Atlas' scenario design discussion.

[PeterX]

Potvin posted a propos of Rune's 'Factory' scenario:

I hate urban fighting. Anything that happens in a factory makes me drool with boredom. I tried to review your "...Factory" scenario, but my bias got in the way.

One thing to remember in CMBO&BB: urban comabt is heavily abstracted. Intelligently and creatively abstracted, but abstracted nonetheless. In CM's defense, they'd need a whole new complimentary engine do really do justice to the intracacies of street fighting. It's beyond the cope of the game. Basically, I'm pretty satsified with the current depiction.

That said, I did play that scenario in question and was surpised how much it kept me entertained. I rate it a '9'.

[SuperSulo]

Somehow the thought of reviewing the scenarios I play had never crossed my mind... Maybe I'm a selfish bastard, I don't know. But to my defense, I've yet to download a scenario for cmbb, I'm still on the cd ones. I play them by date, and am up to 42-10-20_Pavlov's House.cme so far. I promise I will review them all on this Scenario Depot (I didn't even have the link before I read this thread...).

Some thoughts about the rating system:

"Replayability" means nothing to me, I would never play a scenario twice. "Force Balance" is a bit tricky... If I get beaten (by the AI, never played against a human yet), is it unbalanced or do I suck? If I win, does the AI suck? The most important (or maybe the only important?) field is the Playable vs. AI (or PBEM/LAN Playablility).

I just realized what I said above is just what's important to me, as a player, of course the designer wants to know if his Briefing was nicely typed and what not. Sorry.

Some points on design:

I think I agree with all of Atlas' points. I esp. dont like when the two sides start in shooting range/full view of eachother. Meeting Engagement isn't called Met Engagement. Same thing with reinforcement that pops up right smack in the middle of things (unless it's Airborne ).

Time: I prefer longer (not neccesary bigger!) scenarios. I want to have time to do what I like, esp. as the attacker. If the battle comes to a stalemate, I usually press "cease fire", thinking that's what should have happened in RL.

I think that's it for now, I'll put the rest in the reviews. I got some 28 to write so far. I hope length isn't a requierment.

I apologies for all spelling/grammar/thought process errors, it's Sunday night 03:33 (AM for the non-metric people?) AND I got the flu. So there.

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by Ken Talley:

The one drawback is both players have to have the same scenario. It is a little thing but is a drawback for TCP/IP games.

I don't know about TCP, but if you are playing PBEM both players don't even need to have the scenario. The player initiating the game sends the file to his opponent and you're off and running because the scenario plays off that initial file. I imagine that TCP would be a little different though? I don't know - never played TCP before.

[Andreas]

You don't need to have the scenario on both machines for TCP. Only on the hosting machine.

[Franko]

reading all your input with great interest..

F

[Ken Talley]

Thanks for the clarification. It is good to hear only one side needs the scenario.

[Potvin]

Is this the solution?

1. Five star rating system (*=poor, **=fair, ***=average (as one reviewer wrote, "as good [enjoyable] as a QB"), ****=good, *****=excellent).

2. Block off irrelevant ratings (e.g. rating a PBEM scenario after playing vs. the computer.)

3. Make the final overall rating independent (not an average) of the other ratings. Boring maps are often historically accurate maps.

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by SuperSulo:

If I get beaten (by the AI, never played against a human yet), is it unbalanced or do I suck? If I win, does the AI suck?

Well it depends of course- were you really in top form? Or getting lucky as OJ? I agree that answering the Balance question can be tough, or iffy, but still it's your impression and best estimation of it which is being asked for- just do your best, otherwise the designer is still without a clue.

I esp. dont like when the two sides start in shooting range/full view of eachother. Meeting Engagement isn't called Met Engagement.

YES! Thank you- Good one. I've seen an occasional defense of that for unusual reasons, but I'm not buying any of them. I hate it, I loathe it, I despise it, and I don't like it too much, neither.

Same thing with reinforcement that pops up right smack in the middle of things (unless it's Airborne )

YES, even if they show up on the back row, sometimes they're in full sight, but sitting there on the road. It shouldn't be too tough to give us some small out of LOS place where they appear.

I've suggested recently that scenarios which have reinforcements simply use a map with a long back section, so the reinf could start way back there, at an earlier time, which seems to me more realistic anyhow. Why not?

Time: I prefer longer (not neccesary bigger!) scenarios. I want to have time to do what I like, esp. as the attacker.

YES! I keep hammering on this one too. I think people are starting to hear it. The default turns for QBs is going up from 30 to 40 in 1.02 exampli gratia.

Eden