THH149
-
Posts
309 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by THH149
-
-
I've been mucking around with scenario editing and got my creation to a point where I'd like to see it with units on the board. But, it is saved with a .btt file extension when all other saved games are using .bts and so wont load as a scenario.
Is there light anyone can shed on this? How to convert the file to .bts?
Thanks
THH
-
On 12/3/2020 at 11:28 AM, Combatintman said:
It doesn't matter who kills the hostages - Red should get the VPs for every one killed
Sorry I should've made it clearer that the building got destroyed before the Hostages arrived, and the Hostages remained unharmed. And as they lived, Blue got their VP and controlled the compound (all Red being dead from the Tornadoes).
-
Nice one! Its a great little challenge!
Will you give it another go as Red?
-
10 hours ago, The Steppenwulf said:
Yup, It's clear that Bf apply the most reliable information that they've seen to model performance and attributes.
This is the crux of the issue isnt it, BF are using data that's acceptable to their military customers and making it available to gamers, that evidence based approach will beat anyones imagination anyday of the week. I wholly endorse the BF approach. Of course strange things happen in battle, and weapon et al performance will always be placed on a bell curve of variation - thats built into the model too.
-
I've consulted the rule book but can't find it. Is an action space 10m x 10m?
I'm trying to understand how far an infantry unit can go in a turn - eg 8 squares along a road.
THH
-
I just want to point out that I've always enjoyed attacking a death star with my small band of retired pilots with their ancient space craft! Not!
-
I can't recommend it H2H unless you're giving the Brits to a very new player and you want to encourage them to play more H2H, so the scenario is a learning one. In the scenario description it's specifically described as good for H2H play so I'm not sure what's going on with that recommendation. Unfortunately, the players are locked into the orders of battle for both sides and can't supplement it with a balancing provision like in ASL.
I've played the scenario several times since against the AI both as Red and Blue forces.
Against Red AI, I've found the Brits only need the three Challengers, and the rest of the force stays in the deployment zone but I don't control them at all but do allow them to fire at will. This ends in a Blue win if the Brit moves the Challengers to patrol around the crossroads even a little bit.
Against Blue AI, I found it's quite a bit more difficult and requires much more careful play especially until the Challengers are gone (the T72s will flank the Challengers once they're found). This usually ends in a draw as the Brits hold onto one corner of the objective zone and Red runs out of time. But taking Red Force would be the challenging way to play this Scenario. But as usual against the AI after repeated play the patterns of movement are recognised even it not exactly the same each game.
-
My bad re the NATO reference, I was indeed from the UK Forces pack.
I've since played this against the AI both as Red and Blue, the AI Blue Air Force happened to drop its loads on the desert compound buildings, destroying them outright, and the Blue airforce also tried to flatten the buidlings in the Village compound but missed. The hostages still appeared at the five minute before end of game mark in the destroyed building, but as the AI had also obliterated my Red forces in the same buildings, I couldnt kill those hostages. In the VP allocation though, Blue force took control of the Desert compound for Blue Force (there were no other Blue in the compound at the time!). So if you're playing against Blue AI, be aware its planes can destroy the compound to save the hostages. Otherwise the Blue AI was easily defeated.
At the same time In the Village compound, the hostages appeared but they were gunned down mercilessly as I'd packed their building with Uncons.
The hostage uniforms were a nice touch!
THH
-
My final assessment for this scenario: an unbalanced dog.
Not worthwhile playing H2H as Syrian the Brits are highly favoured to achieve the scenario's Victory Conditions.
Even against the AI, the Brits can win with just the three tanks, they don't need the rest of the force.
Best
THH
-
Played this scenario for the NATO pack H2H format with me attacking as the Brits. The premise is that the Brits need to rescue 6 hostages that may or may not be spread across two compounds (one in the desert and another in a small village) in 30 minutes. The Brits have 8 Jackals and some utes to bring up engineers and friends including 2 Tornados, while the Uncons have 2 Kornets, assorted RPG29s and squads with MGs and RPG7s as well as snipers and mines on the roads. The 6 Hostages appear as Blue reinforcements in the two hostage locations in the last five minutes, and if the Uncons eliminate them then they recieve 1000 VPs. The Brits need to control the hostage locations and preserve two buildings in each hostage compound, and prevent hostage deaths to ensure Uncons dont get more VPs.
