Maastrictian Posted March 29, 2001 Share Posted March 29, 2001 I've been interested in scenario design for a while now, mainly semi-historical (a historical larger situation that is mirrored in the fictional actual battle). Unfortunately most of my efforts were up on the CMHQ Scenario Depot that has gone the way of the dodo. I've recently started making scenarios again which has gotten me looking at the guides to doing so that are up on the web (especially Der Kessel's excellent section). Most of these look at the problems involved on a large scale. "Make your terrain look like real terrain" is one (excellent) piece of advice given by Germanboy on the site for instance. I wanted to look at the smaller things that can be done to use the quirks of the scenario editor to make better scenarios. So here are my tips and tricks in four sections: --Chris Scenario design (the situation, units and other non-map factors) - Create the map first and then focus on units. Try not to change the map to create good positions for units. - Use an interesting force mix. Commanders don't have the luxury of picking and choosing units. Give them some units that just don't make sense. TDs in a city fight. Flamethrowers on an open map. - Find good starting locations for all units. The computer may get stuck playing these locations, so make 'em good - Consider locking units. Units that have just entered don't have time to get to optimal positions. Fortifications and gun positions take time to set up, there might not be time to shift them to face a new axis. - Flags direct the human player and especially the AI. Consider what you want to reward. Holding the crossroads or holding the hill that dominates the crossroads. - Use more, rather than fewer flags. - Set up several flags fairly tightly grouped rather than a row on the opposite edge of the map. Realistic advances were narrow rather than broad (tactically at least). - Don't forget to change the map edge settings if needed. - On large boards give the player on-board 81mms rather than off-board. - Do not use Pumas. - Do not use King or Jagd Tigers. - Do not use Jumbos. - Really really do not use Jumbo 76s. - Try to avoid self-propelled artillery (Priests, Hummels etc). - Flame tanks should be rare. - Keep arty with in reason. Probably nothing heavier than 105 unless this is a city map. - Use the variable German line up to give a flavor for the larger picture. A strained front might have Volskstrum and Flak 88s while a very important strong point has regular troops (or SS) and Panthers. - Very the skill of the troops to provide realism. Don't be regular about it either (avoid 1 vet leader, 2 regular squads, 1 green squad syndrome). - Start troops with bad moral or tired to show the effects of recent skirmishing. - Test, test, test. Play it yourself multiple times before giving it to playtesters. Have them test against themselves and against the computer. - Saying that a scenario is "only for PBEM or TCP/IP" is a cop out. Its not that much extra work to make one side playable by the AI. - Huge scenarios are rarely worth the time. You can't play test them enough and they are a pain for a play to actually play. - Use the set up zones creatively. Create a left flank, center, right flank position, or a main element recon position, or an obstacle belt, MLR position. Don't just put all units in one big setup zone. - Use setup zones to force, or at least allow, the player to start out of sight of the enemy. Make reinforcements start out of sight as well. - Use reinforcements creatively. Make them appear in odd locations (on the flanks) or in unexpected types or numbers. - Use the briefings. Lie to the player. Tell him or her a story. - Use dynamic flags. Show that the attacker just has to break through at any point while the defender must defend everywhere. - Don't make operations. If you have to, don't make them more than 4 battles long. - Give the attacker and defender options. This is what makes a scenario interesting. This means multiple routes of advance, covered lines of communication in the rear etc. Map design (building the physical features of the map) - Keep the map large. This avoids the limitations of the map editor as well as giving the players room to maneuver. - Even though you map is large don't underestimate the fun of a very small engagement. - Marsh should be placed adjacent to water in most cases. It should not be more than one level above the water level. - Water should always always always be on the same level. Even two separated rivers or lakes. - Nothing should ever be below the level of the water. - Make sure your bridges match up with your roads. Vertically and horizontally. - Make sure roads match up. - The following tiles should be used very very sparingly: marsh, fire, and non-dirt roads. (for an exception see - There is almost never a reason to use 5m contours. - Hills come in all shapes and sizes. The peak isn't always centered. There isn't always a peak, just a long crest sometimes. - Long crests should be oriented parallel, not just perpendicular, to the route of advance. - Land is not flat. Even the flattest map should have a dimple or bump or two. - Houses should be near roads. - Fields should have an associated house. - Fields can be separated by scattered trees, stone walls, hedge or bocage. - One of the above often separates fields from the road. - When there is no need for a boundary (no adjacent field, no road) there should not be a boundary. However, there are sometimes scattered trees as a wind-break. - Use things other than grain for fields. Try rough and brush. Use scattered trees for orchards. - Just about every