To All Scenario Makers

[Panzertruppe]

Just wanted to thank you all for contributing to the "retail" version of CMBO. Because I still can't afford Broadband,DSL,ect I have always had a hard time downloading new battles for my game. I just got the "retail" version just for the new battles and some mods. Great job fellas!

[lcm1947]

Yes they are truely wonderful individuals. It must take a lot of time and work to design a good scenario and my hat certainly goes off for them.

[simovitch]

It is amazing the amount of time and dedication that is put into designing scenarios for CM. I just designed one, my first (it's called rollbahn A, on the scenario depot) and i got a lot of rolled eyes and headshaking from my wife for the hours spent researching and playtesting. How some of you guys cranked out so many is remarkable. One thing about calling a scenario historical; I have run into some that claimed to be historical that obviously were not, at least not to mine or most grognard standards. I would hope that at least the map was accurate. Anyway, for the great majority: keep up the good work.

[Stoffel]

Its good to see somebody who has comments on a scenario.

Now it would be better to name the scenarios in question and give your opinion about them in the form of a review,than the designers can do something about it.

[simovitch]

Not sure whether I should start another topic, or post to the scenario discussion forum (inundated by CMBB posts). So I will just comment on the few historical anomalies that I have run into right here. If i have time, a philosophical thread regarding the limitations of historical representations using conflict simulations might be started (hey, read that last sentence out loud in a Jesse Jackson voice...)

First and foremest, redoing a SL/ASL scenario and recreating the original board and calling it "historical" should be a no-no. note: I am (well, was) an avid ASL fan, and although it is an "accurate" representation of WW2 combat, note that there were in fact seperate "Historical" ASL modules released. these can and have been reproduced in the CM format. yet are the CM conversions historical?

Anyway, the minimum requirements for calling a scenario historical might be established, i.e. accurate map (using accurate mapping from the time period +/- say 5 years?), correct TO&E for the formation for the time, even correct weather.

If all these criteria are met, and the game is fun to play, then in my grognard mind you have achieved success.

My current area of interest is the northern shoulder of the Bulge, 12/16-12/20. So I will give some examples of, if you will, the good, the bad, and the ugly within this micro-theater:

The Good: "Rocherath Krinkelt" and "We fight and Die here." As good as could be expected. These had it all, and with the added bonus that they were operations. good job.

The Bad: "McKinley's Battalion" (sorry Moon) but as soon as I saw the Tiger IE's, and as much as I wanted to I just couldn't play it (yet) because there were no PZVI IE in the area (or the entire ardennes campaign??). The map had some forestation anomalies as well. "we run like hell" had good TO&E but the map was strangely abstracted and somewhat inaccurate. couldn't bring myself to play it (yet) either.

The ugly: "Die Kloster" and "Udenbreth" (please correct me if i'm wrong, but historical? c'mon...)

There are many more goods, bads and otherwise. and the bads and the uglies are probably great "games" (i wouldn't know) and I will admit that my own "Rollbahn A" battle will likely be enjoyed by a very few. and there may be an "historical' anomaly in my game that i missed. incidentally I really, REALLY wanted to use ground snow to achieve the "ardennes" effect (Tom's ardennes mod rocks) but alas, there was no snow here on 12/16/44.

Thats it for now, i am home with a toothache and had a little time to ramble. feel free to fire away!

simovitch

[Moon]

No problem, McKinley's Battalion was my first (in fact it was the first operation ever made for CM during alpha). I still have nightmares sometimes

Martin

PS. Did I call it historical? Oh boy... I was young and, you know...

[simovitch]

Moon,

Im glad you didn't take offense. funny thing is, the McKinley's Battalion scenario kept coming up on my topical Bulge searches on the internet a few months back. That is how I found out about CMBO, and it was the main reason I purchased it (which I am glad I did). Hats off to the developers of CM! :cool:

[Dandelion]

Simovitch

I find the discussion on historical CMBO scenarios/operations very interesting and its good you brought it up. I have some thoughts myself on this subject, having tried to design quite a few, succeeding with nil.

There's a conflict, that I encounter all the time. The issue of application of accuracy into the engine so that the engine reflects reality. It can and will, normally, but sometimes you need to manipulate things and use unhistorical settings to achieve historical effects. Such tricks can look a little strange at times. So strange it hardly looks historical

One good example is the scenario Bretteville. I downloaded it with some curiosity, as I've been working on that same battle for years. I noted that the designer had had access to fairly accurate details of the units and accurate maps (though one with no height curves). Yet he puts a couple of Shermans in the OOB. I believe that with such relatively gigh degree of insight he knows there were no Shermans there. I guess he put them there as he found out the same thing I did - accurate OOB will make this battle barely winnable for the Canadians. Is this a good choice? Or should one drop it altogether as a non-enjoyable accurate battle? I think now of the PzKpfw IVE reaction.

Also, accurate isn't always possible. I am thinking primarily about maps. Every now and then you find that although two villages are perfectly placed relative eachother, you can't draw that straight road between them that was there in reality. Question is - do you move the villages to get a straight road, or have a bent road? Locality or function as priority? This is also a feature of many historical scenarios, where the designer has obviously used an authentic map, and apparently made a priority of exact locations. I find myself often feeling inclined to making the other priority - that of function, practically regardless of how distorted the map becomes. What's your thoughts on that? Is this what you meant by abstracted maps?

Of course these issues arise with units also, as there is a limited number of types after all to choose from. Myself I've never encountered the problem. But how to properly face it? Exclude, or use an unhistorical replacement instead?

Light conditions is also a tricky part. Returning to Bretteville, the battle took place in pitch black darkness, but the town was lit up by fires and the outskirts by Canadian flares. German armour also silhouetted against burning buidlings in the distance. In this case, the historically accurate setting is of course night, but perhaps a foggy dusk is closer to realism? In spite of it probably appearing somewhat weird to the player who knows it was a night battle and that there was no fog?

Finally, the issue of accuracy warranting the term historical. Lets use the ASL as example. Most often, the SL/ASL scenario will use a section of a battle, including the actually present force types in an interesting mix. Rarely depicting complete engagements (most SL/ASL scenarios concern regimental battles or larger, but few make it above reinforced company level in size). Often lacking detailed verification (the designer does not know which company attacked where, simply that the regiment contained companies that were reasonably part of the battle etc). Is this level of accuracy historical? Semi-historical? Or must one be able to verify the presence at a location and time of all units one includes, and in such case to what level of detail, do you think?

Regards

Dandelion

[kenfedoroff]

The above might be good points for Grogs or gamers that thrive on exact simulation, but, (I am guessing) many/most people could care less what exact units were in a battle.

Many/most people play this game for fun, for the satisfaction of solving a puzzle, and competition.

So the poor scenario designer has to make a choice: 100 percent historical (of which 80-90 percent of the people who play it won't know or care) -or- concentrate on fun/playability, etc. -or- make the scenario for your own amusement and everyone else can bloody well sod-off if they don't like it.

Maybe it depends on how much one cares whether or not his/her scenario is popular or not.

The McKinley's Battalion scenario was fun to play (because I still remember it, and I can hide my own Easter Eggs).

If BTS wants to gather a larger audience, (starting with the casual gamer) then they are better served by offering fun/playability vs 100 percent historical scenarios (unless they offer fun/playability, of course).

That's my story and I'm stick'n to it.

Ken

[lcm1947]

Kenfedoroff I couldn't agree with you more. I know where Simovitch is coming from and would surely love to play accurate historical battles but if they aren't fun that kills it for me. It's a game after all and I'm playing to have fun and some chance of winning. Now mind you I wouldn't care to know that I could win every time but I sure wouldn't want to know that I'd lose every time either. After reading Dandelion's post I can certainly see the challenges to trying to create an accurate historical battle and if I ever had any thoughts of trying to do one myself I don't any longer.

