What are your preferences guys?

[Paper Tiger]

I'm currently about half way through designing a campaign and I'm curious to know just how difficult you guys like it to be. I admit that I'm designing it solely with MY enjoyment in mind but I'm going to share it when it's finished so I thought I'd ask. It's a Red on Red campaign and it's definitely combined arms with some substantial tank action. Presently, there's one HUGE tank battle but I'm not sure if it'll stay in.

The first two missions are solid now, the third is almost finished while the fourth and fifth require a lot of playtesting. I don't want it to turn into a monster so I'm looking at 5-6 missions with maybe one or two optional 'stuff-up' missions tagged on which most of you will never see I suppose.

First, what about difficulty? As it stands just now, the very first mission will be a killer until you figure out how to beat it and maybe this isn't what people are looking for when they play a campaign game? It's a meeting engagement that takes place at night and it was an easy start for the player until I devised a new AI attack plan yesterday and it's a toughie! After a few play throughs, I manage to get total victories twice in a row against this AI plan so I feel that it's finished. That's how it worked in 'In Harms Way' and that's how I'm planning it to work in the campaign too.

My plan is to create a dynamic mission with different possible outcomes depending on your success in each mission. The branching structure allows me to do this so it just means that I have to make several different versions of each later scenario.

Also, what about game length. I've seen people post that 'a' scenario isn't long enough for their tastes. In fact, some are lobbying Battlefront to extend the maximum game length from 2 hours! Two hours is a very long time for me to play a scenario and I admit, I often quit a game when I load it up and see that it's 2 hours long. However, this is more due to the fact that I like to devote most of my playing time to designing my own scenarios. Once I finish this baby, I'm going to take a 'holiday' and play webwing's two campaigns for sure.

Having said that, there is one mission at the moment which is 1 hour 15 mins with a variable ending in the campaign and I admit, it feels tight. But that's my intention. Throughout the campaign, the player is operating under time pressures in the campaign, which are fully explained and justified in the briefings, and so it's not a contrivance forced on the human player just to make the situation difficult to accomplish.

[Topo]

Short campaign with little engagements, every battle well connected whit others, combined arms/infantry, village/forest.

Not very difficult, not a puzzle with fews solutions.

This is my "perfect campaign" at the moment.

Thanks for your effort and

Saluti.

[Hev]

I think topo has hit the key, multiple ways to victory is key!

[Bertram]

I also like the battles best when there are multiple solutions. I really dont like scenario's you have to safe and replay till you find the "one right approach".

Though I have to admit I am not playing much at the moment, wainting for that "one patch to fix them all".

Bertram

[SgtMuhammed]

Just an observation. Design what you like. Generally if you think it is a balanced fun scenario then so will most of the other players, at least that is what I have found. If you get too hung up on designing for others then you end up with something you might not like and are unwilling to really work at, which makes the end product suffer.

[Paper Tiger]

SgtMuhammed:

Don't worry sir. I am wholely designing this for my own pleasure. I agree with you, if it is fun and exciting for me, then it will be so for others too. I'm only asking because I happen to find this an interesting topic for discussion. And, of course, I'm trying to create a bit of interest in this project.

Since it's red on red campaign, it will probably only appeal to a few people. It's not helped by the fact that they're mostly desert/hills maps too however, they are nice maps. It also makes them playable with the low walls bug present.

At the moment, the battles are quite large, the player controlling one reinforced mechanised company, and later, two but by then, your core units should be reduced somewhat. The computer controls a battalion sized force in most of the scenarios. I find the AI manages large forces quite well. I can manage a company sized force in Real Time without too much trouble and that fits in with the force ratio of 3-1 in favour of the AI attacker.

The scenarios are DEFINITELY not puzzles to be solved. I suppose I gave that impression in my original post but what I meant to say is that I found an AI plan that really optimised the AI forces to present the maximum challenge for the humam player. This means looking at the challenge the AI would face if it were a human player and create a plan that plays to it's strengths. If I can't beat that AI plan then it means that the scenario is too unbalanced and needs to be adjusted. Since I can, I feel that it's playable.

