Things scenario designers should NOT do.

[Panzer76]

I've been playing quite alot of scenarios latly and most of them are pretty good. Though I wish more designers would include a description how the scenario is best played (TCP/PBEM/AI).

But, Ive stumbeled over some really annoying scenarios also. In one you begin with your tanks in full view of surperior enemy ATGs. And subsequently all your reinforcements starts there also. Losing half of your tanks before you can give them a order isnt very amusing.

In another one you have lots of heavy tanks and HTs.The problem is that this is a muddy map, and you lose around half your tanks (immobile) and HTs just trying to MOVE your vehicles to nearest road. Extremly annoying!

But ofcos, most scenarios are good, keep it up!

[rune]

In firing spots at the beginning I understand...mud however happened. How many pictures of tanks stuck would you like? You have to think on your feet and adjust your attack as the mud claims another victim.

Rune

[Panzer76]

Re: Mud. Yes, if I had a choice! In this case the vehicle STARTED in mud, and got lost while I was trying to get them on a road.

[rune]

Look up the battle of the King Tiger [Royal Opponent], or look up the battle on Korshun Relief. Both actually had tanks stuck in mud. Not every commander had the luxury of starting where he wanted to. Besides, after you play the historical setup, you can always go back and change your starting positions...it is a reason I do not lock the units unless for a very specific reason.

Rune

[Panzer76]

I understand that it is realistic that they get bogged. My problem with this scenario in particular is that it WAS NOT possible to start with the vehicles in a "safe" place. And if the scenario designer thinks that players will think it's fun to lose around half their HTs and AFV before the battle, and there is NOTHING they can do with it....

Another thing is that it is entirely random how many vehicles you would lose to the mud in this fashion. In one game one of the players could lose all or most of them, and the battle would be over befroe it started and the player couldnt to ANYTHING about it. No skill, just luck. In another game none or few would be bogged.

Just to clearify again, Im talking about vehicles, that START in mud, by the desgin of the scenario, and the player can NOT place them in any safe locations in the start.

This is just bad scenario design! (IMO)

[rune]

And as a scenario designer, I say it was realistic. Luck had a factor in many battles, and 1-2 scenarios showing what fighting in mud was like is much more real then never having a vehicle start in mud. For each player that says the only want this way, there is another that says that they want it another way. My briefings always show the terrain, feel free to skip any that say mud. To say a scenario designer should never do that, artifically restricts a historical battle.

Korshun Relief a column starts out in mud, but then again, they really did. What CMBB cannot do, is reflect what a muddy road looked like after several tanks went over it. Maybe for the engine rewrite we will see better handling of mud, and the real effects of it.

I know we heard stories of mud and the effect on modern tanks when we had the get togehter at Ft. Knox, including the story about a vehicle that buried itself so bad in the mud pit, they left it there.

As I said, don't restrict what a scenario author can do. Just about for every rule, there was an exception...and doing some of the exceptions is fun.

Rune

[ January 24, 2003, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: rune ]

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by rune:

And as a scenario designer, I say it was realistic. Luck had a factor in many battles

But Rune, so it may be realistic, but do you make a realistic soviet breakthrough battle? Where is the fun in a battle where the Soviets outnumber you 10 to 1 or more? And the same applies to my above example, where is the fun in playing a battle where the battle *is over* by turn 3 (!) because the scenario designer thought he would make a realstic example of how easy it is for your vehicles to bog down!

If there was SOMETHING the player could do about it, like keeping on the roads etc., then yes, I can understand your argumentation, because then the player had a CHOICE in risking the AFVs by driving in the mud. But when the player has NO choice, then it's just a boring example of how easy it is to bog and neither players will find much enjoyment in the game, because the attacking players vehicles are immobilized in the setup zone.

[rune]

The point is, you would not like the scenario, but I guarantee you, there is someone else out there that would give it a go...including a massed Soviet assault! That is the point, while a game, you can see how well you would do given whatever circumstances occured!

It is why I tried to get a wide variety of scenarios on the CD. Different types, sizes, situations, terrains, regions, etc. For each person who just like MEs, there is a person who wants to play a historical battle. For each person who wants only fair balance, there is another who wants to fight against the odds and see if they could do better.

You are right, for you, you don't like that type of battle. For me, I wanted to give someone the chance to compare themself to what really happened. Heck, i get people complaining that the Iron Roadblock isn't replayable after you figure out the tactics. No kidding..it is a TUTORIAL, and is marked as such.

No matter what a scenario designer does, there will be people who like a style and people who won't. It is the reason I have made over 100 scenarios now...the chance to give everyone something they would like to play. Not everything will appeal to everyone...but understand, there are others out there would DO like different things...and play them. Heck, one scenario I loved from CMBO was a totally unrealistic fight on a volcano. It was different and enjoyable. Another fun one was a racetrack where the fans were snipers. Totally off the wall, but I laughted when I played it.

So, don't think there are absolutes...there aren't. Just because you don't like a style doesn't mean everyone doesn't like it. Find what you like and stick with it. There are over 11000 people here, and I bet there are 11000 opinions on what a good scenario is.

All that being said....wanna be a guinea pig on a new scenario? Two player, need feedback on balance.

Rune

[c3k]

Gents,

Just butting in here, but to take up the charge, I have also played 2 scenarios with my units fixed in position under the enemy's guns.

In one, 5 tanks were locked in position for start. First turn, I ordered an anti-armor covered arc to the front and an immediate reverse for all 5. 4 of the 5 died within 10 seconds. The other lasted until 5 seconds into turn 2. Not good.

In another, I get a set-up zone. (It's night, in woods.) I place my units. In turn one I discover that 1/4 of my troops are IN barbed-wire, and about 10% are within 20 meters or less of several bunkers. Not good.

If there's a design reason for this, state it in the briefing. And why it's critical to the design of the scenario or operation.

Thank you,

Ken

[Ellros]

As for reinforcements, you have to remember, the flag is just a marker. The units will appear around that marker, Not exactly on it. So unless you have the marker on a huge autobahn, you are going to have units off the road.

[Sgian Dubh]

Actually, I am creating a scenario that is a soviet assault on a German HQ controlling a critical road/rail junction.

My intention is that is will be extremely difficult for both sides and that the issue should be in doubt the entire time (unless someone really pulls a bad move).

However, I think that the other point that I seldom see raised is that not every scenario should be 'winable' from both sides.

If the scenario is dealing with re-creating a soviet breakthrough, then the goal for the German play should be to:

1) Organize a fighting retreat with emphasis on minimizing casualties and maintaining force cohesion.

2) Delay and inflict as mush damage on the Soviet forces as possible while not violating objective number 1.

I personally find these types of scenarios very challenging because I know that if I screw up I will be wiped out.

But I never expect to win such a scenario, I expect to improve my skills in dealing with a serious crisis.

Just my thoughts....

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by rune:

All that being said....wanna be a guinea pig on a new scenario? Two player, need feedback on balance.

Rune

Sure, I have lotsa time on my hands now, my mail adress is in the profile. I'll be away this weekend, but after that Im ready for go.

Ok, I see your point, that there is *some* people that may enjoy such a scenario, I cant imagine why, but ok. My comments were about what *most* players would think was bad design. I think we can agree about that?

[xerxes]

I've designed ops were certain armor is locked in place, and obviously in AT gun range. The player can't do anything about it. Why? Because to allow free deployment would make it TOTALLY unrealistic. The reality is the column was ambushed because by necessity they were moving fast to exploit. Letting the player setup the column off the road in hulldown positions would be gamey.

That said, I think part of the disagreement is how much you view a scenario as a "game" vs a "simulation". Personally, I don't like it to play like a "game", but that's just my personal preference and there are plenty of people who would disagree with me.

[Max BrauHaus]

One thing I'd like to see more developers of historical "unbalanced" scenarios do is use the optional points setting to try to balance the point outcome. I forget what it is called, but there is a setting in the scenario design that can be used to automatically give the underdog side additional victory points automatically.

I'd also like to see an addition to the scenario format to have a "historical outcome" description displayed after the game has been played. That would allow you to compare your outcome to the historical outcome. I think it would result in fewer complaints about unbalanced scenarios.

[rune]

Panzer, will get it out to you when I get home. Look for it this early evening.

Yep, I agree with you, a lot of players don't want to start in mud, but it doesn't mean there aren't people who want to play a hstorical battle at the start. [Only at the start, as once the scenario begins, it is no longer historical for obvious reasons] However, as a scenario designer, I want there to be something for everyone...and I try...not always successfully...but try I do.

xeres is correct, poeple play styles differ greatly. Heck, my own do...there are times I want to play a simulation...and other times I just want to play to have fun.

Sgian, I have a scenario done being used in ROW, that features a fighting withdrawl. I will release it once all the players are done with it. Had some excellent feedback on it, and I expect some not so great...as people's styles vary so much. Without giving spoilers, maybe one or two of the guys playing it can give a thumbs up or down. Guys, without spoilers, Rearguard Action, thumbs up or down?

Rune

[Soddball]

One of the most enjoyable games I played was an all-random VS the AI - I had no idea what the terrain was going to be, or my troops, or the weather. In the end, I was given a battalion of unfit conscript pioneers, no armour and no artillery and ordered to 'take that town'!

