What type of scenarios failed miserably?

[Erik Springelkamp]

Obviously.

What's the point in "beating" the AI?

When you've finished training, then play H2H

In CMSF I consider Quick Battles as training, but a good scenario is something different: enjoy a beautiful map, discover what is going on, try to overcome the challenge.

I have played H2H, both CMx1 and CMSF, but I don't always like the extreme pressure of a human opponent. It is good for an adrenaline kick, and very satisfactory when you win, but it distracts from the 'story' that is unfolding when playing the AI.

H2H and AI are just two completely different experiences, both with their own advantages.

And I think they have very different requirements for a good scenario.

[MikeyD]

If you were put the criteria cataloged above to keep a scenario from being 'bad' into a must-have list you'll exclude a lot of very good scenarios. Lets try to differentiate "bad" from "I didn't like". Me, I don't like food with raw onions, that doesn't mean those foods are 'bad'.

Some describe an 'ideal' type of scenario that's frankly sounds boring. Meticulously balanced forces, each equally capable of winning. Ho hum, might as well be playing checkers. Doesn't anybody want to play the underdog? Doesn't anyone want the experience of crushing the enemy like a bug?

I once counted up the total number of standalone/campaign scenarios in CMSF. I believe the number easily passed two hundred. Most were great fun. Some were well made but not to my liking. And a few were simply bad... out of 200+.

[GreenAsJade]

Weho said a balanced scenario has to have neticulously balanced forces?

With the right victory conditions, the forces can be 10:1 against one side...

GaJ

[Plastic viking]

A question that can't be answered, and lots of good answers. Don't let me interfere, but I just wanted to say : Thanks!

[Fredrock1957]

When you design a scenario, you must want to do it (otherwise why do it), put in the effort (no effort is real obvious), dont cut corners, and the key to me is Make it the Way YOU like it... If others like it great, and if not so be it... Like MikeyD said "Lets try to differentiate "bad" from "I didn't like". "

[Erik Springelkamp]

The 'scenarios' that I make are artificial lab situations where I can observe the different unit capabilities.

I cannot make scenarios that I like to play myself, because for me the best thing about a scenario is that I have no idea what I am up against at the start. The revealing of the enemy force, even at its cost. One can only play each scenario once that way.

I probably lack the imagination to create such surprises for others.

[Parker]

Scenarios succeed or fail based on opinions, so what works for one person might not be good for another.

My personal dislike is where the designer decides to lie in the briefing (a depleted company of infantry, I said? Wait 'til you see the look on his face when I roll in a platoon of heavy armour from an open flank with no warning!) Some people go for that sort of thing, but it irritates me no end. The game can be made plenty hard (Paper Tiger makes very challenging scenarios and MarkEzra makes some pretty awesome maps (i.e. all the QB maps)) without resorting to cheap tricks.

Absolutely agree. "Cheap trick" is the perfect description.

[Erik Springelkamp]

There is a whole grey area between a cheap trick and an unpleasant surprise, and in my mind a good scenario has a few unpleasantly surprises in stock, but of the kind where you can blame yourself for not having thought about it - or you can congratulate yourself for countering the threat.

[Sgt Schultz]

Lying in the briefing is a no-no.

Incomplete intel ... well that happens sometimes.

Giving A/T assets just before tanks roll on for the enemy is not so good.

Giving A/T assets on timer that may have them deploy AFTER the enemy armor shows, well now that is just the fortunes of war.

[flamingknives]

I did say that while it bothers me, others don't seem to mind.

There is also the distinction between lies and incomplete or mistaken intel.

In the first category are statements like "no armour" and there is really armour in platoon strength or more, or "light resistance" when there is heavily entrenched elite units with strong support. On top of that there are things like reinforcing defender's units who pop up without warning in an open position on a likely flank position of the attackers force - stuff that you would have seen coming from a much greater distance teleported into firing positions and relatively close range.

In the second category are things that aren't included in the briefing but might be mentioned in an operational overview such as "mostly infantry" or "limited armour" regarding an enemy units makeup or things that might realistically be missed out, such as a mobile reserve (without site-to-site teleporters) or a hidden platoon or small differences in the make up of the enemy force.

[Wodin]

Like Sergei said, most often its the execution. I recall one old *unnamed* "play blue only" CMSF scenario that was set up rather like a whack-a-mole game. You move a little, get an enemy contact, whack 'em. Move a little more, get another contact, and whack 'em again. The enemy AI orders were practically blank. Compared to the astounding NATO module scenarios, for instance, that 'first generation' scenario seemed like another game entirely. I've said it before, the biggest feature of those CMSF modules were the new scenarios.

Here here...huge difference in the game...it all relies on how well made a scenario is...

[JonS]

There is also the distinction between lies and incomplete or mistaken intel.

The only difference between a "lie" and "mistaken intel" is perception. The scen designer is writing it as "mistaken intel", but you read it as "lie".

