Treeburst155

I have to go now. I'll address your post in detail later. For now, let me say that it has always been my belief that good scenario design requires that the scenario be designed specifically for one of the six possible types of play. 1) Axis vs AI 2) Axis vs AI blind 3) Allies vs AI 4) Allies vs AI blind 5) Human v Human 6) Human v Human blind To try to make the scenario work in more than one of these ways, compromises the scenario in all of those ways.

ANY scenario with VLs will play better if the VL values are thoughtfully considered. The varying tastes in scenarios has nothing to do with assigning the best values to VLs. Show me a scenario with VLs, and I'll improve gameplay through the manipulation of VL values, and maybe locations in some instances where they don't make sense. Truly historical scenarios, "Historical Studies" lets call them, require no VLs (label objectives). History determines level of victory. In fact, VLs might tend to cloud the outcome relative to history if the designer does not VERY thoughtfully apply value to the VL. Treeburst155 out

A truly historical scenario can't really be "reworked" too much and still remain truly historical. I'm a firm believer in designing for gameplay first, and historical accuracy second. I think history should give ideas for scenarios, rather than act as a blueprint for a scenario. Treeburst155 out.

Yes, the forgotten Axis bonus. Problem solved very nicely. This makes me happy. Treeburst155 out.

Very interesting, Redwolf. Thanks! I'll be checking out your fortification problem workaround now. Treeburst155 out.

Yes, Redwolf, virtually everything I know about CM scoring has come from you, over the years. You are THE CM scoring guru. BTW, now that I have you here, what was the deal with the fortifications and crews? I've forgotten. All I remember is that they were being scored wrong in some way. Thanks for all the hours you have spent figuring out CM scoring over the years. Treeburst155 out.

I'm designing a Two-Player scenario. It's a 5,000 point attack/defend situation. The attacker's briefing states that the objective is to take three hilltops. It also says that heavy casualties are likely, due to enemy strength estimates; but the job must still be done. Naturally, I want my victory locations to be on the three hilltops that constitute the objective; but should I use a small flag, a large flag, or even several small or large flags to mark the VLs? To answer this question, I need to define one of the victory types for one side or the other. For example, I could define what the attacker must accomplish to achieve a Tactical Victory. I think I'll do that. Based on the briefing, the attacker's losses are expected to be high. They will indeed be high, because my scenario is well balanced, the defending force nearly the size of the attacking force. With this in mind, I think an attacker who manages to control all three VLs and stay fairly close to a 1:1 casualty ratio, has done quite well in my scenario. I would want the attacking player to receive a Tactical Victory for this accomplishment. Now that I've defined a Tactical Victory for the attacker, I need to make sure the VLs give him this level of victory (if he manages a 1:1 casualty ratio). I do this by adjusting the total value of the victory locations. Important to determining the value of these VLs, is the defender's likely losses. This is so because of the way CM battles are scored. What percentage of the total defending force will likely become casualties? Based on my playtesting, the defender is likely to lose 75% of his total force points when confronted with an equally skilled attacker. With this in mind, and the 1:1 casualty ratio I'm allowing for the attacker in his Tactical Victory requirements, I have what I need to calculate the total value of the three victory locations on the map. So, the defender will likely lose 3,750 points (75% of his total 5,000). This figure will be matched by attacker losses in our 1:1 situation. Armed with this information, I go to The Proving Grounds to use the new "VL Planner". In a short time, through trial and error with different numbers of flags, the tool will tell me how many VL points I need on the map to give the attacker his Tactical Victory, as I've defined it. I then divide this number of points however I see fit among the three victory locations in my scenario. That's all there is to it. In my scenario above, the total VL points on the map needs to be 2,700-3,000 pts. to generate a Tactical Victory for the attacker if he takes all the flags and maintains a 1:1 casualty ratio with the defender. This means each of my three VLs should have AT LEAST three large flags on them! How many large attack/defend scenarios do you see with anywhere near this amount of VL points on the map, and in the hands of the defender exclusively at setup? I've just created a scenario that will likely produce superior gameplay. Not only that, I did it without messing with anything but the value of the VLs. Treeburst155 out. [ March 12, 2004, 02:29 AM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

