Announcing new, accurate, highly-detailed bocage map & scenario (AARs, please!)

[JonS]

But if you actually take someone's map into the editor and use whole pieces of it in your own map, then yes, I would certainly give credit to the original designer.

Yeah, I agree - even though you don't have to, giving credit is the good and polite thing to do.

In a related vein, IMO you don't have to ask for anyone's permission. Again, it's probably a good and polite habit, but there's no necessity.

[Macisle]

Actually, henceforth, "Macisle's Barns" and Macisle's Bush Stones" must be referred to as such and royalties paid to the author, err.. designer.

Just kidding, of course (but I think those may actually be original techniques I came up with).

But seriously, if I were actually going to take whole, player-made (as opposed to stock) map sections (and certainly with a whole map), I'd go so far as to ask the author's permission first.

A good example is what mjkerner did with EZ's Uniforms. He wanted to adapt them for V.2 and make a few minor changes. So, he got EZ's permission and made sure that EZ was referenced in his title and Repository download description.

That's the SOP I'd follow on integrating actual finished, player-made work into your own.

[kensal]

Macisle

thank you very much for sending the maps

Kensal

[kohlenklau]

Got it, thanks.

[Macisle]

Umm.....

Ever hear of adding the term SPOILER ALERT before telling people what units are in a scenario in a thread announcing that scenario?

And,

Normally, the defender would have the element of SURPRISE. Why in the heck did you guys look at the other's forces before the end of the game?

If you've done that, I would suggest you stop now and just play on the QB map. There is no point in playing a scenario where you know what the other side has.

And in the future, please keep in mind that others might not want to have scenarios ruined for them by spoilers.

Thanks.

[Macisle]

For people playing the Germans, some advice:

Don't expect German Squads to go head to head with US Squads at short range and come out victorious. They usually couldn't in real life and they usually can't in the game. US squads have too much firepower due to their semi-auto rifles. Once the German LMG is suppressed, it's probably over for the German squad. ONLY stand and fight if you have fire superiority.

Ambush and fall back. There are many lines of defense on the map and many, many places to hide. Don't be afraid to give ground. You may be able to take it back later.

Unless you and your opponent have been dumb enough to look at what each other has before starting the game, you have suprise on your side. USE IT. Try to lure the US into a position that you can hit with artillery. -Maybe tease him with some defending units (fire and sneak away) and let him build up fire superiority. Then whack his units with arty. If he's bunched up, he might lost a lot of units in a short time.

Panzerschrecks: if you feel you can spare the rounds, they can be devastating against infantry in buildings. Sometimes whole teams can be taken out with one shot (same goes for bazookas, so be careful of him doing that to you, too).

Foxholes: Yes, they are ugly and seem kinda' useless on a bocage map. However, they can be used to keep your opponent guessing where you are and perhaps to waste his arty on empty positions.

Defensive setup:

Try to find places that you can hit him without him easily spotting you and/or being able to gain fire superiority. Sometimes, you'll just need to fire and run. It's like that in real life and it's like that in the game.

Fog of War:

DO NOT look at what the other player has before you have finished your game. Also, play on Elite, or at least, Warrior. It's much harder for the defender if he does not have FOW on his side.

[WynnterGreen]

Why in the heck did you guys look at the other's forces before the end of the game?

Because we're playing it mirrored.....

and yes, I know quite well, how to play a hit and run tactical game..... my opinion remains the same.

[Macisle]

If you're playing it mirrored, you're NOT playing the scenario as intended. You may as well open up the editor and just add units to your liking.

You cannot judge the scenario if you have eliminated the Fog of War element, which you have.

Just play the QB version.

And in the future, if you EVER post detailed info about the contents of a scenario, you should type ****SPOILER ALERT**** before giving any information.

It's common form and common sense.

[WynnterGreen]

Had no idea scenarios were play once and throw away........ deleted the offending Spoiler post.

[Macisle]

Thank you, WynnterGreen.

I do appreciate your compliments on the map and hope you enjoy using the QB in a way more tailored to the way you like to play.

Macisle

[Macisle]

Looks like the original Repository link no longer works.

Here is a link to v1.2 of the scenario:

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=2615

Here is a link to the QB map:

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=2616

[Hurrying Heinz]

thanks so much for this tremendous piece of work. the map work of some of you guys is taking this already iconic game to new levels. just wondering what qb parameters you would suggest for the type of engagement you were intending.

again,kudos.

[dieseltaylor]

Truly beautiful map. The amount of work to achieve must have been immense but the reward you must feel .....

I agree wholeheartedly that designers should give credit if they are using substantial parts of others work.

As for playing mirrored games. WTF! I thought that had gone out with the ark.

My only difference of opinion over the map would be I would strip out modern buildings/roads etc. but that is a trivial point as he who designs makes the decisions.

[Macisle]

thanks so much for this tremendous piece of work. the map work of some of you guys is taking this already iconic game to new levels. just wondering what qb parameters you would suggest for the type of engagement you were intending.

again,kudos.

Thanks, Heinz!

Well, for QBs, it's really up to you. For those, I don't have any particular force mixes in mind and the QB map should have lots of replay value. Just go with an Attack battle type on Elite (or Warrior) level and choose the equipment that you and your opponent are interested in. Don't tell each other what you have, though! Fog of war is very important.

But if you're looking for more of a "classic" hedgerow hell battle, then you'll want to have defending Axis players use some fortifications. Maybe not bunkers, but TRPs, mines, wire (can be tricky to work with), foxholes, etc. Arty is a must.

This type of fighting was characterized by the attacker having limited, predictable avenues of approach with the defender able to apply assets like artillery quickly. Then, if things got hot for the defender, he would fall back to the next line, rinse and repeat. The bocage terrain offered defense line after defense line. The map has quite a few lines of bocage between the attacker's setup area and the big ticket terrain objectives at the other end of the map.

Having said that, the hamlet buildings can offer some very interesting "Micro Urban Combat" as well. I spent lots of time laying out doors and windows in a realistic way. I'm very interested to see how that, along with the very accurate landscape, impacts this kind of infantry combat.

But, if you and your opponent want to go nuts with armor--there's that, too. If you have DCs and/or a rhino, combat could get wild indeed with many places to hide and flank. Also, at such close ranges, the big cat's front armor is less effective.

Anyway, the landscape is as real as I could make it, so it should provide a nice test for seeing how "real" things seem to be working in the game--whatever the units are.

I'd love to hear feedback from you after you've fought on the map.

Have fun!

Best regards,

Macisle

[Macisle]

Truly beautiful map. The amount of work to achieve must have been immense but the reward you must feel .....

I agree wholeheartedly that designers should give credit if they are using substantial parts of others work.

As for playing mirrored games. WTF! I thought that had gone out with the ark.

My only difference of opinion over the map would be I would strip out modern buildings/roads etc. but that is a trivial point as he who designs makes the decisions.

Thanks, dieseltaylor!

Yeah, it was A LOT of work (especially since I was learning the editor as I went). Kind words like yours are truly nice to hear!

I'm not saying that WynnterGreen is necessarily wrong about the scenario balance as it stands--only that it is impossible to make that judgement if the attacker begins knowing exactly what the defender has. In that case, the defender is starting out having been stripped of his most important asset: surprise. If the war had been fought that way, Germany probably would have been finished by early '43.

If players who have played with full Fog of War give me feedback that it is unbalanced, then I have no problem with tweaking it. Please everyone, just follow standard protocol on warning of spoilers before giving scenario details.

And WynnterGreen, thanks again for deleting your post with the unlabelled spoilers. I appreciate it.

[Sailor Malan2]

Really nice effort at creating a real view. Sadly, the modern aspects spoil it for me. I dont think any of the long 'industrial farm' buildings would have been there in 1944. Most French countryside would have been small peasant farmers. with small holdings. Also, dont feel you need clipped hedges - they arent big on manicuring even now (the most tidy and manicured buildings in deep rural France are holiday lets and British owned property - not a lot of them around in 1944).

[dieseltaylor]

Really nice effort at creating a real view. Sadly, the modern aspects spoil it for me. I dont think any of the long 'industrial farm' buildings would have been there in 1944. Most French countryside would have been small peasant farmers. with small holdings. Also, dont feel you need clipped hedges - they arent big on manicuring even now (the most tidy and manicured buildings in deep rural France are holiday lets and British owned property - not a lot of them around in 1944).

