Playing of own created scenarios

[hawkeye_de]

Hi,

the game looks really awesome!!!

I've just one question: Can you design a scenario and play it by yourself...or to describe it in other terms: do you have as a scenario designer possibilities to randomize things so that not all stuff is predictable?

Thanks.

[CapnDarwin]

We don't have random starting points if that is where you are going with the question. What we do have is Rob Crandall's awesome AI that takes different approaches to the fight. I'd almost say you never really fight the exact same battle twice. It 's close. the AI responds to the conditions on the battle field and if you as the player do something new there is a very good chance the AI will counter with something new or unexpected. I've been surprised a couple times myself during testing. We do have plans to add in more variability to the start of missions down the road, but I can't really talk to that now. Need to get this game out first. [8D]

[cbelva]

You can design your own scenarios. Some of the beta testers have had a lot of fun designing their some of their own scenarios. The editor is quite easy to learn. You can create your own maps, but it takes a little more effort. The game does not have a scenario builder that designs scenarios for you. However, I think that you will like the replay value of the game. The AI does not always play the same scenario the same way.

[Mad Russian]

Hold on here....other people can make scenarios with the game editor????

Then why will the game ship with 30 stand alone scenarios and 10 scenarios in the campaigns and you are worried about running out of scenarios we made for you?


Okay, so the editor can make scenarios. Okay, they are easy to create. Okay, the AI can do tremendously interesting things.

You think we spent all this time creating all these scenarios so you can make your own? [&:]

Yes, actually we did! [8D]

It's easy to make scenarios and I expect to see you guys making them in droves!! [&o]

Good Hunting.

MR

[hawkeye_de]

I was not worried about that there wouldn't be enough scenarios - although a dynamic campaign generator(like in WinSPMBT) would be cool but I understand that this would be a huge effort to implement.

My concern was more that self-created scenarios cannot be played because the editor does not provide features like random placement options and so on...maybe this could be improved later in a feature patch or so...

[CapnDarwin]

hawkeye_de,

I see where you are coming from. If you make a scenario to play, you have the knowledge of where the forces start and it may give you a bit of an unfair advantage. It won't be as much of one as you would think. If you give the AI forces enough room to maneuver and set multiple objectives the game may play out differently each time. Steve makes the scenarios and I know he has had to deal with the AI variability a number of times.

Yes, a full dynamic generator is not in the design space right now. We do have some ideas on ways to adjust the variability of scenarios that we will be looking at in the near future.

[pzgndr]

There's an old GDW boardgame from the '80s called Assault with a couple of expansions (Boots & Saddles, Bundeswehr) with plenty of scenario material for hexagon maps and OOBs. The scale is a little different (250m hexes) but should work fine. There's a couple of mod packages for Tiller's Campaign Series redoing all of the old AH PanzerBlitz and Panzer Leader game scenarios. Something similar could be done for Red Storm using the GDW scenarios. Memories...

[CapnDarwin]

Assault series was a great set of games and would be easy to convert. So would the scenarios from Lock n'Loads World at War series.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: hawkeye_de

I was not worried about that there wouldn't be enough scenarios - although a dynamic campaign generator(like in WinSPMBT) would be cool but I understand that this would be a huge effort to implement.

My concern was more that self-created scenarios cannot be played because the editor does not provide features like random placement options and so on...maybe this could be improved later in a feature patch or so...

I know what you meant. I was joking with you. [:D]

Random was kept to a minimum in this first iteration. I would think you should see some of the options you are looking for in some of the first modules coming out in the near future.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Barthheart]

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

.....So would the scenarios from Lock n'Loads World at War series.

This is what I was thinking...... [8D]

[deadsunwheel]

Already looking into making a version of A Kiss Goodbye from Blood & Bridges! Who would have thought that almost 25 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall the World War III setting would still have so much life left in it?

[CapnDarwin]

Deadsunwheel, check the credits on the B&B box. Might be a familiar name. [;)]

[cbelva]

To wet your whistle while we wait for the game to go live, I thought I would post some screens of a scenario I created just last night. This is a rewrite of a scenario I wrote to test different features of the game. The premise behind this scenario is a CONUS division that has recently arrived from the States have drawn their equipment and has been tasked with defending a bridge over the Weser in an heavy urban area. NATO believes that the Soviet attack is running out of stream and is planning their own offensive using the newly arrived divisions from CONUS. The 4th ID is tasked with holding one of the few bridges left standing that NATO plans on using. The Soviet's attack is not as deflated as NATO believes and makes a play for the bridge. In my original test scenario I used Abrams, Bradleys, T-80s and BMP-2s. In my new edition I am using M-60s, M113s, T-64s, T-72, and BTRs. My first screen show the battle joined and the axis of advance for the Soviets towards the objective bridge.

[cbelva]

This battle felt like a bout between two heavy weights. The US forces did not have their high tech toys like thermal sights. Nothing is worst for the Soviets to be pounded by US forces and not being able to see them. In this picture, a Soviet tank company of T-64s tried to assault the 750 point objective and ran into an Ami platoon defending in urban terrain. In the end the Soviets lost several tanks and were forced to withdraw. Infantry in urban terrain can be a real pain for armor. The "1" in the lower left of the Soviet icon is the number of subunits (in this case tanks) that my units can see at this moment since I am playing with FOW.

[cbelva]

I had a few tricks up my sleeves namely Apaches. I moved my AH-64 up and positioned them in a fairly protected location. I saw no Soviet ADA units in the area, and they had good line of sight along the Soviet axis of advance. This Apaches was able to halt single handedly the attack of two tank companies. And he was far enough away that the Soviets tanks could not fire on him. Now, as long as its ammo holds up!!!

[cbelva]

The AI had some tricks of its own. It moved a couple of its ADA assets up and engaged my atk helos forcing them to withdraw. They got into a shooting duel with each other. Even tho the Soviets lost several of their Tunguskas, I lost 2/3s of my Apaches, ouch!

I find myself rooting for the AI at times. It is not as good as a human opponent, but it will surprise you at times.

[cbelva]

The two Soviet axis of advance had created a pocket between the two Soviet columns. This pocket had become a source of concern for the AI as it continued to cause casualties to units of both assaults. So, the AI decides to bring up forces (this time infantry with tank support) to try and eliminate this pocket. Did I mention that infantry in urban terrain can be a pain.

[cbelva]

So, how did the battle turn out? Don't know, still fighting. Unfortunately, I have to go to work. But you can find out around noon today. As Mad Russian says, "Good Hunting!"

[CapnDarwin]

Looks great Charles. You should post it on the Matrix site when it is ready.

[cbelva]

That's my plans. It needs tweaking so it may be a week or two before it is ready.