Jump to content

Unbalanced VP parameters ruining otherwise great scenarios.


Recommended Posts

I've noticed something as the series has progressed from CMSF1; the maps get better and better, the scenarios are thrilling, but the VP allocation is often punitive. Typically you'll get a tactically very challenging scenario made even harder by draconian parameters. Take the following example:

 

9Qxae1Q.png

 

My big issues here are the punitive penality for casualties and the relatively low occupy points.  MOUT in CM2 is very hard. A single encounter can leave you with a badly depleted platoon. it is seldom bloodless. Having to take three objectives with 2/3rds of a Company (two platoons essentially, although you get the third much later) is almost impossible without giving up those 500 points. It's very difficult full stop. On top of this, you have to withstand an extremely rigorous counterattack, and endless artillery. 100 points only for inflicting casualties on the enemy seems pretty miserly to me.

 

I don't want to turn it into a rant but it's something I've seen a lot the later down the timeline of the games you get. You have en enjoyable mission and do pretty well, but end up with a defeat because it's not a perfect run. If it's not casualties it's collateral damage. It feels a little bit like you can't win, in a scenario where already the odds are against you.

 

I'm pretty sure some scenario designers would assess  D-Day a minor defeat for the allies. The game is plenty hard without shafting the player on technicalities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't necessarily call keeping casualties low a "technicality" because it may have sound reasons for existing, but you're right that it makes maps considerably more difficult. In the modern games it's easy to get bushwhacked over one small mistake and have an entire squad wiped out in mere moments. I've not played Black Sea but 20% seems sorta low if both armies are modern ones. I'm assuming you're playing as Americans there, so it's probably trying to emulate that the modern U.S. army almost aggressively avoids casualties for military and political reasons alike.

Collateral damage VPs I actually like the most. It's super easy to just flatten everything in your way and the "preserve X" victory conditions sorta force the player to think outside the box a bit. I'm quite glad it exists. I think the WWII games are more relaxing on this issue in the sense that there's more "cushion" in the action. But that's why I own both the WWII games and the modern ones, as it's nice to go between one style or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coming from CM1 to CMSF was a big shock for exactly the reasons Sulman states.  However, with experience one learns to accomplish missions in CMSF with minimal casualties.  In nearly all CMSF missions one has overwhelming firepower and one has to learn how to use it.  The often onerous victory conditions and points lost for friendly casualties reflects that.  When CM2/CMSF was first released there was still a very active CM1 game community and I recall how becoming good at CMSF made a huge improvement in my CM1 play since CMSF trained one to fight taking minimal casualties.

CMBS is much more of a meat grinder and yes, heavy friendly casualties are much harder to avoid.  But, IIRC the VP's are such so one can win even after taking many casualties.

The fact is that all the CM2 games are very complex relative to most wargames and one has to expect a steep learning curve.  But, if you enjoy the challenges, it is a very rewarding system to master.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Sulman said:

IMy big issues here are the punitive penality for casualties and the relatively low occupy points.  

The game is plenty hard without shafting the player on technicalities.

 

9 hours ago, Khalerick said:

it's probably trying to emulate that the modern U.S. army almost aggressively avoids casualties for military and political reasons alike.

What @Khalerick said.  Many scenarios made for the modern titles attempt to reflect the modern Rules Of Engagement (ROE), aversion to casualties etc.  The frustration you feel is probably also felt by the real world ground commander.  This might be where the simulation vs game debate comes into play.  Admittedly simulations are not always fun but games are suppose to be fun.   

I would play a stand alone scenario (not necessarily a campaign scenario) the way I wanted to.  That might mean ignoring the VP conditions.  Or opening it in the Editor and "tweaking" it.  That's one of the cool things about Combat Missions.  You can play it as a simulation or a game or a hybrid of the two.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly a fair comment - I haven't played this scenario so can't offer any particular insights to it.  As a scenario designer one of the hardest things to do is to square away the Victory Points - particularly for stock Battlefront scenarios which must be playable on both sides.  My approach has always been to give the player the tools and the time to achieve a major or total victory allowing for a goof along the way.  Testing goes a long way to understanding those nuances which is why I think that most of my time in this game is spent testing my stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Khalerick said:

I've not played Black Sea but 20% seems sorta low if both armies are modern ones.

