Unbalanced VP parameters ruining otherwise great scenarios.

[BornGinger]

On 11/24/2020 at 12:50 AM, Combatintman said:

... if you are going to invest time in creating the map, and programming the AI, which generally are the largest time soaks, it seems strange to me that a designer would then think, "b0110cks I can't be bothered testing it more than once."

I am a bit guilty of this. Making a map takes a whole lot of time and making the AI movements and actions take time too. After that I'm usually quite fed up with loading my scenario again so I don't playtest it so much.

13 hours ago, RepsolCBR said:

when they have finally finished their work and release their scenario...SILENCE ! 

Get feedback could of course be good to have. But as the scenarios I have made are meant to be a challenge for the Axis-player I wouldn't do any changes to make them more balanced just to make it easier for the Axis side if someone would request it.

What I would like to have though is for the ability to see on the Scenario Depot how many people that have downloaded my scenarios. That would be a great kind of feedback for me.

[Glubokii Boy]

26 minutes ago, BornGinger said:

Get feedback could of course be good to have. But as the scenarios I have made are meant to be a challenge for the Axis-player I wouldn't do any changes to make them more balanced just to make it easier for the Axis side if someone would request it.

Offcourse no one is forcing you to change your scenario...your the boss ...

But some friendly advince on things like difficultylevel and time allowed would be most useful when starting out as a scenariodesigner...thoose things are quite hard to judge if you are all alone.

Additionaly some comments/suggestions when it comes to mapdesign, objectives,victoryconditions, forceselection etc would be nice to get i'm sure...

If no feedback is given regarding these things it is somewhat difficult for the new designer to know if he has gotten those things about right...Will he need to change some thing, considder other options for their next scenario...

It would be far easier and faster to improve as a scenariodesigner if this kind of help was avaliable...

[Erwin]

11 hours ago, Zveroboy1 said:

...where else do you think these experts in the art of scenario design would come from? Perhaps there is some sort of secret untapped scenario makers travelling guild for war sims whose members ply their wares to the highest bidder across the lands?

Over the past 20 years it seems that one can trust that amazingly talented modders and designers emerge from the universe and after doing amazing work, most then (sadly) burn out and return to whence they came.  But, there seems to always be a new emerging crop...

Yes, BF is struggling to keep to a reasonable release schedule.  But, how does that make the creation of mediocre content a desirable outcome when players dislike that and criticize them and don't play em?  There is already a huge amount of good quality content available assuming one has most or all of the titles.

No one is stopping anyone from creating anything they want.  But, when one puts one's creation out in the marketplace one cannot expect to get accolades for a mediocre offering simply because one "made the effort".  Maybe that works in school.  Not so much in RL.  

I agree that there is a problem where there is always enormous enthusiasm for a new mod or a new scenario (or a new module), but when it is released, there is often a deafening silence even for xnt work, and often those same folks start clamoring for something else - a new toy.  

Edited November 27, 2020 by Erwin

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Like scenarios set in Mosul? 

[THH149]

I'd be happy to playtest scenarios! either against AI or h2h.

But the AI should be easy to playtest. In the last scenario I played I just drove 3 Challengers into the center of the map - left all the other troops in the setup area  - hardly moved them at all after that (a few squares or to flank a close by T72) and they blasted everything in sight. They soon had the Syrian's surrendering, earning a major victory.  That scenario may not have been playtested at all.

Is there a playtesting community supported by CMBS/CMSF2?

THH

[BornGinger]

18 hours ago, THH149 said:

Is there a playtesting community supported by CMBS/CMSF2?

Along with the Scenario Depot there used to be the Proving Grounds where one could upload scenarios for playtesting. It seems that page is gone from the The few good men website. But maybe Bootie will put it back.

[Combatintman]

3 hours ago, BornGinger said:

Along with the Scenario Depot there used to be the Proving Grounds where one could upload scenarios for playtesting. It seems that page is gone from the The few good men website. But maybe Bootie will put it back.

I had a look this morning after seeing @THH149's question and was surprised to see it had disappeared.  On reflection though I understand why it might have gone.  There didn't seem to be much traffic, most draft scenarios weren't attracting much feedback and a lot of what was posted was of little value in polishing the draft scenario.  I think the way ahead now seems to be for people to start a thread about a draft scenario, punt up some screenies of WIP and a description of the basic premise and then ask people if they want to help out.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

9 minutes ago, Combatintman said:

most draft scenarios weren't attracting much feedback

Or indeed, any. 

[Glubokii Boy]

During the CM1 era the proving ground worked quite well as far as I can remember...

But after upgrading to CM2 it never even got going...it was dead from the start...

To bad...as it is a really nice idea.

 

[BornGinger]

We could always have a thread in the General Discussion section where people can give links to their scenarios and then get feedback on those scenarios.

[Glubokii Boy]

18 minutes ago, BornGinger said:

We could always have a thread in the General Discussion section where people can give links to their scenarios and then get feedback on those scenarios.

It might be worth a try atleast ...

But I guess something like that would require BFC to make the thread stikied...

