"Courtyard of Death" is UP!!!

[OGF Keller]

For those of you who like well-balanced TCP/IP or PBEM games...have a perverse fondness for close quarter urban fighting...where you can feel that your own throat is as parched as the combatants awash in the dust of crumbling buildings...where your hands shake at the prospect of disorienting combat...

THIS one's for YOU!!

It's called "Courtyard of Death."

You can get by clicking below...

Courtyard of Death at Scenario Depot

Designed so the end result, no matter who wins, is high percentage casualties for both sides, along with carnage and sheer, unadulterated chaos.

I'm telling you, this one is just INSANE it its brutality.

The objective is to capture and hold a C-shaped, two-story heavy courtyard building, more or less in the center of the map, about a block square.

Imagine it as perhaps Communist Party Headquarters – with all the inflated (yet tactically useless) prestige that winning and holding such a building would have to the respective adversaries.

No artillery or air strikes (assume this has already been done); just a clash of infantry and pioneers, with a few powerful assault guns/AFVs to add some spice.

Best played as two player; and with EFOW. If against AI, add +25% force balance and +1 experience bonus. Sewer movement allowed. Recommend sticking to scenario default. All units begin scenario in defilade to the enemy and organized by platoons -- so you can dive right in with little or no set up time.

Thanks to playtesters Flying Cursor aka Master Dullard (who called it an "excellent game" and experienced in one turn something he had NEVER seen before, and might likely never see again) and Matti Vesanen (who said "excellent briefing. . . overall good scenario and. . . really exciting as a two-player game").

Do it...and then REVIEW IT!!!

[ January 30, 2003, 12:19 AM: Message edited by: OGF Keller ]

[Fionn]

The problem with this scenario is that there is precious little opening for tactical skill/manoeuvring given the map and force densities.

It comes to little more than a mashing together of fairly large infantry forces and seeing who runs out of men more quickly in a straight up fight. I can understand that that was probably your aim but the lack of ability to utilise tactical acumen, cunning and skill to gain advantage is bound to be frustrating to the more tactically minded players.

Obviously though this is not so much criticism of the scenario as being bad but merely pointing out that it won't appeal to a certain group of player.

[thelighthouse]

Fionn,

Your review is not fair.

You knew what you were downloading. I believe the description is very descriptive of what to expect.

"Designed so the end result, no matter who wins, is high percentage casualties for both sides, along with carnage and sheer, unadulterated chaos."

Whether you are tactically challenged or seeking an avenue to parade your challenging tactics does not matter. If you want to review a scenario keep your personel opinions out of it please.

All the Best

LH

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by OGF Keller:

If against AI, add +25% force balance and +1 experience bonus.

Tried that. Now before I say *anything*... This scenario is very clearly recommended for 2P, for which I just don't think I have the bandwidth; this is merely a *comment* on how it fares in SP, please nobody freak out.

It was fun, if you enjoy routing huge quantities of Soviets, (and who doesn't?). It was somewhat bloody, I suppose- I lost 109 men, but the sovs lost 417, all their tanks, and weren't too happy by the end, (surrender). Unfortunately, really, I think the poor AI simply couldn't deal with the situation.

My main reason for posting is that I think in the case of SP the AI might be helped out quite a bit by replacing the one big flag in the courtyard with a few small ones *in* the buildings themselves, or even in tactical positions overlooking the yard, or something.

For prisoners of the SP mode, I would recommend dropping this scenario into the SE first, if it's not tournament saved, and 'helping' the AI with flag placement.

Anyhow- was indeed fun, and tactics of a sort were indeed possible for me, in a messy sort of way- I was able to... Advance FTs even *in front* of my rifle squads; Set several bldgs on fire, (containing hordes, of course!); Bring down a bldg with numerous satchels, also containing hordes.

Makes for a good day. One interesting thing I've never seen before- when I brought down the bldg with satchels, sure enough I found plenty of dead squads inside... but derned if there weren't some guys still in there alive and kicking! Perhaps that only happens with "light" bldgs or something.

Eden

[Fionn]

Lighthouse,

1. The description states it will be a bloody battle. Fine. I have seen tremendously bloody battles which consist of more than forming one's troops up in a line and mashing them into the opposing guy's line of troops.

Saying the battle will be bloody is a given in a city fight. Bloodiness often has little relation to whether or not maneuvre, flanking etc is possible.

