Jump to content

After the battle ends you should be able to keep going.


Recommended Posts

Hello so I was just playing the battle titled "Interdiction" the one where the Ukraininan mountain forces are reinforced with US recon troops. The objective is to guide an airstrike onto a key supply bridge and take out a Tunkuska battery. I spent a ridiculous amount of time on the battle and had just got my air control spotters in place on a mountain after I had destroyed all of the AA. I'm all ready and excited to laser guide a 1000 lb bomb from an F16 onto the bridge and flatten a town controlled by the Russians and the game ends with a "Total victory" for me. WTF I didn't even get to destroy the bridge nor the town and there are over 20 minutes left in the TWO HOUR battle! Would it not make sense to able to use your air support now that the AA has been knocked out? I mean c'mon throw me a bone! Now I love Combat Mission and spend a lot of time meticulously plotting the movements of my troops so I can have the fun moments where I get to rain destruction on the enemy and this fun part was unfairly taken away. If something could be done where I get to choose to go on after the enemy has surrendered that would be great. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You got a Total Victory most likely due to russians surrendering (the reason for battle ending is written under the battle result). What would 'keep going' involve from there on when the other side essentially dropped down their weapons?

Yes I get what you mean. It can be very anticlimactic. But so is reality.

Then again you also didn't have to damage or destroy the infrastructure that you, as a defender in a war, would've had to rebuild later on. I'd call that a very positive outcome.

Edited by kraze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I love Combat Mission and spend a lot of time meticulously plotting the movements of my troops so I can have the fun moments where I get to rain destruction on the enemy and this fun part was unfairly taken away. If something could be done where I get to choose to go on after the enemy has surrendered that would be great."

+1

This has been a frustration ever since CM2 superceded CM1.  In CM1 it was normal to have to fight to the end as victory calculations changed slowly as one ground away at the enemy.  In CM2 it is common that the AI will surrender before one gets to the "fun" part of implementing one's plan.  If one saves every turn in a CM2 game it's not uncommon to go from a defeat to a respectable victory cos of the loss of one unit.  CM1 is akin to an older aircraft where changes occurred slowly and it is very forgiving or errors.  CM2 is like a jet with controls that need a computer to master as it is so unstable in terms of a small movement making a huge difference, and one error can cost you the game.

"Reality" is boring and frustrating and often not fun.  However, this is a game that most of us (I think...  I hope...) play for fun and relaxation.  So, I agree with DG that this kind of "coitus interruptus" is annoying.  Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that anything can be done about it with the CM2 engine.  Hence my hope for significant improvements in CM3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Erwin said:

This has been a frustration ever since CM2 superceded CM1.  In CM1 it was normal to have to fight to the end as victory calculations changed slowly as one ground away at the enemy.  In CM2 it is common that the AI will surrender before one gets to the "fun" part of implementing one's plan.  If one saves every turn in a CM2 game it's not uncommon to go from a defeat to a respectable victory cos of the loss of one unit.  CM1 is akin to an older aircraft where changes occurred slowly and it is very forgiving or errors.  CM2 is like a jet with controls that need a computer to master as it is so unstable in terms of a small movement making a huge difference, and one error can cost you the game.

"Reality" is boring and frustrating and often not fun.  However, this is a game that most of us (I think...  I hope...) play for fun and relaxation.  So, I agree with DG that this kind of "coitus interruptus" is annoying.  Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that anything can be done about it with the CM2 engine.  Hence my hope for significant improvements in CM3.

You know, you can always reinstall CM1 if it interferes with your fun that much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Da_General420 said:

If something could be done where I get to choose to go on after the enemy has surrendered that would be great. 

This would have to be a change made by the scenario author. The AI is surrendering because you have beat up his forces so much that their morale is low. Most likely while you were getting your FO into position you pounded on and or killed a large number of the enemy units. They have given up and retreated.

My understanding is that if the scenario author wanted to have the force take more of a pounding then they could create some reinforcements and schedule them to arrive after the scenario ends. That way they would not change the play balance but they would count in the factoring of morale levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, IanL said:

My understanding is that if the scenario author wanted to have the force take more of a pounding then they could create some reinforcements and schedule them to arrive after the scenario ends. That way they would not change the play balance but they would count in the factoring of morale levels.

