Scipio Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 Today I played 'Ambush in Al Fubar' again in Version 1.08! BTW, I played CMSF very rarely before because I'm not a fan of RT, and the turn-based-mode had so many problems. But I'm very pleased about it now!!! Anyway, after the battle I was confronted once again with an After Action screen that told me nearly nothing. Okay, I can see that I have won the battle as well as the casualties stats. Very important informations of course. But now to the objectives . GROUND (blue side): Secured Objective #1 - 500 points Objective #2 - 300 points Okay, that's easy to understand, but could be much better. How about showing the objective name (if the scenario designer has entered one)? It would also be nice if the kind of the objective would be shown (Occupy, Preserve...) TARGETS (red side): Failed Objective #1 - 3 points Seriously, I first had to read the manual about scenario design to find out that a 'Target Objective' is an enemy unit that must be destroyed. As with the terrain objectives, it would be better if the AAR shows which unit is meant with 'Objective #1'. As player I have no idea about this without opening the scenario in the scenario editor, especially if the scenario designer shouldn't have pointed this out in the briefing. PARAMETER (red side): Failed Enemy casualties - 0 Once again - the player has no idea about the numbers he has reached or should have reached. Wouldn't it be better if the stats says something like 'Enemy casualties 10% (30% necessary) - 100 points'. BTW - I'm not sure about this - is a partial result possible for Parameter & Target objectives? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webwing Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 Originally posted by Scipio: BTW - I'm not sure about this - is a partial result possible for Parameter & Target objectives? Not for parameters or terrain objectives, AFAIK. eg. 10% casualties. Is either more or less, win or lose. Terrain objectives. Either you occupy, with no enemies in it or you don't. Yes, for Target Objectives. If you target a unit, say a platoon. The more casualties in that platoon the more points you get. That is, if the designer chose Destroy. If he chose Destroy All, you only get points if the whole platoon is destroyed. There is also a Spot option here. - 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 What does it mean if i get points for a Terrain Objective and the enemy gets points for the same terrain objectives...that is what i see today in a scenario. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Field Marshal Blücher Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 Originally posted by Wiggum: What does it mean if i get points for a Terrain Objective and the enemy gets points for the same terrain objectives...that is what i see today in a scenario. Probably means that at least one side's objective was just "Touch" rather than "Occupy." -FMB 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webwing Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 Originally posted by Wiggum: What does it mean if i get points for a Terrain Objective and the enemy gets points for the same terrain objectives...that is what i see today in a scenario. Like FMB said it could be the Touch objective. What mission was that Wiggum? There is also the Spot objective for units. In which case you get points just by spotting the enemy unit. I haven't seen this one used yet. Interesting for recon missions. - 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkEzra Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 Originally posted by Scipio: Today I played 'Ambush in Al Fubar' again in Version 1.08! BTW, I played CMSF very rarely before because I'm not a fan of RT, and the turn-based-mode had so many problems. But I'm very pleased about it now!!! Anyway, after the battle I was confronted once again with an After Action screen that told me nearly nothing. Okay, I can see that I have won the battle as well as the casualties stats. Very important informations of course. But now to the objectives . GROUND (blue side): Secured Objective #1 - 500 points Objective #2 - 300 points Okay, that's easy to understand, but could be much better. How about showing the objective name (if the scenario designer has entered one)? It would also be nice if the kind of the objective would be shown (Occupy, Preserve...) TARGETS (red side): Failed Objective #1 - 3 points Seriously, I first had to read the manual about scenario design to find out that a 'Target Objective' is an enemy unit that must be destroyed. As with the terrain objectives, it would be better if the AAR shows which unit is meant with 'Objective #1'. As player I have no idea about this without opening the scenario in the scenario editor, especially if the scenario designer shouldn't have pointed this out in the briefing. PARAMETER (red side): Failed Enemy casualties - 0 Once again - the player has no idea about the numbers he has reached or should have reached. Wouldn't it be better if the stats says something like 'Enemy casualties 10% (30% necessary) - 100 points'. BTW - I'm not sure about this - is a partial result possible for Parameter & Target objectives? Naming the Objectives with their number and the point value is a very good idea. I have been doing just that with my scen. I am also trying to alert the player of casualties and their values as well. The game offers such a far superior and varied method of scoring compared to CMx1 but it is INTIRELY dependent on the designer to use these feature well and allow the player detailed info prior to starting the engagement. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webwing Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 Scipio, Play Big City Blues and you'll understand what Mark means! - 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 Originally posted by Webwing: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wiggum: What does it mean if i get points for a Terrain Objective and the enemy gets points for the same terrain objectives...that is what i see today in a scenario. Like FMB said it could be the Touch objective. What mission was that Wiggum? There is also the Spot objective for units. In which case you get points just by spotting the enemy unit. I haven't seen this one used yet. Interesting for recon missions. - </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webwing Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 Originally posted by Wiggum: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Webwing: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wiggum: What does it mean if i get points for a Terrain Objective and the enemy gets points for the same terrain objectives...that is what i see today in a scenario. Like FMB said it could be the Touch objective. What mission was that Wiggum? There is also the Spot objective for units. In which case you get points just by spotting the enemy unit. I haven't seen this one used yet. Interesting for recon missions. - </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted April 13, 2008 Author Share Posted April 13, 2008 BTW, something I have noticed in the 'Ambush in Al Fubar' scenario today when I played it as red side: the terrain objectives for the blue side are shown, even when I play as red side. It seems to me that I shouldn't have this information available, and beside that it's very confusing, too, since the red side doesn't have any terrain