dfgardner Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 Question for BTS and Independant Operations scenario designers. Does the design mechanics of CM impose limitations on where follow on forces will enter a follow on battle in an Operations scenario? In two PBEM operations (Drive to Mortain and Task Force Rose), my email opponent and I were surprised at where the "AI" began battle "y" after battle "x" was completed. In the cases in question, the defenders seemed to have limited the attackers advance quite forcelly, yet when the next battle began, the defender was often displaced "rearward" close to 1000 meters. Additionally, the terrain displacement resulted in what appeared to be less defensible positions than the ground previously defended (at still occupied by the defender at the conclusion of the battle). Is the setup area dependant upon the results of the previous battle, are more dependant upon the designers setup inputs? By the way, we both enjoyed these operations tremendously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pillar Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 It's not a good system the way it currently is set up. If you send a jeep all the way into the rear of the enemy defences you'll send him back thousands of meters. There was lots of complaints about this before. Search the main forum for a thread that is about 4 pages long containing peoples rants Seriously! Better not to play Ops against people for this reason imho, it's just not fair to the defender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 Well, I certainly do not share Pillars opinion of Operations not being worth playing, this issue was addressed somewhat in the latest 1.05 patch. The Computer is not so prone to force the defender back due to a sole attacking unit in its midst. In some situations this can still be an issue, espicially depending on what 'No Man's Land' setting was placed when the Operation was created. Many people are now saying that 80-150 meters distance is opitimal but some of the older Operations have that setting at 400 meters which would seem a little too much. This was one of the tweaks that Wild Bill put in his revision of the Team Desorby Operation and by reducing that distance (which dictates the average distance between forces at the begining of a new battle) the entire Operation has become much more enjoyable. If you and your opponent can agree, and you trust each other, than you could always open an Operation up in the editor and modify that setting to a lower range, although the tempatation to change a few other settings would be strong! Madmatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfgardner Posted October 11, 2000 Author Share Posted October 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Madmatt: If you and your opponent can agree, and you trust each other, than you could always open an Operation up in the editor and modify that setting to a lower range, although the tempatation to change a few other settings would be strong! Madmatt<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks Madmatt. I take it then the scenario designer designer sets the no man's land for a follow on battle and the previous battle has minimal effect upon the new setup? In other words, if a stop an opponent prior to reaching his objective, but the scenario desinger called for follow on battle to be set up as if the attacker reached objective, then that's how the follow on battle setup phase will be started (think I said that right ). Not critiquing, just trying to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 MadMatt, Wild Bill, BTS, and everyone else.. This issue still needs to be addressed. Even with the "no mans land" set to zero the defender is pushed back. I have tested this many times in my Arnhem Operation. At the beginning of every new battle, the British are pushed back at least 100 meters forcing them to give up many well defended buildings. It doesn't matter if the Germans are close to the British or not, CM likes to push back the defender and straighten out his front line. In an operation such as Arnhem, every meter counts. When the British are pushed back 100m or more it really affects the quality of the operation. THE BOTTOME LINE IS... Defenders should be given the option of keeping the ground that they have successfully defended not be forced to pull back because of the CM operation coding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Wilder Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 I don't fully understand the computer mechanics of how new start lines are established in operations, Pak40, but I must agree with you here. Ground gained should be ground kept for the next battle. If losses were heavy for the attacker or the defender, however, in the battle, I can see where the force might withdraw just a tad to reorganize. On the other hand, it appears historically in a lot of case that ground held at the cost of blood was not easily relinquished after the firefight. Why fight and die for ground only then to willingly step back some 200 meters? I don't think that is how it was (with maybe a rare exception). ------------------ Wild Bill Lead Tester Scenario Design Team Combat Mission-Beyond Overlord billw@matrixgames.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Wilder Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 Madmatt's suggestion of opening the operation or even a scenario to make some adaptations to fit your needs or philosophy of battle is a very good one. This is a very good alternative to a frustrating situation that some of you may have encountered in a scenario or operation. ------------------ Wild Bill Lead Tester Scenario Design Team Combat Mission-Beyond Overlord billw@matrixgames.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 "Why fight and die for ground only then to willingly step back some 200 meters?" Yes, that's exactly my point. I guess the question is: Do Steve and Charles feel the same about this? Are they even aware that this is a big issue for us Scenario/Operation designers? If not, then we should definitly voice our opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts