Survey on what folks like best in briefings, tactical map..

[kohlenklau]

I just wanted to gather some thoughts from others on what people like best for briefings.

I am trying to improve the quality of my briefings for some scenarios I am working on.

1. How important is the strategic map image?

2. How important is the operational map image?

3. For the tactical map, do you prefer a 2D style or a 3D in-game screen-shot type?

4. For the briefing text, what are turn-offs? Like perhaps too much wordiness or trying to tell you what to do?

5. What about the image you see as you first scroll through the scenarios? Is that important to set the mood or just indicate what side you might be fighting on?

Thanks for any folks who have the time to share some thoughts on this subject.

You can answer only some of the questions if you like or just make certain statements, no problemo.

[SlowMotion]

1 & 2: nice to have, especially if it's a historical battle

3: I prefer clear 2d maps

4. If it's a historical battle I like it if briefing mentions the place and date where the battle took place so I can search for more detailed info if I'm interested. Also mentioning units involved can be nice. Some people mention if their sources are unclear about something like the number of some tanks. This way players get some idea of HOW historical the scenario is. I like that. If scenario author couldn't include something for example because the unit type or some feature is not included in the game and maybe tried to replace it with something else.

Also IMO it's important to mention how scoring goes: what kind of goals there are and how many points you get from each. Map landmarks can improve playability especially when the map is large. And: mention whether the scenario has been planned to be played as H2H or either side against the AI. Some scenarios claim they are good for all playing styles when they really are not. You can waste several weeks of player's time by recommending something for H2H which is actually totally one sided. And this info should be visible already in the screen where people select battle, not in briefing text.

I do not like briefings that are million pages long

[A Canadian Cat]

1) & 2) are not hugely important but nice to have. For an historical scenario they go up in importance.

3) 2D map all the way. I will get to see plenty of 3D views once things start. I need some way of orienting myself. In the real world I would use a map for that. Same here please.

4) Too long is an issue but focus on what we need to know and don't worry too much about length. If this is an historical scenario then some background to the real battle is needed. Even a fictitious scenario should have some kind of back story. We need to know *what* to do but not *how* to do it. The objectives should be clear. I like the built in scenario standard of including the objective list in the operational graphic and the reinforcement list in the tactical map. But those things should also be talked about in the briefing as well.

5) Having something unique is nice here. That makes it easier to differentiate it from other scenarios.

The other really important thing to get in there is how the scenario is designed to be played, H2H or only one side or the other against the AI. That information is even better seen up front on the scenario picking screen.

The designer's notes section is a nice place to add references to any research you have from building the scenario. That way if any one wants to learn more has a place to start.

[Erwin]

1. How important is the strategic map image?

While it's nice to see a historical context, it doesn't aid gameplay of the scenario at all, so not important. For those who want a historical context, the designer could simply add some links to articles for example. That way, those who what to, can read/research all they want without the designer having to use his valuable game design time writing a historical summary.

2. How important is the operational map image?

Same remarks as for 1).

3. For the tactical map, do you prefer a 2D style or a 3D in-game screen-shot type?

Much prefer a 2D map with objectives and VP's clearly marked. "Assault Arrows" or instructions as to how to proceed should be limited if any at all, as that should be entirely up to the player.

4. For the briefing text, what are turn-offs? Like perhaps too much wordiness or trying to tell you what to do?

An overall brief instruction of "today's objectives" is all that is needed. I really dislike detailed instructions as to what to do, or how to do it. That feels like someone else is playing the game, and I am merely implementing other people's instructions. If the scenario doesn't work if one doesn't do what one is told to do, then that is a problem with the scenario. (The exception is when it's a "training scenario" designed to teach a specific lesson.)

5. What about the image you see as you first scroll through the scenarios? Is that important to set the mood or just indicate what side you might be fighting on?

The image of the number of soldiers is helpful in selecting what size of scenario I want to play, but any other image is ignored.

Additional items:

A) Some designers make the reinforcement schedule confusing with long lists of units in military jargon that is really a waste of precious design time in game terms . All we need to know to play your scenario is a) the basic reinforcements and arrival schedule as in "A formation of X Panthers will arrive in approx Y minutes". If desired, company or battalion designations could be left to an index at the end so players are not forced to read through tons of jargon to figure out what is going to be happening.

Have also seen scenario briefings which decribe in excruciating detail the "personalities" of officers in the scenario as if this was a role-playing game. This is also a waste of time, irrelevant and confusing. We can see the officer attributes ourselves and make our own conclusions re their "personality" if we want.

C) Please make your units as individualistic as possible. Nearly all CM2 scenarios seem to have HQ's and units with exactly the same attributes and ammo loads. This is a big backwards step from CM1 in which HQ and other units were often quite different from each other and this gave them "personality" and improved players' immersion in your scenario. As in RL, not everyone is the same. Randomness, uniqueness is great for improving verisimilitude and game immersion.

Wish list: I wish that the game allowed for a brief paragraph description, plus perhaps the briefing map when one first clicks on a scenario so one can decide if one wants to play it BEFORE one spends a minute or so loading it and only then reading the full briefing.

A way to increase size of text and UI for those with high def monitors would be very helpful. (Of course I guess that is not up to the designers.)

Great questions btw. Hope this helps.

[Paulverisor64]

The briefings as is for the most part do a good job of describing and displaying the scenario.

I do wish for 2 things.

1) Larger text size to be easier on the eyes (widescreen scaling issue)

2) Description in each scenario of which side is the most difficult to play.

[Ithikial_AU]

1 & 2) For historical and/or Campaign scenarios it's a big help. Good to know exactly where I am fighting relative to other battles.

3) 2D

4) Telling me exactly how to play the scenario. Let me find out the hard way.

5) One of the maps would be good or failing that a historical pic of 'my forces.'

[agusto]

1. How important is the strategic map image?

2. How important is the operational map image?

3. For the tactical map, do you prefer a 2D style or a 3D in-game screen-shot type?

4. For the briefing text, what are turn-offs? Like perhaps too much wordiness or trying to tell you what to do?

5. What about the image you see as you first scroll through the scenarios? Is that important to set the mood or just indicate what side you might be fighting on?

1. Only important if the mission is part of a campaign.

2. Only important if the mission is part of a campaign.

3. I prefer 2D. 3D is ok though as long as it shows all relevant areas of the map.

4. Absolute turn offs: Inaccurate info on what the missions goals are, what my forces are or when they will arrive. If it is unclear if or when reinforcements will arrive, this should be clearly stated.

I dont like inaccurate or misleading info except the inaccuracy or misleadingnes is part of the scenario due to lack of reconnaisance, for example.

I do like a "basic plan" in the breifing if it contains groggy tactical tips i probably would not have thought of myself. On the other hand, the basic plan should not be to detailed though.

5. To me, this not relevant. It should be nice to look at. I almost always load the scenario briefig before i decide if i play it or not. The short description in the sceario selection menu should though contain as much info as possible. about terrain and involved forces.

[Badger73]

I just wanted to gather some thoughts from others on what people like best for briefings.

I am trying to improve the quality of my briefings for some scenarios I am working on.

1. How important is the strategic map image?

2. How important is the operational map image?

3. For the tactical map, do you prefer a 2D style or a 3D in-game screen-shot type?

4. For the briefing text, what are turn-offs? Like perhaps too much wordiness or trying to tell you what to do?

5. What about the image you see as you first scroll through the scenarios? Is that important to set the mood or just indicate what side you might be fighting on?

Thanks for any folks who have the time to share some thoughts on this subject.

You can answer only some of the questions if you like or just make certain statements, no problemo.

@kohlenklau

These are great questions for designers to consider. To me, the briefing creates a player's first impressions. The more succinct and well constructed the briefing, the better that first impression. More importantly, the better the briefing, the better players will be oriented when they play. Bad briefings produce a confused gaming experience. So, here are my opinions.

1. How important is the strategic map image?

Its nice to have but not important of itself. Its a kind of appetizer before the main course. It should be legible and accurate to the scenario.

2. How important is the operational map image?

More important that the strategic one. It provides the sense of where and when for game play purposes. Operational Maps that designate the units inolved are a game-aid for players who like to use the uniform mods with unit patches/flashes.

3. For the tactical map, do you prefer a 2D style or a 3D in-game screen-shot type?

I prefer the 2D style. Its more like what my historical counterpart (the Second World War sergeant, lieutenant, captain, or major commanding) would have used to prepare for battle and plan his deployments. I very much liked the tactical maps in the mods, "At Another Crossroads" and "Gegenangriff Auf Huegel".

4. For the briefing text, what are turn-offs? Like perhaps too much wordiness or trying to tell you what to do?

Conversational briefing turn me off completely. I'm so put off by them that I have to overcome the real prejudice of wondering whether a designer who can't write a sensible briefing likely can't design a scenario worth my while to play. "At Another Crossroads" includes an instruction saying, "that poor excuse of a hill"; an imprecise reference that confused me (my only complaint with a scenario I otherwise highly regard).

My favorite briefings mimic the US/NATO five paragraph operations order comprising:

a) Situation

Mission

c) Friendly forces / enemy forces

d) Concept of the operation

e) Command & Signal / Command & Control

Briefing text turn-ons for me are those which apply sound military science.

5. What about the image you see as you first scroll through the scenarios? Is that important to set the mood or just indicate what side you might be fighting on?

Its not important in and of itself but good ones really leave a positive impression. The more it captures the feel of the game the better I like it. Consider it another kind of appetizer before relishing the main dish.

For me #1, #2, and #5 can be mediocre and I don't mind. #3 helps me orient myself and better get my head into the game. #4 matters most and annoys me most when poorly done. Good luck and good gaming!

[Ranger33]

My #1 pet peeve in campaign mission briefings is when the briefing doesn't make it clear whether artillery assets for this mission will carry over to other missions or not.

[Erwin]

+1 re campaign briefings issues. IIRC players don't get to see the campaign briefing after a scenario starts, so designers, plz be sure to include important info in each scenario briefing. eg: Replacements, ammo resupply levels, arty availability and resupply between scenarios etc.

[agusto]

+1 re campaign briefings issues. IIRC players don't get to see the campaign briefing after a scenario starts, so designers, plz be sure to include important info in each scenario briefing. eg: Replacements, ammo resupply levels, arty availability and resupply between scenarios etc.

+1 to that.

[MikeyD]

Whenever I've written a briefing I've set it aside for awhile, then gone back and edited it down some - then edited it down again, and again, and again. Orders briefings aren't meant to be doctoral dissertations, but it does help to at least convey what's at stake in a battle. Its not a generic hill but a specific hill at a specific date hill overlooking a vital instersection, or a beach head, or something like that. Without the backstory the scenario's just a pre-made QB.

[Ranger33]

Whenever I've written a briefing I've set it aside for awhile, then gone back and edited it down some - then edited it down again, and again, and again. Orders briefings aren't meant to be doctoral dissertations, but it does help to at least convey what's at stake in a battle. Its not a generic hill but a specific hill at a specific date hill overlooking a vital instersection, or a beach head, or something like that. Without the backstory the scenario's just a pre-made QB.

I definitely like a good story to go along with any scenario, it adds a lot of flavor to things. I think that explains why campaigns like Devil's Descent or the German one in the CW module are so popular. You actually see your units as unique entities with their own little stories, instead of just "Infantry Company #2 attacks generic enemy position."

[Erwin]

The biggest issue with identifying with units re their "backstory" is that most CM2 designers let all the units be default identical (other than their names).

Flavor would be even more enhanced if the units had significant differences in their characteristics/bonuses etc. Then one would better care about a particular officer etc.

[kohlenklau]

I guess I will take my own survey:

1. Strategic map: IMHO I think this is kind of low value for CMFI and CMBN.

Maybe later in CM2 East Front you will see where on the overall Russian Front you are fighting but still it is kind of goofy to see the little box within the Cotentin Peninsula or Island of Sicily. For my new campaign WIP I put in another image to say that I made the scenario, maybe that is even goofier?

Hey, maybe Battlefront could rent this space out for advertisements to raise extra cash for hiring a 3rd programmer!

2. Operational Map: so far to my lesser trained eye it always seems just like a different scale version of the tactical map. I am not a command and staff college graduate so maybe I just don't appreciate it yet. maybe soon I will.

3. I guess a 2D map is what the real guys used. I am now looking for US Army style topographic maps that I might somehow photoshop to make it really cool with handwritten looking arrows like you are out in the field. I'm no ARIS so we'll see. I like the boardgame style counters too. When someone does an awesome job at their tactical map it almost gives me a woody. Am I allowed to say that here?

4. Well, for the briefing when I have to try and do one this is like the term paper due in a month, then in a week, then in a few days and then IT IS DUE TOMORROW!! What a drag. I also do it in stages and refine it. Maybe my only published one would rate badly based on some of what you guys said. It was a narrative backstory type for CMFI "Salvate il Maggiore Rinetti" and it was kind of vague to show the short notice nature of the whole situation. I have studied the 5 part frag order but some of the stock scenario briefings are kind of dry. Doesn't get you too psyched to play the scenario. Meh

5. Scenario selection screen image. I guess this is mostly eye candy to wet your appetite. Definitely the little blurb below it should say the stuff about "best as Human Allies vs Axis AI or balanced for H2H play."

I sincerely appreciate all your feedback and am rolling it into my best effort to make a great campaign.

[agusto]

Something i really did like in campaigns was the ability to make off-map decisions. I guess lots of you people played the Devils Descent campaign. In that campaign, you can for example decide if you want to attack a village either by night with a half strengh company or wait for the rest of the company to arrive and attack in the morning, trading the moment of surprise for additional forces. The same guy who made Devils Descent also made a bunch of other campaigns and they all have the feature of off-map decisions. Damn, i cant recall his name....however i loved his campaigns and that off-map decision feature, really well done!

[Holman]

1. How important is the strategic map image?

This is useful for setting the stage, but not terribly important.

2. How important is the operational map image?

Much more important. CMx2 scenarios tend to feel generic without a clearly-indicated operational context.

3. For the tactical map, do you prefer a 2D style or a 3D in-game screen-shot type?

2D is fine, 3D is fine, so long as it is done well. The worst options are (1) a sloppy, cartoonish 2D map or (2) a 3D map that only shows a small portion of the battlefield (and thus is no good for orientation).

4. For the briefing text, what are turn-offs? Like perhaps too much wordiness or trying to tell you what to do?

A standard template is useful--I always miss the portions that some people leave out.

My biggest turn-off is having to read six or eight pages of operational history before I even get to the scenario. If I'm playing CMBN, you don't have to give me a pocket history of the Normandy campaign. I already know it, and the briefing screen is a poor format for it. Include a Word file with the scenario download if you must, but don't overload the briefing with background.

Also, unless you're actually a talented writer, don't try to write short stories or long swaths of flavor text.

5. What about the image you see as you first scroll through the scenarios? Is that important to set the mood or just indicate what side you might be fighting on?

Mood-setting is good! It's a book cover and sets a tone.

Extra: Always always always indicate up front whether a scenario is multiplayer-only, solitaire-only, or both. Don't make the player load the scenario to learn this.

[Highlander Recce]

@kohlenklau

These are great questions for designers to consider. To me, the briefing creates a player's first impressions. The more succinct and well constructed the briefing, the better that first impression. More importantly, the better the briefing, the better players will be oriented when they play. Bad briefings produce a confused gaming experience. So, here are my opinions.

1. How important is the strategic map image?

Its nice to have but not important of itself. Its a kind of appetizer before the main course. It should be legible and accurate to the scenario.

2. How important is the operational map image?

More important that the strategic one. It provides the sense of where and when for game play purposes. Operational Maps that designate the units inolved are a game-aid for players who like to use the uniform mods with unit patches/flashes.

3. For the tactical map, do you prefer a 2D style or a 3D in-game screen-shot type?

I prefer the 2D style. Its more like what my historical counterpart (the Second World War sergeant, lieutenant, captain, or major commanding) would have used to prepare for battle and plan his deployments. I very much liked the tactical maps in the mods, "At Another Crossroads" and "Gegenangriff Auf Huegel".

4. For the briefing text, what are turn-offs? Like perhaps too much wordiness or trying to tell you what to do?

Conversational briefing turn me off completely. I'm so put off by them that I have to overcome the real prejudice of wondering whether a designer who can't write a sensible briefing likely can't design a scenario worth my while to play. "At Another Crossroads" includes an instruction saying, "that poor excuse of a hill"; an imprecise reference that confused me (my only complaint with a scenario I otherwise highly regard).

My favorite briefings mimic the US/NATO five paragraph operations order comprising:

a) Situation

Mission

c) Friendly forces / enemy forces

d) Concept of the operation

e) Command & Signal / Command & Control

Briefing text turn-ons for me are those which apply sound military science.

5. What about the image you see as you first scroll through the scenarios? Is that important to set the mood or just indicate what side you might be fighting on?

Its not important in and of itself but good ones really leave a positive impression. The more it captures the feel of the game the better I like it. Consider it another kind of appetizer before relishing the main dish.

For me #1, #2, and #5 can be mediocre and I don't mind. #3 helps me orient myself and better get my head into the game. #4 matters most and annoys me most when poorly done. Good luck and good gaming!

Badger73 has it bang on as far as I'm concerned.

[Erwin]

"Something i really did like in campaigns was the ability to make off-map decisions."

"My biggest turn-off is having to read six or eight pages of operational history before I even get to the scenario."

+1 to both.

[kohlenklau]

What do you all think? (tactical map 952 x 350 bitmap image.)

I used an ebay actual WW2 map to try and duplicate the fonts.

Work in progress, totally my 1st go in paint.NET as a total amateur.

Topo lines not actual yet. forgot the bridge, need to study what they really looked like. I want both a cool eyecandy thing as well as useful to the player.

balance between those 2 worlds.

[kohlenklau]

A few more tweaks, how does it look?

These are the scale maps that the WW2 soldiers used, correct?

[MikeyD]

VERY classy! I really like the "You're seeing what the G.I. getting his orders is seeing" look of the thing

[Badger73]

VERY classy! I really like the "You're seeing what the G.I. getting his orders is seeing" look of the thing

Me too. This technique works for me but I would like to see how you show unit positions, phase lines, and objectives before saying more.

[agusto]

A few more tweaks, how does it look?

That looks good, really immersive. If you have Photoshop or a similar programm (like Artweavers free demo version) you could load an actual image (screenshot or a picture of google maps) of the map into the programm as background and draw the topo lines on a partially transparent overlay. Then delete the background, make the overlay intrasnparent and save as bmp. This way you can get more accurat topo lines than with MS paint, i guess.

[kohlenklau]

Thanks for the encouraging words fellas.

I am using paint.NET and am learning to manipulate layers as we speak.

I guess this was from a map that I created and I never yet used the topo overlay tool.

I usually just custom create. I now clearly see the value of that new overlay feature Because just as agusto said it helps get the topo perfect.

I made my topo lines by laying curvy controllable lines on same elevation values on a screenshot of the elevation numbers map from the scenario editor. Last time I do it that way.

@badger 73. You are right. How do I show the objectives or other player expected items? Maybe I need to create some new icons or better yet utilize existing army symbology or WW2 versions. I think it is solvable.