MasterAle's Good Waffle of Cheery Thread

[MasterGoodale]

Originally posted by Soddball:

You owe me one, too, you twonk. Tell that worthless sack of lemur pubes Goodale to stop whining about his scenario. It's fine. I just find it a but unchallenging when I have 22 JS-2s and my opponent is running around in 5 Panzer IIIs, that's all I'm saying.

That's what I refer to as "TNT-Abundance: maggot!!! EAT TNT!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

[MasterGoodale]

But I do get your point, it appears people prefer scenarios with more rarity of the more powerful weapons. I will take this into consideration in future scenarios pube grease! :mad:

[Soddball]

When you next have an opponent, let me know. I have a gem of a scenario for you all prepped and ready to go.

[MasterGoodale]

OK MAGGOT! :mad: It won't be long as I will be putting most of my victims out of their misery within a week! :mad: GGAAAARGGAGRGRAGRGRARGAGRAGRGRAGRAR!! :mad:

[Wallybob]

...poke...

...poke...

...bump.

Yeah, His KVs, and Plethora of T34s against S-35's, Wespe's, and Pz IVs. He already done kilt mah Kubelwagon.

This can't stay on the second page, MG would break loose, and spray the furniture with molten TNT.

[Stalin's Organ]

Originally posted by MasterGoodale:

when you guys say "Historical Units" what do you mean? I thought the scenario editor only allowed you to put in units that were available to each side during the time period you choose in the editor?? somebody please let me know if this is false. . .

Grrrr! :mad:

Yep - but I think it's probably a good idea to have a look at hte rarity factor too.

For example 2 KV-2's and a KV-8 with 3 T34's isn't a real historical mix of tanks. KV-2's were pretty much museum pieces in 1942 - a few may have been around somewhere tho.

Flamethrowing tanks were deployed in brigades of their own! As were T34's.

So I'd expect to see a force based around a single tank type (usually T34) with a platoon or 2 of supporting heavies or odd-balls.

The Germans seem to have a lot of the top notch gear for the scenario dayte - Pak 40's an Marders. No doubt a good thing given the weight of the Russian armour, but overall you'd expect to see Pak 38's (50mm) AT guns rather than Pak 40's.

Simlarly the artillery given may be available, but I'd expect to see 81mm mortar observers rather than the 337mm artillery rockets, and Russian with only some sort of heavy artillery - fine for prep bopmbardment - except they can't see anywhere where the germans are likely to be from their set-up zone.

The terrain is extremely 3-dimensional, with a couple of very large hills and bucket loads of cover. I don't know how reasonable that is, but it makes for fairly boring play in some respects - it's difficult to manouvre, much of the map is superfluous (ie it's too big!! ), and the big guns of both sides are constrained to get closer than you'd really want them while artillery has a hard time because it can only start being effective when the enemy comes into sight at fairly short range.

Also it seems like the Russian attacker really needs to have a bigger point advantage - I don't know how big thesizes are since it was tournament saved but I'd guess they aren't much bigger than the germans - which makes life touogh for them!!

Like I said - it gets a pass for first effort - just

[flamingknives]

*boing*

[Snarker]

Maggot!!! Front and center! I'm gonna chew you a new one for sending me against the Teutonic Hordes with molten, angry TNT but not enough walking things to fling it!!!! Or the proper arty to cover the not enough walking things!!!! GRRRRRGRGRGHH.... AARRRRGGGG!!!!!

I'll email you some suggestions, right after Mike blows up my last handful of posthumus heroes of the Motherland. :mad: :mad:

[Edward Windsor]

MasterGoodale,

I know it's early days (hostilities haven't even broken out yet!), but after perusing the map and spending the best part of an hour trying to complete the setup phase (unheard of for me), I'd like to echo Stalin's Organ's and Snarker’s sentiments with regards to the scenario you sent Soddball and me.

I have to admire the scope of your ambition and there are some neat touches, but maybe you should try something on a smaller scale next time?

I don't know if you've got access to CMBO, but if you want to know about balance and replayability I'd recommend checking out "Chance Encounter".

For full-on furious, bitter, molten TNT-chucking extravagance you could do worse than Elsdorf (either version).

I’m hardly an expert on the game and unfortunately I don't have a clue about historical accuracy, so this isn't exactly informed opinion - but that's never stopped me expressing it before...

Toodle-pip,

Teddy

PS I think I’m going to end up married to Soddball

[Abbott]

Here is a short article brought over from the Scenario forum. Although the article deals with design verses AI play there may be some useful hints here:

Play test!

Play test over and over again. Every play test will show you improvements that can be made, not only to troop deployments and activities but also tweaks to terrain.

Careful planning of terrain without “Loading the Map” too much is required to give the AI’s troops a fighting chance. You can channel an attack or defense with terrain many times. Be careful not to load the map and make this too obvious to the player’s.

When a battle is set to “Meeting Engagement” your troops, even if dug-in tend to get up and move. If you are not careful they will be fired on in open terrain and destroyed. If you have a scenario with several victory locations, spread about a bit, this same behavior will be exhibited when one location falls as troops move to re-capture the fallen objective.

When designing a battle many times the battle can be fought within your concept with the AI set to Attack and Defend even if the battle feels more like a Meeting Engagement. The battle can still be channeled towards offering two-player’s a Meeting Engagement even with the AI set to Attack/Defend for single player enjoyment.

Deployment zones also become very important in directing attacks as well as defense. Careful study of deployment zones during play testing is critical to a good “flow” of an AI battle. Tweaking zones ever so slightly will change the avenue of attack considerably sometimes.

Balance is also a very tough issue. Constant play testing will involve shifts and tweaks of Orders of Battle. Many times scenarios will change greatly through this process. I have found that “Targeting” a certain type of scenario works best for me IE: One player vs. the AI defending. One player vs. the AI attacking. Decide what target audience you are designing for and watch the AI’s behavior throughout your testing process.

Two player design, there is no substitute for feedback from other players with two player design as a scenario goal. A short e-mail received from another player, even if only a couple of sentences, has contained enough good suggestions for me to make several large changes in scenarios at times.

Victory locations also require much thought and testing. Sometimes an entire battle’s flow can be dictated with the number and placement of victory locations. Do not be afraid to experiment with the placement or number of flags as you play test. A rule of thumb here is “less is better”. I have found sometimes that grouping of VL’s can also be a benefit to the AI behaving itself, to a point.

Selecting the amount of forces is also a key issue in a scenario design. Try not to over do it. Many concepts of how you want the battle to display will be hard put to combine in the same scenario. Consider breaking the ideas you want to showcase down into a few smaller battles rather then one large battle.

This makes scenarios more appealing to many of today’s gamers with busier schedules. A smaller interesting battle after work provides enjoyable entertainment. Not to discount the enjoyment of large battles, just be careful how much you try to include at one time.

Another useful trick is to save your game often and use the surrender function to assess the AI’s behavior. Many important issues can be resolved in this manner.

Recap in order of importance.

1. Play test, you can not test too much!

2. Target audience. Decide “What” you are offering and stay with that concept.

3. The importance of well thought out and placed deployment zones can not be overstated.

4. Victory locations experiment during testing and watch the AI’s behavior

5. Balance, decide what type of battle you want to offer your audience and balance it accordingly.

6. Size, be careful not to include to much. Consider breaking some of your concepts down into several, smaller battle’s rather then one large battle.

[Snarker]

Thanks for that, Abbott.

Good stuff to help out budding scenario designers.

[Edward Windsor]

Abbott,

Are the scenarios you gave to MasterGoodale available to download from anywhere?

