About scenario design: suggesting a "don't do"

[GreenAsJade]

It's becoming clear to me that there is one thing you can do in a scenario design that is both tempting and yet bound to cause frustration.

Its this: setting goals (victory conditions) that don't oppose each other.

I know for sure that if I get to the end of a scenario and discover that my opponent scored handsomely by achieving something that I had not set out to prevent, I will be very irritated.

The feature of "many forms of victory conditions, the opponent doesn't know what they are" is extremely powerful and good, but it brings with it the temptation, I think, to play "tricks" that ultimately don't lead to a satisfying outcome for the players.

Scenario designers... beware!

GaJ

[ThePhantom]

How about this one GAJ, something I've been toying with. The US player is on the attack and trying to reach (touch) an objective line. However, the German player can get victory points for reaching (touching) a counter attack line. The US player has no idea where this line is and vice versa for that matter. What you’re saying is each player should know their objectives as well as their opponents. I’ve got both objectives marked as known only to the specific player. In my opinion, it would simply be unwarlike to let both players know each other’s objectives.

[GreenAsJade]

No, I'm not saying that the players should know each other's objectives: it's important to be clear about that.

What I am saying is that it's important that the players are given instructions that help them defeat the enemy and deny him points.

I'll give you an example. Suppose the Axis player gets instructions that say "the enemy is holding this critical town blocking our supply lines. Starting from the south , secure the town then reestablish supply lines by getting all your forces off to the north, destroying the enemy in the process." And they are given exit points.

Then suppose the Allied player gets told "We need to make a strike to the south. Exit all your units to the south." They get only exit points.

This is a recipe for disaster. The axis player will be attacking the town, expecting the Allied player to defend. Meanwhile, the Allied player will exit the town, and try to sneak past the Axis player out to the south.

The Axis player will take the town and exit to the north, and he will sustain losses as he tries to fulfill the "take enemy forces" command. He will not do anything to block the Allies flanking around and escaping south.

He will get to the end of the game, and have a really nasty surprise at the high score of the Allies... this is what you want to avoid.

It could easily be avoided by simply saying "make sure you protect our territory to the south, no enemy units must penetrate south".

Do you see what I mean? Because of the complex options available, what works and what doesn't will be more subtle ... but very important.

In your example, it will be vital to give each player instructions that cause them to oppose the enemy, even if you don't tell them exactly what the enemy's victory conditions are.

Otherwise you could have the ludicrous situation where each side "flanks right" and reaches their "attack line" that they have to reach without even fighting each other, and certainly without the opportunity to use their skills to achieve a victory by defeating the intent of the enemy...

GaJ

[Offshoot]

You'll always get scenario writers who think it is their job to 'beat' the player rather than provide an enjoyable and challenging experience. The only choice you have is to not play those scenarios.

As far as 'non-parallel' objectives go, I'm sure it is possible to hint at them in the breifing without being explicit - for example, 'beware of counterattacks' or 'make sure the enemy does not locate alternative escape routes'.

[MikeyD]

Can you provide real current-scenario examples?

Allies to occupy a landmark while Axis to kill as many enemy as possible without regard to terrain objectives? Non-mirrored objectives like that hardly seem like a sin.

I agree its annoying to find the building in the far corner of the map had been an opponent's big-points 'preserve' objective. Or your force had a 'touch' objective in an odd spot nobody bothered to tell you about. This was a bigger problem in CMSF I think. But CMSF eventually had ten times as many scenarios as CM:BN currently so there's ten times the chance that something annoying was going to pop up in points allocation. If I recall correctly I ended my two little scenarios' orders with "The enemy will gain points by --- and you will gain points by ---" so the asymetric nature of the points spread wouldn't come as a shock.

[ThePhantom]

Yes, I understand what you're saying. The briefing would have to recommend the player

to defend the town. It would be comical and awkward to reach your objective for the win.

Only to realize at the end, that your enemy reached his objective where you started!

[Elmar Bijlsma]

While care should be taken to not trip up a player too much and set him up for failure, I would hate to see excessive handholding.

Players should be aware of obvious tactical pitfalls and not soly rely on objectives, advice and hints mentioned in the briefing.

Any player who for example upon taking a bridge gets across it to take his objectives but abandons the bridge ought to be made to suffer such consequences an enemy might be able to inflict upon him. Even if he managed all his assigned objectives.

As log as the briefing doesn't imply he need not defend the bridge that is just fine by me. People ought to be vaguely on their toes. It should in fact be encouraged.

[Battlefront.com]

Asymmetrical Objectives are one of the best new features in CMx2's scenario maker's toolbox. But like any tool, it can be used inappropriately. Just because you bang your thumb with a hammer doesn't mean nobody should be able to play with hammers

I agree with MikeyD that it depends on how they are used. Asymmetrical Objectives, unknown to each player, should be the norm for most battles. It was rare that Player A would know, for sure, that Player B was trying to take out all his tanks or take the church in the town center or exit the battle with 75% of his force intact. So few scenarios should go down this path as it's boring, predictable, and entirely unrealistic.

Having said that, Player A should have a decent chance of obtaining victory by successfully carrying out his Objectives *and* pursuing general real world combat operations. Player B should also have a decent chance of the same thing. Having non-sensicle Objectives, or mis-weighted ones, within a battle could cause problems.

One of the things I like about Asymmetric Objectives is that "gamey" tricks to win a battle tend to not work. Let's say you are assigned a single Objective at the far end of the map. You are supposed to Touch this Objective in order to win. So you break up your forces and do some sneaking map edge hugging infiltration tactics and rush a squad onto the Touch Objective at the last minute. "I WON!" you proclaim! Ah, but not so fast... the other guy was tasked with destroying 80% of your forces and retaining 90% of his own. Since you botched your covering move he got his Objectives and, because they were more difficult, scored more points for them. He wins even though you're sitting with one Squad on the Touch Objective. Had you played a REAL game, by fighting through to the Touch Objective maybe you would have won.

That sort of thing

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

While care should be taken to not trip up a player too much and set him up for failure, I would hate to see excessive handholding.

Players should be aware of obvious tactical pitfalls and not soly rely on objectives, advice and hints mentioned in the briefing.

Any player who for example upon taking a bridge gets across it to take his objectives but abandons the bridge ought to be made to suffer such consequences an enemy might be able to inflict upon him. Even if he managed all his assigned objectives.

As log as the briefing doesn't imply he need not defend the bridge that is just fine by me. People ought to be vaguely on their toes. It should in fact be encouraged.

An even BETTER example of what I was thinking, but you posted as I posted . Yes, this is exactly what Asymmetric and "hidden" Objectives can do. You get some points for the hill on the other side of the Bridge, the other player was tasked with holding the bridge so gets points for retaking that. Since in real life a commander would get slapped by his superiors for moving over a bridge and then losing it, serves the player right. He shouldn't have to be told to do sensible things that should be very obvious. Even to a novice player.

What should be avoided are Objectives which the player would never in a million years think was important. Like securing a lamp post on the enemy's side of the bridge. That would be non-sensical and therefore a bad design decision on the scenario designer's part.

Steve

[GreenAsJade]

I agree with you, but I think that it goes a little further than this.

This is why I chose the exit scenario as my example: it's a likely candidate for strife.

If you give one guy the goal "Exit all your troops" and the other guy the goal "take the town", then you have set up for frustration, because you haven't given the players a reason to clash. The exit guy can frustrate the attack guy without the attack guy even knowing he was supposed to stop the exit. Indeed, it's almost guaranteed, because the exit guy is going to be trying to avoid a fight!

When I write it like this it sounds kind of silly, like "who would make a scenario like that?". I'd put money on this problem cropping up though: it strikes me as an easy one to inadvertently do.

Asymetrical objectives are wonderful - and I like the principal of "reward the commander for behaving realistically". But you have to remember that the player-commander has been instructed by you the scenario-designer-general to do something, and so he is going to be focussed on that ... and expecting to be rewarded for doing well at it.

This is a bit hypothetical, in that I don't have a scenario in front of me that suffers from this, but I can easily see how it could be a trap - even a temptation - to make a scenario that accidentally suffers from this...

GaJ

[theFightingSeabee]

My Pointe du Hoc scenario wasn't really designed to win points. I tried to keep it somewhat historical and used whatever tricks I could think of point-wise to get a decent outcome. I admit, though, that it could have been better. As long as the US (player) objectives are mostly met, you're pretty much going to "win". The thing is, I was less concerned with winning or losing and more concerned with trying to give the player more of an organic feel, like he's actually commanding the Rangers on D-Day.

I'm interested in opinions regarding this type of design. Should scenario designers do this? Or should they always go for a more balanced approach with both sides having the same point budgets?

[dieseltaylor]

Same points! Absolutely not. Terrain can make a huge difference. As can timing of reinforcements.

Forinstance:

1. Force A has less points but does have the benefit of a good view of Force Bs deployment and movement. Alternatively has the means to interdict an approach. Or a river/feature that protects an attack in a sector but Force B has no such benefit.

2. Force A starts with a small light force and recieves more late whilst Force B starts with not as much overall but has everything on-board.

Fortunately RoW's allowed for unbalanced games where the points results were modified by the difficulty for each side. Warfare has always been about both sides trying to make it an unequal fight. Game engines/designers working the other way round : )

[GreenAsJade]

For me, the answer to Seabee's questions is

"now that you have asymetrical objectives, you should be able to both have a historical battle (including one side getting whacked) _and_ have a decent score outcome".

And you definitely _should_ (must?) aim for this "balance".

For example, suppose the historical outcome, and totally expected outcome with two equally skilled players, is that the Axis is killed down to the last man.

Then the Allies victory condition needs to be to achieve exactly that. And the Axis victory condition needs to be someting like "you are allowed to get wiped out, but you have to kill at least 50% of the Allied attackers"

With this wonderful new objective system, there is no longer any excuse for scenarios that are easier to win from one side than the other side. If you are making scenarios for two-player action, they simply must be designed to be equally challenging from both sides. IMHO.

GaJ

[Wodin]

I disagree totally to the OP...sorry...it's unrealistic to have the exact same objectives on both sides...way to gamelike...I agree asymeterical is a superb addition to the CMx2 series.

As long as when you complete more of your obejctives than your opponent results in a Win then I'm happy...

I do agree it should really be possible to loose all your men but have caused enough casualties to even win the scenario if the scoring is done right and say you had no chnace in the first place but caused way more casualites than in the real battle...

[GreenAsJade]

I disagree totally to the OP...sorry...it's unrealistic to have the exact same objectives on both sides...

You appear to have completely misunderstood my point.

No-where did I say that each side should have the same objective.

Indeed, I praised CMBN for bringing Asymetric Objectives.

I raised a more subtle point: I suggested that now there is this wonderful tool, scenarios need to be designed so that each commander has enough information - directly or indirectly - to know what to do to thwart the enemy from achieving his objective. He doesn't need to know in detail what the enemy's objective is, and it certainly doesn't have to be the same as his.

What I said is that the goals need to "oppose one another" in some way. IE in striving to achieve my goal, I need to have some notion of what I'm doing to stop you achieving yours. Without this, scenarios could present nasty surprises at the end where a player thinks he has done well, only to find his opponent did even better and he didn't know it.

Please understand my points before disagreeing with them. I'll try to be clearer if I can

GaJ