 

[BornGinger]

If there's enough traffic in a thread like that it would stay updated by itself. And maybe BFC later on would decide to make it a sticky because of all the posts in it which would indicate it being a useful thread.

[Sulman]

Played scenario #4 from the 'Courage Conquers' campaign, and I'm starting to think there might be some curse about campaigns with 'Courage' in the name.

 

This is exactly the kind of VP shafting I am trying to describe:

A 2000!! point bonus for the Axis for force preservation. I made all the objectives, did what I thought was a good job on yet another so/so scenario and get annihiliated on the points, with all the ramifications for the campaign.

In short, the scenario is unwinnable unless you get enough kills, oh, and you're outnumbered about 2:1. It's really quite annoying. What's the point in asking the player to pursue nuggets of cheese if what they're really supposed to do is kill all the mice... I don't get it.

I should add, something that's bugged me about this campaign - and I love the setting, I really do is the inconsistency from the briefings and the feel of the scenarios. This one, for example, is meant to be a cakewalk. It's after an air-raid and it's meant to be a simple round robin. But you're actually totally outnumbered by endless Axis split squads in mutually supported strongpoints. In other words, the very toughest combat CM2 has to offer, and this is the third mission on the trot that is pretty much more of the same.

Edited December 3, 2020 by Sulman

[Lethaface]

I think the  whole campaign is like that. Perhaps it's designed for 'advanced players' who wish to be challenged by the AI. I remember some threads about it years ago.
 

Edit: Or is it a different campaign than 'Courage & Fortitude?

I can imagine the frustration seeing the loss after you did quite well, especially if it's not clear from the briefing.

Edited December 3, 2020 by Lethaface

[slysniper]

You all need to take a little chill pill on balance and what that means.

having messed around for a very long time with creating scenarios, I learned one thing.

Take my creation, give it to 10 players - look at the results. 2 players crush it playing side A, 4 players manage a win with side A and 4 player lose with Side A

For the First two players, the battle is too easy, for the next 4, the players will say the balance is perfect, for the last 4, they will complain about all sorts of things that need adjusted. 

But in truth, this sounds like a pretty good scenario playing from side A, since that is the results.

Its likely very unbalanced from side B in that it will be easier for most to win the AI and likely not balanced for H2H either.

 

The truth is, the player impacts the result way more than a good design.

 

I have felt for a long time that maybe the answer should be that each scenario has multiple designs. One for Side A, One for side B, One for H2H, also they could have a easy or hard setting. But BF provides methods to adjust that presently by doing the percentage troop setting that can be used.

So never take it too personnel if there is balance issues, its a hard thing to get correct, and even when you do, there will be a percentage of players not liking it.

Learn to listen to the comments about the design, think it through, they might have good points on how to improve your work and be willing to be open to good and bad imput. When its all said and done, you create what you want, if you are pleased with it, that is all that really matters. Take suggestions you like and enjoy the learning process.

When you are done with it, let it be, others will love it or hate it, but generally there is always some of both.

 

 

[Glubokii Boy]

I agree fully with the entire post !  

1 hour ago, slysniper said:

I have felt for a long time that maybe the answer should be that each scenario has multiple designs. One for Side A, One for side B, One for H2H, also they could have a easy or hard setting. But BF provides methods to adjust that presently by doing the percentage troop setting that can be used.

 I also strongly recomend this idea...

Eventhough the stock scenarios are playable from both sides they are honestly only GOOD...when playing one of the two sides...usually as the attacker...Playing the other side may be kind of fun at times but it rarely becomes much of a challange...The AI simply needs some bonuses to compete against an average human player...and it does not get it if it is forced to use the same forces as a human player would get when playing that side.

I have also said this before  I would much prefer two seperate versions of the same scenario...each one with atleast some buffs to the AI when playing either the attacker or defender...

It does not have to be major changes done...just some simple ones like...give the player a few less units and the AI a few more...tweak the soft factors in favour of the AI...add or remove some of the gametime...

Minor tweaks like these might not make the AI into the new Manstein but it would atleast improve its chanses somewhat and provide a bit more of a challange ad therefore make the 'second' side of the scenarios more enjoyable...

[Sulman]

4 hours ago, Lethaface said:

I think the  whole campaign is like that. Perhaps it's designed for 'advanced players' who wish to be challenged by the AI. I remember some threads about it years ago.
 

Edit: Or is it a different campaign than 'Courage & Fortitude?

I can imagine the frustration seeing the loss after you did quite well, especially if it's not clear from the briefing.

Yes it's the CMFB Allies campaign.CMBN's C&F has some well know foibles, but at least it's scored reasonably consistently...

[Sulman]

3 hours ago, slysniper said:

So never take it too personnel if there is balance issues, its a hard thing to get correct, and even when you do, there will be a percentage of players not liking it.

I should clarify that a lot of these scenarios play just fine, they're just scored weirdly. I've kept going with the campaign because I have enjoyed the actual process, but in contrast to CMSF2 and CMBS the tactical framing and scoring seem very inconsistent.

In the example up-thread, I can't really see a justification for such a large points variation. It's such a numerical anomaly I wonder if it's a mistake, but I suspect it is not.