Edward

[MasterGoodale]

Thanks for the tips abbott! :mad: Some really good points in there that I didn'y think of. From now on my scenarios will be much different. I just get too creative sometimes with the terrain also. I'm playing WallyBob right now in a scenario I designed and I'm playing the Russians attacking. I have no complaints so far as for the units I gave each side, but I kind of messed up on the terrain!! I can't manuever my own troops coherently!! GGGRAGRAGRAGRAGRAGRAGRAGRGRGG!!!!! I kicked myself in thenads and slapped myself in the face 4 times today to teach me not to be so stupid when designing terrain! :mad: :mad:

You're all gonna pay the TNT-Soaked price scumbags!!!! :mad:

[Wallybob]

Originally posted by MasterGoodale:

[QB]I'm playing WallyBob right now in a scenario I designed and I'm playing the Russians attacking. I have no complaints so far as for the units I gave each side, but I kind of messed up on the terrain!! I can't manuever my own troops coherently!!

QB]

At least it is not just me that cannot manuver decently. I thought I had a wonderful mobility corridor, and it...ain't.

Love, hugs, and GRRs and such

[MasterGoodale]

ok maggots! :mad: I took the scenario criticism to heart. It hurt like a molten-TNT-covered knife to the back but it was for the better I guess! :mad: I done went and created a fresh scenario from a completely new perspective. That's right, I took all the feedback I have been getting on my crappy maps and focused my anger on creating a scenario that is historically accurate in terms of equipment availability, the location and terrain is based on an actual setting in the southern front in 1944, and there is plenty of manueverability and tnt to chuck around. I REALLY think those who didn't like my previous maps that much, will like these. I'm anxious to get a "GGARRARGAGR" rating (overall playability factor) and an angry face rating(tnt factor, 1-8) on this scenario.

It takes place in August of 1944, Southern front, 45 turns, static flags, reinforcements for both sides from realistic locations based on the front at the time, and I've included nice briefings with a good story and even will be sending those who play it real maps of the location of the battle as part of the briefings. The actual battle itself is fictional, but could easily have happened. I just like making my own battles up as it allows me to use my imagination a little more.

It's a 2 player PBEM.

So if you think you have the cohonas to play this map and give me an honest, unbiased rating with TNT on your face let me know! :mad: :mad: It's a Tourny Save.

[Stalin's Organ]

Send it on in you TNT dribbling fool - anyone up for another test of MG's creative talents??

[Snarker]

Alright, Stalin's Dangly Bits let's see if the MGA has inproved his molten TNT. Forward it on to me after you get it.

[MasterGoodale]

who is allied?

[MasterGoodale]

Master Goodale has some very disturbing news to reports MAGGOTS!!!! :mad:

AAAAATTEEEEEEENNNNNTIIONN!!! :mad:

On Dec 22, approximately 7:00 PM EST, Master Goodale's faithful TNT chuckers suffered a tactical defeat against the cowardly hordes of Portabella's filthy krauts. I am happy to inform you that my men fought 'til their dying breath escaped through bloody, cracked, TNT-soaked lips on an ill wind. I am already assembling my forces to launch a massive assault on Portabella's forces and get molten revenge for this atrocity! :mad: :mad:

Snarker!!?? :mad: I believe you have something for me maggot-faced scumbag wannabe!!?? :mad:

[Stalin's Organ]

Originally posted by MasterGoodale:

who is allied?

Flip a coin and let us know!

Hang on - no, on 2nd thoughts I had to suffer the ignomy of being the Axis last time - it's Snicker's turn to be the German, so I AM!

[Abbott]

Edward, on the scenarios for MG vs. PB. and MG vs. LH I have on my hard drive. I would be happy to send them along if you post wanting them.

[Snarker]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MasterGoodale:

who is allied?

Flip a coin and let us know!

Hang on - no, on 2nd thoughts I had to suffer the ignomy of being the Axis last time - it's Snicker's turn to be the German, so I AM!</font>

[MasterGoodale]

Like it matters. You will be drip-fed liquid TNT then slow roasted (to let me get far enuff away before you splode all over the map).

Angry Out Loud! :mad: :mad: :mad:

[MasterGoodale]

There are some very slimy, tnt-encrusted maggots out there that owe me a turn! Move it dirtbaaaaaalllls!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Splinty]

Maggots, dirtballs, TNT, oh the violence.....