What type of scenarios failed miserably?

[flamingknives]

To reiterate: my position is an opinion. I include it here because I feel that direct lies in a briefing can take a beautiful map, exquisite AI plans and superb force balance and utterly ruin the scenario. I don't want to know the enemy disposition down to what the 3rd section leader had for breakfast two days ago, I just don't want a briefing I must immediately roll up and throw in the bin.

The Briefing sets the scene for the action. It tells me what my unit has been up to of late, what condition it is in, what I am supposed to be doing and what I can expect to happen, as far as is realistically possible to predict. If I must take every briefing "with a pinch of salt" it rapidly becomes the case that I must not read the briefing at all because I know that in all likelihood it will be a list of what the enemy wants me to do.

All that work, pictures in briefings, the time and effort made to precis a briefing into something readable is wasted and I end up playing an elaborate quick battle.

These lies in briefings that I rail against are not the incomplete or mistaken intel that you might expect in a wartime briefing, but those that give me definite statements that one would not realistically expect to be false. If the briefing tells me that I have just secured an area, then it is reasonable to assume that I know how secure that area is. If the briefing tells me that (my) previous battles are against low grade troops then there had better be a good reason that I am now facing crack or better teams with excellent equipment.

[dieseltaylor]

I can give some fairly specific gripes against CM scenario info.

1. You will receive two armour platoons. [like this is early Torch era and I have not a clue what the designer is actually providing me with in terms of US armour - Shermans? Grants? A mix? Stuarts? - I maintain as its the same formation I should know [be told]

2. You will get reinforcements on turn 7 ...... [ This a map with two roads about nine fast Jeep moves from each other in North Africa. Now the number of paved roads available in the mountain area amounted to two for probably all of Tunisia so the ****** unit commander should be told what road they arrive on as he needs it to plan his start move, and its not like they can change from road to another easily so were probably on those roads 6-12-24 hours ago.]

3. Changing the shell loadout. Arming tanks with all tungsten or hollow charge. A bit naughty.

I was going to say introducing tanks out of era but on reflection I think it might be a justifiable to introduce a Tiger a month early in North Africa to stop those grogs who confidently prepare to beat up MkIV's secure in the knowledge that is the most powerful tank the Germans can muster I know we are talking CMBN but the principle is an interesting one. Should players have absolute certainty when weapon systems are deployed? I am not sure it is possible for mis-Id's in CMBN : 9

[Wodin]

All said and done I haven't come across blatant lies in any CMSF scenario as far as I can remember..so I expect this is a mute point anyway...

[Comandante]

I do tend to chuckle when people use the phrases 'balanced' and 'historically accurate' in the same sentence. Shooting for one tends to severely restrict the other. Exactly 6 tanks and two infantry platoons each side in a meeting engagement on a mirrored map is not exactly 'historically accurate', regardless of where the battle's said to be set. And a heavily mortared German rifle company behind hedgerows facing an assault by a dozen Shermans and half a battalion of infantry is not exactly 'balanced'.

Quite so.

My preference is for unbalanced, historically plausible scenarios that form part of a more balanced, less predictable overall campaign; in scenario one, my battered company is overrun by Shermans, but in scenario two I get an 88 and a Tiger as reinforcements, etc...

And at the campaign level, winning should be about doing better than your historical counterpart, not necessarily about clearing the enemy from the map.

[benpark]

Most any scenario where you get whacked with masses of artillery as soon as the scenario begins will be a stinker.

I don't mind some creative misleading in a briefing. Just don't make it too obvious... "Captain, we are moving your forces to a quiet area of the line." Right-o. Tiger tanks will be a-plenty in this one.

Nearly anything that has some thought put into it, and that is fairly immersive as far as the writing goes is good in my book.

I just hope that the scenario editor gets the triggers sometime in this round of titles. Operation Flashpoint style triggers would allow for a better AI mid/late-game, after the initial AI plan runs out. Who knows what changes are in place, so I'm looking forward to seeing them soon.

[Comandante]

All said and done I haven't come across blatant lies in any CMSF scenario as far as I can remember..so I expect this is a mute point anyway...

Some "lies" might actually add historical realism. There are countless examples of military briefings containing totally false information about both the enemy and own forces. For example, when the US infantry landed on Guadalcanal and found that the beaches were undefended. Or the empty gun emplacements at Pointe du Hoc in June 44.

I like loads of FoW, bad Intel and unpredictable reinforcement/resupply schedules with troops blundering onto the field down the wrong lane, or not turning up at all. That's what my military service was like 30 years ago!

