Desert Storm 1991 Campaign - Working Copy

[Mobhack]

Preferences are whatever the end user currently has set (apart from in PBEM where the P1 combat preferences are used).

They aren't saved as part of any scenario file (so not in user campaigns, either).

(Quite frankly, I have had the combat preferences (the to-hit etc, not the display ones) settings at 100% since SP1 first came out.)

If someone can demonstrate that a users preferences are being reset by a scenario, I'd like to know - as that is an undesirable bug.

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by shahadi

Hmm...the Preferences are persistent from one scenario to another in the Editor and in gameplay as it would seem with my copy. I would prefer static Preferences; each scenario reads it's own set of Preferences.

Originally Posted by Mobhack

Preferences are whatever the end user currently has set (apart from in PBEM where the P1 combat preferences are used).

They aren't saved as part of any scenario file (so not in user campaigns, either).

(Quite frankly, I have had the combat preferences (the to-hit etc, not the display ones) settings at 100% since SP1 first came out.)

If someone can demonstrate that a users preferences are being reset by a scenario, I'd like to know - as that is an undesirable bug.

We know the preferences are persistent from one scenario to the next. The question is why are they not saved as part of the scenario files?

-----

[DRG]

Well one very good reason is if preferences were set and saved by scenarios we'd be swamped with "bug" reports from people saying their game isn't playing correctly when it was a scenario designer that jacked them around for his scenario then they started a regular game and forgot to re-set the preferences.

NO we will not be locking preferences to a scenario designers whim..... if they want special conditions they can "suggest" the settings they want in the initial scenario briefing but so far the only person reporting jacked player preferences is you. I have yet to see anyone else tell us they are seeing what you saw

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by DRG

Well one very good reason is if preferences were set and saved by scenarios we'd be swamped with "bug" reports from people saying their game isn't playing correctly when it was a scenario designer that jacked them around for his scenario then they started a regular game and forgot to re-set the preferences.

NO we will not be locking preferences to a scenario designers whim..... if they want special conditions they can "suggest" the settings they want in the initial scenario briefing but so far the only person reporting jacked player preferences is you. I have yet to see anyone else tell us they are seeing what you saw

It is my opinion, and after many years, maybe too many, playing video games, that a configuration file, a .cfg will cause me or anyone else for that matter, to complain of a game not playing correctly, of being buggy.

A config file would, as you know, simply store the settings for the game engine to load only upon the selection of a scenario. If the scenario is not in the config file, guess what, default settings are loaded.

Example:
[scen.000]
Title=Desert Storm 1991
PREF_SPOT0=250
PREF_SPOT1=60
PREF_HIT0=250
PREF_HIT1=60
PREF_ROUT0=100
PREF_ROUT1=80
PREF_TROOP_QUAL0=70
PREF_TANK_TOUGH0=150
PREF_TANK_TOUGH1=80
PREF_INF_TOUGH0=150
PREF_INF_TOUGH1=80
[scen.001]
Title=Egyptian Armor
PREF_SPOT0=100
PREF_SPOT1=100
PREF_HIT0=100
PREF_HIT1=100
PREF_ROUT0=100
PREF_ROUT1=100
PREF_TROOP_QUAL0=100
PREF_TANK_TOUGH0=100
PREF_TANK_TOUGH1=100
PREF_INF_TOUGH0=100
PREF_INF_TOUGH1=100

So, it is not the designer's whim, but this addresses a real need that may have gone overlooked, else why the Preferences in the first place. This way, by having a .cfg file, a scenario cannot jack the game.

Now, to be fair, I only reported what I saw on my machine and intimated if others had similar experiences. Either way, the Preferences are in the game and they do impact on how a scenario is played. Therefore, it would be the right thing to do, open the Preferences so designers have another tool to impact on the player's game experience.

The whole question came about because Iraqi crews had such high hit ratios at ridiculously long ranges. I looked at my settings after reading the Game Manual thinking maybe my settings impacted the Iraqi crews. However, as it turned out, even with Preferences at default, 100%, guess what, the Iraqi crews were hitting at incredible distances as reported by other players.

I'm deploying my guys for the second scenario. A delay action. Not sure yet how I want to play it, either ambush his main force, or confront him directly and rely on my superior training and equipment. Yes, I am going to dial down Searching and Hitting for the Iraqi side and report back what I find.

I like the campaign so far. And mkr8683 has done a splendid job and I want to encourage him to continue and improve upon his ideas, so for those reasons I continue to contribute to this thread and request that others do so as well so that we learn from each other's errors and successes in a friendly manner void of rancor.

That's my two bits worth... anyone seen my friend George Dickel, last reported somewhere in the vicinity of Nashville,Tennessee USA. Although we don't hang anymore, tell the fella I said, hey.

[Suhiir]

If you need to alter the ability to see/hit in a scenario just edit the "Experience" and/or "Morale" ratings of a unit with the editor. Also the "Unit Leader" and "Formation Leader" tabs allow you to change "Rally", "Infantry Command", "Armor Command", and "Artillery Command" ratings.

This way you can make units that can shoot better/worse, or are hard to break but once broken stay that way (various fanatics), or break easily and rally easily (US Army troops during the early parts of the Korean War).

[DRG]

This is exactly what Game Preferences.ini does now. It stores that info and more based on what your settings were on shutdown the last time and there is nothing in the game code that would cause a campaign to override them . As Andy said the only thing that can override those is a PBEM and this can be easily tested. Change the preferences setting then save a scenario. Reset the preferences to normal then open the scenario and you'll see the reset preference settings and a campaign is just a series of linked scenarios

Everyone plays the game a little differently. There is no one "correct" preferences settings but we recommend setting them at 100% and if anyone finds that doesn't quite work for them then by all means adjust them but what may be the best setting for a newbie won't be the best for an experienced player and that's why if a scenario designer thinks their scenario should have adjustments made to the preferences they need to suggest those recommendations in the initial briefing. That way players know whats been done.

As well......... I'm having a difficult time understanding how on one hand you can say...."It is my opinion, and after many years... playing video games, that a configuration file, a .cfg will cause me or anyone else for that matter, to complain of a game not playing correctly, of being buggy. ".... then go on to make a case for including one..... or am I reading this wrong ?


Don

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by DRG

This is exactly what Game Preferences.ini does now. It stores that info and more based on what your settings were on shutdown the last time and there is nothing in the game code that would cause a campaign to override them . As Andy said the only thing that can override those is a PBEM and this can be easily tested. Change the preferences setting then save a scenario. Reset the preferences to normal then open the scenario and you'll see the reset preference settings and a campaign is just a series of linked scenarios

Everyone plays the game a little differently. There is no one "correct" preferences settings but we recommend setting them at 100% and if anyone finds that doesn't quite work for them then by all means adjust them but what may be the best setting for a newbie won't be the best for an experienced player and that's why if a scenario designer thinks their scenario should have adjustments made to the preferences they need to suggest those recommendations in the initial briefing. That way players know whats been done.

As well......... I'm having a difficult time understanding how on one hand you can say...."It is my opinion, and after many years... playing video games, that a configuration file, a .cfg will cause me or anyone else for that matter, to complain of a game not playing correctly, of being buggy. ".... then go on to make a case for including one..... or am I reading this wrong ?

Don

Yes. You are reading my several posts very, very wrong. I make a case for a cfg file because the current one is static, it does not allow designers to take advantage of the Preferences. Case in point the current scenario that this thread is intended to discuss. And, in an earlier post this comment:"Well one very good reason is if preferences were set and saved by scenarios we'd be swamped with "bug" reports from people saying their game isn't playing correctly when it was a scenario designer that jacked them around for his scenario then they started a regular game and forgot to re-set the preferences." So, my cfg proposal was in response to your claim that you'd be swamped with bug reports when in fact after years of playing games with cfg files I have yet been a party to a game community where a bug was reported because of a cfg file.

So, because there is no one correct Preference setting, let the designer make his or her game play better by setting preferences by scenario. The player can still revert back to default if he or she wants too.

Anyway, you said NO. I'd like to get back to talking about the scenario, that is what this thread is intended. And, it is 20:22h and dinner is ready.

