Franko

...just a thought. I mean, we have pool, a zillion computers, and Non Disclosure Agreements by the bushel. Frank

I dont understand all the excitement. There wasn't that much fighting on the Eastern Front.

Magnificent work. I think it looks wonderful. I think you outdid CMBB, even before it was released. Frank

Funny. But not helpful. F

You are reading me correctly. Hit the nail right on the head, as it were. F

I am starting this thread for the purpose of coming up with a set of standards/observations/guidelines, about how the AI behaves, for the purpose of designing realistic scenarios that will be challenging and enjoyable. To that end, I am posting some observations, and would like you all to weigh in. I will edit this post occasionally to update this. Naturally, all of these points can be modified, if you have some better knowledge to share. Again, we are working to develope a set of guidelines based on how the AI behaves, so we scenario designers can avoid common mistakes which result in crappy scenarios. 1. Don't have the "computer" opponent be mounted on tanks or trucks. The reason apparently is that the computer doesnt know how to handle mounting, dismounting (has anyone ever seen the computer player have a unit "mount" a vehicle?). Is this true? 2. Don't design scenarios where the computer is allowed to setup, period. Is this a good rule? Does the AI ever do anything intelligently? 3. Don't make the computer player be the "Attacker", because it won't move well and lacks agression. This is a common assumption, but is it true? Is there something that can be done from a design standpoint to make the AI give you fits? 4. This space reserved for the definitive ruling on whether setting an exit zone on one side or the other "encourages" the AI to behave a certain way. 5. This space reserved for a rule on whether to count on the AI to use on-board mortars effectively. 6. This space reserved for a rule on whether the computer can use roads effectively, or avoid using them when it would be suicidal to do so. 7. This space reserved for some observations on how AI commanders (e.g., platoon leaders) behave vis-a-vis their subordinates. 8. This space reserved for observations on how the AI chooses target priorities.Treeburst states that the AI targets the most "experienced" unit it sees, and it knows what weapons that unit has (e.g., Panzerfausts). True? 9. This space reserved for observations on how the AI is effected by limited visibility. 10. Scott B -- raises an issue as to curious behavior when the AI is set to "hide" at the beginning of the scenario. Developing. 11. It appears that the human advantage can be mitigated somewhat by the use of harsher weather conditions and more static defenses on the AI side -- serving to level the playing field (Lindan). I think we'll all benefit from this. Although this post is abstract, I think I communicated what I want. A set of principles whereby designers can make effective scenarios. Frank [ May 28, 2002, 02:09 AM: Message edited by: Franko ]

