Scenario replayability

[ASL Veteran]

I am a scenario player and I generally don't play quick battles. BFC has provided a lot of great tips in the manual about good scenario design, but there is one thing that I don't think they addressed and that's replayability. Some scenario players like to play through a scenario blind one time and then once they've completed it they don't go back to it again. In those cases then the scenario design can have all kinds of gimmicks and fixed deployment areas and it doesn't really matter that much. Most of your "human vs AI" focused scenarios probably fall into that category. Especially if the 'human' player is recommended to play as one specific side. However, aside from all the basic tips outlined by BFC in the manual that's taking the scenario design only to the first level. As an old ASL player I view a scenario as a chess match between two skilled opponents. In ASL almost none of your or your opponents forces are hidden. Yet in spite of the fact that almost none of the forces are hidden there are a lot of scenarios that I've played multiple times and had a lot of fun playing every time. So for me, when I play a scenario I don't mind how many times my opponent has played a scenario when I play against them. In fact, I expect my opponent to at least take a look at both sides before beginning a game. My standard procedure when selecting a scenario is basically "He who picks the scenario does not pick the side." I've only deviated from this a few times and since Red is generally the weaker side in CMSF I don't worry about that rule too much with the CMSF scenarios. If I'm selecting Red then I figure that I'm playing at a disadvantage. Once we get into Normandy though I will probably reinstate that rule of thumb. This usually forces a prospective opponent of mine to select a scenario that they think they can win as either side because they don't know which side I will pick if they pick the scenario. This also assumes that both my opponent and I will at least glance at the force mix and deployment areas for both sides in order to determine which side they want to take or which scenario to pick.

So for the way I play, and for replayability purposes, set up areas are a critical component of scenario design. The larger the set up area the better. Fixed units are almost a complete scenario breaker for replayability purposes. If your opponent knows exactly where a unit will be deployed, in CMSF in particular, you will probably get a turn one artillery barrage directly on top of your troops who are in a fixed location. Placing troops in fixed locations may be great for playing a scenario vs the AI one time. If you are playing against a human opponent in a situation where that player may have played the scenario previously, then having fixed units is probably a death sentence for those units. In some cases the scenario can still be playable with fixed units, but if those fixed units are an important part of your defense then it can damage the scenario's replayability.

Small set up areas are better than fixed units, but they can still be problematic as small setup areas can limit a defender's options. Options are important for replayability purposes because if the setup area is large enough no two players will deploy their defenses in exactly the same manner. This leads to unpredictability during replays of that scenario even though the force mix and terrain are known to both players. If the designer gets too cute with the setup areas and gives the defender one little set up zone to deploy their HMG team and another little setup zone to deploy their Sagger team then you've hamstrung the player's defensive creativity. Just because the scenario designer would deploy unit X and Y in a specific location doesn't mean that a different player would think that those locations are the most optimal areas to deploy those weapons within their defensive scheme. Making several little deployment boxes for specific weapons systems forces the human player to play the scenario designers game the way the designer wants you to play it. Once again it can crush replayability. The only time different deployment zones makes sense is if you have separate forces that are either on attack along a different route or a separate defensive force that is independent of another force and they are both assigned different defensive zones. For example, you have a force trapped in a factory and you have a relief force fighting to their rescue. Obviously you have to have separate defensive zones for those two forces in that situation.

I felt the need to start this thread because most of the scenarios from CMSF and Marines seem to be designed for player vs AI play and almost all of them have critical design flaws regarding player vs player games. I'm hoping for future BFC designed scenarios to account for this and to make scenarios that players can play against each other multiple times if they want to. For example, I really like the Rahadnak Valley Search scenario from the Marines module. I think it's the best scenario on either CD. Unfortunately the Red forces have several fixed units that are important to the defense and can easily be taken out by a Blue player who has played the scenario already with a first turn artillery barrage. While it's possible for Red to play with those assets destroyed in the beginning, it would be much better if Red could deploy those assets rather than leave them 'fixed' and vulnerable to a Blue opponent. Following the Euphrates has a lot of potential for multi player gaming but those buildings ruin that scenario. That's not really a set up zone issue although in that scenario there are two conscript platoons in the trenches where one squad in each platoon is outside of the setup zones and are 'fixed' in position. That leaves the Syrian player in the position of either leaving the entire platoon in place or redeploying the platoon and leaving the individual 'fixed' squad in place to fend for themselves. Now about those buildings! The Red forces really need to be able to redeploy from position to position or they get annihilated from Blue firepower. In Following the Euphrates most of the buildings only have one entry point and all the entry points are facing the road for the buildings along that side of the town (and for several buildings behind that). Not only does it make it difficult for the Syrians to get into those buildings alive but the buildings then become death traps for anyone who actually make it into those buildings. It also makes it difficult for Blue to advance in the city because the entry points for the buildings are all on one side. Just adding one more entry point to every building would make that scenario fun to play as Red.