Yes, I think this is the way it is done.  @Combatintman would know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, LukeFF said:

You know, you can always reinstall CM1 if it interferes with your fun that much.

I am stunned that any comment that doesn't pay automatic homage has to be pounced on by certain people who feel the need to make snarky responses.  As usual in these cases, you contribute nothing to this thread.

Having played every CM1 game for at total of over 10,000 hours and every CM2 family for probably closer to 15,000 hours total its probably that I know the game better than the vast majority of CM players here.  You really think someone would do that if it wasn't fun?! 

That's the point, a few of us actually play the game and don't really care about the tech aspects of whether a particular gun has the correct characteristics so long as the game is believable - ie exhibits verisimilitude. 

It doesn't bother me (or you apparently) that we have massive threads of tech aspects of the game that are not perfect.  But, god help anyone who makes a comment on the game play issues. 

CM1 was replaced by CM2 after about 7 years,  CM2 is now 10 years old.  Can't see why one shouldn't start looking forward to CM3 when there will be opportunity for another evolution.  But that sentiment probably pisses certain people off as well.

Edited by Erwin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolution is good but Battlefront would've dug themselves a bad hole in that regard. The main reason for that would be them dropping at least three CMx2 series to make a CMx3 game that would, without a doubt, feel unfinished at first. Like CMSF was when it was first released.

After all CMx2 was a complete rework of an engine core to a point of it being completely different and way more detailed than not only CMx1 but a lot of competition. That said - there's nothing being requested in this thread that can't be done with the current engine. Either by a mission designer or by adding/changing a code so you can continue playing after mission 'ends' as you would.

I personally like it as is. CMBS is especially brutal in its difficulty (or, to be precise, not forgiving your mistakes) due to modern tech being especially killy - so to me anticlimactic endings only add to that brutality. Kinda like a good HBO show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, IanL said:

My understanding is that if the scenario author wanted to have the force take more of a pounding then they could create some reinforcements and schedule them to arrive after the scenario ends. That way they would not change the play balance but they would count in the factoring of morale levels.

Mine too.....I've been advised that 60% casualties or thereabouts can trigger a surrender, so an appropriately sized force can be added as a 'post battle reinforcement' to prevent this.....You do have to remember to take these measures into account when allocating VP though.

14 hours ago, LukeFF said:

You know, you can always reinstall CM1 if it interferes with your fun that much.

Reinstall? 

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

Yes, I think this is the way it is done.  @Combatintman would know. 

You are right, I do but somebody's beaten me to it ...

2 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Mine too.....I've been advised that 60% casualties or thereabouts can trigger a surrender, so an appropriately sized force can be added as a 'post battle reinforcement' to prevent this.....You do have to remember to take these measures into account when allocating VP though.

Reinstall? 

Explained in full here:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate it when they do that!  :lol:

7 hours ago, Combatintman said:

You are right, I do but somebody's beaten me to it ...

It's all good.....Seeing as it was you that told me about it!  ;)

I reckon we could filter quite a novel 'Hints & Tips' thread from the Mosul chat, although it might be better used as a 'How Not To' go about designing a scenario (ie: on a whim).....But I suppose that it does also demonstrate that with proper guidance even a relative n00b can make something that's playable.

 

 

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thomm said:

"After the battle ends you should be able to keep going."

I also felt that way several times during playing CM. I think it is a valid suggestion.

Best regards,
Thomm

That may be so but this has been debated ad nauseum over the years.

Those that want it say that they want to complete their victory or see their finely crafted plan executed to its conclusion while those that don't want it say that extending scenarios results in a fairly pointless endgame where the player hunts down every last enemy.

Both POVs have their merits but I'm in the play the scenario as intended camp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming that there are no impractical programming problems, any game system should be about giving players choices

No one is preventing a player from ending a scenario "on time".  But, for many of us we would like the choice of extra time - sometimes to execute our brilliant plans to conclusion, other times cos we are playing more carefully/slowly than the designer intended and we want to see if we can succeed while keeping friendly casualties low.  To some that may seem "pointless", to others its "fun".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Erwin said:

Assuming that there are no impractical programming problems, any game system should be about giving players choices

No one is preventing a player from ending a scenario "on time".  But, for many of us we would like the choice of extra time - sometimes to execute our brilliant plans to conclusion, other times cos we are playing more carefully/slowly than the designer intended and we want to see if we can succeed while keeping friendly casualties low.  To some that may seem "pointless", to others its "fun".

