Why ASL scenario's are better than CM

[Cauldron]

As a player of the first for 10 years+ and CM for 1, out of the 50 odd battles and campaigns I've played very few "feel right".

I have no doubt that the armour factors etc etc are true, so what is missing?

I will first say i have also designed battles and campaigns so have a pretty good idea of what you as a scenario designer are trying to achieve.

I also belive CM designers are as smart as ASL designers so there is only 1 factor that is letting it down.

The game system.

There are 3 major factors to this:

1) The perimiters are indescribably bad, two infantry platoons for example CAN lead to the enemy achieving an end board result in a campaign even when Panthers and the like are still very much alive

2) The reinforcements number only 5. This is VERY limiting and leads to a hoilus bolus addition of forces, frequently nothing like what the designer is wanting. This should be increased to 20 at least. If you only want 5 that's great _ I suggets in BB you will want conciderably more.

3) The lack of flags or some sort of "focusing force" in campaigns is extraordinary. One of the major reasons campaigns are not as popular as battles is because they are hardly catered for. I have to give the computer (AI) 25% more forces just to achieve what a non- expert human could.

The AI also reacts in predictable ways and in many cases ( esp campaigns) is practically useless.

I suggest all of these points will be of increasing frustration as Barbarossa comes out, and I don't think a " cutesy battle" for Smolensk ( etc) is going to be much chop for long.

If you want better games, more realistic games, that dare I say it - in some way represent "an on (the) ground appreciation" make a better game.

Engine 2 could be so good, or it could just be ordinary- which do YOU want.

[M Hofbauer]

although I am the first person to welcome a more sophisticated campaign game in CM, I can't help but point out the following problem in your rant:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The AI also reacts in predictable ways and in many cases ( esp campaigns) is practically useless.<hr></blockquote>

I think the AI in CM is infinitely better than that in ASL.

[Cauldron]

I want to add a 4)

the straight line perimiter ( for camnpigns)is so frustrating I persoanly want to stick my finger in Stalin's eye. AHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhh !!!

[Cauldron]

I believe the AI IS better in CM than in ASL, but only by about 6 x 50 cal shell caseings, no make that 4.

[Sitzkrieg]

Don't like CM, don't play it. Better yet, write your own game. I'm sure it will be as superior as your attitude.

[M Hofbauer]

still not completely sure what you mean by "perimiter", but if you're talking setup zones and their borders, they are by no means straight.

rather, salients etc. are produced with respect to the results of the previous fighting.

:confused:

[Herr Oberst]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Cauldron:

As a player of the first for 10 years+ and CM for 1, out of the 50 odd battles and campaigns I've played very few "feel right".

<hr></blockquote>

So this is a comment that CM doesn't "feel" like ASL? This statement is not surprising to me at all, having been on both sides of the argument (first played SL 20 yrs ago). Or that the results of a CM engagement don't match what your historical experience with another gaming system has "taught" you to be the "right" outcome. Again, not surprising. A niggling question, and this is what provokes some of the better technical discussion on the board, is "Which is closer to reality?"

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

I have no doubt that the armour factors etc etc are true, so what is missing?

I will first say i have also designed battles and campaigns so have a pretty good idea of what you as a scenario designer are trying to achieve.

I also belive CM designers are as smart as ASL designers so there is only 1 factor that is letting it down.

The game system.

There are 3 major factors to this:

1) The perimiters are indescribably bad, two infantry platoons for example CAN lead to the enemy achieving an end board result in a campaign even when Panthers and the like are still very much alive

<hr></blockquote>

Can you give a little more detail about what behaviors you find could be improved. "The perimeters are indescribably bad" is alot like saying a particular color is ugly. I guess your short example is too out of context for me to understand your point. Maybe that's my failing...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

2) The reinforcements number only 5. This is VERY limiting and leads to a hoilus bolus addition of forces, frequently nothing like what the designer is wanting. This should be increased to 20 at least. If you only want 5 that's great _ I suggets in BB you will want conciderably more.

