What Kind of Scenario Would You Like?

[Quintus Sertorius]

I've owned CMBN for years now, and I still haven't played the vast majority of the scenarios that come with the game, not to mention all the user-created scenarios.  One reason for that is because I tend to find a few scenarios I like and play them over and over again.  Another reason is that I spend a lot of time making my own maps, playing them a few times, then changing things around and playing them again.

Anyway, I've often thought about getting one or more of my maps together and releasing them, but I'm not sure what kind of scenarios people would like.  That's why I'm asking, and I'm especially interested in hearing from folks who have played a lot of the scenarios out there.  What kind of scenarios do you want more of?  If there's a dearth of a certain kind, I could try and make something that fits the gap.  I'm mostly interested in crafting the maps themselves; as far as goals and force compositions go, I'm open to almost anything.

I remember someone saying there ought to be more maps with the Germans attacking and the Allies defending.  Is that needed?  That's the kind of feedback I'm looking for.  Be as general or as specific as you like.

Thanks!

[A Canadian Cat]

Wow, cool. Scenario design by request. I personally enjoy big battles we lots of scope, recon elements arriving first and then the main force later. 

There are a number of large battles, perhaps not with initial recon but there are quite a few big battles.

The one request that I think is under served are small platoon sizes fights. I think the reason it feels like there needs to be more is because you can play three or four tiny battles in the time it takes to play one big one. So, I suggest be the king of the small battle. If also happens to be a good place for start for programming the AI.

[Bulletpoint]

The one request that I think is under served are small platoon sizes fights. I think the reason it feels like there needs to be more is because you can play three or four tiny battles in the time it takes to play one big one. So, I suggest be the king of the small battle.

I second that, was about to post the exact same thing.

Also, we need more maps that are not "puzzle maps". Try to design the map first, making it look and feel like a real place, then set up the defenders. I hate maps where the designer forces me down some path, using hedgerows, walls, etc to make sure I can't do anything else than what he had in mind.

[RockinHarry]

I´m more on the mission maker side and less on the player one, although my public output til this time is nil. Usually I don´t really care what players "want" and inspiration comes from reading lots of historical accounts, as well as when toying around with CM game features, more so the ones so far used to lesser extend. However, I care when I publish anything for testing purposes off course and related to feedback, which is scarce usually. What I generally like is urban settings (MOUT), infantry battles and combined arms, maps that exploit the s..t out of the game engines capabilities, particularly making them look dirty /war torn and with my focus on play vs. the AIP, attempt to get the best possible AI scripting done fitting the scenario. I also learned to appreciate the idea that when you can´t put certain things into a single battle, try to implement them by use of the campaign scripting feature. So far under development:

US 3rd AD´s TF "X" breaking the siegfried line southeast of Aachen on september 13, 1944. Involves lots of the fortification stuff available in CMBN, which is not quite a simple task due to the nature how pillboxes work and absence of dragon teeth obstacles. Whether a 2km band of hedgehog obstacles will work instead, is yet to be seen.

My urban maps are still experimental, but can be worked out to something bigger any time. I have the Aachen battle (october 1944) in mind, if that´s not yet covered in CM Bulge initial release.

And off course lots battles in the hurtgen forest are on my WIP list, but I´ll keep them back to see if these can be made better in CM Bulge.

So I´m mainly interested in historical battles, also dependent on source info to my avail, but I don´t neglect possible "what if" variants.

[Badger73]

<snipped>

The one request that I think is under served are small platoon sizes fights. I think the reason it feels like there needs to be more is because you can play three or four tiny battles in the time it takes to play one big one. So, I suggest be the king of the small battle. If also happens to be a good place for start for programming the AI.

I concur.  I prefer "small" battles and wish there were more available of 40 - 60 minutes duration.  Thanks for asking

Edited September 27, 2015 by Badger73
type correction

[Bud Backer]

I concur.  I prefer "small" battles and wish there were more available of 40 - 60 minutes duration.  Thanks for asking

@kohlenklau and I have made almost a gaming career together out of tiny battles. Less than a company, more than a platoon, seems to hit a sweet spot of excitement and ease of play.

[Quintus Sertorius]

Thanks for the great responses, guys!  They're really helpful, actually.  I suppose it's a useful topic to discuss not just for me, but for the whole community.

A small force battle is one of the things I was considering.

Forest and urban battles were also on my mental list.  Urban battles might be more problematic.  For me CMBN gameplay starts to get choppy when you go beyond a certain threshold with the number of buildings.  I want to keep the scenarios accessable.  I could see a small, densely packed urban map though.

I specifically don't want to do historical battles.  It seems to me a lot of people are already doing historical or semi-historical battles, and while I applaud them for their efforts, I like to be free to go outside the constraints of history.

I was not considering large battles with recon, but I'll keep it in mind for the future.  The way I've been doing maps is to start with a fairly small one and work on it until I get it to a level of detail I'm happy with.  Then, after playing a scenario on it for some time, I expand it around the edges and make it bigger, step by step.  If I ever get one big enough, I'll think about a larger-scale battle.

I've always liked maps and scenarios that emphasize the vulerability of tanks and other AFVs to infantry.  I don't know how many of you ever played Close Combat 2, but years ago I made a couple of custom maps for that game (Pulling Teeth and The Devils' Triangle, in case you want to try and track them down).  I think those maps embody my general philosophy.

For a long time I've been obsessed with the Commonwealth Forces scenario Linking Up & Breaking Out, so I may make my own interpretation of that scenario.  I like it because it's got interesting goals...if you play as the Germans, you have to defend a crossroads from a multi-directional attack while retreating elements try to scoot across from one side to the other.  You can choose to scoop up some of the retreaters to bolster your defense, but your total score is based on how many make it all the way to the exit point.  It's more than a simple conquest or defense of victory points.

Thanks Again!

Edited September 27, 2015 by Quintus Sertorius

[Stingray]

I prefer small scenarios.  More like fire fights--platoon sized.  At most  company sized that lasts 30-45 minutes.

 

[RockinHarry]

I second that, was about to post the exact same thing.

Also, we need more maps that are not "puzzle maps". Try to design the map first, making it look and feel like a real place, then set up the defenders. I hate maps where the designer forces me down some path, using hedgerows, walls, etc to make sure I can't do anything else than what he had in mind.

One the good features in CMX1 were the random maps that one could use as base for a more elaborated fictional map. Delete everything but the contours and work the map over, just like humans and nature did over time. Dependent upon final looks and feel of the maps, one then can develop various ideas of designing fictional battles on them.  That´s more time spent on creativity and less on laborous research matters, when it comes to "historical" battles. In CMX2 one can take any of the QB maps (or from a particular scenario), delete everything but the contours and let creativity flow, play god and settle the landscape for any future battle to be played on it.

[IICptMillerII]

I'm a big fan of historically accurate scenarios. Similar to what Bulletpoint said, I don't like it when maps are designed to be gamey, in that they are trying to force some type of gameplay.

For an example of the type of scenario I like, I'll refer to Ithikial's amazing scenario "Three Patrol Action." Forum Link: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/111469-new-scenario-release-three-patrol-action/

For those that haven't checked it out, I highly recommend it. The map alone is superbly done, and is accurately reproduced to be exactly like it was historically. As an added bonus the mission is a recreation of a mission in the game Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood. For those that don't know, the Brothers in Arms games pride themselves on realistically recreating maps to be just like they were during 1944. Its awesome to first play the level in BiA and then to switch over and play it out in Combat Mission. Thanks for the awesome mission @Ithikial_AU!

To summarize, I like realistic and historic scenarios that have at the least a realistically recreated map. If it at least has a decent map, then the user can take that map and create whatever scenario he likes with it in the scenario editor. There are many out there who do not have the resources and/or know how to create highly realistic and detailed historical maps, and these scenarios tend to close the gap.

Anyways, just my two cents. I know its time consuming making these types of scenarios, but if you're seeking to be a crowd pleaser, then its a possible route to go that'll get you positive results! If its good enough maybe BFC will include it in an upcoming battlepack.

Edited September 28, 2015 by IICptMillerII

[Ithikial_AU]

For an example of the type of scenario I like, I'll refer to Ithikial's amazing scenario "Three Patrol Action." Forum Link: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/111469-new-scenario-release-three-patrol-action/

Thanks for the awesome mission @Ithikial_AU!

Thanks Capt Miller for the praise. Glad you enjoyed it. Also got 'Joe's Bridge' floating around other there somewhere and the Operation Windsor campaign should be out this year after some testing.

[Bulletpoint]

I think as a designer, there's a big temptation to make very difficult scenarios. I know, because I've designed a scenario myself, and I clearly felt that urge to turn up the difficulty for the player simply because I got the "me VS the player" feeling.

But that's something to be suppressed, I think. The purpose of a scenario should be to be fun to play. And not every battle in real life was a "saving private Ryan intro scene"..

[IICptMillerII]

I think as a designer, there's a big temptation to make very difficult scenarios. I know, because I've designed a scenario myself, and I clearly felt that urge to turn up the difficulty for the player simply because I got the "me VS the player" feeling.

