Jump to content

How I view most scenarios and the designers...


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, SimpleSimon said:

If a designer feels handcuffed by the player then in my opinion, he's going about his designing the wrong way. His job to enable the player, to allow him to solve the puzzle he has placed before him and to equip him with the tools to do this. A designers "vision" sounds conspicuously like a script to me. A scripted scenario with a single expected outcome or approach is in my humble opinion, a bad scenario. If the designer is making a point about harsh war can be they are perfectly welcome to warn the player about that in the Notes or out of the back end of the scenario by scoring the player's actions fairly and not maliciously. I am at the end of my limit though for excuses. I am not a soldier, I am paying customer and I expect quality in the product I paid for. I get that the scenario designers see no compensation for their work that sucks, the editing tools are hard to use and time consuming. Nobody makes them do this however and you cannot convince me that balance is a lot of work when I've so frequently done it myself in minutes. 

Certainly not. The work that goes into scenario designing is heavy. That's why it's so painful when a designer is either unable or unwilling to go through the last smidgen of effort necessary to ensure the scenario works, and not just excuse themselves with useless smug one liners "oh lol war is hell" or groundless claims about "research". These things infuriate me because they are not at all a proper or valid response to customer feedback. Instead, I just note who gets salty and make a point never to play their scenarios without reviewing them in the editor first. I should not have to do this, but i've been driven to it. 

While I don't design CM scenario's myself, I don't think you have grasped what Mark said about 'vision'. When you design something, you need to have a 'vision' of what you want to achieve with you design. Otherwise you aren't designing anything, you are merely clicking around in the editor.
The same goes for product development in general. 

 

Edited by Lethaface
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 225
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hmm. Instant resort to ad hominem attack, plus entirely fanciful assertion that I have spent significant time commenting on your posts seems... faintly familiar. Mr. Tittles, is that you?

A number of revamped CMSF2 scenario briefings did get condensed to be more concise. I'm one of those who get intimidated by 'wall of text' orders, myself. Other orders got expanded. The purpose of ord

For purposes of my argument below I'm defining the following terms as: Tools - Units given the player to fight the engagement. Parameters - Map size, time limits, objectives etc, the variabl

Posted Images

2 hours ago, sburke said:

I have taken the time to learn how to go about building an AI plan.  

Could you teach me?  :P

ISIS are driving me Benny Mental at the moment:

"Why won't you use the bloody door?  It's a perfectly nice door!  You know the nasty men with the skull faces will shoot you if you go into the str.....Dammit!"  Back to the editor again.  :rolleyes:

On the bright side, I just witnessed my first double VBIED explosion:

VBhEfcA.jpg

Blimey!  :o

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eeeep.....Multi-Post!  :o

Oh well, seeing as I already took up the space:

2 hours ago, sburke said:

As long as the discussion is respectful and approached as a creative problem solving approach there is no reason people can participate who haven’t created scenarios. Why limit your feedback pool just to folks who have designed?

The issue from my perspective is that any proper discussion of these 'problems' requires some technical knowledge of how the editor works.....It's hard to provide genuinely constructive criticism when you don't understand the parameters at play or what limitations the designer faces.  :unsure:

 

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Eeeep.....Multi-Post!  :o

Oh well, seeing as I already took up the space:

The issue from my perspective is that any proper discussion of these 'problems' requires some technical knowledge of how the editor works.....It's hard to provide genuinely constructive criticism when you don't understand the parameters at play or what limitations the designer faces.  :unsure:

 

Ha! It also helps if you know what smeac is. Otherwise you are just fighting over shiny green patches on the ground and you don't know why.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gundolf said:

Ha! It also helps if you know what smeac is. Otherwise you are just fighting over shiny green patches on the ground and you don't know why.

Fair comment.....I find writing briefings that describe the scenarios I envisage to be one of the most difficult tasks.  Making the briefing clear enough to convey the required information and engaging enough to ensure that the player reads ALL of it is a real challenge IMHO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mattis said:

I must admit this often makes me angry. There are so many great campaigns and missions out there with their fun completely taken away by enforcing those cheap time limits, especially in the WW2 titles but also the modern titles suffer from this: If I recall correctly the Black Sea BP1 campaigns were just outright absurd in this matter. "Hm I have no idea how to present the player with challenges, let him do this assault in 5 minutes, works every time"

- do proper recon before the main body develops an assault? - nope, recon are just another word for light assault infantry.

- establish proper base of fire element covering assault elements? forget it

- pick up the wounded and dead? - no time for that nonsense, there are no score points given for that, and points are everything in a real war right?

- reserve your artillery elements for important moments? - nah best is to unleash them before even the missions starts as calling them in may take half of your mission timer away and we got no time to wait for artillery strikes or support to arrive unless you´re ready to run your troops into your own artillery, I suggest just throw bodies at that enemy MG.

- carefully work your way forward and exchange units that suffered casualties and stress with reserve elements? Sure why not but won´t take long and you´ll notice that there are only ten minutes left and half of the map is still not under your control, just end up spamming those quick and fast commands and have fun getting your pixeltruppen killed like in a C&C game because time is money and manpower is not important right?

Disabling time limits or extending them manually is requested since the stone ages but you hear the same two arguments:

a) in the real world time is also very important and "insert babble about the hard truth of war operations here".  I served and read enough about every modern conflict out there that I can promise you that no modern army in the world demanded such gains in so short time from you like it is daily business in many of the CM scenarios. No not even Peiper and company was demanded to storm 5 heavily defended villages in 45 minutes.

b) the AI actions are tied to the timer and because of that allegedly the timer can´t be disabled or extended. 1st) in most scenarios there is not much going on with the AI in the last minutes, in fact you notice that in most there are no AI commands or waypoint given out by the script anymore, they just hold their positions being completely passive except their built in 4.0 behaviour, they could do that for hours. This is especially true for the scenarios where you have to attack which is basically 95% of what you have to do in CM.

I get it that some hardcore WEGO CM vets playing this for 20 years may accomplish everything with 10-30 minutes remaining on the ticker in scenarios while I´m suffering to take  half of the objectives in time... So what? Good job! They can be proud now and hit the cease fire like a hero and be happy. Why scenario designers always assume "okay lets remove that spare time and everything is fine" forcing everyone to eat this artifical difficulty.

Take this post with a grain of salt but I don´t know how often it get so annoyed to realize that I started one of the CM scenarios and campaigns, applying real life tactics and procedures you´ve learned or read about, just to find me in the usual endgame rushing click- and die-fest more resembling one of these Korean starcraft matches than real world ground operations. This is extremely fun-limiting especially when you´re one of these roleplayers that focus more on recreating/reliving what-if moments, who just don´t do everything for the sake of getting some gamey virtual highscore. I wouldn´t even care if I get a Marginal Victory or a Draw but often you don´t know if your campaign is botched and lost just because you didn´t Zerg Rush the objectives or wasted your time with "silly" things like recon or real life tactics.

I really hope one day this custom and game mechanic changes allowing for individual preferences or that a hacker comes by and finds a way to cheat-modify the time limit 😂

THIS x1000.

The biggest thing that kicks me out of the scenarios are unreasonable time constraints. And to the argument that time is the only thing keeping the defender alive: In real-world conditions, even in WWII, time does not stop and start and the defender's convenience. The effectiveness of a defense is built on logistics, tactics, troops quality, supporting arms, terrain, and the efficacy of the attacking force. If the scenario has to use time as the chief weapon to keep the attacker from overwhelming the defender then the scenario needs to be tweaked to better represent on-the-ground realities. It's as simple as that... 

As of right now, there's a feeling that the game does a better than fair job of representing the tactical puzzles of modern warfare in a credible way, then guts that credibility with time requirements that are far outside the norm for the operations presented. 

I don't mean to disparage the scenario designers, so please take my comments with a grain of salt. They try to do their best; I have no doubt, and some of the ideas about points given to players who work faster without breaking the friendly casualties barrier, is really great! 

***

PS. One of my friends who just got started in the game (and completely empathizes with the needless time constraint) fantasized about a 12-24 hour scenario of a single operation represented over a large piece of ground, with counter attacks and reinforcements and supply chains as represented on-map in real time. Maybe in CM3... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, IanL said:

Time *is* the main thing that defenders have on their side - well at least in a scenario with some sense of balance :) . I would argue that for the defender to have a reasonable shot at victory there must be some time restriction. There has to be a limit to how long they have to hold out.

Clearly these parameters have to be balanced to create a good fun scenario for both sides. I'll just point out that just increasing the time is not necessarily appropriate at all.

WriterJWA just beat me to the punch. I disagree that time is the primary thing that defenders have on their side. In terms of when reinforcements are coming over the horizon yes, but the attacker does't stop an assualt once the clock strikes 4.00 pm. The attacker will stop an attack when they think they can no longer effectively push to achieve their objectives. Encouraging players to play to the clock is the problem that has been raised here. A defenders need to deny ground to the enemy and this is generally done by dismantling the attacking force to the point it no longer becomes operationally viable to continue. Most scenarios I've played (and can remember :P) achieve this by assigning VP's to destroying the attacking force. This makes sense. The Time VP idea of mine was for allowing delaying action type situation on the defence where you simply know you won't be able to hold out forever.

There are certainly cases where the clock is paramount in an operation but rarely should the clock be such a binary situation for determining victory on the battlefield. I think the point of contention here is that it's viewed by some (incorrectly or not) as being too much of a crux that designers rely upon for either upping difficulty or dictating the way a player approaches an engagement.

11 hours ago, SimpleSimon said:

The timer is very important, arguably the chiefest source of stakes and tension in the games. Probably the most important element of its function is how simple and universal a measuring tool it is for overall performance. It'd be nice if scoring could be attached to it somehow so like accomplishing objectives sooner rather than any time in the mission would affect scoring. 

Agreed and that makes sense for the Combat Mission scaled engagement in my mind. The commander you are playing as may have orders to 'clear that village' by no later than 0900 hours to allow for follow on operations. Now with CM's focus on realism, I doubt that orders comes with the clause to do it no matter the cost in pixeltruppen lives. Well let's not count the Soviets just for a minute. :PFor this example if you only manage to clear it by 0930 hours, yeah it's not a 'Total Victory' level of success as desired but would likely be considered a 'Tactical Victory' since you achieved the tactical objectives of this engagement however your delay impacted on the ability to carry out the wider operation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WriterJWA said:

In real-world conditions, even in WWII, time does not stop and start at the attacker's convenience. 

You could just as easily say that.  :D  Going back to an earlier point you may have passed over - opening the editor and adding however much time you want to a scenario takes all of a minute.    Campaigns, yes that is a little more difficult, but I really don't get the gripe about scenario length when you have the tools in hand to adapt them to however you like with very very little effort.  Now that we have established again that there is no real issue of cheap time limits (in scenarios)  just folks who have not realized they have the tools to have their cake and eat it too,  let's talk about the whole issue of real life and mission length.

You have been given an objective that other actions are dependent on.  You are not the main effort but your job is important for the main effort.  Therefore you have to complete your mission by xx hour.  That is a very possible mission that has a fixed time limit that you have to adhere to.  Time is in fact your most critical item, achieving your objective late harms the main effort.

I would accept the critique from veterans who could tell us - no how no way would that ever be how we would approach a mission. You never have an issue with taking however much time you need.  If you have served, my apologies and let us know what your real world experience has been like.  However from most of what I have read, unrealistic ,missions with poor intel and short timelines is not all that uncommon.  Time constraints themselves are very common.  I don't think I have ever read a mission report where someone was told, just get it done today. The commander of RCT-1 Col Joe Dowdy was relieved of command at least partially for the delay in punching through Al Nasiriyah in 2004. Here is the commander on an entire Marine RCT having to launch an attack through a built up area with an enemy of unknown size.  He doesn't meet Gen Mattis timeframe for the mission and that's that.

Now on the other hand not every mission should be like that.  Variety is the spice of life.  :D  I have played plenty of missions that end up with an AI surrender with plenty of time left.  I've also had plenty of missions where I have moved slowly early on and forced myself into a position of having to fight the clock to make my objectives.

 

Now as an aside I do have one question - probably more for Mattis than you.  In the statement below, what CM scenario had you storming 5 heavily defended villages in 45 minutes.  I don't recall that one.

1 hour ago, WriterJWA said:

in the real world time is also very important and "insert babble about the hard truth of war operations here".  I served and read enough about every modern conflict out there that I can promise you that no modern army in the world demanded such gains in so short time from you like it is daily business in many of the CM scenarios. No not even Peiper and company was demanded to storm 5 heavily defended villages in 45 minutes.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to ask this with all the hue and cry and yeah this might be a bit much to ask but I am going to anyway.  Which scenarios are folks saying suffer from this timeline issue?  We are ranting in generalities here and the way folks are expressing it they apparently feel this is a very common practice.  Generalities don't help though if person x and person y don't agree that timeline is an issue with scenario b.  It would help me to have a sense of whether folks are actually in agreement on which scenarios have this as an issue.  I realize this may be like lighting a match at a gas station, but without talking actual scenarios I can't tell you if I agree or not on any of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, sburke said:

@MattisHonestly I have not messed with unpacking and repacking a campaign and can’t speak to how easy or not that is. I do however edit scenarios I really like a lot.  Circle the wagons is one of my favorite CMSF scenarios and I have created probably 4 different versions and then took the map itself and extended it.  You can also go in and relatively easily copy and paste AI plans and subtly edit the added plans to add replay value for those scenarios that have a limited number of plans.  Editing an existing scenario is a really good way to learn the editor and also vastly increases the value of the game. You can turn a scenario you like into multiple scenarios and with enough variability to make it a little more unpredictable.

I basically look at every scenario as sort of a food dish. The designer made it to their tastes.  I try it and then edit it to my tastes. The problem I have with a lot of the above comments is folks seem to be acting (using the same analogy) like walking into a restaurant and telling the chef how to cook. Now if your steak comes well done and you ordered medium rare that is one thing. But getting your home fries at breakfast and the cook doesn’t make it with onions (blasphemy!) well too bad, you’ll just have to eat elsewhere.

It is fine to have different tastes when it comes to the time limit and I basically share the same prinicples you´ve described with the dish analogy. Thus I see no problem to invest some time into editing files to bring it to my standards. However the majority of time I´m spending playing official and custom campaigns as I have an affection for linked missions with context and narrative. Being granted the ablility to modify the time limits in these campaigns would probably eliminate the biggest gripe I have with Combat Mission.

However as it was mentioned there are perhaps issues attached to it especially when it comes to the file information concerning core force etc. I never took a look into file and scenario editing but will do so in the following days but if any of you has a solid clue on how to do it in a competent manner, I would really appreciate if you could point me at a resource or give me some insights via pm.

Edited by Mattis
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, sburke said:

Ha well there is writing an AI plan and then there is writing a good AI plan.  I am still working on the 2nd. 

imo in many situations it is not the scenario designers fault that the AI plans might not seem very well put together.

The Editor is fairly limited when it comes to...AI programing.

In some scenarios these shortcommings might not be all that obvious and designing a decent AI plan in not all that hard but in another scenario ideas it might be a real pain in the ass to try and get the AI to do what the designer would like them to do...

We have a limited number of AI groups and the flexibility with how triggers can be used is very limited. The simple fact that an AI group can only do ONE thing (move to the next objective waypoint when the time is right or when triggered)...or do nothing at all...is very limiting.

In some scenarios the designer can handle these limitations quite well in others it will be a lot of compromises to his initial idea i feel...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a budding scenario designer, I actually appreciate the critical posts by @SimpleSimon and @Mattis. I'm reading your posts with interest. Maybe I don't agree with everything, but you make some fair points.

However, I feel you forget one very important part of why many scenarios are not all they could be: Lack of proper testing - and not because designers are lazy.

Just as scenario designers are quite few, volunteer testers are even fewer. And testing a CM scenario is a massive task, especially if there's AI scripts involved - or if it's a PBEM scenario.

Actually, this is one of the biggest reason why I have stopped making new scenarios for the time being. The testing process is just exhausting and takes months, because every time you tweak something, you then need to wait for several pairs of people to play through the battle. Even then, there's no guarantee the final result will be balanced anyway, because it all depends on the skill levels of the random people who donate their free time to help do the tests.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, sburke said:

I have to ask this with all the hue and cry and yeah this might be a bit much to ask but I am going to anyway.  Which scenarios are folks saying suffer from this timeline issue? 

I'm specifically *not* complaining about this, but the worst offenders I've seen are:

- The Panzer Grenadier campaign from CMFI, that has a lot of "breakthrough" scenarios. The time limits are there to force you to move and so (I think) are pretty reasonable in practice. If you approached this campaign with the intention of killing every US soldier, then you're in for a bad time.

- A lot of the early CMSF scenarios. Scenario and map making has come on leaps and bounds since, and some of the scenarios with laughably small amounts of time (a lot of them have 20 minute timescales) are presumably designed to play head to head in real time. I think we've all learned a lot since then.

Are there still issues with timing? Frankly, I usually don't find myself running out of time in any CM game, but I can well believe  that there are scenarios where this is the case. Balance is extremely hard to do, and especially to balance something as brutal and unforgiving as Combat Mission - one mistake can ruin an entire game on occasion, so balancing something as binary as that, that also relies heavily on hidden information (so, effectively "random" insofar as troop deployments and AI moves) is extremely difficult.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2018 at 8:16 AM, SimpleSimon said:

A childish excuse for what is just laziness on the part of the scenario designer. I am curious what scenarios you have been designing Squarehead if any? I just wan't to know who's scenarios I should be cracking open in the editor first before I waste any of my time trying to play through them. Should I include yours? 

It doesn't take a PhD to spot sloppy work. It doesn't even take a high school diploma to spot the salt of a bad craftsman who's realizes he's been caught by cheated customers. Don't you agree? 

Calm down.

This forum doesn't need this kind of acidic negativity. 

It's the the interwebs, lad. Nothing is real, nothing matters. Give the emotional outrage a rest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, WriterJWA said:

THIS x1000.

The biggest thing that kicks me out of the scenarios are unreasonable time constraints. And to the argument that time is the only thing keeping the defender alive: In real-world conditions, even in WWII, time does not stop and start and the defender's convenience. The effectiveness of a defense is built on logistics, tactics, troops quality, supporting arms, terrain, and the efficacy of the attacking force. If the scenario has to use time as the chief weapon to keep the attacker from overwhelming the defender then the scenario needs to be tweaked to better represent on-the-ground realities. It's as simple as that... 

As of right now, there's a feeling that the game does a better than fair job of representing the tactical puzzles of modern warfare in a credible way, then guts that credibility with time requirements that are far outside the norm for the operations presented. 

I don't mean to disparage the scenario designers, so please take my comments with a grain of salt. They try to do their best; I have no doubt, and some of the ideas about points given to players who work faster without breaking the friendly casualties barrier, is really great! 

***

PS. One of my friends who just got started in the game (and completely empathizes with the needless time constraint) fantasized about a 12-24 hour scenario of a single operation represented over a large piece of ground, with counter attacks and reinforcements and supply chains as represented on-map in real time. Maybe in CM3... 

Actually..... 

I'm building campaign spread over 24 hours, along a 10/15km AO, with map edge to map edge. 

Each scebario has ****LOADS of time because the pressure in battle is from:

1. The nature of the campaign (escaping encirclement

2. The crossing of multiple force axis, at various angles. 

No need for time ****ery, just the terror of know the enemy are nearby and actively hunting you with hea y forces, yet you must keep pushing into them. 

I consider this ana organic difficulty increase, rather than artificially forced due to not enough time to cross the map and realistically gave a force at t hr e end. 

I'm being very strict with myself with this, for all the good reason s noted above. Modern war already speeds everything and is WAY to lethal to charge through. 

The bad time constrains I feel sometimes reflect the pace of the WW2 pace, but without referencing just how dangerous CMBS is to rushers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

Actually, this is one of the biggest reason why I have stopped making new scenarios for the time being. The testing process is just exhausting and takes months, because every time you tweak something, you then need to wait for several pairs of people to play through the battle. Even then, there's no guarantee the final result will be balanced anyway, because it all depends on the skill levels of the random people who donate their free time to help do the tests.

Tbh I dispensed with playtesting a long time ago when I realized it was largely unnecessary. It was only necessary because I was designing super "top-heavy" scenarios  where the removal or inclusion of single units would affect the balance of the map more dramatically then if their had been fewer units. Because their are more of them to affect. Do you understand? The consequences of including more units did not have the effect of reducing the magnitude of my mistakes but multiplying them exponentially because now more pixeltruppen were on the map to be affected by the consequences of that. Bulletpoint this was a balancing nightmare

Now I don't publish my scenarios I play them with myself and my girlfriend (ex-military) because I don't get into making the briefings or preparing the other housekeeping items like considering core troops etc. Also many of my scenarios were essentially heavily modified stock scenarios because I found it very interesting to tweak the original scenarios and see what I got. I often kept going from there. 

To tie all of this in with history, I would encourage you to keep in mind that what many of the maps highlighted as "Huge, Large, Medium, Small" etc you should always put a number of units on the map consistent with the next lower level of map size. (If you fill a Medium size map with units who can all cover and affect eachother, you need to place this scenario on a Large map.) Anything heavier represents a concentration of units on the map so abnormally dense that it would be part of a larger operation and supported appropriately. That's just what I got from my research. 

Edited by SimpleSimon
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, kinophile said:

Calm down.

This forum doesn't need this kind of acidic negativity. 

It's the the interwebs, lad. Nothing is real, nothing matters. Give the emotional outrage a rest.

You must've meant to this for Sgt. Squarehead who's reply to my post was that I was "talking out of my posterior". I agree he did seem quite angry.  😂

Edited by SimpleSimon
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thus is very true. I personally rarely put the full battalion in play right from the top (in a scenario). The maps just don't fit them properly, especially given CMBS spotting ranges. 

MOUT battles are another deal if course. 

@Sgt.Squarehead I don't have CMSF, still on the fence ref #2. Your Mosul scenario/map is fascinating though. What starting force arrangements do you have (roughly)? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Making the briefing clear enough to convey the required information and engaging enough to ensure that the player reads ALL of it is a real challenge IMHO.

One problem is that some designers write the briefing like a RL mil set of orders and that means including a lot of info that is irrelevant to the player and the game scenario, as well as writing in an overly complex style that can be confusing to non-pro mil folks who just want the necessary info to play the scenario.  

For most players it's irritating to have to reread some briefings several times, and still forget or overlook important items that are buried under the complexity of the format/style.  

It's understandable that we have many milpros here who enjoy writing in a complex RL style the way they were trained.  (Perhaps they could include a summary of their RL-style briefing which only includes the essentials needed to play their scenario written in simple english.)

Edited by Erwin
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Lack of proper testing - and not because designers are lazy.

Yes. 

But to clarify:  Designs can be lazy - that's a term we used to use re failing to utilize all the features available to the designer, or just settling for a mediocre solution to a problem.  In no way was that supposed to imply that designers personally are "lazy people".  Far from it. We know that it takes a massive amount of time to develop a very good scenario and much more to make a campaign - we're talking many hundreds of man-hours over many months - sometimes years(!)  It's not surprising that designers may start to burn out and just say "that'll do".  

But, all that massive amount of passion and work doesn't alter the fact that the design can be "lazy" or perhaps a more politically correct phrase would be "not optimized".

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, WriterJWA said:

If the scenario has to use time as the chief weapon to keep the attacker from overwhelming the defender then the scenario needs to be tweaked to better represent on-the-ground realities. It's as simple as that...

I very much disagree with that because...

9 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said:

The attacker will stop an attack when they think they can no longer effectively push to achieve their objectives.

Just - does - not - happen. I think there have been perhaps two times I have played a CM game where the attacker has said - yeah my attack is over I just cannot reasonably continue this. One of them was the second Beta AAR that @Bil Hardenberger and I played for Shock Force 2. Most of the time CM games grind to the last broken platoon. In that context of gamey pushing of pixel troops to the breaking point I have no problem with there being a gamey clock that counter balances that.

Having said that...

 

9 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said:

Encouraging players to play to the clock is the problem that has been raised here. A defenders need to deny ground to the enemy and this is generally done by dismantling the attacking force to the point it no longer becomes operationally viable to continue. Most scenarios I've played (and can remember :P) achieve this by assigning VP's to destroying the attacking force. This makes sense. The Time VP idea of mine was for allowing delaying action type situation on the defence where you simply know you won't be able to hold out forever.

I should clarify my position a bit. I am not really advocating that time be the only thing on the defenders side and I am not against considering that a scenario's time is too short either. I took that strong position because so many people seemed to be piling on for - just make the times longer and longer and longer. So, there needed to be a counter point to the attacker is in charge and shall get everything they want. :D  I am advocating for time being a non trivial factor and part of the overall scenario. Anyone is free to point out they think any scenario has the time allocation wrong but expect that criticism to not be taken seriously without additional sentences to explain why following the tactical decisions you took you ran out of time but still had a viable path to accomplishing the objectives.

TLDR: don't just say as the attacker I want more time - gimme. Add some explanation of what happened during your attack, what plan you made and where you ran into delays that caused the clock to run out.

Link to post
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
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...