GreenAsJade

Hey Rune, thanks for popping in! I certainly wasn't suggesting a re-do - more just having a chat about how other people experienced it, and how one would expect this kind of thing to work in principle. I was saing "here's great scenario where 'what it was called' had a significant impact on how I played it - did it do that to you too?". The "should brefings be correct?" debate is an old chestnut, and not at all where I was coming from. I personally am more often irritated than entertained or challenged by "misleading" briefings. As a designer's tool I believe it should be used rarely and with great care. To achieve a clear and specific effect that could not be achieved any other way. In this case, you (the designer) are saying "I wanted an ambush situation, here's the tool I used". Excellent - it sure did achieve it, and I wasn't irritated, rather I was challenged & entertained. I hope that came across! It's very different to the ole "intelligence reports no armour in the area" in a scenario full of armour. Hah hah tricked them again... groan not very funny. Cheers, GaJ.

Yay, he's back!

Now I understand it all. Feelings of helplessness brought on by subjugation at home are taken out on innocent bystanders in the CM forum....

The difference in this scenario would have been that if I was in the trees and he had roads, I could have seen that on my map, and would have been able to deduce that I would take longer than my opponent to reach a particular point on the map, and make decisions accordingly. In this particular scenario, we both were apparently presented with the same manouvering options ... and a long distance between ends. The more general question remains: what do you think that the designations "ME, Probe, Assault" etc are intended to mean, if not to convey the basic intelligence of the situation with respect to force deployment and composition? (Wrapped up with this is the age-old chestnut of "should briefings be deceptive?" too. But I'm not asking that one. I'm not asking "should things be deceptive?" but rather "was this one deceptive?" (it sure deceived me!! ) Cheers, GaJ.

So you're the arbiter of whether anyone else has anything interesting to say then eh, Flam? And if there's nothing else to interest you in threads, they should be locked, eh? Or ... what exactly?

Hi All, Some time back I published "Scenario Balance Indication Tables" for CMBB & CMAK, based on WeBoB data. At last I've done the CMBO one too. It's here . There are a few "glitches" in it (data for some scenarios split under two names, or tournament names being mistaken for scenario names), but hopefully I've cleaned it up so that these few remaining ones don't detract from the usefullness of the list (assuming that there is some ) Enjoy. GaJ.

Not only is this not a tank video, it's a demo for a non-CM game, but to top it off, it's huge and it's crap. What a waste of bandwidth that was! 7,6,5 ...

Welcome back. Is it PBEM or vs AI, and is it balanced or historical (or both) Cheers, GaJ.

10, 9, 8 ...

I'm curious to hear what you think the definition of a "Meeting Engagement" is, Kingfish. Compared to "Assault", "Probe" etc. I agree that there are grey lines, but this is a map that is very long, and one force is set up within a few hundred metres of the edge, and the other is set up in ambush over 3/4 of the way towards him across the board. Just when is an ME not an ME? What is the point of classifying them if it doesn't mean anything? Note that in addition to the setup placement, the classification relates to the relative force sizes and composition, as in QBs. Note that there is a direct relationship between force size and setup area for a balanced scenario. There's no point in calling something a "Probe", giving the defenders all fortifications and very few troops and then making them set up within 10% of their own edge. Similarly in this scenario, while the ambush may have been an intended feature, it was my uneasy feeling about the way it was achieved (by telling me that it was an ME) that made me come here and seek other opinions... (If it had been called "Assault" there's no way I would have gone merrily rolling down that road...) Cheers, GaJ.

Last I recall seeing it was sometime towards the end of this year. 2005.

Thanks Steve - this one's squared away for me now. GaJ.

Ladies? Ladies? Where are the ladies? (Or did he mean "laddies"?)

Actually, I think there are more requirements than mentioned in the link I gave above: these were more explicitly explained in the ROW IV thread. I'm thinking of the requirements of the AAR to be counted as "Acceptable to make you eligible for the next round". It was something like "Should introduce what the scenario was about, should say what your plan was and how it worked out for you, should contain feedback for the designer of the scenario". In ROW IV Kingfish gave feedback when he received the AAR about whether it was OK or not. I know that because my initial "Mettama" AAR was rejected as too short (It basically said "Man, that was a complete disaster. I don't want to talk about it" ). I haven't had the one AAR I've submitted for ROW V acknowledged yet. Does this mean I should be worried that it got lost, or does Ace just not acknowledge? GaJ.

[...] About the only requirment is the header, which I believe is also explained in this thread. Just read back a few pages and you'll find it all... </font>

Oh - another worthwhile outcome of this thread has been the exposure of good map design techniques for avoiding map hugging. It would be great if the QB generator could take some of these on board! I think that the idea of comparatively flat open terrain on the edges sounds particularly amenable for the QB generator, and the diamond design approach seems feasible as well. Cheers, GaJ.

And that's fine, but you should keep in mind that if something is really simple to do, and obviously beneficial, in your mind... you should ask yourself... why hasn't it been done before? The answers usually are: 1. Because nobody thought of it until now. 2. Because game designers are incompetent compared to game players. 3. Because the designers only care about money while game players only about the game. 4. Because the designers understand ramifications and limitations at a far deeper level than game players. I think by simple process of elimination we are left with #4. So... by disagreeing with me you are, in effect, saying that one of the other three conditions is responsible for us actively arguing against the concept. </font>

I acknowledge you aren't going to change this, and I'm not trying to persuade you to. However, just from a logic point of view, I'm afraid the above argument doesn't hang together. This is because it assumes a symmetry between attacker and defender that doesn't exist. Right now, the edges are safer for the attacker than the middle. There is a demonstrable benefit in attacking up the edge - the suprise can only come from one side, not two. Walpurgis Night - someone who's opinion is surely worth something - has said something like "I have never seen a scenario where attacking up the middle was a good idea". This is what I mean by demonstrable. By contrast, the defender has no benefit from "hugging" the edge. He _has_ to defend the middle! That is where the contested terrain is. You rarely see defensive behaviour that can be ascribed to taking advantage of the edge. Asymmetry. The attacker benefits from coming up the side and then into the middle. The defender by and large is "in the middle" with no advantage to being on the side. This is where incoming fire, as originally described, would increase the realism of the simulation. No longer would it clearly be an advantage to come up the side. Of course, this could equally be applied to the defender too. If he chooses to put units waiting sneakily by the edge (with a reduced chance of being spotted due to the reduced angles from which he can be observed) then he too should be subject to random off-map fire. The point is that it's the attacking behaviour that's going to be most modified in the direction of realism by a change like this ... it is *not* that the change would only apply to the attacker. Again let me say that I hear you: you are not interested in improving this are of the game. You believe you've heard all the arguments, and that it's not an area worth improving. Fine - I'm not trying to argue that you should improve it. However, I am pointing out that the logic given above as part of the reason for not improving it is flawed GaJ.

No! And again No! Walpurgis Night once said something like "I've never seen a scenario where attacking up the middle was a good idea". (There are people over in the ROW thread looking for you, BTW, Dorosh).

Well what are you waiting for!!??

YD - maybe rename your thread "CMx2 idea: solution to edge hugging". It's not that crazy. GaJ.

I think the original idea is great. As has been demonstrated, getting more sophisticated gets more problematic. I *dont* like the idea of using morale as a disuader. It's already been shown to be prone to problems (half squad debate). Having random fire come from off-map at near-map-edge units is a fantastic simple idea for an irritating issue of unrealism. BTS - look here!!

He's been posting in other threads, so he's definitely "active".

If you're referring to my comments then I must have missed scrutinising the map properly for that hidden ford across the river to obviate my observation of the particular scenario. Naturally no reference was made to forces and the like. Regards Jim R. </font>

Well, I wasn't bored, I thought it was very interesteing, as usual. Thanks.