Poor Scenario Design

[John_d]

This is just a rant basically. Just all the annoying things I've seen in scenarios that I hope never to see again. I was gonna put this in the scenario forum, but nobody much goes in there, so I decided to put it here. These aren't in any particular order or anything and I'm sure that alot of people will disagree, but I just want to get this off my chest

1) Deep mud or snow. Yes, I realise that sometimes armies have to deal with this stuff, but that doesn't change the fact that it absolutely no fun trying to coax 500 Russian conscripts 1km through deep mud under fire. Officers have done this b/c they have to do it, not b/c they choose to do it

2) Huge, empty battlegrounds. "Wow!", I think when the scenario loads up, "that's an area about the size of Germany to fight over. Great!". But then I look around for my troops. I notice a company of men in transport and a couple of tanks. In a huge, huge area. consequently, most of the game is spent moving my troops across the map (usually with loads of traffice jams and bogging) and my troops arrive at the objective in such a piecemeal fashion that they get shot to pieces. Now again, I realise that this is the kind of problem taht faces commanders all through history, but I bought this game to fight a few battles, not act as some kind of omnipotent traffic controller. Its just not on :mad:

3) Too little time. If you want me to advance 2km under fire through enemy fortifications with virtually no cover, then fine. But at least give me a realistic time frame in which to do it. Give me an hour, or maybe two. Don't expect me to do it in 20 mins

4) Re-enforcements arriving under fire. I really hate this. The cavalary rolls over the hill just at the perfect moment, only to find itself under direct fire, usally from something that you didn't previously know was there. Please get re-enforcements to arrive in cover so at least they have a cat in hells chance of surviving

5) Re-enforcements arriving in total disorder. Now, I don't know much about scenario design, but surely it is possible to ensure that command HQs arrive near their troops, or that vehicles aren't so tightly packed that you have to spend 5 mins sorting them out, when they could be out killing stuff?

6) Uber-tanks. Why oh why oh why does anyone think its fun to be be told that you have to take out about three dozen King Tigers with a bunch of Shermans or something? It frustrating and its dull and there weren't that many King Tigers produced to expect to find so many of them in one skirmish at one time. That's why CM has rariety! Take note!

7)Capture the flags then exit scenarios. I hate these and I've never won one. Exiting, fair enough. Capturing the flags, fair enough. But has anyone noticed that if you're exiting your troops, they're not holding ground? This may seem obvious to some, but evidently not to everyone. Furthermore, what's the only way to ensure both safe passage for your troops and make sure that the enemy cannot capture the objectives? One word (JasonC will love me for this no doubt )- ATTRITION!!! When was the last time that you had enough time to wear down the enemy's forces and wipe them out, and then regroup and parade off the battlefield? Never, in my experience. Either give us a decent exiting scenario or a straightforward fight with objectives. Don't try to combine them.

8) Any combination of the above

I'm sure more will occur to me in the future. Til then, please join me in my rant about crappy scenario design (or maybe its just an attempt to pass the buck for my poor planning and leadership)

Rant over

[Runyan99]

You have some good points. I particularly agree with 3,4 and 7.

Edit - I'll add aircraft to the list. Aircraft are not fun, under any circumstances.

[ December 19, 2005, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: Runyan99 ]

[Gpig]

Good stuff.

I do not think there is an option to your point number 5. When designing a scenario, you place the reinforcement marker, chosse which forces will arrive and presto. The scenario brings 'em in in total disorder.

As for point 7, i've played some VERY exciting combination exit/straight forward fight battles. They CAN be great fun, but there is a secret ingredient needed for them to work. The secret is that only PART of your force should be required to exit for points. The other part should be allowed to stay and fight/hold ground/secure objectives.

Gpig

[Kingfish]

While I understand that this is just your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it, I think it is a bit harsh to label a scenario crap just because it doesn't fit your version of 'fun'. Scenario designers, myself incuded, look for and are appreciative of feedback, but only when it is done in a constructive manner.

