Kip Watson

I'm not sure if I've ever reviewed one of your scenarios, but I do try and write something on the Depot for most of the ones I play. I do this because I know scenario designers are evil and will enjoy hearing how much their creations have tortured me!

The nearest I've seen is a nice map of a 'Siracusa Sicilia' that is in (I think) a zip file on CMMODs called 'Map Pack 01'. The limited number of building types make it difficult to get much variation within the city itself, but the overall effect is impressive.

I don't want to be self-righteous. I've had a couple of well received scenarios, but more than a couple of duds (I'm a novice in the company of most of you guys.) I've pulled my hair out while facing a battalion of fanatics as a player (did that show in my original post? Sorry, I'm an emotional guy!), and I've also scr#wed up a scenario by misunderestimating the effect it would have. But actually this has made me more intrigued by fanaticism (or Rambo-mode as my buddy calls it). It's like chilli - adds spice if handled carefully!

Look, it's cool and it's a great feature (personally I think it's also well suited for use by attacking forces), but it does make the usual points ratios almost meaningless, since fanaticism makes a bigger difference than their experience level.

Hi Scenario Designers... ...for those of you who didn't know, fanaticism gives a huge edge to a defending force. It's all very well giving attackers 2:1 or so in points, but if you make the defenders 'all 50% fanatics', then you must mentally recalculate on the basis that these guys now have staying power far in excess of a typical force, depending on the situation, a typical force will require at least 2 or 3 times more firepower to defeat them than it would otherwise.

Love that CMBO Alpha screenshot!

As a latecomer to CM (I came in at CMBB) I would be so</> interested to see screenshots of CMBO Alpha!

Take it easy on Andreas, guys. Last time I looked he had a great web site with nice pictures and descriptions of his scenarios - and if he would prefer we download from there... ...after all, we're all gentlemen here right? (and I don't just mean we don't have... well you know what I mean)

Ha ha, I have to laugh. Poor Steve can't say a thing without his every word being scrutinised! (...not meant as a criticism, guys. I share the impulse. Just makes me chuckle)

Well, I said 'as long as it's not modified and attribution is given', which I wouldn't take to mean 'do whatever you wish'. But you're a respectable guy and this is not really my argument - I was only making a point about usual practice for intellectual property in the Public Domain. I'm sure, your views being known, that no one would re-distribute your files. ...and seriously, if you think I was insulting you, then people in your town need to insult each other more often - you've forgotten how to recognise one!

You though that was an insult??

It's fantastic, I love it! ...but I didn't give you permission to NOT use my scenarios... (nah just joking). Seriously guys. The usual practice with Public Domain is that content may be freely distributed as long as it is not modified and attribution is given. If you want to play differently, maybe the onus is on you to make that clear.

If the Cold War doesn't interst you, fine. Some of us, having grown up confronted by the probability of war (which luckily never happened) are very curious about how it might have unfolded. How does that make us only fit for insults? Sheesh...

I would love to see a Cold War CMX, and as you say, I don't see why Nukes couldn't be modelled much like Strategic Bombing was in CM1 - reflected in the ability to inflict damage on terrain and enemy. A nuclear devastated battlefield would rock (as mentioned above), why not also 6-months-post-nuclear-war complete with dead vegetation and nuclear-Winter sky. And if EMP has degraded communications and radiation poisoning is affecting the troops, that could probably all be modelled even using CMX1, so CMX2 should do it even better. It would be difficult to accurately assess respective troop quality and such, but if a range of troop abilities were modelled, scenario designers could decide for themselves. As for ballistic and armour info, I would have thought with all the conflicts fought using Soviet and Nato gear there was enough data to make some quite close estimates. It's the 'what if' factor that makes a good simulation so fascinating, arguments and all...

In reply to the Battlefront thread entitled "CMX2: Please stop pestering us with ideas we've already thought of"... ...wouldn't it be cool, in a QB (or scenario), if you could pick vehicles like this: - Carrier: mortar ammo - Carrier: MG ammo - Halftrack: Gun ammo (no need to be too specific) - truck: MG & small arms ammo, grenades etc. etc. And you could keep it close by and/or use it to resupply your troops... (Wouldn't they make welcome reserves!)

Hopefully (as currently with targeting), the AI will do what it thinks most appropriate, and the player can override if they see fit...

Don't be so precious. It's unmanly.

A secondary poll question. If PBEM was out (couldn't-be-done-no-way), would you pay a subscription for a non-synchronous-play-server that could serve the same purpose (maybe better, I'm imagining really cool non-synchronous-team-play features) if BFC set one up? Subscription, we could put our money where our mouths are - there's a way to make our obsessions (and our opinions) really count.

Steve, these are great. I love the idea of the AI having bits of info about my force - I assume this could be on a sort of graduated scale. That could quickly add a lot of challenge to any game, and at a high setting it would be just pure evil! And the idea of scenario designer being able to add 'hints' (actually I'm hoping for explicit commands - 'attack this direction', 'fall back in stages' etc - as well as cover arcs and such) would really rule, and it would certainly sort the sheeps from the goats as regards scenario design.

I've tried to avoid this topic in the various threads it's cropped up in. But here's a thought. If PBEM's out, BFC, set up a 'non-synchronous on-line play' server. As a subscription service of course. I know I'd pay for it if I had to...

I have to be honest, this 'uber campaign' thing sounds wonderful in theory but in practice I am highly sceptical. If you're playing well at the strategic level then your opponent has to endure a CM battle (or even a whole string of them) of getting massacred - or vice versa. Would that be fun for either player? The 2 don't compliment each other as much as you might think.

I'd also like the option, during setup, of re-assigning squd commands. ('first squad, you'll be assigned to second platoon to help hold this gap here') And I'd like it if this was reflected in the tab-through order (I assume this obvious feature will remain). Just a little thing, but it would help in keeping things organised. And (this is a really pedantic one), As a scenario designer I'd like to define what command inheritance different units have. For example, it would be cool if a reserve platoon (or whatever), could have a 'place' in the whole command (eg. 5th Co, 2nd Platoon). Really pedantic I know, but just one of those little aesthetic things... (... a sure sign of undiagnosed OCD).

I think a little bit of editing in the scenario editor would be cool. But also I like in CMBB/AK, how during QBs the game randomises unit experience. eg. you pick 'veteran' and you get a handful of green and regular, as well as a handful of crack and elite. I would love to see something like this in QBs with weapons - not uber squads, just a little bit of random shuffling to account for combat units gaining and losing weapons (a rifle for an SMG here or there, and of course it could randomly degrade as well as enhance). This would be especially noticeable in sort of 'high morale, highly individualistic' units (I believe the NZ Maori Battalion was cited in this respect in a much earlier thread as being 'weapon collectors'). - although this is more something for the scenario designer. I emphatically think that in veteran combat units, most officers would have weapons other than just a pistol.

Some other CoBa orders could work like this be.... - Support: platoon 1 - Escort: Tank platoon 1 - Escort: Battery 2 - Advance: with stealth: and assemble - Advance: with speed: and attack Penalties (morale, time, cohesion) on contradictory behaviour would help to impose an 'opportunity cost' on certain orders that derive from the 'God View'. To use a fairly common example, an AT unit takes a pot at a tank, and from the 'God-viewpoint' the opposing player has every available unit stop what they're doing and open fire on it. Personally, I don't have a problem with this as such - if you order it as a player, then as a commander you would almost certainly have included that situation during training or given instructions in standing orders. The point is, that acting in that way would have an effect on the unit in terms of delay and temporary loss of cohesion ('who's firing - is that third squad - I didn't order anyone to fire - go and find out what they're firing at' ... that sort of thing) Soldiers are not robots, they act on direct orders as well as according to their training, instincts and according to their own best judgement (esp. NCOs). The AI can never model this, so to take too much away from the 'God view' actually could make the game unrealistic. But a layered command system would handle a situation like that (and others) elegantly, accurately, and without loss of playability.

Some other CoBa orders could work like this be.... - Support: platoon 1 - Escort: Tank platoon 1 - Escort: Battery 2 - Advance: with stealth: and assemble - Advance: with speed: and attack Penalties (morale, time, cohesion) on contradictory behaviour would help to impose an 'opportunity cost' on certain orders that derive from the 'God View'. To use a fairly common example, an AT unit takes a pot at a tank, and from the 'God-viewpoint' the opposing player has every available unit stop what they're doing and open fire on it. Personally, I don't have a problem with this as such - if you order it as a player, then as a commander you would almost certainly have included that situation during training or given instructions in standing orders. The point is, that acting in that way would have an effect on the unit in terms of delay and temporary loss of cohesion ('who's firing - is that third squad - I didn't order anyone to fire - go and find out what they're firing at' ... that sort of thing) Soldiers are not robots, they act on direct orders as well as according to their training, instincts and according to their own best judgement (esp. NCOs). The AI can never model this, so to take too much away from the 'God view' actually could make the game unrealistic. But a layered command system would handle a situation like that (and others) elegantly, accurately, and without loss of playability.