Wild Bill Wilder
-
Posts
1,355 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Wild Bill Wilder
-
-
Im posting this on behalf of WInecape who cannot access the forum:
*This* is as NEWS to me as to you and the rest of the WineCape/Invitational participants, no doubt! And I have not
the slightest clue as what might have happened, obviously via some email exchanges between Treeburst and participant(s). Though I could most probably guess as to why he wants/did pull out, I am out of the guessing/assuming game with *this* Forum for sure!
-
I want to stick my nose in here (and probably get it lopped off in the process).
Let's take a breath, take a moment and consider a few points.
1. Treeburst and Winecape are great gaming enthusiasts whose goal was to encourage gamers by offering some competitive FUN (I emphasize the word, "fun.").
The wargaming community, while relatively small in size is composed of every sort of personality imaginable. The majority is rather silent, looking for a hobby to entertain them. Then within the ranks there is also a minroity, which is rather vociferous in expression. They speak loudly, candidly and sometimes quite harshly.
2. For some of this minority in the gaming community, gaming is not just fun. It includes some unhappy people whose cup of coffee (stimulus) each day is finding fault with others and their efforts. Not that they could do it better; they just think they could.
There can be a number of reasons for this. I won't go into them.
3. Then there are those who have something to prove. To them winning is everything and losing is intolerable. For them "Second place is the first loser." These pedantics cannot bear the personal shame of losing. Gaming for them is a podium of pride, an opportunity to impress other gamers with their superiority in both skill and knowledge.
4. Sponsoring a tourney means that all of these are going to probably get involved. That seems to be the case here.
5. The first set of scenarios I designed for a tourney was some five years ago, for the old Wargamer site with Mario Kroll and Tim Maushardt.
6. Even though it went relatively well, I do think it produced some serious grays for the two of them. There was some nit-picking, bitching and moaning, and angry expressions of varying degrees, usually from those that lost.
Kinda like the program, "The Weakest Link," shown in the USA and perhaps overseas.
7. Undertaking the sponsoring and management of a tourney takes nerves of steel. One comes under the gun from many sources. This is inevitable. It will happen.
8. Knowing something of the paperwork, hassle and pain of such enterprises and knowing of the sincere good-hearted efforts of Mike and Winecap, I think a vote of confidence and appreciation would be in order here.
9. It is time for the silent majority to make some noise.
So here is my war cry. Treeburst and Winecape, I applaud your efforts. I think you are doing your best to making wargaming more fun for CM folks.
I'm sorry you've caught flak. Know that your efforts are worthy of praise. I personally thank you for what you have done and are doing, no matter what you decide for the future.
Wild Bill
-
Well, I see you have the package now. Good.
Wild Bill
-
I think you'll be pleased this time Juardis. Its a lot of straightforward action with a few little curves in the road.
There is variety which is good since assault-defend battles after awhile can become tedious.
Thanks for the good thought, my friend. It is most encouraging...Wild Bill
-
A Couple of new clarifications to the particpants of this great tourney that Treeburst is putting together.
The scenario design/testing is progressing nicely. Keith "Outlaw" Yeates (aka Buckeye) has gotten moving quickly and three scenarios of the series are already undergoing serious testing.
Ted "Super Ted" Quincy has become a partner in the effort. Ted is one of the most selfless individuals I know and is an asset to the WB Raider Team.
He has always been there for us. He is pioneering a second group of testers to do the same as the Outlaw team is doing. Thanks Outlaw and ST and your team members for your willingness to help.
Be assured that none of these testers will be participants in the tourney. I wish I could, but instead I'll stand by and watch the carnage :eek:.
Remember, you purists, these are loosely based historical recreations. While not every gun may have the historical counterpart in ammo load, all of these do give you the feel of the real historical action. That is what we are seeking.
Everything is moving along well. I think you will all, win or lose, have a good time with these.
Surprises? Yes, there will be a few
Lock and load, warriors. Its a long hard road to victory!
Winecap, can you drop me a note tonight? My mail is not getting through to you.
Wild Bill
-
Loose lips sink ships (and hopes) so we can't say a lot. Mike has covered it well. Most of the nations involved in CMBO are included.
