Paper Tiger
-
Posts
3,617 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Paper Tiger
-
-
13 hours ago, landser said:
Don't want to clutter up the forum by quoting the entire post, and your defense of the editor is admirable, but at the same time I think it stands testimony to how obtuse it is. You're one of the generous people I referred to, and you obviously get on well with the tools. But reading your post, it's clear that even for someone who enjoys building campaigns, that there is an element of the ends justify the means to it all. But anyway, that sort of thing is subjective. Whether the editor is powerful is not really the issue, but instead it's down to how quickly and easily campaigns can be created.
I remember a post you made years ago, around the time you released Montebourg, that it had taken you 800 hours to make it. I mean, come on. Such dedication is also admirable, but surely it illustrates the issue. Montebourg is possibly the most ambitious campaign in the series, so picking an outlier to make my point may not be convincing. I believe Combat Mission needs a campaign generator. And a new campaign system entirely. I'm not holding my breath, this 'episodic' system we have now seems to satisfy the community at large, but for me it has become stale and fails to give the players the sort of content that makes the underlying excellent tactical battlefields shine.
Well, yes, Montebourg is a bit of an outlier. If you do all the research, look for locations, write briefings, do all the artwork as well as craft all the maps to a high degree of precision, and make up missions with multiple AI plans as well as the variants, yes, an 18-mission historical campaign is between 3-6 months work with about 4-8 hours most days (which is what I was doing back then - my job allowed me a great deal of down time and then I got promoted- damn!
).
However, I've seen that there are a number of massive maps available for the community to work with to make campaigns. I really am not joking when I say that I could knock out a 5-8 mission campaign that would be 'playable' in a week if I were to use one of those and not worry about getting it look good with proper artwork. And there's the rub: there are standards that are set by the community for our work and most folks don't want to produce something that isn't up to scratch with the more polished campaigns made by those of us who are willing to put in the time to do it to that standard. They'd be embarrassed to submit their work and that's probably the reason why there are not as many campaigns as there could be. If that's true, that's a real shame because that's what those giant maps are for.
I will freely put my hands up and admit that I'm so familiar with making campaigns with the editor that the following assessment on how easy it all is to work with for a noob is way off here. But honestly, I don't think it's as much work to do as you'd think if you are not looking for a highly-polished product with briefings and artwork and since you're talking about Quick Battle Campaigns, you're obviously willing to accept the reduction of quality.
I see your point about Quick Campaigns: it seems like an easy ask to say all you need are to set up the parameters at the start, the number of battles, select your QB maps, the forces that are available for the AI to buy from and voila. Yes, you could make up your own core unit file for the QC to draw from but you'd also need a script. Let's say that it was all abstracted so that a script was unnecessary though; the end result would still induce rage from folks who did all that work only to find the AI didn't perform and sat in its starting locations.
There are several reasons why what the OP reported might have happened which I won't go into in any detail. Broad strokes, the AI plan might have might have put the majority of the units in a group which had an Assault or Max Assault order, the latter being particularly bad.
Or, because QB maps can have multiple AI Plans, maybe it used the one plan where the AI set up that group to be more cautious. Or maybe even the one map that slipped past the testers. (I saw how much work was involved in getting the QB maps ready for the release so I'm respectful of it but we're human and mistakes get made regardless.) Unless you're using a set of maps that you've vetted beforehand, that's still going to happen with a QC.
-
7 hours ago, Vacillator said:
I wonder what @George MC thinks about this. Not for the first time I would say that George's maps are things of wonder. Detailed, beautiful and 3D in the best possible way to make battles very interesting. If this is news to anyone (perhaps not), look at any of George's maps in CMBN or CMRT. Or better still play the battles.
Other excellent map makers are available of course
.
Well, I always admit that the two designers that inspired me the most when I was starting out with the editor were GeorgeMc, whom you know, and Pete Wenman who produced some really fine maps for CMSF back at the very start. He was also incredibly creative with mods.
