Scenario replayability - again.

[jim crowley]

At the risk of being boring, I would like to raise an issue that I have previously aired on other threads, with a view to creating a straw-poll. Then I promise not to raise it again.

The issue is scenario replayability and it goes something like this;

Steve has said that there will be 20+ scenarios in the initial release (I think I've got that right); that there will be loads of custom built scenarios to download (I'm sure there will - some of them will be mine) and that, as variety is the spice of life, who would want to play a sceario more than a couple of times.

I tend to agree with most of that, but the fact is, that there is a world of difference between a scenario and a GOOD scenario. Or at least what is good to me, as an individual. Now, my playing time is generally pretty restricted, so if I come across a good scenario there is every chance that I will want to replay it, to explore it from various angles.

The problem is, that the very core of CM is FoW, not knowing exactly what you're up against or where it is. Excellent, 100%, just as it should be!

Unfortunately, once you've played a scenario you are going to know pretty much everything about the oppositions make-up ( other than where it sets-up, perhaps)

The implication here is that, not only can you not replay that scenario as it was meant to be played (i.e with uncertainty) but you won't even be able to play it from the opposite side as you will obviously know in detail what the opposition has, having just played as them. In other words, to get the full and intended flavour of CM, you will only be able to play each sceario once, from one side.

Unless there is a means (optionally) of having a variable set-up force compostion (either partially random or designer controlled or both).

Whilst this may unbalance a tried and tested scenario, it would be at the option of the player and would in no way compromise the basic game philosophy. Indeed, IMHO, it would tend to reinforce it, allowing the player to focus on favoured scenarios whilst still retaining that all-important uncertainty factor.

This is quite important to me but I accept it may not be to others (or anyone else for that matter). I would just like to know what others of you think; if it proves to be a popular notion, who-knows? it may even be possible to include it. If not, then so-be-it, I've said my bit and I won't raise the matter again.

Thanks for your time

Cheers

Jim Crowley

[ChrisPick]

Jim,

At the risk of permanent banishment from the forum, I once again invoke the spectre of ASL =) The scenarios of that game list the OOB's of both sides up front, but as in CM the FOW is provided by the players varying the setup of those known forces according to a plan. The scenarios are enjoyable again and again, even against the same opponent, as you try different tactics and set-ups.

So, I guess I poll as "Happy as it stands" until we have played it to death!

Chris

------------------

Chris Pick

chris@chris-and-donna.com

[This message has been edited by ChrisPick (edited 09-08-99).]

[Fionn]

Jim,

I think you make some very good points and there is certainly a lot of rationale behind them however I think you will find that a single scenario can, due to FOW and variable setups play very differently each time...

I know this is true since Martin and I tested a platoon-sized battle to take a house once and changed the enemy dispositions only slightly each time we tested so as to check the effects of flanking fires etc.

The end result was that each time we played the game (even though we knew where the enemy units were, within 10 metres or so) the game played differently.

Also, since CM is a lot more "realistic" than many games out there it isn't a simple "lock and key" approach that is needed when planning. Running into an AT gun does not mean pulling out your stock solution every time. That simply won't work in CM..

Even minor variations in setup, moving an AT gun from one position to another 10 metres away change the game quite significantly.

Since setups for the opposition will change so will the game... Also, remember that as you move and the enemy moves you and the enemy will make different choices than you did last time and so the whole game quickly diverges from set patterns and becomes unpredictable and new.

Anyways, that's my take on it

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest L Tankersley]

This reminds me of something I meant to bring up a while ago, back when the AAR game began. In the game Fionn and Moon are playing, they began with only a general idea of the opposing OB (and of their own reinforcements). Great for fog of war and immersion in the uncertainty of battle. But I wonder how easy it will be to recreate that sort of feel in user-built scenarios.

What I'm thinking is, would it be possible to construct a scenario in two halves so that there's no way one player could start a test game playing the opposing side to scout the enemy briefing, force structure, setup areas, and so on? Clearly each scenario would have to have all the data, but all of it need not be accessible to the player. So for example there would be two flavors of the engagement being played, one German and one American.

I'm just rambling a bit here, and haven't thoroughly thought this through (say that three times fast) but it seems that this might be a nice feature for events like tournaments. If it's not in/doesn't make the cut, no biggie -- you can always fall back on the tried-and-true rule: "If you don't trust someone not to cheat, don't play with them in the first place."

L. Tankersley

[Dale H]

There is another way to look at the replaybility issue: no computer game can offer infinite variablity due to the constraints of memory & computer processing power; that is why they are called games & sims. However in real life, when confronted by the infinite array of tactical possibilities the real world poses, good tactical thinkers have used doctrine to standardize their approach to certain tactical problems & issues & that is exactly what CM will teach. There will be enough scenarios & variablity to go around, I'm sure. There ain't no such thing as a perfect game or sim. (If there were, there wouldn't be large apartment complexes sitting in a small French or German burg ;>)...)I'll take imperfect every time & the way CM is shaping up I can't wait. I get so excited I can't even read the AAR's all the way thru without getting up to take a walk & calm down. This is indeed the tactical game I've been waiting for.

Dale

[Pixman]

Pardon me, but at this point I am just looking forward to PLAYability. Being consigned to watchability at this point, replayability seems a distant luxury.

------------------

The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

[Rick]

Pixman,

Funny post.

My take on this issue is that the replayability features would add something. However, I seriously doubt that they could be implemented in the time frame that we would want them to be. Plus the variable setups goes a long way towards making up for it. Besides if there are lots of scenarios and it takes me awhile to get back to one I like really well, I'll probably forget enough about it to make the FoW work again.

[Fionn]

PLUS one thing people are forgetting is that there will be a large number of scenarios for CM.

I can make a nice company-level scenario + map in under an hour (of course testing etc would have to be done to it but my point is the editor is very easy to use IMO) ... To play it through would take much longer than that.

Actually Martin just sent me a scenario in which I got totalled.. lost about 90% of my forces in 10 minutes... I reckon just that one scenario would last an entire weekend.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi Jim,

You have some valid points, but most are of no concern because CM is not a formulatic type game (hey, did I make up a word? ). OK, so in this battle I know that Fionn has a Panther and two StuGs to start out with, then gets 2 PzIVs as reinforcements. Does that mean I might adopt a different strategy to start out my next game as the US player? Probably. But does it kill replayablity? No way, no how. Here is an example form the current game...

Martin managed to block Fionn's southern advance through a combo of luck and good tactical decisions (i.e. leaving a zook team and using some 81mm mortar stuff). However, second game through perhaps things don't go so well and the StuG and HTs actually make it into play. Totally different game right there, and we are only talking turn 5 or so. And how about that Jumbo scoring a immobilizing shot on the Panther 2 minutes into the game. What kind of massive effect might that have on the battle to come? Or how about Fionn replaying as the Germans and not being so haphazzard with his offensive and being more conservative with his defenses in the village?

My point here is that FoW is an important element, but it doesn't break a scenario. I still maintain that a GOOD scenario can be played about 2-3 times each side. That's about 2-3 weeks worth of nights playing ONE SINGLE scenario. And there are likely to be HUNDREDS available online in no time.

I really don't think replayability of an individual scenario can be seen as a flaw since take you about 1 year to replay just the 20 scenarios we ship with 2-3 times each side BTW, total scenarios on the CD might be a MUCH higher than 20. We have no hard and fast number in our minds. 20 is probably minimum though.

Steve

[Moon]

A little off-topic:

Steve, how about including the scenario Fionn and I are playing on the CD?

[Pixman]

In all seriousness, I have to say that replayability is the very least of my concerns with regard to CM. Chess is an eminently replayable game and has less than a millionth of the possible permutations that an average CM scenario will offer. But the key to chess is perfect balance of sides. White goes first and that's about it for advantage/disadvantage.

The CM scenarios that will lose playability over time are those that prove lopsided. This lopsidedness can occur in two ways -- the forces are unbalanced or one player has much more experience with a particular scenario than the other does. But I would bet that a well balanced battle will be revisited time and time again by players that have equal knowledge of it. Assuming that CM will allow us to edit the scenario files to handicap them down to parity, then virtually any scenario becomes playable forever.

Oh we will get pulled on to other, newer battles and leave many of these gems behind. But that will be due more to our thirst for variety and that which is new than to the older scenarios losing playability. Just look at the fact that a lot of guys want to design their old favorite SL and ASL scenarios into CM. They probably know them like the backs of their hands, yet still want to fight them -- again.

Pixman

------------------

The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

[Moon]

They're up for some really really tough "unlearning". I did a short SL scenario once (IIRC it was the Buchholz Station one). I redid the board 1-to-1 in the map editor and used exactly the same forces. But the game was a completely different, more "real" experience. And it showed "some" deficiencies in the SL system, too.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Martin, I am planning on making a modified version for Beta actually. Since the AI will have problems with split Attack/Defense games (i.e. x force attack only, y force defend only) I probably will give the town to the Allies and change around the tank mix. I'm also planning on making the town bigger and more Euro like. Should be a really fun game still, but not the same.

Steve

[Ken Talley]

Will the beta scenario continue as a snow scenario? I don't know about everyone else but I like non-snow scenarios better because of greater mobility. Not important but curious.

Ken

[Brian Rock]

Moon: interesting comment about the ASL:CM conversion. If you have a moment (not at the cost of delaying your AARs that is) , could you give a few examples?

[Guest Big Time Software]

Ken, I've thought about that too Changing two settings would make this scenario high summer. The first change is the date (i.e. July instead of January) and the second is the ground conditions (dry instead of snow).

Brain, I am rusty on the specifics, but IIRC the side that was attacking got laid waste in no time flat.

Steve

[Herr Oberst2]

If you play a cookbook offense or defense, then a scenario will get stale after a few plays. My experience (with another game with a few C's in it) is that people are different.

Yes, playing the computer, I may be able to wax several scenarios easily after practice. A person, who knows what the "battlefield conventions" are, is much more likely to mix in something unexpected, or "non-doctrine", just to throw the game out of a doctrine directed set of moves.

Reread the ongoing comments with Fionn and Martin, and you'll find their analyses of their opponents quite insightful. Yes there has been a frightful cost of US units left to fight to the end, where other players might have drawn back to play a more hit-and-run defense.

I think the key to designing a "good" scenario is to make the force levels on both sides adequate for, but not assured of victory. We have all seen that massed artillery can be murderous. Would I have done that? Probably not. After seeing the effects, will I do it? Maybe... and its the maybes that keep a well designed scenario playable over and over.

My $0.02.