A small question/suggestion regarding scenario design

[Glubokii Boy]

Hello.

I've been thinking about something with regards to scenarios with multiple AI-plans and playability from both sides...

Instead of making multiple AI-plans in a single scenario perhaps an option for replayability could be to make several variants of the same scenario.

This would give the scenario-designer some more variety in how to design the scenario i belive.

If i understand this correctly the way it works with multiple AI-plans is that it gives the designer the option to have the AI move its forces in a slightly different way once the battle start but not much more.

If the scenario-designer instead made several variants of the same scenario he could alter the following things to name a few:

1. the starting strenth for both the player and the AI forces

2. the set-up for both the player and the AI forces

3. Avaliable reinforcements for both the player and AI

4. the weather

5. game time

6. Alter the scenario in a required way to make it playable for both sides

1. The designer could give both the player and AI some slightly different units to play with. Perhaps add a tank platoon, use different armour, add artillery support, give the defenders some AT-guns etc,etc..

In a scenario that uses multiple AI-plans the basic forces will be more or less the same. Pretty much the only thing that changes is the way the AI moves.

2. Having multiple variants of the same scenario will allow the designer to possition the troops in an entirely different way. Change the possition of the enemy AT-guns, change possition of minefields, chenge the infantry set-up etc.etc...

In a scenario that uses multiple AI-plans the set-up remains the same if i'm not misstaking.

3. With multiple variants of the mission the designer could alter the difficulty of the mission. To give the player an option to play a slightly easier version of the scenario the designer could make a variant with player reinforcements showing up and at the same time have some other alterations to the scenario...ie different setup, slightly different defensive forces etc. etc...

In the same manner he could also make the scenario more difficult by giving the AI some reinforcements. In a scenario with multiple AI-plans the reinforcements does not change if i understand this right.

4. If the designer wanted to he could alter the weather for different versions of the scenario.

5. He could also alter the game-time to make it easier or more difficult.

6. Many scenarios are playable from both sides but i belive that it is somewhat difficult to balance the scenario so that it will play out well both with a human player and the AI controlling one side.

With several variants of the same mission the designer could make the nessesary tweaking to the forces to make it play out better regardless of wich side the human player decides to play.

Making multiple versions of the same scenario might require a little bit more time then simply adding multiple AI-plans but i don't think that it will require that terribly much more time when considering how long time a new scenario takes to do.

What are you guys oppinion on this ?

[PanzerMike]

You raise a good point. Especially 6. It is hard to find the right balance. Often you feel the urge to give the AI players some extra forces to compensate for it's shortcomings. But only for the AI player, otherwise H2H balance will be affected.

But presenting a player with a hard or easy version of a scenario is a nice idea also. Not just multiple AI plans, but also multiple OOB's.

It would be nice if all this could be accommodated WITHIN a scenario, instead of developing multiple versions of a scenario. I fear things will become quite cluttered otherwise.

Ow, and you CAN have multiple setups in a scenario right now. You can place the forces on the map, that is the default setup. After that you can change their setup position in an AI plan (by using the yellow setup zones). It is not very friendly to use though, and a lot of work of you want alternate setup zones for all the forces on the map. I usually only have multiple setup positions for some key assets (like AT guns), but not for ALL forces.

[womble]

One of the largest investments in making a scenario is the playtesting. While playtesting additional variations wouldn't necessarily be as onerous as testing from scratch, as there are factors already known, the question is whether the additional work involved would be time better spent starting an entirely different scenario. The approach has its merits and has been used upon occasion to balance out a scenario originally intended to be vs AI so that the original AI side doesn't have an overwhelming advantage in HvH play.

[benpark]

In a scenario that uses multiple AI-plans the set-up remains the same if i'm not misstaking.

You could assign units to differing AI Groups and then have different start locations using the set up in the AI plan for that group. That allows you to have as many different start positions as there are AI plans. I generally use this for things like largely immobile units like AT guns. If the scenario is small enough, however you could have a high degree of variability in the start positions.

And yes- number 6 can complicate matters when making a scenario for HTH or playable from either side. It's an interesting challenge, and can make for a more fluid scenario (esp. with the AI Triggers) if done well.

