Poor Scenario Design

[RockinHarry]

Originally posted by JasonC:

How does the terrain work with regard to what you read about the battle?

Hilltops aren't bare enough to reflect most of the field, though there were places like this. Observation was much easier from one high point to another. Here, neither being the defender nor possession of the high ground give any real observation benefits, historically one of the most important aspects of the battle. A human might do a bit better though.

How´s the OOB?

Germans don't work, US is OK though there isn't much point to the tanks, and presenting the tactical problem as tank-freeing is inaccurate.

On the Germans, snipers aren't useful in 30m LOS conditions. They use only their sidearms, which are not dangerous. They are harder to find that other small teams, but so ineffective finding them is not all that important. I had no difficulty with them.

The wooden bunkers are realistic but were poorly supported, making them very easy to take out. Nobody walks over the rough patches they site over. To be useful, they need to be integrated into a defense system, supported by AP mines, by squads, by wire, etc. One of them pinned one squad, they hit no one. The scattered small team LPs were realistic but ineffective.

More generally, the defense system was only integrated on one axis and was conceived as stationary along that axis. This is largely an effect of the terrain, and observation limits. The thin stuff doesn't hold more than a few minutes. I understand they were meant as arty trigger LPs. Not for the AI.

The StuGs are unhistorical. German armor was occasionally a problem in the open high areas, because US infantry had reached those locations without armor along. They are also ineffective in AI hands - it does not know how to fight armor along restricted roads, to wait for infantry cover along the sides, etc.

Do the terrain mods add to the mood sufficiently?

Don't care, wrong guy to ask. Not an eye candy person.

How did the AI react and when?

It didn't. One unit ran out of the overstacked first pillbox. Mostly they sat there, lacking LOS and possessing flags.

Did the AI use its artillery and when?

Nope. The small team tripwires are meant to result in TRP arty calls. They didn't. I was on or near a few of them maybe twice, with more than a single squad. One LMG across the road on my left probably had LOS to Americans under a TRP, once, before being smoked. No fire mission resulted.

Does the briefing provide credible information and how did you use it?

It provided the information that the pillboxes were strongly held, and implied they were better protected against arty than they were. I used that information to avoid them. I fired one 105mm FO at the main center hill prep (delayed a few minutes), target wide, to create treeburst threat in the German "backfield". There was nobody within half a click. Others fired at TRPs during. But I did not use more than a quarter of the overall shell supply.

The information on arrival of US tanks was credible. I used it by directing one column across the road right of the pillbox area, which kill the few Germans on that side and cleared the mines around the roadblock and just past it, easily enough. I did not plan on relying on the tanks however since infantry off road is much more effective in this terrain.

As for an end of game screen, after investing several hours in it over 3 sittings, I quit on turn 14, because you were sitting in my chair and the rest was die rolling.

Ok, can´t get you to change threads , so here´s my final comments:

The particular scenario map (still huertgen forest BETA) was exactly made after the true location as found around mentioned point 365 in the wehebach creek valley. Btw, point 365 is not a hill! It´s not meant to be "generic" hurtgen forest like terrain. I don´t have any intentions to make generic terrain since I have all necessary data of the real terrain (as found in 1944, which makes a big difference!) to my avail, both digitally and on paper maps. Converting that to any combat mission map by use of Mapping Mission/Map Converter is no major problem either. Also the briefing tells that this battle is modelled after the events that took place around point 365. The embattled pillboxes is no fiction either. The way I tried to model them can be debated, but the point is the pillboxes served as shelter only during artillery barrages and otherwise where defended from the outside (connecting trenches & squad strongpoints).

Yep, the german AI sucks (using given OOB), but I´m still working on that, although there´s little that can be done. Sometimes it uses the artillery, but most oftentimes it does not, no matter how much one tries to help it (TRP, trigger units). I suspect the AI hesitates to use artillery if friendlies are close (even a sniper qualifies) and if it thinks valid targtes are not ample enough. I can´t see a working rule yet (if there´s any at all).

Snipers aren´t "snipers" in the scen and you already figured their true intended role. Point is, the AI don´t really cares.

The wooden bunkers, yes agree, but they are meant to serve as secondary squad outpost positions. A handful of men in a log covered trench part. The briefing actually tells that the german MLR was broken the days before and that single pillbox positions (or groups of it) still held by german units already were more or less isolated. This counts the more for the pillboxes around point 365 which at this day weren´t part of a continuous defense line anymore. From the briefing this battle is actually a mopping up battle (destroy bunkers around point 365, clear the forest trails nearby) and not a breakthrough one. At this stage of the battle (start of october), the major goals for the US was to clear the supply paths through the forest in order to get armor and supply forward for the next stage. The germans as well concentrated to deny the US these supply paths/roads, so the nature of most of the smaller battles was to reduce isolated positions that were located around the vital paths and approaches. Placement of victory flags only reflects that partly. Who tells an unimportant wooded hill that does not provide LOS or other tactical advantages needs to be strongly defended? One might better create such a scenario with the "exit map" goal actually, so "important" terrain (as the forest path is) would be much more apparently for a human player. Might try that second, but won´t bother any test player with that the next time. For play vs. AI one can´t avoid usage of victory flags entirely and placement is oftenly dictated less by what makes an important terrain part, but more by how you want the AI to react. That takes us back to the scripting issue which is nothing but a dilemma.

With regard to the Stugs in this battle you´re not quite correct. In fact a local counterattack (supported by Stugs from the 3rd battery of 902. Stug brigade) took place in the vicinity, but it was the day before and about 1,5miles farther to the north just outside the area as represented by the scenario map (but still in the same valley and terrain type). The attacking infantry was from the 275. Fusilier Btl. of the 275. Infantry division. You proabably did not see them in the scenario cause most of the time the AI can not decide to get them to move at all. I had it working once or twice during test play, but that´s surely not enough to leave the setup as is. As said, I compressed both, historical events and particular battle conditions into this small Beta scenario, making it in fact "semi historically based" at best. The Sherman tanks in the US forces mix are there for the same purpose as well as the roadblocks and other stuff.

Future scenarios (that you´ll probably avoid) will surely have those small tactical problems better adapted to historical events and I won´t lump them altogether in a small testing scenario again. Things that I can´t get to work at all won´t make it into any future scenario anyway, but that counts more for play vs. the AI which is currently my main focus. A H2H battle is far more easy to setup, but I won´t probably make a version of the hurtgen forest Beta which was meant for play vs AI from the beginning. A german player probably would be terribly bored, even when given totally free setup. A QB then probably offers more fun.

Generally the issues you addressed when discussed from a different POV (how to get a historical battle situation modelled with the CM game engine) are undoubtly valid and I don´t see things really any different as you then.

Personally I try to recreate historical battle situations first and then work on playability second. One surely could go the opposite way, but that would not be the challenge in scenario making for me personally and as we´ve already seen, every "scenario maker" approaches things a bit differently. Given the weak AI in the game, one can´t really avoid scripting, unless you don´t care for totally ahistorical outcomes (when compared to the real historical battle). However, a scenario should at least be winnable, the point is just how easy or hard it is to win, or loose with really bad play.

Thanks for your comments, I respect your POV.

[Bannon DC]

Ever notice a proportionality problem in JasonC's posts?

Here he is stoning a member of the community for the perceived social crime of being an inferior scenario designer:

Originally posted by 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.

And, here, witness his vigilence in chasing the ghosts of Nazi goons and Soviet thugs to the gate of hell itself:

Originally posted by JasonC:

I don't care how silly whitewashers of war criminals think I look. They push, I push back. They insinuate, I call them out. They sneak in little sideways admirations and pretended moral equivalences, I call their "heros" and "elites" and "remarkable soldiers" the scum they were and shout it to the rooftops. It is a deterministic process. If they shut up I never raise the subject. If they post again and again with another sideways half way kinda sort stop overreacting dodge, I shove another corpse under their noses and rub vigorously. They were goons, no excuses, stop defending them in any way, shape, matter, or form. Or get shoved until the cows come home, entirely up to you.

-- From the Prokhorovka anniversary!!! thread, Summer 2005

So which is worse? Nazi goons and Soviet thugs who slaughtered people by the millions... or scenario designers who use an obscure vehicle from the force pool obviously ignoring the "rarity" scale for their own vain pleasure?

Make a choice, Jason. Make a choice. Because it can't be both! This is not a time of moral ambiguity. Someone has to be the villian in this situation. There is no middle path. No hemming and hawing about degrees of gray.

Since I have put the question to you, I think it is only fair to answer the question myself. On a scale of 10 to 10 with 10 being the "most hated," here is how I think things should rank:

10. Nazi Goons and Soviet Thugs

10. Poor Scenario Designers

10. Puppies and Kittens (their presumptions of cuteness makes me sick!)

10. Babies (Innocence? Ever hear of "Original Sin?" They've got it by the diaper load and it chaps my ass!)

[Panzer_M]

I hate tanks..and esp tank heavy battles...reminds me of a good ol C&C Red Alert Tank Rush.

when I do anything which is rather rare since I don't have the time to make good(Real) maps. I use Infantry and SPGs mostly. Tend to stay away from the Mech/SS/FJ/Guards/ect units and just deal with the basic infantry for most nations in CMBB and CMAK.

and I also hate being told how to play out a battle. Let me figure that out on my own, I'll either win or lose....I figured that out on start up.

[Herr Flick]

I have been away for a (long) while, so maybe I've missed the backdrop to this thread.

Regardless, my 0.02:

While all scenario designers are no doubt interested in feedback and pointers regarding how to make more interesting and playable scenarios, I *strongly* object to the tone used by Jason!

I think it is extremely rude to attack people who commit time to designing scenarios for others to enjoy. Sure, offer critique - but don't dare tell them they have no place in the community and should "crawl away under a rock and stop pollute the scenario sites".

I thank ALL scenario designers for their efforts. If I find scenarios I dislike, I am mature enough to accept that tastes differ and move on.

[John_d]

Sorry to revive this thread again, but I've just found something else that really pisses me off. Operations that are divided into 15 minutes battles. Firstly, I refuse to believe that any battle is fought in 15 minute segments. Secondly, it ruins the continuity of play. Thirdly, it creates situations where the defender is able to withdraw totally unimpeded. Unrealistic. Fourthly, it means that the attacker can simply overwhelm defences by simply starting next to an objective during the middle of a battle. Fifthly, there is no time for recon. You basically have to charge in and hope for the best. Sixthly, you really can't advance very far under fire in 15 minutes. I have had scenarios like this where a couple of snipers have held an entire battalion off, just b/c they slow the advance down just enough to ensure that they cannot reach the objective in 15 minutes.

[Bannon DC]

Complain away... will any good come of it?

If you want to make your opinions worthwhile, head over to www.the-proving-grounds.com (TPG). Most of you know this already; TPG is a site dedicated to playtesting CM scenarios and operations.

To rid the world of untested and half-baked scenarios, all scenario designers are encouraged to first post their creations at TPG. Let someone give them a run through.

Non-designers can test at will. No expertise is needed. Just play the scenario and let the designer know how it worked. If you are uncomfortable giving critiques and recommendations, just give an AAR (After Action Report). It is helpful to designers to know how battles played out and the approaches players used to solve the tactical problems.

John d, just curious... do you playtest at TPG?

Frankly, TPG needs more playtesters. Gripe away if you will, but follow it up with a positive action and do something that will help address the topic of this thread.

Bannon

[John_d]

So are the scenarios at the proving grounds all untested then? That's where I tend to get my scenarios from, and where most of my gripes have come from. I haven't knowingly playtested though. I was thinking myself that I really ought to start posting feedback on there

Panzer_M: I know what you mean about tank-heavy battles. They can grind a bit

[Richie]

Originally posted by John_d:

So are the scenarios at the proving grounds all untested then? That's where I tend to get my scenarios from, and where most of my gripes have come from. I haven't knowingly playtested though. I was thinking myself that I really ought to start posting feedback on there

The Scenarios Posted at the Proving Ground are ALL there for playtesting. They are for the most part incomplete and awaiting feedback from people, such as yourself, if you have the time to give it...

Without the playtesting and feedback, Balance won't be achieved and obvious errors / things that don't work won't be eliminated.

I can't tell you how eager designers are for the feedback, essentially so they can provide players with fun, balanced and realistic scenarios.

[ January 13, 2006, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: Richie ]

[Bannon DC]

John_d,

True. TPG is a site for playtesting and designing. It kind of became the defacto place to get scenarios after the original Scenario Depot went down.

You can find "finished" scenarios there because their was no other place to put them. But now with the Scenario Depot II up, people are moving their finished scenarios over there.

BUT -- stamping out bad scenaios is still crucial. TPG still needs the traffic.

Post your comments there in the discussion threads for the ones you remember. Speaking for only myself, getting constructive criticism on the bad aspects (crap!) of my scenarios at TPG is helpful. Getting NO response is no help.

Bannon

[kenfedoroff]

Originally posted by John_d:

Sorry to revive this thread again, but I've just found something else that really pisses me off. Operations that are divided into 15 minutes battles. Firstly, I refuse to believe that any battle is fought in 15 minute segments. Secondly, it ruins the continuity of play. Thirdly, it creates situations where the defender is able to withdraw totally unimpeded. Unrealistic. Fourthly, it means that the attacker can simply overwhelm defences by simply starting next to an objective during the middle of a battle. Fifthly, there is no time for recon. You basically have to charge in and hope for the best. Sixthly, you really can't advance very far under fire in 15 minutes. I have had scenarios like this where a couple of snipers have held an entire battalion off, just b/c they slow the advance down just enough to ensure that they cannot reach the objective in 15 minutes.

If you can find an honorable opponent who is willing to try it, you can use "Play where they Lay" Rules to make a possibly more realistic battle.

I've had great fun playing Ops in this manner.

Both players agree to keep thier pieces on the board, right where the previous battle ended. Of course, this rule would change for the first battle after the Night-turn (as troops could reposition in the hours of darkness).

Cheers,

Ken

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by kenfedoroff:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John_d:

Sorry to revive this thread again, but I've just found something else that really pisses me off. Operations that are divided into 15 minutes battles. Firstly, I refuse to believe that any battle is fought in 15 minute segments. Secondly, it ruins the continuity of play. Thirdly, it creates situations where the defender is able to withdraw totally unimpeded. Unrealistic. Fourthly, it means that the attacker can simply overwhelm defences by simply starting next to an objective during the middle of a battle. Fifthly, there is no time for recon. You basically have to charge in and hope for the best. Sixthly, you really can't advance very far under fire in 15 minutes. I have had scenarios like this where a couple of snipers have held an entire battalion off, just b/c they slow the advance down just enough to ensure that they cannot reach the objective in 15 minutes.

If you can find an honorable opponent who is willing to try it, you can use "Play where they Lay" Rules to make a possibly more realistic battle.

I've had great fun playing Ops in this manner.

Both players agree to keep thier pieces on the board, right where the previous battle ended. Of course, this rule would change for the first battle after the Night-turn (as troops could reposition in the hours of darkness).