[simovitch]

dandelion,

you bring up many good points (as usual). Some of your design issues would cause me to throw in the towel as well.

Even "historical" ASL's KGP was realistic, but still abstracted realism. Historical maps though, and that was important for me. It is the essence of CM that demands more realism for me, I think. I dont want to see farther beyond that ridge than that poor dogface did back in black '44, so to speak. Hey, you got shermans? says here that you didn't have any shermans!

"Kelly's Heroes" was a great movie because (among other things) it had the right arsenal for the time period. "Battle of the Bulge" sucked mainly (among other things) because they were using Korean war tanks. ugh!

does anyone remember a story in an old issue of the Avalon Hill General called "The Ultimate wargame"?. it was back in the 70's, around the time SL first appeared, I think. 3 semi trucks pull up in front of this guy's house carrying the units for this game he ordered. "IT" was the name of the game as I recall. anyway he stumbled through the rulebook for months through such rules sections as "paratroop readiness phase" where a unit's straps and gear are checked. you get the picture...

I dont care so much about the exact composition of the troops, just the relative size and quality. Map is important.

Fictional or "what if"'s are fine, for what they are. What it comes down to really is that it should be the scenario designer's responsibility to justify his historical/fictional labeling in his briefing.

simovitch

[Dandelion]

Ken,

Majority appeal? What's that - a place near Majorca?

Jokes aside, the debate on narrow or wide appeal is indeed a tricky one. For scenario designers and, I suppose, for the BTS/BFC too. Remaining at scenario designing, I myself have reformed from extreme youknowwhat-retentative to slightly playability oriented. Still I simply turn the game off when Kangaroo mounted infantry come storming ashore at Vaagsoy. Can't define the line, but I suppose my personal demand is effective illusion.

What's the meaning of the idiomatic expression hiding ones own Easter Eggs?

Simovitch - In my analysis, SL/ASL "classics" share a number of features. In size, composition and plot. As far as I can see, they can usually easily bee taken out of historical context and inserted into any number of others. The enjoyability and skilled design made them classics, rather than historical accuracy. So going for accuracy can really only be an obstacle to be conquered, rather than help or asset. I might be Pavlovs dog here, but I (nowadays) feel the SL/ASL way is the way to go about things. A good idea and design to start with, then find a historical context to insert it in. Under such conditions, it is extremely difficult to find situations where you can verify every man and tree involved. Abstractions sets in. But going the other way around is more than fairly difficult I find (for me at least), looking at a historical battle trying to find a good scenario design.

Hey Lee - don't do that to me Scenario designing is a walk in the park, easier than...something really really easy. You know, like eating ice cream on a hot day in Texas. I don't mean it flows out in a sticky mess all over ones hands. I mean it just comes natural and its over before you know it.

Cheerio

Dandelion

[kenfedoroff]

Originally posted by Dandelion:

Ken,

What's the meaning of the idiomatic expression hiding ones own Easter Eggs?

"Short Attention Span Man" strikes again -or- "my memory ain't what it used to be".

Ken

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Dandelion:

A good idea and design to start with, then find a historical context to insert it in.

That's how I do it. The starting point is a real tactical problem, and the scenario is the instrument to enable people to have fun dealing with it (or not, depending on whether they like my scenarios).

"Historical accuracy" to me is to stay true to the historical conditions in which battles were waged. Not counting the tanks/men and the last minute undulation on a 2x2km map.

[simovitch]

andreas,

The game provides for the designer to designate the scenario as fictional, semi historical and historical. My point is that the designer should use these designations with some discretion. If you are going to make the leap from "semi-historical" to "historical", you should at least have an accurate map and done some research with reliable sources.

Granted, even Hugh Cole's "Ardennes, the Battle of the Bulge" mentioned Tigers at Rocherath, which has since been proven inaccurate by Danny S. Parker and others. And Cole's source is considered by many as difinitive.

