CMFI and Scenarios

[Ted]

Is it me or does it seem that there are a sparsity of H2H CMFI scenarios?

I know the game comes with 17 scenarios but several are played against the AI only and some of the large ones are a little too large for my PBEM's

I checked the usual suspects for extra scenarios, The Repository, A Few Good Men, The Blitz and the MODs Warehouse but found just one here and there.

(Too bad The Scenario Depot and The Proving Grounds don't host CM2 scenarios)

Are there any places I missed or should I say where do you get your scenarios from?

Will BF be creating "Scenario Packs" along with other future updates/patches?

[ASL Veteran]

I thought every scenario on the CD had a briefing for each side as well as an AI plan for each side? What is it that you are looking for exactly in a head to head scenario? If you are looking for "Tournament Scenarios" then you probably won't ever get something like that from BFC.

[ZPB II]

There is indeed a sparsity of scenarios. I haven't heard of any scenario treasure trove somewhere in the murky deeps of the internet.

It's a combination of having a bit rough tools and a demanding audience. Don't get me wrong, I love the editor for what it is and I love having access to it, but this is still a niche product and the tools aren't the kind of streamlined and grossly simplified ones you would find in many other places. I like the editor, it's oldschool and it gets the job done. It's a macho editor for manly macho men. But there are some bits that are frustrating (like the editor graphics, when you stare at the editor for 6 hours in one day it really starts to hurt the eyes) and some that are really hard to solve unless I personally get much more computing power. For example, every time I apply a change to the scenario, I have to sit through a loading screen that can be at worst several minutes.

Yeah, those are minutes that can be easily spent drinking coffee, watching porn, doing pushups or playing the guitar but it still interrupts the workflow. I'm an ADHD monkey so these interruptions are what is personally keeping a couple of scenarios and a mini-campaign from being pushed out of the oven.

The second thing is about the demanding audience. This might just be a thing I've gotten my mind fixated around and should stop worrying about, but there's this impending feeling that one is expected to pump out a very polished product with well-written bits of prose, vivid images, historically accurate OOBs, realistic terrain and have all this mesh together in a realistic chain of events.

Eh, I'm rambling now. Again. I probably had a point at some point, but it's all lost in time now. Something about something.

[Ted]

I thought every scenario on the CD had a briefing for each side as well as an AI plan for each side? What is it that you are looking for exactly in a head to head scenario? If you are looking for "Tournament Scenarios" then you probably won't ever get something like that from BFC.

No, several of the scenarios are recommended to be Human vs. the AI only and not recommended for H2H.

I guess I'm really looking for H2H tiny to medium with large as an occasional option.

Right now, huge is not an option for me.

There is indeed a sparsity of scenarios. I haven't heard of any scenario treasure trove somewhere in the murky deeps of the internet.

Dang. I was hoping for a not to well known European site or somefink. Or maybe a site that required some sign or secret handshake to enter.

[GerryCMBB]

There are definitely fewer user-created scenarios for CMFI. Maybe not so many designers are interested in this theater?

I only play small-medium scenarios H2H so that rules out the campaigns also. Not too many options now after playing since it came out.

Hope it will be very different for other games/modules in the future.

Gerry

[umlaut]

Well, CMFI has been out for less than two months.

The couple of scenarios I´ve made for CMBN have taken considerably more than two months to create and playtest.

I think that is at least part of the explanation.

[Michael Emrys]

This might just be a thing I've gotten my mind fixated around and should stop worrying about, but there's this impending feeling that one is expected to pump out a very polished product with well-written bits of prose, vivid images, historically accurate OOBs, realistic terrain and have all this mesh together in a realistic chain of events.

You bet your ass you are, buddy boy, and don't you forget it!

Michael

[MikeyD]

This may be an unintended downside of people being happier with how QB operates. In CMSF it was either make 3rd party scenarios or be subject to the tender mercies of their random QB force generator. Why build a 'hand-made' scenario with italian light tanks versus off-shore artillery when you can simply whip one up with a few clicks in QB? I've got to admit I hadn't thought of that til now.

[ASL Veteran]

This may be an unintended downside of people being happier with how QB operates. In CMSF it was either make 3rd party scenarios or be subject to the tender mercies of their random QB force generator. Why build a 'hand-made' scenario with italian light tanks versus off-shore artillery when you can simply whip one up with a few clicks in QB? I've got to admit I hadn't thought of that til now.

Perhaps, but I think that QB players and Scenario players in general terms are different. A QB player is focused on the force he selects and how that force selection matches up with different combinations that your opponent can throw at you. In other words, the QB player is all about the force selection. Many QB players then try to tailor that force into an unbeatable combination for the purposes of competitive play. Their tactics and outlook tend to be focused on maximizing the strength of the force they can select as compared to other force combinations they may encounter.

A scenario player, by definition, has no control over the force he has to work with since the force and situation is unique to the scenario. Therefore the scenario player has to adapt their tactics and approach to the force and situation that he finds himself in as outlined in the scenario they choose to play.

A QB player could play twenty games all commanding the same exact force (quite possibly on the same exact map) since they will purchase what they want to command. A scenario player who plays twenty scenarios will have twenty unique situations to try to adapt their tactics to. It's a completely different mind set to playing the game.

[ASL Veteran]

.

Again, an add-on BF scenario pack would be nice (hint-hint)

It's possible that might happen, although it would have to have unique terrain features and or TO&E in order to work. If you just made scenarios with the base game and had nothing unique in the 'pack' then all you would have to do is have one guy buy the pack and then he can e-mail all the scenarios to his friends. I have seen loose talk of 'Battle Packs' that were scenario focused but I haven't seen anything concrete yet so you never know.

[Ted]

A scenario player, by definition, has no control over the force he has to work with since the force and situation is unique to the scenario. Therefore the scenario player has to adapt their tactics and approach to the force and situation that he finds himself in as outlined in the scenario they choose to play.

Exactly right.

Not only do scenario players have to fight with what they are given but scenarios also offer the option of receiving reinforcements. A big tactical difference from a QB.

[MikeyD]

Oh, I MUCH prefer properly made scenarios myself. I've never been a particular fan of QBs. But in CMFI I've played more QBs than in the previous two titles combined. I SHOULD have posted 2-3 scenario to Repository by now but QBs have made me 'lazy'.

[ZPB II]

Dang. I was hoping for a not to well known European site or somefink. Or maybe a site that required some sign or secret handshake to enter.

Well, since you mentioned it. I'll have a talk and see if we can sideline the usual paperwork.

You will need to acquire a few essentials, such as a robe or an attire resembling a robe with plenty of the colours white, blue and black. A mock lightsaber is mandatory, preferably one in the 150-dollar-plus range. Cheap ones make the brotherhood look bad.

Members are required to like F1 and rallying. You'll be provided with the location of the nearest enclave in North Europe.

[Ted]

I knew it!

Is there a favorite chant I could learn too?

ahoooohm-scenario-scenario-ahooooohm

Awesome.

Thanks Zeb.

[MikeyD]

Y'know if each CMFI purchaser made just one additional scenario and posted it to Repository we'd be playing new scenarios from now til doomsday. And new QB maps, and new campaigns... Unfortunately, reading some of the W.I.P. threads many people seem to be afflicted with 'overambitiousitis'. They start work on some photo-realistic 4x4km map but we never actually see the result. Try an 800x800m map instead, just big enough for an infantry action without much walking beforehand.

[Fuser]

I made 3 scenarios for CMBN, it was a complex but enjoyable task. The thing is , I stopped making more since I felt there was a VERY critical attitude towards scenarios in the community. Hard to please historical grogs, adjust difficulty and play stile and...have social life, hehe. I may try something one of these days, a small map, with mixed forces, I think CMFI needs more small scenarios.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I wonder if the number of new products BFC is working on is a factor to some degree. I haven't made any kind of survey, but it seems to me that a large chunk of the scenarios submitted to the repository are made by the same people who contribute scenarios to BFC's products. With 3 (!) new games scheduled to be released in a roughly 18 month time frame, and probably 2 or 3 modules as well, I would think BFC would either have had to recruit some more scenario designers or the existing designers may not have as much time for freebies.

[Bimmer]

Well, my first contribution - the Palma di Montechiaro scenario I posted a WIP thread about - is essentially done. After building that ridiculously densely-populated map, I had to run through fairly extensive testing, which required some significant changes, and I decided to add a non-historical H2H variant as well (not much testing on that one). I'm on vacation at the moment, but I'll get it posted up once i get home.

[ZPB II]

Straying off the topic on yet another wild rant,

Hey Bimmer (and others from the Farm tournament), I never got a reply when I posted about the results and the conditions leading to my forfeit in the Farm tournament. I felt bad about dropping out and was unsure if the communication ever was succesful. I might remember wrong though, it was a hectic time and I can't verify since I lost my corporate email account and the sharks are trying to get me to pay them 400 euros to get my email backups. This very large ISP failed their contractual obligations due to mismanagement and greed yet they are still trying to rip off money. Figures. I'd love to apply gentle pressure to their legal team over lunch or something. They didn't muck up just my email, but every email account in the company.

Can't go to war against every band of cutthroats and corsairs one encounters, but boy does it piss me off.

Back on topic, I also came to the conclusion that simply making the terrain took such time that it felt like a bit of a waste to make simply vs. AI scenarios. So there will usually be two files in the zip, one for vs. AI and one for H2H. The thing is, I play very little competitive Combat Mission. Playing Combat Mission for me is more like watching a movie than playing to win. For competitive PVP, there's stuff like Guild Wars 2.

I'd be interested in reading what kind of expectations people have for a good PVP/H2H scenario. Balance is important, but aren't mirror scenarios boring? I've been trying to juggle with the victory conditions to make interesting asymmetrical scenarios, but there's still a lot to learn. What is it that wargamers crave for when they face eachother? Is an arena-style fight to the death the standard to aim for? Or should the designer try to actively participate, as in making the map and conditions such that the fight is very dynamic and unpredictable?

I realize these are a bit silly questions since the answer lies in variety, personal preference and so on but I'd like to read some opinions. If anyone has links to threads or articles discussing scenario design in-depth, that'd be great.

Oh, and Ted. I believe the current "chant" for the season of 2012 is "If I Can't Have You" by Yvonne Elliman. The council discovered that the lyrics told a story about a grognard and his search for a perfect wargame.

[A Canadian Cat]

I'd be interested in reading what kind of expectations people have for a good PVP/H2H scenario. Balance is important, but aren't mirror scenarios boring? I've been trying to juggle with the victory conditions to make interesting asymmetrical scenarios, but there's still a lot to learn. What is it that wargamers crave for when they face eachother? Is an arena-style fight to the death the standard to aim for? Or should the designer try to actively participate, as in making the map and conditions such that the fight is very dynamic and unpredictable?

Balance and symmetry are not the same thing. For scenarios I want balance. I do not want to feel starting out that I have no hope of winning. I need there to be balance: two equally (or close to equally) skilled opponents could take either side and hope to win. The one that wins is the one that made the best choices and a little luck an came out on top. That does not need to be a symmetrical meeting engagement. Those are fun but after a while - boring. Of the six play by email games I have on the go now one is such a symmetrical meeting engagement.

For example a scenario where the attacker has 3 times the resources and will surely dislodge the defender can still be balanced. If the victory conditions are set up correctly the defender can score a win if the wear the attacker down enough or escape with enough of their own forces intact.

I realize these are a bit silly questions since the answer lies in variety, personal preference and so on but I'd like to read some opinions. If anyone has links to threads or articles discussing scenario design in-depth, that'd be great.

Not silly questions, IMHO but we don't discuss that much either. This forum and the one for CMBN are pretty much it as far as I know.

[A Canadian Cat]

Well, CMFI has been out for less than two months.

The couple of scenarios I´ve made for CMBN have taken considerably more than two months to create and playtest.

I think that is at least part of the explanation.

Yep, I am working on a scenario for the first time and I have only just finished the map. Now I am in to the next learning curve - choosing balanced forces and objectives. I have to admit my current plan is to create only an Allies vs AI version. Now the OP is making me wonder if I should reconsider and try to work out how H2H would work.

[GreenAsJade]

This may be an unintended downside of people being happier with how QB operates. In CMSF it was either make 3rd party scenarios or be subject to the tender mercies of their random QB force generator. Why build a 'hand-made' scenario with italian light tanks versus off-shore artillery when you can simply whip one up with a few clicks in QB? I've got to admit I hadn't thought of that til now.

Nice idea... but I totally disagree

The current QB system is itself a nice idea... but broken (IMHO).

I don't want to hijack this thread about the lack of H2H scenarios with a detailed discussion of the QB system - maybe it's time to start a thread on that one now, if folk are interested in that topic (I have strong opinions, but have been holding back as in "what's the point" )

I think that a major factor about a lack of scenarios is simply the lack of time to have them created, and the sudden increase in different kinds of scenarios that need to be created. It's been hardly any time that both CMBN and CMFI have been out, and it takes time to creat scenarios... maybe it even takes time to "get inspired", before you even start creating. I've created a few scenarios in my time (not many, just a few) and in each case inspiration for them only came after a lot of playing...

The lack of appreciation of scenarios has been mentioned too. This is a really tough one, and plagued the older titles too. At least one absolutely top class designer quit very publicly due to dissatisfaction with the feedback on his scenarios. In that case the dissatisfaction was actually with the rating _system_. I think that it is a real problem that there is no place to put scenarios where they can be "fairly" rated _and_ easily found.

This is one for the community to ponder. BFC's repository absolutely sucks for the second criteria, IMHO: I can never find anything in there.

The Scenario Depot's broken rating system was the cause of the first problem I mentioned above: bad rating system. That didn't get fixed because (I _think_) GJK simply didn't have time and money and inspiration to do so. There's little motivation for anyone else to create a new site like that, either - I'm certainly not motivated to do that while BFC block automated posting into the Maps and Mods forums: why create something that BFC actively discourages...

GaJ

[Bimmer]

The lack of appreciation of scenarios has been mentioned too. This is a really tough one, and plagued the older titles too. At least one absolutely top class designer quit very publicly due to dissatisfaction with the feedback on his scenarios. In that case the dissatisfaction was actually with the rating _system_. I think that it is a real problem that there is no place to put scenarios where they can be "fairly" rated _and_ easily found.

How much of an issue this is is very much dependent upon the designer and their motivation for designing and publishing scenarios.

I can speak only for myself. I am a designer. I get at least as much pleasure from creating as I do from playing. I have researched and designed scenarios and campaigns for a variety of systems, and I have designed complete game systems. I do it as a creative outlet primarily for my own pleasure. When I publish something that is available without cost, I do so knowing that my choices and methodology will not work for everyone; I don't care. I'm not doing it for the user. I did it (past tense) for my own pleasure. Once it gets out, it's entirely up to you whether you like it or not.

Now, that being said, feedback can be helpful, and one always wonders why there is no apparent response after hundreds or thousands of downloads. Thoughtful, considered feedback is welcome; random babbling about why you should have done something or other radically differently in a carefully researched historical scenario or giving X number of "stars" without any comments is pretty useless. Designers use feedback to broaden the basis of their informed self-assessment, but anyone who relies on it to drive their process cannot be seriously considered a designer.

[GreenAsJade]

Designers use feedback to broaden the basis of their informed self-assessment, but anyone who relies on it to drive their process cannot be seriously considered a designer.

I had thought this, too ... and yet a designer who developer a series of the all time best CMx1 scenarios was pissed off so much by the rating system that he quit.

Well - who knows what was going on. Maybe he had to quit for other reasons (RL, burn out, whatever) and this is where the blame got laid.

But ... we can't escape from the fact that angst about the rating system is a continuing issue for "designers". Some don't care, but some do. It's easy to say "get over it, bud", but I'm not sure how helpful that is Then again, I'm not sure what else anyone can do about it - I don't have a silver bullet that's for sure.

GaJ

[Bimmer]

I had thought this, too ... and yet a designer who developer a series of the all time best CMx1 scenarios was pissed off so much by the rating system that he quit.

Well - who knows what was going on. Maybe he had to quit for other reasons (RL, burn out, whatever) and this is where the blame got laid.

But ... we can't escape from the fact that angst about the rating system is a continuing issue for "designers". Some don't care, but some do. It's easy to say "get over it, bud", but I'm not sure how helpful that is Then again, I'm not sure what else anyone can do about it - I don't have a silver bullet that's for sure.

GaJ

I can't speak to the situation you mentioned regarding a designer quitting; I am unfamiliar with it, and certainly wouldn't want to speculate. Everyone has their reasons, and unfulfilled expectations could have contributed.

You're quite right that any rating system is imperfect. The problem with the Repository arrangement is two-fold, I think. The scoring (number of stars) is most useful for players looking for guidance, but in order to be representative, it needs many more scores per scenario than are usually found so that a meaningful average can be generated. I believe my most-rated scenario has 10 scores; this is hardly enough to limit the effects of outlying scores.

The second problem is that feedback is, as I suggested above, often rather useless to the designer from a constructive point of view. There are exceptions, of course, but when dealing with a random sampling of a user community, you cannot expect that the comments are going to be universally highly informed. This is why vetted beta test teams are employed. If the designer's expectation of Repository comments is to provide useful feedback he is destined to be disappointed; a similar result is likely if he expects wide-ranging adulation from users who incur no obligation to provide such after downloading.

In short, the Repository and similar such mechanisms will by their nature fail to provide much for designers (and modders, for that matter). When it comes to developing free content, if you're not primarily self-motivated, you will inevitably be let down by users who have no vested interest in providing useful feedback.