ASL Veteran

William Tecumseh Sherman perhaps? That's the only Tecumseh that I know of. I don't think it's a very common name ... but you never know.

With the engine improvements effectively divorced from the game through the use of the upgrade system, you could just keep upgrading the base game as more improvements are added. I think the only thing that would require the use of the different base games would be if there were significant terrain differences ... to the point where the same terrain modelling system isn't used between base games. The maps are inherent to the base game and I think that's really what keeps CMFI and CMBN as separate and distinct base games.

It actually does that now. If you have a commonwealth scenario on your computer and you don't have the commonwealth module installed, it will be darkened with red writing across the image that says 'Commonwealth module is required for this scenario'.

Who is saying that we don't need any scenarios playable vs the AI? Certainly not me. In fact, I think playable against the AI is an absolute requirement for any scenario on the CD. I'm at an absolute loss as to why people are reading my posts and getting that impression out of them. :confused: I would never, ever, advocate the creation of a scenario that had no AI plans at all for either side. That would be ridiculous. If you want to play against the AI, wouldn't having a scenario as playable vs the AI as either side be much better than having something playable as only one side? It doubles your options .... what am I missing here? Oh, and people do play Quick Battles vs the AI in spite of it's limitations (there are only two or three groups available per side and the one making the plan can't tailor the plan to a specific force).

You can always play a scenario in Scenario Author Test Mode if you want to. There is absolutely no fog of war for you when playing in that mode so all units are on the map at all times. The Tac AI still has fog of war though. That's not the way I would play it, but if you need to do it in order to get the hang of it, the option is there.

Yes, you are correct. The AI is basically fighting blind and the designer is just guessing where the player will be at any specific point in time. The bigger the map is and the longer the scenario lasts the more difficult it is to know where the player will be. So if the AI seems to always be in the right place at the right time, then the player is playing the scenario the way the designer predicted that it would play out. Once the player knocks any of the AI gears out of place or does something unexpected the wheels will generally come off the AI plan.

I don't think there was a video for that review, but I think that scenario can be found in the Gustav Line module. I think someone posted a video about Kiwi Soldiers in another thread though.

The introduction of AI triggers would be welcome, but the entire process of designing for play one way vs the AI vs both ways vs the AI is different. So if you are designing to the one side vs the AI standard now, the only thing that will change if you have a trigger is that your one side vs the AI will have a more effective opponent. It won't suddenly grant you the capability of designing a scenario to be played from either side since the decision to design that way has to be made before you place a single action spot worth of weeds. Also, don't be fooled into thinking that creating an AI plan with triggers would make an AI plan easier to make. It could make the AI a more effective opponent for certain, but with that effectiveness would come more time in the creation of the plan. You can't make something more effective if you don't spend the time making it so. So if someone can't design for play by either side without triggers now, then the introduction of triggers isn't going to change that. Besides, if making an AI attack plan is where designers stumble, well an attack plan is primarily timing, positioning, and firepower so the current AI is actually more suited towards making an attack plan now since the attacker generally sets the tempo and the defender is reactive. The current AI is not reactive in the slightest beyond what the Tac AI does and this really hurts the defending AI. By making a defending AI plan, most designers probably just mean where they place the defenders in a static defense. That only takes a few minutes and isn't an AI plan per se because the AI isn't actually doing anything. The player is mostly just fighting the TacAI. Actually making an AI attack plan where all the AI forces are in motion and you have to get the timing between elements to work well takes a lot of time and effort - time and effort that many would rather not expend. It's a lot easier to just deploy some defenders on the map and say 'playable as the attacker vs the Tac AI defender', maybe toss in a small counterattack or have a truck move around and be done with it. Triggers would primarily benefit the defending AI, although there are certainly areas where it could help an attacker for sure. The benefit to an attacking AI wouldn't be as dramatic though. Once again though, if someone can't design a reasonably competent AI plan now, then the addition of triggers isn't going to change anything. The designer will just have a bad AI plan that now has triggers in it.

Rather than speculate, why don't you play that scenario and find out? The attacking forces in that particular scenario are attacking at 1 to 3 odds by the way.

If by challenging you include balancing in the equation, then it's not possible to guarantee that any scenario that you make is challenging for every player who wants to play it unless you make a scenario that's so absurd that it's not much fun for anyone, such as giving one side ten King Tigers and the player's side three jeeps and giving the player the option only to play as the Jeeps. There are so many variables and player skill levels that all a designer can do is try their best. Someone who designs a scenario to be played as one side only makes it difficult by setting traps and restricting the player to get them to follow the script that the designer has in mind. They do this because the more freedom the player has the more difficult it is to create an AI plan that can counter what the player may do. So if you are designing a scenario to be played as one side only it generally turns out to be a bad scenario for head to head play. Thus comes the question of 'what are you aiming to achieve with Stand Alone scenarios vs Campaign scenarios?' A Campaign scenario is strictly playable by one side only. If you design a Standalone to be played as one side only then why are you bothering with making it in the first place? You might as well make a campaign if that's your design objective. There are only so many slots available on the CD that you get from BFC, and if all of the content is only tailored to that specific set of players who want a challenging game against the AI as one side only then you are alienating a lot of players who don't want to play that way. If you can acheive the same thing while at the same time broadening your scenario goal then why wouldn't you make the effort?

Ha! That's an interesting question and I will engage with it. If I design a scenario to be challenging as played against the AI as an AI defender I have just made a scenario that's playable by one side only. Playing as the defender or head to head isn't an option, and in fact if some have their way you wouldn't even be able to select those other options because those options would be locked out. If I make a scenario that's challenging to be played against the AI as an AI defender and the scenario can also be played as a human defender vs an AI attacker and also head to head, then even if the scenario is only challenging vs the AI as the AI defender I have already created a better scenario with more options for the player than had I limited myself to a scenario that was only playable by one side only. Even if the AI attack plan was only good enough to defeat an average player rather than a good one I have still exceeded the design standards than if I was designing a scenario to be played against one side only. More players would be able to enjoy the scenario to boot.

Fair enough. You make some of the best stuff around and if you feel that you are at the top of the heap with no room for improvement then more power to you. Why you would be "worried" about scenario design moving in a direction that you don't like is what prompted my response. Jon S is designing his scenario in the scenario AAR to exactly that standard which you are worried about designs moving to. It seems fair to me that if you feel worried about the standard that others design to that perhaps it's not other's design standards that need adjusting. I know this will probably read as unfriendly, but my motives are not unfriendly. I hope you understand that. The first rule of scenario design is to have a thick skin.

The AI will never be as challenging as a human opponent to an experienced player, so anyone who has that expectation is always going to be disappointed no matter how the scenario is designed. There are many scenarios that are in CMFI, GL, and CW that can be played as either side vs the AI. In fact, JonS in his scenario AAR is designing to exactly that standard which you feel is impossible. Perhaps he shouldn't be wasting his time? This fellow here seemed to think that the AI was working just fine when he played this scenario as the British. It's now on his second page so you have to go to older posts. http://www.casualscribbling.com/?author=1 scroll down on this page http://www.casualscribbling.com/?author=1&paged=2 Most players probably play that one as the attacker. It seems like as far as that player was concerned the design met the standard.

It depends on the context and what the audience is that you are designing to. If you are making it for yourself then whatever standard you choose is a great standard.

I am being friendly. Maybe I just come across as hostile, but I'm simply stating my position in the most concise way I can.

No, you misunderstand. What I'm saying is that the goal for the designer should be to make a scenario that's playable as either side vs the AI as well as head to head. It's not necessary to make a scenario playable or even challenging vs the AI by limiting themselves to playable as one side only. It's more difficult to do, that's true, but it's not impossible. If the designer aims for less I think the designer is just limiting themselves to something less than they could acheive if they put a little more thought and effort into their design. What bothers me is when designers don't even make the effort.

I thought you were in Indonesia somewhere, not in Europe?

Why? That's what campaigns are for. If you want scenarios designed to be played vs the AI as one side then you play a campaign. If you design a stand alone scenario that is only designed to be played against the AI as a specific side, then all you have made is a campaign scenario without the campaign aspect of it. So in other words, campaign scenarios and stand alone scenarios would be functionally identical and that's the way you would like it. Well that's great if you love to play against the AI (as a specific side), but where does that leave the player who does actually want to play head to head? No where, because both the campaigns and the stand alone scenarios are the same thing and tailored to the same audience. The only difference is one is embedded within a campaign and the other is not. Even players who like to play scenarios against the AI may not like to play the scenario as the side the designer chose to make the scenario playable as. If every designer made a scenario playable as the American vs the German AI then where does that leave the player who wants to play as the German? Once again, it leaves that player nowhere. You get the most bang for your designing buck (time and effort) by designing to a standard where the most players possible can play and enjoy it. It seems to me that if you are going to spend the time and effort in creating something you might as well make it such that the widest possible audience can enjoy it. That seems to be the rational choice rather than spending all that time and effort on something and cutting out two thirds of your potential audience before you've even started making it. It only takes a little more time, skill, and effort to widen your audience. It's only impossible to do if you don't try.