As has been said countless times already, nothing's stopping you from opening up the editor and pushing out the mission time to the max.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, is it a programming problem to simply allow a one-button selection for extra time when the scenario "officially" ends?  (As opposed to having to go into the editor etc?)  There is a convenience/user friendly issue here as well.  My philosophy is to make accomplishing things in a game as easy as possible/non-frustrating for the player.  Just something to add to the wish list for CM3 if it won't happen in CM2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I refer you to my learned colleague:

10 hours ago, LukeFF said:

As has been said countless times already, nothing's stopping you from opening up the editor and pushing out the mission time to the max.

Click the one button marked 'Scenario Editor' and all will be revealed!  ;)

17 hours ago, Combatintman said:

Both POVs have their merits but I'm in the play the scenario as intended camp.

I definitely agree.....On the other hand, this shouldn't stop those so inclined from jumping into the editor, making the changes they want (& dealing with the consequences of doing so), it's a good way to learn to use the editor.  B)

 

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Erwin said:

So, is it a programming problem to simply allow a one-button selection for extra time when the scenario "officially" ends?  (As opposed to having to go into the editor etc?)  There is a convenience/user friendly issue here as well.  My philosophy is to make accomplishing things in a game as easy as possible/non-frustrating for the player.  Just something to add to the wish list for CM3 if it won't happen in CM2.

Sorry is it a problem for someone who bumps their gums about choices and programming problems about buttons to eschew an editor that probably was a fairly big programming problem to put together?

Your post suggests that it is ....

You've been given the choice you have chosen not to .... hardly Battlefront's problem is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't think anyone's mad at you fella, just a bit perplexed at why you don't click that button and answer all these questions for yourself.....You are clearly a bright bloke and you are clearly interested in the intricacies of the system.  The most experienced (& least experienced) guys here all keep telling you exactly the same thing, that the easiest answer to many of your questions is to be found in the editor, but you apparently just won't click that button.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They do.  :mellow:

Various members then responded and explained exactly why it can't happen without diving into the editor (and I should add, how to do exactly what you were asking for in the editor).  :mellow:

But the bleating continued.....And here we are.  :mellow:

Which takes more effort do you think:

BFC rewriting the whole game.

Users opening the Scenario Editor.

Answers on a postcard please.  ;)

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tweaking these things in the editor does not require any major effort...very doable for most people (except absolute newbies maybe...)...sure

but...IF...doing the neccesary adjustment to the 'game play selection' UI is not a massive effort either (i don't know...i guess it is not as easy as one might Think though).

It might be Worth atleast some considderation...

If BFC could add two extra options for the start-screen where we chose playstyle, difficulty level etc...Why not ?

First option:

Allow AI auto surrender: (yes) or (no)

second option:

Gametime: (default) or... copy the game-time window from the editor to let the player choose any time he like for the scenario...

On ‎2018‎-‎01‎-‎25 at 2:17 PM, Combatintman said:

 

Those that want it say that they want to complete their victory or see their finely crafted plan executed to its conclusion while those that don't want it say that extending scenarios results in a fairly pointless endgame where the player hunts down every last enemy.

 

With these two options perhaps both sides of the discussion could get what they want :) That would be the best thing...No ?

As an extra plus ;)...If the sceanrio designer does not need to make the reinforcement-tweak to the scenarios the get the AI to keep fighting...that would be good to imo

less trouble with the VP-scores...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RepsolCBR said:

but...IF...doing the neccesary adjustment to the 'game play selection' UI is not a massive effort either (i don't know...i guess it is not as easy as one might Think though).

It might be Worth atleast some considderation...

Nope! Adding more and more choices or more and more features does not make a product better. In fact it makes it worse. The old saying "things should be made as simple as possible but no simpler" holds here. You only add features and options for things that are really important. This is not important. Oh, I get that it *is* important to two people here but it is not important to even a plurality of players let alone a majority.

For BFC this is a no brainer. Anyone who really wants this can tweak a scenario in the editor. Ditto designers that want this. The majority of players don't even blink at this feature of the game. Why on earth would they spend even five minutes on it when they have a list a 100 bullet points long of things that matter to more people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...