My scenarios, releases, discussion, AARs, questions etc.

[Poofydoodle]

Here are some things that may already be adjusted based on some feedback I got on the overall setup of this test version:

 

Alter the objective to either already have the exact location known instead of being stashed in the woods somewhere in the boundary of the camp. Since I know exactly where it is it might be accurate for me to playtest it.

 

OR

 

Not have the bm21 marked but give the player a UAV to locate it and also spot enemy positions around the camp and on the way there giving a tactical edge and getting an order to clear out the camp.

 

I guess this is sort of depending on feedback about difficulty when I get some. If people are finding the mission not too difficult than a uav may be overkill unless I rebalance it a bit bur having a thernal eye in the sky may help quall anxities about some of the forest roads and probably add a bit of aaa to not give it completely free reign for the whole mission.

 

Also potentially giving the scout teams some micro uavs to supplement their jim lrs.

 

I am going to change the look of some of the infantry troops with the militia guys looking different from the enemies who are supposed to be actual active military. Ive also been told there might be better models to represent pmcs on the player side. The czech and ukraine are just sort of generic stand ins chosen more because they would both have unique camo for any eastern block vehicles on each side.

 

And ive started working on what will happen after the objective is done with reinforcments coming in to try to cut off your escape but these probably wont be super heavily equipped as I imagine there is a good chance your force could be fairly battered at this point.

 

 

Edited February 15, 2022 by Poofydoodle

[Poofydoodle]

Hello!

 

I had a question about publishing maps and updating them.

 

This scenario uses an edited delta map of a default map. I added lots of dirt roads to make some areas of the map that would be neat areas to fight easier to navigate and to make the map more connected. I also added some additonal watch towers and walls and tents and stuff to make up camps to have the enemy located at and also checkpoints on the major roads.

 

Right now the scenario has two possible locations for the objective to spawn that will randomly be chosen but my end goal is to come back and update the scenario in the future and update it with more possible areas for more replayability and fun. Originally this scenario was absolutely massive in terms of possible objective locations but it just felt like lots of mediocre battles and it was shaping up to be tons of work.

 

My question is, im assuming once the map is posted here and then compiled for the map server its not really an easy task for it to be updated? So I should probably do my best to future proof the map for the later updates to the scenario.

 

As for the scenario ive been playtesting the last section of the mission that involves trying to get back to friendly territory and the reinforcents trying to stop that but once I am happy with that, add the end conditions, and setup the 50/50 random spawn for the objective I will post it to hopefully get some feedback in regard to difficulty from people and then post it on the missions section after any tweaks.

[Ssnake]

Once that a map has the status published (in Steel Beasts), it's locked against further tinkering anyway. If you want to make amendments later, which is perfectly fine, you'd make them in the form of a delta map. And that delta map must eventually also be published (aka finalized), it would have its own map UID, etc.

 

Once that this delta map is on the map server, the link to the parent base map would automatically be made. That way, if someone want to (just) have your new delta map variant, the transfer manager and the map server will see to it that he also gets the required base map.

So, there is no need to delay a map release just because you MIGHT one day continue working on it. Do it when the time is right, send us a new Delta map. The extra space that it takes on the server is negligible. In fact, this is much better than saving these new map variants as a new base map. That should only be done as an exception.

[Apocalypse 31]

9 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Once that a map has the status published (in Steel Beasts), it's locked against further tinkering

This is exactly what is preventing me from publishing maps. 

 

Quote

If you want to make amendments later, which is perfectly fine, you'd make them in the form of a delta map

I'm not sure this is optimal for fixing small overlooked areas on a map or to make small quality of life improvements on a map.  

[Ssnake]

A small fix will also result in only a very small delta map. And once that you have, say, accumulated 15...20 delta maps and all are incremental improvements of the same original map, you can still take the last one and save it as a new base map. Then you update your scenarios that all use the same map, and replace the old one with the new base map. And then you upload the updated scenarios along with the map.

Really. There is no objective reason to old back on publishing incremental updates. We tried to retain as much of the old flexibility as possible while assuring data integrity in network sessions, and minimal storage space and bandwidth usage.

[Poofydoodle]

Ok good to know! I will try to do as much as I can before hand just so im not driving people crazy with uploads.

 

I also someday might make some updates to the north korea map. Its a cool map but it has some problems where bridges dont align right etc and dprk units doing amphibious river crossings and stuff is a cool scenario.

[Poofydoodle]

Hi guys. Im nearing a pre release testing version of my next scenario that will basically be finished and just looking for final feedback about difficulty etc i will probably have it posted in the next day or two barring me having got way too good at my own mission haha. You can do a full playthrough of the mission with proper events etc, a proper ending, and there is an effort to reinforce the area and cordon off the area to stop your extraction.

 

I had a question though on my first mission I pretty much just winged the scoring section but im wondering if there is a general standardization among scoring in terms of total score etc, how much things are worth or do people usually just leave it up to the scenario creator?

[ben]

Scoring is up to you, there isn’t a standard.

 

My own standards:

I leave max scaled score at 100 so it’s a percentage.

I give approx half the points for objective events, the remaining points for survival of friendly forces.

Sometimes give a bonus for not needing reserve units or completing mission early.

[Ssnake]

My idea, at least, was that the scaled score would finally be multiplied by the difficulty of a mission where a single tank action might win you 10...20 points, a platoon scenario maybe 100...200 points, company action 500...1000 points, and particularly hard ones more than a thousand.

Of course, "difficulty" is a highly subjective measure. Talking about "task complexity" instead might be a step towards some degree of objectivity. And then, of course, cooperative multiplayer sessions do not divide the earned mission score among the participants.

 

But then again, I'm somewhat critical of a one-dimensional rating for a task that involves mutiple dimensions of actions for the player - being on time, being in the right location, quality of gunnery, achieving tactical surprise, force preservation, minimizing collateral damage, ammunition management, etc.

We added a scoring mechanism because we didn't want to violate every single computer gaming convention out there. That doesn't mean that I think that there's an actual science behind this.

[Gibsonm]

12 hours ago, Poofydoodle said:

I had a question though on my first mission I pretty much just winged the scoring section but im wondering if there is a general standardization among scoring in terms of total score etc, how much things are worth or do people usually just leave it up to the scenario creator?

 

Personally, I think scoring is pretty pointless.

 

You either achieve mission success or you don't (so 100% or 0% if you like).

 

Of course that relies on a good briefing with a well defined mission statement.

 

Alternatively "mission success" might be defined as doing better than last time (doing it quicker, losing less units, etc.).

 

However I'm not aware of any standard "rules" to cross level scoring across different scenarios by different authors.

[Apocalypse 31]

1 hour ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Personally, I think scoring is pretty pointless.

 

You either achieve mission success or you don't (so 100% or 0% if you like).

 

Of course that relies on a good briefing with a well defined mission statement.

 

Alternatively "mission success" might be defined as doing better than last time (doing it quicker, losing less units, etc.).

 

However I'm not aware of any standard "rules" to cross level scoring across different scenarios by different authors.

I'm in the same boat. You either achieve your objectives or don't. 

I've added scoring to a bunch of my scenarios but only to differentiate between good and great. 

I've added it for things like avoiding CIVCAS or preserving your combat power. 

[Ssnake]

Clearly, these three opinions represent the military/professional point of view. There's also the gaming side of Steel Beasts which deserves consideration as well. Personally, I don't care much about "score", but very much so about "results". The answers to how and why I lost a scenario are infinitely more instructive than a score rating. But that's, like, just one internet dude's opinion, man. There may be a (silent) majority (?) among PE players who very much like a score.

[Poofydoodle]

Thats what I figured. I try to make missions that are fun to replay so having a general rank at the end can be nice to compare playthroughs. It would be cool to see the actual breakdown though 

[Poofydoodle]

Hey guys, here is a pre-release test version of the new mission. It still needs some garnishing and the scoring setup but I would say its pretty much a final version apart from both objectives spawning. I am primarily concerned with general feedback and feedback about difficulty. Here is the briefing and file below.

 

SITUATION:
PRE RELEASE TEST VERSION, BOTH OBJECTIVES WILL SPAWN FOR PLAYTESTING PURPOSES, SELECT WHICHEVER YOU WANT TO STRIKE.

Overview
Somewhere in Central Europe

A country split in two, sections of the government and military loyal to Eastern European influences have broken off to form Eastern Alliance forces (Represented by Ukraine & rebels). The original government who has continued to seek closer ties to Western Europe and NATO as well as supporting PMCs makes up the Western Coalition. (Represented by Czech Republic)  Some western military aid had been delivered shortly before the split. Currently the situation is tense with small skirmishes along the declared border mainly in the north but recently forces even approaching the border in even the less tense areas have been fired upon. The global political situation is very tense.

