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

The reason for restricting a player's ability to move things around can be that AT-guns, mines and other things are placed were they where during the battle. Another reason could be to give the player a bit of a bigger challenge to manage the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or still another might be that we only have 3 setup zones to work with and there are times when you need four setup zones.  At any rate, yes, the designer should always give the player a set up zone that is suitable for the situation whenever possible.

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

Join the conversation

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

Guest
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...