This is a very important point. Black Sea is much more symmetrical than CMSF, for want of a better word. I think American Infantry have an edge, but the lightweight 'shock and awe' units have their work cut out against mechanized infantry, especially the BMP-3 and upgunned BTRs which can wreck your plans in a single turn.

I absolutely loved CMSF. It grabbed me in a way CM1 never did, and I play little else but CM2 games now. I think CMSF was really well balanced in terms of scenarios, but it seemed that the modules introduced a slope in the difficulty curve, and CMBS subjectively feels like a continuation of that.

I take the point about collateral damage, but there's some places where it's prohibitive. CMSF2's 'into the valley' is a perfect example. Good luck taking out the plethora of ATGM teams in buildings without damaging those buildings. And you have to take them out.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Combatintman said:

Certainly a fair comment - I haven't played this scenario so can't offer any particular insights to it.  As a scenario designer one of the hardest things to do is to square away the Victory Points - particularly for stock Battlefront scenarios which must be playable on both sides.  My approach has always been to give the player the tools and the time to achieve a major or total victory allowing for a goof along the way.  Testing goes a long way to understanding those nuances which is why I think that most of my time in this game is spent testing my stuff.

The thing is, I think the scenarios are amazing. Great atmosphere (Black Sea especially) and the WW2 games have these highly detailed historical contexts. They're a thrill to play, and it's a little sore when you give a good account of yourself and score poorly.

 

There's definitely a difference between campaigns and the standalone battles, imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't played much CMBN for two reasons.

1) There are no British or NATO forces.
2) It's really really hard.

I have so much great Combat Mission to enjoy, I'm not missing out; but when I do get around to playing CMBN some more, I'll probably open the editor and cheat a little until I learn how to use my forces - it's what I did all the other games 😛

[* against the AI of course - never against a human opponent]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting the victory conditions right from a scenario design perspective is actually not that easy.

Not only is it difficult to get the full spectrum of victory conditions available to the player but you have to take into account the fact that the skill level can vary a lot from player to player. Someone might struggle with the battle while another player will find it a breeze. Moreover it can be very time consuming and tedious to replay the battle several times. Okay sure there are ways that you can use to compute the victory points without necessarily replaying the battle but it is clearly not the most thrilling part of scenario design.

At the end of the day though you said the battle was enjoyable, you had a good time and all so maybe this is going to be an unpopular opinion but is it that important what the final screen at the end says? For a human vs human game or a campaign yeah sure it matters a lot more but for a single scenario vs the AI, personally I can tell on my own without even looking at the screen how well or how poorly I did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Zveroboy1 said:

At the end of the day though you said the battle was enjoyable, you had a good time and all so maybe this is going to be an unpopular opinion but is it that important what the final screen at the end says?

Not only do I agree with this... I suspect it is, by far, the most popular opinion.

People care about having a good time playing a game not whether or not the points balanced out correctly after they finished playing it... consider any scenario you played, say last month?

 

Do you remember that mortar barrage which shredded your platoon?

That blasted AT unit behind that corner?

Those f***ing cowards who refused to advance & got themselves all killed?

 

 

Or, do you remember how many points you earnt from the friendly condition bonus?

Perhaps you remember if it was a minor, tactical, major or total "XXX" (I'm assuming you'll remember if XXX was a victory or a defeat)?

Can you recall, roughly (just a ball park figure), how many points your enemy gained from inflicting losses on you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do things like "Total Victory" or "Tactical Victory" mean anyway in the context of these games anyway? 

In the end it's always going to be "what I think it should mean". What I think is that the VP system is a fairly nebulous mechanic by which performance is graded, since there is no uniform standard, and i've mostly discarded it. My own measure of conduct is 

A. Own force casualties

B. Enemy force casualties

C. Context objectives, captures, touch, exit zones, etc.

Most of the time i've found myself going into the editor these days and just altering the parameters to fit that hierarchy. There are times where I might place context and enemy-force casualties close to each other as to be the same but in the end there is no objective more overriding than the preservation of your forces. 

Dead men can't fight for anything. So what's the point of having them? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Freyberg said:

I haven't played much CMBN for two reasons.

1) There are no British or NATO forces.
2) It's really really hard.

