Wild Bill Wilder Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 I was reading a thread in the scenario tips section and it got me to rethinking an interesting subject about scenarios. I am curious. What is your personal taste as far as scenario size and length? Of course I know 60 turns equals 60 minutes and some scenarios demand just that many turns to properly develop. I like the longer ones occasionally, but in my personal play I prefer the shorter ones, usually 25-35 turns, with an occasional "quickie" (10-20 turns). My own reasoning is that I don't like to leave a battle and then come back to it. I prefer to start and finish it in one sitting. Time constraints are always a problem for me as a player just as they were for battlefield commanders. Of course, whatever the scenario length, one does want enough time to develop his plan of action. But then, time is often a factor in war. Commanders have always been pressured to get it done, to move on, to get the job done. The "top dogs" are under pressure to "get the war over with," and this passes down the chain of command to the battlefield commander, whose caution is sometimes reprimanded by those above him as being too slow, as holding up the advance, etc. So in conclusion, what size or time frame do you prefer in scenarios that you play? ------------------ Wild Bill Lead Tester Scenario Design Team Combat Mission-Beyond Overlord billw@matrixgames.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterNZer Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 anything interesting multiplayer Bill That's what I look for. O i should add, I find shorter scenarios better. I mean, even with, say, a 200pt force, things are getting pretty clear by turn 20-25. Sometimes dragging it out further is just a pain PeterNZ [This message has been edited by PeterNZer (edited 10-23-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankDawg Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 Hi Bill, Good question. I feel pretty strong about this. FYI, 98% of my games are PBEM. I don't like playing them unless there are at least 40 turns. That way I can historically deploy my troops. I can not use 'battle proven tactics' if I have to race across the map. With a big map, you need that many turns to prevent it from becoming a race to the Victory Locations. My PBEM opponents and I love your scenarios and have never had any problems with the scenario length. Keep them coming! ------------------ Jeff Newell TankDawg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchy Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 Bill: I also prefer the 25 - 35 turn scenarios. Unfortunately, I can't complete a game in one sitting...job, kids, house chores, etc...you name it. At least at the 25 - 35 turn length a PBEM game can be completed in a reasonable amount of time. ------------------ Webmaster http://www.trailblazersww2.org http://www.vmfa251.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ACTOR Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 I would have to agree with the 20-30 turn range. I have found, like you, that I hate interrupting a game to take the wife or kids somewhere and then come back to it later. I do my best to keep them at bay, but they usually overpower me by around turn 25. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfgardner Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 Wild Bill, saw same thread, interesting topic. Personally, game length ought to be dependant upon the ground one must cover to accomplish the mission, the size nature of enemy force, and of course, the size nature of your own force. I view the scenario designer as my battalion, regimental or divisional commander allocating to me the resources, including time, he (she?) thinks is necessary. That's the challenge, for me, to attempt to meet the victory objectives within the time alloted. If I want to fight the entire Normandy campaign in a single sitting, I don't think CM is the vehicle to do that! Nor, would I like to "real time" a particular battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 Hey WB: I agree, 25-40 turns is optimal for me. The really long battles involve an enormous, spread-out time commitment and often they are more about logistics than combat, i.e. spending a lot of those turns getting multitudes of assets into position. The only battle I have ever abandoned, never to return, was CLASH OF EAGLES because, quite frankly, I was bored. I think a 25-40-turn battle really concentrates the mind. And the need to "get the war over with" is a significant challenge in some of your own ingeniously designed scenarios. Fighting as the Allies in LE LOREY - A HARD STAND recently, my tendency to get my ducks obsessively in a row resulted in a Minor Victory that would have been Major if I had had five more turns to mop up the last Victory Flag to the South. Of all the scenario designers, you are the one who is most creative in terms of making time available a tactical issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiram Sedai Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 20 turns for me -->I have a short attention span. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Peng thread? I've apologized for less. -Anonymous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 With PBEM games I generally play 30-45 turn games to allow for events to play out naturally. Against the AI I usually play 15-30 turn games. I rarely play less than 15 turns, as my style is fairly methodical, and doesn't lend itself well to gung-ho rushing ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 20-40 turns for me, thank you. I don't like my PBEM's dragging on for months, but I don't like having to rush to meet my objectives either. Hmm.. except if the mission demands a speedy capture of a key location. But that'd be an exception. Normally you wouldn't have quite as tight schedule as many scenarios seem to have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DD_Rob Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 the 25-40 turns about reaches my comfort level for length. I like to play battles in one or two sittings. Rob W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_R Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 I usually allocate number of turns based on point values I'm using: 20 turns for 400 pts or < 25 turns for 401 to 750 30 turns for 751 to 1250 40 turns for 1251 to 2000 60 turns for 2001+ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 I’d go with 25-35. By turn 30 I’m usually running out of ammo anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 I also prefer games that are in the 25-35 turn range. I think most scenarios, even historic ones, can be distilled down into this time frame. The normal ammo load for most units will not allow them much ammo beyond 25-35 turns, including the movement to contact time. If something requires more than 35 turns to develop I would think an operation type game would be in order. p.s. Thanks for plugging my scenario "Indian Fighting" Wild Bill in the Scenario Tips forum. I am glad you enjoyed it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 I think 35-45 is just about right,it's enough time to implement a good plan,and still hold my interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawyer Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 This question has been on my mind too, Bill, since I am just finishing up a few 30 turn PBEM games that were started 5 weeks ago. We have exchanged turns diligently, averaging about once per day, but the back and forth takes time. So I prefer 20 to 30 turns to allow good tactics and battle development without making a career out of it. I agree with the view that longer games ought to be worked into operations. ------------------ There's a lot more than Santy Claus sneaking around in the dark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Clark Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 10 - 40 It all depends on the fun factor really. In general I prefer shorter Scenarios, but I don't really know why, except that I usually only play Company sized battles... maybe that's it. Perhaps when I get my new vid card I'll be playing the HUGE map, 60 turn battles... Anyhoo, Thanks for the fun Wild Bill! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen. Sosaboski Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 The max I've had is 45. I like small unit action, and I mean small. Maximum I'll go is with a full company on the map. As stated numerous times, I don't have all day (unfortunately) to play CM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagdcarcajou Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 Hey, I prefer 35+ turns per game. Some of the little quick battles are fun with less time, but as has been pointed out by others, it often turns out that 20-30 turns is just enough time to get into position. 35-45 seems to be the best range for my tastes. Chris ------------------ What the hell is a Jagdcarcajou? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darwin Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 I generally find 20 turns leaves me pressed, I prefer at least 30. I've really enjoyed the longer scenario's but they've only gone 40 turns or so anyways so having the extra 20 or so turns was unnecesarry (as yet) I'm not sure I'm the one to ask though as I really got into a 4 month long game of chance encounter with an opponent who couldn't spare much time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
109 Gustav Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 I prefer longer scenarios, at least 40 turns. IMHO, less than 25 always seems to be too much of a rush to be really fun. ------------------ Charon doesn't make change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Der Unbekannte Jäger Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 Due to time restraints I prefer the quickie scenarios. As you said Mr.Wild Bill, I as well do not like to leave a battle then come back to it at a later time. Usually by the time I get back to the battle my brain has forgotten my overall strategy and I end up messing something up. ------------------ "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Wilder Posted October 23, 2000 Author Share Posted October 23, 2000 You did a good job on that one, Keith, very suggestive theme and put together well too. Wild Bill ------------------ Wild Bill Lead Tester Scenario Design Team Combat Mission-Beyond Overlord billw@matrixgames.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kump Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 I have to go with longer time constraints. Nothing I hate worse than a scenario designer that uses a time clock to force the player to push ahead recklessly to obtain the objective. It might be historical to force a player into the reckless actions performed by the commander being portrayed, but I won't change my style to experience what such reckless behavior leads to. I'll never get the Total Victory, but my soldiers survive and their little digital families are appreciative I like medium scenarios with enough time allotted to avoid the rushed tactics game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 hi, my vote would go for 40-50 turns. In my view at this scale there would "not" be time pressure on commanders, not down to 20 or 40 minutes. Taking a village in 2-3 hours would be fast, even in a crisis, according to my reading of military history as battles actually happened. Of course sometimes villages would fall in 10-20 minutes but normally 2-3 hours would be a job well done even in a time pressured operation. Also battles seem to have a natural rhythm of 40-50 turns. All the best, Kip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts