Wild Bill Wilder Posted August 11, 2000 Share Posted August 11, 2000 Operations...I have a question. What is your thinking about the length of operations? I'm beginning to think that Operations tend to begin to drag after four or five battles. Even a well-done operation can become dull after so many fights. What are your thoughts, fellas? WB ------------------ Wild Bill Lead Tester Scenario Design Team Combat Mission-Beyond Overlord billw@matrixgames.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maastrictian Posted August 11, 2000 Share Posted August 11, 2000 Of what I've played, I vastly prefer scenarios. 4 or 5 battles at 15 turns a pop is just about the same as a 60 turn scenario. Personally I'd rather deal with moving my reenforcements up to the line of battle, etc. The broken-up nature of an operation just bugs me somehow. --Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Wilder Posted August 11, 2000 Author Share Posted August 11, 2000 Yeah, a little bit of operation will do you for a loooooong time. Now a short two or three turn one is pretty cool, but after that, you begin to yearn for some new ground, new people to kill , etc. And some battles lend themselves well to an operation, more than others. - WB ------------------ Wild Bill Lead Tester Scenario Design Team Combat Mission-Beyond Overlord billw@matrixgames.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lipperd98 Posted August 11, 2000 Share Posted August 11, 2000 Bill,I kinda get in the mood for long OPs When I`m not in the mood I go for a short scenario.I would like to see somebody put the whole Ardenne Offensive as a OP on a large map and putt all the little towns surronding Bastogne and of course Bastogne being the main Objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Wilder Posted August 11, 2000 Author Share Posted August 11, 2000 Whoever it is, it won't be me! Its hard to imagine how MUCH work goes into an operation. Many, many hours...many! And so much testing by you the designer till you almost weary of it. Its a good idea but on the scale of CM, it would take dozens of operations and hundreds of scenarios to do the Bulge justice. And a public thanks for your help. WB ------------------ Wild Bill Lead Tester Scenario Design Team Combat Mission-Beyond Overlord billw@matrixgames.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kverdon Posted August 11, 2000 Share Posted August 11, 2000 Wild Bill, Personally 4-5 or 5-6 battles of 25 or so turns seems like ideal to me. Lets you get into the battle a bit before having to start over again. Carentan seemed just right to me. Thanks, Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbaro Posted August 11, 2000 Share Posted August 11, 2000 Involved in a scenario design on a maxie map, I have felt that the thing plays more like an operation. This kicked off a thought to take advantage of the operations larger map format and make a 1 scenario operation. I'll have to look at operation parameters and see if that is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lord General MB Posted August 11, 2000 Share Posted August 11, 2000 Soldier! An the shorter an operation the better! To keep the german scum at arms lenght we must allows hold the advantage of men and tanks. In my book the best operation containes only a few battles, and is based around a small map, and small objective. Quick, fast passed battles, (based around mabye an army supply dumb....Tank factory....ect) that resolve quickly! ------------------ Cheers, Lord General Mr. Bill, 1st Army Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEF BUNGIS Posted August 11, 2000 Share Posted August 11, 2000 I think there is a great demand for smaller more ballanced scenarios. Especially for PBEM games. Something where the action starts quickly and your micro-managing the battle, not the 2 mile long convoy. Take "A second job" for example, a perfect PBEM scenario IMO. We need more like that. Something a little more exciting and historical based than quick generated battles. ------------------ Better to make the wrong decision than be the sorry son of a bitch to scared to make one at all [This message has been edited by DEF BUNGIS (edited 08-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oberst Angsthase Posted August 11, 2000 Share Posted August 11, 2000 I prefer longer fights, 30 turns or so in an operation of 4-5 games. If you're not careful your units will run out of ammo in a long game. It also gives the attacker a little breathing space to get his troops into position before they attack. I loved Operation Carentan, but the 20 turn game limit stopped many firefights just as they were heating up. Longer battles let you feel the consequences of the early game more keenly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pathfinder Posted August 12, 2000 Share Posted August 12, 2000 I really prefer shorter battles. I have as yet to play an operation, but I have played 1-60 turn scenario (on a large map) and it was a bit much for this old fart to handle. So a 3-5 scenario operation with the scenarios about 25-30 turns long seems right to me. just mah 2 sense suh! ------------------ unca pathy will show ya the path, if only he could find it himself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbaro Posted August 12, 2000 Share Posted August 12, 2000 We have here two style preferences, quick and dirty and long and careful. I feel there is a place for both. However, my designing preference is for the longer version. Accounts of combat I have read included situations where decisive results came quickly as well as ones where things played out over a longer haul. As we have whole batallions to work with, there are resources available for the longer haul. The smaller the unit, the quicker it was likely to be used up in active combat as its energy and ammo would be expended provided the action was sufficiently heavy. A company taking a town would be badly taxed to hold if successful in cases where a quick counter attack found a seriously depleated unit. On the other hand such a unit followed up quickly by a fresh company would be ready. Especially if the original company did it with two platoons having a relatively fresh third one to at least delay a counter attack until a fresh company came into play. The player may like the simple situation and be happiest in dealing with nothing more. After all even these pack a lot of action. Other players may like the challange of the larger battlefield. In my design effort my last test play found my forces being bled in a series of delaying actions and clearing actions. By the time they got to confront the objective, they were in no condition to have anything like an easy go at the objective. I am finding some potential disagreement with the game engine deciding the result in such cases prematurely in my book. If the situation facing me like this at the end is converted to play as a scenario in itself, with me starting out with a depleated force, and take the objective using that force I potentially can get a victory. But, the same situation at the end of the game originally is likely to interrupt me saying that I have lost, without me even having the opportunity to attempt the objective. I would like to see if my bloody ragtag soldiers could do it anyway. I would say generally they couldn't. But damn, it could be possible. Complexity to satisfy can be found on both large and small battlefields. The player's patience and willingness to pursue the satisfactions of the greater complexities possible in the larger format may be no greater than the others, but they certainly are no less. If patience and will fail, then stay where satisfaction lasts. And it ain't the same all the time for anyone. [This message has been edited by Bobbaro (edited 08-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Wilder Posted August 12, 2000 Author Share Posted August 12, 2000 Thank you gentlemen. The concensus is indeed mixed with two camps. The same is true with scenarios. Some like 'em long; some, short. And that is fine. I appreciate you offering your opinions. Looks like we'll continue to do both in the future. WB ------------------ Wild Bill Lead Tester Scenario Design Team Combat Mission-Beyond Overlord billw@matrixgames.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Von Brizee Posted August 12, 2000 Share Posted August 12, 2000 The only thing that bugs me about some operations is that the battles are too short. 20 turns doesn't cut it. Like the Carenten Op would have been much better if the battles were longer. Took the Amis 10 minutes to actually make contact with me, and then my mortar barrages pin them for 3 more, and then my MG's pin them, and when they finally get through all that they have 2 minutes to engage my main force. I also hate getting the battle ending in the middle of my counterattack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisl Posted August 12, 2000 Share Posted August 12, 2000 I've played very few of them, but here's my $.02: The two I've played were both destroy ops (one that I'm testing for you now). I think they get long after 4 or so battles against the AI, since it's the same map and the AI is less clever than a person about playing tricks. I suspect that I would be quite entertained playing a long op against a well matched person, and have just recently suggested that to one of my opponents who seems pretty closely matched. I'll keep this in mind as I write up Montelimar for you. To add one further comment to this after re-reading the thread: I think that I prefer longer battles in an operation, so that each battle can be more or less decided, rather than having one end just when your stuart lines up that panther with the perfect side shot in the last second of the last turn of a battle. [This message has been edited by chrisl (edited 08-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAEZ Posted August 12, 2000 Share Posted August 12, 2000 <<Its a good idea but on the scale of CM, it would take dozens of operations and hundreds of scenarios to do the Bulge justice>> <<Its a good idea but on the scale of CM, it would take dozens of operations and hundreds of scenarios to do the Bulge justice>> I would pay for something like that and other battles, BTS hint hint [This message has been edited by PAEZ (edited 08-12-2000).] [This message has been edited by PAEZ (edited 08-12-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Wilder Posted August 12, 2000 Author Share Posted August 12, 2000 Looking forward to that report, Chris. Thanks for taking on that job. I agree Paez, I think a disk of scenarios and operations would be a top seller. ------------------ Wild Bill Lead Tester Scenario Design Team Combat Mission-Beyond Overlord billw@matrixgames.