Paper Tiger
-
Posts
3,621 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Paper Tiger
-
-
bodkin
How did you get on with 'Breakout' without the reserves? I'm especially curious about the AI's assault on the mansion as that's the AI's main objective. Some of the other AI groups move in support of that attack so you must have found it quite a challenge.
With regards to Schmoly War's tactics, I'm not really concerned how people beat it although that sounds like a fair tactic. I thought I'd playtested that mission every which way but I certainly never did it that way myself as my earlier posts reveal. But the keywords in his post that I was looking for are:
linear airburst, and
artillery.
That's the key to getting a win in this mission. I don't know how many of you guys are using the linear option. Personally, I think it's much tougher on infantry than the area fire target circle, especially when that target circle is 80+m in radius.
BTW, further to Peach operation's post, a word about the Enemy casualty bonus. In this mission, the Enemy casualty bonus is 2000 which might seem to some to be a bit excessive. But please consider this, you start the scenario in control of the three victory point objectives, (1500 points) and your force is intact (500 points) while the enemy has nothing but his casualty bonus. That means if you hit cease fire immediately, you get a draw. Okay, that's not good enough to get the optimal branch to the next mission but it's still a cheat.
The Enemy casualty bonus is there to keep YOU fighting until the end of the mission. You have to contest the mission actively to get a win.
-
Hmm, perhaps none of you guys are any the wiser than I am and we've all just been assuming that it works rather like CMx1? I was quite familiar with CMx1's leader ratings as there were four: command, combat, morale and ambush/stealth, and we all more or less know how those worked.
I really don't understand how CMx2's system all works. For example,
a)does a squad with a +1 leader become an effective +1 squad when they are in command range of their -2 platoon leader?
does the same squad become an effective +3 when in the command radius of their +2 platoon leader?c) do leaders improve the overall morale level of the units in their command radius? ie veterans become crack when beside a +1 leader, or elite when beside a +2 leader?
d) I know that higher level leaders, company and battalion leaders are there primarily for C2 but is their leadership a factor when they are in command range of one of their subordinate units?
e) in the above examples, there are further factors that can influence the overall modifier, weakness for instance gives a -1 modifier and panicked/suppressed gives further negative modifiers. This can give rise to some pretty huge cumulative negative modifiers. example, an unfit and panicked -2 squad within command radius of a -2 leader, possibly up to -8!!!
What's the story?
-
Finally, somebody has beaten it. Okay, so there will be no changes to this one then. Thanks for the feedback Schmoly War.
-
Okay, if this has been asked before then I'm really sorry. But I'm curious to know just what these modifiers do in the game. I certainly understood how leadership modifiers worked in the CMx1 series of games as you could see at a glance which units were in command range and which weren't. And yes, it's easy enough to see if subordinate units are in command range of their parent unit in CMx2 as well but there are different types of contact. I'm sure that there's a world of detail built into this system that I'M unaware of.
So, it seems that there ae four modifiers in CMx2,
a) leader name (leadership modifier)
experience levelc) physical condition (physical fitness modifier)
d) morale (motivational modifier)
of these, I don't recall seeing a modifier for
but I assume it just affects how well the unit performs in the game. However, there seems to be a potential +4 overall modifier if I understand this correctly.quote from the manual about what leaders do...
"They help maintain internal discipline, direct fire to be more effective, and keep contact with other Leaders. The more Leaders you lose, the harder maintaining C2 becomes."
Okay, that's very clear but I still have a couple of questions regarding this...
First, while it's obviously good to keep units within the command range of a good leader, is it better to have a unit within the command radius of a bad one?
And second, does the type of 'being in command radius' (ie, visual, vocal etc) affect the leader's modifier?
-
Yeah, it sounds pretty horrible to play in WEGO. When I do v3, I'll make the leaders a bit more effective and hopefully that will help them out a bit. Although, to be very honest, I'm not really sure what the leadership bonuses do in the game. Maybe I'll post a question in the main forum and see what comes out of that.
-
It's not old news at all. It's very good news. Thanks for sharing it with us.
-
Peach Operations
nice long post and great feedback, thank you.
"- Seems like there's a lot of "The enemy is coming to overrun your positions! Throw him back, and retake what you've lost!" It gets kind of redundant. I haven't gotten further than Breakout, so I don't know whether the rest of the campaign continues to follow this theme, admittedly. Not a huge issue, though."
After Breakout, there's, 'Saudara Part 1 - rearguard action' in which YOU are the enemy coming to overrun their positions. Red's mission is to throw you back and retake what they've lost. Of course, it probably won't pan out that way for the AI as you are capable of reacting to their moves. It should be fun.
Then, there's 'Saudara Part 2 - The Assault'. This one is more like 'Hill 142' but not the same. And of course, the final 'Hasrabit' which is ,er... more of what you described. Oh well.
Yes, with the notable exception of 'The Barrier', the Republican Guards missions are designed to be easy to win and hopefully fun too. This is because the Guards are WAY superior to their opponents. However, we will probably find that for some folks, these missions are difficult enough thank you, and that's fine by me.
However, the first version of 'The Guards Counterattack' was insanely difficult as the enemy had a platoon of AT-4s and they nailed your T-72s as soon as they popped their heads up. I did enjoy this but I felt that it wouldn't be enjoyable for anybody else. The REAL challenge for the player is to do everything without ammo resupply or replacements with weakened troops.
Don't worry about the artillery spotters too much. The organic artillery spotter calls the battalions artillery assets in more quickly but all the RG Missions have at least one non-core artillery spotter in the battle's OB. Of course, losing the organic one will hurt you in the long term.
It would seem that I've pitched the difficulty level of 'Buying the farm' too high for most of you. If you restart the campaign, you're hunch to wait before attacking is the right one. There are a number of things that you CAN do while waiting for the rest of your forces to arrive but a frontal assault on either the farmhouse or the worksheds is definitely not one of them. The key to success here is to watch the AI attack on the initial reserve positions very carefully and use this intelligence to plan your artillery strikes and your counterattack. You DEFINITLEY want to make killing that ATGM team a priority target for your artillery. Those two lost tanks would have smoothed things over for you in this mission.
I had originally intended to make a loss in 'The Farm' mission an automatic 'out' but changed my mind later in the development of the campaign. It would appear that bodkin is having some success in this mission while still having lost in The Farm. I am really interested to hear how he gets on with it.
The victory conditions in the Farm will be impossible to fulfill if you don't tackle the pump house objective. There's a significant percentage of the AI force assigned to that objective. The actual percentage of the overall force you must kill to deprive the AI of this bonus is actually quite low compared to most of the other missions in the campaign. If you kill most of the defenders around the pump house, they will DEFINITELY lose that bonus.
You must USE your artillery in the Farm mission. Don't try to save it all for a later mission. Of course, keep some as you'll need a bit to smooth your passage through 'Breakout' but not too much. And, if you've got it, the air support is very useful too.
If you read my designers notes for the campaign, you'll find that I was wishing the Special Forces had some kind of machine guns in support too. The conscripts have some but they really won't stand up under fire for very long. Perhaps if they put some distance between themselves and the enemy...?
With regards to 'Hill 142' one company of infantry wasn't enough while two semed like overkill. Still, if you don't kill the ATGM teams, this mission becomes very difficult.
"- Where's my howitzers? Wouldn't this crucial sector be getting "main effort"-style support? I guess the big question might be playability (given how powerful arty can be in CMSF)."
Absolutely correct, sir. When I started designing the campaign, I gave Blue a battery of self propelled howitzers, the best that the Syrians have in their arsenal as it seemed appropriate that they'd have it in such an important mission. It was cut out quickly though as it was WAY too powerful in the hands of the human player. The AI had NO chance whatsoever. The only way to make the missions challenging was to double the AI strength OR to remove the artillery. Bye bye artillery. The mortars are powerful enough anyway.
