Your dream scenario

[De Savage]

What kind of scenario you like to mostly play? What kind of scenario is your dream come true?

I'm currently thinking making new scenarios and hope to narrow down what type of scenarios people like to play.

[hm_stanley]

Airborne vs German Recon. Thin long slices of maps. Those are my favorites.

[Kolyanich]

medium size assault playble H2H

with a good combintation of armour, infantry and art.

good mixture of terrain with village, woods, plain, hills and without bockage.

Example: closing the pocket from the demo.

[_Itchy]

Not too many units to deploy in the set-up phase (I am a time-poor player), with plenty of re-inforcements.

Ideally mixed infantry/armour. H2H playable.

Good example: Cats chasing dogs

[Oddball_E8]

Oddly enough its the exact opposite of what it was in CMx1...

i love small infantry scenarios with no armor or arty support.

in the old days i was all about the armor... most likely because of the abstraction of infantry...

[YankeeDog]

Something completely different from the last scenario I played.

More helpful comments: I prefer scenarios up to about reinforced Company size; too many more units than this and it takes me too darn long to plot turns.

And while I don't expect or even necessarily desire 100% historical authenticity, I like scenarios that feel like something that "could have happened". I also don't usually like scenarios that are too "tricky". Give me a good. Give me a good solid Company-level attack on a well-made map, and I'm happy.

[slysniper]

H2H

with a good combintation of Forces.

The map can be anything, but the important part is does it feel real or does it

produce the feel of what the real battlefield was like.

But here is my biggest value of a scenario, scoring and points tested, and tested again for a good balence. Many scenarios have poor scoring attached with them.

The designer should play out the battle until they get battles that both sides have played to their likely normal abilities, then assign points so that type of outcome is a draw. With this type of set up, if both players have played well, the game should end tight in scoring also. of course in the new game, it is not as important as cmX1, since you have no clue now as to how you are doing until it is over.

but nothing worst than playing a hard pressed defensive side, putting up a hard fight and when the scoring is displayed, its, like a 1000 to 50 Total defeat, and knowing no matter how you played the game, the scoring set up will never reflect a well played game.

It does not matter how one sided a battle is designed to be played, the scoring can be designed to make it possible for each side to post a win, that takes skill.

[slysniper]

One other thing that is a must.

the offensive side should always have some choices as to how to manuver.

Very seldom is it fun to have only one option on how to attack. part of the fun is having to make a choice.

[MengJiao]

What kind of scenario you like to mostly play? What kind of scenario is your dream come true?

I'm currently thinking making new scenarios and hope to narrow down what type of scenarios people like to play.

I build my own. I tried making small scenarios, but since I play against my own AI (so to speak), it seems like the AI does better with more to work with...so scenarios have gotten steadily bigger. Within the overall RT mayhem, I find some interesting situations and work with those. For a long time it was C Company that always seemed to be in trouble, but now my sympathies are with PZKWIVs. Man, they have a tough life. So I'm building "ArmorAdventure" scenarios 2.2 km deep and 1.4 km wide with many micro environments where the delicate, but marvelous mechanisms of the PZKWIV can thrive.

[sburke]

Ever since playing Devil's Descent I have been tinkering with a large airborne drop campaign. The idea of having a large map with units all intermingled, occasional reinforcement arriving in the form of immobile jeeps to simulate finding gliders supplies etc just sounds like it has possiblities. We can't really replicate the total confusion inherent in the situation and am trying to not have it be just a big process of sorting out the mess, but still it sounds worth pursuing.

[slysniper]

Ever since playing Devil's Descent I have been tinkering with a large airborne drop campaign. The idea of having a large map with units all intermingled, occasional reinforcement arriving in the form of immobile jeeps to simulate finding gliders supplies etc just sounds like it has possiblities. We can't really replicate the total confusion inherent in the situation and am trying to not have it be just a big process of sorting out the mess, but still it sounds worth pursuing.

I remember playing one back in the CMBO days that someone did that actually had plenty of tricks in it to get the feel of the situation. Like I remember that reinforcements wer poping up right in the middle of the map at night. One second I was fine, then the next turn I had germans poping up everywhere behind every tree and hedge, it actually worked pretty good.

it had the feel you had walked into each other.

[De Savage]

I also like smaller scenarios. Two companies are too much for my impatient mind if deployed at once. Devils' Descent is one of my all-time favorites. Bloody St. Omer Capelle is also very good.

What I expect is that scenario could have happened or is historical. I like that map is realistic and interesting looking.

Interesting to see that there are more US side scenarios. I think we need more German side campaigns and scenarios.

My current new project is small village of Gourbesville. 2-3 platoon each side, infantry only (82nd airborne against 91st luftlande) on D-Day 6th of June. I try to keep it simple, fast and small.

[Fetchez la Vache]

For attacking, 1 company limit with maybe a couple of valuable AFV assets that need to be protected. Any bigger and I don't 'care' about my men enough. I like artillery, it makes loud bangs and blooms of earth fly into the sky. Map needs room to flank. A clear objective (buildings, crossroad, bridge).

For defending, 2 company limit is okay. I quite like fighting against nasty odds, but give me a couple of toys to play with (trps, structures, guns or tanks). Again a map with various flanking options, without the men to defend everything. Waves of attackers rather than one big push, although not necessarily getting bigger and bigger (too predictable).

[Gen Von Television]

Above all I chose Historical (or semi historical) and I really appreciate detailed maps based on real places; that said in CMX1 I remember one battle was most intriguing with two Armored Regiments fighting each other to conquer or hold the City across a river (a huge map, heavy rain) only to discover it was really fictional, since I noticed there was a road leading to Bayonne (near the Pyrenees) where there never was any battle of that kind... Another one I really liked was St. Anne Chapelle (the Bulge) with just a company of Paras holding a crossroad against a Pz Grenadier Company with three HT... Scale doesn't matter, but the hint to some reality or a plausible atmosphere and Order of Battle is most essential.

[DavidFields]

I only play against the computer, so well thought out AI plan is key for me.

And my preference, generally, is non-puzzle scenarios, where good tactics are the key, and winnable, by a thread, the first time through, not requiring pre-knowledge of the enemies positions.