The Passage at Wilcox could be an interesting scenario but it has too many gimmicks for Red reinforcements. Why do the little insurgent guys have to pop up in the middle of town as reinforcements? Can't Red just start with those guys so the Red player can deploy them where he wants to? This just makes the scenario needlessly difficult for Red because it basically 'fixes' a good portion of his force. Attack in Brandenburg doesn't have any setup areas from what I remember. The entire force for both sides is fixed. The scenario is useless for multiplayer gaming and replayability is almost zero. I only pick those four scenarios out because they looked like they could have had potential for multiplayer gaming if the designers took the scenarios to the next level. I look forward to the Brits module and I hope that most of the scenarios in the Brits module will be targeted at player vs player gaming.

[JonS]

You know ... your version of CMSF shipped with an editor.

Just saying, ya know?

[gibsonm]

While this doesn't help with the Player Vs Player issue, most of the scenarios have multiple AI plans so just because a side played a certain way the last time you played it, doesn't mean its always going to.

[George MC]

Hi ASL Vet

Cheers for the post - interesting reading. It does highlight some scenario design issues that are worth discussing. It is worth bearing in mind that some scenarios created by designers are purely for play vs the AI. This might be due to force balance issues or 'tricks' the designer uses to make a scenario challenging or fun against the AI. It also highlights scenarios played H2H require a different thought process in many respects.

As you mention several of my scenarios (Wilcox, Brandenburg and Rhadnack) I'll give you some background as to why they are what they are.

The two early scenarios described involved a combination of both game design and scenario designer issues. At the time PBEM was not an option so both these were designed originally to be played as Blue or Red Vs the AI. In addition I was still finding out how this game was working and due to both game testing and design issues it was a tight timescale. Hence there are some flaws in them. Stuff I would not do now from a design POV. However with both these scenarios there is an easy fix. You go into the editor you remove the reinforcement option for the appropriate units. Re-paint the set-up zones and you have two H2H scenarios. The editor is very easy to use, this is five minute job and worth doing if you like these scenarios and want to see em play H2H.

With Rhadnack, hands up, my fault. I just forgot to paint the set-up zones for these guys out in the boonies, if I mind most of the playtesting was done vs AI (there are AI Plans for both Red and Blue in this one). Seeing as it’s my fault I’ve done the work for you and done a revised version which will allow you to set-up your Red troops who were left out of the set-up zones.

FWIW any British scenarios I’ll be putting together will be also playable H2H. In fact if at al possible within design/scenario constraints I’m making all scenarios playable H2H as well as versus AI. Cheers for bringing it up – helps keep my attention focussed!

Cheers fur noo

George

[MarkEzra]

You are not alone in the opinion that more scen should be made with H2H in mind.

[ASL Veteran]

You know ... your version of CMSF shipped with an editor.

Just saying, ya know?

Thank you for your typically unhelpful and pedantic reply. Yeah, I am aware that there is an editor in the game. I made fifty scenarios for CMBB so I know how to make a scenario and use an editor too. I've even messed around with the editor in CMSF. The editor obviously isn't the issue though, although I guess you may not know that if you never play scenarios PBEM vs other people. Let's say you and I are playing a PBEM game and you decide you want to pick the scenario and let me pick the side. Okay, I think it's safe to say that you don't know me and I don't know you and we would be playing a scenario for the first time against each other. So let's just assume that you pick Brandenburg and say that you want to play that. Are you suggesting that the appropriate thing for me to do would be to say "okay, I'll play Brandenburg as Red, but I want to paint new deployment zones for everyone first." Or let's say I pick "Along the Euphrates" and let you pick a side, but I say "But before we start I want to add another entry point to every building in the scenario". Maybe you will agree to that or maybe not. If you want to play as Blue and you have a certain attack plan in mind then maybe you don't want me to add another entry point to every building and you say "No, I want to play the scenario as is without modification".