Adios amigo

----------

[Juramentado]

So - I've experienced the bizarre long-range accuracy of the Iraqi force (and trust me, I've got preferences dialed WAY down in favor of me). Anyway - more knowledgeable people than me have weighed in, but I'm just reiterating my experience with the campaign.

What is tough is that the last mission - Highway of Death - automatically penalizes me a couple of thousand points. I think it might be because both US and Iraqi forces are starting on the same side of the divider line? I've replayed it several times, including removing all but a couple of tanks and HQ unit and it still thinks I had too big an arty overload advantage. I've placed them at the corners, edges, anywhere away from the divider line and the highway. Nada. Not that I care too much since I think it's the last mission in the campaign, but I thought it was bizarre.

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by Juramentado

So - I've experienced the bizarre long-range accuracy of the Iraqi force (and trust me, I've got preferences dialed WAY down in favor of me). Anyway - more knowledgeable people than me have weighed in, but I'm just reiterating my experience with the campaign.

Yeah, I do not know what to make of that either.

Originally Posted by Juramentado

What is tough is that the last mission - Highway of Death - automatically penalizes me a couple of thousand points. I think it might be because both US and Iraqi forces are starting on the same side of the divider line? I've replayed it several times, including removing all but a couple of tanks and HQ unit and it still thinks I had too big an arty overload advantage. I've placed them at the corners, edges, anywhere away from the divider line and the highway. Nada. Not that I care too much since I think it's the last mission in the campaign, but I thought it was bizarre.

I'm reporting today on the second scenario, so I'm read the above with much interest and anticipation.

Desert Storm 1991 Scenario 2 (DSCSSI-1991 Scn2)

I’m finding the campaign challenging in the expansion of my core. I’m thinking TF-Jones will become a HCAB with two MBT companies and an Mech Infantry company in subsequent scenarios. Below I’ve listed the equipment purchased, force deployment, initial action, and a few suggestions.

Equipment Purchase

• M1A1HA+ Abrahms Platoon x1
• AH-64A Apache Section x1
• Stinger Team (Wheeled) Sec x1
• M106A2 Sec x1

Deployment
Bn Hq atop hill @ 24, 36 SW of Village
Mech Inf Co

• Dismounted, Line Abreast, NW-SW 100m east of Village
• Mech Inf Co Hq mounted inside Village

MBT Co

• MBT hq ready @ 13,53 atop hill NW of Village
• E Platoon at same location as MBT Hq, Line Abreast
• D Platoon @ 37, 44 SE of Village, Line Abreast along ridge
• T Platoon Abrahms inside village

Engr Platoon @ 8,17 Column, behind MBT Hq
M3A2 Bradley Cavalry Scouts

• N Platoon @ 41, 52 Line Abreast mounted
• O Platoon @ 14, 15 Line Abreast mounted, interspersed with MBT
  E Platoon

AH-64A Apache Sect @ 9, 10 Low Altitude
Other units behind MBT Hq
Fires

• MBT filters set at Armor at 30 hex
• Bradleys set Armor at 25 hex

Initial Action
T2, Bradley lit up a T-62 at 1850m

This scenario was every bit a “turkey shoot.” After the line units took their Oppty hits, I targeted any Iraqi unit within a 90% hit probability. By Turn 4, the scenario was over.

Suggestions

Identify Hq units.

Have TF-Jones placed on west of the Village on the road: a MBT platoon, a mounted Cavalry Scout section, and a section of M901A1. In subsequent turns have the remaining units enter the map. This forces the player to establish a hasty defense, which may prove more challenging.

Consider giving the Iraqi forces waypoints. If TF-Jones enters in Reinforcement Turns, then the Iraqi force should take the southern hill overlooking the village and the road running north to it.

Although I do not buy McDonalds, however, as the commerical says, “I’m loving it.”

[Juramentado]

You can get away with a CO Team - supplemented by a couple of mech scout sections to screen and hold smaller V-hexes. For me, the key was to have at least minimal aviation support to find the annoying stuff deep in like Red Mortar and Arty units - after a while, constant H&I just degrades you on the reaction phase.