Jump to content

Artillery Ruins Scenarios


Recommended Posts

New to the game, playing against A.I in the CMBN second mission, assault across the marsh the arty is...God like. It knows my every move and is there to meet me. I don't bunch up I try to stick and move fall back fall, forward, left and right and it is on me almost immediately. I heard you can adjust arty in the mission editor but I don't have a CLUE on how to do it. Is it even possible to adjust the arty for the built in campaigns? I looked for it in the editor and could not find any campaigns...built in 1's that is. Could I get some help on how to adjust this arty and what would be a more realistic setting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well keep in mind the difficulty settings do not change the games AI, it just makes the game more realistic. I usually play at elite. at lower difficulty settings the artillery comes in a lot quicker, but it also comes in quicker for the AI. (quicker as in unrealistically quick) in the scenario your describing, which is very tough, the AI also has target reference points, which allow artillery to come in even quicker and more accurate. so if you were playing at a low difficulty, in that situation, i could see it getting ugly really fast.

I'd recommend moving up to veteran, warrior, or elite. Give it a shot, its not the huge difference it'd be in other games, it's more subtle and just really makes it more realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New to the game, playing against A.I in the CMBN second mission, assault across the marsh the arty is...God like.

That is not a good campaign to try and cut your teeth on.

I'd suggest starting with QBs agains the AI, then moving on to some of the smaller scenarios, then tackle the campaigns.

FWIW, the aptly named School of Hard Knocks can be won handily, but you really need to know what you're doing to achieve that. The campaign it's from - Courage and Fortitude - is equally aptly named.

I heard you can adjust arty in the mission editor but I don't have a CLUE on how to do it. Is it even possible to adjust the arty for the built in campaigns?

It is possible, but it takes a bit of fu. You'll need Mad Mike's campaign un-packer to, uh, unpack the various scenarios, then edit the scenarios you want to, then recompile the campaign. It's do able, but not a trivial task.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well keep in mind the difficulty settings do not change the games AI, it just makes the game more realistic. I usually play at elite. at lower difficulty settings the artillery comes in a lot quicker, but it also comes in quicker for the AI. (quicker as in unrealistically quick) in the scenario your describing, which is very tough, the AI also has target reference points, which allow artillery to come in even quicker and more accurate. so if you were playing at a low difficulty, in that situation, i could see it getting ugly really fast.

I'd recommend moving up to veteran, warrior, or elite. Give it a shot, its not the huge difference it'd be in other games, it's more subtle and just really makes it more realistic.

Thanks for the advice I do play on Warrior ATM. However I was kinda thinking there was TRP's invovled. Its just so Darn brutal all my tactical playing goes to hell when whole platoons are being vaporzied before you can even get halfway across the bridge. I beat the 1st mission pretty well on warrior and I guess I was getting a little cocky.P The second one is pretty humbling.:eek: I thought I would have been eased in more as a noob:D I think I will start over on Elite, try some quick battles for a while. Ohh btw what does playing on iron lvl do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I would have been eased in more as a noob:D

Unfortunately, everyone coming to the game seems to expect the campaigns to be structured, graduated, learning experiences. It's not "everyone"s fault: that's the way most games approach bringing people in. Some of the campaigns after the ones specifically referenced (in the manual) as being tutorial exercises should come with a health warning.

Also note that starting in on scenarios in the default alphabetical order is a bad idea; the first one is a bear.

I think I will start over on Elite...

I find Elite just a bit irritating. All it does is turn the contact icons for infantry into generic "infantry" rather than showing the subtype (mortar, HQ etc). The data is still there in the info panel when you click on the icon. Arty times don't change from Warrior either.

...try some quick battles for a while...

Probably a good plan. Work out your SOPs and what the commands actually do against the generic AI plans. I'd recommend sticking with medium or larger scenarios, if you're going to let the AI pick its own forces. You can get some hinky combinations with smaller force sizes. If you want to go smaller, you probably have to accept you're going to need to at least edit the AI's choice a bit, or keep rolling the "suggestion" dice for it til you get something that looks vaguely combat-worthy.

Ohh btw what does playing on iron lvl do?

Makes the game annoying. You have to deselect all your units to get to a unit that the currently selected unit can't see. The AI gets a very marginal C2 advantage (the range of its "distant sight" level of C2 is increased over that of the player. Woo.). It is very largely a pure embuggerance to the player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general terms I always feel that as far as artillery is concerned less is more. There are a lot of factors that artillery affects in games that many here aren't accounting for. Also, I would point out that the OP seems to be referring to scenarios and not to Quick Battles - so all this talk about 'learn how to deal with it' seems to be missing the point. A player can be fully capable of 'dealing with it' and still not enjoy that aspect of the game.

For scenarios, artillery is difficult to balance for. Sometimes it will wipe out the opponent and sometimes it will have almost no effect. Especially if you can trick your opponent into dropping it on an empty field. So when you are making a scenario and giving one side or another artillery it's really hard to tell how it's going to affect the outcome.

Artillery consumes time. If you make a scenario and you set the time then you generally have an expectation that the attacker can achieve their objectives within that time allotment. Whenever an attacker is 'dealing with artillery' by adjusting the positioning of his troops it consumes time. I see a spotting round and move my troops back - the FFE goes off and I advance back to my previous positions to prepare my attack. The artillery goes off again and I have to retreat again etc. By the time the opposition has used up all his artillery I might have wasted ten or twenty minutes of time so now that one hour that I had is now forty minutes.

edited to add that map size is probably the single most important aspect of artillery in scenarios - although that's been touched on earlier in the thread. The effects of artillery are amplified on smaller maps. A bigger map gives the player on the receiving end more of an opportunity to 'deal with it' effectively and increases the chances for the person using it that the area he is bombarding has nothing in it. With a smaller map you can bombard areas blindly and still expect to 'hit something' if the avenues of approach are restricted or if the defender is stuck in a small space. With a 2km by 2km map you simply can't do blind firing with that same level of certainty so it will typically have to be spotted fire. Spotted fire on a moving or advancing enemy can be challenging since you have to time it just right. You typically aren't going to target the location where the attacker is, but where you anticipate that he will be when the FFE is ready to come in. That's much harder to do on a larger map.

Generally speaking, most players don't enjoy being bombarded by artillery even if they know how to 'deal with it'. If you are a player and you love it when your troops are being plastered by 155mm Long Toms then I'm not sure what your motivation for playing is. I think most players prefer it when their pixeltruppen aren't being wiped out - not because of any emotional attachment to them but because every truppen vaporized by a 155mm shell is a reduction of your combat power.

In terms of Quick Battles you can probably rationalize that enemy artillery was purchased at the expense of something else. Not so for scenarios since there is no point association with the forces involved. Your enemy can have as much or as little artillery as the designer places in the enemy's hands.

So, should all artillery be eliminated out of every scenario? I'm not sure anyone would advocate that. Like anything though, a scenario designer who is adding tons of artillery to their scenarios needs to understand how it affects game play. I'm sure a lot of Quick Battle players would complain about too many Panthers in their QB games. I could sit here and state in a condescending manner 'Learn how to deal with Panthers. If you don't know how to deal with Panthers then you really need to think about how you play the game.' but I won't because I understand how frustrating that can be. I'm sure that most Quick Battle players know how to deal with Panthers - they just don't like dealing with them all the time or in large numbers or whatever.

Artillery is just another aspect of the game that can be overdone and can be frustrating to players even if they know 'how to deal with it.' I'm taking the OP's plea to be directed at scenario designers to ask them to pay closer attention to how it affects game play when adding it in rather than a 'I can't deal with it' whine. I think of it in similar terms to 'we need a house rule against Panthers'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally speaking, most players don't enjoy being bombarded by artillery even if they know how to 'deal with it'. If you are a player and you love it when your troops are being plastered by 155mm Long Toms then I'm not sure what your motivation for playing is.

IMO this is the point. I assume most people like playing scenarios where both sides can actually do something. So if the idea of how to win the scenario is vaporizing the opponent with endless arty, you can design the scenario to be played against AI only. The AI doesn't mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, unless the deisigner is a sadist, a large part of the enemy OOB will be that large arty. So, if you know how to deal with as ASL said, then once it's gone, then there should not be much else defending. So, one can make up the lost 20 minutes with a very rapid 40 minute advance against weak ground force opposition. (Assumes a non-sadistic designer as I said.)

The real irritation is that one is doing very little and not having fun for that first 20 minutes of bombardment. So, it is the negative effect on gameplay fun that is the real problem imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could sit here and state in a condescending manner 'Learn how to deal with Panthers. If you don't know how to deal with Panthers then you really need to think about how you play the game.' but I won't because I understand how frustrating that can be.

Well, since these are my condescending remark. I will own up to them and say. You are correct in all of what you have mentioned.

I agree with all of your points.

As for my comments, You are correct. I likely would say the same thing to someone complaining about Panzers - So we all know what type of person I am now.

I did post that I agree with the fact the having scenario's designed without Arty at times would be good.

I just get fired up when it takes on a tone that Arty or Panzers or whatever the blank it is should not be in the game like it is in such and such Scenarios

Make the request for what you want to see and learn to appreciate what is out there for what it is. So maybe it is not as fun ,or its harder to predict or design well. So what, someone wanted it that way and that is what they produced. I am sure we will see design concepts change again and again. And nothing is stoping anyone from doing just that or tweeking what they have available to them.

As for me playing and seeing my units getting smacked with 155 or anything else as for the matter. Do I enjoy it, Well, Yes in a way, so take that for what you will. Because when something likes that happens it gives me the chance to start thinking. Why did it happen, did I have the ability to avoid it, can I learn from this and help to prevent it in the future. Can I improve in the future from what I did here and so on. So I dont mind at all because it is a chance to improve. And if it happened because of just poor design, then that is nothing to do with me. I accept it and go on. Not much to do about that except to try not and play that designers scenarios if i dont like his style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general terms I always feel that as far as artillery is concerned less is more. There are a lot of factors that artillery affects in games that many here aren't accounting for. Also, I would point out that the OP seems to be referring to scenarios and not to Quick Battles - so all this talk about 'learn how to deal with it' seems to be missing the point. A player can be fully capable of 'dealing with it' and still not enjoy that aspect of the game.

For scenarios, artillery is difficult to balance for. Sometimes it will wipe out the opponent and sometimes it will have almost no effect. Especially if you can trick your opponent into dropping it on an empty field. So when you are making a scenario and giving one side or another artillery it's really hard to tell how it's going to affect the outcome.

Artillery consumes time. If you make a scenario and you set the time then you generally have an expectation that the attacker can achieve their objectives within that time allotment. Whenever an attacker is 'dealing with artillery' by adjusting the positioning of his troops it consumes time. I see a spotting round and move my troops back - the FFE goes off and I advance back to my previous positions to prepare my attack. The artillery goes off again and I have to retreat again etc. By the time the opposition has used up all his artillery I might have wasted ten or twenty minutes of time so now that one hour that I had is now forty minutes.

edited to add that map size is probably the single most important aspect of artillery in scenarios - although that's been touched on earlier in the thread. The effects of artillery are amplified on smaller maps. A bigger map gives the player on the receiving end more of an opportunity to 'deal with it' effectively and increases the chances for the person using it that the area he is bombarding has nothing in it. With a smaller map you can bombard areas blindly and still expect to 'hit something' if the avenues of approach are restricted or if the defender is stuck in a small space. With a 2km by 2km map you simply can't do blind firing with that same level of certainty so it will typically have to be spotted fire. Spotted fire on a moving or advancing enemy can be challenging since you have to time it just right. You typically aren't going to target the location where the attacker is, but where you anticipate that he will be when the FFE is ready to come in. That's much harder to do on a larger map.

Generally speaking, most players don't enjoy being bombarded by artillery even if they know how to 'deal with it'. If you are a player and you love it when your troops are being plastered by 155mm Long Toms then I'm not sure what your motivation for playing is. I think most players prefer it when their pixeltruppen aren't being wiped out - not because of any emotional attachment to them but because every truppen vaporized by a 155mm shell is a reduction of your combat power.

In terms of Quick Battles you can probably rationalize that enemy artillery was purchased at the expense of something else. Not so for scenarios since there is no point association with the forces involved. Your enemy can have as much or as little artillery as the designer places in the enemy's hands.

So, should all artillery be eliminated out of every scenario? I'm not sure anyone would advocate that. Like anything though, a scenario designer who is adding tons of artillery to their scenarios needs to understand how it affects game play. I'm sure a lot of Quick Battle players would complain about too many Panthers in their QB games. I could sit here and state in a condescending manner 'Learn how to deal with Panthers. If you don't know how to deal with Panthers then you really need to think about how you play the game.' but I won't because I understand how frustrating that can be. I'm sure that most Quick Battle players know how to deal with Panthers - they just don't like dealing with them all the time or in large numbers or whatever.

Artillery is just another aspect of the game that can be overdone and can be frustrating to players even if they know 'how to deal with it.' I'm taking the OP's plea to be directed at scenario designers to ask them to pay closer attention to how it affects game play when adding it in rather than a 'I can't deal with it' whine. I think of it in similar terms to 'we need a house rule against Panthers'.

Ditto to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, since these are my condescending remark. I will own up to them and say. You are correct in all of what you have mentioned.

[...]

Because when something likes that happens it gives me the chance to start thinking. Why did it happen, did I have the ability to avoid it, can I learn from this and help to prevent it in the future. Can I improve in the future from what I did here and so on. So I dont mind at all because it is a chance to improve. And if it happened because of just poor design, then that is nothing to do with me. I accept it and go on. Not much to do about that except to try not and play that designers scenarios if i dont like his style.

Agreed to the fullest.

Here's something more to think about:

This is not a game designed to be easily learned, played and won (like most mass-market titels these days) but it was designed to represent the actual event as good as possible.

There's no point in saying: "Hey that's not fair and totally IMBA!" It just wasn't like that back then.

Play 'Company of Heroes' if that is what you're looking for.

Otherwise get as good as you can.

If you get smacked by someone after learning all the tricks and giving your best, then the scenario might be damn hard to win or you were out of luck.

So be it.

Note: just happened to me at the hands of Mr. Slysniper. I don't mind because I think I gave everything I had. Scenario was hard and he was really good. It was one of the most thrilling online-gaming experience I ever had.

I don't want to deride the people complaining - I just want to wake their ambition.

Best regards

Olf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, since these are my condescending remark. I will own up to them and say. You are correct in all of what you have mentioned.

I wasn't trying to call you out ... your remarks just made for a convenient foil and seemed to sum up the direction the thread was taking by several posters. I wasn't specifically thinking of you when I created that post. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For scenarios, artillery is difficult to balance for.

Entirely true, and the only solution would be to not use it, because whatever balance point you pick, it'll be FUBAR for a subset of the pairs playing it.

Artillery consumes time. If you make a scenario and you set the time then you generally have an expectation that the attacker can achieve their objectives within that time allotment.

And if you're a decent scenario designer you'll have made allowances for the arty: either more time or less "other defenders".

Generally speaking, most players don't enjoy being bombarded by artillery...

But you can enjoy making that bombardment as ineffective as possible. In the same way that you can enjoy neutralising all the other assets at your opponent's disposal.

...most players prefer it when their pixeltruppen aren't being wiped out - not because of any emotional attachment to them but because every truppen vaporized by a 155mm shell is a reduction of your combat power.

I sometimes find myself very attached to my poor pTruppen, and the enjoyment when they're not wiped out by something that could easily have turned them into chunky salsa, because of my intervention, is quite satisfying.

In terms of Quick Battles you can probably rationalize that enemy artillery was purchased at the expense of something else. Not so for scenarios since there is no point association with the forces involved. Your enemy can have as much or as little artillery as the designer places in the enemy's hands.

It's true, but not restricted to artillery. Which makes cavailing about artillery specifically rather pointless.

Like anything though, a scenario designer who is adding tons of artillery to their scenarios needs to understand how it affects game play.

Again, that applies to every single weapon system, and the characteristics of them: making one side uniformly "High" motivation will have a drastic "balance" effect, probably more difficult to identify in playest than a surfeit of artillery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally speaking, most players don't enjoy being bombarded by artillery even if they know how to 'deal with it'. If you are a player and you love it when your troops are being plastered by 155mm Long Toms then I'm not sure what your motivation for playing is. I think most players prefer it when their pixeltruppen aren't being wiped out - not because of any emotional attachment to them but because every truppen vaporized by a 155mm shell is a reduction of your combat power.

What about the players with artillery - are they allowed to enjoy bombarding the enemy, thereby saving their own p-truppen?

Or, in a more general form (following womble):

What about the players with [angst-causing-wunderwaffe] - are they allowed to enjoy using it destroy the enemy, thereby saving their own p-truppen?

Tactics 101:

Don't forget your enemy. He gets a say too.

Scenario Design 101:

Bad design is bad design. Use of any specific weapon system has nothing to do with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if it happened because of just poor design, then that is nothing to do with me. I accept it and go on. Not much to do about that except to try not and play that designers scenarios if i dont like his style.

I actually suspect most designers would prefer to hear that feedback rather than not. It is all a matter of how it is delivered and the depth of detail in the feedback. It is hard to do much with just "too much arty" if you don't understand the style of the player and how that might impact the overall design either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually suspect most designers would prefer to hear that feedback rather than not. It is all a matter of how it is delivered and the depth of detail in the feedback. It is hard to do much with just "too much arty" if you don't understand the style of the player and how that might impact the overall design either.

+1

Also, be aware that it might just be your perception, as a player, rather than the scenario or the designer. Compare and contrast Steppenwulf's and holien's comments in this thread, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CM Scenario design is an art form IMO, and like all art forms, it takes a long time to master, the designer has to get a feel for the terrain and weapons for that particular theatre, which takes a lot of thought, research, and most importantly, testing and playing, then, if the designer wants to design for multiple theatres, they have to get used to another set of TO&E's and terrain every time a module is released, then, when one adds to that the patches that come out, the 2.01 HMG fix for example, all the previous scenarios can potentially, in one stroke, be changed, so, i think that players should lower their expectations about balance, given how difficult it is, because of all the variables i have pointed out.

Therefore, with that in mind, any players that are that concerned about scenario balance, should write their conclusions about a particular scenario on the relevant forum, that way, the designer can take on board any suggestions, and release an improved version, also, if the player is familiar with the SE, they could implement the changes themselves, and post the modified game in the repository, this would be more constructive than making sweeping statements about any particular weapon in the game.

Personally, i don't get sore about one sided scenarios any more, as it's easy enough, after seeing what my opponent had, to analyse my play, and award myself a score, irrespective of the official game result, however, this does not work for ladder games, so i would suggest not playing ladder games with CMx2, or, only play well tested scenarios, if playing for points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Returning to read up on this thread I feel like it was best summed up by the comments of ASL Veteran's - they extrapolated the issues masterfully. If you didn't read it before, go back and be sure you do!!

The only thing I felt more broadly important is that map size and scenario asset choices aren't just restricted to artillery inclusions. As was hinted in the point re

Panthers, it does also apply to the number and types of other assets. I mean a battery of flak 88's on a 400m x 400m battlefield with limited los not only ends up feeling like an unsatisfying scenario, it's also counter-intuitive to tactical realities and feels a bit dumb-ass. But then perhaps that's why it feels unsatisfying to me; If by "style" we mean "expectation" which is founded on "discernment". Discernement leads nicely into my main point:-

Personally, i don't get sore about one sided scenarios any more, as it's easy enough, after seeing what my opponent had, to analyse my play, and award myself a score, irrespective of the official game result, however, this does not work for ladder games, so i would suggest not playing ladder games with CMx2, or, only play well tested scenarios, if playing for points.

I'm kinda digging this!!

However, in my view, this (the thread's substantive issue) has nothing to do with competitive balance. This is about design balance; an instinct for what makes the game interesting. Competitive 'balance' is an expression bandied around by devs and fan-bois of dedicated server RTS arcade 'wargames' as if it's the paradigm for perfect wargame design.

I completely concur in this respect though that some of the best war games I've ever played were those that happened to be competitively unbalanced. Unfortunately, such games don't suit players who want to just play that scenario once - from my personal experience it's only when such games are in repeat mode that both players can both experience and then appreciate the distinct challenges presented to each side. Moreover, such games are no less measurable than finely tuned, competitively balanced games, it's just that the evaluation and interpretation of the results are far more nuanced, which is why they often end up commanding more respect by serious players over the long term. Besides this, QB's cater very specifically for the gamey experience, in which case we know where to go to get those particular needs fulfilled.

Thus, I think there is some scope for a greater conceptual distinction between scenario and QB's to be drawn and greater room for the community and designers for recognition of such differences.

With repect to this I felt that the idea of providing data on results and feedback (as linked earlier by JonS) is a highly commendable one. If scenario designers and players were ever to embrace the beauty of competitively unbalanced scenarios, this is the kind of 'linked in data' that is a neccessity for developing wider participation in 'against the odds' type scenarios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CM Scenario design is an art form IMO, and like all art forms, it takes a long time to master, the designer has to get a feel for the terrain and weapons for that particular theatre, which takes a lot of thought, research, and most importantly, testing and playing, then, if the designer wants to design for multiple theatres, they have to get used to another set of TO&E's and terrain every time a module is released, then, when one adds to that the patches that come out, the 2.01 HMG fix for example, all the previous scenarios can potentially, in one stroke, be changed, so, i think that players should lower their expectations about balance, given how difficult it is, because of all the variables i have pointed out.

Therefore, with that in mind, any players that are that concerned about scenario balance, should write their conclusions about a particular scenario on the relevant forum, that way, the designer can take on board any suggestions, and release an improved version, also, if the player is familiar with the SE, they could implement the changes themselves, and post the modified game in the repository, this would be more constructive than making sweeping statements about any particular weapon in the game.

Personally, i don't get sore about one sided scenarios any more, as it's easy enough, after seeing what my opponent had, to analyse my play, and award myself a score, irrespective of the official game result, however, this does not work for ladder games, so i would suggest not playing ladder games with CMx2, or, only play well tested scenarios, if playing for points.

Well spoken!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely concur in this respect though that some of the best war games I've ever played were those that happened to be competitively unbalanced. Unfortunately, such games don't suit players who want to just play that scenario once - from my personal experience it's only when such games are in repeat mode that both players can both experience and then appreciate the distinct challenges presented to each side. Moreover, such games are no less measurable than finely tuned, competitively balanced games, it's just that the evaluation and interpretation of the results are far more nuanced, which is why they often end up commanding more respect by serious players over the long term.

I agree, for me, a scenario is a puzzle, and, if I like it, I always want to repeat a scenario to test the inevitable modifications to my original set up and tactics, so, if my original opponent is willing, i will play it again, however if he is not, as long as my new opponent is informed that the game is no longer "double blind", and that he has my permission to access my OOB, then the playing field is level, however, I do deny myself access to knowing the exact locations of my opponents deployment zones, reinforcement locations, and reinforcement times, and I expect my new opponent to do likewise.

However, in my view, this (the thread's substantive issue) has nothing to do with competitive balance. This is about design balance; an instinct for what makes the game interesting. Competitive 'balance' is an expression bandied around by devs and fan-bois of dedicated server RTS arcade 'wargames' as if it's the paradigm for perfect wargame design.

I understand your distinction, if both sides had the same amount, and type of ground units, along with 20 x 4 gun batteries of 105mm artillery each, and the map was 400 x 400m, the scenario would have force balance, but still be flawed, as the artillery would be too dominant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...