MikeyD put me on to Red v Red. It never occured to me to do that myself and he made an interesting and fun Red v Red mission which I enjoyed a lot - far more than the Blue v Red missions I played.
There was a guy around called Webwing who also inspired me to make a campaign. He was working on something called "In Search of a Ghost" and I thought it would be cool to do a campaign all of my own.
And finally, Bardosy who made really fun campaigns to play.
I guess it sounds like I don't have an original idea in my head after reading that
but I was inspired by all of these folks and never copied. I've always striven to find my own style.
-
7 hours ago, PEB14 said:
That's very interesting!
If I understand correctly, you mean that scripted Ai is less predictable than reactive (dynamic) AI, because the latter is based on algorithms that you learn to know?
So making the AI better would mean adding more triggers to the present-day scripted AI? Like casualties-based triggers, by example?
Absolutely. I've always thought of AI plans as being one massive, game-length WeGo turn 'sent' by the designer to the player and as such, the designer can script some really surprising behaviour.
For me, the improvements I'd like to see but probably never will are:
- branching AI plans
- artillery fire plans tied to specific AI plans and not the entire set
- delays to the above AI pre-planned artillery strikes
All of those would make AI scripting even more efficient. But I'm finding that I can do a whole lot with the latest engine changes that wasn't possible before so I've got enough new toys to play with to enjoy working with the expanded features for quite some time to come.
-
12 hours ago, landser said:
I agree with some of the OPs points, and especially campaigns.
Yes, there are a lot of single scenarios for the various titles. But I don't care about that. I play campaigns and that's it. And the options are too few. I've said for going on 20 years now Combat Mission needs a campaign generator.
One of the issues for me is even if you have x number of campaigns, only some of them are going to be the ones I'm looking for. For example I like company sized campaigns. So the pool has been cut by 2/3. What if I want company sized paratrooper campaigns? Down to 10%. What if I want company sized American paratrooper campaigns? Maybe three or four exist. It's not enough to hang our hats on how many campaigns there are if only a handful are the sort we want to play.
There must be a way for the players to generate their own content quickly and easily. Make my own campaigns you might say. Well, the editor is archaic and difficult to use. And even if I did so, I'd know every thing there is to know about it. I made it. And that won't do. The beauty of Combat Mission is in solving the tactical puzzle when it is shrouded in unknowns. If I know the enemy positions, and reinforcements and how many tanks and AT guns they have the mystery is gone. Well, that's the fourth AT gun knocked out. They've no more. No. I need to proceed as if they might have four more. I cannot know ahead of time what the enemy possess.
So, under the existing formula there is no satisfactory way of obtaining the sort of content I seek, that suits me. And that's been a problem since Operations went belly up over twenty years ago.
For players who are not keen to make their own campaigns it leaves us reliant on the few players generous enough to do so. But they aren't taking requests, asking me what I want. And I wouldn't expect them to. So we are left playing whatever comes down the pike while rejecting some as inferior or ill-suited to our own tastes. And that does indeed leave too few. OP is right.
You raise some very good points there and I have every sympathy towards the argument against design-you-own as well. You explained very clearly why there is no mystery in a mission you made yourself (although by using multiple, useful AI plans, you can mitigate that somewhat but that won't help with you knowing what the AI has in its inventory). I also agree that there are far fewer campaigns than there are scenarios to play and if they're not to your taste and campaigns are where it's at for you, well, that's not helping. However, I'm not sure what other game gives you what you are looking for. Surely that will be a problem for them all?
As for the editor, well, I'm going to have to stand up for that as it's by far the biggest draw of this engine for me.
I've played with quite a few editors in my time away from CMx2 and some do one aspect better while they suck at others. I find the CMx2 scenario editor very easy to work with. Sure, the UI is a bit old-fashioned and doesn't look exciting or communicate information to you efficiently but what other editor allows you to take a photo of a real-world location and import it into the editor so that you can trace around it? It's really easy to 'paint' the map with different vegetation and to set elevations etc. It's not fun work, that's for sure (which is why I tend to listen to some prog rock album or Bach while I'm doing so) and a large map takes a lot of time to do. But it's not HARD to use.
