Jump to content

Playtesting requested


MDF
 Share

Recommended Posts

Attached is a casual-style, decidedly action-oriented (i.e., "blow sh*t up") multiplayer mission I intend to propose for TGIF play. Two opposing tank-pure maneuver forces attack on a narrow front to capture a relatively deep objective in the enemy rear. The "twist" is that, in an effort to maintain a high player/vehicle ratio, each side is limited to a maximum of 11 tanks, but receives an additional 6 tanks whenever its strength falls below 6 vehicles (to a maximum of 10 such waves of reinforcements). The further forward you have cleared your sector of enemy tanks, the further forward your reinforcements spawn. The result (I hope) is repeated, dramatic swings of fortune, as you push the edge of the battle area forward only to be knocked back by enemy reinforcements. The team which captures the ENY objective first, or completely attrits the enemy, wins.

I'd appreciate it if members of the community could take it out for a spin to let me know if they find any errors. Other suggestions would be appreciated as well. This is a multiplayer mission, in that there is no meaningful maneuver-oriented scripting of either side. Of course, an industrious individual could play both sides via mission editor Test mode.

Thanks, and good shooting! :gun:

56e83d256f854_FEBAMadness(M1A1vLeo2A4)v.

FEBA Madness (M1A1 v Leo2A4) v. 0.5.rar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Sounds interesting. :)

I looked it over a tiny bit, at first I was going to say there was an error because the reinforcements spawn when < 12 tanks anywhere instead of < 6 as you said, but then I realized there are 6 artillery "tanks" on the map. ;)

AFAICT, there doesn't seem to be anything obvious that stands out as an error, except that you should remove "Allow AI to call for fire" from both sides support dialog. The reinforcements are a little hard to follow but it seems OK when I looked at it.

Just some small suggestions if you don't mind:

1) For the ENY destroyed and OBJ captured events, maybe put a message to the players so that know what happened since the scenario will end immediately.

2) In a very far down the road future version - consider giving some points at the end for each reinforcement wave that did not arrive. This way a side that needed very few waves would receive higher points. I notice you were wanting to keep the score simple here so its just a long term idea to penalize a side that might be inclined to constantly throw everything they have at the enemy and get it killed repeatedly (knowing there will be fresh tanks supplied). Idea would be: 600 for capturing the OBJ, OR 600 for destroying the ENY (apply if on both, if the other is not true), and then +40 points if Spawn Group X is not true at mission end (4x10=400).

Anyway, it should make for a fun/different TGIF game - let me know when you feel comfortable and I will put it in the list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds interesting. :)

I looked it over a tiny bit, at first I was going to say there was an error because the reinforcements spawn when < 12 tanks anywhere instead of < 6 as you said, but then I realized there are 6 artillery "tanks" on the map. ;)

AFAICT, there doesn't seem to be anything obvious that stands out as an error, except that you should remove "Allow AI to call for fire" from both sides support dialog. The reinforcements are a little hard to follow but it seems OK when I looked at it.

Just some small suggestions if you don't mind:

1) For the ENY destroyed and OBJ captured events, maybe put a message to the players so that know what happened since the scenario will end immediately.

2) In a very far down the road future version - consider giving some points at the end for each reinforcement wave that did not arrive. This way a side that needed very few waves would receive higher points. I notice you were wanting to keep the score simple here so its just a long term idea to penalize a side that might be inclined to constantly throw everything they have at the enemy and get it killed repeatedly (knowing there will be fresh tanks supplied). Idea would be: 600 for capturing the OBJ, OR 600 for destroying the ENY (apply if on both, if the other is not true), and then +40 points if Spawn Group X is not true at mission end (4x10=400).

Anyway, it should make for a fun/different TGIF game - let me know when you feel comfortable and I will put it in the list.

I was expecting to have some of the "underclassmen" test this before sending it on to the TGIF "Dean", but much appreciated!

Revised file attached. I fixed the AI arty issue and added the capture notification and bonus points for unused reinforcements.

I decided to remove enemy annihilation as a victory objective, because it could reward overly-defensive play, and I want to encourage an offensive spirit. So, now you achieve victory solely by capturing the enemy objective. If you annihilate the enemy tank force, you must capture the objective within 10 minutes or the mission will end in a draw. And you don't get an explicit notification that you've wiped him out, so CO's must always seek to press forward. Of course, if the eliminated side doesn't want to wait around for 10 minutes while the opponent dawdles, it can always concede.

There are a couple of other things I have considered, and maybe you can weigh in:

-- Originally, I wanted to make the reinforcement spawn threshold lower: i.e., you don't get your 2 platoons of reinforcements until your strength has dropped to four (or maybe even three) operational tanks, rather than 5 in the current version. The benefit is that the force balance temporarily could be as high as ~2.5:1, which might permit more dramatic back and forth movements of the FLOT. My concern is that, for a typical TGIF turnout, this will leave several guys without a slot even if every tank has a human TC and Gunner. That said, you wouldn't have to wait long for reinforcements.

-- This mission seems like a good candidate for no *friendly* map updates, given the relatively constrained maneuver area. I would put thermal TRP panels at intervals along the lateral boundaries (or maybe even the castle or air traffic control towers) to minimize the risk of inadvertently straying into a penalty zone, and put a tower in the center of each objective area.

Your thoughts?

I suppose this is is ready for the TGIF queue now, as it's fairly simple and I've tested it to a degree.

EDIT: I've made a few minor improvements and attached a new version, 0.53, to replace the one initially attached to this post

56e83d2576f8c_FEBAMadness(M1A1vLeo2A4)v.

FEBA Madness (M1A1 v Leo2A4) v. 0.53.rar

Edited by MDF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Sounds good to me.

As for your question:

There are a couple of other things I have considered, and maybe you can weigh in:

-- Originally, I wanted to make the reinforcement spawn threshold lower: i.e., you don't get your 2 platoons of reinforcements until your strength has dropped to four (or maybe even three) operational tanks, rather than 5 in the current version. The benefit is that the force balance temporarily could be as high as ~2.5:1, which might permit more dramatic back and forth movements of the FLOT. My concern is that, for a typical TGIF turnout, this will leave several guys without a slot even if every tank has a human TC and Gunner. That said, you wouldn't have to wait long for reinforcements.
Yeah, I can see pros and cons of both approaches. As you say, it is probably more important to account for the TGIF turnout, but on the other hand it might encourage people to not piss away their tank(s) otherwise they might be turret fairying for a while. That is not necessarily a bad thing. ;) But I think awarding the reinforcements when the side gets to 4 tanks (accounting for the artillery) would be fine. Maybe put a note in the briefing saying that if you lose your tank and there are none left to give, then those players without a tank should wait for reinforcements and/or observe for others, or ask to be a gunner.
-- This mission seems like a good candidate for no *friendly* map updates, given the relatively constrained maneuver area. I would put thermal TRP panels at intervals along the lateral boundaries (or maybe even the castle or air traffic control towers) to minimize the risk of inadvertently straying into a penalty zone, and put a tower in the center of each objective area.
You mean no map updates? You could, but friendly map updates would probably be difficult enough especially with the numbers of newer players at the moment. Better to keep it with friendly map updates IMO.

OK, when you are ready I will plug it into the list. The list is full but there are few duplicate scenarios in it from earlier in the year and I will pick one of the less popular ones to replace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I can see pros and cons of both approaches. As you say, it is probably more important to account for the TGIF turnout, but on the other hand it might encourage people to not piss away their tank(s) otherwise they might be turret fairying for a while. That is not necessarily a bad thing. ;) But I think awarding the reinforcements when the side gets to 4 tanks (accounting for the artillery) would be fine. Maybe put a note in the briefing saying that if you lose your tank and there are none left to give, then those players without a tank should wait for reinforcements and/or observe for others, or ask to be a gunner.

OK, I revised so that reinforcements spawn when friendly tank strength drops to 4 operational vehicles.

You mean no map updates? You could, but friendly map updates would probably be difficult enough especially with the numbers of newer players at the moment. Better to keep it with friendly map updates IMO.

Yeah, I was referring to "no map updates," meaning no enemy contacts at all and friendly vehicle icons do not update their position. I figured that this would be the least demanding mission for newbies from a navigation perspective, in that: players would typically have no more than a single vehicle to manage; the map is small; no long complicated marches are required; and I would have put in recognizable visual landmarks to aid in navigation. But, for now, I've left it with "own map updates" only.

OK, when you are ready I will plug it into the list. The list is full but there are few duplicate scenarios in it from earlier in the year and I will pick one of the less popular ones to replace.

