Idea for a new type of scenario - do you think it would work?

[Bulletpoint]

I just had an idea for a new type of scenario, but haven't thought it through yet, and would like to know what you think.

Usually, scenarios are either basically small, medium or large. If the scenario is small, you play on a small map, with a small force, and you know the enemy will also be small. If the scenario is big, you play on a huge map, and have a lot of troops, but you also know there will be a lot of enemy resistance.

Now, what if the map could be maximum size, and you get a whole battalion of troops, lots of time.. but the enemy is still quite weak and isolated?

The idea would then be that you had to make the call about what elements of your batallion to use, when, and how. Instead of the scenario designer telling you "imagine you're part of a big attack, but you only get to play this platoon (because else the game would be too easy), and you have to imagine the rest of the battalion is fighting off the map".

So, my scenario would start with your battalion at the bottom of the map, and then you would have to scout out and navigate the road net, with lots of little crossroads and villages along the way, to reach the exits at the top. You would not know which crossroads are defended, but when you do find resistance, you have to clear it out before continuing - or choose another route.

Basically, odds would be stacked in your favour, and it would not be a question of you beating the mission or not, but rather how well you do it. You will win the mission, but how difficult will it be? How many reinforcements do you have to throw into battle, at what times, and where? How many casualties does it take to do this advance?

In essence, it would play out as a series of small actions, but each one as a part of a larger battle. A one-map-mini-campaign if you will.

I hope this would feel more like real warfare and less like a game where you have to solve a puzzle, and where the enemy won't have any AT guns if you have no tanks, etc.

Something similar could be set up as a quick battle, but by doing it as a scenario, the enemy force selection and setup locations could be much more intelligent and credible, rather than the very random nature of the quick battles.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Bulletpoint

[A Canadian Cat]

Sounds interesting actually. The fist two thoughts I had were:

Will it be fun enough? The side with the small force will have quite a bit of waiting to do. And the side with the large force will have quita bit of convoy management to do. I suppose some people will be more receptive than others, no surprise there.

The other issue will be how to set the objectives. Will it be destroy force only or destroy and spot for the smaller force. If objectives are part of it then it might wreck your goal if find the other guy.

If you can solve or live with those issues then it could be successful. I say give it a try.

[Bulletpoint]

Sounds interesting actually. The fist two thoughts I had were:

Will it be fun enough? The side with the small force will have quite a bit of waiting to do. And the side with the large force will have quita bit of convoy management to do. I suppose some people will be more receptive than others, no surprise there.

The other issue will be how to set the objectives. Will it be destroy force only or destroy and spot for the smaller force. If objectives are part of it then it might wreck your goal if find the other guy.

If you can solve or live with those issues then it could be successful. I say give it a try.

I forgot to add that I primarily thought of it as a single-player mission. But it could work as a H2H mission too. I would then make sure that the "small" player would have to set up at least some of his forces very close to the "big" player's starting point, to fight a delaying action, while retreating to avoid getting encircled.

[RockinHarry]

My PC unfortunately can´t handle the largest possible maps with Bn size forces of which are only parts are beeing expected to be used.  There was some discussion about something similar in another thread some time ago and I figured such ideas would better fit and worked into the frame of a scripted campaign. The campaigns single "battles" (particularly the first one) do not necessarily need to be real battles, but rather a mission setup, that only requires the player to step either on this or another visible victory location during the first game turn, in order to decide about a "known" option for the true battle to follow. I.e walk on VL1 (100points) and decide to use a certain part of your force, certain reinforcements, victory conditions or different attack time for a coming battle. Or step on VL2 (0 points, or 200...) to let you decide on a different option. The scripted branching then leads to the wished battle. That all during a few minutes lasting mission. (in fact after walking on a particular VL, cease fire is hit and the branching is resolved immediately) The branching options off course need to be communicated to the player either through the mission briefing or (rather large) descriptive map, or VL labels.

[Bulletpoint]

My PC unfortunately can´t handle the largest possible maps with Bn size forces of which are only parts are beeing expected to be used.  

Very valid point. My pc is a weakling too, but I am not sure exactly how much it would be able to handle. Maybe using a bit less trees and flavour objects might help.

[Bud Backer]

I forgot to add that I primarily thought of it as a single-player mission. But it could work as a H2H mission too. I would then make sure that the "small" player would have to set up at least some of his forces very close to the "big" player's starting point, to fight a delaying action, while retreating to avoid getting encircled.

I like the idea very much, and it's something I've discussed with a friend I PBEM with. I don't think there is anything wrong or strange about a huge map with unequal forces. Balancing it to make both sides face a challenge is tricky however. Sometimes, a gentleman's agreement about what the objectives really are outside of game parameters. You need two players who share a particular vision of what this battle is about. 

Edited December 5, 2015 by Bud_B

[A Canadian Cat]

I forgot to add that I primarily thought of it as a single-player mission. But it could work as a H2H mission too.

Ah good idea making it against the AI only. That way you could have multiple setup orders and use triggers to spring ambushes and initate withdrawal. I like it.

[kevinkin]

I was toying with a paradrop idea with some what randomized starting positions that required the player to bring together units and strike a centrally defended target like a bridge and/or cross roads. So I am favor of BPs idea for sure. I have a few examples on my hard drive without briefings, flavor objects ... but with AI plans. These are company sized but the large long battle could have appeal for those who like campaigns with BPs idea quicker to produce.  

Kevin 

Edited December 10, 2015 by kevinkin

[IICptMillerII]

I was actually thinking of a scenario design very similar to this. It was inspired by my recent readings about the Battle of the Bulge, but is applicable to many other battles as well. In the first phase of the Battle of the Bulge, the Germans did a lot of scooting through gaps in the lines, of which there were many. They were trying to exploit the gaps and penetrate as deeply as possible, cutting off and isolating many American units in villages. This was primarily done because the tanks needed more time to come through, so the idea was that the infantry would bound as far forwards as they could and the tanks would then catch up to them and clear out the defenders in hard points. 

My scenario design idea was similar to what you mentioned. It would consist of an attacking force on a larger map, with the primary goal of making it to the other side of the map edge and reaching exit zones. The attacker would attempt to bypass as many enemy units as possible, while still having to fight it out if they came across determined resistance that there is no other way around. 

As others have pointed out, depending on the scale of the forces involved and the nature of the scenario itself, it may not be the most fun for multiplayer play, but against the AI it could be quite fun. I also see this type of scenario as being a very cool mission in a campaign. The attacker would have a lot more incentive to protect his force and try to get most of it through unscathed if he knew he was going to need those forces in the next campaign mission. 

Some of my ideas at least on the matter. I hope you continue to develop your ideas and we see a scenario from you sometime soon, perhaps even in CMFB when its released!

[MikeyD]

One side point, I recently boosted my RAM, it was an easy dot-it-yourself task, the chip was bought online, and didn't cost so much. I'm sorry I didn't do it 2 years ago. Something to consider if you're getting frustrated balancing fun vs playability like I was.