- This scenario is pretty good actually, the Brits are fragile but have some great firepower (inc planes) and the Uncons can pull some pretty sweet ambushes to knock down the Jackals.
- In my H2H playing, I was the Brits and pulled some Dirty Dozen moves to drive straight into the compounds (while doing some drive by shooting of the kornet teams) coming straight up the middle road between the two compounds as well as a long detour up the escarpment. I suffered terribly in losing 5 Jackals (3 on the main road and 2 in the Village compound itself) but recovered to bring infantry up eventually overcome resistance in the Village compound and rescue two hostages (the Uncons killed one). In the desert compound, in the last 5 minutes, I rushed my three remaining jackals forward and take it by storm figuring the Uncons had put most everything into the village defence. It was not to be and another jackal was lost and crew dead/wounded in the others, so saving any hostages there. I didn't use the planes at all as the action was just moving to fast. The hostages in the desert compound weren't shot for some reason, so the score just handed the Uncons just 127 VP for the single hostage death.
- The game end was a draw (400 vs 427 VP) but my oponent and I figured it was very replayable as there were many options for both sides, and a short time limit to keep the action moving crisply.
- There seems to be a quirk around the hostagse though. The briefing says 1000 VP are awarded for all hostage deaths so one dead should be worth 167 (FRU) but the score awarded 127. The other quirk was hy opponent didnt see on screen the hostages appear in the desert compound and he had enough troops unchallenged to be able to eliminate them easily. So we figured the Uncons should've earned VP for eliminating those as well (but how much its not clear - 150 each for 900 in total (vs the 1000 in the briefing) or 127 each or 167 each, or some other amount? maybe the VP ramp up if more are killed?). Anyway, we gave the Uncons a major victory with the extra VP for killing 4 hostages: a rare Uncon win.
- Why did the Brits lose....to many Dirty Dozen moves leading to the initial repulse (time wasted too) and not using the planes...but most of the engineers survived to take the village.
- The Brits had engineers but I couldn't get them to use their 'blast' order in game. So that's my homework, learning how to blast walls so as to enter from unexpected directions of walled hostage prisons.
Have you played this? What did you think?
THH
-
Thanks for those tips.
I would love to play that scen but Ive only got CMSF2 on Steam right now.
THH
-
As I come from an ASL background, I think I've confused ppl by using terminology and meaning that's common in the ASL space. By "balance" I mean the scenarios win/loss record for either side comes out as roughly 50/50 (say 60/40 is OK) where attacker has a 50% chance of winning. I don't mean balancing a scenario by giving both sides the same everything and a symmetrical map etc etc.
Maybe putting it differently, would I play this (scenario X) in a tournament? Or against my regular gaming friend where we wanted to both have a 50% chance of winning? Where the results were used to rank players they wouldn't choose a scenario which was unbalanced ('cos it would unfairly impact their ratings cos the scenario is no longer a game of skill and they've already lost if they chose the wrong side).
And don't get me wrong, I don't mind scenarios that simulate historical or fictional actions, I'd just like to know that the scenario is a simulation with little care for both players having an even chance of winning. There is greyness in that question too, as the designer could decide they intend to use all historically present and relevant assets, historical terrain, but set victory conditions so they are judged on whether they do better or worse than historical situation (or they may tweak other things too).
In the scenario balance issue relating to the Panther, I'd think just removing the Panther would be design laziness. The designer could reduce the scenario turn length, change victory levels, or change objectives etc etc
For the scenario above ie "UK H2H British Armour Mix vs Syrian Armour Mix", I'm wondering how to fix it to achieve a more reasonable game balance while keeping the flavour of a meeting engagement between two tanks reinforced motorised infantry companies, maybe:
- make Syrians twice as strong (maybe reasonable)
- shorten game length to 20 minutes (makes it harder for Brits but much harder for Syrians)
- change VC to make any Syrians left in Objective box at game end a loss for the Brits and tactical victory for Syrians (a better change)
- move Objective zone closer to Syrians, so they can occupy it earlier (as they dont have vehicles the brits do), and away from Brits, giving Syrians a chance to occupy the zone earlier and fight a defensive battle.
- change VC to have a casualty limit on Brits (at present there are no casualty restraints, as all 300 points are allocated to controlling the Objective Zone).
- some kind of asymmetrical victory conditions (which is a real strength of CM).
Is there any resource online where the 'official' CMSF2 scenarios have their win/loss results recorded?
