My take on the editor so far.

[Webwing]

Now that Steve is back reading the forum I’d like to post, in one single thread, my take on some issues i find important regarding the editor. Some of the topics might be addressed in 1.05 but still a relevant thread in my opinion.

I have already spent an enormous amount of time in the editor. Much more time than playing the game itself.

I would very much like to know what others have to say about those issues as well. And this is one of the reasons for this thread.

Time savers and little tips that would help specially the beginner:

The option to turn off fog of war. On top of my list!!!

I don’t have a clue how other mission designers do it (apart from MarkEzra). I think having to place high buildings with spy units on top to look at the enemy to see what the AI is doing is a very clumsy way to solve this problem. Pressing surrender or cease fire also is not exactly a solution since then you have to restart the mission. Not very efficient and very time consuming.

-Parameters: Casualties – less than, more than. Just to make it clearer. Yes, its in the manual, I know.

-Highlight what Plan you are in an even easier way to see. When you have more than one plan and specially when programming RED AI (most of the time). I go back and forth from the Units tab to the AI tab. As I do that sometimes I just add orders to say group 3. I test it and it doesn’t work. In the end I find out that I was programming group 3 from Plan 1 of Blue, the default! Yes, I know, its my mistake but if there was a way to improve that would be very welcome. Perhaps using tabs, I’m not sure. But this one is maybe just me. I don’t know.

- First plan can never be set to NOT USED. Which makes it more difficult to test a mission with several plans. I understand the logic behind it. There need to be at least one active plan. Not sure what would be the solution here.

-> Another thing that might be interesting is to be able as in the campaign, to disable one side as playable. If you plan a mission for Blue only, the player would not have the option to choose Red before the start of the mission. The way it is since he will only read the briefing after that he might think there is the option to play Red when in fact there isn’t.

Some things must be looked into like the artillery issue and the fact that the roof command has no effect for instance.

Other players/mission designers will add to this list, I’m sure.

Improving the game improves the editor

Some areas of the game, once they are patched and improved will prove a greater help to scenario designers than actually adding new features to the editor. For instance Spotting of units, Pathfinding, AI in general, Use of Javelin by the AI, Column command for convoys, just to name a few off the top of my head.

I’d definitely would rather see this areas have the attention of BF before start lobbying for new features in the editor. Like I said those would help designers more than any possible new feature would.

Triggers and random events.

I’m all for it from a mission designer’s point of view. But to be honest I don’t feel that they are in accordance with the philosophy behind the design of the editor as stated in the game's manual. And I totally agree with this philosophy. I still haven’t explored the full potential of the editor without triggers, etc. It has got enough depth the way it is.

The editor in TOW(which I also like very much), script oriented, gives you most of the features I have seen requested in this forum, with a lot of control. Still people in the TOW forum are requesting new commands to be added all the time! There is no end to it really.

In CM:SF editor BF has achieved a great balance between ease of use and powerful features. To water it down to make it easier to use would completely kill it. But to add too many options will make it too complex for most players. But as you noticed by now I’m an editor freak, so the more features the better for me!

Units Structure

Human beings in general have a certain resistance to change. We prefer the comfort of our old ways. IMO the Units structure in CM:SF is a good example of this. First few times I used it felt cumbersome and restrictive. I feel the opposite now and strongly so. To the point of saying that changing it would be a step backwards. For starters it’s educational to new users as there you have all the structure and chain of command for you to see. It is very clear, simple and easy to use. In the beginning you think you will need to add and delete a lot and will be time consuming. Not so. It keeps your troops very well organized.

Map editor

A beauty. What can I say? More flavor objects? More buildings? Let people add their own custom made objects? All welcomed.

Campaigns

Never thought it could be so easy to link 3 missions with branches in a mini campaign!

Well, there it goes!

[ December 05, 2007, 05:16 AM: Message edited by: Webwing ]

[MarkEzra]

Hi-lite the plan you are in PLEASE

Triggers and events: The major thing I want the designer to specifically control is unit facing The AI should have MOST control of threats and posture. Adding strict triggers that force the AI to respond ONLY a certain way at a certain place, at a certain time just goes against all that is CM AI to me. I think BFC knows that and will tread carefully in this area.

[SgtMuhammed]

Paint on roads. This may be too much for the current program but they sure would make roads a lot easier.

It would also be really nice to be able to adjust terrain in the 3D view.

[the Fighting Seabee]

would be nice also to edit the map IN 3d mode.

[SgtMuhammed]

Little hint:

Don't make a map larger than 2X2km. I don't know about the eventual patch but right now it will cause your system to crash. At least it did mine.

[mike_the_wino]

Originally posted by SgtMuhammed:

Little hint:

Don't make a map larger than 2X2km. I don't know about the eventual patch but right now it will cause your system to crash. At least it did mine.

Jay-sus...took me almost 4 hours to 1/4 of the map for a 480x800.

It's sooooo pretty now. And the trees...which ones to pick? Orchards? Does my mix of singles, doubles and triples a) look kewl, give the right amount of cover?

I suspect the better part of the next weeks worth of non-weekend free time will be spent tinkering around with this one map.

[the Fighting Seabee]

I'm working on one as well. Should be pretty fun if I can balance it right.

[Paper Tiger]

webwing: some very good points there. I would really like the 'turn off Fog of War' option too to watch what the AI is doing. That was one of my major frustrations when I started working with the scenario designer.

also to turn off Plan 1. Okay I can set it to used rarely but it's surprising how often it gets picked when you're trying to playtest plan 3 or 4. Aargh!!!

