domfluff

The above only matters for Quick Battles, but that can serve as a useful basis for deciding what an "Attack" actually means. Objectives can be a number of things - Terrain is part of that, but there are Unit-based objectives, and also the overall parameters for casualties and ammunition expenditure. In a QB, the objectives are for terrain and the casualties parameter - for that, if that was set to 100VP, if there were 2000 points worth of army, and 1000 points worth was destroyed, you would earn 50VP.

Dragons should kill BMPs pretty easily, and BMPs killing BMPs is an unfortunate side-effect of being a BMP

I much prefer Iron, since you get a little more information. It's particularly useful for Platoon scouts, since you can see when they leave the LOS of the platoon, and therefore how far ahead they should be.

I think the broader point is that scenario design is game design, and game design is both subjective, and always (always) harder than you think it is. As a very recent example - Between Two Fahrbahns in CM: Cold War. That's an entertaining scenario which can be played from either side. It's not massively challenging, and the decision tree is pretty shallow, but it's been a lot of fun to knock around in, and is a well crafted thing. Well worth playing at least twice, from each side. Is it a "bad" scenario, objectively? There's nothing really "Cold War" about the scenario, in terms of getting across some broader conceptual or tactical point. This isn't an application of doctrinal Soviet Meeting Engagement, a demonstration of Active Defence doctrine, or a demonstration of the development of technology over the period, for example. You could replace the T-64s and M60A2s with Shermans and Panzer IVs and have essentially the same scenario. Does that matter? It really depends on your intent. Those concepts are clearly at the core of Cold War's release. All of those concepts are explored thoroughly in the (excellent) campaigns, so does every scenario need to do the same? That kind of scenario isn't really what I'm looking for, personally, but it's a short, simple knock about that lets you play with some new toys. That's definitely not invalid, and regardless of whether this is objectively great or not, I know I feel like I've gotten my money's worth out of it. I think there's a large chunk of design space there, and there's space for a lot of options. I do agree that sometimes these are communicated as well as they could be - either in relative difficulty levels or in terms of design intent, but since that's even more subjective, that's possibly pretty meaningless. So yes, to the actual question - I think that's a logical and intuitive idea, but I also think there are some complex reasons why that might not be possible or even that important, for all situations or at all times. There's a long standing argument about difficulty in game design - there are definitely games (e.g., Cuphead, Dark Souls) which use their difficulty as a part of the appeal, but since each scenario is a game design exercise to itself, that means that you're going to find a wide range of intents and outcomes. Now, I *do* enjoy that kind of game, and I'm more than happy to have an AI opponent (or ideally a human one) kick my arse repeatedly, especially if there's something I can learn from the experience. There's a roguelike mentality of failing forwards there which I can really get behind, but I can also appreciate that this is a niche - not everyone signs up for that. Personally, I tend to prefer steeper challenges, or even no-win situations, but I also know that that's not true for everyone else.

I'll have to check later, but I think the 400/600 split is correct - Meeting Engagements prioritise the enemy over the terrain.

Yes, and I do think the fundamental point sounds sensible intuitively, but that's not always possible - I'm suggesting that the AI should at least attack in a plausible manner, and whether it would actually win is a secondary concern. If the AI attack replicates a winning line, then at least it's "trying to win". I agree that would be an ideal, but scenarios perform multiple roles, and one which is designed for h2h play may be a lot more difficult for an AI script to win. In that situation, you're often going to limited to doing something which looks sensible, and hoping for the best. For a scenario that is intended to play against the AI, certainly, but then you can cheat a little and give it advantages that would unbalance a human opponent.

The definitions are vague, but they give you a general idea (much the same way that "rough-hills-water" gives you a general idea of the map). The below are the definitions used in Quick Battles. That can serve as a useful yardstick for making other scenarios. I definitely don't think it's worth being bound by them too strictly, but it's a good starting point. From left to right - Meeting Engagement, Probe, Attack, Assault Broadly speaking: Meeting Engagements have a 1:1 force ratio. They will tend to either have a single central objective, or perhaps two or three, or they will have objectives that both players will be able to defend easily. The core concept here is that two balanced forces will start on the edge of the map, and will have the chance to both attack and defend. The further down the list you go, there are some general tendencies. - The attackers force ratio improves (there are precise figures for this in QB points terms). From memory, that's something like: Meeting Engagement: 1.0 Probe: 1.5 Attack: 1.65 Assault: 1.8 - The split between points awarded for casualties and points award for the objective are on a scale - in a Meeting Engagement, most of your points will come from enemy losses, whereas an Assault is almost all about the objective. Terrain/Casualties VP split Meeting Engagement: 400/600 Probe: 500/500 Attack: 650/350 Assault: 750/250 - The defensive objectives tend to be buried deeper in the map - The defender's setup zones tend to be broader, and cover more of the map - On Assault missions, the Attacker gets pre-battle intel on the defender Essentially, you're looking at more and more deliberate attacks. Assault is an all-out attack on an entrenched opponent - the pre-battle intel implies that first-turn artillery will hit them, so the defender can and should buy fortifications to defend themselves. A Probe, conversely, will give the attackers and advantage, but will make the objectives comparatively easy to reach. Since the points are evenly split, you'll have to at least contest the objective whilst preserving force to get at least a Tactical victory, but you won't go much higher unless you clear the objective - the result is something pretty tentative. In an assault, if you hold the objective at the end then you'll get a Major Victory at least, even if it costs you most of your guys.