[Wodin]

@Comadante I agree...I just like a mix...some briefings are spot on others not so...adds to the suspense...I think people are getting their wires crossed about what sort of lies they don't want to see....they are saying they don't mind missing intel or even wrong intel just not extremely obviously wrong....

Again a good mix is best...

I aslo agree with he poster who said massive Arty at the begining is a killer...I agree...

[dieseltaylor]

What I consider a perfect example of the art:

THE RIFLES STAND FAST

EAST AFRICA

25 TURNS FIXED

PLAY AS ALLIES ONLY

HOT, DRY.

STRONG WINDS FROM THE NORTHEAST.

COMPUTER PLAYER FREE TO SET UP, NO EXPERIENCE OR TROOP BONUS RECOMMENDED

HOLD THE MISSION CHURCH AND HOSPITAL UNTIL HELP CAN ARRIVE.

PREVENT A MASSACRE.

GOD BE WITH YOU.

Backround:

In the course of expanding her Empire, Great Britain several times found herself confronting indigenous peoples that offered organised military opposition that was both stubborn and skilful.

The Zulus of southern Africa and the Maori of New Zealand are two well-known examples; less well-known are the Balasha tribesmen of East Africa, who resisted British domination in three wars that spread across fifty years.

Balashaland - located in what is now modern Zimbabwe - was rich in gold, and successive waves of prospectors began to infringe upon the Balasha heartland from 1876 onwards.

After a series of clashes between the gold-hunters and the Balasha, British troops were sent to protect European settlers in October, 1888. Full-scale war erupted between the British Empire and the Balasha Kingdom after the burning of Mtombe Kraal by the British general Sir Charles Fulham on March 5th, 1889.

The First Balasha War lasted from that date until 1891, when a peace treaty was reluctantly agreed to by the Balasha king Ogunwende, with the stipulation, agreed to by the British, that European activity would be restricted to an area south of the Ngkala River.

In spite of this provision of the Treaty, prospectors and settlers continued to encroach across the line of demarcation, sparking the Second Balasha War (1899-1903).

After a series of British campaigns, the Balasha heartland had shrunk to a small area to the east of the Funda Range, and the Balasha were considered to have been defeated, it being only a matter of time until they gave up their warlike ways and made themselves useful as a labour force assisting European settlement.

Occurring concurrently with the penetration of European mining and pastoralist interests into this part of Africa were the activities of Christian missionaries, who actively attempted conversion of the Balasha and lesser tribes, with some security assistance from British Empire forces.

The most notable convert to emerge from these activities was the Balasha King himself, who took the Christian name 'Titus', but who was known to his people as Obendwe M'batu Tana, 'The Great Buffalo'.

Titus' conversion occurred on the battlefield; as part of a strategy of divide and conquer, the British Colonial Secretary, Lord North, authorised military assistance to what remained of the Balasha army in their conflict with the Maapu, tradtional enemies and now rivals for what little unsettled territory remained.

Supposedly, Titus went into battle against the Maapu accompanied by a Scottish Presbyterian Minister, Joseph MacCallum, who had made himself useful to the Balasha King, teaching him to read and write in the English language.

On April 21st, 1917, as his forces, assisted by British cannon, prepared to launch an attack against the Maapu fortified village of D'nala, Titus asked of MacCallum: "Will the Christ-God guarantee victory?".

MacCallum answered in the affirmative, and from that moment on, having routed the Maapu forces and enslaved the survivors, Titus was nominally a Christian.

In spite of this victory, the fortunes of the Balasha continued to wane, with increasing numbers of Europeans pushing hard on the ever-shrinking borders of Balashaland.

After the end of the First World War, tensions began to rise again rapidly as more settlers flooded in, especially after a series of new gold strikes in the Balasha-controlled areas.

The Third, and final, Balasha War began on July 5th, 1926, after a still-disputed incident in which a party of settlers, including women and children, was supposedly massacred by Balasha warriors on the express orders of King Titus.

Whatever the truth of the matter, the British response was swift, with gunboats sent to bombard several Balasha river villages, and two regiments of Empire troops committed.

Several of the Dominions sent military forces to assist the Empire in her hour of need, courtesy of a skilful propaganda campaign by the London papers, in which the struggle was depicted as one in which Civilisation Must Prevail Over Savagery.

Initially, the British campaign met with little resistance, the Balasha army fading away into the jungle.

However, on August 3rd, 1926, the Balashas launched an attack on the Mission and mine at Maropa, trapping an Australian contingent and assorted Europeans within the confines of the Mission grounds.

The Australian unit was the NSW Volunteer Rifles, mostly composed of Regular Army soldiers, plus a few reservists.

This is their story.

