Scenario Design Instruction by The Teacher

[Treeburst155]

It's looking good!

There are a couple glitches though. Final ratios that should be Minor Victories are marked as Tactical Victories.

The website graphics cut off the right side of the chart. You can't read the far right result. What's happening is that the "cells" expand as the number of flags entered are reduced. The far right is always cut off. My screen res is set to 1152 x 864, if that helps. When I first go to the page, I have a horizontal scroll bar too.

It's a fine piece of work though, GJK. I will use it often. Thanks!!

Treeburst155 out.

[ March 08, 2004, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[GJK]

Fixed the scoring "glitch". Oops!

I see the graphics glitch as well in Internet Exploder, and I just realized what's causing it. I'll have that fixed shortly!

[Treeburst155]

The VL Planner is a very revealing tool. I just learned that a very balanced scenario can be created without any serious playtesting. Give each side comparable forces, and limit total VL points to less than 10% of total force points on the map (including reserves). Assuming the terrain, ground conditions, etc. do not favor one side or the other to any great degree, the outcome will be a Minor Victory at best between players of comparable skill. Flag ownership in this case has almost no effect on victory type. Flag ownership just decides who is on the plus side of 50%.

Is a scenario like this fun to play? Possibly, but there is little incentive for either side to be aggressive; UNLESS, all the VL points belong to one side at the start. Even then, once the aggressor gains a chunk of the VL points (about a third should suffice), or gets a little ahead in the casualty points department, the motivation to press on disappears. The risk isn't worth the potential gain.

If the same scenario had an exit goal for one side, with no flags, the exiting player would be highly motivated to be aggressive. Why? He's starting with a lost game, simply because his units are unexited. The VL equivalent of this would be for the defender to have control of MANY VL points totalling to a fairly high percentage of the unit points in the scenario. IOW, lots of flags in the defender's hands.

The main point here is that an attack/defend scenario should see the defender with a LARGE advantage in points at game start, and that "large" is relative to the total unit points in the scenario. This is necessary to motivate the point conscious attacker. CM IS a game, after all. The large defender advantage at start will change the scenario from a half-hearted probe to an all-out attack.

Speaking of probes, any scenario that does not provide serious "attack" incentive IS a probe. The only difference between a probe and an attack is motivation. Why play probes, when attacks/assaults are more exciting? Maybe probes are appreciated by the historical recreationists in the community.

Play with the VL Planner. See just how many VL points need to be in the defender's hands at start to coax a real attack out of the competitive (point conscious) player. You will probably be quite surprised when it comes to the larger battles, especially armor heavy ones.

The VL Planner, a great tool!

Treeburst155 out.

[Mad Russian]

How would all of this affect a scenario that has a historical bias?

I mean I know what the outcome is, that's why I playtest to see if that outcome is capable of happening. If not, I rework it and playtest it again.

Seems to me that most people think that historical scenarios don't work because they are too lopsided. That the Americans won in the original fight and they are going to win in the scenario too.

A good scenario shouldn't be that way. Either historical or fiction. I believe if there is enough data for the fight you can make a historical outcome POSSIBLE fairly easily. Not always but most of the time.

I could tell you about a time when 20 Germans captured 20 American paratroopers without firing a shot but this is not the place...

Anyway I'm going to take a look at your little program and see if it will help me with my scenarios. Thanks at the very least for sharing whether it works for me or not it is bound to work for someone.

Panther Commander

[Treeburst155]

A truly historical scenario can't really be "reworked" too much and still remain truly historical. I'm a firm believer in designing for gameplay first, and historical accuracy second. I think history should give ideas for scenarios, rather than act as a blueprint for a scenario.

Treeburst155 out.

[rune]

That is just your opinion, I believe a historical scenario should put you in the situation, then you see how you did compared to the real thing. If you adjust a historical scenario for gameplay, then it is not a historical scenario, but semi-historical.

Remember as many people that are out there, there are that many opinions on how a scenario should be played. The game is to teach just as much as it is to play. Not all scenarios should be balanced, not all scenarios should be set that if two people play that are equal, that the numbers balance out one side wins. variety, including your great tool, should be used...just don't want people to think this is the end all, it isn't.

However, don't think I am putting down the tool. It is an excellent way to make a type of scenario. If you are new to scenario design, or even an old hand, it would help. However, there should be many different types of scenarios to cover the wide variety of interest.

