Questions regarding the 'Stalingrad Pack and Design Validity in general

[Michael Dorosh]

This is aimed at fans and the design team alike.

a) Which of the scenarios is most suitable for

- PBEM

- is company sized, roughly

- is either infantry only or combined arms (not armour-only)

- is well balanced for play between two humans

Pretending that the SP is going to be released for sale, and you have been chosen to select one of the scenarios for free release as a demo. Which one would it be? Assume your audience has the 1.01 patch, and is just as likely to play vs the AI as they are against another human.

c) Pretending that you are in charge of releasing the SP and have been told that you have one Battle too many. Which one would you drop from the release, and why?

[ November 24, 2002, 01:32 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[imported_Hiram Sedai]

Just an oh so humble suggestion, if I may, Mister Dorsosh, sir. This "fan" thinks that perhaps you might want to play them all. That is my plan. Savor the yummy goodness of the Operations and jump into the scenarios. Peruse the PDF that comes with it and do it chronologically if you wish. Or, maybe you could do whatever tickles your fancy, assuming you have a fancy, and play them randomly, but do play them. That is the important thing here. Play them.

I can hear them calling me from that secret, special folder on my hard drive and need to get back to my scenario friends.

[Michael Dorosh]

Well, my main interest is PBEM, especially smaller sized ones, but I play for fun, not to win. The most fun for me is surprise...so I don't want to play these against the AI if they are going to be suitable for a PBEM...

Besides, I wanted to see some honest discussion of the scenarios here beyond the rah-rah, drool-drool that has accompanied the release. I think a lot of battle designers, and especially operation designers, myself included, are still finding their feet - more discussion between the creators can only be a good thing. A couple of my fav scenario designers are getting lambasted on a regular basis in the scenario depot - admittedly many of the reviews come from less than serious reviewers whose sum total of criticism is "I hated it and I'm not saying why because it sucked!!" but nonetheless...

I suppose I could have done this in the Tips and Techniques or the Scenario discussion forums.

I wonder if the new infantry model hasn't introduced more of a dichotomy between designing for AI play and for PBEM play? One of the SL conversion authors at the Depot actually releases three versions of each of his scenarios now. I wonder if this isn't going to become the standard? I didn't see a need for it with CMBO, but think that maybe with CMBB - based on the comments at the depot - it may be a necessity.

Any other thoughts on scenario design validity, and the need for seperate versions for AI and PBEM play?

[ November 24, 2002, 01:35 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[WWB]

I am not making 3 versions of any battle, thank you very much. I make one version for one aspect of play, and sometimes it works for two. As for the rah-rah reaction, well, when was the last time The Best F'n CM Scenario Designers on Earth released 25+ battles, operations & maps at once?

Aside from the CD that is.

WWB

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

well, when was the last time The Best F'n CM Scenario Designers on Earth released 25+ battles, operations & maps at once?

Aside from the CD that is.

WWB

Have you read some of the negative reviews at the depot regarding the CD scenarios?

I am wondering if this isn't a result of this dichotomy I suspect exists. One doesn't have to release three versions (is trichotomy a word??) of every scenario, but assuming there really is a difference in how a scenario plays in the different modes, either reviewers have to pay attention to the intent of the scenario designer, or the designers need to design and test in only one of the modes (PBEM, Axis vs AI or Allies vs AI).

IF this condition exists, I still don't know if it does. Thought it might be a good subject for discussion. You can have the best PBEM scenario in the world, but if three people decide to play it vs. the AI as Germans, feel that it is horribly unbalanced because the AI won't do what a human would do with the Russians, then rate it down at the depot...you see the concern.

Maybe I place too much importance on the depot, but personally I prefer scenarios to quick battles for several reasons (atmosphere one of the chief ones, balance another) and don't want to have to start half a dozen scenarios blind and having to surrender (or accept a surrender) due to force imbalances halfway through. Always more satisfying to have the game hinge on the last turn or two.

But I see from your comments that you design for one aspect only; perhaps you agree with the idea then that scenarios simply can't be designed for one type of play and be presumed suitable for all types?

