I've been out of the loop for quite some time, so I have some questions for players. I'd like your opinion on this so I can get a feel for where we're at when it comes to playing scenarios.
Define what you consider a good scenario to play. I'd like folks to talk about what their personal preferences are when it comes to playing a scenario. What battle sizes, what force mixtures, what tactical problems, and anything you feel would be relevant to a scenario designer. I hope to see a lot of variation and maybe some common themes as well.
Is your preference for historical detail, a good fight, showcase new units or tactical/operational problems? Is your preference for Western or Eastern Front?
If there is anything you think is relevant to this discussion, then I am open to discussing it.
Thanks for your time and thought on this.
Hi Jim,
Welcome back, This could become a senative topic. I hope that the dea of time will not come up in this discussion.
As for me I like the historical battles, would like to see the forces about the same as in the real battle, and adjust the victory conditions to make it a even game. I like to see if I can change the way a battle turned out, kinda changing history !! I like them to be longer giving more time to get forces in position, maybe different than in the real battle. Just a few thoughts to get the ball rolling.
Chuck
I prefer fun and balance over all. :smoke:
Attack, defend, or meeting makes no difference.
I also prefer unique tactical situations and the utilization of "un-common" common period equipment. Nothing like using the equipment that was used for attacks and defense? Nothing like having an all infantry formation facing an armored juggernaut, and sweating out the arrival of friendly armor/anti-armor forces?
Jason and crew have provided a wealth of historical units in historical formations in his OOBs. I try to use them with some tweaking for specific scenario situations.
I like size 5 through 8 with between 20 to 25 turns. These sizes often give players ample choices to perform missions within a two, to two and half, hour battle framework. Though, I am trying my darndest to make scenarios that are smaller, they all seem to grow on their own. :rolleyes:
For teamgames I prefer a bit more time 40 to 50 turns and a much larger map, with clearly defined COC for each side. von Neimack showed the way with that style. I'm thinking of dipping into designing a teamgame.
RR
To me it's simple...........a scenario begs to be designed........I mean it just jumps out at me..........then the work begins to try and maintain some historical integrity, balance,and give the players options or a chance to change history.........the best part is watching the scenario actually accomplish those things..........but the bottom line is.........I just have to try and write the scenario...............I guess the satisfaction is seing people continue playing them.
VE
For a long time, I was content to play my 35 or so games a year, feeding off the work of others. Then I started making some vaguely historical based stuff, for my own pleasure and learned a bit, although only one as I recall evergot published. For reasons I cannot now understand, I avoided true historical work or posting some of my design efforts ........ perhaps a fear of seeing my work not played or laughed at. (what did Kissinger say about his boss......."even paranoids have enemies"}
Enough of the amateur head shrinking.
I've now retired, and have plenty of time; I hope to have 30-40 scens in the game by the end of the decade. My interests are the peripherals( Albania, Manchukuo, Mongolia etc,) and some of those are already on this board available for download. A full Western Desert suite is well underway, as are some RS peripherals.
My objectives.......good history first and foremost. The basis, IMO, is a good accurate map, a point that the brilliant designer Huib has impressed on me. Some of the maps in the scenario DB are a joke. OOBs need to be close to reality, noting that this is often a bone of historical contention.
Playability...I think the bigger a scen is, the easier this is to achieve , as long as force capabilities don't differ too much. There are so many more options that might develop in a division size game than a battalion size, I think.
CS has come a long way since I first bought East Front. Much has been totally positive.......new combatant countries, new units.
Some is totally negative...the bathtub navy and the ridiculous airfield bombers, all of which IMO are unfit for a childrens' game. The threefold increase in truck VP has surely rendered historical scenario results irrelevant as a guide to how they might play today.
Some are controversial. Extreme Assault comes to mind.
And some seem unnecessary or irrelevant. Can anyone tell me the difference ..in gaming terms......between a 2 ton truck and a deuce and a half? What about a rag top vs an open top?????
That's enough talking the talk. Walking the walk means giving the club some more good (I hope) scens to play.
Back to the desert.
Random encounters. Make the best with what your dealt. :smoke:
- A large map 300x400+ on the Eastern or Western fronts. A combination of mountains with beaches in some areas to allow for amphibious reserves. Prairies with medium and small towns scattered in reasonable numbers (15+) and locations... no munk retreats in the high mountains. No swamp or marshes unless it's a Rising Sun scenario... not my favorite battle zone but playable. A few major rivers with limited crossings running east to west... if the top of the map is north and the widest part of the map runs east to west... aka: across the map.
- Not necessarily historic but don't want see Tigers in a 1941 scenario. As for dates of battle between early 1943 to early 1945. A large mix of troops using as many different kinds as possible. Allow for a similar blend in types and numbers of armour, support weapons and infantry for each side. Possibly 2 different Nations like German & Italian against USA & British and/or Canadian or using Russian with another Allied Nation... not really historical but an interesting idea.
- I would prefer a Team game but dedicated players 1x1 would be great if they're committed to the end. Some how allowing for day & night turns in a battle that would last 120+ turns. A continuous flow of mixed types of reserves in a meeting engagement with both sides having deployed fortifications nearing the middle of the map running north to south (up & down). LOS between 8 & 12 during daylight hours.
- Just my thoughts...
Huib,
Could you create an article from the message board traffic to hang on the Blitz OR would you mind if I did it? I would like to capture your methodology for the club. That is quite a systematic process and I love systematic approaches to doing things.
thanks...
Jim
Jim von Krieg Wrote:Huib,
Could you create an article from the message board traffic to hang on the Blitz OR would you mind if I did it? I would like to capture your methodology for the club. That is quite a systematic process and I love systematic approaches to doing things.
thanks...
Jim
:rolleyes: **uhhh ... cough**
Boss, Huib already has presented a great base for scenario design in G-2|Intel - Articles:
Huib Articles
Clicking the link will take you to the page where he has three presentations on game design. :smoke:
Though, incorporating the ideas of others into his methodology would make for an interesting fourth article. :chin:
RR