George MC

Many thnaks for all the comments. I'm just back from being away. I'll work my way through all the feedback so far then get back to you all with chnages. My first impression is make the briefing for the US clearer (I'll double check both anyways), amend the victory conditions for both sides to balance out points and looks like the force OOB could stay the same (although I'm inclined to give the US some more arty support). Thanks again guys for the discussion - very useful stuff indeed

Just before we go all dewy eyed over the AI in CMX1 - human wave massacres were still common with the AI... @Chris - I'm not sure it'll stop the human waves but I guess what you are after is making them bit more unpredictable. As I said I think it's more art than science At the risk of teaching ya to suck eggs, some variables to work with are: give the AI more time to get from Point to B to Point C etc play around with the 'behaviour' e.g. quick will see the AI charge on, advance it'll charge on but with a bit more caution. Maximum assault will see it stop and engage with all guns blasting. Hope this helps.

From what I've seen in my own AI Plan testing is it will try a differant route. How differant that route is does depend on where the next AI Plan waypoint is and the terrain the AI unit is travelling through. if you want to se this in action then use a very large map and give the AI Group one AI Plan waypoint at the toher end of the map. If you play with timings and 'behaviours' you wills ee the AI do differant stuff. Add in enemy units and the AI becomes a bit more unpredictable - but I think if the desgner can harness that unpredicability to create that unknown element you are onto a winner. It's the Holy Grail of AI Plans I guess the point I'm making is designers should consider making their AI Plans less scripted as and when they can (there are times for sure where you want to have lot's of waypoints pretty close to each other when you want the AI to do a particular task). Having the AI operate as a human player would is asking too much, so closely scripted plans trying to mimc a human's play style is a big ask I think). Bottom line is AI Plans are more efefctive if designers work within the limitations of the game engine rather than fight it and AI Plans are more art than science I reckon

I think one of the pitfalls with creating AI Plans is desgners over engineering their plans. I think the CMX2 designer created AI attack/defend plans is, if used well, an improvement on the old CMX1 AI. In CMX1 you took the flags and the AI attacked - pretty predictable, even if it meant the AI leaving good positions. Now in CMX2 you can have the AI hold the key positions and with a bit of testing have it atatck areas you reckon a human player may well take. The trick is not to too tightly mark out the AI attack plan. Second tip is if your AI units morale levels are set low then after taking casualties they may well stall (just as units taking heavy casualties would do in RL). How do you get around this? Well you can up the morale levels but care needs to be taken with this. The other option is to make the AI Plan reasonablly flexible so if the AI encounters trouble it can re-route. Not awlays ideal but that's what testing is about. I'd like to see triggers for sure - it's on the list I believe. But in the short term and as an old boy who had been a miner once told me "you can only piss with the cock you have"! So until triggers etc we have to make do with what is in the game. Just don't try to over engineer, give the AI some room to adjust and test. The more scripted you try to make your plan the more frustrated you as the designer are going to become.

They are probably reinforcements - it's a designer trick for having the AI fight on rather than surrender. You can check this out by openin gthe scenario up in the editor and having a look at the reinforcement slot in the Axis OOB.

No need to biatch slap each other guys - useful discussion without the side swipes

Aye I used this method when playtesting smaller scenarios but playing both sides on any large map just does my head in! I use the AI Plans to try differant tactics. So I set-up a placeholder AI plan for one side. Play the other side against the AI and check out approaches etc. Then create an AI Plan for the side I have just played using a similar COA. Then switch sides then play that against my newly created AI Plan. I do this sevral times. It a/ means I build several AI Plans and b/ I get a good feel for how the game could play out. Depending on how well the AI does will give me a feel for how a human player may do (FWIW I play a lot H2H in PBEM games to I'm used to playing humans as well as the AI). @GaJ - ah that makes sense. So on that score it's a 50/50 so far. I wonder if that score sheet is the results from chaps who have already posted here? Sounds like you know several others who are playing this one through? Cheery! George

Good points mate I'm away from the game right now so when I get back I can have a reread of the brief. I think the points for both sides could be tweaked a bit. I like the armoured car deal. I'll put that on the list

Hi GaJ From my POV having a scenario tested H2H is helluva time consuming. Players playing PBEM can take ages to finish a scenario. In this case Huzzar was being designed for the CD therefore I was working to a deadline. So in this case it was easier to seek a balance when playing against the AI then using a bit of judgement see if that balance would work H2H. Even when designing my own stuff (generally I like large maps and combined arms forces in a 'historical' setting/background - so you are looking at several hours playtime) seeking to get it balanced H2H is an uphill task. I'm not that keen on sitting on a project for months whilst two players play it out or as has happened in the past abandon the test part way through due to RL stuff. I think I'll continue designing for play against the AI, apply a bit of judgement as to how it could play out H2H then just take note of any feedback (like here) about a scenario's balance for H2H and amend if need be. Re your histogram - am I correct in reading that as an axis win? The results posted by players in this thread would suggest that the US player has it tough, although several have said the reverse. Could iit be it's balanced?

