Scenario Design Instruction by The Teacher

[Treeburst155]

Someone once said, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." Well, listen up! I'm about to teach you something about scenario design.

The subject is victory locations. I will discuss VLs in the context of probe/attack/assault scenarios where there is an obvious attacker and defender. For meeting engagements, stick a flag or three in the middle. Exit scenarios are outside the scope of this study; but some material herein will be useful for such scenarios, as well as the "bogus flag" scenario type.

What makes the attacking player attack? Is it the briefing which says, "Take the hill at any cost"? Of course not! It's the VLs that begin the game in the hands of the defender that provide the motivation for the attacker. With no VLs on the map, the attacker begins the game with a 50/50 draw. In such a scenario, the attacker would only attack if he is the sporting type who wants to follow his orders as stated in the briefing. The competitive attacker, faced with a formidable opponent, could simply set up defensively, hit ceasefire, and wait for boredom to cause his opponent to do likewise, or take the risk of leaving his trenches to initiate hostilities himself. This is inferior design. Such a scenario would also tend to be unbalanced in favor of the defender should the attacker actually attack.

Victory locations, the point value of these locations, and the total value of all VLs on the map must encourage the attacker to follow the orders presented in the briefing. VLs must be compatible with the briefing, and tailored to it. Just because BFC have made small flags worth 100 pts, and large flags worth 300 pts., doesn't mean your victory locations are limited to these two values. You can double, triple, and quintuple flags to better match the briefing (and scenario size), and provide the proper incentive to the players. Your VL's can have any value from 100 pts. to 6,000 pts. in 100 pt. increments! A victory location is not a flag. It is a location that has military value. A VL is designated, and given the appropriate value, by the placing of one or more flags on the location.

DETERMINING VICTORY LOCATIONS

VLs should be designated only on map features with plausible military value. It is preferable that these locations be mentioned specifically in the briefing as to the reason for their value, especially if a location is not of obvious military value just from a quick look at the map.

There is one exception to the above that has merit IMO. That is the concept of a field of flags, or a trail of flags. In this case, the aggressor is rewarded incrementally based on his general liberation of real estate, or a stretch of road. This is rarely seen, and generally requires quite a few flags. The best implementation of this concept I have seen is in the scenario, "Murphy's Law".

VL VALUE

To determine the proper value of a VL, and the total value of all VLs, several things must be carefully considered. They are interrelated.

1) The attacker's briefing

2) The attacker's likely points for casualties caused TO the defender

3) The likely casualty ratio (defender's points for attacker casualties)

4) YOUR idea, based on the briefing, of what should be accomplished by the attacker in order to achieve a given level of victory.

Items 2 and 3 can best be determined through playtesting, although experience may allow for some educated guesses. Playtesting is the RIGHT way to determine these figures however.

Item 1 is fairly easy. If the attacker's briefing says, "Take the hill in 40 minutes at any cost", then the hill should be valuable enough that the attacker can win at least a Minor Victory if he takes the hill in 40 minutes, regardless of casualties suffered, or inflicted for that matter. Reward achievement of stated objectives!

Item 4 is where the designer asks questions like, "What do I need from the attacker in order to grant a Tactical Victory?" What VL division/casualty ratio combinations are acceptable for that level of victory? Once the answers to these types of questions are decided on, I need only calculate the flag points required for the victory locations to make the results come out as desired for different levels of achievement.

In order to calculate the proper flag points one must understand the way games are scored. I believe I saw this explanation in the manual. I'll not repeat it here. It is not difficult.

I created a simple spreadsheet where I can quickly calculate hypothetical outcomes. I can change total VL points, division of VL points, attacker points for casualties caused, casualty ratio, and Axis bonus. In about an hour, I can make a good decision on just how valuable the VLs should be. In this time, I have reviewed the results of hundreds of possible outcomes.

Spreadsheet or not, you will have to run the above hypothetical items through the CM scoring formula to determine the proper value of Victory Locations. I recommend spending 30 minutes making a spreadsheet.

What I have learned is that larger scenarios (unit point value) tend to require VLs that are very valuable, if their ownership is to have any real influence on the outcome of the battle. If the primary objective of a large scenario is to take a VL, there needs to be MANY flags on it. Otherwise, the attacker will probably disregard his territorial goals in favor of destruction of the enemy. He will disobey orders, and not play the scenario with the designer's objective in mind.