Well, as an active member of the CM community, I think I owe my two cents, but feel free to disregard it. I think I get what Nac4 means, but "boycotting" or "quitting" the game seems silly to me. But I respect his choice. Nevertheless, here are my thoughts on many of the topics raised: "GAMINESS" I think a lot of the criticism of CM, of which there is ample (although much of it unfair and misplaced), is that it allows "gaminess". I don't think there's a way to avoid "gaminess". We all have an idea of what combat was like, and what tactics are like, and what tanks could do what to other tanks. I've a read a lot of oral history of World War Two, and many "real life" tactics, translated to a gaming environment, would seem "gamey" to us. I won't bore you with examples. There are many out there. So what is actually "gamey", in objective terms, will remain illusive. Naturally, some "obviously" gamey tactics we can do without: i.e., the suicidal rush of the jeep driver to "scout out" enemy positions, hugging the "edge" of the map, loading yourselves down with Pumas (although there were only a few dozen on the entire Western Front), using "crews" to scout, etc. On the whole, I think that Battlefront (Steve, et. al.) are doing a fine job addressing man of these issues with "rarity" in CMBB (based on what I've seen so far). However, by and large, "realistic" tactics are usually rewarded with victories. REALISM and OPERATIONS As for "realism" (simply the corrollary of gaminess), I think the addition of an extreme fog of war provision will also go a long way to mollifying many critics. But I think that BTS is doing that, too. As for Operations, CM responded wonderfully to a post I made about a year or so ago, lamenting some of the design limitations (or holes) in the Operations model. I agree that it can be developed better, but I think that BTS must inevitably maintain some reasonable level of abstraction -- it would simply be almost impossible to satisfy the cravings that Nac4 desires: his bar is simply too high. But overall, I think CM does a good job at "faking it": and I have no reason to suspect it won't get better. During the design process, Battlefront no doubt had to make a BUSINESS decision and FOCUS on what its goals were, and get them done. I respect that. QUICK BATTLE The quick battle serves a useful purpose and I have little critism of it: the map generator maybe creates some dumb-looking maps, but they're usually okay. Its fun for the one-off game. I don't see a problem with it. REALISM IN GENERAL I don't want to get in a lengthy discussion about the AI, but I think its initial setups (when you allow it to) leave a lot to be desired. But I think a clever designer can avoid it if possible. Personally, I think I would be a MUCH better scenario designer if I knew some of the AI assumptions and coding secrets: but I don't, so I have done a lot of trial and error and guesswork, relying mostly on anecdotal evidence. I think that scenarios, to be truly great, must have TRAINED scenario designers, who know the ins and outs of the coding. Therein lies the rub. My only criticism of CM, per se, is that the SCENARIOS are usually not well designed (I'm thinking of noone in particular here, but I've designed a few losers myself). I suspect its because that so much effort went into the ENGINE, and apparently less into "executing the vision". I guess the metaphor would be that Battlefront have composed a wonderful musical score, but the composer is absent when the rest of us seek to interpret and play their music. Or perhaps a better metaphor is that they designed the motor vehicle, tossed us the keys, and said "figure out if its a race car or a farm tractor." But to be fair to CM, how could they let us know the coding assumptions, without giving away to much? Simply put, I want to know more about how the AI behaves, so I can design around it and through it. REALISM AGAIN Some final thoughts on realism. I haven't fought any wars, I've just read about them. Generally, I think scenarios should be longer, and their should be more "waiting around" while artillery lands, men get organized, etc. Infantry sit around for hours waiting for something to happen. And then when it happens, they usually get obliterated in minutes. But my god, what a boring GAME that would be, and therein lies another rub: Battlefront also wants to entertain us, in an evening, over the internet, or whatever. They don't want to be TOO realistic: because real war is hours of boredom interrupted by sheer terror, as the saying goes. And who the hell would want to purchase THAT game? The gang at BTS deserve respect because they are dedicated to the ETHIC of realistic wargaming. Plus, they are extremely dedicated to their product, so I have every reason to expect great things from them. Since they were the FIRST computer tactical wargame of its kind, and the finest wargame on the market, I will remain loyal. But maybe they could help us play their music better. F [ May 28, 2002, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: Franko ]

'nuff said. Franko

Man, that looks great! Maybe Curt Shilling will put down his glove and call his lawyer, though. Be careful. F

Sorry to see you go, Manx. We'll welcome you back with open arms when you (hopefully) come back...Best of luck to you. Frank

Those are stands of fir trees. Althought the Ardennes is a hilly, forested area, the area of Bastogne was relatively "clear". Thus, you see why the town is so important. By the way, that is most DEFinitely Marvie. I am currently desiging THREE scenarios, and one MAXI-sized scenario, on the several actions at Marvie. I anticipate these will be released by Boots and Tracks after playtesting is complete. Frank

Yes..it kicks massive ass. In fact, I've already edited two of my scenarios to take into account this new mod. Excellent work. Top rate. F

dick.