As a side note, I try to setup my two player scenarios that if they are equal skills, they get a draw. A mistake in tactics by either side should punish the player, and affect the score. Nope, my way is not the perfect solution either, just how I design a lot of my two player scenarios.

Rune

[Treeburst155]

ANY scenario with VLs will play better if the VL values are thoughtfully considered. The varying tastes in scenarios has nothing to do with assigning the best values to VLs. Show me a scenario with VLs, and I'll improve gameplay through the manipulation of VL values, and maybe locations in some instances where they don't make sense.

Truly historical scenarios, "Historical Studies" lets call them, require no VLs (label objectives). History determines level of victory. In fact, VLs might tend to cloud the outcome relative to history if the designer does not VERY thoughtfully apply value to the VL.

Treeburst155 out

[rune]

And there you are very wrong. VLs are needed in any scenario, historical or otherwise, because you forget one major point, you can control the AI behavior with VLs. When playing the AI, you can control a "path" by setting up a series of VLs. A historical Battle agains the Ai with no VLs is a waste of time. [Operations differ, of course] granted the human should be the attacker normally, there are scenarios where you can have the AI attack if you give them plenty more points, and give them a couple ways to attack, all with using VLs.

Also the point is you improve the scenario to YOUR critera, NOT the authors critera. nor the criteria of directing the AI. It most CERTAINLY makes a difference...you are again hung up on gameplay...which is NOT always the #1 concern with ALL scenario design. Your formula certainly can help in certain situations, but certainly not in all.

Rune

[Treeburst155]

I have to go now. I'll address your post in detail later. For now, let me say that it has always been my belief that good scenario design requires that the scenario be designed specifically for one of the six possible types of play.

1) Axis vs AI

2) Axis vs AI blind

3) Allies vs AI

4) Allies vs AI blind

5) Human v Human

6) Human v Human blind

To try to make the scenario work in more than one of these ways, compromises the scenario in all of those ways.

[rune]

Exactly my point, saying the spreadsheet covers all those is fallacy. What it is good for, is balance for a 2 player game without ai use. It does so very well. But to say Hisotrical Battles agains the AI you don't need a vl, is plain wrong.

I'll use it for seeing how points play out to make a both sides being equal, a draw. If I design a scenario that if both sides play it and are equal, that the US will win....then why play the scenario at all? You know the outcome.

Scenario design is NOT a once size fits all. I can use a small or large flag to direct the Ai a certain direction, and can counter it by having an objective flag further back in the defenders lines or by having enough forces to cause a equal amount of point loss from the attacker in normal circumstances. What about a situation where there are 3 major VLs, but you have forces to cover two? Give the defender the option where and how to defend.

As I said, the tool will help a lot, old and new designers will benefit from it, however, it is NOT the end all for scenario design.

Rune

[MikeyD]

What makes a 'good' scenario good? Winnability? Playability? Enjoyability? Sometimes these goals seem to be mutually exclusive. Analyzing my own two little scenarios (one CMBB, one CMAK) it looks as though I like to start out giving one side a slight advantage then halfway through inserting a game rebalancer out of left field (or in my case, from the right flank). Some may consider it 'a dirty trick to have a Tiger unexpectedly appearing out of the blue but you've got to admit it DOES get the blood pumping!

Playng Devil's Advocate, would it be entirely evil for the scenario designer to have the entire 1st Armored appear on a ridgeline just as your German infantry company is about to claim victory? That 'plot twist' would be entirely beyond the Pale for the play-to-win crowd, but for the play-for-a-jolly-time bunch it might be a hoot.

That being said, I agree at least a minimal amount of number crunching is required to make a proper scenario. It's rather painful on those occassions where you capture ALL the objectives with ease and the game still settles on a 'draw'.

[Treeburst155]

Rune,

I think we're on the same page here. Throughout this thread I've been writing with two-player scenarios in mind ONLY, because that is all I am interested in. My bad, I should have made the two-player factor clear from the start. The VL planner is of limited use in any scenario designed for play against the AI.

Mikey D,

Any dirty tricks and surprises you want to put into a scenario is fine with me, as long as you are not playing a joke on me by giving me an absolute no-win situation.

What makes a good scenario good? That is a matter of opinion. What makes any two-player scenario better? Thoughtful consideration of the values placed on VLs.

Treeburst155 out.

[ March 10, 2004, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

A truly historical scenario can't really be "reworked" too much and still remain truly historical. I'm a firm believer in designing for gameplay first, and historical accuracy second. I think history should give ideas for scenarios, rather than act as a blueprint for a scenario.

Treeburst155 out.

I think you are right. A historical scenario is "NEVER" 100% historical. If we were being accurate here the best that can be done is semi-historical. Now I hang the tag historical on my scenarios if they meet the following criteria:

Do I have a battle map?

Do I have order of battle information?

Do I have a detailed source and if possible more than one?

The three are equally important. If I don't have one I may well call it a semi-historical fight.

But let's see the "BEST" that we can do.

You have a battle map. Okay, did you know that right out in front of that German strongpoint 65 meters away there is a slight dip in the ground. And it was from that dip that the Lt. threw the grenade that took out the German MG?

Now for the units. What kind of German MG was it? How many rounds served the gun? What experience level was the gunner? What about his buddies? We don't like seeing scenarios where all of the troops are the same quality so a designer makes a platoon have a personality with the level of experience of the squads and leader. But is that experience historical? More than likely not but you have no way of knowing.

And last we have our source data. Who wrote the data you are using? Is there a bias? Is the author just making up a story or embellishing it to make it read better? There is no way for you to know you weren't there.

So, a truly "historical" should have as much accuracy in it as possible, to try to get as close to recreating the battle SITUATION, that occured to those participants, on that day in history. I try my best, but when I have to make a decision that covers a "fact" that I am missing, I don't sweat it because there are a million things I don't know.

I know how much research Rune does and it may be more than anyother designer. Not necessarily because he wants to do more research but because he may well have better sources than anybody else. I don't always like the outcome of his scenarios but then there is usually at least one whole side that isn't too fond of how any historical engagement turns out so I don't sweat it.

Players seem to think that you have to win every battle you fight with a Major Victory. I feel sorry for that attitude. I am here to learn and enjoy my hobby. That means I can and do lose. I'm getting better and that is my goal. Not to win every fight but to get better. That includes in scenario design.

Thanks for posting the VL program on TPG. It will help some people get an idea of what they may be looking for. I do agree with Rune that there is no one size fits all answer to scenario design. I think that your program gives people a place to start but there is no substitute for playtesting. If you can't do it yourself send it over to The Proving Grounds. In fact even if you can do it yourself send it to them. Another opinion is good and that is a pretty experienced bunch.

Enough.

Panther Commander

[Treeburst155]

Panther Commander wrote:

"Players seem to think that you have to win every battle you fight with a Major Victory. I feel sorry for that attitude. I am here to learn and enjoy my hobby. That means I can and do lose. I'm getting better and that is my goal. Not to win every fight but to get better. That includes in scenario design."

I think the requirements for any given victory level should be the decision of the scenario designer. If the requirements for any one level of victory are carefully thought out, and the appropriate values applied to the VLs, all other levels of victory will fall into place. This is because the BFC scoring system is pretty darn good IMO. I'm discussing 2 player scenarios here, always.

What I see in many, if not most, scenarios is a very low VL value to unit points ratio. I see this even in scenarios designed specifically for 2-player play. The effect of these low VL values on gameplay is significant. Let me explain.

Those who play CM with little interest in the final outcome don't care about how many points the VLs are worth. The value of the VLs will not affect their approach to a scenario. A VL is a VL to them. They will attack with vigor if that is what they are supposed to do. When this same player wins 56-44 (a draw)after taking all the VLs and killing his opponent at 1:1, he thinks nothing of it. He had the high score. He won.

However, there is another type of player, and we are MANY, who like to see performance graded a little better than "high score/low score", all within the 60-40 range. Fortunately, CM has been designed to accomodate us. All that is required is the proper amount of VL points on the map in two-player scenarios.

What happens with valuable VLs is that point conscious attackers become highly motivated to attack. If the VLs are only worth one tenth of the casualties likely to occur, the battle turns into a half-hearted probe. Greater VL values make for better gameplay for the point conscious player(and we are many). At the same time, it has no ill effects on the first type of player who doesn't care about the final outcome. Everybody can be made happy!

One reason I think we see such a low ratio of VL points to unit points in scenarios is because designing this way gives the illusion of balance. There are so few Victory points on the map, that they have little impact on the outcome. Playtesting will yield results within the 60-40 range virtually all the time. The designer then declares the scenario balanced, even though one side took his objectives entirely (the VLs), with reasonable casualty levels in 3 out of 4 playtests.