Another thing I've learned is that seemingly small changes in casualty ratio can have a significant effect on the score, as can changes in the total level of carnage with the same casualty ratio and VL divisions.

So, if you're designing a scenario, learn the scoring formula, make a spreadsheet, and spend some time on VL related decisions. Your scenario will provide better gameplay for your efforts.

Tomorrow's lesson will be on why all molotovs should be removed from your CMBB scenarios. For a headstart, go the CMBB forum, read my molotov rant, and post YOUR dissatisfaction with the molotovs in CMBB. Let's get BFC to fix or do somefink with the molotovs!

Note: The preceding is NOT my opinion. It is fact. It is truth. Know that you are wrong if you disagree with anything written above, for I am the teacher. YOU are the one thoughtlessly plopping single flags on maps.

Treeburst155 out.

[ March 04, 2004, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[Slappy]

I found this to be both well reasond and insightful. It represents, along with unrealistic maps, why 80% of bad scenarios are bad. Hear this man.

[Michael Dorosh]

That spreadsheet must be made public domain, Mister Teacher!

[WineCape]

I second this! Well said and explained.

Sincerely,

Charl Theron

-----------------------------------------------------

Wine donations send to the following for their contributions to CM:

</font>

• Staff @ Battlefront.com</font>
• John Kettler for his entertaining tourney AAR’s</font>
• Fuerte for his PBEM HELPER</font>
• Manx (He used to run the “sexiest CMBO modsite on the net”)</font>
• Boots & Tracks (RoW tournament scenarios)</font>
• Andrew Fox (modding art)</font>
• Keith Miller @ Scenario Depot</font>
• Gordon Molek for his CMMOS utility</font>

Co-creator & Sponsor of the following Combat Mission tournaments:

</font>

• The infamous CMBO “Invitational” (Ari Maenpaa)</font>
• WineCape Tourney I and II (Fangorn + KiwiJoe)</font>
• Rumblings of War aka RoW (Winners: Wreck = RoW I; Kanonier Reichmann + Ali + Jon_L = RoW II; Deadly 88 + Frunze + mPisi = RoW III)</font>
• Download and play the RoW III Tournament Scenario Pack</font>

"One must not judge everyone in the world by his qualities as a soldier: otherwise we should have no civilization."

- Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

[GJK]

Send me a copy of this spreadsheet if you like and I can turn it into a searchable database where a person could plug in the variables and have the data from the spreadsheet provide its answer(s). I'd be happy to convert and post that at The Proving Grounds if interested in sharing.

[Pzman]

I hate to be the first to dislike the idea, but that is the case. It leaves no room for imagination... down with the spreadsheet!

[Treeburst155]

Thanks, guys, for the kind comments. As for the spreadsheet, it is a VERY simple thing. I will clean it up a bit and send it to GJK. There may be a problem however, in that it is a Microsoft Works '97 file (.wks). This is the software that came with my new Windows 98 (First Edition) PC in 1998. Mr. Gates has gone out of his way since that time to make sure that I, and only I, can view my spreadsheets. This tremendous boost to the security of my spreadsheets has discouraged me from upgrading to more modern software. I owe it all to Mr. Gates and his selfless concern for my security. Still, in hopes that some may find it useful, I will send the spreadsheet along to GJK. Thanks again for the comments.

Treeburst155 out.

[Treeburst155]

Originally posted by Panzerman:

I hate to be the first to dislike the idea, but that is the case. It leaves no room for imagination... down with the spreadsheet!

Analyzing the possible and likely outcomes of various design decisions regarding victory locations will enhance your ability to turn an imagined scenario into reality. First you create the scenario (imagination), then you determine VLs and their appropriate values. Final VL related decisions should probably be one of the last things done on a new scenario. You need to write briefings (at least have them in your head), and playtest some, before you can make wise VL decisions.

Treeburst155 out.

[ March 04, 2004, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[GJK]

Sounds good Treeburst, send it my way, I should be able to open it.

[Mad Russian]

Well, that was something to read.

