Scenario Discussions

[Sgt Schultz]

No subforum... no release... we got the time.

What kind of battles do you plan on making/playing and why?

Are you a grog ready to enjoy and critique the exact elevation, structure and force choices for historically accurate battles?

Do you want the coolest toys and a map that let's you blow the livin' cr@p out of stuff/people with rarity off and lots 0f points?

Maybe somewhere in between? Semi-historical what-if battles maybe?

Where is your RT/WEGO line? How big is too big to handle on the fly?

I plan on diving into the editor in a big way. It may be nice to make things folks will actually play. Plus it is a fun topic to discuss to see how we all play.

I'll chime in on another post to keep the lead-in cleaner.

[Kurt Jäger]

When i get the game i think I`m going to go with historically accurate battles as the Germans. But i prefer playing on a Company size level, i can picture it now the small force of German defenders desperately trying to hold the line against a vastly bigger US force.

From the looks of things ill be using RT, seeing as I`m brand new to the Combat Mission franchise.

[theFightingSeabee]

I'm currently working on Pointe du Hoc. I won't release it until after the game is released, but it plays very close to history. I'm actually in the process of re-doing the whole thing due to me wanting it to be more accurate, but it's going to be quite good if I may say so myself.

[TrapOne]

I'm fascinated with tank destroyer and mechanized cavalry organizations. I'm planning scenarios showcasing those kinds of forces, especially in roles like screening, delaying actions, and pursuits. Terrain built after real places, but "typical" forces not based on any particular event.

I've had an idea for a fictional Blue vs. Blue campaign, "Bear Flag Republic," about California Republic forces defending against Federal troops that want to bring a seceded state back into the Union. California troops would be an ad-hoc task force of experienced National Guard units and hurriedly raised, lightly trained and underequipped militia. Greyhounds and halftracks would be the Tigers of this battlefield; an extra BAR team would fill in for a platoon of medium machine guns.

Really this was an idea I had around CMSF, but I never got around to it; I'm on a Mac and didn't want to set up Boot Camp.

[Fredrock1957]

I have put together reference material for about a dozen planned scenario's that will follow in the footsteps of Sie Kommen for CMAK, which was based upon a fictional attack made at the Pas D Calais area of France in July of 1944. The terrain will be as accurate as possible in the Waldam, St. Omar Cappelle, Merck, and Graveline area. I am thinking of creating four huge maps that I can then chop up, etc

The forces will be based upon the American Forces at Utah and Omaha, and the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions. Axis units would consist of the 47th, 49th, 331st, and 182nd Infantry Divisions.

One challange I might face is making 12 individual scenarios from chopped up maps, playable from either side or H2H... and then trying to make 3 or 4 campaigns out of the same huge maps, playable from either side.

My creations will probably be designed for the WEGO player and not so much for the RT player. (cause I only play WEGO, to many thumbs to play RT ) It's funny but my Dad's name was Wigo (pronounced Wego)... hmmm I wonder...

If anyone is interested in coming along for the ride, feel free to contact me

[Franko]

As purely as I can get...true-life historical, without a thought to "balance". I'll probably focus a bit on Mortain.

[Sgt Schultz]

I like playing a well-researched and designed historical battle, as long as it is picked with an eye toward CM playability as well as the immersion of 'being there'. Just because I respect the significance of the Alamo doesn't mean I want to play Davy Crockett in a sim.

The no-holds-barred uber toy battles are not my cup of tea. The only exception for that would be in a tourney situation like Clash of the Titans. The Sturmmie(buy CMBB) F T W.

Personally, my favorite battle type to make and play is semi-historical with what may be called a "Beer & Pretzels" flavor. The what-if, could've-happened types of battles over contrived terrain that may bear little resemblence to a historical place, but have fairly accurate unit types and balance of forces.

I like 'em big. This used to mean mostly QBs, since most scenarios were a tad smaller than I liked. In BO/BB/AK PBEM QB( m o u s e ) my fave was defending as Germans in a 3,000(or even 5,000) point Attack/Assault. Epic maps and combined-arms battles with reserves for both sides to keep it going to the end.

While I would love to play RT... it came about 10 years too late for my old mouse finger and reduced situational awareness. At 39 I would still be able to think on the fly fast enough to give an opponent a run... now .. not so much. You 20/30-somethings would roll me up like a cheap rug while I was ooohing and aahhing over some neat graphics and looking for the rewind button(and reaching for the wine glass). I may take a stab at some small RT battles once I get the GUI down just to say I did it though.

Bring your l33t skillz in RT/CMSF to my house over in PBEM-land though, and we will see. Age and treachery may just overcome youth and skill.

While pre-made maps were preferred over randoms, the jury is still obviously out on whether or not the generator will consistantly spit out nice maps for QBs.

---

RedvRed and BluevBlue

To quote the great Foghorn Leghorn... YEE... I SAY YEE HAW!

'German Army trying to remove "The Leader" while the loyalists(not allowed to call 'em the letter next to A twice) defend his Bunker' scenario. How many of those will pop up? It will be like rain in spring.

There will be mutiny, treason and treachery galore in the ranks of the Wehrmacht... and we get to profit from it. Heck, I am going to make a few myself I am sure.

I need a few weeks to learn the new engine before attempting serious maps and scenarios, but it looks to be a fun time all the way around.

*

[CheerfullyInsane]

Straight WEGO player myself.

Haven't got the attention-span, nor the motor-skills for RT.

As for scenarios, I tend to favor company-sized infantry-heavy battles.

I know everybody wants the big cats against a sea of Shermans, but I prefer sneaking around the bocage, ducking mortar-fire.

Don't really care whether it's historical or not (within reason), long as the situation is interesting. Not sure what can be done with he QB selector, but it could be fun to try a sort of 'dynamic campaign' like there was in Grigsbys Campaign Series.

Simply take a rifle-company through X number of QBs, and simulating earlier losses simply by not picking the full TOE for the next battle.

Though obviously one will need the game to tinker around with before setting down the details.

One things for sure, there's plenty of fun on the horizon.

[MikeyD]

Speaking from some small experience on the topic of making scenarios, DON'T GO TOO AMBITIOUS! Making scenarios can be a pleasant as an evening's stroll or it can be as arduous as climbing Everest. and people playing the scenarios usually can't discern the difference between them.

My advice? Get in practice by building additional QB maps. No pressure doing QB maps and everyone will love you for providing them. Plus you'll get practice doing straightfoward QB AI orders. Learn how to build a rabbit hutch before you start constructing the Eiffel Tower.

[Sgt Schultz]

Aye Mikey. Maps first. Then a couple platoons in a smaller map. Then a company.

Small scenarios get quick responses. You learn what works and what doesn't and what folks like and what they don't. They don't take as long to find out your doing it wrong.

One may also wish to 'reverse-engineer' other scenarios that are similar in concept or execution to what you may want.

I am hoping for testers to keep us supplied with new maps and scenarios until we poor unwashed peasants can get up to speed.

First order of business is to convert a few of my CMBB maps to CMBN. It will be good practice on the editor and may even result in playable maps.

*

[Michael Emrys]

I'm fascinated with tank destroyer and mechanized cavalry organizations. I'm planning scenarios showcasing those kinds of forces, especially in roles like screening, delaying actions, and pursuits. Terrain built after real places, but "typical" forces not based on any particular event.

This interests me as lately I have been thinking along the same lines. I am far from confident that I will be up to the labor of producing any scenarios, but I would love to play such and might be able to help in researching them. Recently I have been particularly interested in the possibility of doing armored cavalry during the pursuit phase of August where they were serving both to screen the flanks of 3rd. Army and to serve as advanced guard for it.

I imagine small to medium sized recce or cav units encountering small hasty roadblocks of scratch German forces and having to either eliminate or bypass them. Similarly, a light cav force might have the mission of protecting a river crossing against a large German force attempting to retire from the south of France. Their job would be to delay the enemy while incurring the minimum of casualties.

Michael

[DaveyJJ]

Semi-historic, and historic when the Commonwealth module comes out. Usually pretty small scale stuff but bigger battlefields for manoeuvring. Mostly infantry based and probably on the level of a company or less ... I'm interested in small scale tactics. Looking greatly forward to the editor. I'm a WeGo player too. I might tinker with one small RT battle just to see, but the WeGo mechanism is one of the things I was stunned and loved about the CMx1 series.

[Bimmer]

I built everything from tiny to huge for CMx1, and I'll probably do the same for CMBN. That said, I think I'll probably start by developing some "tactical decision game" scenarios. I may post the tactical map and description on the forum first, to allow people to offer their plans first, then release the actual scenario after a few weeks.

[LJFHutch]

Hmm, mainly I'll be doing what I've always done: simulating those "what if" scenarios in the editor or quick battle on real-time. Sometimes these are miles from authentic but I enjoy watching them unfold in a realistic environment. Or QB in TCP of course, nothing like trying to out think a real person.

I usually try to stick to 1/2 companies or so, much bigger than that is a bit too much to handle in RT. I've tried to get into WeGo but the flow of RT is more enjoyable for me.

[Dietrich]

I love well-researched and well-designed historical scenarios. I hope to make some of my own as well.

[GonzoAttacker]

Will play some and build some and recreate some , "The Meeting", "These Hills are Alive'"

[Broadsword56]

After getting to wallow for a while in the prepackaged goodness of existing CMBN scenarios, I'll be making some historically-based ones that get generated from my solitaire campaign of the grand-tactical boardgame "St. Lo." I'll find real-life opponents to play me in various scenarios, then import the results back into my campaign (sharing the results here as AARs, hopefully).

[Sgt Schultz]

There will most likely be an increase in downloads from the scenario depot and the proving grounds for old maps and scenarios/ops from CM1.

There are some classics that may translate well with minor adjustments.

Who wants to turn the original in-the-box scenarios from CMBO into CMBN?

*

[GhostRider3/3]

The first thing I will probably due is to acclimate myself to CMNormandy. Its been awhile since I even played SF... so will spend the first day messing around.

After that I plan on making some great maps around the St. Lo, Carentaan area. After that I plan on creating some missions I can "link" together, wether they are defensive or offensive. I would like to use the Waffen SS, but they wont be available till later, so I will make do with the Panzer Lehr Division. I get pretty detail writing down all the casualties so as not to use them in the "Next phase" of my little miniseries.

After about a week or so of playing the Germans I plan to play the Americans and have fun punching Rhino Tanks through the Bocage, hopefully with no AT gun or Panther on the other side waiting.

[Danny Chung]

Life isn't fair and so it should be with playing CMBN.

You have to go with what you're got.

So it's historical engagements for me, especially small battles. Like somebody said when comparing about women's skirts and making speeches, keep it short enough to keep someone's attention and have just enough detail to get a particular point across.

I'm a WEGO man so playing small battles keeps the time spent on CMBN manageable otherwise the missus will go ballistic.

Question for the BETA testers:

Now that testing is pretty much over, just how much time are you spending per day just playing CMBN for fun? In fact, just how are you managing to allocate your time between work, dealing with the missus and kids if you've got them, other tiring chores such as DIY, other hobbies and interests, surfing the Internet and playing CMBN?

At my present allocation of time, I reckon the only time I've got free to play CMBN is about 15 minutes to half an hour before bedtime at around midnight.

Dan

[Myles Keogh]

Like others, I am really looking forward to the player made scenarios. I hope some of the oldtimer scenario makers make a return.

Personally, I always preferred small to medium sized historical or semi-historical scenarios. As a history buff, I want to play battles based on a real events. As a gamer, I've always liked smallish scenarios because they emphasize making the most of your limited assets. Larger scenarios always made my soldiers feel like cannon fodder.