[Badger73]

I concur with making multiple versions of the same scenario. To me, these are scenario variants or variant scenarios (whichever way you want to say). The abilities are are already in place when a designer wants to do this. You can always load all the seperate scenarios to the repository using variant Scenario names. To your point, players could then pick and chose the variants they prefer to play.

Prior playtesting is the thing. Separate Variants allow focused playtesting for each specific situation which makes pre-release playtesting easier. It really boils down to how many different ways the designer wants to approach things. An important point is that the scenario description do a good job of explaining the what the player should expect.

An Example:

• "Days of Awesomeness" August '44, Truscott's 6th Corps races to the Rhone.
  
• "Days of Awesomeness - Axis only"
  
• "Days of Awesomeness - Allies only"
  
• "Days of Awesomeness - Head-to-head"
  
• "Days of Awesomeness - in the Summer"
  
• "Days of Awesomeness - in the Rain"
  
• "Days of Awesomeness - Oh Dark Thirty"
  

Each scenario would state its particular take on the situation in August '44 as Truscott's 6th Corps races to the Rhone.

Good luck and good gaming.

[Glubokii Boy]

It would be nice if all this could be accommodated WITHIN a scenario, instead of developing multiple versions of a scenario. I fear things will become quite cluttered otherwise.

This would be the best for sure. Maybe in some future update of the basegame the scenario editor could be changed in the following way:

Instead of only being able to select DIFFERENT AI-PLANS in the AI-menu...

...We would be able to select SCENARIO VARIANT...

...The designer would enter a NAME for this variant in the editor...

...And for this VARIANT be abel to change the basic set-up on the DEPLOY- GERMAN/ALLIED map (the setup from the ORIGINAL (first) scenario could remain to allow the designer to only make some minor tweaking or to be cleared all togheter if the designer wants to).

...The designer should also be able to change the OOBs in the PURCHASE- GERMAN/ ALLIED screens (as with the set-up the ORIGINAL OOB could remain as an option to allow some small tweaking. Or be cleared)...

...Finally the designer should be allowed to change the reinforcements in a simular way...

...after that SAVE the VARIANT...

When a player starts the scenario he should be able to pick one of the variants from one of the pre-battle screens.

Something like this will most likely not be avaliable any time soon (if the community even wants it ..?)

That's why i suggested my idea with multiple scenarios (variants) on the same basic idea...

I don't think that it will need to be all that cluttered either.

We upload the files to the repository in ZIP, RAR files if i remember correctly. That meens that we could put all the variants in a FOLDER and upload that as a ZIP file. Could we not ? No need to upload every VARIANT seperatly.

This would keep the repository 'clean' and i honestly don't think that the SCENARIO SCREEN in the game would be all that cluttered either even if we get 3 or 4 files with simular names for many of the battles.

One of the largest investments in making a scenario is the playtesting.

I totally agree.

What i basically ment with this suggestion was that those scenario designers that are kind enough to give us scenarios with multiple AI-plans or scenarios that are playable from both sides could consider this.

Playtesting is for sure one of the most timeconsuming parts of scenario design but if they already have decided to make a scenario with multiple AI-plans they will need to test each of those AI-plans. Will they not ?

This is where my suggestion comes in.

If they already have to put aside time to test multiple AI-plans i don't think that it would require very much additional time to make some small tweakings to the basic set-up, add or remove some reinforcements, make some small changes to the starting forces etc,etc..

Comming up with a basic idea for the scenario, making the map, chosing the overall forces and deploying those, making the briefingscreens...These are the things that takes time. Making some small adjustments to these things to use in the 'scenario variants' should be comparably easy i think.

Afterall...Playtesting will still be needed with only multiple AI-plans also...

You could assign units to differing AI Groups and then have different start locations using the set up in the AI plan for that group.

Yes, you guys are right about this ! My misstake...

Badger 73

Yes, this could be one way to do it or another could be to upload all the files togheter in a folder as i mentioned above. The player can then remove any file that he does not want.

But like you mentioned. A good description of what will be included will be needed in the repository.

Atleast i think that to replay a scenario would be more fun if it could be some more variation to it with regards to starting troops, reinforcements and stuff like that...I don't think that it will need to be all that complicated to do...

Says one that have only made a few scenarios with only one AI-plan and only playable form one side...

[Jock Tamson]

I would love for the scenario designer to be able to offer the player a pool of units to choose from up to a certain total value. The designer would limit the pool to units that they felt wouldn't unbalance things.

[Combatintman]

Time to pitch in ...

In no particular order

Each good scenario requires a briefing - good briefings set the scene and give the player the information they need to stand a reasonable chance of succeeding. The moment you change a variable you need a new briefing. Suggested variables so far have been:

Variable unit selections.

Variable reinforcement arrival times.

Variable mission lengths.

Variable weather conditions.

Variable setup areas.

Each good scenario requires briefing graphics. The variables relevant here are:

Variable set up areas.

Variable unit selections.

Looking specifically at variable unit selections ... many scenario designers create victory conditions using the 'unit objective' tool in the editor. So the moment you start changing these you create more work. Also you create additional deployment considerations.

On to variable setup zones - many scenario designers offer choice by painting large setup zones so this facility exists in the editor. Others don't and others use a mix. I tend to use a mix and if I'm restricting unit placement there is a good design reason for doing so. Reasons include:

To closely replicate actual unit placement in a historical scenario.

To ensure that units are not placed in direct LOS of an enemy at game start.

Scenario length - this has been debated at ... if you forgive the pun ... length. When determining a scenario length, a designer may consider the following factors:

If historical, how long the action lasted.

An optimum length based on player feedback - many people have said on various forums for instance that they have limited gaming time and don't like scenarios longer than an hour.

How much time they and their testers can devote to testing and let's be clear about this - testing is painful so let's talk about that.

If you have a 2 hour mission, it is soul destroying to find out 1 hour 45 minutes into your test that something doesn't work. One of my CMSF missions of about 2 hours in length was tested in full about ten times with at least eight of those tests run because something wasn't quite right.

I have done a lot of testing on my own behalf and for others such as snake_eye PanzerMike and BF for both CMSF and CMRT and to do it right is more than a matter of firing up the scenario and hitting play. You need to make sure that:

The briefing and graphics are accurate.

The naming conventions of units and places is consistent and is reflected in the unit screen.

The VP allocation is right.

The force balance is right and that the force mix gives the player the tools to do the job.

That the mission can reasonably be accomplished in the time.

The map is good with no anomalies.

The setup is good and offers the player choices and does not put units in enemy LOS.

The gameplay, recording when things happen, how it affects the player, how the overall tempo is, how the arrival of reinforcements affects the player.

And more besides ...

So 'Coming up with a basic idea for the scenario, making the map, choosing the overall forces and deploying those, making the briefing screens...These are the things that takes time', while partially true is not the whole story by even a remote stretch of the imagination.

My case in point is that I have three CMRT scenarios in fairly advanced stages of design which I despair of ever releasing because they will not meet the standards I set myself for scenario design. For all of them:

The maps are all done.

The units are deployed.

The AI is programmed.

The objectives are set.

But as said - none of them feel right and none of them are as polished as I want them to be. Two are too large for many computers or are too long for the average player to devote the time to play them. The other just does not give the player many tactical options. So the upshot is that at least one of those is probably never going to see the light of day despite me spending at least a fortnight of my spare time on it.

I have two CMSF campaigns in very advanced stages of design and three scenarios in the same state. They consume a lot of my spare time and most of that is devoted to testing.

So the sum of all of the above is that once you start tooling around with mission lengths, force picks, unit set up and arrival times and weather, you open up whole cans of worms and workload for scenario designers which this one in particular is not prepared to tolerate.

[Pete Wenman]

^^^

Good post, and right on the money Carl !

P

[PanzerMike]

Good post Combatintman. If you go too far with all the variation in a scenario it will potentially become a nightmare to make. I do like the idea that the AI player can have some extra forces, but variability in Weather, Arrival times, Game time, etc. would be probably be too much.

Making a scenario, polishing it so that it is fit for general release (and not just for personal use) and playtesting is a very time consuming process as it is. With all the extra options the workload will probably become too great for many designers and playtesters.

You write you have 3 CMRT scenarios more or less finished sitting on the shelf, but you consider them not fit for release. Aren't you being a bit too hard on yourself? I have released 5 scenarios in the repository. They are maybe not all up to 100% BFC standard (playable in all modes, as all sides, with multiple AI plans, etc.). But they have been downloaded a few 1000 times thus far and many players seem to enjoy them a lot. Maybe you should consider releasing your puppies, despite the fact you are not confident they are up to par. Maybe just let the players be the judge of that

And thanks for playtesting my fruits of labour :cool:

[Glubokii Boy]

I'm affraid that i might not have been all that clear with expaining what i meen. My intension with this suggestion never was to ask the designers to make any major changes to their scenarios...

Like for example changing the defensive forces in a scenario from originaly being 2 panzergrenadier companies with a veteran Stug in support to 2 sapper platoons supported by flamethowers and AT-guns.

That would not be 'tweaking' of the original scenario in my oppinion. That would be a NEW scenario and might very well require an entirely new briefing and a complete remake of the OOB and unit objectives, etc,tec..

This never was my intension...

What i had in mind was something more like this:

Variant 1 - keep the 2 panzergrenadier companies but change the Stug to 2 AT-guns and perhaps make some minor changes to the setup of the 2 grenadier companies.

Variant 2 - keep the 2 panzergrenadier companies but change the veteran Stug to 2 green Pz IVs and perhaps make some minor changes to the setup of the 2 grenadier companies.

Variant 3 - keep the 2 panzergrenadier companies but change the veteran Stug to 2 green, regular Stugs and perhaps make some minor changes to the setup of the 2 grenadier companies.

Changes like these would not require any MAJOR changes to the briefing or the OOB i think. Almost everything about the briefingtext could remain the same with the exception to mention the likelyhood of enemy armour or AT-guns being in the area.

To make a slightly more difficult version of the scenario the designer could...

- keep the two panzergrenadier companies and the Stug and give the AI defender a small reinforcement in the form of a sapper platoon that arrives to help defend one of the major objectives maybe.

- keep the two panzergrenadier companies and give the defending AI maybe 2 (or 3) veteran Stugs instead of 1.

- Instead of giving the attacking PLAYER a full tank platoon in support (original scenario) to his infantry the designer could perhaps remove 1 or 2 of those tanks to make it a little harder.

To make the scenario a little more easy to play the designer could...

- Keep most things as they are but give the player a mortar platoon in support

- give the player slightly more armour (maybe 6 tanks instead of 4)

- change the type or experience of some of the players tanks or change the experience, motivation of the infantry.

- give the player a small reinforcement but keep most other things as is.

Makeing 'small' changes like these should not require any major remake of the briefing text or OOB either i think.

But i agree that if the desiger would have to make some changes to the briefing graphics to show the likely arrival of enemy reinforcements or the likely possition of enemy armour for example that could take some considerable time.

Playtesting these variants will offcourse take time but as i mentioned before i don't think that it would take very much more time to playtest these then it would take to playtest additional AI-plans. Maybe a little more but not all that much...

I'm sorry if i'm sounding ungreatful for the scenarios being made. That is not my intension...and i'm not.

Most of the scenarios posted at the repository and included in the modules are very good and i do understand that alot of work has gone into them.

My oppinions may well be 'way off'...I'm not close to have the same experience with scenario design as you guys do but i thought that this might be a suggestion worth mentioning.

I think it would increase the FOW when replaying a scenario if you don't know that the enemy WILL HAVE 2 tigers or 3 AT-guns for example (they had it in your first attempt at the scenario). If you know that you know that you have knocked out the enemies major assets once those targets are detroyed.

Being supprised by a few AT guns and a Stug instead of a Tiger in your second try would be...NICE ! i think...

Once again...Thanks for your work on the scenarios, guys !

[George MC]

It all comes down to playtesting. That's the crunch.

Every iteration or tweak of a scenario would require testing. Then tweaking on the basis of the playtesting - so there's more time - this time the designers.

Doesn't matter which way you cut it that's what it comes down to I'm afraid - time. TBH from my own POV I design scenarios I like to play pure and simple. Now this might be because of a situation that intrigues me, or a historical situation I'm interested in. If others enjoy playing them - that's great. I truly appreciate the help I receive from people who gladly give up their spare game time to help test my designs, or those who take the time to send me their feedback or post it at the repository.

