haven't seen this one used yet. Interesting for recon missions.
- </font>
-
Great!Originally posted by Normal Dude:It is coming along. I have a dearth of beta testers though, especially since I am concerned about performance on varying machines, something which is impossible for me to verify. My expectation is that it will be ready in June.
It's a very absorbing process, and I find it very enjoyable.
As for testers, that can be a big problem. It is very time consuming to test and it's like playing with a broken toy.
As a designer you lose perspective completely specially after you played it so many times. I find it essential to have others play it and give you feedback.
Good luck with that!
-
-
This was my intention. I do not believe it to be a large problem, I just wanted to let campaign designers know that it is there.Originally posted by Normal Dude:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paper Tiger:
It's certainly not my intention here to debate what kind of campaign design is better for players. Rather, I'm responding to a potential problem highlighted by the OP that campaign creators might face and present a solution to that problem.
The issue I AM concerned with is the surrender auto total victory. </font>
-
Paper Tiger,
I'm really looking forward to your campaign.
Yours is going to be the first to use branching, am I right?
I wanted to use it initially in the Ghost but gave up. But I think a dynamic campaign is the way to go and would make for a great campaign. It gives a natural flow to the experience
The reason I gave up the idea though is because I figured most players will save the game and go back so that they are sure they will win. They usually don't carry on until they have a victory. So having a branch would be used only by a minority of players.
Of course this is just a guess, since how the hell do we know how most players go about their games. We only know about a few that post in the forum anyway!
It would be nice to have random branches instead of based only on a victory threshold. But I digress.
Anyway, I intend to play yours without any saves and see where it takes me!
-
-
Scipio,
Play Big City Blues and you'll understand what Mark means!
-
-
Like FMB said it could be the Touch objective. What mission was that Wiggum?Originally posted by Wiggum:What does it mean if i get points for a Terrain Objective and the enemy gets points for the same terrain objectives...that is what i see today in a scenario.
There is also the Spot objective for units. In which case you get points just by spotting the enemy unit.
I haven't seen this one used yet. Interesting for recon missions.
-
-
Not for parameters or terrain objectives, AFAIK.Originally posted by Scipio:BTW - I'm not sure about this - is a partial result possible for Parameter & Target objectives?
eg. 10% casualties. Is either more or less, win or lose.
Terrain objectives. Either you occupy, with no enemies in it or you don't.
Yes, for Target Objectives.
If you target a unit, say a platoon. The more casualties in that platoon the more points you get. That is, if the designer chose Destroy.
If he chose Destroy All, you only get points if the whole platoon is destroyed.
There is also a Spot option here.
-
-
I was initially worried about players cheating and just asking a cease fire and go to the next mission.
So at first I had the threshold to Tactical Victory.
In the end I decided that if the player wanted just to go and play mission 3 for instance, why not let him do so? So I changed that. He can start and call for a cease fire right away and go to the next mission.
Is that cheating? I don't think so. People have fun in different ways. If the player wants to go through it as it was intended, great. If he just want to play it casually, skipping some missions it's fine by me too.
Restraining the player too much is not desirable. Like Mark joked, it will only annoy some players!
The good thing is that all this is up to the designer to decide.
-
-
Interesting topic.
It all depends on the Campaign and how it is structured IMO.
If ALL your units are core units then there is no need to punish the player for high casualties in the score.
If he takes too many casualties the next mission will be more difficult for him, and the next one, and so on.
He will pay the price by not having the men at his disposal in the next mission.
However, there is still the problem of the player asking for a cease fire early. But in all the missions in my campaign the most he will get is a Draw, which is not enough to carry on.
A bit OT but the use of core units is something to be taken into account. Since this can be a way o cheating as well.
The official manual (is there an unofficial one?
) says that you should not let the player know which units are core units. This is to avoid having the player use the ones that are not core as cannon fodder. I prefer to have all units for the player to be core, even if they appear only in one mission and never again. The player doesn't know if they will appear again or not so will try to preserve them.
-
[ April 12, 2008, 06:39 AM: Message edited by: Webwing ]
-
Huntarr,
What do you think of putting this in a PDF file and uploading it to cmmods?