The scenarios will be sort of medium in size and not over 30 turns in order that the agony will not be too prolonged for the loser. We hate slow deaths.
We will do our best to be sure you have enough time, but that does not mean you will be twiddling your thumbs.
When the Colonel says "MOVE," you'd best move!
Wild Bill
-
Thanks Mike,
I did get the wrong topic but right idea (right string baby but the wrong yo-yo...but that was before your time -
)Thanks for putting it in the right place
WB
-
I just want to add that each will be different approaches to war. You will have a variety of fights which should keep it interesting...Wild Bill
-
The battles will be mixed, a combination of forces which is realistic and historical.
There will be some infantry heavy battles. CM is, after all, primarily a tactical infantry game.
Your skills will be needed as a commander, much more than weapon size. You will be pushed hard to make the right choices that will lead to victory.
And victory will not come easily!
Wild Bill
-
It is my privilege to be able to participate in Treeburst's efforts for great gaming for all of you fellow warriors!
We are going to do our best for you. At least I know you'll like the variety. You're gonna get a real good luck at the war in Western Europe out of different eyes.
You could be Brits, Canucks, French, German, or even a band of brothers as you take your tour of the conflict.
Sadly, Rune is unable to join us in the design aspects with other commitments.
But have no fear, we will get it done
The sad part is that I cannot this time get the chance to meet some of you on the battlefield.
Keith Yeates is heading up a special design team to help make sure these are playable and balanced. I'm hoping old Super Ted Quincey will also give us a hand as well as a few of the Boots N' Tracks Team.
We'll do our best for you guys. And thanks to Treeburst for the invite. Its an honor!
Wild Bill
-
I will recommend a few of mine, not because they are the best, but I am most familiar with them.
Maastricht is a good one. Thanks, Freak. I like playing that one. It does have replay values.
Here are a few others.
To the Last Man (UK)
Blood and Bocage (US)
Relieving the Rangers (US)
A Rock in the Flood (Polish)
Fiery French (French)
Far from Over (German)
Njimegen (US)
The Wrong Hill (Canadians)
Death of the Titans (Germans)
Bridgehead at Benicourt (Germans)
MidnightMadness at Prum (US)
Painful Progress (US)
These are some I have enjoyed for more than one play. I'm sure the others mentioned are also very good choices so get some variety as far as scenario design. It is interesting to sometime try a different point of view.
Wild Bill
-
I did not know that Michael had one out there. That is great. I've only played mine...and only about 20 times. I still like to play it. Makes me remember the movie.
I just sent you a copy if you want to try it, Rat.
Wild Bill
-
SO very true, Panzerman!...WB
-
Sorry no one has answered you before now, Reno.
Balance is an elusive element in a scenario, by far the most unknown quantity you will have to define.
It is a gut thing that comes with practice and testing...LOTS of testing.
If there were one fault that most new designers commit, it is offering a scenario that has not been properly tested.
It is understandable, of course. You have worked hard on your masterpiece. You are proud of it. You see no problem with it (naturally you wouldn't...or you would fix it)
You can't wait for people to see it so "boom" you stick it out there. You may or may not regreat it.
Testers are the lifeblood of the success of a scenario. They are the linemen on the team that open the hole for a designer to score a touchdown. But that is another subject.
And that is one of the main ways to discover how to balance a scenario.
Now as to the details of your question...the first thing you have to do is ascertain, "What do I want to convey with this battle?"
Some battles can be balanced in the sense of either side winning PROVIDED both sides are played by humans (PBEM or online).
With CM, creating a balanced scenario for a win on either side is difficult. Why?
Because the AI (computer side) is not overly bold.
An example would help. In the scenario, A Second Job, The US engineers are one side of Vossenack. The Germans are at the other end, equal in strength and equidistant from the objectives.
Now you would think, "I can play either side and it will be challenging." No, that is not the case. Why?
Because it is a given that he who possesses the objectives has an advantage. The enemy has to come to him. He can set up ambushes, lie in wait and then kill him as he approaches.
Now a meeting engagement has become an attack-defend situation.
And since the computer moves its units more cautiously, I can rush the objectives as Germans or Americans, take them and then set up defensive positions. Nothing like tossing satchel charges out of a window on passing Germans to make your day!