[DEY]

LOL, I thought this thread was directed at me only, but I see that isn't quite the case... at least I hope not. :eek:

Unlike others here, I agree with every single point you stated.

But then again what do I know. :confused:

[JasonC]

Gpig - there is a secret to getting reinforcements to work, and it is modest size and a covered location. If you put a company in reinforcement number 1 you will make a mess of it. Instead, put no more than 2 platoons, or one platoon plus teams, in any one reinforcement slot. With vehicles, platoons have to be used sometimes, but singles or pairs along a road work better if you can swing it.

Low ground is the best solution for a covered area. Infantry can sometimes use a patch of trees, but playtest it (just hit "go" until they appear). Sight from the entry locations with the LOS tool to see what parts of the enemy side of the map can see the appearance locations. If too many places can, interpose a patch of tall pines or rejigger heights slightly (a "berm" in front e.g.) to make a covered entry area.

[Pirx]

As someone who doesn't design his own scenarios but rather enjoys the fruits of the labor of others, I say kudos to the scenario designers!

Now that I have that off my chest, I have a bitch of my own. I dislike scenarios that don't specify whether they are appropriate for play vs the AI, and which side the human player should choose. I have made some erroneous choices in the past, only to realize after a total cakewalk that it would have been way more fun as the underdog.

[JasonC]

Here are some more peeves I have with poor scenario designs -

Briefings that are history seminars about 4 echelon levels above the actual fight, but say nothing about expected enemy, or fail to tell me my own force structure, or both. I don't care what Panzer Corps NNN did, I'm not in charge of Panzer Corps NNN. I want to know what I'd actually know about the enemy I am about to face, and I want a staffer type briefing on my own available force and constraints. You are not a history professor lecturing an ignorant student hanging on your every word, you are a staff officer junior to the player, respectfully telling his Eminence what he has to work with and the best available sit-rep.

Get out of my chair. I hate choreographed battles, scenario designers who think they are movie directors, pop-quiz situations, 3 tiny color coded set up zones that force one approach on me (unless meant to simulate literal and immediate surprise). Don't start my units in LOS of superior enemy and call it dramatic. Don't tell me what to do, in the briefing or in your own design. Don't make a task that has only one solution. Overall, remember the player is in charge and the designer is his servant, humbly offering a potentially interesting situation to his commanding judgment.

Don't lie in the briefing. I gather one or two designers did so early and thought is hilariously witty, and oh so "realistic". It isn't, it is just plain rude. I ignore half of them as a result. Do tell me the expected enemy. If it is vague let it be vague, but only true recon situations with forces entirely out of contact should have no estimate of enemy. It can be "up until now, you have been opposed by weak infantry forces, perhaps a company to be expected on this length of frontage". Don't add "no armor is expected" unless it is true. Etc.

It falls under "don't try to script things" but bears specific repetition - do not make the basic decisions about the flow of the battle for the players. If you think it would be neat for a force to flank the other guy over here, give access to that flank from a possible set up area from one side - don't force it by plopping them down out of the ether right there on turn 15.

Let the player decide if that is what he wants to try, in other words. Give options and decisions, don't make them yourself. Strategy is the players deciding. Sitting there like a paperweight as the designer makes the big decisions is NOT exciting, it is infuriating. Don't tell me how to use my forces in the briefing, either. They aren't yours anymore, let it go and back off.

Don't give me 48 kinds of rare and largely useless vehicles and mixed guns. Learn a little history and use realistic force composition, with plenty of one type only. A few of another type is occasionally realistic, more than that and you are in Hollywood, not on the eastern front.

When representing a large formation, remember it has definite supporting elements beyond its major maneuver sub-components, which it relies on to work properly. Include them. Don't tell me I have a battalion in the briefing, and give me 3 stripped companies with nothing but squad infantry in the actual scenario file. A battalion without its major support is one in name only. You can strip out inessential items or drop a whole company, but keep representative portions of the supporting arms. They are there for a reason and we need them to fight that force realistically and successfully.

You don't have to use the default ammo loads and types, and shouldn't if they don't fit the battle length or balance. Same for infantry AT loadouts, commander ratings, and formations. Add platoon HQs with all squads stripped as extra weapon HQs if you give lots of guns or teams. Raise the ammo of defenders expected to hold out for a long fight against superior odds. Dole out T ammo and the like with an eye on balance.

Don't give people trucks in off road scenarios. Trucks in CM are road vehicles, and off road they are slower than moving, panic when taking the slightest fire, and bog if you look at them funny. If it is wet or worse, fergitabout it. Off roading is for tracked vehicles, plus the better armored cars and jeeps, only.

Everybody weakened in deep mud with steep hills isn't a strategy game, it is a torture device in which the scenario author goes "na na na-naan aaa" and the player curses his soul to hades. Don't stress broken internal subsystems of the underlying game engine. Weakened *or* normal mud would be quite sufficient. If you don't enjoy playtesting it for hours, don't wish it upon the world.

Don't make punching bag scenarios designed to only be playable by one side, or to show off supposedly impressive items. It combines all the evils of scripting with a new one, the players not mattering a tuppenny damn. A strategy game is one in which the outcome depends on the interacting decisions of the players. If it depends on you, instead, you've done it wrong.

[Sanok]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

While I understand that this is just your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it, I think it is a bit harsh to label a scenario crap just because it doesn't fit your version of 'fun'. Scenario designers, myself incuded, look for and are appreciative of feedback, but only when it is done in a constructive manner.

I don't see anything wrong with the way he wrote this. It's all true. My peeve:

An overwhelming attacking force slices through an inferior defending force, while facing a time limit. Boring to play as the defender. These types of scenarios are all too common.

[John_d]

Actually, I've thought of a few more.

Operations where that attacking force obliterates the defending force on the first battle and the defenders never receive enough re-enforcements to get back up to strength. And at the same time, the attacking force gets re-enforced until it just becomes a walkover. Boring for both sides

Aircraft are ok, providing the designer provides either enough cover for you to hide your troops or some AA defence.

Flat, steppe or desert type maps where you only get given infanty and are expected to take on tanks and other stuff with huge range. There's a reason why this is avoided in real life.

AT guns vs tanks. By this I mean battles where one side only has tanks and the other only has AT guns. Tanks just aren't any good at spotting and destroying AT guns on the one hand, and the AI doesn't use AT guns very well on the other.

This isn't to say that all scenarios that have one or more of these features are irredeemably crap (with a couple of exceptions that only occur b/c of the game engine), just that *generally* they don't make for enjoyable scenarios

Oh, and this is not to say that I don't enjoy the majority of scenarios that I download off the net. Most of them are fantastic and I really appreciate that there are people out there who spend their time doing this for little or no reward, just to increase the enjoyment of players like myself (who can't design scenarios for love nor money). This whole thread was inspired after playing couple of scenarios that were rather disappointing (which will remain nameless). But this kind of thing tends to form a minority of what's out there.

Scenario builders of the world- keep up the good work!

[ December 19, 2005, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: John_d ]

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Sanok:

I don't see anything wrong with the way he wrote this. It's all true. My peeve:

An overwhelming attacking force slices through an inferior defending force, while facing a time limit. Boring to play as the defender. These types of scenarios are all too common.

I'm sure all those points hit home with most players, and I agree with a few myself, but in the end I wouldn't refer to it as crappy design.

Keep in mind that no one comes into this game as an 'expert' scenario designer. Every designer has to find his way, a process that takes time and (most important of all) feedback. If during this formative stage someone comes along and labels his work crap, well guess what, he may just throw up his hands and say "screw it", and the community has lost what could have been a truly outstanding designer.

[NameUsedBefore]

Since I am a writer, I have found that criticism (especially early on) helped me a lot more than it did harm. I think it depends on the person's characteristics and personality.

