A Plea to Scenario Designers

[Joe Shaw]

Now look, I'm the first to admit that I haven't got a clue as to how to create scenarios in this game. I had it down fairly well in the prior incarnations of CM but this one has me flummoxed.

BUT ... could we PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE include some background, some clues as to what's going to happen, what I need to do in the scenario and what I might expect?

I just started a scenario to be played PBEM in which I was the Syrians in an urban enviornment and the entirity of the instructions consisted of a caution not to play solo as the Syrians. Okay ... so ... am I to assume that SOMEONE will be attacking me? Any thought about where the attack might come from? How about my objectives, am I to defend and if so what? Is force protection the only goal? I've got some arty, can I use it indiscriminately or must I protect buildings?

Guys, please ... a pretty map and a nice force mix does not make a finished scenario ... you've got that lovely set of instructions to fill out that can at least give me an idea of what I'm to do.

Can I buy a vowel?

Joe

[birdstrike]

Care to tell which scenario it was?

Perhaps it was one of mine. I usually include a note in the briefing that a scenario should not be played as a side if the game is not intended to be played as this side (duh).

Such scenarios are not playtested as the non-playable side, nor do they include AI plans for this case and are often hugely unbalanced, or plain boring when played from the wrong side.

Most scenarios tell you which side they can be played as when you look at the preview on the right in the selection screen.

[Joe Shaw]

Care to tell which scenario it was?

Perhaps it was one of mine. I usually include a note in the briefing that a scenario should not be played as a side if the game is not intended to be played as this side (duh).

Such scenarios are not playtested as the non-playable side, nor do they include AI plans for this case and are often hugely unbalanced, or plain boring when played from the wrong side.

Most scenarios tell you which side they can be played as when you look at the preview on the right in the selection screen.

The intent of my post wasn't to throw ****e at any given designer Rather it was to highlight something that I've seen in more than one scenario and is something that needs to be addressed.

And certainly I'd expect to see a caution of the nature you described, but in this case ALL of the instructions said the same thing (don't play solo as Red) and none of them gave any indication of the actual parameters or objectives.

I've seen this before in the other CM incarnations but in CMSF in particular it becomes critical to give the player an indication of how they need to proceed. With all the variables and conditions that can be manipulated it's almost impossible (without going into the editor and that's pretty much cheating in a PBEM game) to know how to set up your forces or make your plans.

In the case of this particular scenario it doesn't matter all that much since I'm pretty much clueless as to MOUT at the best of times and I can lose with or without instructions

Joe

[birdstrike]

As for me, people can always ask to include a basic briefing if they desperately want to play a specific one of my single-player scens in 2P - and I'm sure, others would do the same .

But I think it's just not worth investing the time, writing up a briefing 'just in case', if the scenario designer set it up as single-player scenario in the first place.

Of course, this doesn't rule out that scens can get updated for 2 players overtime, depending on player feedback.

EDIT: Actually, I'm referring to scenarios which are not supposed to be played as 2 player scens - I might have misinterpreted your post, are you referring to scens which are "supposed" to be played with 2 players but lack a briefing for both?

[Joe Shaw]

As for me, people can always ask to include a basic briefing if they desperately want to play a specific one of my single-player scens in 2P - and I'm sure, others would do the same .

But I think it's just not worth investing the time, writing up a briefing 'just in case', if the scenario designer set it up as single-player scenario in the first place.

Of course, this doesn't rule out that scens can get updated for 2 players overtime, depending on player feedback.

EDIT: Actually, I'm referring to scenarios which are not supposed to be played as 2 player scens - I might have misinterpreted your post, are you referring to scens which are "supposed" to be played with 2 players but lack a briefing for both?

In this case the only stipulation was that it shouldn't be played as red since there were no AI plans set for the red side. As the need for plans on either side is pretty much negated in PBEM play it shouldn't matter ... but your point is well taken.

Apparently my opponent has a full briefing so perhaps I jumped the gun and made the assumption that the game could be played as two player when it was never intended for that ... though the instructions were vague enough that that limitation wasn't clear. I rarely play single player and so perhaps I made an unwarranted assumption.

However ... the underlying point is still valid. Designers should remember that briefings are important and must be considered as an integral part of every scenario design. And if a game isn't balanced for PBEM (since that's really the only limiting factor) that should be mentioned as well.

In any case the game is underway and we'll see what we see

Joe

[Sergei]

In this case the only stipulation was that it shouldn't be played as red since there were no AI plans set for the red side.

If there's no AI for the red side, then wouldn't it have to be played as red?

