Prioritizing the SCENARIO EDITOR ?

[Glubokii Boy]

IanL  expanding on that suggestion of yours it would be awesome if the scenario editor when open for that AI group had a 3D preview mode and would draw its plan as a waypoint path and at each little node show the time delay there. And all draggable to best cover and all with the ability to click on that leg and make changes with shortcuts as you cycle through the 15,30,45 times. SInce we are dreaming...

 

Something like this would be very welcome for sure...

 

I find that the whole timing thing can get pretty messy when trying to coordinate things...It is not very easy to figure out at what GAME CLOCK time different units will be at different places...

 

Another thing that i would appriciate would be to be able to delay a triggered movement with X minutes...Having and add/delete toggle for the delay in minutes in the UI to the triggered respons...

 

Sort of like this...An enemy unit moves across a river and sets of a trigger but as the scenario designer i don't want my forces to react instantly but rather 4 minutes after the trigger was activated...

[MikeyD]

The map editor isn't difficult at all, it's actually pretty fun and fairly intuitive. The thing impeding 3rd party scenarios, I think, is intimidation. If you check the CMBN board you can locate lots of past references to initial construction of massive real world historically accurate maps. But few references to these maps being completed. Sure, if you set out to reconstruct all of 1944 Antwerp down to the lamp posts you're going to be intimidated and probably give up. One solution is to NOT try to reconstruct all of 1944 Antwerp! Instead draw a road, a hill, a house and a fence - there, your first map's all finished. That wasn't so intimidating, was it? 

 

Someone above wished the game could randomly generate a forest. Well, a single swipe of the trees paint tool and you've got your forest. A second swipe and you've got 'light forest' terrain beneath it. A third swipe and there's a wheat field beside it. It takes less time to do it than to describe it.

Edited February 6, 2015 by MikeyD

[kohlenklau]

The scenario factory and campaign factory approach tries to get people involved and see if good scenario ideas can bubble up to see the light of day by teaming up and working together.

 

 

Briefings:

Yes, briefings are like the English class essay for some people but other people love to write them.

 

Images:

StratMap, OpMap and TacMap are like a piece of cake to some folks but others stare at the screen and wonder what to do.

 

Just as 2 examples

[astano]

The map editor isn't difficult at all, it's actually pretty fun and fairly intuitive. The thing impeding 3rd party scenarios, I think, is intimidation. If you check the CMBN board you can locate lots of past references to initial construction of massive real world historically accurate maps. But few references to these maps being completed. Sure, if you set out to reconstruct all of 1944 Antwerp down to the lamp posts you're going to be intimidated and probably give up. One solution is to NOT try to reconstruct all of 1944 Antwerp! Instead draw a road, a hill, a house and a fence - there, your first map's all finished. That wasn't so intimidating, was it? 

 

Someone above wished the game could randomly generate a forest. Well, a single swipe of the trees paint tool and you've got your forest. A second swipe and you've got 'light forest' terrain beneath it. A third swipe and there's a wheat field beside it. It takes less time to do it than to describe it.

 

I'd posit that if there's an intimidation factor here, perhaps it runs the other way and is part of what drives people to attempt such massive projects.  The standard for mapmaking and scenario creation in CM has become very high - just look at all the (entirely justified IMO) praise being given the new CMBS scenarios on these forums and the quality of those scenarios and the maps they're built on.  I think there's a feeling among some that if their scenario isn't the second coming of Studienka (or Ambush, or whatever other highly-praised scenario you can think of), it's not worth doing.  Plopping two platoons and a farmhouse down on a featureless map is a little unsatisfying by comparison, and frankly I'd give good odds that the community would dismiss if not totally pan such a scenario.  The intimidation, I'd guess, is of being compared to the masterpieces and found wanting.

 

Hopefully there's a couple things about CMBS that will reinvigorate scenario creation from this perspective:  first, it's a fictional conflict, so no one can come bash you for having too many Panthers in your scenario, or putting the XXth Awesome Brigade 100 miles out of position for the date the scenario's set on, which at least reduces any historical intimidation; and, second, there are a number of smaller, simpler official scenarios, which may spur more people to create similar ones rather than emulate the titans.

Edited February 6, 2015 by astano

[MikeyD]

About creating strategic maps and operational maps for scenarios, Lets remember 3rd party scenarios aren't obliged to follow BFC protocols. You can do a fancy topographic map for the operations map just like an official scenario or you can insert a picture of your pet cat. Since it your scenario you can do whatever you like, 

[Cpl Steiner]

I am actually quite keen to make a scenario for CM:BS, but am too busy enjoying playing the game right now. I also think I need more information on the key events, skirmishes and battles of this hypothetical war so I can pick a point in the timeline that looks underrepresented and like it would be a fun scenario. Didn't someone say recently that a more detailed backstory would be released in the future?

