A few comments about scenario design

[Goldfinger]

First, I'd like to thank all those scenario designers out there for their time and effort devoted to make this game so interesting. However, after playing a number of scenarios downloaded from CMHQ, I have a few comments.

I really like to place the units myself. I have come across a number of scenarios where the default placement is just absurd. Like placing a mortar team totally exposed on the first line of defense. Or a MG bunker with almost no LOS anywhere useful.

It's OK if the deployment is constrained to a small zone, although I'd like more freedom than that. After all, even in historical scenarios, the exact position of every units cannot be known that accurately.

And no, I don't want to use the scenario editor to place the units, as it gives away the force composition of the opponent, spoiling the FOW effect.

Reinforcements. Boy, was I pissed off last night when a Stuart suddenly out of nowhere appeared on my flank at less than 150m from my Panthers, blowing off 2 of them in a turn. I think the map should have been made larger, so that reinforcements actually have to manuever into firing positions. This would be fairer, and more realistic.

BTW, is the variable turret speed of the Panther going to be implemented? There was a threat about that.

Anyway, I hope scenario designers will take my "complaints" into consideration in the future. It will make the game much more enjoyable.

[Manx]

You raise some good points. Hopefully designers would have had their beta scenarios extensively play tested before letting them loose on the CM population, preferably tested by other players. This would iron out many of the design flaws that you mention.

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

COMBAT MISSIONS- The Source For CM Ops & Scenarios

WWW.COMBATMISSIONS.CO.UK

[Harold]

Goldfinger and others,

You can have the AI setup freely instead of sticking to the scenario default by changing the option when you are choosing the side for the scenario you are playing.

One thing scenario designers or converters must do is setup initial forces for both the attacker and defender. It is not enough to just drop the units in the setup zone and call it good because someone who tries the scenario with AI on default setup will get a defense or attack where those units were last placed.

After awhile you will get a feel for who designs the best scenarios. Stick with them but make sure to occasionally try out others. Sometimes it takes a try or two to get things to work and if people are playing a new designers scenario it will encourage them to try more.

Give constructive feedback as well. The "your scenario sucks" response doesn't work. Sometimes designers do know what they are doing and it is the players who don't.

Harold

[Wild Bill Wilder]

You are very welcome, Goldfinger, on behalf of all designers out there including me.

Yes, scenarios come in a mixed variety, much as a mysterious wrapped package, you don't know what is inside till you open it.

And they do vary in playability, depending to a large extent on two factors:

1. The experience of the designer (you learn as you do) and,

2. As Manx mentioned, the amount of playtesting involved in bringing it to finality.

Harold makes a good point too. Sometimes the designer has a situational setup that is historical but very frustrating, such as ambushes, etc. to add a note of historical realism. And of course, you can't be warned or it loses it's impact.

How will you know which are good ones and which are not? Well you really won't till you try them. It is hard to say what is in the box till you take off the wrapping and look inside.

Some are keepers, some are losers, but as you have done, all deserve a salute for making the effort. Let the creative spirit live!

Your suggestions are very good and I hope they are read by all designers.

Wild Bill

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

Wild Bill

Lead Tester

Scenario Design Team

Combat Mission-Beyond Overlord

billw@matrixgames.com

[Fred]

100% agree Goldfinger!

All scenarios should have a decent default setup for both sides for the situation at hand.

Furthermore, the designer should inform the player about what side is best to play vs. the AI and if he should use the "default setup" option or the "AI free to place units" option.

Fred

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

"I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission

[Keith]

It is also quite obvious that in many scenarios the author did absolutely no or little play testing. This is very irritating. Some of the scenarios are no more than "shoot em ups" against the attacker with endless amounts of mines, bunkers, and AT assets with no room for maneuver.

I tend to stay away from scenarios where the author has no/poor briefings and the quality of the map is low. This is a good indication that the scenario is of low quality.

Also everybody vote on the scenarios! Also no voting for your own ("Five stars my ass!" has escaped from my lips more than a few times).

