Scenario Design Question

[Ted]

I just looked at the Scenario Editor (yes, it's about time) and reached the point to choose troops for each side when I kind of got stuck.

There seems to be no point values for each of the units.

My question: how do you go about choosing balanced forces?

[womble]

I can only suggest setting the forces up in a QB and then transferring them over to the Scenario. I think it's a silly omission, though it can be argued that a Scenario is potentially going to have all kinds of "special situations" designed in that would render any points system misleading.

[Ted]

Thanks.

I had thought about setting up a QB and ding the transfer but didn't feel like taking the time. It seemed a little tedious.

I realize there may be special situations but I think knowing the point values would be a good start and then do some tweaking afterwards.

I wonder why there are no points in the editor?

[MikeyD]

QBs needed points because the game (or your opponent) is selecting opposing forces 'blind'. They needed a method to constrain purchasing to keep the game balanced. For scenario design selecting forces isn't 'blind'. You choose a company of infantry and five tanks for one side, a company of infantry and five tanks for the other. Or six tanks, or twelve. 'Balanced forces' is an artificial construct anyway, its not even applicable for victory conditions since you can go wild apportioning unit kill objective points. CMSF module scenarios tended to be very sensitive to allied casualties. CMSFAllies tended to have a technological advantage but a 15-20% casualty rate would give the win to the enemy regardless.

[Ted]

Perhaps I just need practice. And patience. And time.

You say a company of infantry and five tanks but obviously there are major differences between types of companies and certainly tanks.

I think knowing a relative strength of a unit before purchasing would be a good way to start a design.

I am not a grog who knows the offensive/defensive capabilities of Panzer Grenadier company compared to a Jager company compared to a Ranger company.

Of course depending on map, victory conditions and such the troop allotment could be adjusted.

I'm just not sure how to start without having to spend an over abundant amount of time play testing.

[womble]

Perhaps I just need practice. And patience. And time.

You say a company of infantry and five tanks but obviously there are major differences between types of companies and certainly tanks.

I think knowing a relative strength of a unit before purchasing would be a good way to start a design.

I am not a grog who knows the offensive/defensive capabilities of Panzer Grenadier company compared to a Jager company compared to a Ranger company.

Of course depending on map, victory conditions and such the troop allotment could be adjusted.

I'm just not sure how to start without having to spend an over abundant amount of time play testing.

It doesn't stop with just the materiel, either. Judging the relative strength of experienced vs inexperienced, well against poorly led, motivated against unmotivated units is another excellent place for a points system, if it actually has anything useful to say about relative effectiveness of units in the first place. Turn the question round: how can it be disadvantageous to a designer to have a running total of each side's points (and suggested ranges for the battle size and type)? The interface has room; another presentation (the QB force selection) has the coding for displaying the data. It would make generating putatively balanced straightforward scenarios (effectively, vetted QBs) simpler to create, and be a useful starting point for more involved situations.

That said, I do remember someone explaining how to import an OOB into a scenario... Search engine here I come. Edit: Nope. Can't find it.

[MikeyD]

My favorite scenarios of my own making were the ones where I didn't 'try' particularly hard. Those grand scenarios where I obsessed over the terrain and the force structure tended to feel kind'a dry and sterile during gameplay. The scenarios where I just threw stuff together and gave it a test spin tended to turn out more 'fun'. Play balance? You play your scenario through once, go back and add or subtract an anti-tank gun or infantry platoon. And voi-la, its balanced!

[theFightingSeabee]

I agree with MikeyD, but if you are designing for play against the Azi, give the AI a decent boost. Normally humans are a lot more cunning than AI plans (unless you're playing a Paper Tiger scenario, he's got a knack for planning what the player will do).