I think it's ready now. I've attached a .rar with the two .sce's. The second one has M1A1(HA) vs. Leo2A5, instead of M1A1 vs. Leo2A4. Take your pick.

EDIT: I realized there were a couple of errors in the briefings, so just re-uploaded the .rar attached to this post.

56e83d2583232_FEBAMadnessv.0.54_rar.8490

FEBA Madness v.0.54.rar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I will plug the 2A4 version into the TGIF play list in one of the duplicate scenario slots. Looks like it will be coming up to play in about two months. Plenty of time for you to tinker with it if you want. :)

Looking forward to it.

BTW, I also have another, much more complex mission nearing completion. Working out the scoring is a real challenge. Hopefully will have it done by this weekend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I can help with scoring if you need it - just let me know if/when. :cool:

I think it's beyond fixing. See attached pic.:c:

The mission represents a hypothetical 1986 combat exercise between US and West German forces. During the Planning Phase, each side must select (via trigger) one of three possible missions. The selected mission determines the size of the friendly force, which spawns at the beginning of the Execution Phase, as well as the objectives that must be met. The scoring for each mission depends, in part, on the mission selected by the opposing side. So, there are, in effect, 9 different scoring regimes for each side (3 possible friendly missions x 3 possible enemy missions). And the scoring for each mission combination is itself on the complex side. So, its very difficult to understand the scoring for each mission.

I'm going to try to tame the beast this weekend.

56e83d258d6bd_Scoringhell.jpg.8b45fb8406

56e83d258d6bd_Scoringhell.jpg.8b45fb8406

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
I think it's beyond fixing. See attached pic.:c:

The mission represents a hypothetical 1986 combat exercise between US and West German forces. During the Planning Phase, each side must select (via trigger) one of three possible missions. The selected mission determines the size of the friendly force, which spawns at the beginning of the Execution Phase, as well as the objectives that must be met. The scoring for each mission depends, in part, on the mission selected by the opposing side. So, there are, in effect, 9 different scoring regimes for each side (3 possible friendly missions x 3 possible enemy missions). And the scoring for each mission combination is itself on the complex side. So, its very difficult to understand the scoring for each mission.

I'm going to try to tame the beast this weekend.

I didn't notice the post until now...

It shouldn't be too bad to follow, if you keep the scoring names consistent with a group label. It looks like you are doing that - or at least so it appears. This way the different groups have the same "apply if" condition, and becomes easy to see which set belongs together. Better if you keep scoring simple though, if you have multiple mission sets within the same scenario otherwise you risk that the user doesn't know what to do, much less the scenario designer. ;)

I typically have about 8 or 10 scoring conditions, each with one or two apply if conditions, so I know how quickly it can become hard to follow. :eek2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't notice the post until now...

It shouldn't be too bad to follow, if you keep the scoring names consistent with a group label. It looks like you are doing that - or at least so it appears. This way the different groups have the same "apply if" condition, and becomes easy to see which set belongs together. Better if you keep scoring simple though, if you have multiple mission sets within the same scenario otherwise you risk that the user doesn't know what to do, much less the scenario designer. ;)

I typically have about 8 or 10 scoring conditions, each with one or two apply if conditions, so I know how quickly it can become hard to follow. :eek2:

Yes, I did use a labeling scheme -- "RvS" is Recce mission vs. Screen mission; "FvA" is Feint mission vs. Attack mission, etc.

One thing that is tricky is scaling all the different scoring combinations so that they all fit within the defeat/victory/major victory thresholds.

The briefing screen will have a dedicated section for each possible mission, explaining the objectives for that mission, so hopefully confusion will be minimized.

Oh well. Hopefully it will all make sense when I revisit it this weekend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Yes, I did use a labeling scheme -- "RvS" is Recce mission vs. Screen mission; "FvA" is Feint mission vs. Attack mission, etc.

One thing that is tricky is scaling all the different scoring combinations so that they all fit within the defeat/victory/major victory thresholds.

The briefing screen will have a dedicated section for each possible mission, explaining the objectives for that mission, so hopefully confusion will be minimized.

Oh well. Hopefully it will all make sense when I revisit it this weekend.

Yeah, as I am sure you already know -- you will have to use an abundance of "apply if..." conditions for every score condition, and basically apply if only that mission is selected for each set. If you don't do that then the scaling will create some crazy score results, at the very least. :eek2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...