groundpounder Posted November 5, 2000 Share Posted November 5, 2000 I'm looking for feedback on "Hell on Horseshoe Hill". Any feedback would be greatly appreciated! However, I am particularly interested to know if anyone has played as the Axis and weather or not the Allies were successful in the bridge crossings. I attempted to provide the AI a good chance at the crossings by using a double span design for the multiple bridges. In my play testing the AI did make the crossings around turn 12 or so. What was your experience? GP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
groundpounder Posted November 7, 2000 Author Share Posted November 7, 2000 *bump* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
groundpounder Posted January 31, 2001 Author Share Posted January 31, 2001 Originally posted by groundpounder: *bump* and another bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Stone Posted February 5, 2001 Share Posted February 5, 2001 groundpounder, I gave it a good look a number of weeks ago; but I have crap for a slwo system and... etc etc... Sorry, essentially just another bump, Stoner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasoncawley@ameritech.net Posted February 9, 2001 Share Posted February 9, 2001 Well, I tried it, but I found it unplayable. It is simply too big. The terrain is beautiful indeed, a splendid job. But there are daunting practical difficulties. My system did not have trouble crunching the numbers and such (although the first turn was slow, not too slow to play though). The problem is that one cannot see enough of what is going on, no matter where one puts the camera, no matter how large the zoom out. Oh, from view 8 you can see 2/3rds of the map and get a basic idea. But you really get no clear sense of the "fronts" at all. Only the bridges attract the attention. To give you an example of what I mean, it took me 20 minutes just to figure out what the defending force was. Not where its elements were deployed, but what units. I do not mean 20 game turns as the Allied attacker. I mean it took me 20 minutes real time to figure out what I had on my side. (The briefing said nothing about this really). To have actually redone the set-up in a defense scheme that made some sense, I would have had to work from an entirely seperate and smaller map, on a larger scale, and then transfer the results to the game map. It would have been practically impossible to decide where every obstacle and squad goes in CM, with any tactical insight anyway. Inside of a week. Also, the terrain is amazing, but certainly shows why the battle is hypothetical. Only a madman would attack that ground. They'd just dump artillery all over it and bypass. And if they did decide to attack, it would be a job for the *navy*, not the army - LOL. Also, I want to say this without giving too much away, but the defenders are not believable, in the least. Very silly. Some of them belong there (meaning, defending any such fixed "fortress" position), and others just do not. I have the sense that you wanted to show what an impregnable fortress could be sited on this river loop, if over-defended as well by forces that would never have any business there. Well, that just does not add up to a playable game in my humble opinion. Now, if you wanted to do something like this in CM, I can think of ways to make it work. Break the map up into parts, and make an "operation" out of the battle for the place, with different fights occuring for different parts of it. With fewer forces in each, like 1/4 as many. And without some of the silly stuff that would not really be there. Instead of a commander in control of the forces according to his own plan and ideas, I felt like I was not playing a game over which I had any control at all, but was instead just supposed to hit "next turn" and watch a movie you were directing. Movie directing is not game design. Games have to put the player in charge, not the scenario designer, and give him control of real decisions that matter. I am sorry I can't give it more of an endorsement. The terrain is beautiful. I think you should definitely use pieces of it. But all at once, it is a little too far into "monster" size overkill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted February 11, 2001 Share Posted February 11, 2001 I just sent you an e-mail on this. I will post futher replies here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
groundpounder Posted February 20, 2001 Author Share Posted February 20, 2001 Jason, Thanks very much for the feed back. I have recognized that the scenario should have been an operation. Unfortunately after a map is started as a scenario, there is no way to change it to an operation. I have found that the best way to play the scenario is PBEM. I probably will use the map (or part of it) in a future scenario. gp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts