Help on Scottish Corridor (Spoiler alert)

[SpitfireXI]

I am stuck on mission 16 where you have to defend the village from what appears to be half of the entire German army. I have placed my troops as well as I can but no matter where I place them the get annihilated during the artillery barrage delivered by what feels like the Battleship Bizmark. Even where I get a few troops to survive I only get reinforced by 1 churchill and 3 achilles. Not matter what I do, I get creamed and then the campaign ends with a major defeat. I understand I am supposed to lose a few missions but I would like to see the end of the campaign. Any pointers on how to get to the end of the campaign?

[Paper Tiger]

Are you playing the Green version of 'Fair and Square'? It sounds like you are if the campaign ends in a defeat. If so, this is the end of the campaign. You've made it through to the very end of that thread and that's quite an achievement.

[Holien]

Have a Search I think I have posted some screen shots of some suggested defence ploys...

[Agua]

That mission is a nightmare if you're without armor. I'd lost mine obtaining a total victory in the immediately preceding battle. Reading the briefing for mission 16, I was under the impression the Germans would be stuck with the same force they'd had in the previous battle as well. Well, that's what happens when I assume.

[SpitfireXI]

Thanks for all you help. It was the last mission and I just will move onto another campaign. Can anyone recommend a good historical CM campaign?

[chas_in_mlb]

I really despise the "you are supposed to lose this battle" idea.

It's like playing a game by a script. Scripted games are in my mind a huge waste of time. You're better off reading a book.

[Paper Tiger]

I really despise the "you are supposed to lose this battle" idea.

I'm not a big fan of that myself. Not sure how that comment pertains to this campaign though. Basically, if you win one of the Grainville battles, you are given the opportunity to fight off another German wave, just like the Cameronians did in real life. Lose and the campaign ends (sort of). The only battle that you 'shouldn't' win is 'Going to Church' (the Allies lost that battle) but it is possible to win that mission. Most folks seem to be able to beat it. Otherise the Brits won or drew the other Grainville battles.

It's like playing a game by a script. Scripted games are in my mind a huge waste of time. You're better off reading a book

.

You are playing the campaign by a script . At the moment, it's a fairly rudimentary, binary campaign script and so is not capable of much subtlety. (While you can create dummy missions to present the human player with operational/tactical decisions, you can't do this with the AI as it will always be tied to the path you follow, voluntarily or otherwise)

[chas_in_mlb]

I'm not a big fan of that myself. Not sure how that comment pertains to this campaign though.

It doesn't, specifically. It's a general statement. I just don't like set up for the result before I even attempt it. It defeats the purpose. I'm cool with difficult and tough assignments, that's part of life- but being set up to fail is something of a mind-f**k. If I wanted that, I'd hang out with my ex-wife.

The only battle that you 'shouldn't' win is 'Going to Church' (the Allies lost that battle)

So if the Allies lost that battle, I should, too? So we're supposed to follow a scripted event? What's the fun in that?

I disagree. The challenge and fun of it is to figure the thing out, like solving a very difficult riddle. I highly respect your (unpaid) efforts at campaign design, but designing a scenario to be an exercise in futility is just that- an exercise in futility.

OK, I see by what you are saying that a campaign is a type of script. I just happen to think that the player should be the one writing the story; please don't take this as me sh**ting on your efforts. I'm just suggesting a different paradigm. Someday I'll try writing a campaign of my own.

[Paper Tiger]

The only battle that you 'shouldn't' win is 'Going to Church' (the Allies lost that battle) but it is possible to win that mission. Most folks seem to be able to beat it.

Chas

when you quote me, please quote me properly. I didn't say that the player WILL lose the mission. Quite the opposite as the quote above clearly says.

So if the Allies lost that battle, I should, too? So we're supposed to follow a scripted event? What's the fun in that?

No, you should not. You just have to work a bit harder to get your win. If you lose the mission, you go to the historical meeting engagement that took place the next day. If you win, the Brits occupy the village and the Germans are the attackers. There's the fun. Did you beat the Germans in 'Going to Church'? It looks like a lot of folks did.

I disagree

So do I as I've stated.

designing a scenario to be an exercise in futility is just that- an exercise in futility.