I have a few tricks up my own sleeve when it comes to VL's.

You make two flags dynamic. Then put them in the same location, now you can have that location be worth, as much as, 2000 points.

That scenario HSG Easy is on both The Proving Grounds and The Sceanrio Depot. A shameless plug for my own scenario...

There are also times when you need to use VL's to get the AI to defend properly. I've found small VL's are best for this. There are few times when there will be a single VL on the map.

Again Treeburst that is a very good teaching text. Thanks for the instruction.

Panther Commander

[Treeburst155]

Panther Commander,

I like your dynamic flag idea. The only drawback is that you can only have the one victory location. For many large scenarios, a single 2,000 pt VL could work out just fine however. In such a case, your idea would be more convenient than 20 small flags tightly packed, or 6 or 7 large flags tightly packed.

You mentioned victory flag hoops that must be jumped through when designing scenarios with the AI in mind. This brings me to another important lesson of scenario design. I might as well bore everyone with it right now.

There are six different ways a scenario can be played. They are:

1) Axis vs AI

2) Axis vs AI blind

3) Allies vs AI

4) Allies vs AI blind

5) Human vs Human

6) Human vs Human blind

I believe all scenarios should be designed specifically for just ONE of these ways of playing. Doing this will really help reduce the man hours required to design and test scenarios. The scenarios will also tend to be much better if tailored to just one of these six specific ways of playing. That is, if they are played in the manner intended.

I do PBEM exclusively. I will choose a scenario designed specifically for human v human every time over one that supposedly works well against the AI too. There are bound to be negative effects on the human v human play, due to the consideration given to play against the AI. The reverse is probably also true.

Imagine if all the scenarios at the Scenario Depot were designed for just one of the six types of play. They could all then be organized into the six categories listed above. If you feel like playing Axis against the AI in a blind battle, you simply go to that category at the Depot and start shopping. You KNOW you will be looking at scenarios specifically designed and tested for what you want to do at that time.

Give yourself a break as a designer. Make your "job" simpler. Get more positive feedback by designing specifically for one type of play. Chances are, feedback from those who play the scenario in the single way you intended will be quite positive. Negative feedback from someone who plays the scenario in one of the five unintended ways is simply disregarded. They can't even read the briefing to know how your scenario is to be played. What possible value could their comments have?

Treeburst155 out.

[ March 05, 2004, 02:10 AM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[Pugilist]

Thanks for the tips Treeburst (from a fledgling scenario designer.)

To contribute, although I have no complaints about the issue (I've only very recently designed and submitted my first scenario), I think reviewing submitted scenarios is a big part of the process. I try to review every scenario I play, even QBs on imported maps (for those who don't know, at both The Proving Grounds and the good ol' Scenario Depot you can review maps).

Reviewing scenarios is an extremely constructive way to improve add-on scenarios, which are the ultimate "mod" for the CM series if you will.

So, get in there and review! It literally takes a few seconds.

[GJK]

FYI: I was able to open the file on a version of Works that I have and copied/converted it to Excel 2000. I didn't see any "forumulas" or calculations, but I also haven't had time to read Treeburst's instructions that he also emailed me. As soon as I do, I'll make this available on The Proving Grounds as a web page that everyone can view/use.

[Treeburst155]

GJK,

All you do is enter the hypothetical numbers in the blue cells, and final percentage and points ratio are calculated. It's simply multiplication, division, and addition. Perhaps you can only view the spreadsheet, not work with it?

The formula for CM scoring is this:

AC = attacker's casualty points earned

DC = defender's casualty points earned

VLa = VL points earned by attacker

VLd = VL points earned by defender

TP = total points earned by both sides (AC + DC + VLa + VLd)

(AC + VLa)/TP = Attacker's final percentage

(DC + VLd)/TP = Defender's final percentage

The final percentages (the game score) will always total 100. Figure one, and you have the other.

To figure the level of victory (minor, tactical,etc..) you divide the winner's points by the loser's points. If the answer is less than 1.25, it is a draw. Less than 1.75 is a Minor victory. Less than 2.5 is a Tactical, and less than 5 is a Major victory. Anything higher is a Total victory.

