Harv Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 A little cross-post from the Scenario Talk forum... I have been seeing some confusion both here and at the Scenario Depot with regards to how designers intend their scenarios to be played. To help avoid this I have a proposal that would require very little work on the designer’s part, would aid immeasurably in eliminating this confusion, and would also save an otherwise great scenario from possibly getting a bad review. I was thinking that there should be a standardized section at the beginning of the General Briefing for play recommendations. I see that many scenarios have parts of it, but it can be kind of confusing at times if it isn’t complete. Seeing as the fields are already set at the Depot for this, it may be simpler to follow the lead there and include all of the following in all briefings… Best Played As: Axis vs AI or Allies vs AI or Two Player Or As: Axis vs AI or Allies vs AI or Two Player Computer Should: Stick to Defaults or Be Free To Place Units This could also be a single line entry. As an example it could read as: Play as: Two Player, then Axis vs AI, Stick to Defaults or Play As: Aliies vs AI, then Two Player, Free to Place Units Other items such as Experience Bonus or Play Balance recommendations are optional, and could be included just below what I've mentioned. I realize this information is entered in the Depot, but for those people who haven’t looked at the parameters (or haven’t been to the Depot) it would still be in the briefing to avoid any possible misunderstanding. Thoughts? Harv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigurd Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Very good point ! Currently, I have to take a look at the Scenario Depot (great site BTW !), to see what side I should take vs AI, and the ammount (if any) of bonus i should give the AI, in order to have a "fair" play against it. For the Scenarios on the CD particularly, I miss the " best played vs AI from this side, give 25 % bonus" in the briefing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Smallwood Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Bravo! Hear, hear, and all that. I've said it before- what a silly waste for a designer to go to all that trouble and then detract from it's enjoyability by not telling us what the intention is. Someone the other day posted saying that those entries at SD are mostly bogus, and that he would try to fix them at some point. Hopefully he will come back and tell us if and when that happens, but for now I guess we can't trust those recommendations. Sorry, but I can't remember the thread name or anything... Eden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harv Posted October 30, 2002 Author Share Posted October 30, 2002 Yup, that was me that said that. Those that had the info in the briefing are correct at the Depot, but make sure to read the briefing again just to be sure until I can (hopefully) get everything entered correctly. Harv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franko Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Our forthcoming Stalingrad Pack should have all have such info in the briefings. F Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harv Posted November 6, 2002 Author Share Posted November 6, 2002 Just a little nudge back to the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harv Posted November 11, 2002 Author Share Posted November 11, 2002 Another thought... If the scenario has a Two Player recommendation, but one side has very little to do for quite a few turns (many assaults into prepared positions are like this) a "PBEM recommended" could/should also be added to the above also. This way a TCP game wouldn't be started where one side had a (relatively) large number of units to move, and the opponent would sit and wait for the better part of the scenario. Harv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts