Page 1 of 1
Posting new scenario
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:54 am
by CommC
I am posting a new scenario here, since it looks like the regular forum doesn't allow zip files to be uploaded. I guess we need a scenario depot, if one doesn't already exist.
I have created this scenario to test the AI, it should be played as the player as NATO, with the WP played by the AI. I have not been able to defeat the AI in this one. Let me know if you are able to beat it.
To use this, just unzip the files into the scenario folder of the main FPG folder.
I have not figured out how to do the briefings yet, so the default briefing is used ... just ignore it.
Later I will post a variant which is more balanced for PBEM.
Have fun.
RE: Posting new scenario
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 10:26 pm
by JustinL
Here's my result. I meant to set EW at high but apparently missed that setting.

RE: Posting new scenario
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:33 pm
by Real and Simulated Wars
That's some numerical superiority for WP!
....
I'm looking forward to play this scenario!
Edited to avoid spoiling.[:o]
RE: Posting new scenario
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:19 am
by CommC
I'ld like to avoid posting too much detail on the force composition in the scenario so as not to spoil it for those wishing to play it "blind". However, suffice it to say, a lot of the runners are artillery or HQ.
The scenario depicts an estimated Guards tank regiment assault into Germany, opposed by a limited set of US armored cav units. With this I hope to establish a base scenario where the AI as WP typically prevails. My intent is to add US forces to bring it in to balance in a future variant.
DRAW! Baby
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:23 pm
by CapnDarwin
Here is my shot at them. If the weather hadn't gone to hell in the last 15 turns I could have won this by killing the 8 WP runners left in the sector.[:@]
It was fun. One question. Why 88 points for the WP?
S!
Cap'n D

RE: DRAW! Baby
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:11 am
by CommC
Excellent! Great job... you really beat them down. How did you do it?
The 88 points is to equalize out the extra lethality of the NATO weapon systems... i.e. I figured each NATO runner should kill 4 WP vehicles.. 22 x 4 = 88 Or looked at a different way, the WP has a greater tolerance for loss and this should be reflected in the scoring.
What I don't understand yet is the "cleared" scoring system. The way I intended it, the WP shouldn't get any territorial victory points until they clear section 6 of NATO forces. I need to look into to this further. If it had been scored correctly, you would have won.
RE: DRAW! Baby
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 8:48 am
by Paul37
just loaded your file and i'mgonna give it a try, it can't be that hard(just kidding)
keep you posted
RE: DRAW! Baby
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 11:38 am
by Raukman
I managed to get a draw... [:)]

RE: DRAW! Baby
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 11:45 am
by CapnDarwin
Nice Job!
S!
Cap'n D
RE: DRAW! Baby
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 11:59 am
by Raukman
Thanks!
You did better! [:)] Nice job you too!
[8D]
RE: DRAW! Baby
Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 7:15 am
by CommC
I'm currently working on a revision to try to address the "false victory" of the game ending prematurely by one force dropping below 20% strength before the other side can occupy the objective. I'm puzzling over this and we may need a change in the code to get this fixed. I may just have to write the scenario without territorial victory points, and only award points for runners destroyed, with appropriate handicapping.
I will post the latest revision soon, still doing some playtesting to try to get it balanced, too.