A defector has revealed of a BM21 that has been stashed near the border in a previously somewhat tactical unimportant area but within coverage of a local S300 complex making an air strike risky. This position is contrary to previous agreements. This has created fears of a planned strike on Coalition cities within range. Concerned with deniability, no matter how tenuous, a small strike force of experienced PMCs has been prepared to strike passed the declared border, destroy the BM21, and escape in preperation for a full attack.

a. Enemy. Eastern Alliance forces have setup several checkpoints just passed the declared border along the main highway and also two somewhat dug in encampments. We have marked the location of the BM21 at one of these camps. Forces consist mostly of rear line militias equipped with legacy Soviet equipment but are supported by groups of EA government forces, active duty and volunteer troops who remained in military units that swore allegiance to the separatist government. They are equipped with newer Eastern European equipment as well as some older Western vehicles supplied as aid before the split. A small number of YPR-765s equipped with thermal imagers are suspected to be operating in the area.

b. Friendly. A small recon/strike team of PMCs equipped with cavalry scout vehicles, a PC, MRAP, and organic support and technical assets stationed at a FOB in the town of Grach just before the declared border and disputed zone. Infantry are carrying anti tank weapons as well as observation equipment. Local government forces are avoiding direct support but have setup a small mortar fire base a safe distance from the border which can support the area near the border guard post.

MISSION

    Find and destroy the BM21 and extract from the area engaging any hostiles or potential hostiles.

EXECUTION

    Primary task
    Find and destroy the BM21 and extract with minimal damage to civillian infrastructure.

    Secondary tasks
    Destroy the communications vehicle at the Mogarim Highway checkpoint if the situation allows it.
    Neutralize ememy forces in the region.

    Fire support
    3x 60 long barreled mortars with a range of 3900m.

FORCE BUILDUP

A PMC unit assisting friendly government forces equipped with,

UZI Team
1x VEC-M1 w/ 2 man scout team with SPIKE-SR and JIM-LR/Micro UAV (elite)
1x Pirahna FUS w/ Arrows RWS & 10 man rifle platoon equipped with G36/AG36 & Pzf III (regular)

Colt Team
1x VEC-M1 w/ 2 man scout team with SPIKE-SR and JIM-LR/Micro UAV (elite)

Enfield team (Secondary/Emergency transport and support vehicle escort)
1x RG-31E MRAP with thermals and M2 RWS

Local government forces supporting with 3x mortar team

Full compliment of support vehicles on standby.

POINTS OF INTEREST

Militia observation point
A position that has significant sightlines across the declared border and into all major points of advance. Previous recon has shown the position is not obviously well armed but it is suspected long range weapons are nearby to be brought into action if needed.

Mogarim Highway Checkpoint
A military checkpoint setup along the main route across the border. This is a major route for commerce and civillian traffic and the prescence here has created issues. It is mainly staffed by militia forces but a small group of activy duty EA military are stationed there as support but we suspect they will respond to any percieved incursion at the border. With them gone we do not imagine resistance at this position will be strong when presented with AFVs.

Possible routes of reinforcement
We believe these are likely routes nearby forces will take to reinforce after you punch through the defending forces. We suspect local militia and insurgent forces may try to close off likely routes back across the border once defending forces are broken.

Gradhunt.zip

[Poofydoodle]

Would like to add, while I wait for some general feedback before posting to the dl section and uploading the map I have starter a remake of my previously unreleased Luchs mission I was not happy with. It will be a complete restart in the game general area and same objective but should hopefully be much better with what ive learned.

[mpow66m]

Lets get it out,im waiting for some good sces.👍

[Apocalypse 31]

52 minutes ago, mpow66m said:

im waiting for some good sces.👍

Wow. Alright..

 

@ben and I posted 18 scenarios in the last month. 

 

Perhaps they didn't meet your standard as "good"? I wouldn't know. You've never reviewed any of them or left feedback.

[mpow66m]

Played  all of Bens. Im working on yours now. Just finished Abraxas'lol👍

Edited March 5, 2022 by mpow66m

[Apocalypse 31]

6 minutes ago, mpow66m said:

Played  all of Bens.Im working on your now.Just finished Abraxas'lol👍

Just curious. Is english your first language?

[mpow66m]

1 minute ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

Just curious. Is english your first language?

Lol yes,i have a sticky keyboard.ill try and fix it.

[Apocalypse 31]

Just now, mpow66m said:

Lol yes,i have a sticky keyboard.ill try and fix it.

Ok. So then there's no excuse for your previous comment then. Which was offensive towards those who produce content and post it. 

[mpow66m]

There was nothing offensive about it, it just was a simple statement.

Edited March 5, 2022 by mpow66m

[Poofydoodle]

Its just the phrase "waiting for some good scenarios" can imply you havent got any yet and therefore anything posted before that point is bad.

[mpow66m]

🥴