objectives at all in this scenario! Look like a little bug, doesn't it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted April 13, 2008 Author Share Posted April 13, 2008 Originally posted by MarkEzra: Naming the Objectives with their number and the point value is a very good idea. I have been doing just that with my scen. I am also trying to alert the player of casualties and their values as well. The game offers such a far superior and varied method of scoring compared to CMx1 but it is INTIRELY dependent on the designer to use these feature well and allow the player detailed info prior to starting the engagement. I agree, many of the problems I mentioned are partely caused by scenario designers who give only very abstract or even missleading informations in the briefing about the 'goals'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webwing Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 Originally posted by Scipio: BTW, something I have noticed in the 'Ambush in Al Fubar' scenario today when I played it as red side: the terrain objectives for the blue side are shown, even when I play as red side. It seems to me that I shouldn't have this information available, and beside that it's very confusing, too, since the red side doesn't have any terrain objectives at all in this scenario! Look like a little bug, doesn't it? No, not a bug, just the opposite. It's an option in the editor. Known to player/Known to Enemy/Known to Both/Know to Neither. - 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted April 14, 2008 Author Share Posted April 14, 2008 Oh, I see. Silly me Another question, also from the 'Ambush in Al Fubar': When I checked the scenario in the editor, I noticed that the blues side can achieve a total of 500 points when they complete all objectives, while the red side can win only a total of 400 points (if I shouldn't have missed something). Wouldn't it make more sense if the total points for both sides are equal? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webwing Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 It all depends on how you do it. Assigning points to objectives and conditions can be quite tricky. Personally I like to keep them simple. Since this an assimetrical war, where one side tolerates casualties and the other is extremely sensitive to it and the weapons are so different and the goals too, the point system reflects that. There is even a Bonus field so that you can give one side more points for no specific reason other than to balance the game. Ops, have I answered your question or have I just gone around in circles? I can't remember how 'Ambush in Al Fubar' goes and have no way to check it out now. If you can check the point system in the latest mission from George Mc and also the ones from MarkEzra. They are pretty good at doing this. - [ April 14, 2008, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: Webwing ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 Good discussion. When we designed CMx2 we actually had a discussion about the downsides of putting a lot of different victory condition options in the hands of the scenario designer. The risk, as you guys can now see clearly, is that some scenarios are always (even in CMx1 days) better designed than others. However, now the gap between them has increased because the better (or more experienced!) scenario designers know how to use the various options better than others. Overall I think most people will agree that the additional options and flexibility CMx2 offers over other games (including CMx1) is a good thing. Not perfect of course, but then again the only way to do that is to not include an Editor for the public and instead only allow a handful of "the best of the best" scenario designers the privilege of making scenarios. But that is a terrible option so it's not being considered Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aacooper Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 Proper scenario design is even trickier with CMSF because there is less room for error with the more powerful weapons. I think it's harder to balance a scenario. Once WW2 comes back, it'll be more forgiving for both players and scenario designers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webwing Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 Originally posted by Aacooper: Proper scenario design is even trickier with CMSF because there is less room for error with the more powerful weapons. I think it's harder to balance a scenario. Once WW2 comes back, it'll be more forgiving for both players and scenario designers. That is true but still the major thing IMO is the fact that you have so many more options in the editor as compared to CMx1. It's a paradox. Players want loads and loads of options in the editor but the more options you have the harder it is to make a good mission. This reminds me of an excellent book I read some time ago : The Paradox of Choice. The author shows that some choice is good but too much choice leads to unhappiness and ultimately to paralysis. - 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 I am all for more flexibility in scenario design in regards to victory conditions. While the learning curve is slightly increased, I think it pays off in the long run, provided the scenario designer articulate well what is expected of the player in the briefing. ETA: Steve, while you are reading this thread, may I ask: why do auto-surrenders result in an automatic total victory? This skews the balance in favor of the US player, since the Syrian can cause as many monstrous casualties as he, but as long he is wiped off clean off the map the US player is guaranteed to win. And we all know how good they are at wiping pixel-Syrians off the map. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webwing Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 :confused: I made a mess of this post last night. Anyway... Normal Dude, As a mission designer I want as many options as possible. Not sure if that would be good for most players that don't want to spend too much time in the editor though. - [ April 15, 2008, 05:13 AM: Message edited by: Webwing ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted April 15, 2008 Author Share Posted April 15, 2008 I'm not so much into scenario design, but I also think that more option are better, and I also think that the CM2 system to calculate the result is better as the CM1 system for several reasons. But if I try to see the AAR-screen from a scenario designers point of view, I would wish more than ever more details about the result. Just as an example, I set 'Enemy casualties of 60%' as objective. I playtest the scenario, the battle went well and as expected, but the objective wasn't completed anyway. Now I have a problem - how close to 60% am I? Which threshold do I have to set? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 Normal Dude, I'll ask Charles about that. Scipio, We are planning on having a "debug" mode for some AI stuff, which allows the scenario author to test his stuff better, so I'll put in a request to have some more details for the Objectives too. That could morph into a regular feature if it turns out well. I've also put in a request that the AAR's Objectives use the text strings assigned by the scenario designer instead of default text. That way people can have a clearer understanding of which is which. Thanks for the suggestions! Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.