Are QB Maps the new community generated 'Scenarios'?

[tarzan]

Are QB Maps somehow substituting for what used to be large amounts of freshly 'community generated' 'Scenarios'? - I'm a little confused that there aren't more 'community generated' games in the Battlefront repository

I'm really enjoying CMFI but I only see a couple of battles uploaded to the repository over the last several months - am I missing some source for scenarios that is located somewhere else than the official Battlefront repository?

I've always enjoyed the contributions so many people have made so I can continue my bad merry habit of only playing scenarios against the AI not having to be bothered by 'other people' while doing it. I live in Tibet in a monastery and have a mystical power supply for my laptop

So my question is - are QBs with their embedded AI action plans the 'new thing' vs all the creative new scenarios that people used to upload for CMBN, CMBB, CMBO, etc?

(I used to go to 'Scenario Depot' and download a bunch of games sufficient to destroy large quantities of my lifetime left on earth)

Did I miss some vast depot /treasure trove of CMFI games that are available? - I just finished playing all the CMFI official scenarios I see plus the couple that people have uploaded (Salito Sunrise and Palma-something)

Thanks,

Tarzan

Namaste

[MikeyD]

I miss playing lots of 3rd party scenarios too.

My observation is scenario designers tend to be afflicted with 'overambitiousitis'. Instead of giving us a hill and a house and a road for a some infantry to fight over they set about constructing these unplayable 4 sq km of true-life terrains to fight two battalions on - but we never see the result. The effort expended on one failed monster scenario could've instead yielded five or more small, fun - successful - scenarios! CM is not your doctoral thesis on military history, you really don't have to try so hard.

[tarzan]

Thanks - hopefully some of these creative geniuses can get on the ball and crank some out

[Michael Emrys]

Just to add a different voice to this debate, my preference is for more QB maps. QBs allow me to generate my own force structures without having to go into the editor—lots of different ones. This to me is highly desirable. I find extremely few scenarios interesting and almost never play those. So please, keep the QB maps coming. Many of the ones for FI are truly impressive; my thanks to the designers.

Michael

[tarzan]

@MEmrys - I do play QBs but have never gone into the editor to create my own scenarios (partially because that is kind off a spoiler for me - definitively learning how the AI 'thinks', haha, as if I don't already kind of know) - is the level of AI planning on a QB plan roughly equivalent to what a 3rd party-generated scenario might provide?

I mean, in your opinion - will the AI (roughly) give as good a fight off a generic QB as off the generic 3rd party scenario?

I liked your point about using different combinations of forces on the same QB map - I think I usually play the QB maps only once or at most twice from the other Allies/Axis side but not really with substantially different combos of forces to get more mileage out of a particularly good map. I'll have to remember that

[Davek555]

Another point to make about the lack of 3rd party scenarios I think, is that a lot of the best scenario designers and mapmakers have been put on the Battlefront Beta team. Presumably/hopefully they too busy working on stuff for the new modules and games to have much time to design anything for CMFI.

[Bimmer]

Consider it from the designer's point of view. I've done three scenarios for CMFI, two of which have been released. Of those two, there have been a combined almost 300 downloads (roughly 200 of one and 100 of the other). And how much feedback has there been? Five reviews. Five. And of those, four have been for the smaller scenario that's only been downloaded 100 times. The larger one took a ridiculous amount of time to build, and it has one review. Both of these have AI plans, so they are playable solo; in other words it's not just a matter of waiting for PBEM games to end. There's just not much motivation to build scenarios for a community that doesn't seem to appreciate the effort.

That's why I decided to do a little social experiment for my next scenario. I posted here that I would only release it after I got three new reviews for each of my scenarios already in the Repository, or if two players started a PBEM and documented it here on the forum. Almost a month later and I've gotten two reviews for one scenario and none for the other, and no one has started a documented PBEM. I can't say I'm surprised, but that was the point.

If you want more scenarios, consider helping your own cause by offering the designers some useful feedback.

[Fuser]

Yes, creating scenarios is a costly task. Not rewarding, you don't get feedback but a lot of critics, not much apppreciation. Unless you create the perfectly balanced, easily winnable scenario, well, ...then appraises will be few and sparse. Not too motivating.

[Gamer58]

Not being able to play QBs makes me cry. Still having trouble (OSX version). It crashes on some selections.

Scenarios are good - but QBs are sure quick to set up.

[tarzan]

@Bimmer:

"Consider it from the designer's point of view'

Oops. I've never left any reviews on the 100s of the scenarios I've downloaded and certainly never have really considered it from the designers' point of view - thanks.

Part of my problem may be that I never thought my input particularly valuable enough to clutter up the reviews with all these experts around - I've even had to restrain/stop myself at cheating at solitaire/the AI at certain points.

I haven't really appreciated what a labor of love it must be to make a scenario. I'm guessing that some of them must take 24 hrs of solid working hours to create if not considerably more.

It would be like making 5 Thanksgiving feasts-worth of time and only a couple of people even say thanks and then two people throw tomatoes as well. Everybody burps and enjoys them but not exactly much in the appreciation dept

Thanks everybody for making these over the years - and I know I speak for plenty of people. Maybe if people thought of a really mindblowing scenario as worth - oh say 5 bucks - but that if you leave a review and thanks then the fee is courteously 'waived' and it's free. Nothing beats free...

'Gee - thanks for that free Thanksgiving dinner'.... "My pleasure - same time next year?"

Hell, that sounds better than being a bum!

And I'll go back and leave reviews for the CMFI scenarios 'Salito Sunrise' and 'Palma di Montechiaro' as part of my rehab program. Hopefully it's not too late in the game for that

[Bimmer]

@Bimmer:

"Consider it from the designer's point of view'

Oops. I've never left any reviews on the 100s of the scenarios I've downloaded and certainly never have really considered it from the designers' point of view - thanks.

Part of my problem may be that I never thought my input particularly valuable enough to clutter up the reviews with all these experts around - I've even had to restrain/stop myself at cheating at solitaire/the AI at certain points.

I haven't really appreciated what a labor of love it must be to make a scenario. I'm guessing that some of them must take 24 hrs of solid working hours to create if not considerably more.

It would be like making 5 Thanksgiving feasts-worth of time and only a couple of people even say thanks and then two people throw tomatoes as well. Everybody burps and enjoys them but not exactly much in the appreciation dept

Thanks everybody for making these over the years - and I know I speak for plenty of people. Maybe if people thought of a really mindblowing scenario as worth - oh say 5 bucks - but that if you leave a review and thanks then the fee is courteously 'waived' and it's free. Nothing beats free...

'Gee - thanks for that free Thanksgiving dinner'.... "My pleasure - same time next year?"

Hell, that sounds better than being a bum!

And I'll go back and leave reviews for the CMFI scenarios 'Salito Sunrise' and 'Palma di Montechiaro' as part of my rehab program. Hopefully it's not too late in the game for that

Not too late at all from my point of view. Any designer has to be primarily self-motivated in the first place, or nothing would ever get created. But feedback, even occasionally, helps to keep things moving.

(And FWIW, the map on Palma di Montechiaro alone took somewhere around 50-60 hours. The whole scenario probably took twice that. Plus playtesting.)

[Macisle]

A shout out to all you scenario designers out there. Your work IS greatly appreciated! I do give stars and (sometimes) comments when I play something from the repository.

For my part, I would really like to see more company-sized (plus armor support) scenarios on small/medium maps. I've burned through most of the stock scenarios (talking BN here, am skipping CMFI family) and 3rd-party of that size. I am forever saying, "No more QBs!" Then, after spending time looking at scenarios, I end up doing a QB because I can't find anything small enough.

And, as we all know, the QB AI tends to make odd force picks (MIX = 3 mortar teams plus armor?!) and poor setup choices (at least with smaller force sizes).

I've often thought about taking a crack at things myself, but my time is very limited. I did set out to make a super-accurate Villers-Bocage map once. After 12 hours, I was about 5 percent done. It was a great 5 percent, to scale, but then I sanity returned and I ditched it.

Perhaps folks could just grab QB maps, set up their best AI plans and post those?

[nachinus]

I second that. What I really enjoy are campaigns, no matter if they are small.

Since there's not a lot of that to chose from, I'm actually working on one after some small tests with short scenarios. I was completely green with the editor!. It's going to be a short campagin, probably 4-6 scenarios, involving reinforced company units from 157th IR, 45th div.

[womble]

To chime in from the consumer's point of view, I've downloaded lots of scenarios for CMBN, and really only played one of them.

[Pete Wenman]

To chime in from the consumer's point of view, I've downloaded lots of scenarios for CMBN, and really only played one of them.

Any reason for this ?

P

[womble]

Any reason for this ?

P

Time, pure and simple. And playing QBs, and trying to play another that took ages to set up and then fell afoul of the barbed wire bug (which is no comment on the design of the scenario, naturally). I'm just saying that just because something's been d/led 100 times doesn't mean even 100 people have played it H2H.

[JonS]

I've often thought about taking a crack at things myself, but my time is very limited. I did set out to make a super-accurate Villers-Bocage map once. After 12 hours, I was about 5 percent done. It was a great 5 percent, to scale, but then I sanity returned and I ditched it.

Perhaps folks could just grab QB maps, set up their best AI plans and post those?

Yep. Making good maps does take time, but there are some great maps out there already, embedded in various scenarios (and the QB maps), and I think it's a crying shame that they don't get re-used and re-purposed for new and different scenarios.

At the moment I'm using a section shaved off the "Be Evil Unto Him" scenario map (from the Commonwealth module) for a custom QB PBEM.

[Vanir Ausf B]

To chime in from the consumer's point of view, I've downloaded lots of scenarios for CMBN, and really only played one of them.

Same here. And to make it worse, when I do finally get around to playing a scenario it may be 6 months later, at which point I don't remember if it was downloaded or if it came with the game.