If you have the Commonwealth Module you have to play this game one time for each of your British WIA. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWaXnUvQftE

So why don't you just play Panzer Command then? Of course, BFC started with just two people - Steve and Charles. They then added three employees. Now BFC has more than ten employees so there are currently more than twice as many people now working at BFC than there were when CMSF was released all those years ago when you apparently made your recommendations. At the moment the preponderance of evidence seems to indicate that they made the right decision after CMAK was released. So I guess in your mind the only way your .... ahem .... business theory .... can be proven to have been correct would be if BFC were to go out of business? Something that you seem very keen on happening (apparently for selfish reasons - why else would you want to deprive all these gamers of a tactical combat simulation by constantly predicting the demise of BFC?). The more BFC continues on the more it chafes at you and grinds you down because you just know in your heart of hearts that BFC made the wrong decision back when they made CMSF. "They should have just tweaked CMx1 and made a better demo!" you shout while shaking your fist at the rooftops. So with every game that gets released you search through public download information in a continuing effort to ferret out sales figures, just knowing that they made the wrong decision with CMSF if only you could prove it. The information of BFC's imminent demise is there if only you could find it. Oh what a day it would be to see Steve eating crow on the unemployment line with you wagging your finger in admonition. If only BFC would go out of business so you could shout to the rooftops that you were right and Steve was wrong. Of course, you do realize that even if BFC went out of business tomorrow that's no guarantee that your theory of running a successful software company would have been the correct choice either. BFC could have done everything to turn your CM fantasies into reality and BFC still could have gone out of business just the same. You do understand that .... don't you? Of course, we'll never find out one way or another will we, because BFC appears to be doing fine (more than doubling the number of employees) and it's doubtful that your recommendations will ever be acted upon. Quite honestly Redwolf you are irrelevant. Redwolf, seriously bud, If you are spending all this free time searching various websites to try and figure out what the BFC sales figures are it's way past time to just let it go and move on to more productive pursuits.

Just because you state something doesn't mean that it has a meaning to anyone other than yourself. I can make a statement "The stock is falling." and to me that might be a statement that is self evident in it's meaning, but to you it could mean anything. Does it mean stuff on shelves is falling to the floor? Does it mean a company stock is falling in value? Does it mean that I dropped soup broth on the floor? Certainly someone with your vast intellect would understand that context is everything. Vanir was asking the question because he, like me, was mystified as to your view of a snail pace of releases. Just reposting an old post by Steve doesn't give us any indication whatsoever as to why you think that the releases are at a snails pace, or even why it matters to you. It's simply repeating something that in your world is self evident but in the real world is meaningless without context.

Okay, and what's the significance of this 'finding' in your mind? Right now I'm reading your post and my first thought is .... and your point is? :confused: I suppose it must mean something to you and Redwolf because otherwise you guys wouldn't continually bring it up, but what that meaning might be is a little beyond my understanding.

It's probably ammunition related, because if you play "Hot Mustard" as the Germans, the same American 57mm AT Guns have a very difficult time punching through the front of the Tigers in that scenario. Hot Mustard is in July 1943 and Forest of Wild Beasts is in February 1944.

So yes, you think they should have stuck with CMx1 and just done a few tweaks here and there. So now, because they went through all the trouble of creating this new complicated engine which completely ruined the game, CMx2, you will never be happy because the poor old CMx1 gameplay will never be revisited and upgraded. So when you saw sales figures of (not actual figures, just guestimate figures based on percentages Steve used in the past) CMBO 100,000 units CMBB 50,000 units CMAK 25,000 units Mr Redwolf of Redwolf Software Inc's vision for the future is ...... So after making CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK what would be the next project for the Redwolf Software Inc's CMx1 strategy? Would you go back and remake CMBO with a few tweaks or try your luck with some other theater of operations? I guess the only option left that wasn't already covered would be either the Pacific Theater of Operations or Early War Blitzkrieg stuff ...? Do you think either of those projects would equal CMBO sales figures and get Redwolf Software back into the black? I don't know for sure what the situation was at BFC after CMAK was released, but I'm going to guess that if CMSF was a total bust it could very well have been lights out at BFC soon after.

So you want the same amount of content that was present in CMBB (that's the baseline) and you want it released more quickly than the current pace of releases (I think CMBB took almost two years, but my memory might be hazy) and you think you should pay less for it (the same price that you paid for CMBB twelve years ago). Oh, and by the way the CMx2 game design is too complicated and is slowing down the release schedule (because in your mind, the base game plus all the modules is the game, so the game isn't actually complete until all the modules are completed). Therefore, since your expectation is that you get the entire war from 1941 to 1945 in one game for the same price you paid twelve years ago, BFC is unethically milking the customers by releasing base games and modules every six months and you think that's a path to financial ruin. Once people catch on to the underhanded criminal nature of BFC's evil exploitation of their customer base all the 'real' core customers (like yourself) will leave BFC in droves. Did I sum that up correctly or do you want to clarify anything further? Just out of curiosity, do you think it was a good idea to switch the game engine from CMx1 to CMx2 or do you think BFC should have forged ahead with more CMx1 releases?