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

[kohlenklau]

it is no biggie. you are welcome in advance and btw how are the snow mods coming along this weekend?

I am finally learning to do SOMETHING useful with paint.NET. I know there are other free similar softwares out there...my goal now is to have a backdrop format which the scenario author then pastes a scaled topo map on to and pastes a typed objectives list image on to as well. Then it saves it as a bmp and plugs it into his scenario.

something like this

The tac map format is horizontal so a vertically sized map has to be so small to fit in there or you can do what I think is a goofy thing, which you see in some of the stock scenarios, where north is to the left. Maybe they can make the tac map format a square shape where you can have some flexibility. Or free form the entire thing like the other thread was discussing and allow html for briefings rather than the wall of words.

[Vinnart]

I would say I prefer a top down TAC map with graphics such that Normaldude has up at the repository. Icons of known enemy postions if there is intelligence, movement arrows ect..

[kohlenklau]

Vinnart,

Those with the boardgame die-cut counter? I like that style also.

If you have one handy in your mind, can you kindly tell me a specific scenario that did a great briefing using that style. Thanks.

It is good to have different styles.

I am thinking and thus putting in some effort that this topo old style will go well with my style scenarios/campaigns. tiny,small, only vs AI, storyline type. we'll see

[Seedorf81]

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.

Couldn't agree more.

[kohlenklau]

so, before you look at the below example tactical map, you are also reading the briefing so combined there should be either a successful effect or not.

This particular scenario is about an allied armored patrol headed north through this town when they triggered a German ambush, the blue arrow is not telling you what to do, Got it?

[mjkerner]

it is no biggie. you are welcome in advance and btw how are the snow mods coming along this weekend?

Lol, not as well as your briefing is, I dare say!

[Paper Tiger]

Very nice work there, sir. I think you've got a very good look there.

However, in response to your earlier survey, I'd have to go completely against the tide of public opinion (surprise surprise) and say that I think almost everything is unimportant. It's like a book and it's cover. It's the actual story, i.e. gameplay, that matters to me and I want to get to it as fast as possible.

The briefing is the most important feature there. Since I design campaigns and not stand-alones, I feel it is necessary to stitch the campaign missions together with some sort of coherent narrative. I've received lots of criticism for making my briefings too wordy in the past but I think it's easy enough to find all the important information, such as very detailed reinforcement schedules in my briefings. (Message received about artillery assets shared between missions though )

For the future, I see me using unit badges in place of strat maps, a black-and-white, in-game action screenshot with the objectives in the margins for the operational map, and no tac map. (If you don't include one, there's no tab so you don't miss it.) I do all of my planning during the set-up phase of the mission. I can explore the map and terrain in much more detail than any tac map could possibly allow and, assuming that the scenario designer allows the player to see them, I can see the objectives clearly marked on the map. (I switch them off, as well as landmarks while I'm playing.) By including the point value in the Objective text, you can provide the player with even more in-game info that he can toggle with Alt-J

[Gekkibi]

I hope I'm not too late. Here are my 0.02€:

1. How important is the strategic map image?

- If a campaign, pretty important. I'd like to know the overall progress of the campaign.

- If a battle, not very important. I can always read the current situation.

2. How important is the operational map image?

- Always very important. Sure, I can always close the briefing and check the actual battlescape, but usually it's better if I first familiarize myself with a simple 2D map while reading the briefing.

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

- 2D, no exceptions! Tactical map should also show available artillery assets, incoming reinforcements, known enemy locations and objectives. What I don't like when the tactical map shows me what I should do or what the AI will/might do.

In a nutshell: 2D map containing objectives, intel, own troops and available assets. Nothing more. In my opinion 3D maps are pointless because you can only show limited area of the battlefield, and you can always look a 3D view of the battlefield by exiting the briefing.

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

- Commander's intent is always a welcome addition, but it shouldn't be exactly what the player should 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?

- To be honest I usually pick the scenario just by looking at the pictures...

[kohlenklau]

papertiger, thanks for your kind words.

I feel more on your lines though my completed and published works are so far very limited.

I personally like a narrative briefing as a backstory element. I have also replaced the strat map with an image, as well as the op map with a collage of images to try and add atmosphere to the briefing.

This tac map project is so far a fun learning experience but again it might be looked at for how many seconds by the player before he hits the button and goes right to the gameplay?

Great idea about points values in the gamescreen text for the objective name. Thanks.

I will put "Where all the Glory lies" on my to play list. I don't have CMSF.

[Vinnart]

Vinnart,

Those with the boardgame die-cut counter? I like that style also.

If you have one handy in your mind, can you kindly tell me a specific scenario that did a great briefing using that style. Thanks.

Here is one by Normaldude that is the type I like best. Top down showing the terrain, enemy positions and type if known. Other than that I mainly look at the objectives, and reinforments on this screen. If I want a more detailed TAC map I use the actual battlemap zoomed out in a top down view. I don't spend much time on this screen only picking up the info i mention above.

[kohlenklau]

That is a nice one.

"she's a real corker."

East-west oriented battles go real well with the tac map format.

[agusto]

Vinnart, that pic reminded me of something. Lately i have been playing shock force, and i really find that CMBN and CMFI style briefings like the one you posted are much comfortable than the ones in CMSF.

[Vinnart]

Yes Agusto, The briefings have been improved since CMSF. They are clearer visualy, easier to understand, and easier to read.

As far as putting much time into the TAC map screen I wouldn't worry about it too much. The TAC maps really are not very useful beyond telling of objectives, reinforcments, and the occasional intel on enemy. The maps are too small, and one gets more from seeing the actual map from above. Does BF need to put more into it? I don't think so. I think the Normaldude aproach like I posted is just fine.I made an interactive one recently in photoshop for a battle, and found I didn't even use it. It was just something cool I thought I would need, but did not.

[kohlenklau]

Maybe that is why a lot of folks love the quick battles because it just gets right to the combat action.

At this point I have some work invested so I will probably use this old style topo tacmap for my campaign WIP, "Sauvignon Sahara".

I appreciate everybody's comments and wish you all happy gaming.