[eltorrente]

Yeah, I appreciate that people spend countless hours on scenarios - but I just don't play them much at all. It isn't fun to take advantage of the stupid AI. In fact, I get bored and often abandon games mid-way through once I know I have a clear advantage. I only fire them up when I'm really wanting to play but don't have a PBEM turn to work on.

My favorite thing is to play PBEM's with random QB maps. The fights are always completely different, and nothing beats the fun of matching wits against a thinking human.

[umlaut]

This has been discussed here earlier. So here´s an updated version of my earlier input to the discussion:

Let me use my latest (of two!) CM2 scenarios as an example (named "Waylaid", link below): It has been downloaded 124 times, but as of yet no one has commented or rated it. I can only guess at what this means, but based on my own way of using scenarios I can imagine a number of reasons for not commenting/rating:

1. I downloaded the scenario, but then I forgot all about it

2. I downloaded it, had a look at it, and decided I didn´t like it (or didn´t feel like playing it today)

3. I downloaded it, played it, thought it stank but was too polite to say so (!)

4. I downloaded it, played it, loved it - but forgot to comment/rate.

There are probably more reasons, but these are based on my own way of using the repository.

I admit I am not very good at writing feedback myself - but I do try. But all the same I do think that the lack of feedback is a great discouragement for scenario designers.

Speaking from my own experience again: Having spent around three months designing and testing a scenario - and then having zero feedback. Do I feel encouraged to upload another? Take a guess.

That doesn´t mean I might not still design scenarios for myself - that is afterall my main motivation for designing them in the first place.

But the step from playing them yourself and then to uploading them on the repository is actually pretty steep: Not only do you normally have to playtest the scenario vs other players. And that takes weeks, if not months. You also have to write a briefing, create a tactical map, make a few screenshots and so on. Chores that aren´t necessary when no one except youself are going to play the scenario. So why go through that extra hassle?

Personally, I have also come to suspect that my strengths might lie more in designing the maps, not the scenario mechanics of AI plans, composition/balancing of forces and the like. So I´ll probably upload maps rather than scenarios in the future. Players can then use them for QB´s or for making their own scenarios.

This leads to another possibility: If anyone is interested, we could try a joint venture - with me designing the map.

[kohlenklau]

umlaut,

I had thought of this "scenario design team" concept a few months ago and posted in CMBN forum for anyone who wanted to be my subcontractor for doing the briefings for a scenario I was working on "Bloody Aachen". I had only 1 nibble of a reply and it never really panned out.

Also, I started a thread about "How to make a QB map" and still do not see a step by step process written down. I admit I have not yet played with it myself to figure it out or reverse engineer it. I do not understand how the overall CMX2 program assigns max points allowed for purchase. Is it all triggered by map and battle size tiny, small, medium dropdown menus selections?

My CMFI scenario not yet released "Salvate il Maggiore Rinetti" is stuck in perpetual revision. I had some playtesting which really opened my eyes to how to make it better and now I just keep tweaking it.

I had another idea called the "combat quickie" with a series of very small, very short scenarios against the AI for guys who are busy and hardly get time to play a long battle where I admit I sometimes lose track of what the hell is going on and if I ever had a plan to begin with. My 1st one is called "DropZone Sicily" with small groups of paratroops causing mayhem along a road. Have not finished it yet. The AI always drives the trucks in weird ways to cause the scenario to lose credibility. But I have learned a few things sicne then and might reopen the scenario and add heavy forest to channel the AI vehicles, anyway...

I always enjoyed making scenarios in CMX1 for my own consumption and play against the AI.

The percentage chance of reinforcement arrival starting at turn X was my best friend. It allowed a big mystery to the scenario especially when you had not played it in a long time and forgot what units you gave the AI.

In the future I hope to get into HTH play but just haven't made the leap...

[GreenAsJade]

FWIW, IMHO the BFC repository "UI design" makes it hard enough to find a scenario that you're looking for, let alone go back and find where you got it and leave a review that no-one will read because they too can't find it.

This is my experience of it ... I dunno about the rest of you.

Similarly, it was only after GJK broke the review system at The Scenario Depot that the wheels _really_ came off that system. Prior to that there were actually reviews in modest numbers at TSD (though there was always the debate about whether they were _good_ reviews , and even then there weren't enough for the designers etc).

I don't think we'll see a healthy ecosystem of scenarios etc till this is somehow improved.

But also it's early days yet, really. QBs do provide a good deal of satisfaction for vs AI players, and H2H players haven't yet become familiar enough with the existing QB maps and scenarios to be experiencing real pressure for more. That moment is not far away... this thread might be signalling the beginings of it!

GaJ

[Michael Emrys]

FWIW, IMHO the BFC repository "UI design" makes it hard enough to find a scenario that you're looking for, let alone go back and find where you got it and leave a review that no-one will read because they too can't find it.

This is my experience of it ... I dunno about the rest of you.

I recently looked up two scenarios that I was curious about and found them quickly by putting their titles into the search engine. Just browsing might be a different story, or looking for a scenario you don't know the title of or the author's name might be a tough nut to crack though.

Michael