ichadwick Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Some advice please. I'm working on a few scenarios, playtesting them myself mostly. I'm a few tweaks away from wanting to share them for playtesting. But when I am ready...Should I... </font>Post them on a site like the Scenario Depot right way? </font>Ask for interested people to email me so I can send the latest file out to a select few?</font>Simply post it on my own site and put the URL up here for anyone who is interested and hope someone responds?</font>Spam the forum's mailing list with an unsolicited copy of the scenario, a lengthy description, a photo of my dog and a request to playtest it?</font>Keep it to myself and play it over and over and over and over and over... mwah ha ha ha ha </font>Ian 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaylord Focker Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Oh exscuse me, just *bumped* into this thread by accident. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 I'm not a scenario designer, but from what I've seen, designers usually put up a post on the Scenario board looking for people interested in playtesting. Once it's been through a few rounds of playtesting, then it generally gets 'released' to the community at large. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGF Keller Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Ian, as a newbie scenario creator (two in the last couple of montbs), what I've done is started a thread on the Scenario Talk board, talking up my battle and asking if anyone is willing to take a test drive. Then arrange for a fast e-mail delivery. I have had some good responses and some good feedback. But you have to sell what you've done...make it appealing. I've actually posted some screen shots to whet the appetitie. Some folks will take a stab at it. Heck, I will. It is important to get your scenarios play-tested if you can. For example, one tester told me that an AFV I selected in my Courtyard of Death scenario, while technically still around in '42, was for all intents and purposes so rare it was effectively unavailable. So I made the change. Meanwhile, if you are doing a historical or semi-historical scenario, getting your OOB correct is really important. There are many knowledgable folks around here who will willingly give you good information in this area. For my Hube's HQ Attacked scenario, Dan "Berlichtingen" Brown gave me a very detailed rundown of the typical Panzer Division HQ group --which, by the way, included two busses!! No busses in CMBB's unit selector unfortunately, but I am sure the purists out there will cut me a bit of slack on that one. But I did learn that if the HQ group did have a command tank, it was usually a III with no gun. So when I put the III in there, it had 0 ammo load out, equivalent to no gun. These are the sort of realistic touches that make the game more than just a tactic simulator. Do get you scenarios playtested. Even if you get just one or two folks to playtest, you will be better off than if you you just post it to the Depot or somewhere else. [ January 09, 2003, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: OGF Keller ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ubertracker Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Another thought about scenarios... there are basically three types: 1. Historical. Pretty obvious you want to provide a reasonably correct OOB given the game's limitations and scale. Problem is play balance. Sometimes you must tweak the game to make it playable not merely a walk over for one side. But historicity is the prime goal. 2. Fictional solo. Go nuts. The idea is to make a challenging game for a single player so it doesn't have to be accurate, merely interesting and exciting. The game will limit the available units according to your choice of zone and time, providing a historical framework. You don't need to balance the sides too tightly as long as you tell players which side you intend them to play. The computer is a mediocre opponent in many situations so you have to give it an advantage to compensate. 3. Fictional MP. As above but more emphasis on play balance. Still never hurst to give one side an advantage and suggest the better player play the other. Evenly balanced sides aren't as dynamic or challenging as games where one side has to overcome a situation (usually the terrain or more/better units for the enemy). Start with lots of units and a medium-large map. Small maps with limited units are much harder to balance. In tiny games, a single unit can throw the balance off and one square of trees can change the battlefield. In larger games a whole platoon and a big woods may not make a difference. It's like haiku versus a sonnet. And of course there are quick battle maps. Try to design a few maps first to get used to the editor. Place a few units on the board to check out the LOS. There are some really quirky things that happen to buildings when you change terrain heights. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.