Highlighting your AI plan? I don't think we'll get that but I've been there, done that and felt the pain too! I think we're just going to have to be more careful when we're programming

I would like to see the AI artillery planning improved though. I'd like each AI plan to have it's own fire plan. I find the randomly chosen fire plan which is fired off 20-30 seconds after the scenario a bit of a waste of AI artillery. Unless you target the other players set up zones it often has no effect. I can't imagine how some people would react if I created a scenario where the human player gets dumped on in his set up zones.

I really think we need the 'AI can't acquire javelins' thing cleared up. I suspect this'll be a 1.6 thing though as there's no hint of changes to the scenario editor in 1.5. PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong about that!!!

ps. Webwing, how do you find time to play other peoples scenarios and design a campaign at the same time? Congratulations on getting that done.

[mike_the_wino]

Originally posted by Webwing:

Units Structure

Human beings in general have a certain resistance to change. We prefer the comfort of our old ways. IMO the Units structure in CM:SF is a good example of this. First few times I used it felt cumbersome and restrictive. I feel the opposite now and strongly so. To the point of saying that changing it would be a step backwards. For starters it’s educational to new users as there you have all the structure and chain of command for you to see. It is very clear, simple and easy to use. In the beginning you think you will need to add and delete a lot and will be time consuming. Not so. It keeps your troops very well organized.

In order to tweak my map and check LOS, I started with unit selection last night. At this point I do not like the way it is set up. Unless I am doing something wrong, my only choice is battalion or company. If I wanted a platoon I had to pick a company, delete the elements I didn't want but I still ended up with the company CO unit. Even more frustrating, or maybe it is just unrealistic scenario design, I can't just purchase 3 or 4 sniper teams, some vehicles, a platoon and go to work.

Am I not doing something right? Did I miss something?

[thewood]

Mike that is one of the most frustrating part of the editor. It has so many great features, but lacks a few key ones to make cranking out good scenarios anything but work.

[M1A1TC]

No, you didnt miss anything. Thats the way it is now. You just "don't get it"

[PeterLorre86]

Drag and drop flavor objects would be a great feature, even if they snap to the grids nearest point.

Anyone who has lined a 1km road with lamposts or signs or those little post things or anyone who has nudged 50+ flavor objects around to make a believable market knows how frustrating the current system is.

[M1A1TC]

Have you tried the Elderscrolls 3:Morrowind editor? Or Neverwinter Nights 2 editor? That would be awesome in CMSF

[mike_the_wino]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

You just "don't get it"

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[crotchity old man voice]Back in my time game editors were a lot different.

I remember when unit purchasing showed point values. You could also purchase anything from a battalion down to a squad. Hell you could even purchase two man squads for everything from tank hunters to machine gunners and flamethrowers.

You kids and you new-fangled unit purchasing systems ain't got squat on the old way.[/crotchity old man voice]

:mad: :mad:

I get the structure showing us the organization. But I don't like the restrictions it places on force selection and, what I view, the unnaturally high number of CO units you get when trying to make scenarios.

The map I started has turned into a scenario that I flippantly called 'A Drive in the Country'. I was thinking of a dismounted platoon, 2 or 3 sniper elements and maybe 2-4 humvees patrolling along a dirt/ gravel road, through a mixed ag area, with some buildings for barns and houses. Then throw in some reinforcements for the inevitable sh*t store that was going to happen. Maybe if I turn this into a 3 part campaign I could still achieve my goal.

Going to have go back and look it all over.

[ December 13, 2007, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: mike_the_wino ]

[M1A1TC]

Well, I have been around since the CMBO days as well, and enjoyed the point system. Unfortunatly BFC stated over the years that it is not possible with the CMX2

[Pete Wenman]

what I view, the unnaturally high number of CO units you get when trying to make scenarios.

Mike hi, I'm testing a scenario with an offboard extension to the map area which allows the unwanted c/o units to be kept off map. It's pretty much infantry only.

I'm toying with ideas re these offboard units. Either place them in a tile surrounded by marsh, so they can't move or place them on an invisible objective, with points awarded for occupation. If the player choses to move them onto the map then the points will be lost ( and need to be made up elsewhere.)

I'll let you have the file if you are interested.

[mike_the_wino]

Pete,

Oh great, stick them all in a pit....actually that is not a half bad idea.

TankCommander,

The point system is not that big of a deal. Although it is a nice way to gauge how many units you are putting in a scenario. But not being able to pull out individual units, vehicles, weapon sections, etc. seems like a complete disaster. Have BFC said anything about this? Will it always be like this?

[thewood]

It's mostly been talked about in regards to QB, but the answer after some chastising was a somewhat maybe later.

[mike_the_wino]

thewood,

Thanks. Apparently there is this fantastic thing called a 'search' function and when I used it, magical things happened....like finding this thread telling me about stuff I was too lazy to look up myself.

I guess an almost year absence really took me out of the loop.

[Thomm]

The editor.

Played around it for 45 minutes yesterday.

Even after this short time span, I noticed some things that could be improved:

</font>

• selecting panels for changing orientation of objects. Why cannot the orientation arrow buttons be close to the selection panel?</font>
• Doo-dads selection: why are there no thumbnails for the objects (I understand these will be added, eventually). It is just such a nuisance.</font>
• Doo-dad placement. Extremely tedious. Should be either fully supported by the 2D view (including higher zoom levels) or be better implemented in the 3D view. Snap to grid should be considered.</font>
• Building styles. Toggling is just a stop-gap solution. A right-click pop-up menu would be optimal.</font>
• A shortcut for starting the mission for playtesting without having to save/load battle would be most appreciated.</font>

This is not to say that the editor is not powerful (the elevation system is incredible, as are the 3D models in general) but IMHO only for 80 percent of the work. The remaining 20% (decoration) seems to be a PITA.

Best regards,

Thomm

[SgtMuhammed]

I would also like the Units to show up in the 3D preview. I don't like having to switch back and forth.