The VL Planner is a very revealing tool. I just learned that a very balanced scenario can be created without any serious playtesting. Give each side comparable forces, and limit total VL points to less than 10% of total force points on the map (including reserves). Assuming the terrain, ground conditions, etc. do not favor one side or the other to any great degree, the outcome will be a Minor Victory at best between players of comparable skill. Flag ownership in this case has almost no effect on victory type. Flag ownership just decides who is on the plus side of 50%. Is a scenario like this fun to play? Possibly, but there is little incentive for either side to be aggressive; UNLESS, all the VL points belong to one side at the start. Even then, once the aggressor gains a chunk of the VL points (about a third should suffice), or gets a little ahead in the casualty points department, the motivation to press on disappears. The risk isn't worth the potential gain. If the same scenario had an exit goal for one side, with no flags, the exiting player would be highly motivated to be aggressive. Why? He's starting with a lost game, simply because his units are unexited. The VL equivalent of this would be for the defender to have control of MANY VL points totalling to a fairly high percentage of the unit points in the scenario. IOW, lots of flags in the defender's hands. The main point here is that an attack/defend scenario should see the defender with a LARGE advantage in points at game start, and that "large" is relative to the total unit points in the scenario. This is necessary to motivate the point conscious attacker. CM IS a game, after all. The large defender advantage at start will change the scenario from a half-hearted probe to an all-out attack. Speaking of probes, any scenario that does not provide serious "attack" incentive IS a probe. The only difference between a probe and an attack is motivation. Why play probes, when attacks/assaults are more exciting? Maybe probes are appreciated by the historical recreationists in the community. Play with the VL Planner. See just how many VL points need to be in the defender's hands at start to coax a real attack out of the competitive (point conscious) player. You will probably be quite surprised when it comes to the larger battles, especially armor heavy ones. The VL Planner, a great tool! Treeburst155 out.

It's looking good! There are a couple glitches though. Final ratios that should be Minor Victories are marked as Tactical Victories. The website graphics cut off the right side of the chart. You can't read the far right result. What's happening is that the "cells" expand as the number of flags entered are reduced. The far right is always cut off. My screen res is set to 1152 x 864, if that helps. When I first go to the page, I have a horizontal scroll bar too. It's a fine piece of work though, GJK. I will use it often. Thanks!! Treeburst155 out. [ March 08, 2004, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

The bonus will affect the Axis point total either positively or negatively. I'm ASSUMING the bonus also adds or subtracts from the total points scored for both sides. It would seem logical for this to happen. When I have time on my hands, I'll test it to be sure. Hapless General, If you're playing humans, you can bet you will run into those who look scenarios over before playing them. There is nothing wrong with this as long as the person doesn't claim to be playing blind. Also, you may find over time that you like to screen scenarios before spending a lot of time on them. This will happen when you run into enough dud scenarios. Treeburst155 out. [ March 06, 2004, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

"Blind" just means playing the scenario without first looking at it in the editor, or starting a dry run game from the other side, just to see what you're up against. When you play blind, you just choose a scenario, choose a side, and go, with no foreknowledge of the enemy. Scenarios designed specifically for blind play could have lots of ambushes and surprises, with crazy setup zones for one or both sides. Replay value of a good blind scenario would naturally be very poor. You can only play blind one time. Treeburst155 out.