<hr></blockquote>

Hoilus bolus??? Have you been reading Harry Potter? (That part is a joke)

Agreed. Larger reinforcements would expand the range of scenarios that could be generated, anything from "a Zug of Stugs arriving to assist an infantry force currently under attack by superior forces", to "you must extinguish a small blocking force, and assume their positions before a known large reinforcing task force arrives."

Although the current setup is limited in this area, there seem to be plenty of eminently playable scenarios that have been generated within these restrictions.

WRT the Eastern Front, I agree, reinforcement sizes will need to be increased if it is BTS's goal to promote the modeling of historical engagements.

To do a Campaign really well, the AI would need to have some sort of memory from battle to battle. This it does not currently have. As a developer for some 15 years, I would rate that doing jst that task well would be a non-trivial exercise if you catch my drift.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

3) The lack of flags or some sort of "focusing force" in campaigns is extraordinary. One of the major reasons campaigns are not as popular as battles is because they are hardly catered for. I have to give the computer (AI) 25% more forces just to achieve what a non- expert human could.

The AI also reacts in predictable ways and in many cases ( esp campaigns) is practically useless.

<hr></blockquote>

It IS a computer program after all. Given enough play, a person will begin to recognize the model behind the actions. We would all love to play against a "von Manstein" AI, but there aren't any out there, at least not in public domain. The AI in CM is a damn sight better than any other that I have played against, but it will never reach what a talented human opponent can do.

How long did it take to make a computer program that could defeat a chess grandmaster? And chess is simple in terms of complexity. The "mathematics" of chess is trivial in comparison to a CM engagement.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

I suggest all of these points will be of increasing frustration as Barbarossa comes out, and I don't think a " cutesy battle" for Smolensk ( etc) is going to be much chop for long.

If you want better games, more realistic games, that dare I say it - in some way represent "an on (the) ground appreciation" make a better game.

Engine 2 could be so good, or it could just be ordinary- which do YOU want.

<hr></blockquote>

One of these days, BTS should trot out "The List" for some of the relative newcomers to read. Older forum members have a sort of running tally in their heads of all the features that have been talked about for nigh on to two years. Keep in mind also that BTS was two people for the largest part of their history.

In the end it comes down to time, money, and a manifesto. BTS is building what they want to build. There are no investors, and no publishers to keep happy. They do listen to their customers more than any gaming firm I have seen, but CMxx runs on their schedule. I'm just damn glad that they are doing it, and that they let us come along for the ride.

So in the end, I would counsel patience, for Charles and Steve are craftsmen, not some code monkey shop trying to throw out releases just to steal your cash ("All your $$$ are belong to us!" anyone?).

I would also counsel temperance. Areas that seem to be lacking should be approached as "possible improvements" as opposed to "its broke because". Not everyone on the forum will respond in a level headed fashion (what I hope I have achieved here), and flame wars don't help anyone understand anything.

[edited due to too many damn quote and qb pairs, spelling, grammar, the season, my boss walking by, and the phase of the moon... oh, and to miff Germanboy]

[ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: Herr Oberst ]</p>

[Juardis]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

I think the AI in CM is infinitely better than that in ASL.<hr></blockquote>

Just to expand on what Mr. Hofbauer said (and hopefully be shorter than Mr. Oberst's response)

You are concluding that ASL is better than CM. And that conclusion is based, in part, on the AI of CM. Yet you cannot play ASL by yourself. To level the playing field, you must play both against a real human. In that case, the CM strategic AI is inconsequential. For solitaire play, CM wins hands down simply because you cannot play ASL against yourself. For head to head play, the conclusion may indeed be that ASL is better (or vice-a-versa), but not because of the strategic AI. But anyway, I could give you a list a mile long with reasons that CM is better than ASL, but again, it's subjective.

[Andreas]

IRL - I would take two platoons of infantry over a Panther. So I don't really know what is wrong with that?

[Juardis]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

still not completely sure what you mean by "perimiter", but if you're talking setup zones and their borders, they are by no means straight.

rather, salients etc. are produced with respect to the results of the previous fighting.

:confused: <hr></blockquote>

I think he meant parameters, not perimeters.