A multiple-hour game where you do nothing, make no decisions and wait for the screen that says "you win" sounds the opposite of thrilling to me. I think this is worth giving some thought to, because I'm not sure the answers are entirely obvious. The AI is always going to be worse than a competent human, all things being equal. That means that a scenario where the AI is supposed to be a real challenge will inevitably require some massaging - increasing their force ratio, improving soft factors or use of prior knowledge. I do think it's important not to overstate that - the majority of the AI's fighting behaviour is governed by much the same systems as the player, so a good AI plan is really about co-ordination and movement - getting into a strong position, and then relying on the TacAI to handle the exciting bit. That also means that scenarios specifically designed to be played PBEM are going to be a different breed from those which are designed to be playable from one side vs AI, which has to be different to one which should be playable from either side. My thinking on this has been to lay out the defenders first, since the defensive AI plan will generally be easier to manage, then to play through the scenario as the attacker. My intention as the attacker is to win, and also to attack in a plausible and hopefully doctrinally-correct manner. I then try to replicate my own attack using the AI plan as best I can - that way, even if the AI can't manage this efficiently, it should at least look vaguely sensible, and as if it's moving with some purpose and intent. This can then go back and forth as many times as needed to tweak and improve things. That's often what AI programming is about, in general terms - not necessarily being intelligent, but in hiding the stupid as much as possible. If the AI loses, but doesn't do anything egregiously stupid in the process, then I think that's a reasonable outcome to aim for. So yes, I think the answer is "no, it doesn't matter", but the reasoning behind that is a little more complex.

Are you quite sure you're running CMSF 2? CMSF2 should have the same hotkeys file as all of the other games now, but CMSF1 and CMA had a different system, with the same key having a different effect depending on context. I used to change my hotkeys file to match the later games.

Any points-buy system is inherently flawed, no matter the game, especially any with fixed points that don't take account of any kind of context. As a silly, extreme example: you could spend all of your points on artillery you can't use, because you didn't buy an FO - clearly the artillery in that context is not worth the points you spent on it. Having said that, it's even less meaningful to compare between different sides - it's not terribly useful to compare a BMP-1 to an M113, because the Soviets can't take an M113, and the US can't take a BMP-1 - if you want a transport, then you've got one option as the US, and it's really a question of whether it's worth it relative to the rest of the US TO&E. Obviously it can still be overpriced, but that's relative to itself.

Markh is right though - the Dragon *should* go through a T-62 in most or all aspects, but struggle against a T-64 or higher - that leap in armour protection is something the US wasn't prepared for, and it's a big reason why the M60A2 Starship was what it was.

Can I have your Dragons? I've seen Dragons and TOWs reliably bounce off the front of T-64 and up, especially the turret. It's obviously worth testing, and it's always possible there's an issue, but I don't recognise that in my experiences.

That was a joke - he was pointing out that your "Why complain about how small a Tiny battle is when you could just play a larger battle" comment is completely sensible. "Why not have it go to ten, and make ten louder? This one goes to eleven", etc. Points are arbitrary, and what classifies as a Tiny battle is also arbitrary - Tiny seems to suggest a platoon-level scenario in CM terms, so that's a reasonable yardstick, but not all platoons are made equal, and what makes for a sufficiently interesting Tiny battle may not be consistent across the titles.

Although there are tons of little things that would be nice, my big hope for a future version of CM (whether engine 5 or otherwise) is the ability to edit maps in 3D. Being able to change terrain and alter elevation in real time would make map making significantly easier, and (I suspect) would be something that would cut down on development time in general.

