Brandenburg and Wilcox

[The DesertFox]

Hi!

Whoever designed these beauties, please do more of this kind. I love them

Best maps ever and a lot of fun to play!

Cheers

Helge

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I second the DesertFox… stunning maps and games. I also like the OPFORs feel of them.

Congratulations .

All the best,

Kip.

[JohnO]

He's working on more, George Mc, because I'm helping him test them out and believe me there good ones

JohnO

[kam99]

Hi,

Carried out a search but could not locate a download link for these scenarios. Any hints would be greatly appreciated!

[JohnO]

There in the game, look at battles and you will see them. Tactical Vignettes

[kam99]

Stupid me! Many thanks. I had been concentrating on the smaller scenarios, which is probably why I missed them.

Once again, many thanks.

[SgtMuhammed]

I really like this one as well. Lots of tense moments trying to get those guys out of the trap. Looking forward to more of your work.

[KNac]

Wilcox is broken, in the begining tanks have direct sight to your eng platoon. Please check this, is not the first time I encounter this and getting 3 ICV out of action with the mounted squads just when you start is not funny.

For the rest, I like the battle a lot, very well presented and designed hehe.

Now to the other.

[George MC]

Hi All

Glad you have all enjoyed the tactical vignette scenarios. I should add that the concepts and briefings are taken from two ‘tactical problems’ set for readers of ‘Armour’ magazine. I just used em as the basis for the scenarios in CMSF.

I must admit that the editor in CMSF does allow for some very detailed and realistic looking maps – but to get the most out of it you do need to spend some time getting your map just so.

Although I would love to see water added, it is equally not a game breaker for me as marsh does the next best thing. You want a ford just add a mud tile for the crossing point (note: vehicles bog very easily in mud so this recreates the danger of a vehicle bogging rather nicely).

Re ‘Wilcox’ and stuff starting out in LOS. I am pretty certain I had moved the engineer stuff to a safe location in the initial game set-up. My only concern would be players setting up units themselves – the brief is very clear that enemy tanks are in the village so players setting up stuff from the outset in LOS of any part of the village is asking for it

So from my POV ‘Wilcox’ ain’t ‘broken’ – just players need to be careful where they set-up

Thanks again for the feedback. I’m working on another scenario right now – just needs a bit more work and playtesting before it goes live!

Cheers fur noo

George Mc

[KNac]

Hi George,

No, I used your original set-up, and the Bradleys with the eng squads got whiped out when the game started (few seconds later), I tried it two times for checking out.

Now, we know LOS/LOF is a bit broken right now, so maybe this should not happen.

One point is, now that you said it, IMO the setup zone should be a safe zone, wherever you place your units enemy shouln't be able to kill you. I repeat, this is my opinion, not a fact. If this means smaller set up areas (or fixed units), be it.

I know too that currently, with modern weapons is quite difficult to make it, specially if you don't make large maps (which are more job for the designer and for the most part don't contribute to strategic options or real maneouver space, just a longer movement to contact stage of the battle, or whatever), which seems that make the game fail more apparently.

Thanks for your scenarios (played Brandenburg allready, sneeky T-72 haha), can't wait for more. You are really talented I found so far your maps the most well done and realistic looking, very cool.

[ August 14, 2007, 04:37 AM: Message edited by: KNac ]

[George MC]

Buenos Dias KNac!

Cheers for the post, your feedback is most appreciated

I'll check out the set-up in Wilcox for the engineers just to make sure there is no odd stuff going on.

Re map sizes - yeah it is a dilemma with the CMSF maps. Larger maps require more processing power. What I've tried to do with the maps I make (and the brief) is have the player at the moment where they have just moved into contact, so the action starts from the off.

Glad you liked Brandenburg - must admit it is one of my favourites

Cheers fur noo

George Mc

[SgtMuhammed]

Just finished Wilcox, every bit as much fun as Brandenburg. Had a great fight for that middle building compex. The only bad thing was that the Syrian armor just seemed to run from one corner to the other and played no real part in the battle.

