McAuliffe

Everyone has his own favorites and preferences, but one reason, why I prefer the larger scenarios is that, to put it frankly, luck is less an issue. Those 1.000-pointers come down to a shoot-out between the two tanks on the board and then, the surviving tank can support the infantry-attack that wins the battle.

Now, that are just the finesses of the skilled gameplayer. Let's suppose you're playing a combat flight simulator and you would start whining about the fact that your Focke-Wulf lobbed his rockets into the thin air instead of in that bunch of approaching B-17's. Would you start telling me that AI actually should aim them right while you are in fact are at the controls? I hope you don't work at one or another customer-service desk, because that would be an answer I would not appreciate. I guess there are a lot of people that want to play larger scenarios, but find it indeed a bit tedious to plot every single move for each vehicle or unit. I think that BTS should come up with an intermediate solution, as the average confrontation in CMBB will involve a significant higher number of units then CMBO. It would be a shame that the game looses of it's attraction, just because people are scared away by the huge amount of micro-management.

I think, I made already clear in another recent tread how CMBO (or CMBB for that matter) should handle micro-management of units. I just want to point out that I don't need the AI to execute my tactical plan, I like to do that myself. Stronger, If I want to play an opponent in a PBEM or a TCP/IP game, I want to play against him and his tactical capabilities, not against the computer thinking for my opponent. What's the point of having a 3-dimensional environment and leave the fun to the AI. I am "proud" when I can spot that hull down position for my tanks in a landscape or make use of that gulley for the advance of my infantry, especially when that move can decide about winning or losing the battle. I feel like a commander that has read the terrain well. I wouldn't appreciate, that I lose against someone that doesn't understand the tactical advantages of certain spots, but just was lucky that the AI did find the right path. So yes to improvement of micro-management by means of group commands, no to the AI takes over micro-management. [ April 22, 2002, 12:57 AM: Message edited by: McAuliffe ]

Maybe a stupid question, but what is Moon talking about ? I opened the link but all what I saw was some publicity for Airborne Assault, a couple of AAR reports, and a company that sells pictures. Did I miss something ? What is that Strategic Command thing about ?

Yes ! the announcement of the "follow the leade...err...ahum, forget it, nothing to see just carry on.

I did this test several times and the TacAI will only deviate from the plotted path when there are obstacles in its way (trees, water rough...) Even when you plot your waypoints only a meter from the road, the tank will continue to plough regardless through the deep mud instead of taking the road. Pathfinding algorithm would be a little be too complex to code. Besides, you would see a lot of unexpected reactions of your vehicles, I guess I rather prefer, that I have some control over my vehicles or units and that they just stick to the waypoints that their leader has chosen. I would like to point out, that the suggested "Follow the leader group command" would also apply to infantry : Lock a complete pln, designate the leader and plot his waypoints. The rest of the bunch will take the shortest way to the leader's starting point and will follow in his footsteps... how about that to get those jumbled up reinforcements organised ?

To be honest, I think this falls under the responsability of the player. After all, this is a game where it's up to you to take desicions and anticipate treads. If you decide to move your vehicles up in a column, it's clear that you do not expect an ambush on that specific road otherwhise you would approach the area, deployed in a battleorder. Of course, the TacAI should take care that the vehicles do not bump into each other and deviate from the pre-plotted path when a shot up vehicle blocks the path, but from what I experienced, this already happens. Furthermore, I believe that in CMBB a command "move to contact" will be available, that will meet partly your request. ...preplotting a 'path' which units can then hook up to, like hopping on the bus... This express really well what we're looking for, as I believe copying paths will result in the fact that the copied path will not always match the curves and the bends in a road.

@ Moon, Come on, man...how long do you think we're playing this game ? If you are able to implement cover arc fire, assault commands, spreading fires or for god's sake, flying dust around bulletimpacts, I do think, that ignoring this significant improvement for gameplay is a serious mistake. For one, it keeps me away of TCP/IP playing and secondly, it makes MY interest in playing the game in general just fading away.

If there was one thing, that I was whining for during the beta days, it was the "follow the leader group command" Me too, was hoping it would be THE new feature of CMBB. I prefer to play big scenarios and big maps. (yeah, Cintheaux-Totalize is a blast) If you have to spend more time on plotting then planning your tactics, something is wrong with a COMPUTER game. (Computers were made in the first place to eliminate repetitious manual work, no ?) I was thinking of a group command, same as you do with a group move : You lock a group of units, designate a leader and start plotting the waypoints for that vehicle or unit. The TacAI will move via the shortest way the other vehicles to the start point of the leader vehicle (like during an embarkment order) and from there, the other vehicles or units will follow the same waypoints as the leader did. In order to avoid that they bump into each other at he end. They will stop at the same distance of the lead vehicle/unit as they were away from the leading vehicle/unit at the start. only they will be standing in a column I would already be satisfied, if this was only possible in the "move" mode, as I understand that it would be too complex to adjust the various speeds in hunt or fast mode. BTS do or fix somefink ! Can we go for a petition ?

Hi I live only 1 1/2 hour drive from Sankt Vith and visited the battlefields of the bulge many times. I know also the area of Bleialf and Schoenberg Please send your scenario over. The nature of the terrain should make it an interesting map.

