Editing Unit status?

[ncc1701e]

In the editor, you have the ability to destroy a vehicule before the mission is starting. Is it possible to do the same for units? What I would like to do is to start a mission with an ambush just starting where the leading vehicule and unit inside have been destroyed/killed.

Thanks

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Nope.....My advice, just build the ambush, let nature take its course. 

Inspired by an image from @LongLeftFlank I've built a scenario where the player controls only a LOT of Spies, and (very briefly) some Syrian infantry.....The infantry receives a calling card from NATO artillery at the opening of the mission (those who don't die WILL rout) and then the player gets to infiltrate the former front lines, recover weapons and take the fight back to the Infidel!   

Edited January 23, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Combatintman]

Depends what you mean - you can strip elements out of units when you buy them with the exception of the HQs. Elements that you don't want on the map can be set as reinforcements that never arrive if your mission is less than 3 hours long. Have a read of my Making Neptune Spear tutorial to see how it all works.

 

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I think he wants reduced numbers & screwed morale state, sadly the former isn't an option in CM:SF (CM:A was the first game to have it AFAIK) and the latter still can't be done.

However the bad guys will give him both of those things all on their own if it's set up right at the start.....I recommend two Medium IEDs (stacked atop one another under the lead vehicle) & two Trigger Men (to ensure that at least one goes off) combined with an ambush. 

If it's set up outside a painted 'Setup Zone' it's locked in and the player just has to watch it happen on Turn 1.....Some sort of heads up in the briefing would help minimise the 'Shock Effect' on the player and watching the ambush happen would be more immersive than just reading a description and starting with reduced numbers IMHO, indeed it also adds an extra degree of variability into the scenario (adding some sort of slightly movement restricting terrain may be useful to avoid players trying to game the start with a Fast move order).

Edited January 23, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead

[ncc1701e]

I was willing to have casualties on the ground near trucks to simulate an ambush starting.

But, setting a large IED between two trucks is indeed doing better. And it adds random in the number of casualties. I have indeed no setup zones so that it is impossible to avoid this start.

That is the only spoiler that you will have I am afraid. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Two IEDS (& Triggermen)  is always better for these 'scene-setting' events, there's a fairly significant failure chance with IEDs, so using multiples is the way forward.....Using just one of either risks a failure & thus total scenario collapse.

It's something I have tested pretty thoroughly while mucking about with ideas for Mosul & elsewhere.

PS - Remember to take these unavoidable casualties into account when allocating VPs. 

Edited January 23, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Combatintman]

Personally I would steer well clear of Turn 1 catastrophic events and any randomness about the player's available force at that time in the scenario and here's why ...

No matter how much of a heads-up you give in the briefing, the player is already emotionally invested in their blokes from set-up so when their blokes get killed by something that they cannot avoid or influence they find it irritating. If you doubt this then look at the endless whinges that come from WEGO Players who micromanage their moves to the nth degree, with 'Fast'/'Pause 15 Seconds'/'Target Arc'/'Blast' etc combinations in a single move and then find that the unit doesn't do exactly what they wanted it to do. Face it ... most CM players prefer control over lack of control. So it is an absolute sure fire way to induce a rage quit and is a proven gripe among players who have played scenarios with Turn 1 casualty events.

Without a reasonable idea of what the player is starting with (or will have at the end of Turn 1), it becomes difficult to balance the mission and to test it. Remember if you go with the using two IEDs suggestion there are three possible results ...

1. None of the devices function.
2. One of the devices functions and say whacks a single vehicle and 4 blokes.
3. Both devices function and say whacks most of your convoy and cause fratricide to the ambushing force.

Added to that - you cannot predict what the surrounding terrain will look like:

1. Will everything be flattened?
2. Will nothing be flattened?
3. Will different walls be flattened in Test #1 to those that are flattened in Test #2 when only one device functions?
4. Etc ...

Of course there is also the vehicle cook off issue which will be another random event to cater for because one or both (or more) of the vehicles you destroy using the IED (s) may be set on fire and thus cook off and cause more random casualties.  This doesn't happen if you start with the vehicles already destroyed.

There will be a way of doing this and it probably involves just picking a truck platoon or two and stripping away elements or setting them as never arriving reinforcement groups and setting some of the on map vehicles to destroyed. You don't need bodies on the ground to convince the player that a couple of trucks have been whacked. Back it up with an appropriately worded briefing and the job is done.

While mission designers have to accept that there will always be variables when they design, balance and test missions because of different play styles, difficulty settings and player COAs that you don't anticipate, you should always aim to reduce unnecessary variables - particularly those that relate to key aspects of the mission narrative.

Of course I can give better guidance if you share more about your design concept, narrative and the sorts of challenges that you want to set for anyone playing the mission.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

TBH that's why I suggested stacked Medium IEDs, they are just enough for the job and even if both go off it doesn't leave a massive crater.

I know you don't like these dramatic scenario starts @Combatintman, but tastes differ and it's not an inauthentic way for the action to commence.  Workarounds for the problems you describe can be devised, not with 100% predictability for sure, but within a reasonable margin of error IMHO.....If @ncc1701e can pull it off, I'd certainly be willing to give it a go. 

1 hour ago, Combatintman said:

There will be a way of doing this and it probably involves just picking a truck platoon or two and stripping away elements or setting them as never arriving reinforcement groups and setting some of the on map vehicles to destroyed. You don't need bodies on the ground to convince the player that a couple of trucks have been whacked. Back it up with an appropriately worded briefing and the job is done.

This would indeed be a viable option.....But a lot less dramatic. 

Edited January 24, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Combatintman]

1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

This would indeed be a viable option.....But a lot less dramatic. 

One dramatic event does not a mission make, it is concept, narrative and the sum of the parts.

[Erwin]

7 hours ago, Combatintman said:

an absolute sure fire way to induce a rage quit and is a proven gripe among players who have played scenarios with Turn 1 casualty events.

I designed a CM1 mission many years ago which started with an ambush that the receiving player could do nothing about.  The whole point was to create the sort of shock and dismay that a real ambush would cause.  This ambush set the tone for the rest of the mission.  My concept was to demonstrate the players' lack of control in an ambush situation and to create cautiousness in the ambushed player - at least for the start of the mission.

As Combatintman says, the screams of horror and criticism from players were loud.  It's a psychology issue.  Players do not want "realism".  They want the "illusion of realism" (verisimilitude) - that encourages the player to think that (s)he is a great commander and is in control of the situation. 

So, yes it's a wonderful idea, and some players may appreciate a mission that starts with a nasty ambush in turn 1.  But, be prepared that most will not appreciate it.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

15 hours ago, Combatintman said:

One dramatic event does not a mission make, it is concept, narrative and the sum of the parts.

No argument there and as I discovered it's all too easy to waste a lot of time in the editor trying to do something overly complex/clever.....On the other hand, nothing ventured, nothing gained. 

Anything that encourages people to get creative in the editor is a good thing IMHO, especially now with CM:SF II imminent.

10 hours ago, Erwin said:

So, yes it's a wonderful idea, and some players may appreciate a mission that starts with a nasty ambush in turn 1.  But, be prepared that most will not appreciate it.

Appreciate the input, I guess how it's framed in the briefing would be a big factor, if the player understands that he's witnessing a scene setter and that the ambushed party is not 'his troops' (and thus the ambush will cost the player no VP) I think it would be broadly acceptable to most people surely? 

[Erwin]

Well yeah... if you tell the player exactly what (s)he is about to experience that reduces the angst.  But also it mitigates the psychological shock/horror/surprise effect that you seemed to want to induce(?). 

I like the concept of starting a scenario with a very nasty surprise as a psychological trick as an entertaining game design is an example of "applied psychology" - it will almost certainly make the player extra cautious - and you could assume/predict that in your design for how the oppo AI forces act vs how you can assume/predict how the human player will now act and react. 

People generally love horror films, so I hope you go ahead and make a really shocking surprise ambush on turn one and see how players react.  All am saying is that you need to be cognizant that some may get upset.   Treat it as an psych experiment...

Edited January 25, 2018 by Erwin

[ncc1701e]

Thank you gentlemen for all your inputs.

You know I am the first in these combat missions to take care of my men. And, when I see the end screen saying it's a major victory whereas I have two dead, it is a failure for me.
What's funny is my wife's look when I tell her this. 

Background of this mission is starting by a reinforcement convoy attack at an unexpected location (well behind the frontline).

So, let's discuss psychology.

You are a company commander and your mission is to reach the frontline by trucks.
I am not a soldier so I can not say what will be done in reality.

But, playing a scenario like this, what do you expect? The fact that you can reach your exit zones (CM:SF2 soon ) without encountering an enemy.
If there are no enemies, why playing then?

As such, you will disembark your men and carefully move to contact. That's psychology.
Whereas in real life, will you?