Is it just me, or was this as big a concern with the CMBO scenarios?

[ November 24, 2002, 04:23 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[jwxspoon]

Personally, I design my scenarios to reflect a given tactical situation or historical engagement. They are not necessarily meant to provide an outlet for ladder play.

I design the vast majority of scenarios for 2 player use, because I think this is where CM really shines as a wargame.

My two scenarios in the Stalingrad Pack, 'My City of Ruins' and '6th Army Probe' are designed for 2 player action, but I have included a recommendation if a player decides to fight against the computer. This can be found in the general briefing.

'My City of Ruins' is slightly larger than company size and may fit the bill for a 2 player scenario you are looking for.

jw

[Michael Dorosh]

Thanks jwxspoon, I appreciate your recommendation and comment. I admit will probably be using the depot's review process as well to select the ones I want to play PBEM.

I also design my scenarios at the depot for two player play (with one large exception) as I feel you are correct - CM really does shine in this regard. It was easy to regard playing the AI as something you do when you want an "easy" win although Cemetery Hill has made me rethink that!

I am going to guess that where the SP is going to benefit most is from extensive playtesting by humans against humans before release.

It would be of interest to a lot of us if someone wanted to comment on specific scenarios in the SP, and maybe talk about how much they evolved during the design and playtest process. I remember The General magazine having the same discussion regarding the creation of SL and ASL scenarios, and I think it would be of benefit to all of us to hear some similar comments about CM.

The toughest thing for an independent is designing stuff for PBEM and trying to test it vs the AI. I recently tested a medium sized operation in this way - against the AI it played fine for me and another tester, but when I went to play it vs. a human it was a blowout. May have been just the styles of play, or even luck, but I suspect not.

Thanks for the reply - eager to hear now from the "pros" on the question of playtesting.

[ November 24, 2002, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Andreas]

The basic problem in balancing for me is still that you can never balance for the vastly varying skill base that the success of CM has created amongst the players. When most players were at least semi-literate tacticians, with the more forgiving CMBO, it was a lot easier. One problem now is that the people testing the games are usually quite good players. Which means that if two rookies pick up the scenario, they may have quite a frustrating experience, or even worse one rookie and one experienced player (good example is Cemetery Hill, where none of the testers came back saying it was unwinnable). It comes down to the PEBKAS effect, and I feel there is little you can do to cater for it in design. YMMV.

The problem is that even recommendations like 'Give a +25% bonus to the Germans when playing PBEM' will not address a lot of this, because designers can not know what the skill levels of the players are.

[Michael Dorosh]

That's an interesting point - have you ever won as the Germans at Cemetery Hill?

I think the community as a whole would like to see a treatise on how to approach that one tactically - as you've guessed by the thread on it, and the depot reviews, it has gained a bit of notoriety....

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

That's an interesting point - have you ever won as the Germans at Cemetery Hill?

I think the community as a whole would like to see a treatise on how to approach that one tactically - as you've guessed by the thread on it, and the depot reviews, it has gained a bit of notoriety....

Well, a couple of people figured it out, I think. I have won it, but that is hardly fair to say - I doubt I would have won in the first go playing the AI blind, since I am not a good player. I think one of the beta testers did win it first go - I'll see if I can dig out the report.

Also, luck plays a huge role in it. If your fire support units pack it in before their time, you'll be sh*t out of luck.

[Michael Dorosh]

Luck will really affect the small Byte-Battle type scenarios a lot; one needs to keep that in mind when embarking on one.

It's too bad that people are rating the maps on these small ones down, too...I really like your scenario on the CD with the gully-type terrain and the blizzard going on - seemed quite real to me, and reminded me of being on exercise here on the prairies. You even mentioned the correct geographical term (balka?) for that - what more could anyone ask? Yet people seem to think that the Eastern Front was all Stalingrad and sewers.

[ November 25, 2002, 08:36 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Andreas]

The guy (Marsam) who wrote that first review was a clueless git (and I am being hesitant with language here), not to put too fine a point on it. I wanted to say that for a long time, but unfortunately the 'answer to review' fucntion does not work on the depot for CMBB.

I have a number of pictures of terrain just like that - in actual fact, when I first designed the map there was nothing on it. Other beta-testers asked me to put something onto it because they got depressed fighting over it.

Reviews like that really upset me - that was a calculated insult by someone who would not know the eastern front if posted there. And you are right in what you say elsewhere, stupid reviews like that can kill a scenario for good. Not necessarily for me, since I have a bit of a reputation to live off, but for new designers it'll probably do them harm.

[jwxspoon]

Those are good points, Andreas, and I must agree with you. I remember during CMBB beta testing when I was designing a steppe map and Rune advised me to have the roads go straight through without a single bend. "Hundreds of kilometers of featureless landscape and straight roads." was how he put it, and a bit of research on my part showed he was absolutely right.

For that reason I chose city engagements primarily to do my scenarios on, and Danube Blues and my two SP battles were the result.

The thing we must all remember about reviews at the Scenario Depot is that they are nothing more than personal opinions, half the time posted by the loser of the battle. That being said, I greatly appreciate the reviews and watch for consistent complaints or requests in the reviews. If the same thing comes up consistently I will take a serious look at that issue in the scenario to see if it needs revision.

jw

[CombinedArms]

I think everyone is still finding their feet on the balance issue with CMBB, since we're all still learning how to play the game, experimenting with what works and what doesn't. I've gotten my clock cleaned a few times by the AI and also in PBEMs against players I've been pretty even with up till now. I think that's all part of the learning curve. We probably have to expect a few intemperate reviews at the Depot while this process unfolds. One thing a player can do if he sees an unfair review at the Depot is to give a counterbalancing review. Admiral Keth says he's going to fix the author reply function for CMBB when he has time.

Meanwhile, my experience in the ROW tourneys suggests that play balance IS a tricky issue based on skill level, luck and finding the right or wrong approach to a scenario. A given scenario might produced 80-20 and 20-80 results with two different pairs of players--but, over 36 games, it might prove itself to be quite balanced. Even an excellent player might take a wrong approach in a given scenario, or have a string of lousy luck, and be beaten by a lesser player. A single game, either from a playtester or a player, can give only a very partial idea of balance. I playtested two or three of the Stalingrad scenarios and gave my best guess as to their balance, but it was really just a guess. Ultimately, I think designers just have to use their best judgement based on the info they have and let their scenarios go forth into the world. And I'm grateful for all the thought, effort and imagination that goes into them....

[Wol]

I prefer operations more than anything else, with QBs as light relief. I think I can eventually balance a scenario for play as human vs human or human (attacker) vs Ai defender. I cannot get it to work as human (defender) vs AI without greatly changing the operation. Sometimes to play vs Ai a balance provision is needed.

My 2c woth.

[Cpt Kernow]

Just a slight comment.

I think sometimes it is ok to have reviewers say a scenario was bad as long as they refer explicitly to the way they played it.

So if someone goes: played this PBEM it was totally unbalanced and much more suited towards vAI.

This now gived me an idea as to how to play this scenario, as often (though this is improving) the scenario desighner leaves out what way a scenario is best played.

Also a scenario may accidentaly skew itself to a certain play type in a way that was not intended by the desighner. I recently played an OP that the desighner said was best vAI seeing that I won in 4 out of 8 battles with a TACVIC I thought he had got the balance wrong. However It had in my opinion a great map and would make for great PBEM.

So in that review it got a relatively bad score (Still in no way an awfull score)though I made sure I contextualised my scoring in the text that accompanies the numerical scores. I allways go more on the text portion of a review anyway as I find the scores vary to much due to subjectivity and the relativity of each reviewers scoring system.

[Admiral Keth]

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

We probably have to expect a few intemperate reviews at the Depot while this process unfolds. One thing a player can do if he sees an unfair review at the Depot is to give a counterbalancing review. Admiral Keth says he's going to fix the author reply function for CMBB when he has time.

CombinedArms,

The Author Reply feature is slated to be put back into place after Thanksgiving (I'm even postponing brewing a batch of of my Fulminator dopplebock to get this feature finished). Look for it to be in place by 12.08.02.

[Thin Red Line]

Originally posted by Cpt Kernow:

However It had in my opinion a great map and would make for great PBEM.

So in that review it got a relatively bad score (Still in no way an awfull score)though I made sure I contextualised my scoring in the text that accompanies the numerical scores.

Cpt K., i understand your point, but at the end you gave a relatively bad score to a great scenario.

If, according to you, the scenario is not fitted for AI play, maybe it is preferable to put just 0 in the 'vs AI' mark and put a comment in your review regarding that specific point).

[Cpt Kernow]

Yes, but I gave it a "poor" score speicificaly for AI play. I think this is fair.

I still think it recieved an ok score anyway coz i scored the map and breifing highly.

[Potvin]

Originally posted by Andreas:

The guy (Marsam) who wrote that first review was a clueless git (and I am being hesitant with language here), not to put too fine a point on it. I wanted to say that for a long time, but unfortunately the 'answer to review' fucntion does not work on the depot for CMBB.

Andreas,

I saw that review way back, shook my head and laughed. It brought to mind a few things...

1. Reviews have limited value. How many reviews are "stacked?" (friends pumping up the ratings of friends) How many are a downgraded because the player is (a.) too inexperienced or (b.) too masterful? How many are written by people who do not play the correct side? Who likes urban brawls? Who likes steppes fights? Who likes infantry crawling through chest-deep snow? Who likes a scenario more in v1.01 vs. v1.00? etc....

2.SD Reviews suffer from what statisticians call a "Sample Selection Bias." That is, the reviews are not random. People choose to not make reviews or make them. Do people review scenarios because a) they really liked them they really hated them c) the designer told them to d) they really like the designer's previous work e) they saw a bad review and wanted to counter with a good review f)...etc?

Some have suggested the bias is to inflate the review numbers. I don't know.

3. A historically accurate (or nearly so) scenario is not necessarily an interesting or FUN scenario, or at least it is not necessarily interesting and fun for everyone. (See my review of the scenario in question.)

4. The best designers can't please half the people half the time. One of the highest ranked CMBO scenarios at the SD (Clubfoot) is super original, super clever, super well-mapped (WOW! That damn dam!) AND...I did not enjoy it.

What's wrong with me?

Just some thoughts. Cheers and keep up the good work,

- Atlas

[Scott B]

Arrgh. I've been meaning to post to this thread all weekend and it keeps getting larger and I have more things to respond to.

First things first.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

a) Which of the scenarios is most suitable for

- PBEM

- is company sized, roughly

- is either infantry only or combined arms (not armour-only)

- is well balanced for play between two humans

From the B&T scenarios (I have only seen the DK scenarios, and did not participate in playtesting them - although I'm very much looking forward to starting Balck and the Bridgehead), the scenarios that more or less meet these requirements would be:

My City of Ruins

The Library - 2P

Glimmer of Valor (might be a bit big though, and it is also somewhat armor heavy)

A lot of our stuff turned out rather large - the only "small" scenarios came from Der Kessel designers. There are several other good battles and operations for two players; those are just the ones that are small enough to be called roughly company sized.

Pretending that the SP is going to be released for sale, and you have been chosen to select one of the scenarios for free release as a demo. Which one would it be? Assume your audience has the 1.01 patch, and is just as likely to play vs the AI as they are against another human.

Well, I did briefly consider releasing a scenario or two prior to the release of the pack as a whole, as part of the preview thing. That said, things just didn't come together that way and I don't think it would have been a viable option for us. I'd probably have included either A Morning Commute or Kalach-na-Donu, for both size and coolness reasons, and then something from B&T.

c) Pretending that you are in charge of releasing the SP and have been told that you have one Battle too many. Which one would you drop from the release, and why?

Pretending.

We did lose a few scenarios along the way. Several, in fact - there were a few designers that had to drop out for varying reasons, and a few other scenarios that didn't survive the design process. Remember at one point we said we were looking at 28 scenarios, and the final release was 23 scenarios. The QB map I released was intended originally to be a scenario; that may have been the case for one or both of Berli's as well. Every scenario that made the pack made it entirely through playtesting and the designer approved it for release.