The designer should not look at playtesters' scores to determine balance. He should look at achievement of objectives, and casualty ratios. In fact, playtesting can be done without VLs if the VL locations are known (labelled) for the testers. (Speaking two-player always)

Now, if we take any scenario, and triple the VL points, have we affected balance? NO!! The units are the same. The objectives are the same. The terrain is the same. What we have done is create a situation where the various LEVELS of victory can come into play. If the attacker takes all his objectives, he will get at least a well deserved Minor Victory. If he does so with a minimum of casualties, he may get a Tactical or even a Major Victory. The difference between a good performance and an excellent performance is now reflected in the outcome. This is not true if the VLs have little value.

Playtesting of scenarios with valuable VLs will show wider swings in the score. If the scenario is fairly balanced, the average test game will be around 50-50. So, we have not affected balance by increasing VL value. We have just allowed for wider spreads to occur. We have evaluated players' performance better. We have increased the "resolution" of the final outcome. Tactical mistakes are more severely punished. We have separated a generic 55 point draw-win into Minor, Tactical, Major, and Total wins. This makes the scenario more interesting, not to mention the added interest generated by a point conscious attacker who sees 3,000 VL points to go for, rather than a few hundred spread around the map.

So, all I'm saying in this thread is that good scenarios can be made better by the proper application of value to victory locations. I'm not trying to say anything else about scenario design. By giving VLs an appropriate value, you are only changing your scenario for the better. There is no downside....not even any ill effects on balance. All you will get is more aggressive attackers, and a better final evaluation of performance.

I have the editor. I can alter VL values to my heart's content. I just thought this thread might help designers make better scenarios for those who don't mess with scenarios in the editor. Hopefully readers of this thread can understand the point I'm trying to get across here.

Treeburst155 out.

[ March 11, 2004, 11:09 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[Mad Russian]

Treeburst,

My post was not aimed at you, but as you said, "those that can do and those that can't teach". So I am trying to get across that you don't have to win every fight to enjoy the game and to lighten up on some of the criticism aimed at a designers work. Who's ever it may be. Your thread is about teaching scenario design. I just gave my $.02 at what I use for a criteria. I also don't go by playtesters scores. I have had many a playtester that was either beaten by the scenario or blew it away that found it enjoyable.

My point is this NOBODY is going to win every scenario. So when you don't win learn from it. Make yourself better. The same goes for scenario design. Which I believe is your point. Make it easier and more enjoyable. Your system will not be for everybody but for those that use it and get value from it all the better. That IMHO is why you shared to begin with. Sorry if I got off on a tangent that took us off course for a bit.

As a designer you sometimes wonder if people played the same scenario you made when they review it.

Panther Commander

[Treeburst155]

Panther Commander,

I don't think you read my last post. When you do, I'd appreciate your comments on it. What you have written above is 90% irrelevant to my latest comments.

As for designers, I think sometimes they need to come down off their high horse and give some thought to what THOUGHTFUL players of their work think. A defensive attitude and a closed mind benefits neither player or designer. Read my post above, PLEASE.

Treeburst155 out.

[Treeburst155]

Rereading this thread, I think I've done about all I can to get my point across. I see spots where I could have been a little more tactful; but nothing that should get anybody really riled up is obvious to me. I'm done with this thread now. The message sinks in, or it doesn't. Like I said above, I can always apply the proper value to VLs myself before playing a scenario. I already have to do that with time limits anyway; although I've noticed a distinct improvement in this area of late.

Happy Designing!!

Treeburst155 out.

[MikeyD]

"I'm done with this thread now."

Gee, sounds so final! Most threads on this board remind me of directions on the side of a tube of foot fungus ointment: "Apply liberally, repeat as necessary".

[Treeburst155]

Hehe...

Threads like this take a great deal of time and thought. I've devoted all the time & thought I think the subject is worth. Now, if I didn't have the editor, I'd never let this subject die.

Treeburst155 out.

[Michael Dorosh]

Hey Mikey, check your email.

[Carl Puppchen]

I know that this thread has been dead for a while but I looked it up while trying to figure out dynamic flags for my own scenarios.

I just wanted to say thanks for people that take the time to put together scenarios for others to enjoy, even if everyone doesn't agree on everything. It would be boring if everyone was on the same page, anyways

[GJK]

Originally posted by Carl Puppchen:

I know that this thread has been dead for a while but I looked it up while trying to figure out dynamic flags for my own scenarios.

I just wanted to say thanks for people that take the time to put together scenarios for others to enjoy, even if everyone doesn't agree on everything. It would be boring if everyone was on the same page, anyways

Make sure you check out the VL Planner mentioned in this thread if you haven't already!

LINK