Putting in the first few rungs of the CM2 learning ladder

[Apocal]

9 soldiers versus 7 soldiers:

I just tried to do the A. scenario I outlined above. QB, I took a Germany infantry unit, stripped out everything but a infantry squad and HQ. Took an infantry Soviet unit, stripped out everything but a sniper--but had to have an HQ.

Set the HQ as reinforcement, then set the reinforcement time for longer than the scenario will last. Voila! Absent HQ.

And nothing I write is to counter anyone wanting battalion/regiment size scenarios or campaigns, and 3 hour time limits. I am just advocating something be added to CM2 to make it more newcomer friendly. With the version 3 engine looking so good, and a significant number of very complex scenarios and campaigns available, the hard stuff has been done. I am just a little puzzled that the easy stuff is not in CM2.

Second the OP. Really simple scenarios would be great. And still simple ones with one platoon. And ones with one platoon and one tank. And ones with one platoon and two different support weapons. And ones with two platoons, two support weapons, and optionally a mortar FO. And ones with... You get the idea. Full scale, small to company with extras, lots of them. No focus on how hard the tactical situation is, or how awesome each weapon, or the unbelievable map, or the massive scale. Put giantism off in a far corner in a pointed hat, and dead simple front and center.

I have about five or six scenarios sitting around at that scale - I think the biggest is a reduced company - and I can polish them up a bit and push them out. I just didn't think there was much demand for them and my map-making skills are sub-par at best. I already prettied up the first and am waiting on it to appear in the repository (Escaping the Noose).

[sburke]

I have about five or six scenarios sitting around at that scale - I think the biggest is a reduced company - and I can polish them up a bit and push them out. I just didn't think there was much demand for them and my map-making skills are sub-par at best. I already prettied up the first and am waiting on it to appear in the repository (Escaping the Noose).

don't fight it, borrow other maps.

[DavidFields]

Second the OP. Really simple scenarios would be great. And still simple ones with one platoon. And ones with one platoon and one tank. And ones with one platoon and two different support weapons. And ones with two platoons, two support weapons, and optionally a mortar FO. And ones with... You get the idea. Full scale, small to company with extras, lots of them. No focus on how hard the tactical situation is, or how awesome each weapon, or the unbelievable map, or the massive scale. Put giantism off in a far corner in a pointed hat, and dead simple front and center.

Thanks JasonC. And Apocal, your stuff sounds great. Why isn't it, to make myself an annoying person, in the base game, times 2-3?

I hope I am making myself clear. I don't pitch this about what I want, exactly.

I am a gamer. There are so many historians and military experts in this forum that my personal suppression meter reads "shaken" when trying to post here. Oddly, perhaps, this is about keeping the excitement I felt when I first played PanzerBlitz into the next generation.

Alll day long, I have been thinking about "C" in my initial scenarios. Having a MkIV tank, my favorite, go through a town with two Soviet Tank Hunter teams in it. [unfortunately, I have to go to a medical conference for a few days, so my desires need to be delayed. And my sixth grandchild was born today, which involves being of some help to some young people--outside life does intrude]

Tedium with "C"?: minimal. One unit. But plenty of "interesting choices"--which is what game designers are looking for. Buttoned or unbuttoned (with unbuttoned, partially, being bait to lure a long distance shot, which would reveal enemy location--but...at what cost?). What speed, and stopping for how long? Use the HE, blindly? At what.

Change the weather--so getting off the road would be undesirable.

Change the lighting--the time of day.

Win/lose: fire up the QB/scenario again, with the AI picking, likely a new location for its units.

Change maps--urban, trees, wide open, with different set-up zones.

Too easy: add another enemy unit. Or shift to a weaker AFV.

Too hard, take an enemy unit away. Or substitute a Tiger.

Try an AFV with the defensive smoke, and see what, if anything, that would do.

Change the morale of the crew, and/or the commanders abilities.

Or think of the multitude of variations: an armored car versus to two anti-tank rifle units.

The potential possibilities that I have just outlined in this one post.....very high.....and multiplied by the different armies, almost unimaginably high.

And each time one starts, with, I hope 10-15 minute time limits, one is sitting there with one tank, and one tank crew--whose names and rank you will actually take the time to look at--a map with no contacts, and have those initial anxieties as one plots the first turn.

I mostly disagree with the idea that at this granular level, the Tac-AI will not look good. With my micro scenario against the sniper, I was very impressed with the Tac-AI response.

