Thought on Scenarios and More

[Wild Bill Wilder]

There is a discussion among those involved in producing CMBB just now. I posted a few thoughts on scenario design and thought I would pass them along to you for your reaction. Speak your mind. I always do

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

These are perhaps only my thoughts and you can take them or leave them.

Having done quite a bit of scenario design, I have a few ideas based on public reaction. I have stated these before but let's do it again. Just my personal conclusions.

1. The majority of gamers are quiet. Many never visit a web site. They just play. Occasionally I get a letter from one of these good folks. It is 98 percent good stuff. I appreciate those. They are the ones who keep gaming companies in business.

The noise makers are usually a vocifercous minority

2. Many of these folks are not deep into history or are the authority on the subject that many of you are. They are not really greatly concerned whether or not it was No 3 Company or No 2.

3. They are busy folks. They have, like all of us, a hectic lifestyle, work, family, home, proglems. They, therefore, tend toward smaller, shorter, simpler battles.

Keep those three "S" in mind when you design: short, simple, small.

They like something they can play between coming in from work and supper, or a battle they can finish between kissing the kiddies goodnight and crashing themselves.

4. Many gamers are intimidated by LARGE scenarios. Show them 60 turns with 200 or more units and they'll probably pass it by. They look for a battle they can finish in one night.

5. With that in mind you must decide, "Do I want to impress a few with my monster scenario?" or..."Do I want a lot of people to try this battle?" You'll almost (I said almost) be certain to get one or the other, depending on how big your battle is.

6. As to historicity, a long, long standing argument. I've gone up and down with folks over this for years. Even with CMBO we got into a looong discussion on "What is historical?" To be absolutely historical, you'll need to know how many trees were in the area exactly! Also how much ammunition each unit had, the name of each leader you use, and a ton of other facts that you'll never find.

So, best to aim for broadly historical, or semi-historical, or loosely based on history. That way you will not get gray hair or lose your mind trying to be so exact only to have someone post later, "But there were three Tigers in that battle, not four!" Or, "there were 8 men in that squad, not 6!"

What I am trying to say is keep a balance. Make your battle "historical" with attention to detail, but make it FUN! If it ain't fun, people will have a bad taste in their mouth from playing it and will probably avoid any others on the CD with your name on it.

Senseless jabberings of an old veteran wargamer. Do with it as you will. I wish you all great success in your design efforts! I really mean that!

Wild Bill

[Armdchair]

Since I'm not a terribly competent player (or designer, for that matter), I'm not sure how relevant my opinion is, but here goes:

All scenario design can only be semi-historical at best. It's great if it's based on historical fact because it adds more drama and interest to the game; it asks the question of "What if?". It also helps you understand what happened and why. It makes you appreciate how important the actions and decisions of small units, individual soldiers, and individual commanders were. And while designers like Rune and Franko have well-deserved reputations and acclaim for creating intense, large, and/ or historic battles, my personal preference is towards the smaller battles where every man, every unit counts, every loss means something. I know in my reading of military history that while I feel it's important to understand the Big Picture, the overall scope of things, it is the individuals' stories that stand out in my mind. Playing smaller-size scenarios reinforces that feeling. I just played a scenario where a green, panicked bazooka team cowering under fire along a riverbank, got it together long enough to KO a nearby Panther. It had nothing to do with any command I gave, but it remains the most memorable moment of the entire battle. For myself, I feel that small, intense, semi-historical battles provide the best wargaming experience. Wild Bill, you set the bar: your scenarios usually consist of deceptively simple tactical challenges that quickly turn into nailbiting adventures. You always have thorough historical background briefings that set the stage dramatically. And yes, they're fun; your scenarios have the most replayability of anyone's I know.

Now there's jabbering for you.

[Fieldmarshall]

I must agree, I have found little time for scenario design (the best part) over the past couple of weeks..and even less for scenario play. I just spend almost two weeks on one of my newer scenarios, and thats because my free time is fleeting, along with my other hobbies/work I have to fit in CM, and that gets diffecult.