[Maastrictian]

I'll definately reiterate Keith's comments on voting. Also, drop the designer a line, I've found that they always appreciate feed back, even if its negative. But say something meaningfull, not just that the scenario sucked.

Playtesting is key as well, at least two times from each side in the final version. A good scenario is not created over night. Its easy to spend two weeks on it, reworking the map, fiddling with OOBs, play testing. Also, its very worth playing at least one game from each side where you surrender after 3-5 turns. I've found that the AI will often move out of position (out of foxholes and stuff) if victory flaggs are poorly placed. Similarly, use the surrendering technique to get a look at what reenforcements do. Also, when playtesting make an effort to try several strategies. Ite easy to get locked in to one way of doing things when you know exactally where everything is. Test with both the default set up and free setup.

Put detail in to scenarios to spice them up. A lone sharpshooter scout, ahead of the main body. A sunken road (even being sunk one level makes things very interesting), a rail road embankment.

What are people's thoughts on briefings? Should they be business like and proffesional or can a personal touch add something? I recently played "Victory in the Vinyards" which has the briefings as letters home from the commanders. A very nice touch.

--Chris

[Schugger]

I do also think that a scenario should be playtested before it is posted somewhere. It is really frustrating sometimes when you launch a PBEM game, double blind preferably, and than you have to realize that you need at least three turns to put each squad in command. This happened to me twice now and a lot of precious (PBEM) time was wasted.

I think there are more scenarios posted than there are people willing to act as playtesters.

What about the idea "You playtest mine and I playtest yours" by forming a small group of designers/testers?

Schugger

[GonzoAttacker]

I am one that has a habit of locking units in place. "These Hills are Alive" and "Attack on the German Winter Line" take place in the Huertgen Forest and Vosges Moutains. In these cases there is s great amount fortifications. Minefields on Minefields...trees cut down in forest locations(clear cutting) for better field of fire and Bunker complex after bunker complex. Booby trapped barbed wire and intense infantry fighting.

To gain 1000 yards in this area of the war, great defenses took a toll on the troops, 4000 men became casualties. So I suggest if you do not plan carefully playing these two scenarios that have been set up to the tactics used in these areas do not play them.

If you are not advanced enough in infantry tactics and do not have the time to play scenarios were tanks do not mean much then skip these.

I have played scenarios with combined arms that I have won or loss only using infantry to knock out tanks, Even King Tigers.

I work an average of six weeks on each scenario. Between gathering information on area, finding 3D maps, and looking for any current material. Then I take anywhere from 6 to ten hours just on placing elevations on maps. From there I work tirelessly for days putting in terrain and roads and so on... Then it is play tested many times over. Some scenarios are thrown in the heap others are thrown to the wolves.

Three generations of my family fought in World War Two, Korea, Vietnam, and I have heard all of their stories firsthand. War is not fun, the best definition I ever heard about war is: "War is War," said my Grandfather.

I say scenario designers keep designing. Each artisit has his own style. I enjoy all and have fun with all. I have recently got my hands on the Waterloo map and it is Beautiful! and I am going to play Gettysburg next.

There is something out there for all. The voting is silly, it is the feedback that is important. So start e-mailing the scenario designers. Thanks again for this posting.

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

"Victory smiles upon those who anticipate the changes in the character of war, not upon those who wait to adapt themselves after they occur."

General Guilio Douhet

1920

[This message has been edited by GonzoAttacker (edited 09-13-2000).]

[Armdchair]