Cheers,

Ken </font>

[junk2drive]

Bannon and I are PBEM Little Stalingrad CMAK. I think the 15 turn chunks are just fine too.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by junk2drive:

Bannon and I are PBEM Little Stalingrad CMAK. I think the 15 turn chunks are just fine too.

but I've just found something else that really pisses me off. Operations that are divided into 15 minutes battles. Firstly, I refuse to believe that any battle is fought in 15 minute segments.

I think maybe John D doesn't fully appreciate the use of 15 minute turns, or didn't consider their use in urban terrain. I took my cue from Red Barricades - each 15-minute segment actually represents all the fighting on that front in a 12 hour period.

Thirdly, it creates situations where the defender is able to withdraw totally unimpeded. Unrealistic.

I guess maybe in urban battles this is not as unrealistic, he may have a point about "open air" battles. Since sewers and tunnels aren't allowed in CMAK, the short turns are a way of simulating them. Not unrealistic, then.

Fourthly, it means that the attacker can simply overwhelm defences by simply starting next to an objective during the middle of a battle.

In Stalingrad, Ortona, et al, units would occupy houses next to each other for hours or even days on end. Not unrealistic.

Fifthly, there is no time for recon. You basically have to charge in and hope for the best.

Again, I don't think there was much "recon" possible in urban terrain, though there may be a point about the defender repositioning a little too easily.

Sixthly, you really can't advance very far under fire in 15 minutes. I have had scenarios like this where a couple of snipers have held an entire battalion off, just b/c they slow the advance down just enough to ensure that they cannot reach the objective in 15 minutes.

There were cases in "real life" where snipers did exactly that, though. The ability of the attacker to move the front line in Operations never worked correctly, and so the shorter turns compensate for that also. Even a small advance on the map is usually rewarded by a huge leap in the front line, which is even more unrealistic, so a good scenario designer will balance his operation based on that.

[Richie]

I agree!

Enough people can be shot in 15 minutes to end the days play for many people in many circumstances...

Some battles are short, sharp and brutal. The rest of the time is spent posturing or refitting.

[Richie]

... or picking up the pieces...

[JasonC]

Sorry folks, the original objector to 15 minute ops was right. They force definite and quite limited styles of play on the player, unrealistically. Instead of letting the commanders choose their strategies it forces a small subset of the actual alternatives, on them. And those restrictions are completely unrealistic. It tops off ammo far too often and too readily, allowing completely unrealistic amounts of firing per unit of time spent moving, overly rewards stalling tactics that in reality are not effective against patient attacks, etc.

That actual periods of heavy combat may last that long - or even less - is not on point, since ammunition limits will see to that in any case. The attempt to focus on only those periods falsifies tactics and the role of maneuver. It falsifies the fire discipline dilemma defenders actually face. It makes the attacker's problem more one of time than of favorable exchange against the defenders, unrealistically. Attacker choose when to press to such an intense period and when not to, and their control of that variable - looking for le momente juste - is half the art of attacking. The designer simply takes it out of their hands and keeps it himself, which is (again) annoyingly like being told what to do and how to do it.

[John_d]

I wasn't specifically referring to urban combat. Now you mention it, 15 minute turns would perhaps work with urban combat, but I would still rather play a 4 30 minutes battle operation than an 8 15 minutes battle operation. Alot of the time this problem links back to one of my original gripes about time limits. To me, unless the map is particularly small or scripted as Jason pointed out, 15 minutes isn't really enough time to really get stuck into a battle. I've played 15 min operations where approaching the enemy can take 6 or 7 minutes in itself. This only leaves a very limited amount of time for the actual combat to take place.

In response to some comments made about manuver in 15 min operations- I can accept that in urban combat sometimes defenders and attackers will find themselves positioned within feet of each other. But that doesn't explain how they got there! I'm talking about starting a battle only to find an entire battalion of men have magically appeared yards from the objective. In real life there is the possibility of detection in these kind of movements. Stalingrad would have been over much more quickly if one of the sides was able to teleport its men through the enemy's lines to take up position next to prime objectives

[Richie]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Sorry folks, the original objector to 15 minute ops was right. They force definite and quite limited styles of play on the player, unrealistically. Instead of letting the commanders choose their strategies it forces a small subset of the actual alternatives, on them. And those restrictions are completely unrealistic. It tops off ammo far too often and too readily, allowing completely unrealistic amounts of firing per unit of time spent moving, overly rewards stalling tactics that in reality are not effective against patient attacks, etc.

That actual periods of heavy combat may last that long - or even less - is not on point, since ammunition limits will see to that in any case. The attempt to focus on only those periods falsifies tactics and the role of maneuver. It falsifies the fire discipline dilemma defenders actually face. It makes the attacker's problem more one of time than of favorable exchange against the defenders, unrealistically. Attacker choose when to press to such an intense period and when not to, and their control of that variable - looking for le momente juste - is half the art of attacking. The designer simply takes it out of their hands and keeps it himself, which is (again) annoyingly like being told what to do and how to do it.

I disagree.

It all comes down to a few points. Playtesting, Balance and Accuracy.

Some firefights and engagements were historically quite limited. In effect a sharp breakthrough on a solid line of defence could alter the strategic situation for both sides and cause them to rethink the front line without further combat.

This brings into bear concepts of isolation for both sides when considering limited breakthrough.

The CM editor has a no-mans land variable setting just for this purpose.

I would argue it can make the player consider strategies over multiple battles rather than one easy fix.

It does lead to sharp, short and brutal exchanges.

It means the attacker must hit with a punch rather than a slap. They must act in the window of opportunity rather than dithering about till the defender runs out of bullets.

It means the defender must prepare a defence with multiple firesquads to try and intercept a breakthrough.

If such an operation is playtested properly and the parameters are set properly you will know if it works or not under playtesting.

That actual periods of heavy combat may last that long - or even less - is not on point

I think that is the point. If an operation best and faithfully represents the style of historical combat it reproduces for a given situation with proper research and playtesting where the result is a balanced and fun game then I'd call it a winner.

It does not mean 15 minute turns in an Op are wrong. It means there's a section of the community out there that either doesn't like them or people are playing games that aren't designed or playtested properly.

As pointed out by other people, Stalingrad is an excellent example of just such a situation.

[ January 17, 2006, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: Richie ]

[Bannon DC]

Originally posted by junk2drive:

Bannon and I are PBEM Little Stalingrad CMAK. I think the 15 turn chunks are just fine too.

15 minutes is working fine in "Little Stalingrad." This ops is spread over something like 30 battles. This is well balanced with a limited number of troops in a large urban landscape.

Junk and I are playing a loose version of "Play Where They Lay." Entirely re-engineering the battlefield between battles is out. Troops on the front line stay in place. Reinforcements start a respectable distance away so they must move into place during the battle -- risking detection, unseen snipers and MG42s, and the every present mortar barrage.

I do not feel as if Michael Dorosh is sitting in my chair dictating how I should fight this battle. He did his job of testing and balancing the fight and has stepped out of the way.

As in any scenario, one size or parameter does not fit in everycase. What works in a tight urban environment would not necessarily work in an open rural landscape.

Other issues such as dropping a brigade on the front line are weaknesses of the CM engine. If you are playing the AI, at least you can expect it. If you are playing a human, playing with agreed upon rules helps to overcome the engine. There was a thread on Play where they Lay sometime ago -- the rules are not perfect, but the concept is sound.

Bannon

[juan_gigante]

Originally posted by Bannon DC:

I do not feel as if Michael Dorosh is sitting in my chair dictating how I should fight this battle.

What? You mean to tell me that you don't sense his presence? You don't feel his eyes on your back as you plot turns? You don't glance behind yourself while walking down an alley at night, and see a shadowy figure in an authentic WWII Canadian uniform dart behind a dumpster? You don't lie awake at night, suspecting he is under the bed, but being too scared to check? Man, you've got it easy.

[Bannon DC]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bannon DC:

I do not feel as if Michael Dorosh is sitting in my chair dictating how I should fight this battle.

What? You mean to tell me that you don't sense his presence? You don't feel his eyes on your back as you plot turns? You don't glance behind yourself while walking down an alley at night, and see a shadowy figure in an authentic WWII Canadian uniform dart behind a dumpster? You don't lie awake at night, suspecting he is under the bed, but being too scared to check? Man, you've got it easy. </font>

[Abbott]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bannon DC:

I do not feel as if Michael Dorosh is sitting in my chair dictating how I should fight this battle.

What? You mean to tell me that you don't sense his presence? You don't feel his eyes on your back as you plot turns? You don't glance behind yourself while walking down an alley at night, and see a shadowy figure in an authentic WWII Canadian uniform dart behind a dumpster? You don't lie awake at night, suspecting he is under the bed, but being too scared to check? Man, you've got it easy. </font>

[Ogami_Itto]

I have not read this entire thread, but I completely agree with most of the rants I have read. I agree with the original poster, and with the other JasonC.

I have only very recently purchased and begun playing CM:BB (I played very much CM:BO many years ago.) and I must say that I am frustrated with alot of the scenarios, but otherwise loving the game.

SPOILERS******* Advanced Tutorial scenario

When I loaded up the "advanced tutorial" mission, I thought, "WOW! an attack on a village! This looks FUN!"

When I saw the hoards of superior german armor pouring over the hills at my attacking army, I shut the game down.

I hate, hate, hate, hate it when it is almost impossible to find a scenario that is just what it claims to be, and is FUN. I'm not asking for an easy victory. I'm just asking for a scenario that does not have every single little thing tweaked against you.

I just got done playing "Small Battles: Cat and..." and I had a blast as the Germans. The briefing stated that the Germans would have a hard go of it, and yet I carefully devastated the opposition. The fun was destroyed a little when I failed to get my tanks off the board in the meager 15 minutes and failed to get a good victory...

annoying! 15 minutes for a village recon scenario? I remember in CM:BO days we would complain, and Charles and co. would say "you are trying to do too much stuff each turn. Slow down."

Now I have 15 minutes to storm through a village. Its not like time is of the essence in the scenario description!

Anyway, thanks for letting me add to the ranting. It's not like I don't appreciate the work it takes to make scenarios... I have made a few for several games. Its just that sometimes I think scenario creators forget about the fun.

[General Bolt]

I must have missed this thread when it got started. The JasonC venomous blast of Carl P was unfreaking believable.

Jason,

Close your eyes take a deep breath and say "It's only a game. It's only a game."

OI,

If you want fun play one of those Random Reinforcement games by CarlP. Play them 2 player only. No historical reality at all. But pure frigging fun. Play "Bonkers in the Bocage". Troops coming in from all sides (yours and the enemys) turn after turn.

For more fun try Inferno by SoddBall. Lotsa Flamers and big guns.

Jason has often said much of combat is either days and weeks of sitting around in foxholes followed by major tanks against scattered infantry. Not fun as CM games go but real life combat.

Sure there are some "FUN" historical scenarios but there can be many more fun ones that don't need to be scrutinized to the minutiae of was the bi-pod available on the Italian MG in Sept 40 or was that Nov 40?

"It's only a game. It's only a game. It's only a game. It's only a game. It's only a game. It's only a game. It's only a game. It's only a game."

[Carl Puppchen]

Glad you liked my scenarios. I am working on a bunch of CMBB ones that I am going to post up there... switching over in honor of the new combat missions campaign game.

They are what they are, and they are supposed to be fun. One thing I really like about going back to cmbb is the return of the factory tile, because I love factories ever since scenarios 1-3 from SL.

Also, there are a lot of good mods out there for graphics. Nothing is as easy to setup as the awesome CMETO mods, but very good once you pick through everything.

It is amazing that a game from this many years ago still holds up and is this much fun.