Also, on the issue of historical scenarios, it is almost impossible with the limits of the editor to create even a really good outline of what really happend...e.g. the buildings are probably the most limited part of the editor, and unique buildings can in many historical scenarios be hard to improvise. A perfect example is Remagen, I have yet to see an accurate Remagen scenario.

Short & to the point scenarios are great, now that I have so little time, but every so often I like to sit down on the Computer, and enjoy a large operation or battle, unfortunatily...those days are now sparce

well thats my 2 cents

-Niles

[Louie the Toad]

Wild Bill and others,

There is a notion afoot that QBs are inferior to built scenarios and therefore should [ receive less attention in the operating system; be eliminated altogether; or be derided in some other fashion].

I believe that those favoring these notions are in the vociferous 2% that Wild Bill mentions.

Please, pay no attention to their mewlings.

Satisfied Toad

[M_Gonzo]

I agree with all of you and here is some of my humble thoughts:

Historical Scenario design is impossible other then the terrain of the map and including elements of the TOE. However, You can provide historical facts in the Briefings.

Making your scenario fun and challanging is the important step in design. Here is where the challenge really begins.... Was the secenario designed for XXX Vs. AI, or for head to head play. Do you slant the TOE or follow it to make the challenge in the above situations more difficult. I tend to follow the difficult and challenging mode when designing the scenario and concentrate on terrain features. Most of my time is spent just tweaking terrain, then spent on type of play to make it difficult for either side to win. If it is set up for AI I make it very challenging for the human side to win.

Size of scenario varies, I would think most of my scenarios lean towards medium to Huge. For the new players they need to be warned what each size means. If it is an operation I always suggest not to play more than two battles in a day(for the time issue). Besides as in any HUGE map it takes up to Four or Five times longer to create as a designer and should probaly take that long to play too.

Most of my succesful scenarios that have been downloaded have been the 25 to 30 turn scenarios, and I belive most of the Scenarios on the CD should be the same. I believe the split should be about 80% 25 to 30 turns, 5% short and tiny, 5% 30+ Large and Huge, and 10% operations.

I also believe that as usual the scenarios should be playtested by people from all levels of CM experience, from the raw Green Player, to the true hard core wargammer, and if is designed for true head to head format by all means TCP/IP-PBEM players.

Wild Bill as a former playtester for you, i believe that your team will be as thorough as need be and scenarios will be fun, and a good mix of scenarios will be forth coming that will satisfy current CM owners as well as the new players CMBB will grab out there in the world.

Michael "Gonzo" Gonzalez

P.S. I would be happy to playtest for you any time.

[SlowMotion]

Some comments after designing some scenarios and playing quite a few more:

No matter how much you know about some real battle the program (CMBO,CMBB,whatever) can always simulate just so many things. Very many things just can't be done. So the loosely based on history but fun is the historical scenario category I like best.

Knowing all these company No 2 or No 3 OOB things takes lots of reading WW2 history. Most people haven't done that and many never will. They just enjoy playing. But sometimes a good scenario may get the player interested in what really happened. So they may do some reading after playing and then maybe compare the scenario to those actual battle descriptions and notice all new things like "so there were also these things called panzer brigades..." May sound funny to people who've studied these things for years, but I think this is one of the best things about historical scenarios.

There are also non-historical scenarios. Totally made up battles that may be interesting because they are fun to play. Tactical game play using WW2 weapons.

Large scenarios can be awesome, but playing them well takes much more time, concentration and so on. So those big ones just don't get downloaded.

I think these huge monsters might be played a little more if the game allowed making notes to the map. Some text notes and simple graphics. If you have several PBEM games going, it's very easy to forget what all these 200 units were supposed to do. Especially if you planned your latest move one week earlier.

And last: QBs can be very good as well - I hope CMBB allows people to use predesigned maps as well.

[SlowMotion]

Forgot one thing: When making a historical scenario - if you tweak things to make it more playable, please mention this in the briefing. Like "In the real battle this side had 60 tanks, but in the scenario they have only 20".

[Pzman]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Wild Bill Wilder:

The noise makers are usually a vocifercous minority

2. Many of these folks are not deep into history or are the authority on the subject that many of you are. They are not really greatly concerned whether or not it was No 3 Company or No 2.

3. They are busy folks. They have, like all of us, a hectic lifestyle, work, family, home, proglems. They, therefore, tend toward smaller, shorter, simpler battles.

Keep those three "S" in mind when you design: short, simple, small.

They like something they can play between coming in from work and supper, or a battle they can finish between kissing the kiddies goodnight and crashing themselves.

Wild Bill<hr></blockquote>

Numbers One and two on your list is very true for many people. If fact when I first got into CM so was I. When I first started playing CM I was saying to my self, good game for shooting up tanks with and lots of explosions to go with it..hehe. Now on the subject of the three S's. Small battles are more fun, for three get this three reasons, one they don't take over an hour to play, two the tend to have smaller maps, thus you don't need a super duper graphics card to handle them, and finally they have, for the most part, less units. Which makes its simpler, oh anther of the three S's. Well that's my ten cents.

[ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: Panzerman ]</p>

[Redwolf]

Wild Bill, I have to agree with most of what you say, but in one aspect I think you are mislead.

You can design a fun battle because you have the experience. You don't need too tightly coupling to history, you can come up with a good scenario by yourself.

However, I think most designers, whoc are just part-time designers like all the part-time gamers, do gain much from looking closer to history.

There are a lot of errors to make in scenario design, especially in terrain. If you limit player's choices too much in terrain, the scenario will be bad. However, the part-time gamer-and-designer may not notice the limited set of applicable tactics.

In many cases like these, modeling the terrain exactly after a historical site would have avoided the error. If you can come up with good terrain with a snap, no problem, but most guys need every assitence they can get.

Speaking about it, I have to reinforce my recommendation for the Cole Ardennes book. Yes, that is the thing you can download from the Army's CMH, but you can download only the text. The thick hardcover book ($20) has excellent maps, and it has a lot of semi-areal photos of Ardennes battle places. I guess many people will be as surprised as me to see these photos, reverting many assumptions I had made up on my own how a Ardennes village would look like.

[Boeman]

As one designer who is concerned primarily with interactivity, I personally would vouch for scripting capabilities to be included within BTS’s plans following the release of CM:BB.

Although the scenario editor in its current form provides superb tools with which editors can use to assemble various terrain, atmospheric conditions and force combinations; it lacks the ability to directly control both AI and event behavior; something that is sorely needed to create truly suspenseful battles.

Which properties should or should not be scripted must, of course, be debated to minimize abuse. However, its utility should be extended no less than to assist the scenario designer in reinforcing his or her intent in how the scenario unfolds (circumstantially of course). For an example, when reinforcements arrive, it can often take several turns before the AI decides to move them towards the fighting front; even then, it may choose very odd routes that common sense would otherwise dictate against. To help alleviate this, commands can be issued during setup to the reinforcement column to move in a specific direction, thereby nudging them into place. For most players, ensuring that reinforcements physically travel from the edge of the map to the battlefield is preferable to simply plunking the reinforcement marker next to the battle zone. Forcing units to remain and protect secondary objectives (instead of every force element funneling towards a single area) is also another dilemma that scripting can remedy.

Aside from AI behavior, event triggers should also be implemented via the use of "if" commands. These control how the game responds when presented with a specific situation. For instance, during a covert operation where an Allied company is ordered to sneak into an enemy complex to steal some documents, a paratrooper may accidentally cross a tripwire, which triggers an anti-personnel mine, causing an alarm to sound (through a specified external aiff/wav). Subsequently, this also activates a reinforcement marker located inside a nearby German barracks; awakening soldiers who were formerly asleep.

Perhaps the most important contribution to scripting in Combat Mission would be the elimination of the old age problem of tedious flag placement just to ensure that a scenario flows smoothly. In tandem with the ability to manage the aforementioned factors, the potential for future scenario design in Combat Mission will be nothing short of revolutionary.

Operation Taggart

[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Boeman ]</p>

[Runyan99]

Interesting discussion. Here are my points.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

2. Many of these folks are not deep into history or are the authority on the subject that many of you are. They are not really greatly concerned whether or not it was No 3 Company or No 2.<hr></blockquote>

I tend to agree. I read a lot of military history, but I am usually clueless as to the history of whatever scenario I am playing as I play it. I believe whatever the scenario briefing tells me. Therefore, if it really was Coy 3 that attacked, and not Coy 2, I will not find out until after I play the scenario. If I enjoyed the scenario, the historical discrepancy will not bother me greatly, even if I find out about it later.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>3. They are busy folks. They have, like all of us, a hectic lifestyle, work, family, home, proglems. They, therefore, tend toward smaller, shorter, simpler battles.

Keep those three "S" in mind when you design: short, simple, small.<hr></blockquote>

In general smaller is better, because you can get more involved with every singe squad and vehicle in the scenario. I find that the Byte Battles at Der Kessel are good examples of small scenarios which are fun to play. That said, I play a lot of operations, some of which involve a whole battalion of infantry, and I enjoy those too. Since I play all of my games PBEM, I have a lot of time to play my games, even if they are large. However, I would not bother to play a large (lots of units) or long (several battle operation) scenario against the AI. I will only play very small scenarios against the AI.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>4. Many gamers are intimidated by LARGE scenarios. Show them 60 turns with 200 or more units and they'll probably pass it by. They look for a battle they can finish in one night.<hr></blockquote>

I do not mind long scenarios. More time gives both players more options. If I am the attacker, and I only have 20 turns, I have to attack straight ahead. If I have 40 turns, I might have time to develop a flank attack. If I have 60 turns, I can make my flank attack very carefully, which will allow me to play more "realistically".

In any case, I would rather have a long scenario with one company, than a short scenario with a battalion.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>6. As to historicity, a long, long standing argument. I've gone up and down with folks over this for years. Even with CMBO we got into a looong discussion on "What is historical?" To be absolutely historical, you'll need to know how many trees were in the area exactly! Also how much ammunition each unit had, the name of each leader you use, and a ton of other facts that you'll never find.

So, best to aim for broadly historical, or semi-historical, or loosely based on history.<hr></blockquote>

Right, you cannot be absoultely historical, and creating a fun scenario is the most important thing. However there are limits. If the scenario is too loosely based, maybe you should not attempt to attach it to history at all. If I can do a little research and find a million inconsistencies in the history and the CM scenario, it is not a very good scenario. As an example, I will cite WBW's own "Arnhem - The Red Devils" operation which shipped on the CD, and which I played PBEM some time ago. The Arnhem campaign is a very famous and well documented battle, and so I started to do a little research on the battle. The first thing I found was that the scenario map did not look anything like the actual town of Arnhem. To be fair, the limitations of the CM editor would make this very difficult to acheive, but it did not even look like much of an effort had been made. Instead of irregular, twisting medieval streets, WBW layed down some straight square blocks. I also found that the oob was pretty inaccurate. I kept looking for units which were historically invlolved, but which never showed up, including AT guns for the British paras, and Tiger tanks for the Germans. In the end, I feel that the PBEM game I played actually had very little to do with the famous battle Col John Frost's men fought in September 1944.

My point is that you can take "artistic license" with history in scenario design (and when you do so this should be noted in the scenario briefings), but you should still strive for accuracy whenever possible.

[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: Runyan99 ]</p>