 

Failing the above, if anyone has any suggestions based on their understanding of the wider picture and what battles they would like to see, feel free to make them and I will see if any grab my interest.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Cpl Steiner

[kohlenklau]

Awww, kitty cats. That'd be cute.

[Pelican Pal]

The map editor isn't difficult at all, it's actually pretty fun and fairly intuitive. The thing impeding 3rd party scenarios, I think, is intimidation. If you check the CMBN board you can locate lots of past references to initial construction of massive real world historically accurate maps. But few references to these maps being completed. Sure, if you set out to reconstruct all of 1944 Antwerp down to the lamp posts you're going to be intimidated and probably give up. One solution is to NOT try to reconstruct all of 1944 Antwerp! Instead draw a road, a hill, a house and a fence - there, your first map's all finished. That wasn't so intimidating, was it? 

 

Someone above wished the game could randomly generate a forest. Well, a single swipe of the trees paint tool and you've got your forest. A second swipe and you've got 'light forest' terrain beneath it. A third swipe and there's a wheat field beside it. It takes less time to do it than to describe it.

 

But that map would look absolutely terrible and probably would get a negative reception if you released it.

 

Map making is just as much about immersion as it is interesting tactical scenarios.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Pelican Pal

[Pete Wenman]

I also think I need more information on the key events, skirmishes and battles of this hypothetical war so I can pick a point in the timeline that looks underrepresented

Cpl S - you are already trying to over think things.

Just come up with an idea, and build a scenario around it and then fit it into the backstory if you feel the need. August Morning, which by the way has a very simple map, was based on the first 5 minutes or so of a training film I remembered watching as a recruit many years ago.

The scenario has no real link to the backstory, other than two forces come into contact with each other, at an entirely fictitious location. It can really be that simple

P

Edited February 6, 2015 by Pete Wenman

[Glubokii Boy]

In some respects i find that making smaller scenarios can by more challeging...I have tried to make a few small ones but none have been very good i'm affraid...

 

Whit small maps and fewer forces comes a responsibillity to se to it that the scenario still provides a number of challanges and oppertunities for the player...

 

 

With somewhat larger scenarios these challanges and oppertunities will not need to be quite as perfectly designed by the designer himself...They sort of find themself to a gretaer degree

 

- Make a realistic and natural looking map of decent size and put addacuate forces on it...The challanges and oppertunities will be easier to create and not need as much micro managing every detail as with smaller scenarios i Think.

[Ranger33]

This thread has inspired me, I think I'll take a stab at making a scenario this weekend. I'll skip the map making and just grab one of the QB ones and tweak it.  As mentioned above, when one doesn't have to worry about historical accuracy you can just jump in there and make something fun.

 

As for giving feedback on user made content, I blame the repository itself. Finding a given scenario after it leaves the first page of the relevant sub-forum is an often frustrating task. Even if you know the name of the author or scenario it's not guaranteed to be found by the search function. I think some fresh formatting over there, making it easier to find what you want, highlighting popular trending content and creators would go along towards getting people involved. Just go look and notice how the "most popular" stuff is almost all from 4+ years ago. This should be based on trending popularity, not all time hits. I realize that it says "Most popular from last 90 days" but that's because those are the only downloads that are easy to find, being the first thing you see.

 

On that note, also notice that far and away the most popular item of all time is Devil's Descent, a very small scale campaign featuring a real storyline with characters and branching paths based on player choices. Not some unwieldy behemoth of a campaign based on rigid historical accuracy with 6 page long briefings, that only a few dozen people will ever actually finish. 

Edited February 6, 2015 by Ranger33

[kohlenklau]

This is a 208m x 208m battle that is 15 minutes long. 25 troops US Army as AI delaying force. vs double that Wehrmacht human player.

I always try to make 1 page briefings. TacMap done in freeware paint.NET.

 

 

Edit: Oh funny. I just remembered that the US unit in this CMBS game is the 3rd ID. Coincidence....

 

one more...also 208 x 208, 20 minutes

It is being written by a college student as his first scenario. "Morning Patrol" will have elements of the 4th Princess Louise Dragoon Guards scouting ahead on a road to see if any Germans occupy "De Luca's farmhouse"...