Now I suppose I could go and make my own scenarios. I have in the past and might do so again in the future. Once again though that's not the point. What if my prospective opponent doesn't want to play against me in my own scenario (a natural and sensible course of action)? If my opponent chooses to select the scenario and let me select the side what option do I have if my opponent doesn't select one of my scenarios? Besides, I don't always want to make and play my own scenarios. I want to play scenarios I haven't made as well. I will basically be paying for TO&E and scenarios in the modules I buy so I don't think it is unreasonable to want to play a scenario or two off the CD if the scenarios are made well enough. Do I need to explain the situation further or can we just discard the "The game has an editor function." canard now?

[ASL Veteran]

While this doesn't help with the Player Vs Player issue, most of the scenarios have multiple AI plans so just because a side played a certain way the last time you played it, doesn't mean its always going to.

Yes, the multiple AI plans do help replayability but the problem with fixed units still remains even with the multiple AI plans. The only difference is that the AI is blissfully unaware of the fact that you know exactly where it's fixed units are located and the AI doesn't mind if you blow them all away.

[Webwing]

Interesting discussion.

I don´t think it is possible to have scenarios designed that will address all styles of play at once. The requirements for good H2H scenarios, as ASL Veteran noted, are very specific. For instance larger set up areas.

The replayability issue has more to do with the nature of H2H than with set up zones or anything else. Multiplayer gives you a lot more variety/replayability than playing against an AI.

Regarding user made scenarios done by the community, the reason for so few H2H scenarios is probably the fact that H2H scenarios are less personal, and the designer has less control. So although it takes less time to make, it is also less rewarding. Mission designers make scenarios for pleasure and the fact that they make their work available for the community is a side effect of this. Although it is doubtlessly very rewarding to have others playing your scenarios the main drive is the pleasure you get from making them in the first place.

Most designers also have specific situations/battles in mind and they want to have as much control as possible over it. This is no good for H2H scenarios. However most scenarios are done that way and we end up with very few H2H scenarios to play.

In terms of community made scenarios one possible solution would be for designers to release a H2H version of their missions. However it might be better of you to just open whichever scenario you like and tweak it yourself for that purpose. As long as you don´t make it public and only use them for yourself I don´t see any problem. You can even ask the designer permission to use it and the release the H2H version giving credit to the original designer.

The conversion would be very straitforward. Get rid of all the AI orders (not mandatory). Make the setup areas bigger. Add more forces for Red as needed. That´s it.

One of the great things that sets CM:SF apart from the other 3D wargames it it´s powerful but user friendly editor. You paid for it, so you might as well give it ago. You will be surprised how much you can do in very little time.

There is another side to this story which are the scenarios release by Battlefront with the modules and games.

In the official modules there is a concern to address all sorts of play styles. Small battles, big battles, infantry intensive, armor intensive, etc.

Standalone missions use most all the units available in the module. You might even find Blue x Blue missions. The huge majority, if not all of them, have AI plans for both sides. Also H2H should be there in a good proportion.

I can tell you that for the British module for instance you should find many scenarios that were specifically designed to be played H2H.

-

[ASL Veteran]

Hi ASL Vet

Cheers for the post - interesting reading. It does highlight some scenario design issues that are worth discussing. It is worth bearing in mind that some scenarios created by designers are purely for play vs the AI. This might be due to force balance issues or 'tricks' the designer uses to make a scenario challenging or fun against the AI. It also highlights scenarios played H2H require a different thought process in many respects.

As you mention several of my scenarios (Wilcox, Brandenburg and Rhadnack) I'll give you some background as to why they are what they are.

The two early scenarios described involved a combination of both game design and scenario designer issues. At the time PBEM was not an option so both these were designed originally to be played as Blue or Red Vs the AI. In addition I was still finding out how this game was working and due to both game testing and design issues it was a tight timescale. Hence there are some flaws in them. Stuff I would not do now from a design POV. However with both these scenarios there is an easy fix. You go into the editor you remove the reinforcement option for the appropriate units. Re-paint the set-up zones and you have two H2H scenarios. The editor is very easy to use, this is five minute job and worth doing if you like these scenarios and want to see em play H2H.

