Charlie901 Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 Is their some sort of standard out there or is it up to the designer? How accurate does a senario/operation have to be to be labeled as Historical for instance? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 I can give you the criteria that was used for the CD scenarios, that I came up with. I think most of the authors who made battles/operations for the CD still use the format. 1. If you have sources on the formations and units and numbers on both sides, and you have an accurate map of the location, we called it historical. 2. If you could not meet any single part, or had to make a part up because of not enough information, then it should be called semi-historical. On my battles/operations I usually put in, this is semi-historical due to the fact I could not find an accurate enough map, or whatever. If i used a source and marked it historical, I list the source in the briefing. I have had people come back and ask why something was one way and not another, and I have showed them my sources. The source could be wrong [Kapalesche Veer for example, has a picture of a burned out Sherman on the island, but Michael Dorosh found out afterwards there were only Stuarts that got onto the island-CMBO scenario] Since I had the sources, I could easily show what I used, and why I did something. Not sure everyone goes to that extreme, but it is how I made my scenarios. By true definition, there could not be a historical battle, because at the first move, it already varies from history. Rune 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 That's the system I use as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simovitch Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 There was a thread of posts in the CMBO discussion board a few weeks back where this same topic was discussed... click here There seems to be many different levels of what the gamer/designer would considered historical, semi-historical, or fiction. IMHO rune's suggestions provide a very good general approach for the designer. There seems to be just as many gamers out there that could really care less than there are those who would take the time to challenge the designers choice of labelling a scenario as historical. simovitch 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 Originally posted by rune: On my battles/operations I usually put in, this is semi-historical due to the fact I could not find an accurate enough map, or whatever. If i used a source and marked it historical, I list the source in the briefing. I have had people come back and ask why something was one way and not another, and I have showed them my sources. The source could be wrong [Kapalesche Veer for example, has a picture of a burned out Sherman on the island, but Michael Dorosh found out afterwards there were only Stuarts that got onto the island-CMBO scenario] Since I had the sources, I could easily show what I used, and why I did something. There are often conflicting sources, too, or simply people with access to better information. One of the many good things about this forum is that you can often tap a resource you wouldn't have been able to otherwise, given the international nature of the forum - and people generous with their time and willing to accept constructive criticism, as is certainly the case with rune. Kapelsche Veer had happened to be covered in detail in one of my favourite histories, available primarily in my own country. So I got to be a smarty pants and send on the info to rune, who had already done a great deal of research (primarily online, IIRC) and actually corrected me on a lot of my own assumptions, too. As has been discussed before, no history will ever be detailed enough to tell you how many men were in every squad of a given platoon, company or battalion in a given battle, so from the start, you can never have a perfectly "historical" battle, but the basic framework rune gives is the best solution that takes into account the limitations of both historical research capabilities, and the ability of CM to simulate that history. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanman Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 My hat is off to those who take the time to do true historical scenarios . After designing a few fictional and Semi fictional historical operations. I started on a Historical one. After a week or two of trying to find accurate maps, translating them and building and rivers and roads into a historical map representing the pictures I found, I gave up . There were not enough options in the scenario builder to make a real historical map that made sense. Also the battle, didn't happen in the time frame of 30 mins. or even 140 mins. they took all day and continued for days. Compete non conflicting information on all the units, strengths, ammo, arty rounds, air power, etc. was not available(at least I could not find it). I now realize this is a game. The best you can do is get the area right, have the forces make sense to the area, time frame and force makeup. Have the terrain roughly match the area. The main thing is to have a good reason to (mission) capture/defend, make it interesting, fun and balanced. If you get most of it right is it historical? How do you know you are not missing units or landscape important to the scenario but lost to history. History this far away is always based on conflicting, incomplete accounts and this game is to limited to make truly accurate simulations anyway. I would bet that all scenarios labeled historical could be challenged in some way. There is just no way the CM game engine can dupicate the all the factors important to a particular battle, So I believe all scenarios are really semi-historical, what ifs . Sanman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 The scenario I recently published, 'The dirt road', I labelled as semi-historical. The map is made up to deliver an interesting game. The forces are not based on any single incident. So one could argue it should be 'fictional'. Yet the scenario depicts an action that was quite common in the summer days of 1941. A specific tactical challenge for the German player that was often mentioned in passing in unit histories. A realistic force mix on both sides. Because of that, I feel justified in calling it semi-historical. That to me simply means this could have been "Anyday, Anywhere, July 1941". These small actions are not recorded in the easily available literature, although one may find them in KTBs, if one goes to look those up at the archives. But they did happen, and just because it does not have a sexy formation or Ubertanks in it should not mean it is not scenario material, or any less realistic than a battle based on one of e.g. Generaloberst Rauss' accounts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 I have always felt that as long as it fit within the general historical framework a scenario qualifies as semi-historical. Some may be more historical than others, accurate map but not units etc. Fictional, on the other hand, is just that, something that either didn't or couldn't happen. For my scenarios I try to at least place the units and terrain that were actually in the battle I am trying to portrait, even if they are not completely historically accurate. For "Model," which is semi-historical, I based the units on those actually fighting in that area and built the map on photos of the area. For "If Only" I borrowed WWB's historical map but put fictional units, Sturmtigers and Brummbars, so I regard it as a fictional scenario. I am finding that it is quite hard to actually find enough CMBB level resources to create a historical scenario that hasn't already been done to death. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwxspoon Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 It is funny how I have changed as a scenario designer - in the beginning I wanted only to make challenging, fictional scenarios that depicted a 'different' situation than the norm. After i did a few of those and CMBB came around I decided to make some 'historical' and 'semi historical' (to me, semi-historical means I could not find specific map and/or unit information, but I wanted to depict an action I had read about) scenarios. I found that I absolutely loved the process of researching and depicting a real engagement as well as I could. Unfortunately, for me at least, doing such scenarios takes me a long, long time (I seem to be averaging about 6 months for a well researched scenario). Lately I have decided to take a designing hiatus. jw [ July 02, 2003, 07:27 PM: Message edited by: jwxspoon ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 For CMAK the definition I gave above will still be the way the scenarios are marked. Which reminds me, I have a great map of the area around the Sidi Rezegh airfield, but does anyone have an actual photo of the airfield? I want to make this one historical. Rune 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.