Edited February 6, 2015 by kohlenklau

[Zveroboy1]

Personally I don't think the editor itself is that bad. There is always room for improvement obviously but I doubt this is the main issue. And actually it has come a long way since CMSF. The addition of map overlays speeds up the map making process tremendously for instance.

 

It is just that it takes a long time and lot of dedication to finish a scenario, the whole process is very time consuming even if fiddling with the editor is actually quire fun and engrossing.

 

And MikeyD has a point, most of the established scenario designers have been at it for close to 10 years, so they have become quite good and there is probably a feeling among aspiring or amateur designers that their scenarios aren't going to cut it or reach the same quality standard so why bother?

 

There is also the fact that scenario making involves several different skill sets that designers don't necessarily master : the mapping itself, the AI plans are the core elements but then some people are not familiar with image editing softwares so they face a hurdle when it comes to the graphics for the briefing. Same thing for the briefing itself.

 

Concerning the last two points though, they are not super important at all. Sure a good briefing is nice but most people don't want to read a novel, they just want enough intel about the battle and a little background info for immersion. And you don't need to have the fancy victory points or arty support panel at all. It looks neat but really it is a bit superfluous.

 

But yes it is a bit sad to see the lack of user made scenarios compared to CM1 or even CMSF.

[MikeyD]

 

But that map would look absolutely terrible and probably would get a negative reception if you released it.

 

Ah, the trick is not to care.   You do it for your own gratification, then you share. Whether anyone appreciates the effort is their own business. If ten people like it and one person doesn't that one person will be the only one to post a comment. Welcome to the internet.

[kohlenklau]

Reception's jumpin' bass is pumpin'
You look at the girl and your heart starts thumpin'
Says she wants to dance to a different groove
Now you know what to do G bust a move

get in the editor and just do it guys

[Macisle]

IMO, the two best ways to increase the number of scenarios coming out:

 

1. Add the ability to copy-paste and rotate sections of other maps into a new one.
2. Restructure the briefing page so that a designer can just put briefing text and no images while maintaining a "finished" look.

If you can only do one of these, do #2. Making finished images adds hours to any given scenario and is an even bigger hurdle for people not used to using programs like Photoshop. I would guess that #2 is actually the primary bottleneck in scenario design.

[Rosseau]

I have 162 CMSF scenarios and 100+ CMBN, so the numbers have fallen off. We must also consider the modders that do the critical graphics work that makes these games great. They're too busy to create scenarios! Neither can we ask BFC to stop patching the games and create a paid scenario disk.

 

Maybe the core community designers could get together and put a preferably paid scenario package on green as jade site? I would gladly pay to support it. However, I prefer scenarios, as I like to tweak (and credit) other people's work. You can't do that with campaigns.

 

Speaking of that, does anyone know where that campaign zip utility is to break down the campaigns into scenarios?

 

We could also do a kickstarter to fund experienced designers who have the time to do the job right.

[Fenris]

It;s a very lengthy process. I've spent way more time on scenarioes I've made than playing.

 

Map making is ok and what takes the longest.  Making the map editor a more mouse+keyboard process I think would help.  Have number keyboard short cuts to the categories. ground #, roads, walls etc.  Then function key shortcuts to the elements.  Finally WASD to navigate to the individual items - road shape tiles, number of trees etc.  Spacebar rotates, same as ctrl+r-click.  Have the key shortcuts shown in the UI.  So for example press 2 for ground #2 and then the F2 key for marsh tiles, 6 for roads, F3 for paved, WASD to choose the shape, space to rotate.  Not having to move the cursor off the map all the time to change elements would really help IMO.

 

AI planning is the most tedious.  Doing it all in the 3D view just like plotting in game movement might be easier.  Allow plotting just the command elements instead of all the individual subunits it you wish.  Add to the waypoint menu the various timing and action items you get doing an AI plan.  Having the movepaths and waypoints visible in the AI plan map view might be useful, leave the grid square(s) to occupy at the waypoints intact.   When testing in 3D being able to move the game time to any point and seeing where the units are would also really speed up testing, maybe have a 'process movement' button like end turn and the PC calcs movement for your units for the entire scenario so you can review.  Or maybe just having a fast forward option in realtime mode so you can watch the pixeltruppen buzz across the map.  I dunno, something to speed up testing,  trying to get AI plan timing right so there's some co-ordination is really tedious.

 

I've only done maps and briefings once so don't have a huge amount of experience with that.  Perhaps the games could ship with a nice 2D map jpg of the area that the module covers.  Punters can then cut out a pic for the area their scenario takes place, then everyone ends up at least having smoething similar looking.  For tactical maps I just do a pic top down view of the map with stuff drawn on in crayon.