********************************************************************

The Balasha have set fire to the crops around the Mission - a favoured tactic of theirs; you can expect them to attack from within an advancing wall of flame.

They have already overrun and burned the buildings of the gold mine up on Tupu Ridge, and wind-borne embers from the fires have ignited several buildings around the Mission.

They are armed with antiquated rifles and assegais,but their greatest asset in battle is their sheer ferocity. They are a warrior people with nothing left to lose.

The Balasha have struck just when most of the Company's officers are away; the unit commander, Major Turnbull, and his executive officer, Captain Ogilivie, are in the nearby town of Mulatu, attending a military briefing, and four of the junior officers are visiting the farm of a prominent local citizen as part of a Civilian Relations Program.

Heavy rains falling upriver during the night have washed out the bridges over the Kananga River, preventing these officers from rejoining us. They will play no part in the coming battle.

This leaves yourself, Captain Horne, in temporary command.

You have a hospital full of sick soldiers (mostly with Malaria and Yellow Fever) to protect, and must also hold the Mission church.

Lieutenants Cahill and Gurley-Brown are able-bodied, and also present, having beeen deemed not suitable for Civilian Relations by Lieutenant Grogan, who has led the Officer's party to the Widow Ann's.

You have three healthy platoons of Rifles, one 18-pounder cannon, and a Vickers Gun.

In addition, there are the Taylor brothers, two New Zealanders who signed up with the NSW Rifles in Sydney. They have brought their own weapons.

They have much hunting experience, and are crack shots; however they have not shot at anything before except Wild Pig, Deer and Gemsbok.

The Polish workers from the gold mine have also taken refuge at the Mission after the initial Balasha attack, and have brought the stores of Dynamite from the mine, which have been shared out among our men.

An American missionary, the Reverend Witherspoon, has volunteered to help lead the defence, stating that he considers himself a 'Soldier of God'.

His staff normally carry Bibles, but have been given rifles and ammunition from our stores.

Witherspoon's bodyguards, Messrs. Kidd and Wynt, have experience shooting Indians in Venezuela for Standard Oil.

Officer Benton and his compatriots are visiting Canadians, on a fact-finding tour investigating Colonial Policing Practices in the District.

The redoubtable Matron Goodhead, in charge of the Hospital, has armed herself and two of the nursing sisters, and will fight alongside the troops.Better to die than be unspeakably ravished.

Mr and Mrs Vogel own the Bakery at Mulatu, and were caught at the Mission when the attack began. They admit to having shot at Natives before today, and seem unafraid.

A Morse message has been sent to the Royal Naval Station at Kapunda, and hopefully they will send help as fast as possible.

Sandbag positions have been thrown up, and we will fight from behind those. Two large rifle pits have also been hastily dug.

In addition, you may place foxholes to form a Second Line of Defence in case the Balashas overcome our First Line.

Good Luck, Captain Horne.

[Paper Tiger]

In the past, I have been accused of writing very wordy briefings and there's a lot of truth in that accusation. I like to create a context for my stand-alone missions. I have zero military experience and so I confess I have no idea what I'm blathering about but I'd imagine that in real life, the commander on the ground will already understand this context. His company travelled there, probably fought a few actions on the way and now, the main effort is in front of him. The player of a stand-alone mission is magically teleported into this situation and the briefing is all he has to go by to set the context for the coming action. Therefore, the less misleading the briefing is, the better IMO. I've said it before, the mission should provide the player with the challenge, not a correct reading of the briefing.

I also hate hidden objectives when they have the potential to deny a player a victory should he not accidentally discover it. It's a lame gotcha. I have no objection to employing them from time to time (I have done so in a couple of my campaign missions) as long as they do not exert a large influence on the outcome of the mission. A surrender usually yields you all possible objectives anyway.

As for artillery strikes on your start up positions, in WW2, I think that's fair game from time to time. I hated it in the Modern Era context when US/NATO forces were hit by sneak Syrian artillery strikes at the beginning of the mission. But in WW2, it happened from time to time. (Don't worry, I would never use these tactics in a campaign mission against your core forces so 'Montebourg' is free of such cheap shots.) But in stand-alones, if I use them, then I expect the player to get on with the mission and do the job. The mission will have been thoroughly playtested before release to ensure that the average outcome will allow the player to go on and win regardless.

A good, highly detailed map does not guarantee a good game experience IMO. I have played quite a few CMSF stand-alones on maps that I cringed at upon first glance but once I got started, I got sucked into the action and the quality of the map was not an issue.

Other than that, I would encourage folks to get to work with the editor and start producing stuff. Create something that YOU like playing. If you are happy with the finished product, share it and I'm sure some folks will love it, warts and all. In general, this community is not overly-critical so don't be shy.