GJK, All you do is enter the hypothetical numbers in the blue cells, and final percentage and points ratio are calculated. It's simply multiplication, division, and addition. Perhaps you can only view the spreadsheet, not work with it? The formula for CM scoring is this: AC = attacker's casualty points earned DC = defender's casualty points earned VLa = VL points earned by attacker VLd = VL points earned by defender TP = total points earned by both sides (AC + DC + VLa + VLd) (AC + VLa)/TP = Attacker's final percentage (DC + VLd)/TP = Defender's final percentage The final percentages (the game score) will always total 100. Figure one, and you have the other. To figure the level of victory (minor, tactical,etc..) you divide the winner's points by the loser's points. If the answer is less than 1.25, it is a draw. Less than 1.75 is a Minor victory. Less than 2.5 is a Tactical, and less than 5 is a Major victory. Anything higher is a Total victory. For example, the lowest possible Tactical Victory will see a final score of 64-36 because 64/36 = 1.777 Casualty points are awarded based on unit cost in the editor in MOST cases. There are some exceptions. I believe crews of any type are valued higher than their cost per man. The same may apply to higher level HQs. Arty spotter casualties score only a fraction of their cost in the editor. I think it's 30 points. Captures score double. Tip on estimating attacker casualty points scored: Subtract air and arty from the defender's total unit points shown in the editor. Then minus about 15 percent. This is about the maximum casualty points the attacker is likely to get. Treeburst155 out. [ March 05, 2004, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Panther Commander, I like your dynamic flag idea. The only drawback is that you can only have the one victory location. For many large scenarios, a single 2,000 pt VL could work out just fine however. In such a case, your idea would be more convenient than 20 small flags tightly packed, or 6 or 7 large flags tightly packed. You mentioned victory flag hoops that must be jumped through when designing scenarios with the AI in mind. This brings me to another important lesson of scenario design. I might as well bore everyone with it right now. There are six different ways a scenario can be played. They are: 1) Axis vs AI 2) Axis vs AI blind 3) Allies vs AI 4) Allies vs AI blind 5) Human vs Human 6) Human vs Human blind I believe all scenarios should be designed specifically for just ONE of these ways of playing. Doing this will really help reduce the man hours required to design and test scenarios. The scenarios will also tend to be much better if tailored to just one of these six specific ways of playing. That is, if they are played in the manner intended. I do PBEM exclusively. I will choose a scenario designed specifically for human v human every time over one that supposedly works well against the AI too. There are bound to be negative effects on the human v human play, due to the consideration given to play against the AI. The reverse is probably also true. Imagine if all the scenarios at the Scenario Depot were designed for just one of the six types of play. They could all then be organized into the six categories listed above. If you feel like playing Axis against the AI in a blind battle, you simply go to that category at the Depot and start shopping. You KNOW you will be looking at scenarios specifically designed and tested for what you want to do at that time. Give yourself a break as a designer. Make your "job" simpler. Get more positive feedback by designing specifically for one type of play. Chances are, feedback from those who play the scenario in the single way you intended will be quite positive. Negative feedback from someone who plays the scenario in one of the five unintended ways is simply disregarded. They can't even read the briefing to know how your scenario is to be played. What possible value could their comments have? Treeburst155 out. [ March 05, 2004, 02:10 AM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Analyzing the possible and likely outcomes of various design decisions regarding victory locations will enhance your ability to turn an imagined scenario into reality. First you create the scenario (imagination), then you determine VLs and their appropriate values. Final VL related decisions should probably be one of the last things done on a new scenario. You need to write briefings (at least have them in your head), and playtest some, before you can make wise VL decisions. Treeburst155 out. [ March 04, 2004, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Thanks, guys, for the kind comments. As for the spreadsheet, it is a VERY simple thing. I will clean it up a bit and send it to GJK. There may be a problem however, in that it is a Microsoft Works '97 file (.wks). This is the software that came with my new Windows 98 (First Edition) PC in 1998. Mr. Gates has gone out of his way since that time to make sure that I, and only I, can view my spreadsheets. This tremendous boost to the security of my spreadsheets has discouraged me from upgrading to more modern software. I owe it all to Mr. Gates and his selfless concern for my security. Still, in hopes that some may find it useful, I will send the spreadsheet along to GJK. Thanks again for the comments. Treeburst155 out.

