About scenarios difficulty

[maverick3320]

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

I wonder how many copies of Command have dried up on hard drives because players can't get into it? 90 percent?

It would be nice to get some attestation for this value, otherwise it's just garbage, like virtually all unsupported Internet statistics and of zero help to the CMO community. Presumably you would not wish to see CMO dumbed down to World of Warships realism just to cater to the casual, after-work crowd if such a subset of the Community even exists.

You have made some significant contributions here that have benefited the Members of this forum so it's a bit disappointing to see such useless hyperbole over your signature.

-C

Here's a data point for you: I'm a military dude by profession. I enjoy military sims on pc. I love the genre and played hundreds of hours of the various Harpoon versions. When I first saw this game on Steam, as I always do, I perused reviews and watched several videos of gameplay prior to purchase. The potential complexity of the game was an initial deterrent in that I knew I would have to spend 10-20 hours just learning the basic mechanics of the game. As a full-time+ job holder and a father, husband, and someone who also likes to read and stay in shape, I wasn't in a rush to purchase this commitment.

The only gamechanger for me was Covid. If that had not happened and I wasn't working remotely, I likely wouldn't have purchased the game at all, so I struggle to understand the level of badge protecting around here. "I figured it out, so should they!" is a common mantra, but just understand that not everyone out there is retired/has no family to consider/spends the bulk of their waking lives in their basement.

Clearly in a game this deep the mechanics will take time to learn but there is nothing wrong with various levels of difficulty in the same game nor is there any use in ostracizing those that seek it. Also keep in mind that there are folks out there reading these forums that may have not created a profile or purchased the game yet, so when newcomers seem to attract the hairy "READ THE MANUAL" posts coming from under the CMO bridge, it may be a turn off to those that haven't even given the game a try.

[BDukes]

Wow and I thought I was grumpy[:D] Microaggression city. Least we can all pound sand well together!

The discords seem to be the place to go these days for better interactions with this game or even during streams where people are talking to each other instead of whatever this is.

Just a suggestion[8D]

Mike

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: kevinkins

The 90 percent question was used to keep the discussion going. I bet players have purchased Command not completely understanding the commitment they were undertaking. I do think there is a subset that would like smaller easier scenarios prepared by the professional designers. Ones you can do well at in a manageable amount of time and not have to play over and over. Say finish during a weekend. Casual player was the wrong phrase; Busy is better. We generally point players to community scenarios once they get through the tutorials. That does help bridge them over to larger DLC types if they want to play large battles at some point. If I purchased Command in 2013, I would never would have had the time to learn it until I retired. Yes, it would have sat on my hard drive until then. The game requires a lot of time to learn from scratch. Potential players should look into the reviews of Command to better understand how complex the sim is and if it will fit into their schedules.

You should buy WitP-AE... I have played it and it's predecessor something like 20 yrs and still learn new things. [8D]

[boogabooga]

Do you know what issues you are having specifically? Is it not knowing what to do in a big-picture sense or not understanding technical details?

P.Gatcomb has a great YouTube channel with tutorials that go more through the nuts and bolts of how the simulation works regarding technical considerations. Also, he occasionally uses simple vignettes to explores tactics regarding what to do against various technologies (ex. How to defeat "modern" SAMs, etc.). Highly recommended.

I would also concur that the setup to prepare to play a large scenario should take some time and is REALLY important. Don't expect to wing-it in a serious scenario and succeed. You should have a plan for every platform (even if you plan not to use it), and ideally have everything assigned to a mission (even if the mission is currently inactive or only uses a portion of what is assigned to it at a time). Also, you should have some contingency missions set up for "stuff" that you might need or to give your units a plan B and C, or to get them to switch roles when they finish a primary mission.

In my case, I started playing Falcon 3.0 and 4.0 back in the 1990s, so I kind of "got" air operations simulation to some extent, enough that the CMO learning curve was lowered a lot there. So, flight simulation might be another path to understanding CMO better.

[kevinkins]

Not sure who you are addressing, but if me, let's clarify. There is an unmet market opportunity for the powers that be to develop small to medium size geopolitically relevant scenarios by the real pros apart from the community pack. I will call the DLC "Weekend Warriors". Many new players get through the excellent tutorials and need a way to get to larger scenarios. If they want to. The overall wargaming community that pays the bills is not into planning out on paper over days a battle at the kitchen table and then lose that battle over the course of more wasted days and nights. Explain that to the wife and kids.

[Randomizer]

There is an unmet market opportunity for the powers that be to develop small to medium size geopolitically relevant scenarios by the real pros apart from the community pack.

You're going to have to show your work otherwise it's just asserted without evidence and may be rejected without evidence. What we have seen is a couple of anecdotes, the plural of which has never been data.

The Internet is chock full of Statistics Pulled Out Of Rectum (SPOORs) and claims such as that above and in Post #21 above should be backed up with data if you expect anybody to take them seriously.

-C

[kevinkins]

What on Earth are you talking about?

I do like the cat picture BTW. Our Maine Coon just hit 7 months and is jet black too.

[BeirutDude]

It would be nice to get some attestation for this value, otherwise it's just garbage, like virtually all unsupported Internet statistics and of zero help to the CMO community. Presumably you would not wish to see CMO dumbed down to World of Warships realism just to cater to the casual, after-work crowd if such a subset of the Community even exists.

There is good advice in the original post. I for one have been producing many monster scenarios and am trying to create smaller, more tailored scenarios that use more Lua. I do agree I look at many scenarios authored by others and think, "I'd like to play this one." but never have the time to get into it. So I do think there is a need for more smaller, less ambitious scenarios. There are a few designers that do this very well, but maybe not enough.