But when it comes down to it my interest is in the situation not necessarily to make a scenario replayable however many times. TBH I reckon most players will only play something once anyways, then move on. Anyway what you are describing could be done in QBs anyways - just keep a note of what you bought, settings etc then just keep redoing and tweaking...

[snake_eye]

I fully agree with Combatintman very acute comments

[Frankster65]

This is a great thread. Been working on my first two missions, little by little and all this advice helps.

[Glubokii Boy]

If you have a 2 hour mission, it is soul destroying to find out 1 hour 45 minutes into your test that something doesn't work. One of my CMSF missions of about 2 hours in length was tested in full about ten times with at least eight of those tests run because something wasn't quite right.

This might not be something that is particulary relevant to my original suggestion in this thread but i thought i might mention it if some of you maybe would find it a good idea...

What i think the designer can do to help with playtesting long scenarios (maybe 2 hours long) is the following...

Devide the testing up in segments.

I belive that many of the longer scenarios will usually be devided up in a number of distinct 'chapters'.

Like this for example:

turn 1-30 probing the enemy defences

turn 31-60 first attack

turn 61-90 defeating enemy counterattack

turn 90-120 After recieving reinforcements. Final attack. mopping up.

Playtest the first or maybe the two first chapters until you are satisfied with how they play out.

After that load the scenario into the editor and edit the original OOB to reflect casualties taken on both sides and then edit the unit possitions on the map. Both friendly and enemy to resemble the ending situation in your playtest of the first or two first chapters.

Save this scenario under a slightly different name (scenarioname part2 or something)

Start this scenario and fastclick the playbutton until you reach the time of the next chapter and start playtesting from there.

If you find something that does not seem to work very well in this the next chapter go into the editor and make some changes and save it.

Doing this you can start playtesting your changes to the new chapter without having to play the first part of the scenario over and over again.

Once you are happy with the way this new chapter plays out. Edit the original scenario in a simular way.

Next. Do this again. Load up the the scenario with the chapter you have just playtested and edit the OOB and mappossitions to resemble the result of the last playtest and save it under 'scenarioname part 3'

Now you might be able to playtest the final part of the scenario by simply fastclicking until you reach the last chapter and playtest from there.

If there is something not playing out well in the final part go into the editor and tweak it. Save it and start testplaying this new final part of the scenario without having to play through the entire scenario to get here.

when happy. Edit the original scenario in a simular way and save it.

Editing the scenario in this way will obviously take some time but i think it is way faster then having to replay the entire scenario over and over again.

It might not be the most accurate kind of playtesting but i think it will be close enough and speed up testing of long scenarios quite abit.

You could always make one final playthough of the whole thing to make a final test.

[Combatintman]

RepsolCBR - we are going to have to agree to disagree - even the 'small' changes you suggest require lots of work and all of them require changes to briefings. Take the excellent AAR thread of PanzerMike's Fester Platz Polozk scenario you are working on as an example (which I am enjoying very much as well by the way - thank you for posting this).

Taking just one element of that scenario (which incidentally I did some very basic testing on), how useful is your Hetzer compared to the two infantry guns in the German force? Let's say there was a variant of this scenario which had 3 infantry guns instead of 2 infantry guns and a Hetzer - how does that 'small' change alter the balance of that battle and how much testing and tweaking do you think that would require on PanzerMike's part?

A (if you forgive the pun) variation on the theme of 'minor' changes is the unit objective VP values. I would expect the destruction of any armoured vehicle to have VP implications. So if these are a consideration your ATG would be worth 5 VPs, a STUG 10 VPs and a PZIV 15 VPs. Once you start mucking about with those, you have to change the rest of your VP balance. This is not a simple case of 'making the numbers work'. As a player, I expect the VPs that I earn to be relative to the effort or difficulty of earning them. Giving me 100 VPs to capture an undefended bridge is fine in isolation but not when I only get 100 VPs to clear a heavily defended village in the same scenario.

On to your suggestion of breaking tests into segments - there is some merit in it but not much I'm afraid.

My approximately 2 hour long CMSF scenario (CIMIC House) that took ten tests was tested incrementally so there were actually more than ten tests. The ten tests I mentioned were full playthroughs. Although memory is a bit fuzzy I tested:

Resupply force battle for the 1st bridge approaches.

Resupply force battle for the 1st bridge crossing.

Resupply force battle for the LH corner of the map.

Resupply force battle for the 2nd bridge crossing.

CIMIC House defenders battle for CIMIC House.

CIMIC House defenders battle for the Pink Palace.

CIMIC House defenders breakout force attack to link up with the resupply force.

This was not quite done in the manner you suggest because, funnily enough it adds workload, but at each stage I had to review what had happened and decide:

Is it right?

Does the player have options?

Are the force ratios right?

Are the casualties right?

Is the time elapsed right?

Remember, even if you get it 'right' first time, you have to play it at the 'right' setting at least a couple more times just to ensure that you are getting an 'average' result. Even once that's done, if you give it to others to test there will be things that you haven't even considered. Designers who have been kind enough to let me loose to test their stuff I'm sure will agree that I have played their scenarios in ways that they never expected. So that is more feedback to incorporate and test.

And then of course ... if you haven't got it right you have to reset, make the changes and start again. In the CMSF example above, it took me at least three attempts to get the Blue/Red force ratios, AI behaviour and reinforcement timings right for the Resupply force battle for the 1st bridge crossing segment. The battle for the second bridge crossing required me to rethink Blue force ratios and Offensive support allocations and change the Red AI plans which again took about 3 testing iterations.

When I look back at CMRT testing - there were at least half a dozen fairly workable scenarios which had been very well put together which didn't make the cut because they were either going to be too difficult to change or were not got going to work within the criteria imposed.

So - this is not an easy thing to do and to go back to my CMSF CIMIC House scenario, I still don't think it is completely right. There is a bug (reported) that gives no credit for Red occupy objectives, the insurgent enemy is way too large to be an accurate representation of the forces involved on that day and I could not for the life of me get the VPs to balance how I wanted them to. However I judged it 'good enough' for release and people have been kind enough to say that they enjoyed playing it which was one of the reasons that I thought it would be acceptable to release.

[JonS]

To provide a counterpoint to what seems like a highly theoretical discussion; I’ve actually attempted to do this.

Some time ago, towards the end of the CMSF cycle of modules, I started creating what I intended to be a series of scenarios, along the lines being discussed here. The central big idea was to have a look at reverse slope defence. The human player would have to attack a well established position that exploited reverse slope to nullify the Blue (US/USMC/UK/NATO) advantage in raw firepower and ranged surveillance and weapons. My intent was that the same enemy position would be attacked by one of each of the different types of battalion available in the editor. It was only ever going to be Blue vs the AI (preferred mode) or H2H.

Simple, right? Set up the defence, get a working AI, then just swap out the friendly forces. Et voila! A dozen different scenarios!

Well, no. I only ever finished one iteration of it. Among other many other things, the different friendly force battalions have vastly different capabilities which means that sending them all against the same opposition is nonsensical. There was also the rewriting and redrawing required for the briefings – on *both* sides, because the briefing should give the Red player useful and accurate information about what’s coming, not just some uselessly generic “here be dragons” piffle. Then there’s the sheer grunt work involved in laying out the Blue forces in a somewhat coherent fashion in the SUZ. Plus some testing. Then I’d notice something on the map I wasn’t happy with, and change it … which meant going back and changing all the other maps. The looping back to rework scenarios I thought I’d already finished with seemed endless. In the end I got sick of it all and ultimately bored of the whole concept. I finished one, and abandoned the rest.

In the abstract, Repsol is correct: it is theoretically possible to make a series of related scenarios with less effort than making a bunch of wholly independent scenarios.

In practice, Combatintman is more correct: it is still a *lot* more work than you would think.

2c from someone who’s actually tried to do this

Jon

P.S. FWIW, I think the finished one is in the repository. If it is, it’ll probably be in CMSF -> UK, under the title “Reverse Slope Defence”, or sumfink.

