Jump to content

Scenario Designer Request.


Recommended Posts

  I have great respect for the amount of time and work goes into making a scenario, and I'm sure you all strive for stringent accuracy, and with all do respect please don't fix things in place so that we can't not move them during the setup phase. Such as mines , obstacles , gun placements . Please give the player a little flexibility in the decision process in the setup phase.To me half the fun is deciding where and how this minefield should be setup, or where I want to place this gun.So I guess what I'm saying is to have setup zones a little more flexible as to not restrict movement.Example, if you want an 88 flak in an exact spot , maybe give that 5 action spots in all directions for set up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

100%. Stuff like this is usually the result of script-style thinking in scenario design. Some fixed stuff is reasonable but most of the time tiny deploy zones and what's outside of them are really frustrating to see. The deployment phase is literally the most important thing going for both players and if there's a reason we have so little control at times it had damn well better be a good one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It helps quite a bit when contextual detail is provided for deploy areas like attacker deploy areas emerging from nearby roadheads or being shared with other road-access-points on the map. In the case of infantry there's often no reason I can see for failing to allow their deployment in forest or other visibility-obscured areas on the attackers side of the map. Point is i'm often a bit frustrated by the narrow and obvious avenues available to an attacker because "balance" or some other silliness. Whereas i'm also not-very-offended by having sections of a deploy area that enemies have line-of-fire on. To me that smells of opportunity way more than some kind of trick or mistake on the designer's part. My own assessment of tactics is pretty Soviet though. Don't stall, and don't run from a fight. Find your enemy and put your fist through his face. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In respect of both points of view. Experienced scenario designers have thoughtful reasons for making certain items immovable during setup. This is more likely to occur in historical scenarios and thus presents players with an historical challenge. I can also understand the wish to have more flexibility during deployment, especially in H2H games, having recently played an SP game H2H as the underdog with almost no deployment options.

The solution is really fairly simple. If I, or you, don't like the deployment zones or options presented in a scenario, then load it into the Scenario Editor and modify it, remembering to rename modified version when saving to something like ... version '#'.

Cheers,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well as SimpleSimon points out it's going to be situational.  An attacker typically doesn't need a large setup zone while a defender needs a large one.  At the same time though you do need to limit the defender from deploying in certain parts of the map at times so you can't just give him the entire map to set up on.  A lot of times I end up with LOS to a setup area (not intentionally btw) because when I am looking at the terrain in Google Earth it's not always obvious how things will play out once you go to the 3D.  Then it's like 'whoa, those guys can see all the way over there?'  By then it's basically too late because your map is completed and you have been deploying troops so your kind of stuck.  Sometimes stuff happens.  But as far as I'm concerned there is almost never a good reason to have no setup zone at all if you have any intention of having the player play that side of a scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, WimO said:

In respect of both points of view. Experienced scenario designers have thoughtful reasons for making certain items immovable during setup. This is more likely to occur in historical scenarios and thus presents players with an historical challenge. 

It's really contradictory to a historic challenge in my experience. That's script-play and i've got no interest in it at least. To me, the underline is in the word, scenario. The designer sets up the circumstances but should provide the player with an adequate "tool kit" for interacting with the challenge. The definition of the word scenario is "a written outline of a movie, novel, work giving details of a scene" I can see things like set-piece battles and even "influenced by" or "inspired by" but you can't emulate the history of a specific battle 1:1 in a video game. There's no such thing as timers and map edges and the omniscient God-Player in real life. 

That said i'm willing to engage with the premise  of a challenging or even outwardly "unfair" fight as long as the designer scores that reasonably. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Understood. So if you don't like that a given scenario has locked-in the deployments in a scenario you want to play, it's really very easy to change it to your liking as follows:

1. Open the Scenario Editor

2. Load the scenario

3. Select 'Map' from the selection box at the top left.

4. Select the 'down' arrow from the options list to bring up the second page of the options list

5. Select 'Setup Zones' - This will bring up the map

6. On the map paint a coloured set-up zone around the 'locked-in' unit/s you want to release

7. Save the scenario as 'old scenario name.ALT'.

Done. Easy as that. Then play and be happy. Everyone to their own likes and dislikes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, WimO said:

Understood. So if you don't like that a given scenario has locked-in the deployments in a scenario you want to play, it's really very easy to change it to your liking as follows:

1. Open the Scenario Editor

2. Load the scenario

3. Select 'Map' from the selection box at the top left.

4. Select the 'down' arrow from the options list to bring up the second page of the options list

5. Select 'Setup Zones' - This will bring up the map

6. On the map paint a coloured set-up zone around the 'locked-in' unit/s you want to release

7. Save the scenario as 'old scenario name.ALT'.

Done. Easy as that. Then play and be happy. Everyone to their own likes and dislikes.