Beyond that, it's just a matter of the quality of the execution.

[Battlefront.com]

I agree with Jon here. Since the scenario designer knows with 100% certainty what each side has for forces, and their respective chances of success, the only way to not "lie" is to tell each player EVERYTHING about the scenario, right down to Reenforcement times, locations, and compositions. Anything short of that is a "lie" through omission.

Obviously nobody thinks that's how Briefings should be written, but I wanted to point this out because the scenario author has an obligation to withhold information and to give an imperfect picture of what's going to happen. In short, to play the role of a higher level commander with imperfect information. One of the most common problems a commander faces is not knowing what information can be counted on. How often do you think a frontline commander was told "there's nothing significant ahead of you" in error? How frequently is a badly overstretch infantry commander told "the tanks are on their way" and they never show up?

So information in the Briefing that is not true, as well as true information that is omitted, should not be opposed. It's more realistic than not.

Having said that, I don't like some techniques if they are over used. They become gimmicks, and gimmicks become annoying. So they should be used sparingly. If a scenario designer makes 10 scenarios I would probably say only 1 of them should contain significant factual errors. The rest should be significant omissions or incomplete information.

My 2 cents worth

Steve

[GreenAsJade]

Since the scenario designer knows with 100% certainty what each side has for forces, and their respective chances of success, the only way to not "lie" is to tell each player EVERYTHING about the scenario,

This is simply not true.

There is a world of difference between an imprecise statement ("the enemy is out there

") and a lie ("there are no enemy forces out there").

"There are no enemy forces in the town ahead of you" is a stupid lie if there are enemy forces in the town ahead of you. "Scouts could see little if any activity in the town ahead of you" is a better way to say this...

GaJ

[Battlefront.com]

This is simply not true.

There is a world of difference between an imprecise statement ("the enemy is out there

") and a lie ("there are no enemy forces out there").

So what you're saying is that if a real life Colonel said to his Battalion Commander, "Intel says there is an intact bridge and the Germans have pulled out", and it turns out that the bridge was blown and the opposite side bristling with enemy guns in overwatch, that the Colonel is LYING? That's a bit of a stretch

In real life this sort of stuff happened all the time. Still does. The absence of evidence of the enemy is often confused with the absence of the enemy. Your position is that if the scenario author ever tries to simulate this VERY COMMON situation that he's a liar and should go to his room without desert?

"There are no enemy forces in the town ahead of you" is a stupid lie if there are enemy forces in the town ahead of you. "Scouts could see little if any activity in the town ahead of you" is a better way to say this...

Sure, there are better ways of phrasing things than others. But fundamentally if you want to give the scenario designers free reign to cover all the realistic Briefing possibilities you MUST allow them to give really bad information that they know is false. Otherwise why have Briefings at all? You always know there's someone ahead of you, which is more than any real life commander ever knew for sure. You also know that the enemy force is going to be enough to put up a significant fight, which is again something most battlefield commanders couldn't count on.

I think a good player should do what a good battlefield commander does... take the details of a Briefing with a grain of salt. Prepare yourself for the worst and proceed based on those assumptions.

Steve

[MikeyD]

I had mentioned on some ago on another thread that back around the CMSF British module the scenario designers had agreed amongst themselves to limit the use of 'big surprise' types of orders. And I don't think you'd find a complaint about that in the scenarios since then. About that time we also reduced the use of balconies

It seems to me the demand for unerring accuracy in orders sets is on par with the demand for finely tuned play balance. It tells you more about the personality of the players than much of anything about the nature of the game itself.

[Wodin]

Sounds like some want a briefing that is a helping hand or has tips in how to win than an actual military brieifing with all it's possible misinformation...esp in WW2....

I like abit of both....infact it would be good if there where two briefing options...one is Military the other is tips on how to play it out...you choose...so I'd try Military first but if I was getting my arse handed out then try again after reaind the tips briefing...

I do agree that if every breifing had misinformation then you really wouldn't read them I suppose...as there is no chance we can have to briefing options then a good mix between both styles is good as you will never truely know...which is how it was in real life...some info was spot on...another battle it wasn't...

[Magpie_Oz]

I would think that a "military" briefing would be comprehensive and does contain "tips" on how to fight the coming battle.

Or are you meaning that a "military" briefing should contain a certain degree of fog of war like bad intel or something?

[Wodin]

I either wrote my post badly or you need to re read it...I'm saying a Military briefing should have the possibilty of a degree of mis info (though not every scenario)...I was talking about maybe having two briefings to choose from...one with no mis info and pretty much how to go about the scenario and where all the enemy will be...and one that is realsitic with the possibility of some mis info or lack of info...

I do find myself however that I need some help at the very start of a scenario...a rough idea of how to break up my forces and which route to send them...that is always a massive help for me...not saying that the info would be the perfect way to do it but it helps me on my way anyhow...the CMSF scenarios that do this I find are some of my favourites...

[dieseltaylor]

Steve

But fundamentally if you want to give the scenario designers free reign to cover all the realistic Briefing possibilities you MUST allow them to give really bad information that they know is false.

Actually I kind of like this idea. The designer gives several statements :

1. the bridge area is mined heavily

2. there are reports the bridge area is mined

3. the locals say no mines were laid

AND

1. the germans have left a some infantry

2. the germans are reputed to be reinforcing

3. a major attack is possible through your area

and the player can choose the one he is happiest with : ) The designer is not at fault as one of each statement will be true!

I suspect looking at the force you have most players might decide their force mix is the clue .....Oh dear!

Wodin:

I can perhaps understand that with CMSF one might appreciate guidance as there is not the equipment and action history that WW2 has. I think many players of CMBN would be insulted if a player provided playing tips.

[Wodin]

But people on here are in away asking for guidance...they are asking for full intel pretty much on where the enemy is...to me thats guidance...

Like I said I like being given a detailed briefing on how to divide my forces and which way to send them...which is what i expect a real order is like to a company or a battalion commander...i.e A coy goes left, B coy right and C coy straight through the middle....it gives me a good start...as for enemy info I'm not too bothered if it states there are no enemy there and there are as I play like in real life...i.e entering a hostile zone my men take it nice and easy on full alert as if enemy could be anywhere in the vicinity...I never take the info as absolutley correct....I take it as a guess through previous recon...

Also quick thing...I wouldn't take it that all CMBN players have in depth knowledge of the Normandy campaign and the scenarios with in the game..

Think we may ahve our wires crossed...the thing I picked up from previous threads was about enemy location....people wanted to know where the enemy will be..and not be sold mis info...which strikes me as less realistic...again I think some scenarios should be spot on and others should have some dgree of mis info...that way you'd never be quite sure whats around the corner or how heavly to rely on any intel...

[Sergei]

I like to write my briefings when I'm high. That makes them more lucid.

Well, provided that players are taking the same junk as I am...

[TheVulture]

Just throwing in my tuppence worth, but I hate misleading briefings. I'm happy with no guidance, and massively incomplete information, and obviously incorrect data ("we suspect only light resistance in this area" - yeah, right! I'd make a CM misison with a reinforced battalion attacking against 'light resistance' too...).

But I distinguish between "in game" information and "meta game" information. I might be forgiving of misleading information in the "in game" information of the "we think the enemy are present in company strength in the town" - possibly because I largely ignore the information on the assumption it is unreliable or unnecessary. Meta game information is information about the kind of scenario it is, and what the game parameters and objectives are. Putting in misleading information there is a pretty safe way of making sure I'll hate the scenario and never play another one by that author if I can help it. If the briefing says "capture objectives X, Y and Z", and I do so with minimal casualties, then an AAR screen that says I've lost because I didn't find some hidden touch objectives, or spot or destroy some enemy unit that I never came across whilst capturing the objectives; that I have no patience with. Or if I want to play e.g. a Soviet attack mission, and end up receiving a massive German assault whilst forming my guys up to move out (I'm recalling CMBB here (and avidly waiting CM:East Front, which is after all the point of all these trial run releases)). Realistic sure, but a) not much fun in my book, and I was in the mood for playing Soviet attack dammit. If I'd wanted to defend, I'd have picked a defensive scenario.

There are exceptions in campaigns where I am not dictating the scenario type; I can live with my attack turning into desperate defence against an unexpected counterattack because of the over-arching campaign story.

[MikeyD]

The last few batches of sceanrio orders I've done I've written out everything the player needs to know to set the scene and start the action. The result is an uneadable monster. So I go back and cut here, cut there. The orders are still too long and unreadable. So I cut some more, and some more. Eventually my novella of must-have information has been boiled down to "Enemy on hill. Attack hill."

[Dadekster88]

I like it to be as realistic as possible all things considered that it is still a game. In other words if you're a company commander you'll be told what the overall plan is and how you are expected to fit into this plan with your forces. They aren't going to tell you exactly how your forces are expected to do this as that's up to you but they (higher HQ) will for the most part assign the proper force to get the job done based on what intel they have. The sticky part to all of this is exactly what intel they have and how smart are the guys assigning units to get the job done. One would assume that in a fast moving type battle that it may be pretty sketchy as units from all over the place may be bumping into each other. A protracted slugging match is probably gonna be pretty reliable info with maybe a fresh surprise every now and then as units are rotated. In this I would assume the Allies probably had better intel due to air superiority and could see units being moved around in the rear but there are so many other variables that make up that thing called 'intel' that for briefing purposes I'd say almost anything goes. In other words I think it's all in how its written with background info being important to explain the situation. The more tied into history the less freedom you have of course as well but that's self explantory I'd say.