Everyone has differant views of what 'balanced' means dude. Yup your right you can balance it out by applying victory conditions that give either side a chance to 'win'. To be fair I had thought I'd done that with this the victory conditions but the forces are not 'balanced'. So to be more specific I am not all that interested from a design POV if the FORCES are 'balanced' but given I pretty much deisgn from a playing agianst the AI (either side) then I would hope the victory conditions are balanced so that the AI has a chance of winning.

I'm away from the game for the next week so I'll hang of making any major chnages till I get some more feedback. How does that sound?

Cheers for the comments guys I'm heading out of town for the next week. When I get back I'll see what else (if anything) has been posted. I'm thinking the way forward would be tweaking the victory conditons for both sides. I'm also thinking giving the US a bit more arty - after all the Allies used their arty to do a lot of the heavy lifting. Cheers fur noo George

Jon - you think I should do something about these tracks? When I built them I knew vehicles would not get down but I thought that was realistic - small track looks passable but ain't. I get the impression you'd like it changed or marked as impassable?

I've just had a quick run through this and worked out that it appears as if the there are four players saying the US are totally outclassed and two players saying they either humped the Germans or were humped by them. So it looks like the US could do with beefing up but the two comments from those who won as the US were that the US force was plenty strong. Hhmmm... Re the map issue yup I know one of the small tracks is no-go for armour - that's deliberate. I built it to recreate a small cart track that looks like it might be passable but in reality won't be. TBH how much info do you have to give players. I'm loathe to make things to obvious - there are also some sneaky wee fords and other not obvious avenues of approach. If the player does their ground recce well they'll find these small spots. Anyways I'm happy to amend a version for H2H play and upload it to the repository. I can take a look at the victory conditions and see if I can tweak them to make things a bit easier for the US. Re force OOB what is the concensus. It does look like the recce elemnts could be slightly beefed up with some dismounts and maybe add a few more 105s?

Good points. Re the senior HQ - the scenario designer can ensure that the opening camera shot is centered on the main HQ. For those who don't know how this is done, when you exit the unit set-up in the editor the camera viewpoint is the viewpoint the player will see when they open the scenario to deploy their units.

He! The Pnathers are deadly on this open map but still vulnrable to flanking shots. I must admit to getting cocky and losing more than a few to sneaky flank shots at long range...

Just been reading through all the replies - lot's of food for thought there guys. Thanks to all who have posted their comments. Great to see that a scenario has had such an impact. Where to begin... I checked the scenario over. Several observations. Again mind possible spoilers coming up.... SPOILER ALERT # # # # The US armour and HT infantry arrive within five minutes of each other. So I would think that is not too long to wait given the scenario lasts for over two hours. The US has the heavy arty although only one battery of Priests (off map). Originally they had more I recall but this skewed the action hence they just have the one. The Germans have no heavy arty support save their organic off-map 81mm mortars. So I'm thinking that I could give the US another battery of 105s? I checked the victory conditions and looking at them the US player gets just over half their points for taking out German units. On the other hand the German players gets most of their points for seizing bridgeheads. I can beef up the US recce forces for sure. But I'm a bit wary of doing this as it signifcantly changes the fight. The German player does not have that many infantry assets on-map at the start but enough to seize some objectives. However that either means they split their force or concentrate them. So I'm holding fire on this one just now. Unless there is support from both sides for the US having more infantry on-map at the start. Given there is a certain amount of division amongst those who have won/lost I'm thinking it's maybe not too far of the mark in terms of balance Thoughts? Cheers fur noo George

Good points mate - I'm just finishing up work so when I get home I'll check what the arty support and victory points are for the US side. Must admit I had thought the US had more arty - if that's the case all they have is one battery then I think there is a good argument for giving them more (also willc heck the ammo loadout) - I do seem to recall when testing this of me using the arty to take out ID'd Panthers etc. Ok must dash.

Niiice Glad ya enjoying it. I'm part way through putting together a smaller action (using a smaller 1.5km x 1.5km part of the larger Fire Brigade map that has then been revamped) should have that done by the time you finish up Fire Brigade. Be keen to hear how you get on? Cheery! George

I’m probably not the best person to comment seeing as I designed it J First off I appreciate you playing this out and being interested enough in it to comment. Any feedback is great and it's good to see the hours you spend designing these scenarios gives someone a great deal of enjoyment and challenge. Anyways I’ll give you some background as to why I made the design decisions I did. First off and this one is purely selfish, I tend to design scenarios that I would like to play J I like armoured combined arms actions first and formost. Secondly there is a fundamental design/play philosophy approach which is key to taking my comments into account. From my POV I’m not all that interested in designing ‘balanced’ scenarios for H2H play. I think if players want truly 'balanced' then I would suggest playing QBs where both sides have the same points and if they want, can play on mirrored maps. What I am interested in is giving a player as true to life tactical challenge as I can within the constraints and limitations of the game engine. Now a great many RL actions were not balanced nor did they included the ideal tools for the job hence a player’s OOB or obejectives may not be ideal. But I like this sense of trying to achieve some sort of win in very challenging circumstances - I do hope though I give the player a glimmer of hope! That sense that if they do one thing or another just right it'll come good. It'll not be easy but then it should not be a puzzle, tricksy or a lost cause from the opening turn. Now whether that happens in the secnarios is of course up for deabte I’m writing this from work so I’ve not got access to the actual OOB for both sides nor can I recall the exact arrival times for units. So I stand to be corrected on any inaccuracies here. SPOILER ALERT # # # # The following sections could include spoilers so be warned. The concept behind this scenario is the opening part of the action is Germans have attacked and broken through US lines and are pushing forward . A small German kampfgruppe, the advance guard of the main effort, is tasked to secure several crossing points for the main force. The US scramble together a small force to move up and form a blocking position. This is more a meeting engagement rather than a set piece attack – hence the parity in forces. My top tip is for both players to read their respective briefings thoroughly. That’s key to winning this one I think. So how this pans out from a design perspective is the opening involves typical recce forces for each side sniffing out likely avenues of approach/attack. German recce units are generally set-up to fight for info and if need be can seize key terrain for a short while. US generally do a bit more Sneaky Pete. So yeah in this opening the US player may well be at a disadvantage. However they do have very good arty support and comms. So the US player has access to a lot of fire support. The US arrive on map with more stuff quicker than the Germans (if I recall correctly). I staggered the US arrival as the US set-up zones are on lines of march so did not want the player to have a huge cluster of stuff arrive on-map at the same time. If I recall the US force is set-up as advance guard and main body. I was not expecting the US player to attack just using their armour in such confined country but have the armour secure the immediate line of departure, wait for their HT borne infantry to catch up then push forward as a combined arms team. I also wanted the US force to appear in the same area rather than have stuff split up willy nilly. Read any account of actions and you tend to find the attacker being in convoy using the limited road net. Hence why I set-up the US in this way. Mind, you have over 2 hours for this – there is no rush! The US player can concentrate their forces and achieve local superiority – they have the advantage in that regard plus lot’s of artillery. Also if I recall correctly I think both sides have different objectives. The US player does not need to get all their objectives to succeed. The German player has to take some of the objectives – guess what I am saying is both sides have very different victory conditions so players can make choices here. Key is the briefing. Re breaching – well they did not always have breaching teams attached. This is a hasty counter-attack by the US to form a blocking position – it’s actually the German player who is really the attacker hence the parity. Hope this gives some background – I’m keen to hear other takes on this but in the end reserve the right to stick to my guns Cheers fur noo George

Yup there is probably a clue to the intent of your thread in the title of the thread eh?

What about those who think the game as is kicks ass? I'm having a ball with it (Ok always stuff to improve and I have my own wee pet wish list) - but seeing a zug of panzergreandiers dismount from their SPW with their platoon SPW giving support fire (and the other guys inside fire their own weapons) and assault a small village in the early dawn - man it rocks! No more pumpkin heads twizzling about. I don't get anyone who says a modded CMX1 looks better. ****e I say!

Your FO was not killed in an earlier mission was he?

Glad ya liked the map - and that the AI Plan did it's job. Nice

I've played this as the US against the Germans in a PBEM and my opponent played a blinder with using small groups using hit and run tactics and ambushes. I think if you stay put as the Germans once the US ID your position you will be whamped with arty - best keep moving so sounds like your doing the job. It's not easy as the Germans for sure but keep hitting and keep running. The map is large enough Cheery!