[Glubokii Boy]

RepsolCBR - we are going to have to agree to disagree

I don't really think we have to do that. I consider myself defeated !

Not only you but many other of the most experienced scenario desigers have comented in this thread and they all agree with you.

Things are obviously not as simple as i thought. It was a nice idea but i take your word for it that something like this is not that 'easy' to do as i hoped it would be.

Take the excellent AAR thread of PanzerMike's Fester Platz Polozk scenario you are working on as an example (which I am enjoying very much as well by the way - thank you for posting this).

Glad you like it ...and thanks for your help with making the scenario...

[PanzerMike]

No defeat, Repsol. Only winners, good discussion.

There is one more thing I would like to mention. The scenarios I make and put up in the repository are playtested, for sure. But probably not as elaborate as the ones used as stock scenarios in the CMRT release for example.

Still, I get mostly favorable comments on them so far. I could have held back on them, fearing they are not up to par, because testing was not as rigorous as could have been. Or take much longer to develop and test and thus release less scenarios (with the risk of loosing interest altogether if things take forever to make). I chose to release them because I felt confident enough that they were fun.

Could they have been better if I had invested more time designing, testing and tweaking? Perhaps. But maybe the law of diminishing return sets in at this point. Good is good enough, if you know what I mean. There is no such thing as a perfect scenario. And there is also your own gut feeling about what you have made. After making several scenarios and getting the hang of it, you kinda start to develop a 'feel' if a scenario you made is any good or not.

This approach is probably not suitable for stock scenarios, but hey, these are 'just' freebies. If my somewhat 'looser' approach to these repository scenarios is wrong, I would have expected a lot of negative comments on them, and I would stand corrected. But so far so good.

It is great to see one of the scenarios I made being featured in Repsol's excellent AAR. If it was crappy or sub par, no such AAR would have been made. Still, the Polozk scenario was finished within something like 4/5 weeks and I work on it only some evenings and weekends (I do have a life you know ). And that includes testing by me and some great guys that playtest for me (thanks guys :cool:).

Could Polozk have been tested even more thoroughly? Definitely! Would it have been a LOT better than it is now? Not so sure.

Just my 0,02!

[snake_eye]

Once more, I fully agree with Combatintman design approach. I do broadly the same thing when I think of a scenario. First the historical facts are gathered. Second, I design a map suitable to the Battle. However, I have found lately that some QB maps could be nearly perfect with some alteration fitting the tactical needs of the scenario. That save a lot of map design time. While putting these together, I am refining and honing all the time the map to have it, at the Best close to the historical facts.

As for the historical battle, IMHO, it can not be set, most of the time, exactly as it was at the time it happened. The reasons being the lack of sufficient details on the available AAR and or on the map forces emplacements and their precise movements during the battle. Besides the designed map might not allow the right ground features found at the time. They will be close to them, but not identical.

The briefing is being thought of during these two works, the historical one and the map design. Finally the three of them should be one. They should be coherent one to the others. If only one is not, that only means that You have to work again on it, or have the others modified to be coherent with it.

Closely interlocked with these three circles: historical, map design and briefing, we have to deal with the ratio of forces, their positions, their eventual reinforcement, their timing, the choice of the assets, the AI plan or plans, the objectives and units VP and the length of the playing time.

I can now work on the AI testing. Usually, I work on it sequentialy and test it right away. If I am not satisfied by the results, I work on it till it runs well with few testing done and through which I am not using every time the same tactic and or forces. That being done, I am working on the next step and so on. The same is done for an eventual other AI plan. Then Combatintman and Panzermike are sending me their homeworks. These are a real asset, without their comments I might not upload the scenario. OK their remarks might obliged me to modify few things, but they are clever. Thanks to you guys.

As some of You might have noticed, I am only having one playable Side in my scenarios. The reason of it is quite simple. I think that in order to provide the players with a good scenario, I have to think of the best tacticals schemes that could be applied on the player side. Naturally, I think of the Best defence and or move the other Side could or should do. But my design skill will be at its Best, anyway while I am working on only one player Side. If it should be a necessity to have both Side, the other Side will be better done by someone else. That is why I had told George (George MC) lately, while testing "CMRT Studienka" to think about a four hands scenario we could do.

