Posting new scenario

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Posting new scenario

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Modern] >> FlashPoint Germany >> Scenario Design and Editing >> Posting new scenario

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Posting new scenario - 3/9/2005 5:54:41 AM

CommC

Posts: 467
Joined: 8/3/2002
From: Michigan, USA
Status: offline

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.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: Posting new scenario - 3/10/2005 12:26:50 AM

JustinL

Posts: 28
Joined: 2/3/2005
Status: offline

Here's my result. I meant to set EW at high but apparently missed that setting.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to CommC)

Post #: 2

RE: Posting new scenario - 3/10/2005 1:33:42 AM

Real and Simulated Wars

Posts: 768
Joined: 8/6/2003
Status: offline

That's some numerical superiority for WP!
....

I'm looking forward to play this scenario!

Edited to avoid spoiling.

< Message edited by Chelco -- 3/10/2005 5:25:46 AM >

(in reply to JustinL)

Post #: 3

RE: Posting new scenario - 3/10/2005 7:19:14 AM

CommC

Posts: 467
Joined: 8/3/2002
From: Michigan, USA
Status: offline

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.

< Message edited by CommC -- 3/10/2005 12:21:52 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Real and Simulated Wars)

Post #: 4

DRAW! Baby - 3/12/2005 1:23:14 AM

CapnDarwin

Posts: 8467
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline

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

Attachment (1)

(in reply to CommC)

Post #: 5

RE: DRAW! Baby - 3/12/2005 5:11:47 AM

CommC

Posts: 467
Joined: 8/3/2002
From: Michigan, USA
Status: offline

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.

< Message edited by CommC -- 3/11/2005 10:16:53 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to CapnDarwin)

Post #: 6

RE: DRAW! Baby - 3/28/2005 10:48:26 AM

Paul37

Posts: 10
Joined: 3/28/2005
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline

just loaded your file and i'mgonna give it a try, it can't be that hard(just kidding)
keep you posted

_____________________________

Fahren, Funken, Feuern!!

(in reply to CommC)

Post #: 7

RE: DRAW! Baby - 3/28/2005 1:38:17 PM

Raukman

Posts: 21
Joined: 11/7/2004
From: Visby, Sweden
Status: offline

I managed to get a draw...

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Di! Ecce hora! Uxor mea me necabit! - God, look at the time! My wife will kill me!
Si vis pacem, para bellum - If you want peace, prepare for the war

(in reply to Paul37)

Post #: 8

RE: DRAW! Baby - 3/28/2005 1:45:40 PM

CapnDarwin

Posts: 8467
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline

Nice Job!

S!

Cap'n D

(in reply to Raukman)

Post #: 9

RE: DRAW! Baby - 3/28/2005 1:59:21 PM

Raukman

Posts: 21
Joined: 11/7/2004
From: Visby, Sweden
Status: offline

Thanks!

You did better!

Nice job you too!

_____________________________

Di! Ecce hora! Uxor mea me necabit! - God, look at the time! My wife will kill me!
Si vis pacem, para bellum - If you want peace, prepare for the war

(in reply to CapnDarwin)

Post #: 10

RE: DRAW! Baby - 3/29/2005 9:15:02 AM

CommC

Posts: 467
Joined: 8/3/2002
From: Michigan, USA
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Raukman)

Post #: 11