Jump to content

scenario description


Recommended Posts

Hey, great game. A brief question: when perusing the battles to play, some of them explicitly say that they're better played as H2H, vs. AI, etc. If the battle in question doesn't specify a preference, is it safe to infer that the scenario works well if you play either side vs. the AI?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, great game. A brief question: when perusing the battles to play, some of them explicitly say that they're better played as H2H, vs. AI, etc. If the battle in question doesn't specify a preference, is it safe to infer that the scenario works well if you play either side vs. the AI?

Hmmm... You know what they say about assumptions. You'd think it would be reasonable to assume so, if the designer has not been specific, but I think to be on the safe side you can't. Next best bet is check out the details on the repository (assuming you downloaded it from there) as sometimes the designer may put more specific info there, or if it's a CMBN one check out the designer notes actually in the game. Bit of a pain and it would be good if designers could ensure they state how the scenario is designed to be played. Most do some don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As George MC recommends: check all accessible information, including if necessary the briefings from both sides (without of course paying much attention to them and thereby ruining the Fog of War).

If that still reveals nothing then open up the scenario in the editor, and again without paying detailed attention to what you see, select the AI tab in the top left hand corner; then select plan 1 for the side you wish to oppose you.

Plan 1 at least should have used or used frequently listed, then see if there's a plan 2. If one or both of these plan slots are filled then the designer has at least tried to make a plan for the AI to follow. It doesn't guarantee it will work all that well even so. If there's no plans then that side quite definitely CANNOT be the attacker, but with a good fixed set-up it could fight on the defence.

Then check the side you originally intended to play. If it has plans then maybe you can play as either side. If neither side has any plans then it is highly likely the scenario should only be played HvH.

The same can be said of QB maps.

It really is such a simple thing for designers to rectify, simply stating suitability and play recommendations, but I regret this 'obvious' info is so often omitted.

Good Luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the battle in question doesn't specify a preference, is it safe to infer that the scenario works well if you play either side vs. the AI?

Offhand, I would assume the opposite. That is, if the designer does not specify that it can be played against the AI, that it is intended to be played H2H only.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bit of a pain and it would be good if designers could ensure they state how the scenario is designed to be played. Most do some don't.

Why put all the responsibility on the designer alone? Some support by BFC would probably go a long way to improve the situation.

For example, when a scenario is saved in the editor, CM could automatically determine if there are any AI plans for any side. This information could be shown in some sortable manner. It's not like the information is not already there, we just don't have any easy way (except opening the scenario manually in the editor) of accessing or seeing it.

If AI plans exist, it is very likely that they have been put in in order to make the scenario playable against the AI. This way, the designer wouldn't have to remember to put "play as US vs. AI" or similar things into the description. Which is really just a workaround for not providing enough info by default on scenarios.

I guess we will have to wait a long time for this, if it should happen at all. Maybe with CMx3?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If in the scenario editor there were indicators to be checked for the sides that can be played against the A.I, If it can also be played H2H or only H2H and if these indicators were shown on the battle scenario choice page, that would prevent all the questions one of us has certainly had at one time or more.

However a designer is human and as such prone to forget, that what is for him obvious might not be for someone else.

To Mad Mike:

If the editor should slate a side depending on A.I plans being present, that would not be good for some battles. I have indeed found some of them having the forces set in such a way that without any A.I plans made, it worked pretty well.

It will be too bad not to be able to play such battle.

That is why I would rather favor the checking human option in the editor and or in the scenario briefing for the time being. Now, if the designer doesn't use any of them wisely, let him know it by using the scenario comments screen in the Repository;

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scenario description has a character limitation. If I can't fit a proper description of how I feel it should be played there, then I continue it in the Design Notes. Unfortunately this can't be accessed without first starting the scenario itself. I have asked Charles to change it so the Notes get displayed before you actually launch the scenario, hopefully one day...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Mad Mike:

If the editor should slate a side depending on A.I plans being present, that would not be good for some battles. I have indeed found some of them having the forces set in such a way that without any A.I plans made, it worked pretty well.

It will be too bad not to be able to play such battle.

I gree with you, snake_eye.

Maybe it would be good to have both, one set of checkboxes for the designer to check for the modes of play the scenario is intended to be played.

Together with the information if there are any AI plans defined for a side, it would become quite straightforward to make an easy guess. So if the designer should forget to check the box "Play vs. US AI", there could still be an indication that this is possible because of existing AI plans. Same would also be benificial for the reverse, a selected checkbox but no AI plans could mean exactly what snake_eye implied, that the scenario is ok to played even without an AI plan.

Anyway, just my 2 cents. Maybe a little bit more info will be forthcoming with the next title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be very nice, if the scenario list would show some parameters already.

As a workaround i'm renaming all scenarios after checking their description:

Players: "2p" or "ge" or "us" or "2ai" or "all"

Type: a (attack) - d (defend) - me (meeting eng.)

Size: s (< 1 company) - m (1 cp. < 1 bn.) - l (> 1 bn.) - xl (> 1 rgt)

Duration in minutes

i.e.:

us_a_s_70_TITLE for a small 70 minutes attack played as US against AI.

That way the whole scenario list becomes automatically sorted after the parameters.

If someone prefers a different sorting, just use another sequence of parameters (i.e. size prior to type).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be very nice, if the scenario list would show some parameters already.

Have you noticed that much of this information is already displayed in the form of icons? The parameter icons display the setting (eg. village), time of day (eg. dusk), battle type (eg. blue attack) and battle size (eg. tiny). It also shows the duration in hours:minutes and temperature. Check the manual pages 44-45 (Battles & Campaigns) for details on the icons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not a bad idea Sergei, however I think that the way the game should be played should be rather shown in the 170 X 170 description image.

See the 2 following examples.

The little brain storming all of us have been doing made me think of it, besides it is easy to include if the Designer wants to do it. I think that it will please Mad Mike

That way, someone looking in the battle screen will see that image and if the side he wants to play is checked or not. The same is being done with the H2H.

With one glance you know what to expect. It is better than to read a text, which as I have found out, with some scenario testers, is not always read sufficiently. They were as a matter of fact asking for things that were already written. However, I agree that the important thing my not be read right away depending the way it has been written..

As the Chinese say “a drawing is worth than a hundreds explanations” if I quote it right.

Battle load game view :

exemple2.jpg

170 X 170 description image

exemplecopie.jpg

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not a bad idea Sergei, however I think that the way the game should be played should be rather shown in the 170 X 170 description image.

See the 2 following examples.

+1

Both examples would work. The first would require support in the scenario description to indicate if the scenario is designed for H2H or play against the AI for one or both sides. But even if we never get that examples two will would be a great way for scenario designers to embed the info in their description image.

Nice proposal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you noticed that much of this information is already displayed in the form of icons?

Thank you. Didn't now that. The only symbol i have paid attention so far was for attack/defend.

The symbol for size seems to be used in a highly subjective manner.

I nevertheless prefer the sorted list of the battles according to my personal categories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm... You know what they say about assumptions. You'd think it would be reasonable to assume so, if the designer has not been specific, but I think to be on the safe side you can't. Next best bet is check out the details on the repository (assuming you downloaded it from there) as sometimes the designer may put more specific info there, or if it's a CMBN one check out the designer notes actually in the game. Bit of a pain and it would be good if designers could ensure they state how the scenario is designed to be played. Most do some don't.

Thanks George for the Scenario creation manual......it should be in the retail version.

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not a bad idea Sergei, however I think that the way the game should be played should be rather shown in the 170 X 170 description image.

See the 2 following examples.

The little brain storming all of us have been doing made me think of it, besides it is easy to include if the Designer wants to do it. I think that it will please Mad Mike

Yes, it does please me.:D

Good idea snake_eye, maybe it will be implemented sooner than later, as it is only a very small change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does that mean the US has an AI plan (and you can play single-player as Germans), or that the Germans have an AI plan (and you can play single-player as US)?

*

That means that the Germans have an AI plan (and you can play single-player as US) and also H2H either side

to Medex :

You got it right

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, so it means the other plausible thing it's meant to clearly communicate.

While plausible it's certainly the more "backwards" way of approaching it. Like negative control questions in a survey...

Anyway, if you want to include symbols, you might as well use a player symbol (like a head f.e.) and a computer symbol instead of "yes" and "no". That way, you also get rid of the H2H component. I'm no use with graphics programs, so you'll get some ASCII examples:

o = human, # = computer/AI

Axis: o / #

Allies : o

=> H2H or Allies vs AI possible.

Axis: o

Allies: o

=> H2H only.

Axis: o

Allies: #

=> Axis vs AI only.

Axis: o / #

Allies: o / #

=> Anything goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...