man-made thing will try to stay on the same elevation. That includes roads, fields, and towns. - Roads going through or next to forest should be surrounded by the appropriate type of forest. - Crossroads sometimes have scattered trees around them. - Behind churches surround rough with a stone wall for a cemetery. - Every town has one (and generally only one) church. - Towns form around crossroads and, especially, bridges. - Avoid large (> 400m) patches of homogeneous forest. There should be clearings, patches of denser and lighter trees. Bocage map design (a favorite topic of mine) - Think about when you want the game set. Allied tanks that can move through bocage make a big difference. - Line every road with bocage, almost always on both sides. - Really dense bocage should be raised above the surrounding terrain one level. - Roads can be lowered one level and have scattered trees around them. - Almost every house should be stone. - Fields are about 100m to 200m across. - Fields are not completely surrounded by bocage, there are often gaps, sometimes with scattered trees in them. - Use as many diagonal lines as you do horizontal and vertical ones. Don't create a checkerboard. - Don't forget the overall lay of the land. The map should have low rolling hills. City map design (something I've recently been experimenting with) - No grids! European cities look odd, they are not laid out regularly. - Avoid long straight roads. One or two can be very strategic and effective though. - If the "city" is really a large town include the surrounding country side. - Don't put large buildings adjacent to each other except in special cases. - Really really be careful with diagonal large light buildings and large heavy buildings. In some cases (the white "front" mark faces the heavy building) they meet along a line. It looks very odd. - Use paved roads and asphalt roads in combination. - Include patches of scattered trees. Cities are not all buildings and pavement. - Make sure every house is accessible by road. - Open paved areas look good as town squares outside of churches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted March 29, 2001 Share Posted March 29, 2001 Overall, very nice. Here are a few comments: - Flame tanks should be rare. Particularly the Flammpanzer 38(t). There were only 20 ever made. - Saying that a scenario is "only for PBEM or TCP/IP" is a cop out. Its not that much extra work to make one side playable by the AI. Sorry, there are situations that the AI just cannot handle. I have been trying to model various situations in the scenarios I am working on that just choaks the AI. To make them challenging against the AI woould make them boring against a person. - Huge scenarios are rarely worth the time. You can't play test them enough and they are a pain for a play to actually play. YEAH!!!! sorry... I completely agree - There is almost never a reason to use 5m contours. Since I'm working mostly on scenarios set in the Vosges Mountains and around Toulon, I'd have to disagree City map design (something I've recently been experimenting with) - No grids! European cities look odd, they are not laid out regularly. Usually correct... there are exceptions. Hyeres is one, so is part of the center of Toulon - Avoid long straight roads. Again, usually true... and again, Hyeres is the exception. - Don't put large buildings adjacent to each other except in special cases. Not sure I agree. It is a limitation that CM does not allow buildings to be placed close together. Its a trade off... personally, I prefer to go for the cramped effect as it is more realistic than the overly spaced effect... this may be more a southern France thing... I don't know have you considered contacting Mensch to have this posted at Der Kessel? I know he'd be interested. [This message has been edited by Berlichtingen (edited 03-29-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Stone Posted March 30, 2001 Share Posted March 30, 2001 So insightful as to be overwhelming. Still looking for Maastrictian to review some scenarios in this "forum." As a quasi-designer the tips should be noted by all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Stone Posted March 30, 2001 Share Posted March 30, 2001 btw the 'Der Kessel' site is excellent. Thanks to the entire crew for their efforts. Stoner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted March 30, 2001 Share Posted March 30, 2001 Interesting list; I have some questions/comments. Mostly, I agree. - Consider locking units. Units that have just entered don't have time to get to optimal positions. Fortifications and gun positions take time to set up, there might not be time to shift them to face a new axis. DON'T lock ALL the units, though, and especially if they are not in well thought out positions. Nothing is worse than playing someone else's conception of a "neat set up" if it prevents the proper use of terrain/weapons on a major scale. - Use more, rather than fewer flags. Why? If you advocate smaller scenarios, don't these tend to draw troops better used in the attack and put them in garrison duties? - On large boards give the player on-board 81mms rather than off-board. Why? Speaking from the Canadian perspective, no matter how close to the aciton the 3-inch platoon got, they still didn't fire directly. - Huge scenarios are rarely worth the time. You can't play test them enough and they are a pain for a play to actually play. Sadly, I agree - though I have designed several large scenarios. Most of those doing Canadian ones (including me) don't seem to be able to do company sized actions based on source literature. This may actually be the "fault" of