It was like watching a movie. I moved the units into position, and it was like I said "action" when the Tac-AI pivoted units in response to threats.

[And, wow, Area fire against a generic contact in the woods, by my 1/2 German squad turned out to be highly effective--a lesson to me in itself]

The downside in putting the first few rungs on the learning ladder into the base, shipped, game of every module is?

[DavidFields]

Set the HQ as reinforcement, then set the reinforcement time for longer than the scenario will last. Voila! Absent HQ.

So, I can set an enemy unit, in a QB, to become a reinforcement?

If so, that is an excellent piece of information to have. I can then actually run a 1/2 squad against a sniper team or two--no HQs involved.

[DavidFields]

Micro-scenarios, proof in concept. Scenario C

Sooo...as many of your likely know, the Soviets do not have Tank-hunter units, as I usually know them--or I don't know them when I see them.. So I pick a couple of 45 mm AT guns and 3 AT rifle units, plus HQ for the Soviets.

Then I accidently pick Panthers instead of PkIV for the Germans. (I fibbed slightly before--who does not like Panthers?--16 and 16 attack and movement as I remember them in PanzerBlitz) The HQ unit I leave behind. Thus there is only one Panther-led by Oberfeldwebel Bruinstein.

Ok.....place your bets...who is going to win.

[Rankorian counts. A slight vote for the Panther.]

Yes, the 45mm guns and AT rifle units are no match for the Panther armor. But the Panther is alone.

Map 021--an excellent map.

[Grandchild, not the one born today, but the one we are watching, asleep, as is wife]

Things learned:

Sometimes tanks can cut through forests easily, then, at times, they come against complete blocking terrain. This seems reasonably realistic.

The command tank, which I left behind, had a radio, with a long, but not infinite reach. At 700 meters or so, in certain terrain, the command line turned dark red. Since the HQ commander had a -1 rating, that may have not have been bad.

Unbuttoned or not? I chose unbuttoned, was fired upon at time 16 (out of 30) and buttoned, unbuttoned later, and my TC was shot.

I was impressed that the AI could find and my Panther shot at things I could not see.

Minor loss. 6 casualties on the enemy side, and one on mine.

Fast and fun, fun, fun.

The concept looks good.

[costard]

Now you play the other side - learn how to take a tank out with AT infantry (or guns, or whatever). It's a twofer.

[JonS]

The downside in putting the first few rungs on the learning ladder into the base, shipped, game of every module is?

The downside is that 'someone' has to make all these scenarios for you. The time they spend making your scenarios is time they can't spend making the kinds of scenarios they actually want to make.

Basically, what I see in this thread is a bunch of people trying to tell other people how they should be spending their time in the editor. I understand it's well intentioned, but, you know. Go spend your own time.

[Cymru]

The downside is that 'someone' has to make all these scenarios for you. The time they spend making your scenarios is time they can't spend making the kinds of scenarios they actually want to make.

Basically, what I see in this thread is a bunch of people trying to tell other people how they should be spending their time in the editor. I understand it's well intentioned, but, you know. Go spend your own time.

my hope is that are some scenario writers who enjoy making small ones, just as some of us enjoy playing them.

[sfhand]

I'm sure any human being on the planet, when asked about anything, would say things could always be better. That said, I react to this the same way I reacted to the recent thread about the scenarios shipped with the game.

You don't like them or think they should be different you are free to crack open the editor and make the ones you want to play. If you are like JasonC you will not share them with the rest of the community (his words not mine). If you are truly a community minded person you will post them in the Repository or over at GAJ's place or anywhere else that people wanting to enrich the CM experience for everyone posts them.

The one thing I can predict with great confidence, as one who has tried his hand at scenario making on multiple occasions, is, after seeing the amount of work that goes into scenario making, you will most likely never take shots at someone else's labor of love (it takes a special kind of person to do that knowing the amount of work put into a scenario... and I don't mean that in a good way).

edit: after re-reading I felt I should point out that just because I have tried my hand at scenario making on multiple occasions doesn't mean there was ever a finished product, like I said, I found it to be a very taxing ordeal

[Apocal]

My second scenario is up, "Nighttime Knockout". Not sure if links to the repository work, so if not, its under RT/Missions. I'd really like feedback, if its reasonably well-balanced, fun and what Rankorian and JasonC were asking for.

[Macisle]

I'm sure any human being on the planet, when asked about anything, would say things could always be better. That said, I react to this the same way I reacted to the recent thread about the scenarios shipped with the game.

You don't like them or think they should be different you are free to crack open the editor and make the ones you want to play. If you are like JasonC you will not share them with the rest of the community (his words not mine). If you are truly a community minded person you will post them in the Repository or over at GAJ's place or anywhere else that people wanting to enrich the CM experience for everyone posts them.

The one thing I can predict with great confidence, as one who has tried his hand at scenario making on multiple occasions, is, after seeing the amount of work that goes into scenario making, you will most likely never take shots at someone else's labor of love (it takes a special kind of person to do that knowing the amount of work put into a scenario... and I don't mean that in a good way).

edit: after re-reading I felt I should point out that just because I have tried my hand at scenario making on multiple occasions doesn't mean there was ever a finished product, like I said, I found it to be a very taxing ordeal

+1. Good post.

Everything needed for folks who want this is right in the Editor. And, while micro scenarios will still take a lot of time to get right, they do start off using, by nature, smaller maps and less units. So, they offer both "bite-size" play and scenario-making for those that want it.

As for BF's role, we can assume that they have provided the size of stock scenario and campaign that will please the largest amount of their customer base.

For my part, I am gravitating towards larger stuff. For the longest time in CMBN, my sweet spot was a company plus change. In CMRT, I'm finding it to be a 2 companies to a battalion of infantry and a company of tanks.

Whatever you like, just keep playing, learning, and see where it all takes you. Best wishes to the guys that are diving into the micro stuff. I look forward to experiencing your work!

[DavidFields]

The downside is that 'someone' has to make all these scenarios for you. The time they spend making your scenarios is time they can't spend making the kinds of scenarios they actually want to make.

Basically, what I see in this thread is a bunch of people trying to tell other people how they should be spending their time in the editor. I understand it's well intentioned, but, you know. Go spend your own time.

Hmmm....I don't see how this is really responsive, and I think I have gone way out of my way not to make this personal.

I am describing, with some enthusiasm, relatively simple ways to possibly make the simulation more accessible to others, without taking anything away anything from those who would like the current scenarios/QB. Other people have threads stretching to Operational levels, and I have not seen similar complaints. Indeed, no one needs to do anything for me to enjoy this change in style--I have worked it out. But, I don't want this to be about me. I really want to help people.

I am telling no one in particular how to design scenarios or how to play the QB. If you don't want to spend your time reading this thread, then don't. I really do not want to waste anyone's time.

BTW, the playing the one tank against the AT/ATR gave me a much improved idea of the blindness simulated by the simulation--at least in this particular situation. I don't have the grog knowledge to know it what I experienced was accurate, but at least I have a better feel for this issue now.

I also play a lot of simulations where winning is not the essential issue--or, one defines one's own challenges. In this most recent case, I snuck my Panther through the woods and into the rear of the enemy (still, not seeing much easily, even when shot at). If that turns out to be too easy, I would force myself to stay on the road when advancing (pausing more? Blasting suspected enemy positions more?--something I think I do too little.)

[DavidFields]

Now you play the other side - learn how to take a tank out with AT infantry (or guns, or whatever). It's a twofer.

Yes, if I were not at a conference, that is what I would be doing. Role the same QB and take the defense.

Again, it will be interesting to see if the small Russian AT guns can puncture the side/back of the Panther, and at what range (the grogs would know the answer to this already). I think it might be easy for the Russians, with the plinking of the small stuff ? making the crew bail, or the Panther back out, like when the Germans "bring down" a KV-1 early in CMBB (though the Panther moral may make this more difficult--again, another interesting thing which could be adjusted.

[one slight issue--can I get down to one tank on the German QB...I can think of work-arounds on that issue, or it still might be an interesting battle]

Again, there happens to be no "scenario creation" issue here--I am using the QB, and stripping out units, taking just a few minutes.

[GhostRider3/3]

I am now trying to make some smaller squad-Company sized battles... but before I can put them on the repository.. I need to figure out how to do the layers for the maps and such so they look good and like all the rest.. I just downloaded the map-icons from the Mod Warehouse.. I will be practicing this weekend.... I wish I never gave away all of my ASL games..

But honestly.. anyone can use the editor.. its fun and easy, just practice with your AI scrpting and play test it a few times.

[DavidFields]

I'm sure any human being on the planet, when asked about anything, would say things could always be better. That said, I react to this the same way I reacted to the recent thread about the scenarios shipped with the game.

You don't like them or think they should be different you are free to crack open the editor and make the ones you want to play. If you are like JasonC you will not share them with the rest of the community (his words not mine). If you are truly a community minded person you will post them in the Repository or over at GAJ's place or anywhere else that people wanting to enrich the CM experience for everyone posts them.

The one thing I can predict with great confidence, as one who has tried his hand at scenario making on multiple occasions, is, after seeing the amount of work that goes into scenario making, you will most likely never take shots at someone else's labor of love (it takes a special kind of person to do that knowing the amount of work put into a scenario... and I don't mean that in a good way).

edit: after re-reading I felt I should point out that just because I have tried my hand at scenario making on multiple occasions doesn't mean there was ever a finished product, like I said, I found it to be a very taxing ordeal

I appreciate your comments.

I am not trying to be critical. I am trying to be helpful. I know I can't do scenarios. Umm....I have still not figured out how to download things from the Repository and put them in the right place--and don't want to try, worried that I would mess up something. And, I want to suggest, the base game is what many/most of those who buy CM2 will deal with.

But, putting 2-3 units on a map, especially since we now have master maps, would seem to be such a much easier job than the scenarios currently, which are excellently (from what I have seen) designed.

[And, unless I am missing something, allowing the QB to allow the pick of a single non-HQ unit would be nice--though, again, I have a work-around which I may post next time.]

My initial query stands: Would it be useful for CM2, and the genre, to put a few more easier rungs on the learning ladder?

One can venture the answer "yes". Discuss.

One can venture the answer "no". Discuss.

Or, one could venture, "yes, but that is irritating, and we don't want to do it". [Rankorian peaks into a Peng thread] I can't imagine that is an overly offensive discussion.

[DavidFields]

So, I experimented with situation "B" that I described initially.

I happen to like QB map 21, which happens to have engagement ranges < 200 meters, generally. That would seem to favor the squad, rather than the MG.

So I picked a german HMG versus a Soviet 44 squad, figuring it was the fairer battle than the reverse situation.

Briefing (to try to set the scene): Bagration! Two battalions of Soviet infantry have advanced nearby, by-passing non-significant resistance positions. But a German HMG still lurks on one of the flanks. Your squad is tasked with eliminating that unit so that follow on forces are not harassed.

Forces:

Chosen in QB was a German HMG. I seemed to have to pick an HQ with it. To minimize the effects of the extra weapons (I didn't mind the HMG being in command--and put the leadership variable at "0") I altered the German HQ stats to conscript and unfit. [try to invent a story in here--I know it would be odd, but it was a big war and a big front--hard to imagine anything not being possible at least once]

This cripples, I hoped, the German HQ, and indeed it was placed by the AI such that it had no role in the battle.

I left the Russian HQ behind. Unfortunately (for my purposes), since I had a generic contact at turn 2, the two 1/2 squads were not out of C2 the entire time.

Lessons learned:

1. It was the first time I had messed with the unit attributes in the QB menu. I can now see a variety of ways this "messing" could be interesting.

2. I seldom, in the past, have used Hunt for infantry. The increased spotting did not seem to justify the slow movement and fatigue, since the defense was likely to spot them first anyway--and then fire at them while they are standing. But with a generic contact, moving toward that with good spotting seemed more useful than the usual quick dashes I usually do, which might lose the spotting when they are lying prone after their dash.

3. Though the Soviet's 2 1/2 squads took out the HMG, eventually, but it was a near thing because the exercise showed me how a 1/2 squad could be not dead, but effectively removed from battle. A short HMG burst caused a casualty with one 1/2 squad, and with the "tired" from Hunt, it was essentially removed from battle for most of the 30 minutes (I would not have been successful with a 10 minute limit.). The second 1/2 squad, the maneuver squad could not get a contact on the HMG, because there was no C2, and was almost put out of action by a hand grenade, as it snuck up to the unit (ahem...no C2, but of course our god-like view guided the second 1/2 squad). Again, an interestingly close exercise.

4. HMG vs LMG?: I mentioned the generic contact on turn 2. So...might a LMG actually be better in these close-ish engagement range, less likely to be spotted? (Or, no worse, which has resource allocation implications when planning a defense)? If a LMG utterly crushed a Russian 1/2 squad, who might never see it before it fires, I think the odds would be very much evened up versus the other 1/2 squad, particularly since the LMG could more rapidly re-position itself.

Much learned, with only a very few soldiers. And this has rejuvenated my interest in the series.