-
-
Very nice Mikey!
And let me give you some help with the bump thing!
-
-
It's not whining, its just finding out how others do similar stuff.
I like that kind of thing, theres always some interesting experiences from others that you can use in your next game!
-
-
Cpl Steiner,
The settings in the editor have always intrigued me. I guess it's a bit like tweaking a car in a race sim. Gear ratio, camber, etc. Never got the hang of that, by the way. :confused:
I have started some tests months ago trying to figure exactly how to use those settings. Pretty elusive stuff!
-
-
Some players have posted pretty good results with arcs. I prefer to avoid them and use only hide. This ensures that your troops will not be spoted
If you have enemy vehicles coming and your troops are hiding 50m away from where those vehicles will get, they will react, most certainly. Even though they don't see the enemy.
I imagine your troops can hear them, that's why they come out of hiding. It depends on the motivation too, so it's not sure fire. In my mission I tested to make sure that would happen and it did 100% of the times. But I don't know in the mission you are playing if that is the case.
I'd be curious to know the results you get. Can you save the game at that point and try both procedures?
-
-
Now, that's an idea! It is the same region after all. Would be great to compare the two extremes.Originally posted by SgtMuhammed:They are going all the way back to the beginning.
CM: Sargon the Great.
Did they use horses at all then? Chariots came a bit later as I remember....
Got to get the dust out of my history books!
-
-
Well, one can see this technique functioning in RT. What about WEGO? </font>Originally posted by Childress:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Field Marshal Blücher:
I think it just requires a bit more micromanagement. You Hide up until the moment you want to ambush, and then take off Hide and give them a Target (or whatever) order.
-
Well, I don't think so either.Originally posted by Field Marshal Blücher:Hmm. It looks like if the gun is facing the right way, it's not clipping through him. OK, that makes sense then; I don't think it's worth using any of the devs' time to fix that.
-FMB
But the thread brought up some interesting observations about the differences in design of the hatches and the use of the machine gun.
It's very clever design to use half the hatch as a shield.
It makes the TC a bit more uncomfortable but then again who expects comfort in a tank!
-
-
Really? funny I didn't either....Originally posted by MarkEzra:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Webwing:
MarkEzra,
I see no problem in your screens...
-
</font>
-
I had to test this extensively and with patch 1.07 specially since one of the most exciting missions in the Ghost campaign can only be won with an ambush. A whole company ambushing the enemy.
I have to say it works really well in this mission.
The soldiers can't see, but they can hear. For some positions the player needs to do what FMB said. But in others just leave them and they will stand up and fire as the enemy is close enough to pose a real threat. This is specially effective if you hid your men on the roof.
I didn't even use the cover archs.
---
-
Hey Mark, you are right.
You probably didn't read my last paragraph, since usually you are already posting while I'm editing it.
I said it would be an easy half "fix", but yes, not necessarily a desired one.
But as I wondered about the design (last paragraph) I realized the intention behind it.
So I'd rather live with the visual problem, if that is the case. Personally it doesn't bother me at all.
Funny that most western tanks have their machine guns facing the front though. Even the one for the TC, when there is one. I assumed that's how it would be used most of the time.
-
-
The other day I had some guys on top of a building with their Javelins. I wanted them to locate an ATGM that had killed 2 of my tanks.
As they spotted the site and I prepared to have them kill it with the Jav, BANG! The ATGM team fired at my men killing most of them!!!
I have never seen them fire at infantry but in this case somehow they saw the threat and reacted immediately!!!
Although that was a devastating blow, I thought it way cool how the AI reacted.
-
Ghost Campaign
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Cpt. Wasp
Thanks a lot for the feedback. I'll sure take it into account when updating it.
I was surprised about the Bunker. I never had them surrender too fast. By the way, what do you mean by too fast? How much time did you have left?
Did you think the missions with a full company were a bit too much, controlling all those units?
After playing the missions for several times I was really tired of having to micromanage dozens of units for hours on end. I was thinking of having a smaller number of troops in the future.
-