This battle had the greatest shot I have seen so far. I ran a couple Brads across a road at high speed. They were only exposed for about 4 seconds and a BMP killed one with a snap shot missile. Nice shooting Tex. It was also the first time I have seen a BMP fire its missile.

I moved the engineers based on the comments of the others here and had no losses.

[George MC]

Hi Sgt Goody

Nice one! Good to hear the BMPs are doing damage. I had hoped that where they were positioned would hurt

Re the Syrian armour - yeah the AI plan (mind there are two in this so it will play differantly occasionaly) does focus on keeping the armour moving. My hope was it would catch out any hasty human moves. I've lost stuff to em, but guess it comes down to luck in the game (like the BMP snap shooting a missile at a bRad moving at speed - never seen that happen before in all the playtest I've done!).

Thanks again for the comments

Cheers fur noo

George

[panzermartin]

Along wih strength and faith my favourite maps/battles. Well done.

[George MC]

Originally posted by panzermartin:

Along wih strength and faith my favourite maps/battles. Well done.

Thank You

Cheers fur noo

George Mc

[handihoc]

Hate to spoil the party but I'm afraid I'm gonna have to disagree slightly on the overall opinion here, though in the spirit of constructive criticism. The problem I found with both these scenarios, but particularly Brandenburg, is that for the US side they are too damn easy, even at Elite level. I'm finding this with a lot of battles

Great maps, George, and Wilcox was quite challenging, but I still won on my first attempt with relatively minor losses. Brandenburg I virtually walked. Lost one Abrams and a squad, plus a few individual grunts, but completed it in 45 minutes for a decisive victory, and not a single Syrian survived. (Almost all the Red positions were revealed from the start, so point artillery was able to pick a lot of them off pretty smartish. I then advanced cautiously, expecting a lot more trouble, but didn't really find it.). Love the maps, both of them, but in both scenarios I feel the Red side needs to be seriously beefed up.

An overall prob with the SF game system is that the US has such overwhelming firepower and communicative ability, and the enemy AI is not that bright. I accept that, from a realism PoV, given contemporary military doctrine and socio-political imperatives, we fight (as the US) with preservation of friendly lives as a priority - it's not WW2, where all out destruction can be deemed acceptable - and this seems to be built into the game system. I generally (though not always) expect to win as US, but fight knowing that even minor losses of my men is a gigantic setback. That's ok, but it does create problems from a player PoV if you are playing against a not hugely intelligent AI (and I'm not sure that CMx2 AI is any better, or even as good as, CMx1).

So I don't want to be negative, I very much appreciate the fact that people like you are going to the trouble to provide scenarios to entertain people like me, but I would say to all scenario designers, think seriously about giving the Red teams more advantages (or reducing US firepower), because within the overall game setup the Reds are very disadvantaged, even defensively, against what the Strykers have to throw against them.

I like what SF has to offer a lot, but balance of power is something that needs to be thought about very carefully to keep player interest.

[KNac]

What we need is stronger casualtie threshold, limit ammo usage too, limit the usage of heavier stuff (arty/javelins etc.) by making civil density higher and penalize destruction of buildings. That would realistically simulate this kind of wars and it would be much harder to win the scenarios.

Tools are there, now scenario designers should use it.

[George MC]

All valid points and no offence taken.

You are right they are easily won - if you use good tactics. They were meant as more training type exercises than full on challenges. So depending on your background and experience you may find em more or less of a challenge. As the other posts illustrate some people have found em just right, which is great, whilst others have found em less so, which is equally great.

One of the challenges when designing scenarios for the game was we scenario designers had no real idea how new players would find playing CMx2. Most of the Beta testers in the early builds were getting bounced around a bit by the increased lethality of modern combat. So it was finding a balance between playability, challenge and realism. A difficult juggling act with modern kit.