[Joe Shaw]

If there's no AI for the red side, then wouldn't it have to be played as red?

Good point ... the instructions were explicit for the Red side ... Play as Blue only (has no Red AI plans).

{shrug} ... beats me ... as I said I have zero ability to create scenarios in CMSF so I'm hardly one to throw stones. And, upon further reflection, I believe the designer intended it to be played solo as Blue.

Frankly I'm sorry I brought the whole thing up

Joe

[Field Marshal Blücher]

And, upon further reflection, I believe the designer intended it to be played solo as Blue.

I agree, the key word being "solo." Almost all of my scenarios are designed to be played from the Blue side only, so I don't even put a briefing in for the Red player. The scenario designer most probably did the same.

[MikeyD]

Admittedly, a lot of scenarios are pretty much unplayable on one side due to techncal AI issues - like Blue AI not able to blow walls with demo charges in my "Lone Star Shopping Plaza" scenario. But still, I think a least some rudimentary Blue AI should be attempted even if its guaranteed to be a disaster. Y'know, sometimes you want a chance to play Red and win a game handily!

About not including background, there's been a complaints since CMBO days about scenario orders giving either insufficient info or deliberately misleading info. Often the designer has something specific in mind and want's to depict a surprise threat. But I admit after the twentieth 'surprise' encounter the technique starts to get a bit old. Other scenarios seem to be little more than pre-assembled QBs! No background info at all can leave the best scenario feeling somewhat arid.

[Sergei]

Then again, reading a five page article on the (fake) situation when the scenario itself would go just fine with a "go get 'em tiger!" set of instructions is kind of tedious. Especially if the briefing is full of cliches. 'The free world is holding its breath, so now as your brave boys march into the beautiful town of Krasnofeck known Ostfront-wide for its beet liquor, go and make your mum proud, and say hello to Ivan!'

It's less bad when it actually is a historical scenario, then I try to take it all as an educational experience. But even then I should be able to see all the important game info with a glance.

[birdstrike]

Same here. For some strange reason I prefer writing long briefings over reading them.

I think Mark Ezra developed a very good solution (there are possibly others who did the same, but I only remember seeing it in one of his scens first); he wrote down all importand information on the tactical map - Objectives, Victory conditions, &c.

This way, anyone who wants to jump right into the fray, a quick look at the tac map is all he needs. And all who prefer some fluff can read the full briefing.

I found this a very elegant and effective solution, especially in combination with the on map objectives toggle.

[Joe Shaw]

Same here. For some strange reason I prefer writing long briefings over reading them.

I think Mark Ezra developed a very good solution (there are possibly others who did the same, but I only remember seeing it in one of his scens first); he wrote down all importand information on the tactical map - Objectives, Victory conditions, &c.

This way, anyone who wants to jump right into the fray, a quick look at the tac map is all he needs. And all who prefer some fluff can read the full briefing.

I found this a very elegant and effective solution, especially in combination with the on map objectives toggle.

Yeah, Mark did a good job with that.

I think the CMSF engine pretty much demands a more robust approach due to the layering of objectives and plans.

And I agree that short is better than long provided that the critical information is provided.

Joe

[hoolaman]

Good point ... the instructions were explicit for the Red side ... Play as Blue only (has no Red AI plans).

{shrug} ... beats me ... as I said I have zero ability to create scenarios in CMSF so I'm hardly one to throw stones. And, upon further reflection, I believe the designer intended it to be played solo as Blue.

Frankly I'm sorry I brought the whole thing up

Joe

You might be pleased to know I think you are not too far off base.

Most scenarios of any sort have very little GAME info in the briefing, like "losses over 20% are unacceptable" or "preserve building x y z". In most cases they don't even mention "take and hold objective X".

Given the complex way the game calculates victory this is a terrible oversight, and really should be coded into the game in some way to make sure the feedback people need is in there.

Even a scenario with no AI plans should have a brief-briefing of some sort for multiplayer usage. A scenario might be balanced and great for two-player but would put the red player at a big disadvantage if he is given no briefing.

[stoex]

sergei, is there any way of ordering that renowned beet liquor from Krasnofeck online or something? sounds really yummy actually, particularly since I was recently tasked with fetching a bottle of lentil liquor for some busy NPC in "Sacred 2" and can still taste the sip of that which I got as a reward (stupid stingy NPC's).

Seriously, that sentence summed up so many experiences I had in CMBB where I decided to skip pages 4-16 of some overdone briefing, just to get creamed handily by the AI because the information I would have REALLY needed to know what I was doing was somewhere on page 12...