WriterJWA
-
Posts
217 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by WriterJWA
-
-
What's the purpose of designing a scenario that forces players to sacrifice troops just to meet an unreasonably tight time schedule? What lesson or message should I learn from this?
I don't mean to be a wet blanket. I love this game and the way it tries to get close as possible to representing on-the-ground realities as best as possible. But I just finished another campaign scenario where I had to basically run across a klick or two of ground in an hour just to meet a super-tight schedule. Nothing bugs me more than to have to have to blow troops just to meet the demands of an unreasonably choked time table. I'd edit the campaign, but I don't know how.... Has someone modified these campaigns to allot for more time??
-
1 hour ago, sburke said:
I don't think I have ever read a tactical engagement story that included spotting from a piper cub. They would have been a higher level asset not able to communicate to the level of your typical CM battle. This is part of what I think CM players frequently do not get. Combat in WW2 was a lot different than they sometimes seem to expect. Problem is it is also inherent in the game and our attention spans. Combat should be a lot slower. Your average player however doesn't want a 3 hour battle with a reinforced platoon. Player expectations, game mechanics and reality don't converge very well.
As to the grid system, problem is the plater already has way more info than any individual unit would have and is not bound by C2 comms. Balance is a difficult conversation.
As to scouts - I think Nick is more on target. a 2 man scout team is a point element, not an FO unit.
Fair point on the Piper Cubs... Those would be much more rare than a drone.
I guess I'd just like to have more time to fight these battles. For example, "Carbide Carbide" covers a couple kilometers of ground and includes two river crossings and I get 90 minutes to do something that the same forces would have had half the day to do. My point is that the time limits aren't reflected in the battle sizes in a way that reflects any sort of accuracy. A small platoon-size battle can be done in 45 minutes or so. Two full rifles companies plus armor attachments fighting over a few kilometers of ground needs far more time. I get that some players may not want the time, but having the option to take more time would be a huge help.
Again... 2c.
WRT spotting, sometimes I use 2-man scout teams, but not often. More often than not I'll do a leader's recon in places where I can spot at longer distances and call in organic 60mm mortars or 81s if they're available while I plan my base-of-fire position and avenues of approach.
-
3 hours ago, Erwin said:
WriterJWA: "We typical DON'T know what's in front of us, other than a rough unit ID, size, and general location..."
That is exactly the point was trying to make. We know there is an enemy in front of us cos it's a game scenario. But as players, we are rarely given any other recon info re enemy dispositions that would be useful to planning our attacks.
It's a huge challenge for designers to create a scenario that is fun for experienced as well as non-experienced players. When playtesting am very conscious of not reporting that some aspect of a scenario is too easy for that reason. When testing either one has to deliberately make silly moves to see if one can recover from errors, or (my preferred SOP) try and accomplish a mission with negligible if any casualties.
I have played otherwise very good campaigns where one comes across one or more missions that one has to replay several times to win and advance to the next mission, and that is the biggest PITA.
Going into the editor to increase time is ok, but also a PITA and can ruin the scenario design. It may not be possible in CM2 to provide the player with a button to "add extra X minutes to the scenario" like one can for PAUSE - but that would be a wonderful feature for CM3.
Also: CM1 featured "Battalion, Regimental and Divisional Reserves". I can't recall if this feature was only for campaigns or also worked for scenarios. However, the CM1 game engine/AI could figure out in the middle of a mission if you were unlikely to win and it would (automatically IIRC) provide levels of reserves depending on how badly the player was doing - with a reduced victory level as penalty.
While CM2 for some reason doesn't have that feature, designers like MOS are working on workaround schemes to provide the player with the ability to voluntarily call on reserves (at the cost of victory points).
So perhaps a SOP for designers would be to design a scenario for experienced players for a certain length of time, but provide reserves that less-experienced players could call upon if required.
Yeah, I get where you're coming from. An option to turn off the time crunch would be nice, though. It makes sense for their to be a time restriction in Market-Garden, given the context of the campaign, but even then it seems a little tight (I'm thinking of the third scenario/first CW scenario as an example).
I think much of my concern comes from the way spotting works as it relates to time and planning. There are a lot of in-game aspects that increase the need for extended recon. For instance, players can't call in an indirect fire mission on targets/areas they can't see with a spotter once the scenario begins (aka: a "grid" mission). It's as if maps don't exist in WWII (the drones in CMBS were a god-send! One wonders where the Piper Cubs are in WWII scenarios...). In-game spotting in general isn't as elegant as it is in real life (or rather, much more prohibitive), so players have to come up with creative means of spotting targets without losing troops or needlessly exposing their position, which takes more time. Sometimes I'll do things like "open up" a tank at long range for a moment just to draw infantry fire and expose targets. Not exactly an inspired way to exposed enemy positions, but often there just isn't a better option.