 

If I think of more I'll post.

 

 

 

-F

Edited February 7, 2015 by Fenris

[Kieme(ITA)]

The idea of being able to type the text of the briefings directly in the editor would make the briefing creation much faster and enjoyable indeed.

[Glubokii Boy]

Two things with regards to the briefings....

 

- I think it would be good if the briefingpictures could be allowed to be larger. I often find it difficult to make a decent looking map within the size-restrictions we currently have.

 

- Add an extra option (tab) to the briefing screen. We now have BRIEFING, DESIGNERNOTES and TACTICAL MAP...

  I would also like to se ADDITIONAL INFORMATION or something like that with multiple pages avaliable...Here the designer could put pictures and text from the manuals encyclopedia showing the information on important enemy (or friendly) equipment and any tips the designer might have for dealing with them.

 

  I think this would be a nice addition to the briefings. Espesially for those that don't play the game 'all the time'. It would help the player to understand what he is up against...

[Kipod]

Being able to copy and paste portions of existing maps into new maps would save a lot of time making scenarios. Just a thought. 

[Trenchmouth]

Another option that could speed up map creation, for example, would be the chance to save into a dedicated library partial map sections, full with terrain, foliage and flavor objects, a 5x5, 10x10 or 20x20 Tiles worth sub-creation that would let you make a nice farm compound, for example, with all its props, and then reproduce it in various maps whenever you need that kind of farm compound.

 

Yes, exactly! This needs to be a thing.

[George MC]

A few scenario creation tips that might streamline the process for some folks.

 

 

I use a tablet and pen to draw scenarios. With the map overlay function it means you can sketch in the main details really quickly.

 

Creating AI Plans - most common mistake is designers trying to micromanage - don't. Keep AI Plans 'big picture' with grand tactical sweeping moves, not inch by inch movement. Use the ground/terrain and trust the Tac AI when it comes to the nitty gritty.

 

Testing AI Plans is best done in WEGO - you can very quickly fast forward turns. Saves hours.

 

Briefings are best done in a word processor I think - means spelling can be picked up. If you are not that savvy at doing briefings then extract an existing briefing from a scenario and tweak to match your scenario.

 

Mind it's not rocket science - it's the game within a game. So start small or even better open up a small scenario and start to tweak it - change out units (but reallocate the AI Plan, scoring etc), improve the map - all that stuff means you can learn how to slowly.

 

FWIW overall I'm pretty happy with how the editor works. You just need to spend time using it just like you need to invest time in playing scenarios to get good at CM.

[Combatintman]

From my look at the this thread (and other similar ones over the years) there seems to be a trenchant belief that creating briefing graphics requires photoshop and ninja like qualities in that program to knock up decent sets of briefing graphics. All of mine have been done using a combination of Fraps screen grabs, Powerpoint and Paint.

 

Trust me - anybody who can put a powerpoint or similar presentation together can do briefing graphics - it really is not hard - the link below (scroll down to post 34 and read on) shows examples of graphics created using these methods:

 

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/115533-new-mission-into-the-green/page-2

[Macisle]

From my look at the this thread (and other similar ones over the years) there seems to be a trenchant belief that creating briefing graphics requires photoshop and ninja like qualities in that program to knock up decent sets of briefing graphics. All of mine have been done using a combination of Fraps screen grabs, Powerpoint and Paint.

 

Trust me - anybody who can put a powerpoint or similar presentation together can do briefing graphics - it really is not hard - the link below (scroll down to post 34 and read on) shows examples of graphics created using these methods:

 

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/115533-new-mission-into-the-green/page-2

 

I think the point is not that you need pro apps and skills. Rather, the current briefing system is set up so that you must include something or your scenario takes an immediate credibility hit. Add to that that the bar is always getting higher in terms of the quality of the briefing graphics being produced by the community and what this adds up to is that a lot of people who would otherwise be making quality scenarios are not--because the additional time and effort to package the scenario is prohibitive to them. No one wants their scenario to scream "amateur" out of the gate, even if it is in fact, a first-class scenario design in terms of the battle content itself.

 

I think it would be better to move graphics to optional sections that only appear if they are included (and I know how to make presentable graphics in PS, BTW). For example, like with the current features like Designer's Notes and Tactical Maps, if you want to include cover art, then have that section appear at the top. If the scenario designer doesn't want to include it, then have that box not appear at all, rather than have an empty graphic box to call attention to the lack of a graphic. Make the briefing screen structured so that having no graphics at all doesn't make it look unfinished.

Edited February 7, 2015 by Macisle