MG Out On A Limb DAR & Bugs

[John Kettler]

Mods,

This maybe should go in the John Kettler vs CMBN thread, but because it's MG specific, I thought it advisable to start a new thread.

Pixel Warfare Colleagues and BFC,

In what may either be a miracle or possible evidence of insanity, I've somehow marshaled enough neurons to play my first MG battle: Out On A Limb. Have elected to use default deployment and play at Iron level, the last being something I've never done.

SPOILER ALERT!!!

SPOILER ALERT!

SPOILER ALERT!

Turn 1 (1:50)

General advance at Quick, taking advantage of cover from small hillock. Considering I last used paratroopers at night (Canadians in Bridge at Varreville?), I feel very exposed.

Bug Notes:

The last man in the unit, who's looking rearward, from certain low angles suffers from the hollow partial skull/partial helmet issue I previously reported in connection with Cats Chasing Dogs. Have screenshot I can supply to Phil if needed.

Keane (+1) has neither a carbine nor a rifle! He's carrying an invisible one at Port Arms, though.

Possible bug? The 2 x AA gun positions are listed as existing (covering the bridge) in the briefing, but they are nowhere depicted on the game map. If they're important enough to mention in the briefing and assign points to them, then why aren't they visible, at least as objectives?

Needed feature: Noise discipline and associated arm signals!

Turn 2 (1:49)

I attempt to get men into position, not skyline my guys, conduct recce per scenario suggestions, etc. Lost track of my radioman, only to realize I had floating icons off (screenshot taking setting from last game). Oops! But that's nothing compared to the complete hash that somehow emerged from my carefully considered Quick deployment maneuvers. Tried to get the PL HQ into position behind the crest but sited to see through the grass (have SL doing that already while standing behind the crest). Instead, I have vulture's row skylined across the hillock, paratroopers who shouldn't be there on the forward slope (NOT what the lit AS boxes showed), and I now know there's a German bunker! FOW may or may not be a factor, but I see no firing embrasure facing me. Took screenshot of said mess.

Maybe I missed something, but my best efforts somehow yielded potential disaster, with most of my force exposed!

Turn 3 (1:47)

SNAFU! Somehow that rotter Murphy got me again. 3rd Squad moved up nicely toward the foliage near the bunker, with some of my men deftly hopping the fence. Splendid. What wasn't splendid at all was that every German from here to Amsterdam is now aware of unwanted visitors from the sky. Why? Men I thought were under Cover Arcs opened truly impressive MG fires on the bunker. Guess I'm now conducting recon by fire, rather than snoopin' and poopin'! Sigh.

There is one bit of good news. Just got word the rest of the Company should be on the other end of the bridge on or around 1430. Would order a general advance, but I've got multiple German infantry indicators near the bunker. what to do? What to do? Stay tuned!

Regards,

John Kettler

[sburke]

Bug Notes:

Possible bug? The 2 x AA gun positions are listed as existing (covering the bridge) in the briefing, but they are nowhere depicted on the game map. If they're important enough to mention in the briefing and assign points to them, then why aren't they visible, at least as objectives?

You have to have eyes on the AA units. I assume you know how spotting works, if your guys can't see them, you can't see them. When you get points for inflicting casualties on the enemy, do you get to always see all the enemy? So no, this is not a bug.

As to the other bug you'd noted, that isn't specific to the scenario, what version are you running 2.11 or 2.12?

[John Kettler]

sburke,

Am running 2.12. Yes, I know how spotting works, but given enough about the AA guns' location is known to include in the briefing, I would've expected symbols on the map showing where they are. At Brest (?), the U.S. had better maps of the German defenses than did the German commander. Am talking what, where, sectors of fire, blind spots and more. I don't expect to see the guns themselves until I actually have eyeballs on them.

Regards,

John Kettler

[sburke]

Can you please pick another scenario for your DAR? There are plenty to choose from.

[JonS]

No, he's yours now. Take it like a man sburke.

[John Kettler]

sburke,

Fair enough.

VO

"In a deus ex machina even the Romans would've applauded, the American paratroopers recently landed on Dutch soil have been whisked back into the sky and now are presumably aboard their C-47s traveling backward to England. Informed sources believe there was some sort of localized time warp."

Now, what would you suggest I play that's not too demanding on my end, but for which you don't already have a slew of bug reports?

Regards,

John Kettler

[sburke]

sburke,

Fair enough.

VO

"In a deus ex machina even the Romans would've applauded, the American paratroopers recently landed on Dutch soil have been whisked back into the sky and now are presumably aboard their C-47s traveling backward to England. Informed sources believe there was some sort of localized time warp."

Now, what would you suggest I play that's not too demanding on my end, but for which you don't already have a slew of bug reports?

Regards,

John Kettler

Well first off, if you are suggesting that you have supplied a slew of bug reports- the only thing specific you have mentioned regarding Out on a Limb is you don't like the information supplied on the map (or lack of info). That isn't a bug, simply that you don't understand the point of the scenario and assume what you think you should know. I can't help that. The scenario was designed to create a specific dilemma. You have to balance the need for information versus the risk of potentially running into forces your lone platoon can't handle (hence the title). The general area where both AA guns should be isn't all that difficult to figure out from the map itself.

The couple other things you cited are not going to be specific to a scenario. They could be issues with your PC or issues with MG, but either way you'll run into them in any scenario including those specific elements.

As to another scenario maybe try Sheriff of Oosterbeek. It has a very well detailed briefing and I think you'll find as much information evident on the map. It may be larger than you want to bite off however. Perhaps some others can suggest another similar size scenario.

[John Kettler]

sburke,

I believe you misread what I wrote. I was asking what scenario you would recommend for me, given my real limitations on how big a scenario I can handle, but not one already played so much by others that you already had a slew of bug reports regarding it. I certainly never claimed I've supplied a slew of bug reports. To do so would be ludicrous.

I noted that the partially transparent head/partial helmet thing was previously seen in vanilla CMBN. To me, it's a bug that needs fixing. As it happens, Out On A Limb was the only MG battle I've attempted, so the bug got reported here. I agree that it's not a scenario specific bug.

Regards,

John Kettler

[sburke]

yeah you did lose me, I didn't know there was a slew of bug reports at all. Then again you reported an issue with how you felt the scenario was giving you information as a bug.

Possible bug? The 2 x AA gun positions are listed as existing (covering the bridge) in the briefing, but they are nowhere depicted on the game map. If they're important enough to mention in the briefing and assign points to them, then why aren't they visible, at least as objectives?

Regards,

John Kettler

See this is why I would prefer you don't use a scenario I have had anything to do with. It's like fingernails on a chalk board. The battle selection screen can sort by size, please just choose anything else that you feel approximates the size of this one.

[costard]

You're too nice John - assert your first amendment rights, publish and be damned! sburke isn't really a wuss, nor precious for that matter, he's just a control freak taking advantage of your good nature.

Seriously, just don't describe every seeming failure of a scenario design in such concrete terms - at least, not until you've had a go at designing one yourself and submitted it for public criticism. Screenies would be nice.

[John Kettler]

sburke,

We still seem to be talking past each other. I wasn't saying there was a slew of bug reports for a scenario I didn't realize was your baby. I was saying that I needed a scenario which I could handle, and for which you, or whomever deals with these things, didn't already have a slew/string/batch of bug reports because many had already played that particular scenario. I thought you had too much feedback on Out On A Limb; I had no idea you made it and that my well-intended bug/problem reports were sandpapering your nerves.

There are some typos in the Briefing, but if you want to know what they are, you'll need to ask me for them explicitly. I seem to have done enough damage already. Without trying.

costard,

Raising an issue and explaining my views isn't an attack. Nor was what I said any sort of invalidation of the overall scenario. How could/would I invalidate what I'd barely begun to play and was, therefore in no position to assess re an array of issues necessary to create a great scenario?

If anything's invalidated, the evidence so far would suggest that the invalidation resides in my inability to command infantry properly. Evidently, this is a product of a) lack of detailed attention, failure to get the game interface/presuming I understand how to execute my maneuver scheme in the game and c) a certain level of troop handling incompetence. Clearly, my tactical vision far eclipses my ability to execute that vision--even when not under fire. Bluntly put, in many ways, I don't know what I'm doing.

I toyed with the notion of doing a scenario in CMx1, but since I find CMBN/CW/MG to be daunting as a game, and having taken a quick look at the amount of focused, nitty gritty work it takes to build a map in it, never mind everything else (a very long list), I know when I'm in the deep end and have forgotten how to swim! I fully realize it's easier to be a critic than a creator, having been and still being on both ends with various writing projects.

Regards,

John Kettler

[costard]

John,

I agree that making a scenario in CM isn't a trivial exercise and it is for that reason that I think that it behooves us, when criticising, to allow for this. A kinder, gentler criticism is called for when addressing the efforts of people who invest so much time and effort in creating something they hope we will enjoy: it is to be expected that they will react to negative statements regarding their creation. A sincere apology goes a long way in repairing damaged relationships.

Trivialities aren't worth noting (in public, unless asked for) and apparent discrepancies in the intel provided are par for the course in the game (just as they are in real life). Avoid provoking the Good Scenario Creator, else he will in future refuse to exercise his creative skills and we will all be poorer thereby. Also, he will band with his fellow creators in ridiculing and denigrating the critic, a fate to be avoided unless one delights in masochistic tendencies.

[c3k]

LOL, I rarely get a chance to just play the game lately. However, I did create some time and sat down last week and picked this one. I hadn't looked at it during the development process.

It's a gem!

FWIW, I really enjoyed the map, the intel, the briefing, the nature of the fight, etc. Is there a typo in the briefing? Yep. But then, just about every posting I make has one, as well. The one typo I saw does not detract in any manner.

So, if you've read this thread, give this battle a shot. As recommended, I played as US vs. AI, one run through - NO restarts! - and won. Well, -I- won: my many dead paratroopers may not think of themselves as victors.

Nice battle.

Ken

[sburke]

Thanks ken

John I did not suggest that you or anyone else had provided a slew of bug reports. In fact as I stated, though perhaps not clearly enough is I had not heard of a "slew" of bug reports against MG at all. However considering a "slew" is an ill defined subjective term, perhaps I am wrong.

My issue is simply you started your DAR reporting an issue with info on the map as a bug. I don't believe there is another soul on this forum who would consider a problem a designer has created on a scenario to be a "bug". An error, yes. I am sure I have more than a few. My suggestion to use another scenario is to allow you to be able to discuss with the designer your questions and suggestions if you really want a DAR. I am not up for doing so. You have a singular perspective on how you approach the game and personal interaction that I do not share. Let's just leave it at that.

Costard how can you be sure I am not a wuss? I think JonS has already suggested otherwise. No offense taken Jon, I know you are simply trying to help me grow. Besides I blame all issue with my scenarios on you. If it weren't for your encouragement I wouldn't be in this pickle.

[Wicky]

Just want to say thanks for crafting a very enjoyable fiendish scenario with twists and turns set-off by the AI timings and intricate landscaping. The only 'bugs' I saw were the bleedin' wasp nests I kept stumbling into ;-)