ASL Veteran

Short answer? No.

I'm going to assume that this is primarily directed at me so in an attempt to prevent something from getting out of control here let me respond. It is my decision and my decision alone as to whether or not a modified scenario gets posted on the repository. BFC has nothing to do with that decision and they have never asked me to put something on the repository. I have chosen not to put something on the repository for this reason: I think that either the bridge weight limit should be increased or I should be allowed to alter the bridge type and these modifications should be included in a patch. The reason for this is that there are many players who don't use or look in the repository and I feel that everyone who has the module should have the benefit of a 'fixed' scenario. I have asked for both of these options to be considered and I have never received a response. I only recall BFC asking scenario designers if they wanted to include updated scenarios for a patch a single time and I don't think anyone responded (it was for an earlier game release) and they have never repeated such a request to my knowledge. At this point in time it appears that an 'official' decision of some type has been made that scenario adjustments or tweaks are not to be included in patches. I'm sure there is a reason for this policy, but I am unaware of what the reason is. If I put something on the repository then BFC can just wash their hands of the issue and assume that it has been resolved. If someone wants to put something on the repository on their own then I won't object so you have my blessings if you want to put in a different bridge.

Yeah, that was an interesting read. There is clearly at least one person who is disappointed that CM isn't on Steam.

I will typically use all of the available victory conditions. I will generally start with terrain objectives as about 40% of points available, casualty destroy points about 40% of total points available, and then I'll use the threshold victory points for about 20% of the points available. After some experimenting I will then adjust from there. Where threshold victory points are of the most value are when you have a battle with assymetric forces. In other words, if one force will, with some level of certainty, defeat the opposing force in the scenario then you use the threshold victory conditions to even out the score at the end. So the force that is expected to win the firefight will win the firefight, but that force may not win the battle in terms of victory points. Sometimes I won't assign any terrain victory points for one side and heavily weight terrain victory points for the other side. It all depends on how you think the battle is likely to play out when someone plays your scenario. Ninja'd by JonS

I would say that, probably in terms of bullet for bullet results on the CM battlefield vs the real battlefield there probably are more casualties generated in the game than would otherwise be the case. Having said that though, what would actually playing the game be like if things were different? Everyone would blow through all their ammunition and the enemy would be sitting in position unmoved and unaffected. Most players want to have a result of some sort when they fire at the enemy and a player who is controlling the troops of their side wants to be able to actually control the troops under his command. So if you have your troops firing at the enemy and that firing yields little to no result other than to perhaps pin the enemy that player will probably be unhappy. On the flip side if your troops are all pinned down by enemy fire and you can't ever move them then you aren't going to have a very satisfying gaming experience either because you can't actually do anything. Spotting is similar in that you can probably see the enemy on the CM battlefield with much more precision than you probably can on a real battlefield. There are game considerations that come into play when coming up with soft factors in the game and game play has to be a part of the discussion.

As far as I'm aware, something like that isn't being considered at this time.

I don't know if this is the case or not, but your posts come across as having an agenda of some kind. It's all nice to talk about Steam and everything, but seriously ..... perhaps you could step away from the computer for a while and take a few deep breaths before continuing. Making assumptions that Steve doesn't know what he is doing in terms of contracts and agreements between parties is a pretty big stretch considering the ample evidence of what BFC has done in the past. You may have an opinion as to whether such an agreement would be to the benefit of BFC or not, but I think it would probably be a safe assumption to make that Steve, at a minimum, actually understands the details of any agreement that may be struck with Steam. To assume that he hasn't even looked into it at all is probably a misguided and erroneous starting point for this sort of discussion. As far as wargaming being a niche market goes, perhaps there is some evidence out there that might be publicly available. How well do non fiction books about military history sell as opposed to any other books of any kind? I'm sure Amazon has some sales data available. It isn't a perfect match, but I think it would be indicative of how popular wargames might be as compared to other activities.

I'm going to guess that it isn't necessarily just a want to or contract whatever discussion within BFC as to whether or not they go onto Steam. I'm guessing there are probably technical issues as well in order for BFC to be able to work with Steam. BFC would probably have to build some sort of a back end way to interact with Steam somehow. That's just a guess on my part though.

Well the beauty of the way BFC is developing the game now is that should they ever decide to go onto Steam at some point in the future all the games they make will be up to date and current. So really there is no need to rush onto Steam. Maybe if sales slow to a trickle at some point then going onto Steam will make some sense. BFC can also take their time and polish the game up and prepare themselves for Steam if that's a route they want to try. So you never know. BFC has dealt with different ways of publishing ... I think ShockForce was sold in actual stores .... they just have an aversion to dealing with publishers. I don't get the impression that BFC is absolutely 100% against it no matter what. I am under the impression that they are continuously evaluating what their options for distribution are and at this time they have decided not to go the Steam route. That doesn't mean that we won't all wake up one morning and see BFC games on Steam some day. I doubt that forum postings are going to sway them one way or another though. I'm sure the decision will be made in a deliberate fashion when or if it makes sense for BFC to go onto Steam. I think that if BFC ever decided to go onto Steam they would want to do so making sure all their T's were crossed and the game was as polished as they could make it. What is it that they say? You never have a second chance to make a first impression, so if your game will suddenly be exposed to a larger audience you want to ensure that you are putting your best foot forward.

Go ahead and delete them and then see what happens. It's the only way to be sure.

The new forum software has a poll feature so if your curious perhaps you could start a poll?