About the replay ability. I, as a tester, have found that playing a scenario few times when necessary was possible. When I have done it, I did not get necessarily the VP or the objectives I had missed earlier, but even knowing the troops emplacements and or potential AI reactions I have been more than one time surprised and caught out of balance.

For all these reasons and the detailed ones of Carl (Combatintman) I truly think that the alteration of some part of a scenario will obliged the designer to work on it once more a long time and that despites the size of it. Is this change worth the work it involves ? Will it bring a better play ability ?

Your idea Repsolcbr was not a bad one, but to comply to it is difficult. A tactic works or fails when only one of its ingredient is changed and it does not matter if it is the smallest or the bigger one, as long as it has not been fully integrated into the plan. Considering this we can say that the FOW found in the game will add another difficulty as well as the LOS. So, we must admit that to complicate the scenario options of this game or rather this battle simulation, will nullified the good results that can be obtained today.

BTW Thanks for your actual AAR. It is highly detailed and very well done, knowing the scenario through its testing, I can most of the time follow it accurately, (positions of the troops). You are putting in it a huge amount of work and time.

[George MC]

I think scenario design is very susceptible to the the 'butterfly effect'!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

Oh snake_eye - I do have a wee project in mind for the two hands idea you suggested. Just bit busy with Black Sea stuff but I have a map all made with your name on it

[snake_eye]

Hi George,

I shall be ready for the two or rather four hands partition at the end of September having to travel abroad in a short time and not being able to take along a laptop. I shall be able However to catch some news.

Just hoping that another and unrelated butterfly effect will not reach me where I go :

Local stability in some places is somehow like a scenario layout, You change a tiny bit of something and the all things falls on You without any warning. Too bad I can't stay home playing and or testing scenarios, that is not risky :cool:

[Glubokii Boy]

I could have held back on them, fearing they are not up to par, because testing was not as rigorous as could have been. Or take much longer to develop and test and thus release less scenarios (with the risk of loosing interest altogether if things take forever to make). I chose to release them because I felt confident enough that they were fun.

Could they have been better if I had invested more time designing, testing and tweaking? Perhaps. But maybe the law of diminishing return sets in at this point. Good is good enough, if you know what I mean. There is no such thing as a perfect scenario. And there is also your own gut feeling about what you have made. After making several scenarios and getting the hang of it, you kinda start to develop a 'feel' if a scenario you made is any good or not.

Your approach to designing scenarios sounds like a good one and i think you have proof of it in the repository with all 5 star scenarios.

Like you mentioned. TO MUCH testing have the risk of makeing the scenario designing boring and resulting in the designer hestitating from getting started on a new project.

A good thing with this comunity is that we seems to help each other in a good way with testing scenarios. I think this is 'crusial' if we want a steady flow of new scenarios in the repository.

Having to playtest a scenario all by you self soon becomes, as mentioned, booring...

If my somewhat 'looser' approach to these repository scenarios is wrong, I would have expected a lot of negative comments on them, and I would stand corrected. But so far so good.

This is true and if you recieve a number of comments mentioning simular things that could be better you could always edit the scenario and upload a new version like you did with

"gates of Warsaw" i belive..

I have found lately that some QB maps could be nearly perfect with some alteration fitting the tactical needs of the scenario. That save a lot of map design time.

Yes, i agree that using a QB map works very well when designing a scenario. Doing a fully historical scenario might put higher demands on the map being 'correct' but for those thinking about designing a fictional scenario...the QB-maps is a great resorce.

I think it was last year that i did a number of scenarios for CMFI. All based on QB maps. I think it is a good way to start designing scenarios to use one of the QB-maps in your first attempts.

BTW Thanks for your actual AAR. It is highly detailed and very well done, knowing the scenario through its testing, I can most of the time follow it accurately, (positions of the troops). You are putting in it a huge amount of work and time.

Thanks !

Yes, just like scenario designing and testing IT TAKES TIME to do this.

I enjoy trying to tell the story of the fighting at Polozk but now that my summer holliday is over there will be no more 'late night computer sessions'...

This will make the updates come a bit further appart. I will try to upload 2 updates aweek but atleast one update each sunday should be possible.