The long buildings caught my eye in the air shots and I wondered if a more contemporary aerial or map is available. However that is me being casual about someone else's time - I have no doubt that the time available was better spent in mastering the CM design editor to create a masterpiece.

In earlier times when I had more cash I did think I, or perhaps BF, should award annual prizes for best scenario, best map each year. A token amount to be sure but recognition all the same. However that was in CMx1 times.

Perhaps on the criteria of realism for maps we could institute the SailorTaylor award : ).

With regard to hedges I have seen interesting videos - possibly on Vimeo - of the French getting their act together on restoring hedgelines and looking after hedges. With adequate manpower and suspect supply I was wondering if the traditional country dwellers in the 1940's would be keeping the countryside tidy for kindling, other wood, and hedge food. The current state not being a reliable indicator possibly of 1944 where many pictures tend to show hedges after the battle. Only a thought.

[PanzerKat]

First I would like to commend you on a wonderful map.

If the game is intended to never be played as mirrored or that Fog of War is essential to the success of the scenario you might want to mention that in the description. I have never seen these sorts of stipulations on a scenario before but I don't see why you couldn't add them. Or you might say, "only to be played as one side vs the AI"

An enjoyable h2h scenario is a balanced scenario. And when ladder play is involved in a game it is common to mirror a scenario in case it IS unbalanced. That is the reason for mirrored play.

[JonS]

You seem to be saying that FOW is unimportant. This is wrong.

FOW can be - and often is - part of the balancing act.

[PanzerKat]

You seem to be saying that FOW is unimportant. This is wrong.

FOW can be - and often is - part of the balancing act.

Didn't say that.

FOW can be part of the balancing act. Especially when it is in the description. Let me ask you. If you were a ladder player (maybe you are), would you want to be on the end of an unbalanced scenario and have a low chance of victory? A h2h scenario is supposed to be balanced or at least have a statement that says something to the effect "the more experienced player should be such and such side" That's common in the description of some scenarios.

I think the one poster was spoken to in a manor that was as if to say that he was mistaken to play this scenario mirrored. But no one said not too in the description. And for the scenario designer to have to explain tactics is, to me, saying that there is a chance that the scenario might be unbalanced and worthy of the "experienced player" disclaimer. And as previously stated, mirrored play is a way to insure against an unbalanced scenario when playing on ladders.

I'm not try to start an argument. I think we are all trying to give constructive criticism and I would think the scenario designer would be appreciative of that. If, for some reason, he doesn't like constructive criticism that this is the last place to publicly ask for someones opinion!

[Macisle]

I'm completely open to constructive criticism and have a thick skin. So, no worries there!

Also, this is my first scenario, so I am bound to make mistakes and learn things.

To be honest, playing CM mirrored never occurred to me because I can't imagine giving up the element of FoW to such a degree when it is such a big part of what makes CM CM.

But...players play it that way, and you're right--the description should state that the scenario assumes no knowlege of the other side's forces. It should also state that the more experienced player should take the Germans.

I am guilty as charged on that. I'll fix it in the next update. I won't have time to do it this week, though. I sure wish the Repository would allow the submitter to fix description text and images without having to go through the whole submit, approve and post process again. In fact, that seems to be what killed the original link for the scenario--my trying to quickly update the image to fix its positioning. -Not sure.

[Ithikial_AU]

This scenario is looking really nice and I'll have to give it a try down the track. Brothers in Arms, brings back good memories. Would love to try and recreate their Barquette Locks map from Earned in Blood.

In earlier times when I had more cash I did think I, or perhaps BF, should award annual prizes for best scenario, best map each year. A token amount to be sure but recognition all the same. However that was in CMx1 times.

I had a similar idea myself a while back. I think it would also be a good opportunity for a bit of community building. Wouldn't even need to be prize driven - that would actually cheapen it I think. May even inspire a few more people to take the plunge and open the editor!