Also, I think the morale system begs for more time. Because troops can break and run in all sorts of directions (even to their own detriment), or fail to fire back at hidden close range targets, it makes recon all the more important. Entire squads can be neutered with one short range burst. I've had squads break and run from cover into open ground only to get cut down by enemy further away. When I learned these hard lessons, it made planning, recon, and preparatory fires all the more important. This is especially important in campaigns, where losses can accrue from one scenario to the next.
I do get it, though. . . . It's a tough thing to balance. But the time-hack should definitely be optional. Or maybe even given a point spread, just like with bonuses for taking under a certain number of casualties. Beat the scenario under a certain time and the player is awarded a bonus. Just my 2c...
-
12 hours ago, Erwin said:
The challenge for designers is that in RL recon would have occurred and the attacker would have some idea of what enemy positions were ahead and how manned. It's rare to advance into complete unknown. But if one did, human attackers would be very cautious. This takes time in RL.
However, in the game, we already KNOW that there is a significant enemy short distance in front and that combat is imminent, But, rarely do players have info re strong point locations or how the defenses are designed. Also, most players are quite ruthless with the lives of their pixeltruppen.
If one roleplays as if every man is precious one would need maybe twice as long as one is (usually) given. But, for the average casual player, that would be way too long as many want to rush in and have a big shoot-out...
That's a major reason well-designed campaigns (in which one has to be concerned with force and ammo preservation) are the best way to play. However, some scenarios, like MOS's xnt TOC scenario give one a lot of time (4 hours in TOC) in which one does have plenty of time to be careful and friendly casualties are heavily penalized.
The thing is. . . . We typical DON'T know what's in front of us, other than a rough unit ID, size, and general location. The player (the unit commander) has little to no intel on enemy orientation, disposition, covering terrain, fortifications, armored vehicles, or anything related. Nor should they. That's why leaders recons are so important. But in a lot of these scenarios and campaigns there just isn't enough time to do it properly, so the player often ends up taking casualties needlessly. (Obviously time-driven scenarios notwithstanding.)
-
I don't care. Fight me.
-
60mm mortars were, in part, designed for the purpose of direct lay fire missions. The modern infantry company 60mm mortar, which can trace its roots back to the WWII M2, even now has the ability to be trigger fired without a bipod. It has an aiming device on the carrying handle. In training I've pulled in HE rounds to about 200 meters. In WWII, 60mm mortars were routinely used for point fire missions on specific targets.... here is an (albeit dramatic) example...
https://youtu.be/os8l-CggUzgAnother example... https://youtu.be/t9Pt5mS8Ysg?t=51s
And a third... this time from Afghanistan. Two rounds and he was on target: https://youtu.be/Bmcdy-_8p6Q?t=4m55s
-
Never meant to say you can't knock out at guns with mortars. It just seems the gun crews are more difficult to kill than regular infantry, which should not be the case in my opinion.
I hindsight I think you're right. In one of the Nijmegen campaign scenarios, I must've pumped Sherman 37mm fire into an 88 at nearly point blank range for better part of five minutes before I managed to kill the last gunner. I kinda' figured he might have taken off looooong before that. Similarly with mortars against AT guns vs regular infantry.
-
I've had some great results with direct missions from both 60's and 81's against just about every AT gun I've targeted. BUT it does take a lot of rounds sometimes. In fact just yesterday I was able to knock out two AT guns with just one 60 tucked behind bocage. I notice when I attempt the same thing from an FO with an indirect fire mission, the results aren't nearly as good and I usually have to repeat the mission a few times.
As an aside... and not to hijack the thread... but why aren't their bonuses for repeat missions on the same target? In RL all an FO has to say is "repeat mission" over the radio and more rounds fall on the last target, all without the laborious adjusting...
-
I know this is an old post, but I went searching for answers on this Eroudeville madness, and I'm experiencing everything you've mentioned here... with no end in sight. I either get chopped up and bogged down in the house-to-house work or stumped by the Stug or JpzVI's. One engineer team would make a HUGE difference. Just one.
My losses through the campaign have been fairly light overall. I've got through this scenario four times and still can't get a twist on it. It's frustrating.
-
Lets see... stuff that helps me:
1. Fire without movement is a waste of ammunition; movement without fire is suicide.
2. Use 360 degree targeting arcs to keep troops from firing.
3. Never run up on a hedgerow, use Move or Hunt. Especially when conducting reconnaissance.
4. Split squads into teams for more precise fire control and maneuvering.
5. Recon! Recon! Recon!
6. Area fire. Area fire. Area fire.
-
I doubt the modern army does detailed terrain analysis as described above every time a patrol walks down a road. Setting up bases and outposts, major operations - sure. But not for every farmhouse between the Kuwait border and Mosul.
A lot of players play the game from an elevated position, like a chess board (just watch the YouTube clips for examples of that). Sure, from 20 feet up and 20 feet back you're not going to have much of a clue about terrain features. That's not so much a fault of the game as a fault of your play style. Get down in the trenches. When you click a waypoint go to that location at ground level and see if there's a low hill blocking your LOS. Use the Mk1 eyeball for LOS tool.
Lots of truth here. While the "by-the-book" method of executing a mission is to write a five-paragraph order and brief it to the squad/platoon over a well-crafted terrain model prior to rehearsals and the mission, most times squad leaders aren't even given a full order, just a orders fragment, then then decide routes, CP's, ORP's, etc., from their various maps (topographical, satellite, etc...).
I like to play it from ground level to about 20-30 feet up, especially when using vehicles, which requires a lot of micromanagement regarding terrain. Plus, I want to get at least a loose idea of what the troops on the ground will be able to see before I move them to a new spot.
-
While I do appreciate the humor of your satire, I never said I thought the game needed to be 100% realistic micromanage nightmare. I'm just saying that it's not needed and actually makes the game more unrealistic than if they didn't have it.
A couple of counter points to what you said above:
I've never viewed Combat Mission to as a game where the players assume the role of the highest HQ unit. Players instead assume the role of every HQ and squad/team leader on the board. Each individual unit in real life had the ability to make decisions on their own without the need of their HQ unit to micromanage every minute detail. Combat Mission simulates this by allowing you to control every unit and see what they see.
I was just being farcical. To be honest though... I'd like to try a WWII game like that. There's a Civil War game that kinda' does that. For World War II there is Command Ops, which has a great operational-level AI that allows for realistic orders delegation.
-
People often complain that fog of war of the terrain in Combat Mission is one of it's weaknesses. i.e., both sides know the exact map geography from the beginning of the battle. Tools such as LOS from waypoints, which as you've said, is more accurate than camera eyeballing, makes the fog of war even weaker.
I'm afraid I'm going to need Combat Mission to be a game where the player camera is literally locked in at the highest headquarters unit, and I have to rely on radios, runners, voice commands to control my troops (so basically 90 percent radio), with an realistic orders delay, and a representation of a WWII-era map that shows the sketchy-at-best locations of friendly and identified enemy. I'll need to rely on my junior officers and NCO's to carry out my orders! Also... I'll need to do the math on my own indirect missions, including all adjustments. If my radioman is killed, I lose that asset unless I'm near another unit with an accessible radio. If the headquarters unit is destroyed for whatever reason, then I'll just drop down to the next highest level.
-
Ok... I suck. It's been a while since I've played. For some reason I was under the impression rocket artillery wasn't included.
-
Any shot at getting Nebelwerfers as an off-map artillery source?
-
Good morning! I've been reading through the forums about speculated modules and games and what's likely to be on the horizon or not, and I've had long-standing question about why BF has structured it's games the way it has. Naturally, I don't have, nor should I necessarily need, access to BF business strategy. I'm quite sure they have a plan, and that it works for them. This isn't meant as criticism.
What keeps coming to mind is rather than having one-off theater games (CMBN, CMFI, etc...) is instead have an overall engine, and then regional modules. So for example, instead of having CMBN and CMFI, which covers the Allied ETO, why not have a single engine that comes with a module (say CMBN) and then nothing but modules and that build on the existing game, without releasing new executables (like FI and Bulge).
So... instead of CMBN, CMFI, and CM-Bulge, you might have something like CM-ETO, where these modules (as an example) are built over time to fit within it making a complete theater family:- Normandy
- Market Garden
- Siegfried Line
- Bulge
- Sicily/Italy
- Commonwealth and Allies
Then we go to the CM-OST Front and repeat the process, then move on from there to other wars/theaters. Engine upgrades could still occur at the release of each new module. I would gladly pay a few dollars more for a module, and pick and choose which modules to purchase, rather than buy a whole new engine.
But... I suppose that actually may be the strategy to the highest revenue. -
Hi! I want to make a small icon mod for my Mac game (I want to adjust the in-game unit icons). How do I go about accessing those files on a Mac? I know how to do it on PC, but I can't find where the image files are for mac.
-
I've been aching for a crack at the Pacific for years... specifically island hopping battles like Guadalcanal (how about a Edson's Raiders/Henderson field defense scenario?), the landing at Tarawa, even the larger island campaigns like Peleliu (oh man, the airfield!), Saipan/Tinian, Iwo, and Okinawa. There are some many possibilities and room to work with it's practically endless... and that's not including ANZAC and British troops.
Every time I see something that can be adapted, like flamethrowers, flame tanks, and amphibious assault, I get more and more optimistic. We've even seen variations of the terrain in all the existing titles. Not that it's necessarily easy, but I think it's really a matter of retexturing, TO&E work, and some morale modification (troops would have to be a bit tougher, I think...). -
Korea 1980's instead, IMO.
M60A3 as the best US tank in theatre. I-TOW Cobras trying to plug gaps in lines. Arty and MLRS raining down out the wazoo (since it isnt 30 years past its expiration date yet).
Would be an interesting theatre.
Not bad! That would even the odds a little. BF could probably make a Fulda Gap/WWIII game as well based on the same technology.
-
Dunno. I don't think numbers matter at this point. Between ROK forces and US forces on the ground and air along with a few carriers and Tomahawk equipped subs off the coast, the NK forces would be gutted quickly. I don't think the South is concerned about losing so much as they are concerned about losing Seoul...which would be a possibility; especially with chemical weapons...how does that get factored into CM scenarios
I think that makes for a compelling reason to explore it. Capturing Seoul could mean a quick political victory for the North, regardless of their ability to hold on to their gains, so their operational planning would follow that model. The first few days/weeks would, likely, see NKPA columns hauling-ass en masse down the Yeoncheon/Uijeongbu/Seoul corridor as well as river crossings north of Paju. The volume of men and material, regardless of NKPA technology, would be incredibly taxing on the joint fires concepts. That first week would be a serious battle in center of the peninsula, at least until U.S. armored forces arrived ashore, which would take time. The 8th Army's first line of defense would be it's 2nd ID brigade, the 25th ID out of Hawaii, and whatever Marine units III MEF could muster up, which is all predominantly mechanized and light infantry. So.... from the US/ROK side, your role would be to use your limited force packages to delay the rapid NK tank rushes in order to make time for the heavy armored brigades to come online. From the NK side, your role would be to use speed and mass to break through US/ROK defenses before they can bring their air and artillery down on you. There are challenges to each side.
-
Not sure that would fit CMBS. Combat Mission Black Sea with an expansion up in korea wouldn't make much sense. The setting is very interesting, that's for sure, but would be more suited for a dedicated title rather than an expansion
Agreed, it should be billed as a new title. I'd love to run a light infantry campaign in that environment. It'd be tough, but entertaining.
-
Just a random shower thought/question.... Has the idea of a Combat Mission: Black Sea expansion covering the NKPA coming across the DMZ ever been discussed? Would that even be a thing that might sell well? I've been re-reading the novel 38 North Yankee and thought there might be room in this game for something depicting actions on the peninsula.
-
Here's something that might get you started.
http://www.trngcmd.marines.mil/Portals/207/Docs/TBS/MCWP%203-15.2%20Tactical%20Employment%20of%20Motars.pdf -
"Alex, I'll take 'Things That Will Never Happen' for $800."
— Actually ... I think it would be really cool to see the Korean peninsula and Cold War Europe developed into a CM game!
How I view most scenarios and the designers...
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
THIS x1000.
The biggest thing that kicks me out of the scenarios are unreasonable time constraints. And to the argument that time is the only thing keeping the defender alive: In real-world conditions, even in WWII, time does not stop and start and the defender's convenience. The effectiveness of a defense is built on logistics, tactics, troops quality, supporting arms, terrain, and the efficacy of the attacking force. If the scenario has to use time as the chief weapon to keep the attacker from overwhelming the defender then the scenario needs to be tweaked to better represent on-the-ground realities. It's as simple as that...
As of right now, there's a feeling that the game does a better than fair job of representing the tactical puzzles of modern warfare in a credible way, then guts that credibility with time requirements that are far outside the norm for the operations presented.
I don't mean to disparage the scenario designers, so please take my comments with a grain of salt. They try to do their best; I have no doubt, and some of the ideas about points given to players who work faster without breaking the friendly casualties barrier, is really great!
***
PS. One of my friends who just got started in the game (and completely empathizes with the needless time constraint) fantasized about a 12-24 hour scenario of a single operation represented over a large piece of ground, with counter attacks and reinforcements and supply chains as represented on-map in real time. Maybe in CM3...