[StellarRat]

I've been thinking about this AI problem. What Big Time should do is create an API that allows a programmer to control the units like a player can and shut off or modify the Big Time AI (if desired) then we (the gaming community) could write our own AI for the game. I'm sure in the long run we'd end up with something that is far above what any game AI has been up to this point.

[Harold]

I have to chime in with my two cents since I have been an ASL player for 12 years and a CM player for 1.5 years. First, neither are going away anytime soon. Both are unique products with fanatical followers and both are heavy on historical research and accuracy of that research. However neither are perfect. SL/ASL has been around for 24 years and it has gone through rules rewrites no less than six times if you include the many changes that occurred when a new SL module came out. ASL is currently on its second rewrite. CM has had its quirks and bugs too and like ASL the designers have gone way out of their way to fix those issues. Second, CM is at Squad Leader on the SL/ASL evolutionary ladder. By that I mean it has just begun its long march. Give BTS 24 years to perfect their system. That is if we don't drive them nuts before then javascript: x(). Last, they are really two different game systems with only one thing in common: WWII. If you play both enjoy them for what they are good at instead of focusing on any weaknesses.

Harold

[Captain Wacky]

Erm, for those of us who are not more than 24 years old, what is ASL/SL?

[von Murrin]

I think what Cauldron was trying to say is that the way operations are implemented could use some enhancement. I would agree that they are not as playable as the scenarios and also that this can be fixed.

When I first got CM, I envisioned ops to be something like the system used in the KG Peiper HASL modules for ASL. As it is, it is difficult to recreate/play some of those hard-fought battles for little specks of turf across NW Europe.

This was something I was going to mention myself, but I really didn't see the point as I wasn't active here until CM:BB was pretty much set as a project. Perhaps for CM2...

Don't judge too harshly. The ops have such vast potential room for improvement that they could become just as popular as the single scenarios.

Nathanael

[Micheal Wittman]

Hey oh! Is there a "PC" version of "Advanced Squad Leader"??!!! Not that crime that Hasbro pought our ethier

CheerZ!

[TankDawg]

Couple of things.

Whittman: CM IS the PC Version of ASL. That is how it all started.

Cauldron: Shouldn't the title of this thread been concerning CG's and NOT scenarios? If so I agree.

However, have been playing ASL for 16 years. I head up the ASL group here in Seattle, and yet, have played ASL 3 times in last 13 months. Why? COMBAT MISSION. It is the best. Like ASL only more realistic, more challenging and more fun.

[Captain Wacky]

Being only 18, I have no idea what ASL/SL is aside from the "the predecessor to combat mission." From what I have gathered, the game is not played on a computer so what do you use? A board? How do you calculate LOS and stuff like that. Here is my vague approximation: D&D set in WWII. If someone would fill me in on the mechanics of the game it would be greatly appreciated.

[Conscript Bagger]

A visit to http://www.advancedsquadleader.com should answer any questions you have.

[StellarRat]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Captain Wacky:

Being only 18, I have no idea what ASL/SL is aside from the "the predecessor to combat mission." From what I have gathered, the game is not played on a computer so what do you use? A board? How do you calculate LOS and stuff like that. Here is my vague approximation: D&D set in WWII. If someone would fill me in on the mechanics of the game it would be greatly appreciated.<hr></blockquote>

It was a board game. The units were represented by little cardboard counters that you placed on the board (the boards had a life like top down map printed on them.) The counters stuck to your fingers and were generally hard to keep in place Hours of gaming could be destroyed by a puff of wind or a dog or cat tail. The rules were all written or in the form of charts. You had to have legal training to actually play the game because if something wasn't in the rules or not written clearly you had to argue with your opponent for hours until one of you got tired or you decided to roll the dice to see who was right. You calculated LOS by using a straight edge. If the edge touched anything that was able to block LOS it was blocked. If there was a question about whether or not it was blocked you rolled the dice to decide. Of course you had to use your minds eye to picture the elevation differences and such to translate the 2D map into a 3D battlefield. There were rules about how it all worked, but after I while you could figure it out without too much thinking.

[Captain Wacky]

Sounds like more work than fun I'm glad I have a computer to do all that tedious stuff for me.

[StellarRat]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Captain Wacky:

Sounds like more work than fun I'm glad I have a computer to do all that tedious stuff for me.<hr></blockquote>

Yes, we are lucky. I don't miss "manual" wargaming at all. We still don't have all the realism or AI's that can match a decent human player, but at least you can play when you want to against the computer. Sometimes it was difficult to find opponents for boardgames. Oh and I forgot to mention that most of the board wargames took hours and hours to play. In fact, it could take literally days to finish some of them.

[El Griz]

For folks who don't know and don't want to investigate further, ASL/SL is Advanced Squad Leader or its predeccesor Squad Leader, from Avalon Hill. The ASL rules came in a three ring binder, and each of the numerous expansions added new sections to the binders. Personally, having played ASL a few times and CM a few times, I'll take CM anyday. In addition to having to sink tons o' cash into ASL (the basic rules were $45 alone, another $45 were needed for the first set of boards and counters), I spent most of my time "playing" ASL scanning through the tome trying to figure out what modifiers apply for unit A shooting through a picket fence at unit B behind tombstones at a lower elevation blah, blah, blah.

For people who have the ability or commitment to learn ASL, more power to 'em. I've been playing CM for six days, and I'm already getting some sense of strategy. Because CM does the rules for me, I'm able to focus on WHAT I'm doing instead of how to do it correctly within the game parameters...

Scott

[Harold]

The true ASL port to computers is VASL and it can be found here http://www.vasl.org/ . It is NOT a computer game but a downloadable program with the virtual boards, maps and counters. You still need the rulebook and opponents and still need to read and understand the rulebook. Very handy if you cannot find local opponents or just prefer playing on the computer.

Harold

[JasonC]

Instead of trying to get the AI to do everything for you and to fit everything you want to do into the procrustean bed of CM "operations", try branching out to refereed CM using an operational map at 10x the CM scale, using the map editor for operational moves, and generating tactical scenarios when operational forces run into each other. This is more work than solitaire players put in, but hardly more work than large board ASL scenarios were in the old days. And you will get far, far more out of it than those offered.

To clarify, you have -

1. A referee who keeps a "strategic map", which is just a CM scenario file "previewed" with the map editor, used as a "virtual sand table", with units on it representing one step above combat mission unit sizes (or more if you like). Remove unspotted enemy units and save as the map for each side, add sighting reports if desired, annotate with the landmark feature to your heart's content, etc. The LOS tool measures all distances, at 10x the CM scale (100m = 1 km).

2. An operational commander for each side who orders around the units on the strategic map, simply by picking them up in his side's map file, moving them where desired, annotating if desired, and saving as an "orders" file for that side. Send it to the referee. He applies the moves to the master map, and generates scenarios (with the automatic map creator and the relevant terrain type) for all collisions.

3. Tactical commanders, who can be the same two as the operational commanders, or teams of any size, who command in each scenario generated. Play each tactical game as TCP/IP and you can resolve each one in a single sitting, in parallel if you have several players per team. With real human skill on both sides, adaptation of goals to the overall operational setting, etc.

You can simulate anything this way. On any scale, if you have the people and can put the time in. With as many levels of reinforcements, locations they come from, overall map size, etc - as you want. I am running one now on the first few days of the Battle of the Bulge is the US 110th Infantry regiment sector, covering the area between the Our and Clerf rivers. We are averaging an operational move per week (minus a little for holidays) and have generated over half a dozen tactical combats so far.

CM can do a heck of a lot more than just what fits in the "operations" template, with only the AI for an opponent. All you have to do is put in some effort to use the tools that are there, in somewhat creative ways - and get a number of people involved.

I hope this is interesting.

[Lars]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by StellarRat:

Yes, we are lucky. I don't miss "manual" wargaming at all. We still don't have all the realism or AI's that can match a decent human player, but at least you can play when you want to against the computer. Sometimes it was difficult to find opponents for boardgames. Oh and I forgot to mention that most of the board wargames took hours and hours to play. In fact, it could take literally days to finish some of them.<hr></blockquote>

Months was more like it. Remember War in Europe?

And you forgot to mention the joy of sorting through all those chits just to set up the game.