Some designers I see the name on the notes and I know it's going to be good (George and Dorosh spring to mind). I complain about this not because the CM2 games are bad, but because they're great.

 

[Erwin]

24 minutes ago, Sulman said:

they're just scored weirdly.

This is an issue with all CM2 games.  In CM1 one had a fairly linear scoring so that one could see one slowly winning (or losing) over the time of a scenario.  But CM2 scoring is very sensitive/logarithmic.  For example, in CM2, one can be losing, losing, losing...  until you suddenly kill that one enemy tank, or break one enemy squad, and suddenly...  the enemy surrenders and you get a Total Victory.  

Have likened CM1 to analog flying with joystick connected by wires. You can tell how the place is responding most of the time via easy to understand signals.  CM2 is like a modern jet that is so sensitive that it cannot be flown without computer aid.

FWIW: Have played "Courage Conquers" to middle of Mission 5 when RL distracted me.  So far it does not seem nearly as difficult as CMBN's "Courage & Fortitude" and I did not have to replay any of "Courage Conquers" missions to win.  (I had to replay some of "Courage & Fortitude" missions many times to get through it.)  

BTW:  Re "Courage & Fortitude", the final mission was one of the best CMBN scenarios I recall ever playing (assuming you like large scenarios).  It features close to a Regimental-sized US attack and is well worth the effort of getting through the campaign (or extracting it).

Edited December 3, 2020 by Erwin

[Sulman]

@Erwin I actually persisted with C&F because of what you wrote in another thread, and I think that campaign is meticulously designed but framed very poorly. I think it's actually worth its own addendum to the manual. It is not for new players, or even players new to the WW2 setting. At least two of the scenarios need very serious study.

Courage Conquers has a pretty honest format, there's no 'tricks' like C&F but it is filled with the kind of operations I struggle with (MOUT, limited tactical options, and tight time limits) the most. Nevertheless I've persisted because like C&F you always learn something.

I do take your point about the bonused-based nature of scoring. It's caused me to become fixated on getting that tank or that emplacement because I know it's point worth. I flipped the mission I complained about above by a heavy arty strike on the church (because I knew ENY forces were concentrated in it).

I come from the immersive school of playing, rather than the grog side, so I dislike having to 'game' scenarios and try not to, but when the scoring demands it...

Edited December 3, 2020 by Sulman

[Erwin]

34 minutes ago, Sulman said:

I dislike having to 'game' scenarios and try not to, but when the scoring demands it...

Agreed.  However one often needs to play vs the CM2 game system (ie: knowing what the AI and the game system is likely to do) and that is where experience comes in.

[MOS:96B2P]

On 12/3/2020 at 8:45 AM, RepsolCBR said:

The AI simply needs some bonuses to compete against an average human player...and it does not get it if it is forced to use the same forces as a human player would get when playing that side.

IMO there is often some truth to this. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

That could be addrssed with 'tiered difficulty' scenarios where the designer gives each side a couple of extra AI goups that an experienced player has the option to drive into an Exit Zone if he wants a more challenging mission.....The AI would be scripted to avoid that location and thus would always fight with the full force available. 

This would be a doddle to do, you would just need to be careful with VP allocations.

[MOS:96B2P]

6 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

That could be addrssed with 'tiered difficulty' scenarios where the designer gives each side a couple of extra AI goups that an experienced player has the option to drive into an Exit Zone i

Hmmm, maybe....  The "extra" units the AI gets would be out of LOS in a back corner of the map.  Separated from the remainder of the map by an exit zone.  When the AI is controlling these "extra" units they would jump to their setup locations (when the red button is hit) outside of the area blocked by the exit zone.  The AI then uses the forces as normal.

Now a human plays this same side.  The "extra" units are still on the map but blocked by the exit zone (or just impassible terrain) from entering the main map area.  And no player painted setup zone in this area.  So the human player can see them but can't bring them to the fight.  I suppose any mortars include with "extra" units could fire from this cut-off zone.     

Just off the top of my head............ would this work?  I really don't have the time to test it but I always find the editor/scenario making ideas very interesting.  

[Sgt.Squarehead]

43 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:

Hmmm, maybe....  The "extra" units the AI gets would be out of LOS in a back corner of the map.  Separated from the remainder of the map by an exit zone.  When the AI is controlling these "extra" units they would jump to their setup locations (when the red button is hit) outside of the area blocked by the exit zone.  The AI then uses the forces as normal.

Now a human plays this same side.  The "extra" units are still on the map but blocked by the exit zone (or just impassible terrain) from entering the main map area.  And no player painted setup zone in this area.  So the human player can see them but can't bring them to the fight.  I suppose any mortars include with "extra" units could fire from this cut-off zone.

See that's what I love about you dude.....You take an interesting concept, spin-it and turn into something really quite brillant! 

41 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:

Just off the top of my head............ would this work?  I really don't have the time to test it but I always find the editor/scenario making ideas very interesting.

I honestly don't know what happens if you place AI units in an Exit Zone and have the Scripts randomly deploy them from there, but I will do in about an hour or so!