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted August 13, 2000 Share Posted August 13, 2000 It all depends on the type of OP. I feel an advance or attack situation works best. You need some goal to work up to while you move across the map. Long Ops where the front line tends to remain the same can drag after the 2nd or 3rd battle, then again I am sure that the men who fought the war felt a dragging feeling as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinard Posted August 18, 2000 Share Posted August 18, 2000 Definately longer. But short are fun too. I like to have the "epic" feel to an operation. If all op's are short, you don't gettnat ultimate sense of satisfaction of outlasting your opponent. YOu play a different kind of game in a long op, and for those that say they yearn for new terrain, then they have not played a well designed long op. You can have a huge battlefiled with lots of varying terrain with interesting goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParasiteX Posted August 18, 2000 Share Posted August 18, 2000 heheh an ardenne offensive op would take like as much time as all the scenarior shipped wit CM combined =] it would totally rule though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Man Posted August 18, 2000 Share Posted August 18, 2000 (correction) I meant lenghty scenarios,not operations.sorry............................never mind..please delete... [This message has been edited by Panzer Man (edited 08-18-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisl Posted August 19, 2000 Share Posted August 19, 2000 I disagree that moving is a tedious chore. Maneuver is a very important part of the game--if you have the right stuff in the right spot at the right time, you tend to do much better. Maneuver from a scenario dictated start position to a much better offensive/defensive position is a big part of tactics at this level. In long operations there are times when you want to avoid contact with the enemy because you're waiting for reinforcements, or lure him into a trap with hints (lies) about where your weak points are. What can be a little tedious is moving all the units back to start positions for the next battle of an op "places everyone!". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echo Posted August 24, 2000 Share Posted August 24, 2000 Longer time limit. No one ceased fire in a firefight after 15min unless there was a route, or extenuating circumstances. (No ammo, or truce). Length of the operation should be proportional to the quantity of units involved. As long as there are enough combat capable formations to keep it interesting, make it a 20 day op. After all, the siege of Stalingrad wasn't over in a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted August 24, 2000 Share Posted August 24, 2000 I too sometimes wish for longer missions. I am currently playing "A day in the Cavalry" and the 15 turn battles just don't give me the time to manuver like I want. On the other hand, it does give some sense of urgency to the player. A player may want more time to position this or that, to make sure that is clear BUT would the battlefield commander have such a luxury? I doubt it. On the battlefield the local commander rarely has the luxury of taking his time in executing a mission. You have forces on your flanks that you must keep on-line with and forces to the rear that must keep moving. Unfortuantly, the war around you doesn't stop while you fight your battle. Being recon myself, 19D , the time we wanted to take to do a mission and what the BC or SC wanted us to do it in were vastly different. Cav ------------------ "War does not determine who is right - only who is left." -Bertrand Russell "For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business." -D. W. Brogan, The American Character Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Wilder Posted August 24, 2000 Author Share Posted August 24, 2000 Often time limits are a scenario editing tool. Commanders were always under pressure to get the job done, to take that hill, that bridge, get to that town. From generals on down, time was always a factor and created problems for the battlefield commander. Time makes you take risks (historical) and face dangers that you might not if you had all the time you wanted. I'm not saying that is the case here, but it is often in a scenario where one feels the pressure of time. ------------------ Wild Bill Lead Tester Scenario Design Team Combat Mission-Beyond Overlord billw@matrixgames.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts