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

[Nelson 1812]

Originally Posted by dieseltaylor

3. The play-testers are very nice volunteers but they are not very good players.

You missed out:

3a. The scenario builders are very nice volunteers but they are not very good players, either.

..........Say's I...anyway.

[dieseltaylor]

I suspect you are right Nelson.

There is almost a golden rule that people who spend lots of time constructing maps are probably not very experienced as players. And good map makers are often not good scenario designers.

I actually like the distinction as I think if you are primarily a player your designing is compromised by your eye for combat effects. A map designer will probably go for a realistic map as the primary object. Of course I am referring mainly to my experience in the days on CMx1 - though when CMBN launched I did review I think four maps for eager builders.

One of the interesting things for realistic maps is that you can introduce different weather and troop types and it will play differently rather more effectively than a strong player doing a scenario who probably has a certain type of battle in mind during design.

For example if a I had a huge map and was planning a Kitty battle my design I strongly suspect would be different from if I was told it was to be for infantry or recon strong. The subconscious cannot fail to suggest some suitable "features".

[A Canadian Cat]

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.

Oh I agree 100%, not knowing is a big part of the fun. The thing is after you have played a scenario once that is gone. After that first play through playing mirrored can be a fun way to go again. For example I played a mirror match of Barkmann's Corner. It was a blast. The goal becomes try to loose less than your opponent. It is a way of getting another game or two out of a scenario.

[dieseltaylor]

True that some games are great to play again even when you know the surprises. I am thinking very much of Tiger Valley which had enormous replay value even after the secrets were revealed.

Very probably larger games with options will be more replayable.

[WynnterGreen]

A couple of thoughts.

Taking on this Scenario is the first time I've attempted to play in the 'Scenario' format.

In hindsight I can see it was a mistake to play it mirrored.

Normally I only play QBs on a Ladder against Humans.

In that situation I never know my opponents force composition other than a bunch of pre-game stipulations, such as a maximum of one third of points can be allocated to armour.

I also, of course, know the how many points my opponent has to spend and maybe a history of their 'play style'.

For me CM a bit like playing chess rather than making attempts at recreating real situations.

I currently lead the pool of about 40 players in the group I game with, so I think I have a good enough grip on the mechanics of the game to have an opinion, tactically at least, on what may or may not work.

So with that in mind, I made a post in this thread, during set-up of this Scenario as Mirrored Ladder game, outlining what both my opponent and I saw as the 'obvious' outcome.

When I was directed to the reality that it might constitute a 'spoiler' for some, I removed the post immediately to preserve the aspect of 'surprise' for those wishing to play this map in its Scenario format.

I can see that theoretically a scenario can only be played 'purely' once.

I can also see that in a scenario, as in war, there's no need for balance.

In fact balance it's an anathema to maximizing your advantage in every aspect possible.

Which is also fine.

It just doesn't happen to suit my particular play preferences.

I'm hoping my opponent will wish to continue playing out the scenario, mirrored and pre-informed as it now stands, so that at least I can validate or falsify my earlier (removed) prediction.

Sadly I can't 'un-see' and put it to the test in a 'going in blind' capacity.

The map itself, as I stated earlier, is excellent and I'm sure will give many hours of enjoyment, and possibly grief, to those who play on it.

[Macisle]

Thanks for the additional feedback, WynnterGreen.

The only problem with your original post was the lack of a clear spoiler alert. If you put one of those in, you're welcome to discuss scenario specifics afterwards (be sure to label each post with specifics). And again, I'm not saying you're wrong about the scenario balance. It's just that that will need to be judged based on the experience of players fighting the scenario in the standard way (ie, no knowledge of the other's units).

Playing QBs with pre-game stipulations does not automatically violate the FoW ideal we are talking about. Unless you're giving each other specifics, it just acts like a mission briefing with more or less pre-game intel. There's a huge different between Your opponent will have a mixed force, possibly with Tigers and Panthers, and He has two Tigers and you have 10 Shermans.

In the first case, you only know that he has armor--maybe tough armor. But how much? You still need to be very careful. In the second case, you know that if you've killed his two tanks, you can run riot over the map. -A very different mindset. In the one case, the attacker must remain cautious and careful in his play. In the other, he knows that once he has found the two tanks, he can use his numbers to flank and, having done that, is free to be very agressive with his remaining armor.

And, I'm not at all saying that replaying scenarios can't be lots of fun. It's just that they can never play in the same way as the first, "blind" play and that is the standard for CM scenario design (though people can design for other types of play).

Oh, and thanks again for the map compliments. I'd love to hear your QB-map feedback as well and hope you have lots of fun with it!

Please feel free to give feedback later with spoiler alerts. I am very open to tweaking the scenario if it is needed. I just don't want to do it in dribs and drabs, as the Repository submission system is so cumbersome.

[Hurrying Heinz]

having a wee drama , loaded up a qb , allied attack , medium, 90 minutes. im playing defense. attacking force is deployed but takes no action, tried several loads always the same. , opfor remains camped in setup zone, clues anyone?

[Macisle]

Heinz,

Both the scenario and QB map are H2H-only. There are no AI plans, so you need a human opponent. When no AI plans are input, the situation you're seeing will happen.

[Macisle]

However, if you really don't want to play a human opponent, but want to use the map, you can try fighting as the attacker. The game might put some of its defending units forward. However, most will stay towards the S edge and none will move during the game.

[Tashtego]

having a wee drama , loaded up a qb , allied attack , medium, 90 minutes. im playing defense. attacking force is deployed but takes no action, tried several loads always the same. , opfor remains camped in setup zone, clues anyone?

I think your problem is that the QB map that you are using does not have any plans for the attacker. The A.I. needs to be given some plans regarding how and where to move, attack etc.

It's done from the AI screen in the Scenario editor. See the manual for more details. You have to motivate them, Heinz.

[Hurrying Heinz]

thanx guys , wasnt aware of that .

[kensal]

thanx guys , wasnt aware of that .

I did exactly the same as was wondering why life was so easy! Do you fancy doing an H2H?

[Macisle]

If anyone wants to playtest V2 of the scenario, drop me a PM with your email address.

I've altered the force mix to throw the defender a bigger bone. -Maybe too big.

I'd like to get feedback before submitting it to the Repository.

Thanks!

(BTW, I'm in the UTC/GMT +9 hours time zone).

All zee best,

Macisle

[c3k]

Macisle, you've got pm.

Ken

[sfhand]

Macisle, make that 2 pms...

[kohlenklau]

UTC+9

You live in Irkutsk?

Awesome!

I have just started a PBEM battle w your White Manor QB map.

My very first CM PBEM ever.

Thanks again...

[Macisle]

UTC+9

You live in Irkutsk?

Awesome!

I have just started a PBEM battle w your White Manor QB map.

My very first CM PBEM ever.

Thanks again...

Awesome! I'm very honored, kohlenklau and wish you great fun and the best of success.

Please let me know how it goes!

He-he, and it's Japan, actually.

Macisle

[Macisle]

Macisle, make that 2 pms...

Hey, I've never had PMS before.

It's not as bad as I thought!

[Macisle]

Hey, guys.

-Just wanted to post some feedback from players. It occurred under V2 playtesting and is only one game result, but it could have happened exactly the same way under V1.2.

The US took heavy casualties and called for ceasefire early. This is only one report, but it shows that the game may be more balanced than German players might initially think.

So, for Axis players fretting about their force size--you can win and perhaps quickly.

For US players--be careful and don't bunch up!

[SlowMotion]

Can you tell where in real Normandy this place is?

[Macisle]

Can you tell where in real Normandy this place is?

Sure. Do a search for "Carentan, France" in Google Maps. Once it loads, look to the East for a place called "Catz." That's the hamlet depicted in the map. I took some creative license to make CM's 8x8 tiling work and for things I couldn't see like the White Manor interior grounds. And of course, the area is modern, not historical. There wasn't much there during the war, I think.

Note: The satellite photos have been updated since I made the map. They're kinda ugly now with a strange coloring. The place has changed as well. There are some new buildings and altered landscaping. However, I think Street View might still have the same pics I used.

I suggest going to Street View and having a "walk" around. Enjoy!