[Sanok]

Originally posted by John_d:

AT guns vs tanks. By this I mean battles where one side only has tanks and the other only has AT guns. Tanks just aren't any good at spotting and destroying AT guns on the one hand, and the AI doesn't use AT guns very well on the other.

I agree. Also, once an ATG is spotted, it's basically dead.

[David I]

JasonC,

Good points all. Can you point out where your scenarios are? Or just name the titles, I have all the not-quite-so-new-ones from TSD.

DavidI

[Mejsel]

Ah, look! Two cents. Now what to use them on?

Flags. Appropriate number of flags, representing tactically sound locations in the map.

One large flag per rifle squad is somewhat unbalanced... and it gets absurd when you approach company level.

Defeating opposing forces yet losing battle because opponent have LMGs huging flagpoles far off on some insignificant wheatfield. Annoying.

Great thread though. Cheers to John_d.

[Shmavis]

In case it hasn't been mentioned, I really hate it when enemy reinforcements appear in an area of the map(not at the map edge) that I have just cleared. If the edge area where the enemy reinforcements appear is basically open ground(brush, steppe, etc.), it's only slightly less annoying. I mean, if that wasn't the map edge, I'd be able to see those guys, right?

[dieseltaylor]

Do not write off ATG's so easily. I have had one of them take out 6 tanks in a rich battlefield environment. Whether it is because I was dropping 105mm on them or the infantry firing at them it seemed to work just fine ............. of course he was keyholing. And it was against a human.

[John_d]

I agree with dieseltaylor on this one- ATG are very good if used properly. Its just that the AI rarely does, unless the scenario designer sets them up properly. But trying to take out ATGs with tanks alone is lunacy- you have to risk sacrificing a tank every time you want to get the ATGs to open up and reveal their positions. I think there's been loads written on how to deal with ATGs in this forum over the years, but I don't think anyone has seriously suggested spotting with tanks

[JasonC]

To amplify Mejsel's point about flags, not only should there be few of them, but you have to place them quite differently for AI and for human games.

With the AI, if it is supposed to defend do not put flags forward of its positions. It will banzai the first flag the enemy takes. Taking one flag, killing all the defenders in the open when they "counterattack", then taking all the other flags after they are dead, is a typical stupid AI trick. If you want an AI counterattack on a flag-when-taken, then make sure it has covered routes from the rest of the defense. Normally, you want to keep the flags on the AI side of the map for an AI defender.

With an AI attacker, on the other hand, you have to lead it into the position by giving it bread crumbs along the way to orient on. And not ones that are tactically irrelevant, or traps that lead nowhere. Small flags in the spots you'd aim to occupy as a human, shy of the defense proper, are a good idea. This will also tend to split the flag points and leave the outcome more dependent on relative losses.

The main reason to do it, though, is as "scripting" for the AI, which will have no idea how to attack the position otherwise. Also, do not use just one of these, or the AI will bunch up horribly and get plastered by HE. You can have flag "tracks" converge on the ultimate objective, but don't "choke" them before that.

In human games, the best approach is to scatter a number of small flags over the tactically useful, reachable locations. With some within easier reach of each side, not all clumped deep in the defender's backfield. All deep in the defense makes for a "annhiliation", all or nothing battle. The attacker kills the whole defending force and takes all the flags, or does not. Way overrepresented in scenario designs and not interesting.

When instead the flags are more readily split and are all small, flag points tend to be +/- 100 points only, a shading of the loss based outcome rather than the outcome. Taking another can shift the score meaningfully - 200 points of swing. Players can be much more strategic about that, and it becomes possible to win with some combination of just a few in your own area and better loss performance, writing off others. (This is actually reasonably close to what you want for an attacking AI).

Scenario designers should also be sensitive to the effect of fortifications on scoring. Fortifications are treated as "losses" because they are in the point budget but not in the ending forces. To deal with this, use the point handicap feature to balance fortification points. It is annoying to play a long scenario, hold ground and kill more enemy, and have the AAR screen say "draw" because there were trenches and mines in the scenario.

[Mad Russian]

Well this is right up my alley. Let's see...

1) Doing historical scenarios sometimes means you fight in terrain and weather conditions that are less than desirable. I do try to limit the deep snow. Your infantry can't move far at all without getting tired and then exhausted. While historically accurate it makes for a game that has a low excitement level.

Deep mud has very little affect on the game from what I can tell. Even with soft ground I have driven King Tigers through it for an entire game and not bogged them. That is on "fast" command as well.

2)I agree that forces should match the map.

3)Time should match the battle. I don't like scenarios that have too much time just as much as I don't like those that have too little time.

4) Playtesting BEFORE it is released for general play would eliminate this problem.

5) This is what I call the CM Reinforcement Ball or CMRB. It is very easily taken care of as Jason says by reducing the number of reinforcements in a single slot. You can bring multiple slots near each other if you need a large reinforcement at a particular time. Just don't put them all in the same slot.

I agree this one can be very aggrevating.

6) I'm not a fan of scenarios with more than about 3 Uber Tanks in them. Unless there is some reason for them. That reason cannot be that they are fun to play with. As pointed out they aren't fun if the entire scenario centers around taking out 10 King Tigers with 30 T-34/85's.

7) I agree. Exit scenarios are hard enough without adding the flags in to the mix.

9)Briefings that are history seminars about 4 echelon levels above the actual fight, but say nothing about expected enemy, or fail to tell me my own force structure, or both.

Don't lie in the briefing.

3 tiny color coded set up zones that force one approach on me (unless meant to simulate literal and immediate surprise). Don't start my units in LOS of superior enemy and call it dramatic.

From JasonC

I agree with poor breifings period. I am very guilty of having some not so breif briefings. It is the most commented section of AAR's on my scenarios. Players either love or hate my detailed briefings. The comments run about 10-1 for the detailed briefings. I do three levels of briefings. Strategic, Operational and Tactical. The Strategic and Operational are in the main briefing and the Tactical is in the National Personal briefing.

However, that may not be Jason's peeve. When I get to the personal briefing, you can skip all the rest, I try to give what I think a commander would have. What he would not have is the exact time, location and make up of every man headed his way. He would not have that the attacker has dynamic flags. He would know some tactical battlefield intelligence but not where every enemy soldier is. In an ME he may know nothing.

Since all of my scenarios are historically based I try to give what the commanders knew at the time. That can include false information that they were operating under. For the most part though, I too, dislike false and mis-leading information.

Sometimes historical scenarios have a battle start in a particular way. When that happens you can get small setup areas.

I used to not start units in LOS of each other at all but I don't worry about that much anymore. Now I worry about if they can "see" each other at the start of the scenario. For instance if they are in buildings 200 meters apart, no problem. If a tank is sitting in the open on the road 200 meters from an ATG in woods that is a problem.

For me personally, the scenarios I dislike most are those that haven't been playtested. Or maybe haven't been playtested enough.

There are a few other things that niggle at me now and then too...

All units in the scenario the same experience level.

Victory flags that don't support the scenario, more often than not this means not enough points on the map to warrant the taking of the terrain objective vs Jason's idea of attrition of units. There are times when the objective can be either but too often scenarios don't reward players for taking the objectives.

Terrain on the map that isn't correct. Like roads that are missing sections or have the washboard going on them. This is lazy design work. You should always drive your roads. Buildings that have corners out into the road is another issue.

For the most part scenario designers do a great job and I have had countless hours of fun with them. I have never played a QB or Ladder game. I only play scenarios.

I have responded to some of these concerns as a designer. I have at times had more than 100 scenarios on The Scenario Depot and more than likely will have again when the new TSD II comes up at the end of the month. I thought that you might be interested in some insights from the "other side" as well. Even then, we have our likes and dislikes too.

The biggest thing I can tell you as a player, is, find a designer you like. As a designer, take your work to The Proving Grounds and get as much help as you can. No guarantees, but at least they all talk scenario design there, and the whole idea of the site is to help scenario designers with playbalance and to do playtesting.