With Rhadnack, hands up, my fault. I just forgot to paint the set-up zones for these guys out in the boonies, if I mind most of the playtesting was done vs AI (there are AI Plans for both Red and Blue in this one). Seeing as it’s my fault I’ve done the work for you and done a revised version which will allow you to set-up your Red troops who were left out of the set-up zones.

FWIW any British scenarios I’ll be putting together will be also playable H2H. In fact if at al possible within design/scenario constraints I’m making all scenarios playable H2H as well as versus AI. Cheers for bringing it up – helps keep my attention focussed!

Cheers fur noo

George

It's my humble opinion that the scenarios for the campaigns should all be targeted towards player vs AI but that all the individual battles / scenarios should be targeted for player vs player. After you make a scenario just ask yourself if you would want to tangle with a human opponent as either side and if you could win as either side. If your answer is yes to both questions then you might have a winner on your hands. A focus of player vs AI can be limiting for player vs player, but a focus on player vs player is not necessarily limiting for player vs AI. The focus on player vs player is the superior option but it's also probably more difficult to do while still keeping the AI vs player portion workable and if your scenario will be on the CD it obviously has to be functional vs the AI. That's where the scenario designer's talent really comes into play.

I like your stuff on the CDs. Your briefings in particular are superior. I don't like the whole misdirection briefings and the philosophy behind the 'trick the player' mentality some briefings have. What I want is an estimate of the size of my opposition and the approximate location as to where they are at (ie, in the village or 200 yards to the east) . A reference to the composition of the opfor is good too. So if I face a company sized force tell me I face a company sized force. If there are enemy tanks known to be in the area then I should probably know that from the briefing. It doesn't have to be exact info, just approximate so that I at least know what I'm up against and I can formulate a realistic plan of action. I find briefings where the designer says "you haven't seen enemy soldiers for miles and it should be a cakewalk" then you end up fighting an armored division to be tedious and unproductive. It's just trying to be cute and really nobody buys it anymore. Briefings are more of a personal taste thing though and it's harder to pin down exactly where the balance is between 'good' and 'average'.

As long as you are revisiting Rahadnak Valley though, in the briefing for Red you say that I have to keep commander X alive, but there is nobody by that name on the roster that I could find. I'm assuming that it's the Elite commander but there are two Crack commanders too and I can't be 100% sure who the big enchilada is. Of course he could just be off map sawing off heads or something I guess. I'm currently playing Rahadnak vs Meach in a PBEM but our game is on hold because he was dragged kicking and screaming into some kind of testing (maybe for his video card or something). He's down about seven AAVs and one Marine Platoon and I have a few Insurgent teams who have run out of both ammo and grenades after only ten minutes, but my casualties have been relatively light so far! He is flinging those ridiculous automatic grenade launcher things around pretty liberally though. He better hope congress doesn't send the government accounting office investigator down to check out his operation. The most important thing I've learned playing that scenario as Red is that it takes just a bit under ten seconds for an RPG man to spot, aim, and fire his RPG at an enemy vehicle. Move RPG into position, let him aim and fire with ten second pause, ten seconds later hoof it to a new position baby . Oh, and if you have adjusted the setup zones for Red in Rahadnak Valley you probably want to make sure that the Red player can't setup that 'ahem' one team in the boondocks 'ahem' into position to have a LOS to the blue setup area or it could throw the scenario off. You don't want blue stuff exploding as soon as he hits the go button .