God..I don't even know the guy and now I have NO respect for his ass. Happy Birthday! F

[ February 15, 2002, 02:13 AM: Message edited by: Franko ]

OUTSTANDING link. All scenario designers should strive to keep such facts in mind when designing. Frank

Interesting discussion. I very much appreciate BTS' timely responses to our questions. For what its worth, I don't think the CM "Operations" are horribly broken..and I've probably designed more operations than anyone. However, adding reinforcement slots are HUGE from a design standpoint..it opens up many possibilities. Therefore, I think thats a great idea. Second, it would be highly useful to be able to control the "weather" more specifically for each scenario within an operation. Third, there should be more TURNS allowed for each individual scenario within an operation. Fourth, I agree that the frontlines should be "weighted" in favor of the defender (i.e., more likely to displace the attacker). Fifth, "whole map" displays should be allowed for any type of operation, whether it be assault, advance, etc. Perhaps more meaningful descriptions of those terms would also be useful. Admittedly, I'm no programmer. But these capabilities would allow for better operations design -- no doubt. I once wrote a HUGE memo on this, for the purpose of sending to BTS, but I figured I'd just annoy them. Frank

I agree. For godsake man, relax.

My god, thats just bitchen'.

Okay, unusual post, but bear with me. As many of you may know, I've been designing scenarios/operations for Combat Mission for some time. Also, I have sort of taken the last few months off because, well, of a new addition to my family. So here's the deal.. I have LOTS and LOTS more scenarios to finish, and lots of historicla research at my disposal. I think it would be beneficial to join some sort of scenario design group. I was briefly affiliated with the dirty 1/2 dozen (Manx), but alas that situation didn't pan out (although it was a great idea, Manx!). So, I'm looking for a group of folks to affiliate and share ideas. I also need a good site to post to. Any suggestions? Sorry if these are stupid questions, but I've been out of the loop for a few months. Respond by email or here... Thanks

WARNING: AUGUST BANK HOLIDAY SPOILER * * * * Based on my research, I would hazard to guess that his state of mind was "reckless" and more than a little arrogant. Or, simply stupid. Let me explain. Apparently, he was leading a group of four Tigers down the main highway toward Caen. I think his was the second tank in the column. His turret orientation (and most likely his personal orientation), was towards the left, say 45 degrees off his hull, and was sporadically exchanging fire with some Canadian armor. Unfortunately, there were enemies to his right: armor hidden in the Apple orchards ouside of St. Aignan. The evidence strongly suggests he took two firefly rounds (ouch) into the side Armor of the turret. The second round blew the the whole turret off the tank. Its a cliche, but he probably didn't even know what hit him. The other tigers were knocked out, too. I say "reckless" and "stupid" because just off to his right flank were a whole bunch of friendly Panzer IVs and Jagpanzers who were descending on St. Aignan, backed by about a battalion of 12th SS panzer grenadiers. If he would have waited and kept pace with the general advance, it would seem likely that his right flank would have been covered. However, he apparently shook hands with Kurt "Panzer" Meyer (who perhaps while in awe of the famous Witman, felt it odd to advise him to advance cautiously) and just barrelled on down the road, while his right flank slowly picked its way through a draw in front of the British lines. If Wittman would have been a tad more patient, he may have survived the engagement. Perhaps Wittman believed his own fawning press--remember only a few weeks had passed since his triumph at Villers Bocage: he just went on "tour", doing perhaps the Nazi equivalent of war bond rallies, before returning to the front (many of the pictures taken of him are during this period). Then, he promptly gets killed committing a rookie mistake. Most of the Germans knew that the British had occupied the Apple Orchard the night before. There were remnants of German wehrmacht units in the area. "Panzer" Meyer had talked to them. There was really no excuse for heading into battle completely exposed towards a couple of hundred British/Canadian tanks. However, to Wittman's credit, there were a group of B-17s passing over the area, and this caused the Meyter to quicken the advance and seek to close with the British -- rather than being blown to atoms in their assembly areas. Maybe this caused Wittman to hurry, too. What seems certain is that the truth of Wittman's state of mind was consumed in a firey horrifying instant caused by the crack shot of a Northant yeoman. Frank

thanks for the kind words! I researched the HELL out of that one. Good to hear that so many people like it. F.

Can you guys use a general counsel with lots of business experience? Will design scenarios as compensation.

Please tell me that mod will be CMMOS compliant.

My scenario, "August Bank Holiday", should depict Wittman's demise. Modern evidence suggests strongly that he was'nt killed while "outnumbered". He died the "old fashioned way", by the crack shot of a competent firefly gunner at about 800 meters.