- Not everything is supposed to be played from all sides. - Not every scenario is fair. - Engine changes can and will mean that a scenario that was once balanced, is no longer so. However, you typically have enough tools to do *something*. So, "every scenario can be won?". I don't think that's necessarily true, but I think it's a reasonable ideal I don't think I've seen a scenario that I believe is completely unwinnable, but I've certainly had some I've given up on as not being worth the effort, or that winning it would require some ahistorical or gamey strategies to complete. I've seen many more that I'm not sure are actually winnable against a vaguely competent human opponent. My ideal scenario tends to offer some kind of tactical problem to solve. Typically that means being given a doctrinal formation of some kind, and then some kind of wrinkle to overcome - perhaps you're given a Rifle platoon but then tasked with a river crossing, or you have to go and accomplish a task without sufficient support from armour or artillery. The very best of those will give both sides an interesting tactical problem (or problems) to solve. Perhaps the defenders in that rifle platoon example have a tiny force, and do not have the numbers to defend the entire front over this terrain, so they're forced into an elastic and mobile defence - perhaps there are two points where the river is fordable, but they only have the numbers to properly defend one - do they split their force and try to defend each weakly, commit to one, or have a combination of up-front forces and a reserve to commit where the enemy are trying to cross? That kind of thing. Even with this approach, it's never going to be balanced. One side is always going to have an advantage, but if you can present both sides with an interesting problem, then that shouldn't matter all that much. This kind of scenario represents one option of two - the other type tends to aim for a more narrativist method, particularly when recreating historical battles. Part of this comes down to scenario design in general. Scenario design is game design, and game design is hard - you're creating arbitrary problems for the player, and how you decide what you're presenting here is tough. The more asymmetric the design, the harder it is to find a "balanced" position. In CMBN, you could throw down a town and a couple of rifle companies, and have a reasonable battle letting them fight over it. That's not true for CMSF, as the other extreme. In an ideal world, scenario victory conditions would make up for this - it would allow for the weaker side to lose, but still end up with a winning score. That's something which a lot of scenarios attempt, but it's a very difficult task to get it right, so it's also something that many of them fail to do in a satisfying manner. That's no criticism, it's just a reflection of how difficult this kind of thing can be.

I don't believe this is true. Or perhaps if this *is* true, they've done a pretty bad job of making Cold War a US-centric title (whoops?), given the amount of effort put into the Soviet forces, how they're structured, the campaigns and the Tutorial missions for Soviet Doctrine.

The scarcity of Russian radios is a real thing - they're supposed to fight mounted more often than not, and the BMP/BTR contains the squad radio.

Huge does fit a Soviet Motor Rifle battalion, but typically not the artillery support that comes with it - the dream is still to have control over the actual points available, but I'm not sure that's too far off.

Not since 1915, no.

Good to hear. CW might well end up as one of the best titles to Quick Battle in, so getting that reasonable would be a huge benefit.

The original resupply system was: The next section in the Battle Entry is the percentage chance an individual unit has of being completely replaced if lost, repaired if damaged (vehicle only), topped off with full ammo, and brought back to a fully rested state. As in, is there was a 50% chance of resupply, and I had two squads as core units, on 0% ammunition: Squad A 0% ammo Squad B 0% ammo previously there would have been a check for each. Assuming Squad A passes their coin flip and B fails, then you'd end up with: Squad A 100% ammo Squad B 0% ammo In the engine 4 manual, there is the line: Personnel replacements and ammunition levels are now more uniformly resupplied across all core units between campaign missions, as opposed to the all-ornothing check on each unit done previously All sounds good. What *exactly* does that mean? In the above situation does that mean you'd end up with: Squad A 50% ammo Squad B 50% ammo Does the ammo type matter, or is it just a relative "successes/number of units" check? e.g., if the above was an infantry Squad and an Abrams, would both the Squad and the Abrams be restored to 50% ammunition, regardless of the type of ammunition involved?

You can do pre-battle smoke orders. During the battle, you're reliant on the AI FO, so you basically can't control smoke in that way. You can (I believe) set the artillery as a reinforcement group, so your "pre-battle" smoke can come on at a specified later time. In terms of more basic design - either is appropriate. Broadly there are two basic kind of scenarios in CM - one is a more sandbox affair, where you are given a textbook formation and a tactical problem to solve. This kind of thing will generally be informed by the problem you want to highlight. The other side is something more narrativist - these tend to be more sculpted or puzzle-like, and you're trying to pick your way through a set of preset positions, or "artificially" created problems. In this case, the force selection should be altered to suit the puzzle, or be part of it. Both are completely valid, and serve different needs.

In game terms, they're one hop sideways from the CO, and they both have radios. That means that you can keep the two managing different parts of the battle. If the 2IC can get spotting contacts horizontally from the infantry platoon on the left, then this can be passed to the CO most efficiently, and he can pass that to the infantry platoon on the right. It's a really useful capacity to have.

Indeed, it's down to labels, and (perhaps more importantly), it's modelling subjective, fluffy things. You can give hard numbers for the glacis plate of a Panther, and take just those numbers and recreate them elsewhere, and get the same result. How motivated do you feel today? Seven? It's inherently vague and complex, and it's only ever going to be a fudge, that will need to be tweaked to get the desired result for their behaviour. Now, it's completely possible that the designer's desired behavioural result doesn't mesh with your understanding of the situation, but that's a very different form of argument to "they should have motivation 4, but they have motivation 5".

Yes. The AI can be given an Ambush stance at different distances. For example, "only open fire when the enemy is within 100m". That might be enough by itself. If it's not enough, then your best bet is using a trigger. Set the stance to Hide, with an AI objective trigger, and then set the next order to Active (prioritises shooting over movement). That way, the AI will neither move nor shoot unless fired upon, until at least one unit enters the killzone.