I wonder if the new infantry model hasn't introduced more of a dichotomy between designing for AI play and for PBEM play? One of the SL conversion authors at the Depot actually releases three versions of each of his scenarios now. I wonder if this isn't going to become the standard? I didn't see a need for it with CMBO, but think that maybe with CMBB - based on the comments at the depot - it may be a necessity.

I'm not sure that it has ever been that scenarios could be optimized for both PBEM and vs AI. The best one could do in CMBO was usually "two player, or vs AI with +25%" or something to that effect. I think that in CMBO you could get by with 'close enough,' where you can not always do so in CMBB.

(Edit: I just noticed that you said, "more of a dichotomy." In that case, yes - I agree. )

My scenario, The Library, was the only one in the Stalingrad Pack to be released in two versions, and that was because my original intent was to design it primarily as a two player scenario and playtesting showed that the first version, with a few tweaks, would also be a good single player battle. So I threw that one in and ended up with two versions; ironically I'm increasingly of the opinion that it is something of a better single player scenario than a two player scenario now.

I've been thinking about balance and how it relates to vs AI and two player scenarios lately. I am increasingly drawn to the conclusion that Andreas's "Cemetery Hill" is pretty much ideally balanced for single player vs AI play, with an eye toward being playable by a variety of skill levels of players. Simply put, they should be designed to be difficult, and then the handicap settings used to tweak them down in difficulty, rather than vice versa, as was typically the case in CMBO.

Atlas,

Good comments on reviews at the depot; by and large my thoughts are similar. The depot's scenario reviews are of somewhat mixed usefulness, in my opinion - while I treasure any and all feedback on my work, I do not like scored scenario reviews. For one, they are at this point hideously inflated; for another, all of the points are valued evenly. I utterly reject "replayability" as a factor of the same importance as "balance" or "map design," and many of the things I specifically look for in scenarios - historical accuracy being one - are not factored into that system at all. Add to that the fact that people don't use the system in the same way - I have seen glowingly positive text reviews that give an average of 6 points as a score - and that some others simply don't seem to understand it, and, well, there you go.

I'd be more comfortable myself with a non scored review system; as it is you can't just go by points anyway because without reading the review you can't tell whether those are the points you'd give the scenario for the same reason. I would just as soon see them abandon the number system altogether and then just go to the "scenario of the month" voting system.

Scott

[ November 25, 2002, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Scott B ]

[Panzer Leader]

I'm just happy to get any review, regardless of 'score' and I think that might be the crux of the matter. When I'm ooking for scenarios, I'm also drawn to scenarios with more reviews, and the actual score is of less importance.

I think we're making a mountain out of a molehill here. The score is not all-powerful, but the number of reviews IS important. I'd like to see something added to the Depot where you could check downloads or something. That would be telling, as quantifiable fact rather than a jumble of opinions.

[Tarquelne]

Is the quote I want in that long post? Oh, man, it is.... OK:

I utterly reject "replayability" as a factor of the same importance as "balance" or "map design,"

Heartily agree with that. After reading this thread I went and played "The Balka". Then I reviewed it at the Depot - my "overall" score was 6.6, dragged down by the "Replayability" category. How long is AK's "To Do" list? Maybe he could add "Consider discounting "Briefing" and "Replayability" by 50% in score formula." to the back of the third page, or something.

/the scores/ are at this point hideously inflated

I hope so, because otherwise I'm not getting nearly as much fun out of playing the game as some people. And I try, I really try.

[ November 25, 2002, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[imported_Hiram Sedai]

Well, after reading this thread, I'm not going to review a scenario again at the scenario depot. What's the use? If I give high marks for a certain aspect it's suspected to be "overinflated" and if I think it was lacking in one aspect, then it offends whoever created the scenario.

My simple way is just to compliment whoever made it in the combat mission chat room.

[Andreas]

Hiram,

I think there is value in reviews, if you concentrate on the written bit (and if your intent is not to just insult the designer). The point value is pretty meaningless, and I don't really care very much for it anymore, since it seems a lot of people use different scales. I like what Atlas did, rating it overall in the written section.