There are some issues with the StratAI and TacAI, ATGM accuracy, LOS/LOF, cover etc, that BFC are aware off and are working to fix in the following patches, that do have a bearing on game play. Perhaps in subsequent builds when these changes are fully implemented they will make the scenarios a tad tougher, or maybe not. In saying that no matter how good these changes to the game are, playing against the AI will always be easier than playing against another human (well providing the human player is reasonably experienced!).

Re civilian density – this has no bearing in-game on casualty or victory points. All it does it make it harder to spot ‘uncon’ elements, VBIEDs etc. Setting buildings to ‘preserve’ might have a bearing, but I guess scenario designers (myself included) will find that the editor is a very powerful tool, and it’ll take a long time for people to fully suss out and make good use of the various tools and victory conditions you use.

It has taken me several years to fully get to grips with the CMX1 editor and make scenarios that are complex and challenging (and even then I still get it wrong) that I fully expect it will take a long time till I fully get to grips with how the various bits and pieces in the editor all fit together. I’m equally sure that others will pretty much produce great stuff off the bat (as witnessed by some of the scenarios currently being released for public consumption).

Cheers fur noo

George Mc

[handihoc]

Yeah, though I'm not a military man, I'm a veteran wargamer. Been playing in one form or another since toy soldiers on my Mum's rockery! Computer gaming obviously revolutionised gaming, and there've been some tremendous games over the years. But you're right, AI will never match an experience human opponent - at least, not in the near future. My prob lately is router related, meaning I can't configure to play MP any more. Damn frustrating. So I dream of the impossible - an AI that has the potential to really outwit and outmanouevre me. CMSF is my first foray into modern warfare, and I love it, but now I'm becoming used to the system and unfamiliar weaponry and tactics I'm hungry for more and more challenging battles.

Keep 'em coming, though. These games thrive on scenario designers and developers who are willing and able to put in the time to exploit the system to the max.

[George MC]

Hi Handihoc

Looks like we have both had similra beginnings in our wargaming. My wee Airfix soldiers used to garrison my Gran's rockery!

I'm in the process of designing another scenario so I'll keep your comments in mind

Cheers fur noo

george Mc

[handihoc]

Old folks rockeries rock!!

[pipefitter]

I too have enjoyed these scenarios very much, but I felt compelled to post a reply when you mentioned playing with Airfix soldiers as a youth. I trace my love of wargamming back to those same soldiers and an assortment of matchbox (metal), some other plastic HO scale armored vehicles, and a big 4' x 8' train layout. My brother, myself, and one friend in particular would spend literally hours setting up close to a thousand figures, and then somehow "play out" the battle. Being the youngest I would be forced to play as the allies who would always lose. I didn't care much though, because it was so much fun to me. It was fun, like I think CMSF is fun. A lot of fun. One thing I haven't seen mentioned much in the forums which makes CMSF enjoyable for me is the pause function in RT. It might make the game too hurky-jerky for most, but you can stop the action and give or change orders whenever you want. Anyway, I like to play it that way.

Forgive the stroll down memory lane and keep up the good work. By the way, what's a rockery?

[Melnibone]

A rockery!

British Paras were my favourites - they gave that Japanese officer and his crew a pasting every time.

[handihoc]

Yes, British Paras were cool, but I actually rather enjoyed the Japanese too. Strange thing was, when reinforcements arrived for either side, the budget being what it was, they often consisted of a handful of strange slightly dark-reddish toned plastic chaps with colourful feathers in their hair and armed with bows, arrows and tomahawks. Didn't seem to matter.

Ah, but who would have thought there were so many people out there whose lives were changed forever by imaginative use of rockeries! I'm getting quite a rush of nostalgia and adrenalin just looking at yours, Melnibone (rockery, that is).

[Stingray]

I would like to try out these battles. Where can I download them?

Thanks