But that's something to be suppressed, I think. The purpose of a scenario should be to be fun to play. And not every battle in real life was a "saving private Ryan intro scene"..

This is a good point. I think the urge to do so should be suppressed to an extent. For me, I hate it when a scenario has been made purely to increase the difficulty. For instance, making it so there is only one avenue of approach to an objective and lining said approach with enemy units like MGs and ATGs. However (promoting my historical idea again) I DO like it when I am presented with a true to life (be it fictional or based on the real thing) scenario that is hard. For me that is a real challenge. Can I do better than the commander at the time? How will I stack up? Can I do something different that might get a better result, or should I follow the historical route and see what the outcome is? You can see right there the inherent replay value in such a scenario. Plus it never hurts to be a little educational!

So to summarize I would say no to making a scenario artificially hard just for the sake of it, but by all means recreate a tough battle from history and see what the players do with it!

[Bulletpoint]

This is a good point. I think the urge to do so should be suppressed to an extent. For me, I hate it when a scenario has been made purely to increase the difficulty. For instance, making it so there is only one avenue of approach to an objective and lining said approach with enemy units like MGs and ATGs. However (promoting my historical idea again) I DO like it when I am presented with a true to life (be it fictional or based on the real thing) scenario that is hard. For me that is a real challenge. Can I do better than the commander at the time? How will I stack up? Can I do something different that might get a better result, or should I follow the historical route and see what the outcome is? You can see right there the inherent replay value in such a scenario. Plus it never hurts to be a little educational!

So to summarize I would say no to making a scenario artificially hard just for the sake of it, but by all means recreate a tough battle from history and see what the players do with it!

I agree, historical battles are the most interesting to me as well. But often, we don't know exactly where the enemy positions were, and how the landscape was exactly (trees, bushes, hedges, walls..) so the designer has to come up with a lot of the details. And that's where it often goes wrong. Bocage, for example. Yes, it was an obstacle in real life, but don't tell me there's not a single place where infantry can squeeze through, for 500 metres of bocage...

[Badger73]

 <snipped>

I specifically don't want to do historical battles.  It seems to me a lot of people are already doing historical or semi-historical battles, and while I applaud them for their efforts, I like to be free to go outside the constraints of history.

<snipped>

Thanks Again!

Fine by me as long as you make of them sound tactical exercises.  There are many situations where battles didn't quite happen.  There are many tactical problems worth trying to solve.  I just ask that you make each scenario worth playing; a plausible situation where victory is honestly won or defeat is well deserved.  Kudos to you for wanting to give this a go.  Thank you.

[Quintus Sertorius]

I think as a designer, there's a big temptation to make very difficult scenarios.

Well, when you're designing a scenario you have to play it over and over.  That makes is seem a lot easier than it would be to someone experiencing it for the first time.

[Bulletpoint]

Well, when you're designing a scenario you have to play it over and over.  That makes is seem a lot easier than it would be to someone experiencing it for the first time.

Actually I can't make myself play my scenario at all.. I just know all its tricks, though it has five semi randomised ai plans. I find that scenarios get too hard because of the designer vs the player idea, and because it's hard to imagine the fog of war the player will experience, not being able to pass by any part of the map without expecting an ambush at every point. This also leads to too time restricted scenarios because the designer forgets that the player will have to do scouting..

Edited October 4, 2015 by Bulletpoint

[Col Deadmarsh]

I've owned CMBN for years now, and I still haven't played the vast majority of the scenarios that come with the game, not to mention all the user-created scenarios.  One reason for that is because I tend to find a few scenarios I like and play them over and over again.  Another reason is that I spend a lot of time making my own maps, playing them a few times, then changing things around and playing them again.

Anyway, I've often thought about getting one or more of my maps together and releasing them, but I'm not sure what kind of scenarios people would like.  That's why I'm asking, and I'm especially interested in hearing from folks who have played a lot of the scenarios out there.  What kind of scenarios do you want more of?  If there's a dearth of a certain kind, I could try and make something that fits the gap.  I'm mostly interested in crafting the maps themselves; as far as goals and force compositions go, I'm open to almost anything.

I remember someone saying there ought to be more maps with the Germans attacking and the Allies defending.  Is that needed?  That's the kind of feedback I'm looking for.  Be as general or as specific as you like.

Thanks!

I agree and I'd like to find an even H2H scenario in which Germs are defending. 

Give them a mobile defense maybe with a queen piece like a Panther or Tiger along with maybe 1 or 2 smaller armor units, and the rest infantry.