Do you prefer a detailed or vague battle plan?

[RockinHarry]

20 minutes ago, puje said:

Time is a very challenging thing to calculate when designing. When I made Valleys of Death I could blaze through some missions in 10-15 minutes because I knew where to be careful, and when not to. Players probably took 1 to 1.5 hours to do the same. 

Natural thing for a mission designer knowing all the details for "optimal" playthroughs for sure. Main reason I do not pump out more my missions is lack of feedback from players (if there is any), particularly of the more detailed type responses. Couple of people just reported my "You Enter Germany" mission at TSD III simply beeing too difficult as they´re about to be overun by the AIP within 15-20 minutes. Well yes....but that´s intended purpose. Unfortunately all miss the actual purpose of the mission beeing an actual "delay then counterattack" type. So the actual fun of that mission lies more in the second half of it, but I´d guess nobody ever played that out to a conclusion.  From my own playthroughs (10-15 times through final version) I know that at least a tactical vic and more is doable, although beeing quite some challenge. And that with just a single AIP (attack) battle plan. So why spending countless hours and efforts if you´re the only guy around knowing this is a well made mission. Yes, for the fun of creating it majorily. On the long run motivation degrades considerably though.

[MOS:96B2P]

On 5/25/2019 at 8:59 AM, RockinHarry said:

here one can go in different ways as mission designer IMO.  

Taking bridges mission is almost the same. If you can´t gain a bridghead and free surrounding area, the bridge will remain under enemy fire and observation. This can´t be solved properly by placing objectives zones on the map and requires both, bits of tactical understanding by the designer and player. Otherwise the player reports back to his commander! "Sir! We´ve taken the bridge intact! But we´re out of ammo and fuel! Send some over!" Commander: "Well nice, but we can´t. If we send the trucks they get shot up instantly. There also must be an enemy FO around on your side! The moment we move an Arty barrage is coming down on us."

So my point is how would you transport the imagined tactical situations over to the player, in order to make it "reaslistic" and also calculated properly in end mision screen?

Sorry, my friend.  I read this a few days ago but didn't have time to respond and then forgot about it.  I just came across it again.  

For your bridge scenario I think some occupy objectives could be useful.  One occupy objective on the bridge and others on key terrain that control the bridge area.  Scored in such a way that if the player takes the bridge but not the other key terrain he only gets a Minor Victory or maybe a Minor Defeat.  That OpFor FO is an interesting idea.  Maybe make that FO team a high value unit target. 

In CMSF2, where bridges can be destroyed by using IEDs like demo charges, I might make the bridge a BluFor preserve objective. 

Testing the Victory Points score is part of the process. 

A lot of possibilities.         

[RockinHarry]

12 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:

Sorry, my friend.  I read this a few days ago but didn't have time to respond and then forgot about it.  I just came across it again.  

For your bridge scenario I think some occupy objectives could be useful.  One occupy objective on the bridge and others on key terrain that control the bridge area.  Scored in such a way that if the player takes the bridge but not the other key terrain he only gets a Minor Victory or maybe a Minor Defeat.  That OpFor FO is an interesting idea.  Maybe make that FO team a high value unit target. 

In CMSF2, where bridges can be destroyed by using IEDs like demo charges, I might make the bridge a BluFor preserve objective. 

Testing the Victory Points score is part of the process. 

A lot of possibilities.         

yes my example was bits of a generalization off course. I´d likely use the mentioned "hidden to player" objective method, but also depends on the general map layout, as well as intended mission goal and planned on assets. Yep, countless possibilities, when one thinks about it often enough.

[George MC]

18 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:

Sorry, my friend.  I read this a few days ago but didn't have time to respond and then forgot about it.  I just came across it again.  

For your bridge scenario I think some occupy objectives could be useful.  One occupy objective on the bridge and others on key terrain that control the bridge area.  Scored in such a way that if the player takes the bridge but not the other key terrain he only gets a Minor Victory or maybe a Minor Defeat.  That OpFor FO is an interesting idea.  Maybe make that FO team a high value unit target. 

In CMSF2, where bridges can be destroyed by using IEDs like demo charges, I might make the bridge a BluFor preserve objective. 

Testing the Victory Points score is part of the process. 

A lot of possibilities.         

I've used both touch (unknown to player) and occupy for bridge objectives. Players gets points for touching the bridge but unless they can clear the enemy from commanding key terrain unlikely they will be able to occupy (and get more points) without coming under fire - does depend on the terrain on the map though.

In fact on one I'm working on just now enemy FOs have LOS to the approaches of the bridge and access to TRPs and a LOT (modules come in as reinforcements) of artillery so they can keep up some harassing fire. Blue player not only has to take the bridges but also clear the enemy from any commanding terrain, including the FOs. Its a massive map as well but with comparatively few units.

[MOS:96B2P]

5 minutes ago, George MC said:

Blue player not only has to take the bridges but also clear the enemy from any commanding terrain, including the FOs. Its a massive map as well but with comparatively few units.

+1  Sounds very interesting.  I always look forward to your scenarios and campaigns.  

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Anyone tried using a Sturmtiger against bridges at all? 

If anything will bring one down.....

1 hour ago, George MC said:

Its a massive map as well but with comparatively few units.

This we like. 

[George MC]

Cheers guys