Canuck, You can find already some tips and tricks here: Tips and Tricks of CM Scenario Design [ March 31, 2002, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: McAuliffe ]

duh...I am a little be confused there. Just checked my e-ail and everything worked fine. Just click the e-mail address in my profile or click here : vordenstein@hotmail.com The AI will surrender on the first turn if it 1) cannot move troops 2) has no units left Are you sure you didn't buy units that should be on the map, but accidently make part of a reinforcement slot ? Are you sure you have bought enemy units and placed them on the map ? Is the scenario listed in the menu ? Did you check the file-extension of the scenario name ? Maybe it does read .cmb and you have made mistakenly an operation instead of a battle. Try again to send file please

Did you save the scenario in the scenario-folder and not in the default "saved game" folder ? Did you save your game after that you bought the units ? Did you place units in set-up zones ? Are the vehicles that you placed on the map not trapped in a field surrounded with woods or hedgerows ? Send me the file, If you want, I will have a look at it.

By coincidence, I stumbled into this review too today, they show following screenshot of the scenario menu and write in their comments : "...the developpers were probably drunk when designing the "objective list" (sic) as they used thousands of colours, which makes it impossible to read what your mission is..." Well, I am not surprised anymore that CDV has to sell copies at 19,99 euro. [ March 28, 2002, 09:48 PM: Message edited by: McAuliffe ]

...I have put a page together with tips and tricks of scenario design and map making. If you're new to the scenario-design or if you want to improve your skills, please check out this page. How to avoid those bumpy roads, how do I make the AI advance his forces, where do I find OoB information and many other tricks you can find at : Tips and Tricks of CM Scenario Design Many thanks to wwb for his helping hand. [ March 25, 2002, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: McAuliffe ]

These maps are maybe usefull in order to situate the overall strategical background, but I cannot imagine, that they are very usefull for scenario designers. 1/500.000 (1 cm = 5 km), no elevations, no indication about vegetation, relief, no detailed OoB's.

Hi Parabellum, Your comments on the "dog" thread happened be my best laugh since weeks, so, if your scenario is as much fun, I would like to have a look.

Guess, I should have emphasized the "more or less" expression. I agree with Ted, that the player should be able to choose for himself the way how he will set up his advance columns. Of course, just grouping the units in allocated set-up zones should already be sufficient in order to stimulate the AI to execute a coordinated attack and leaves enough options open to the player when he chooses the attacking side. But in case of an attack scenario, isn't it the task of the designer to create a scenario, where the player is confronted with situations he won't find in a quick fired up QB. Shouldn't he "create" a scenario ? When you leave defensive forces on the map just grouped per platoon- or Cie. leader, I guess the attacking player will have not much of a "match" when choosing default setup.

In scenarios, I suggest that you choose the default set-up. If the designer has not taken the effort to set-up the units in more or less good defensive positions or advance columns, I guess the scenario isn't even worth playing it. However, when you play an operation. The designer has no control how the remaining forces or reinforcements will be dispersed over the map in the consecutive battles. My experience is, that if you choose default set-up in an operation, at the beginning of the next battle, reinforcements will arrive grouped together and will not be dispersed on the set-up turn. i.o.w. They're thrown in a bunch on the map. It can be a nasty surprise when your lonely piat at the edge of the map is suddenly confronted with 5 or 10 tanks arriving as reinforcement for the enemy. While, if you choose free set-up, the AI will spread out the units on the first set-up turn in a defensive (or attacking) line.

Thanks for the kind words. As already stated in the scenario forum, it was Tom's effort regarding his work on the Bulgemod that inspired me to do that much needed update. The scenario design page is still under construction. wwb_99 will give me a helping hand in editing the text and I will change the lay-out. BTW broken links to pictures and descriptions should be fixed by now.

I refer to BTS answers on Franko's request for some more info regarding the mysteries of operation design HEY BTS ! A frustrated scenario /operation designer speaks out ... [ March 11, 2002, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: McAuliffe ]

Tom, I really start worrying about your social life. Oh nevermind, you already ruined mine since the release of your Bulge mod...

As far as I know there are no mods for steelbridges. However you can find a nice mod on Tom's HQ that represents more or less the type of bridge you're looking for : generic bridge I am working on a "Tips and Tricks of Scenario Design" page. I hope it will help you and all scenario designers out there. Just have a little patience please.

Thanks for your kind words. IIRC no major changes were made in the balance of the forces. However, I changed set-up zones and tweaked the terrain and qualities of the troops (fanaticism) in order to make the AI on the attack more aggressive. McAuliffe

Okay, I know... I should have done this long time ago, but Tom's efforts inspired me to find finally the energy to write necessary briefings, tuning and playtesting those scenarios that gained dust on the shelf. I have added 5 scenarios and 1 operation. Others have been updated. Thanks to you all for sending me suggestions. Head over to the scenario section and click on the descriptions in order to find additional information (maps, links, pictures...) of the depicted battles. Click on the scenario-names in order to download the zipped scenario-files You find the BCMSP link below, hope you enjoy, [ March 06, 2002, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: McAuliffe ]