[cabal23]

I suppose it all comes down to intentions of the designer. Sometimes someone want's to tell a good story vs. give you a spreadsheet on what you will be facing. There are countless tales all through history of one side not being prepared and trying to survive impossible odds. It makes it more interesting I suppose for some players. I think there are tips and tricks every designer should consider, but there is no one right way to make a scenario. I tend to replay scenarios I enjoy, even if I play it PBEM and the Syrians suck wind. Sometimes just scoring one lucky RPG shot makes a game even if I lose. It certainly puts things in perspective. Perhaps the answer to the OP's wall of text (no harm intended by that remark) is that someone should create a guide to designing scenarios. It would certainly work for all CM games. I always try to tell a good yarn and make a viable H2H game when I create scenario's. I use environment and conditional modifiers to give the Syrians and edge in most cases due to absurd lack of a winning army. I think what people want is a good battle that is even in most cases so that each general can showcase his/her ability. The Syrians really create a problem here unless you want to be facing off against Syrian Special forces in every encounter. So perhaps in the next version we will see a more balanced force that provides more challenge for the US, so that less "gimmicks" will be required to make a scenario a even fight.

[JonS]

... can we just discard the "The game has an editor function." canard now?

Probably not, since it's directly relevant to your concern. As Webwing, George, and I have all pointed out now; if you don't like a scenario, change it.

It's that simple.

IMO, you don't have to ask anyone, you don't even need to tell anyone ... apart from your opponent, of course. Credit it, if you make it public, but there are no copyright issues invovled here. Merely common courtesy.

[Mishga]

ASL-Vet

If you like, send me a rough draft for a scenario you would like to see, include a list of some troop types that might make it in and I will cook up something for you. Let me know if you want a H2H designed or a typical battle.

Email me or Meach cos we share an inbox and I will try to get something you would enjoy.

[MikeyD]

I recall Steve once mentioning that the vast majority of CMSF (of all CM?) purchasers tend to stick with human-versus-AI play, in the same way that the vast majority never posts on the game board and never downloads mods. A H2H-heavy scenario balance would leave a lot of purchasers scratching their heads. Scenarios need to be playable against the AI, preferably as either side (more scenarios than I'd like don't fit that criteria). Playable either side against the AI implies playable H2H as well. But remember, H2H does not automatically imply 'balanced'. As the old saying goes, some days you eat the bear, some days the bear eats you.

[ASL Veteran]

I recall Steve once mentioning that the vast majority of CMSF (of all CM?) purchasers tend to stick with human-versus-AI play, in the same way that the vast majority never posts on the game board and never downloads mods. A H2H-heavy scenario balance would leave a lot of purchasers scratching their heads. Scenarios need to be playable against the AI, preferably as either side (more scenarios than I'd like don't fit that criteria). Playable either side against the AI implies playable H2H as well. But remember, H2H does not automatically imply 'balanced'. As the old saying goes, some days you eat the bear, some days the bear eats you.

That may or may not be the case with regards to how players play the game, but I don't know how he would know that one way or another. I don't remember filling out any surveys . Having said that though, anything on the CD should also by default be playable vs the AI as both sides and should have complete briefings for both sides. However, everything on the CD should also be playable head to head. In other words, I view a scenario that does not meet the criteria of being playable vs the AI as both sides with full briefings for both sides as well as being semi balanced for H2H play as a scenario that is incomplete. This makes scenario designing more difficult, but that's also why I suggested to Steve that he bring in a professional scenario designer a little while back. A rock solid professional scenario designer can make a scenario that's playable vs the AI from both sides and is at least semi balanced towards H2H as well. It's not an impossible task, it's just a task that requires superior design talent and innovation. If a scenario designer isn't producing scenarios that are playable vs the AI from both sides and that is at least semi balanced for H2H then they are either just churning out basic stuff that anyone can make or their design focus for a scenario is too narrow. In other words, the scenarios on the CD are no better than anything anyone in the community can make. This is how you separate the wheat from the chaff from a design perspective in my opinion. This also means that not every scenario design that someone dreams up will be viable so you have to think a little harder about your design before you start. I guess what I'm saying is that I feel the bar for what gets on the CD should be raised a bit.

Balance in a H2H scenario is the real killer though. It's basically impossible to acheive a perfect balance but you can come pretty close through enough testing and tweaking. As long as either side has a 35% chance of winning that should be good enough. I doubt a CD H2H scenario could go through as rigorous a testing as would be desireable without the We Go TCP/IP option because of time constraints, but after you've played enough scenarios H2H you gain a pretty good 'balance' eye. Because of the way I select which scenarios to play I can usually get a decent balance assessment at first glance and I've seldom been surprised by an unforseen balance problem (although I do get fooled from time to time). It's not a precise assessment, but I can look at something and say that scenario X looks pro Blue or scenario Y looks pro Red. Balance can be achieved through the victory conditions too though, so no matter how unbalanced the force mixes are with a proper appreciation of victory conditions you can balance the scenario that way as a last resort.

[ASL Veteran]

ASL-Vet

If you like, send me a rough draft for a scenario you would like to see, include a list of some troop types that might make it in and I will cook up something for you. Let me know if you want a H2H designed or a typical battle.

Email me or Meach cos we share an inbox and I will try to get something you would enjoy.

I appreciate the offer. Maybe if you make something I can talk Jon S into playtesting it with me for you because I'm 100% confident I could mop the floor with him . As a scenario player I don't worry about force mixes. Quick Battle players generally have force mix preferences because Quick Battles are about force mixes. Scenario players take what they are given and try to use it to best effect. It's a different attitude altogether. I will try to think up a situation though if you are interested in putting something together.

[MikeyD]

that's also why I suggested to Steve that he bring in a professional scenario designer a little while back.

Unfortunately, back when the basegame came out there weren't any "CMSF Scenario Design 1.01" college courses available.

I suppose you mean hire somebody, give him a cubicle, a salary and a company T-shirt, and let him design scenarios all day. That would definitely have some benefits - a consistent product for one thing. But on the downside is you'd have a consistent product! To make a decently warped scenario takes a decently warped personality. JonS could never design one of my scenarios, I could never design one of George Mc's. Our imagined cubicle worker couldn't possibly come up with 30-40 different scenario designs off the top of his head that would be worth playing.

[JonS]

... talk Jon S into playtesting it with me for you because I'm 100% confident I could mop the floor with him

You have a bigger pen!s than me because you think you can beat me at a video game. Congratulations. You winner.

[JonS]

Sexah dibble

[ChrisND]

That may or may not be the case with regards to how players play the game, but I don't know how he would know that one way or another.

Regardless of how Steve came about the conclusion, it is common sense anyways.

[Mishga]

Hi, ASL-Vet

I got your design brief and will mull it over and see what I can do. I mailed you back with more specifics. Between us we might just pull it off

[Paper Tiger]

ASL Veteran

A wee bit of a shame that you chose to post this before you've seen the new scenarios that will come with the module (that's not your fault though). I think, by and large, that most of your requests have already been met.

cheers

PT

[Meach]

I can think of a fair few scenario's that will be more to your taste, ASL, when the module rolls in. The testing and scrutiny aspect is not taken lightly to ensure a quality, realistic yet fun scenario ends up in the hands of the customer.

With that said, mistakes happen and can be missed, we are after all but human, but you should enjoy the end product.

Stick with us for a little while longer.

[Battlefront.com]

This is an old debate which dates back to CMBO times. My answer then, since, and currently is that people who expect single player replayability out of a scenario are expecting too much from the game. CMx2 is inherently better than CMx1 in that multiple AI Plans offer the possibility that the enemy you face isn't necessarily going to use the same battle plan each time you play. In CMx1 the AI Player had a single generic battleplan that it used all the time for all battles in all CMx1 games ever played.

So while I think CMx2 is far better suited to replayed scenarios, I still think the only way to TRUELY replay a scenario is against a Human. Better still, a different Human each time played. That's because taking the same stuff and doing something different with it requires different thinking by the entity using the stuff. Human players naturally adapt how they play this time based on how they played last time. The AI Player, however, can't. It plays the same way it did the last time because that's the only thing it can do. Switching AI Plans, at least, means it can play a different way, though that way is also scripted and not connected to previous play.

Again, it has always been and will always be my position that if someone wants a fresh single player game experience, replaying a scenario against the AI Player is just about the worst possible thing you can do. My advice, therefore, remains unchanged... if it hurts, don't do it

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Now, back to a specific point that ASL Vet brought up...