the existing literature - there aren't too many secondary sources out there that go into detail about terrain or platoon/company actions. - Use the briefings. Lie to the player. Tell him or her a story. I think you can hint that reinforcements may or many not be available but would like to get an example of an "acceptable lie" to use in a briefing. - Don't make operations. If you have to, don't make them more than 4 battles long. Why? My Little Stalingrad scenario has many battles of short length - I think it is a neat way to simulate close in fighting and requires a different approach to the two battle/55 turn operations. You say yourself that variety is something to strive for. Why not vary the turn length/battle number factors as well? - There is almost never a reason to use 5m contours. Depends on the circumstance. - Don't put large buildings adjacent to each other except in special cases. Why? All in all excellent tips, most of which I have culled from the experiences of others or learned on my own. Scenario design is indeed an art - and like artists, there are bad scenario designers and good ones out there. Would be interested in your answers to my queries - one day I'd like to be one of the good ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grunto2 Posted March 30, 2001 Share Posted March 30, 2001 (in towns)--Make sure every house is accessible by road.-- i agree with most everything but that. some of the european towns had very narrow streets.. sometimes i'll just put a bunch of small buildings in a cluster and leave it up to the player to 'imagine' the narrow lanes running between them. this is only done with dry or very dry conditions though, in order to best represent those streets. andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holdit Posted March 30, 2001 Share Posted March 30, 2001 Good post. Regarding maps, one or two points: The following tiles should be used very very sparingly: marsh, fire, and non-dirt roads. (for an exception see I've found that marsh tiles are a very handy way of representing streams that are fordable along their whole length. A row of contiguous ford tiles just looks stupid. Sometimes twenty yards is just too big. Where I come from any watercourse 20 yeards wide is a river. By the way, what was the exception? Land is not flat. Even the flattest map should have a dimple or bump or two. I think this can't be overstressed. The last thing I do with a map is to set the elevation to one higher than the average and click all round the map in a semi-random fashion. Then set the elevation one lower than the average and repeat the process. Don't forget to to put dips and bumps in forests and on hills too. there are sometimes scattered trees as a wind-break. Another very inportant point: lots and lots of scattered trees. Use things other than grain for fields. Try rough and brush. Use scattered trees for orchards. I find this works very well too. Just about every man-made thing will try to stay on the same elevation. That includes roads, fields, and towns. I wouldn't agree 100% with this. It very much depends upon where you are. (You should see my town!) Behind churches surround rough with a stone wall for a cemetery. This works very well too. Regards Combat Mission Map Case [This message has been edited by Holdit (edited 03-30-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoot Posted March 30, 2001 Share Posted March 30, 2001 Although this post is commendable, it occurs to me that about half of the guidelines given are matters of personal preference, not guidelines per se. Examples would include: Don't use Jumbos or King Tiger. Use more, rather than fewer flags. Using onboard 81mm mortars instead of offboard on larger maps. Avoid SP artillery. The whole scenario for pbem or h2h only being a cop out is just silly. Don't put units in one setup zone. Don't make operations(?!?). Seperated lakes or ponds being on the same height level (not the case in a mountainous setting). Don't use 5m height variable. Just about every man made thing being on the same height level. Avoid large tracts of forest. Houses should always be near roads. However, I do applaud your efforts in starting a thread concerning map design do's and don'ts. ------------------ Clubfoot. melton1911@aol.com Do it in the desert at www.dfdr.net [This message has been edited by Clubfoot (edited 03-30-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maastrictian Posted March 30, 2001 Author Share Posted March 30, 2001 I'll try to adress questions and comments in semi-random order: Clubfoot wrote: Although this post is commendable, it occurs to me that about half of the guidelines given are matters of personal preference, not guidelines per se. This is, of course, very true. I make no claim to having the final word. All of the points of mine that you bring up as debatable definately are. "Far from over: Paderborn" and "Blackshear" are examples of good scenarios that break my "rules". Berlichtingen wrote Particularly the Flammpanzer 38(t). There were only 20 ever made. really? Once again Berli teaches me something I didn't know! Michael Dorosh wrote DON'T lock ALL the units, though, and especially if they are not in well thought out positions. Obviously units locked in bad positions are very annoying, but if there is a reason for it do it! Locking a platoon out of comand and control is rarely needed. Locking some TDs far behind friendly lines represents them just entering. I think locking all units can be very effective combined with a good briefing and backstory. Why? If you advocate smaller scenarios, don't these tend to draw troops better used in the attack and put them in garrison duties? This was really meant to be read in combination with another tip: Place flags close togeather. Rather than having one flag representing control of a bridge (say) have one flag each at the approaches to the bridge and one on the bridge. They are all 100m-200m or so apart so instead of the battle being binary it has gradations. The bridge was barely controled to the bridge was conclusively taken. Why? Speaking from the Canadian perspective, no matter how close to the aciton the 3-inch platoon got, they still didn't fire directly. Mainly I threw this in because its more challenging to use on-board mortors than off board. This is definatley a matter of personal preference. I think you can hint that reinforcements may or many not be available but would like to get an example of an "acceptable lie" to use in a briefing. Lie wildly about the composition of the oposite side. They've got Tigers, Perishings, Jabos, and Lucifer himself. Throw in some nugets of truth to make the the player belive the lies. Lie about reenforcements. I thing I hate most is when there is a full OOB given. Including the exact quantity of reenfocements and the turn the enter on. While your at it use the percentage chance of enterance function. Lie about terrain features! Tell the player there is a small bridge they can use to flank the enemy position. Those darn Germans must have blown it up in the night because all there is now is a ford. Play some diplomacy and then write your briefing. Why? My Little Stalingrad scenario has many battles of short length - I think it is a neat way to simulate close in fighting and requires a different approach to the two battle/55 turn operations. You say yourself that variety is something to strive for. Why not vary the turn length/battle number factors as well? You are correct. I was being too general there. Don't make operations (or battles) longer than 60 turns would have been a better rule. - Don't put large buildings adjacent to each other except in special cases. Why? Two reasons. I think having to run out into the street is messy and I like the asthetic of narrow alleyways between buildings. I think this can be done from time to time, but not all over the map. Holdit wrote: I've found that marsh tiles are a very handy way of representing streams that are fordable along their whole length. A row of contiguous ford tiles just looks stupid. Sometimes twenty yards is just too big. Where I come from any watercourse 20 yeards wide is a river. By the way, what was the exception? I disagree. I prefer ford tiles to marsh. But that's just me. The exception was (damn my bad editing!) "The Destruction of Caen" which has a great overall look though the details tend to fail, more because of the limitations of the editor than anything I wouldn't agree 100% with this. It very much depends upon where you are. (You should see my town!) There are undoubtably exceptions. But they *are* exceptions. --Chris edited for UBB [This message has been edited by Maastrictian (edited 03-30-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted March 30, 2001 Share Posted March 30, 2001 Thanks for the answers! Good food for thought here. I would appreciate more discussion on the use of multiple victory flags. It would be possible, I suppose, to have multiple flags without the need to "garrison" them all - an advancing force could simply concern itself with denying the enemy control of them, and then moving forward. I have no quibbles with your other answers (I hate running out of buildings too, though bear in mind "rowhouses" seem to have been common in Europe - ie physically connected buildings with no internal access between them) though I do think the "lying in the briefing" thing is definitely a matter of personal preference. I agree that some surprise and deception make things fun and challenging, but the other school of thought suggests that a) real military commanders could sometimes, perhaps often, know what they were up against, even if only in general terms (ie in the research for my Bloody Buron II battle, I read that a PW accurately told the Canadians the number of companies in the town, and French civilians accurately sketched their positions). those seeking true gamey competition (as is found in board games) prefer the actual composition be known up front I am not necessarily in this camp, but do want to point out it is probably another case of preference. You've raised some excellent points and there is much of value in your post. Thanks for taking the time to expand and discuss with us. Very beneficial! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maastrictian Posted March 30, 2001 Author Share Posted March 30, 2001 Michael Dorosh wrote: though I do think the "lying in the briefing" thing is definitely a matter of personal preference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wwb_99 Posted March 30, 2001 Share Posted March 30, 2001 One addition to the map design regarding roads: Most roads in europe are based on older, medieval or Roman era roadbeds. These roads, unlike roads built in the modern era, are much more likely to go around, rather than over hills. The basic reason for this is that it was easier for a horse-drawn wagon to go around a grade rather than up and down a grade. WWB ------------------ Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say, Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus. Check out the Dogs of War CM Players Community Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfe Posted March 30, 2001 Share Posted March 30, 2001 Nice post! Lots of good things to keep in mind when designing. One thing I would definitely discourage, though, is locking all your units. Even if you have a specific reason to do so (i.e. a historical scenario where unit placement is important), try to resist. I avoid locking all units for the simple reason that most folks playing a battle (especially an historical one) will leave their units in the default setup. Especially if you tell the player not to move them in the briefing. Locking units may seem like the exact same result, but it can hinder re-playability for someone who might want to try a different tactic in the scenario. Generally, the only time I will lock a unit is when I think it can be moved to a place that gives one side a decided advantage (like an AT minefield that might block the only real advance route for an entire armored column). Use locks *very* rarely. Some other tips for terrain: * After the map is "finished", put yourself down on level 1 and "ride" along every road on the map to see how things look. Is it too bumpy or hilly or flat or straight? * Also select an AFV, hit the Place key and try to place the unit along every road to see if you can find any slopes anywhere on the road. * In hilly terrain, be sure to check around houses for slopes. They'll commonly show up there. - Chris ------------------ Chris' CM Scenarios and Unit Database Charts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maastrictian Posted March 30, 2001 Author Share Posted March 30, 2001 Wolfe wrote: I avoid locking all units for the simple reason that most folks playing a battle (especially an historical one) will leave their units in the default setup. Actually, the first thing I do when faced with a battle, especially a defensive one, is to rearange all my forces. Telling the player to leave them alone is a good idea. But if you want the troops to stay where they are, why not lock them? If someone wants to replay the battle without locked troops they an just edit the battle. * After the map is "finished", put yourself down on level 1 and "ride" along every road on the map to see how things look. Is it too bumpy or hilly or flat or straight? Good tip! * Also select an AFV, hit the Place key and try to place the unit along every road to see if you can find any slopes anywhere on the road. Actually (and correct me if I'm wrong) in a recent patch things were changed such that no roads can be slopes or cliffs, even if they should be. --Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfe Posted March 31, 2001 Share Posted March 31, 2001 Maastrictian wrote: But if you want the troops to stay where they are, why not lock them? If someone wants to replay the battle without locked troops they an just edit the battle. You can, but I think it's easier to give folks the option right up front. Not every one wants to have to edit a scenario in order to play it a different way (particularly if they've never even opened the editor). And Tourney Saves can't be edited at all. Actually (and correct me if I'm wrong) in a recent patch things were changed such that no roads can be slopes or cliffs, even if they should be. Hey, you're right! I hadn't noticed. Thanks for pointing it out. - Chris ------------------ Chris' CM Scenarios and Unit Database Charts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted March 31, 2001 Share Posted March 31, 2001 Originally posted by Maastrictian: really? Once again Berli teaches me something I didn't know! The only account I have found of them being used on the West Front was with the 17th SS during Nordwind. I believe the most numerous Flammpanzer was the one built from Pz III's. THere were also around 60 Char B's converted to Flammpanzers (of which, some were used at Arnhem) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maastrictian Posted March 31, 2001 Author Share Posted March 31, 2001 A battle I designed should up up now at West of the Rhine. This especially illustrates my points about briefings and flags. Have fun! --Chris [This message has been edited by Maastrictian (edited 03-31-2001).] [This message has been edited by Maastrictian (edited 03-31-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfe Posted March 31, 2001 Share Posted March 31, 2001 Oh and one more really good tip: before uploading to a site, ALWAYS put your creations in a ZIP file. That way, people can actually download the file properly. Left-clicking on the file gives me a "The parameter is incorrect." message. Right-clicking doesn't help either. BTW, Chris, you said you lost all your previous creations when the Scenario Depot died. You might check over on CMHQ. Matt has a large zip file containing many of the old scenarios. Your stuff may still exist. - Chris ------------------ Chris' CM Scenarios and Unit Database Charts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maastrictian Posted April 1, 2001 Author Share Posted April 1, 2001 Ok, here is the file as a zip. WoR.zip Enjoy! --Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfe Posted April 3, 2001 Share Posted April 3, 2001 Originally posted by Maastrictian: Ok, here is the file as a zip. Thanks! Nice map. Well done. I also like how the instructions are written. Nice story with good info built into it. BTW, the Axis briefing has an empty extra page in it (probably a stray carriage-return). One thing, though. The defender has pretty good LOS into the attacker's setup area (even with the small hill) and can watch enemy units moving around. You might want to raise this hill one level to prevent the defender from knowing what part of the attacker's setup area he should shell. Not sure if this is what you intended. - Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts