Going forward: Scenarios/ Campaigns and QBs

[James Crowley]

Now that we have the 3.10 upgraded engine and the new vehicle pack (which is all very, very good ), there are, to my mind, two broad areas that could be looked at :

The provision of additional scenarios/campaigns which use some or all of the new additions and

Some much needed TLC for the QB system.

In regard to the first, ChrisND alluded to a 'forthcoming Battlepack' so, hopefully, this area may already be in the process of being addressed. It would be nice to get confirmation of that, plus some further details, if that is indeed the case.

It would also be nice to have the original campaigns and scenarios retro-fitted with triggers, although I suspect that is a 'wish too far'.

The problem with QBs is that none of the existing maps have the use of triggers and thus a potentially better AI opponent. This means that a very big and important part of the 3.00 upgrade is totally absent from CMBN (and CMFI as well).

And the (seemingly very) random selection in QBs goes from the barely adequate all the way to the absurd. It would be so nice not to get an MG battalion or a squadron of Priests as the main elements of an attack force. Or to find that the defence consists of four Mobelwagens, a HMG and a spotter without any assets.

The danger going forward is that without an adequate supply of good quality campaigns/scenarios - and the reliance on 'volunteers' to produce them for the rest of us - and a more robust QB auto-pick system, is that we will have more of a 'sand box' do-it-yourself kit, than a game. Here's hoping it won't come to that.

[Ithikial_AU]

I've been working on an Operation Windsor campaign for a while now. Just can't devote every waking moment to it. Very slow work. The new pack contents are an absolute godsend to making that project better.

[MisterMark]

Since we are on the subject, any reason why the QB random map selection can only pull from pre made maps? The more QB's I play the more I end up playing on a map I've played before.

Sure would be nice if we could get some true random map selection like the CMx1 platform. Any reason why Battlefront opted not have this feature?

[DaddyO]

I am looking forward more to the Battle Pack than to this Vehicle Pack.

I hope the Battle Pack does not require the Vehicle Pack.

[YankeeDog]

I am looking forward more to the Battle Pack than to this Vehicle Pack.

I hope the Battle Pack does not require the Vehicle Pack.

Even if it did, the Vehicle Pack would only be required for those specific scenarios/campaigns in the Battle Pack that used Vehicle Pack units.

I have no special knowledge of BFC's plans in this area, but I could see them releasing a Battle Pack that was something maybe 50% requiring base game only, 40% requiring content from at least one of the modules, and 10% requiring content from the Vehicle Pack.

This way, there would be something for everyone; I'm sure Vehicle Pack owners will want to see some of Vehicle Pack units featured in the Battle Pack, but it would obviously limit the potential consumers to limit the Battle Pack to only Vehicle Pack owners.

[Bulletpoint]

Very good post, James Crowley.

It's pretty obvious that Combat Mission is made by wargamers, for wargamers - the kind of wargamers that grew up playing tiny plastic soldiers. So the thinking is: you buy a box of toys, then set them up the way you want.

Nothing wrong with that. And the vehicle pack seems nice. But I'm not going to buy it, simply because I don't play against a human opponent, and quick battles don't seem so appealing.

A battle-pack would be interesting to go with the new vehicles, but what I am hoping for would be more than isolated battles. I would like to sink my teeth into new quality campaigns, including new units and vehicles.

That is the combination that I would be happy to pay for.

[MikeyD]

Players had posted hundreds of third party scenarios for CMSF. If you had the skills five years ago to make a CMSF scenario you have the skills to make a CMBN scenario today. Or a QB map.

Judging from occasional scenario maker posts it appears that the chief killer of 3rd party scenarios is being over-ambitious. A game scenario is not a doctoral dissertation. It does not have to be meticulously researched, historically precise to the last detail or of awe-inspiring complexity. It doesn't have to be hard work. I'm reminded of an internet picture of a python that tried to swallow a crocodile whole. Neither of them survived the attempt. So why did we get so many CMSF scenarios back-in-the-day? There was no standard of 'historical fidelity' to aspire to. The pressure was off. Scenario making was for fun, it wasn't meant to be a peer reviewed exercise in historical documentation.

[Hister]

James, I share your views. I'm happy about the vehicle pack but won't be getting it until a number of user made scenarios features them. I dislike quick battles, don't wanna touch them at all. I'm a lone wolf - single player dude so would not be able to use new vehicle toys. If there are no good user made scenarios for it I hope a fothcoming scenarios and campaigns pack (not yet confirmed) would feature them.

Was similar with 3.0 upgrade - was so eager to test out new trigger functionality but to this day haven't yet. How many user made scenarios for CMBN that utilise triggers have been uploaded?

It's obvious users don't delwe into scenario/campaign creation as much as they did before. I tried to make a simple test scenario and couldn't position a single freaking unit on a flat map. Tried 3 times, read the manual, asked and in the end surrended.