For example, the lowest possible Tactical Victory will see a final score of 64-36 because 64/36 = 1.777

Casualty points are awarded based on unit cost in the editor in MOST cases. There are some exceptions. I believe crews of any type are valued higher than their cost per man. The same may apply to higher level HQs. Arty spotter casualties score only a fraction of their cost in the editor. I think it's 30 points. Captures score double.

Tip on estimating attacker casualty points scored:

Subtract air and arty from the defender's total unit points shown in the editor. Then minus about 15 percent. This is about the maximum casualty points the attacker is likely to get.

Treeburst155 out.

[ March 05, 2004, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[GJK]

Thanks Treeburst, that was the problem, the formulas didn't copy over.

I'll start working on a web application that will handle those calculations this weekend and will keep everyone updated!

[The Hapless General]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is the "X vs. AI Blind" type and how is it different than "X vs. AI"?

[Treeburst155]

"Blind" just means playing the scenario without first looking at it in the editor, or starting a dry run game from the other side, just to see what you're up against. When you play blind, you just choose a scenario, choose a side, and go, with no foreknowledge of the enemy.

Scenarios designed specifically for blind play could have lots of ambushes and surprises, with crazy setup zones for one or both sides. Replay value of a good blind scenario would naturally be very poor. You can only play blind one time.

Treeburst155 out.

[The Hapless General]

thanks, though it had never occurred to me to open a scenario in the editor before I play it...

[GJK]

Treeburst: If "Bonus" is used, does it just add to the totals of TPa and TPd (Total Points Attacker/Defender) or is there additional calculations for it? I have the rest figured out and am ready to begin programming it.

[Treeburst155]

The bonus will affect the Axis point total either positively or negatively. I'm ASSUMING the bonus also adds or subtracts from the total points scored for both sides. It would seem logical for this to happen. When I have time on my hands, I'll test it to be sure.

Hapless General,

If you're playing humans, you can bet you will run into those who look scenarios over before playing them. There is nothing wrong with this as long as the person doesn't claim to be playing blind. Also, you may find over time that you like to screen scenarios before spending a lot of time on them. This will happen when you run into enough dud scenarios.

Treeburst155 out.

[ March 06, 2004, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[GJK]

A bump and a follow-up....

I've begun working on the coding for this, converting Treeburst's Works file into a web based equivalent. The initial run is here. Note that at the moment, VL points are hard coded so selecting a number of flags does nothing. This is because I'm working on a full featured version that will display a table of results based on all the combinations of VL points for both sides...so that the visitor doesn't have to enter a value, reset, enter it again with slightly different variables, submit, repeat....

Also, the page is very fugly right now, when completed it will be in the look and feel of The Proving Grounds and will be a tool that scenario designers and players alike can use if they choose.

[jwxspoon]

TB's spreadsheet sounds interesting, and I will take a look at it. But my gut reaction is, after using spreadsheets all day every day in my job, may God help me if I ever start using them to design scenarios

jw

[GJK]

Originally posted by jwxspoon:

TB's spreadsheet sounds interesting, and I will take a look at it. But my gut reaction is, after using spreadsheets all day every day in my job, may God help me if I ever start using them to design scenarios

jw

That's why I'm making a non-spreadsheet, web based version of this that I'm expanding on a bit. A good bit actually, so that it does display a wide range of results based on the variables entered. I'll be working on it again this morning and will keep everyone updated!

[GJK]

Ok, I still need to pretty it up a bit and then put it in the Proving Grounds format and link to it from there, but you can see the development of it here

[GJK]

Ok, I have this finished now (for the most part)!

You can find it at The Proving Grounds, by going to the FAQ/Tools menu and then selecting "VL Planner" or by going here.

I'll be adding a detailed explanation to the results, but I think it's pretty self-explanatory.

As I posted on The Proving Grounds: "This is a neat tool! I was plugging in some of my numbers from AAR's that I posted and instantly saw how the results would of varied based on VL locations taken. I could then play with the casualty points a bit to see how playing more or less aggressive would of affected the outcome.

I think both scenario designers and playtesters will find this to be an invaluable tool!"

Enjoy!

Edit: Changed reference to the utility on the site to VL Planner from VL Calculator. Sounds better....

[ March 09, 2004, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: GJK ]