Reducing the time in scenario building

[cata]

Having been playing for a while a few things on the mission editing, gaming side. First im big on making my own scenarios. The problem is the time it takes. Sometimes I never get to play the scenario as I never have time to get to that point, and then lose interest. To help sped things up City or town template bits would be nice.

Pre-made blocks, customized city block would save hours of work. Formation templates, been able to add a formation at the touch of a button from Platoon up to Battalion or even just the larger formations.

I have always wished we had a save game function so I don’t have to lose all my hard work as never enough time to see a game through. It would be nice if the AAR end result could then be brought into the mission editor. So that a mission can be based on the results of the last game played, don’t know if that is possible.

Other stuff, would be nice if helos where tactically useful with a lift ability. Also a truck or PCs that can load wondering troops. But I believe the problem of troops left scattered all over the battle field by there PCs is been dealt with right?

Could route chains and waypoints indicate what unit they belong to. with a big scenario its hard to track who a long chain belongs to and its time consuming working out what belongs to who, or is there a way to do this?

Thanks

[Ssnake]

Some of your suggestions are on The List. As far as mission saving is concerned - well, I'm torn about that. I can understand why one would want it and still I see the abusive potential of incremental saves every 20 seconds which would totally spoil the element of having to live with and adapt to the consequences of one's own decisions (or just plain bad luck).

On the other hand it seems that many scenarios are already beyond the originally expected scope of maybe 45 to 90 minutes of duration per session. We thought that for these rather short engagements a save function wouldn't be necessary (back then one could save battle plans, and eventually pause a session).

To sum it up, I acknowledge that the situation has evolved over the past ten years, and what was right back then may no longer apply today.

[GH_Lieste]

One thing you can do is to create templates* for the larger forces.

Or reuse an existing scenario with the desired force types.

You cannot merge two templates to place Bluefor and Redfor teams based on two seperate missions though, so I am only populating my Redfor units.

Once the template is loaded, a suitable terrain can be chosen, the units dragged to (or routed via jump-to) their starting locations and the routeing and logic laid down.

The smaller force and any additional units would need to be added by hand, but this saves a lot of time creating the desired force mix, especially if full (and sometimes complex) OOB are attempted.

Setting up a large force can take several hours if the units are non-homogenous, and many require non-default options.

[cata]

thanks guys, sounds good Ssnake, i will mess around with replacing maps etc see how that works.

thanks

[ShotMagnet]

Something I've learned in designing my own scenarios is that there is no map that will give you precisely what you want, without modifications.

The cure for that is either to get someone to make a map for you, to your specifications, or alter an existing map. Expect to burn a lot of time, if you choose the latter.

I've found myself extensively modifying existing maps so as to meet some generalized parameters that I wished to include in a scenario. This sounds like a lot of work, and it can be, but then again you will have a map suitable for a variety of roughly-similar purposes/missions.

For example; I wanted to create a map without a lot of urban clutter, with some roads, and with enough natural terrain to establish the basic flow of a mission or missions which I might want to use that map. I then tweaked the map (sometimes extensively) to create particular terrain features for particular scenarios.

A similar approach might very well work for you.

Shot

[outontheop]

I agree that a save function has the capability for some significant abuse vis a vis the "oops I died, let's rewind three minutes" factor, but wouldn't an easy way around that be simply setting a timer on saves? Make it so the player can only save the game once every hour of gameplay (or maybe every 30-45 minutes).

Another option is to make it so that you can only save when you quit, and automatically erase the savepoint as soon as it is loaded again. That way, you can NEVER repeatedly load from a single savegame and "go back in time"- you can only "pause" and "continue".

I second (third, fourth, however many is required!) the notion that one should be able to order troops that started dismounted, or that started on a different transport, onto ANY transport with available space. I suppose some kind of coherency penalty for command difficulties would be logical, but as it is, vehicles can operated independently without apparent penalty anyhow. Of course there should be a "quick-key" to make troops load back onto the last transport that was carrying them (in most cases their organic transport) but there should be a map screen method of making troops mount transports.

...this goes back to my frustration at the complete inability to motorize my ATGM teams!

[jlh]

Concerning the 'save' feature:

I paid $125 for this game, worth every penny, and I'll purchase every update you put out for the next 20 years, but shouldn't I have a choice to save a game any time I want as much as I want. I'm only fooling myself if I have to save a scenario 20 times before I succeed, but isn't that my business.

[Ssnake]

Well, in a way that is your business, but then again it's our game, so we definitely have a say in what we want to make.

Like I wrote before, things have changed, and so we need to review design decisions of the past if they still make sense. For classroom versions we will eventually need to implement some form of rollback function, so I could imagine that we would use that opportunity to implement some sort of a universal save function.

We'll see.

Let's get 2.4x out of the door first, though.

[GH_Lieste]

...this goes back to my frustration at the complete inability to motorize my ATGM teams!

I know it isn't really the point but…

Jaguar 1A3

YPR765 PRAT

M996

M901 ITOW

M113A3-TOW

BRDM2-AT

All are mechanised or motorised ATGM launchers, although they are not dismountable.

[outontheop]

Yes, but motorized, dismountable ATGM teams is the point. Vehicle mounts are well and good, but don't offer the same tactical options that infantry ATGM teams do.

... of course, SB Pro PE infantry is WAY more vulnerable than real infantry currently. They die too easily, are spotted too easily, and there is little in the way of feasible cover offered for them to shelter behind.