Scenario Preferances

[JerseyJohn]

CvM's announcement of a new scenario has sparked a little discussion about duplication of themes and hinted at different approaches to the same subject, etc ...

I thought it might be interesting to open a Thread on what people do or don't like in a scenario.

So, feel free to add your comments.

[JerseyJohn]

Well JJ, really glad you've started this great Thread because I've had something I've wanted to say for ages.

A little over a year ago you released a scenario called the Brest-Litovsk Aftermath based on the premise that Germany agreed to the Anglo/French peace propossal in 1918 and was allowed to keep it's Eastern sphere in-tact. An actual historical fact.

But the French wanted the Germans off their territory and the Belgians wanted their country (or at least the 95% Germany occupied) returned to them. The Kaiser deferred the decision to Ludendorff and Ludendorff, whose spike was probably in too far that day, decided to continue the war. Hell, Britain and France were even willing to return the African colonies, but Ludendorff still refused; he'd obviously bought property in Belgium somewhere.

Okay, so far it's fine on the history part, but about the actual scenario, so many units, that's really had me baffled. Why all the damn units?

[JerseyJohn]

Thanks Baffled for being so interested.

Yeah, I did go a little unit crazy in that thing. I've been meaning to update the idea with a version that only has half as many of them, but it isn't easy.

Which leads me to list my own ...

Number One Scenario Dislike:

Too Many Damn Units!

I've downloaded some that made my own fiasco idea seem like a few guys stranded on a prairie! Some had national armies that, with support troops behind the scenes, would probably have totalled around 30,000,000. As Pauline said in one of her perils, No-No-No !!!

A crowded board means fewer options, not more options. Set up the most using the least so there's room for some opening moves and choices.

As for Ludendorff, here he is wearing the culprit spike that cost Germany it's empire. He lived another 19 years to sulk about his idiotic decision. Wilhelm II lived even longer, an exile in Holland, but he probably died with a clear conscience, after all, it had been Ludendorff's decision, not his, he was only the emperor!

Erich and William.

[ February 01, 2004, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Bill101]

I look for:

1) Some balance between the sides, but not necessarily perfect equality. For instance, one side might start with more troops, while the other has greater income.

2) Situations that we don't normally see in the 1939 campaign, such as a battle centred around Turkey, or the allies invading the Balkans.

3) Tech levels that aren't normally researched, like heavy bombers, rockets and sonar.

4) Difficult problems to attempt to solve that we haven't faced before.

[JerseyJohn]

Bill

Terrific points. Your first is also one of my priorities; if it's perfectly balanced you've got 1916 and armies stuck in the mud.

[HICOM]

Here's a reply to a thread from last year: bombers are a waste, since they cost more and aren't worth it when fleets can do the same job for less money (kill the troops to empty the cities for the land troops), and they can do patrol.

The map should be enlarged to be historically relevant to all countries from 1938 to 1945. Why can't we all enjoy the gift of crushing Luxembourg, Netherlands, AND Holland (not Low Countries). Ah, the sound of distant, marching jackboots!....

But more importantly, it would more accurately open up the Norwegian, Egyptian, Finlandian and Russian fronts. I think we all know what I am referring to here when only 1 land unit can attack or defend at a time when attacking Cairo.

Finally, I'd like to see a scenario or game that defines what makes Norway relevant, or realizes the real benefit of ports. Since ports in SC are exposed on 3 sides to attack by other naval units, and don't offer much defense for a limping naval unit, how is it that the Italian Navy sat out the war, out of fuel, but hid essentially unmolested? (save for the dramatic torpedo bomber attack that gave the Japanese the idea for Pearl Harbor). Could it be that historical Mediterranean fleets were just reluctant to engage in all-out battles, while we as armchair generals refuse NOT to engage whenever possible?

[JerseyJohn]

HICOM I've got to agree with every thing you've said.

With only a few small differences, the land map of SC is COS, though from there the games are much different. One of the things I didn't like about COS was the map, especially at the top and bottom, as HICOM says, it became very confining. Cos, of course, had a completely different naval system, weather, and a production menu along with a totally different combat system; the map and research system are the only similarity.

HiCom had a great map*, even if the hexes were a bit small but on the larger monitors most people have today that wouldn't be as much of a problem.

In HiCom something like the Norwegian invasion was very satisfying. I used to like doing it before being at war with Britain and France as otherwise it was likely the invasion fleet would be intercepted by a North Sea sweep.

North Africa was a real battle, with maneuver and the long distances between Tobruck and Alexandria could be made part of the Axis supply net by building an airbase in the desert, at great expenditure of production points.

HiCom, as I've said many times, is a great game. Unfortunately it took a lot of patience, was designed for Human vs AI only, and the AI couldn't handle all the things it would have needed to do in order to be a credible adversary. The Human part was no picnic either as only a real beginner would trust the computer with handling anything, and there were many things each turn to be set and reset that had nothing to do with fighting.

The Best, but too far ahead of it's time. Still ahead of it's time as I even an AI based upon a new machine could cope with the game tasks.

It had many things we've long asked for here, such as real weather and a production menu, a great inteligence system, etc. & etc..

But mostly that great map needed stacking of units or it would have been a huge traffic jam. Which negates a lot of the benefits SC would get from an improved map. I'm also a fan of stacking.

Between HiCom and COS, I felt COS was the more playable and, because the game system wasn't as complicated as HiCom, and bent way in the direction of the AI, the computer was able to put up a much better fight. But as far as sophistication, concept, the whole nine yards goes, nothing I've seen comes close to HiCom.

I have no idea if SC2 will move in that direction, but sooner or later a game like HiCom will appear in a Windows format and do all the things HiCom wanted to do, and that will be the real WWII in Europe game. One thing I'd like in this super HiCom, however, would be some sort of leadership system with better organization. The units are a bit on the colorless side, though they are different for all the various countries -- I mean, differing abilities, which is a very good feature.

Another good feature is making mineral and fuel separate resources, though oil is not significant to fuel tanks, ships and aircraft, only as the other half of minerals for Industrial production.

Meanwhile, SC is the most playable and by far the best supported by it's creater, who we can address questions and comments to directly!

*I think the difference is, CoS and SC cover 50 miles per hex and HiCom covered 40 miles per ... that 20% difference allows for an enormously improved amount of detail and, as HICOM mentions, the distinction of having Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania as distinct and individual countries. Additionally, all the larger countries have more cities and there are many more ports.

[ February 05, 2004, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Friendly Fire]

JJ, I have been playing the '42 scenario lately, and like it a lot because it feels like WW2!

because -

- (usually) you won't see F16s in 1945

- armor means something

- bombers are in play

- blood and guts right from the start

- lots of options for allies!

I am also getting a kick of out games where Turkey is allied with one side or the other. (Allies just took Romania from the south in one of these games)

[JerseyJohn]

Friendly

Sounds good, I've never tried that one but have enjoyed both Hubert and Bill Macon's Barbarossa Scenarios.

In custom scenarios I've tried a lot of experiments with Turkey, Sweden, Iraq and Sweden on one side or the other but it's hard keeping things in balance when you start assigning them. The easiest one is placing Iraq on the Allies in the 39 scenario instead of assigning a lot of MPPs; usually adding few U. S. cities @5 per turn is also a good equalizer and simulates U. S. Lend Lease (Zappsweden's idea).

For units I've wanted, obviously like yourself, to see rockets and bombers mean more than they normally do, so I'd have situations where Germany starts with some L=5 rockets and UK with some L=5 bombers. To say the least, it's a much different game!