Someone once said, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." Well, listen up! I'm about to teach you something about scenario design. The subject is victory locations. I will discuss VLs in the context of probe/attack/assault scenarios where there is an obvious attacker and defender. For meeting engagements, stick a flag or three in the middle. Exit scenarios are outside the scope of this study; but some material herein will be useful for such scenarios, as well as the "bogus flag" scenario type. What makes the attacking player attack? Is it the briefing which says, "Take the hill at any cost"? Of course not! It's the VLs that begin the game in the hands of the defender that provide the motivation for the attacker. With no VLs on the map, the attacker begins the game with a 50/50 draw. In such a scenario, the attacker would only attack if he is the sporting type who wants to follow his orders as stated in the briefing. The competitive attacker, faced with a formidable opponent, could simply set up defensively, hit ceasefire, and wait for boredom to cause his opponent to do likewise, or take the risk of leaving his trenches to initiate hostilities himself. This is inferior design. Such a scenario would also tend to be unbalanced in favor of the defender should the attacker actually attack. Victory locations, the point value of these locations, and the total value of all VLs on the map must encourage the attacker to follow the orders presented in the briefing. VLs must be compatible with the briefing, and tailored to it. Just because BFC have made small flags worth 100 pts, and large flags worth 300 pts., doesn't mean your victory locations are limited to these two values. You can double, triple, and quintuple flags to better match the briefing (and scenario size), and provide the proper incentive to the players. Your VL's can have any value from 100 pts. to 6,000 pts. in 100 pt. increments! A victory location is not a flag. It is a location that has military value. A VL is designated, and given the appropriate value, by the placing of one or more flags on the location. DETERMINING VICTORY LOCATIONS VLs should be designated only on map features with plausible military value. It is preferable that these locations be mentioned specifically in the briefing as to the reason for their value, especially if a location is not of obvious military value just from a quick look at the map. There is one exception to the above that has merit IMO. That is the concept of a field of flags, or a trail of flags. In this case, the aggressor is rewarded incrementally based on his general liberation of real estate, or a stretch of road. This is rarely seen, and generally requires quite a few flags. The best implementation of this concept I have seen is in the scenario, "Murphy's Law". VL VALUE To determine the proper value of a VL, and the total value of all VLs, several things must be carefully considered. They are interrelated. 1) The attacker's briefing 2) The attacker's likely points for casualties caused TO the defender 3) The likely casualty ratio (defender's points for attacker casualties) 4) YOUR idea, based on the briefing, of what should be accomplished by the attacker in order to achieve a given level of victory. Items 2 and 3 can best be determined through playtesting, although experience may allow for some educated guesses. Playtesting is the RIGHT way to determine these figures however. Item 1 is fairly easy. If the attacker's briefing says, "Take the hill in 40 minutes at any cost", then the hill should be valuable enough that the attacker can win at least a Minor Victory if he takes the hill in 40 minutes, regardless of casualties suffered, or inflicted for that matter. Reward achievement of stated objectives! Item 4 is where the designer asks questions like, "What do I need from the attacker in order to grant a Tactical Victory?" What VL division/casualty ratio combinations are acceptable for that level of victory? Once the answers to these types of questions are decided on, I need only calculate the flag points required for the victory locations to make the results come out as desired for different levels of achievement. In order to calculate the proper flag points one must understand the way games are scored. I believe I saw this explanation in the manual. I'll not repeat it here. It is not difficult. I created a simple spreadsheet where I can quickly calculate hypothetical outcomes. I can change total VL points, division of VL points, attacker points for casualties caused, casualty ratio, and Axis bonus. In about an hour, I can make a good decision on just how valuable the VLs should be. In this time, I have reviewed the results of hundreds of possible outcomes. Spreadsheet or not, you will have to run the above hypothetical items through the CM scoring formula to determine the proper value of Victory Locations. I recommend spending 30 minutes making a spreadsheet. What I have learned is that larger scenarios (unit point value) tend to require VLs that are very valuable, if their ownership is to have any real influence on the outcome of the battle. If the primary objective of a large scenario is to take a VL, there needs to be MANY flags on it. Otherwise, the attacker will probably disregard his territorial goals in favor of destruction of the enemy. He will disobey orders, and not play the scenario with the designer's objective in mind. Another thing I've learned is that seemingly small changes in casualty ratio can have a significant effect on the score, as can changes in the total level of carnage with the same casualty ratio and VL divisions. So, if you're designing a scenario, learn the scoring formula, make a spreadsheet, and spend some time on VL related decisions. Your scenario will provide better gameplay for your efforts. Tomorrow's lesson will be on why all molotovs should be removed from your CMBB scenarios. For a headstart, go the CMBB forum, read my molotov rant, and post YOUR dissatisfaction with the molotovs in CMBB. Let's get BFC to fix or do somefink with the molotovs! Note: The preceding is NOT my opinion. It is fact. It is truth. Know that you are wrong if you disagree with anything written above, for I am the teacher. YOU are the one thoughtlessly plopping single flags on maps. Treeburst155 out. [ March 04, 2004, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