Interesting. It's possible that the 76mm gun itself was the M7. American nomenclature for their weapons and equipment during WW2 wasn't known for its clarity.

M7, otherwise known as the 'Priest' I believe.

I haven't played ASL in decades. I actually never owned the game because my friend owned it and we all played each other with his game. I was fortunate in that I had several friends who all played. We were pretty relaxed when playing, but inevitably the games would turn into rules fests because people would forget things or do things that you weren't expecting them to do etc. Often we would have a designated rules official who would arbitrate rules disputes. Once CMx1 came out I almost never went back to ASL at all, although I did play a few games before quitting entirely. As we got older too most of my friends moved to different places and it became more difficult to get a game going. We never got into the Vassal system so now ASL is completely dead for me.

The OP was asking for 'official' scenarios so as far as the OP is concerned the constraints do apply. Jon S has definitely made successful small scenarios, but then he works well at that scale. Big maps can also be very detailed as well, so just because a map is smaller doesn't necessarily mean it will be made better. It all just depends upon how much time and effort a designer wants to invest in the map. I think that if you created something with a map that was 800 x 800 with leg infantry on it that had a thirty minute time limit you would get a lot of complaints. Not every player plays at a pace that would give them a chance for success on a map that size with a time limit that short. Just because a smaller scenario has an hour time limit doesn't necessarily mean that it will take you an hour to play it. There has to be a bit of slack for players who prefer to play a little more cautiously. It also takes the AI time to move around on the map so that has to be accounted for as well since the time limit can't be so short that the AI plan can't proceed through to completion. Some of the 'official' campaigns have been designed around tight time limits and there are entire threads dedicated to players complaining about the lack of time in those campaign scenarios. Some players like the tight time limits and others don't like the tight time limits. When you make something you need to make it so that as many players as possible will enjoy playing it in whatever fashion they choose to play it.

Yes. Maps will carry over to the modules from the base game. You just can't carry a map over from one base game to another base game.

Yeah, I can't see either of your warning points when I look at your avatars and the text beneath them.

What if someone wants to play as the US forces moving into the FEBA? What if someone wants to play as the force guarding the supplies? That's what makes smaller ones so difficult. Anything that involves one side getting the drop on the other side is going to be difficult to pull off.

Nobody else can see that warning point as far as I can tell.

I think there were quite a few smaller scenarios in the Market Garden release ... not sure if you have that module or not, but the Market Garden campaign lent itself a little better to smaller scenarios because of the nature of the campaign. Each scenario designer who submits something for the disc creates the type of scenario that they are comfortable with making. Scenario design is as much an art as it is a science and if a designer isn't good at creating something at a certain scale then trying to force them into something is likely going to yield sub optimal results. It isn't a case of small stuff being submitted and rejected either. There are just fewer smaller ones being submitted by the designers doing the work so BFC is only working with what is submitted. In order to get more small and tiny scenarios in the release CD there has to be more designers who work well at that scale and who can create something that is more intricate than a quick battle. With a 30 minute time limit that basically wipes out reinforcements and depending on the situation probably leg infantry as well so there are a lot of limitations with what a designer can do with those parameters. How many smaller scenarios are available on the repository? Is there a designer who does decent small scenario work who puts stuff on the repository? Who knows, if there are designers who work well at the smaller scale and they put stuff up on the repository perhaps they will get noticed by BFC and asked to contribute.

In terms of unit densities the main downside to modern vs WW2 is that every formation has a lot of vehicles in it. So while you may get a modern company to command there will probably be many more actual pieces to play around with because everyone is riding in something and the actual squads and teams are likely to be smaller or already divided up tactically. The US command structure in particular seems to give American formations a lot of 'extra' stuff in them with all their attendent vehicles. Russian formations feel a little more streamlined in that regard. The reach of modern weapons is generally greater as well so you probably won't see too many smaller maps with modern with all those missiles flying about, although once again since everyone is riding in something the maps 'play' smaller than a comparable map would for leg infantry in WW2 scenarios. You are probably more likely to see lower unit densities on those maps though. It only takes about ten minutes to drive a platoon of BMPs two or three thousand meters.

Small and Tiny scenarios can be difficult to make because a battalion was the smallest tactical unit that generally fought relatively independently. If you want to make scenarios with company and platoon sized forces you are dealing with patrol and recon type actions. Having to create a functional AI plan for both sides also increases the degree of difficulty for small and tiny scenarios. Also since MGs can effectively engage enemy soldiers out to 1000 meters making a map small enough for a thirty minute time frame that can actually be traversed by walking infantry without having both sides in immediate contact can be a bit tricky. Larger scenarios are simply more 'natural' to create because they fit what happened much better both historically and in terms of weapons capability. A 500 x 500 meter map may even be too big for a thirty minute time frame depending on the situation and most players would probably feel time pressure under those circumstances. Edited to add that modern combat does lend itself better towards company sized engagements because the lethality is a little higher and smaller forces operating independently is probably more normal than during WW2

I agree that it would be cool to watch hand to hand combat with our pixel soldiers. Unfortunately that would require animations and game coding that is probably not in the cards for the forseeable future.

The commander is the gunner so if he has his head outside the hatch he can't fire the gun. However, I would think that the game would automatically button him up so he can take the shot.

More than likely this is what happened. The AI will use satchel charges on occasion but it's hard to predict when it will use them. I have seen the AI use charges on walls that the AI troops can just hop over if they want to.