Combatintman

RepsolCBR - we are going to have to agree to disagree - even the 'small' changes you suggest require lots of work and all of them require changes to briefings. Take the excellent AAR thread of PanzerMike's Fester Platz Polozk scenario you are working on as an example (which I am enjoying very much as well by the way - thank you for posting this). Taking just one element of that scenario (which incidentally I did some very basic testing on), how useful is your Hetzer compared to the two infantry guns in the German force? Let's say there was a variant of this scenario which had 3 infantry guns instead of 2 infantry guns and a Hetzer - how does that 'small' change alter the balance of that battle and how much testing and tweaking do you think that would require on PanzerMike's part? A (if you forgive the pun) variation on the theme of 'minor' changes is the unit objective VP values. I would expect the destruction of any armoured vehicle to have VP implications. So if these are a consideration your ATG would be worth 5 VPs, a STUG 10 VPs and a PZIV 15 VPs. Once you start mucking about with those, you have to change the rest of your VP balance. This is not a simple case of 'making the numbers work'. As a player, I expect the VPs that I earn to be relative to the effort or difficulty of earning them. Giving me 100 VPs to capture an undefended bridge is fine in isolation but not when I only get 100 VPs to clear a heavily defended village in the same scenario. On to your suggestion of breaking tests into segments - there is some merit in it but not much I'm afraid. My approximately 2 hour long CMSF scenario (CIMIC House) that took ten tests was tested incrementally so there were actually more than ten tests. The ten tests I mentioned were full playthroughs. Although memory is a bit fuzzy I tested: Resupply force battle for the 1st bridge approaches. Resupply force battle for the 1st bridge crossing. Resupply force battle for the LH corner of the map. Resupply force battle for the 2nd bridge crossing. CIMIC House defenders battle for CIMIC House. CIMIC House defenders battle for the Pink Palace. CIMIC House defenders breakout force attack to link up with the resupply force. This was not quite done in the manner you suggest because, funnily enough it adds workload, but at each stage I had to review what had happened and decide: Is it right? Does the player have options? Are the force ratios right? Are the casualties right? Is the time elapsed right? Remember, even if you get it 'right' first time, you have to play it at the 'right' setting at least a couple more times just to ensure that you are getting an 'average' result. Even once that's done, if you give it to others to test there will be things that you haven't even considered. Designers who have been kind enough to let me loose to test their stuff I'm sure will agree that I have played their scenarios in ways that they never expected. So that is more feedback to incorporate and test. And then of course ... if you haven't got it right you have to reset, make the changes and start again. In the CMSF example above, it took me at least three attempts to get the Blue/Red force ratios, AI behaviour and reinforcement timings right for the Resupply force battle for the 1st bridge crossing segment. The battle for the second bridge crossing required me to rethink Blue force ratios and Offensive support allocations and change the Red AI plans which again took about 3 testing iterations. When I look back at CMRT testing - there were at least half a dozen fairly workable scenarios which had been very well put together which didn't make the cut because they were either going to be too difficult to change or were not got going to work within the criteria imposed. So - this is not an easy thing to do and to go back to my CMSF CIMIC House scenario, I still don't think it is completely right. There is a bug (reported) that gives no credit for Red occupy objectives, the insurgent enemy is way too large to be an accurate representation of the forces involved on that day and I could not for the life of me get the VPs to balance how I wanted them to. However I judged it 'good enough' for release and people have been kind enough to say that they enjoyed playing it which was one of the reasons that I thought it would be acceptable to release.

Time to pitch in ... In no particular order Each good scenario requires a briefing - good briefings set the scene and give the player the information they need to stand a reasonable chance of succeeding. The moment you change a variable you need a new briefing. Suggested variables so far have been: Variable unit selections. Variable reinforcement arrival times. Variable mission lengths. Variable weather conditions. Variable setup areas. Each good scenario requires briefing graphics. The variables relevant here are: Variable set up areas. Variable unit selections. Looking specifically at variable unit selections ... many scenario designers create victory conditions using the 'unit objective' tool in the editor. So the moment you start changing these you create more work. Also you create additional deployment considerations. On to variable setup zones - many scenario designers offer choice by painting large setup zones so this facility exists in the editor. Others don't and others use a mix. I tend to use a mix and if I'm restricting unit placement there is a good design reason for doing so. Reasons include: To closely replicate actual unit placement in a historical scenario. To ensure that units are not placed in direct LOS of an enemy at game start. Scenario length - this has been debated at ... if you forgive the pun ... length. When determining a scenario length, a designer may consider the following factors: If historical, how long the action lasted. An optimum length based on player feedback - many people have said on various forums for instance that they have limited gaming time and don't like scenarios longer than an hour. How much time they and their testers can devote to testing and let's be clear about this - testing is painful so let's talk about that. If you have a 2 hour mission, it is soul destroying to find out 1 hour 45 minutes into your test that something doesn't work. One of my CMSF missions of about 2 hours in length was tested in full about ten times with at least eight of those tests run because something wasn't quite right. I have done a lot of testing on my own behalf and for others such as snake_eye PanzerMike and BF for both CMSF and CMRT and to do it right is more than a matter of firing up the scenario and hitting play. You need to make sure that: The briefing and graphics are accurate. The naming conventions of units and places is consistent and is reflected in the unit screen. The VP allocation is right. The force balance is right and that the force mix gives the player the tools to do the job. That the mission can reasonably be accomplished in the time. The map is good with no anomalies. The setup is good and offers the player choices and does not put units in enemy LOS. The gameplay, recording when things happen, how it affects the player, how the overall tempo is, how the arrival of reinforcements affects the player. And more besides ... So 'Coming up with a basic idea for the scenario, making the map, choosing the overall forces and deploying those, making the briefing screens...These are the things that takes time', while partially true is not the whole story by even a remote stretch of the imagination. My case in point is that I have three CMRT scenarios in fairly advanced stages of design which I despair of ever releasing because they will not meet the standards I set myself for scenario design. For all of them: The maps are all done. The units are deployed. The AI is programmed. The objectives are set. But as said - none of them feel right and none of them are as polished as I want them to be. Two are too large for many computers or are too long for the average player to devote the time to play them. The other just does not give the player many tactical options. So the upshot is that at least one of those is probably never going to see the light of day despite me spending at least a fortnight of my spare time on it. I have two CMSF campaigns in very advanced stages of design and three scenarios in the same state. They consume a lot of my spare time and most of that is devoted to testing. So the sum of all of the above is that once you start tooling around with mission lengths, force picks, unit set up and arrival times and weather, you open up whole cans of worms and workload for scenario designers which this one in particular is not prepared to tolerate.

It has cropped up elsewhere (probably in the CMBN forum) - it is something to do with the way the coding works - fortifications have to 'settle' once you hit play.

There is a workaround - try this in the editor. Place a two-storey building in the editor. Set the elevation to 17 on the tile containing the building. Set your surrounding tile heights to 20. Ditch lock all of the elevations. Your two storey building becomes a one storey building with a basement. Troops can enter and exit with no problems.

Yeah, I've lost count of the number of these I've lived in - would have to be more than a flavour object though. While we're at it, Hesco as a pick in the Blue Force fortification menu.

One AI plan has now been put in, tested and tweaked for the Generic map above.

Use the 'direct' button for elevation - if you do that, the scenario editor works exactly the same as CM1 titles.

Ok - I've nearly finished tweaking my Generic FOB Inkerman map ... dimensions are 2.5 km x 1.5 km (ish). My thoughts on this scenario are all about low casualties, low ammunition expenditure and low collateral damage for Blue against a multi-spectrum threat. Tweaking and testing will be huge but I'll see how it goes.

But think of the reaction of American people to the knowledge that the best equipped armed forces in the World ... weren't. I realise that this is all about gameplay and scenario editor choice but it ain't going to tick the realism box.

From memory, as I understand it, using enemy casualties as an example. Casualties relates to casualties suffered. So if 10 guys get killed out of a force of 100 guys, then 10% casualties have been suffered. If the value of Enemy Casualties in the parameters menu had been set at '9' (ie 9%) and the number of VPs allocated to Enemy Casualties had been set at 10, then the friendly player would score 10 VPs because the Enemy Casualties parameter is a greater than value. The 'condition' parameter is more complex because it draws in soft factors such as morale and the like. As a scenario designer, I tend to stay away from parameters because they are too complex for me to get right for scenario balance. I find that the more you use, the harder it gets to balance the scenario. That said, I almost always use either the 'Enemy Bonus' or 'Friendly Bonus' to guard against players hitting ceasefire early to trigger a win result. The workaround for casualties is the use of unit 'Destroy' or 'Destroy All' objectives.

Or what the manual says ... Conscript: draftees with little training and no combat experience whatsoever. Green: draftees with little training and some combat experience or reservists with some training and no combat experience. Green can also represent professional soldiers whose training is substandard in comparison to another force. Regular: professional soldiers who went through extensive, quality training programs, but lack combat experience. Or, Regular can represent troops that received mediocre training that have a fair amount of combat experience. Veteran: professional soldiers with standard military training and first hand combat experience. Alternatively, it can be professional soldiers who have trained to a slightly higher standard than Regulars, yet lack combat experience. Crack: exceptional soldiers with more than the average training and plenty of combat experience. Elite: the best of the best. Superb training, frequent combat experience, and generally all around tough guys.

Pete, if there was a like button, your post above would get one.

I've got a few: A generic green zone map loosely based on the area around FOB Inkerman. An actual map of the Sangin DC area. An actual map of the green zone somewhere between GSK and SGN (although I can't remember exactly where). An actual map of the area around Green 9 and CP Haji Alem.

Looking at my hard drive, I have some stuff that could be released with a bit of tweaking - generic Afghan stuff. Any interest before I commit time to them?

So WEGO is still best then?

I second that - I was unable to fully test this for PanzerMike because of stuttering. I've been working on an urban map about 1km x 1km that I really like but as soon as I put the German force on it (Coy plus) it pretty much shut my graphics card down.

Except it can't be from the Korean War - references to a 120mm cannon and the image clearly shows an M1 Abrams.

I'm wondering if there is confusion here about terrain and unit objectives. If the OP is trying to assign 'terrain objective A' to 'unit A' then this is not something that is possible in the editor, the two are mutually exclusive. There is a nuance with exit objectives which do have a relationship with units. From the manual: Unit objectives: Destroy: you must destroy the designated units. The more damage you cause to those units, the more points you earn. Destroy all: you must completely destroy the designated units in order to earn any points. Points are not awarded for damaged units. Spot: you earn points by spotting and identifying the designated units. Terrain Objectives: From the manual Occupy: player needs to occupy an area, clear it completely of enemy troops, and keep some forces there (until the end of the battle) to gain points Destroy: player needs to destroy an area (e.g. a building or bridge) Preserve: the opposite of Destroy; the player needs to ensure that an area (e.g. building or bridge) remains undamaged. Touch: player needs to reach the objective area to gain points, but does not have to remain in position there. Exit: Exit Zones allow all friendly units to leave the map. There are no points awarded for leaving a map. However, units that are part of an enemy Destroy/ Destroy All Unit Objective (see next section) and do NOT leave the map are credited to the enemy as if they were destroyed.

I don't really bother with the fine tuning - in the setup I'll 'target' points from the setup zone to get a feel of the dimensions and just roll from there. Those reference points serve as my 'range card' and I can just judge distance from it ... bit like how it is in real life.

Further to my last about Bill - check out his blog, there is some really good stuff there: http://battledrill.blogspot.co.uk/

I'd take a look at any of Bill Hardenberger's AARs as a starter for ten because he really steps through this process. While it is possible to conduct analysis of the ground in isolation, to do the thing properly you need to analyse every aspect of the problem. So understanding your own capabilities and those of the enemy is important. For instance if you have an infantry company supported by a T-34 platoon in this scenario and you are facing only German dismounts then your planning options are way different to a scenario where the German dismount force has an assault gun platoon or an anti-tank gun platoon in support. In the former I would stand off 400-500m away in the open ground with my T-34s and whack the woods and the crossroads with HE and coax. The reason being that the dismounts are only going to have Panzerschrecks and Panzerfausts. Neither weapon is overly accurate beyond about 300m and my T-34s, by sitting in the open, can sit there almost invulnerable. While all this is going on, I can pretty much do what I like with my infantry because the opposition is suppressed so assaulting across the open ground allows me to bring all of my firepower to bear at the risk of getting picked off by isolated groups of Germans. Or I can sneak up along the road using the forest as cover. This allows me to attack in echelon and effectively steamroller the crossroads objective. The risk is that my lead elements could get a very bloody nose from any Germans in the woods that are out of LOS of my T-34s. Now the other problem with the Stugs/anti-tank guns ... difficult to answer generically, I'd need to see the map and the problem in full.

Has anybody tried going hey diddle diddle right up the middle yet? That's what I did when I tested this for snake_eye. ******************SPOILER************************************* It worked for me

The only reference I can find is in the CMSF manual (page 118) 'Flavor Objects are small objects which add atmosphere and eye candy to the scenery but have little or no impact on gameplay. Options include: Street Lights, Telephone Poles, Drums, various Road Signs, and Sacks'. I do seem to remember a CMSF British Module scenario where the designer had put some infantry behind pallets inside a building which totally brassed up one of my assaulting infantry sections as it crashed through the door. Despite the fact that the building had been comprehensively brassed up by a Warrior 7.62mm Chain Gun.

Not on iron setting but just made sure that I committed my armour en masse. I think if you do that you can't go too far wrong. Here is my Beta Test AAR SPOILERS**************************************** The plan was essentially to concentrate on the centre and right flank. All I did was lead with Panthers on a hunt order and once contact was established jockeyed to get as many tanks as I could into fire positions in the centre. On the right, I took a chance and sent about 5 or 6 tanks on quick orders. This got me to a position of advantage where I could get some good close flank shots on the Soviet armour that was fixed frontally by the Panthers engaging at long range. With the right flank cleared to about half way up the map, I rushed a Panzer grenadier platoon and the heavy weapons platoon up the right and was starting to move them forward mounted to MG the dismounted Soviet infantry. The plan then was to send the second platoon of panzer grenadiers up the same route and conduct a forward passage of lines to grab the objectives at top centre of the map. I didn't get to execute the latter part of the plan because of the surrender. Scores on the doors (short version) German 1 KIA, 3 WIA and 2 tanks lost. Soviet 132 KIA, 79 WIA, 1 MIA, 16 tanks lost and 9 armoured vehicles lost. *************************SPOILERS END*************************** It is rare that I do so well so you shouldn't find it too hard.

Coffee spat all over the screen ... that is the funniest thing I've read on this forum for a long while.