Howitzer Posted March 8, 2000 Share Posted March 8, 2000 Dear CM "Boarders"... I would like to poll this astute and erudite body in order to pick your collective brains on what defines a GOOD scenario. Realizing that almost any scenario in CM may be FUN, which of the following items are MOST important? (Feel free to add others, too.)... 1. Historical accuracy (ideally) or relevance/possiblity (at a minimum) of the scenario as a whole. 2. Accurate unit mix. (This doesn't mean that an unusual mix is verboten. For instance, the US units surrounded at Bastogne comprised a real mixed bag due to their encirclement and the desperation of their defence. See item #1.) 3. Realistic terrain and weather. 4. Realistic off-map support (Being careful to remember CM's scale and historical limitations, such as available arty & ammo.) 5. Clear objectives for both sides, with enough background info to set the stage. 6. Objectives that are in line with victory locations/conditions. 7. Difficulty level and/or play balance. (For instance, must each side always have an equal chance to "win"?) So, turn on that "stream-of-consciousness" mode and provide your input! Thanks, Steve C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted March 8, 2000 Share Posted March 8, 2000 Multiple options of advance. Having too many funnling scenarios, where there is only one way for armour to get through (CE?) kind of makes replay more difficult. Having paths through forests, wide enough for tanks can make the scenario more interesting and increase replayability. Is he coming through the forest road, or, accross the open field? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorak Posted March 8, 2000 Share Posted March 8, 2000 I think Foobar had the right Idea also.. He stated that he knows he is safe until the 50 yard line in scenarios. I believe that the possibility of units anywhere would add a great fear factor into playing. Lorak ------------------ ------------------------- This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine. It is my life. Without my rifle I am useless. Without me, my rifle is useless... http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/combatmissionclub Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Seimerst Posted March 8, 2000 Share Posted March 8, 2000 You certainly have captured many of the important elements in a good scenario. I don't mind playing unbalanced ones where I am "supposed" to lose because I like to see if I can hold out a little longer than history recorded but I know I am in the minority with that little quirk. (I think I was unduly influenced by watching Fess Parker play Davy Crockett at the Alamo!<g>) I like to play a scenario that has several units with unique capabilities so I can try to device a concept of operations that will use the unit effectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrullenhaft Posted March 9, 2000 Share Posted March 9, 2000 Actually, I'm with Siemerst on the "unbalanced" scenarios. I don't think that balance is absolutely necessary (this goes along with historicity). It would be nice if scenario victory conditions could give balance to scenarios where the force levels were not even, but I don't think CM will go far enough in that respect. Variability in setups (setup zones in CM), reinforcements and type of engagement could give some more replay-ability to scenarios. However these features are somewhat beyond the scenario editor available to CM right now (though future versions may incorporate more variability). I tend to classify scenarios in three possible catergories. Those that are as historical as possible given game limitations and actual knowledge of the engagement. Those that are accurate in terms of TOE and timeframe, but not necessarily historical and those scenarios created for the sake of playability and balance. It's probably near impossible to successfully combine all three types simultaneously (though it is attempted often). I believe it boils down to what kind of gaming experience you're expecting. There is nothing inherently wrong with any of these catergories. There would also be one other catergory: the "super slug-fest", where inordinate amounts of super-heavy/powerful units are included in a scenario. These are entertaining as a curiosity (i.e. - just how powerful would they be and what would it take to destroy such formation, yada-yada-yada), but wouldn't really constitute a playable game in the long run. Well, these are the workings of my feeble mind on scenarios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted March 9, 2000 Share Posted March 9, 2000 I agree with Seimerst also. One shouldn't always have to win a scenario to feel good. Sometimes just surviving for 10 turns might be a major achievement. I see no need to disavow Kobayashi Maru scenarios just for play balance reasons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts