Scenario Design -- Seek History or Play Balance?

[Lawyer]

In the Scenario Depot Ephiphany thread, the following comment by Franko caught my attention:

Originally posted by Franko:

For example, many of my scenarios are purely "historical", and I do not give a hoot about balance. Furthermore, real battles are rarely "balanced". So long as the designer is clear about his intentions, he should not be exposed to a bad (or good) review in such matters. To be fair, 'balance' is a separate discussion full of pitfalls, which I would rather not get into.

Franko Out.

First, let me say that Franko's scenarios are impressively researched and the maps are excellent. But what about play balance? I've played a few of them, and I'm not sure I agree with his opinion above.

With a limited amount of time to play CM and a preference for PBEM, I find that the scenarios I like best are those that have realistic maps, modest size, and a chance for each side to be the victor (as defined by CM rules). Experience has taught me that these conditions are typically satisfied with limitations on time (fewer turns), units, or map size. In other words, I prefer scenarios that have satisfactory battle immersion, sufficient action, and a chance for victory in a PBEM that doesn't go much over a month.

I've also read a lot of WWII history and enjoy scenarios based on what I've read, especially if I've visited the battle site (not possible for me in CMBB). I agree with Franko that few real life battles were balanced. Therefore, I tend to look for good semi-historical battles to satisfy my game needs.

I have trouble understanding how a battle in CM or any other game can be really "historical" anyway. There are myriad human, resource, and weather elements in a real battle that would never happen again, even if the real battle were re-fought. These myriad elements are additionally compounded when filtered through a game engine like CM.

So it seems to me that history cannot be meaningfully replicated in a CM scenario. Thus, a truly historical scenario design seems most likely to end up being a lop-sided game that is not satisfying for either player if they are competitive. A good example would be Franko's own "Parkers Crossroads" scenario in CMBO, which he told me is historically accurate, meaning that the US side doesn't stand much of a chance to win. I can vouch from my own visits that his map is accurate. Still, I can't generate enthusiasm for spending a month or more playing a scenario as either the Germans or the US, knowing that my gameplay decisions won't make much difference.

What then is the purpose, from a gaming standpoint, of making a scenario for CM? Should it be to try to recreate history or achieve play balance that gives each player a shot at winning?

[ November 24, 2002, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: Lawyer ]

[Le Tondu]

If you create a scenario that is unbalanced, you should say so in the scenario notes. I have nothing against that. However, please do make balanced scenarios. LOTS of them.

[Michael Dorosh]

It all depends on the victory conditions. If you ignore the CM conditions, and put some thought into "house rules" VC, you can still make unbalanced scenarios that are fun to play.

For example, instead of calculating VC by the normal flags and casualties method, you may want to simulate a situation where the real life commander was not concerned about casualties - so you set a form of house rules victory conditions based solely on the flags. Now that BFC gives us the raw scores in the closing screen, this is simple to do. Just add up the totals of the raw scores you want to use, divide that total into the raw score for each side, and you have the percentage. Compare the percentages to the victory levels in the manual, and voila.

Or check out my scenario review for SL T1 at the depot for another example of a house rule victory condition - that scenario is actually balanced, but gives an idea of what I mean by "house rules VC".

Alternately, as we did in the ROW tourney, you can base victory on a median score of several people playing the same side of the same scenario, which is also a way around the "balance" concern.

[Panzer Leader]

Good question! My thought is that one can find success or failure on a battle without the final score-page at all.

For example, in CMBO I usually played Assault/Defend scenarios (and still do in CMBB!) and with a mixture of the great difficulty in defending, coupled with my lack of tactical prowess, I lost almost EVERY time I played. However, I still found delight in them, and often I would find that even though I lost, there were times when I was completely satisfied with the outcomes.

Perhaps my troops put up a strong front and only began to crumble after the ammo rean out. Even though they may've routed in the end, I still felt I had achieved a minor victory.

Maybe I managed to lead a counterattack with my meagre reserve forces which led to a recapture of one of the flags at the end, or perhaps I thought of the battle as more of a fighting withdrawel.

I think that in setting an unbalanced scenario, the designer could possibly throw out some achievements (other than final score) that could be used to evaluate success. Perhaps something as small as "Hold the crossroads for at least 15 minutes" or "Do not let the armour be destroyed" or even "blunt the blow long enough for reserves to arrive". It could be anything.

Another thing is: you never know when the imp[ossible might happen!

[xerxes]

I think any scenario, not matter how historical should (and can) be balanced in terms of victory level achieved. The key is the victory conditions that you use.

For example, if it's a breakthrough attack, you can make it an exit scenario where the losses to the attacker "cost" the attacker a lot in terms of VPs. You could also use a small number of small victory flags. That way, you know the attacker will take the flags, but they wont' get a large number of VPs. The attacker wins not by just taking the flags but taking them with minimal casualties.

I personally don't like use the clock to balance because that results in a "rushed" approach that isn't at all realistic.

The last tool is rarely used. The designer can give a victory point "bonus" to either side. I'm currently using this to balance the scenario I'm currently working on. It's a historical Soviet pure armored assault on a village defended by combat engineers with magnetic mines, AT guns, and AT mines. I setup the forces historically and just like what happened, the Soviets armor gets clobbered in close quarters. What I'm doing now is adjusting the number of bonus points I give the soviets to balance out the final victory conditions.

In any case, I believe we have the tools to balance the victory level outcome of a lopsided engagement.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

I think that in setting an unbalanced scenario, the designer could possibly throw out some achievements (other than final score) that could be used to evaluate success. Perhaps something as small as "Hold the crossroads for at least 15 minutes" or "Do not let the armour be destroyed" or even "blunt the blow long enough for reserves to arrive". It could be anything.

Yes, exactly my point. But it has to be quantifiable so that both players in a PBEM have no doubts. Ie you cannot simply say "at game end the Russian must have 12 squads in the town to win." What constitutes a squad? What constitutes the town? What if some of your squads are in a broken state - or are captured? However, if you were to say "at game end the Russian must have at least 45 men from any of his unbroken and uncaptured infantry squads (or teams from split squads) located in heavy building terrain" - this is easily checked by flipping through the unit screens on the map at the end of the game and counting the number of unwounded men, seeing if they are part of a rifle squad or team, and checking their location status.