GreenAsJade
-
Posts
4,877 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by GreenAsJade
-
-
Is not having Fog worth spending $100-200 and all the hassle?
I can hardly remember the last scenario I played that had fog (and I only remember that one because of it's great features, none of which were fog related!).
Just a thought...
-
PS - I agree with your complaint about the briefing. If you don't like the briefing, you can always play a different scenario that has a better one. And you can give the author constructive feedback at the Depot.
And you can give everyone feedback about bow briefings should be in the recent thread in Scenario Discussions (I need someone to back me up that briefings should tell you useful information!)
GaJ.
-
"Some scenarios suck".
Sure, but there are lots to choose from and lots of help to choose.
It's pretty hard to go wrong with a highly rated scenario at
GaJ.
-
I agree with the advice "play something other than meeting engagements".
I too started with ME's 'cause I thought "this has to be the fairest: equal forces strengths, a true test of skill".
But
1) That's not true
2) ME's simply aren't as fun. They aren't as realistic, because in most cases in real life, commanders would have avoided meeting a force of equal size while on the move.
Also, it sounds like you are playing QBs. Play designer scenarios. They are much more fun, and much more varied.
GaJ
-
Dude, stop shouting.
Can you tell us step by step what you've done, and what you saw and what you expected to see. Then someone migh be able to help you.
"Can't get the mods to load" is a pretty broad problem...
-
Oh - it's not only trusted mode that does this... it happens in secure (normal) mode as well. In this case, your opponent finds that they can't open the file you sent... they get the same message.
-
No - I get this from time to time - it't not the demo. In my case, whenever I see that I look at the actual .txt file, and find that it is less thean 1kb big. IE it got corrupted/not written properly. It is not "in the wrong version" (as the message says). It is completely fubar.
It hasn't been reproducible for me... it's encouraging to hear other people have the problem: maybe we will get to the bottom of it?!
Lord, can you confirm that yours is like mine: cuased by fubar .txt files?
GaJ.
-
It is not uncommon to have troops on the south side of a ridge (reverse slope defense) seeing the progress of (the dust of) AFVs travel along the north side of another ridge 1km to the north. The troops in question can't even see the second ridge, let alone (dust from) the AFVs behind it.
It means that those defending troops have time to adjust to the direction from which the impending threat is coming...
-
Dust is also seen without LOS to the dust itself.
That is the thing that irritates me. I just have to force myself to ignore it, despite the strange effect of being able to see a dust cloud progressing along the opposite side of a tall ridge from where my men are all tucked in...
GaJ.
-
Show us, show us!! Does someone have it!?
-
Only if you get the SdKfz 251/Sktr. (Sonderkrafftahrzeug 251 mit Skiträger.) </font>Originally posted by tar:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />can ski troops be transported in halftracks (say) and still retain their ski's when the dismount?
-
Something to consider is that there are two approaches to the game you are breifing (and all the in-between positions):
- Role players
- Strategy players
For a person who is role playing, an atmpospheric briefing full of real-life-imitating intelligence nonsense puts them right into the mood.
For a person who is seeing the game as a battle of stratey against their opponent, an atmpospheric briefing full of real-life-imitating intelligence nonsense detracts from the 'best player will win' aspect.
Since realistically there is only going to be one briefing, and realistically there are going to be players from both camps, then it is inevitable that the brefing will be hard pressed to please everyone.
If you just give some facts, probably the role-players will mark you down.
If the player who ignores your briefing or who guesses that you are bluffing has an advantage over the player who reads what you wrote, then the strategy gamers will hate you.
Who said scenario design was easy?
That being said, I still beleive that you can have an atmpospheric breifing, ambiguous in places, that doesn't ask the player to second-guess the designer. If you can do that, you're onto a winner.
GaJ.
-
-
This sounds good - what I don't like about it is that it puts the person who ignores the briefing at an advantage.Originally posted by Andreas:It is good because it makes you more careful than you otherwise would be (i.e. more like a real life commander than a CM commander). It could be a way of balancing the scenario without using more forces on the map.
I don't like "second guessing the scenario designer about the briefing" to be part of the game.
-
Such is the joy of night fighting...
-
Here is where I would start not liking it.Originally posted by Andreas:So while I would not give someone false information by saying "the enemy will have no armour", when he has it, I could give them false information saying "a patrol last night found the farm building ahead of your left flank unoccupied", when it has since been occupied, or "it is likely that the enemy has strong AT assets in place" when he has few/none.
The question you have to answer is: what is the point of telling me that "it is likely the enemy has strong AT assets in place" if he doesn't?
I will formulate a plan that deals with strong AT assets ... maybe more so than if you hadn't told me that. And then that plan will be wasted or have to be adjusted. Meanwhile, the person who simply didn't read the briefing will be in a better position. How is that good?
-
Definitely. And the mission must match the map!!Originally posted by Andreas:The briefing also needs to put the tactical situation into the operational context, in my view. The question of why this fight is occurring, at this time, needs to be answered. Otherwise it is just arcade gaming.
A clear mission should be given to the unit.
-
Absolutely.Originally posted by Sergei:GAJ,
I understand that outright lying is too common. But I would be careful about classifying
'we believe there to be only light resistance'
as the same as
'there is only light resistance'.
One is ambiguous and subjective, the other is a strong claim.
The former is OK. The latter would be ridiculous (if there was only light resistance, then why have the scenario?).
Similarly, "we have seen only infantry fleeing before our advancing lines" is absolutely OK. Maybe those infantry are fleeing towards the gathering enemy tanks.
But "we can expect the ground to support our tanks" when the ground is "wet" is ridiculous.
So is "the enemy has only infantry" when he has tanks.
-
If briefings are supposed to represent intelligence services, then we could just have one - the same one that comes with each battle!
"Press forwards and take the specified location, don't expect any resistance or trouble".
Great.
-
Who said that the briefing that comes with the scenario is in anyway supposed to represent the intelligence services that a commander had?
It's a player briefing.
The scenario designers that understand this make have briefings that make their scenario more enjoyable than the ones that don't.
-
Was that a gratuious haiku or a genuine explanation of what's going on!?
-
Does it work with CMAK?Originally posted by Xavier:Wooo, You can see and download my first and only mod :cool: here:
-
So - what makes a good briefing:
1) Accuracy. Don't lie.
2) Good description of "why are we fighting this battle?". Give some reasonable justification for why the flags are where they are and what the motivation for the fight is. ***This needs to match the actual scenario***. There is really little point in saying "You must take Hill 208" if Hill 208 is over on one side in the middle of the open with one tiny flag on it. Is Hill 208 going to make any difference in this case?
3) Personal preference, but I enjoy scenarios better when I know what the reinforcement size & schedule is going to be. I know that good commanders can cope with suprises and work them into the plan, but unexpected reinforcements appearing in a useless place are more of an irritant than a fun challenge for me. Anyone else?
4) Atmophere is optional. If you can do it well, and meet the above needs, then it adds to things. Poorly done, it detracts more than if it wasn't there at all. Remember that the briefing is seen for a brief moment at the beginning then is largely out of mind (unless it contained lies that are revealled later, in which case it is cursed continually). The atmophere will come from the battle even if the briefing was just a few facts.
5) If you are going to list forces, do it in a plain language, not grog-speak. Telling me I have 2xP5/4-2, 1 Spk Plt 993 quite simply doesn't tell me anything.
6) I like it better when I have some information about the enemy. I know that this is not always a luxury commanders had, but as far as "did the briefing make the scenario more enjoyable" goes, the ones that help sketch out a plan for the attack are more enjoyable than the ones that don't, I find.
[ April 08, 2004, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ]
-
Note that "do not lie" does not mean "do not suprise".
There are plenty of ways to suprise the players without lying to them in the briefing.
"Do not lie" does not mean "tell everything".
Why not the American Civil War?
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted
Are we talking about the Brail Civil War (early 1800s) or the Argentine Civil War (late 1800s) or what?