Jump to content
Battlefront is now Slitherine ×

kevinkin

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,208

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Posts posted by kevinkin

    Maybe it's me but...

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    As kohlenklau said ... there is a market for all types of scenarios. Perhaps if like minds teamed up on battle creation output might increase for all types be they Cecil DeMille or Byte battles.

    BTW I have time to help with any winter stuff. It hit the upper 20's last night here in NJ and I broke out the VSOP.  

    Kevin

    0

    Maybe it's me but...

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    Yes, the QB system has been talked about at length. I don't know were it resides on the priority list but player concern have been voiced and noted. 

    Slump? I joined with the CMBB beta but after AK had to give up wargaming due to a career choice and returned last year after retirement. Overall, I think the quantity of posts and scenarios are down vs the early 2000's but the quality is up. There is a lot of passion for the franchise for sure. Numbers are useful but do not tell the whole story. Designers have the tools, but scenarios are time consuming to release. More so than CM1. Players may shy away from the commitment after a couple of tries with little feedback as Bulletpoint mentions.  

    Kevin

     

     

     

    0

    Infantry canonfodder in CMRT

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    So the conclusion thus far is CM is not 100% realistic and losses are skewed high. OK .... we can not modify the sources code. We can modify our tactics and/or have battles where force preservation in pursuit of other game winning objectives is an important consideration. Why can't a draw be the logical conclusion to a well fought battle? I know .. I know .. why play a scenario email for weeks and have it end inconclusively? What if both sides had a vested interest in the result - say wireless. If you win you get free access for 6 months ... lose: no access ... draw: you keep access at your current rate. I think this would change player plans depending on the tactical situation handed to them. They might care about loses when seeking free access - then back off to hold on to their current rate if things get hairy and they have incomplete knowledge of their opponent and their objectives. (Who can live without internet for 6 months). Scenario designers don't control player internet access or any external influence. They only have the editor which provides a lot of options thankfully. But they can't change player behavior if the player does not adapt to the tactical situation they designed. They can't console the player when they get sour and don't  "win" using their tried and true play style - which can be suicidal and result in a loss. Curse the designer - how dare he(she). 

    Kevin 

     

    0

    Infantry canonfodder in CMRT

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    A designer can't force them to eat their vegetables either. But if a player cares at all about a successful result in a given tactical situation they will plan their fight according to expected loss ratios based on  experience with combinations of combat factors like the defences they face. But if I am playing with monopoly money i can draw for an inside straight ... what the hey. But if a player has a reason ensure their best result ... they will and may not decide on some foolish throw of the dice manuver.

    Lose ratios are rarely as equal as you think. There are too many factors. Every walk into a well set up ambush? A player does not have to actively moving around trying to kill anyone to be more effective at killing than their antsy enemy.

    Kevin

    0

    Infantry canonfodder in CMRT

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    And if you only retain a small fraction of your starting force at the end you may not win as well since you are also blown to a million pieces in the process. Your enemy's conditions are a two-fer also. In fact both players may only deserve a draw or less at that point since they lost their entire command. 

    Kevin

    0

    Infantry canonfodder in CMRT

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted · Edited by kevinkin

    So what if you don't pay attention to your VCs and attack your opponent but don't cross the threshold you expected to because he is positioned better and not on the move etc..? So say the threshold for friendlies is a very bloody 50% and you loss 80% and your opponent losses just 20% due to combat factors like better use of terrain. I believe things things like terrain along with loss parameters can restrain aggressiveness. I mean I would rather be on the tactical defensive in good terrain if the forces are not too unequal. Sometimes maybe the best result is a draw given the tactical situation presented.   

    Kevin

    0

    Infantry canonfodder in CMRT

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    Jason

    I was thinking only H2H. Wouldn't  the type of defensive terrain available to each side affect behavior? That is. Given equal play, wouldn't the side with better defensive positions be less likely to reach the friendly threshold if they stay put instead of leaving to seek and destroy? Or perhaps if the other side needs to capture a few objective buildings, wouldn't they want to try some form of low risk stab? If that fails - call it a draw. I do not think an all out cage fight is always the ultimate behavior since no one wants to be ambushed by an opponent awaiting in a prepared position by leaving your own. I understand what you mean by zero sum in a perfectly systematical scenario. But when you consider other combat factors and the potential for unequal losses based on those and player tactics, it's not zero sum every time. 

    Kevin 

    0

    Infantry canonfodder in CMRT

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    I find the assignment of points related to causalities too absolute i.e. it is all or nothing once/unless the set % is reached. That being said, and to Jason's point, a combination of lower than normal experience, sufficient scenario time, friendly causality penalties and asymmetric terrain objective points might produce battles where careful play is rewarded and the company sized battlefield does not turn into into major field hospital. (What a mouth full). The only way to change player behavior is to instill a fear of losing if they press too unrealistically near the "end game". So a draw become battle well fought by both sides and a perfectly laudable result. Does it matter if you capture the town and its warm beds if there is no one left alive to sleep in them? 

    Kevin 

    0

    Infantry canonfodder in CMRT

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    Tactical warfare in WWII was infantry based. In combat mission afvs serve as support when a scenario is designed with history in mind. Every try a tank vs tank battle on a large map? It plays out very quick with losses no rational commander would accept within the hour or so time frame alloted. Infantry losses to fire are hard to avoid in the east. Positions are often obvious and death traps. Careful play is the only remedy. I am tending to design longer battles with major penalties in points for friendly losses. The design technique of a battle resolving on the last turn is exciting but not that realistic. With enough time the player can develop the position and avoid ambush. 

    Kevin

     

    0
×
×
  • Create New...