Once the first turn begins in a historical scenario all bets are off, of course. then the historical simulation becomes a tool to investigate alternative (fictional) strategies using the game engine, the very heart of conflict simulations!

simovitch

[Andreas]

Simovitch - we will simply have to agree to disagree (or not even that). I believe that your definition of historical is far too restrictive to enable one to present a battle with very few execeptions. It would e.g. make things completely impossible for the Soviet-German war. As you note, even good sources make errors (e.g. Erickson places Tigers at the Stalingrad relief attempt, while there were none).

I think your initial definition (while it has its merits) is ultimately far too restrictive, although it seems that in the last post you are already weakening it.

BTW - I consider 'A bridge too far' a very good movie, even though the "German" tanks are Leopard I. A minor quibble, which does not detract from the enjoyment of the movie. In the same way that "kelly's Heroes" to me is simply a good movie. The fact that they have period kit is an added bonus. It would still be good if it was not there. Never saw "Battle of the Bulge", so I can't comment.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Simovitch - we will simply have to agree to disagree (or not even that). I believe that your definition of historical is far too restrictive to enable one to present a battle with very few execeptions. It would e.g. make things completely impossible for the Soviet-German war. As you note, even good sources make errors (e.g. Erickson places Tigers at the Stalingrad relief attempt, while there were none).

I think your initial definition (while it has its merits) is ultimately far too restrictive, although it seems that in the last post you are already weakening it.

Have to agree with Andreas on this. Often data is non-existant for one side or the other. Also, accurate maps (particularly in the east) are often hard to come by if they exist at all.

BTW - I consider 'A bridge too far' a very good movie, even though the "German" tanks are Leopard I. A minor quibble, which does not detract from the enjoyment of the movie. In the same way that "kelly's Heroes" to me is simply a good movie. The fact that they have period kit is an added bonus. It would still be good if it was not there. Never saw "Battle of the Bulge", so I can't comment.

You MUST see Battle of the Bulge... it is the single worst war movie ever made (though the scene where they sing Ob's stürmt oder schneit is worth the price of a rental)

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

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

Simovitch - we will simply have to agree to disagree (or not even that). I believe that your definition of historical is far too restrictive to enable one to present a battle with very few execeptions. It would e.g. make things completely impossible for the Soviet-German war. As you note, even good sources make errors (e.g. Erickson places Tigers at the Stalingrad relief attempt, while there were none).

I think your initial definition (while it has its merits) is ultimately far too restrictive, although it seems that in the last post you are already weakening it.

Have to agree with Andreas on this. Often data is non-existant for one side or the other. Also, accurate maps (particularly in the east) are often hard to come by if they exist at all.

BTW - I consider 'A bridge too far' a very good movie, even though the "German" tanks are Leopard I. A minor quibble, which does not detract from the enjoyment of the movie. In the same way that "kelly's Heroes" to me is simply a good movie. The fact that they have period kit is an added bonus. It would still be good if it was not there. Never saw "Battle of the Bulge", so I can't comment.

You MUST see Battle of the Bulge... it is the single worst war movie ever made (though the scene where they sing Ob's stürmt oder schneit is worth the price of a rental... made me want to jump in a tank and drive to Antwerp) </font>

[simovitch]

yes, the East Front terrain would be difficult to model, considering the vastness, and the limited map availability.

The Ardennes is a relatively small area which I have put under a microscope for years now. This attributed to my gnats-ass position on accuracy, a position from which I will take a few steps back. (incedentally my map-analretentiveness is a result of my profession which is Land Surveying and Civil Engineering...)

I have actually played quite a few "historical" scenarios of CMBO that I had very little information on, terrain and otherwise, and enjoyed them greatly.

In fact the less I know, the more willing I am to accept that the scenario is "historic" when it is labelled as such, increasing my enjoyment. I have noticed, especially lately in the CMBB (don't own yet...) scenario descriptions, that designers are more and more likely to qualify the historical accuracy of their scenarios. That is wonderful, and perhaps this qualification is all that I can (should) ask for.

simovitch