When it plays like a puzzle ...

[giovanni705]

Hi all

Have you noticed that the game plays very differently when you are in a campaign than if you are in a QB against Human or even the AI? And I mean that TACTIS are different. In a campaign it it is much more of a puzzle, where you replay at leasure the mission and try to achieve the perfect score. Otherwise you really do not not what opposition plans and placement is and play much more as a real commander, generally more prudent and trying to just best your opponent. I have seen messages that say that mission are beatable with very small losses, but playing how? It is not just a problem of AI smartness, it is the "a priori" knoweledge that we posses that makes a huge difference.

That is, to me at least, the main reason why solo player is less fun. Your toughts?

[Michael Emrys]

That is, to me at least, the main reason why solo player is less fun. Your toughts?

Disagree. But then, I do like puzzles. I guess I've always played wargames that way, going back to when only boardgames were available. I don't give a hoot about competition. For me, it is highly overrated. I play for completely different reasons.

Michael

[Cymru]

I have yet another take: I have little interest in playing against others, but I also have no interest in replaying a piece to optimize the process. To me, playing a QB once is the best. No second chances: only your first response to the situation counts; as in real life.

[Michael Emrys]

I have yet another take: I have little interest in playing against others, but I also have no interest in replaying a piece to optimize the process. To me, playing a QB once is the best. No second chances: only your first response to the situation counts; as in real life.

That's how I have always played it as well. Going over a battle or scenario again and again just seems to drain the life out of it.

Michael

[Placebo]

I have yet another take: I have little interest in playing against others, but I also have no interest in replaying a piece to optimize the process. To me, playing a QB once is the best. No second chances: only your first response to the situation counts; as in real life.

Agree totally, i have never been one for chasing the perfect score, much better test of skill against the first play of a battle.

[IRUNSAMOK]

Playing against a person is always going to be more fun than playing the computer. The computer can't get it's feelings hurt and cuss you out while you laugh when you correctly predict it's kinetic point of attack and drop 105 into it's assembly area. No solo battle victory is going to beat winning a hotseat WEGO game on turn 8.

[Chainsaw]

the only difference I notice when I play against AI or human by PBEM is my use of SMOKE.

When playing AI I use smoke much more to conceal movement. Doing that against a human player is saying "here I am doing something". So I use it much less or use it as a distraction, putting smoke down on a side I'm not moving up on and then focus the assault on another side where he didn't expect it.

I never replay or re-load a save game to get better score. I always do it on one attempt. If I screw up I screw up, nothing more about that. But then I like to replay same scenario later on if it was a good one - because it was a good one, not to get better score.

[Battlefront.com]

My personal take...

QB's are "disposable fun". There's no story, there's no presumption that what you're doing has any sort of contextual meaning (imaginary or otherwise). You're in it to win, nothing more and nothing less.

Scenarios are more serious. There's a story and you're being charged with doing, or not doing, something that has some sort of meaning (imaginary or otherwise). You're in it to do the best you can to match the expectations set by the scenario designer. Playing two player this is can be a little different if the other person completely disregards what he's tasked with doing.

Campaigns are serious fun with more story, and therefore more context. Same as above but more of it.

For me, I like them all for different reasons. Personally I don't replay a scenario (stand alone or campaign) more than once, usually, though twice is not uncommon if I get my butt handed to me the first time. Second time I basically accept whatever I got and move onto something else. With so much out there to explore I think playing the same battle more than two full times is too limiting.

Steve

[Agua]

I have to say that with CMx1, I very, very seldom restarted a scenario. I might return to it at some later point down the road, but I took the approach of "what happens, happens".

In CM:BN, I have so far worked through the scenario list through Buying the Farm (along with user made scenarios, a couple of the tiny stock scenarios, and the Devils campaign), and I have restarted, and in some instances even saved game files (especially A Delaying Action), in all but about three scenarios.

I'm finding the scenarios to be, on the whole, a good bit more difficult than I remember being the case with CMx1. I haven't played a CMx1 scenario since late 2005 / early 2006, so my memory may be clouded, but it seems like the time limits are more pressing in CM:BN. A couple of the scenarios do feel like a puzzle: don't play the right piece at the right time, the scenario is doomed.

I enjoy a tough scenario, though, because I feel like I learn something each time I have to pop that smoke for a short charge across the open when I underestimated the ferocity of fire across the clearing. Within the context of the seemingly tighter time frames, it seems like the importance of efficiency is magnified, and something I need to work on more (e.g., don't just watch the pioneers blow up the wire; move the platoons into position to go once the wire's blown). This is probably largely a product of having not played for several years and getting my battle legs back.

[Tarquelne]

I *hate* it when what's supposed to be a wargame is designed like a puzzle, where there's just one or two particular solutions to a scenario (or mission, or campaign, or whatever) and nothing else where work. I'm fine with that in some games, but not something that's shooting for a high degree of realism.

OTOH, I do like to play some scenarios multiple times. Not really to "optimize" in some way, but to try out different approaches. HMGs in back as a sort of trap, or a classic enfilade on the approach? Opening arty for smoke or suppression? Invade down along the Trans-Mongolian railway, or have the main thrust come from Vladivostok? (tEiR!)

Some CM scenarios are good for this, some aren't.

For CM campaigns... I can see myself maybe playing a campaign over, seeing if things shake-out differently. But I'm not really interested re-doing individual scenarios.

I'm prone to play less cautiously in a SP-QB. Partially because it doesn't seem as "serious" (ala Steve's use above) and partially because the AI is probably screwed anyway. I play scenarios like I play campaigns.

I've never liked taking losses anyway... Different approaches are really apparent between me and my wife in FPS games. I look at it like a wargame - I play very cautiously, more or less acting as if I've got only one life. My wife's a casual gamer: She runs-and-guns, burning through lives much like ammo in most FPSs: Like there's unlimited amounts. To me that's just not fun. (OTOH, it can be amusing in co-op games. And it's nice to have someone who's always willing to go in first...)

[sburke]

snip

My wife's a casual gamer: She runs-and-guns, burning through lives much like ammo in most FPSs: Like there's unlimited amounts. To me that's just not fun. (OTOH, it can be amusing in co-op games. And it's nice to have someone who's always willing to go in first...)

LOL having your wife charge the enemy guns first is not doing a lot for you image.

I will actually try some scenarios a few times, mostly as I still feel I need to understand how to get the best out of the command AI. Things like assautling a fixed defense, when to scout by fire, when to use smoke etc etc. I expect as I get more comfortable I will likely not repeat as much. As to fighting the AI, well the AI plays in some ways closer to real life. Not every pixeltrupper reacts to what every other pixeltrupper sees. Even when it is danged obvious. Chokes points become super deadly traps as it often times will simply keep pushing through. The tactical AI then goes flat as the choke point becomes a difficult obstacle to traverse leading to even more vehicles exposing their vulnerable flanks etc.

Designers also can't account for everything we might do, they have their own perception of play.

***************SPOILER ALERT DEVIL"S DESCENT****************

As an example, I charged my 6 squads (yeah I stole the idea from BoB when Winters charges that dike in Netherlands) and their platoon leaders across to the hedgerow on the other side of the paved road after the two initial trucks got ambushed and then lined up in wait for the German counter attack. Set my units on a short target arc to have them wait till they got close. After the Germans started pulling up to the hedgerow I removed all the target arcs and all hell broke loose. The trucks were slaughtered, even one of the STuGs bailed at the amount of firepower sweeping that field. The second panicked and started racing for the bridge. It was over within two turns of opening up, if it had lasted longer that last StuG would've been getting pinged by 3 atgs as it ran into the open. I think 6 Germans total survived the carnage.

Point is I doubt that was quite what the designer expected. My hats off to all the folks who even attempt to design as it is quite a challenge to try and forecast possible behavior.

[Pvt. Ryan]

I mentioned this in another thread. Some scenarios do have an optimal solution to obtain victory, but that doesn't mean it's the only way to win. Sometimes the scenario designer doesn't give the player enough time to complete the objectives. In CMSF some scenarios required infantry to cross large distances on foot and if you gave them anything other than a move order they would eventually get exhausted in the desert heat. I would ultimately end up running out of time just before I would have achieved victory. I extended the duration of the scenario in some of those cases, not because I wasn't up to the challenge, but because I wanted the game to be fun and not work.

A huge difference between CMx1 and CMx2 is the AI. The AI is much better than it was in CMx1 and there can also be multiple AI plans than can trip you up even on a replay. I find the biggest change is the AI's use of artillery. I rarely had to fear arty against the AI except maybe during the initial barrage. In CMx2 the AI will drop effective arty on you if you sit still for too long.

[theFightingSeabee]

don't forget that many scenarios and campaigns, such as Paper Tigers Road to Montebourg have multiple ai plans. This allows for different experiences when replaying.

[gianluca74]

I find the biggest change is the AI's use of artillery. I rarely had to fear arty against the AI except maybe during the initial barrage. In CMx2 the AI will drop effective arty on you if you sit still for too long.

Hi,

just a curiosity :

The AI choose autonomously when and where use the artillery?

Or is scripted ( set by designer ) ?

Thanks.

[Battlefront.com]

Hi,

just a curiosity :

The AI choose autonomously when and where use the artillery?

Or is scripted ( set by designer ) ?

Thanks.

Either or both, depending on what the designer wants. Artillery can be assigned to strike particular areas and therefore always will. Otherwise the AI decides when to use artillery. Play the demo's Busting the Bocage and you'll see this. There's a prep bombardment that the AI is instructed to do. But the Light Mortars are unassigned and therefore are free to take on targets of opportunity. Which they do quite, quite well

Steve

[xian]

Agree totally, i have never been one for chasing the perfect score, much better test of skill against the first play of a battle.

CMBN is not really a 'perfect score' kind of game. It's not like trying to find all the secrets in Tomb Raider (I know, I know, I'm behind the times). I tend to play each scenario twice (once from each side), and then put it to bed. A mission is only worth revisiting if the designer has purposely implemented a re playability factor into it.