Are all the provided scenarios with CMSF2 unbalanced? Which arent? Is there a playtesting community I can join?
This is fun right....
Best
THH
-
yep, testing is essential. The extra bit of info on combat values is useful for players and designers alike, and of course the mechanics of the game mean that a player has to open the game from both red and blue sides and then work through the process of calculating combat values before the game starts, even though that is not the full story. I'd hate for me or my counterpart to learn that one or other of us had no real chance, despite their skill level.
As a newbie in CMSF2, is it generally the case that scenarios are balanced (say no worse than 60/40) between H2H so the game is a game of skill?
-
Oh! You made me look at the scenario editor again and indeed it doesnt use a points budget for the respective sides! wow!
That makes the designers job a little harder if they're aiming to create a balanced game!
Best
THH
-
I'd be happy to playtest scenarios! either against AI or h2h.
But the AI should be easy to playtest. In the last scenario I played I just drove 3 Challengers into the center of the map - left all the other troops in the setup area - hardly moved them at all after that (a few squares or to flank a close by T72) and they blasted everything in sight. They soon had the Syrian's surrendering, earning a major victory. That scenario may not have been playtested at all.
Is there a playtesting community supported by CMBS/CMSF2?
THH
-
Understand what you mean about the gun and armour. But, the T-72M1 TURMS-T has a combat value of 262 (individual vehicle) but a Challenger 2 has 560 pts, so the Challenger is still twice the combat value.
So, I'd advise scenario designers to give Syrians twice the number of T72s vs a set number of Challengers (if that was going to be the most an important measure of the relative combat value of the forces, eg not taking into account terrain, time, Defender benefit, airpower, other force assets etc etc).
Best
THH
-
Hi
Some thoughts on this scenario from the UK pack, it has no name so you'll have to find it using the description above.
- I was Syrians and ran forward from the set up to claim a solid third of the objective zone in this meeting engagement between Syrian and British forces. MyT-72 TURMS covered the central road and got first shot on a Challenger but was then destroyed. The Brits then carefully and methodically set out about picking a building and destroying everything in it. The two remaining T72stried to get side shots on the three Challengers but died from Brit AT4s and a Challenger. After that it was a quick result to Syrina surrender (nothing left in Objective Zone) at 15 minutes left to play out. A bad day for the Syrians.
- As to the Syrian strategy, there was none really other than to rush forward to hold as much ground as possible and try to withstand what I expected to be an onslaught. But I would play it again as Syrians to see much I could reduce how badly they would lose by.
- The British player said afterwards that he was very deliberate and careful when bringing troops into the fight, only exposing them a little to ensure there was massive firepower on the next Syrian position. Good on him for such discipline.
- During the game it became clear that the Brit had 3 Challengers and the Syrian had 3 T72s, and as one needs 3-4 T72s to destroy a Challenger or Abrams (like the number of Shermans it took to destroy a Panther or King Tiger), I sensed that the game wasn't well balanced. Mmmm!
- After the game I sat down and calculated the points value of the respective forces: I estimated Syrians had 2,440 and the Brits had 4,880 points per the scenario editor. This wasnt a game it was a simulation, of what I'm not sure (a Syrian reinforced company being quickly crushed?).
- Cutting the game time from 35 to 20 minutes would give Syrians a better chance at a draw, but an extended game is going to see Syrians lose (if Brits retain some Challengers). Probably much more balanced set of combat values is needed.
I come at CMSF2 from an advanced Squad Leader background, where its expected that the scenarios are thoroughly (more or less) playtested where each player has an even chance of winning (barring differences in skill levels and chance). Also, scenario cards in ASL are more transparent about the respective points totals and as the maps and other factors are well understood, one can make some kind of assessment of game value before players commit to a scenario. I do like the fog of war in CMSF2, but I do like balanced games to as well as simulations but I'd like to know also what kind of scenario I'm playing (game vs simulation).
Just my two cents...
Let me know what you think....
Best
THH
-
OK thanks for that, casualties (killed/wounded) it is. Oddly it makes the vehicles important to kill because they hold bodies (as well as reduce enemy combat power).
Agree with you on the realism question, the game is entertainment afterall. But, that scenario could've set the Blue Force casualty limit much lower so the OP Blues have to work much harder for a Major Victory.
Best
THH
-
Interesting find and proposed fixes.
I'm thinking if CMBS is based on how real world militaries fire AT4s and Javelins, then what do their user manuals say? Maybe modelling that in game would make the game more realistic?
