What sort of missions would you like in?

[vincere]

Reading Ellis' 'Sharp End', and came to a section about how contact was more constant because of patrolling. At first I didn't think it appropriate to CM scale; but then thinking about company sweeps in a Vietnam, Afghanistan, or counter insurgency type scenario made me reconsider.

I think Steve mentioned something about more dynamic victory objectives so I was wondering if people though patrolling could be appropriate to scale? Or would it even be playable?

And what other types of mission would be good CM fodder?

[Michael Dorosh]

What kind of patrolling are you talking about?

There are

contact patrols

recce patrols

fighting patrols

"snatch" or prisoner patrols

Some are intended to make contact, others are ordered to specifically avoid contact.

[vincere]

I was thinking more along the lines of Recce in force, and area denial. Like a sweep through an area of a city or valley. With way points and opportunities fo the other side to ambush or respond to a developing contact.

The patrolling side could also have a 'quick reaction' reserve that is unlocked once contact is firmly established. The kind of thing scenario that was described in the 'Was it a victory? you decide thread'.

I was wondering if that type of mission would be game worthy, or probably tricky or dull on implementation? Also what other mission types might be good gaming for the CM2 engine?

[MikeyD]

Horray, an original topic thread actually related to the game!

There could be some debate about whether CMSF will be playable as an 'Iraq-light' occupation/patrol sim. From what it sounds like it's probably more a force-on-force standup fight sim. Hardcore occupation/patrol scenarios may strain the engine to the point where gamey results start occurring. You've got to consider what the opponent is doing - for one thing the element of surprise can be discounted, your opponent knows you're out there and the game clock's running. That makes things like prisoner snatch raids rather difficult. If you're talking two moving patrols stumbling on eachother that's a CM 'Meeting Engagement'. A patrol stumbles into a defended area that's a CM 'Probe'. A recon-in-force into a defended area is a CM 'Attack'. A CM game where the objective is to avoid contact sounds... well... pretty dull! Maybe a simple recce patrol can be a small part of a larger - and more interesting -engagement.

I recall some arguing that 'Meeting Engagements' in the other CM games were gamey ahistorical engagements. The argument was that infantry battallions just didn't randomly stumble upon eachother in open country! I think it could be argued that MEs should be considered patrol actions, or 'recon in force' where the objective is simply to see how far you can go and how many of the enemy you can kill along the way. But besides North Africa or the Russian steppes, whats the chance two opposing recons-in-force would stumble on eachother?

[ February 01, 2006, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Dirtweasle]

OK, how about a Movement to Contact type mission rather than CM1 style MEs if for discussion sake they must go as they're too gamey in the 21sy century?

[vincere]

A recon-in-force into a defended area is a CM 'Attack'

Sure, there are similarities and maybe overlap. But just thinking about it makes me think that there could be subtle differences. For example, if the objective was to get to a position, a cross roads or high point, or even several or consecutive positions and hold them for 2 turns. Add another variable, like the opfor not knowing the mission, or objective points, and maybe having their own objective like seek and destroy. Could this sort of thing simulate patrols? would it be the wrong scale, and could be add to the game dynamics.

You've got to consider what the opponent is doing - for one thing the element of surprise can be discounted, your opponent knows you're out there and the game clock's running

Yes, surprise is a biggy. Asymetric and objectives unknown to the other side could help here.

OK, how about a Movement to Contact type mission rather than CM1 style MEs if for discussion sake they must go as they're too gamey in the 21sy century?

Could you expand on that?

[Peter Cairns]

How would people feel about "Hammer and Anvil" scenarios.

This would have the "target" force having to start near the centre, with one or more exits, unknown to the enemy, and the attacker in two or more units.

The attackers task would be to locate block and destroy the defending force, while the defender had to exit.

It would work best with a large map , but relatively small forces. I am not an expert on these types of actions, but I know they were a feature in vietnam, and the South Africans used then in Namibia and Angola, especilly with helicopters to move the manouvering units to ambush positions.

Peter.

[vincere]

How would people feel about "Hammer and Anvil" scenarios.

Would be cool. Prompted me to think that this could be created in CM-Campaigns. Which got me thinking that for me thebest mission would be those created in the context of a wider non-scripted campaign like the awaited CM campaigns.

Hope campaigns sells enough to continue the trend.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

How would people feel about "Hammer and Anvil" scenarios...It would work best with a large map , but relatively small forces. I am not an expert on these types of actions, but I know they were a feature in vietnam,... especilly with helicopters to move the manouvering units to ambush positions.

Philip J. Caputo refers to the maneuver by name in "A Rumor of War".

[C'Rogers]

I recall some arguing that 'Meeting Engagements' in the other CM games were gamey ahistorical engagements.

Personally for large scale meeting engagements I always had an easier time imaging that my forces (and my opponents) were reinforcements for an already existing battle between smaller forces that had created a no man's land.

But generally speaking Meeting Engagements are realistically unlikely (despite probably being the most common type of scenario for games outside CM). But even fights, with both sides willing to throw every unit into capturing victory, is pretty unrealistic as well.

[Peter Cairns]

If we think that putting everyone in to the line is unrealistic, then scenarios where the AI takes part of the force with different objectives might be interesting. We could have things like.

The AI force is in place but will only hold the line, or flank and will not move forward.

When your force arrives the AI starts a phased withdrawl as your troops reach it's position.

The AI controls a convoy force that you must protect

Peter.