Possible categories (Except where noted anyone could vote and nominate):

- Best New Fictional Scenario

- Best New Historical Scenario

- Best Campaign

- Best Head 2 Head Scenario

- Best Single Player Scenario

- Best QB Map

- Battlefront's Choice Award (BF team pick their best community made scenario/campaign)

- Community Choice (Non BF people pick from the new releases and modules from that year)

- Best Mod (May become known as the Aris award very quickly...)

[dieseltaylor]

First I would like to commend you on a wonderful map.

If the game is intended to never be played as mirrored or that Fog of War is essential to the success of the scenario you might want to mention that in the description. I have never seen these sorts of stipulations on a scenario before but I don't see why you couldn't add them. Or you might say, "only to be played as one side vs the AI"

An enjoyable h2h scenario is a balanced scenario. And when ladder play is involved in a game it is common to mirror a scenario in case it IS unbalanced. That is the reason for mirrored play.

I think it a cheek to suggest that a scenario designer be asked to consider warning regarding mirrored play. Mirrored play is a travesty of what real warfare is about and it should be understood that scenarios need only carry warnings IF they are designed for mirrored play.

The concept of playing a realistic wargame but having each player with perfect knowledge of the enemy forces and dispositions is so wrong. Warfare is about deception and surprise in order to achieve objectives as cheaply, or defend expensively, as possible.

I was a member of WeBoB gaming club for many years I am aware of the mirrored games/ladder syndrome. It was often discussed and gradually we evolved to a better system. Better in being realistic war and making unbalanced scenarios central to the process.

The correct way to play competitively is for groups of players to play the same scenario. Out of that group there will arise two ladders of one for the best Axis player and one for the best Allied player. If a series of scenarios are played you would hopefully average out the weaker player and blind luck.

The nature of scenarios and balance occupied a huge amount of discussion time and also meant scenario construction was a nightmare. Consider the following:

1. BF tweak effectiveness of HMG's accuracy of mortars. Previous games that might have seemed balance no longer are.

2. The playtesters have too great a familiarity with the design and the FOW does not work as it ought.

3. The playtesters are very nice volunteers but they are not very good players.

4. Within the scenario there is the possibility of a single action being make and break the scenario heavily one way or the other.

If you design asymmetric battles [not using the term unbalanced] played in groups then the respective performances each side do mean something.

PS. We did have a system where scenarios were rated for balance however it was rather crude and really the best criteria is surely did both players enjoy playing it. As you can imagine a scenario of two tanks facing down a bridge could produce probably a host of scores showing that both players had a 50% chance of winning, Fun ? Realistic?

I have seen highly improbable maps with mirrored features. I look forward in my dotage to supplying a checkerboard map of ploughed and wheat fields to the mirrored fraternity. : )

[JonS]

I think it a cheek to suggest that a scenario designer be asked to consider warning regarding mirrored play. Mirrored play is a travesty of what real warfare is about, and it should be understood that scenarios need only carry warnings IF they are designed for mirrored play.

I'm all a-swoon. Dizzy and I agree on something. What next - cats lying down with dogs?

[Macisle]

...it should be understood that scenarios need only carry warnings IF they are designed for mirrored play...

The more I think about it, the more I return to my original position. The default expectation for CM has to be that neither player has knowledge about the other's force beyond what is given in their own briefing.

I don't see how it can work otherwise, unless the scenario is designed specifically for mirrored play, in which case, THAT should be made clear in the scenario description.

To begin play with full knowledge of the other's force so fundamentally alters the nature of a scenario that it really must be designed uniquely for that situation. And it should be understood that to do so is to willingly shift the experience from a tactical simulation to very much "a game."

The development of CMx2 has largely been a journey of adding ever more realism, with much of that focused on FoW (the whole point of relative spotting). To subtract that element is to fundamentally be playing a different game--a mod--an offshoot hybrid 3D boardgame, as it were.

Sure, folks might start out using reduced FoW to learn the game, but the default standard for play is Elite/Warrior with no knowledge of the other side's force beyond the briefing.

However, I still should have had a note calling for the stronger player to take the German side.

Anyhoo, it appears that updating a Repository file is rather a pain, so I'm going to wait until I get feedback from players who have completed the scenario with full Fog of War. Then, I'll add the note about the stronger player taking the Germans and, if needed, tweak the force mix.