CMAK Uber Scenarios

[Znarf]

A couple of question to the forum for future CMAK battles - first, some background:

I've designed about a dozen CMBB battles, two CMAK battles, and one CMBO battle. All are available at the Scenario Depot (Author: Pefz). By far the most popular battles are in the 30-45 turn range. I'm currently in the process of designing CMAK scenarios set in the September - December 1943 Italian campaign. The problem is most of the battles during this time are more accurately modeled as a small campaign or perhaps a long (100+) turn battle. Campaigns are not as popular as battles, and long battles also do not seem too popular - a search of the Scenario Depot shows that of 1242 CMBO scenarios, only 121 are 60 turns or greater. Likewise, of 645 CMBB scenarios, only 43 are 60 turns or greater.

Now, your opinions:

Do you feel that the long scenarios are not popular because it takes too long to design, or because the players don't want to invest time in a 100+ turn scenario?

Given a choice between one long battle (e.g., 100+ turns), or a small campaign (e.g., 5 battles at 20 turns each), which do you prefer?

[Some_God]

I would go with a small campaign. You get to "reinforce" your battle group and it provides us with soem rest before the next battle.

[Soddball]

I think it's the time it takes to design as much as the play time. I'm currently building a campaign which is 15 battles of (probably) 40 turns apiece, on an 8km x 3.5km map, with forces totalling 60,000 points.

At present, I've got the map's basic design in place, have completed around 1/3 of it, and have the initial forces selected. and roughly placed. That's after 60 hours of work. My estimate is that it'll be finished after about 250 hours of design and it won't ever be possible to playtest it for 'balance'. 250 hours is a huge time investment on a single campaign or scenario.

I like the longer battles, but balance is hard to achieve. I only released one CM:BO scenario - Chalon sur Rhone - which was over 60 turns, but I playtested it for about 6 weeks before I released it to get as good a balance as possible.

The big scenarios and ops take a huge amount of time investment, so I don't think what you're seeing is a lack of interest in the bigger scenarios and ops. Building a 2km x 2km map takes four times longer than building a 1km x 1km map.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Soddball:

I'm currently building a campaign which is 15 battles of (probably) 40 turns apiece, on an 8km x 3.5km map, with forces totalling 60,000 points.

You are insane.

:eek:

Michael

[Blah Blah Blah]

As a newbie I may be speaking out of my ---- mouth you were going to say?

I already prefer battles that are 40+ turns even as a single player. Battles that do not end before they start so to speak. I can think of nothing more gamey than not having enough time to complete the mission objectively. This was reinforced when having my first game against another player, I was frustratingly robbed of victory due to the 'end' of the turns arriving before the men could seize control of the flag, men which were arriving via the flank and were only 200 hundred metres away. This sudden stop does not enhance game play, and inhibits tactics due to one must get there quick.

I cannot comment on a campaign as I have not yet played one. A bit much for a newbie to tackle this early in his career.

[Monty]

Scenario's > 40 turns give often problems with ammo, normally the inf. would get new ammo, but in CM we have no re-supplies.

In operations you can solve that problem.

Monty

[AC]

Long battles suck because often my infantry runs out of ammo. Scenarios suck because sometimes when you have managed to delay the enemy advancement in the first battle, it will jump right on you in the next because of small no-mans-land setting (ie. you use longer range guns to delay but have no units close to the enemy).

Next version of CM definetly needs a way to get more ammo. Several versions could be implemented, ie. different size supply depots and perhaps supply trucks and so on.

[tooz]

I prefer ops to battles. Battles are good for PBEM (ops take many months to complete via PBEM) and for a change of pace.

A nice long op stays with you for awhile, like a good book, and gives you plenty of time to ruminate on your future strategy between playings. Plus, if you lose a key piece early on, chances are that it will be replaced later on, and sometimes refitted and returned to the fighting before the end of the op.

Two problems arise: first, it seems that the AI has a tendency to place too many of its reinforcements in open terrain in later battles of an op. Second, the Main Line of Resistance and no man's land needs tweaking. Units scurrying unmolested up the flanks can enable a player to avoid a head-on clash and gobble up ground (this is currently the case in a city fight I'm playing now). Also, some advanced units can be sitting on ground for at least three turns but still find themselves in no man's land at the beginning of the next battle.

Overall, I just love huge ops (and sometimes battles).

Now if we can only get BFC to incorporate a campaign (similar to Talonsoft's Campaign series games: East Front II, West Front, et al.)--THAT would be the best, IMHO. I would love to see if I could follow one leader or unit through a few years of war, watching as they get promoted or turn from Green units into Crack troops (if they can live that long).

[Treeburst155]

Large scenarios are better than operations. Ammo problems are minor compared to the problems with ops mentioned above. To alleviate the ammo problem, give all infantry max ammo, and have reinforcements come in to relieve those who have expended their ammo. They will need relief anyway. Also, ammo conservation is just another tactical consideration to add enjoyment.

A large and long fight does not necessarily have to take place on a huge map. Reinforcements can steadily be fed in for both sides resulting eventually in a huge amount of units and the max time limit, all on a less than huge map.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Znarf:

Given a choice between one long battle (e.g., 100+ turns), or a small campaign (e.g., 5 battles at 20 turns each), which do you prefer?

Given the choice, I'd take the small operation. Given the turn turn-around, a 100+ turn scenario would still be going when CM15 came out...

Which reminds me...