This PBEM Helper does sound good! The only real drawback I can see from reading this thread is that ALL must use it. The more who do, the more valuable the tool becomes. I will give this PBEM helper a serious look. If I like it, I'll join the effort to convert the heathens. Treeburst155 out.

I have no idea how effective various infantry AT assets should be, including close assault with hand grenades. I do know that, based on the effectiveness of these weapons in the game, the molotov serves no purpose other than to delay the more effective close assault. The Germans do not suffer this critical delay. I don't think BFC intended for experienced Russian players to come to regard molotovs as a hindrance, rather than a help. It just works out that way due to the molotov's ineffectiveness compared to the close assault with grenades. Treeburst155 out.

Sheesh! I just took another turn. From my position in the woods, I can here German TCs 20 meters away laughing at my molotovs. They're lighting cigarettes off them!! Treeburst155 out.

Did they then discontinue molotov use, and close assault without them? That's what I want to do in CMBB. Treeburst155 out.

Let me rephrase my last comment above. The game engine cannot handle the ahistorical use of the historical numbers of ATRs. IOW, if ATRs were kept in fairly close proximity to their platoons, there wouldn't be much of a Borg problem. Treeburst155 out.

Redwolf, I ran tests on this awhile back. I can't remember the exact figures; but molotovs are, at best, only half as effective as grenades. IOW, it will take more than twice as much time to take out a tank with molotovs as it does with the grenades (close assault). I saw a molotov thrown from 40 meters yesterday. It surprised me too. There is also a bug that pops up occasionally where the molotovs will go some 150 meters. They may have fixed this. Treeburst155 out.

The problem with AT rifles, when used in abundance, is Borg spotting. They can really aggravate that problem. They're cheap, and they have binos. With too many on the map, you are, in effect, playing with partial FOW. Killing armored cars is not the REAL threat posed by ATRs, it's their ability to monitor enemy activity. So, I believe historical use of ATRs is often GAMEY. The game engine can't handle the historical use of these units. Treeburst155 out.

Bone_Vulture, Your suggestion is another way of saying, "Make the molotovs more potent". I agree with you. Molotovs in CMBB are, in effect, a negative AT asset. They are worse than nothing. Sure, the Russians didn't have squad AT weapons; but their makeshift molotovs shouldn't actually hinder AT capabilities. On a tangent, the lack of sophisticated AT weapons might cause one to speculate that the Russians were somewhat better than the Germans at close assaulting tanks due to having more experience doing so. Treeburst155 out.

LOL at Kingfish link. That's exactly my point. I can understand the Russians wanting to use standoff weapons before charging a tank; but this tactic would only happen in RL if the standoff weapons were reasonably effective. Why alert the enemy to your presence with an impotent stand-off weapon, when 9 times out of 10 you will have to close assault anyway to get the job done. In game-play terms, the Russian player is better off splitting squads before a close assault, in hopes that one of the half-squads will come up without molotovs. I take special care of my molotovless squads. They are assigned the AT role because they are MUCH better at it. More potent molotovs is the answer. Make them as effective as grenades against armor, and the problem is solved. German armor shouldn't be able to roll up and kiss Russian infantry with little fear until several molotovs are thrown. "We can stay here, 10 meters from the treeline for a couple minutes. They won't close assault us until they throw all their molotovs." BFC, fix or do somefink! [ March 02, 2004, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]