2. Unfair review?

How so...

I simply stated that this scenario did not offer chances for manoeuvre given the design of the map and the force densities contained therein. That's a clearly evident fact when you look at the map and opposing forces.

3. "If you want to review a scenario keep your personel opinions out of it please."

This is the most ludicrous comment. A REVIEW is one person's opinion. I look for scenarios which allow some manoeuvre or chance for tactical skill to play a part as opposed to scenarios which simply comprise large forces crashing into eachother and shooting eachother to pieces in a straightforward test of the Lanchester Model of combat.

I even stated that this didn't mean the scenario was "bad". It merely pointed out that other players looking for the same thing from scenarios as I do ( tactically interesting situations) probably wouldn't enjoy it. As a bloodbath it succeeds. As an interesting tactical vignette it doesn't.

Please respond with precisely WHY it is "unfair" to offer my viewpoint when ASKED to review something? I'm sure it'd be fascinating to observe the logic behind your position.

Anyways, who pissed in your porridge this morning? The fellow asked for reviews, he got one. No need to jump all over me. SOME scenario designers might like an honest review from a different perspective more than a load of "Ooh, you're so cool" reviews or just total silence.

Hell, when I designed some scenarios some people didn't like that each scenario was designed to teach a tactical lesson and said so. All I said was that the scenario wasn't aimed at them and therefore I wasn't surprised they didn't like it. No big deal.

[thelighthouse]

Hi Fionn,

I accept your reply, is a lot better than I could reply to.

All the Best

LH

[xerxes]

.

[ February 01, 2003, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: xerxes ]

[OGF Keller]

Everyone, thanks for the comments, positive, negative or qualified -- or a combination of the three.

As a newbie scenario designer, let me say a few things. First, I do not have the in-depth historical/theatre knowledge you see from guys like Berlichtingen, Sesam, Andreas, Rune, and other well know scenario designers. As a result, I probably won't do a truly historical scenario.

Second, while I have a decent knowledge of small unit tactics, I hardly consider myself an expert. As such, I don't know whether I will EVER be able to create, on a consistent basis, scenarios that will be somehow great "tactical" challenges, or somehow so absorbing as a "game puzzle" that they will be irresistible.

Instead, as a scenario designer, after my first two efforts, I think that I understand what my strengths will be. What I am inclined to do, and what I think I will be good at -- and which should, over time, set me apart somewhat in the design community -- is creating the unique atmosphere/sensations/ of a combat situation in the "abstract" world of CM.

Not something that is historically precise (though it may be inspired by a real event), or an exercise in tactical gymnastics. But rather a scenario where you say to yourself "You know, this is REALLY visceral, stomach-churning stuff."

In other words, I want to create "effects" but always in the context of a game with victory conditions, and a beginning and an end.

When I did my first effort, "Hube's HQ Attacked," the objective was to create the sheer pandemonium that would ensue when an lightly armed HQ group is surprised by a band of AFV's. And though I got some mediocre ratings at The Depot(along with positive comments in an interesting disconnect), you know what?? I succeeded in doing EXACTLY what I set out to do.

"Courtyard of Death" is COMPLETELY different than "Hube's HQ Attacked". But again, the plan was to create an entire "mini-world" of combat insanity.

I am a firm believe in Truth-in-Labeling; and I think that in both cases, I followed through on that principle.

So, I don't know whether I can create scenarios like "Jagermeister" where, in the end, it's a puzzle you have to solve. Those are better left to guys like Rune, who are WAY better at that sort of thing than I'll ever be.

Instead, from me, I hope you'll see non-repetitive and unique ideas, where, when it's over, you will say, "Man I never thought something like THIS could happen!!"

If you DO say that, then I've done a good job.

[ February 02, 2003, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: OGF Keller ]

[S.Sgt. Havilandt]

Originally posted by thelighthouse:

Fionn,

Your review is not fair.

You knew what you were downloading. I believe the description is very descriptive of what to expect.

"Designed so the end result, no matter who wins, is high percentage casualties for both sides, along with carnage and sheer, unadulterated chaos."

Whether you are tactically challenged or seeking an avenue to parade your challenging tactics does not matter. If you want to review a scenario keep your personel opinions out of it please.

All the Best

LH

I just don't see how his review was unfair. I think that this kind of thinking is exactly why most don't review scenarios at the depot. Which, IMHO, is the one site that will constantly pump new life into the CD.