Maps don't need to be the best ever either. I've had a lot of fun playing campaigns and missions where the map work is <cough> not perfect but who cares if the scenarios and the stories are good. TBH, I probably fart about too much making my maps look as good as possible and would probably churn out the content at twice the rate if I simplified the maps. (Not going to happen, ever.) I think we need to encourage more folks to make campaigns with these huge master maps that folks have been drawing in the last few years.
Now the AI, that's a really tricky one. AI scripting is not hard to do with this editor but it's fiddly. To contrast, I've played some games which use a reactive AI opponent that will use the forces you give it according to the changing situation without the need for scripting and guess what? Once you've sussed out the system, you know exactly what the AI is going to do and this is particularly obvious when it comes to the AI attacking when the attacks are juvenile and borderline unplayable. It's hard to pull off a good AI attack in the CM editor but the end result is usually far superior to anything that a dynamic AI could ever pull off with the same forces. Even when the AI is on the defence, I think scripting makes the AI opponent far more challenging than with a dynamic one. The price of this is that the AI needs to be directed and with no AI plans, there is no AI and even a dynamic AI is superior there.
I think CMx3, if this is ever a thing, will go with scripted AI as well. And that's why you're not going to see randomly generated campaigns any time soon. They would basically by Quick Campaigns and all the issues with QBs described by the OP and yourself would exacerbate the existing frustrations with them no end.
-
On 4/9/2023 at 11:24 AM, Poorlaggedman said:
These things might be forgivable if you eat up all the CM titles, I only ever got Shock Force and Battle for Normandy despite loving the gameplay.
Here's why:
- Custom battles against the AI are almost useless.
The AI is almost nonfunctional in random battles.
I've had meeting engagements where I'm sitting here doing moves and excited about what's gonna happen and the AI never leaves their starting area. I feel like the AI signed off and left. I'm patched to the recent version AFAIK, I couldn't replicate this in my first attempt (some of the enemy battalion was actually moving two minutes in) but I still remember the huge disappointment as I'm methodically moving and realize the enemy never left their freaking start point. Enemy AI has to be a lot better in future titles.
The system for seeking online human players is subpar at best. I understand there might be revisions, that's great. Literally nobody I know in my life or my gaming circles has ever heard of CM. In the CM X 1 era I did play dozens of PBEM and WeGo battles online. Perhaps because I'm older now I don't have the patience to fervently seek out CM playmates without any built-in infrastructure.
- There's too few battles and campaigns, severely limiting replayability.
I've asked before but there doesn't seem to be custom community-made campaigns or battles. If there are, you have to dig farther than I have and I'm fairly certain I asked before. I've played all the battles and campaigns numerous times over a decade (or however long ago this came out.) I don't get why I'm so bored with a game I love.
Campaign play against the AI can work so why is so underutilized?
- The Courage and Fortitude Campaign is basically rage bait trash.
I posted about this a decade ago (I lost my old account e-mail) and I still think so today, having made the mistake of booting CMBN up to try and get to that last mission once more so I can clear that final city with a somewhat intact couple companies of infantry.
In my mind Courage and Fortitude is the flagship campaign to CMBN because it's the allied infantry campaign. It sucks. Bad.
The campaign requires too much of hugging the edge of the map, which is a gamey and ridiculous tactic. The first mission is relatively easy although the designer manipulation in the terrain in putting slopes to nullify observation abilities from hedgerows is very annoying. It would be one thing if there were several other infantry-based campaigns but there aren't.
Hard knocks is absurd, Razorback Ridge is absurd. It's not some stroke of genius, it's absurd for the wrong reasons.
In a first person game we call it "spawn camping" when you drop artillery on the spawn area. I made the mistake again (I'm an incredibly forgiving person when it comes to games I like) of starting this crap campaign once more. I wasted about four hours of my life over the last two nights just to decide 'Yeah, ____ this, not worth my time.' If I'm gonna look at pretty lights on my computer screen then I want to feel immersed not severely handicapped. You people are gonna make me start drinking again.
You can't just squeeze players in a starting area under direct observation of artillery. You can't force them to do incredibly gamey stuff (like sending scout teams around to draw fire away from my cramped starting area - works great to an extent) just to avoid reinforcements spawning into artillery barrages. Razorback Ridge is ridiculous, if you even show your face you get pounded by artillery as more units spawn in under fire. Great war gaming, horrific presentation. If you want to do Omaha Beach, call it Omaha Beach, don't drop my waves of precious pixel troopers in a confined space under enemy observation unless you want to not sell me another CM, which has been accomplished through CMBN, and in large part through Courage and Fortitude specifically.I'd like to try out the Italian, Soviet, and Market Garden games but I won't. It's because CMBN scenarios are lacking and I don't want to deal with that type of disappointment. When/if it gets on steam, I'll add to my Wishlist and wait for a great sale
I have to be honest, I've never read anyone complain about a lack of scenarios or campaigns to play with this title. I suspect you haven't found the Few Good Men site where scenario/campaign designers upload their work. I see someone else has posted a link so I won't. It also sounds like you have the base game only and so are confined to playing the three campaigns and the couple of dozen scenarios that it shipped with. If so, yup, that's not going to last you decades.
You could argue that QBs provide near-infinite replay-ablility but that doesn't really stand up.
For me, Quick Battles are probably the least-used feature in the game. It's not because they're bad, it's because they need to be able to manage ANY force that the player may purchase, armour, all-infantry, what-have-you and the AI plans try to do their best with what it's got. And that sometimes means it can do nothing. I know how much work and dedication went into creating the official QB maps and it was considerable. Almost all my QB time in-game was spent using my own dedicated QB maps that were designed for pure infantry and I only ever used them. They worked every time because they were dedicated infantry-only maps and so the plans worked just fine. (I lost them all though - a shame as I had made some real beauties from where I used to live in Suffolk)
I won't comment on C&F as I'm on the team and the three rules of the club are 'you never talk about Fight Club...'
If you haven't got it already, both the Commonwealth and Market Garden modules add even more scenarios and campaigns although I wouldn't recommend The Scottish Corridor if you're looking for a relaxing, pleasant experience.
The Road to Nijmegen is not bad though and it's B-I-G. Plus there are German campaigns that come with both of those modules as well.
-
That all sounds very familiar as I've been working on the opening two missions over the last couple of days. That reassures me that the decision to keep it as much like the original Hasrabit as possible is the best way to do things.
Anyway, I had originally planned to redo Ambush entirely and made up a whole new map which you can see at the top of this thread. I'm glad I decided to stick with the old map as I've been able to redesign it using the new ideas I had that inspired the map above. Bear in mind that this is a NIGHT mission and so I've switched to daylight for screenshots.
Here's the old map:
Not a bad map at all but I wanted to make the opener a bit more realistic so here's the new Ambush map
And here it is from a different viewpoint
The two sides of the river are both real world locations but not close with each other. Gone are most of the trees and the elevations have been reduced substantially. It's mostly finished now. I expect I'll rework one or two areas as playtesting goes on. The large empty areas are necessary though so the one you see in the first picture won't change. They also look quite good at night anyway. As you can see, the large workshop area has been replaced with more realistic looking compounds and there is now a small hamlet on the other side of the river. The map has been extended somewhat but it's still quite small. Since it's a hazy night mission, it feels big enough though. And I've erased about half a million flavour objects from the original map. I'm definitely of the opinion that less is more in that respect.
And that brings me to the OBs. Both have been stripped down slightly with the Special Forces only having two platoons and some support and the REDFor has been similarly stripped down. Otherwise they'd just be far too OP for the player to fight against. The v4.0 engine allows me to do things with the AI on attack that I was never able to do before and it's a game changer. So OBs have been reduced by about 33% for both sides and the mission has been extended as well to allow for more time for the situation to develop.