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by C'Rogers:

But even fights, with both sides willing to throw every unit into capturing victory, is pretty unrealistic as well.

It would be great if, in CM:SF, you were ordered to break off an attack if your losses exceeded a certain level. In other words, the mission objective changed mid-game from "take objective" to "exit friendly map-edge" or "defend in place for 5 more turns". The scenario designer could set the casualty/loss rate so the player didn't know exactly when it would be reached (without checking in the scenario editor of course).

[vincere]

It would be great if, in CM:SF, you were ordered to break off an attack if your losses exceeded a certain level. In other words, the mission objective changed mid-game from "take objective" to "exit friendly map-edge" or "defend in place for 5 more turns". The scenario designer could set the casualty/loss rate so the player didn't know exactly when it would be reached (without checking in the scenario editor of course).

IMO very good suggestion. Dynamic objectives idea could include a do more if things are going really well.

[Hans]

It would also be good if the AI could handle "on order" missions. Take your objective then on order procede to do A, B or C.

It would also be good for the designer to be able to arrange for messages to be sent at specific times or apon a certain event occuring.

[hellfish]

Originally posted by vincere:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> It would be great if, in CM:SF, you were ordered to break off an attack if your losses exceeded a certain level. In other words, the mission objective changed mid-game from "take objective" to "exit friendly map-edge" or "defend in place for 5 more turns". The scenario designer could set the casualty/loss rate so the player didn't know exactly when it would be reached (without checking in the scenario editor of course).

IMO very good suggestion. Dynamic objectives idea could include a do more if things are going really well. </font>

[aka_tom_w]

Q: "What sort of missions would you like in?"

A: The most realistic missions possible for the era or time frame, and the region and the units involved. PERIOD

That goes for ANY "realistic combat simulator" that BFC sells or plans to sell in the future.

-tom w

[MikeyD]

Q: "What sort of missions would you like in?"

A: The most entertaining missions possible within the constraints of the game engine and accurate weapons systems, regardless of realism or 'likelyhood' of the scenario itself. As the old saying goes, we seem to always be training for the 'last' war. Whos to say this 'next' war won't have long range duels between hoards of advancing T62s and a few mobile TOW missile launchers? If the game supplies the weapons then we should have full reign to combine them in the most 'fun' combinations we can (SturmTigers vs T-44s in CMBB for example).

My one caviat is for the CMSF campaign. In the campaign things should progress with all the logic and historical fidelity as they can muster. like a well told story. But if you're outside the campaign the sky should be the limit

[aka_tom_w]

OK

"The most entertaining missions possible" ALSO sounds good!

So lets ask for both,...on the CMSF CD we are looking for "realistic missions", "entertaining missions", "realistically entertaining missions" AND "entertaining missions that are also realistic" .

-tom w

[MikeyD]

And I'm now leaning more in YOUR direction. I had a vision what the reaction would've been if CMBB had included a wacky "One KV-2 vs 50 Hungarian tankettes" scenario on disk. It would've been fun carnage but would've thoroughly tarnished the game's pretensions of 'simulated reality'.

But for building 3rd party scenarios there should be no holds barred. I just hope the new engine CMSF scenarios & maps are NOT going to be too big to swap!

[Caesar]

I like the dynamic objectives idea. Make the trigger for the objective changing quite flexible so that it could be triggered on turn, casualties, gaining control of a flag/position/whatever, taking prisoners, achieving the first objective etc.

Another scenerio type I would like would be a fighting withdrawl. The scenerio designer would set some constraints to decide how it would be scored. E.g;

Exit the map (or retreat beyond a marked line or into a designated zone) losing no more than X casualties (whether or not the player gets to know the casualty limit is up to the designer)

Exit the map within X number of turns (or after no less than X number of turns) losing minimal casualties etc. Again, whether the player gets to know 'X' is up to the designer.

I wonder if they can provide a set of objective types, a set of possible constraints and free text orders, this way allowing the scenerio designer the maximum flexibility in coming up with what he/she wants. Working that in with the dynamic objectives could be an interesting little problem.

[Cpl Steiner]

Another scenerio type I would like would be a fighting withdrawl. The scenerio designer would set some constraints to decide how it would be scored.

I'd like this too but it will be hard to do right if casualty evac isn't part of the game - which I'm pretty sure it won't be. We'll probably just have to imagine that casualties are being carried off without actually seeing it.

[Tagwyn]

I am sure this is somewhat off-topic, but, I want to fight the Iranian scum with Israel as an ally. Tag

[Cpl Steiner]

Dynamic objectives could be used to give little interludes describing how the battle is going.

For instance, when you start the battle, you have to capture a building in the middle of the map. Say you achieve this by turn 10. Then, a message box could pop up saying that you're new objective is a hill behind and to the left of the building, as the enemy is repositioning or something. Unfortunately, when you took the building, you put all your guys on the right as a covering force. You see what I'm getting at - story interludes that challenge you as a player and as a commander.

[Caesar]

The casualty evac may be abstracted somewhat by your losing more than one man for each casualty (to simulate that man's having to help out his buddy).

[Imperial Grunt]

I would like to fight the following types of missions:

1) Combined arms assault aka..Fallujah 2

2) Movement to contact and offensive ops against specific targets

3) Clear in zone

4) Hammer and Anvil type clearing operations using both ground and heloborne forces.

5) QRF operations to respond to:

a) troops in contact

helo down

c) kill/capture high value target

6)