I have so much great Combat Mission to enjoy, I'm not missing out; but when I do get around to playing CMBN some more, I'll probably open the editor and cheat a little until I learn how to use my forces - it's what I did all the other games 😛

[* against the AI of course - never against a human opponent]

With CMBS it depends on the scenario and campaign. The Russian campaign 'Across the Dnieper' is actually really good and spot-on difficulty wise. The Ukraninan campaign 'Shield of Kiev' starts easy and then the difficulty curve goes vertical, but it's doable (you don't need to win the final mission, hint hint)

I've actually given up on CMBN for the 2nd time because I can't progress in 'Courage and Fortitude' and I've been trying for hours and hours, in the end I'd rather do something else. I also found CMFB extraordinarily difficult in the US campaign so that will probably go the same way. I'm obviously doing something wrong, but the the way I play in CMSF2 and CMBS just doesn't seem to work for me in the WW2 games. Something's changed in CMBN though, because i did way better when I first bought it. I strongly suspect it's the changes in defensive behaviour. Attacking is so, so hard now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I'm playing a historical scenario and I get my butt kicked, I don't mind it that's what happened in real life.

On the other hand, if I do better than they did in real life, I probably expect to be awarded with some form of victory.

So it occurs to me that in that sort of scenario, achieving an objective that wasn't taken in real life should be awarded a lot of points.

But obviously parameters should be taken into account. In fact, they should always be taken into account with the possible exception of maybe Eastern Front scenarios where the Russians are in an "at all costs" mood.

So I suppose it depends on the situation. A lot of those modern scenarios (which I confess I don't play) shouldn't result in victories just because you took the objective if you lost an unacceptable number of men doing it. Acceptable American losses in a modern scenario are going to be very different from acceptable Russian losses in 1942.

What I'm trying to say is that objective vs parameter points should be vary wildly from one scenario to another. It's all accordin'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sulman said:

I've actually given up on CMBN for the 2nd time because I can't progress in 'Courage and Fortitude' and I've been trying for hours and hours, in the end I'd rather do something else. I also found CMFB extraordinarily difficult in the US campaign so that will probably go the same way.

 

Yeah, Courage and Fortitude was insanely hard - I had to backtrack twice just to get to the end, which was a little tedious.

Most of the campaigns in all the titles I haven't played, although some of them I did and enjoyed very much. I can't even get a good result in a CMBS scenario without giving myself extra support weapons - modern war has a really steep learning curve. I'll get around to it though :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, John1966 said:

When I'm playing a historical scenario and I get my butt kicked, I don't mind it that's what happened in real life.

On the other hand, if I do better than they did in real life, I probably expect to be awarded with some form of victory.

So it occurs to me that in that sort of scenario, achieving an objective that wasn't taken in real life should be awarded a lot of points.

But obviously parameters should be taken into account. In fact, they should always be taken into account with the possible exception of maybe Eastern Front scenarios where the Russians are in an "at all costs" mood.

So I suppose it depends on the situation. A lot of those modern scenarios (which I confess I don't play) shouldn't result in victories just because you took the objective if you lost an unacceptable number of men doing it. Acceptable American losses in a modern scenario are going to be very different from acceptable Russian losses in 1942.

What I'm trying to say is that objective vs parameter points should be vary wildly from one scenario to another. It's all accordin'.

It depends on how the scenario is put together ...

When you design a scenario for say Blue vs Red AI only then the VP construct is often very different to a scenario designed to be played in all modes.  It is far easier to design Blue (or Red) vs Red (or Blue) AI than a scenario playable by both sides and capable of being played H2H.  When designing for both sides and H2H, you have to take into account the point at which someone may choose to surrender and ensure that nobody gets a turn 1 ceasefire Total Victory.  To do that, you are immediately in the game of using all of the objective/VP tools to ensure this does not happen.  I find that using parameters is the most effective means of avoiding the Turn 1 surrender Total Victory while being able to allow the player to achieve varying degrees of victory as the scenario progresses through other tools such as unit or terrain objectives and other parameters.  The trick with all of these tools is to experiment and thoroughly test them in order to achieve those desired victory conditions.

Victory Conditions are not standalone parts of the scenario - they have to fit the narrative and the stated mission so it is important to make sure that you have a vision for the scenario before you get into the nitty gritty of crunching the VPs.  While I note that some posters have said things along the lines of 'I can judge whether I have won or lost' you are failing as a scenario designer if you do not strive as hard as you can to come up with an End Game screen that awards appropriate rewards or punishment for the player's actions.  We all have different motives when we start a scenario or campaign but winning them strongly underpins the motivations for those who do not play to win all the time; for those that play to win - it is the prime consideration.

Getting this right in simple terms works like this:

  • Strong scenario narrative.
  • Objectives that are clear, logical and have a purpose consistent with the scenario narrative.  Examples that I see quite often which do not fit this criteria are:
    • Usually parked on the extreme left or right side of the map nowhere near the main objective(s).
    • Require you to go there for some dubiously stated purpose in the mission brief.
    • Have a low VP value.
  • A good mission briefing and graphics.
  • An understanding of what a Total Victory/Defeat and a Draw should look like in the scenario.
  • A VP scheme that supports the above.  The best tool for the mathematical element of this is @Ithikial_AU's VP calculator which I unreservedly recommend.
  • Thorough testing (at least 5).  Each test run should involve a save point at which you ceasefire and record the end game screen as a minimum standard at:
    • The start.
    • A quarter of the allocated time.
    • Half of the allocated time.
    • Three-quarters of the allocated time.
    • At scenario end.
      • Your records should, as a minimum, show:
        • VPs.
        • VP breakdown.
        • Casualties by each individual category (Ok, KIA, WIA, MIA).
        • Objectives achieved/not achieved.

This allows you to get a feel for the moments during the scenario at which the balance can tip to one side or the other and should allow you to structure/adjust your VPs as required to either reflect this or to ensure that the player is motivated to stay in the game.  It also gives you enough data to work out a mean/median (or whatever mathematical method you choose) result for each phase of the battle and at its conclusion.  From there, you can fine-tune the VPs and it gives you an understanding of a 'fair' result for a player at various stages in the game.

Nuanced ... yes, but not hard if you have the mission narrative/concept firmly embedded in your mind before you get beyond making the scenario map.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Sulman said:

I've actually given up on CMBN for the 2nd time because I can't progress in 'Courage and Fortitude' and I've been trying for hours and hours, in the end I'd rather do something else.

That is probably the hardest campaign and set of missions that I can recall in any title.  Yes, you will almost 100% certainly have to replay some of the missions multiple times and their their "tricks".  Yes, that is annoying.  However... for a player who considers himself "experienced" this is a great reality check and training course since you probably won't encounter anything that hard again.  It makes you a better player imo.  

Also, I remember that the final mission in Courage & Fortitude was one of the best scenarios I ever played.  IIRC the US get something like a reinforced Regimental-sized Armored/Mech Task Force, and if you like large scenarios, this is about the largest in any title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are helpful and very good guidelines no doubt. But personally I can't help but think that expecting this level of work and testing in particular for amateur scenario designers is both unrealistic and in the end also counter-productive. For me it is one of the reasons why we have so few community made scenarios being released these days. The expectations and standards have become way too high.

And what this does is just create more hurdles for aspiring scenario designers. I mean put yourself in the shoes of say someone who just bought the game on Steam and wanted to give scenario design a try for fun. Chances are they are going to read this and just become disheartened and most likely give up, never publishing their work because they deem it is not good enough, leaving us with just a handful of scenario designers co-opted by Battlefront and barely anything else on the side.

I actually strongly push for the opposite approach myself. Simpler scenarios with less work involved. We want to foster more community based content and not require someone to spend 6 months or more working on a scenario. Maybe this is appropriate for an official Battlefront scenario but it should never be what's expected of an amateur scenario in my opinion.

I remember fondly the days of CM1 and also SF1 to some extent, and this is not just nostalgia talking here, where you had hundreds of scenarios being published over the years by the average joe. Maybe someone who never published anything else but had a cool idea, worked on it a little bit in their spare time and shared the result with the community. A lot more people seemed to take a crack at it back then. They just fiddled with the editor and posted the results for other people to play and enjoy.

Were all these scenarios good? No of course not. Most of them were really lacking in one area or the other, some were disappointing or just sloppy. But in the end we had way more content available to play.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest I kind of wish that BFC did NOT design their scenarios to be playable from both sides...buth rather...

Design two separete versions of the same scenario. One playable as red- and one playable as blue side.

This would make it easier to achieve a suitable difficultylevel...for both scenarios as compared to having to considder the limitations of the AI when designing a one-fit-all scenario...

Sure...you would need to test two scenario versions rather then one but I actually belive that it would not neccesarely mean more work...as it would be both easier to design as well as easier to test if you do not need to considder those AI shortcommings...

And it would result in BETTER scenarios if the designer could skip those limitations 😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Sulman said:

With CMBS it depends on the scenario and campaign. The Russian campaign 'Across the Dnieper' is actually really good and spot-on difficulty wise. The Ukraninan campaign 'Shield of Kiev' starts easy and then the difficulty curve goes vertical, but it's doable (you don't need to win the final mission, hint hint)

I've actually given up on CMBN for the 2nd time because I can't progress in 'Courage and Fortitude' and I've been trying for hours and hours, in the end I'd rather do something else. I also found CMFB extraordinarily difficult in the US campaign so that will probably go the same way. I'm obviously doing something wrong, but the the way I play in CMSF2 and CMBS just doesn't seem to work for me in the WW2 games. Something's changed in CMBN though, because i did way better when I first bought it. I strongly suspect it's the changes in defensive behaviour. Attacking is so, so hard now.

Courage & fortitude is a very, very, hard campaign IIRC. Perhaps changes to the engine made it harder compared to when it was designed? I wouldn't hold the difficulty of that as indicative for other campaigns in CMBN. 

With regard to CMBS, IIRC I thought the last mission of the 'Accross the Dnieper' campaign was also very hard (facing heavy artillery and Abrams). I do remember the last UKR mission, I think it was won but at heavy cost.

I didn't play much of the US campaign in CMFB, but I did play large part of the German (Peiper) campaign. Storm of Stoumont was one of the hardest battle I fought, took ~200 casualties. It was a rather nice one though.

Modern vs WW2 does indeed require some different tactics imo. I think for modern more caution is needed, while for WW2 more audacity. Obviously that's a very broad generalization, but back in the day after CMBN came out I had to relearn/unlearn quite some of my CMSF habits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

the day after CMBN came out I had to relearn/unlearn quite some of my CMSF habits

Very true...

16 hours ago, Zveroboy1 said:

I actually strongly push for the opposite approach myself. Simpler scenarios with less work involved. We want to foster more community based content and not require someone to spend 6 months or more working on a scenario. Maybe this is appropriate for an official Battlefront scenario but it should never be what's expected of an amateur scenario in my opinion.

It was much easier to produce good scenarios in CM1 as it was a simpler game - altho' had some great features that (oddly) were removed for CM2. 

In the early days of CM2 (ie CMSF and even CMBN) folks were motivated enuff to produce a lot of content - and of a high standard.  Both the quantity and average quality has significantly reduced for later releases and in more recent years.  The challenge is that we players (many of whom have been playing CM1 and CM2 for up to 20 years) now expect a higher level of sophistication in the scenarios and campaigns. 

Have long said that we should be prepared to pay for professionally designed content like that because there are few designers who are willing to devote that massive amount of time and focus to create terrific scenarios and campaigns.  Just look at how long it has taken for "Heaven & Earth" to be completed, or any of MOS' or GeorgeMC's amazing scenarios and campaigns.  (Yes, there have been, and still are other xnt designers and please don't be offended that not all are mentioned here.) 

These folks have spent years learning the CM2 game system and then many man-months working to develop content.  The fact is that CM2 is a very complex game to design for, and most folks do not have the time, energy or talent.  Professionally created content is required to avoid future releases having very little content.  

Altho...  am not sure if it was a joke but we did have a short-lived (b4 it was removed by BF) thread in which it was stated that CM3 is well in the works.  One can only hope...  Maybe we should pray?

Edited by Erwin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, RepsolCBR said:

To be honest I kind of wish that BFC did NOT design their scenarios to be playable from both sides...buth rather...

 

Now this is something that has always bothered me.

We often see scenarios that say they're suitable to be played as either side against the AI. Every time I see that I raise an eyebrow.

Unless the AI can play as well as a human, how can that even be possible?

If I'm playing the AI then I tend to assume the odds (in terms of forces on the field) are going to be stacked a bit in it's favour, especially if the AI is attacking. So I'm never quite sure how a scenario can be suitable for playing the AI no matter which side you pick.

And I've played a few of these where it proved to be a walkover and I think I picked the wrong side.

*SPOILER*

NEDforce was a classic example (although I can think of others). I played the Germans and I'm not entirely sure how I was expected to lose as the British had left one flank completely open. Might have been a challenge trying to plug the gap if I'd been the British. But the AI isn't very good at that sort of thing.

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...