I usually return to the opening mission of a campaign several times as I get deeper into it so there will be more than one AI attack plan by the time this is finished. Now it's time to get playtesting mission 2, Strong Stand.
-
On 3/30/2022 at 1:11 AM, Rokko said:
Hello,
I haven't touched CM in ages, having mostly lost interest in it, but today I had an itch and looked at the code I had written for the uncam tool and somehow ended up rewriting the entire thing in one setting. I fixed some issues and it should be possible to unpack CMCW campaigns as well as potentially campaigns of yet unreleased games, as long as BF does not muck with the file format. Anyways, I don't have CMCW so I can't test and there are no campaign files in the scenario depot. If it doesn't work, send me the campaign file (or a download link) and I can take a look at it. I don't even have a Windows PC anymore, so I couldn't test the Windows version either, so please report any issues.
Best regards
PS: If anyone wants the source code, feel free to ask but I didn't include it this time in the archive.
The latest version is attached to that post quoted above on page 2 of this thread. You'll find v09 at the top of the thread but it doesn't unpack all the campaigns but this one did.
-
As some of you will already be aware, I've decided to fast track revising my ancient 'Hasrabit' campaign and I've been busy with it since last weekend. I tried out the very first mission, Ambush, and didn't like it and my initial reaction was to abandon the original opening map and create an all-new Ambush map. I started work on it on Wednesday and I finished it earlier this afternoon. It's really big and very detailed but, well, I suspect you can already see why this map isn't going to work in this campaign...
It just doesn't look like any of the other maps in the campaign. It actually looks like the maps I made for the NATO campaigns. So I'm going to use this in Retribution which will come a bit later. I'm not teasing you by showing that in a thread purporting to be about Hasrabit, it's just that it's the end result of 3 days of work and I'm very happy with the end result. I'd LIKE to use it but the other maps would all look utterly incongruous beside it and I certainly don't want to redo them all.
Hasrabit is an old campaign and so I'm not going to change very much with it because otherwise, what you'd get wouldn't be 'Hasrabit' - it would be a whole new campaign using similar forces. So it's going to be an update instead. I'm going to improve the old maps for sure and make them look more Syrian, adding water and bridges for example and redesign the compounds and villages so that they look much more realistic. And bye bye to the vast glowing fields of wheat, the lush, green grass and the dense forests that made the maps look more like NW Europe. I'll expand a few of them, particularly the ones with armour clashes but otherwise, they will all stay pretty much the same. I'm also going to stick with the totally made-up background story as again, this is Hasrabit and there's no such place or governorate and so I'm just going to let it be.
I've also decided to keep the original Ambush mission but take out the artillery strike on your starting positions and also remove all the trees and the mud which was everywhere and replace them with orchards. That huge yard will also get removed and redone with something that looks more Syrian. I suspect that the river will also have to go but we'll see how I feel once real play-testing starts because the bridges are a pretty bad bottleneck which the AI can't handle very well..
Which brings me to what will definitely change - the AI. I was rather surprised to find that the AI attacks in almost every mission and that's going to be fun to do. The old AI plans are atrocious though as are the set-up and positioning of the AI's units. The player set-ups look really terrible too with very narrow set-up are areas with units all crammed together so all that will change. I now have 16 groups to work with and can give them far more orders with some special ones which were not in the game the last time I played. And, of course, some triggers.
So, that's the plan as it stands. I've made up the new core units file and I've already started improving the existing maps. So, I'm going to import the new units and get down to some serious play in against the old AI plans and OBs before I rip them out so that I know the original intention behind the mission and try to stay faithful to it. I'll probably add shots of the 'finished' maps here as I go. I suspect that by the time I've finished this revision, I'll have relearned all the skills I formerly had and will be able to do a better job of the new campaign I plan to follow it with.