Best
THH
-
1 minute ago, Combatintman said:
Why not pick AT mines instead of IEDs in the editor then - unless of course you talking about situations where you are playing scenarios made by other folks and in which case ignore my comment.
Good point, I hadn't got around to playtest a QB using AT mines as an alternative. But I was thinking about other scenarios where I've seen AT mines and thought they were more useful, but perhaps less thematic in some circumstances.
-
Just played a scenario H2H, and the VC was for Blue Force 100 points for enemy casuatlies > 80% and for Red Force it was enemy casualties > 60%.
We did wonder what the % were based on: is it number of soldiers on each side (eg > 80 of 100 soldiers killed or wounded) or is it purchase points in QB or some other metric.
I checked the rule book and its unclear, though its implied to be the QB purchase points/combat value.
A realism question here too, if the Red Force causes anything remotely close to 60% casualties on Blue Force, why wouldnt Blue Force pull back and remove the 'feature'? Wouldnt 10% of start force killed or wounded have the Force pull back and get reinforcements? In this scenario, I think the casualties allowed are to high for Blue Force to tolerate.
Best
THH
-
Some weeks ago I wanted clarification on how IEDs worked and with the excellent feedback I created two Quick Battles (one city, one desert) with about 30 IEDs each (10 radio, 10 Cellphone, 10 wired). In these QB's I play as Red with IEDs, so I can control more variables, and the QB's are so tight I know the Blue Force will cross many of the IEDs (BTW Red force has no chance so the Blue Force will cross the IED lines).
After multiple playings of both, I've never seen an IED malfunction (I believe it would be noted in the trigger man's display). Rather I've found that LOS (which needs to be checked at setup by using the Target command) is quirky and needs to be much closer than expected (don't guess this as a Triggerman) and suppression are much more important.
Also, the target unit has to practically pixel perfect on the IED to have the Triggerman hit it (I've seen whole squads almost literally walk right by Huge IEDs and they not go off.
The range of each IED is also quite different too - wired is much much shorter than radio - and needs to be taken into account by scenario designers.
I find it very hard for a Triggerman to set off his IED if he starts out of LOS and then moves into LOS of the IED - sometimes dies, sometimes forgets where he put the IED. Much more reliable to start the IED in LOS of the fella (or vice versa).
The hole the IED makes is not an indication of the needed position of the target vs the IED.
Sometimes I think the designer believes the IEDs will work like AT mines, but they dont. I'd prefer to be able place AT mines at start in some games.
THH
-
In the last h2h game I played the timer counted down to zero then it turned red and started counting up, seemingly giving the players extra time (benefitting me). The briefing showed no note about extra time. I searched the rule books and there's no mention of this.
Don't all scenario's end when the counter gets to zero? Is the extra time legal to count for Victory? Why doesn't the briefing explain?
Best
THH
-
A few comments about this one after a H2H play....
- what a wonky name for a scenario!
- The Brits (I think) are heavily advantaged against H2H Syrian. The Syrian's seem to be well armed with some good RPG/ATGMs and Veteran troops, but the UK are overpowering with Javelins, APCs, artillery and an Apache. Although the Syrians are Veteran's, the Brit Regulars have much more significant combat power.
- The approach I used as the Brits was to swing around the British left using folds in the ground to draw up into the small village as a fire base for push into objective zone. When Syrian Artie hit me there I covered in the buildings until it passed. While the main force was being hit I advanced the Javelins in the centre to target buildings and a trio of APCs on the far right to edge toward main 2 storey building in the objective village. All Brit Art and the Apache was concentrated against the Objective, timed one to follow the other, and the final push to start when the Apache finished. The Brits tried to focus on one Syrian at a time while covering the roofs to keep the Kornet away. The RPGs as usual got hits but each team was quickly overwhelmed
- British lost 4 APCs (one to friendly fire as I hit the building it was next to with a Javelin), 14 killed and 11 wounded (of 75 at start and 9 APCs). By game end the Syrian's had 1 man left. This gave Brits a Major Victory.
- Highlights: the Syrian Kornet hit something.
Best
THH
AAR - UK H2H British Armour Mix vs Syrian Armour Mix
in Combat Mission Shock Force 2
Posted
Well, if not you Sgt Squarehead, are there any other takers?
Can you beat the Brits as the Syrians?
I dare you!
If you win, post a screen shot, I love to see a win!
Best
THH