Has anybody else noticed the bad scenario design

[Renaud]

Achtung,

The major problem with the ones you noted is that the scenario designer intended them to be played in a certain way (AI on one side specifically, human-vs-human only, etc.) but sometimes failed to note that in the description. Sometimes it's obvious how the scen is intended to be played, other times it would be helpful if the designer would supply some specific instructions in this regard. This IS a pretty severe oversight I think.

You're not going to prove anything in particular or make people sign a 'I think the scenarios suxors!' petition, so i'm not sure what good further examples of supposedly crappy scenarios is going to accomplish.

The best thing would be for you to take what you have learned and design some kick-*ss scenarios for us to play.

Ren

[V]

Originally posted by Renaud:

Achtung,

The major problem with the ones you noted is that the scenario designer intended them to be played in a certain way (AI on one side specifically, human-vs-human only, etc.) but sometimes failed to note that in the description. Sometimes it's obvious how the scen is intended to be played, other times it would be helpful if the designer would supply some specific instructions in this regard. This IS a pretty severe oversight I think.

You're not going to prove anything in particular or make people sign a 'I think the scenarios suxors!' petition, so i'm not sure what good further examples of supposedly crappy scenarios is going to accomplish.

The best thing would be for you to take what you have learned and design some kick-*ss scenarios for us to play.

Ren

Very well said...

[Cameroon]

Hey, you brought it up and found out that we don't agree with you. I don't think that makes us angry

Quite honestly, no I don't think the scenarios are at all worse. There are some that are absolutely evil, but none that are unwinnable (so far). Some, maybe even many, of the scenarios may only be suitable for play against the AI. I don't know of any that are specifically unwinnable. I think there was at least one scenario in CMBO like that, something to do with the Red Devils I believe.

In short, I have a blast playing the CMBB scenarios. In CMBO I usually just walked over the AI unless the scenario was heavily influenced to the AI's favor. In CMBB, due to engine changes as well as scenario design, I actually have to perform well. To me, that's a welcome change.

Some specific scenario examples below:

[minor spoilers]

.

.

.

.

Take Winter Wonderland, for example. That is an evil scenario that Berli built, but it is winnable. I think we badgered poor Berli when we talked about it, but he really did design a challenging scenario. I think he just didn't know it

Regarding your comment about some with only one solution. Yes, some do seem to be limited that way (Winter Wonderland might be one, Cemetary Hill and Gefechtsaufklaerung probably). However, none of those are on big maps. They are small scenarios that inherently limit the flexibility of the player (and designer, for that matter). If you played any of the Byte Battles from over at Der Kessel, you'd see a similar situation.

[tabpub]

I have just received a note from the scenarios!

To wit: "We, the CMBB Scenarios, being lovingly handmade by many intuitive and creative people, do protest the lack of play by more competent players. Our CMBO brethern assured us that there were such creatures in existance in the flesh world, but there have been so few in the last few weeks. Perhaps it is the current debate over the superiority of the Stug in 42-43 when the ground is firm and the snow is not present. Perhaps it is due to the complaints of troops breakdancing while under fire to the point of exhaustion. But, that would not be correct, as most of these debates are fanned by the same type of player that complains about scenario balance...

Balance...what a word...if the real world took that approach, then police when apprehending a gun toting suspect, should give them the option to "slap leather", in the interest of fairness, no doubt. Sheesh..