I also plead guilty to designing scenarios w/ units locked into place, little maneuverability, etc. It isn't because I'm trying to create a mindless "shoot-em-up" but because my extensive reading on the subject of WWII combat, infantry in particular, tends to suggest that:troops had little choice about the where, when, how, why of combat assignments; and that while the US Army in the ETO was designed for maneuverability, it actually spent majority of time fighting grind-it-out battles of attrition, i.e., frontal assaults against well-prepared German defenses(see Russell Weigley-"Eisenhower's Lieutenants" on the subject, among others). This tends to be overlooked in Hollywood movies. As Paul Fussell, author, professor, and ETO vet explained, it's all very well to talk of fire and movement, but in combat it's very easy to get killed while looking for enemy's flank. While the more glamorous aspects of WWII (D-Day, Arnhem, the Bulge, elite formations of armor, paratroopers, Rangers,etc) have been covered by movies and Stephen Ambrose's popular works, for instance, the general brutal, bloody nature of combat seems to have been overlooked. I lack both the historical expertise of top line designers such as Wild Bill and his Raiders, Moon, Michael Hunkele, etc to attempt the big-name battles and the knowledge of armor tactics to design other than I do. I lock units into place because I, myself, hate having to sort out a battalion's worth of troops dumped haphazardly on a map. As far as voting goes, I would never vote for my own, I want an honest response. I currently have one w/ an average score and i know that's all it deserves. I may be spent creatively for now, as far as scenario design goes, but I wanted to offer my notions of WWII combat, grind-it-out infantry tactics based on research for screenplay I'm currently working on. All constructive feedback on my scenarios (Spring Surprise, Head-On, and Silent Night) is welcomed. Can be reached at armdchair @ aol.com

[Pak40]

"I lock units into place because I, myself, hate having to sort out a battalion's worth of troops dumped haphazardly on a map."

It's pointless to lock units only because you dont want to sort out a haphazard setup. Each unit's default placement is kept when you start a scenario, no matter if you choose "unit lock" or not. Unit lock only keeps the player from moving the unit in the setup. Since the default placement is always kept then just place the units where you want them in the scenario editor. Therefore if you or anyone else wants to experiment with different setups, then it will be possible.

I personally hate the "unit lock". It leaves room for little variation in the replay value for most scenarios. There's no ability for expirimentation of tactics.

I also disagree in part that "troops had little choice about the where, when, how, why of combat assignments". If a captain or major was ordered to defend an area or town, then he placed his units in the best place he could. He had full control of the locality of his own troops. Since CM's scope is on the company/batallion level, the player -in an abstract way- is assuming this role. Therefore we should be given the CHOICE of setting the units where we want to (within friendly territory, of coarse).

If a player wants to play a scenario the exact way a designer has laid it out then all he has to do is accept the default setup, otherwise he can move his troops anyhere withing the 3 possible setup zones. This allows for the greatest possible replayiblity of a scenario and makes it most enjoyable for all.

The only time I would consider "unit locks" is if I'm making a strictly historical battle where my intent is force the player to try and outperform the historical results with the same setup that actually happened.

[Manx]

As the maintainer of a site that "specialises" in hosting scenarios i can only say that i personally don't try to pass judgement on whether a scenario submitted to the site is any good or not. As far as i'm concerned there's room for everybody - from the first-time designer right up to the masters (Wild Bill, Moon, Hunkele, Reece, Radoslovich etc. etc.) and its feedback passed back to the designers that counts, not how many votes or how high a rating the scenario scores that's important.

As WBW says, its a learning process, and a first-time designer, no matter what age, will learn more from constructive feedback and advice than by receiving a 1-star rating at CM-HQ.

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

COMBAT MISSIONS- The Source For CM Ops & Scenarios

WWW.COMBATMISSIONS.CO.UK

[This message has been edited by Manx (edited 09-13-2000).]

[Armdchair]

Pak40, Manx, you both make valid points. That's what constructive criticism's all about. I accept your comments in the spirit it was intended and have come to realize that I got a lot of learning to do.To clarify, company commanders did not have choice of battle zones, i.e., assaulting Siegfried Line, Hurtgen Forest, Winter Line, etc. If people do not like playing scenarios dealing with bunker complexes, limited maneuverability, etc., they are free not to do so. It's right upfront in the posting: bunkers, mines, etc. In my own case, titling a scenario "Head-On" is about as blunt and plain-speaking as I can be. It was an oversight on my part to lock all units in but i was reacting (over-reacting?) to having to re-invent the wheel, i.e., having to re-invent platoon structure. In a scenario (that shall remain nameless) I spent considerable time shuffling squads around in the setup; it was not unlike if you were playing Madden football and had to put together the offense, defense, and special teams squads yourself. I had meant to free up setup in new version of "Head-On", and thought I had (my mistake). "Spring Surprise", my first scenario, seems to have been well-received so I felt no need to tinker with it after posting it (it went through extensive testing & re-edits initially). I leave the big battles, the name battles to those who know how: the original crew of designers of CM scenarios, as well as others like Frank Radoslovich,

McAuliffe,Pak40, GonzoAttacker, etc

"What can I tell you, kid? You're right.When you're right, you're right, and you're right." - Jack Nicholson as J.J. Gittes,"Chinatown"

[This message has been edited by Armdchair (edited 09-15-2000).]

[McAuliffe]

I brought following up in the general section of the CM forum...someone told me to post it here

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by McAuliffe:

(...)I must express my dissapointment about poor scenario design in general. I see buffs discussing here about whether or not leaf-design camouflage was used on a tank or not, while nobody is commenting on the terrible errors in map design. I see scenarios where the Rhine looks like a creek, the hamlet of Noville as a big town, the Ardennes as flat as a pool table and the rolling hills of western Europe are depicted as "shrubveld".

CM has given us a wonderfull 3D engine, in order to let the landscapes of hexagonial boards come alive and it seems all scenario designers stick to ASL-playboard data.

Would appreciate if those designers had a look at topo-maps an aerial pictures, before they convert those scenario's. It would make it all together more realistic.

Knowing its easier to pull the trigger, then to play the guitar...I did make myself some conversions..you'll find some of them on my homepage.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

http://users.pandora.be/aneric/index8.htm#Projects

[Pak40]

McAuliffe,

And I've seen dense European cities depicted as sparse midwestern USA towns laid out in a grid pattern. Puke!

[Holdit]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GonzoAttacker:

I have recently got my hands on the Waterloo map and it is Beautiful!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great! I'm delighted to hear that! Yours is the first feedback I've had. Any criticisms I should know about? I've since found acouple of sopts where a road is a bit warped by elevation changes, and another elevation change has caused one of the Papelotte buildings to disappear. I'll be fixing those up over the next few days.

The approach I took with the Waterloo map was a bit similar to what you describe above. I worked from 4 different maps and set up the main features first, La Belle Alliance, La Haye Sainte, Hougomont etc, then all other placements could be worked out by reference to one or more of those. Then the main elevations were added, then the main woods, then the outlying farms and villages follwed by fleshing it out with finer details and elevations changes, most of which isn't on the maps, so I referred to the Battleground: Waterloo game for ideas. There was a lot of deleting and changing along the way, though. I reckon I must have razed more villages than Attila the Hun on a bad day...

[howardb]

I agree with what you say Goldfinger that's why I let the defender deploy anywhere he likes on "his" side of the river (try Who is Gunther and tell me what you think).

What bothers me in some battles are the deployments they are many times totally unrealistic, leave it up to the player to decide where to deploy (within reason) and give him less units to counter the better zones. Easy as that.

[barage]

Just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in since I'm in the middle of creating a scenario. The scenario is a recreation of a fictionalized battle described in a book. The units represented in the battle correspond to the units and locations in the book. What is the point of setting up this kind of recreation if someone can redistribute the units and totally change the character of the battle you are trying to model?

Put me down as interested in both kinds of scenarios, one where the designer wanted to create the feeling of a particular battle and the units are padlocked. And a more free form battle where its up to the players to place the units.

[Wild Bill Wilder]

Valid point, Barage. Perhaps a note in the text indicating if the units are locked in place or not might be of help to those who don't like it or don't care.

Some historical sitatuations demand that some or all units be locked. Others allow for flexibility. It depends on the battle being represented and the designer's intent.

Thank you Manx. Is your site still up and running? I thought you were closing it down.

I did not know. I'll head over that way.

Wild Bill

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

Wild Bill

Lead Tester

Scenario Design Team

Combat Mission-Beyond Overlord

billw@matrixgames.com