It's great users have the option to make content themselves but it shouldn't be expected from them that they will provide content that should have been included by the developers.

Devs, please provide at least a bunch of scenarios that get launched alongside new game content like triggers and new vehicles.

Good luck and wish happy and immersive gaming to all the readers. =]

[Badger73]

Players had posted hundreds of third party scenarios for CMSF. If you had the skills five years ago to make a CMSF scenario you have the skills to make a CMBN scenario today. Or a QB map.

Judging from occasional scenario maker posts it appears that the chief killer of 3rd party scenarios is being over-ambitious. A game scenario is not a doctoral dissertation. It does not have to be meticulously researched, historically precise to the last detail or of awe-inspiring complexity. It doesn't have to be hard work. I'm reminded of an internet picture of a python that tried to swallow a crocodile whole. Neither of them survived the attempt. So why did we get so many CMSF scenarios back-in-the-day? There was no standard of 'historical fidelity' to aspire to. The pressure was off. Scenario making was for fun, it wasn't meant to be a peer reviewed exercise in historical documentation.

@MickeyD, oh most munificent and exulted game manual scribing Sensi! May I most humbly and in all meekness request some kind of more detailed AI Scripting job-aids and tutorials?

I never played CMSF so can't relate to why more scenarios were created back then. While there is a real tendency to be overly ambitious, I've ratcheted myself back to a company sized encounter (12 US squads vs 6 German squads with 4 more German reinforcement squads - no armor or arty). I really struggle to master scripting the AI. I understand the concepts presented but don't connect the dots in my efforts. I desire to produce a tactically sound "computer player" but sure fall short of accomplishing that. It seems timing is everything (I'm still at v2.12) so that when timing is off, things fall apart quickly and my scenario gushes copious liquid fecal matter. Would welcome all and any help understanding how to script AI better. Thanks for raising the issue.

[sburke]

I hesitate to jump into this because frankly I don't have much experience under my belt to speak from. However I have gotten a lot of guidance from others that do. Uniformly they start with, don't go overboard. My first scenario was a platoon + engagement. I eventually graduated to a company and for MG volunteered for a larger combined arms scenario which frankly terrified me.

What I have learned is you first need to get a handle on how the TAC AI works with the AI plan. There are a lot of little things about timing, facing and pathing that you have to understand are going to work totally differently for the AI than they will for a player. You only have a limited number of AI groups and steps. The larger the scenario, the broader a brush you have to paint with. My first scenario, each unit was it's own AI group. I could be very precise in my commands and timing. For any aspiring designer, I think it is a good place to start. Learn how to coordinate your units and how they will move before you start moving to larger groups that are going to increase your variables.

[MikeyD]

in all meekness request some kind of more detailed AI Scripting job-aids and tutorials?

You might have a PDF manual that does just that in you CMBN folder. "A Scen Design AAR PDF Book.pdf" At least you should have it if you got the Market Garden module.

Thought the PDF is a fun read its stress on historical accuracy and fine-grained detail may be intimidating to the novice. My best advise is grab a scenario that you think operates well, bring it into the editor and dissect it like a lab monkey. Then just try stuff. Not orchestrating a battalion, just a test scenario getting one unit to walk into a house by a certain time. I've (half) joked that once a person has managed to successfully do something three times then he's got it. Whether its parallel parking or getting AI triggers to work.

[Skwabie]

I'd rather buy them.

Making them seems more like a job than a hobby tbh. Not the skill, those can be mastered. But the time required...

Few months ago I converted a few campaigns in CMSF. Converted.. far from made from scratch at all. Yet it's more like 4 days of editing time, 3 days of actual play time. Not really worth the effort come to think of it. And the replay value of them campaigns... ehh not so much come to think of it.

I'd rather work at my day job, earn some extra cash and then let the scenario designers take care of them. Let pros be pros, me at mine and he at his, seems more feasible way of allocating different ppl's resources...

edit: oh and I'd prefer lengthy campaigns. My biggest gripe with the WW2 CM titles recently -- slapping 5 scenarios together and... voila there's a campaign for ya! Hell in CMSF the campaigns are some 15 to 20 scenarios long. Can't help but wonder, the price remains but the actual content is shrinking over the years, in the less visible ways. Being a pretty dedicated wargamer I don't mind the prices tbh as I spend most of my extra cash on these stuff, but the content has to be good...

[Fenris]

I found scenario making indeed a long process. Fun in it's own way but takes stamina to stay with it, especially the AI part.

Suggested short cut for lazy researchers like me... Copy something from CM1.

Wouldn't mind battle packs. And to flog my poor dead horse - bring back CM1 style operations

-F

[Ithikial_AU]

I'll flog that CM1 Operations dead horse with you Fenris.

Creating a CMx2 scenario is a longer process start to finish compared to CMx1, no doubt. However the level of detail you can fine tune is also greatly enhanced compared to the 'bad ol' days.'

I think part of the AI Planning process that makes people scared to touch it is the interface. If it was somehow possible to do the following two things I think it would break down a number of those barriers:

1) The ability to program an AI plan inside the 3D preview mode with the same keybindings and controls as if you were organising a regular WeGo turn before hitting 'Go.' Sort of like programing an extensive set of WeGo turns at once.

2) The ability to test scenarios from a specific minute onwards within the editor, sit back and watch two opposing AI plans go at each other in real time. Will give you a quick idea if certain planned actions or triggers are firing at the right times.

Yeah no idea if this would work of if it is even within the realms of possibility.

[Jock Tamson]

My first experience of CMx2 was George McEwan's Highland Games campaign in CMSF. A long (21 battles), immersive, believable sequence of scenarios. Despite having spent 280 dollars with Battlefront in the last 2 years, that first experience remains the best one. Something I could come home to every night after work, fire up and play a few turns.

Yes it is relatively trivial to take a QB map and edit it into something playable, but it is a lot less satisfying than working your way through a well made campaign.

An idea I had for QBs that might prompt people to get involved -

A hybrid scenario / QB style of maps. The author picks out Opfor units, deploys them, creates AI plans etc then sets a points limit for the player, and any other limitations (eg no tanks, no air support). The player can then use the force purchase screen to choose his units, within the limitations set by the scenario author.

This would add a lot of replayability, but also a lot of extra involvement for the single player - choosing unit veterancy, leadership, quality etc which is currently largely the preserve of those who play multiplayer.

[Erwin]

Re CMSF scenarios and campaigns. The terrain was MUCH easier to deal with. Urban terrain in CM2 seems to require many weeks/months of serious effort (see Umlaut). Hence the reduced offerings by volunteers.

At least we need to be prepared to start paying for good quality BF created campaigns of which there are only a couple per game release recently. (And nobody seems to have time to make campaigns any more.)

Am very disappointed that the vehicle pack didn't include a couple scenarios so we could immediately play with them. Like many here, I play vs AI and QB's are just not up to scratch.

(Am puzzled why BF didn't simply focus on completing CM:BS and put this CMBN vehicle pack on the back burner since Steve says it was a lot of work.)

[Pete Wenman]

Just a note to add my two reworked scenarios are now up on the repository.

Borderland (MG) sees the PzIII's replaced with Char B-2 (f)

http://www.battlefront.com/community...d.php?t=117401

In the Shadow of the Hill 7.00 am (CW) sees A Co 4th Dorsets supported by a troop of Crocodiles, rather than the vanilla Churchills previously included.

http://www.battlefront.com/community...d.php?t=117400

No other changes

P

[postfux123]

Just a note to add my two reworked scenarios are now up on the repository.

P

Got em, thanks.

[Hister]

Just a note to add my two reworked scenarios are now up on the repository.

Borderland (MG) sees the PzIII's replaced with Char B-2 (f)

http://www.battlefront.com/community...d.php?t=117401

In the Shadow of the Hill 7.00 am (CW) sees A Co 4th Dorsets supported by a troop of Crocodiles, rather than the vanilla Churchills previously included.

http://www.battlefront.com/community...d.php?t=117400

No other changes

P

Hurray - you made me decide to make the VP purchase! Thank you!

[Badger73]

You might have a PDF manual that does just that in you CMBN folder. "A Scen Design AAR PDF Book.pdf" At least you should have it if you got the Market Garden module.

Thought the PDF is a fun read its stress on historical accuracy and fine-grained detail may be intimidating to the novice. My best advise is grab a scenario that you think operates well, bring it into the editor and dissect it like a lab monkey. Then just try stuff. Not orchestrating a battalion, just a test scenario getting one unit to walk into a house by a certain time. I've (half) joked that once a person has managed to successfully do something three times then he's got it. Whether its parallel parking or getting AI triggers to work.

Jon Sowdon's design AAR is excellent; high level approach, map overlay, unit breakdowns, and all. I've read it multiple times but over a long period of time. He explained the AI scripting process well. Things fall apart for me in understanding the mechanics of AI scripting. His document wasn't really constructed towards that specific challenge and he urges experimenting as well. In effect I'm suggesting that I would welcome a more detailed appendix in Jon's AAR which drills down to some lower levels of detail would help me personally. Barring that, I just need to keep muddling through. I suspect that the experienced designers have immersed themselves deeply enough over time to master this. I have to go at it by drips and drabs. I haven't thrice succeeded yet. :confused: "Schematics" would help. Thanks for your suggestions. I will persevere.