It is true to say that SOME things which the scenario designer has to do inherently favor either solo or mult-player. Setup Zones are the big one. For good solo play it is often, though not always, necessary to restrict the AI's Setup Zones so it doesn't do something which would conflict with the AI Plans and/or play balancing issues which no AI (or Human Player) could ever anticipate. But for multiplayer these restrictions can be too, er, restrictive

Ultimately, what I want to get into CMx2 is a specific and regimented system for identifying if a particular scenario is optimized for:

1. Head to Head Play

2. Human vs Red AI Player

3. Human vs Blue AI Player

4. All forms of play

Now, once this is established it is theoretically possible to tie these optimization flags to things like multiple Setup Zones, Victory Conditions, etc. For example, l could make a scenario and optimize it for Human vs. Blue AI Player. But I could also include Setup Zones specifically for Head to Head Play. In this case the scenario would be flagged optimized for:

1. Head to Head Play

*and*

2. Human vs. Blue AI

If the player decides to go solo then the Setup Zones with #2 would be used, otherwise the Head to Head Play Setup Zones assigned to #1 would be used instead. If the player choose to do Human vs. Red AI (i.e. not optimized) then he gets what he gets, which might be perfectly fine or not. The thing is the scenario designer didn't do something specifically to cater to it, so it's not necessarily the best way to play that scenario.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that people like this idea and want to see it in the game. I know I do But I have no idea when it might make an appearance. The good thing is that CMx2's ability to morph instead of break with the passage of time and feature requests means this idea will likely appear at some point.

Steve

[ASL Veteran]

Unfortunately, back when the basegame came out there weren't any "CMSF Scenario Design 1.01" college courses available.

I suppose you mean hire somebody, give him a cubicle, a salary and a company T-shirt, and let him design scenarios all day. That would definitely have some benefits - a consistent product for one thing. But on the downside is you'd have a consistent product! To make a decently warped scenario takes a decently warped personality. JonS could never design one of my scenarios, I could never design one of George Mc's. Our imagined cubicle worker couldn't possibly come up with 30-40 different scenario designs off the top of his head that would be worth playing.

Nobody just 'gets' a company shirt. Company shirts can only be earned! As long as we are playing 'fantasy BFC Human Resources Rep' then I'll go ahead and spell out what role the 'Scenario Master' would have in my imaginary high rise BFC office located in mid town Manhattan on 57th and Lexington (which coincidentally was used as the outside of the Green Goblin's HQ in the Spiderman movie). Steve and Charles would have offices on the top floor of course. Okay, so the Scenario Master would be responsible for creating somewhere between one third and one half of all scenarios for every module and title as well as one campaign. If the Scenario Master needs assistance in producing any of his or her assigned scenarios or campaigns he or she could outsource some portions of their projects to those beta testers who are willing to lend a hand. So, if there is a beta tester who is willing to make maps for the Scenario Master then that saves the Scenario Master from making every map from scratch etc.

As to the other half or two thirds of scenarios for each module and title, those would still be done by those scenario makers who are currently building them. The only difference would be that the 'Scenario Master' would be in charge of reviewing and approving any scenarios that have been produced by the beta testers. The Scenario Master would have a free hand in making any modifications and adjustments to all those scenarios and once the beta tester submitted the scenario to the Scenario Master the scenario would then 'become' the Scenario Master's (although the original maker would still get full credit in the briefing for the design of course). If the submitted scenario still needs too much work then the Scenario Master would send the scenario back to the designer who submitted it and request that the appropriate changes be made. So the Scenario Master has a quality control function as well as original production.

Standard scenario making procedure would be that once the Scenario Master has completed a scenario (or is satisfied with a submitted scenario) they should run through the scenario at least one time as each side vs the AI to make sure that everything in the scenario works properly from a technical standpoint. The Scenario Master would then send the completed scenario to a group of beta testers - maybe four or five - who would all then play the scenario vs the AI as both sides as many times as practical and would give appropriate feedback to the Scenario Master as to playability, victory conditions, and balance. After making any modifications the Scenario Master would then put the modified scenario back out and get feedback again. At the same time, if practicable, the Scenario Master would have beta testers play the scenarios against each other. If it is small enough to be played real time then it's possible to have the testers play all the way to completion multiple times and to give their assessments and suggestions. If it's too big for real time play then you would probably have to have them play at least part of the way through PBEM and give an assessment once they reached the scenario's 'tipping point'.

The advantage that a CD scenario should have over a community scenario would be the resources that could be poured into it. It's hard for a regular gamer in the community to have an active scenario tester pool or even to get any feedback at all, but BFC already has a ready pool of testers available for that.