Of course, there are other AI plans for that situation too and if you're lucky, you'll get one of the easy ones and cruise through with zero casualties like I did before I devised this plan.

As for multiple ways to win, that would require a VERY big campaign. :eek: The campaign scriting allows us to do this but you are looking at 10+ scenarios, probably a LOT more to do this properly. The challenge in this campaign is to stay in it and fight yet another situation before you are given the order to withdraw. Screw up big time in the first two engagements and it's "pull out" time. After that, you may get dumped into a 'survive this one and you'll get a victory of sorts' ending but that's not in yet.

[Paper Tiger]

There is also the angle that if there's no real interest in a campaign like this, I can put it aside for a while, design some more maps and make it into a large 'multiple path to victory' job. Just design it at my leisure.

[the Fighting Seabee]

What I like: Interesting background/storyline, some type of tactical choice, clear objectives, photos and briefing (a lot don't bother putting those in), and a feeling of realism.

I usually play veteran. Sure maybe elite is more real, but since it's a game, I like my support to show up a bit quicker.

My 3 scenarios were made for my own fun factor, except "zarqawis last day" which was more of a revenge thing since all you do in it is blow his ass up. So as long as you have fun with the mission/campaign, a lot of us will too. Can't wait to play!

[Pandur]

It's a Red on Red campaign and it's definitely combined arms with some substantial tank action.

sounds great, i like red vs red.

As it stands just now, the very first mission will be a killer until you figure out how to beat it and maybe this isn't what people are looking for when they play a campaign game?

i dont care, as long as it is a interesting situation its ok to put me into a position where i cant choose all that much.

Also, what about game length.

i think most people wich are hopeing for longer game time play realtime and are simply running out of time.

when a scenario takes 120 turns, i need about 5-6 RL houers to finish it, it will than take just about 80 turns ingame and ends in a cease fire or enemy surrender becouse i was too fast. WeGo that is.

so if its a bigger scenario just give the RT guys 2 houers so they dont run out of time and the WeGo´ers dont care anyways.

Having said that, there is one mission at the moment which is 1 hour 15 mins with a variable ending in the campaign and I admit, it feels tight.

when you feel its tight in WeGo its much too tight for RT. if you feel its tight in RT keep it, otherwhise its boring in WeGo.

as summary, since you do a RED vs. RED thingy i think you cant do anything wrong

i gona play it anyways.

[Webwing]

PaperTiger,

If you can manage to make this campaign have the same quality that your "In Harms Way" had it will be something absolutely fantastic!

Even if you don't get close to that mission it will still be very good since "Harms" is excellent in so many levels.

By this post and from others I read from you I know you are putting a lot of work and care into this campaign.

So don't worry too much about what others will think or what they want. Do your best. People appreciate quality stuff even when it's not exactly their cup of tea.

Personally I find it very hard to make missions from the Red side. I always give up. So I'm pretty curious how this Red on Red is going to be like!

--

[Cpl Steiner]

My preferences for any scenario:

1) See-saw battle: One side starts out losing, then reinforcements arrive and they start winning, then the other side gets reinforcements and they start losing again. Timing of reinforcements is vital to ensure a high level of drama.

2) Not too big: Start out with a platoon and build up to maybe a company through reinforcements.

3) Not too short: Ideally the player should be able to be careful and not rush things without running out of time.

4) Nice briefing: The more I feel like a real commander the better. Give me maps, realistic unit designations etc. Webwing's "Ghost" campaign is a very good example.

[Paper Tiger]

Cheers guys, thanks for the feedback.

Pandur:

when you feel its tight in WeGo its much too tight for RT. if you feel its tight in RT keep it, otherwhise its boring in WeGo.