Seanachai! Its January! You can send your monthly turn!

[Kitty]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

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

I'm currently building a campaign which is 15 battles of (probably) 40 turns apiece, on an 8km x 3.5km map, with forces totalling 60,000 points.

You are insane.

:eek:

Michael </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Kitty! Howya doin', kid? Over your hangover now, I see. Or are you? Still have that ringing in your head? Could be the phone, you know. Better pick it up to make sure. Wouldn't want to miss any important messages, y'know. Especially the ones coming from Alpha Centauri Central.

Ta-ta,

Michael

PS. Don't forget to water the roses.

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

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

I'm currently building a campaign which is 15 battles of (probably) 40 turns apiece, on an 8km x 3.5km map, with forces totalling 60,000 points.

You are insane.

:eek:

Michael </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Soddball:

Fancy playtesting it against me when I'm finished?

Thanks for what is no doubt a handsome offer, but life is waaaaayy too short. Good luck with your endeavor.

Michael

[Alkiviadis]

I too prefer ops. Far more reaalistic for all the reasons sited above. In addition, one can have true illuminating experiences -

* SPOILER ALERT: FMR TANK WARNING!!!!!!!!

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

in Franko's "FMR Tank Warning" the large number of Soviet units combined with the scare ammo resupply levels & the tactical disposition of the SS battlegroup ( reverse slope defence ) dictate using one's units to force the German to run out of ammo. Paradoxically, if one presents the SS with a target rich environment one wins. After that it's a cake walk. Only an op could model this.

[Hans]

I feel your pain Soddball!

I have in the works a campaign (only 8 battles but on a map the same size) of a fictional invasion of Sardinia. At least 40 hours in and I too realize it will never be completely tested prior to release (if I ever finish it).

1 thing I have noticed since CMBO, picky and more demanding customers have come along too. (both an advantage, a help and a pain)

I also have a smaller 4 battle Spanish Civil War campaign in the works, however its only a 2 x 4 kilometer map (PUTTING IN THOSE DAMN ROCK WALLS IS GONNA DRIVE ME CRAZY).

In the PanzerBlitz conversion the games took over a half a year to build and game test, mainly because they were in the 3-5,000 point range and 40-50 turns. Most were play tested only once.

[dugfromthearth]

lies, damn lies, and statistics

if you want to know what players prefer, don't look at the number of campaigns, long battles, and short battles.

look at the download numbers for campaigns, long battles, and short battles.

the Brecourt Manor campaign on Scenario Depot has 257 dl's. That is as much as any 30-40 turn scenario I looked at for CMAK.

[Kitty]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Kitty! Howya doin', kid? Over your hangover now, I see.

>the ones coming from Alpha Centauri Central.

>PS. Don't forget to water the roses.

I don't get hangovers. That was just a story I made up to get Shaw to shut up.

What's Alpha Centauri Central?

I don't have any roses. Please send some.

Kitty

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Kitty:

What's Alpha Centauri Central?

The office in that neighborhood whence cometh the signals preparing us for The Takeover.

I don't have any roses.

What??? You live next door to Pasadena and don't have roses? That's...that's...that's practically unpatriotic.

:eek:

Michael

[Joachim]

Originally posted by AC:

Long battles suck because often my infantry runs out of ammo. Scenarios suck because sometimes when you have managed to delay the enemy advancement in the first battle, it will jump right on you in the next because of small no-mans-land setting (ie. you use longer range guns to delay but have no units close to the enemy).

Next version of CM definetly needs a way to get more ammo. Several versions could be implemented, ie. different size supply depots and perhaps supply trucks and so on.

Yes, ops have a certain problem with no mans land. If possible, hide some infantry in forward locations (rear slope) while killing at range. If you really control the area in front of your guns, your troops will stay safe their. Just keep them hidden or use covered arcs to be able to observe but to avoid firing - which will usually keep them hidden up to 50m (depending on force quality).

Battles consist of slaughter and maneuver - the less slaughter, the better the general.

If I have the time and space for maneuver, I gladly play long battles.

Consider a 120 turn assault with a standard force ratio. If both sides have 150% ammo they should be able to kill 50% more troops than in a 30 turn battle with 100% ammo - given you are able to conserve ammo.

In a 30-turn city battle a third of my grunts were out of ammo in turn 9, one third half thru their ammo, one third still in reserve. No matter if this is a 30 or 100 turn battle - it is already decided in turn 9 as I guess at least 50% of the AI infantry (at 175% strength) is gone.

A 120-turn assault across the open sees all of my foces at about 150% ammo in turn 9. No enemy contact yet, just probing the lines. It will be a fierce attack once I commit my main thrust into his MLR. I guess the first few turns of that main thrust will decide the battle. Only then will I use the bulk of my ammo (covered arcs!). There is no sense in using rifle squads beyond 200m on dug in troops. The extra turns allow me to maneuver, probe and stage deceptions. Of course you need a patient opponent for this kind of attack. Hopefully he still saw nothing more than 2 plts...

Me wants big ops! Or big scens.

Gruß

Joachim

[Kellysheroes]

Sometimes I feel like a nut, sometimes I don't, so sometimes I like short battles and usually on weekends I like long campaigns. I'll be interested in checking out that 15 battle campaign when it's finished. I would say though I like most battles even in campaigns to be over between 30-40 turns.

[Bartokomus]

medium campaign (5-10) with short battles (25 turns)using medium to large point values