It was a savage affair - dodging fire from machine guns and self-propelled guns, creeping forward, then fighting house-to-house with demo charges and flamethrowers. By the time my 45 turns were up, I had taken half the town but had only reached one of the three flags.

Technically, I lost. What that game taught me is that no matter how tough a battle might be, it's always worth fighting.

No ladder player would have taken up that challenge. If I went by Panzer76's rules, I'd have restarted and played something safe. However, in that 45 minutes I learned more about covering arcs, suppression, organic mortar support, fire bases and jump-off points than I'd learned in three months of playing against AI and human opponents.

[Ubertracker]

And don't forget, the player usually can alter the placement of units at the beginning of a secnario... not always choosing the best location either...

[Spookster]

Many issues regarding scenario design: Here's one link on the subject.

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=002111#000000

[demoss]

As for reinforcements, you have to remember, the flag is just a marker. The units will appear around that marker, Not exactly on it. So unless you have the marker on a huge autobahn, you are going to have units off the road.

In my experience, if the flag is on the road, the reinforcements will arrive in column on the road, unless there just isn't enough road to hold them.

Doug

[Patrick Moore]

I would like to applaud the scenario designers whom include an OOB detailing the forces (reinforcements are sometimes not detailed, but I like that unknown factor too!) for the players side.

I've been playing CMBB for about a 1 month and CMBO for about 8 months and I prefer battles with small unit numbers. Many DL sites for battles only list battle size. At first I often downloaded "small" battles to find out the map is small but the designer stuck in 10 tanks and 5 platoons per side resulting in a slugfest (which can be fun too).

I would also like to applaud scenario designers for listing their reference sources in designing battles!

Keep up the good work!

[Cpt.Kloss]

--->xerxes

"The reality is the column was ambushed because by necessity they were moving fast to exploit. Letting the player setup the column off the road in hulldown positions would be gamey."

And not letting leads only to unnecessary frustration. If they (those tanks) are meant to

be destroyed scenario designer should make them destroyed before actual battle starts.

[The Dave Collective]

Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss:

--->xerxes

If they (those tanks) are meant to

be destroyed scenario designer should make them destroyed before actual battle starts.

Err, you cannot place destroyed tanks in a scenario. I can understand your frustration, but this is the only way to design it.

[WWB]

You do one of two things--what Marc did there or just allude to it in the briefing, maybe placing a few paniced vehicles for good measure.

I think the method Marc used is better, especially if properly balanced. It starts the battle in media res to borrow a literary term, making it much more exciting. Given that the author is aware of the impending death of those tanks, I suspect they are accounted for in the victory points, flag placement, mission objectives and force balance categories. Remember, scenarios are not QBs. There is not a fixed point ratio in any way. You can make strange things happen.

It is quite possible to do breakthrough battles, for example, using a combination of exit zones, time restrictions and map size to make it somewhat competitive.

As for particular flavors of battle, I suggest reading the briefings before embarking. If you cannot handle playing against Tigers, dont play Tiger Tiger as russians. If you hate mud, dont play Korsun Relief. If anything, there is a glut of quality scenarios coming out for CMBB. More than likely you will find something that will not aggrivate your pet peeves.

WWB

[WWB]

Originally posted by Patrick Moore:

I would like to applaud the scenario designers whom include an OOB detailing the forces (reinforcements are sometimes not detailed, but I like that unknown factor too!) for the players side.

I've been playing CMBB for about a 1 month and CMBO for about 8 months and I prefer battles with small unit numbers. Many DL sites for battles only list battle size. At first I often downloaded "small" battles to find out the map is small but the designer stuck in 10 tanks and 5 platoons per side resulting in a slugfest (which can be fun too).

I would also like to applaud scenario designers for listing their reference sources in designing battles!

Keep up the good work!

I list references when appliciable, even if the main one tends to be the mental collection of random readings I have in the good old noggin.

The battle size parameter you see has nothing to do with the size of the map--it has everything to do with the unit count--including fortifications and all possible reinforcements--for the particular fight. So OPs are almost invariably huge once you throw in conditional reinforcements. Scenarios will vary considerably, I have seen battles listed as small on 1x2km maps. I have one pushing large on a 480x640m map.

WWB

[Egbert]

Warning

Originally posted by rune:

In firing spots at the beginning I understand...mud however happened. How many pictures of tanks stuck would you like? You have to think on your feet and adjust your attack as the mud claims another victim.

Rune

Do not discuss scenarios with this man, he is wanted in 3 counties where otherwise healthy people were rendered catatonic after playing three of his scenarios in a row.

Repeat, play his scenarios at your own risk.

/Warning

We now return you to your regualrly scheduled programming.