My problem with CMBN from a consumer perspective and why I didn't buy other CMs...

[MOS:96B2P]

16 hours ago, Paper Tiger said:

For me, the improvements I'd like to see but probably never will are:

• artillery fire plans tied to specific AI plans and not the entire set
• delays to the above AI pre-planned artillery strikes

I agree with you. 

When BFC provided triggers they also provided a partial work around for the above points. The AI order for area fire “Ctrl” can be used with triggers and on map AI mortars for indirect fire. The AI on map mortars can be triggered to start firing at an objective once the enemy occupies it. The AI mortars can also be triggered to stop firing once an AI friendly unit moves into this location.

A proper improvement as you noted would be even better.  Some cool things can be done with the "Ctrl" - Triggers - On map mortars. 

And just because were talking about mortars.   

 

 

 

[Bulletpoint]

I would recommend you forget about Courage and Fortitude and play some of the many other good campaigns out there. Have you played Devils' Descent? It's small scale infantry fights with airborne, and with a narrative. I remember it as well made and not too difficult.

I assume you already played Road to Montebourg, which I thought was well designed too, apart from one single mission that can be skipped if I remember right.

Also enjoyed Scottish Corridor, which is difficult at times, but not in the same crazy way as Courage and Fortitude. I'd call it a good challenge and the individual battles are well crafted.

[Paper Tiger]

13 hours ago, landser said:

Don't want to clutter up the forum by quoting the entire post, and your defense of the editor is admirable, but at the same time I think it stands testimony to how obtuse it is. You're one of the generous people I referred to, and you obviously get on well with the tools. But reading your post, it's clear that even for someone who enjoys building campaigns, that there is an element of the ends justify the means to it all. But anyway, that sort of thing is subjective. Whether the editor is powerful is not really the issue, but instead it's down to how quickly and easily campaigns can be created.

I remember a post you made years ago, around the time you released Montebourg, that it had taken you 800 hours to make it. I mean, come on. Such dedication is also admirable, but surely it illustrates the issue. Montebourg is possibly the most ambitious campaign in the series, so picking an outlier to make my point may not be convincing. I believe Combat Mission needs a campaign generator. And a new campaign system entirely. I'm not holding my breath, this 'episodic' system we have now seems to satisfy the community at large, but for me it has become stale and fails to give the players the sort of content that makes the underlying excellent tactical battlefields shine.

Well, yes, Montebourg is a bit of an outlier. If you do all the research, look for locations, write briefings, do all the artwork as well as craft all the maps to a high degree of precision, and make up missions with multiple AI plans as well as the variants, yes, an 18-mission historical campaign is between 3-6 months work with about 4-8 hours most days (which is what I was doing back then - my job allowed me a great deal of down time and then I got promoted- damn! ).

However, I've seen that there are a number of massive maps available for the community to work with to make campaigns. I really am not joking when I say that I could knock out a 5-8 mission campaign that would be 'playable' in a week if I were to use one of those and not worry about getting it look good with proper artwork. And there's the rub: there are standards that are set by the community for our work and most folks don't want to produce something that isn't up to scratch with the more polished campaigns made by those of us who are willing to put in the time to do it to that standard. They'd be embarrassed to submit their work and that's probably the reason why there are not as many campaigns as there could be. If that's true, that's a real shame because that's what those giant maps are for.

I will freely put my hands up and admit that I'm so familiar with making campaigns with the  editor that the following assessment on how easy it all is to work with for a noob is way off here. But honestly, I don't think it's as much work to do as you'd think if you are not looking for a highly-polished product with briefings and artwork and since you're talking about Quick Battle Campaigns, you're obviously willing to accept the reduction of quality.

I see your point about Quick Campaigns: it seems like an easy ask to say all you need are to set up the parameters at the start, the number of battles, select your QB maps, the forces that are available for the AI to buy from and voila. Yes, you could make up your own core unit file for the QC to draw from but you'd also need a script. Let's say that it was all abstracted so that a script was unnecessary though; the end result would still induce rage from folks who did all that work only to find the AI didn't perform and sat in its starting locations.

There are several reasons why what the OP reported might have happened which I won't go into in any detail. Broad strokes, the AI plan might have might have put the majority of the units in a group which had an Assault or Max Assault order, the latter being particularly bad.  Or, because QB maps can have multiple AI Plans, maybe it used the one plan where the AI set up that group to be more cautious. Or maybe even the one map that slipped past the testers. (I saw how much work was involved in getting the QB maps ready for the release so I'm respectful of it but we're human and mistakes get made regardless.) Unless you're using a set of maps that you've vetted beforehand, that's still going to happen with a QC.

[Paper Tiger]

7 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

When BFC provided triggers they also provided a partial work around for the above points. The AI order for area fire “Ctrl” can be used with triggers and on map AI mortars for indirect fire. The AI on map mortars can be triggered to start firing at an objective once the enemy occupies it. The AI mortars can also be triggered to stop firing once an AI friendly unit moves into this location.

A proper improvement as you noted would be even better.  Some cool things can be done with the "Ctrl" - Triggers - On map mortars.

That's really useful to know. Thanks.

[landser]

10 hours ago, Paper Tiger said:

 I really am not joking when I say that I could knock out a 5-8 mission campaign that would be 'playable' in a week

I believe that. But I also think that is the problem. We should be able to knock out a playable campaign in ten minutes.