 

But keep in mind that if you are playing against the AI you will probably have just completely undermined the scenario designer's intent, and possibly f**ked up all his triggers etc. etc.

So no, not as easy as that.  :rolleyes:

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are so many scenarios for so many titles going back so many years. Can you provide a couple examples of offenders? The reply to a specific scenario may be, "Oh yeh, that scenario was designed back in 2011 and it doesn't seem like such a good idea anymore." or perhaps " That road is the focal point of the scenario, It won't work if the gun shifts from that location." or even "That unit had a bad habit of jumping out of position at startup, taking it out of the setup zone was the only solution I found to fix the problem." The answer even could be "Oh, that's not in the setup zone? My mistake!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I understand everything correctly for H&H we don't have to worry about triggers we may get rid off. I was thinking to modify counter attack at Son in Battle for Normandy. The example is the little footbridge which may very well be a trigger. In that area of the Netherlands the Dommel River is no deeper than 1.5 meters so easily to cross by infantry but not by armor. Substitute the footbridge for a deep-wading crossing should be OK? I found the footbridge a little buggy some infantry just wouldn't cross it. Modify the map change the name and save it in the QB folder.  Also I don't like too many units on the map just let them arrive gradually as reinforcements. 

Edited by chuckdyke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

If I understand everything correctly for H&H we don't have to worry about triggers we may get rid off. I was thinking to modify counter attack at Son in Battle for Normandy. The example is the little footbridge which may very well be a trigger. In that area of the Netherlands the Dommel River is no deeper than 1.5 meters so easily to cross by infantry but not by armor. Substitute the footbridge for a deep-wading crossing should be OK? I found the footbridge a little buggy some infantry just wouldn't cross it. Modify the map change the name and save it in the QB folder.  Also I don't like too many units on the map just let them arrive gradually as reinforcements. 

Correct - AI plans are only a factor if:

  • One exists for that side.
  • A human is not playing that side.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a scenario designer both for some community and stock releases I've always gone towards controlling unit placement myself for a number of reasons. Even when I've had the initial intention to leave it to the player, I've always tended to take back that control before a scenario was finalised. The following reasons generally always come up:

1) For historical scenarios it allows me to place units approximately where they commenced the engagement (where known) to ensure the player has the most historical experience. It also prevents the player from exploiting history books and hindsight if they know something about the battle. For example, if I allow the player to reposition their Tiger II to the top of a hill with great overwatch & LOS/LOF, it will have an adverse effect on the rest of the scenario and make it more a-historical.

2) It allows me to ensure that the patterns around initial spotting of opposing units is as intended. For example, there are no stray pot shots both from player and AI units after a few seconds of hitting the red button for the first time if I expect the player to conduct recon etc.

3) Most of the CM player base plays single player. I don't want the AI to reposition units that may mess up AI plans. (As outlined above)

4) It ensures an equal starting point for all players. This ensures that testing is easier and more informative as everyone starts with the exact same situation to solve their problem (the scenario) from. Maybe this is a residual from years of playing hex wargames where it was common for scenarios to specify where every unit started.

4) (Sometimes) The starting map is quite restrictive for one side or both in where a force can reasonably deploy. If one side is restricted due to terrain you generally don't want the other side to have a huge advantage of letting them reposition all their units as they see fit - particularly if they know where the enemy is coming from. For example, a historical engagement started with the tank heavy force moving down one road surrounded by heavy forest on both sides. This makes opening up deployment to the player somewhat redundant given the restrictive terrain.

Everyone is allowed their opinion on the matter on what they think is best. QB and free for all engagements, go at it I say. But scenarios, particularly historical ones tend to have (good) boundaries that work as a starting framework for designers to adhere to. The above is what I discovered worked for me over time making multiple scenarios created from scratch. Still disagree with me? No problems. The best way to change community practice is to get into the editor and start making and releasing scenarios. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am totally onboard with Ithikial's last comment. I also 'fix' some units in place for historical reasons. I recognize that it is impossible to always please all player's preferences. My earlier comment about how to release units by going into the editor was 'tongue in cheek' as personally I am not interested in doing so and ... as was noted by others above ... you could really screw up the scenario. But then maybe someone who does that, does not mind the results. As always ... to each his own.

Kudos to you, Ithikial.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...