Again, I agree with you completely. I think you are barking at the wrong campaign designer . And, FWIW, a lot of folks in this community liked that he did that

I'm just suggesting a different paradigm. Someday I'll try writing a campaign of my own.

Good! I'm all in favour of encouraging folks to create campaigns. I can't wait to see what you do with the campaign script so that the player is writing the story.

[General Lee Irked]

When I play The Scottish Corridor I have two pictures of Paper Tiger, one is as a scenario developing pagan demigod with a halo to be bowed to and worshiped while I sacrifice animals on the alter in his honour, the other is on my gun target board... Im not sure which is used more.

Cheers

[Paper Tiger]

General Lee Irked

Thanks for that... I think Please, no hamsters on the altar though.

FWIW, I was planning to craft a campaign with lots and lots of dummy decision missions quite a while back (Brit Paras at Pegasus Bridge) but you spent a lot of time loading and making decisions. For example, which platoon of three will you send to location X? That's a minimum of two decision missions. Then what about where to send that AT gun? Another decision. That's three before you've played anything and I wasn't sure that people would like having to do all that before playing a mission. I think FMB 's excellent 'Devil's Descent' campaign demonstrated that people are willing to make all these decisions. For me, the real flaw is that the decisions are all made by the player. The AI must follow the player's decisions too. It can't decided to send its two PzIVs to location X or Y. I've started work on formulating a mission where the AI must make a decision. I think I have a method to do this. I just have to try out a few experiments. Then, I'll be in the business of crafting small decision oriented campaigns as well.

[Jaeger Jonzo]

i think the scottish corridor campaign is excellent. I dont think ive ever enjoyed playing a war sim against the ai as much as i have in this (despite years of pbem fights), its been a superb challenge in every battle at 'Elite' level.

Cant remember the title of the battle (though sounds like the one mentioned)i am about to fight but it must be very near the end of the campaign and the 9th SS are about to launch hell at me at Grainville (once again), after acheiving two british victories in the preceeding fights. I have quite a large force to defend with, including 2co inf, armour and several 17 & 6pdr guns, so the german force must be huge! I note my arty comes in a lot later this time so it will be very tense for a while...gulp.

[Childress]

I just have to try out a few experiments. Then, I'll be in the business of crafting small decision oriented campaigns as well.

Sounds good. But in your shoes, PT, I'd holding off on starting any new campaigns until the Italy game is released and CMBN is upgraded to 2.0. The map overlay, expanded AI plans and auto-assemble features will make your task a whole lot easier. Why paddle upstream?

[Paper Tiger]

But in your shoes, PT, I'd holding off on starting any new campaigns until the Italy game is released and CMBN is upgraded to 2.0. The map overlay, expanded AI plans and auto-assemble features will make your task a whole lot easier. Why paddle upstream?

Heh heh! With BFC attempting to speed up the cycle of releases, we have even less time to construct our maps and form credible AI plans than we had before. This means that I will be able to concentrate my efforts on AI planning and mission improvement rather than map construction. That map overlay feature is a big help getting your road network laid down and the builings placed accurately on your map etc, no doubt about it. But there's a second aspect to map creation that the changes to the editor won't help with and that's the detail work, the work that makes your map look real.

[Childress]

.But there's a second aspect to map creation that the changes to the editor won't help with and that's the detail work, the work that makes your map look real.

And I just thought of another aspect the new overlay won't help you with....elevations.

[Paper Tiger]

I've never sweated much over elevations in the past. Google Earth is good enough. Road networks, placement of buildings, field networks and forests is where the time will be saved and that is a big saving, no doubt.

[Hister]

But then again with double the AI groups that aspect will take twice as long to implement then it is now

[Pete Wenman]

And I just thought of another aspect the new overlay won't help you with....elevations.

Use a map and it will. The tricky is to create a high enough resolution copy that can stand being stretched to the required map size.

I've created a composite map in photoshop on which I have contours, roads, rivers, forest and park areas, houses, etc all marked out. Roughing out the map in the editor is now a doodle.

P

[Hister]

Pete W. and PT, join forces and work on the same campaign together - that will rock the world!!! ;D

[slysniper]

Since the comments are on the "scottish corridor"

I will add also, Even though I am into it only a few missions so far.

Thinking of myself as a good player, I am finding this thing a nightmare.

I cannot beleive the challenge it is giving me and I feel like it has given me a better fight than many real players might. Which I find amazing, knowing the limitations of the AI

So it is a masterpiece, as for fun or fair, I dont think that is part of the designers wishes in this.

I found this out in the very first mission as I lost my two churchills to immobilization, never to be seen again. I knew I did not want them off the road because of the mud. But after striking a mine, I sent the second in the fields and watch him get stuck. ( but playing the next few missions knowing I could have them but having to work without them, in and of itself has driven me crazy.

In another battle I have to push the map, time being limited, and each and every place a good ambush spot has been where I dont have time to clear or check it first seems to have had a enemy MG at it. I keep watching my lead men go down and it just cost me lives I dont want to give. I really do not think this is bad luck. he has designed and placed units at perfect locations anticipating my moves. Which I do not like to play moves that will be anticipated. but in some of these battles I feel like My hands are tied and I have to try stuff that I know I dont want to do and then it deals my punishment for doing it.

So it is a love hate relationship. I give you credit for your design, if I fail this campaign which might be a real possibility, I have no problem with it. It was a fantastic challenge, but would I go back and play it again, not likely. First I never play them more than once anyway, I find that boring and unfair generally. But in this case, it would be more of a fact that I feel like I would need to roll my lucky dice to get a good results in many a battle, and that is a little bit of the reason it is has not been a love love relationship.

But the designer skill level is not in question, just his way of loving to deal out pain. But at least the pain feels similar to what the poor men who fought and suffered felt when things did not go their way either.

[Paper Tiger]

slysniper

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate what you are communicating. Reading about Epsom before starting work on the campaign, I got the impression that it was a very bitter struggle for both sides. The British took terrible losses on the first day. The Germans had had nearly three weeks to prepare their defences. They had the time to pick the very best spots to site their weapons and lay minefields to cover all of the approaches to their positions. I appreciate that it is better to open a campaign with an easy mission or two to ease the player into the campaign but this would not have been representative of the first day of Epsom where every battle the core forces I chose was very bitterly fought. The 12SS were stretched to the limit here. they had very little force to fight off the Brits. But they did a sterling job on Day 1, that's for sure. The German forces in the opening mission are very thin and they are mostly Green troops with good leadership. Placement had to be everything and I'm glad to hear that I've got that right.

The Argyll missions were designed to be more fun to play than the Haut du Bosq series. I really like infantry-centric battles and those six battles take place on some of the best maps I've made for any CMx2 title. I hope you'll enjoy playing them more. There is also a 'hidden' bonus mission, La Mancelliere, at the end of the campaign that was designed to be fun to play.

BTW, 'The Road to Montebourg' was intended to be my fun campaign. I hope to do another one like that in the near future.

[Jaeger Jonzo]

Im reading Beevors 'D-Day' book at the moment, and i think this campaign has reflected the pain and frustration suffered by both sides quite accurately! Its an excellent challenging series of missions.

What other campaigns or missions have you written PT? I'd certainly like to try them next.

[Paper Tiger]

Im reading Beevors 'D-Day' book at the moment, and i think this campaign has reflected the pain and frustration suffered by both sides quite accurately!

Thank you. I really worked to make it feel like 'Epsom'. I wasn't sure if Epsom was really the best operation for the subject of a campaign. But, after reading Daglish's book, I saw a way to make it doable. However, you will get absolutely no argument out of me that it is not a 'fun' campaign to play. Fun there means feeling reasonably in control with sufficient forces available and plenty of time to do the job. You do have a lot of firepower on call, but you will have to work to use it.

What other campaigns or missions have you written PT? I'd certainly like to try them next.

I have only crafted one other campaign for CMBN to date and that is 'The Road to Montebourg' which is part of the title. It was designed to be more fun to play, a LOT more fun. In fact, it is the campaign I enjoy playing the most. Both these campaigns are 14-16 missions in length and so I'm not able to turn out much more than one and a bit a year. I'm already at work on my third CMBN campaign and I'd like it to be a reasonably long one too. Hopefully, more fun that 'The Scottish Corridor' and a bit more challenging than 'Montebourg'.

BTW, I designed a few campaigns for CMSF if you are interested in that era. The ones designed for the Repository are in my sig below, and I designed the three NATO campaigns.