My two biggest pet peeves of CMx1 scenario design were:

1) Slavish remakes of ASL scenarios: I was an ASL player well before CM so initially when I saw familiar titles on scenario download sites I jumped at a chance to play them. They were almost always disappointments due the designer simply "painting by the numbers" from the scenario card and map. They were often poorly balanced (ASL's rules and CM's engine are two very different beasts) and looked awful with their pool-table flat and featureless maps. However, I did play a few very good good ASL scenario remakes in which the designer used the ASL scenario as a template off of which he reworked its balancing and map. Thus, he kept the historical setting and some of the flavor of the original scenario, but designed it to work within CM's engine. Unfortunately, there were way too few of those.

2) That "more" automatically means "better:" The reality is that it often just means "more." Some CMx1 scenario designers believed that bigger meant better and that having lot's of "stuff" made for a more entertaining scenario. To avoid that kind of scenario design, which was way too common, I eventually became very picky about whose scenarios I would download. I've always felt that having "just enough" to get the job done made for the best scenarios. I know balancing is very difficult, but some designers really did have it down.

As for the subject matter? It's a disappointment that the fallschirmjagers didn't make the cut for CMBN because battling against the Green Devils in bocage country always made for a great Normandy scenario. One of the best scenarios I ever played for CMBO was "The Clay Pigeons of St. Lo" which was based on such a battle.

[Sergei]

Myles, at least the FJ as well as SS will be in the 1st module so you'll soon get to your favourites... in the meanwhile, there's plenty of Wehrmacht landsers to play with, and oh yeah those Americans too...

I personally have always loved the full spectrum of scales. In CMBB I loved working on tiny scenarios with a couple of dinky tanks and a platoon of infantry, because it was so beautiful in such a minimalistic manner: the zen of scenario design ("the sound of one tank duelling"). And on the other hand, I enjoyed working on huge operations of an epic scale because there would be so much going on and every turn had so much kick ass action that they were like the entire filmography of Chuck Norris condensed into one minute.

[Myles Keogh]

I played the occasional large or huge scenario, but it had to be an exceptionally well designed one. There was that one scenario designer who did some terrific work with large scale scenarios based on British and Canadian actions in Normandy. (Crown of Thorns was one of his.) Despite his scenarios being huge, I really liked his work based on his attention to historical detail and the fact that he used maps that fit the subject material. His maps were huge which actually fit the scale of the battles he was trying to recreate.

On the otherhand, too many scenario designers would squeeze large numbers of troops onto maps that were too small. I never cared for the "more toys, the better" school of scenario design. If you're going to give me a large force then give me a map that allows me to deploy it properly.

Yes, I'm aware that the FJ will make their appearance in a later module, but considering how they were such an important and tenacious opponent to U.S. troops throughout the Normandy campaign that it's still a disappointment that they didn't make muster for this game.

[Fredrik Wallin]

Historical & semi-historical!

"What if" and fictional scenarios lack the feeling of purpose that I find to be an extra ingredient in scenarios.

As for cresating scenarios, the most common misstakes by designers are (in no particular order):

1) Thinking "What do I add tro make the scenario better" instead of thinking "What can I remove to make the scenario better"? As posted previously, more is not the same thing as better.

2) Trying to have all the cool & rare units, vehicles in one single scenario. Same thing with overdoing the map with everything in it, such as "a beach landing with paratroopers landing next to a bridge in a bocage area with a cool bridge, minefields, a town, flooded areas while naval art. JABOS and what not" are all over the place. Those scenarios just makes you tired......

3) write a briefing that captivates and explains! The briefing is where the player decides if he wil play the scenario or not. Furthermore, the briefing sets the mood and should always clearly explain objectives, (Errors from intel in a briefing is OK as that is Fogg of War... heehehehe), but OBJECTIVES must be included in a clear way!!

Those are of course my 2 cents worth..... but I am from Sweden so I am slightly crazy....

//General Failure

[Fredrik Wallin]

as I am crazy, I forgot my name in previous post... jeeez....