You'll be happy to hear that it's all being tested in RT. I like Red on Red too. Because the weapons accuracy and lethality are somewhat less than the US kit, some of the exchanges of fire between the two forces can get very exciting. :eek:

Seabea

What I like: Interesting background/storyline, some type of tactical choice, clear objectives, photos and briefing (a lot don't bother putting those in), and a feeling of realism.

There's definitely a storyline involved but I lack Webwings PDF skills. In fact I can only read PDF files but there'll definitely be a Word document with maps and pictures accompanying the campaign. I've already started writing it. I also like writing the briefings. I think you'll find them very instructive. Thy're a very important part of creating a mission.

Webwing. Thanks for that mate. Yes, it's very hard work but I'm loving every minute of it. Yesterday I designed a new map which is stunning and it's a farmland map that I'm really excited about playtesting this weekend. It's SO beautiful. However, it's slightly out of kilter with the other desert/hills maps so I've 'expanded ' the original story line to include this new theater of ops and it gels nicely with the campaign finale too. I'd been wondering how to wrap it all up and this will be perfect. But it means a new map for the finale.

There'll be screenshots coming when the project is nearer completion sometime next month by the look of things.

CplSteiner:

I'm really hoping to design a battle in the campaign such as you describe in #1 but how successful it will be depends on how well you do in the early missions. If you blow through the early missions with scarcely a loss (unlikely ) then this mission will feel very easy. When I'm playtesting the missions individually, I'm giving the player his full OB from the Core units file. Then I playtest until I can beat the AI.

I'm not sure how satisfying the Real Unit designations will be though as I have very little knowledge of Syrian Republican Guards/Armour Division formations but I'll be posting to ask about that very soon.

Oops, time to get back to work.

[Paper Tiger]

While I'm really looking forward to the arrival of 1.06 I'm also worried that my current kit might not be up to the task of running some of these scenarios with the new ELoS. I was already pushing my computer to the limit with these scenarios and even a small drop in performance will make them unplayable on my computer. A shame as I had some really cool ideas for some of the later scenarios, especially the finale.

At present, there's not a map that's less than 1kmx1km and there's usually about four or five companies in action (both sides combined) in some of the bigger ones :eek: , three in the smaller. But they all run fine on my single core 3Ghz intel processor which is a lot less than some of you guys have.

But my wife has already given me permission to upgrade the processor (what a sweetie!) so I might be able to make them even bigger and better. But until I see what happens when I install 1.06, I can't inspire myself to do any further work on these scenarios.

[the Fighting Seabee]

I think Steve mentioned something about being able to toggle los with elos. I don't know if he meant that's how 1.06 will be, or if it's just something they want to do for the future. Hopefully your processor will help. Somehow, the 3gz processor you have seems like plenty of power.

[Dennis50]

I think he said if it turns out too many people are having trouble running the game with ELOS ..then they will look into adding a toggle.

Gunz

[Lethaface]

PaperTiger, PrimoPDF can convert your docs to PDF. However, it doesnt add the nice graphs for you

[Paper Tiger]

Thanks for the replies guys. I'm really hoping that 3Ghz will be enough too. I'll just have to wait and see. While I've been working on this project I think I've learned a a couple of things about what hits your frame rates, at least for those of us who play RT anyway.

AI reinforcements often give me a temporary but significant drop in rates after they arrive. It gradually gets back to normal but I don't need to be informed when they arrive as the frames often drop to 2 or 3 a second for a couple of minutes. This makes sense to me as the processor will be suddenly burdened with the task of placing them and giving them all movement orders, etc. as I said, after 2-3 minutes, the frame rates climb back up to double figures.

Another thing that I noticed was that frames seem to drop when you have more AI groups. Playtesting a large farmland map, I gave the AI a single mech battalion and divided it into 3 AI groups, Company A, B, and C. (Imaginative huh?) I usually do this when I start playtesting a map. Everything worked fine like this. Then I subdivided those groups and the frames plummeted. Again, this makes sense as the processor is having to do the math for more than twice the number of groups.