Pandur
I'm afraid I playtested the whole thing in Real Time only so I had no idea how hard it would be to cotrol the green troops using WEGO. If I make a newer version, I'll definitely look at at this as handling the poor quality troops looks like a challenge that most folks don't relish. Because I loved playing as the Russians in CMBO, I actually enjoy handling these poor quality troops in that mission. It's as close to a CMBO experience that I've had in CMSF. Anyway, your suggestions seem reasonable so I'll implement them for v3.
Once you get through 'The Guards Counterattack' mission, there are no more mines so there shouldn't be any more problems for you.
gmfrank
thanks for your comments. Yes, you have to be careful clicking on the platoon, or company, commander as it selects all the units under his command. I've lost a couple of BMPS due to this too. Please let me know how you get on in the Farm mission. I am really hoping to hear from somebody who beat it very soon. Otherwise I'm going to have to change it to make it easier to win.
Glad you're enjoying the Red on Red experience. It's definitely very differnt from playing as the US. Becuase their equipment is less than a sure thing, it makes any action less predictable. It makes you appreciate why the US spent so much money developing the javelin ATGM system. Even the AT-14, the best missile in the Syrian arsenal, won't often kill a hull down target so you have to plan your shots more carefully and pay attention to the target information.
-
Pandur
how are you getting on with 'The Guards Counterattack'?. If you're still having problems with it, I could post a final version with the minefields removed this weekend. The minefields are really unimportant in the mission so removing them wouldn't make it any more difficult. It just seems like an unnecessay difficulty for some people to have to overcome.
This weekend, I am planning to try out a suggestion of Steve's for changing units fitness levels during the campaign and, if it works, I want to post a FINAL version of this so that I can dedicate myself fully to my next project. If I do this, I might as well remove the mines from this mission while doing this. I am also considering putting in more air support in some missions. Not much, just doubling what's already there. Especially as slug88 has put up a Red air mod at CMMODS.
And while I'm at it, I have a question for all you guys who are playing this campaign. It seems that some people are finding it too difficult and it's spoiling their enjoyment of the campaign. If enough of you feel you'd like more artillery or something, please tell me before the weekend and I'll consider it. I already have MY final version, which I LOVE btw, and I'm not going to change anything about it for me. I really want to move on from this but I would like to make sure it's playable for you guys. If just ONE of you is finding the overall challenge acceptable, I'll be content and let the difficulty level stand as it is.
And, if you have time, what do you think of the maps? I spent a LOT of time developing them because a large part of the immersion for me comes from the detail in the maps. Which is your favourite one? Personally, the one I like the least is 'The Guards Counterattack', while I can't decided which one is my favourite as I love all the phase 2 maps AND Hill 142 and The Farm maps too. Maybe 'Breakout' would be my choice but I don't think anybody's got that far yet?
-
Thanks for that. Hope you enjoy the rest of it. Some folks are finding it a bit tough...
BTW, Red air support is nerfed in CMSF. You can only make things go BANG, albeit somewhat spectacularly, which is fun. But it seems most of the AT stuff isn't available to a Red air spotter. Just HE and cannons. Shame, as John Kettler says, they have some pretty cool stuff to drop.
-
bodkin
It's a bit of a shame to hear that you're giving up on it. I think the phase 2 battles are all quite special and I have done a couple of things in the last two missions that I don't think anybody else has done yet. However, it's a LONG time since I played anybody else's missions so I don't know. I'm sure I'd have read about it though if they had. (If George Mc were to do a Red on Red mission, I'd definitely want to give that a go...)
I knew people would have a bit of a hard time getting a win on their first go in this mission and I originally intended the player to get dumped from the campaign if he failed. But I enjoy playing this mission SO much for so many reasons that I didn't think other people would mind replaying it until they got a win. It's a shame you haven't found it to be fun...
just to help you out if you want to continue, here is another spoiler...
********spoilers******************
Did you follow my advice exactly about the artillery and the armour? You must target the infantry in the woods BEHIND the workshops, not in the work shops themselves. The tanks will take care of those guys firing from way back. When I play BTF, I only suffer light casualties when recapturing the farmhouse and the work sheds. And most of the time, they were incurred as a result of bad tactics or impatience. It's certainly true that the pump house is a DOG to retake though.
Since you didn't see a tank in the counterattack group, you're playing v2 which is the playtested version. The counterattack is very easy to beat as long as you keep one platoon in each of the the farmhouse and the work sheds. One of the tanks held back here will help as well. Of course, this makes the pump house just that bit harder to retake... They just don't have the time to mount a proper assault on their targets. The counterattack is there to punish those folks who do something gamey by leaving the VP locations occupied only by one or two busted up units.
The casualty levels you're describing are intentional. I keep repeating this but it's an important point... taking up to 50% casualties is not a game breaker in this campaign. The later missions were ALL playtested with about 50%-60% of the at-start core forces. I even NEARLY completed 'Breakout' successfully with only two SF platoons! (that's about 30%) It was a really close thing, so close that I thought that the mission was way too easy but I didn't change ANYTHING about that one as I think it's otherwise perfect the way it is. The only phase 2 battle that's I didn't playtest to death is the old 'Heavy metal', now renamed 'Saudara Part 1- rearguard action'. I only played the final version once but I cruised through it.
-
Hey Pandur
I tried downloading your file but it didn't seem to work. But anyway, I've started playtesting my own new map which is 2200m x 800m. So far, it plays with really good frames per second. I am SO glad to know that it's possible to run the game with super sized maps. Shame I didn't know this before I finished 'Hasrabit'. Ach well, never mind.
I'll try and post a screenshot or two from the new map tomorrow.
BTW, what Special Forces mod are you using? I am using The Louch's spetznatz mod. Yours looks good too.
-
Wow, that is really good news. I play Red on Red exclusively now so this is a fantastic mod. I will download it tomorrow (at work just now). Thanks for sharing.
-
I should get round to doing some experiments on this at the weekend. I'm currently too busy designing a set of new maps for my next project to do this just now.
Something else that people seem to be having a problem with in my campaign is casualties. Since most of you guys are used to playing as the US where keeping casualties to a minimum is hugely important, and rightly so, in a Red on Red situation, I feel that it's the mission that comes first and casualties further down the list of priorities. It's quite possible to succeed in the campaign by taking up to 50% casualties in the difficult missions as long as you win the mission while doing it.
But for some people, that seems like an unacceptable price to pay for victory and it might be spoiling their enjoyment. It's especially difficult to bear when they're your core forces. I hope that people will try to win the campaign rather than carefully husband their core forces through the individual missions. Please remember that I don't have a super computer and so the final missions can't be an apocalyptic slaughterfest with whole battalions plus support units one either side. In fact, both the final missions are really quite small affairs compared to some of the earlier missions. Try to keep your cores at about 50-66% and you'll have enough to complete the later missions.
-
Pandur
someone else reported having this problem in a post earlier on this page. Peach Orchard was getting crashes and Secondbrooks posted a fix for it. It looks like it's there might be a graphics card incompatiblity with the minefields. There's only one mission in the whole campaign with mines so it won't happen again.
Yes, Strong Stand is very challenging. I could post spoilers for people to tell you the best way to handle them, at least in my opinion. I actually enjoy doing the counterattack with them and don't have problems with FF or routing anymore. But you managed to get a win which will save your ass a bit later on in the campaign. Don't worry too much about casualties. Unless you have a super computer, you won't be able to run the final mission if all three companys are nearly at full strength. If you're taking less than 50% core force casualties then you're doing well.
bodkin
don't worry, I won't take it the wrong way. It wasn't my intention to make it the most difficult mission ever but I certainly designed it to be tough. A failure in this mission originally dumped you out of the campaign so I expected people to take 2-3 shots at it before moving on. It's much better to reload and start again than try the branched version of 'Breakout' that you get for losing this mission. BTW, did you see a tank in the counterattacking units? If you did, you have v1. It's NOT there in v2 although it's a bit late for you.
Did you follow my advice earlier? If you did that, it should help you get through this one without too many problems. I rarely take any casualties recapturing the workhouses and the farmhouse but the pump house? O M G! I can lose up to 50% retaking it. Since it soulds like you're in need of a bit of help, here's a hint...
**************SPOILERS**********
It's very difficult to recapture the central objectives if you haven't eliminated the support units that are causing you all sorts of problems with your artillery first. They're in two groups, one behind the workshops and the other at the tool shed. Hit them HARD with anti- personnel artillery missions and they're gone.
You really should use ALL of company A's artillery on those targets before embarking on any adventures in the centre of the map. And then, hit the buildings with the tanks and move in on your first objective. Keep Company C's artillery and any other assets you have for the pump house objective. That's the real toughie.
While I think BTF is a difficult mission, I'm curious to see how long it takes for somebody else to report that they blew through this mission with very few casualties. I hope not for their sake as it will make the next two SF missions easy and also sluggish with fps.
-
Normaldude
"If you want to see a nasty AI attack, play the fifth mission in Paper Tiger's Hasrabit campaign. I think it was the fifth.. it was the one where you must stop them from getting too close to the helicopter base. The AI kicked my butt!"
Thanks for that. You've no idea how much time went into crafting that attack. I wanted the AI to USE what I gave it as effectively as possible. It really doesn't have much of a numerical advantage over you and your AT-13 teams can take his tanks apart with relative ease as long as they're not Hull Down (great addition to the game, BFC). But it can still really put the hurt you. But is it a fun mission to play? Probably not for most of us.
-
Hey, that's absolutely brilliant. Thanks for the reply, Steve. I'm going to try some experiments on this tomorrow and if I can get it to work, it looks like there'll be a final v3 Hasrabit version at some point in the not-too-distant future. (groan) And it'll definitely find it's way into my new WIP.
cheers
-
bodkin
"I don't know if the red side really needed an ATGM team as well as all the RPG's and grenade launchers, that was just cruel."
That's what the artillery's for. Watch their attack on the conscripts carefully and then target the 'exposed' infantry with your artillery next time. Then, obliterate the farmhouse and the wokhouse buildings with your tanks before making your assault. Assault is a very risky proposition unless you KNOW that the enemy is suppressed.
I really didn't want anybody taking any artillery to the final Special Forces mission 'Hasrabit' as it would make it too easy to get a win there. But, rather than just remove it from your OB, I decided to give the player the option to have it if he really wanted to. So Red got lots of assets in BTF to make you use up as much as possible. You have the option to conserve the artillery but you'll make the mission much more difficult for yourself. Just try and keep a little back for 'Breakout' as a little comes in very handy there.
I playtested all the SF mission (save Ambush) compiled right to the end and it's all doable if you use the artillery in the middle missions (SS, BTF and BO). And, that wasn't the v2 build which gives the player more artillery than I did it with. Those reserve tanks are your best friend. They're not part of your core forces so you should USE them as much as possible when you get them. Don't worry about ammo or any such thing, just blast the map and try to have a bit of fun doing it.
-
Pandur
as long as those BTRs were carrying passengers, those shots weren't wasted. FIVE Tank kills with RPG29s! That must be a record for this mission. Well done. That sounds like a good result for 'Ambush'. No advise for you about the other missions though. I'm sure you'll have "fun" figuring them out for yourself.
-
Aha, the 'Not known to either' option. Yeah, that would certainly work for tanks.
-
The following quote comes from a review of my campaign on CMMODS posted by somebody called Larsen.
"I learned things that one shouldn't do when designing battles in CMSF:
1. AI should never attack. Although it is better than in CM it still sucks."
:eek: Well, whilst I agree that the AI has no ability to react to anything that the player does AND, it will move its infantry into artillery fire zones, I personally think it can do a reasonable enough job to warrant trying. I really don't want to play missions where I'm the attacker all the time.
What do you guys think? And if you do enjoy being on the receiving end, which missions have given you the best challenge.
-
Hi Pete
That's a very good idea. However, don't you run out of victory point locations very quickly if you do that? Also, it really doesn't matter which unit occupies that objective zone to earn those VPs. It wouldn't be hard for a player to cheat and occupy those zones with some crummy unit either.
Phew, I guess I'm getting a little cynical about people finding ways to cheat
. Your idea will work fine if the player is honest. BTW, I loved your maps. I should try them out again with the later build some time. -
bodkin:
You might have more success if you hold them back at longer ranges and put down some area fire on the buildings you know are occupied before moving them in close to support your assault. They're CRAP, but they've got plenty of HE
.To be honest, the tanks were a late addition to the mission. I added them a month or so ago and added nothing to the Red side to compensate. Before the tanks were added, I could still get a win with just the Special Forces BUT, it was quite difficult
. BTW, 'Buying the farm' is one of my favourite missions in the campaign. I always love playing it.
-
webwing:
"As a scenario designer the hardest thing to do is to balance a mission, not to make it too hard or too easy. But players expectations and skills are different and what one feels is easy another thinks it's too hard."
Boy you got that right!
Combatintman
"The reserve concept is something entirely different but it is where I feel that it opens up the possibility of more dynamic campaigns which the committal or not of reinforcements doesn't address in the same way. The player's reward potentially for not committing reinforcements is that they will be at 100% combat effectiveness for the next mission. Of course the penalty is that by not making the maximum use of his resources he may incur more casualties from his committed troops than he would have with the extra firepower he could have brought to bear."
As it happens, I have already started planning my next campaign (on paper) and I want this to be an important aspect of playing the missions. I have an idea that might just work at simulating this. I want to give the player the option to USE the reinforcements when they arrive or NOT to use them. By selecting the whole reinforcement group, and giving the enemy a 'Destroy' victory point award if he inflicts casualties upon them, this might deter the player from committing them. The briefing will tell the player that he can use these reserve units, but that there is a price to pay for doing so. It's far from perfect but it should work out.
-
Webwing
thanks for the reply. Yes, I meant fitness. I also understand all that you posted about the campaign scripting, the %s and everything. However, I am asking about sychronizing the Core Units File during the campaign. When I read the manual about this I thought, "cool, I can change my core units experience and fitness levels during the course of the campaign".
You already know what follows but let's just state it so that folks understand what I'm asking about. When you create a campaign, you specify the core unit file you want to use. That sets your units experience, fitness and ammo levels for the campaign. I am probably wrong but my interpretation of the manual quoted above is that it is possible to 'point' later scenarios in the campaign to a different core unit file with different values for experience and perhaps fitness. I'm just not sure how this works in practice.
What I tried in my test compilations was to give all the missions after 'The farm' a different core unit file with weakened fitness levels. However, when I opened up the later missions in the compiled campaign, nothing had changed. Si I tested again, and this time I changed a couple of things, experience levels as well as fitness but still, NOTHING changed. When I realised that I wasn't going to be able to do this, I made ALL the RG units weakened for the whole campaign which wasn't ideal but still gave me the effect I was looking for. Is that a bit clearer?
does the same squad become an effective +3 when in the command radius of their +2 platoon leader?
. Your idea will work fine if the player is honest. BTW, I loved your maps. I should try them out again with the later build some time.
.
Will see we these unities?
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Syrian air support...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will likely add Soviet era air power at some point, probably will add when we get to the point of adding more-or-less pure fantasy stuff into the game.
end quote
Hmm, I for one would love to see some Red air support in the game for the Syrian side. We don't ALL want to play US vs Syria missions (although most folks do). It's certainly not fantasy as the Syrians DO have an airforce. And of course, they'll lose it on day one of any conflict with the US but it would still be nice to have it in the game. I am working exclusively with Red on Red missions and the lack of a proper air support option for Syria is a bit of a handicap.
If you're really worried about people shamelessly abusing it to create utterly fantastical scenarios with US forces being hit by Red airstrikes (and they will), just make it an option when the mission type is Red v Red.
Ach well, I guess there's just not enough of us who need this to warrant you spending the time implementing this feature any time soon.
Still, at least I know that when you do eventually get round to doing it, you'll do it properly with all the whistles and bells.