-
BTW, Hasrabit is still the #1 priority. I've been working on the map for the new opener all morning and it's shaping up as it wanted it. I read through the campaign and mission briefings last weekend to reacquaint myself with the backstory and it's a bit <cough> out there, as in just me making **** up. 'Hasrabit' is an actual place that I found on Google maps as the map for Strong Stand was (yes, that location looked like that back then with walls and orchards just stopping for no good reason.) The real 'Hasrabit' is a small town just to the south of Damascus International Airport but the name appears in Arabic and I'm too lazy to translate it. [lightbulb moment] Perhaps one of my Muslim students could translate it for me. But otherwise, all the maps are just my creation. You have to remember that there was no scenario overlay back when I made both this and Dinas so the maps are imaginary. Ambush!, the opener is probably the least useable so it's gone but I want to keep the rest as far as that proves possible to do. Otherwise this project will take me MONTHS!
So the campaign backstory will need to be reworked a bit. There's no Shuruk valley or river and since I'm more than capable of doing real-world locations in the editor, there's no good excuse for making it all up entirely. It's still going to be 100% fictional because the campaign is called Hasrabit although I'm picking a few choice real-world locations for the new maps. But Hasrabit will stay as the titular Governorate and it will feature a mix of locations from near Hama and Aleppo as well as the old imaginary maps. I'll try to keep it consistent, Special Forces in the greener orchards and the Republican Guards in the more open, arid areas.
And I'm going to add a new mission to it for an important campaign branch.
-
Don't encourage me.
Michael Schenker was a huge influence on my guitar style (mainly from his UFO days though) whose impact was only superseded by Eddie Van Halen's. I could put in a couple of German metal bands but Scorpions has to be one. Sounds like a good fit for the Bridges mission.
-
I was playing around with them in the Chaparral mission yesterday evening and they're very different and definitely not OP. The Marine LAR group alone is almost capable of doing most of the heavy lifting in that mission if you get the breaks anyway. The LAV's optics and their rapid fire cannons mean they can take on the tanks pre-dawn, not to mention the ATGM vehicles that can hunker down behind a hill but they're very weak against enemy ATGM teams. But the recon squads and some artillery can take care of them.
The PzGrdr's (thanks) are very, very fragile but I think they'll work very well in missions 2 and 5. I think I'll leave the MOUT to the GbJg. They're really good at it from what I've seen so far. I thought I'd need a third platoon for mission 1 to match the USMC's number but as it happens, they're doing the job very well with just two at the moment. The rapid fire of the heavy howitzers and the heavy battalion mortars make a huge difference. Shame there's no helicopters though but the Tornadoes are doing a good job. But I miss the sound.
-
So, Wagnerian and Goethe characters? Maybe the names of some Brahms lieder? Wow, really resting on the laurels of past glory there, aren't we? But what a glorious past!
Okay, thanks for that. That's certainly better than using German football players. I guess some LotR characters might work too as Peter Jackson's LotR MUST have been pretty popular in Germany. And what about Kirk, Spock and Bones? I remember some German singer (Nina?) mentioning Kirk in a song from the 80s (99 Red Balloons) and we were surprised to hear 'Captain Kirk', probably the most iconic leader for at least one generation so a Star Trek TOS reference might work too?
-
Aye, that Normandy bundle is going to take you quite a long time to get through but perhaps all three intended versions of this campaign will have been completed and tweaked by the time you're ready to play them. There will definitely be a Brit version as I'm Scottish. They're so laid back when calling in artillery - it's like asking for a taxi and the operator is too laid back to give a fig. "Hello, Fire Mission. Out"
I did a bit of reading on German pop culture and it appears it is a bit of a weakness and Germans are aware of it. I really don't want to do German football players for objectives in every mission but there's not much else to work with. I'm going to guess that many of the media references that I use in USMC will be very familiar to most Germans though - who doesn't know the Flintstones? The High Chaparral, probably not.
At least for the British version, I can work in a few Red Dwarf references. Perhaps Germans know that show? It sounds like it would appeal to their sense of humour so maybe I could have some cross over between the three campaigns.
-
Again, I like to muse and formulate ideas so that if I'm flirting with any ideas which are particularly outrageous, people can say so.
So I'm thinking of having two units in the German version of Gung Ho! The Gebirgsjagers are a very cool formation to work with but they're nowhere near as heavy as the USMC MEU formation and apart from the Weasels which are probably my favourites (at the moment - I also like the Brit's Jackals a lot), they're light on vehicles. Yes, there are Fuch carriers but they're a tad boring for my taste. So I'm toying with the idea of alternating GbJg with a Mech company with the Marders. With only 6-man squads, the PzGrens are a very fragile formation but perhaps having them perform two missions in this campaign, #2 and #4, might make it more diverse and even more fun while not having one bad 'turn' end your campaign run for you.
This means the GbJgs would feature in four of the missions, probably being carried in by helicopters (so no Fuchs) and the PzGrens in two. I'm trying not to have tanks because the Leopard is every bit a monster as the Abrams MBT and as I saw when testing Gung Ho earlier, one of these beasts can win the scenario all on their own (as long as there are no AT-14s of course)
-
The best laid plans of mice and men...
Work on the German version is already under way. Core units are done and I've started playing around with the opener. Let's just say that it looks, feels and plays very differently from the USMC version. The USMC really is a beast with large platoons and enormous firepower. The Jaegers are much lighter but their artillery... (rubs hands) this is going to be a blast to develop.
I'm going to have to rename these missions with more German style names. Gung Ho! was inspired by the HBO series, Generation Kill and I recall one episode where they were talking about Betty and Wilma so it all sprang from there. Doing German football players seems more than a bit lame but I know absolutely NOTHING about popular German culture. The missions' and objectives' names in Gung Ho! were a real nostalgia trip for me because we grew up with a lot of US TV on the BBC and ITV in the 70s and 80s. Starsky and Hutch, Kojak and The Rockford Files were the coolest things on Brit TV for a while. Even my dad loved them. Some tips from folks with German upbringing in a similar period might help with the authenticity.
-
Even more good suggestions. That's a tad long for the tile, not to mention that I'm sure to stuff up the spelling every time I type it
but i'm sure I can work that into the campaign briefing somewhere.
-
Well, it is a bit of a mouthful if you're not German so that sounds better to me. Less chance of typos showing up in the briefings too.
-
Well, well, well. I just fired up the first mission of Gung Ho! with the Gebirgsjagers and holy crap! I'd forgotten how much fun this formation was to work with. So I guess this is going to get a bit more loving for the time being. And no javelins!
If anyone is able to answer, I'd like not to use the Fuchs vehicles and have a pure Infantry formation (of course, I'll be using those wonderful Weasels and the Wolves.) I can rationalise it by saying they were choppered in in the briefing if necessary but from what I recall, they're a formation that fights in all climates and terrain and is intended to operate without vehicles. I'm sure they'd much prefer to ride across the hot Syrian country but war's tough.
I might have to use some Fuchs carriers for the bigger maps like the Chaparral map where you have a lot of ground to cover but otherwise, there will be no carriers. I don't even want to use the Leopard tanks either - they're not a part of the formation but could be attached if I really need them.
-
With USMC Gung Ho! up and ready to be played, I started work on Hasrabit yesterday evening. I've examined all the missions, made some notes about OBs and the over-all plan behind the campaign and initial ideas how to improve on it. It's already a fairly solid design, two core unit forces that never meet but have two interconnected missions - a pattern I've used in most of my campaigns since.
I opened up the first mission, Ambush! in the editor and changed the marsh tiles to river and used proper bridges. I can see I was a little over-zealous with flavour objects back then to but otherwise, it's clearly an old map but functional so I decided to give it a spin. A nice small company of Special Forces to work with, excellent, so I devised a plan and hit START. OMG! What a disaster.
Sorry but that's just not my style any more so I'm going to have to make an all-new map to open the campaign (Dinas got it right) and I've got a doozy of an idea of what to do for it. I expect I'll have to do this with several of the missions but what the heck, it's work I enjoy. But I like to play the game from time to time too so this is how I'm going to progress.
While getting new maps prepared for Hasrabit, I'm going to create a fresh core units file and make the German Gebirgsjager version of Gung Ho! to play at the same time. Work title is 'Gebirgsjagers Vorwarts!'. If anyone has any feedback on Gung Ho!, please let me know so that I can incorporate that feedback into the German version. I don't need to have my ego stroked (any more) or even need lots of feedback from a host of players, just one or two comments will suffice to let me know if it's up to scratch or not. I trust you guys to give me useful feedback so don't be shy.
-
Vorwarts ... hmm, I wonder what that means in English. Would it be Forwards by any chance? Or is it a false friend?
That sounds a bit better and it's short and punchy. I like it.
-
More choices. They both sound good... 'Auf der Kante' sounds okay
-
It's up now...
https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/cm-shock-force-2-2/cm-shock-force-2-campaigns/cmsf2-usmc-gung-ho/
Have fun and don't be afraid to tell me what you think
-
Okay, that's it uploaded. The picture failed to load but I don't care about that too much at this point.
https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/cm-shock-force-2-2/cm-shock-force-2-campaigns/cmsf2-usmc-gung-ho/
This is a six mission campaign featuring Bravo Company of 1st Battalion 8th Marines. I should mention that it's a rework of my much earlier CMSF1 campaign of the same name but it's so reworked that it's really an all-new campaign that takes advantage of all the CMSF2 features. You'll need the NATO module to play this as the Syrian Airborne features in one of the missions. Sorry about that but I guess most folks reading here already have the full Monty.
It's designed primarily to have fun with one of the most unique factions in the game, the USMC, a light infantry formation that punches far above its weight even without the air support that you'll have in these missions. It should also be quite challenging but not too challenging. Mission 3 - CAAT among the Pigeons is intended to be very easy, to allow you to let rip with a rather unique formation within the MEU.
I look forward to hearing how you get on. Perhaps you can tell me how many kills HITMAN got in your campaign? You're not beta testing this - I've already played this myself but that's a potential issue, it's been tested by one player with a particular play style and skill set. I try to break these missions but I'm not as creative about that as some of you will be
If you find any typos, let me know. I've been scanning the texts these last couple of days and can't see any but that's likely fatigue. Unless something egregious is found, you should be safe to complete a campaign before a revision comes up. I'm hoping that won't necessary but I've done this before and it can always be improved.
With the exception of CAAT among the Pigeons, each mission has several AI plans to give the campaign replayablity. So, if there's enough interest in it, I will return to this to make a new version featuring the German Gebirgsjagers which look like they'd be a blast to play with as well and not need much work to be done beyond making a core unit file and importing the units into each mission. And finally, I want to make a Brit forces Light Infantry version but that will need more work to do.
-
Well, I guess it's time to post this up at the depot. I've really hit the wall HARD with this and just can't play it any more. That's not because it's so bad but because I've played nothing but these 6 missions for the last 12+ weeks. I'm going to do one last pass and boot each mission up (10 in total) to ensure that units are all in their proper place (again), make sure the briefings and the timings all match and that's it.
I forgot that when I worked on those larger projects 10+ years ago that I took regular breaks and played a game of Civ 5 or something like that for a few days every so often before returning to the work refreshed and often with new ideas. I haven't done that this time around so I guess that's why I've hit the wall so hard this time around. So, hopefully, it will be up on the new site in a couple of hours or so. I'm sure there will be issues but by now, we all know we can fix issues quite quickly and so a v1.01 is a thing that can happen very quickly. I don't want to make you guys my testers but I can't test it properly anymore, at least without taking a break for a week or so and keeping you all waiting.
Having said all that, instead of playing Civ 6 or Old World, I think I'm going to work on 'Hasrabit' next. It's the oldest and needs a lot of love. It's not a long campaign, only 10 missions and the core forces promise to be fun to work with.
My problem with CMBN from a consumer perspective and why I didn't buy other CMs...
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
That's really useful to know. Thanks.