So as I see it, you have to choose. Do I want the human player to take the Germans or the Allies?
Then you build your scenario accordingly.
Now you CAN make a meeting engagement. If you are the Americans you can put German units closer to the objectives so that both forces can arrive at the same time. Now you are fighting to get control, not keep control of the objectives.
And I've only covered one aspect of balance. I would write more but it might become tedious for you to read.
So let me briefly mention a few things to consider
1. How historical is this scenario to be and still be winnable (and challenging!)?
2. What type of scenario should it be? One player, two player, assault-defend or meeting engagement?
3. How can I be sure it is balanced? Outside testing...lots of it. Fine tuning is a MUST.
Just an idea to help achieve this mysterious enttity called balance.
Wild Bill
-
Thanks Kingfish! I believe that is the formula.
The advance is not measured by how far forward you penetrated with say one tank or squad. That is more of a recon thing.
To compensate for that, the game subtracts a certain distance to establish just how much ground you took (or held).
That measurement is not always realistic and it could be fine tuned a bit.
Wild Bill
-
Those are some excellent ideas, Ben! Thanks for sharing...Wild Bill
-
It is one of the most frustrating parts of operations. The start lines can really upset your applecart and your expectations.
Steve (or Charles) once posted a detailed explantion as to the "why" of such a thing but I don't recall it all now.
It is determined by map size vs "no man's Land" size and some other factors, if I remember correctly.
One alternative (too late for those already playing) is to narrow the no mans land (buffer) between the two sides.
Are you playing the CD operation or the later revised and downloadable version of Team Desobry?
Wild Bill
-
Well, well, Admiral! What a great job you've done here. This is one of the finest sites on being able to see what is out there and how it works!
I offer my sincerest thanks for a lot of hard work to benefit gamers. Well done!
I like your scenario evaluation system, which also allows for comments as to the "why" of certain evaluations.
I wish you the best with this. I hope you will continue to update it.
Quite a number of mine are not listed and I would be greatful if I could send them and have them posted as a part of your prestigious site.
Thank you!
Wild Bill
-
Never worked for me either, but I'll give it another try. It would be nice!..Wild Bill
-
This plethora of new material is wonderful. So many battle to fight, so little time.
My congratulations to all of you who are being baptized in the waters of scenario design.
I too have a couple of new ones.
The Fiery French at the Boots N'Tracks Raider site: http://www.militarygameronline.com/combatmission/
And Manx has been gracious enough to post the Polish scenario on the fighting near Falaise, A Rock in a Flood.
http://www.combat-missions.net/
Thanks to Kinch and Manx for posting these for me.
Wild Bill
-
As many scenarios as you have looked at, Spike, I'm sure you have the touch.
Congrats on your first. I'll have to look it over.
Your feet are wet now. You have the fever
Wild Bill
-
A great job, Spike. This is a very handy resource for those of us who like to have ALL the scenarios for a given game, especially our Combat Mission...Wild Bill
-
They prove to be quite interesting;
http://www.consimworld.com/newsroom/story/0701/070201csr.html
Wild Bill
-
Thank you kindly, Combined Arms. The ones you mentioned have been some of my favorites too.
I had a good feeling from the get-go about them. That is always a good sign.
But the endorsement is very much appreciated.
And yes, Rune's work is top notch!
Wild Bill
"Wild Bill's Rumblings Of War"- A Tournament
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
I guess I've been lucky. The PBEM and online games I have been able to play have never been plagued with this illness called "gaminess."
It is a game, of course, and as such is in danger of becoming a "win at any cost" type of situation.
Well, that is what the real battles were all about.
Still...
The use of men and/or material in a method totally unrealistic would certainly take away from the good feeling of a "firefight."
I would hope that all participants feel the same way I do. Am I asking too much?
Let's have fun and kill the enemy!
I hope I can avoid in the design process the potential for this kind of thing.
Juardis, I am disappointed that you will not be participating. I would love to have seen you involved.
Eventually, you'll all have a shot at these.
After the tourney, they will be issued for public consumption.
Treeburst, we are all glad to see you back with your armor plating in place
Wild Bill
[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: Wild Bill Wilder ]