Edited April 13, 2023 by landser

[Poorlaggedman]

I'd be happy with single maps that simply expanded into campaign-style play with some continuity. I think the dynamic of using your troops and knowing I might need these guys alive for what's next adds a unique element that single missions don't add. That's why it seriously irks me to no end with what Courage and Fortitude does boxing me into a corner of the map or in plain observation of the enemy and then pouring reinforcements in. It's obscenely frustrating having guys that I don't even want/need on the field spawn into artillery fire because one of my rear-echelon guys got sighted.

 

I'll check out some more of the custom scenarios if I can figure it out. Most of them seem to require add-ons, which I don't have though.

On 4/12/2023 at 2:35 PM, Bulletpoint said:

I assume you already played Road to Montebourg, which I thought was well designed too, apart from one single mission that can be skipped if I remember right.

Road to Montebourg is excellent, I've played through it a couple times. Replayability is limited though... I just started/stopped a campaign 'cause I still mostly remember the enemy positions even after years. 

[Bulletpoint]

4 hours ago, Poorlaggedman said:

Road to Montebourg is excellent, I've played through it a couple times. Replayability is limited though... I just started/stopped a campaign 'cause I still mostly remember the enemy positions even after years. 

Yep, I wish more designers used the options for making enemy setup variable.

[landser]

On 4/24/2023 at 10:34 PM, Poorlaggedman said:

I'd be happy with single maps that simply expanded into campaign-style play with some continuity. I

That's what CMx1 operations were. They were a single large (long) map where the front line moved according to the end state of the previous battle. It allowed the player to capture (or lose) key terrain that would carry over to the next battle in the campaign. It wasn't exact or precise, if a scout team moved to an advanced position you may not have control of it after the re-draw. Front lines seems to be calculated more on your force's mass than on actual occupied terrain.

So you could find that the ridge on the flank you fought so hard for in the dying minutes of the previous battle was 'lost' for the next mission. But overall it worked pretty well. I wish this concept had been kept and refined rather than binned. Having player performance and results in one battle carry over to the next is fundamental to campaign play, but the episodic nature of CMx2 campaigns does not put a premium on this.

Some campaigns do, like Kampfgruppe Engel, which has core forces, and damage and ammunition carry over in some missions. There's one mission in that campaign where you have to cross the river Dives. There is a single, well defended crossing site which under usual conditions would be a reasonable task given the weight of German heavy armor at your disposal. But in the event, I found it very difficult, as my tanks were battered and bruised. Damaged barrels and tracks, shot-out optics and mostly empty ammunition racks. All of which served to add a level of challenge and improvisation that is missing from most Combat Mission campaigns.

Edited April 26, 2023 by landser

[MisterMark]

I put out a post several years ago about the AI in CM2 vx CM1... I'm reposting the link as I think it's worth taking a look at for those invested in this current thread:

 

 

[Artkin]

1) This is your own fault for not understanding how the VERY simple AI system works. Check out the editor and the AI section, then check out how the file system works for placing maps/scenarios/campaigns in their correct folders. Play around in the editor and it will make sense. 

2) Not enough campaigns or scenarios? As others said, check out thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3. You won't finish half of the scenarios. Check out both popular discords and the mod section on these forums for more content

3) Play a different campaign

 

Edited June 4, 2023 by Artkin

[JM Stuff]

Why we have to prove to some brains that dont want buy some others modules of CM are really useful, and playable, if they don't like it they don t have to buy it and that it, certainly there are some things that BFC can improve but I think for the time is already and always one of the best game,... read and test yourself is a good exercice...

Edited June 4, 2023 by JM Stuff

[Vacillator]

On 6/4/2023 at 6:11 PM, JM Stuff said:

read and test yourself is a good exercice

I'm a bit late on this, but I would say avoid Quick Battles as they usually aren't that challenging.  The AI selection of units and their control is not great.  If you're playing single player, play those battles that say 'play as Axis against AI' (or whatever floats your boat) or choose a campaign that you like if the one you mentioned is not working for you. 

But the best way to play is against another human, PBEM in my case.  You might (okay, will) get your butt kicked every now and then, but it's a great learning experience and you tend to make some good friends.

[Malaspina]

On 4/9/2023 at 6:24 AM, Poorlaggedman said:

 

• There's too few battles and campaigns, severely limiting replayability. 

I've asked before but there doesn't seem to be custom community-made campaigns or battles. If there are, you have to dig farther than I have and I'm fairly certain I asked before. I've played all the battles and campaigns numerous times over a decade (or however long ago this came out.) I don't get why I'm so bored with a game I love.

Campaign play against the AI can work so why is so underutilized?

 

 

Hi! Shameless plug here. Try CMFB and then use my quick campaign generator with it. You'll find it in my sig. You can easily make a 10-battle campaign in 1 hour's time after you get the hang of it. (Yeah, you need to RTFM ). I've made about 10 campaigns so far myself. That means 100 battles.

The battles will be kind of crazy, but certainly fun and certainly better than anything the QB can generate. Plus, you will play a more meaningful campaign where you have to look after your core units. And I also added a cool spreadsheet to keep track of it all. You're even awarded medals! What else do you need?!