[boogabooga]

ORIGINAL: kevinkins

Not sure who you are addressing

It was the OP, or whoever is struggling with CMO, I guess.

[SeaQueen]

I'm terrible at most publicly available scenarios. I find them to be completely unplayable or infuriating to the point I have to stop. It's not because I can't strike targets. I'm great at killing stuff. I just think that I execute the planning process I've been taught, and many scenarios are a sort of assembled "splat" of stuff that should really be a different scenario or even a different game.

[BeirutDude]

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

I'm terrible at most publicly available scenarios. I find them to be completely unplayable or infuriating to the point I have to stop. It's not because I can't strike targets. I'm great at killing stuff. I just think that I execute the planning process I've been taught, and many scenarios are a sort of assembled "splat" of stuff that should really be a different scenario or even a different game.

And the real shame in this comment is that , YOU, probably more than anyone else on the board has the opportunity to improve the quality of many of the publicly developed scenarios though positive advice and a mentoring attitude toward those who are giving FREELY of their own time to attempt to advance the game and keep it in the forefront with new content. Instead you chose to go the other route and consider it your role to demine and chastise others in their work. Would be nice if you actually shared your scenarios with us! Personally, I've been hearing for three or four years now how great your work is without ever seeing any evidence of it in the Community Scenarios! If you see an area for improvement in a scenario I designed I would like to hear about it but with the respect due one who has produced AND SHARED the work with the community. If you get on the boards insulting others, of course they are going to shut down to you, but offer constructive criticism and maybe the quality of scenarios will improve. Hell I would love to learn from some one who is an analyst who sits in the back of the room in meetings I can't attend, but I don't want to be insulted by them in the process!

To quote San Rayburn, "Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a good carpenter to build one." It would be OUTSTANDING if you helped others become better scenario designers rather than demeaning others. That begins with treating others with the respect you would like afforded to you. Be a good carpenter (mentor)...

[BobTank63]

To address the original question, I find playing smaller scenarios first and building up from there is good. The skills you learn in smaller scenarios can be applied to bigger scenarios.

Mark Gellis's smaller scenarios are great for learning stuff. Also, Half-Life Expert's guide on the Steam page has a list of a lot of scenarios that help one learn, with the list being split into different skills. I recommend checking it out.

Kashmire Fire was overwhelming for me too. The second mission really challenges one's planning skills as there is a lot of targets and assets. One thing to keep in mind is that it is okay if one doesn't get all targets. You just have to get enough to get a triumph. Focus on hitting targets one at a time. That's what allowed me to get to Mission 7 (I stopped there because M7 has BS in the form of Indian ballistic missiles that the player isn't told about in the briefing).

[RoryAndersonCDT]

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude
Personally, I've been hearing for three or four years now how great your work is without ever seeing any evidence of it in the Community Scenarios!

I'll vouch for the excellence of SeaQueen's work with Command.

[BeirutDude]

I'll vouch for the excellence of SeaQueen's work with Command.

And I do not doubt it for a second. She is clearly extremely knowledgeable and I have learned a great deal reading her posts. That said, NOBODY wants to spend two, three or four weeks of their spare time designing a scenario they think others will enjoy to have it derisively run down. Personally, I think I have proven in the playtesting posts I'm more than open to suggestions for scenario improvement, but like anyone else I appreciate that being done respectfully. If there is a difference of opinion it is the designer's scenario, but if you make a persuasive case in a fashion which isn't insulting I suspect most designers will hear the individual out.

[boogabooga]

Deep breaths BeirutDude.

FWIW, I liked some of your scenarios

[BeirutDude]

FWIW, I liked some of your scenarios

[:D] [:D] [:D] [:D] [:D]

To be honest there are some of mine that I don't even like anymore!

[BDukes]

ORIGINAL: boogabooga

Deep breaths BeirutDude.

FWIW, I liked some of your scenarios

I do too. BD's work is great.[:)]

I still think this string is a contest in kookery amongst the spectrumy. Don't get sucked into it.[:'(]

Mike

[altipueri]

ORIGINAL: kevinkins

While I agree learning the editor and lua is, in the long run, the best approach to CMO, we can also understand that many players with families do not have the time to do so. More often than not, a player gets home from a busy day and just wants to grab a cold beer and have fun killing bad guys. Scenarios and DLC have not supported those casual players. They are large and difficult. No player wants to spend months in tutorials every night nor ever winning. I wonder how many copies of Command have dried up on hard drives because players can't get into it? 90 percent?

I'm one of your 90% - and same with many other games - so I am down to playing mostly the games where I can adjust the difficulty level so that I get about a 50:50 win/loss ratio.

I'm not interested in showing the grognards that I'm as good as them or know more about the XYZ missile system than anybody else.

The game and scenario developers can set their standard level but I think they would get more sales and popularity if the market were effectively expanded by them enabling noobs and drunks to easily adjust the game difficulty.

[thewood1]

While very much prefer small and middling scenarios, if you look at the most active designers and players, they seem to like monster multi-thousand unit scenarios. I think thats why the DLCs tend to skew towards the complex. But if you are will to play a lot of non-standard US vs Red scenarios or ones from the 50s and 60s, there are a lot of sub800 unit scenarios out there.

[nukkxx5058]

As an example, I'm currently playing Brass Drum (first try ever, discovering the scen as play) and I am very surprised to see that so far, I'm doing very well. Unlike Kashmire Fire, the difficulty level seems very well balanced. Not that I disliked kashmire Fire, I really like the DLC. But I can't win any of its scenarios at the first try.

And BTW Bass Drum is very entertaining ! Great scen.