[Wodin]

Paper Tiger...you are for me are one of, if not the, best scenario maker and your briefings are superb...

For those who don't know about this mans skill it's pretty much unsurpassed and I tell you now any future scenario\campaign made by this man is a must have download...

[Comandante]

Paper Tiger...you are for me are one of, if not the, best scenario maker and your briefings are superb...

For those who don't know about this mans skill it's pretty much unsurpassed and I tell you now any future scenario\campaign made by this man is a must have download...

You voted and it's noted!

[sonar]

I think the fault of most briefings is that they are devoid of any kind of useful intel,

the kind of which a lot of commanders would have had. most actions would be part of bigger operations and therefore, local intelligence may well be very good on such things as enemy positions.

Even in the worst war movies, where they get everything else wrong, you'll see the

"Ok, son whats the situation here?"

" Well sir, There's Germans are holed up in the village, were pretty sure it's remanants of the battalion that was holding xxx, they're a prettty ragged bunch. They have an a/t gun in the village square thats knocking out anything that comes down the main road, and thats the only route through to the bridge for our armour, there's also a sniper working in the area sir"

Now thats a crap movie yet I have played many good scenarios where the briefing is only really used to tell you what your facing, in the sense that at the end of it all you know is that There are a company of germans, with tanks holding a village, now that level of intel is ok but not all the time, every battle you fight should not be a point unit advancing into the unknown.

Now if you look at the intel maps for some battles, you see known position of weapons pits, mg sites, mines, pillboxes and such all marked.

Granted not every battle would have that level of intel but most times your forces would be relieving other units or such like and there would be local knowledge that would be shared.

[TheVulture]

One more contribution for the "things I personally find annoying" list: around the time of the Brit module for CMSF, some designers had figured out how to build defences that are virtually impossible to attack without taking heavy losses.

I loose plenty enough men attacking normal positions, without having to assault impossible ones.

What makes it annoying is that in real life the positions are quite attackable. What makes them hard in game is the limitations of the command you can issue, particularly in WeGo. Notably the problems of fighting around corners, and attacking buildings. I personally find it infuriating to be able to see how to attack sometime in reality, but be unable to do it in game because of game limitations. It's not that the limitations themselves are the problem (they are unavoidable), it's when it feels like the designers are exploiting them to make impossible situations.

I'm sure any number of people would counter with the argument that the player has any number of unrealistic advanatges, so it all averages out in the wash. But I don't want to feel like I am in a contest with the scenario designer to figure out his (or her - Hi Mishga... ) nefarious plan and try and beat it - and the designing scenarios isn't about trying to win by beating the player (making an unwinnable scenario isn't hard if you really want to ). For me, positions that are unattackable by any sane method purely because of game mechanics limitations crosses the line from "creating an interesting challenge" into "intentional griefing" :S

[usgubgub]

I like developing scenarios. I don't publish them because I don't get enough time to play and so I worry that they won't measure up. I have four scenarios in CMSF that I am working on, one practically since CMSF came out. That one will probably be ready to be published soon.

As I don't know any other players I have to test them myself when I can find the time. The oldest one now looks very different from when I started it. I find that each time I play I go back and tweak the AI plans, which means I then have to play again to see how that feels, which then gives me new ideas that I will develop in a different plan, which means another play-through, and so on. This is really enjoyable, but it can be two weeks between getting the details sorted out in the editor and finding the time for a play-through.

I like to give information in my briefings in the same way I imagine the guys on the ground get it: "...local elders have reported a large force of insurgents in the vicinity of your objective, they are well armed and intent on occuptying it before you get there; expect a strong counter attack after you gain your objective..." type of thing. I will give clues such as " a patrol scouting the objective was fired on earlier this morning by an ATGM sited on hill 226...". One AI plan will have the ATGM active on hill 226 from the start of the game, another plan will have it moved to another location, a third plan may have it starting in that location but moving shortly after the start to another one, and there may be another ATGM somewhere else on the map that is not mentioned because it did not fire on the patrol in the morning.

How much info is given about what and how accurate it is depends a lot on how fluid the situation is in the first place. I do agree, though, that there is no need to "lie". One should describe what may be there, but not make categorical statements such as "there is no armor in this scenario" only to produce it as a nasty surprise as soon as the scenario begins. One could say "no armor was sighted by a recent patrol",which implies that there may be some by the time the scenario starts, but what is the point of that? It's probably better just to stay silent in that sort of situation.

[leakyD]

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...

Just make sure to note substance of choice in the briefing... will make it a bit easier than us playing trial and error for a few nights....