This farmland battle looks like it could turn into a beauty but it's JUST running at acceptable fps on my machine at the moment. The sometimes very long lines of sight (1km+) might mean that more LOS checks will send thos frames per second down to low single figures again and who knows what will happen when the reinforcements arrive. I'll just have to wait and see.

Lethalface. I've never heard of PrimoPDF. I'll google it later today when I'm at work and I don't have to pay for my internet access (hey, I'm Scottish, what the hell )

[vincere]

Since you ask, I like variable difficulty battles, great if they see saw. Very great if the AI posses a few challenges. With campaigns I also like a varied intensity with the cliche climax.

As for length, I like the longer ones, hat to feel rushed. But running out of ammo is a real bummer.

Good briefings/ back story work in getting me into it.

I will look forward to playing Red Red, can you tell us your back story? Any way, hats off to you, I think its fantastic the effort some of you guys put in and share.

[Paper Tiger]

vincere

thanks for your feedback. I'm trying very hard to keep the difficulty level quite high. I'm currently developing a 'see saw' battle on a large farmland map but it's difficult to find the right balance of forces to make this possible. Since it involves some core units, it's unlikely that you'll have the full OOB with full ammo at the start. Once I test-compile it, I'll test it again.

Ammo is the killer for scenario length with RedvRed. The farm scenario is set up as a 1hr 30 min jobbie but the starting forces on both sides tend to run out of ammo after about 30 minutes. I usuually win it after 40 minutes even with the odds stacked against me.

There are a couple of relatively easy missions. I've created a new opener and it's very easy as long as you know how to set up an ambush at night. The first time I playtested it, my force got slaughtered to a man. It's an interesting situation because there's only one simple AI plan but each time I play it, it does it differently and sometimes does some dangerously clever things. However, I played it again this afternoon and I got a total victory and lost only 1 man.

The background story is a simple one, Syrian Civil War. I have a number of campaigns lined up for this story featuring different forces in each one. The first, called 'Hasrabit' gives the player a Republican Guards task force and some Special Forces to match against the forward elements of a rebel armour division moving into the fictional military district of Hasrabit to the south east of Damascus. (Hasrabit is fictional but the town is based on some real terrain I found using Google Earth.) I've also created a fertile valley to the east of the main town which is not there in real life. And it breaks up the hopefully not too monotonous hilly/desert terrain that the Republican Guards units are duking it out in.

Later, when the Marines arrive, I want to do another campaign using the Airborne division that will have some REALLY cool kit.

Then, 'The Destruction of the Third' will be an armour heavy campaign, where the player has to fight some very large armour battles. I've got one of those battles done already and I was tempted to release it as a scenario but it's going to have to wait.

Another one will be extensively MOUT representing the fighting in Damascus. Syrian v Syrian MOUT operations are quite different babies from US v Syrian situations. I reckon that should keep me very busy until the Brit pack arrives much later this year.

[vincere]

I reckon that should keep me very busy until the Brit pack arrives much later this year.

Bloody hell, yes sounds like you'll be busy, but they all sound very interesting.

[Paper Tiger]

Presently, there are only two full night situations in the campaign but after playing around with the phases of the moon yesterday, I found a sweet spot with a half moon allowing long range spotting for infantry at night. Then later, after the moon sets, short range to give the Republican Guards vehicles the edge when spotting at night. Special Forces at night are FUN to play. The RPG-27 is really lethal to other Syrian armour.

[Lethaface]

Originally posted by Paper Tiger:

Lethalface. I've never heard of PrimoPDF. I'll google it later today when I'm at work and I don't have to pay for my internet access (hey, I'm Scottish, what the hell )

Didnt know Scotland was in the 3rd world

Hell, I didnt even pay my own bills yet when we had to pay per KB

[Paper Tiger]

Oh, it's not but I am!

That's one of the reasons why I can spend so much time posting on these boards. I have at least 1 hour free time every working day with free access to the internet, even more on Thursdays and Fridays. I just can't download anything.