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by Mejsel:

Ah, look! Two cents. Now what to use them on?

Flags. Appropriate number of flags, representing tactically sound locations in the map.

One large flag per rifle squad is somewhat unbalanced... and it gets absurd when you approach company level.

Defeating opposing forces yet losing battle because opponent have LMGs huging flagpoles far off on some insignificant wheatfield. Annoying.

Great thread though. Cheers to John_d.

To me this is the part of scenarios that is most often out of balance.

The flags need to be used to determine what is important. The values are also very important and should match the level of objective for the tactical situation.

I have scenarios that have 4 large flags with 100 points value - total - so the AI can react. I have a scenario with 12 large flags, all scattered out on the map. There are endless combinations of victory locations and amounts, but, however you do them, they should match the scenario.

You can tell at the end, after you have playtested it, if the flags are the right value amount. If the flags are the right amount they will affect the victory level.

Whether they are in the right location is a bit tougher to determine.

If you are after an attrition style battle the flag points shouldn't affect the outcome that much.

If, on the other hand, you have to, "take that bridge" or the offensive for an entire Army is finished before it gets started, that bridge should be worth more than all of the points for your OOB. It's not how many casualties that you take that is important here but the objective.

Flag placement is, for the most part, determined by the type of scenario you have designed. You have a different use for flags in a vs AI scenario than you do a H2H one. It is rare that a sceanrio plays well for both vs AI and H2H. Determine which your scenario is designed for and place your flags and their values accordingly.

This is rarely done correctly.

[ December 23, 2005, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: Panther Commander ]

[junk2drive]

I didn't play board wargames all my life.

I like historical battles and the briefings should teach me what I'm fighting for.

I don't like buying my force, setting it up, spending time with recon and travel.

I like short operations.

Panther Commander's HSG First Town Liberated for CMAK is a good example of an operation that combines attack, defend, counterattack, defend.

Oversized map, good force mix, challenging.

[Carl Puppchen]

This is interesting feedback. Now I know some people that are going to hate my scenarios .

I like action. My scenarios are made for action. As such, I usually start the guys in pretty close proximity and jam them into narrow zones where the options are kind of limited. Then I keep the time length down, so that you jump off and smash the enemy or get smashed yourself.

I hardly ever use uber-tanks but do like to mix it up with a bunch of not very historical vehicles. I like to give odd stuff that the players need to think about.

Since my scenarios are all "random" they really aren't made for playability vs. the AI which makes them easier to setup. Playing vs. the AI means a whole different world vs. humans.

I do use planes from time to time but give the defender AA guns (usually locked so they can't be dragooned into AT duty). I do throw in additional HQ's into the pot. I do tweak the ammo loads (I LOVE to load up on CANNISTER).

I do try to keep my reins out of sight from immediate fire. Sometimes I fail, and when I do I try to fix it in the next release.

If I give arty, I usually give TRP's, too. TRP's make arty more useful in a quick game.

I try to use different terrain and time periods, and day / night to mix things up. Sometimes exit scenarios are fun.

One thing, as someone who has designed a bunch of scenarios, it takes a looooong time to create one. Give em' a break. And mine aren't even that good

Random reinforcement scenarios

[JasonC]

Thanks for the warning. I'll never play a scenario you design. And I'll never give you or anyone like you a break, either. I'd rather you crawled away under a rock and stopped polluting the scenario sites. I think you are wasting your time, and I am quite sure if I gave you the chance you'd waste mine. No doubt you will respond by thinking "well it is what I like and lots of other people probably like them too." I deny it. It is a control freak imposition; you might as well spit on us. But I don't suppose such "feedback" will ever stop you or those like you. More's the pity.

[zmoney]

Ouch Jason C.

I normally hate it when the designer locks units in the set up. The only reason I could see doing this, and I've done this in a scenario, is to simulate a suprise attack. In this case I only locked the defenders.

Anyways, some very good points and loads of help for designers.